Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)

the page is becoming to report more pro government news

for the sake of neutrality,stop posting these reports rebel or government ,only post independent reports okay Alhanuty (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's necessary. We woulnd't have any informations, only the basics. But still, some government and rebel claims were correct afterall. --Wüstenfuchs 18:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't even try it Alhanuty. Pro-Bashar people on Wikipedia use this article to just upload every governement propaganda massage from SANA they can find. And then, they call that neutrality. Like: according to the governement, they've lost 20 soldiers and killed more than 700 rebels. Absolutely incorrect. Also, they claim that the rebels suddenly had the heavy weapons to mount on more than 91 technicals. It's a shame that Wikipedia has sunk so low because some people desperatly want to defend president Bashar al-Assad and his criminal regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that there's a 329 dead Syrian soldiers written in the information box in case you missed it? The 329 dead Syrian soldiers are rebel claims! What about the dead 308 rebels, which is said by the rebels themselves? Shouldn't we provide that information too? Or are we now biased for providing information BY the rebels? I sense you are highly biased against this situation.Intouchabless (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of neutrality, both points of view need to be presented. If we tried to present only what independent journalists (which aren't that many in the field) see with their eyes we wouldn't have much of an article. Also, both sides claims on the number of dead need to be presented. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Although both sides post biased and propagandist situation reports, remember that the Assad regime has had 40 years experience doing that and has professionals to do it, whereas the Rebels do not. So I would accept rebel reports but not Syrian Government reports which have been proven to be beyond even exageration. They should be completely discounted which is the price a government pays for institutionaly falsifying the truth. 94.31.12.66 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Assad Army Not retaking Salaheddine (28/08/12)

The Assad Army is pushing and getting out in hit and run tactics and couldNn't retake Salaheddine or Sukkari

"The fight for Aleppo has entered its second month. Al Jazeera journeyed back to where it all started – the impoverished district of Salaheddine. The army managed to push back into some areas, but has not been able to retake it.

Salaheddine represents the only static front line where both sides are locked into face-to-face confrontation, sometimes only metres apart. The district was in ruins – and still extremely dangerous. Mortar rounds landed indiscriminately and exploded, and government snipers were never far away."

"Sukkari, like Salaheddine, is one of Aleppo's poorest neighbourhoods. It has also been devastated by ongoing bombardment from government forces. On a street during a lull in fighting, a Syrian flag that once represented a united country was used by a fighter to clean his machine gun in a symbol of defiance."

As read on http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/08/201282711239414638.html --79.238.62.222 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We already put in the infobox that a stalemate is in Salahadine, based on an al-Jazeera source. So no new news about that. However, I would like to note the al-Jazeera reporter has been shown to be biased and unreliable in the past. For instance, the day that Reuters, AFP and Guardian reporters and rebel FSA battalion commanders all confirmed Salahadine was lost, the al-Jazeera reporter was the only one claiming it was not true. Also, his claims about Salahadine partially conflict reality given rebels themselves have confirmed the Army has pushed past Salahadine into Saif al-Dawla. EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is biased media. I also commented why is so. --Wüstenfuchs 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This from the guy who tries to use a Serb media source to report on "terrorist training camps" in Kosovo. l0l ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it aljazeera that is biased, or you who is biased.64.229.136.119 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's Al Jazeera, owned by a relative of the Qatari rulling family, financed by the Qatari rulling family, US called it "a propaganda tool" of Qatar and Qatar is directly involved in the conflict. Because of that I concluded that Al Jazeera is biased. --Wüstenfuchs 17:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You should compare the news from all the other media outlets with what is Al Jazeera saying 64.229... before making such accusations, which are by the way a violation of Wikipedia's rule on civility. EkoGraf (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Codswallop. This article is like 75% SANA. That is ludicrous. We refused to use Al Manara, feb17.info, and other news sites directly affiliated with the rebels during the Libyan war, but now we make our articles for this conflict out of Syrian state media while refusing to use a popular and largely reliable international news source? No, this will not do at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When all media outlets (AFP, Reuters and Guardian) reported that FSA was out of Salaheddine, they were just reusing infos from the morning, while Aljazere (which has 2 reporters on the ground inside Aleppo itself) confirmed that FSA was still in Salaheddine. I personaly hav some relatives there and in neigboring Saif al Dawla and could also confirm this. So it is proved that Aljazeera had the more accurate infos than the Western-based agencies which were not present in the country. The other thing is: There is always somebody who is critzing Aljazeera (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo . For example Isreael for reporting inside Gaza and in the same time Palestine for giving air time to Israel officials. The problem is that thos who critzise Aljazeere don't see that they are reporting always from both sides ( in Syria for example to air the full speech of the Dictator Assad and on the same time to give airtime to the oppressed)--79.238.46.252 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My relative is a commander of the FSA and he says the rebels have occupied the whole Syria. Nevertheless, Press TV also has reporters in Aleppo as well as SANA does. --Wüstenfuchs 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you making fun of me and family! Seriously this is not the level of discussion I am in need of. My whole family is in Aleppo and every night I am thing about their situation because of the bombardments ( and talking to them twice a day) and there is an office sitter named Wustenfuchs some thousand kilometres far away and now thinking about himself as THE Syrian Expert by citing State news--79.238.46.252 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody ever said we were not going to use Al-Jazeera Lothar. In fact we are already using it. We were just speaking our own minds, unrelated to the editing, about the neutrality of the Al-Jazeera reporter in Aleppo. Doesn't say anywhere we can't talk about it among ourselves. And note to user 79.238... Saying the western journalists don't have a presence in the country is simply not true. The Guardian and the Reuters reporters were on the frontline that morning themselves and confirmed Salahadine was lost. Also, CNN and BBC journalists have also visited Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I still have no clue how we can possibly say in the infobox that the govt is already advancing towards Saif Al-dawla when it is also recognized that there is a stalemate in Salaheddine district. This just does not make any sense. Anyone up for explaining this to me? Otherwise we need to update the infobox to reflect that the govt is still struggling to take Salaheddine WITHOUT being able to advance into Saif al-dawla. Moester101 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's possible... Think a little town, it's attacked from east, it's a stalemate, but the other army is also able to advance north from the town, and still they are keeping occupied the enemy at the east... That is, it's not a stalemate at every side of the district. --Wüstenfuchs 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is SANA a reliable source???

