Talk:Aleppo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

For a picture, try http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/syria/aleppo/maps/olfert_dapper_1677_aleppo_b.jpg which is a scan of a public-domain image (but the website claims copyright; copyright law does not seem to give them any rights since there is no expressive content)

Aleppo's Jewish population has moved abroad voluntarily? I find this line to be more than a little suspicious, given the history of Jewish persecution in Arab countries immediatly following the creation of the state of Israel. Could someone more knowledgeable than I look into the accuracy of this statement?

As mentioned in the article, the Jewish minority has moved voluntarily. and only 25 Jews are still living in Damascus.

Yeah, the Jewish community moved abroad voluntarily, allright, despite the best efforts of the Syrian government to prevent it. Some were even killed trying to sneak over the border to Turkey. As to why Jews would risk their lives to leave, a small part of the story is found here.

Here is just a taste of why the Jews left Aleppo:

In December 1947 anti-Jewish riots climaxed in a vicious pogrom; Syrian mobs poured into the mellah of Aleppo, burnt down most of the synagogues, and destroyed 150 Jewish homes, five Jewish schools, fifty shops and offices, an orphanage, and a youth club. Holy scrolls, including a priceless ancient manuscript of the Old Testament, were burned, while the firemen stood by and police "actively helped the attackers."[244] In the aftermath, the Syrian president asserted to a visiting Jewish delegation that "Incidents of this sort occur even in advanced countries . . . . "[245] and the Minister of Finance rejected the request for a loan to repair one of the synagogues so that the Jews could continue to worship. [246]

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/arabjew.html

This entry will be watched for any attempts to whitewash the events leading to the Jewish departure.

Hahahahahahhahahah fresh milk? fresh milk is ﺤﻠﻳﺐ I still think it should stay though

The Unti-Jewish incidents mentioned above were later proven to be carried out by the Israelis Inteligence using "Terror" as a Tactic to encourage the Syrian Jewish community to Immigrate to Israel, however this Tactics did not work as it was planned for, and the Syrian Jews who decided to leave prefered countries other than the newly founded "Israel". Most of them left to the United states of America, Belgium, and other European Countries, this why it is no likely to find Syrian Jews in the State of Israel.

Before leaving their country of Syria, Jews had the time to arrange their Financials, transfer their Businesses, or reaching Settelments with their Arabic Musllim and Christian Partners. Jews in Syria enjoyed an unparalled freedome of Religion practice, Holidays, and Social Activities. I know these facts because I am a Syrian Jewish my self and I lived in Syria during that period of time. And to be honest I miss Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.61.100 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. You're about as Jewish as I am Bhutanese. When did you last celebrate the Feast of Gedalia?

Section

Deleted section. If someone can make it encyclopedic, then they should fix it. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Can't we use more than one Infobox at the same time? Because it's a city before a world heritage site. Asabbagh 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin of name

There appears to be a folk-etymology in the 1st paragraph, and serious discussion in the 3rd. I suggest removing the fol-etymology. Comments? Jd2718 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest keeping both, but merging them in one of those two paragraphs. Also, the 'serious' discussion could be placed first or emphasized, but I am opposed to removing the 'folk-etymology', as it still is proper to include it here. Asabbagh 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the name refer to the Jewish presence? Halab = haLevi and its variants. Don't forget, Queen Noor of Jordan's birth surname was Halaby and her father was Syrian in ancestry. Of course, other religions have the name too or variants thereof, as it is not uncommon there for that to happen.JBDay (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aleppo < Halpa (Hittite period) It's not a Jewish name! Böri (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jewish population

