![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The battle is ongoing and is being discussed by numerous media sources. 75.72.35.253 ( talk) 16:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Just get rid of it. Its not Academic, and the phrase is attributed to Saddam Hussein and the Persian Gulf War anyhow. It does not deserve any mention, let alone being offered as an alternative name for the battle ArcherMan86 ( talk) 21:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The Mother of All Battles - it just sounds like something a 12 year old would come out with whilst playing Call of Duty. Yes, the regime called it the mother of all battles, but not in an offical capacity and just to show the scale they predicted the battle to be, not an actual title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.226.114 ( talk) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Interesting though, the state media inflates the number of rebels. You'd expect them to do the opposite?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Not done - please be specific about exact changes. -—
Isarra
༆
15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
NOBODY WRITES AL QAEDA OR HEZOBOLLAH UNTIL YOU BRING A STRONG NEUTRAL SOURCE .( third time ( talk) 09:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC))
There's a flag of Al Qaeda on the article about the civil war in Syria why isn't it put here? Nienk ( talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
NOBODY WRITES AL QAEDA OR HEZOBOLLAH UNTIL YOU BRING A STRONG NEUTRAL SOURCE .(
third time (
talk)
09:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC))
This Al Jazeera report shows evidence that Shabiha members that were captured and executed were subcontracted by the Syrian regime and issued with official weapons permits clearly identifying who they were. This was used as evidence in the decision to execute them. This should be added to the article. حرية ( talk) 07:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Not in your link -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is in the video. I'm sure it is easy to find a text version if you are unable to view it. I shall have a look. حرية ( talk) 12:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Shouldnt there have been some discussion fist? Also, this is an ongoing battle and information needs to be updated constantly, i cant see why this is protected its more harm than good to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.169.78 ( talk) 11:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the main rebel commander confirmed the fact that Al Qaeda was in Aleppo. The source given is extraordinary clear. Now, the fact that you don't like that Al Qaeda and several other islamists groups (that you also try to remove in the main page) are a part of the war, I can't help you. Anyway, your opinion have not to interfer with what the sources say.
You multiuples times showed that you think you are superior to any source, but Wikipedia do not work like that. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The only rebels saying that are specifically saying that there are individual jihadis, there are no rebels or reliable sources claiming Al Qaida as an organization is functioning in Syria. Provide a single source other than the Assad regime's state media. You can't; those sources don't exist, because the claim is untrue. حرية ( talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this a joke? I provided the source in this talk page alread a few days ago. The main rebel commander confirmed it. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Show the specific ref here. حرية ( talk) 14:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
"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."
It is annoying to have to demonstrate the same thing 10 times because people are not searching themselves. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Again? Have I explained it not enough on this talk page already? The things you chose to ignore? Aside of what arabic user posted here, Sheik is not reliable source. He is general of FSA based in Turkey, not independent journalist. Bytheway if we are taking FSA commanders now as trustworthy source can you explain how come that we do not have the same merit on the commander of FSA in Aleppo who denied presence of foreign fighters on very same Guardian link you like to use? EllsworthSK ( talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
And as for the main page, you are throwing here words such as your opinion have not to interfer with what the sources say yet you chose to ignore the source which clearly states that Ahram al-Sham and Fatah al-Islam operate under flag of jihad and not their organization. So don´t talk to me about sources, especially given how you love to use SANA as RS and your history of edit warring which led to warning and few days later to your block. EllsworthSK ( talk) 17:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Sheik, interviewed by a journalist or issuing a statement is a perfectly fine rebel source. You have absolutely no argument here. You have been edit warring the whole day on the main page and normally the same rule should be enforced to you. --
