Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:PEACOCK

Can users stop using peacock terms like "most" and "many" that aren't fully backed up by sources. This was also an issue with the Salaheddine section previously being re-named "fall of Salaheddine", when Salaheddine had never "fallen". حرية (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of Salaheddine is under Syrian Army control, per Press TV reports and rebels report. So it is back in the infobox--DanielUmel (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The term most was a compromise solution. Because, the rebels, opposition activists, independent journalists and the military all confirmed that the whole district was recaptured at the beginning of August by the Army. However, since than there has been some continuing fighting in pockets of the district. That is why a compromise solution was found to put the term most instead of the whole district. Note to Daniel, Press TV isn't a reliable source, per some. However, since the FSA itself, SOHR activists, Guardian reporter, Reuters reporters, etc, all confirmed the capture of Salahadine, it is thus not just a claim by the Army as you put it user...hmmm...sorry I don't read Arabic so I don't know your nickname hehe. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In the Al Jazeera reference given a rebel states half of the district is under rebel control. But just leaveing the infobox saying the army has "re-captured" it is plain misleading at this point. And as EkoGraf says, Press TV isn't a neutral, WP:RS. حرية (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither is Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera needs to be considered a pro-rebel source, and because of that reason we can't add its informations in the ifnobox; in the article yes, but only as a counterbalance. --Wüstenfuchs 17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, the presence of a small number of militia fighters in a given area, does not mean that the district is under the entire control of the FSA. I think everybody got my point, specially after the events of the previous 2-3 days in the Jdeydeh quarter and the surrounding historic areas. On 19 August, the FSA posted a footage about Jdeydeh quarter claiming control over the district. The video showed many members of FSA or the so called "rebels" are rounding in the main square of Jdeydeh quarter. By the next day the Syrian army entered the entire district and regained control over it. Around 100 FSA members were either killed or detained. I agree that SANA is a quite reliable source as most of the Syrian TV reports are backed with video scenes directly from the main points of the skirmishes and clashes. The same goes to the reports of Addounia TV. I know that those TV channels are pro-Assad media sources, but at least they have great credibility among Syrians and foreign viewers.--Preacher lad (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your words are false.SANA is not a reliable source, it has no credibility except among regime supporters.64.229.136.119 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would remind the anonymous user that per Wikipedia policy neutrality needs to be maintained and thus both sides point of view need to be presented. And as far as your comments go, of accusing Preacher's words of being false and alluding he is maybe a regime support, true or not, the way you said it violates Wikipedia policy on civility. So please choose your words carefully and hold a degree of neutrality if you want to edit on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ease up on the IP. Anyone who claims that SANA is "quite reliable" and has "great credibility" has a poor understanding of RS and NPOV policy, and our anonymous friend is right to point that out. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Right to point it out, wrong to offend people. EkoGraf (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if that's how it seemed.But I don't appreciate the lecture."Neutrality" does not mean using unreliable sources from either side.Or is that how it's defined?.64.229.136.119 (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

They are the points of view of the warring sides and they both need to be presented. Plus, take into account the lack of independent journalists on the ground, and thus what the rebels and government are saying is sometimes our only means of having some insight into what is happening. EkoGraf (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Taufik Shiabuddin

Should we remove Taufik Shiabuddin as one of the rebels' commanders? Salaheddine district is no longer under rebel control, even though it's under hit and runn attacks, but still, this man doesn't command the area anymore. So, he is in command of what? Also, none of the commanders that were killed during the batle were listed in the infobox, even though they were commanders. --Wüstenfuchs 13:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We only put deaths of commanders we know which battalion they are from. For example, if the leader of unification brigade dies , we will put him as KIA. Rebel "commanders" are a loose term, because FSA don't have ranks. Such "commanders" are usually just leaders of small squadrons and so on. Sopher99 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

-This is totally wrong, Salhaddein and Saif ad-Daula is firmly unde revolutionary control and are furthermorer pushing to neigboring areas of Al-Hamdaniye. Please proof your claim with serious sources. --79.238.43.11 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

