Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Size

This article is now 6k larger than the already-giant main article. That is downright ridiculous. We need to work on summarising content and trimming down references now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I said I was going to continue to summarize the earlier and middle sections. I'm now very busy working on the Hurricane Sandy article. Living on the east coast of the U.S., I can tell you guys this has caused massive havoc, and it's getting a lot of attention. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Largest hurricane ever? Btw What's the situation in NY? --Wüstenfuchs 01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Future has been the best one in this situation to downsize the article and with a high degree of neutrality and keeping the article encyclopedic. When he has the time he said he will do it. Sections Rebel attack and capture of Eastern Aleppo through Stalemate have already been cut down to an appropriate level. That's five sections down and eight more to go. EkoGraf (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick reference pass, just to remove unnecessary params and such and cut about 2k from it. I think that if we find some more general references for some of the background and early info, we could cut it down more. Jeancey (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I've just cut 16k by summarizing the Rebel withdrawal from Salaheddine section. Didn't expect such a huge drop.- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because there were a lot of conflicting reports over those three days what was really happening in Salaheddine. And, for the sake of compromise, we had to include all of the reports. Now that 3 months have passed and we really know what happened its easy to summarize. Excellent job on the section. Woot! :D EkoGraf (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, great work indeed. --Wüstenfuchs 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Very good work indeed, but we're still hovering at around 197k—roughly 15k more than the main article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Back over 200k again.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How about removing SANA's outdated clashes reports and SOHR's bombardment reports? --Wüstenfuchs 18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. That also improves the NPOV quality of the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed those paragraphs that I consider to be totally unimportant, I left only those that seemed to be significant... Someone should take care of the prose though. Maybe we should propose some sections for the WP:GOCE? --Wüstenfuchs 20:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Question. Anyone object to replacing the large amount of "On (date) November, this happened in this location" with something along the lines of "Throughout November, fighting occurred across the city, with rebels making gains is (new rebel areas) and the Syrian army making gains in (new regime areas). At least (number of deaths) were reported to have died during the month" I think those two sentences pretty much cover 90% of the information in the article for November. Any truly major events could probably be listed on their own, but the day to day stuff really needs to go. Jeancey (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've cut some unimportant info from the middle sections. The article is now down to 182k. In response to your question, that would not be a bad idea, but cutting unimportant info is still a first step.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Situation in western Aleppo.

Many sources are rapporting clashes on the western area of Aleppo . Clashes are reported at the army air defense base. Maybe we should notice it on the map? What do you think about that? Amedjay (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't go with this. If it's battle of Aleppo, then Aleppo is all that matters. Nevertheless, I'd support creating an article about clashes in the Aleppo Governorate, something like the Rif Dimashq offensive. --Wüstenfuchs 18:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't understand me. I meant to notice the clashes on the actual map. I'm talking about clashes in the city of aleppo , not the region. the map of the battle of aleppo is actually showing the places i'm talking about Amedjay (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Amedjay, request the changes on the map image's talk page. The image will have to be updated soon anyhow, it's the end game in Aleppo. Looks like there will be huge Opposition gains in the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Amedjay, if so, provide sources, I believe the map will be updated. --Wüstenfuchs 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well there are sources that I found on the article http://www.lccsyria.org/10554 . Amedjay (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That source is not reliable one. In order to keep neutrality of the article we change map based on foreign, reliable sources, like the Guardian or the Independent for example. We do use Syrian sources only to report clashes or to show view from both sides. --Wüstenfuchs 21:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In Amedjay's defense, his original assertion was that there were clashes in the areas in question, and the map does have olive denoted contested areas, which I would suppose to mean areas where clashes take place regularly 146.151.97.237 (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Mango

Separate line in the infobox

For second time, I'll raise this issue.

Some users insist on the line, as "some FSA" units don't want to cooperate with the jihadis, nevertheless, the largest unit find no problem cooperating with them, I'm talking about the largest al-Tawhid and those eagles, sham unit. If a group of 10 people doesn't wants them, who cares, the most important units are cooperating with them. Recently we saw how the al-Tawhid Brigade (the most prominent one with 8,000 fighters) cooperated with the notorious al-Nusra front. Why do we need a line? Is it bad for the FSA's reputation? --Wüstenfuchs 22:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Time and time again it is reported that secular Free Syrian Army brigades and Jihadis are separate. They were separate during the siege of the recently captured Base 46. And both these factions are actually competing for who will get the most loot from Sheikh Suleiman Base which is due to fall to the FSA any day now. [1] As for your last rhetorical question: the FSA don't have a policy of cooperation with jihadis. You can't find a source that says that and there are many sources state the exact opposite. Wikipedia is based on sources not on your own bizzare and embarrassing East European ethno-nationalistic worldview which dictates that Muslims = evil boogey men.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your kind words, San culottes. Anyway, I'd like to hear some constructive comment from other users. --Wüstenfuchs 23:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You linked to a non existent user? As long as users read the sources, good luck trying to push your POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk • contribs)

I mispelled your earlier name, I wrote two "l" insted of one. --Wüstenfuchs 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Making Operation Barbarossa as an example isn't good. This article was edited by user likemyself or you Lothar. Let's look the Operation Desert Storm. Those countries weren't in alliance, but they cooperated. --Wüstenfuchs 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they were in a more or less formal coalition headed by the American general Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. acting under UNSCR 678. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Just like Mujahideen and the FSA, reminde me, did the al-Tawhid brigade made a statement along with the al-Nusra Front? This event occured two or three days ago. --Wüstenfuchs 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction: just like the al-Tawhid Brigade and Jabhat al-Nusra. That's it. Unless I'm wrong and all FSA are TB and all mujahideen are JN. Even then, your analogy fails. Who is the central commander between the two groups? Do they share a common command structure beyond informal coordination? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hah, lol. I just made an example. Will you look at this report? For example the Ahrar al-Sham, it says they are allied with the FSA? We ingore this or what? I also remember an article where a rebel complains that they must fight with the al-Nusra as they are better trained and more effective. We also ignore this? What do you expect from the FSA, to sign a contract with de iure non existing formations? Tell me another thing, who is central commander of, I don't know, some unknown FSA brigade? There are many, you know, it is hard to find names of commanders, I can only provide you sources saying they are allies (like I did). --Wüstenfuchs 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, the line does not preclude cooperation—it clarifies the complicated relationship between the FSA and the various jihadist units. That PDF you cite notes that, while they do collaborate, JN and other jihadists have command structures that are highly secretive and distinct from the FSA. I'm not claiming that the groups don't fight together, just that they are in loose association based on the necessities of the battlefield: Islamists generally have the expertise needed to fight a professional army, but FSA has the bulk of the manpower needed to make a substantial fighting force. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Even though the foreign guys and the FSA are two separate entities they do cooperate and coordinate in their attacks to a certain degree, even if they don't like eachother, that makes them allies to at least a minimal degree, so there is no need for a separation line. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in a previous discussion on this same topic the line should be there. The Mujahideen are their own group and act separately from the Syrian opposition. Both groups have their own command structures and their own agendas for Syria. That a line should be included has also been agreed upon by the majority of editors on the main Syrian civil war page. It appears as before that the same two editors continue to push for no line to be included. Guest2625 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a great Christian Science Monitor article detailing the difference between the FSA and the Islamist militias in Syria: Syria-s-Jabhat-al-Nusra-militia-looks-pretty-serious. And yes Guest2625, it is always the same two regime apologists raising these non issues. But funny to see EkoGraf back again, thought he's spirit had been crushed after the recent long string of regime defeats, almost felt sorry for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.96 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my god... You think that soemone is living for this article IP? And Christian Sc. Monitor isn't a "great" source, it has its issues. What about proclaimation of jihadi-state in Aleppo few days ago, the largest FSA brigade (al-Tawhid) and the Jahbat al-Nusra... Same thing as al-Khatib is a "moderate" jihadi islamist. --Wüstenfuchs 05:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

About this "declaration" by some random militants that don't even represent their respective militias... that doesn't prove your point, it actually disproves it. All it would do is reinforce that the FSA under the authority of the SNC are different to the Islamic militants that supposedly want an Islamic state. How you fail to comprehend this basic point is baffling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.96 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean this one?