An anonymous user is reverting parts of the population section. Please stop, this is an encyclopedia, not a portal to push your POVs through. Since this is a controversial subject, there have to be both POVs. Trying to remove one POV and keeping the other is not assuming good faith and introduces bias. Also, when you add controversial information please cite your sources and avoid original research; it is also important to say that not every published source can be considered reliable. In such cases, a neutral, third-party, reliable source should be cited and not a pro-Arab or pro-Israeli source. In this articles, both POVs will have to be kept to avoid bias and ensure the neutrality of the article. Please avoid edit-warring, thank you. —Anas ^talk? 11:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That part of the section links to an article that details the migration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel and other parts of the world. That is all well and good. The text of the link is very euphemistic, (i.e. "pressures"), but that itself is okay. It links to the facts. But to add a sentence saying "oh, by the way, some people think that there was no violence against Jews happened in Aleppo and the government protected the Jews" is beyond being POV. It is presenting a POV consisting of a sweeping factual claim that happens to be false. And, if it has any place in Wikipedia, this POV should be discussed in the Jewish exodus article. Ocschwar 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Come to think of it, the whole tone of that part seems not too encyclopedic. This section needs citing and a rewrite. I will hopefully find time to discuss the issue in the parent article. For now, please refrain from adding unencyclopedic content, like your recent edit. Everything can be done in a civil manner. :-) Regards, Anas ^talk? 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I readded that opinion. How can it not be included, if the first POV is in this article? It isn't mentioned in a POV tone either, it just says that some insist on this view, and that is entirely true (that some people have this view). You can call it a "sweeping factual claim", just as many others (more than you think) will call the first POV a "sweeping factual claim". We cannot give undue weight to one point of view, and at least opinions held by a wide group of people should be mentioned. Asabbagh 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt about that, it should be there, but the whole section needs a rewrite and references to make it at least sound more encyclopedic. I only removed it earlier for that reason. —Anas ^talk? 12:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You two really amaze me. While it is true that there are people who think the 1947 Aleppo pogrom against the Jewish quarter never happened, there are also people who think that the earth is flat. This other point of view, that the Jewish community was unharmed, requires believing that the massacre never happened, and that Judy Feld Carr's decades long efforts to rescue the Jews of Syria was prompted by nothing at all. if you're going to claim it never happened, I challenge you to cite a source for that claim. Meanwhile, there is plenty of scholarship published on Syria's anti-Jewish repression, both on the part of mobs and on the part of the government. This "other poing of view", if you're going to promote it, go promote it in the Jewish exodus article.Ocschwar 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've added another link to a source about the savage repression that Syria's government and population wrought upon the Jewish community. Each time you add a paragraph denying this happened, I'll add yet another link. Yes, there are people who think none of this happened, but all that shows is the extent of ignorance and censorship among Syrians.Ocschwar 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That you can find more links to sources does not necessarily mean that the information is correct. By including that paragraph, one is not taking sides, for the paragraph itself states that the opinion is only held by some. You might think that it is ignorance and censorship, but your personal opinion does not belong in the article, and it is not up to you to decide whether or not their opinion comes out of ignorance or otherwise. Furthermore, the link you added was to meforum.org, self-defined as: "The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East." Hardly an unbiased source. I wasn't there at the time, and I doubt that you were. The views presented here have to be of an objective nature. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I will not revert immediately. Asabbagh 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty more sources about the massacre of 1947. You, however, can find nothing to indicate it didn't happen, besides the fact that a lot of poeple don't know about it. Yes, I am indeed making a point here. Ocschwar 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.15.104 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

It is evident that you're only trying to make a point and POV-pushers are not welcome in Wikipedia. I'm not in the mood for a conflict, so I just nominated the article to be checked for neutrality from a third party. —Anas ^talk? 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources regarding anti-Jewish violence in Aleppo: The Ottoman Empire, which encompassed what is today Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and other territories, fell early in the 20 th Century. The region was divided into areas controlled by France and Great Britain. Palestine was under British Mandate. Syria was under French control. The Republic of Turkey was established in 1923. Syria gained its independence from France in 1946. Attacks against Jews, who remained in the Syria after World War I, increased. Pogroms in 1947 left Jewish shops and synagogues destroyed. Thousands of Jews left the country for America and Palestine.

When partition was declared in 1947, Arab mobs in Aleppo devastated the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. Scores of Jews were killed and more than 200 homes, shops and synagogues were destroyed. Thousands of Jews illegally fled Syria to go to Israel.1

Shortly after, the Syrian government intensified its persecution of the Jewish population. Freedom of movement was severely restricted. Jews who attempted to flee faced either the death penalty or imprisonment at hard labor. Jews were not allowed to work for the government or banks, could not acquire telephones or driver's licenses, and were barred from buying property. Jewish bank accounts were frozen. An airport road was paved over the Jewish cemetery in Damascus; Jewish schools were closed and handed over to Muslims.]

Ocschwar 15:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Ocschwar 15:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ocschwar (Boker Tov!), I removed the following part:

including most notoriously the 1947 massacre, in which 75 Jews were murdered [1].

