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 90.191.23.252 (talk) at 06:51, 13 June 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Size

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

Sorry, I said I was going to continue to summarize the earlier and middle sections. I'm now very busy working on the Hurricane Sandy article. Living on the east coast of the U.S., I can tell you guys this has caused massive havoc, and it's getting a lot of attention. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Largest hurricane ever? Btw What's the situation in NY? --Wüstenfuchs 01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future has been the best one in this situation to downsize the article and with a high degree of neutrality and keeping the article encyclopedic. When he has the time he said he will do it. Sections Rebel attack and capture of Eastern Aleppo through Stalemate have already been cut down to an appropriate level. That's five sections down and eight more to go. EkoGraf (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick reference pass, just to remove unnecessary params and such and cut about 2k from it. I think that if we find some more general references for some of the background and early info, we could cut it down more. Jeancey (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's because there were a lot of conflicting reports over those three days what was really happening in Salaheddine. And, for the sake of compromise, we had to include all of the reports. Now that 3 months have passed and we really know what happened its easy to summarize. Excellent job on the section. Woot! :D EkoGraf (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, great work indeed. --Wüstenfuchs 23:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Back over 200k again.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about removing SANA's outdated clashes reports and SOHR's bombardment reports? --Wüstenfuchs 18:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. That also improves the NPOV quality of the article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have removed those paragraphs that I consider to be totally unimportant, I left only those that seemed to be significant... Someone should take care of the prose though. Maybe we should propose some sections for the WP:GOCE? --Wüstenfuchs 20:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Anyone object to replacing the large amount of "On (date) November, this happened in this location" with something along the lines of "Throughout November, fighting occurred across the city, with rebels making gains is (new rebel areas) and the Syrian army making gains in (new regime areas). At least (number of deaths) were reported to have died during the month" I think those two sentences pretty much cover 90% of the information in the article for November. Any truly major events could probably be listed on their own, but the day to day stuff really needs to go. Jeancey (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut some unimportant info from the middle sections. The article is now down to 182k. In response to your question, that would not be a bad idea, but cutting unimportant info is still a first step.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in western Aleppo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separate line in the infobox

For second time, I'll raise this issue.