Members of Islamist groups listed in a YouTube video as supporters of the plan told Reuters they had nothing to do with the announcement, though they acknowledged that some members of their groups had appeared in the video. [2]

The powerful Liwaa al-Tawhid Brigade, along with the Aleppo Military Council and Transitional Military Council, in a video uploaded on YouTube on Tuesday, said they would co-operate with the newly formed opposition body, but called for greater representation in it. [3]

The Tawhid Brigade, a leading Islamist rebel group in the city of Aleppo, announced its support Tuesday for the opposition Syrian National Coalition and its rejection of an Islamic state for a post-Assad Syria. [4]

And before that rejected by Aleppo FSA military council? I mean goddamit, this is bullet proof argument for why the the line should be there as Tawheed rejected it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also its cure how you now slam the sources which you do not like. Khatib is a jihadi now, isn´t he? Have you been thinking about wikibreak? It seems you need it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow , wow calm down people , this is not call of duty 78.232.100.63 (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. --Wüstenfuchs 15:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say that I was highly offended by user 94.197...'s comments which were highly uncivil and would have argued for him being reported to an administrator. But I see that he was already reported by someone else and blocked for other offenses on Wikipedia. My spirit wasn't crushed as he said and I don't know why it would be since events in Syria don't have any impact on my own life. So there is no reason to feel sorry for me. I am still editing Syrian conflict articles, it is only that I haven't edited the Aleppo battle article, because nothing HAS been happening in Aleppo for the last 2-3 weeks. It's still a stalemate there after the last rebel offensive was repelled in the city in late October. I also devoted my time to the recent Gaza conflict so I was busy with that also and real-life work that I have. My life doesn't revolve only around Wikipedia. And I don't know why user 94.197... takes editing here so seriously that he would resort to insulting other editors who are of different opinion than him. I guess most likely because he is a staunch pro-opposition supporter, so I don't think that gives him any right of calling other editors of a different opinion regime apologists. EkoGraf (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

EkoGraf, talk about the article. Not yourself. Or anonymous IP users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.68 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IP (User:San culottes) was blocked on my initiative... Obviously he lives for vandalising my user page and spreading anti-Wustenfuchs propaganda on other users' talk pages. I reported him. Why do you even try to answer to such insults, leave it out. --Wüstenfuchs 14:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Woah. All of this argument over a line? I think it's clear that most people agree that the line should be there for good reasons. The fact that there is some diegree of cooperation is already implied by including them in the same column. Removing the separation line implies that they are allies, which is far from the fact. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not so, they are allies. Various report, reliable report that is, say they are. For example, Ahrar al-Sham and the FSA are allies. Little soldiers might say what they like, let's not forget that threr's propaganda from the both sides, FSA fighters avoid to be called islamists, see statements from al-Tawhid soldiers, but then again they are viewed as Islamists, and it is generally accepted that Saudis are giving aid only to the islamists, so in one statement they confrimed that, but not just the al-Tawhid, but the FSA leadership. Saudis are supporting both mujahidden and the FSA, both of them are cooperating in the battle, and why not to call them allies? What the hell are they, fighting together, financed by the same supporter at the same time, and they are not allies? Why, because some little fighter says "they don't like them"? There are some quarels in the same government, not only amongst the same allies, there were quarres between the Soviets and Americans in the WW2, but they were allies, weren't they? Therefore this argument about the same command structure is shivery. --Wüstenfuchs 15:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

San culottes? Now it all makes sense. You are right Wusten, I shouldn't be bothered by this. I have other more important things to deal with. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Again no one cares what you get up to in New Jersey. Talk about the article not yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.68 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he is angry 'cause he lost three accounts because of me, and now, this IP... :) But, that's my opinion. --Wüstenfuchs 16:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering the line, I'd like to add also this (with my comment above), we should consider GA articles, see World War II. Soviets and other allied countries are in the infobox without the line. They had no joint command structure, but they did cooperated, just like the FSA and the mujahideen. Other articles, that weren't checked like GA articles, have shoudn't have weight like the GA articles. --Wüstenfuchs 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry mr anonymous IP, but I have no idea what that line about New Jersey should mean, I'm not even an American. When someone violates Wiki policy on civility it should be pointed out to. And I already said what I had to say on the issue of the separation line. I'm against it because the FSA and the mujahedeen are allies, even though on a minimal level. EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Watch Jersey Shore (TV series), and you'll see what he means. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wusten pointed out a thing that I was myself going to say. Someone said that the Allied forces of world war two (US, UK, France, etc) didn't have a separation line because, at least those on the western front, didn't have a separation line due to them having a unified commander. But, Russian allied forces were a completely separate entity of the Allied troops. I don't see Russia being separated by a separation line over at the WW2 articles, given they didn't follow the lead of the top Western commander and had their own one. Same goes for China, which was also a separate Allied force. EkoGraf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because the Allied countries officially declared support for each other for their common cause. The US, USSR and others held quite a few conferences together. The FSA has not held any conference with all the Mujahideen groups and declared support for them. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They are, nevertheless, allies - Cooperating together, coordinating their attack and moves etc. I wanted to link something from kavkazcentre, but it's on WP's blacklist, so I'll quote "Islamic sources reported about a major operation carried out by the Mujahideen of Jabhat al-Nusra in Aleppo jointly with brigades al-Fajr al-Islam, Kataeb Ahrar al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid and Liwa al-Fatah, who are believed to be affiliated with the rebels of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)." Also, take a look at this, even though they have coordinated attacks, you claim they have no agreements amongst them? --Wüstenfuchs 15:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

i think the best solution is to put free syrian army with cooperation with jabhat al-nusra Alhanuty (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC) the free syrian army and jabhat al nusra cooperate,but it will be misleading too put them in one box and saying that they are allies Alhanuty (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What is your definition of an ally? Google gives this "A state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose, typically by treaty." --Wüstenfuchs 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Where are the states, where are the treaties? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

They cooperate to overthrow the regime,but they aren't allies and the proof that there is disagreement between both sides Alhanuty (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Typically by a treaty, it's not necessary. It is common practice though. The google gives this as well: "Combine or unite a resource or commodity with (another) for mutual benefit." Their mutual benifit is to overthrow the Syrian government, right? --Wüstenfuchs 07:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary, the most reliable one for the English words, says this "a person or organization that cooperates with or helps another in a particular activity: he was forced to dismiss his closest political ally" about definition of an ally. --Wüstenfuchs 09:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary has said it all. :) EkoGraf (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering....Is the FSA actually "secular"?.People say that, but is there any actual evidence of it?.Have they said they support purely secular democracy?.64.229.137.227 (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, calling them secular is a joke, as they want to implement the Sharia, or the islamic law. Calling them secular is like calling Ruhollah Khomeini secular, the same thing. Though, many western media call them so, for unknown reason. --Wüstenfuchs 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the FSA brigades are secular. The media calls them that because they are. There are some brigades with strong Islamist ideologies, but they don't represent all of the FSA. Here's a ISW report: Although the armed opposition coalition of the Free Syrian army (FSA) generally promotes a secular agenda, some of its component battalions adhere to an Islamist ideology and are well-known Islamist brigades (Source:[5], page 17). True some FSA brigades and Jihadist groups are allies, but that doesn't all of the FSA and all Jihadist groups are allies. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Name one brigade that is secular.64.229.137.227 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I don't really care anymore. It's a very trivial issue. Line or no line, it doesn't make a big difference. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If so, what brigades are secular, the largest, Shakur al-Sham and al-Tawhid are islamists... so, only perhaps 10% of the FSA are "secular"... the funny thing is, those secular units still have no name. --Wüstenfuchs 15:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Salaheddin Martyrs Brigade

Abu-Bakr Brigade

Al-Fatah Brigade

Dara al-Shahbaa Brigade

Nour al-Haq Brigade

Nur al-Din Zinky Brigade

Suleiman al-Farisi Brigade

Turkmens' Sultan Abdulhamid Han Brigade

Furthermore don't confuse the members of the islamic brigade with the leaders of the islamic brigade. The Iranian Al quds force and revolutionary guards force are all run by radical salifist loonies but I am pretty sure the average person in those forces don't give a damn about islam. Sopher99 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I bet they do. Iranians are indeed orthodox Muslims. They have islamist government for god's sake. And you just copied those brigades, ofc they aren't secular (Turkemens' brigade is named after an Ottoman sultan for god's sake), it's your own original research. But, let's end this pointless discussion, as we aren't discussing about the battle anymore. --Wüstenfuchs 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For all knowledge sunnism is one thing and Shiism is a totally another thing Alhanuty (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing sopher99 Shias hate salafist very much and there is a historic rivalry between salafist and Shias Alhanuty (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thirdly from my observation the FSA is a mixture of seculars,moderate Islamist,Muslim brotherhood and salafist and Islamist who want the Islamic law imposed, must most of them agree that there must be a democratic state in syria Alhanuty (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And wustenfuchs not all of them are calling for it Alhanuty (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Updating the number of fighters in infobox

