Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)

the page is becoming to report more pro government news

for the sake of neutrality,stop posting these reports rebel or government ,only post independent reports okay Alhanuty (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's necessary. We woulnd't have any informations, only the basics. But still, some government and rebel claims were correct afterall. --Wüstenfuchs 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't even try it Alhanuty. Pro-Bashar people on Wikipedia use this article to just upload every governement propaganda massage from SANA they can find. And then, they call that neutrality. Like: according to the governement, they've lost 20 soldiers and killed more than 700 rebels. Absolutely incorrect. Also, they claim that the rebels suddenly had the heavy weapons to mount on more than 91 technicals. It's a shame that Wikipedia has sunk so low because some people desperatly want to defend president Bashar al-Assad and his criminal regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that there's a 329 dead Syrian soldiers written in the information box in case you missed it? The 329 dead Syrian soldiers are rebel claims! What about the dead 308 rebels, which is said by the rebels themselves? Shouldn't we provide that information too? Or are we now biased for providing information BY the rebels? I sense you are highly biased against this situation.Intouchabless (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of neutrality, both points of view need to be presented. If we tried to present only what independent journalists (which aren't that many in the field) see with their eyes we wouldn't have much of an article. Also, both sides claims on the number of dead need to be presented. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Although both sides post biased and propagandist situation reports, remember that the Assad regime has had 40 years experience doing that and has professionals to do it, whereas the Rebels do not. So I would accept rebel reports but not Syrian Government reports which have been proven to be beyond even exageration. They should be completely discounted which is the price a government pays for institutionaly falsifying the truth. 94.31.12.66 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The only propaganda I see has came from the terrorists/rebels. Most of what SANA have claimed in regards to losses/gains of territory has gone on to be true (with news agencies confirming the stories). The same can't be said for the terrorists/rebels who often themselves admit what they earlier reported was false. Seen as the Syrian Government control the majority of Aleppo and with residents in the other districts reporting to the army/gov where the terrorists/rebels are; I think SANA is obviously the most accurate news source. Exat (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is SANA a reliable source???

I wonder why some person use the source from SANA.. LOL --Johorean Boy (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I don't know. See the rest of the talk page. --Wüstenfuchs 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Both warring sides POV need to be presented. Read all of the previous discussions on this talk page Johorean. EkoGraf (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There really needs to be some standard here, because there is none right now. Oh wait, there is. SANA="it's ok we need to present all POV", Al Jazeera="omg so biased". [1]. During the Libyan war, we used rebel claims only if they were reported in mainstream media. We threw out Al Manara, feb17.info, rebel-linked Twitter posts, and other news sources directly affiliated with a combatant. But now we take SANA news direct from the source, complete with grossly unencyclopaedic use of "terrorist" (which completely trashes the NPOV you claim to be maintaining). RS is being sacrificed for a crude mockery of NPOV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. SANA isn't used for the infobox. It may be mentioned in the article however, adding it's rebel claim. --Wüstenfuchs 14:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, read what I said. I never said that we would not use Al Jazeera. I have myself personally added dozens of Al Jazeera articles as sources on the war. I was only commenting on the possible bias of the specific journalist in Aleppo, not suggesting that we remove the Al Jazeera source. Just like you and a few others have been commenting on the possible unreliability of SANA. I have a right to express my own opinion on the matter, but I don't let it affect my editing, that is, I don't let it lead me to excluding Al Jazeera sources. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying "I have an opinion" as if that actually means something, as if opinions are sacred and inviolable and must be left alone. Newsflash: that's not how things work. Nowhere have I sought to silence you or anyone else, so please don't act like I'm persecuting you by disagreeing with you. "Possible unreliability"? Huh? You were at the forefront of removing unreliable rebel sources during the Libyan conflict, but now you get all wishy-washy for a direct combatant source in this conflict? Explain to me this double-standard, where direct combatants in one conflict are treated as effectively unreliable, but in another they become just maybe unreliable. It's interesting to note that when SANA is brought up on a talkpage, y'all are quick to defend it under a tattered "NPOV" banner, but when an established mainstream source like Al Jazeera is brought up, it's all "tsk tsk, so biased!" You say that you don't let it affect your editing, but when people (not necessarily you) start including information directly from SANA as if it were just another news source and using the contentious label "terrorist" unchecked and without question, things start to get problematic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, this a pickle. In this conflict, Al Jazeera along with Al Arabiya are as much a "Combatant" as is "SANA". It was _very_ similar with Lybia. However, there, you at least got a lot of independents/semi-independents in between. Cutting the SANA stuff down to factual statements is a great idea. Same shall be done for both Al* though.195.212.29.191 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is in Libya we had journalists on the frontlines who could independently confirm or refute claims by both sides. Here there are no, or very few, journalists on the frontlines. Thus the only solution is to write per rebel and government claims due to the lack of independent journalists. And as for the word terrorist, we quoted it. And please stop with these borderline personal attacks, not once did I attack you. You say you are not trying to go after me, but at the same time you ridicule peoples personal opinions. Every person has a right to free thinking and to have his personal opinion. But, like I said, I don't let that affect my work and logical thinking. Due to the lack of journalists or non-existence of them on the frontline, if we excluded both SANA and rebel sources we would have maybe 2 or 3 sentences for the last 3 weeks of the battle of Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on, be reasonable. Using quotes does not make "terrorist" any less appropriate—per site policy and per local consensus. There weren't journalists everywhere in Libya, but even when we got news from some isolated part we were still very cautious about use of rebel sources. Caution has been thrown to the wind here, and article quality has suffered as a result. We should do the same as we did with Libya: report what SANA says if it is picked up in mainstream media, otherwise ignore it.

And will you please knock off the "stop persecuting my opinion" bit. I say it again: the mere fact that you have an opinion is quite meaningless. As you have a right to express it (for I have nowhere made efforts to prevent you from doing so), so do I have a right to criticise it. That's debate, friend, and sometimes it can get a little warm. And if you find that your viewpoint has difficulty withstanding criticism, then perhaps you are holding an untenable position. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I didn't add the word terrorist. In fact, I reworded it numerous times into the term rebel instead of terrorist. You should check that. It was Daniel who was putting the word. Second, I did not react to your criticism until you attacked my right to free thinking. I can take criticism as long as its related to the article, but attacking my way of free thinking is a totally different matter. In any case, I am in talks at the moment with the other editors about SANA so we can reach a solution to your concerns. EkoGraf (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, your pal Foxy and a Greek IP (no comment on identity) were the ones liberally adding in "terrorist" [2] [3] [4]. I guess Danno was a convenient enough scapegoat for it, given his tendencies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Foxy what? He is not my pal, the way you said it. He is an editor with whom I have a good working relationship here on Wikipedia. And I said Daniel because he was inserting SANA reports also, with which I didn't have a problem with. But yes, Wusten was also inserting it. So what? In any case, I don't want to get back on this discussion, we reached an agreement to include SANA information but on the condition it is drastically cut-down. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wusten and me have cut down on 5,400+ bytes of SANA information for the sake of compromise. Hope that's enough. EkoGraf (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction64.229.136.119 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the IP. Eko, I've worked with you for well over a year now and I can assure you that I maintain significant respect for you as a contributor. However, I do not see anywhere where I "attacked your right to free thinking". I had criticism for your opinions themselves, but I never said anything like "EkoGraf, you are not allowed to say that and I will prevent you from saying so", which would be an attack on your right. You need to distinguish between those things. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really, only glad the shortening, summarizing and cutting down of SANA is a good enough compromise understanding. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Equivalence is needed. If the use of SANA is limited, then the use of rebels sources is also automatically limited and all the reference of SOHR and LCC can be immediately hunted down.