I wonder why some person use the source from SANA.. LOL --Johorean Boy (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I don't know. See the rest of the talk page. --Wüstenfuchs 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Both warring sides POV need to be presented. Read all of the previous discussions on this talk page Johorean. EkoGraf (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There really needs to be some standard here, because there is none right now. Oh wait, there is. SANA="it's ok we need to present all POV", Al Jazeera="omg so biased". [1]. During the Libyan war, we used rebel claims only if they were reported in mainstream media. We threw out Al Manara, feb17.info, rebel-linked Twitter posts, and other news sources directly affiliated with a combatant. But now we take SANA news direct from the source, complete with grossly unencyclopaedic use of "terrorist" (which completely trashes the NPOV you claim to be maintaining). RS is being sacrificed for a crude mockery of NPOV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. SANA isn't used for the infobox. It may be mentioned in the article however, adding it's rebel claim. --Wüstenfuchs 14:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, read what I said. I never said that we would not use Al Jazeera. I have myself personally added dozens of Al Jazeera articles as sources on the war. I was only commenting on the possible bias of the specific journalist in Aleppo, not suggesting that we remove the Al Jazeera source. Just like you and a few others have been commenting on the possible unreliability of SANA. I have a right to express my own opinion on the matter, but I don't let it affect my editing, that is, I don't let it lead me to excluding Al Jazeera sources. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying "I have an opinion" as if that actually means something, as if opinions are sacred and inviolable and must be left alone. Newsflash: that's not how things work. Nowhere have I sought to silence you or anyone else, so please don't act like I'm persecuting you by disagreeing with you. "Possible unreliability"? Huh? You were at the forefront of removing unreliable rebel sources during the Libyan conflict, but now you get all wishy-washy for a direct combatant source in this conflict? Explain to me this double-standard, where direct combatants in one conflict are treated as effectively unreliable, but in another they become just maybe unreliable. It's interesting to note that when SANA is brought up on a talkpage, y'all are quick to defend it under a tattered "NPOV" banner, but when an established mainstream source like Al Jazeera is brought up, it's all "tsk tsk, so biased!" You say that you don't let it affect your editing, but when people (not necessarily you) start including information directly from SANA as if it were just another news source and using the contentious label "terrorist" unchecked and without question, things start to get problematic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, this a pickle. In this conflict, Al Jazeera along with Al Arabiya are as much a "Combatant" as is "SANA". It was _very_ similar with Lybia. However, there, you at least got a lot of independents/semi-independents in between. Cutting the SANA stuff down to factual statements is a great idea. Same shall be done for both Al* though.195.212.29.191 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is in Libya we had journalists on the frontlines who could independently confirm or refute claims by both sides. Here there are no, or very few, journalists on the frontlines. Thus the only solution is to write per rebel and government claims due to the lack of independent journalists. And as for the word terrorist, we quoted it. And please stop with these borderline personal attacks, not once did I attack you. You say you are not trying to go after me, but at the same time you ridicule peoples personal opinions. Every person has a right to free thinking and to have his personal opinion. But, like I said, I don't let that affect my work and logical thinking. Due to the lack of journalists or non-existence of them on the frontline, if we excluded both SANA and rebel sources we would have maybe 2 or 3 sentences for the last 3 weeks of the battle of Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on, be reasonable. Using quotes does not make "terrorist" any less appropriate—per site policy and per local consensus. There weren't journalists everywhere in Libya, but even when we got news from some isolated part we were still very cautious about use of rebel sources. Caution has been thrown to the wind here, and article quality has suffered as a result. We should do the same as we did with Libya: report what SANA says if it is picked up in mainstream media, otherwise ignore it.