This source says that there are 15,000 FSA fighters in Aleppo, of which 2000 belong to Jabhat al'Nusra. I'd like to update the infobox, but I'm not sure of what to do with the existing numbers there. Esn (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It is from the Washington P., but it's under the Washington P. Opinion rubric, so I can't say how reliable this is. --Wüstenfuchs 09:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I added this in the infobox after realising it was reported by various media, and that author showed his sources in the article. --Wüstenfuchs 12:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on my talk page concerning the map has been moved

Considering that the there are now multiple people editing the Battle of Aleppo map, I've moved the discussion on my page to File talk:Battle of Aleppo map.svg in order to centralize discussion. If you want to request an edit on the map, please do so there. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

News of Aleppo

Hello, yesterday the Prime Minister made a visit to Aleppo accompanied by several ministers, it would be good to note, again, the army to break the siege of Aleppo Central Prison and arrived as reinforcements near the military academy siege. Finally, the army has denied taking the barracks Hanano, both views would be welcome for the neutrality of the article Maurcich (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lack of support for rebels.

Here is a quote from this reuter article, made from a rebel within Aleppo:

"They don't have a revolutionary mindset," he said, putting support for Assad at 70 percent among an urban population that includes many ethnic Kurds, Christians and members of Assad's Alawite minority. But he also acknowledged that looting and other abuses had cost the incoming rebels much initial goodwill.

www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9070VV20130108

Should we mention that the general population is turning on the rebels, and that the Syrian Arab army is gaining in favour in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.134.225 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the reporting I've heard on the battle for Aleppo said that most of the fighters there come from outside the city, and that there was a sense among their commanders that the people of Aleppo had to be dragged into the conflict rather than remain neutral (wish I had sources on hand to show that). I'd tend to believe when that particular commander says 70% are with Assad he might be lumping in people who were neutral as well and didn't want to join the revolution. Additionally, there have been reports of protests against the FSA, so that's totally fair to include, but that doesn't mean the Syrian army is gaining favor vis-a-vis the rebels, I mean, this is the army that's shelling rebel held districts on a regular basis, all in my opinion, of course.65.25.199.132 (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Mango

Guesstimates of popular support from individuals are not to be treated as scientific data. There are indeed protests against the FSA, but many of them are actually in favour of Jabhat al-Nusra, who tend to be viewed as less corrupt and more honest in spite of their extremism. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems people don't mind them chopping off heads and burning people on youtube. EkoGraf (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems the few cases where that might happen are a better alternative to a corrupt minority regime that has mass rape policies and gleefully murders its own citizen on a much greater scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.43 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it few (47 suicide bombings alone). But to get back to your recent edits anonymous user. 1st, do you have proof that the reliable new york times is misrepresented? 2nd, accusing an editor of nonsense is violation of Wikipedia's civility rule. 3rd, you are replacing an up-do-date source with older ones. 4th, you broke a link. 5th, The New York times directly mentions the capture of those bases, why add four older different sources when one newer unifying source is enough. 6th, regime was agreed to be a weasal word a year ago so it was barred from being used just like the word terrorist. 7th, the wording for that section was compromise wording based on the New York times article between Sopher and me. 8th, would be good that you open an account on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"regime" is the same as "rebel" and both are used throughout the article. Also the NYT reference is actually older than the other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, even though regime is used in the source it was decided by Wikipedia editors after a debate not to use the word regime as well as the word terrorist because both are weasal words. So please stick to Wikipedia consensus. EkoGraf (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

EkoGraf Edit-warring on this article

Way over the 3 revert rule, an established editor should refer this User to the admin noticeboard for a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

First, the wording you are removing was agreed to as a compromise wording. Second, you are using wording yourself that was agreed to not be used for sake of neutrality (regime and terrorist). Third, accusing another editor of lying and nonsense is in violation of Wikipedia's rule on civility and can get you banned. Fourth, removing a reliable sources like the NYT as well as two other sources for the sake of your personal point of view can also get you banned. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Read your 4th point again then apply it to your own skewed editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The two new sources I added are from yesterday and the day before, READ THEM. Or else if you do not stop using inflamatory language I will request the article be protected. EkoGraf (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be protected. From users like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously still avoding trying to find a compromise, which Wikipedia requests in these situations. I will still try and find a compromise solution. I am making another edit, your wording is still in there also. But if you continue to edit war I WILL request the article be protected. PS Yahoo is not used as a source on Wikipedia because it gets updated and the original sources get lost. EkoGraf (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ground to a halt" is a POV statement, regardless of how many low quality sources you can find that use it. Capturing and surrounding bases is factually accurate and is Empirical evidence.

POV per you or not that's what the source says and that's what we go with. If you want to question the wording the NYT uses thats your right, but in talk pages only. And actually it was not me who worded it that way, it was Sopher. I agreed to it as a compromise. And that empirical evidence you are talking about? No new bases around Aleppo have been captured since early December, and the ones that are still Army-controlled have been surrounded for months. And calling the New York Times a low-quality source shows your own non-neutral POV which any administrator can see. But, in any case, I made a new edit, and there, your point on the intensification of attacks on the two air bases is still in there, along with your sources. Hope that's satisfactory. EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The NTY article you were clinging to (and you yourself removed for reasons known only to you) was not low quality Per se, only low quality compared to AFP, Reuters etc. And the way you insisted upon using it, cherry picking a vague statement was the actual issue. Oddly enough the Daily Beast and Irish Times refs you replaced the NYT article with are even worse.

I did not replace it, NYT is still there, as a source for the capture of the bases in December. Its that you removed it again with another one of your reverts. And your assertion that its low quality compared to AFP and Reuters is again your personal point of view which is not allowed on Wikipedia. And you can not per your own POV declare anything that you do not like vague. In any case I have made a compromise edit which includes nicely balanced both your assertions and mine as you would put it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not balanced. All you have done is shoehorned POV crap into the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove the vague sentence, although it wasn't even me who put it there in the first place. But the stalemate part stays. And saying this is shoehorned POV crap is again inflamatory language not allowed on Wikipedia, so please refrain yourself from using it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheikh Saed is liberated by free syria army after 12 days of heavy fighting and color of it should be change in the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.233.51 (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheikh Saeed, at least part of it, is, and has been, labeled as rebel held since before the FSA announced its capture, so what do you want done? 146.151.101.18 (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Mango

The part of the map colored red between Opposition held territory and the airport should all be green. There are no sources indicating the Assad regime controls any of these districts any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.68 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You would need sources showing that the opposition has taken those areas from the government. Just because there hasn't been sources saying they still control it, doesn't mean that they don't. Sources tend not to report when people STILL control the area, only when the area changes hands. Jeancey (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well seeing as the area in question is uninhabited (i.e. a non-residential area), it's safe to say there is no longer a regime presence there. However olive is fine for now until the airport is captured by the opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.68 (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Like Jeancey, sources needed. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We both agreed olive was fine...? Thanks for your 2 cents though EkoGrak, always a pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.231 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Any time. EkoGraf (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral colors?

I don't think the picture at the top of this should have the Syrian Army areas in red, and the rebel areas are in Green. This does not display POV because Red is usually symbolized with violence and blood, while green is a more neutrally associated color. Let's change the red to a blue or something, so that neutrality is reflected in the image. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.84.1 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The current Syrian flag distinctively has red in it.

The Opposition flag distinctively has green in it.