Sorry, try again. The fact that one has made additions and edits is not in and of itself a defence of said adding and editing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not much for this conflict, as I have not had nearly as much consistent free time to devote to monitoring news and updating things as I did last summer/year for Libya. I'm no newcomer to the Arab Spring topic area by anyone's standards, not any more than EkoGraf is. And all told, I'd rather the few edits and updates I put in in here nowadays be of decent quality: e.g., not laced with POV buzzwords (which, by the way, are not made any less POV by use of "quotation marks"). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA,wow,SANA is a very unreliable source to use and rely on,but however both sides have to be presented,because there isn't alot of independent sources and for neutrality . Alhanuty (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

but this page is already made up mostly of SANA report , so the article itself is unreliable . Alhanuty (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct because we always that informations have been reported by SANA. You can see that in every SANA paragraph. What one thinks of SANA is his personal oppinion though so anyone can rate the article on his own oppinion. --Wüstenfuchs 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WHEN I say unreliable i mean professionally not by opinion,because alots of their reports are false when they say that they are advancing in aleppo while in reality it is a stalement and became a war of attrition . Alhanuty (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

i bring sources and i don't used aljazeera only ,but the bottom line is the battle of aleppo turned to a slatement and a war of attrition . Alhanuty (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, having article full of stuff like many rebels technicals were destroyed, according to SANA and many rebels were killed according to SANA is nowhere near encyclopedic. Opposition sources quoted by mainstream many times say that they reported that many soldiers or shabiha were killed and they are not used in the article because it is not encyclopedic. Presenting both sides in context like rebels say that they still control Salahedin and SANA says that they are not is allright in my books, but simply throwing SANA reports in every article about how vague rebels were killed somewhere, somehow is not really that important and you can´t hide it behind presenting both sides equally. Not even mentioning that DanielUmel has habit of quoting alledged names which holds no importance from SANA as rebel casualties. How does that improve article quality? EllsworthSK (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If I try really hard I can get you every single name of Misrata citizens killed during battle of Misrata as they are presented on their memorial website. What makes you think that adding hundred MBs to the article which will contain names only will improve it and not destroy it? Those names are useless, they holds no importance and it first and last time they were ever mentioned, not even mentioning that they are not verified. It is destroying article. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out that wikipedia doesnt pay my bills and also I was for nearly three weeks out of the country. I guess it is shocking that I have a life outside the internet. This article isnt collection of every single information you find out there, it is encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia doesn´t publish every name you find on any unreliable source, what SANA is, neither of any vague informations. Usage of SANA and other pro-government unreliable sources is limited to keeping NPOV, therefore giving it the same space for reaction on rebel version of events and vice versa. Bytheway, I have nearly 2,500 edits on wikipedia and have been editing for more than 4 years, I heavily contributed to both Syrian civil war and Libyan civil war articles, including Commons. Right now you are nowhere near those numbers so dont go on me again with inactivness. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

3 Sept news

The General said that the Army had killed cca. 2,000 rebels (since the beginning of the Aleppo assault), we add this in the infobox or leave 700? Maybe I didn't get it right... --Wüstenfuchs 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should mention this then... --Wüstenfuchs 20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The 700 figure is from 11 days ago. The 2,000 figure you could say is an updated one because it is still coming from the same source, the government. I made the necessary changes. I'm only glad that an independent AFP reporter confirmed with his own eyes the military controls the whole of Salahadine, because we didn't have any independent confirmation until now. Only government and rebel claims which are both unreliable, but the only ones we had. That would mean that all the clashes that are reported from Salahadine are hit-and-run insurgent attacks and the rebel claims relayed by Al Jazeera (and only Al Jazeera) were incorrect. EkoGraf (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that SANA is a "trash" (as stated by the IP) and at the same time pushing Al Jazeera as a reliable source is completely inappropriate. Neither SANA nor Al Jazeera informations shouldn't be added in the infobox. --Wüstenfuchs 21:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I found Al Jazeera for the most part reliable during the Libyan conflict, because they were reporting independently with their own eyes. But found the AJ reporter in Aleppo relaying for the most part what the rebels are claiming so, not finding him really reliable. And when I say that I mean just him, haven't looked at reports by other AJ reporters from Syria. Mostly reading the BBC, Guardian, AP and the Telegraph. EkoGraf (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes Sky sends a correspondent and they have always good reports. As for AJ, I don´t even bother to check out AJA, its trash. AJE at least have their correspondents and made some good piece from Al Bab but that is about it. SANA is a trash and until Austin Tice was captured by army McCluthy had an excellent reports from him. Heard that CJ Chivers of NYT is going there as well and he was one of the best correspondents in Libya. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Combatants

At my talk page, DanielUmel proposed that a separate section should be created, and I wuold support this proposal.

I have in mind to create a new subsection that would look something like this:

---

Combatants

At the beginning of the battle the rebels claimed to have between 2,000 and 7,000 fighters within 18 battalions. They also recieved a large support from Mujahideen and foreign fighters. The Islamist fighters are being financed by the Gulf States like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. One of the Islamist formations involved in the conflict is the Ahrar al-Sham. Many foreign fighters are being connected to al-Qaeda also. In September 2012 a doctor in Aleppo reported that cca 60% of rebels' fighters in Aleppo are being foreigners.

The Syrian Army fought alone in the conflict, but eventually gained support from Christian locals who feard the Islamists and the possible outcome if the FSA would won the war. The Army also gained the support from the local Kurdish militia.

---

Ofcourse this could be expanded and we could also add detalis to give better insight. We could also add the role of the Kurds in the battle, which is unexplained in the article and we leave a reader without any aswer... the infobox, as I think, is not enough. One can think of Kurdish forces in Aleppo what ever he whants to without a proper explanation. Same thing is with Christian milita, why do they support the Army? Etc. Any thoughts on this one? --Wüstenfuchs 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is necessary considering we already have links to their articles in which the ocmposition is described in full. Sopher99 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but his involvment in Syria is personal. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what a non-personal visit would look like. Sopher99 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, foreign reactions are reactions of foreign governments... adding a doctor there doesn't look good at all. I would go with a new section, which can be expanded considering all those refs we did and didn't added. Some of them had additional infos but weren't added in the article because some other source was already mentioning the paritcipation of certain forces. For example the Christians, a month or two ago I wanted to add Christians, but I was unable to. And now we have them without any detalied explanation. My sourced explained what were their motives: they were fearing the possible outcome if the Islamists would won and that they could be expelled just like those Christians from Iraq etc. I'm sure there are plenty of sources explaining motives of every side. And to add, this example above is just a prototype... --Wüstenfuchs 18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We have entire section of the Syrian civil war article and hte Free Syrian Army article explaining things like the Christian view. I don't believe we need to create a section on a battle article for this.

We should create a separate article called Aleppo during the Syrian civil war. That way we describe ALL social aspect of before this battle, during this battle, and even after the battle. Sopher99 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The christian militia is a newly formed militia in Aleppo following the liberation of their quarters by the Army. They have to be noted. They are like the Lijan militias in Damascus.

Secondly, the foreign reaction is not good place. This is not a reaction to the battle, but an observation and a comment.

It should be introduced either in a special section, either in the continued fighting as an additional information on the battle. Sopher, you are trying to hide it I feel, but this is not correct. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the continued fighting section, because it is not continued fighting. Make a separate article called Aleppo during the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why a separate article... see for example the Battle of Stalingrad. They also have a special section at the bottom. Aleppo is a very important battle and structure of combatants must be mentioned. --Wüstenfuchs 18:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking only about Aleppo combatants, Kurds, Christians, foreigners and I believe we can collect some infos regarding the Army's unites involved in the battle. --Wüstenfuchs 18:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Crazy stuff above... "You will soon join him". :D --Wüstenfuchs 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the combatants section, made only some gramatical corrections, everything else looks great and balanced to me. EkoGraf (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. Seems Daniel's idea was constructive; I'm glad we added the section. --Wüstenfuchs 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag - misrepresentation of Kurdish position in infobox

The infobox distorts the position of the Kurds in the battle of Aleppo. The PYD is correctly represented as being against the Syrian government: “We are against the regime. We are not supporting it. If we supported the regime, we would have taken our guns and gone after the FSA.” [5]. Also see:

Date of the Article 8 September 2012

In a statement released on Friday, leaders of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) said, “The Syrian regime will pay dearly for this massacre in Sheikh Maksud [Aleppo neighborhood].”

“The YPG will not forget the blood of those citizens who lost their lives in the massacre and the units will conduct revenge and counterattacks,” read the statement. [6]

The infobox incorrectly indicates that there are no local Kurdish militia independent of the PYD militias that work actively together with the FSA, but rather only indicates there are some supposed local Kurdish militia working with the Syrian government. See the following actual situation: "tensions between the Kurdish Salahaddin Brigade -- now fighting in Aleppo under the unification brigade -- and the armed forces of the PYD". [7].

Also, there is a misunderstanding by some Wikipedia contributors as to the nature of the Unity Brigade. The Unity Brigade should be thought of as a higher organizational unit with brigades followed by battalions beneath it. See the following in depth report [8] that has the following statement:

The emergence of the Tawhid [Unity] Brigade marks a definitive development in Aleppo’s armed opposition movement: for the first time in the Syrian uprising, a unit has established a province-wide chain of command and is capable of coordinating operations between ideologically diverse battalions in conjunction with a provincial military council.

