Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)

This Article Should Not At All Be Deleted

The battle is ongoing and is being discussed by numerous media sources.75.72.35.253 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Mother of All Battles"

I've been reverted the first time I tried to fix this, but I think it's a bit silly to have the "mother of all battles" quotation in the first sentence. The quotation is from a pro-government newspaper and is just an empty bit of hype; it's not even a description of the current battle, but just a prediction for the future. If it needs to be kept, let's at least move it down in the article; we can probably agree that this newspaper's prediction is not one of the 5-10 most crucial facts about the battle. Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Why it is silly? We have a "Operation Damascus Volcano" at the same place in the Damascus Battle page and other editors opposed the addition of (by the rebels). The mother of all battles sentence has been used in every media now. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, fair enough. However, the linked source only names one Syrian newspaper as saying it. I think my summary of the source was fair to give context; I'm not sure why you changed it without providing other sources. Perhaps we could get a third opinion? Khazar2 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the same case than in the Damascus page. There is one source who called it like that and it took off in the media and now it is commonly used. Make a google search about Aleppo mother of all battles and you will see.--DanielUmel (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, found a washington post piece that supports your claims and inserted it in place of the Yahoo citation if that's okay with you. Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mother of All battles is not academic, and looks silly. Especially when you compare this little skirmish to actual battles of enormous scope and historical signifigance, like Stalingrad, where the number of Germans and Russians killed in the space of an hour was even greater then the numbers killed over the past few weeks in Aleppo. Get rid of it. ArcherMan86 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Mother of all battles is pretty stupid to be honest. It comes from a pro-government newspaper and not even the government. If you remember the Damascus battle it was repeatdly called the "final battle" by both the government and the rebels. Yet on that page the only names are "Battle of Damascus", "Operation Damascus Volcano" the latter being what the rebels actually called the operation before they lost and kept quite about it. It was one of their leaders Qasem Sadedine who called it that. That's different from "the mother of all battles". Especially seeing as how losing Aleppo won't damage anyone permenantly. The rebels don't need it and half the city hates them. The Government will keep it's Damascus core intact while knowing that the rebels can't use it as a Benghazi because of the loyalist support.62.31.145.100 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

12,000 foreign fighters

It's interesting to see how the article puts in the most absurd number by Syrian media sources in order to be non neutral. Such "balanced" editing does not benefit the article. Obvious propaganda should be avoided. Guest2625 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's absurd, but as long as it's clearly flagged as a Syrian state media claim, I think it's worth keeping, if for no other reason than that it's interesting to hear what they're claiming. Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

At my knowledge this is the only non rebel numbers we have --DanielUmel (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any difference between taking information from Goverment sources and opposition sources? Seeing as how there is more than enough evidence showing that the opposition is willing to lie or force civilians to say certain things? I'd say both of them should be kept. The truth is somewhere in the middle and most media organisations don't bother or can't verify what the opposition is saying is true. 62.31.145.100 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother bringing this one up. Sorry to say it, but EVERY article about the Syrian Civil War is downgraded in value because some people put SANA reports in. Every day, SANA claims that at least 30 "terrorists" are killed, every day the army destroys cars/technicals, and still the Free Syrian Army advances. The neutrality argument is invalid. If you look at CNN, BBC and Sky News, or Al-Jazeera, they all have boots on the ground in Syria, and all of there reports are more linked to opposition figures as regime figures. It's like listening to North Korean news, and trying to pierce through that imaginative world. But still, as to the "neutrality", we should propably endure crazy SANA reports for some time longer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The articles also quote the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," hardly a reliable or neutral source, either. It would be good to find reliable sources, but unfortunately, almost all primary sources of information are propaganda outlets for one side or the other. Even more troubling, it is difficult to determine whether many of the primary reports are simply fabricated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Media organisations that have boots in the ground are either in government held areas that are very safe or are embbeded with rebels. Accurate reporting isn't very common as we saw last year in Libya. Also there isn't an argument about the prescence of forgien figthers in Syria seeing at how Libyan figthers have been boasting and rebels have been admitting Jihadis are working with them. They are present and the rebels will diminish their number/importance to keep the money/weapons tap open while the government will exaggerate to demonise the rebels. If you want to be strict on reliable source then the majority of the sources used on the Syrian uprising pages should be deleted. The vast majority of information comes from opposition sources who have time and time again been shown to lie and distort the truth to support their cause. These people aren't in the business of reporting news with any kind of journalistic standards. They're aim is to change their government.62.31.145.100 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Rebels Shariaw law , executions and Al Qaeda