DanielUmel (
talk)
17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, where is the problem with sources? All three state clearly - Al Qaeda fighting in Aleppo. Where is the problem? I need explanation in order to see why you insist so much there is no al-Qaeda in Aleppo, and at the same time you ignroe those three, very much reliable, sources. At the same time, we can see Ahmad's effort to add Hezbollah with very shivery source. Nobody complains, why is that? Neither he wants to explain. Explain me this in detail and we are fine. -- Wustenfuchs 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
EllsworthSK is saying that he is a better source than the main rebel commander quoted by the Guardian. If rebels admit that Al Qaeda is in Aleppo, even if it hurts their image, it must be true. Guardian quoting rebel commander > EllsworthSk attemp to protect rebels image. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 08:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Is that a threat for pushing me to not counter you personal opinions based edits? You ignore all the source if it is contrary to your opinion. As usual. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 09:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ellsworth, who says Haaretz is unreliable except you? Who supports your claims? Stop removing the sourced information. Also Haaretz was very clear. No user needs to prove anything ( WP:OR -- Wustenfuchs 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"According to reports coming from the territory surrounding Aleppo, dozens of organizations are involved in the fighting, including Salafis, groups associated with al-Qaida, independent Kurdish forces, and local gangs. The general assumption is also that every organization is backed by a foreign power – providing support for “their” activists." - Very clear I believe, and with other two sources very much reliable. -- Wustenfuchs 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder, how we can know those hundred prisoners were even fighting? Rebels label anyone who is against them as Shabiha... from children to eldery. No good source those captured where fighting at all. Those are just captured un-fighting "shabihas" (this word could be translated now as Assad supporter, not a thug) or civilians, which is really a war crime... :/
Here, not a word about the POWs at all.
-- Wustenfuchs 23:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
We have in the Commanders and Leaders section of the summary two rebel commanders, one named Abdul Gabbar Kaidi and another by the name of Abdel Jabbar al-Oqaidi. The two names seem strikingly similar, and I am fairly certain this is the same person, just different transliterations of arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.172.200.230 ( talk) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Horrifying. If it's not already in the article, perhaps it should be briefly included, as a first-account description of what happened.
Link here.
-- Activism 1234 03:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It seams that we need to add Kurds as the third combatant. After various sources suggesting they have some sort of a pact with the government, and now after they clashed with the FSA, I think this would be very good thing to do. -- Wustenfuchs 16:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I found a detailed map of the current situation in Aleppo. [9] I don't think it can be included in the article due to copyright issues, but it's still a good resource.-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Reuters admits it was been hijacked by Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker And the Hackers played with reuters report to make it look like there is A rebel collapse ,and they are Going to lose and that they are losing land,So i Warn Wikipedia Editor to Not rely on the Last Reuter reports Because Reuter WAS HIJACKED BY Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker. And there is the source * http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Reuters admits it was been hijacked by Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker And the Hackers played with reuters report to make it look like there is A rebel collapse ,and they are Going to lose and that they are losing land,So i Warn Wikipedia Editor to Not rely on the Last Reuter reports Because Reuter WAS HIJACKED BY Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker. And there is the source
Reuters blog has been hacked several days ago, not Reuters itself. And it has been fixed. So this section has no object. All Reuters reports are fine. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
i clearly said there last report to all of them ( third time ( talk) 05:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)).