Also, the one source citing local Kurdish militias as working with the Syrian government has been grossly misread and distorted to push the opinion that Kurds are on the side of the government which the Syrian Ministry of Information has been trying to push in the media. The lines from the article that are used to create this distorted view are as follows:

Date of the Article 8 August 2012:

Hachem al-Haji, one activist in Aleppo, said the rebels moved into the area because local Kurds, after initially supporting the government along with other minorities, are growing more supportive of the opposition. Another activist said that the rebels met fierce resistance from residents fighting as part of the Kurdish militias.[9]

The above paragraph states that it was not clear what the position of the Kurds was at that time. There are two opposing views within the article. The easiest way to understand the sources is that the mentioned Kurdish militias switched sides to the opposition or at least against the Syrian government. As the infobox now stands it is outdated by at least a month and pushes the non-neutral point of view of the the Syrian government's Ministry of Information. Guest2625 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If certain group of Kurds fights in an unit that is already listed there's no point listing them in the infobox. Say, would we add 1st, 2nd, 3rd... regiments of the Army's divisions? Or maybe subgroups of other rebels' self-proclaimed "brigades." --Wüstenfuchs 00:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you missed what he said: "The infobox incorrectly indicates that there are no local Kurdish militia independent of the PYD militias that work actively together with the FSA..." That is, he is contending that there are Kurds not affiliated with the PYD fighting for the opposition. So no, this isn't at all like listing Army subdivisions because we aren't talking about subdivisions. Please read carefully. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't missed anything. Maybe Guest2625 whants to improve image of the rebels but it seams those Kurds aren't notable - they are subordinated to the brigade that's already listed in the infobox. The infobox doesn't have a purpose to improve image of certain combatant. Besides, you have combatants subsection. --Wüstenfuchs 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is pushing a biased view. The Kurdish Salahaddin militia and the PYD's militias are the only Kurdish forces fighting in Aleppo. The combatant section of this article itself states that all Kurdish Aleppo neighborhoods are controlled by the PYD militias. Who are these local Kurdish militias who are supporting the government? The fact is they are either the PYD's militias or the Kurdish Salahaddin militia and neither of these groups are supporting the government. The Kurdish Salahaddin militia actually is a local Kurdish militia that works with the opposition.

Also, I certainly do not want to improve the image of the rebels. I just want to state the facts in the most neutral fashion. I have no idea how the local Kurdish militias have anything to do with the rebel's image. What I do note in the infobox is that there is this piling on of detailed descriptions of the militias. Armenian militia?? Seriously. What about the Turkman militias. Or the Syriac militias. Or the Melkite militias. Or maybe the Uniate militias.

My main point is if you want to indicate a local Kurdish militia supporting the government (based on a tenuous and outdated statement in the nytime's article) then you need to also indicate a similar local Kurdish militia supporting the opposition (i.e. the Kurdish Salahaddin militia). Those are the neutral point of view facts. Everything else is some weird sort of ethnic/sectarian agenda pushing which I really don't get. Hopefully, the reader of this article uses severe caution when reading it and will look at the talk page to see what a disaster this article is. Guest2625 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. You see, the Slaheddine "brigade" is part of other brigade that is already listed. Now, pro-government militas are not part of the Syrian Army. This represents a problem. --Wüstenfuchs 00:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Salaheddine is part of FSA, there were report about them on rudaw long time ago. If someone wants I can source that. As for local Kurdish pro-government militia, most sources claim that in exact same district where they should´ve been in control, YPG is (was) in control. There is not and was no pro-government Kurdish militia, there was simply YPG which remained neutral to both sides and refused entry to both army and rebels. Just like in Kurdish areas elsewhere. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is saying that Kurdish areas are under governement control in Aleppo, so they are siding with the governement. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/06/uk-syria-crisis-aleppo-idUKBRE8850JQ20120906 --DanielUmel (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

From the article it's not clear what happened in the Kurdish neighborhoods. The Syrian government forces apparently retook the Kurdish neighborhoods after they bombed and killed 21 Kurdish civilians in the Kurdish held Aleppo neighborhood of Sheikh Maksud.[10] It appears the government did not like the fact that the Kurds retaliated by killing three government soldiers, since then they also began to arm the Arabs around Qamishli.[11] Guest2625 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA and sanity

Looking at the all the SANA sourced information it seems that the city is relentlessly cleared all of all rebel forces with tens of dozens dying every day and scores of technicals and weapons depots confiscated every day. Surely the city should be empty of rebel forces by now, is there some SANA explanation that this so for hasn't happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.116.107 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If we listen to what the rebels say they already control almost the whole country and the military was, per them, on the brink of collapse 8 months ago. So this is nothing new. Standard information warfare on all sides. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And we got caught in middle of it. Wouldn´t it be better if we just keep both rebel and government claims to absolute minimum, even if articles would have to get much shorter in some cases? Quality over quantity. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA claims to have killed several tens of thousands of opposition fighters at this point, more than even exist in the city. The opposition do not make these kinds of wild, unrealistic claims, and actually make use of the free press to vet their claims. The benefit the regime has is that in SANA, they have a state controlled mouthpiece through which to spout any kind of nonsense they wish, and are accountable to no one. Also the opposition do control most of the country, and the regime actually is on the brink of an economic collapse (not to mention moral). Users editing this appalling article would do well to read WP:NEWSORG and WP:SELFSOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.191 (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sign yourself in future. --Wüstenfuchs 14:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No.

Well, IP doesn't know that even in propaganda you are not allowed to say anything you want. If you are busted then you lose your credibility, like former Syrian Prime Minister who stated that Syrian Army controls less then 30% of Syria. He can say what he likes now, but who gives a damn. Syrian Ministry of Information wouldn't allow such stupid thing. --Wüstenfuchs 15:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA never claimed the military killed tens of thousands of rebel fighters. They claimed, like Daniel said, 2,000 were killed in a period of almost two months. Which would be around a quarter of the reported number of rebel fighters at the start of the battle. Its simple information warfare. Per SANA they are killing 30 or so rebels in the city per day, while the rebels claim they are loosing 5-10 fighters in the city per day. The truth is probably somewhere in between, 15-20. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And more regime soldiers than that are probably being killed "every day". That is the issue with relying so heavily upon a crack-pot outlet like SANA in the article. You only get one side of the story, i.e. regime soldier deaths go unreported even as their dead bodies litter the street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.37 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you acctualy believe that? That is impossible. Trained professional army versus normal citizens? Rebels have some supernatural power which is sent to them by the United States I guess. Only Hollywood movies can make such thing. Partisan movies were quite similiar... [12] :D --Wüstenfuchs 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Or thing called guerilla warfare. Tactic-of-choice by Syrian rebels. Overall, according to main article page, army has lost more men than rebels. So, nothing unimaginable, especially with those trained men having no training in COIN operations as whole Syrian army has been training for decades for one task - war with Israel. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehehe, nobody better than Bata, love that guy. XD In any case, agree with Wusten. I mean, SOHR publishes reports of, for example, 20 rebels dying during the day, while the government looses 30-40 soldiers. 2 to 1? How unrealistic is that? The government troops are heavily armed and proffesionally trained soldiers who have tanks and aircraft, while the rebels are barely armed and trained (defectors not making up the majority anymore) and only have technicals and a few tanks. In any modern guerrilla war in history, it was always the insurgents who were being killed more than the military. In any case, like I said, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Based on all the reports that have been gathered, the kill ratio is most likely 1-1, or just a bit slightly for the rebels favor. What I'm trying to say bassicly is, they are evenly matched. EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ellsworth you claim that all 20,000 were sent to battle? That would be a naive thing to do. And no, it's not guerilla warfare. It would be if rebels would hide in caves and forests and make minor attacks, but that is not the case. Battle of Aleppo is in the category of urban warfare. Also, considering supplies that Army is able to have and armed support that they have (artillery and air) it's not the soldiers' bodies that "litter the street."