And will you please knock off the "stop persecuting my opinion" bit. I say it again: the mere fact that you have an opinion is quite meaningless. As you have a right to express it (for I have nowhere made efforts to prevent you from doing so), so do I have a right to criticise it. That's debate, friend, and sometimes it can get a little warm. And if you find that your viewpoint has difficulty withstanding criticism, then perhaps you are holding an untenable position. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I didn't add the word terrorist. In fact, I reworded it numerous times into the term rebel instead of terrorist. You should check that. It was Daniel who was putting the word. Second, I did not react to your criticism until you attacked my right to free thinking. I can take criticism as long as its related to the article, but attacking my way of free thinking is a totally different matter. In any case, I am in talks at the moment with the other editors about SANA so we can reach a solution to your concerns. EkoGraf (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, your pal Foxy and a Greek IP (no comment on identity) were the ones liberally adding in "terrorist" [2] [3] [4]. I guess Danno was a convenient enough scapegoat for it, given his tendencies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Foxy what? He is not my pal, the way you said it. He is an editor with whom I have a good working relationship here on Wikipedia. And I said Daniel because he was inserting SANA reports also, with which I didn't have a problem with. But yes, Wusten was also inserting it. So what? In any case, I don't want to get back on this discussion, we reached an agreement to include SANA information but on the condition it is drastically cut-down. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wusten and me have cut down on 5,400+ bytes of SANA information for the sake of compromise. Hope that's enough. EkoGraf (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction64.229.136.119 (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the IP. Eko, I've worked with you for well over a year now and I can assure you that I maintain significant respect for you as a contributor. However, I do not see anywhere where I "attacked your right to free thinking". I had criticism for your opinions themselves, but I never said anything like "EkoGraf, you are not allowed to say that and I will prevent you from saying so", which would be an attack on your right. You need to distinguish between those things. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really, only glad the shortening, summarizing and cutting down of SANA is a good enough compromise understanding. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Equivalence is needed. If the use of SANA is limited, then the use of rebels sources is also automatically limited and all the reference of SOHR and LCC can be immediately hunted down.

Sorry, try again. The fact that one has made additions and edits is not in and of itself a defence of said adding and editing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not much for this conflict, as I have not had nearly as much consistent free time to devote to monitoring news and updating things as I did last summer/year for Libya. I'm no newcomer to the Arab Spring topic area by anyone's standards, not any more than EkoGraf is. And all told, I'd rather the few edits and updates I put in in here nowadays be of decent quality: e.g., not laced with POV buzzwords (which, by the way, are not made any less POV by use of "quotation marks"). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA,wow,SANA is a very unreliable source to use and rely on,but however both sides have to be presented,because there isn't alot of independent sources and for neutrality . Alhanuty (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

but this page is already made up mostly of SANA report , so the article itself is unreliable . Alhanuty (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct because we always that informations have been reported by SANA. You can see that in every SANA paragraph. What one thinks of SANA is his personal oppinion though so anyone can rate the article on his own oppinion. --Wüstenfuchs 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WHEN I say unreliable i mean professionally not by opinion,because alots of their reports are false when they say that they are advancing in aleppo while in reality it is a stalement and became a war of attrition . Alhanuty (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

i bring sources and i don't used aljazeera only ,but the bottom line is the battle of aleppo turned to a slatement and a war of attrition . Alhanuty (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, having article full of stuff like many rebels technicals were destroyed, according to SANA and many rebels were killed according to SANA is nowhere near encyclopedic. Opposition sources quoted by mainstream many times say that they reported that many soldiers or shabiha were killed and they are not used in the article because it is not encyclopedic. Presenting both sides in context like rebels say that they still control Salahedin and SANA says that they are not is allright in my books, but simply throwing SANA reports in every article about how vague rebels were killed somewhere, somehow is not really that important and you can´t hide it behind presenting both sides equally. Not even mentioning that DanielUmel has habit of quoting alledged names which holds no importance from SANA as rebel casualties. How does that improve article quality? EllsworthSK (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If I try really hard I can get you every single name of Misrata citizens killed during battle of Misrata as they are presented on their memorial website. What makes you think that adding hundred MBs to the article which will contain names only will improve it and not destroy it? Those names are useless, they holds no importance and it first and last time they were ever mentioned, not even mentioning that they are not verified. It is destroying article. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out that wikipedia doesnt pay my bills and also I was for nearly three weeks out of the country. I guess it is shocking that I have a life outside the internet. This article isnt collection of every single information you find out there, it is encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedia doesn´t publish every name you find on any unreliable source, what SANA is, neither of any vague informations. Usage of SANA and other pro-government unreliable sources is limited to keeping NPOV, therefore giving it the same space for reaction on rebel version of events and vice versa. Bytheway, I have nearly 2,500 edits on wikipedia and have been editing for more than 4 years, I heavily contributed to both Syrian civil war and Libyan civil war articles, including Commons. Right now you are nowhere near those numbers so dont go on me again with inactivness. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style?

