Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.31.145.100 (talk) at 11:16, 26 October 2012 (→25 October 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Facebook as a source

I have removed facebook as a source in the article for several reasons. One, self published sources can only be used "as sources of information about themselves" (see WP:SELFSOURCE). This includes facebook. Thus, we can use SOHR facebook page to talk about SOHR, but we cannot use the information they post on it about what is happening in Syria. Also, many of the links were simply to the general SOHR facebook page, with no actual link to the post in question, making those references about as useful as simply referencing aljazeera.com, and no other information. Hopefully there are third party sources that can be used here, but facebook cannot. Jeancey (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I would agree with you. However, we have been using this as a source for months now. It is the official page of the highly notable SOHR opposition group. And almost daily numerous respectable international media outlets (like BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Reuters, AFP, etc) have been using the information from those same posts in their reports. Thus that gives in-on-itself reliability to the posts. The posts that we are using are all exclusively made by the organisation itself, not unknown Facebook users, because the page has been made in a way that only the SOHR organisation can make posts. As for your privacy changes fears, there are no problems in that regard, the page is open for all users to read, has been from the start. And I am not alone in this, because, besides me, multiple other editors of this page have been using SOHR as sources for this article, specifically for casualty figures and locations of fighting. So in conclusion, the posts are nether self-published or questionable (as Wikipedia would put it) given they are posted by the organisation itself and are used by notable news media. EkoGraf (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. However, to ease your fears and for compromise, I will try and replace those face sources which are replaceable with others, for the sake of compromise and to ease your fears. EkoGraf (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket objections to particular sources seems a bit foolish to me. I think each source needs to be taken within the context. Many reputable organizations use their facebook page to broadcast news and events; SOHR's english site IS the facebook page for example; likewise youtube footage that clearly has a date and location, should also by all accounts be accetable, as should SANA in cases the information is consistent and not objected. However I do agree other sources are prefered *when* available.

175.106.63.3 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced maybe 5-6 facebook sources with non-facebook sources. Wasn't able to find alternatives for the rest. EkoGraf (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR's facebook page is as pro-rebel as SANA is pro-government, just with more reliable figures. Name me a day in which they reported more dead rebels than soldiers. They now have pictures of captured Syrian soldiers on their facebook page. I thought they were observing human rights violations, not rebel successes. Unlike Libya there are few foreign correspondents on the ground, the front line is all over the country and these two sources (while heavily biased) are the best we have. We should only quote from SOHR when mentioned in a "respectable" news service like BBC, Al-Jazeera and Reuters. (Cjblair (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Frontline Operations

