Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Half-done text

"According to The Guardian, a rebel commander announced the start of a "decisive battle" in a bid to capture the city during the afternoon. The commander said they wanted to suprise the Syrian army, which had started to creep forward towards the southern neighborhoods. He claimed the Tawheed brigade was enticing the Syrian army forward to face all the fighting brigades in the city. According to him, the plan to launch the battle was top secret and a week in the making. The operation included 6,000 fighters of the Tawheed brigade, in addition to a few other brigades like al-Fatah and Ahfad al-Fatiheen for the Turkmen. Weapons and ammunition captured during the attack on the Hananou base were being used. He denied that the FSA had proclaimed "decisive" battles for Aleppo before.[330] However, the same day..."

The same day what? Someone, who started this, should finish it. --Wüstenfuchs 21:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

oops. That was part of the mix from earlier, I wrote that , but it got leftover. Meant to erase that. Sopher99 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Svg Battle Map

I've made a Battle of Aleppo map. I based it on the map in the external links at the end of the article. If there's any changes you think that needs to be made to it, tell me, or you can also just edit yourself if you want. Enjoy. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice attempt there. However i must observe that this kind of map show pressue to the Syrian Army who are not seem to loosing ground but gaining it slowly. So the arrows pointing and the total rebel control colour beyond the frontlines and to the hole area i dont think that they represent the situation. Nevertheless it is a pretty nice attempt.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. Like I said, I based it on an another map, which I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate. I agree that the FSA control of the periphery might not be very accurate. I also wanted to add arrows for the Syrian Army, but I'm sure where. Any recommendations? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also have a look to areas that controlled by Kurds. In some maps they are present. The Kurds are not FSA certainly and they hold big territories of the Green map :). --Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Great job, seems to be up to date and to accurately represent the situation. As for User:Dimitrish81—the Syrian army is only, as you say, "gaining [territory] slowly" in very specific areas, while losing ground on the whole. You could call it a few small Pyrrhic victories on the road to defeat, if you can even call briefly wrestling control of parts of a few districts an actual victory (honestly I don't think you can). بروليتاريا (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand. This was the situation at the beggining of the month. Rebels are unable to make an effective offensive. Previous maps just didn't included those parts of the city and nearby area. However, if you compare the map from mid-August to the current one it is clear who is winning the battle. --Wüstenfuchs 01:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. Rebels just this months took Suleiman al halabi, Arqoub, bostan pasha, bab nasr, and half of midan. The syrian army only took a quarter of saif al dawla and Half of Salaheddine and thats it. I7laseral (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No you are the one that does not understand—it is already over for the regime whether you want to admit it or not. And If you compare maps then no one is winning. Territory is just shifting with roughly 50/50 control of Aleppo (that is, the city itself, as the opposition control the vast majority of the governorate). The only difference is: a) The Syrian Army is dangerously overextending itself b) Any state of affairs other than a total Syrian Army victory equals a Syrian Opposition victory, due to the regime becoming less and less financially viable. بروليتاريا (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you see, at the beggining of the battle rebels had 70% of the city and were in offensive since then, but still they are losing ground. Tell me, how bad is it when an army is in offensive but lossing terrotory? Consider Red Army in 1942 continued to lose ground? That is bad, isn't it? --Wüstenfuchs 13:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wüstenfuchs said, the rebels/terrorists controlled most of Aleppo and over the past month their territory has slowly lost ground. For instance Hamdaniya etc was under rebel/terrorist control. I believe over the past few days the army is now in control/fighting in Fardous. The green arrows on the left are incorrect as the government are bringing supplies in on that road. Also the green under the airport is false but it doesn't really matter.Exat (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation in country as in Aleppo itself change rapidly after the army offensive. All important cities are controlled by army except parts of Aleppo. Whoever even in there, the rebels are controlling some vastly inhabitant neighbourhoods, without strategic importance, due to lack of men and arm power to hold bigger areas. Damascus and Damascus countryside was cleaned by rebels almost totally and the Kurds are ban any FSA fighters who wanted to infiltrate in their territories forming their own militia and checkpoints under the tolerance of the Syrian Army who is present only in the barracks of those cities and not in the street. Reviewing rebels also hold some boarder cities with Turkey and they are totally subject to the help of foreigners, more and more, in supplies even in fighters. Especially in Aleppo, which is the only city with front line, they are large numbers of foreign fighters. This subjectivity of rebels to foreigners more and more to supplies and fighters, saws exactly the deteriorating situation in their ranks and who unpopular are becoming day by day. On the other hand the Syrian Army has no serious defections and are slowly and methodically, in order not to be accused for bombing habitant areas, advancing.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In all other areas when we see videos in youtube etc...they are all by ambushes and bomb attacks hold by rebels due to their tactical weakness to create a full scale front. This is the first step in order to transformed from an armed group to simply terrorist organization by planting bombs and act with this tactical pattern of behaviour. Even in Aleppo, where a frontline is present, they act with this way showing exactly their weakness in attack and capture position's and the choice to act vigilant by this way. Look at the IRA, when they realise that there is no end to that and defeat is eminent they simply go on bombing acts and forget the confrontation. i also like to advise that the Syrian Army consists of 1000+ high rank officers only!!!!! So the defections we are hearing in time to time they are simply unworthy of speech, in terms of numbers and position's in the Army .--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA was only 10,000 fights in January. Now they are 60,000 here in September. There were 5-10k civilians fighters also fighting in January, now their are 40,000. If they couldn't be killed when they were weakest (December-January) what makes you think they can kill the FSA now? 4 months ago the FSA did not even have the capacity to attack Aleppo and Damascus. 4 months ago there was not even a single FSA soldier in the Aleppo province. Sopher99 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA came and entered Aleppo before the army take orders to face them. That started in August and since then as i said rebels lost all cities except some neighbourhoods in Aleppo ans some small towns near the boarders with Turkey that are under constant army shelling and attacks. All major cities are lost and even rebels are admitted that in Damascus and Damascus countryside. The Army does not say big words or operations they simply advance. The rebels are all day in youtube with videos of ambushes that certainly dont proove that they held areas. They also pronounce operations that never happened or are not worthy of speach as the operations against Syrian Air Force!!! Their last important desperate attack was in hanano base in order to grab ammo and even there after the initial reasonable surprise, they pushed back by the army with significant casualties.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If battle would last for another three months foreigners would be a vast majority in Aleppo... they are the only one recieving a decent aid, money or weapons. Even now the number of foreign jihadists in Aleppo is way to large. --Wüstenfuchs 13:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