to strike fear in the hearts of the civilians living in opposition areas. - is this encyclopedic style?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, probably even POV. Should be reworded to fit an encyclopidia article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, why else would they do it....but yeah I guess it's not encyclopedic.64.229.136.119 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem fixed, see the new update to the section mentioned. Directly updated using the sourced material. Moester101 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

3 Sept news

The General said that the Army had killed cca. 2,000 rebels (since the beginning of the Aleppo assault), we add this in the infobox or leave 700? Maybe I didn't get it right... --Wüstenfuchs 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should mention this then... --Wüstenfuchs 20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The 700 figure is from 11 days ago. The 2,000 figure you could say is an updated one because it is still coming from the same source, the government. I made the necessary changes. I'm only glad that an independent AFP reporter confirmed with his own eyes the military controls the whole of Salahadine, because we didn't have any independent confirmation until now. Only government and rebel claims which are both unreliable, but the only ones we had. That would mean that all the clashes that are reported from Salahadine are hit-and-run insurgent attacks and the rebel claims relayed by Al Jazeera (and only Al Jazeera) were incorrect. EkoGraf (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that SANA is a "trash" (as stated by the IP) and at the same time pushing Al Jazeera as a reliable source is completely inappropriate. Neither SANA nor Al Jazeera informations shouldn't be added in the infobox. --Wüstenfuchs 21:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I found Al Jazeera for the most part reliable during the Libyan conflict, because they were reporting independently with their own eyes. But found the AJ reporter in Aleppo relaying for the most part what the rebels are claiming so, not finding him really reliable. And when I say that I mean just him, haven't looked at reports by other AJ reporters from Syria. Mostly reading the BBC, Guardian, AP and the Telegraph. EkoGraf (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes Sky sends a correspondent and they have always good reports. As for AJ, I don´t even bother to check out AJA, its trash. AJE at least have their correspondents and made some good piece from Al Bab but that is about it. SANA is a trash and until Austin Tice was captured by army McCluthy had an excellent reports from him. Heard that CJ Chivers of NYT is going there as well and he was one of the best correspondents in Libya. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Combatants

At my talk page, DanielUmel proposed that a separate section should be created, and I wuold support this proposal.

I have in mind to create a new subsection that would look something like this:

---

Combatants

At the beginning of the battle the rebels claimed to have between 2,000 and 7,000 fighters within 18 battalions. They also recieved a large support from Mujahideen and foreign fighters. The Islamist fighters are being financed by the Gulf States like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. One of the Islamist formations involved in the conflict is the Ahrar al-Sham. Many foreign fighters are being connected to al-Qaeda also. In September 2012 a doctor in Aleppo reported that cca 60% of rebels' fighters in Aleppo are being foreigners.

The Syrian Army fought alone in the conflict, but eventually gained support from Christian locals who feard the Islamists and the possible outcome if the FSA would won the war. The Army also gained the support from the local Kurdish militia.

---

Ofcourse this could be expanded and we could also add detalis to give better insight. We could also add the role of the Kurds in the battle, which is unexplained in the article and we leave a reader without any aswer... the infobox, as I think, is not enough. One can think of Kurdish forces in Aleppo what ever he whants to without a proper explanation. Same thing is with Christian milita, why do they support the Army? Etc. Any thoughts on this one? --Wüstenfuchs 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is necessary considering we already have links to their articles in which the ocmposition is described in full. Sopher99 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but his involvment in Syria is personal. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what a non-personal visit would look like. Sopher99 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, foreign reactions are reactions of foreign governments... adding a doctor there doesn't look good at all. I would go with a new section, which can be expanded considering all those refs we did and didn't added. Some of them had additional infos but weren't added in the article because some other source was already mentioning the paritcipation of certain forces. For example the Christians, a month or two ago I wanted to add Christians, but I was unable to. And now we have them without any detalied explanation. My sourced explained what were their motives: they were fearing the possible outcome if the Islamists would won and that they could be expelled just like those Christians from Iraq etc. I'm sure there are plenty of sources explaining motives of every side. And to add, this example above is just a prototype... --Wüstenfuchs 18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We have entire section of the Syrian civil war article and hte Free Syrian Army article explaining things like the Christian view. I don't believe we need to create a section on a battle article for this.

