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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Amedjay, if so, provide sources, I believe the map will be updated. -- Wüstenfuchs 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well there are sources that I found on the article http://www.lccsyria.org/10554 . Amedjay ( talk) 20:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
Wow , wow calm down people , this is not call of duty 78.232.100.63 ( talk) 13:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
For all knowledge sunnism is one thing and Shiism is a totally another thing Alhanuty ( talk) 22:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
And wustenfuchs not all of them are calling for it Alhanuty ( talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Clearly the colours are not representative of the flags, as the colours do not match the flags 100%. The green colour for example is too light compared to the green on the flag. If you're going to invent an excuse for why the colours were selected the way they are, then you should probably fix it so that all the details are right. Sovetus ( talk) 03:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
That is aleppo's country side it is not on this map Abdo45 ( talk) 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Aaaaand just like that, the PYD comes out and denies this "side-switching" [7]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 17:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
There's no result, it's ongoing, while the lead should be the summary.
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)
Video from area http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22546120 2.121.180.149 ( talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
February 6th 2014
I read that "the Aleppo prison was captured on Feb. 6 2014 by rebels, which freed rebels, then recaptured by SAA on the following day, and that rebel leader died during the fightings". Which is totally absurd, and based on erroneous reports. It is now KNOWN that the Feb. 6th offensive was a failure : rebels weren't able to breach into the compound nor free any prisonners, there was no SAA counter-offensive on feb. 7th. Rebel leader Sayfullah al-Shishani died ON THAT DAY, at the end of the rebels' fall back, from a mortar shell hitting near the entrance of the rebels compound. This is fully documented (even Sayfullah al-Shishani's death) in videos from the rebels show no prisoners liberation what so ever.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2aa_1392407030 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.102.120.242 (
talk)
02:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
No information on clashes in past few days. Pug6666 20:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
I agree that incident have nothing to do with ongoing battle. Rebell44 ( talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Aren't there any progress happened till 25'th of June? SANA says violent clashes happens at Southwest of Old City around Umayyad Mosque,which Rebel sources denies.. No updates were put here last 10 days?
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)
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)
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)
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. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.191.23.252 (
talk)
06:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
War correspondent Kurt Pelda tweeted an hour ago:I was in Kafr Hamra.It's still firmly under rebel control. Everything else is propaganda.I think Kafr Hamra must be green on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.235.34 ( talk) 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think he can be listed as a reliable source. He is not affiliated with any credible organizations and seems to be pro-rebel. Although it can be discussed, I don't think a single man's anecdote is reliable for gauging a military situation. -- Respite From Revision ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've read several sources: gorenment sites - SAA control it, rebel sites - opposition control it, other sources - heavy fights.It is not clear who is telling truth. But one think is certain - there are activity and area must be set olive.
Kafar Hamra is occupied by SAA. The front line is around Hreitan right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRGj2lcha0g 212.92.30.194 ( talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The grammar in recent additions to this article is really rather awful. Is there anyone who would be willing to monitor the grammar of editing additions? -- Respite From Revision ( talk) 01:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It is awful.Agree. But when battle end article have to be edited and probably shortened.
After reading lot of articles trough internet - same was made at most maps: city borders aren't drawn. In fact when look at map - knowing where is area with buildings and where is open space - you will understand better situation. At moment we have huge areas on map without buildings and this makes difficult to understand city possession. In areas with big buildings or narrow streets fights are very different from open areas. Each side in conflict have different capabilities and type of area will explain why in some area fights are at same positions most of the time and why on other areas frontline moves fast. Same for terrain. On satellite pictures there are natural obstacles on surface - they make difficult to move in some dirrections. Sorry for long proposal, but after looking very detailed maps of area - most of 'strange' looking positions on map will become clearer and logical to understand.
These images should either be removed or the inflammatory and unsubstantiated captions modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.124 ( talk) 03:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Why? So you can add pro-Islamist photos of militants celebrating jihad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 18:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be chatter/tweets of rebels makeing gains in southern part of al-Rashidin suburb. 2.121.180.149 ( talk)
Live Al-Jazeera video report: http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syrian-army-aims-retake-western-aleppo
Rebels in full control of Al-Rashedeen and other parts of the western countryside. New Aleppo is being filmed from the opposition lines by a camera, making it clear that rebel forcess have advanced into the map. Changes needed?