There is mention of a "local kurdish militia" fighting the rebel forces in Aleppo. The source is said to be this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/world/middleeast/fighting-grows-more-intense-in-aleppo-syria.html?_r=2&hp
But I see no mention of such Kurdish militias in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielUmel ( talk) 11:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Syrian Army says it has lauched an offensive, rebels said the Army has launched an offensive. So the new section title has to be Syrian Army offensive by all logic and sources. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 11:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The Salaheddine situation described in the last AFP report is nothing like Sopher99 tried to spin it. Rebels said that they were just in parts of the quarter triying to stop the army, which was controling the key roundabout, to advance. It was nothing like was written before. It also contradicts the Los Angeles Times report for the moment. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1832197&lon=37.1265321&z=18&l=0&m=b&search=Aleppo Sopher99 ( talk) 20:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
We will see if the Los Angeles Times report was the latests report. So far no Press agency have confirmed it and it was based only on a rebel account. It may turn out true or false. But the way you wrote the AFP report was simply dishonest. --
DanielUmel (
talk)
21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Daniel. The Al Jazeera and AFP sources never said the FSA recaptured the district, they only said fighting was ongoing, and in parts of the district not the whole one. The roundabout thing was only one of those parts, not the only one. For now only the LA times relayed the supposed rebel recapture. And the Al Jazeera report on continuing fighting had been first published this afternoon. Except the LA times, no other reports of the recapture. If it is not reported on by tomorrow by any other agency it will be speedily removed as ether a false report or an out-dated one. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The very last report from AFP are 3 syrian journalists captured by rebels, Homs shelled and dozens of casualties but no evolution on Aleppo. The Loas Angeles Time looks legit but the fact that no press agency has reported that when they have the most sources is a question mark. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Giving the news from the LA times blog a few more hours, but it has been 15 hours since it was claimed and nobody else reported on it. If in a few hours no new news comes out I'm removing it on the basis it was not mentioned by anybody else and thus unduweight. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Just saying. 76.70.43.49 ( talk) 02:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Press TV showing syrian soldiers in Salaheddine in a video is absolutely reliable. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 07:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
what does that mean exactly?. 76.70.43.49 ( talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess we are talking about this one. EllsworthSK ( talk) 08:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
There is something wrong here, about rebels' units. It would be logical that one brigade is composed out of 3-5 battalions. I suggest we remove those "18 battalions". -- Wustenfuchs 15:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I though that was strange too at first but there is no need to remove it. They are only "brigades" in name, but are all battalion-sized. I have found its standard practice by Middle-east militant groups. For example, you had in Iraq groups calling themselves for example "Lions of Iraq Brigade" or whatever even though there was no more than 100 of them or so. If what the rebels say is true there is no more than 6,000-7,000 rebel fighters in Aleppo, that is just a bit more than the standard size of one brigade (5,500). However, the 7,000 figure would be in line with the claim of 18 battalions being in Aleppo, since a battalion can be anywhere between 300 or 1,200 fighters. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJYU7rs7ADg&list=UURrRxshEUBmSOUHRLVRKpNA&index=3&feature=plcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.50.139 ( talk) 17:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Rebels have been controlling 30-70% of the city since two week and the percentage change each time a different rebel leader is interviewed. We should abandon percentage or give range. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It's most likely about 50 percent (most cited percentage) or less given they lost Salahadine. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
In thie interview, we can see the field commander of the Liwa'u ul Tawheed; or the Unification Bataillon(which by the way includ the Nour al-Haq Brigade and the Abu Bakr brigade, for infobox). In says in the intervie addiotionally, that there more than 8000++ under his command; plus ther were other bataillons. They ware all cooperation and they all nee anti-air-heat-seaking missiles. He also mentions that he support the SNC and all fighting units who are against the System to "reestablish the rights of all people, including minorities". He also mentions something about the Berri-Militia-Leader, that all shabiha who don't use the weapons against the demonstors and the FSA, will not be harmed, but if they still fight for Assad, than they will face, as killers, the same.
Another point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_nLoLOI8os&feature=g-u-u In this AJA video from today, we can (also without any language) that there is still fighting in Salaheddin. The reporter spokee in the first 1:30 minutes about the sitaution there and then switched to the Old City. So the info in the infobox is worng, Syrian Assa Army is still fighing there, as well as the revolutionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.50.139 ( talk) 21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
AJA is a neutral source not pro-government nor pro-rebel,NOT LIKE SANA WHICH IS PRO-GOVERNMENT,and the source says there is still fighting in salaheddine,which a part under rebel control and another under governemt control.so THAT MEANS EkoGraf THAT your infornmation is wrong. ( third time ( talk) 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)).
this isn't about youtube this is about aljazeera,this a program on aljazeera where they broadcast meetings with diplomats military leaders,yes i understand arabic,and it confirms that salaheddine is contested yet,aljazeera is a neutral source not pro-government nor pro-rebel. ( third time ( talk) 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)).
tell me what makes you think that,because it look opposite than that . third time ( talk) 01:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
that sectarianism,channels don't be judge by countries or their sectars ,it is judged by it experience and its performance and lot of reports proved that aljazeera is a NEUTRAL CHANNELif you know THAT Alhanuty ( talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) .