The reason is that this is a population section. Must be short, but include all communiti9es, even those who left but left a mark on the citi's history. Keeping in mind that I was the author of the very first section on Aleppo's Jewish community (more than a year ago), and that people with more time and better English than me have expanded it and made it more readable, I don't believe it would be fair to enter such details like this 1947 massacre: sadly, many massacres took place, also against ohter minorities, we can not single out one: The other problem is that the figure of 75 killed is mentioned only in a few Israli or Jewish web-sites: frankly speaking, accepting something as www.meforum.org as a reference would be like accepting www.kkk.org as a fair reference on the situation of black slaves in the South before 1865: totally biased website. Whoever wants to read about massacres in 1947-48 agains Arab Jews, need just to click on a link in the same Aleppo Population page to the 1948 Exodus from Arab Countries page. 2 June 2007

I don't object to the omission. I simply want the link to the Jewish expodus article not to be accompanied by any attempt at whitewashing, which is what several versions of the article had this spring. Ocschwar

population of Aleppo

The population of the Aleppo governate is around the 4 million mark, according to an unofficial report from Aleppo city council. I'm trying to get an official number from somebody here in Aleppo. the 1.9 million for Aleppo city seems way off too. I'll get back with a correction as soon as I have anything solid and confirmed. The article in Arabic about Aleppo states that the population is 4 million, http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8 But doesn't say whether that's for the entire governate or just the city.

so does this one Aleppo_Governorate

neither state any official source for their numbers. I haven't been able to find any official census information yet.

Haxxor23 12:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Try CBS. —Anas ^talk? 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at that site thanks...although its badly designed and has script bugs. I looked at the Aleppo page and it states 4035127 as the total population for the governate, which includes an awful lot of towns and villages, no mention of the actual population of the city itsef. I'll keep looking around....Haxxor23 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly true. Although I doubt they'll ever reply to you, but try contacting them via e-mail. Their feedback system is down. :-/ —Anas ^talk? 11:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are all free license now

All pictures in this article have now been checked to insure that they are free license and do not have any copyright restrictions. Please ensure that any pictures you add or edit in the future, conform to some form of free license agreement, thanks.

Haxxor23 14:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks a lot. —Anas ^talk? 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Section Population

This section has been tagged for months now, and nothing apparently happened since then. It seems unbalanced – half of it is dedicated to a single community while the others are mentioned in a few words - and it is still missing citations. We should find a more neutral version in order to eventually remove the tag.TerreOcre 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

List-makers create historical statistics

The following is merely the result of someone compiling a "list of the deadliest earthquakes" in which this one is number four, without any statistics to go on. The contemporaneous population of Aleppo itself is open to question:

On August 9, 1138, a deadly earthquake ravaged the city and the surrounding area. Although estimates from this time are very unreliable, it is believed that 230,000 people died, making it the fourth deadliest earthquake in recorded history.

A house of cards. --Wetman 07:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split "Halab" off the main article.

I would like to create a separate article for ancient Halab (before the Greek conquest), to allow more depth for this time period. Would there be any objections to this? Categorystuff (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. HD1986 (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cities which have slightly different names during history (mainly due to transcriptions), are most often described within one article. So Halab and Aleppo should be the same article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny sentence

It was known to antiquity as Khalpe, Khalibon, to the Greeks as Beroea, and to the Turks as Halep

It was known to Turks in antiquity as Halep! LOL. Halep comes directly from Arabic ... it is funny how they combined Turks and antiquity in one sentence. HD1986 (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Also funny: From the article: "When the Crusaders were pillaging the surrounding countryside. . ." POV issue there, imho. . .perhaps the Crusaders were revisiting land "pillaged" by others. Cutugno (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is uncited OR allowed?

Uncited (and irrelevant as well as breaking the flow) information seems to be protected here by Marek69 when it comes to discussion of Syrian Jewry. Can anyone explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.116.178 (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Aleppo is the largest city in Syria

Aleppo is the largest city in Syria in both area and population. Look up the references in the Arabic page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.175 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jewish 'pogrom' paragraph disrupting context and repeating information that is already mentioned