@EkoGraf yes, Bata is an excellent actor. He is Serbian Robert de Niro, as described by many. :) --Wüstenfuchs 18:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And that negates my point how? There is also urban guerrilla warfare which is especially deadly in defensive position. Ambushes, raids, planting IEDs on supply lines etc etc. As for no modern guerilla warfare having more casualties on government side than on guerilla side, look at The Troubles or Tuareg_rebellion_(2012). I understand that when you say guerilla or insurgency most people tend to think about Afghanistan and Iraq, but you cannot compare US military to Syrian army. US military has infinitely much more experience and training in COIN operations, Syrian army has none. Anyway, it wasn´t really my point, my trust level to SOHR is about the same level as to SANA. I was just reacting on your "impossible" part". As for 20,000 Aleppo city is not the only theatre and I do not see one reason why Syrian government would help back 17,000 soldiers, just waiting in the barracks, playing footie while their economical capital is being destroyed. They either do not have them there (more likely) or they are dispatched not only to city but also to maintaining supply lines, countryside and such (less likely). EllsworthSK (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I swear everytime someone complains about SANA they don't really care about the truth. They just want to media that is friendly towards them. Which is silly because spinning information on Wikipedia changes little in reality. Yes SANA is biased. It's a pro-government source run by the Syrian government but you know what? That is known. Unlike the activists and the rebels who have lied repeatedly. One minute the army is brutally slaugthering innocent civilians like sheep (an activists actually used this metaphor) and the next minute the army is getting mauled pretty badly by heroic rebel figthers who don't even suffer a scratch. Just look at Tremeseh where the ethnic cleansing of Sunni civilians turned out to actually have been a case of the rebels starting a fight and losing very badly. Taftanaz base where the "destroyed" helicopters were flying around and killing rebels that attacked the base. Most media organisations have decided to simply regurgitate verbatim what they hear from activists so there is little indepedent news reportng coming from Syria. We need both sides of the story to get a glimpse of the truth.

Oh and I agree with Daniel. The rebel and activists sources for casualties are very dodgy. Rebel deaths are being hidden under civilian casualties. The rebels fighting in Aleppo aren't from that city. They come from the villages outside and they take turns fighting. They are also 90 minutes away from the Turkish border so it is very concievable that new fighters are joining to replace the ones who are dead/wounded. It has already been reported that more Jihadists are fighting in Aleppo.62.31.145.100 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Troubles and the Tuareg rebellion were different. The Troubles weren't guerilla warfare in the classical sense, like what we are seeing in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or what we saw in Vietnam for example. As for the Tuareg rebellion, there was almost no guerilla warfare there...the Tuaregs just ran over the Mali military. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. to Wusten, more of a Rambo or Chuck Norris than de Niro. XD EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA might exacurate some times with numbers of killed rebels, but is a very reliable source in giving the news of controlled areas by the army, certainly first and certainly before rebel media and the western media, which are informed by them, adopt it as a new. I must however stress the mountains of unreliable reports by western media and rebel sources about operations in imagination. 1-2 fail attacks in bases to seize ammo, was baptised as operations against the Syrian Airforce power!!! And these ridiculous claims are adapted easily by western mediaand trasmitted without verification as long with claims of massacre by the Army. Whoever so far the only side that executes and ask pride!!!! of that is the rebel side with their extreme elements.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Midan neighbourhood

Should we add al-Midan neigbourhood in the infobox? Many sources described this neighbourhood as an important (even key) part of the citiy. Independent sources reported that it's mostly under Army control now. --Wüstenfuchs 18:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Midan was government controlled from the start, the rebels only attacked it in the last week and have now been repelled. EkoGraf (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No the latest reports show that Midan and even further into Al-Sulaymaniyah are in deep FSA control. Please show sources...--193.174.105.74 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

An AFP correspondant told that the district was under governement control. Residents tell the same thing. I wonder what kind of source could report that Midan was in "deep FSA control", when it never was in FSA hands at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TartarindeTaras (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not one source ever said FSA controlled Midan. Most sources in the last 24 hours, including an AFP reporter on the ground, reported the government has reestablished control over Midan and even advanced a bit into Arkoub. All of the sources supporting this are already in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudanese SUNA

I find it very amusing that L7aseral is pushing very hard to mention the fact that SANA is behind every SANA report but desperatly want to hide the fact that the only claim coming that salaheddine is under rebel control come from an unknown Sudanese agency called SUNA.

Such an unknow source has no weight compared to AFP, Reuters and the other usual source. Not mentionning the source to make look like the information is more reliable than it is, is a clear breach of Wikipedia policy of credibility.

The formulations "rebels regained full control of Salaheddine" is dishonest without mentionning that it is a rebel claim only quoted by a sudanese agency. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, unknown press agency and furthermore nobody else has reported on the claim, which was made by one FSA commander and nobody else. If the rebels really did take Salahadine, I would think they would be trying to milk it for all the possible propaganda purposes on the TV or the Net. But I haven't seen that. No mention of it whatsoever. EkoGraf (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems that Sopher and L7seral are exchanging roles!--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok let him add whatever he wants, I have already made a phone-call to Aleppo and talked to people who live in the Iza'a area, they refuted such claims and assured that the Syrian Army is maintaining full control over Salahaddine, with minor skirmishes on its eastern border with Tal az-Zarazeer district which is still under the control of the FSA.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Map Needed

I think we need probably a google map of Aleppo and districts that the oposite sides control. It will be more easy to recognize advances, mislead (SUNA) and other info and to have a better view of the situation. Anyone with good exprerience in google map and the areas of Aleppo could give it an effort.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be Rafy. He did a great map of the loyalist-opposition advances during the battle of Misrata. EkoGraf (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating map of Aleppo would be considerably harder. In Misrata we had a lot of journalists, reporting all changes on frontline etc. In Aleppo there are some but mainly focus on city center, Salahedin and few others. It remains unknown who controls large part of city (fe east). EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through with Paint and made some piss poor ones of not enough quality to put up. There are however some gaps, where I'm guessing. Its unclear where the front lines around the souq are and where the front lines in the South are and far North west. In the east, I drew the lines based on the assumption that districts shelled are under FSA control; as such, there is a lot of information out there on that. Anyway, its a start; getting the first map up there is ideal, after which collectively we should have an easier time debating which areas are controlled by whom.

Anyone here able to make a map? this article really needs one. I've gone through with Paint and made some piss poor ones of not enough quality to put up. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/716/aleppomax.jpg http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/aleppomax3.jpg/ The maps shows the lines of control. 'Orange: Maximum Rebel Gains (areas previously held but captured are the souq, Salaheddin, Maidan, and 'the north western Christian areas. 'Red: Current Front Lines 'Green: Current FSA holdings 'Yellow: Kurdish militias 'Dark Blue: Active regime control 'Light Blue: (Passive) Regime control i.e. rebels occasionally launch attacks on military targets.

Piss poor quality image, but if anyone can photo shop something up... Grant bud (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your work is interesting, but, as you said, poor quality. Though there is a map at the bottom of the article... seems fair enough I'd say. It's from 8 September (12 days ago) and the infos about the al-Midan are not correct. However, I don't know anything about the Google Map (or Wikimapia - not sure) copyrights are. If it is allowed to use the map bellow, someone could just fix it and make it a svg file. I also menaged to get to this map. It's from 15 or 16 September. It looks similiar to yours. What are your sources for it? --Wüstenfuchs 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I compiled it using the battle of aleppo wiki page and a few maps from august, such as http://www.petercliffordonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Syria-Aleppo-Map-6.8.12-1024x579.jpg

Anyway I found a more accurate map, only difference is there has been some movement up in Midan since then and potentially in Ferdous. http://twitpic.com/aseyjv/full

Grant bud (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That map is already here under the External links section. --Wüstenfuchs 13:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty nice attempt, espacially the little outdated last ones. Finally we have a picture of the situation. As mentioned now the army advanced to Midan,Ferdous and reaching Arqoub area.....with a little update i think we van uploaded in a direct viewable part.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And the areas where the fightings are still active could be in blue colour, like in Syrian civil war map... ie no-men's land. --Wüstenfuchs 14:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Map from yesterday http://twitpic.com/awvpjj/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.23.252 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And i think this map must be uploaded without the green arrows. I dont think that there is some kind of pressure to the army but instead this pressure is uppon the rebels who are stadily and slow loosing ground. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Integrate this source, Rebel groups

Can we integrate this source in this article? I think it's quite good and many citations of this institute were includes in the main FSA wikipedia acticle...

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Backgrounder_RebelGroupsNorthernAleppo.pdf

It is about the different rebel groups in Aleppo and Aleppo province--217.247.195.246 (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Though, some of the informations can be found interesting the source is far from being reliable. If you noticed it's references, majority of them are You Tube links. --Wüstenfuchs 23:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn´t really matter in this case as they are used as secondary, not primary sources. If RS finds them reliable as well than so be it, Reuters and other agencies from time to time use several youtube videos also as a source (downing of MiG-23 in Deir ez-Zor for example) and those are incorporated into the article. I will look into the source tomorrow and try to figure out way to incorporate it. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is used as main source for the FSA article and by the use of video-materials and their objective analysation you can use them as a sctientific proof- which is in contratiction to many SANA News tickers --79.238.63.134 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox events

The operation about capturing the air ports is completely unnecessary. There were few attempts, bad attempts if I may say, but the rebels failed to do anything. I suggest we only add the real situation. If we leave this then we should add that the Army had launched an operation to recaputre the Bustan al-Qasr neighbourhood which is far more important then the badly-organised operation for the airports. --Wüstenfuchs 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong. The villag arround the main airport in Aleppo named Neirab is still under FSA control and it wasn't before.