All the information in the page shows the contrary. If you have reliable ground breaking information like the one you just write, please share it. Otherwise we will go with all the others sources of the world. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove him because he is still leading the attacks in Salaheddine. Sopher99 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. Not a big issue anyway. --Wüstenfuchs 15:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources provided prove to the contrary user 79.238... Salahadine is for the most part government-controlled, with sporadic rebel hit-and-run attacks. And government forces have pushed into Saif al-Dawla, closing in on the edge of the next area, Mashad. Tanks were also reported seen in the Sukari district. If you consider AFP, Reuters, the BBC, the Telegraph and the Guardian unreliable, than you yourself should be excused from editing this page because you have proven not being neutral yourself. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep lauding control of Salahadine district as some kind of huge government victory. It isn't. It could just as likely be in opposition control tomorrow. But pro-regime editors (EkoGraf included) have turned this article into a regime cheerleading page, and the battle of Aleppo into a football match. It's as pathetic as the long rambling SANA paragraphs that show up daily. حرية (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep your personal oppinion about certain users for yourself. It's clear who is a "cheerleader" here simply by reading a username. The article is not a "cheerleading page", however, we use every possible information. You know, you are free to participate yourself. --Wüstenfuchs 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, if me trying to show both sides points of view and not let one side be more represented over the other (government or rebel) says i'm a pro-regime editor and a cheerleader than so be it. I think your own comments by themselves speak volumes about your own neutrality. As far as my editing goes, I will continue to base my edits on those unreliable and pro-regime media outlets like AFP, Reuters, the BBC, the Telegraph and the Guardian. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 27 August 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The only propaganda I see has came from the terrorists/rebels. Most of what SANA have claimed in regards to losses/gains of territory has gone on to be true (with news agencies confirming the stories). The same can't be said for the terrorists/rebels who often themselves admit what they earlier reported was false. Seen as the Syrian Government control the majority of Aleppo and with residents in the other districts reporting to the army/gov where the terrorists/rebels are; I think SANA is obviously the most accurate news source. Exat (talk) 09:50, 20 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)

It doesn´t really matter in this case as they are used as secondary, not primary sources. If RS finds them reliable as well than so be it, Reuters and other agencies from time to time use several youtube videos also as a source (downing of MiG-23 in Deir ez-Zor for example) and those are incorporated into the article. I will look into the source tomorrow and try to figure out way to incorporate it. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is used as main source for the FSA article and by the use of video-materials and their objective analysation you can use them as a sctientific proof- which is in contratiction to many SANA News tickers --79.238.63.134 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox events

The operation about capturing the air ports is completely unnecessary. There were few attempts, bad attempts if I may say, but the rebels failed to do anything. I suggest we only add the real situation. If we leave this then we should add that the Army had launched an operation to recaputre the Bustan al-Qasr neighbourhood which is far more important then the badly-organised operation for the airports. --Wüstenfuchs 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong. The villag arround the main airport in Aleppo named Neirab is still under FSA control and it wasn't before.

Bustan al Qasr is firmly under the revolutionaries control, and if SANA is the only source which claim that than this would be a misinformation--79.238.63.134 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the City of Aleppo, aren't we... And Bustan al-Qasr is not "firmly" under the rebels' control. Every media confrimed that the Army launced an attack on 20 September and that they arrived to al-Fidaa al-Arabi school... so... --Wüstenfuchs 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The army has entirely cleared the Arqoub and Midan district and advanced through the Sakhour and Bostan Pasha districts as well, shall we add this progress in the infobox? As the Midan and Arqoub districts are very important industrial districts within the city of Aleppo.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

They are important, I had the same idea, but wasn't discussed very much... so. But do you have any sources to confrime those claims about Shakour and Bostan Pasha neigbourhoods...? --Wüstenfuchs 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Merah

