Talk:National Front for Liberation–Tahrir al-Sham conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russian airstrikes and support[edit]

I highly doubt that Russia is supporting NFL. The fact that they bomb HTS positions does not mean they are supporting NFL, in fact they are enemies. It seems more likely that Russia/Syria is taking advantage of the infighting situation in Aleppo and Idlib. This might even be the start of a goverment offensive into NFL/HTS territory. I Know I'm Not Alone (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are indirectly supporting NFL by bombing positions captured by HTS, there are sources for it too. Jim7049 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a controversial opinion, but not totally out of touch with reality, listing it as it is, is similar to how other articles show Israel supporting HTS/Nusra along with the FSA during a few offensives in Quneitra, or how SAA worked with jaysh al-islam during a battle in Qalamoun.Takinginterest01 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Front[edit]

Southern Front is known for being overtly pro-Assad and on an article such as this, it would be in the best interest of Assad's supporters to promote rebel in-fighting including listing large coalitions and groups as being involved as part of a campaign to cause division, therefore it is not appropriate to cite a source like Southern Front on the involvement of certain factions or the scale of the violence and so on. Takinginterest01 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Front has been used extensively in all article regarding Syrian Civil War, if you wanna change this, open a discussion at the talk page of Syrian Civil War Jim7049 (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again it depends on the article when it comes to certain topics certain sources are not appropriate and this is widely known. Just because its used on some articles doesn't mean it should be used on others especially ones that could potentially support Assad in terms of a media campaign/information warfare. Takinginterest01 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? South Front has been used in all articles regarding Syrian Civil War. Jim7049 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean says who? It is well known they are a Pro-Assad source and they are not on "all" articles relating to the Syrian civil war, and the case of not using certain sources due to potential bias is also a known rule such as with al-Masdar.
That doesn't change the fact the National Army is involved in the conflict. Jim7049 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This reply clearly shows you refuse to accept the fact there is a possibility they are not involved at all and that this could potentially be fake news.Takinginterest01 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have my consent to revert. Jim7049 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is I do NOT need your consent, you are knowingly spreading potentially false information under an extremely deluded pretense.Takinginterest01 (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a video evidence of the related incident, a town has been reportedly captured according to the locals living there. What is false information? Jim7049 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same video has been posted by another user on twttier claiming it is a different group, for all we know that video could be recycled footage from another instant of combat involving the use of a BGM TOW in Syria its unreliable to quote a video like this from twitter and against wikipedia's standards and your only other claim backing it is a known propaganda website that is potentially spreading false information to inflame the situation.Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a town captured by HTS from National Army in the south of Afrin, Qilah has been captured by HTS, there is a video of the fighters in that town. We have a source confirming it as well. Jim7049 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SouthFront is a well-established source for the Syrian Civil War on Wikipedia. It is used throughout the topic, and I have not seen any previous accusations of bias to such a degree that it's no longer considered a useful source. Furthermore, there are other sources that support SouthFront's claims; I'll add them to the article now. Please try to be respectful and assume good faith when discussing issues like these with others. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim7049: You just violated the 1RR (see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). I don't want to report you, so please revert your last reversion. The 'dubious' template should definitely be there while there is a discussion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell did you come from? This article doesn't have a 1RR. Go mind your own business rather than stalking me. Jim7049 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jim your manners and attitude are not in line with wikipedia policy this article is protected by 1RR given it is an article relating to Syria.
Whatever, other user has done it too. It was not mentioned that there is a 1RR anywhere in the article so how should I know. Jim7049 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putting HTS first in the infobox[edit]

It is customary on wikipedia to put the party who initiates the fighting as first in the infobox and such examples can be shown below,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Damascus_offensive_(January%E2%80%93February_2018)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raqqa_campaign_(2012%E2%80%9313)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daraa_offensive_(February%E2%80%93June_2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tell_Abyad_(2016)

I have taken the time to carry this on in this article but for some reason user:Jim7049 seems to believe I am doing this with the intention of disrupting or vandalizing the article, while I understand we should assume good faith I believe this is a highly personal dislike for me on his behalf, I have been contributing to wikipedia for almost a year with over 1000 edits as an autoconfirmed user that has edited on and written multiple article on this site, while Jim only appears to have just begun editing on wikipedia he has taken the offensive thinking he can use intimidation to get his way by threatening to report people for what he precieves as wrongs, he believes his consent is needed to undo or edit his work and he also just doesn't seem to understand our communities standards telling people to back off and asking them "where the hell did you come from", all while thinking he can get his way by saying "if you do (whatever) one more time I will report you". Takinginterest01 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes in the map[edit]

HTS hasn't taken any territory from the TFSA, but the map shows the village of qilah taken and i can't find any source that backs this. Also HTS hasn't taken over all of rebel held Idlib. HTS only took ghab plain and western aleppo. Most of the regions were forced to swear allegiance to HTS, but HTS themselves didn't enter their territories and allowed the factions to stay. Needbrains (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same conflict[edit]

This is just the same conflict with this Syrian Liberation Front–Tahrir al-Sham conflict only the name of NFL changed a bit. Sgnpkd (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. They're two distinct conflicts. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Front_for_Liberation–Tahrir_al-Sham_conflict&oldid=1209323794"