Bustan al Qasr is firmly under the revolutionaries control, and if SANA is the only source which claim that than this would be a misinformation--79.238.63.134 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the City of Aleppo, aren't we... And Bustan al-Qasr is not "firmly" under the rebels' control. Every media confrimed that the Army launced an attack on 20 September and that they arrived to al-Fidaa al-Arabi school... so... --Wüstenfuchs 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The army has entirely cleared the Arqoub and Midan district and advanced through the Sakhour and Bostan Pasha districts as well, shall we add this progress in the infobox? As the Midan and Arqoub districts are very important industrial districts within the city of Aleppo.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

They are important, I had the same idea, but wasn't discussed very much... so. But do you have any sources to confrime those claims about Shakour and Bostan Pasha neigbourhoods...? --Wüstenfuchs 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Merah

User:EkoGraf's claim that "no one" had a problem with this being in the article is totally untrue. It has been removed several times before. This is the most ridiculous piece of POV pushing, literally claiming that the Syrian opposition are anti-semites who wish to murder Jewish children. Unbelievable even by this article's standards. One random doctor's claim, not even the militia men themselves stating this. But I see User:EkoGraf is really coming into his own as if to make up for the loss of User:DanielUmel. بروليتاريا (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would militamen say something that would trash their reputation? Though Aleppo's rebel commander addmits there is at least 500 foreign fighters only in Aleppo. Probably there is even more of them but as I said, nobody wants to trash his own reputation. This information however, remains important as we are talking about the combatants so readers can have better insights into the battle. Their inspirations are important even if they are killers of children. --Wüstenfuchs 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The unverified views of one person relating to something which happened in France a long time ago has nothing to do with Aleppo Syria.بروليتاريا (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are French jihadists who are inspired by this murderer who arrive in Aleppo to fight Syrian Army then an oppinion is important. --Wüstenfuchs 17:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Than why not mention the views of every member of the Syrian army and their deeply held view that Israel should be wiped off the map, leading them to shoot thir own fellow countrymen for wanting to potentially change that official policy? These things have nothing to do with this article. All you and EkoGraf seem to care about is adding as much pro-regime propaganda and anti-opposition smears as you can possibly fit into this already bloated article. بروليتاريا (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me to say - lol. Israel-Syria relations have nothing to do with the Battle of Aleppo and your claim about Syria position towards Israel is not correct. Maybe you watched Bashar al-Assad's interview back in 2008, he said once Israel returns the Syrian Heights that both countries will be able to improve their relations and that Syria does recongises the exsistance of Israel. You mixed up the statments comming from Iran's officials. --Wüstenfuchs 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Israel, the Golan Heights, Assad's statements from 4 years ago, and not even the year old domestic happenings of France have anything to do with the battle of Aleppo. You are so far off topic you have lost all sight of what the topic actually is. بروليتاريا (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't understood what did I wrote it seems. You said that "every Syrian soldier" whants Israel to be "wiped out from the map". I stated that is not true. --Wüstenfuchs 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh. And few years before that, Walid Muallem was painting a picture of an impending apocalypse when al-Saud proposed Arab-wide recognition of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from Western Bank and Gaza strip. Syria does not recognize Israel or its right for existence, that is why Bashar money and weapons goes to Gaza strip and not West Bank.EllsworthSK (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, off-topic and irrelevant to the issue at hand. EkoGraf (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

adding Mohamed Merah to this article is totally trash and would just verify that this whole article is just another oppostio-smear site and the MAIN PROBLEM IS that the Site is protected and it is only edited by one-sided pro-Assad users citing from SANA and Press-Tv and whatever--79.238.63.134 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whay so much paranoia? And the article is not edited "by one-side pro-Assad users", that is celar enough. --Wüstenfuchs 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First of, the sentence is properly sourced and fulfills Wikipedia's verifibility category. Second, this goes to user 79.238..., the claim came not from SANA or Press TV or whatever, it came from a pro-rebel French doctor cited by the New York times. Further, the sentence does not in any way state that the Syrian opposition are anti-semites, rather the French jihadists being that, which is properly explained. Third, the terrorist event which Mohamed Merah committed did not happen a long time ago, rather it happened barely 6 months ago. Fourth, we include anti-government information, as you would describe it, into the article as much as anti-rebel information. Fifth, I could understand your desire to exclude information coming from SANA, but trying to exclude information from a pro-rebel doctor that could be damaging for foreign rebel jihadists is simply pov-pushing. Sixth, your accusations that I am attempting to replace the sock-puppet master Daniel in pro-regime pushing is highly out of line and in breach of Wikipedia's rules on assuming good faith with other editors and civility. Seventh, if you can not produce any reason to exclude the information, based on that the information and source are in breach of Wikipedia policy, than you would simply be pov-pushing or trying to remove the information simply because you don't like it (for which there actually is a Wikipedia rule Wikipedia:I just don't like it). Finally, I would like to say that the information is properly sourced, by a verifiable and reliable news agency, the New York times. And it properly explains that the doctor was talking about the few French jihadists present at the front, not the whole opposition as you claimed. EkoGraf (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring to have this included? Why are you claiming only two Users have an issue with including it, when clearly as many as 5 Users take issue with it? From WP:SCOPE: "Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus". You are claiming a false consensus, and framing your own flagrant POV pushing as opposite of what it is. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why am I edit warring to include it? Why are you edit warring to exclude it? What 5 users? For the last couple of days it was just you and I7aseral, only today we have had Tradedia jump in, and he hasn't not been editing anything in this article at all or very very little, not to mention you also seem a newcomer to the article. You have 3-5 other editors who have been editing this article on a regular basis and I haven't seen any of them removing the info recently. And if you are referring to the anonymous user, per his comments from this and all of the previous discussions on this talk page, it is obvious he is not keeping a neutral POV and has been making unverified and unsourced claims, I don't see how a consensus can be reached with such a person. I am now asking you - why are you edit warring, and why are you so set on removing the info (when its properly sourced)? And also, given per your edit history, which is only 3 days old, have you even read all of Wikipedia's policies? EkoGraf (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a new one, I thought a User had to actually first edit an article to be accused of edit warring... and yes I know WP policies, including this one: WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I suggest you read it. بروليتاريا (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When I said edit warring I was referring to your heated discussion here on the talk page to have the info removed, I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. As for the WP policy you pointed me to, I am very well aware of it and per it Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I don't know if you can find a more exceptional source than Reuters [13], where the interview with the doctor was first mentioned. And since it says multiple sources here you go [14], another exceptional source, the New York times which also picked up on the story only two days after Reuters. So that's two exceptional sources for you. Also, if you are still questioning the reliability and notability of that doctor I would point you to the New York times piece where it is said that the doctor helped found the medical group Doctors Without Borders. So as far as I see it with just those two sources the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Reliability and Notability are all checked. If that's still not enough, France Info, also relayed its own report on the story [15]. EkoGraf (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

At the very least the "murdering Jewish children" part needs to go, it is far too much POV pushing. And the claim needs to be clearly attributed to the person, which isn't the case right now. Other than that, I still don't see the necessary consensus for inclusion. بروليتاريا (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is already attributed to Jacques Bérès, read the article. That whole section starts with Jacques Bérès, a French surgeon who came to Syria to treat the wounded in the rebel-controlled parts of Aleppo...' Also, the whole point of this discussion, which you started, was to try and find consensus to remove the sentence. Per Wikipedia policy as long as the discussion is ongoing, or if a consensus can't be reached, a status quo exists in the article that we don't change the information. The information was there in the article for almost two weeks before you started a discussion on the possible removal. Also, the article does not say "murdering Jewish children". That is too POV and I agree. Instead, it says, in an encyclopidic manner, Mohamed Merah, who killed seven people in terrorists attacks in France, including three Jewish children. The sources say it, and we say it so to keep the reader informed about who Merah was. EkoGraf (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement "including three Jewish children" is non neutral and gives undue weight to the religion of three of the seven victims and has been removed. Guest2625 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, the reader could click on the wikilink. That is, after all, what those are for. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lothar proposal. I do not have some serious issues with naming Merah in the article, after all it is what source states but for the sake of compromise we can remove the part about murdering Jewish children and leave his name with wikilink where every reader can read about his actions. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop mis-framing the inclusion of this sentence. it was recently added at some point in the last 2 days (I'm not going to sort through all the diffs to pin point when). You attempted to add it a week or 2 ago, and it was immediately removed. It needs to be removed again, it has no history of being in the article, no consensus, and basis for being there anyway. بروليتاريا (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't included only two days ago, it was included two weeks ago, but a couple of editors tried to remove it from being mentioned on several occasions. But Wusten, me and Daniel always reinserted the information shortly thereafter. In any case, I agree to Lothar and EllsworthSK's compromise proposition. The children mention be removed (as Guest2625 has already done, thank you), and leave the mention of Merah with a wikilink to him. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Daniel ChronicalUsual ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I know that now. EkoGraf (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"The government has discussed the use of chemical weapons on Aleppo..."