True rebels are stadily loosing ground to Aleppo and lost all major cities in the country from partial or total control after the army offensive(Hama,Homs,Daraa Governorate,Damascus suburbs and countryside,Idlib and loosing steadily the countryside etc...) and i mention above to the creator of the map, who made a pretty good effort, that they aren't included in the map of Aleppo areas controlled by the Kurds(Green area) and their militia. They certainly aren't FSA and know exactly what they will become if religious extremists prevail.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA is not losing ground in Aleppo. They recently regained 2/3 of Sallaheddine, gained midan and sulemani al Halab, gained Bustan al pasha, and Bab nasr districts. Sopher99 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

When the syrian government take control of Aleppo, which I suspect within a month or possibly half of that, the rebels would of lost their last bastion. This will allow the government to then retake any border towns/villages. They have already cleared most of the high rise buildings within Aleppo which were the most difficult. Exat (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. The FSA still have 2/3 if Homs, Daara, and Deir Ezzor, and most of the Damascus countryside. The FSA has not lost any territory in Idlib, in fact they only gained: Harem, Sarmhada, Maraat Misrin, Jis al Shigur, Ariha. Sopher99 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA doesn't have 2/3 of Homs at all. It doesn't control neither Daraa nor Deir ez-Zour nor the Damascus countryside... Even where they have control it is a large battle there. However, we should end this discussion. See the top of the talk page - No general discussion. It's what we are doing right now. --Wüstenfuchs 15:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. The FSA controls everywhere from Al qusor/Al khaliya to Deir Ballba to Bab sbaa to bab tadmor and Jourat al sharyia in Homs. The FSA controls both Daara al Balad and Daara al Mahataa of Daara city (80-90%) of the city, and everything in Deir Ezzor city except for the streets near the airport. Sopher99 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, right... :) Now we end the discussion. --Wüstenfuchs 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, I was referring to the north. Aleppo is the rebels/terrorists main bastion. They have committed the majority of their resources (men/tanks/ammo/oil etc) in the north to the battle. If the government secure it, it will allow them to launch attacks on Al Bab, A'Zaz etc. Exat (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I originally started this discussion with the intention of receiving advice on how to improve the map and make it more accurate. There seems to be disputes on who controls what. If you can provide reliable sources stating which areas in Aleppo are under whose control, I'll be happy to update the map. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Futuremillionare, you map is excellent... the best one we can have. It's impossible to know how the city looks right now and to be 100% accurate. Maybe at the end of the month we could have clarer picture. --Wüstenfuchs 15:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Future you made a nice job! just take a look some previous maps that they have the areas that Kurds are controlling. Take your time and if you have time update the areas that Kurds control inside Aleppo. This area now is with green.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Kurdish area should be added... yellow colour is maybe a good choice. Here is the map from 5 August... the Kurdish-held areas remained however, almost untouched. --Wüstenfuchs 16:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Remained unattached because the Army doesn't have any reason to attack areas that are not hostile to him and the Kurds dont have any reason to attack the army--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the Kurdish territory in the north of the city should be of a separate color from the rest of the rebels. Also, when you look at the surrounding countryside it looks as if the FSA has the city surrounded, when in fact the military has several ground routes into and out of the city under their control. Otherwise the map looks great, good work Future. P.S. Sopher, it was never confirmed the rebels retook 2/3 of Salahadine. It was only one claim by a rebel made via a Sudanese press service, nobody else of the major news media followed up on that info. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok then... the map is good. --Wüstenfuchs 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still a little concerned about the city's periphery. Several people brought this up. In reality, the Syrian Army should to have more control over the country side than it is depicted on the map. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well... it's impossible to be 100% accurate as I said. The source you used showed different countryside map 15 days ago... but you know, it's the latest map so... But I'm sure we will get the new one in 10 days or so or we could make changes based on RS statements. --Wüstenfuchs 17:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, based on all of the news reports, the northern and northeastern approaches to the city are rebel-controlled (reinforcements coming in from Azaz and al-Bab), the eastern is unknown (area around the airport), the southern and western are military-controlled. So I think the only major change that need be done is to the western approaches to the city, which the map at the moment shows is under rebel control. Or, maybe, a better solution would be to just color the countryside with a totally different color, not to indicate who has it under control, but just to indicate its not the city itself. If you get my meaning. EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to know the exact border... south from research centre? --Wüstenfuchs 18:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Check map here [1], it can be seen where the urban areas end. EkoGraf (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the Future excellent job we have something very close to reality. Agree with EKO, that we must sign the boarders of the residential area of the city, in order to know what controls every side inside the city.Also it will be nice if we had the neighbourhoods that we have operations this time like Arkoub or others to understand where is the front-line now--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the Army has controlling areas in the western side of the map. Its obvious that they have supply lines from there. Also we can colour differently the map in those areas or simply leave it without colour as it is in some part out of the city area.Seeing the map now we can easily understand why the army is advancing to the areas with red arrows, simply because there is no threat from the Kurdish areas.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Its also obvious that the attacking operations of the army having the objective to clean up Fardous, Qasr and the other neighbourhoods in the belly to straight up the front to the line citadel-airport. Western areas of the map are not an operational front something that mean that the army probably controlled them throw checkpoints in the road arteries. However this is just a logical assumption and nothing more. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Arkub

According to the central news bulletin of Syrian TV and the video footage from a residential area heavily damaged it seems that the army is controlling Arkub area. The reporter at the end says that is transmitting from Arkub. Can anyone with knowledge of Arabic help us? State TV Bulletin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC) --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC) (Is a way to stay registered-loged in all time???)