Wustenfuchs you already said a sunni muslim that is sectarianism . Alhanuty ( talk) 02:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC
actually alot of reports say that aljazeera is a reliable source. Alhanuty ( talk) 02:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Al Jazeera English can be quite reliable, while Al Jazeera Arabic is just laughable, worst than PressTV by all means.-- DanielUmel ( talk) 05:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I am writing here without any name for security reasons, because many of my family are stille trapped in Aleppo, for example in Saif al Dawla and other contested parts. So no wonder because of IP (I am safe, but not my family) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.247.223.195 ( talk) 12:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Now I have the account... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I still would like to change the info about fighting in the infobox as there is still fighting there for example in the roundabout between salaheddine and firdaus or slaheddine next to hamdaniye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120813?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews "Yesterday we encircled the Salaheddine petrol station, which the army has been using as a base, and we killed its commander and took a lot of ammunition and weapons. This ammunition is what we are using to fight today," he said. Here it is: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1952058&lon=37.1156911&z=15&l=10&m=b&show=/25029152/Petrol-Station
--> So indeed still fighting in Salehddine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/12/us-syria-crisis-city-idUSBRE87B0KW20120812 as written in the link; even though the regeme speads proganda of recapturing it. So PLEASE UPDATE the infoboy and the text or let me do it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Go Edit it,i told them that Salaheddine is still contested,and the new thing is that saif al dawla has seen some fighting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Rebel hit-and-run attacks don't constitute a battle for the district. The rebels have pulled back from the district, and are now making guerrilla attacks against troops there. And it's not regime propaganda it was confirmed by multiple foreign journalists and FSA commanders themselves. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not talking about last week; I am talking about the days after the tactial retreat; I even read from foreign journalist the night after the announcement, that they were back again in Salaheddin. So no doubt there was retreat, but the came back and esablished pockets of resistance there and are still some neighborhoods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"On 20 July, according to a report from Bloomberg news, the military shelled the city and a Local Coordination Committee (LCCs) spokesperson added that "dozens of missiles fell in the city, and many houses were destroyed and flattened." Five explosions were heard in Aleppo early the next morning." shouldn't mention Bloomberg, as it's indicated by the ref link that follows; "On 20 July, the military shelled the city and a Local Coordination Committee (LCCs) spokesperson added that "dozens of missiles fell in the city, and many houses were destroyed and flattened."
The same with "According to The Guardian UK, General Adelnasser Ferzat made a video address in fluent Russian to Russia, urging Russia to stop backing Assad and back "freedom" and the rebels' side.", which should be " General Adelnasser Ferzat made a video address in fluent Russian to Russia, urging Russia to stop backing Assad and back "freedom" and the rebels' side."
I'm willing to accept objections or denials to the above proposals.
Furthermore, this article is written like an extremely long news article, not an encyclopedia article.
Thanks.
Editio princeps ( talk) 17:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This article has serious issues. Just like you state, it is "written like an extremely long news article", but that is not the biggest problem; it is written like an extremely long news article written by Syrian state media, especially recent sections. The assertions of a totalitarian state media are simply presented as fact, and the article is far too long. حرية ( talk) 23:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The Battle of Aleppo has turned from a Decisive Battle to a Battle of Attrition,with the Regime Troops Failing to regain the city and the FSA began their advance to Al-Zahra neighborhood,with the Rebels sucessfully bisieging the airport and the media in Aleppo . Alhanuty ( talk) 18:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No sources for your claims. The military is reportedly advancing on Sukari and Saif al-Dawla districts today, the rebels made an attack on a building in Zahra, not a full advance, and the siege of the airport failed a week ago when they pulled back their captured tanks. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
A Military advisor said to became a war of of Attrition secondly the advances on Sukari and Saif al-Dawla districts are only clashes and the neighborhoods aren't that big,the siege is still on the airport . Alhanuty ( talk) 22:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
@EkoGraf : I think you mix it withe the siege og Menagh Airport which is north western of Aleppo and is an Helicopter base. Alhanuty is talking about the Aleppo International airport which is in the south east of Aleppo. Another point. In Al Zahraa they attacked the Air Force intelligence and the Artillary base there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erwE1lKfzvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erwE1lKfzvI -- Abbude32 ( talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Youtube is not considered a reliable source. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And what about this? (this is a LiveBlog from today) by the NGO EA. http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/8/16/syria-and-beyond-live-coverage-bombings-kidnappings-iranian.html#1910 Clashes in Slaheddine still ongoing, please change infobox!