The paragraph in the history section on the so-called Jewish pogrom is out of context. The section gives a briefing on the histroy of Aleppo. This disputable incident is a detail in the larger picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The paragraph was inserted in a sentimental way without regard of the proper context. Also the infomation is already mentioned in the demographics section. There is no need to repeat the same story in every section.HD86 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not know the incident, which apparently occurred 60 years ago, was in dispute. This detail of Aleppo’s history, however, does not belong in the demographics section which denotes current trends, not history of various communities dating back hundreds of years. The history section deals with the January 1260 massacre of the Muslim population, the September 1260 massacre a large number of Muslims and the 1317 mention of Christians being unable to resettle. (Two of these statements are not citied.) That the history section should continue to ignore of this so-called Jewish "pogrom" and it aftermath, the flight of 6,000 of the towns Jewish population, is outrageous. Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Aleppo wasn't invaded in 1948, and attacking religious minorities is not a usual thing in Aleppo's history. This paragraph completely lacks the proper context. There is a long story that led to what happened in 1948 and this story belongs to an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the history of Aleppo. Putting the paragraph this way is politically motivated, meant to serve Zionist probaganda. I know it is very hard to challange Zionism on Wikipedia but I am trying.HD86 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway the paragraph should be removed on the ground that it is a repetition of something already mentioned in the article. There is no point in repeating the same story in every section like I said. If no body responds to that I am going to remove it or relocate it.HD86 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the point, Aleppo was not invaded, yet its Jews suffered nevertheless. It is put in the correct context, as the cause is mentioned. The whole history section states nothing of the Jews presence in the town over the centuries. That's not acceptable. Take your prejudice elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am taking this paragraph to the demographics section, because like I said the one who inserted it in the history section failed to elaborate on what happened before the incident and the circumstances in wich it happened. Right now it gives a false impression and makes it look like the communities in Aleppo had a habit of attacking each other. BTW the paragraph is full of BS, not just the use of the word 'pogrom' but also the $2.5 million number. If Jews in Aleppo at that time really had that money then they probably deserve what happened to them.HD86 (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comments disgust me. Chesdovi (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking about murders being deserved is grotesque and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

As for the editorial issue, talking about an important historical event in the Demography section is bizarre. --Macrakis (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not an "important historical event." It is a little accident that was enormously exaggerated for political purposes. No body was hurt in it. By calling it "murders" you prove to be even a bigger liar than the Israelis themselves who didn't go that far.--HD86 (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have readded material removed by HD86 on 11 Sept 2010 back to the history section. Chesdovi (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're very smart you know that? The information was not removed like you falsely claimed. The same exact paragraph is found in another location in the article. Please take your political edit wars somewhere else.--HD86 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you defend the fact that in the whole history section of this city, there is no mention of the word "Jew"? Chesdovi (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Images should not clutter the article

Editors should note MOS:IMAGES, MOS (Layout) and WP:Galleries. Chesdovi (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets talk here about what pictures that should be removed.

This picture of the Jewish women and the two Bedouins should stay: [2] it shows the people of the city.

These ones should be replaced with better quality pictures:[3] [4][5]

These images should be removed for several reasons, no real importance and/or are of low quality and/or from bad angles: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

The big one in the infobox should also be replaced:[17] it doesn't consist of good images. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure the quality of this image is good enough to be put in the article [18].--HD86 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Macrakis

User:Macrakis has a tendency to remove useful information from articles. I rarely saw him add anything to articles, he always just removes what other people write and calls it unimportant. I decided before not to edit pages on his watchlist, but it is sad that Aleppo has found its way to that watchlist, because Aleppo is the only topic I am working on in this cyclopedia. Please just stop removing information from this particular article even if you think it is unimportant.--HD86 (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a bizarre accusation. Feel free to look at my edit history and see that I have started new articles as well as added substantial information to a wide variety of articles. Please also note that I have tried very hard to be neutral and even-handed even on highly contentious articles. In this particular case, I am a bit confused. It seems to be you that is "removing useful information" from this article, and I made only a very minor change to the lead. --Macrakis (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Now after you made your changes watch how the first paragraph is going to be changed everyday, because everybody thinks Damascus is the biggest Syrian city and they have citations for that. The phrasing was exact so that we don't have to revert everyday. Will you stay here and guard what you wrote from being changed everyday?--HD86 (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I made a very minor editorial-judgement change to the lead which honestly I don't feel strongly about. I thought that very few readers of the Aleppo article would care about the size of the Aleppo governorate. I may be wrong -- but I don't see any reason to dramatize this question. --Macrakis (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate, to user:Kevorkmail

First of all, I got the information from a source way better than yours. I am going to add it soon. Second, you didn't add information (what you wrote is just the explantation of what a semi-arid climate is) but you took out some of the information I wrote for no reason. Third, I told you before not to change what I write without at least writing an edit summery. Fourth, I don't understand why it occured to you to fill up the climate section only after I did. Fifth, you keep making trivial edits all day long (like changing words with their synonyms), I hope that you restrict these meaningless edits only to what you write. You should edit what other people write only if there is a reason.--HD86 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether Kevorkmail's changes are improvements or not. However, HD86, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles--all editors can edit all content, regardless of who originally wrote it. --Macrakis (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I write carefully before you criticize. Here is it again:

You should edit what other people write only if there is a reason.