Map update suggestions: 1. Zahraa area dont seem to have(west of the army positions) activity and army positions there aren't claimed by ground assault (they have army manned facilities in the area) 2. The attack in Kurdish area has repelled and no action from there is reported today. 3. Aleppo airport area also does not seem to be a battlefield-ongoing fight area also. 4. Bab Al Nairab area or parts of it are mentioning as an ongoing-conflict zone(quit logical if we think that the area is attached to the old city)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually rebels Captured the area around the airport 3 weeks ago, and the army has not taken it back since. Same with the Zahra and new aleppo. The FSA took Sukkari, so it should be green. Furthermore clashes are going on in the Izza (radio building) and thus should be put to orange, also the government controlled Aizizya should be put to orange now. As far as I know there are no clashes going on in Bab al narab other than shelling, and the rebels were not repulsed from Shekh mehsud, in fact the SOHR says the PKK retreated from many areas. Sopher99 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels did capture Sukari, but later several sources, including rebel ones, confirmed the military made an advance into it and since than the area has been contested. Just yesterday SOHR reported clashes in Sukari. Some countryside on the edges of Zahra and New Aleppo is under rebel control, but not the districts themselves. I say some because its already been confirmed the military has still a western ground route out of the city toward the Turkish border, for which the rebels have been fighting to gain control for the last 10 days. Several people have asked for the location of Izaa (including me), but nobody seems to know where it is actually located. We should try and figure it out because it seems one of the main rebel headquarters is located in Izaa. EkoGraf (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a rebel headquarters, but rebels are fighting government forces constantly there. Its the small rectangle on the map that says "tv station". Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my bad, I thought it was because one of the meetings of the battalions a few days ago was at the headquarters of the Tawheed brigade in Izaa [1]. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ground assessment of Eko and confirming that Izaa is the tv station area. After yesterday claims of SANA of successful repel of rebels, today we do not have clashes report from any source about fight there as i know(kurd area). PKK-PYD, after the first fight with the rebels gave its positions to the army who repelled the main assault(this in order to be done has some coordination between the two of them). Rebel presence and clashes are not referring at all in the area of the airport which is under government control. All rebel assaults are coming from the east of Aleppo. If rebels had access and ground presence in other areas, this would be shown in the decisive attack of them, due to the fact that attacking from behind is an advantage you cant throw away.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done -Okay these are the changes I have made: (1) area around the army base has been changed to red from orange, due to lack of ground activity; (2) The area south of the airport has been changed to red, due to lack of activity; (3) Izza (TV/radio/media center) area has been changed to orange; (4) Aizizya, a small neighborhood bordering the southwest corner of Hamidiya, is colored orange. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a few people have asked me to make some color changes to the map, especially the color of contested/unclear. They say it looks to similar to the Syrian Army color or something. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better idea. Howabout we JUST keep the orange. Take out rebel control. Take out Government control. Its too hard to really know who controls what, as all that counts as control is where the tanks and troops are. You can't say anyone controls empty countryside. Lets only have the map for where clashes are currently taking place, orange. Saying where governmental and rebels control is arbitrary. It would also save us from alot of fighting over who controls what. Sopher99 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, its quiet easy to have the picture and now we have it as much as we can, thanks to Futuretrillionaire changes. The eastern part of the city is controlled by rebels, the western by government (including the airport(PYD position is clear). The rebel assault is in the city centre areas mostly, which were controlled by army and we have marked some of them(were assault and clashes are active) as orange already.... the battle is ongoing.... and I think we have a pretty reliable cover of it...--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of the colour of the conflicted zones you can put something with lines or a colour of your choice, if the existing one is similar????(dont think so) with the army colour.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Map looks great at this stage, no need to change anything at this time. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you missed this. "Another unit of the armed forces targeted a gathering for terrorists near the Cotton Gins area, east and north of al-Jandoul roundabout in Aleppo." Rebels did not contest it http://sana.sy/eng/337/2012/09/30/444374.htm I would say we should turn Shqayyef industrial area and Owaija district brown. Exat (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map update Suggestions (1) Kurdish area Masqoud is not part of the frontline operations, controlled by Kurds.(SANA dont even attempt to claim control there) (2) Some other media today, transmitted SANA claims ,that Halabi and Sakhour neighbourhoods are under government control.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sana is not reliable. Sopher99 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like a broken record. Sana is the state run news network where journalists and people report to. The same people who go and tell your CNN's, Euronews, Reuters etc the news. Exat (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we have disgusted this and nobody wants to admit that SANA and others news sources are unreliable. However i believe truth facts can not be hidden from the light of truth. Kurdish areas are secure from Kurdish militia's, whoever due to SANA non objectivity we must, i sppose wait from a different source. CNN and others are not mind, whoever the existence of those (nonobjective sources) due to my opinion seems obligatory to stand an event here. Your conclusions are yours. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map update Suggestions Can you include the Great Mosque of Aleppo as a landmark? The Citadel is listed on the map, both are subject to fighting and both are strategically and internationally important. Thanks in advance. (Cjblair (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