EkoGraf,it is over the regime failed to regain the neighborhooods in Aleppo after a month,experts confirmed that it turned to a war of attrition . Alhanuty ( talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
assad's troops are only making incursions,he is using only the airforce to destroy the city . Alhanuty ( talk) 01:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to fix the prose of the article, so it doesn't look like a group of news reports. I'll erase unnecesary informations, which didn't influenced the battle very much, like "5 granades were heared", or defection of the chief of intelligence in Aleppo, the chap wasn't involved in the battle at all. I'll edit only the older parts of the article. -- Wustenfuchs 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Once the battle ends, we should collect all of the alleged war crimes and add them to the special section. Such infos only confuse the reader, as they suddenly appear in the article with no connection with rest of the prose. -- Wustenfuchs 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think that Wustenfuchs should be given a free card to edit alone the page for a few hours in order to make it better style wise and looks more professional. I think there is a tag for it, reserving the page for big edits, but I don't know where to find it. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The Kurdish militias are not fighting on the Syrian side as is made clear from this article http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/5082.html. This an in depth article that makes clear what the position of the Kurds are in Aleppo. The Kurds are on the opposition side, but want to stay outside the fight between the Syrian government and the rebels. Also, placing the YPG Kurdish fighters and Kurdish militias on the opposite sides makes no sense since they are one and the same group. Guest2625 ( talk) 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The source clearly described the incident in which a supposedly pro-government Kurdish militia engaged rebels in a battle in which the Kurds even had close-air support. And this incident happened almost a month after the opposition YPG was formed. And in private discussions several editors agreed on putting the term Local Kurdish militia on the government side, since obviously some Kurds are for the opposition, some are for the government, some are for nobody. So please do not remove the sourced information, you were reverted already by me and one more editor. Thank you. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a dispute going on as whether to include a line or not a line in the combatant section of the opposition. Based on the consensus of the largest article covering the topic the Syrian civil war article there should be a line separating each of the parties: syrian opposition, foreign fighters, kurds; however, for some reason the same consensus has not been used in this article. Ekograph in the edit summaries states the reason that the Syrian opposition and foreign fighters should not have a line is because they are collaborating; however, the Syrian opposition is also collaborating with YPG [11], therefore following the previous logic, there should be no line between them either. I think the best thing to do is follow the consensus on the Syrian civil war page since the largest number of editors contributed to that consensus. Guest2625 ( talk) 01:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Difference here is that the mujahedeen (Ahrar al-Sham) have been reportedly cooperating [12] on a level with the FSA, while the Kurds are simply staying neutral but are more for the opposition, read the previous discussion on the Kurds separation line issue. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not created by reverting without discussion as is being done by the two editors who agree with you. At the moment, it is only the two of us who are having a discussion about this topic, therefore we are at an impasse on forming consensus. I do feel that the main Syrian civil war article should be used as a template for the other infoboxes across the Syrian civil war articles, since one it creates uniformity and two the main page has the largest number of editors working on it. Guest2625 ( talk) 07:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There is proven cooperation on the ground between jihadists and syrian rebels. It is perfectly documented. The leadership in Turkey is against but don't seem to have any authority over this disorganized group.