We should create a separate article called Aleppo during the Syrian civil war. That way we describe ALL social aspect of before this battle, during this battle, and even after the battle. Sopher99 (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The christian militia is a newly formed militia in Aleppo following the liberation of their quarters by the Army. They have to be noted. They are like the Lijan militias in Damascus.

Secondly, the foreign reaction is not good place. This is not a reaction to the battle, but an observation and a comment.

It should be introduced either in a special section, either in the continued fighting as an additional information on the battle. Sopher, you are trying to hide it I feel, but this is not correct. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the continued fighting section, because it is not continued fighting. Make a separate article called Aleppo during the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why a separate article... see for example the Battle of Stalingrad. They also have a special section at the bottom. Aleppo is a very important battle and structure of combatants must be mentioned. --Wüstenfuchs 18:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking only about Aleppo combatants, Kurds, Christians, foreigners and I believe we can collect some infos regarding the Army's unites involved in the battle. --Wüstenfuchs 18:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Crazy stuff above... "You will soon join him". :D --Wüstenfuchs 22:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the combatants section, made only some gramatical corrections, everything else looks great and balanced to me. EkoGraf (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. Seems Daniel's idea was constructive; I'm glad we added the section. --Wüstenfuchs 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag - misrepresentation of Kurdish position in infobox

The infobox distorts the position of the Kurds in the battle of Aleppo. The PYD is correctly represented as being against the Syrian government: “We are against the regime. We are not supporting it. If we supported the regime, we would have taken our guns and gone after the FSA.” [5]. Also see:

Date of the Article 8 September 2012

In a statement released on Friday, leaders of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) said, “The Syrian regime will pay dearly for this massacre in Sheikh Maksud [Aleppo neighborhood].”

“The YPG will not forget the blood of those citizens who lost their lives in the massacre and the units will conduct revenge and counterattacks,” read the statement. [6]

The infobox incorrectly indicates that there are no local Kurdish militia independent of the PYD militias that work actively together with the FSA, but rather only indicates there are some supposed local Kurdish militia working with the Syrian government. See the following actual situation: "tensions between the Kurdish Salahaddin Brigade -- now fighting in Aleppo under the unification brigade -- and the armed forces of the PYD". [7].

Also, there is a misunderstanding by some Wikipedia contributors as to the nature of the Unity Brigade. The Unity Brigade should be thought of as a higher organizational unit with brigades followed by battalions beneath it. See the following in depth report [8] that has the following statement:

The emergence of the Tawhid [Unity] Brigade marks a definitive development in Aleppo’s armed opposition movement: for the first time in the Syrian uprising, a unit has established a province-wide chain of command and is capable of coordinating operations between ideologically diverse battalions in conjunction with a provincial military council.

Also, the one source citing local Kurdish militias as working with the Syrian government has been grossly misread and distorted to push the opinion that Kurds are on the side of the government which the Syrian Ministry of Information has been trying to push in the media. The lines from the article that are used to create this distorted view are as follows:

Date of the Article 8 August 2012:

Hachem al-Haji, one activist in Aleppo, said the rebels moved into the area because local Kurds, after initially supporting the government along with other minorities, are growing more supportive of the opposition. Another activist said that the rebels met fierce resistance from residents fighting as part of the Kurdish militias.[9]

The above paragraph states that it was not clear what the position of the Kurds was at that time. There are two opposing views within the article. The easiest way to understand the sources is that the mentioned Kurdish militias switched sides to the opposition or at least against the Syrian government. As the infobox now stands it is outdated by at least a month and pushes the non-neutral point of view of the the Syrian government's Ministry of Information. Guest2625 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If certain group of Kurds fights in an unit that is already listed there's no point listing them in the infobox. Say, would we add 1st, 2nd, 3rd... regiments of the Army's divisions? Or maybe subgroups of other rebels' self-proclaimed "brigades." --Wüstenfuchs 00:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you missed what he said: "The infobox incorrectly indicates that there are no local Kurdish militia independent of the PYD militias that work actively together with the FSA..." That is, he is contending that there are Kurds not affiliated with the PYD fighting for the opposition. So no, this isn't at all like listing Army subdivisions because we aren't talking about subdivisions. Please read carefully. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't missed anything. Maybe Guest2625 whants to improve image of the rebels but it seams those Kurds aren't notable - they are subordinated to the brigade that's already listed in the infobox. The infobox doesn't have a purpose to improve image of certain combatant. Besides, you have combatants subsection. --Wüstenfuchs 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is pushing a biased view. The Kurdish Salahaddin militia and the PYD's militias are the only Kurdish forces fighting in Aleppo. The combatant section of this article itself states that all Kurdish Aleppo neighborhoods are controlled by the PYD militias. Who are these local Kurdish militias who are supporting the government? The fact is they are either the PYD's militias or the Kurdish Salahaddin militia and neither of these groups are supporting the government. The Kurdish Salahaddin militia actually is a local Kurdish militia that works with the opposition.