PYD and PKK presence

I have visited the Sheikh Maqsood district by myself and noticed that the PKK groups are present every where, which you can figure out through their flags. By the way, I never saw a flag of the PYD.--Preacher lad (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is OR. I am not saying that you are lying but simple "I was there" is not enough. Also I saw a lot of flags in other Kurdish territories (Erfin fe), all of them were "flag of Rojava", or simply PYD flags with few Kurdish flags here and there and protesters something waving with Ocaland and PKK flags. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take or find a photograph of these PKK flags, then we'll talk. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know EllsworthSK (talk), that only remains OR. Anyway I will try to provide pics and links if found.--Preacher lad (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A journalist from The Australian [2] spent some time with the FSA recently and during that time he described the Kurdish militias as Assad-backed. So I'm questioning again whether we should move the Kurdish militia to the government column, with a separation line of course. Opinions? EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's official! There are PKK fighters in Aleppo: (New York Times) -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, the reporter specificaly said PKK fighters are Assad-backed. So I was wondering whether we should put them in the government column. If people are against it than fine, was just asking. EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: are all the Kurdish fighters in Aleppo pro-Assad? Do we even need a separate column for the Kurds if all of them are in the PKK? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PYD column and put the PYD under the opposition column, while putting the PKK under the Syrian government column. I think that sounds fair. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, these two sources provided in the article suggest that PKK aren't the only Kurds in Sheikh Maqsud. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The PYD and PKK are both in Sheikh Maqsud. They are reported to have ties with each other, but they are not on the same side? The PKK are definitely supporting the government, but aren't the PYD fighting against government forces? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's apparently very fractured opinion amongst Kurdish groups as to how they should play a role in the conflict [3]. I'd say just stay closely tuned for any more information to further elucidate this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Lothar said, there is a very confusing situation on the Kurds. On the one hand you had the incident in which government troops killed several PYD members on the airport road and they retaliated by killing 6 soldiers. It was the only incident of Kurdish-Army fighting in Aleppo reported. On the other hand, we have two reports of rebel attempts to advance into Kurdish areas and the Kurds, backed up by Army units and government-air strikes, repelled them. So you see the conundrum. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, we will not get any clear source about the situation on the ground till this is all over. What you see right now is many times bad journalism, there was no journalist in Shekh Maksoud or few in Kurdish controlled areas, all of them found strong anti-Assad sentiment. As for PKK, they broke ties with Syria after what Assad kicked Ocaland from Bekka and handed him to Turkey. Read this to get an idea about PKK position. As for Shekh Maksoud, YPG and PKK logos are very similar, may cause confusion and among those who are not even aware about PYD and YPG existance even more so. As for Aleppo, there is also this
Furthermore, clashes took place between rebels from the Tawheed brigade, pro-Syrian militias and YPG fighters in the Kurdish district of Sheikh Maqsoud in Aleppo last month when the YPG tried to drive both groups out of the district. Following this incident the Tawheed brigade threatened the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an indirect reference to the PYD, on their Facebook page, and called on the “PKK gangs to drop their weapons immediately.” [4] EllsworthSK (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering if that NYT article was referring to YPG as PKK just because the groups are connected. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, there are tensions between the rebels and the Kurds. The question is how these Kurdish fighters are organized in Aleppo. Are they part of the PKK or PYD or both? Are the two groups working together, or are the Kurds really just a collection of small militias, each with their own goals? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That quote says that Tawhiid brigade refers to PYD as PKK because of their connections. Frankly, my own opinion is that there are no PKK units but only PYD militia (ie YPG) which are being thrown to one lot or another as someone sees fit. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that the PYD is the Syrian branch of the PKK.Milliyet link1 Milliyet link2. Someone has to change the infobox immediately.--Preacher lad (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not and no one has to do it. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, PKK commander denies PKK presence in Syria. [5] The reporters might have relied on opposition accusations. Looks like we might have something like the Hezbollah-Iran debate again.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we split this page please?

Aleppo is the biggest city in Syria and fast becoming the biggest battle. The Timeline of the Syrian civil war has six pages over an eighteen month period. I believe that this battle will be edited at a later date but for now it needs to be split. It can't be split chronologically because it is based on phases of the battle not months.

In the alternative perhaps the paragraph titles should be changed to months. I believe that it would also make it easier for a novice user to follow and we are following events day by day it would, as an interim step it would only require some editing to place events into months and change the paragraph headings? Then, if needed, splitting it would be easier. cjblair 20:00, 4 October 2012 (WST)

There is already an ongoing discussion about it. --93.136.67.18 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First we are making attempts to cut out all the extra non-notable junk stuff. But it takes time. We asked Future to look into it because he is a balanced editor. EkoGraf (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how about making timeline article and/or and articles about battles of some districts if this article still remains relatively big after that? --93.139.211.164 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, will there be any splitting/forking? --93.142.247.217 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Articles like this are the norm for most Syrian civil war and Libyan civil war battle articles. People post new stuff as news arrives. Overtimes, it becomes a long timeline. The best solution would be to start summarizing the content already posted for a while. Give me a day, I'll see what I can do. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make Timeline of the battle of Aleppo article and leave only relatively short summary of the course of battle here? --93.142.247.217 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know a single good battle article on Wikipedia that does that. A separate timeline article is not necessary, and makes things harder to find for readers. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FutureTri, I'd vote against a split, too. The size of the actual article text is not egregiously large. It just has a lot of references. And as some else pointed out in another discussion, the timeline articles appear to have little oversight and are highly POV. When this battle end we can clean-up this text by summerizing and splitting if necessary. --MarsRover (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. And how about the battles for key districts, like Battle of Salaheddine, is the idea to make such articles of any good? --93.142.247.217 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Salaheddine has changed hands multiple times, making one battle for it difficult.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Districts recaptured (Al-Akhbar)

"The government forces, regained control over the neighborhoods of Salaheddine, Azamiyah and most of Seif al-Dawla..."