In my opinion this article need soruces of western and "eastern" world, and you you said that all Al-Rashedeen is in control of Rebels but this is an urban battle and maybe only a sector of al-rashedeen with borders on New Aleppo have been taken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.201.55 ( talk) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The blockade of food in Aleppo is proof that the rebels have advanced. This is even in this own Wikipedia entry. But if you want sources pro Al Assad ...
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/aleppo-syria-rebel-siege-assad.html#ixzz2ZAHQzQqb
"The main highway into the city, the Aleppo-Damascus highway, was closed due to clashes, as rebels launched a fresh offensive and took the Rashdeen neighborhood at the western limits of the city. This was a vital artery, supplying western Aleppo with all its needs: food, fuel, medicine and goods as well as passenger buses and coaches".
When u say "But if you want sources pro Al Assad ..." i can see ur trouble (cuz ur answers was poor) and u are pro-rebel. Anyway i only want to say that when check news i see that Al Assad forces have some vicotries but u dont care about it, and u only wright some rebels progres. Obviously i dont want to say "wright only Al Assad victorys..." but be impartail, be smart and answer appropriately. And if u ask me for pro Al Assad sources i dont know (in english) but you should read Iranian and after give ur opinion, before say something read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.197.205 ( talk) 17:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.255.135 ( talk) 09:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Cmon when you published a new information about this battle all ur sources r from Rebel faction or western world. R u wating for new rebel success to publish something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.38.223 ( talk) 22:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, there needs to be more neutral sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.45.104 ( talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
with various snipers in the rebel groups [8]. Their motivations are pretty varied as is their equipment. ~~
the ID card of the officer killed in khan al asal says colonel, not brigadier general
Aqeed not ameed. (Source SOHR : 3 rebels from the town of Atarib were killed by clashes in Khan al-Asal town, where clashes are ongoing. Reports that rebels destroyed 2 tanks there and have taken over others after they took control of the Summaqiya area in the south of the town. A Syrian officer with the rank of brigadier general was killed with 2 of his soldiers (video) by rebels when a group of soldiers tried to flee from the fighting. Regime forces are bombarding parts of Qubtan town, no reports of human losses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtSGzKGGDZM&feature=youtu.be) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.14.62 ( talk) 14:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that operation Northern Storm has ended in a failure. The rebels have begun their own offensive that seems to be gaining traction, so it is quite conflicting to be writing about rebel gains under the paragraph titled by the army offensive. I propose a new paragraph titled by the rebel offensive "Battle of Qadisiyah" Offensive.-- 41.52.245.179 ( talk) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone want to turn wiki into a propaganda trash like CNN / FOX / Al Jazeera ...
Editorial writing propaganda for terrorists, every other source is inscription on facebook, nonsense like "do not know who kidnapped Christian Bishop - all options are open (terrorists video saw cutting head of Christian monks, Vatican condemned the terrorists ... but source of obvious lies the inscription on facebook.
The next lie: "4000 Hezbollah fighters fighting in Aleppo " wiki source: FSA spokesman writing on facebook
Lebanese movement Hezbollah in war against Israel 2006, on territory of Lebanon, had 3500 soldiers after additional mobilization (all Western sources agree on that) but the propaganda trying to broadcast the lie that Hezbollah sent to Aleppo (700 km away from Lebanon) more fighters than they had on their territory in the largest war after additional mobilization.
Next lie is map- no explanation required because the map is a joke
Next lie is number of dead - source "exclusively FSA spokesman, inscriptions on Facebook and nonsense written by so-called London Observatory( funded by UK government). This is insults for intelligence and people in Europe laugh at this nonsense but propaganda continues to work. All independent sources agree that 2/3 of victims are terrorists and FSA, that air power and heavy artillery inflicting huge losses to FSA and terrorists, but then some of London publishes a lie and no one doubts how it is possible for a man in London knows how many wounded before Aleppo emergency assistance, the number of the dead before they know their families ....