This is an unsubstatiated rebel claim made by "Major-General Adnan Sillu, who defected three months ago". Now:

- chemical weapons are useless in an urban area attrition battle

- why would the governemt consider "using chemical weapons on Allepo" three months ago when there was no fighting there ???

Please someone remove that text or at least make it clearly a rebel allegation, not a "fact" as the current wording does.46.135.96.22 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In which section is this? --Wüstenfuchs 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Svg Battle Map

I've made a Battle of Aleppo map. I based it on the map in the external links at the end of the article. If there's any changes you think that needs to be made to it, tell me, or you can also just edit yourself if you want. Enjoy. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice attempt there. However i must observe that this kind of map show pressue to the Syrian Army who are not seem to loosing ground but gaining it slowly. So the arrows pointing and the total rebel control colour beyond the frontlines and to the hole area i dont think that they represent the situation. Nevertheless it is a pretty nice attempt.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. Like I said, I based it on an another map, which I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate. I agree that the FSA control of the periphery might not be very accurate. I also wanted to add arrows for the Syrian Army, but I'm sure where. Any recommendations? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also have a look to areas that controlled by Kurds. In some maps they are present. The Kurds are not FSA certainly and they hold big territories of the Green map :). --Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Great job, seems to be up to date and to accurately represent the situation. As for User:Dimitrish81—the Syrian army is only, as you say, "gaining [territory] slowly" in very specific areas, while losing ground on the whole. You could call it a few small Pyrrhic victories on the road to defeat, if you can even call briefly wrestling control of parts of a few districts an actual victory (honestly I don't think you can). بروليتاريا (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand. This was the situation at the beggining of the month. Rebels are unable to make an effective offensive. Previous maps just didn't included those parts of the city and nearby area. However, if you compare the map from mid-August to the current one it is clear who is winning the battle. --Wüstenfuchs 01:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. Rebels just this months took Suleiman al halabi, Arqoub, bostan pasha, bab nasr, and half of midan. The syrian army only took a quarter of saif al dawla and Half of Salaheddine and thats it. I7laseral (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No you are the one that does not understand—it is already over for the regime whether you want to admit it or not. And If you compare maps then no one is winning. Territory is just shifting with roughly 50/50 control of Aleppo (that is, the city itself, as the opposition control the vast majority of the governorate). The only difference is: a) The Syrian Army is dangerously overextending itself b) Any state of affairs other than a total Syrian Army victory equals a Syrian Opposition victory, due to the regime becoming less and less financially viable. بروليتاريا (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you see, at the beggining of the battle rebels had 70% of the city and were in offensive since then, but still they are losing ground. Tell me, how bad is it when an army is in offensive but lossing terrotory? Consider Red Army in 1942 continued to lose ground? That is bad, isn't it? --Wüstenfuchs 13:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wüstenfuchs said, the rebels/terrorists controlled most of Aleppo and over the past month their territory has slowly lost ground. For instance Hamdaniya etc was under rebel/terrorist control. I believe over the past few days the army is now in control/fighting in Fardous. The green arrows on the left are incorrect as the government are bringing supplies in on that road. Also the green under the airport is false but it doesn't really matter.Exat (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation in country as in Aleppo itself change rapidly after the army offensive. All important cities are controlled by army except parts of Aleppo. Whoever even in there, the rebels are controlling some vastly inhabitant neighbourhoods, without strategic importance, due to lack of men and arm power to hold bigger areas. Damascus and Damascus countryside was cleaned by rebels almost totally and the Kurds are ban any FSA fighters who wanted to infiltrate in their territories forming their own militia and checkpoints under the tolerance of the Syrian Army who is present only in the barracks of those cities and not in the street. Reviewing rebels also hold some boarder cities with Turkey and they are totally subject to the help of foreigners, more and more, in supplies even in fighters. Especially in Aleppo, which is the only city with front line, they are large numbers of foreign fighters. This subjectivity of rebels to foreigners more and more to supplies and fighters, saws exactly the deteriorating situation in their ranks and who unpopular are becoming day by day. On the other hand the Syrian Army has no serious defections and are slowly and methodically, in order not to be accused for bombing habitant areas, advancing.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In all other areas when we see videos in youtube etc...they are all by ambushes and bomb attacks hold by rebels due to their tactical weakness to create a full scale front. This is the first step in order to transformed from an armed group to simply terrorist organization by planting bombs and act with this tactical pattern of behaviour. Even in Aleppo, where a frontline is present, they act with this way showing exactly their weakness in attack and capture position's and the choice to act vigilant by this way. Look at the IRA, when they realise that there is no end to that and defeat is eminent they simply go on bombing acts and forget the confrontation. i also like to advise that the Syrian Army consists of 1000+ high rank officers only!!!!! So the defections we are hearing in time to time they are simply unworthy of speech, in terms of numbers and position's in the Army .--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA was only 10,000 fights in January. Now they are 60,000 here in September. There were 5-10k civilians fighters also fighting in January, now their are 40,000. If they couldn't be killed when they were weakest (December-January) what makes you think they can kill the FSA now? 4 months ago the FSA did not even have the capacity to attack Aleppo and Damascus. 4 months ago there was not even a single FSA soldier in the Aleppo province. Sopher99 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA came and entered Aleppo before the army take orders to face them. That started in August and since then as i said rebels lost all cities except some neighbourhoods in Aleppo ans some small towns near the boarders with Turkey that are under constant army shelling and attacks. All major cities are lost and even rebels are admitted that in Damascus and Damascus countryside. The Army does not say big words or operations they simply advance. The rebels are all day in youtube with videos of ambushes that certainly dont proove that they held areas. They also pronounce operations that never happened or are not worthy of speach as the operations against Syrian Air Force!!! Their last important desperate attack was in hanano base in order to grab ammo and even there after the initial reasonable surprise, they pushed back by the army with significant casualties.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If battle would last for another three months foreigners would be a vast majority in Aleppo... they are the only one recieving a decent aid, money or weapons. Even now the number of foreign jihadists in Aleppo is way to large. --Wüstenfuchs 13:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

True rebels are stadily loosing ground to Aleppo and lost all major cities in the country from partial or total control after the army offensive(Hama,Homs,Daraa Governorate,Damascus suburbs and countryside,Idlib and loosing steadily the countryside etc...) and i mention above to the creator of the map, who made a pretty good effort, that they aren't included in the map of Aleppo areas controlled by the Kurds(Green area) and their militia. They certainly aren't FSA and know exactly what they will become if religious extremists prevail.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA is not losing ground in Aleppo. They recently regained 2/3 of Sallaheddine, gained midan and sulemani al Halab, gained Bustan al pasha, and Bab nasr districts. Sopher99 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