YouTube is not a reliable source. Sopher99 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not Youtube Sopher, its the central news bulletin of today simply uploaded to You Tube and the reporter is tranmitting from an area is calling Arkub and seems badly damaged.You didnt see the video obviously, its apx at the minute 10--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well... I said earlier that rebels' offensives are to weak. Now, @EkoGraf, you suggest we cut out the countryside or I understood you wrongly? --Wüstenfuchs 19:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

EkoGraf is suggesting we make the map the same size as the map he showed us. Sopher99 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Which implies cutting the current one. That's the same thing I said. --Wüstenfuchs 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a reference here to fighting in Arqoub http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=3570 . On another note, how about another colour (or stripes) for areas where it is not clear who is in control? Exat (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a RS, not even close. We don´t know nearly nothing about half of the city, we are basing the map on mostly unreliable sources. With all due respect Futuretrillionaire, I know that your intentions are good, but I don´t really think we should have map with this limited number of RS. Heck, half of the article is made of claims by SANA and SOHR. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire made a mapp according to the one from the External links section. But I need to say that SANA was so far always correct considering the territorial gains. Also this map is rather in rebels' favour not the Army's. Even the CNN reported that the Army is already in Suleiman al-Halabi and Akrub neighbourhoods. --Wüstenfuchs 22:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was suggesting to cut out the countryside. The areas like Saif al-Dawla, Akrub and Suleiman al-Halabi are obviously contested territories and they may need their own colors to indicate this. EkoGraf (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No they don't. Besides then the same rules would apply for sallaheddine, midan, Zahra, and new aleppo Sopher99 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher I really have no idea where do you get the news, but that's far from being correct. Also, name one SANA report which was incorrect, considering territorial gains...? EkoGraf, I agree we make stripes in Saif al-Dawla, Akrub and Suleiman al-Halabi similiar like in ethnic maps where the populations is mixed. Same thing can be applied in this case. --Wüstenfuchs 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I insist however someone with arabic knowledge to take a look at syrian tv video footage from Arkub, where the reporter was in a badly damaged area claiming that it is Arkub. As for SANA i agree again that in territorial gains they are the most reliable source of the conflict.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Look in the article. I left CNN's report as a source ther in the Continued fighting section, last paragraph (look at the photos from Aleppo and their discripition). The CNN confrimed this report from the Syrian Television. Funny thing though... The Telegraph reported some sort of Jihadi International in Aleppo - Jihadis of the world unite! :D --Wüstenfuchs 23:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to the Assad regime and its sponsors/suppliers in Belarus, North Korea, Iran and Russia... Dying totalitarian dictatorships of the world, unite! (if for no other reason than it will be us next) بروليتاريا (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, aint that a shame... --Wüstenfuchs 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No not a shame at all. Its about time for these lumbering cold war relics to meet their long over due final destination already; the Ash heap of history بروليتاريا (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was just joking (I was sarcastic really)... You are disussing unimportant things... this is not a cheering forum. --Wüstenfuchs 00:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the map, add Salaheddine and Midan to the "contested areas" and I think we have a good compromise. بروليتاريا (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

According to this 23 Sept. AFP article [2], Midan is still under Army control while the FSA is moving into Suleiman. Haven't seen any news about fighting in Salaheddine. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Saleheddine is ridicilous. Only one rebel claimed this and this was reported only once in the unknwon Sudanese newspepers. Also to note, you should mark the green part of the Bustan al-Qasr as orange. --Wüstenfuchs 00:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No - but Zahra should be marked as orange http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/rebels-hit-army-hq-in-aleppo-30676513.html Sopher99 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done It indeed looks like the rebels are attacking the army base, not sure about Zahra though. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

All reliable news media, including Reuters and AFP, have confirmed the military firmly controls Salahadine and Midan. Street fighting is ongoing in Saif al-Dawla and Suleiman Arkub, where the military is the one who is on the offensive. The rebels captured Arkub shortly before they made the attempted attack on Midan, which the military repelled, now the Army is trying to push back into Arkub. As for Zahraa, per the video source itself the rebels are not making a ground attempt to capture Zahraa or the Army base, what they are doing is hitting the area with mortar rounds from a distance, no mention of ground/street fighting in Zahraa itself. So the previous image of a rebel advance arrow on the edge of Zahraa was ok, but not an advance into the district itself. So I think you should revert that last edit Future. Otherwise everything else looks great. EkoGraf (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf, can you reach WP:CON on this article's talk page before taking direct action to modify an image, as you did here not even waiting 3 minutes for other editors to respond. You are setting a bad precedent with that kind of behaviour. User:Futuretrillionaire created the image and has proven to be a balanced editor; it is important that these matters are discussed and then handled by a responsible editor. بروليتاريا (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I sorta jumped the gun there with Sopher's video. I'll try to be more careful next time. If it's clear I made an mistake, I don't mind people reverting the map. Btw, does anyone know what's going on now at the airport southeast of Aleppo? That part is kinda confusing me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't "jump the gun". Clearly if Opposition fighters are close enough to mortar the base then it is contested. With the map reverted no one would even know that is taking place. Which of course is the editor in questions intent. بروليتاريا (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general comment, but I'd like to say good work on getting the map up; not perfect I imagine, but it seems to reflect a consensus of what is going on in Aleppo, which is the best we can do. In terms of relying on SANA, Youtube or Rebel claims, I think its important to note whether certain claims are contested by the opposing side. I have not heard rebel denials that Midan was recaptured byt he military, for example.