User:EkoGraf's claim that "no one" had a problem with this being in the article is totally untrue. It has been removed several times before. This is the most ridiculous piece of POV pushing, literally claiming that the Syrian opposition are anti-semites who wish to murder Jewish children. Unbelievable even by this article's standards. One random doctor's claim, not even the militia men themselves stating this. But I see User:EkoGraf is really coming into his own as if to make up for the loss of User:DanielUmel. بروليتاريا (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would militamen say something that would trash their reputation? Though Aleppo's rebel commander addmits there is at least 500 foreign fighters only in Aleppo. Probably there is even more of them but as I said, nobody wants to trash his own reputation. This information however, remains important as we are talking about the combatants so readers can have better insights into the battle. Their inspirations are important even if they are killers of children. --Wüstenfuchs 17:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The unverified views of one person relating to something which happened in France a long time ago has nothing to do with Aleppo Syria.بروليتاريا (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are French jihadists who are inspired by this murderer who arrive in Aleppo to fight Syrian Army then an oppinion is important. --Wüstenfuchs 17:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Than why not mention the views of every member of the Syrian army and their deeply held view that Israel should be wiped off the map, leading them to shoot thir own fellow countrymen for wanting to potentially change that official policy? These things have nothing to do with this article. All you and EkoGraf seem to care about is adding as much pro-regime propaganda and anti-opposition smears as you can possibly fit into this already bloated article. بروليتاريا (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me to say - lol. Israel-Syria relations have nothing to do with the Battle of Aleppo and your claim about Syria position towards Israel is not correct. Maybe you watched Bashar al-Assad's interview back in 2008, he said once Israel returns the Syrian Heights that both countries will be able to improve their relations and that Syria does recongises the exsistance of Israel. You mixed up the statments comming from Iran's officials. --Wüstenfuchs 18:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Israel, the Golan Heights, Assad's statements from 4 years ago, and not even the year old domestic happenings of France have anything to do with the battle of Aleppo. You are so far off topic you have lost all sight of what the topic actually is. بروليتاريا (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't understood what did I wrote it seems. You said that "every Syrian soldier" whants Israel to be "wiped out from the map". I stated that is not true. --Wüstenfuchs 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh. And few years before that, Walid Muallem was painting a picture of an impending apocalypse when al-Saud proposed Arab-wide recognition of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from Western Bank and Gaza strip. Syria does not recognize Israel or its right for existence, that is why Bashar money and weapons goes to Gaza strip and not West Bank.EllsworthSK (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, off-topic and irrelevant to the issue at hand. EkoGraf (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

adding Mohamed Merah to this article is totally trash and would just verify that this whole article is just another oppostio-smear site and the MAIN PROBLEM IS that the Site is protected and it is only edited by one-sided pro-Assad users citing from SANA and Press-Tv and whatever--79.238.63.134 (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whay so much paranoia? And the article is not edited "by one-side pro-Assad users", that is celar enough. --Wüstenfuchs 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First of, the sentence is properly sourced and fulfills Wikipedia's verifibility category. Second, this goes to user 79.238..., the claim came not from SANA or Press TV or whatever, it came from a pro-rebel French doctor cited by the New York times. Further, the sentence does not in any way state that the Syrian opposition are anti-semites, rather the French jihadists being that, which is properly explained. Third, the terrorist event which Mohamed Merah committed did not happen a long time ago, rather it happened barely 6 months ago. Fourth, we include anti-government information, as you would describe it, into the article as much as anti-rebel information. Fifth, I could understand your desire to exclude information coming from SANA, but trying to exclude information from a pro-rebel doctor that could be damaging for foreign rebel jihadists is simply pov-pushing. Sixth, your accusations that I am attempting to replace the sock-puppet master Daniel in pro-regime pushing is highly out of line and in breach of Wikipedia's rules on assuming good faith with other editors and civility. Seventh, if you can not produce any reason to exclude the information, based on that the information and source are in breach of Wikipedia policy, than you would simply be pov-pushing or trying to remove the information simply because you don't like it (for which there actually is a Wikipedia rule Wikipedia:I just don't like it). Finally, I would like to say that the information is properly sourced, by a verifiable and reliable news agency, the New York times. And it properly explains that the doctor was talking about the few French jihadists present at the front, not the whole opposition as you claimed. EkoGraf (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring to have this included? Why are you claiming only two Users have an issue with including it, when clearly as many as 5 Users take issue with it? From WP:SCOPE: "Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus". You are claiming a false consensus, and framing your own flagrant POV pushing as opposite of what it is. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why am I edit warring to include it? Why are you edit warring to exclude it? What 5 users? For the last couple of days it was just you and I7aseral, only today we have had Tradedia jump in, and he hasn't not been editing anything in this article at all or very very little, not to mention you also seem a newcomer to the article. You have 3-5 other editors who have been editing this article on a regular basis and I haven't seen any of them removing the info recently. And if you are referring to the anonymous user, per his comments from this and all of the previous discussions on this talk page, it is obvious he is not keeping a neutral POV and has been making unverified and unsourced claims, I don't see how a consensus can be reached with such a person. I am now asking you - why are you edit warring, and why are you so set on removing the info (when its properly sourced)? And also, given per your edit history, which is only 3 days old, have you even read all of Wikipedia's policies? EkoGraf (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a new one, I thought a User had to actually first edit an article to be accused of edit warring... and yes I know WP policies, including this one: WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I suggest you read it. بروليتاريا (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When I said edit warring I was referring to your heated discussion here on the talk page to have the info removed, I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. As for the WP policy you pointed me to, I am very well aware of it and per it Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I don't know if you can find a more exceptional source than Reuters [13], where the interview with the doctor was first mentioned. And since it says multiple sources here you go [14], another exceptional source, the New York times which also picked up on the story only two days after Reuters. So that's two exceptional sources for you. Also, if you are still questioning the reliability and notability of that doctor I would point you to the New York times piece where it is said that the doctor helped found the medical group Doctors Without Borders. So as far as I see it with just those two sources the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Reliability and Notability are all checked. If that's still not enough, France Info, also relayed its own report on the story [15]. EkoGraf (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