When the syrian government take control of Aleppo, which I suspect within a month or possibly half of that, the rebels would of lost their last bastion. This will allow the government to then retake any border towns/villages. They have already cleared most of the high rise buildings within Aleppo which were the most difficult. Exat (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. The FSA still have 2/3 if Homs, Daara, and Deir Ezzor, and most of the Damascus countryside. The FSA has not lost any territory in Idlib, in fact they only gained: Harem, Sarmhada, Maraat Misrin, Jis al Shigur, Ariha. Sopher99 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA doesn't have 2/3 of Homs at all. It doesn't control neither Daraa nor Deir ez-Zour nor the Damascus countryside... Even where they have control it is a large battle there. However, we should end this discussion. See the top of the talk page - No general discussion. It's what we are doing right now. --Wüstenfuchs 15:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. The FSA controls everywhere from Al qusor/Al khaliya to Deir Ballba to Bab sbaa to bab tadmor and Jourat al sharyia in Homs. The FSA controls both Daara al Balad and Daara al Mahataa of Daara city (80-90%) of the city, and everything in Deir Ezzor city except for the streets near the airport. Sopher99 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, right... :) Now we end the discussion. --Wüstenfuchs 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, I was referring to the north. Aleppo is the rebels/terrorists main bastion. They have committed the majority of their resources (men/tanks/ammo/oil etc) in the north to the battle. If the government secure it, it will allow them to launch attacks on Al Bab, A'Zaz etc. Exat (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I originally started this discussion with the intention of receiving advice on how to improve the map and make it more accurate. There seems to be disputes on who controls what. If you can provide reliable sources stating which areas in Aleppo are under whose control, I'll be happy to update the map. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Futuremillionare, you map is excellent... the best one we can have. It's impossible to know how the city looks right now and to be 100% accurate. Maybe at the end of the month we could have clarer picture. --Wüstenfuchs 15:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Future you made a nice job! just take a look some previous maps that they have the areas that Kurds are controlling. Take your time and if you have time update the areas that Kurds control inside Aleppo. This area now is with green.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Kurdish area should be added... yellow colour is maybe a good choice. Here is the map from 5 August... the Kurdish-held areas remained however, almost untouched. --Wüstenfuchs 16:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Remained unattached because the Army doesn't have any reason to attack areas that are not hostile to him and the Kurds dont have any reason to attack the army--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the Kurdish territory in the north of the city should be of a separate color from the rest of the rebels. Also, when you look at the surrounding countryside it looks as if the FSA has the city surrounded, when in fact the military has several ground routes into and out of the city under their control. Otherwise the map looks great, good work Future. P.S. Sopher, it was never confirmed the rebels retook 2/3 of Salahadine. It was only one claim by a rebel made via a Sudanese press service, nobody else of the major news media followed up on that info. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then... the map is good. --Wüstenfuchs 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned about the city's periphery. Several people brought this up. In reality, the Syrian Army should to have more control over the country side than it is depicted on the map. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well... it's impossible to be 100% accurate as I said. The source you used showed different countryside map 15 days ago... but you know, it's the latest map so... But I'm sure we will get the new one in 10 days or so or we could make changes based on RS statements. --Wüstenfuchs 17:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, based on all of the news reports, the northern and northeastern approaches to the city are rebel-controlled (reinforcements coming in from Azaz and al-Bab), the eastern is unknown (area around the airport), the southern and western are military-controlled. So I think the only major change that need be done is to the western approaches to the city, which the map at the moment shows is under rebel control. Or, maybe, a better solution would be to just color the countryside with a totally different color, not to indicate who has it under control, but just to indicate its not the city itself. If you get my meaning. EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to know the exact border... south from research centre? --Wüstenfuchs 18:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Check map here [16], it can be seen where the urban areas end. EkoGraf (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the Future excellent job we have something very close to reality. Agree with EKO, that we must sign the boarders of the residential area of the city, in order to know what controls every side inside the city.Also it will be nice if we had the neighbourhoods that we have operations this time like Arkoub or others to understand where is the front-line now--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the Army has controlling areas in the western side of the map. Its obvious that they have supply lines from there. Also we can colour differently the map in those areas or simply leave it without colour as it is in some part out of the city area.Seeing the map now we can easily understand why the army is advancing to the areas with red arrows, simply because there is no threat from the Kurdish areas.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Its also obvious that the attacking operations of the army having the objective to clean up Fardous, Qasr and the other neighbourhoods in the belly to straight up the front to the line citadel-airport. Western areas of the map are not an operational front something that mean that the army probably controlled them throw checkpoints in the road arteries. However this is just a logical assumption and nothing more. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Arkub

According to the central news bulletin of Syrian TV and the video footage from a residential area heavily damaged it seems that the army is controlling Arkub area. The reporter at the end says that is transmitting from Arkub. Can anyone with knowledge of Arabic help us? State TV Bulletin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC) --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC) (Is a way to stay registered-loged in all time???)

YouTube is not a reliable source. Sopher99 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not Youtube Sopher, its the central news bulletin of today simply uploaded to You Tube and the reporter is tranmitting from an area is calling Arkub and seems badly damaged.You didnt see the video obviously, its apx at the minute 10--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well... I said earlier that rebels' offensives are to weak. Now, @EkoGraf, you suggest we cut out the countryside or I understood you wrongly? --Wüstenfuchs 19:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

EkoGraf is suggesting we make the map the same size as the map he showed us. Sopher99 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Which implies cutting the current one. That's the same thing I said. --Wüstenfuchs 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a reference here to fighting in Arqoub http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=3570 . On another note, how about another colour (or stripes) for areas where it is not clear who is in control? Exat (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a RS, not even close. We don´t know nearly nothing about half of the city, we are basing the map on mostly unreliable sources. With all due respect Futuretrillionaire, I know that your intentions are good, but I don´t really think we should have map with this limited number of RS. Heck, half of the article is made of claims by SANA and SOHR. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire made a mapp according to the one from the External links section. But I need to say that SANA was so far always correct considering the territorial gains. Also this map is rather in rebels' favour not the Army's. Even the CNN reported that the Army is already in Suleiman al-Halabi and Akrub neighbourhoods. --Wüstenfuchs 22:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was suggesting to cut out the countryside. The areas like Saif al-Dawla, Akrub and Suleiman al-Halabi are obviously contested territories and they may need their own colors to indicate this. EkoGraf (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No they don't. Besides then the same rules would apply for sallaheddine, midan, Zahra, and new aleppo Sopher99 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher I really have no idea where do you get the news, but that's far from being correct. Also, name one SANA report which was incorrect, considering territorial gains...? EkoGraf, I agree we make stripes in Saif al-Dawla, Akrub and Suleiman al-Halabi similiar like in ethnic maps where the populations is mixed. Same thing can be applied in this case. --Wüstenfuchs 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I insist however someone with arabic knowledge to take a look at syrian tv video footage from Arkub, where the reporter was in a badly damaged area claiming that it is Arkub. As for SANA i agree again that in territorial gains they are the most reliable source of the conflict.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Look in the article. I left CNN's report as a source ther in the Continued fighting section, last paragraph (look at the photos from Aleppo and their discripition). The CNN confrimed this report from the Syrian Television. Funny thing though... The Telegraph reported some sort of Jihadi International in Aleppo - Jihadis of the world unite! :D --Wüstenfuchs 23:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to the Assad regime and its sponsors/suppliers in Belarus, North Korea, Iran and Russia... Dying totalitarian dictatorships of the world, unite! (if for no other reason than it will be us next) بروليتاريا (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, aint that a shame... --Wüstenfuchs 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No not a shame at all. Its about time for these lumbering cold war relics to meet their long over due final destination already; the Ash heap of history بروليتاريا (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was just joking (I was sarcastic really)... You are disussing unimportant things... this is not a cheering forum. --Wüstenfuchs 00:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the map, add Salaheddine and Midan to the "contested areas" and I think we have a good compromise. بروليتاريا (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this 23 Sept. AFP article [17], Midan is still under Army control while the FSA is moving into Suleiman. Haven't seen any news about fighting in Salaheddine. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Saleheddine is ridicilous. Only one rebel claimed this and this was reported only once in the unknwon Sudanese newspepers. Also to note, you should mark the green part of the Bustan al-Qasr as orange. --Wüstenfuchs 00:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No - but Zahra should be marked as orange http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/rebels-hit-army-hq-in-aleppo-30676513.html Sopher99 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done It indeed looks like the rebels are attacking the army base, not sure about Zahra though. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

All reliable news media, including Reuters and AFP, have confirmed the military firmly controls Salahadine and Midan. Street fighting is ongoing in Saif al-Dawla and Suleiman Arkub, where the military is the one who is on the offensive. The rebels captured Arkub shortly before they made the attempted attack on Midan, which the military repelled, now the Army is trying to push back into Arkub. As for Zahraa, per the video source itself the rebels are not making a ground attempt to capture Zahraa or the Army base, what they are doing is hitting the area with mortar rounds from a distance, no mention of ground/street fighting in Zahraa itself. So the previous image of a rebel advance arrow on the edge of Zahraa was ok, but not an advance into the district itself. So I think you should revert that last edit Future. Otherwise everything else looks great. EkoGraf (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf, can you reach WP:CON on this article's talk page before taking direct action to modify an image, as you did here not even waiting 3 minutes for other editors to respond. You are setting a bad precedent with that kind of behaviour. User:Futuretrillionaire created the image and has proven to be a balanced editor; it is important that these matters are discussed and then handled by a responsible editor. بروليتاريا (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I sorta jumped the gun there with Sopher's video. I'll try to be more careful next time. If it's clear I made an mistake, I don't mind people reverting the map. Btw, does anyone know what's going on now at the airport southeast of Aleppo? That part is kinda confusing me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't "jump the gun". Clearly if Opposition fighters are close enough to mortar the base then it is contested. With the map reverted no one would even know that is taking place. Which of course is the editor in questions intent. بروليتاريا (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general comment, but I'd like to say good work on getting the map up; not perfect I imagine, but it seems to reflect a consensus of what is going on in Aleppo, which is the best we can do. In terms of relying on SANA, Youtube or Rebel claims, I think its important to note whether certain claims are contested by the opposing side. I have not heard rebel denials that Midan was recaptured byt he military, for example.