And for what it's worth, for those curious about who is winning, my opinion is that we have a clear stalemate and that the tactical gains that the Syrian Army is making in Aleppo are irrelevant. In reality, neither side has the resources to put into the battle to force a decisive victory. Rebels are tactically losing ground within the city but seem to be increasing pressure on the surrounding country side, supply lines etc. The main cause of this loss of ground in the city is lack of supplies and ammunition - assaults seem to come in waves, matching a pattern of foreign-supply lines; so even if you saw the FSA almost forced out of Aleppo, a big transfer of ammo and weapons could reverse the situation almost immediately; absent of this support however, the FSA will be unable to gain ground. Grant bud (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

First of user with the Arabic spelling name, there is a Wikipedia rule on going and being bold in your editing, and I figured this was a good time of being bold given the source was incorrect in that there was ground figting in Zahra. Second, you are aware that for example 82 mm mortars have a range of 1.8-3 Km? So it does not necessarily mean they were in the district itself to hit the base. EkoGraf (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As of Midan claims, the Governor of Aleppo was there today under the footage of Syrian state tv, said that the restoration of the area is under way and that the power plant in midan is damaged with efforts to bring electrical power from other areas. As for water he said that there is no problem to water infrastructure. They are in the 1530 english news bulletin of Syria TV with video footage. Beyond their words video footage is the only proof we can take as a fact and its there. As of Arkub the SANA reports progress in recapturing parts of the area but not announcing the full clear o it. They are pretty cautious in that subject and never claim an area that they haven't secured yet.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done As requested by EkoGraf on my talk page, I've made the Army base to New Aleppo areas unclear (orange).-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool, looks great. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone what's going on at the airport southeast of Aleppo? I heard news about rebels attacking airfields a while ago, but I'm not sure if it's still going on. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Been quiet lately, last reported the military repelled those attacks. EkoGraf (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Bustan al-Qasr also needs to be coloured in orange. --Wüstenfuchs 15:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the map is good now. --Wüstenfuchs 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, just today reports were of ground fighting in that area. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Its easy to check that by ourselves. Look at the SANA page on the link Airport, we can see about the flights depart or arrive from Aleppo(if there are scheduled). If so the airport is working obviously fine. We can even phone them i belive directly to get certain a day we have doubts. We can identify ourselves as the writers of history or beter the printers of it :) --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wüstenfuchs you are violating wikipedia rules of neutrality by being pro assad in your writing , be neutral here,the fsa isn't losing land,the actually gained land the fsa controls part of salaheddine, and there is a stalement mostly and the the syrian army attack at saif al dawla has failed so for that they are attacking other places in aleppo .Alhanuty (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Future millionaire if you have the time, position detail near the areas of the frontline, in order the map especially in these areas, to be precise. Buidings of interest (etc the reservoir in Arkub) and others like subneighboorhoods by dots or something. The nicest would be every area to has its name and main buldings in the area of the fight in order to better understand the course of the coalitions when we here some subareas or buildings of importance like today. Nice job by the way :)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In light of this http://sana.sy/eng/337/2012/09/25/443492.htm and other news agencies. Should we change Arkub to red/pink and should Shaar and Sakhour be changed to orange? Exat (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Also to this http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2012/September/middleeast_September275.xml&section=middleeast but lets wait until the evening news. I think that Syria media channels will certainly have correspondences from Arkoub, to confirm with video footage. Its also clear that clashes are in the boarders of Arkoub with the other neighbourhoods...if Arkoub is confirmed then pretty sure the other closed areas are part of the conflict zone.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's captured, but SOHR says it's not. It's always like that. Rebels claim they are still holding the ground for next three days and then they admit they don't hold anything. We will wait probably two more days I think. --Wüstenfuchs 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In the time to confirm or not this the areas next to Arkoub that mentioned with clashes i think they must go to ongoing conflict and orange colour. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done As requested by EkoGraf on my talk page, Syrian Army movement into Sukari is added, and the district has been changed to contested. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, and I agree with you Future, it seems only the southern portion of Sukari is contested. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say so too. How about Shaar and Sakour being changed to orange? (See above) Exat (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done you're source (SANA) reported clashes at western Sakhour and parts of Shaar, so I've colored only the western parts of those neighborhoods orange, rather than the whole neighborhoods.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

26th September

I have read this http://sana.sy/eng/337/2012/09/26/443692.htm , as listed on the main article, and have done a bit of googling. It looks like Sheikh Najjar neighbourhood is north east of Aleppo (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sultan+Carpets,+20,+المنطقة+الصناعية،+Jabal+Samaan,+Aleppo+Governorate,+Syria) and thus I think some of Hanano neighbourhood can be turned orange. al-Yarmouk School in al-Kallaseh seems to be listed as Al-Qasiliah on google and may also need turning to orange (a second opinion would be great). Exat (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice Exat. Also these tool is very detailed in districts of the city. http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.2135895&lon=37.1572112&z=14&l=14&m=b&search=Aleppo--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that tool is awesome (kicks googlemaps hard). Shows Sheikh Najjar (north east) and al-Kallaseh (next to bustan) clearly. Can anybody find Sabe' Bahrat - SOHR reported clashes however cannot find any info on it? Exat (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we can revise the hole map with the use of wikimapia. Its excellent in detail and can provide us with detailed view of operations and occupation areas by the opponents. Future or an another expert in mapping can help to pass to an other level.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The map acctualy is based on wikimapia. The countryside was, however, cut out, per agreement we made days ago. --Wüstenfuchs 16:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but areas names of areas and especially in the conflict area are no--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)t detailed in order to follow the course of coalitions exactly and the areas of operations, even without territorial gaining of the opponents.