At the very least the "murdering Jewish children" part needs to go, it is far too much POV pushing. And the claim needs to be clearly attributed to the person, which isn't the case right now. Other than that, I still don't see the necessary consensus for inclusion. بروليتاريا (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is already attributed to Jacques Bérès, read the article. That whole section starts with Jacques Bérès, a French surgeon who came to Syria to treat the wounded in the rebel-controlled parts of Aleppo...' Also, the whole point of this discussion, which you started, was to try and find consensus to remove the sentence. Per Wikipedia policy as long as the discussion is ongoing, or if a consensus can't be reached, a status quo exists in the article that we don't change the information. The information was there in the article for almost two weeks before you started a discussion on the possible removal. Also, the article does not say "murdering Jewish children". That is too POV and I agree. Instead, it says, in an encyclopidic manner, Mohamed Merah, who killed seven people in terrorists attacks in France, including three Jewish children. The sources say it, and we say it so to keep the reader informed about who Merah was. EkoGraf (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement "including three Jewish children" is non neutral and gives undue weight to the religion of three of the seven victims and has been removed. Guest2625 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, the reader could click on the wikilink. That is, after all, what those are for. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lothar proposal. I do not have some serious issues with naming Merah in the article, after all it is what source states but for the sake of compromise we can remove the part about murdering Jewish children and leave his name with wikilink where every reader can read about his actions. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop mis-framing the inclusion of this sentence. it was recently added at some point in the last 2 days (I'm not going to sort through all the diffs to pin point when). You attempted to add it a week or 2 ago, and it was immediately removed. It needs to be removed again, it has no history of being in the article, no consensus, and basis for being there anyway. بروليتاريا (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't included only two days ago, it was included two weeks ago, but a couple of editors tried to remove it from being mentioned on several occasions. But Wusten, me and Daniel always reinserted the information shortly thereafter. In any case, I agree to Lothar and EllsworthSK's compromise proposition. The children mention be removed (as Guest2625 has already done, thank you), and leave the mention of Merah with a wikilink to him. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Daniel ChronicalUsual ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I know that now. EkoGraf (talk) 16:28, 21 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.