And for what it's worth, for those curious about who is winning, my opinion is that we have a clear stalemate and that the tactical gains that the Syrian Army is making in Aleppo are irrelevant. In reality, neither side has the resources to put into the battle to force a decisive victory. Rebels are tactically losing ground within the city but seem to be increasing pressure on the surrounding country side, supply lines etc. The main cause of this loss of ground in the city is lack of supplies and ammunition - assaults seem to come in waves, matching a pattern of foreign-supply lines; so even if you saw the FSA almost forced out of Aleppo, a big transfer of ammo and weapons could reverse the situation almost immediately; absent of this support however, the FSA will be unable to gain ground. Grant bud (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

First of user with the Arabic spelling name, there is a Wikipedia rule on going and being bold in your editing, and I figured this was a good time of being bold given the source was incorrect in that there was ground figting in Zahra. Second, you are aware that for example 82 mm mortars have a range of 1.8-3 Km? So it does not necessarily mean they were in the district itself to hit the base. EkoGraf (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As of Midan claims, the Governor of Aleppo was there today under the footage of Syrian state tv, said that the restoration of the area is under way and that the power plant in midan is damaged with efforts to bring electrical power from other areas. As for water he said that there is no problem to water infrastructure. They are in the 1530 english news bulletin of Syria TV with video footage. Beyond their words video footage is the only proof we can take as a fact and its there. As of Arkub the SANA reports progress in recapturing parts of the area but not announcing the full clear o it. They are pretty cautious in that subject and never claim an area that they haven't secured yet.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done As requested by EkoGraf on my talk page, I've made the Army base to New Aleppo areas unclear (orange).-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool, looks great. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone what's going on at the airport southeast of Aleppo? I heard news about rebels attacking airfields a while ago, but I'm not sure if it's still going on. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Been quiet lately, last reported the military repelled those attacks. EkoGraf (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Bustan al-Qasr also needs to be coloured in orange. --Wüstenfuchs 15:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the map is good now. --Wüstenfuchs 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, just today reports were of ground fighting in that area. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Its easy to check that by ourselves. Look at the SANA page on the link Airport, we can see about the flights depart or arrive from Aleppo(if there are scheduled). If so the airport is working obviously fine. We can even phone them i belive directly to get certain a day we have doubts. We can identify ourselves as the writers of history or beter the printers of it :) --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wüstenfuchs you are violating wikipedia rules of neutrality by being pro assad in your writing , be neutral here,the fsa isn't losing land,the actually gained land the fsa controls part of salaheddine, and there is a stalement mostly and the the syrian army attack at saif al dawla has failed so for that they are attacking other places in aleppo .Alhanuty (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Future millionaire if you have the time, position detail near the areas of the frontline, in order the map especially in these areas, to be precise. Buidings of interest (etc the reservoir in Arkub) and others like subneighboorhoods by dots or something. The nicest would be every area to has its name and main buldings in the area of the fight in order to better understand the course of the coalitions when we here some subareas or buildings of importance like today. Nice job by the way :)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In light of this http://sana.sy/eng/337/2012/09/25/443492.htm and other news agencies. Should we change Arkub to red/pink and should Shaar and Sakhour be changed to orange? Exat (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Also to this http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2012/September/middleeast_September275.xml&section=middleeast but lets wait until the evening news. I think that Syria media channels will certainly have correspondences from Arkoub, to confirm with video footage. Its also clear that clashes are in the boarders of Arkoub with the other neighbourhoods...if Arkoub is confirmed then pretty sure the other closed areas are part of the conflict zone.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's captured, but SOHR says it's not. It's always like that. Rebels claim they are still holding the ground for next three days and then they admit they don't hold anything. We will wait probably two more days I think. --Wüstenfuchs 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In the time to confirm or not this the areas next to Arkoub that mentioned with clashes i think they must go to ongoing conflict and orange colour. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

New title for the next paragraph for this section

The title "continued clashes" is looking a little full. I believe that a new title is needed. I was going to suggest "stalemate" however the battle, particularly now that detailed maps are being put up, appears to show "rebel gains". Especially to the West of the city around New Aleppo the rebels seem to be making gains, if they overrun or at least blockade airport this will be a major development. Please add your suggestions, "stalemate", "rebel gains" or "government offensive"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjblair (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I renamed the section few days ago to Continuing Army offensive but the title was reverted. --Wüstenfuchs 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the map does not show rebel advances. What it does show is that they are conducting a few hit-and-run attacks in the New Aleppo area, not a major bid to take it. And the military is making attempts to advance into Arkub and Bustan al-Qasr. So as of the last few days its the military who is trying to advance, specificaly in Arkub. Haven't seen any reports of attacks on the airport for the last few days. We will see what happens over the next few days. Maybe the rebels will attempt a counter-offensive. Leave it continued clashes until a major territorial change happens, like the previous rebel capture of eastern and southern Aleppo, military recapture of Salahadine and advance into Saif al-Dawla, and military repelling of attacks on Midan, Hanano and the Christian area. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Wüstenfuchs 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Which reminds me, shouldn't the arrow pointing a rebel advance into Arqoub be the other way around? Because all of the reports from the last few days have said the district was rebel territory and the military was the one attempting to advance into it after clearing Midan? So the arrow should be pointing an attempted Army advance from Midan into Arqoub, like from Salahadine into Saif al-Dawla and from Jameeliya into Bustan. The arrow about the rebel attempted advance onto Hanano is ok, reports of attacks on the area and the barracks are being made daily. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As of territories where clashes are reported and a front-line isnt present(like New Aleppo) we can mark the area of the clashes with a ping, or something different than an arrow(which shows some troop organized move) of your choice and in the background leave the colour of the opponent who is generally controlling the area. T hats because when we have hit and run tactics, in a checkpoint.... we cant say that the area control is disputed due to the lack of a front line there. However disputed areas are existing in the centre of the city as correctly already coloured and pointed with arrows that present a organized troops move with occupation objective. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

al-Jdeideh They are mentioning that they clear out this area(where is it?) and in addition to the previous mentioned the area of reservoir in Arkub. Beyond that they report clashes to the roads that leading from Arkub to the other attached neighbourhoods. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Also Karm al Jabal area seems to be uncharted.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a Christian area they already claimed they took 1 month ago. I7laseral (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I7--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a Christian area that the rebels attacked a month ago but the Army repelled them in coordination with a Christian militia several days later. A AFP journalist later went to the area and confirmed it being under Army control. EkoGraf (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eko, the map shows slowly in detail how the operations are evolving and what the objectives are. These come with some accordance to statements made by Syrian Priminister, that the straggle is now to a decisive point..... --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The rebels aren't gaining in the area around the airport. A few months ago they all but controlled the area next to the airport except for the road. The army cleared them and then they came back and the army cleared them. If they are advancing to the airport they don't seem to be succesful and the Syrian Army only seems to be interested in securing the airport.62.31.145.100 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian - rebels losing the battle problem

Where is the problem? The article is writing about the foreign figthers. l7laseral claims that I only add one sentence from the whol article but he forgot that I editied the combatants section, added Chechen commander and every possible info from the article I have added here. Now it's biased, rebel claims they are losing the battle but it's biased ofcourse. You are the one who erased large part of the combatant section, so please don't say I'm only adding this one sentence. It can not be biased, it's rebel claim. --Wüstenfuchs 18:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One single rebel claim from a rebel who is not part of the FSA does not go in. I7laseral (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So he must be part of the FSA? Jihadis aren't fighting? They are allies. One rebel who is there, involved in fighting doesn't metter, but when an "activists" says the city is being bombarded, then yeah, it's fine...? Why don't you erase activists' statements? --Wüstenfuchs 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He is not a commander, just an observer. We do put statements from everyone in, especially when we don't even know the time in which he said it. I7laseral (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He said it on 23 September, it is when Guardian reported visited Aleppo and wrote an article. Activists are also observers and we put their every statement, even the irrelevant ones. --Wüstenfuchs 18:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We certainly do not. We only put in their specific reports. I7laseral (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We do. The article is full of the "an activist said". What do you want to include with this stetement, a failed jihadi attack where they lost 10 men in two days? --Wüstenfuchs 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)