In the Libyan war maps we put rebels as red and government as green for the same reason. Sopher99 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

But Sopher99, you don't get it. It is a grand Zionist conspiracy to present the Assad regime as evil. They control the media to lead people to believe that Syrians dislike living under an undemocratic dictatorship that works for the benifit of only 10 % of the population, Etc. But seriously though the colors make sense as per the flags as you stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Clearly the colours are not representative of the flags, as the colours do not match the flags 100%. The green colour for example is too light compared to the green on the flag. If you're going to invent an excuse for why the colours were selected the way they are, then you should probably fix it so that all the details are right. Sovetus (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Police academy

On Wikimapia, I have counted more than 4 building in the Police Academy compound, even when only looking at the large structures. That line needs to be reworded, "all" should be removed--41.76.208.114 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Road to airport

The Syrian army has retaken the road to the airport according to reports. I'm not sure, which neighborhood would that be ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That is aleppo's country side it is not on this map Abdo45 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, it's a road to the south leading into Hama province. Not part of the scope of the map at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The opening up of the corridor link to the city's airport from central Syria can be seen as operationally significant to the overall battle and warrants mentioning. Especially since there was all that talk earlier that the rebels had the airport surrounded. With this latest development that would mean the airport isn't entirely surrounded anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

EkoGraf, isn't it understood to mean by the olive colour around the airport that both the rebels & the SAA have a presence in the area? Certainly, it would be premature to show this area red just as much as it would be to show it green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnabuihe (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/syria-live/aleppo-activist-edward-dark-people-here-dont-like-the-regime-but-they-hate-the-rebels-even-more/article9816335/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

well, - Marcel Mittelsiefens film from Aleppo March 2013 - [6]Sayerslle (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Original research

Why is this considered original research ? I believe it an adequate piece of information, along with the reports that an army-grade chemical stockpile was also captured by FSA fighters. It merely expands the information available, so I would hardly see it as OR. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You are taking a source not related to the current event and trying to use it as insight in this current topic. Thats original research. Basically your source does not provide information over the current topic, it is a cheap "note" to push a view. It was al nusra that took the factory by the way, and it has nothing to with this. For example, if I was to write "in July 2012 Syrian spokesman Jihad Makdissi said that the Syrian goverment would use chemical weapons if foreign powers were to get involved" , and back it up with a regular news source, that would be original research. Sopher99 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use it as an "insight" or "a cheap note to push a view", thanks. It contributes to the subject with relatively recent knowledge (December) and any information (and not statement) regarding chemical weapons in the area would be more than relevant. If you think the statement is not new enough, please feel free to improve the article so it doesn't look like a timeline. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you tried putting is speculation. You are trying to say the rebels have access to chemicals weapons, because it was reported once that they took a chlorine factory. Thats original research and its placement does not go here. If sources site the seized chlorine factory as evidence for Today's event, feel free to put it there. Sopher99 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am relatively new to editing this article, but I tend to agree with Sopher99 at this early point. I imagine that during the coming days news outlets will examine the available evidence of whether the event was a rebel or government use of chemical weapons, or if chemical weapons were used at all. At that point, perhaps pro/con evidence can be included. Alternatively, maybe just the ambiguity of the situation needs to be stated, and the whole debate may deserve its own article. hulahoop122 Hulahoop122 (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I must be misunderstanding things, because (quote)

For example, if I was to write "in July 2012 Syrian spokesman Jihad Makdissi said that the Syrian goverment would use chemical weapons if foreign powers were to get involved" , and back it up with a regular news source, that would be original research. Sopher99 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(unquote) is pretty hilarious. So it's "original research" to quote regular news sources, but the height of academic rigour to take "facts" from facebook accounts set up more or less explicitly as propaganda outlets? All the various articles on the Syrian war are absolutely awful because none of the contributors seem to have any idea of neutrality or evaluating evidence but just shovel whatever dumb non-event into some timeline ("15 rounds were fired at this-and-that street corner in the morning of August 4" is the next step, I suppose). Hyperbole and a bad mood, ok, but I really dislike this push to treat wikipedia as a twitter/blog and update it relentlessly while things are still very fluid and confusing on the ground. You want the latest news? Check out some news site, or whatever. Idontcareanymore (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation Review

I'd like to ask people familiar with this topic, or even those who aren't, to do a careful review of the citations. I found one sentence (which I subsequently removed) that was taken from a comedy news website (Scrape TV). This is embarrassing for Wikipedia, and where there's one, there's sure to be more unreliable sources, especially considering that this is a controversial current event without semi-protection. There are 455 citations currently, but we're going to have to look through them all. Marechal Ney (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If I haven't proven my point already, the first two citations are dead links to a small Iraqi Kurdish news website (Alexa rank: 65,000th globally). Marechal Ney (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article using "reliable" sources from Facebook?Ratipok (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the sources used at an earlier point were more or less reliable, but there's probably a dozen Facebook citations, and an even larger number of unreliable media outlets. Checklinks shows the presence of quite a few dead or broken links as well. As a final addition, there's no guarantee that the reliable sources are properly cited either. The article needs a thorough citation review. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to cleanup the citations. However, the situation is dismal. This article may have every problem known to Wikipedia save being a stub; it's too long, not neutral, encyclopedic, poorly organized, controversial, and about a current, rapidly changing event; it has copyright violations, unreliable sources, dead links, original research, severe tensing problems, poor grammar, poor spelling, confusing syntax. For this article to reach even C-Class it will need an almost complete rewrite. Marechal Ney (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the information battlefield of the 21st century! 46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Organization

Presently section headers are divided by place of fighting. However, most editors treat the sections chronologically, adding new inhformation to the bottom one (Perimiter Fighting) even if it is about fighting in the center of the city. Since many articles about other recent battles (ex. Battle of Tripoli (2011) are organized chronologically, I'd suggest we try that organizational scheme. If others approve, we can just change the section titles to be more accurate. This would be far easier than trying to fundamentally restructure the article. Marechal Ney (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That'd be the most reasonable solution for now. After the battle is over (whenever that is) there might be more freedom to restructure it, but presently there aren't many options as the events are still progressing. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

On a related tone, some section titles are hardly relevant to their content. For instance, what sort of 'stalemate' is that which lasted only 4 days? And 7 days do not really represent what I would understand as 'war of attrition'. As I see it, those sections were hastily titled at the time the events were happening with their duration being -back then- indeterminable. Now that some time has passed, I do not think that those subheadings make much sense. As regards the examples I mentioned here, my humble opinion is that they don't qualify as phases of the conflict to deserve their own sections. Kkostagiannis (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the current section headings do not make too much sense, and it is better have sections based on a period of time. For instance, rather than have a section called ===Aleppo Perimeter battles=== it would make more sense to have a time period ===January to March 2013===. The internal organization of the section would not have to be strictly chronological, but have paragraphs dedicated to the progression of different sub-battles during that time period. (e.g. a single paragraph on the airport battle, eventhough there were several distinct events during the 3 month phase, another paragraph on the police academy, etc.)Hulahoop122 (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Kurds have switched sides

Should we change the infobox? The PYD said they are supporting the rebels, and helped them capture Sheikh Maksoud.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the infobox is supposed to present the conflict over time, not just in the moment. And if they "switched sides" to the rebels, what then does that say about their alignment previously? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lothar. We should wait for long-term implications. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaand just like that, the PYD comes out and denies this "side-switching" [7]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, it seems to me that that is nothing more than political statement. PYD cannot afford to go on full-scale insurrection against Syrian army, otherwise airstrikes and shelling would occur with full-scale battle commencing in Qamishlo that would decimate the town. Fact is that they let FSA into the district, killed several soldiers and done exactly nothing to prevent FSA from advancing with fighters on the group saying that they actually helped them. Still, would keep them in third collum. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Also we have to keep in mind Ocalan - Erdogan peace talks. PYD answers to KCK, KCK is headed by Karayılan - de facto leader of PKK while Ocalan is in prison. Karayılan accepted end of conflict. And hence PKK has 3,000 fighters with decades of experience in guerilla warfare (a lot of them from Syrian Kurdistan, much more than from Iraqi or Iranian) who will have to go somewhere. So will they sit in Qandil, drinking tchai and looking at stars or will they go to Syria and later probably to Iran? Rather obvious what is happening taken this into consideration. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Shortening, summarizing, again.

Since the article is once again approaching 200,000 bytes, I think we should look at shortening and summarizing the article again. Editor Future should do it since he did it before and he did it with a fair amount of neutrality. Last time he stopped at the section War of attrition, so I think he should start from that section. If he is not able than we should discuss here what to leave out and what to leave in. Suggestions? EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Move the "result" infor to the lead

There's no result, it's ongoing, while the lead should be the summary.