- http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/12904/

The whole article is very well useful. --Wüstenfuchs 09:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Akbar is a Nasserist and pro-assad newspaper. Sopher99 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All Lebanese newspapers are either strongly pro-M8 (thus pro-Assad) or pro-M14 (anti-Assad). Finding a middle ground there seems to me fruitless. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, al-Akhbar. Though English version is not as bad as Arabic. Saif al-Dawa was not taken by Syrian army, photojournalists were making pictures of rebels fighting there just yesterday [6]. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Saif al-Dawla... --Wüstenfuchs 18:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He said most of Saif al-Dawla, not the whole district, and an AFP reporter on the ground confirmed last month that the upper half of Saif al-Dawla was government-controlled. EkoGraf (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish area: There is not one report the past days that fight is going on in masqoud area. I red some sheels dropping but not even a report of clashes from the government side or by the rebels...Kurds more likely have the control there. Beeing certain now that the fight is mainly in Jamal-Bustan al Basha area we can conclude that previous reports of SANA (first in the air before others admit it) wasnt unreliable. Ofcourse we canot believe the numbers of casualties given but in area mapping the gains of the army are firstly printed by the SANA reports. Other sources are unwilling to confirm or even dont have the ability to do so.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jabbar al-Oqeidi is dead

sources: [7] [8] [9] Dafranca (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now lets try some WP:RS EllsworthSK (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CBS published an article where he was interviewed. A good way to inform that he is alive [10] But also, we have to know that there are sources that are in favour of the rebels and they are allowed in Wikipedia. For example see the Timeline article. LOL, pure propaganda.--Andres arg (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive from the west

Perhaps it should be added that rebels advance from the west and are on the outskirts of the western side of the city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.167.150 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources to back that up? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We probably have to wait till Monday, but there are clashes near Military Research Centre in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.167.150 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS:They just downed a plane there, videos all over the youtube. Press will wake up on Monday like usual... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.167.150 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 rebels fighting?

This article says that according to "Arab diplomatic sources", there are 20,000 rebels fighting in Aleppo. I have no idea about this site, is it reliable? Has that been mentioned anywhere else? If it's reliable, the infobox should be updated. Esn (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels' casualties and flags

The rebels casualties shouldn't be marked with flags as now... There is FSA flag, but reports aren't specific. For example, vast majority says rebels were killed, and rebels are the jihadists as well, so it is impossible to separate jihadist from FSA casualties. The number of jihadist casualties is simply unrealistic considering their presence in Aleppo. We should remove those flags. --Wüstenfuchs 21:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually not that many Jihadists in Aleppo: [11] [12], contrary to what Assad wants us to think. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are... rebel commander said there is some 500 foreigners, but probably far more... Jihadists would trash their reputation. Nevertheless, foreign medias also report large number of jihadists, including the Guardian. Still, this is not the question. The problem are those flags. --Wüstenfuchs 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't now how is that Billionaire thinking about Assad's intentions but at least we are living the situation around us AS IT IS. Bustan al-Basha and Sakhour districts are mainly under the control of FOREIGN JIHADISTS.--Preacher lad (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25 October 2012