Next lie " no one not known who used chemical weapons , suspected that SAA used " - Source : Al Jazeera transmits what FSA spokesman said. Carla Del Ponte, High Representative of the UN, has confirmed that it is known who has used chemical weapons and killed 30 people and that they did terrorists. After that, Al Jazeera broadcast again FSA spokesman who said "it is not actually chemical weapons then little stronger than tear gas".
Wiki sources of propaganda are exclusively FSA spokesman, so called Observatory ( funded by UK), Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya (TV station of regime that kills anyone who mentions democracy in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, property of regime that is known for the lowest level of human rights on the world (much worse than North Korea, UN said that), property of regime of Qatar and Saudi Arabia ,countries where camels have more rights than women, their journalists are repeatedly raped by terrorists in Syria).
Wiki prohibited sources Press TV (coming from a country where president elected in a democratic election in contrast to Qatar and Saudi Arabia), it is forbidden to use SANA source (not to spoil the concept FSA spokesman), it is forbidden to use syrianperspective ( Syrian diaspora Blog not financed by foreign intelligence service of a foreign country as opposed to the so-called Observatory). Unlike FSA spokesperson and fairy tales by Observatory, syrianperspective every day write correct places of conflict in all the cities of Syria, the exact names of killed and captured terrorists ...
It is forbidden to publish NY times source research, "75% of Syria's support SAA, 15% were undecided, 10% support the FSA," It is forbidden to publish source The Guardian "Islamists, jihadists and terrorists do 95% of opposition fighters," it is forbidden to publish the same source ( The Guardian ) "sectarian war was invented, Sunni Muslims make up by far the largest number of SAA members, Sunni Muslims hold the most significant places in Government (Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, Interior Minister)... It is forbidden to set the source of washington times "82% of USA citizens are oppose to usa politics arming terrorists and any cooperation with FSA jihadists in Syria (10% are not interested, 8% support usa policy to assist FSA)
If someone wants to turn wiki into a bad joke it is on track to do so but people in Europe are aware of what is going on and this is a disgusting attempt at propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirislanina ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
When the information comes from a russian, syrian state tv or iranian source it's truth. But when it comes from western countries is propaganda? Please... Coltsfan ( talk) 18:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Sirislaina WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA!..... I agree with you in some points, for example the number of Hezbollah forces present in Syria its at much less than a thousand. Its nearly non sense to say that more than 4000 hezbolah fighters could beat back thousands of FSA/Islamists, and a profesional force of more than 100,000 men (SAA) could not do. Another point is that the regime suffer 50 casualties daily despite winning or losing territory. In my perpective there are many lies, biased informetion crossing the web and is nessesary to compare sources and show the two faces of the coin. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 18:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I would just urge everyone to find sources from all sides of the battle, including the press realeases, and then the reports by the press. Use that to determine the facts. Brendanww2 ( talk) 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Lothar, I hardly think adding a report by the primary Syrian news network directly disputing a claim made by the SOHR is undue weight. The SOHR IS an unreliable and partisan source, therefore any claim they make should be properly balanced. We have heard many claims about this airport and its supposed "capture" by rebel forces before and every time it has been incorrect. Now I'm demanding that it be made clear that this is a contested claim by the rebel affiliated SOHR and that the Syrian state is denying it. I will revert this tomorrow if you give no reply on the talk page and I will continue to pursue this as far as I can. It is unacceptable that you should revert a perfectly valid and sourced quote on this article because it doesn't fit with the preferred media 'narrative'. It is not for us to decide what side is right and which side is wrong, it is not for us to decide which of the SOHR or SANA organizations are less biased. It is the reader that should make this decision based on the information given and you are denying the reader the right to hear an opposing claim by an important press agency because of your personal subjective opinions. I'm going to assume good faith and wait for a few hours before taking this further. MrDjango ( talk) 01:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
SANA is not a reliable source so even if there was weight to sana's claim we still wouldn't use it.