I have provided sources (Reuters) showing that rebels had established Shariaw law courts where they are judging and executing captured soldiers.

I have also provided a source showing that the rebels had executed ans slit the throat of a soldier. (again Reuters)

Thirdly, a rebel commander has acknowledged that Al Qaeda was fighting in Aleppo. So they have to be included.

But some editors are trying to prevent rebels abuses from being shown in this page. All of this has to be ketp. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Alqaeda clause is unsourced. He only recognized that Alqaeda was in Syria, not that they were fighting in Aleppo city.

Second is that the Reuters source does not mention sharia courts once in its 30 or so paragraphs. Sopher99 (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources are 1)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-syria-crisis-justice-idUSBRE8700KT20120801 2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-syria-crisis-hospitals-idUSBRE8700IE20120801 3)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/01/syria-crisis-aircraft-attack-aleppo-live

--DanielUmel (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

About Al Qaeda, the citation of link in my 3) "Al-Qaida are now in different places in Syria, they work separately, they are even in Aleppo. We do not work with them. They have Syrian and Arab fighters and they have their own targets and weapons." --DanielUmel (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

At what specific time on the guardian page does he say that? Tell me the literal time (4 hrs ago - 9 hrs ago ect) Sopher99 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1h 3m ago --DanielUmel (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharia courts does not mean Al Queda presence, Sheik is talking about Aleppo province and also this AQ thing is frankly getting on my nerves as some journalists are describing every jihadists as AQ. Is al-Nusra jihadistic? Yes. Is it part of AQ? No. Were those foreign fighters who abducted two journalist few weeks ago jihadists? Sure, they even had their own emir. Were they part of AQ? No. And most important of all, AL QUEDA DOES NOT HAVE A FLAG! Shahada above the moon is battle flag that jihadists claim that was used by Muhammed during his campaign in Arabia, hence they adopted it. It does not belong to AQ, al-Shabaab or whatnot, it is simply is. I am also going to kick into hornets nest as bring up WP:DUE. There are journalists in Aleppo, none of them reported AQ presence, rebels inside the city meanwhile denied it Where are they? The Chechens, the Africans and the Pakistanis, all with so many weapons?. Hell, even state media did not say that AQ operates inside the city (aside the usual terroristic criminal gans) EllsworthSK (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you again acting like you know better than the media sources? Wikipedia goes by the media sources, not by EllsworthSK opinions. The rebel commander said Aleppo, not Aleppo province. And he said Al Qaeda, not Jihadists. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You know DanielUmel, you could add this source yourself. It can serve better while in article. --Wustenfuchs 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don´t really have to give a bloody damn about your opinion. First. WP:DUE. Second. WP:RS. First one is self-explanatory and RS goes for Sheik who is not a RS. That settles, I do not know why I have tried to have any discussion with you. It is useless as useless gets. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Murder or execution

The article says the following,

The Al-Berri tribe announced that they will avenge Zaino Berri, executed by the rebels. The Syrian Observatory confirmed that Berri tribesmen joined the fight in Aleppo after the murder of Zaino Berri by the rebels, the previous day. [84]

But the actual reference says Zaino al-Berri was executed. I'm changing the sentence to, "... the execution of Zaino Berri by the rebels, the previous day."

87.50.2.170 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tribes and Shabiha

The rebels are calling the Al Berri Shabiha because they oppose them.