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

Time and time again it is reported that secular Free Syrian Army brigades and Jihadis are separate. They were separate during the siege of the recently captured Base 46. And both these factions are actually competing for who will get the most loot from Sheikh Suleiman Base which is due to fall to the FSA any day now. [1] As for your last rhetorical question: the FSA don't have a policy of cooperation with jihadis. You can't find a source that says that and there are many sources state the exact opposite. Wikipedia is based on sources not on your own bizzare and embarrassing East European ethno-nationalistic worldview which dictates that Muslims = evil boogey men.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk • contribs)
Thank you for your kind words, San culottes. Anyway, I'd like to hear some constructive comment from other users. --Wüstenfuchs 23:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to a non existent user? As long as users read the sources, good luck trying to push your POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.102 (talk • contribs)
I mispelled your earlier name, I wrote two "l" insted of one. --Wüstenfuchs 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, they were in a more or less formal coalition headed by the American general Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. acting under UNSCR 678. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Mujahideen and the FSA, reminde me, did the al-Tawhid brigade made a statement along with the al-Nusra Front? This event occured two or three days ago. --Wüstenfuchs 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: just like the al-Tawhid Brigade and Jabhat al-Nusra. That's it. Unless I'm wrong and all FSA are TB and all mujahideen are JN. Even then, your analogy fails. Who is the central commander between the two groups? Do they share a common command structure beyond informal coordination? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, lol. I just made an example. Will you look at this report? For example the Ahrar al-Sham, it says they are allied with the FSA? We ingore this or what? I also remember an article where a rebel complains that they must fight with the al-Nusra as they are better trained and more effective. We also ignore this? What do you expect from the FSA, to sign a contract with de iure non existing formations? Tell me another thing, who is central commander of, I don't know, some unknown FSA brigade? There are many, you know, it is hard to find names of commanders, I can only provide you sources saying they are allies (like I did). --Wüstenfuchs 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the line does not preclude cooperation—it clarifies the complicated relationship between the FSA and the various jihadist units. That PDF you cite notes that, while they do collaborate, JN and other jihadists have command structures that are highly secretive and distinct from the FSA. I'm not claiming that the groups don't fight together, just that they are in loose association based on the necessities of the battlefield: Islamists generally have the expertise needed to fight a professional army, but FSA has the bulk of the manpower needed to make a substantial fighting force. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the foreign guys and the FSA are two separate entities they do cooperate and coordinate in their attacks to a certain degree, even if they don't like eachother, that makes them allies to at least a minimal degree, so there is no need for a separation line. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is a great Christian Science Monitor article detailing the difference between the FSA and the Islamist militias in Syria: Syria-s-Jabhat-al-Nusra-militia-looks-pretty-serious. And yes Guest2625, it is always the same two regime apologists raising these non issues. But funny to see EkoGraf back again, thought he's spirit had been crushed after the recent long string of regime defeats, almost felt sorry for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.96 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my god... You think that soemone is living for this article IP? And Christian Sc. Monitor isn't a "great" source, it has its issues. What about proclaimation of jihadi-state in Aleppo few days ago, the largest FSA brigade (al-Tawhid) and the Jahbat al-Nusra... Same thing as al-Khatib is a "moderate" jihadi islamist. --Wüstenfuchs 05:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About this "declaration" by some random militants that don't even represent their respective militias... that doesn't prove your point, it actually disproves it. All it would do is reinforce that the FSA under the authority of the SNC are different to the Islamic militants that supposedly want an Islamic state. How you fail to comprehend this basic point is baffling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.96 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this one?
Members of Islamist groups listed in a YouTube video as supporters of the plan told Reuters they had nothing to do with the announcement, though they acknowledged that some members of their groups had appeared in the video. [2]
The powerful Liwaa al-Tawhid Brigade, along with the Aleppo Military Council and Transitional Military Council, in a video uploaded on YouTube on Tuesday, said they would co-operate with the newly formed opposition body, but called for greater representation in it. [3]
The Tawhid Brigade, a leading Islamist rebel group in the city of Aleppo, announced its support Tuesday for the opposition Syrian National Coalition and its rejection of an Islamic state for a post-Assad Syria. [4]
And before that rejected by Aleppo FSA military council? I mean goddamit, this is bullet proof argument for why the the line should be there as Tawheed rejected it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also its cure how you now slam the sources which you do not like. Khatib is a jihadi now, isn´t he? Have you been thinking about wikibreak? It seems you need it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lol. --Wüstenfuchs 15:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say that I was highly offended by user 94.197...'s comments which were highly uncivil and would have argued for him being reported to an administrator. But I see that he was already reported by someone else and blocked for other offenses on Wikipedia. My spirit wasn't crushed as he said and I don't know why it would be since events in Syria don't have any impact on my own life. So there is no reason to feel sorry for me. I am still editing Syrian conflict articles, it is only that I haven't edited the Aleppo battle article, because nothing HAS been happening in Aleppo for the last 2-3 weeks. It's still a stalemate there after the last rebel offensive was repelled in the city in late October. I also devoted my time to the recent Gaza conflict so I was busy with that also and real-life work that I have. My life doesn't revolve only around Wikipedia. And I don't know why user 94.197... takes editing here so seriously that he would resort to insulting other editors who are of different opinion than him. I guess most likely because he is a staunch pro-opposition supporter, so I don't think that gives him any right of calling other editors of a different opinion regime apologists. EkoGraf (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EkoGraf, talk about the article. Not yourself. Or anonymous IP users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.68 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP (User:San culottes) was blocked on my initiative... Obviously he lives for vandalising my user page and spreading anti-Wustenfuchs propaganda on other users' talk pages. I reported him. Why do you even try to answer to such insults, leave it out. --Wüstenfuchs 14:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's not so, they are allies. Various report, reliable report that is, say they are. For example, Ahrar al-Sham and the FSA are allies. Little soldiers might say what they like, let's not forget that threr's propaganda from the both sides, FSA fighters avoid to be called islamists, see statements from al-Tawhid soldiers, but then again they are viewed as Islamists, and it is generally accepted that Saudis are giving aid only to the islamists, so in one statement they confrimed that, but not just the al-Tawhid, but the FSA leadership. Saudis are supporting both mujahidden and the FSA, both of them are cooperating in the battle, and why not to call them allies? What the hell are they, fighting together, financed by the same supporter at the same time, and they are not allies? Why, because some little fighter says "they don't like them"? There are some quarels in the same government, not only amongst the same allies, there were quarres between the Soviets and Americans in the WW2, but they were allies, weren't they? Therefore this argument about the same command structure is shivery. --Wüstenfuchs 15:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
San culottes? Now it all makes sense. You are right Wusten, I shouldn't be bothered by this. I have other more important things to deal with. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sorry mr anonymous IP, but I have no idea what that line about New Jersey should mean, I'm not even an American. When someone violates Wiki policy on civility it should be pointed out to. And I already said what I had to say on the issue of the separation line. I'm against it because the FSA and the mujahedeen are allies, even though on a minimal level. EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Watch Jersey Shore (TV series), and you'll see what he means. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wusten pointed out a thing that I was myself going to say. Someone said that the Allied forces of world war two (US, UK, France, etc) didn't have a separation line because, at least those on the western front, didn't have a separation line due to them having a unified commander. But, Russian allied forces were a completely separate entity of the Allied troops. I don't see Russia being separated by a separation line over at the WW2 articles, given they didn't follow the lead of the top Western commander and had their own one. Same goes for China, which was also a separate Allied force. EkoGraf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the Allied countries officially declared support for each other for their common cause. The US, USSR and others held quite a few conferences together. The FSA has not held any conference with all the Mujahideen groups and declared support for them. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are, nevertheless, allies - Cooperating together, coordinating their attack and moves etc. I wanted to link something from kavkazcentre, but it's on WP's blacklist, so I'll quote "Islamic sources reported about a major operation carried out by the Mujahideen of Jabhat al-Nusra in Aleppo jointly with brigades al-Fajr al-Islam, Kataeb Ahrar al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid and Liwa al-Fatah, who are believed to be affiliated with the rebels of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)." Also, take a look at this, even though they have coordinated attacks, you claim they have no agreements amongst them? --Wüstenfuchs 15:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is your definition of an ally? Google gives this "A state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose, typically by treaty." --Wüstenfuchs 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the states, where are the treaties? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

