Contents

Template talk:Campaignbox intervention against ISIL in the Syrian Civil War

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Template:Campaignbox intervention against ISIL in the Syrian Civil War, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Syria This template is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles Military history: Middle East This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Why is it named Nusra-FSA conflict? SRF and Hazzm Movement made up only a small part of FSA, therefore it is inaccurate, should be named its full name but somebody reverted, so I assume we need a discussion on this. GroundlessAir (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SRF was the largest FSA unit in the north of Syria. Following their defeat, Nusra (now JFS), became the predominant force in the north of Syria, leading to the current state of affairs with Idlib/Aleppo/Hama being dominated by Islamist militias and the FSA only being the dominant forces in Daraa/Quneitra. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf I argue that SRF alongside Harakat Hazzm do not make up the entirety of FSA. Major parts of FSA have also fought alongside al-Nusra (now HTS) or joined it altogether, therefore it is factually incorrect to claim that whole of FSA fought against it, only a relatively small fraction, which was eradicated. This is also a proposal for consistency, because while the article itself has accurate title called "al-Nusra Front–SRF/Hazzm Movement conflict", the infobox naming Nusra-FSA conflict is inaccurate, as I mentioned in the past SRF wasn't the only and not even the most important faction of FSA across Syria. Right now virtually all the largest FSA factions are in alliance with HTS too, therefore it is a long term alliance, take for example 3 of the largest FSA factions, Jaysh al-Nasr supported HTS assault in most recent Northern Hama offensive also in the latest Idlib governorate clashes against rival rebel factions, Faylaq al-Rahman fights alongside HTS in eastern Ghouta and formerly Qaboun pocket against both Jaysh al-Islam and Syrian Army, identical situation in Daraa and Quneitra with FSA affiliated Southern Front fighting alongside HTS against both Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Walid and Syrian Army.

To cut long story short, simply claiming that SRF has the right to speak for all of FSA is incorrect, it is like a town in a country having a different foreign policy than rest of the country, it doesn't mean that policy of that specific town is overriding and more important than rest of the country. SRF was a relatively major faction you are right in that department, but they weren't the majority when pooling together FSA fighters of all of Syria GroundlessAir (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are twisting my words. I never said that the SRF alongside Harakat Hazzm make up the entirety of FSA, or that the SRF has the right to speak for all of FSA. What I said was the SRF at that time was the largest FSA group in northern Syria and following their defeat FSA influence and role in the north of Syria was downgraded to that of a supporting actor, with the Islamist (led by Nusra) taking over the main role in Idlib/Hama/Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]