Prison area clashes

Clashes have been reported around aleppos prison http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22536489 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.70.130 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Video from area http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22546120 2.121.180.149 (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Marcel May 24, 2013 Aleppo province: The Syrian army and national defense forces regain control of villages and Qabetein Am Amoud located in the southeast of Aleppo. Source: Manqool corresponding news. https://www.facebook.com/Syria4alasad/posts/509773719071972

Marcel May 24, 2013 Aleppo: Northern City The army with security forces and Al Baath brigade advanced in the region of Al Leyarmoun three directions (in the agricultural area of farms and seed, Al Salat factory and strategic area Abed Rabeh) fights are violent, terrorists try to take each time the strategic area of ​​Abed Rabeh that their used to transport reinforcements and military hardware in the northern suburbs of Aleppo, now after taking the army of the area the channel is muted for terrorists. Source: Correspondent Manqool news. https://www.facebook.com/Syria4alasad/posts/509771765738834

1 Votes

Marcel 24 mai 2013 Province d’Alep : L’armée syrienne et les forces de défense nationale reprennent le contrôle des villages de Qabetein et de Am Amoud situés dans le sud-est d’Alep. Source : correspondant Manqool news. https://www.facebook.com/Syria4alasad/posts/509773719071972

     1 Votes

Réponse

Marcel 24 mai 2013 Ville d’Alep : Nord de la ville L’armée avec les forces de sécurité et la brigade Al Baath ont avancé dans la région de Al Leyarmoun sur trois directions (dans la zone agricole d’élevages et de semences, l’usine Al Salat et la zone stratégique de Abed Rabeh), les combats sont très violents, les terroristes tentent de reprendre à chaque fois la zone stratégique de Abed Rabeh qui leurs permettaient d’acheminer des renforts et des matérielles militaires dans la banlieue nord d’Alep, maintenant après la prise par l’armée de cette zone la voie est coupée pour les terroristes. Source : Correspondant Manqool news. https://www.facebook.com/Syria4alasad/posts/509771765738834

     1 Votes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.203.36.64 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 

February 6th 2014 I read that "the Aleppo prison was captured on Feb. 6 2014 by rebels, which freed rebels, then recaptured by SAA on the following day, and that rebel leader died during the fightings". Which is totally absurd, and based on erroneous reports. It is now KNOWN that the Feb. 6th offensive was a failure : rebels weren't able to breach into the compound nor free any prisonners, there was no SAA counter-offensive on feb. 7th. Rebel leader Sayfullah al-Shishani died ON THAT DAY, at the end of the rebels' fall back, from a mortar shell hitting near the entrance of the rebels compound. This is fully documented (even Sayfullah al-Shishani's death) in videos from the rebels show no prisoners liberation what so ever. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2aa_1392407030 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.102.120.242 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Update

No information on clashes in past few days. Pug6666 20:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation "Storm of North"

Launched today early in the morning. http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=96879&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1 --193.225.200.93 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Are the details about the execution of the teenager really relevant to the topic at hand? It's an anecdotal incident whose relevance to the battle is essentially non-existent except perhaps as some swipe at the opposition. It might belong somewhere else, such as the multitude of articles on human rights abuses, but it doesn't belong in an article about a battle.--Respite From Revision (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it should probably be removed. There are lots of human rights abuses in the war, can't list them all. This article is too big already.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that incident have nothing to do with ongoing battle. Rebell44 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The section on the execution has been removed. If there are objections, tell me, but otherwise, this section of the page is probably pointless now. --Respite From Revision (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

- Aren't there any progress happened till 25'th of June? SANA says violent clashes happens at Southwest of Old City around Umayyad Mosque,which Rebel sources denies.. No updates were put here last 10 days?

Name

Should we change the name of the article to "Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)"? This battle shows no sign of ending soon. Coltsfan (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be split if it goes on too long; it seems the battle itself goes back to early 2012 and the article is quite long. If the new operation goes on for too long, it might be split into different phases, yes? That would emulate other war-in-progress models; for example, during the Libyan Civil War, battles were often split into different articles for different phases. If it ends and it is seen that the different parts of the battle were not entirely distinct, it could then be reunified and trimmed.--Respite From Revision (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. Perhaps we should shrink it. The smallest gunfire that happens in the battle goes to the article. Imagine how much bigger the article "Battle of the Bulge" would have been if it was written nowadays... If every small engagement was supposed to go the article... It would be bigger than the article of WWII itself! So, we have to be very careful over here. Coltsfan (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism and Replacement

The line in the new operation's section in the article: On 11 June, parts of Minnigh military airbase were shelled by regime forces... Rebels are in control of large swathes of the airbase,” the Britain-based Observatory said. This is ripped directly from here: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130611/syria-army-pounds-aleppo-airbase, as well as a few other articles which seem to have all stole from other sources. Maybe it's from another plagiarizing article, I have no idea. Either way, stealing exact phrasing and not citing anything is rather horrible I would say. It doesn't help that I can't find the original SOHR source for this line, since their website is an absolute mess and features articles from March. It would help to not only cite that part of the article but to also put it in original wording. --Respite From Revision (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A map that you can perhaps use to update and perfect the current one. https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1002238_543847278985497_1361882205_n.jpg it includes more of the surrounding areas that are important for the battle, other than that it seems to be the same as the map maintained by you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.23.252 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That map gives the illusion of the Rebels holding almost the entirety of the city, while our map clearly shows a more balanced situation. Using that map would be ill-advised unless we knew whether it was a. accurate and b. providing the same information as the current map. In addition, that map may be copyrighted, while ours is community-made and can knowingly be used without issue. I am against a change. --Respite From Revision (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kafr Hamra

War correspondent Kurt Pelda tweeted an hour ago:I was in Kafr Hamra.It's still firmly under rebel control. Everything else is propaganda.I think Kafr Hamra must be green on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.235.34 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he can be listed as a reliable source. He is not affiliated with any credible organizations and seems to be pro-rebel. Although it can be discussed, I don't think a single man's anecdote is reliable for gauging a military situation. --Respite From Revision (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read several sources: gorenment sites - SAA control it, rebel sites - opposition control it, other sources - heavy fights.It is not clear who is telling truth. But one think is certain - there are activity and area must be set olive.

Kafar Hamra is occupied by SAA. The front line is around Hreitan right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRGj2lcha0g 212.92.30.194 (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

The grammar in recent additions to this article is really rather awful. Is there anyone who would be willing to monitor the grammar of editing additions? --Respite From Revision (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is awful.Agree. But when battle end article have to be edited and probably shortened.

City borders

After reading lot of articles trough internet - same was made at most maps: city borders aren't drawn. In fact when look at map - knowing where is area with buildings and where is open space - you will understand better situation. At moment we have huge areas on map without buildings and this makes difficult to understand city possession. In areas with big buildings or narrow streets fights are very different from open areas. Each side in conflict have different capabilities and type of area will explain why in some area fights are at same positions most of the time and why on other areas frontline moves fast. Same for terrain. On satellite pictures there are natural obstacles on surface - they make difficult to move in some dirrections. Sorry for long proposal, but after looking very detailed maps of area - most of 'strange' looking positions on map will become clearer and logical to understand.

chaojoker added images

These images should either be removed or the inflammatory and unsubstantiated captions modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.124 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? So you can add pro-Islamist photos of militants celebrating jihad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

General Twitter feed info

Seems to be chatter/tweets of rebels makeing gains in southern part of al-Rashidin suburb. 2.121.180.149 (talk)

Western Aleppo

Live Al-Jazeera video report: http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syrian-army-aims-retake-western-aleppo

Rebels in full control of Al-Rashedeen and other parts of the western countryside. New Aleppo is being filmed from the opposition lines by a camera, making it clear that rebel forcess have advanced into the map. Changes needed?

In my opinion this article need soruces of western and "eastern" world, and you you said that all Al-Rashedeen is in control of Rebels but this is an urban battle and maybe only a sector of al-rashedeen with borders on New Aleppo have been taken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.201.55 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

give us alternative sources. Not only pro-rebel.Kostadin24 (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The blockade of food in Aleppo is proof that the rebels have advanced. This is even in this own Wikipedia entry. But if you want sources pro Al Assad ...

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/aleppo-syria-rebel-siege-assad.html#ixzz2ZAHQzQqb

"The main highway into the city, the Aleppo-Damascus highway, was closed due to clashes, as rebels launched a fresh offensive and took the Rashdeen neighborhood at the western limits of the city. This was a vital artery, supplying western Aleppo with all its needs: food, fuel, medicine and goods as well as passenger buses and coaches".