No, calling them secular is a joke, as they want to implement the Sharia, or the islamic law. Calling them secular is like calling Ruhollah Khomeini secular, the same thing. Though, many western media call them so, for unknown reason. --Wüstenfuchs 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the FSA brigades are secular. The media calls them that because they are. There are some brigades with strong Islamist ideologies, but they don't represent all of the FSA. Here's a ISW report: Although the armed opposition coalition of the Free Syrian army (FSA) generally promotes a secular agenda, some of its component battalions adhere to an Islamist ideology and are well-known Islamist brigades (Source:[5], page 17). True some FSA brigades and Jihadist groups are allies, but that doesn't all of the FSA and all Jihadist groups are allies. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Name one brigade that is secular.64.229.137.227 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If so, what brigades are secular, the largest, Shakur al-Sham and al-Tawhid are islamists... so, only perhaps 10% of the FSA are "secular"... the funny thing is, those secular units still have no name. --Wüstenfuchs 15:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Salaheddin Martyrs Brigade
Abu-Bakr Brigade
Al-Fatah Brigade
Dara al-Shahbaa Brigade
Nour al-Haq Brigade
Nur al-Din Zinky Brigade
Suleiman al-Farisi Brigade
Turkmens' Sultan Abdulhamid Han Brigade
Furthermore don't confuse the members of the islamic brigade with the leaders of the islamic brigade. The Iranian Al quds force and revolutionary guards force are all run by radical salifist loonies but I am pretty sure the average person in those forces don't give a damn about islam. Sopher99 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I bet they do. Iranians are indeed orthodox Muslims. They have islamist government for god's sake. And you just copied those brigades, ofc they aren't secular (Turkemens' brigade is named after an Ottoman sultan for god's sake), it's your own original research. But, let's end this pointless discussion, as we aren't discussing about the battle anymore. --Wüstenfuchs 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Updating the number of fighters in infobox

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

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

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

Discussion on my talk page concerning the map has been moved

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

News of Aleppo

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

Lack of support for rebels.