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/716/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)

Your work is interesting, but, as you said, poor quality. Though there is a map at the bottom of the article... seems fair enough I'd say. It's from 8 September (12 days ago) and the infos about the al-Midan are not correct. However, I don't know anything about the Google Map (or Wikimapia - not sure) copyrights are. If it is allowed to use the map bellow, someone could just fix it and make it a svg file. I also menaged to get to this map. It's from 15 or 16 September. It looks similiar to yours. What are your sources for it? --Wüstenfuchs 00:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I compiled it using the battle of aleppo wiki page and a few maps from august, such as http://www.petercliffordonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Syria-Aleppo-Map-6.8.12-1024x579.jpg

Anyway I found a more accurate map, only difference is there has been some movement up in Midan since then and potentially in Ferdous. http://twitpic.com/aseyjv/full

Grant bud (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That map is already here under the External links section. --Wüstenfuchs 13:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty nice attempt, espacially the little outdated last ones. Finally we have a picture of the situation. As mentioned now the army advanced to Midan,Ferdous and reaching Arqoub area.....with a little update i think we van uploaded in a direct viewable part.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And the areas where the fightings are still active could be in blue colour, like in Syrian civil war map... ie no-men's land. --Wüstenfuchs 14:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Map from yesterday http://twitpic.com/awvpjj/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.23.252 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And i think this map must be uploaded without the green arrows. I dont think that there is some kind of pressure to the army but instead this pressure is uppon the rebels who are stadily and slow loosing ground. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New title for the next paragraph for this section

The title "continued clashes" is looking a little full. I believe that a new title is needed. I was going to suggest "stalemate" however the battle, particularly now that detailed maps are being put up, appears to show "rebel gains". Especially to the West of the city around New Aleppo the rebels seem to be making gains, if they overrun or at least blockade airport this will be a major development. Please add your suggestions, "stalemate", "rebel gains" or "government offensive"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjblair (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I renamed the section few days ago to Continuing Army offensive but the title was reverted. --Wüstenfuchs 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the map does not show rebel advances. What it does show is that they are conducting a few hit-and-run attacks in the New Aleppo area, not a major bid to take it. And the military is making attempts to advance into Arkub and Bustan al-Qasr. So as of the last few days its the military who is trying to advance, specificaly in Arkub. Haven't seen any reports of attacks on the airport for the last few days. We will see what happens over the next few days. Maybe the rebels will attempt a counter-offensive. Leave it continued clashes until a major territorial change happens, like the previous rebel capture of eastern and southern Aleppo, military recapture of Salahadine and advance into Saif al-Dawla, and military repelling of attacks on Midan, Hanano and the Christian area. EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Wüstenfuchs 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Which reminds me, shouldn't the arrow pointing a rebel advance into Arqoub be the other way around? Because all of the reports from the last few days have said the district was rebel territory and the military was the one attempting to advance into it after clearing Midan? So the arrow should be pointing an attempted Army advance from Midan into Arqoub, like from Salahadine into Saif al-Dawla and from Jameeliya into Bustan. The arrow about the rebel attempted advance onto Hanano is ok, reports of attacks on the area and the barracks are being made daily. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As of territories where clashes are reported and a front-line isnt present(like New Aleppo) we can mark the area of the clashes with a ping, or something different than an arrow(which shows some troop organized move) of your choice and in the background leave the colour of the opponent who is generally controlling the area. T hats because when we have hit and run tactics, in a checkpoint.... we cant say that the area control is disputed due to the lack of a front line there. However disputed areas are existing in the centre of the city as correctly already coloured and pointed with arrows that present a organized troops move with occupation objective. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

al-Jdeideh They are mentioning that they clear out this area(where is it?) and in addition to the previous mentioned the area of reservoir in Arkub. Beyond that they report clashes to the roads that leading from Arkub to the other attached neighbourhoods. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Also Karm al Jabal area seems to be uncharted.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a Christian area they already claimed they took 1 month ago. I7laseral (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I7--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a Christian area that the rebels attacked a month ago but the Army repelled them in coordination with a Christian militia several days later. A AFP journalist later went to the area and confirmed it being under Army control. EkoGraf (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eko, the map shows slowly in detail how the operations are evolving and what the objectives are. These come with some accordance to statements made by Syrian Priminister, that the straggle is now to a decisive point..... --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The rebels aren't gaining in the area around the airport. A few months ago they all but controlled the area next to the airport except for the road. The army cleared them and then they came back and the army cleared them. If they are advancing to the airport they don't seem to be succesful and the Syrian Army only seems to be interested in securing the airport.62.31.145.100 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not like SA (Syrian Army) has concentrated only on the airport, I believe their main task is to clear the city so they will clear other areas more easly once they establish a stronghold in Aleppo. The airport itself is important, but the Army doesn't have a lot of soldiers there as the rebels are unable to make stronger attack. Majority of the SA's soldeirs are in the city. --Wüstenfuchs 17:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"The government has discussed the use of chemical weapons on Aleppo..."