Also, I certainly do not want to improve the image of the rebels. I just want to state the facts in the most neutral fashion. I have no idea how the local Kurdish militias have anything to do with the rebel's image. What I do note in the infobox is that there is this piling on of detailed descriptions of the militias. Armenian militia?? Seriously. What about the Turkman militias. Or the Syriac militias. Or the Melkite militias. Or maybe the Uniate militias.

My main point is if you want to indicate a local Kurdish militia supporting the government (based on a tenuous and outdated statement in the nytime's article) then you need to also indicate a similar local Kurdish militia supporting the opposition (i.e. the Kurdish Salahaddin militia). Those are the neutral point of view facts. Everything else is some weird sort of ethnic/sectarian agenda pushing which I really don't get. Hopefully, the reader of this article uses severe caution when reading it and will look at the talk page to see what a disaster this article is. Guest2625 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. You see, the Slaheddine "brigade" is part of other brigade that is already listed. Now, pro-government militas are not part of the Syrian Army. This represents a problem. --Wüstenfuchs 00:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Salaheddine is part of FSA, there were report about them on rudaw long time ago. If someone wants I can source that. As for local Kurdish pro-government militia, most sources claim that in exact same district where they should´ve been in control, YPG is (was) in control. There is not and was no pro-government Kurdish militia, there was simply YPG which remained neutral to both sides and refused entry to both army and rebels. Just like in Kurdish areas elsewhere. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is saying that Kurdish areas are under governement control in Aleppo, so they are siding with the governement. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/06/uk-syria-crisis-aleppo-idUKBRE8850JQ20120906 --DanielUmel (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

From the article it's not clear what happened in the Kurdish neighborhoods. The Syrian government forces apparently retook the Kurdish neighborhoods after they bombed and killed 21 Kurdish civilians in the Kurdish held Aleppo neighborhood of Sheikh Maksud.[10] It appears the government did not like the fact that the Kurds retaliated by killing three government soldiers, since then they also began to arm the Arabs around Qamishli.[11] Guest2625 (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA and sanity

Looking at the all the SANA sourced information it seems that the city is relentlessly cleared all of all rebel forces with tens of dozens dying every day and scores of technicals and weapons depots confiscated every day. Surely the city should be empty of rebel forces by now, is there some SANA explanation that this so for hasn't happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.116.107 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If we listen to what the rebels say they already control almost the whole country and the military was, per them, on the brink of collapse 8 months ago. So this is nothing new. Standard information warfare on all sides. EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And we got caught in middle of it. Wouldn´t it be better if we just keep both rebel and government claims to absolute minimum, even if articles would have to get much shorter in some cases? Quality over quantity. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA claims to have killed several tens of thousands of opposition fighters at this point, more than even exist in the city. The opposition do not make these kinds of wild, unrealistic claims, and actually make use of the free press to vet their claims. The benefit the regime has is that in SANA, they have a state controlled mouthpiece through which to spout any kind of nonsense they wish, and are accountable to no one. Also the opposition do control most of the country, and the regime actually is on the brink of an economic collapse (not to mention moral). Users editing this appalling article would do well to read WP:NEWSORG and WP:SELFSOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.191 (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sign yourself in future. --Wüstenfuchs 14:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No.

Well, IP doesn't know that even in propaganda you are not allowed to say anything you want. If you are busted then you lose your credibility, like former Syrian Prime Minister who stated that Syrian Army controls less then 30% of Syria. He can say what he likes now, but who gives a damn. Syrian Ministry of Information wouldn't allow such stupid thing. --Wüstenfuchs 15:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA never claimed the military killed tens of thousands of rebel fighters. They claimed, like Daniel said, 2,000 were killed in a period of almost two months. Which would be around a quarter of the reported number of rebel fighters at the start of the battle. Its simple information warfare. Per SANA they are killing 30 or so rebels in the city per day, while the rebels claim they are loosing 5-10 fighters in the city per day. The truth is probably somewhere in between, 15-20. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And more regime soldiers than that are probably being killed "every day". That is the issue with relying so heavily upon a crack-pot outlet like SANA in the article. You only get one side of the story, i.e. regime soldier deaths go unreported even as their dead bodies litter the street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.37 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you acctualy believe that? That is impossible. Trained professional army versus normal citizens? Rebels have some supernatural power which is sent to them by the United States I guess. Only Hollywood movies can make such thing. Partisan movies were quite similiar... [12] :D --Wüstenfuchs 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Or thing called guerilla warfare. Tactic-of-choice by Syrian rebels. Overall, according to main article page, army has lost more men than rebels. So, nothing unimaginable, especially with those trained men having no training in COIN operations as whole Syrian army has been training for decades for one task - war with Israel. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehehe, nobody better than Bata, love that guy. XD In any case, agree with Wusten. I mean, SOHR publishes reports of, for example, 20 rebels dying during the day, while the government looses 30-40 soldiers. 2 to 1? How unrealistic is that? The government troops are heavily armed and proffesionally trained soldiers who have tanks and aircraft, while the rebels are barely armed and trained (defectors not making up the majority anymore) and only have technicals and a few tanks. In any modern guerrilla war in history, it was always the insurgents who were being killed more than the military. In any case, like I said, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Based on all the reports that have been gathered, the kill ratio is most likely 1-1, or just a bit slightly for the rebels favor. What I'm trying to say bassicly is, they are evenly matched. EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ellsworth you claim that all 20,000 were sent to battle? That would be a naive thing to do. And no, it's not guerilla warfare. It would be if rebels would hide in caves and forests and make minor attacks, but that is not the case. Battle of Aleppo is in the category of urban warfare. Also, considering supplies that Army is able to have and armed support that they have (artillery and air) it's not the soldiers' bodies that "litter the street."