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

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

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

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

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

Guesstimates of popular support from individuals are not to be treated as scientific data. There are indeed protests against the FSA, but many of them are actually in favour of Jabhat al-Nusra, who tend to be viewed as less corrupt and more honest in spite of their extremism. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems people don't mind them chopping off heads and burning people on youtube. EkoGraf (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the few cases where that might happen are a better alternative to a corrupt minority regime that has mass rape policies and gleefully murders its own citizen on a much greater scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.43 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't call it few (47 suicide bombings alone). But to get back to your recent edits anonymous user. 1st, do you have proof that the reliable new york times is misrepresented? 2nd, accusing an editor of nonsense is violation of Wikipedia's civility rule. 3rd, you are replacing an up-do-date source with older ones. 4th, you broke a link. 5th, The New York times directly mentions the capture of those bases, why add four older different sources when one newer unifying source is enough. 6th, regime was agreed to be a weasal word a year ago so it was barred from being used just like the word terrorist. 7th, the wording for that section was compromise wording based on the New York times article between Sopher and me. 8th, would be good that you open an account on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"regime" is the same as "rebel" and both are used throughout the article. Also the NYT reference is actually older than the other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, even though regime is used in the source it was decided by Wikipedia editors after a debate not to use the word regime as well as the word terrorist because both are weasal words. So please stick to Wikipedia consensus. EkoGraf (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Edit-warring on this article

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

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

Read your 4th point again then apply it to your own skewed editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two new sources I added are from yesterday and the day before, READ THEM. Or else if you do not stop using inflamatory language I will request the article be protected. EkoGraf (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be protected. From users like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously still avoding trying to find a compromise, which Wikipedia requests in these situations. I will still try and find a compromise solution. I am making another edit, your wording is still in there also. But if you continue to edit war I WILL request the article be protected. PS Yahoo is not used as a source on Wikipedia because it gets updated and the original sources get lost. EkoGraf (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ground to a halt" is a POV statement, regardless of how many low quality sources you can find that use it. Capturing and surrounding bases is factually accurate and is Empirical evidence.
POV per you or not that's what the source says and that's what we go with. If you want to question the wording the NYT uses thats your right, but in talk pages only. And actually it was not me who worded it that way, it was Sopher. I agreed to it as a compromise. And that empirical evidence you are talking about? No new bases around Aleppo have been captured since early December, and the ones that are still Army-controlled have been surrounded for months. And calling the New York Times a low-quality source shows your own non-neutral POV which any administrator can see. But, in any case, I made a new edit, and there, your point on the intensification of attacks on the two air bases is still in there, along with your sources. Hope that's satisfactory. EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NTY article you were clinging to (and you yourself removed for reasons known only to you) was not low quality Per se, only low quality compared to AFP, Reuters etc. And the way you insisted upon using it, cherry picking a vague statement was the actual issue. Oddly enough the Daily Beast and Irish Times refs you replaced the NYT article with are even worse.
I did not replace it, NYT is still there, as a source for the capture of the bases in December. Its that you removed it again with another one of your reverts. And your assertion that its low quality compared to AFP and Reuters is again your personal point of view which is not allowed on Wikipedia. And you can not per your own POV declare anything that you do not like vague. In any case I have made a compromise edit which includes nicely balanced both your assertions and mine as you would put it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not balanced. All you have done is shoehorned POV crap into the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.238 (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will remove the vague sentence, although it wasn't even me who put it there in the first place. But the stalemate part stays. And saying this is shoehorned POV crap is again inflamatory language not allowed on Wikipedia, so please refrain yourself from using it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The part of the map colored red between Opposition held territory and the airport should all be green. There are no sources indicating the Assad regime controls any of these districts any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.68 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You would need sources showing that the opposition has taken those areas from the government. Just because there hasn't been sources saying they still control it, doesn't mean that they don't. Sources tend not to report when people STILL control the area, only when the area changes hands. Jeancey (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well seeing as the area in question is uninhabited (i.e. a non-residential area), it's safe to say there is no longer a regime presence there. However olive is fine for now until the airport is captured by the opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.68 (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Jeancey, sources needed. EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We both agreed olive was fine...? Thanks for your 2 cents though EkoGrak, always a pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.231 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any time. EkoGraf (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral colors?