There were some excellent maps during the libyan civil war but the one at the moment is good. If I understood how you upload the map then I may be of more help. Goes to find out about svg's. Exat (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Bostan Pasha district should also be turned to orange from this link http://sana.sy/eng/337/2012/09/27/443892.htm . Exat (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Btw, does anyone here know where Izza or Hamdaniya is? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally forgot about Izza, it's a rebel-held district which has been under military ground attack for the last month. Reports of street fighting there are almost daily. Although I don't know its exact location. EkoGraf (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks futuretrillionaire, I presume you 'create' when you reupload the svg? I think you should add al-Kallaseh to orange (see above) [3] As far as I can tell, this is what they're referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darat_Izza Exat (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've heard news about Izza being a district in Aleppo, but it looks like Izza is very far from Aleppo city, but it's in Aleppo governorate though. To update the map, I click on the image on the article, on the image description page there's a link to the commons equivalent [4]. Then I scroll down over all the previous editions until I see "Upload a new version of this file". That's the link I use to upload a newer version.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have looked and it says "Unfortunately you cannot overwrite this image." - so I guess only you have the power to edit it. Can you change al-Kallaseh to orange for me? Thanks Exat (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Are you an autoconfirmed user? Other users should be able to edit update the file. Go to "My preferences" on the top of the screen, and then find "Member of groups". See if "Autoconfirmed users" is listed as one of them. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it appears I am. Exat (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

PYD and the infobox

How come that the PYD is enlisted as an oppositionist militia, while on the ground they are cooperating with the Syrian Army to maintain peace and to protect the Kurdish-populated Sheikh Maqsoud district!--Preacher lad (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes should be made immediately in the infobox and the battle map regarding the Sheikh Maqsoud area as many correspondents from the ground have reported that the Syrian Army is maintaining full control over the above mentioned district.Alintiqad website quoting from the Al Mayadeen TV, the report says that "the Syrian Army is in full control over the Sheikh Maqsoud area, with the withdrawal of the remaining militiamen of the Jabhat an-Nusra" referring to the death of 16 fighters from the brigade. Here is the link from the Al Mayadeen TV: latest news. Note that the Al Mayadeen TV is one of few media agencies that relies on its own correspondent from the grounds of Aleppo, so nobody can argue the reliability of the source.--Preacher lad (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems al-Mayadeen is reliable enough. --Wüstenfuchs 12:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I say we make a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion from the start as well. --Wüstenfuchs 12:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, they are fighting the PKK http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201292893840251649.html , which likes the Kurdish PYD but is not part of the Kurdish PYD. I am going to put the PKK on the government's side. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Or we could add the PYD on the Army's side with a line. PKK and PYD are in an alliance, to note you. --Wüstenfuchs 12:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But the PYD has what is called "popular protection units", which are rebel friendly. They may be allied but they have two different affinities. Sopher99 (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

PYD and the PKK are the asme in this war... for example in Syia's Kurdistan.. PKK and PYD control the towns together. PYD's units are rather Kurdish-friendly, they don't care about the rebels and their war. --Wüstenfuchs 12:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But they don't fight the same enemy. http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4938.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-kurds-idUSBRE8760HN20120807 PYD admits that the two parties have an ideological affinity and a close relationship where the PKK does not interfere with the PYD's management of Syrian Kurdish affairs Sopher99 (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, PYD is the only Krdish party present in Aleppo, there's no PKK there. They fight nobody, they protect the Kurds. Also, look at the PYD article, even rebels accused them for cooperation with the Army. --Wüstenfuchs 12:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=161934008 Sopher99 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This artilce says that PYD's fighters replaced the PKK's... which is only a rebel claim. PYD is with the Army. --Wüstenfuchs 13:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't have much sources to back that up, We have sources to say that popular protection units and the KNC are against the army. You want to compromise and create a third column? Sopher99 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the third column anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree to a third column as a compromise for the time being. However, given the top rebel commander has today openly threatened the Kurds and that opposition activists and the Army have both stated the Kurdish militias and the military fought side-by-side against the rebels today, than we would possibly have to seriously consider moving the Kurds, with a separation line like before, to the government column. EkoGraf (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Its quite reasonable for their interests(Kurds) to follow an approach with the Army. Lets don't forget that even they are controlling their cities in the North east, they dont confront with the Army presence, which remains in the barracks and also in some cities they didnt even touch the flags and insignia of Syria Government. Beyond that, they refused access to rebel fighters in their territories. As of Aleppo they simply now that an Islamic regime, will sooner or later turn against them, so their choice is explained quite reasonably. Lets wait for them to escalate clashes with rebels(if something like this happens) before we moved them from the third column to the army side. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya. Also remember there was already a previous incident a month ago when the rebels tried to enter the Kurdish areas but were repelled when the Air Force stepped in to help the Kurdish militias with air-strikes. EkoGraf (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading the Guardian's article about the rebels' offensive it comes to my mind that we should put both PYD and PKK in the Army's columne and maybe we should add a line. I'm very convinced that the rebels declared war upon the Kurdish units. I also read reports about execution of Kurds... --Wüstenfuchs 17:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, like I said, to the Army column but with a separation line. Still, let's wait until tomorrow to see what the situation is. EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there are pro-Assad Kurdish militias, but aren't there Anti-Assad Kurdish militias too? If that's the case, then the pro-Assad Kurds should be listed under the Army w/ separation line, and the Anti-Assad militias be listed under the opposition w/ separation line. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I was for the third collum from the beginning so I welcome this. Also YPG is neutral, I wrote about it endlessly in another talk threads, Syrian army even shelled that Kurdish district and YPG in retaliation killed several soldiers in Kurdish areas. Just read Kurdistan campaign, you can find everything there, Kurds are neutral. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: There is no local Kurdish pro-Assad militia. It is YPG which everyone paints as they wants. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian - rebels losing the battle problem