@EkoGraf yes, Bata is an excellent actor. He is Serbian Robert de Niro, as described by many. :) --Wüstenfuchs 18:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And that negates my point how? There is also urban guerrilla warfare which is especially deadly in defensive position. Ambushes, raids, planting IEDs on supply lines etc etc. As for no modern guerilla warfare having more casualties on government side than on guerilla side, look at The Troubles or Tuareg_rebellion_(2012). I understand that when you say guerilla or insurgency most people tend to think about Afghanistan and Iraq, but you cannot compare US military to Syrian army. US military has infinitely much more experience and training in COIN operations, Syrian army has none. Anyway, it wasn´t really my point, my trust level to SOHR is about the same level as to SANA. I was just reacting on your "impossible" part". As for 20,000 Aleppo city is not the only theatre and I do not see one reason why Syrian government would help back 17,000 soldiers, just waiting in the barracks, playing footie while their economical capital is being destroyed. They either do not have them there (more likely) or they are dispatched not only to city but also to maintaining supply lines, countryside and such (less likely). EllsworthSK (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I swear everytime someone complains about SANA they don't really care about the truth. They just want to media that is friendly towards them. Which is silly because spinning information on Wikipedia changes little in reality. Yes SANA is biased. It's a pro-government source run by the Syrian government but you know what? That is known. Unlike the activists and the rebels who have lied repeatedly. One minute the army is brutally slaugthering innocent civilians like sheep (an activists actually used this metaphor) and the next minute the army is getting mauled pretty badly by heroic rebel figthers who don't even suffer a scratch. Just look at Tremeseh where the ethnic cleansing of Sunni civilians turned out to actually have been a case of the rebels starting a fight and losing very badly. Taftanaz base where the "destroyed" helicopters were flying around and killing rebels that attacked the base. Most media organisations have decided to simply regurgitate verbatim what they hear from activists so there is little indepedent news reportng coming from Syria. We need both sides of the story to get a glimpse of the truth.

Oh and I agree with Daniel. The rebel and activists sources for casualties are very dodgy. Rebel deaths are being hidden under civilian casualties. The rebels fighting in Aleppo aren't from that city. They come from the villages outside and they take turns fighting. They are also 90 minutes away from the Turkish border so it is very concievable that new fighters are joining to replace the ones who are dead/wounded. It has already been reported that more Jihadists are fighting in Aleppo.62.31.145.100 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Troubles and the Tuareg rebellion were different. The Troubles weren't guerilla warfare in the classical sense, like what we are seeing in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or what we saw in Vietnam for example. As for the Tuareg rebellion, there was almost no guerilla warfare there...the Tuaregs just ran over the Mali military. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. to Wusten, more of a Rambo or Chuck Norris than de Niro. XD EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA might exacurate some times with numbers of killed rebels, but is a very reliable source in giving the news of controlled areas by the army, certainly first and certainly before rebel media and the western media, which are informed by them, adopt it as a new. I must however stress the mountains of unreliable reports by western media and rebel sources about operations in imagination. 1-2 fail attacks in bases to seize ammo, was baptised as operations against the Syrian Airforce power!!! And these ridiculous claims are adapted easily by western mediaand trasmitted without verification as long with claims of massacre by the Army. Whoever so far the only side that executes and ask pride!!!! of that is the rebel side with their extreme elements.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Midan neighbourhood

Should we add al-Midan neigbourhood in the infobox? Many sources described this neighbourhood as an important (even key) part of the citiy. Independent sources reported that it's mostly under Army control now. --Wüstenfuchs 18:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Midan was government controlled from the start, the rebels only attacked it in the last week and have now been repelled. EkoGraf (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No the latest reports show that Midan and even further into Al-Sulaymaniyah are in deep FSA control. Please show sources...--193.174.105.74 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

An AFP correspondant told that the district was under governement control. Residents tell the same thing. I wonder what kind of source could report that Midan was in "deep FSA control", when it never was in FSA hands at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TartarindeTaras (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not one source ever said FSA controlled Midan. Most sources in the last 24 hours, including an AFP reporter on the ground, reported the government has reestablished control over Midan and even advanced a bit into Arkoub. All of the sources supporting this are already in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sudanese SUNA

I find it very amusing that L7aseral is pushing very hard to mention the fact that SANA is behind every SANA report but desperatly want to hide the fact that the only claim coming that salaheddine is under rebel control come from an unknown Sudanese agency called SUNA.