But there is no weight to SANA's claims. Rebels posted videos of the full base, and SOHR is a neutral reporter, most of the sources we use for rebel losses come from SOHR. Sopher99 ( talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
And let me guess your response: "SOHR is ZIONIST CIA MOSSAD MOON LANDING 911 WESTERN ALQAEDA EVANGELICAL ILLUMINATI PROPAGANDA FROM THE AL-JAZEERA-NESCAFE COALITION!!!! ITS NO WHERE NEAR AS RELIABLE AS THE ACADEMY AWARD WINNING SANA!!!" Sopher99 ( talk) 01:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Very childish and idiotic post Sopher, although I have come to expect that of you, judging by your conduct on these and other talk pages pertaining to the Syrian war. I will not make any further replies to you, my complaint was against Lothar and not you. Frankly I think trolls like you should be prevented from editing Wikipedia as you are obviously too childish to write in a pop up book let alone a war article - "illuminati propaganda" or no. MrDjango ( talk) 01:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that there is now video of AQ's black standard fluttering atop Menagh's iconic watertower aside, the fall of Menagh is being widely reported: BBC Reuters NY Times. Attempting to present that as somehow equal in weight to two lines' worth of "nothing to see here, move along" handwaving is tantamount to POV-pushing. Let's be clear here: SOHR is not the source we are using. It is one of a number of primary sources that reliable secondary sources are using here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 04:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You guys might want to check this out, rebels tried to enter a kurdish neighborhood which resulted in continue clashes with the YPG earlier this week. 9-8-203 Link http://www.hawarnews.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=278:25-gangs-were-killed-by-ypg-forces-in-aleppo&catid=1:news&Itemid=2
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Winstone flores ( talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This article lacks of neutrality, all info is about rebel succes or cruel syrian regiment raid. 190.238.24.230 ( talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Ref 190.238.24.230 ( talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
This article lacks neutrality as all photos depict the opposition, there are no photos of the SAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.126.67 ( talk) 10:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It is going crazy on twitter. here are some links. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5htkS3umc0t-AdIon4GtJILRNGtpQ?docId=8a671966-d2a0-4d2f-8c5a-d77ef51e897f&hl=en http://news.yahoo.com/syria-army-retakes-parts-aleppo-airport-075737558.html http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/syria-army-retakes-parts-of-base-by-aleppo-airport-ngo-2013-11-08-1.527400 Rob2013 ( talk)
Why is written "On 8 November, islamist rebels retook most of a military base..."? On 8th Nov SAA attacked the base and they didn't have success yet, but everything is ongoing there. That area was controlled by FSA from long time... As it is written, it seems that the base was under SAA control and FSA conquered it ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidoriccio11 ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
One of the most senior Syrian rebel commanders to be backed by Britain and the United States, has resigned, blaming a major battlefield defeat on infighting in rebel ranks and the failures of the international community. Col Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi, who is a main recipient of the limited western aid to have reached Syria's rebels, launched a furious tirade against bickering rebel troops, the impotence of the political opposition, and the inertia of the West in helping win the war against the Syrian regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenrules777 ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The milititarybase 80 and Aziza should be red on the picture * Situation in Aleppo*.. The base was taken over by the syrian army, Aziza too. The army retook both of them and are under full controll. On the picture they are coloured under confrontation. Sources for base 80: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/10/334005/syria-army-seizes-base-in-aleppo/ http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/11/10/Syrian-army-retakes-northern-military-base-in-3rd-day-of-clashes.html http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Nov-10/237395-syria-army-regains-full-control-of-key-base-near-aleppo-state-tv.ashx#axzz2kKv6mfAb
Aziza has been known to be retaken of the army since 5 November. Kirders123 ( talk) 11:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Not done: The picture shows the "Situation in Aleppo in October 2013". If you would like to create a more up-to-date version and upload it, please open a new request to replace the current picture with yours. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Finally figured out how to do an edit request.
The names "Base 80" or "80th base" are not correct. 80 doesn't refer to the base, but to the 80th brigade which was stationed there (before the war). So the correct term should be "80th Brigade military base", "Brigade 80 military base" or similar. That's how it's spelled in the linked sources e.g. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/09/uk-syria-crisis-idUKBRE9A70UX20131109
Also has to be changed in the Aleppo Offensive page. I already posted on the Talk page there; sorry for the spam.