Where is the problem? The article is writing about the foreign figthers. l7laseral claims that I only add one sentence from the whol article but he forgot that I editied the combatants section, added Chechen commander and every possible info from the article I have added here. Now it's biased, rebel claims they are losing the battle but it's biased ofcourse. You are the one who erased large part of the combatant section, so please don't say I'm only adding this one sentence. It can not be biased, it's rebel claim. --Wüstenfuchs 18:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One single rebel claim from a rebel who is not part of the FSA does not go in. I7laseral (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So he must be part of the FSA? Jihadis aren't fighting? They are allies. One rebel who is there, involved in fighting doesn't metter, but when an "activists" says the city is being bombarded, then yeah, it's fine...? Why don't you erase activists' statements? --Wüstenfuchs 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He is not a commander, just an observer. We do put statements from everyone in, especially when we don't even know the time in which he said it. I7laseral (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

He said it on 23 September, it is when Guardian reported visited Aleppo and wrote an article. Activists are also observers and we put their every statement, even the irrelevant ones. --Wüstenfuchs 18:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We certainly do not. We only put in their specific reports. I7laseral (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We do. The article is full of the "an activist said". What do you want to include with this stetement, a failed jihadi attack where they lost 10 men in two days? --Wüstenfuchs 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeap. And especially after today bomb attack in Damascus, which the FSA rushed to take credit for it, shows the deteriorating operational capabilities they have, in sapping a front line in all other areas of the country south of Aleppo. Aleppo eastern neighbourhoods, Bab city and the small boarders cities near Turkey are the only areas that remain under their control.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope; Homs province (including Talkalak) and most of Homs city, pretty much the entire Idlib province, the entire Deir Ezzor province, half of Raqqaa, most of Daara including most of Daraa city, the Damascus suburbs including Zabadani, the towns and villages of Hama province and the Latakia countryside, and all of Rural aleppo are under rebel control. Sopher99 (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree on some, disagree on others Sopher. Per all of the reports that have been made, by both the international media and the rebels themselves, they control, per my point of view: most of Homs and Idlib provinces (Homs city 40 percent and Idlib city not at all), half of Daraa and Damascus provinces (Daraa city not at all, or just a few districts, and outskirts of Damascus city), northern half of Aleppo province (Aleppo city divided 50-50), only a few towns in Hama and Raqqaa provinces (Hama city and Raqqaa city not at all), Deir Ezzor province highly unclear (most of Deir Ezzor city), only the Latakia province mountain area bordering Idlib (Latakia city and the countryside not at all). EkoGraf (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As i said Sopher all major cities are in the army control(Idlib, Homs, Hama,Raqaa,Damascus,Daraa). There is no active frontline in Homs (army conducting cleaning operations in an area of the town). Parts of the Idlib countryside are in rebel control and only that, not the town and as of Latakia province is the mountain city of Salma in which Al Ikbariya show a videofootage confirming that is in rebel hands and showing army in the outskirts after cleaning the road towards. Army in clearing the rest of Damascus countryside and Damascus as a city is under Army control. Even the rebels admit it with the excuse that they are leaving Damascus to fight elsewhere.As of Aleppo the situation speaks from the map we have with the Arkoub attachment on the Army hands. Conclusion: All major cities are in Army control with the 50/50 cituation in Aleppo. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I may help you with Deir ez-Zor. Province is mostly inhabited near Eufratus river with no significant town between ar-Raqqah (regime controlled) and Deir ez-Zor (rebel controlled). From there to Iraqi borders it is under rebel control. Also you are forgetting about northen Lebanese borders including that Crusader castle which name I always forget, eastern side of Alawite mountains right up to Aleppo-Damascus highway, northen Syria is more or less out of government control. Areas which are not under rebel control are under Kurdish control with regime having presence only in north-east (Qamishlo, Hasaka) and as for Homs, that is a city of ghosts. And lol to above poster. No frontline in Homs, I guess that is why Old City is being shelled every day, because army controls it. Read this. Army control outside Alawite districts is little to none. And great, now we are watching al-Ikbariya, Makhlouf´s channel. Say Dimitrish, have you ever heard about users called ChronicalUsual or DanielUmel? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not Ellsworth don't know them. However i mention about the video footage of the channel(Al Ikbariya) as i did yesterday with video footage of Syrian TV from Arkoub. You mean the crack of the Knights area that army cleared some time ago. We are watching Jazzera and other western satellite which their interests are with the rebel side, so watching the government controlled media its not a crime, especially when they reportedly confirmed in news about area capturing. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. After that extreme sock-puppeting I became little paranoid when dealing with new users. Right to the point - I don´t like AJA (have better opinion about AJE largely because of James Bay), nor Al-Arabiya, but they are identified by RSN as reliable sources. Syrian TVs are not. Primary difference. Watch them, I do it sometimes as well (though for entertainment purposes, especially Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura on al-Dunniya) but they are not RS. And since army cleared it can you explain why they were bombing it just yesterday [5]? EllsworthSK (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For comprehensive, up-to-date, sourced information on who holds what, you can refer to Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war, which lists over 100 locations... Tradedia (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

AJA news head was cut off some time ago and replaced by a loyal (other) sheikh under commands came directly from the government in Doha, because he was not so fun with the line of the channel. Journalists there are simply employs and they execute orders and aren't better than a state own tv channel, like Syria TV. Usually Syrian media are reporting clashes in areas that dont controll by them and some exaggerating numbers of enemy losses. However when they say that they control an area(SANA) they control it{thats why i mentioned the syria tv correspondence(coordinated with SANA) from the centre of Arkoub} as video footage proving material, without mentioning the speech or words of the journalist. ( Crack of the Knights and Aleppo Citadel are historical sites of great importance, with the Palmyra city, i wish i can travel one day to Syria and see them, if they did not destroy it). Your link is not operational.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Els if you have the time check this report about AJ english and they way they get the license to transmit to US...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH2mdOpCQRY--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Rebels' casualties and wrong section name (rebels aren't opposition, Syria already has its opposition. SNC is not in the parliament)

First, I'd like to note it's impossible to know how many casualties do FSA have and how many casualties do the jihadists have. The reason for that is next, the articles refer to them as rebels, they don't call them exclusively FSA casualites or jihadist casualties (only in few articles they do), so I suggest we should remove the flags from the casualties part of the infobox.