--HD86 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing without reason (like changing words with their synonyms, or replacing correct punctuation with other correct punctuation) indicates a sense of ownership of the article by the one who does that. Go read what user:Kevorkmail wrote on my talk.

I want to say to the third opinion friends that User:Macrakis is not involved in this issue. He's commenting on something not related to the dispute. Also he's not neutral since I had arguments with him before.--HD86 (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

HD86, all I was saying is that you should focus on the quality of the edit, not on who wrote the original text. Replacing a word with a synonym may or may not be an improvement; as I said, I am not commenting on the substantive quality of the edits. If I remember correctly, you and I have disagreed on some edits and agreed on others. So please don't try to make this about some non-existent personal dispute. --Macrakis (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your Third Opinion Request: I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed. Your dispute appears to be a dispute over user conduct, not over article content per se. The Third Opinion project is for content disputes. Conduct disputes should be taken to our sister project, Wikiquette alerts. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for passing by.--HD86 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevorkmail

I was trying to bring somebody to help me here, but it looks like no body is going to help. So I have no choice but to try again.

Dear Kevorkmail, we are both here trying to improve this article. Wikipedia rules says that we should cooperate, not compete (I personally do not believe in these rules, but this is their site and they make the rules). I appreciate what you did with the article, but the fact that you wrote 50% of the article like you say does not mean that you can force your edits on others without talking to them. I want to ask you something: why did you change all the numbers in the climate section right after I wrote it? Do you want a source? Why didn't you ask me for the source? My source is the Syrian official forcast agency. This is definitly better than the random webpage you got your numbers from. You could have known that if you talked with me in the dicussion above. I asked you before to talk with me, but you still refuse to talk. You prefer to turn it into an edit war. This is not allowed here. If you revert somebody's edits three times they are going to do something to you. You must talk.--HD86 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Syriac and Syrian

Answering User talk:HD86#Syriac and Syrian

I reverted because the stated reason is wrong. You wrote:

Syrian Christians include all Christian population of Syria while Syriac refers to the Syriac Christians of Aramean origin

This is wrong. Where did you get this from? Did you even read the page on Syrian Christianity?

"Syriac" refers to the language, not the people. It is true that many writers now use "Syriac" to refer to people as well, but the word "Syrian" is also still used commonly. I saw books published last year using the term "Syrian Christians." The Syrian Christians themselves prefer to use this particular term (see this website, this is the Church of most of them). They take pride of the fact that the word "Syrian" comes from their own name as an ethnic group.

It is true that Wikipedia claims that the term "Syrian Christians" is an "old pre-1945 term," but this an unsubstantiated calim with nothing to support it. The pages on the Syrian Christians are hijacked by a biased German guy who is trying to promote certain claims made by one faction of the Syrian Christians (basically he is trying to strike out the word Syrian/Syriac and replace it with the higly disputable term "Assyrian"). He has nothing to support his calims though, and the current articles on the Syrian Christians in Wikipedia are real jokes.--HD86 (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Citations from reliable sources are needed for the history section, otherwise all the informations will be considered as own personal views. Try to link those informations with reliable sources. Kevorkmail (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the tags is inappropriate. We don't add fact tags to every unreferenced line.--HD86 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I talked with you before about your trivial and provocative editing, but still you haven't changed. Stay away from what I write because you are incapable of improving it.--HD86 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not even deserve any reply. It is a waste of time to discuss with a person like you. Kevorkmail (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

When I write something, it is ME who knows its source. You do NOT know MY SOURCES better than me. Is there something wrong with you?--HD86 (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it a language problem? Do you understand English well? Do you understand what I am saying?

انت بتعرف مصادري أكتر مني يا بخش؟ --HD86 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

انا ما حذفت شي من يللي كتبتهن انت بس ضفت كم كلمة و حطيت التاريخ الكامل مع مصدرين زيادة. فليش انت طيزك عم بيبئبئ؟

Kevorkmail (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The real problem with you is that you don't know how to be respectful and cooperative. When I write something, you don't need to come right after I write it and make your little provocative edits. It only occured to you to "improve" the climate section right after I wrote it (you didn't really improve it), and it only occured to you to "improve" the French mandate section right after I wrote it. Your improvements SUCK in quality and in timing.--HD86 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any mental problem?? Kevorkmail (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Endless edit war

Three Wiki projects have been notified about the edit war on this page:

• Wikipedia:3O
• Wikipedia:WQA
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

None of them wanted to interfere in the actual dispute. So basically I am foreseeing an endless edit war on this page. The guy in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring saw me saying that as "unwitting humor," but the real humor is that none of those "administrators" wants to come and interfere in the dispute. User:Kevorkmail does not want to talk, and neither do the "administrators." So the only thing we get is an edit war.--HD86 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevorkmail again

• Do not add incorrect references. If I write something, then it is me who knows where I got it from. The references you are trying to add SUCK. One of them is a bad source from the 1920's (in French) that does not say anything not in my current, English sources. You obviously pick your sources at random and you don't read them neither you know who wrote them.