ZFR77 ( talk) 08:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, looks like someone has done it already. ZFR77 ( talk) 09:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Rasafeh district must be coloured olive, as this 12 November Reuters article states that SAA troops had advanced and take positions in Ashrafiye (yet coloured olive) and Bani Zaid districts, with the latter being a triangle area located in the heart of Rasafeh district (see Aleppo's Wikimapia map).-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 23:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Just heard of this a couple hours ago, A Syrian Air Force airstrike killed a Al Tawhid Commander that goes by the name of Youssef al-Abbas. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-syria-crisis-aleppo-idUSBRE9AE04320131115 Rob2013 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.40.181 ( talk) 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC) This page is converted in regime propaganda site.I'm really sorry to note this!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.251.166 ( talk) 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC) To the latter: I suppose that you're angry as this was previously (and to some extent, still is) a "rebel" agit-prop site...-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The villages of Zarzour, al-Naqarim and al-Taaneh are all under government control as of January 15th 2014 according to this article which is cited in the article. It has also been confirmed by several forces.
This is the area to the North of base 80. So therefore the map should be changed to red from brownish-green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabolisk ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
New reports from both pro-rebel [9] and pro-Assad source of SAA capturing Ard al-Hamra in northeastern Aleppo. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It is noticeable, that many of the places in the article are virtually unlocatable and thus the claimed action in these places are not verifiable. An example is the most recent entry: "according to the pro-government al-Watan newspaper, the Army made advances and seized the districts of Ballura and Kasr al-Tarrab"
Neither Ballura nor Kasr al-Tarrab can be found on any map or wikimapia, the al-Watan aticle is the first and only time that these names got ever mentioned anywhere and even using the context (somewhere between the airport, Aziza, Marjeh and Mayssar [Myasar on the map]) its impossible to locate them: Mayssar directly borders the airport area and between Marjeh and Aziza is nothing but an empty field.
There is no denying that the SAA is gaining ground around the airport in this case, but especially with this already overly long article it may be better to be a bit more cautious with including these claims, when even the location is unknown. -- Fehixx ( talk) 17:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Al monitor is used to report syrian army claims of capture of the Hanano district, however - no other source is reporting hanano's capture. Its only a syrian army claim, not notable or reliable enough to make hanano and its surrounding area red. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The Situation on Aleppo seems supporting the Claims of Sopher99!.. SAA fighting at Sheikh Najjar Industrial Area with Rebels.. how could this happen without helding the area between airpot and front line?.. Forget the resources that may be lying and give a reasonable answer to this situation!.. By the way, you should stop being voice of rebels, we just need the real info.. that's all!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.252.70.90 ( talk) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Since there is no counter-source,the claim made by Al-monitor is reasonable,and that Al-Monitor is reliable and neutral, the fact that it is only one source is of little consequence. You have no counter-source to say that Hanano is still under rebel control. As has been stated before, their front in that area has been falling apart, so it is reasonable to believe that this [Al-Monitor's story] is true. Al-monitor deemed this information to be newsworthy and published it. While I can see the argument on wanting to wait for multiple sources, we cannot wait for so long or the map becomes outdated, sometimes severely. So, since this source [Al-monitor] is neutral and decided to publish this article, we should go with it until further updates arrive. Dr Marmilade ( talk) 19:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Justice Palace It must be captured by the rebels green objects. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.186.87.95 (
talk)
09:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, its not THAT Justice Palace that is on the map over in the Khalidiyah district. Its the Justice Palace over in the Old Aleppo district [11], which is not even marked on the map. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Most of Salaheddin (except southern sector) based on both pro-gov. ( http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/03/new-map-of-aleppo-offensive-2.html) and pro-opp. ( https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/447485769905500160) maps to red, like it or not, so stop POV-pushing reverts...-- HC PUNXKID 15:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Some editors want to include the following edit, "As of 28 March, according to some western diplomats, it was believed the Syrian Army controlled around 80 percent of city. [ "Assad’s forces surround Aleppo, now control 80 percent of Syria’s largest city" Special to WorldTribune.com March 28th, 2014] The source says, "As a result, the regime was believed to be in control over nearly 80 percent of Aleppo." While it mentions unnamed "Western diplomats", it does not actually say that this is their conclusion.