Second, the title says enough... The term "opposition" is just wrong, from every aspect... what makes them an opposition if they aren't in any parliament? They are rebels involved in an armed struggle agains a governement of one country. --Wüstenfuchs 23:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The leaders of the foreign fighters are mostly religious involving in this and the rebels(syrian) leadership seems to be ex Syria Army defectors in most cases, so in any case they are not legitimise to call them as opposition. They are rebel forces and this name fits them better i think, because they dont have joint command and are groups of different nationalities with different motivations.An opposition is leaded or guided at least, by known political figures of the people who represents and not by unknown to te general public people who just came out from Libya or a barrack of the army.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

opposition [ˌɒpəˈzɪʃən]
n
1. the act of opposing or the state of being opposed
2. hostility, unfriendliness, or antagonism
3. a person or group antagonistic or opposite in aims to another

Source: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

That makes them opposition. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm Al Qaeda terrorist attacks then in US might be called opposition as they are actions which fulfil all the above.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAP EllsworthSK (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between political opposition (as in the case of the foreign based Syrian National Council, as well as various political parties that have officially engaged in the Syrian political system) and armed rebbelion/Jihad as in the case of the "Free Syrian Army" and the allied Islamic militants operating in Aleppo. This distinction should be made clear and refering to rebel fighters as opposition implies a legitimate political presence, which is in reality not there. -Django — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.28.195 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous partiality

In the page, there is the following sentence:

"On the third day of the offensive, an activist told CNN that rebels had taken control of at least four neighbourhoods"

The source given is an activist quoted in a CNN article.

But what do we read in the same source?

"Government forces hammered rebels in several locations, inflicting substantial casualties, according to SANA. It said troops assumed control of the al-Amiriyeh area and much of Tal al-Zarazir in Aleppo."

However it did not appear at all. Just the sentence with an activist saying that rebels were making gains. The sentence where the Army is making gain has been completely left out. I wonder why.

It is also sourced elsewhere:

"A Syrian military source said Saturday the Syrian troops have wrested back control over two rebel-held areas in the fighting-stricken Aleppo province in northern Syria, at a time when the spiraling violence is seemingly threatening Aleppo's world heritage sites.

The unnamed source, whose remarks were carried by the state-run SANA news agency, said the Syrian troops are in full control over the al-Amirieh and Tal Zarazir districts in Aleppo."

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=854463&publicationSubCategoryId=200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:590:3803:0:D267:E5FF:FEE7:D677 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy. Create an account and edit the article if you want as it is semi-protected. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We have already mention CNN article as a source of Army controls the above areas in the following because the original writer of the first part neglected to mention how the article continues....Also Army holding this two areas are mentioned from last day and today Syrian TV english news bulletin in 1530 Damascus time saw video footage of the area and interviewed a special forces officer who controls the area. Welcome to sign in an contribute.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Video footage in some point of the bulletin and interviewSyria TV news--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys are not reading carefully. Please take a thorough look at the paragraph that begins with "Rebels claim to have stormed" I7laseral (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Finally rebelSourcess are claim to control 4 unnamed???? areas or they partially control one (form where is a video under tree ,in a court who knows where....--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC) :)

Article size

Several editors have expressed their reservations in regard to the length of the article, that it is becoming too bloathed and large. One of the reasons for this is that the battle has dragged on more than anyone anticipated and we are adding info for almost every day. So I was thinking of ways to shorten the article and here is my proposal. For starters, we keep as they are the sections on the notable phases of the battle. However, we considerably cut out all surplus information, besides that that is most key, in the sections like: Stalemate, War of attrition and Continuing clashes. Those are the phases during which no real major strategic and tactical changes happened during the battle. Opinions? EkoGraf (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is too long because we use the unreliable SANA too much. "clashes occurred at this school blah blah blah, terrorists died in the hundreds in this facility blah blah blah" Sopher99 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one... We should erase unimportant infos, like reports of clashes and bombardment as well. Not any article does have such infos. This includes SOHR and SANA, so we can get rid of challenged sources partly. --Wüstenfuchs 23:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is meant to describe a battle and not be a shortcut of an event that occurred and now we can jump to conclusions and miss out non important information. The most appropriate is, for encyclopaedic reasons mainly, to cut off the article most non important info then(after the end of the battle). As for now and due to the fact that is a running event, we must leave our sources and descriptions intac,t in order after the battle take the point and really cut off the unimportant. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point acctualy... Besides, a too large article is one that has 200,000+ bytes. --Wüstenfuchs 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the most quality "battle articles" here are based not on quasi-WP:PRIMARY news reports, but rather works written by reputable historians. While the historiography for this conflict will take a very long time to materialise, it should nevertheless be kept in mind as a goal for the distant future. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So we remove all SANA and SOHR info in those sections on minor clashes and bombardments and leave only the big events? I'm up for this. EkoGraf (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I myself would do so, EkoGraf. --Wüstenfuchs 00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. EkoGraf (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know would other users agree to this... I may assume, Sopher, you and me agree on this. --Wüstenfuchs 00:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the drive-by nature of this comment - I've popped in on a couple of occasions really to see if there had been any resolution to the RSN query about Voice of Russia. And I read the article. And I have just finished dabbing my bleeding eyes. A read of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER might not go amiss. It is a common problem with articles about current events: everyone is doing their best to include everything but sometimes the trees seem more significant than the wood. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So do I. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets ask Futuretrillionaire to do it. If anyone else does it there would be fighting over how much SANA and rebels sources gets to be removed or not. FutureTrillionaire is the "summarizing and article length guy" for the Syrian civil war mainpage. Sopher99 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This article contains too many details in areas where few are necessary. I'd highly recommend we start summarizing the early sections of this article. Only major offensives and territorial changes need to be described in detail, preferably from independent sources. To be honest, I haven't actually read that much of this article prior to me making the map. I'll probably read and start summarizing the early sections. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Jeancey has also done a lot of copy editing for the Syrian civil war article. I'll try my best, but anyone is welcome to join. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Proposal: We could put the surplus info in a timeline article (e.g. Timeline of the Battle of Aleppo) and/or articles about battles for some key districts (e.g. Battle of Salaheddine and maybe others) and keep this article as a summary. --78.0.237.219 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