• Stop your trivial and provocative editing. Some of the silly and inapporpriate sentences you tried to add JUST AFTER I wrote the material:

"The newly created state included the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta and was governed by Kamil Pasha al-Qudsi."

You got this inforamtion from another Wiki article that I wrote. Instead of moving my sentences from a place to place and googling for "references" for them why don't you just let me decide what is worth mentioning in each section I write? This inforamtion is trivial and does not deserve to be mentioned in this briefing on the history of Aleppo, especially given that I mentioned it in the Aleppo State article; and so is the flag information, and Tigrane's story (which does not have whatsoever relevence to the history of Aleppo; the guy briefly and tactically occupied northern Syria and this event had no influence, whether direct or indirect, on the history of Aleppo). So also is your changing of CE to AD, etc. The problem with you is your psycholgical attitude. I can't argue with you over every trivial chnage you make. You must change your attitude.--HD86 (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevorkmail, stop forcing your edits, discuss

You can't force anything in this website. You can't repeat the same edit endlessly.--HD86 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Relocating sections

I don't know why Wikipedia articles always start with the history section. Is there a rule about that? For me, it would make more sense to start with geography and climate. I want to relocate the geography section to the begenning of the article.--HD86 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see in the MOS anything about the ordering of sections, so I am moving them for now.--HD86 (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Halpa

Hittite name of Aleppo Böri (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

aleppo in kurdish: Heleb pls add this

pls add this ,in aleppo are realy a lot of kurds. aleppo in kurdish: Heleb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.182.240 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Many pictures in this article.

There are too many pictures in this article. At least a third of them should be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. Well overdue. Make sure HD86 isn't looking. Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

Images are all dark. Doesn't look too good. Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured

Guys, this article looks GREAT!!!!!!! Let's make it a featured one!

Congrats to everyone who worked on it!

--95.8.156.62 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:ALEPPO GOVERNMENT 1928.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:ALEPPO GOVERNMENT 1928.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 17 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Largest or second largest?

Is it really "the largest city in Syria" (as this article suggests), or the second largest? I am sure that the BBC news reports about Aleppo in July 2012 (after the trouble there) keep describing the city as "the second largest city in Syria". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo was quite definitely described as "the second largest city in Syria" on Today on Radio Four on July 26 2012. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet on The World at One on Radio Four today (July 26 2012), Aleppo was described as being "the largest city in Syria"! Funny that - I get the impression that people who work for Radio Four get a lot of information from Wikipedia! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo is much larger than Damascus, at least in population. This is well-known. See Syrian Census statistics from 2004 (in Arabic) Aleppo City population: 2,132,100 and Damascus City population: 1,414,913. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

One of the users is insisting to place this image for the infobox: File:Aleppo coll. 2013.png.

In my opinion this one would be better: File:Aleppo new mix.jpg

The second photo contains images of both the old city and the modern downtown Aleppo, as well as demonstrates both the Islamic and Christian heritage of the city. The first one does not show any Christian landmark in Aleppo and the quality of the image of the old city is very poor as well. While the second one is showing more quality images of the Citadel and the Old City, the Great Moasque and the Maronite Cathedral, as well as the Baron Hotel, one of the most celebrated landmarks in the city.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This city is currently sitting on the front line of the Syrian Civil War

Why doesn't this article address the war at all ? How is the city today ? What is going on over there ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.102.43 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aleppo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

;As of September 10, 2008 Aleppo fails criteria for a B-class article on several counts. The criteria for a B-class article is listed below: 1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. 3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. 4. The article is reasonably well written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. 5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. 6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Firstly, it only contains ten inline citations, despite its relatively compact size. It omits sections on government, economy, and culture, which could be useful guides to the city. Lastly, I do not feel that long, droning lists are as presentable as they could be in this article. I rest my case. I rated this as a High-priority article because it is a large city and serves as the capital of its Governorate. --Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)