When u say "But if you want sources pro Al Assad ..." i can see ur trouble (cuz ur answers was poor) and u are pro-rebel. Anyway i only want to say that when check news i see that Al Assad forces have some vicotries but u dont care about it, and u only wright some rebels progres. Obviously i dont want to say "wright only Al Assad victorys..." but be impartail, be smart and answer appropriately. And if u ask me for pro Al Assad sources i dont know (in english) but you should read Iranian and after give ur opinion, before say something read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.197.205 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.255.135 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Cmon when you published a new information about this battle all ur sources r from Rebel faction or western world. R u wating for new rebel success to publish something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.38.223 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be more neutral sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.45.104 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting interviews

with various snipers in the rebel groups [8]. Their motivations are pretty varied as is their equipment. ~~

Khan al Asal battle

the ID card of the officer killed in khan al asal says colonel, not brigadier general

Aqeed not ameed. (Source SOHR : 3 rebels from the town of Atarib were killed by clashes in Khan al-Asal town, where clashes are ongoing. Reports that rebels destroyed 2 tanks there and have taken over others after they took control of the Summaqiya area in the south of the town. A Syrian officer with the rank of brigadier general was killed with 2 of his soldiers (video) by rebels when a group of soldiers tried to flee from the fighting. Regime forces are bombarding parts of Qubtan town, no reports of human losses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtSGzKGGDZM&feature=youtu.be) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.14.62 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

New paragraph needed

I think it's safe to say that operation Northern Storm has ended in a failure. The rebels have begun their own offensive that seems to be gaining traction, so it is quite conflicting to be writing about rebel gains under the paragraph titled by the army offensive. I propose a new paragraph titled by the rebel offensive "Battle of Qadisiyah" Offensive.--41.52.245.179 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA

Does anyone want to turn wiki into a propaganda trash like CNN / FOX / Al Jazeera ...

Editorial writing propaganda for terrorists, every other source is inscription on facebook, nonsense like "do not know who kidnapped Christian Bishop - all options are open (terrorists video saw cutting head of Christian monks, Vatican condemned the terrorists ... but source of obvious lies the inscription on facebook.

The next lie: "4000 Hezbollah fighters fighting in Aleppo " wiki source: FSA spokesman writing on facebook

Lebanese movement Hezbollah in war against Israel 2006, on territory of Lebanon, had 3500 soldiers after additional mobilization (all Western sources agree on that) but the propaganda trying to broadcast the lie that Hezbollah sent to Aleppo (700 km away from Lebanon) more fighters than they had on their territory in the largest war after additional mobilization.

Next lie is map- no explanation required because the map is a joke

Next lie is number of dead - source "exclusively FSA spokesman, inscriptions on Facebook and nonsense written by so-called London Observatory( funded by UK government). This is insults for intelligence and people in Europe laugh at this nonsense but propaganda continues to work. All independent sources agree that 2/3 of victims are terrorists and FSA, that air power and heavy artillery inflicting huge losses to FSA and terrorists, but then some of London publishes a lie and no one doubts how it is possible for a man in London knows how many wounded before Aleppo emergency assistance, the number of the dead before they know their families ....

Next lie " no one not known who used chemical weapons , suspected that SAA used " - Source : Al Jazeera transmits what FSA spokesman said. Carla Del Ponte, High Representative of the UN, has confirmed that it is known who has used chemical weapons and killed 30 people and that they did terrorists. After that, Al Jazeera broadcast again FSA spokesman who said "it is not actually chemical weapons then little stronger than tear gas".

Wiki sources of propaganda are exclusively FSA spokesman, so called Observatory ( funded by UK), Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya (TV station of regime that kills anyone who mentions democracy in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, property of regime that is known for the lowest level of human rights on the world (much worse than North Korea, UN said that), property of regime of Qatar and Saudi Arabia ,countries where camels have more rights than women, their journalists are repeatedly raped by terrorists in Syria).

Wiki prohibited sources Press TV (coming from a country where president elected in a democratic election in contrast to Qatar and Saudi Arabia), it is forbidden to use SANA source (not to spoil the concept FSA spokesman), it is forbidden to use syrianperspective ( Syrian diaspora Blog not financed by foreign intelligence service of a foreign country as opposed to the so-called Observatory). Unlike FSA spokesperson and fairy tales by Observatory, syrianperspective every day write correct places of conflict in all the cities of Syria, the exact names of killed and captured terrorists ...

It is forbidden to publish NY times source research, "75% of Syria's support SAA, 15% were undecided, 10% support the FSA," It is forbidden to publish source The Guardian "Islamists, jihadists and terrorists do 95% of opposition fighters," it is forbidden to publish the same source ( The Guardian ) "sectarian war was invented, Sunni Muslims make up by far the largest number of SAA members, Sunni Muslims hold the most significant places in Government (Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, Interior Minister)... It is forbidden to set the source of washington times "82% of USA citizens are oppose to usa politics arming terrorists and any cooperation with FSA jihadists in Syria (10% are not interested, 8% support usa policy to assist FSA)

If someone wants to turn wiki into a bad joke it is on track to do so but people in Europe are aware of what is going on and this is a disgusting attempt at propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina (talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And with all that international and national support for the Syrian government, a site that can be edited by absolutely ANYONE is so heavily against them. Incomprehensible. Well, not really. Popularity of rebels in Europe (especially eastern Europe) dropped after USA began endorsing them, everything else is just excuses for blatant amerophobia. --169.202.5.166 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When the information comes from a russian, syrian state tv or iranian source it's truth. But when it comes from western countries is propaganda? Please... Coltsfan (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sirislaina WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA!..... I agree with you in some points, for example the number of Hezbollah forces present in Syria its at much less than a thousand. Its nearly non sense to say that more than 4000 hezbolah fighters could beat back thousands of FSA/Islamists, and a profesional force of more than 100,000 men (SAA) could not do. Another point is that the regime suffer 50 casualties daily despite winning or losing territory. In my perpective there are many lies, biased informetion crossing the web and is nessesary to compare sources and show the two faces of the coin.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would just urge everyone to find sources from all sides of the battle, including the press realeases, and then the reports by the press. Use that to determine the facts. Brendanww2 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Lothar von Richthofen (rebel assault on airport)

Lothar, I hardly think adding a report by the primary Syrian news network directly disputing a claim made by the SOHR is undue weight. The SOHR IS an unreliable and partisan source, therefore any claim they make should be properly balanced. We have heard many claims about this airport and its supposed "capture" by rebel forces before and every time it has been incorrect. Now I'm demanding that it be made clear that this is a contested claim by the rebel affiliated SOHR and that the Syrian state is denying it. I will revert this tomorrow if you give no reply on the talk page and I will continue to pursue this as far as I can. It is unacceptable that you should revert a perfectly valid and sourced quote on this article because it doesn't fit with the preferred media 'narrative'. It is not for us to decide what side is right and which side is wrong, it is not for us to decide which of the SOHR or SANA organizations are less biased. It is the reader that should make this decision based on the information given and you are denying the reader the right to hear an opposing claim by an important press agency because of your personal subjective opinions. I'm going to assume good faith and wait for a few hours before taking this further. MrDjango (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

SANA is not a reliable source so even if there was weight to sana's claim we still wouldn't use it.

But there is no weight to SANA's claims. Rebels posted videos of the full base, and SOHR is a neutral reporter, most of the sources we use for rebel losses come from SOHR. Sopher99 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And let me guess your response: "SOHR is ZIONIST CIA MOSSAD MOON LANDING 911 WESTERN ALQAEDA EVANGELICAL ILLUMINATI PROPAGANDA FROM THE AL-JAZEERA-NESCAFE COALITION!!!! ITS NO WHERE NEAR AS RELIABLE AS THE ACADEMY AWARD WINNING SANA!!!" Sopher99 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Very childish and idiotic post Sopher, although I have come to expect that of you, judging by your conduct on these and other talk pages pertaining to the Syrian war. I will not make any further replies to you, my complaint was against Lothar and not you. Frankly I think trolls like you should be prevented from editing Wikipedia as you are obviously too childish to write in a pop up book let alone a war article - "illuminati propaganda" or no. MrDjango (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. This coming from someone who is willing to put Goebbels on par with Human Rights Watch? - which is in essence what you are doing - Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• yawn*...troll harder. MrDjango (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't "troll". Those people are just those who go around mindlessly upsetting people. I on the otherhand - am keeping these pages free from your alex-jones cult. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And yes, you don't have to respond to my posts, because I will revert you none the less. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there is now video of AQ's black standard fluttering atop Menagh's iconic watertower aside, the fall of Menagh is being widely reported: BBC Reuters NY Times. Attempting to present that as somehow equal in weight to two lines' worth of "nothing to see here, move along" handwaving is tantamount to POV-pushing. Let's be clear here: SOHR is not the source we are using. It is one of a number of primary sources that reliable secondary sources are using here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Add to that coverage Joshua Landis, one of the most prominent scholars on Syria. You have no case. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Renewal Fighting Between YPG & FSA rebels