This is an unsubstatiated rebel claim made by "Major-General Adnan Sillu, who defected three months ago". Now:

- chemical weapons are useless in an urban area attrition battle

- why would the governemt consider "using chemical weapons on Allepo" three months ago when there was no fighting there ???

Please someone remove that text or at least make it clearly a rebel allegation, not a "fact" as the current wording does.46.135.96.22 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In which section is this? --Wüstenfuchs 17:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuing Clashes / "On 20 September ...". Adnan Sillu details are pulled from the source - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/syria-plans-chemical-war-on-own-people/story-fnb64oi6-1226477524650 .46.135.76.9 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

FSA officers join Assad

Various newspapers reported this defection, Xinhua, China Daily, RIA Novosti, RT... You may call those unreliable but they are reliable for the statement. Also, consider the way it was reported - images of a press-conference and images of the defectors. Also, Chinese Defence Ministry published the same news on its official site. So what if China Daily is state-controlled, so is the BBC. It's more logical that China Daily is more reliable on the Syrian civil war subject rather then the United Kingdom as the latter one is activly involved in the conflict.

Considering number of medias reporting this I think that this news needs to be included in the article. --Wüstenfuchs 14:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC is state sponsored, not state controlled. The Russian and Chinese state sponsored news are also state controlled, particularly in China where there is no law allowing freedom of press.

And by the way Wustenfuchs, for your personal knowledge (and not for the wikipedia article, as Youtube is not a reliable source) Please see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJtiM9AVzpk

Sopher99 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC is government-owned. Now, beside defending the BBC... I will repeat again that this news about defection needs to be included. It was published by various media and wasn't denied by the FSA. --Wüstenfuchs 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC is not state controlled though. FSA have yet to make a single statement. Its so fake no media is catching on to it. Its not even funny. If you look at the video you can personally see that the "rebel commander" was a "terrorist confessor" back in March. He is a state tv actor. Considering you are so pro assad I would recommend you give up the fight now so I don't have to spread the news about state-media orchestrated defections later on. Sopher99 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

[16], [17], [18] those two three also reported the same news. --Wüstenfuchs 15:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The first one is very fringe that you brought it up - No one has ever heard of the Cameroon voice - probably because it is a Cameroon news agency. The second one is a conspiracy website, the third one is not even in English. Sopher99 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway the video has made it to the Guardian liveblog. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/sep/27/syria-bloodiest-day-yet-live Sopher99 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The latter on is Indonesian I think. This meets WP:WEIGHT and the sources are reliable for the statment they made. --Wüstenfuchs 15:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Listen guys the chinese and russian sources are not reliable, and the three ones you brought up Wustenfuch are just plain not reliable because they do not exibit any of the WP:RS qualifications.

Save your breath - the video proving the "defectors" are state tv actors is surfacing in the media. Sopher99 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Japan Today and the Jakarta Globe reported this as well ([19], [20]). And Sopher, stop with the WP:OR. --Wüstenfuchs 15:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And this source says they already "defected" to the Syrian army back in March. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/sep/27/syria-bloodiest-day-yet-live Sopher99 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Daily star and Dawn have reported it also [21][22]. With this much sources reporting on the news it has enough Weight to warrant being mentioned in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets wait a day - as their is strong evidence suggesting the event is fake. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/sep/27/syria-bloodiest-day-yet-live I7laseral (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

About the chap who defected 6 months ago... why is he so important? Is he forbidden to apear at the conference held by FSA defectors like himself? --Wüstenfuchs 15:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

He is one of the commanders announcing his defection. He also appears on the video as a "confessor" Sopher99 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As he speaks maybe why he defected months ago and that the revolution went wrong? He is allowed to speak. --Wüstenfuchs 15:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