A new source which show that groups like Nusra and Arhar al-Sham are considered elite among the rebels
"The Free Syrian Army is an alliance of loosely-connected brigades operating under the theoretical leadership of a Turkey-based group of defecting army officers who have generally condemned the emergence of jihadi groups.
But many Syrian FSA rank-and-file argue they need all the help they can get.
"Groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, Fajr al-Islam, Jabat al-Nusra have experienced fighters who are like the revolution's elite commando troops," says Abu Haidar, a Syrian FSA coordinator in Aleppo's Saif al-Dawla district."
We should remove the line everywhere as these two cooperate on the ground. What people locked up in Turkish camp matter very little compared to what really happen. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 09:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to request a source on their coordination from Wustenfuchs since I already provided you with a source in my first paragraph of this discussion. You obviously didn't read it since you are requesting it again. EkoGraf ( talk) 10:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
this is an interesting map, based on oppostion and govenment sources; it was puplished today. http://twitpic.com/ak3eja/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.247.209.80 ( talk) 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Last few days there are not reports about clashes in Aleppo, is this another stalemate?-- Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The question is at what point the ground offensive will start fully. In Homs there was one month of shelling before the city was retaken in a ground assault. In Damascus, there was an immediate reaction and the rebels were quickly crushed. The Syrian Army strategy in Aleppo seem different. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be a concerted effort to muddy the source. User Wüstenfuchs, RIA Novosti does not claim that the opposition uses this term, they only ambiguously refer to " the media", which in Syria is completely state controlled. Until a source is provided that clearly states that the opposition uses this term, the origin of "the mother of all battles" must be made clear. حرية ( talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
A rebel commander called it "mother of all battles" as well, per this source
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2012/0727/Syria-s-regime-rebel-troops-amass-in-Aleppo-for-mother-of-all-battles
-- DanielUmel ( talk) 18:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Commander Essam Zahruddin was never involved in the battle of Aleppo. He was in charge of capturing the city of at-Tal, north of Damascus, and he is alive, claims made by FSA about his death were proved for being rumors by the same day. [1]
About Zahruddin, rebels claim he is killed, and per Sopher, the "pro-Assad" source claims he isn't. Now, the best solution is to not add anything until a source states "Zagruddin was killed", and that statement musn't be anyone's claim or confrimed by both sides. -- Wüstenfuchs 04:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Syrian state propaganda says they capture districts, rebels say they captured districts. Both claims contradict each other. Is there any independent confirmation of the situation on the ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.118.92 ( talk) 22:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
SANA is a perfectly fine source to counter balance the overwelming use of rebel sources. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 05:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't bother. Just add things and ignore SANA. In a statement on 23 August, as you can read in this article, SANA claims that governement forces destroyed EIGHTY technicals of the FSA. While numerous international reporters with video inside Syria report that the FSA doesn't have heavy weapons to mount on pick-ups. Also, if we believe SANA, they would have killed over 700 FSA fighters and destroyed over 81 technicals (which aren't even there), while losing only 20 soldiers themselves. It's complete rubbish and it's tainting this article more and more every day. The opposition claim of 292 killed FSA and 318 killed loyalists is far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I was using this page for a while for really up to date news on the conflict, with a wide range of sources that I wasn't finding elsewhere. But lately, it's just Syrian government propaganda. 216.106.40.136 ( talk) 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason of that is not a non neutrality. It is simply the fact that Syrian State medias have reported a lot about Aleppo the past few days, when little or no information was communicated by the rebels nor by the journalist being with the rebels. It is just that. It is not like the Timeline page, where editors are only writing 10% of what happen in a very biased way. All reports on Aleppo are almost immediately written in this page. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 17:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This is one big battle, which consists of many "sub-battles" for various districts. It will probably last long and this article is also getting pretty long. So it might be a good idea to split the timeline of the battle and leave its summary in the main article, or split into articles about notable battles of some districts (e.g. Battle of Salaheddine), or perhaps both.
Any thoughts? -- 37.244.212.80 ( talk) 20:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)