You guys might want to check this out, rebels tried to enter a kurdish neighborhood which resulted in continue clashes with the YPG earlier this week. 9-8-203 Link http://www.hawarnews.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=278:25-gangs-were-killed-by-ypg-forces-in-aleppo&catid=1:news&Itemid=2

Edit request on 10 August 2013

Winstone flores (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please request a specific edit. Thanks! Howicus (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article lacks of neutrality, all info is about rebel succes or cruel syrian regiment raid. 190.238.24.230 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Ref190.238.24.230 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This article lacks neutrality? The article also mentions government "successes". ALso where has the Syrian regime been described as cruel. All the information is based upon sources. Both rbels and government have committed atrocities and that's a fact. This article deserves a featured article status according to me. If you think it is not so neutral why don't you edit? Do you realise how much time it would have taken to edit this article. I applaud all the editors who given their valuable contribution in editing this article and keeping it free from any bias. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This article lacks neutrality as all photos depict the opposition, there are no photos of the SAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.126.67 (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Brigade 80 is Being Retaken by Syrian Army

It is going crazy on twitter. here are some links. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5htkS3umc0t-AdIon4GtJILRNGtpQ?docId=8a671966-d2a0-4d2f-8c5a-d77ef51e897f&hl=en http://news.yahoo.com/syria-army-retakes-parts-aleppo-airport-075737558.html http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/syria-army-retakes-parts-of-base-by-aleppo-airport-ngo-2013-11-08-1.527400 Rob2013 (talk)

Why is written "On 8 November, islamist rebels retook most of a military base..."? On 8th Nov SAA attacked the base and they didn't have success yet, but everything is ongoing there. That area was controlled by FSA from long time... As it is written, it seems that the base was under SAA control and FSA conquered it ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidoriccio11 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi quits

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10425001/Syria-rebel-quits-after-battlefield-defeat.html.

One of the most senior Syrian rebel commanders to be backed by Britain and the United States, has resigned, blaming a major battlefield defeat on infighting in rebel ranks and the failures of the international community. Col Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi, who is a main recipient of the limited western aid to have reached Syria's rebels, launched a furious tirade against bickering rebel troops, the impotence of the political opposition, and the inertia of the West in helping win the war against the Syrian regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenrules777 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on the picture * situation in Aleppo*

The milititarybase 80 and Aziza should be red on the picture * Situation in Aleppo*.. The base was taken over by the syrian army, Aziza too. The army retook both of them and are under full controll. On the picture they are coloured under confrontation. Sources for base 80: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/10/334005/syria-army-seizes-base-in-aleppo/ http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/11/10/Syrian-army-retakes-northern-military-base-in-3rd-day-of-clashes.html http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Nov-10/237395-syria-army-regains-full-control-of-key-base-near-aleppo-state-tv.ashx#axzz2kKv6mfAb

Aziza has been known to be retaken of the army since 5 November. Kirders123 (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The picture shows the "Situation in Aleppo in October 2013". If you would like to create a more up-to-date version and upload it, please open a new request to replace the current picture with yours. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

80th Brigade base

Finally figured out how to do an edit request.

The names "Base 80" or "80th base" are not correct. 80 doesn't refer to the base, but to the 80th brigade which was stationed there (before the war). So the correct term should be "80th Brigade military base", "Brigade 80 military base" or similar. That's how it's spelled in the linked sources e.g. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/09/uk-syria-crisis-idUKBRE9A70UX20131109

Also has to be changed in the Aleppo Offensive page. I already posted on the Talk page there; sorry for the spam.

ZFR77 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like someone has done it already. ZFR77 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Rasafeh must go olive

Rasafeh district must be coloured olive, as this 12 November Reuters article states that SAA troops had advanced and take positions in Ashrafiye (yet coloured olive) and Bani Zaid districts, with the latter being a triangle area located in the heart of Rasafeh district (see Aleppo's Wikimapia map).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Tawhid Commander

Just heard of this a couple hours ago, A Syrian Air Force airstrike killed a Al Tawhid Commander that goes by the name of Youssef al-Abbas. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-syria-crisis-aleppo-idUSBRE9AE04320131115 Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.40.181 (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC) This page is converted in regime propaganda site.I'm really sorry to note this!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.251.166 (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC) To the latter: I suppose that you're angry as this was previously (and to some extent, still is) a "rebel" agit-prop site...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Map of area North of Base 80

The villages of Zarzour, al-Naqarim and al-Taaneh are all under government control as of January 15th 2014 according to this article which is cited in the article. It has also been confirmed by several forces.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/syrian-army-recaptures-five-towns-near-aleppo-s-airport_903928.html

This is the area to the North of base 80. So therefore the map should be changed to red from brownish-green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabolisk (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

New reports from both pro-rebel[9] and pro-Assad source of SAA capturing Ard al-Hamra in northeastern Aleppo.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Name of places and verifiability

It is noticeable, that many of the places in the article are virtually unlocatable and thus the claimed action in these places are not verifiable. An example is the most recent entry: "according to the pro-government al-Watan newspaper, the Army made advances and seized the districts of Ballura and Kasr al-Tarrab"

Neither Ballura nor Kasr al-Tarrab can be found on any map or wikimapia, the al-Watan aticle is the first and only time that these names got ever mentioned anywhere and even using the context (somewhere between the airport, Aziza, Marjeh and Mayssar [Myasar on the map]) its impossible to locate them: Mayssar directly borders the airport area and between Marjeh and Aziza is nothing but an empty field.

There is no denying that the SAA is gaining ground around the airport in this case, but especially with this already overly long article it may be better to be a bit more cautious with including these claims, when even the location is unknown. --Fehixx (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Both Ballura (or Baloura) and Kasr al-Tarrab can be located using Wikimapia. You should review it carefully first after making such claims...--HCPUNXKID 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Map, NPOV tag

Al monitor is used to report syrian army claims of capture of the Hanano district, however - no other source is reporting hanano's capture. Its only a syrian army claim, not notable or reliable enough to make hanano and its surrounding area red. Sopher99 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And which sources should report Hanano's capture that will make this a reliable claim for you Mr. Sopher? BBC, Reuters, CNN or any other media that has ever since this war have started been reporting every single claim the SOHR has made, a pro-rebel organization led by one person from a flat in the UK? What makes Al-Monitor an unreliable source? Your opinion? Please stop with the POV edits and revert what you have changed without consensus.Ratipok (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said that al monitor was unreliable.

What I am saying is that one single source is relaying an syrian army claim that no other source is picking up. Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Situation on Aleppo seems supporting the Claims of Sopher99!.. SAA fighting at Sheikh Najjar Industrial Area with Rebels.. how could this happen without helding the area between airpot and front line?.. Forget the resources that may be lying and give a reasonable answer to this situation!.. By the way, you should stop being voice of rebels, we just need the real info.. that's all!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.252.70.90 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You know how this user is, he's always POV-pushing or vandalising, seems he has administrator friends or something like that, other editor with that behaviour would have been indefinitely blocked looong ago...--HCPUNXKID 22:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that you are the POV pusher around here? Even your userpage details your "conspiracy-western propaganda" views. Sopher99 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy? Im not the one who is claiming a ridiculous ISIS-Syrian government forces alliance, hahaha...--HCPUNXKID 17:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. Al-Monitor is internationally based and quite neutral, so I doubt they'd say the government retook Hanano just for the hell of it. Also Washington post and LA Times wrote a week or so ago about how the SAA was on the verge of securing the northeast and cutting off the opposition's supply lines and both of their editorial staffs have taken positions urging an invasion of Syria so they aren't exactly shills for the government either. Hanano is near the governments holdings in the northeast and it's common knowledge that the front in east Aleppo has been collapsing since Khanasir-Safira, so yeah I'd say that if multiple sources say that Hanano is under SAA control, then we should take that at face value.Freepsbane (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thats just the thing. Only one source is quoting a syrian military officials's claim. Sopher99 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no counter-source,the claim made by Al-monitor is reasonable,and that Al-Monitor is reliable and neutral, the fact that it is only one source is of little consequence. You have no counter-source to say that Hanano is still under rebel control. As has been stated before, their front in that area has been falling apart, so it is reasonable to believe that this [Al-Monitor's story] is true. Al-monitor deemed this information to be newsworthy and published it. While I can see the argument on wanting to wait for multiple sources, we cannot wait for so long or the map becomes outdated, sometimes severely. So, since this source [Al-monitor] is neutral and decided to publish this article, we should go with it until further updates arrive.Dr Marmilade (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this user is that he doesnt want compromise and to solve the issues here, but to POV-push his "ideas". I have asked him about removing the tag he added by reviewing the status of Hanano, but answered that he is not conform also with the status of several other neighbourhoods of Aleppo (Salahaddin, Saif al-Dawla, Old City...resuming, all the quarters wich were outdatedly painted in green and now have passed to red according to reliable sources), in resume, he wants to get the map as it was four months (or more) ago, by denying reality.--HCPUNXKID 17:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Justice Palace It must be captured by the rebels green objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.87.95 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 

