Talk:2019 Tell Rifaat clashes

Outcome
Some editors seem adamant to call this battle a draw. I would like to invite them to explain the following: If this was not an SDF victory, what would be? The SDF forced the FSA to withdraw, and retook the villages. How is that not an SDF victory? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing does not always mean that the opposing party or group gets an victory. In this case the offensive was cancelled (see source) and started talks with Russia for an solution. This can’t be called an SDF victory without an clear result. The FSA took these villages eithout any recistance, they withdrew after encountering mines and boobytraps. The SDF claims due to shelling and action of their forces but the FSA or any other independent media outlet doesn’t mention that. Even after this shelling and clashes are still ongoing so the result should either be a stalemate or that it is ongoing (clashes and shelling) Ottomanwarrior12991923 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That still leaves the SDF having achieved all of its victory conditions. How about this: Instead of "stalemate" or "SDF victory", we state "FSA withdrawal"? I would consider that an acceptable compromise until there is more information. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Since there are no territorial changes at the end of the clashes, the result of the conflict should be Indecisive I Know I&#39;m Not Alone (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For now you could, I assume that if the offensive restarts (if) we make an new article? Ottomanwarrior12991923 (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No territorial changes means this was an SDF victory, as FSA was the invader and SDF the invaded. Nothing indecisive here. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I propose it be stated as Status quo ante bellum or "Indecisive". This is honestly the most accurate statement as this clash was FAR too minor to be considered an SDF victory and the reasoning honestly does not imply SDF pushed the rebels back rather than they made a strategic withdrawal but cancelled the offensive. Neither was this an FSA victory as they withdrew. Stalemate is inaccurate as this conflict was FAR too short. --FPSTurkey (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with . The rebels attacked and captured three villages, before they were forced to withdraw under heavy SDF shelling and due to the presence of landmines, after which the SDF recaptured the villages. Its an SDF victory. Also, the SOHR, which is considered a reliable source by both Wikipedia and independent media, clearly stated the TFSA withdrew due to the SDF's shelling and the mines. So its incorrect to say it was only an SDF claim. EkoGraf (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I also vote for this to be indecisive, so as of now it is 4 votes counting me as indecisive versus 2 voting for SDF victory. Adjusting to article accordingly, and warning user:Mikrobølgeovn because he had claimed this discussion had reached a SDF victory conclusion while it was at 3-2. 1.20.99.89 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there was nothing "indecisive" about this battle. The TFSA invaded, and was forced to withdraw due to SDF shelling. Clear SDF victory. (By the way, be careful in accusing people of lying. I said this had already been discussed, which was accurate.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)