World Tribune is not a reliable source and no evidence has been provided that it is. Its stories are not carried in mainstream publications and this particular story is not carried in any mainstream publication. The New Yorker ran an article explaining the lack of reliablity of the source. [12] Among other things, the article says, "One such story last week began, “U.S. intelligence suspects Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have finally been located.” The apparent scoop—of stop-the-presses significance—was unsigned, and billed as a “special to World Tribune.com.” The Times, the Journal, and the Washington Post, meanwhile, not only got beat but failed even to acknowledge the news in the days that followed." For clarification, the mainstream opinion is that there were no weapons of mass destruction and finding them would be widely reported.
One editor has brought this source to RSN.
Since the source is not rs, I will reverse the edit. Please do not reinstate without evidence the source is reliable.
TFD ( talk) 20:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"Phillip Smyth @PhillipSmyth · Mar 27
Philip Smith, a Hezbollah expert makes this point in a tweet above and so I added jihadist before Hezbollah in lead - seems a bit of a terrorist regime pov creeping into the language otherwise.- assadists are reasonable folks, a bit of torture and barrel bombing and chemical attacks but basically ever so reasonable, versus foreign jihadis. that's not a serious narrative . Sayerslle ( talk) 12:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I know we have very scarce information from Syria and it is hard to find anything both reliable and current, but please gentlemen, do not base a Wikipedia article on Twitter messages as sources. This is really low standard. -- Emesik ( talk) 11:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
On the map, we have the district Bustan al-Pasha incorrectly spelled as Bustan al-Basha. Bustan al-Basha is a village in Lattakia. Can somebody correct this? SkoraPobeda ( talk) 12:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Rebel references appear to be not saying what they are supposed to be saying. Heres one. 'The rebels also seized the old Justice Palace after the blast.'[519] http://www.trust.org/item/20140319181241-1ozzp/?source=search SaintAviator talk 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
For the past few days, multiple rebel sources (mainly Islamic Front) have boosted about a victory at the Military Research Center in Western Aleppo. I have found the following sources (some neutral, some video's from inside the base) to varify:
1. http://eaworldview.com/2014/08/syria-daily-civilian-death-toll-spikes-125-killed-sunday/ (this shows 3 videos from inside the base, which can be clearly cross checked with Google Earth or Maps) 2. http://malcolmxtreme.wordpress.com/ (some pictures and videos from the Research Center)
There have been earlier reports about fighting in Rashidin, near the Center. Since the latest troop deployments of the SAA are in Hama (to hold the Airport), it makes sense to at least make the Research Center olive, and the areas to it's west full green with a green arrow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 08:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any strategic analysis on any pro-rebel or pro-gov. sites ? Since 2014 April, the situation has changed a lot. The goverment has managed to encircle rebels in Aleppo, so the last part of analysis which says "the best the Army can do is only to secure positions" is now invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/10/aleppo-syria-rebels-face-islamic-state-regime.html
Al-Monitor is a reliable neutral source, and it clearly states the obvious: there is still ways for the rebels to reach the districts in Aleppo. So change that besieged part, because it's not. Also, mention on the text that the rebels have almost besieged the regime in Handarat village(consistent to previous SOHR reports) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.83.14 ( talk) 12:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
While I was looking around the daily star, I stumbled acros an article here it is. [1] The picture caption says that aleppo citadel is under rebel control, can someone pleas address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.164.49 ( talk) 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
References
Looking at the file history of the Aleppo battle map, it's very clear that to update it is to step rashly into a bitter partisan conflict fought with wishful thinking, source discrediting and personal abuse. Unlike the real battle though, the map battle reached a stalemate on 14 August 2014. The map is now obsolete and needs updating; in particular it is inconsistent with the article's other map, covering the wider Aleppo area. Would one of you brave citizen soldiers please update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.150.165 ( talk) 09:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Aleppo is encircled now, as said by various news reports, as well as the Economist:
Syrian government forces closed their grip around Aleppo, one of the last major cities in rebel hands. The Assad regime appears to have cut the last remaining road into the city, but is promising to halt air attacks on it for six weeks. Few expect the truce to last.