Actually, its not THAT Justice Palace that is on the map over in the Khalidiyah district. Its the Justice Palace over in the Old Aleppo district [11], which is not even marked on the map. EkoGraf (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Salaheddin

Most of Salaheddin (except southern sector) based on both pro-gov. (http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/03/new-map-of-aleppo-offensive-2.html) and pro-opp. (https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/447485769905500160) maps to red, like it or not, so stop POV-pushing reverts...--HCPUNXKID 15:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Same thing with Ramouseh and area around Military Research Center.--HCPUNXKID 15:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

either we use Cdrics map for everything or none at all. What reason does cdric have to lie about rebel advances if he shows government advances? Are any of them advances at all? Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Im tired of having the same problem again and again only with the same user. Several editors had told you dozens of times that we can use pro-opp. sources for portraying gov. advances but not for portraying opp. advances or viceversa, but you seem to be deaf, blind or have a very, very low IQ. And also, they've told you that if you compare a pro-gov. map and a pro-opp. map and they have coincidences, you can add them, as both sides recognize that a sector have the same status. So stop your sectarian POV-pushing destructive bullsh*t, or simply leave Wikipedia if you dont like it, no one will miss you, for sure.--HCPUNXKID 16:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your POV pushing has convinced me to take part in map editing as well. I will begin uploading new files, rather than direct reverting. Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You can upload what u want, others will remove that illogic unsourced POV-pushing WP rules breaking sh*t ASAP, be sure of it...--HCPUNXKID 16:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

World Tribune

Some editors want to include the following edit, "As of 28 March, according to some western diplomats, it was believed the Syrian Army controlled around 80 percent of city. ["Assad’s forces surround Aleppo, now control 80 percent of Syria’s largest city" Special to WorldTribune.com March 28th, 2014] The source says, "As a result, the regime was believed to be in control over nearly 80 percent of Aleppo." While it mentions unnamed "Western diplomats", it does not actually say that this is their conclusion.

World Tribune is not a reliable source and no evidence has been provided that it is. Its stories are not carried in mainstream publications and this particular story is not carried in any mainstream publication. The New Yorker ran an article explaining the lack of reliablity of the source.[12] Among other things, the article says, "One such story last week began, “U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.” The apparent scoop—of stop-the-presses significance—was unsigned, and billed as a “special to World Tribune.com.” The Times, the Journal, and the Washington Post, meanwhile, not only got beat but failed even to acknowledge the news in the days that followed." For clarification, the mainstream opinion is that there were no weapons of mass destruction and finding them would be widely reported.

One editor has brought this source to RSN.

Since the source is not rs, I will reverse the edit. Please do not reinstate without evidence the source is reliable.

TFD (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It does matter, I raised this source at the RSN board, it is most certainly not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to show that it is reliable, particularly when a reliable source says it is not. We cannot rely on the statement in the article that they spoke to "Western diplomats." Neither apparently can mainstream media, otherwise they would have mentioned the claim. Note too this article is under a 1RR restriction. That means that any editor who makes more than one revert per 24 hours may be blocked. TFD (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist in lead

"Phillip Smyth ‏@PhillipSmyth · Mar 27

1. PT Guess what? Shi'a jihadis come from all over the region. A.K.A. They are *Foreign fighters* ...Last I checked Iraq/Lebanon/Iran ≠" -

Philip Smith, a Hezbollah expert makes this point in a tweet above and so I added jihadist before Hezbollah in lead - seems a bit of a terrorist regime pov creeping into the language otherwise.- assadists are reasonable folks, a bit of torture and barrel bombing and chemical attacks but basically ever so reasonable, versus foreign jihadis. that's not a serious narrative . Sayerslle (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as a source?

I know we have very scarce information from Syria and it is hard to find anything both reliable and current, but please gentlemen, do not base a Wikipedia article on Twitter messages as sources. This is really low standard. --Emesik (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Except maps, I wouldnt use anything coming from Twitter as a source.--HCPUNXKID 15:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The twitter in question comes from the chief news corespondent of a known Kuwaiti newspaper and from an opposition media outlet. There is no reason to question the Kuwaiti news corespondent or the opposition media outlet when its reporting government advances. If it were some lone unknown individual whose credibility and reliability we couldn't established I would agree, but this isn't it. These are reports frmo established official media outlets. EkoGraf (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I know it's few months from now, but EkoGraf, that's not right. Tweets aren't realible source. The author could be drunk or jokeing, there's no way we can know the circumstances in which he made the tweet. --Wüstenfuchs 02:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Bustan al-Basha typo

On the map, we have the district Bustan al-Pasha incorrectly spelled as Bustan al-Basha. Bustan al-Basha is a village in Lattakia. Can somebody correct this? SkoraPobeda (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Rebel references

Rebel references appear to be not saying what they are supposed to be saying. Heres one. 'The rebels also seized the old Justice Palace after the blast.'[519] http://www.trust.org/item/20140319181241-1ozzp/?source=search SaintAviator talk 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Military Research Center

For the past few days, multiple rebel sources (mainly Islamic Front) have boosted about a victory at the Military Research Center in Western Aleppo. I have found the following sources (some neutral, some video's from inside the base) to varify:

1. http://eaworldview.com/2014/08/syria-daily-civilian-death-toll-spikes-125-killed-sunday/ (this shows 3 videos from inside the base, which can be clearly cross checked with Google Earth or Maps) 2. http://malcolmxtreme.wordpress.com/ (some pictures and videos from the Research Center)

There have been earlier reports about fighting in Rashidin, near the Center. Since the latest troop deployments of the SAA are in Hama (to hold the Airport), it makes sense to at least make the Research Center olive, and the areas to it's west full green with a green arrow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Strategic Analysis should be updated

Are there any strategic analysis on any pro-rebel or pro-gov. sites ? Since 2014 April, the situation has changed a lot. The goverment has managed to encircle rebels in Aleppo, so the last part of analysis which says "the best the Army can do is only to secure positions" is now invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The regime is not besieging Aleppo

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/10/aleppo-syria-rebels-face-islamic-state-regime.html

Al-Monitor is a reliable neutral source, and it clearly states the obvious: there is still ways for the rebels to reach the districts in Aleppo. So change that besieged part, because it's not. Also, mention on the text that the rebels have almost besieged the regime in Handarat village(consistent to previous SOHR reports) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.83.14 (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo citadel confusion

While I was looking around the daily star, I stumbled acros an article here it is. The picture caption says that aleppo citadel is under rebel control, can someone pleas address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.164.49 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Map update

Looking at the file history of the Aleppo battle map, it's very clear that to update it is to step rashly into a bitter partisan conflict fought with wishful thinking, source discrediting and personal abuse. Unlike the real battle though, the map battle reached a stalemate on 14 August 2014. The map is now obsolete and needs updating; in particular it is inconsistent with the article's other map, covering the wider Aleppo area. Would one of you brave citizen soldiers please update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.150.165 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivansidorenko1 twitter account inform SAA Fire Control in all Handarat citing almasdarnews.com. Here is the source, i recomend waiting a bit for another more neutral source confirming this.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

New map necessary

Aleppo is encircled now, as said by various news reports, as well as the Economist:

Syrian government forces closed their grip around Aleppo, one of the last major cities in rebel hands. The Assad regime appears to have cut the last remaining road into the city, but is promising to halt air attacks on it for six weeks. Few expect the truce to last.

--Anulmanul (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)