We should take the neutral approach and just say the facts: Shabiha are mainly Alawis militia men that were assembled during the civil war to counter sunni rebels. The al-Berri are a local Sunni tribe that existed well before this civil war. It means that they are not Shabiha, just pro governement tribe. We can mention the oppositions accusation of Zaino being a shabiha, but not in the infobox --DanielUmel (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse, but with a reliable source. --Wustenfuchs 18:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Shabiha comes from all sects, al-Berri was well known before he was executed and he was leading thug in the city, you´d just have to read some arabic sources to know that. They are also not a tribe, but a clan. Big difference. Removing them from infobox, that is something I support. They are not that significant to deserve their place in there. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All sources say they are a tribe, but I guess one more time you know better than the source like AFP, Reuters and all others? Anyway, they are completely notable since they are now part of the battle. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I never saw a source claiming they are part of Shabiha, so I think it would be good to add them as a separate combatant. Article about Shabihas also states that they are exclusively Alawites, while the Berri tribe is Sunni. Also important to note, all sources mention them as a tribe, while al-Jazeera mentioned them as a "Sunni clan". --Wustenfuchs 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No? [1] [2]. Many sources reported it, Shabiha is not Alawite exclusive, just read the article about them. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are full of it. As usual. Is France 24 not a RS [3]. Is Telegraph not RS [4]. LA Times? [5] and load of others. So why dont you just shut up? EllsworthSK (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, on Wikipedia clan page "Clans can be most easily described as tribes or sub-groups of tribes. " --DanielUmel (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharia?

An editor reverted my attempt to remove this unsourced information. [6] I've taken it out again, but others may wish to keep an eye out also as I'm off to bed. The source clearly does not mention sharia, courts, or executions in the hospitals. Since these are extreme claims, I'd suggest we find a very clear source before allowing this information back into the article. Khazar2 (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been reverted again without discussion. I won't do a third revert, but someone else should look into this issue; this source is clearly being misrepresented. Khazar2 (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If only you was able to read. It was already decided on the same talk page above. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Skip the personal attacks. All I see above is you saying "All of this has to be ketp" and Sopher pointing out that you're completely misrepresenting your sources. Is there another part I'm missing where everyone starts to agree with you that it's okay to have unsourced claims of extrajudicial executions? If you have a source about Sharia law, just put it in the article already. Khazar2 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is above. It is in my 1) or my 2) . It is quite unfortunate that you have to be babied so much just to find something obvious. And at the end you will be forced to agree with me because that's what written in the source. I find it amusing that you are losing your nerves so quickly for something you don't understand. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's a better source all right. Why didn't you just put it in the article to begin with? Connecting it directly to the hospitals is a bit WP:SYNTH, but a period instead of a comma would fix that part up. I'll insert it in a minute. In the meantime, you might read WP:V; controversial claims need sources in the articles, not a link to the wrong article. Khazar2 (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm probably near enough 3RR myself that I don't want to tamper with this further for 24 hrs. But Daniel is correct in his source (if not his bizarre hostility). Will someone use his sources above to rewrite the "Sharia court" paragraph into a more sensible form? Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

The source describing that there is alqaeda in Aleppo is false; the Word Alqaeda coulnt be find in the Guardian arcticle but only in (ONE!) comment in the comment section; so no proof for alqaeda 79.238.63.35 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The word Al-Qaida is however used. --Remiason (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can't expect protection of the page as it needs to be constantly updated and its on main page also... so... its protection could only make damage. --Wustenfuchs 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah

The source for involvement of Hezbollah in the Battle of Aleppo doesn't say at all they are involved or fighting. I don't want to start a new edit warring, I'll rather try to explain the problem here. The source in its title says that Hezbollah was "sent", but later in the text it is states that Hezbollah "could be used in the Battle of Aleppo", now some users must know a difference between words "could be" and "is". --Wustenfuchs 14:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We can put "Alleged" Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't as it is not alleged. It is only stated that they might be used, which means they aren't still used, if they are even in Syria. And alleged informations aren't good thing in Wikipedia. If we would add alleged infos, then you can freely add that Elvis is allegedly still alive in article about him. Besides, no other newspaper mentions such thing as Hezbollah in Aleppo. --Wustenfuchs 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)