He appeared at conference, announcing he wanted to "give up". Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Except this one, I haven't found any other sources claiming he defected back to the military six months ago, while multiple sources have reported on his defection back to the military TODAY. One source is not strong evidence. And the Daily Star source explicetly says they have decided to go back to the military. He "gave up" as you put it, on the rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The guardian blog is more reliable than all those other sources combined. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. The video is not clear. --Wüstenfuchs 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is clear. Just in Arabic. Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, please try and remain neutral. There is enough evidence to show he has defected but I see there is evidence it is fake. I agree with the above that we should wait a day until the situation is more clearer. Exat (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are we discussing it here? What does it have to do with battle of Aleppo? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Because one of those guys was an FSA commander in charge of operations in the northern part of Aleppo province. EkoGraf (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the commander even exist? Can you find his name in any news before yesterday? You do realize the Aleppo military council has a list of the entire command, reported in sourced already used. Sopher99 (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, I read it on NOW Lebanon yesterday and they mentioned that they were from south so it got me confused. Anyway The Guardian blog has pretty damming evidence on the contrary and it is still only regime claim. And all you guys know my opinion on both rebel and regime claims, if it was up to me, I would delete both of them. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not regime claim, the defection from the rebels was announced at an opposition press conference in Damascus, where an AFP reporter was in presence as well. In any case, I give up, if you are going to consider every source that reports on potentially damaging news to the rebels, like the incident with the Chechen talking about FSA incompetence, than no point in discussing. Have it your way. I'm gonna stick to the casualties and military/rebel advances reports. EkoGraf (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is damaging to the regime, because we have obvious proof they were state television actors. Sopher99 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Again...one source/claim does not constitute proof. Haven't seen any other sources questioning the reliability of the event. P.S. Turkish Weekly has now also reported the defection back to the military [23]. Are Turkish news also unreliable? EkoGraf (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is directly quoting the Russian Ria Novasti. It says so at the end of the article. And turkish weekly is in fact unreliable. It is severely anti-kurdish and labels all kurds and pkk fighters as "terrorists" Sopher99 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean regime-tolerated opposition, as every single source you posted here mentioned. And as for the evidence not being enough that is not for us to decide. Mention both or mention none, just don´t go down the road where you will only report what you like and leave the rest behind (see how easy it is to twist someone words?). Also WP:NOTNEWS, though that is no longer the case with this article as we simply throw here anything that shows up on Google News. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You actually proved my point, it's not up to us to decide, we report it and let the readers decide wether it's true or not. You've been pushing one source as evidence of it being an unreliable event while a dozen sources (which are being removed) are reporting the event without doubting it. I wouldn't have a problem with adding the source in which it is claimed they are actors, add it as well and quote that source if you will, but removing the info all-together is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as you said it). And as for you Sopher, your comment that the Turkish weekly is unreliable actually doesn't surprise me since I already pointed you state any source speaking anything remotely anti-rebel as being unreliable. Also, fact-check, the PKK are called terrorists by the United States government and the European Union and are on their terrorist watch list. You going to tell me next the US government and the EU are also unreliable? And last I checked Turkey is an ally of the rebels. In any case, like I said, I'm done with this discussion, do what you want. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Hamas are listed as terrorists by the USA, and the Iranian government is listed a nation which sponsor terror. This event is not real news because it is not real, and the only witnesses to state tv actors posing as defectors are the pro-assad Chinese and Russian news agencies. Sopher99 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Save the preaching, I showed a proof which had an evidence against it. Than you went on moralizing and accused me of bias what, surprisingly, I do not appreciate. I said, as so many times before, that I wouldn´t put claim of neither side which wasn´t re-checked by RS into the article as we did it during Libyan civil war. Instead most of this article is made by SANA and SOHR reports. This article is bad, it is archive of every piece of news that you can find on web and since even if it was true, even if that Guardian piece wouldn´t exist it still would have little to nothing to do with Battle of Aleppo, but rather with Syrian civil war in general. Only place where it should be added is a timeline and maybe the main, just as vast majority of this article. PS: Check your claims, what sources did was re-report agency news. Do not doubt it is nowhere near it. Remember when several medias during Libyan civil war re-reported claims by Mussa Ibrahim about how pro-G forces captured Misrata? I wonder if back than you would say that none of it doubted it. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Never accused you of bias, was just stating the facts and proposed including both the claim and counter-claim. I'm sorry if you were offended, not my intention. As for Musa Ibrahim's claim, there were multiple independent reporters than on the ground that immediately confirmed the real situation, here is not the case. Anyway, like I said, I'm sticking to casualties and reports on advances and confirmed claims of capture of territories (didn't see me arguing yesterday for Arqub to be declared military-held as the government claimed, because SOHR contradicted and there was no independent confirmation). EkoGraf (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The defector was deputy head of FSA military council and the other officer was leading a team in Aleppo....i dont bother to mention the others. This fact was during a press conference in which China and other ambassadors were present so as a fact it happened!!! The role of the primary officer is not questionable by rebels, but they just want to claim that this came under pressure to him!!!! So its a fact also that was important. When a Syrian official were defected we were mentioning it, even sometimes without have evidence and only by rummer.... We even now have a section of an upcoming, by statement attack, the signs of it are not present.... Also we know that Arkoub is under Army control but we dont change the map....As for me during my presence here i have never deleted a post even if i disagree to that. The old writers with much more contributions and experience must act accordingly. As of my friend ship with other users, my ip is available and the country from which belongs i dont think that leave doubts of being someone else.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This video depicting this commander doesn't prove anything. He defected 6 months ago maybe, but this doesn't mean he is forbidden to participate at the conference. He did say he wanted to give up, how do one know does he speaks about his expirience from 6 months ago? That is, this video doesn't mean at all that the report is false. Moreover this video lacks WP:WEIGHT and not even Guardian said the video is 100% correct. --Wüstenfuchs 19:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The guardian updated since then. The "fsa commander" admitted to being a "terrorist salifi who executed civilians" in March. He was "captured" long before the battle of Aleppo. Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeap and the Syrian Vice President already formed a new government in the liberated areas which include all territories except Damascus. But its a matter of days Damascus to fall and the regime with it by the new planned decisive battle from fresh equipped units coming directly from Aleppo. :) The press conference was a fact and the statements also... We can choose not to refer it whoever as a fact and pretend that didn't happen. (In this war untill now i can not name a single media source that is no favouring the one or the other side)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The press conference happened, but the people making the defection announcement were literally state tv actors. Even the state tv people them selves privately talked to reuters saying how confessions are made up. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/syria-confessions-idUSL6E8FP9ME20120516 Sopher99 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher you providing a news link dated in May 2012 by Reuters!!!! Reuters is speaking about how they see the creditability of Syrian TV in general....Pointless as a link and of course other media could accuse western ones for their own incretitability. No serious source isn't questioning the existence of the ex deputy chief of FSA military council as a person. Thats so desperately rebel media are trying to say that he make this statements under pressure( He left from military council and say lets go to Damascus to be pressurized a little bit and say things i dont mean).--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that i dont understand the need of you to provide irrelevant sources, to support as inaccurate, something that was held under a meeting with the presence of many people and foreign ambassadors. this wasnt a confession with a wall behind in a detain room....Really dont get your motivation and as for the decisive battle thing i could say that you are refereeing in a possible future event and dont admit the existence of others that are facts. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, the Guardian only published a story of a guy who discussed the subject and who thinks it's a propaganda... he wonders why he got an applaud. That proves nothing. And besides, what about other defectors? Just consider when rebeles "took down" a MIG. One journalist said its weird... and that was it. --Wüstenfuchs 20:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your point is actually a twist on what I am saying. The guardian provides contradiction to the story of "defectors", and not only that shows that the Aleppo commander was not leading soldiers in Aleppo since March. The guardian put up two specific section on why the defector story should be doubted. Sopher99 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher the link of Gurdian Blog you provided is a series of assumptions simply written. In the same Blog , which you present as even more accurate than the newspaper itself, it says(Yesterday) that the rebels started????? a decisive devastating attack in Aleppo..... Continuing with your above assumptions, you present a series of international media (AFP correspondence in conference ,China, Japan, Russia media etc...) as inaccurate and saying that the Guardian Blog its a more creditable source!!! I don't have to continue i think....--Dimitrish81 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher this was just a discussion nobody says it's the same guy for sure... --Wüstenfuchs 21:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)