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

The current Syrian flag distinctively has red in it.

The Opposition flag distinctively has green in it.

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

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

Police academy

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

Road to airport

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

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

More specifically, it's a road to the south leading into Hama province. Not part of the scope of the map at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The opening up of the corridor link to the city's airport from central Syria can be seen as operationally significant to the overall battle and warrants mentioning. Especially since there was all that talk earlier that the rebels had the airport surrounded. With this latest development that would mean the airport isn't entirely surrounded anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're welcome

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

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

Original research

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

You are taking a source not related to the current event and trying to use it as insight in this current topic. Thats original research. Basically your source does not provide information over the current topic, it is a cheap "note" to push a view. It was al nusra that took the factory by the way, and it has nothing to with this. For example, if I was to write "in July 2012 Syrian spokesman Jihad Makdissi said that the Syrian goverment would use chemical weapons if foreign powers were to get involved" , and back it up with a regular news source, that would be original research. Sopher99 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to use it as an "insight" or "a cheap note to push a view", thanks. It contributes to the subject with relatively recent knowledge (December) and any information (and not statement) regarding chemical weapons in the area would be more than relevant. If you think the statement is not new enough, please feel free to improve the article so it doesn't look like a timeline. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence you tried putting is speculation. You are trying to say the rebels have access to chemicals weapons, because it was reported once that they took a chlorine factory. Thats original research and its placement does not go here. If sources site the seized chlorine factory as evidence for Today's event, feel free to put it there. Sopher99 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citation Review

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

If I haven't proven my point already, the first two citations are dead links to a small Iraqi Kurdish news website (Alexa rank: 65,000th globally). Marechal Ney (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article using "reliable" sources from Facebook?Ratipok (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the sources used at an earlier point were more or less reliable, but there's probably a dozen Facebook citations, and an even larger number of unreliable media outlets. Checklinks shows the presence of quite a few dead or broken links as well. As a final addition, there's no guarantee that the reliable sources are properly cited either. The article needs a thorough citation review. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to cleanup the citations. However, the situation is dismal. This article may have every problem known to Wikipedia save being a stub; it's too long, not neutral, encyclopedic, poorly organized, controversial, and about a current, rapidly changing event; it has copyright violations, unreliable sources, dead links, original research, severe tensing problems, poor grammar, poor spelling, confusing syntax. For this article to reach even C-Class it will need an almost complete rewrite. Marechal Ney (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the information battlefield of the 21st century! 46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

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

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

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

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

The Kurds have switched sides

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

Keep in mind that the infobox is supposed to present the conflict over time, not just in the moment. And if they "switched sides" to the rebels, what then does that say about their alignment previously? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lothar. We should wait for long-term implications. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Frankly, it seems to me that that is nothing more than political statement. PYD cannot afford to go on full-scale insurrection against Syrian army, otherwise airstrikes and shelling would occur with full-scale battle commencing in Qamishlo that would decimate the town. Fact is that they let FSA into the district, killed several soldiers and done exactly nothing to prevent FSA from advancing with fighters on the group saying that they actually helped them. Still, would keep them in third collum. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also we have to keep in mind Ocalan - Erdogan peace talks. PYD answers to KCK, KCK is headed by Karayılan - de facto leader of PKK while Ocalan is in prison. Karayılan accepted end of conflict. And hence PKK has 3,000 fighters with decades of experience in guerilla warfare (a lot of them from Syrian Kurdistan, much more than from Iraqi or Iranian) who will have to go somewhere. So will they sit in Qandil, drinking tchai and looking at stars or will they go to Syria and later probably to Iran? Rather obvious what is happening taken this into consideration. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening, summarizing, again.

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

Move the "result" infor to the lead

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

Prison area clashes

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

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


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



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




1 Votes


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

     1 Votes

Réponse

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

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

Update

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

Operation "Storm of North"

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

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

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

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

Name

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

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

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

Plagiarism and Replacement

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


A map that you can perhaps use to update and perfect the current one. https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1002238_543847278985497_1361882205_n.jpg it includes more of the surrounding areas that are important for the battle, other than that it seems to be the same as the map maintained by you guys.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012–2016)&oldid=559683414"