Such an unknow source has no weight compared to AFP, Reuters and the other usual source. Not mentionning the source to make look like the information is more reliable than it is, is a clear breach of Wikipedia policy of credibility.

The formulations "rebels regained full control of Salaheddine" is dishonest without mentionning that it is a rebel claim only quoted by a sudanese agency. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, unknown press agency and furthermore nobody else has reported on the claim, which was made by one FSA commander and nobody else. If the rebels really did take Salahadine, I would think they would be trying to milk it for all the possible propaganda purposes on the TV or the Net. But I haven't seen that. No mention of it whatsoever. EkoGraf (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems that Sopher and L7seral are exchanging roles!--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok let him add whatever he wants, I have already made a phone-call to Aleppo and talked to people who live in the Iza'a area, they refuted such claims and assured that the Syrian Army is maintaining full control over Salahaddine, with minor skirmishes on its eastern border with Tal az-Zarazeer district which is still under the control of the FSA.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Map Needed

I think we need probably a google map of Aleppo and districts that the oposite sides control. It will be more easy to recognize advances, mislead (SUNA) and other info and to have a better view of the situation. Anyone with good exprerience in google map and the areas of Aleppo could give it an effort.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be Rafy. He did a great map of the loyalist-opposition advances during the battle of Misrata. EkoGraf (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating map of Aleppo would be considerably harder. In Misrata we had a lot of journalists, reporting all changes on frontline etc. In Aleppo there are some but mainly focus on city center, Salahedin and few others. It remains unknown who controls large part of city (fe east). EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Map Needed

I think we need probably a google map of Aleppo and districts that the oposite sides control. It will be more easy to recognize advances, mislead (SUNA) and other info and to have a better view of the situation. Anyone with good exprerience in google map and the areas of Aleppo could give it an effort.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be Rafy. He did a great map of the loyalist-opposition advances during the battle of Misrata. EkoGraf (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Creating map of Aleppo would be considerably harder. In Misrata we had a lot of journalists, reporting all changes on frontline etc. In Aleppo there are some but mainly focus on city center, Salahedin and few others. It remains unknown who controls large part of city (fe east). EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through with Paint and made some piss poor ones of not enough quality to put up. There are however some gaps, where I'm guessing. Its unclear where the front lines around the souq are and where the front lines in the South are and far North west. In the east, I drew the lines based on the assumption that districts shelled are under FSA control; as such, there is a lot of information out there on that. Anyway, its a start; getting the first map up there is ideal, after which collectively we should have an easier time debating which areas are controlled by whom.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/aleppomax.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/aleppomax3.jpg/ The maps shows the lines of control. Orange: Maximum Rebel Gains (areas previously held but captured are the souq, Salaheddin, Maidan, and the north western Christian areas. Red: Current Front Lines Green: Current FSA holdings Yellow: Kurdish militias Dark Blue: Active regime control Light Blue: (Passive) Regime control i.e. rebels occasionally launch attacks on military targets.

Piss poor quality image, but if anyone can photo shop something up... Grant bud (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Integrate this source, Rebel groups

Can we integrate this source in this article? I think it's quite good and many citations of this institute were includes in the main FSA wikipedia acticle...

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Backgrounder_RebelGroupsNorthernAleppo.pdf

It is about the different rebel groups in Aleppo and Aleppo province--217.247.195.246 (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Though, some of the informations can be found interesting the source is far from being reliable. If you noticed it's references, majority of them are You Tube links. --Wüstenfuchs 23:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Map

Anyone here able to make a map? this article really needs one. I've gone through with Paint and made some piss poor ones of not enough quality to put up. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/405/aleppomax.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/840/aleppomax3.jpg/ The maps shows the lines of control. Orange: Maximum Rebel Gains (areas previously held but captured are the souq, Salaheddin, Maidan, and the north western Christian areas. Red: Current Front Lines Green: Current FSA holdings Yellow: Kurdish militias Dark Blue: Active regime control Light Blue: (Passive) Regime control i.e. rebels occasionally launch attacks on military targets.

Piss poor quality image, but if anyone can photo shop something up... Grant bud (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)