Now, at this exact moment, heavy clashes are going on between the FSA and the armed groups of the Kurdish PKK in the Ashrafiyeh and Syriac quarters.... I wander how some editors are still insisting to classify the Kurds as a pro-FSA power!--Preacher lad (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no clashes. They simply left. Besides the Popular protection committees is different than the PKK. Sopher99 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because Wikipedia editor "Preacher lad" isn't a reliable source? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sopher is very funny... what about the Syrian Army tank that advanced towards the al-Zuhoor main street?? I took photos by myself but I will not upload so don't ask about them.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why won't you upload? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter if he does upload; it wouldn't be a useable source, anyway. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will uncover the moves of the Syrian Army.... ok I will upload one photo of the terrorist snipers.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not forcing to accept my photos as a source... I'm only interested about what I see on the ground...and I'm feeling safe now as the army is advancing through our district reaching the main roundabout that connects al-Zuhoor with Ashrafiyeh area.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we know the general direction in which troops are headed. Your continuing use of partisan rhetoric and labels makes anything you say (or upload, for that matter) suspect. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine, from the beginning I said I will not upload any photo, and yes I am pro-Assad.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Preacher Lads' photos on Commons. A lot of the recent photos seem that he claimed to have taken are pictures of places in Armenia, not Aleppo. Care to explain? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well my clever mate... maybe you don't know that the flight Aleppo-Yerevan-Aleppo is still being operated twice a week.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Praecher's POV there now seem to be indications [13] the military is regaining control in some areas after the rebel push this morning. EkoGraf (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Ashrafiyeh and Zuhoor areas are under full control of the Army and the people are chanting for the Syrian Army... The Kurdish PYD flag is raised again on the roundabout at the entrance to the Ashrafiyeh district upon the escape of the Jabhat al-Nusra militants.--Preacher lad (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I thought you said there were no PYD flags in Aleppo. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I said and I was wrong.--Preacher lad (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am gratefull for Preacher trying to inform us on the situation in the city. It helps in the way so we can sift through all of the different info that comes in, but we still need reliable news sources that confirm the retaking of Ashrafiyeh and Zuhoor. Until that happens, per the sources that are available, we can only stick to FSA and Guardian reports of the situation that have been coming in since this morning. Situation maybe becomes clearer tomorrow or later tonight. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out: I took the photos on the spot earlier today, during the offensive of the Jabhat al-Nusra in the New Syriac quarter (al-Zuhoor). Early morning offencive civilian killed by the militants--Preacher lad (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how you know that they are Jihadists, and how do you know that it was them who killed the guy, who you claim to be a civilian. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They reached the area with two stolen public transportation buses, painted on them Jabhat al-Nusra in Arabic language, chanting Allahu Akbar. They were checking the ID card of the people on the streets, when one of the civilians refused to stop and started to run away before being shot by the militants. Early morning, during the incident, there were no any presence of the Syrian army in the area.--Preacher lad (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the first pic but the second pic I know you stole from twitter. I saw that second pic being passed around by the pro assad accounts many hours ago. Sopher99 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is forced to believe my claims, I'm not even interested in editing the article as it needs much effort to correct the misinformation being shown there. I know that Wikipedia has turned into an anti-Syrian or anti-Assad propaganda outlet.--Preacher lad (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am an amateur network activist and I have released many photos regarding the events in Aleppo. I do not care about who believes or not... I believe in what i see on the ground!--Preacher lad (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the first picture could be verified, it could be a nice addition to the article. I have no idea how one would go about verifying it, though... I don't suppose Google made any streetviews of Aleppo? No, probably not... Esn (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not requested to believe... but every kid knows the street styles in Aleppo and the famous Aleppine stone used in the buildings.--Preacher lad (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very complicated situation. I dont buy the supplies trick for the army pull back??? they have depots and solid food to last with a true war and certainly they are no shortage of that there. Nevertheless they have air routes for emergency supply as in Deir Ezzor however it will be interesting to have the opinion of Preacher today. Its just an opinion but he claim he is on spot.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well it looks like Preacher lad was telling the truth despite the hostility toward him. Well according to Joshua Landis the guy who broke the story yesterday about the rebel advances. The government has taken back the neighbourhoods by the evening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhvfRJ43JLE&sns=tw

There is also video of people in Aleppo celebrating the arrival of the Syrian Soldiers. The fact that this many civilians are out at this time of the day without fear suggests that the rebels were kicked out and never had full control of these areas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-RGIWMLlU&feature=plcp 62.31.145.100 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New map of the situation

This the new version of the map that was used before for the one in the infobox, please make needed changes [14] New map should show offensive from the western suburbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.81.202 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This map is rubbish: Rasafeh area in the west is under FSA control, the Syriac quarter and Zuhoor are not under the control of the PYD, Hazzazeh is an unclear area, 80% of Bostan al-Pasha under the Syrian Army control and the soldiers of the army are drinking coffee now in the sports academy of Bostan al-Pasha, Sakhour is an unclear area as well.--Preacher lad (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same map as the one used before for maps in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.81.202 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I originally used that guy's maps to make a svg map from scratch. I did not intend to keep using his maps. I intended to update the map I made using reliable sources. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard another story diametrically opposed in connection with the events of October 25th. The frontline would not have really moved. They would be 200 men who deeply advanced in districts held by regular army but without succeeding in making them rising up and who thus would have been pushed back rather quickly. On the other hand it is possible indeed that regular army benefits from the truce to forward reinforcements weapons and ammunition to its troops downtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.202.245.44 (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012–2016)&oldid=519926191"