I am a new writer, joining actively in this one a few days ago. I see a vicious attempt by some writers not only disappear sources that aren't supporting certain causes, but to make us accept others, like facebook, you tube and others as credible. Until now i have never touch a foreign column, even if i disagree with the content, the most i have done is put the subject in the talk page... We all love democracy and the freedom of press but, keeping it as a privilege only for ourselves, with no tolerance about the others opinion and dictating with easiness and hiding facts from the public, what we don't like, is a mistake at least. Having friends in Damascus and even i am not a Syrian, i was hesitating to take place(then and now), however this attempt being conducted systematically, to hide the Syrian government media opinion and present facts that only favour the rebel side, by their sympathies news media and other sources, is a mistake and points directly our reader that something isn't right. An act like this it will be reasonable to happen from the opposite side....--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem with SANA? Hasn't this article already used SANA sources multiple times? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that certain writers are messing all the time and erasing other writers columns, with the claim mostly, that SANA isnt reliable source. In this war no media isn't a reliable source and we all well know what our western media and UAE based media are serving and what of course the Russian, Iranian, Syrian official media are serving. This article is a collection of reports, leaving the reader to decide and figure it out by his judgement, and for this to happen the continuing attempt to exclude certain sources must stop. I am not getting into the procedure to characterise what is reliable and what it isnt, because in this conflict we saw lies from all media sides, however lets leave the info to flow and the results and reliability of each media will be judged by the event itself.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a general discussion forum, so go preach somewhere else. Reliability of sources is not decided by any event, for that we have WP:RSN. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talking about reliable sources Sohr. Certainly an Assad opposed source as wikipedia says. Whoever nobody says, neither me , to exclude them. As of of course i am saying not to exclude others. Ells why do you think that i am directing to you? --Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

SOHR is reliable as SANA. In other words, it isn´t. I have stated numerous times that I´d like to see both SANA and SOHR removed. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this is an active civil war, I think the choice is including all the somewhat biased reporting or including none. I find the former more useful since you can assume the truth is somewhat in between the government reports and the rebel reports. So, I am opposed to deleting both SANA and SOHR material. There is some material from lessor sources that prehaps needs to challenged. (e.g. did Assad really visit Aleppo and no photos were taken?) --MarsRover (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree Mars.There is no truly reliable neutral source to provide correspondences. Main news agencies in most of the cases are retransmitting a mixed of government and rebel media reports including SANA and SOHR. The big difference is that SANA and Syrian TV can provide video and photographic material, which is more reliable than a phone call from someone in Aleppo to SOHR offices in London, that is the main reason that all media around the world where using their video coverage in recent attacks. Sources like facebook pages and anonymous private blogs must not even mentioned.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hajj Roundabout and Fardous

Does anyone have any information about who controls this: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1825117&lon=37.1457475&z=17&l=0&m=b&show=/5087828/Hajj-roundabout I keep hearing about Syrian army operations in Fardous but am confused because the area in between is presumably FSA controlled; however given that a main highway runs into the area, and rebels generally bunker down in the neighbourhoods with narrow streets, the Syrian army could have control / freedom of movement along this road up to the roundabout? Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 08:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The government did control it. It is not actually that big from memory; It's mostly a few streets centring around the main roads. Other parts are industrial. Rebels prefer small/narrow streets roads which are tightly packed in. Put it this way if the rebels aren't claiming they control it - the army does. Exat (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Districts recaptured (Al-Akhbar)

"The government forces, regained control over the neighborhoods of Salaheddine, Azamiyah and most of Seif al-Dawla..."

- http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/12904/

The whole article is very well useful. --Wüstenfuchs 09:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Al Akbar is a Nasserist and pro-assad newspaper. Sopher99 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

All Lebanese newspapers are either strongly pro-M8 (thus pro-Assad) or pro-M14 (anti-Assad). Finding a middle ground there seems to me fruitless. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, al-Akhbar. Though English version is not as bad as Arabic. Saif al-Dawa was not taken by Syrian army, photojournalists were making pictures of rebels fighting there just yesterday [6]. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of Saif al-Dawla... --Wüstenfuchs 18:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

He said most of Saif al-Dawla, not the whole district, and an AFP reporter on the ground confirmed last month that the upper half of Saif al-Dawla was government-controlled. EkoGraf (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish area: There is not one report the past days that fight is going on in masqoud area. I red some sheels dropping but not even a report of clashes from the government side or by the rebels...Kurds more likely have the control there. Beeing certain now that the fight is mainly in Jamal-Bustan al Basha area we can conclude that previous reports of SANA (first in the air before others admit it) wasnt unreliable. Ofcourse we canot believe the numbers of casualties given but in area mapping the gains of the army are firstly printed by the SANA reports. Other sources are unwilling to confirm or even dont have the ability to do so.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Facebook as a source

I have removed facebook as a source in the article for several reasons. One, self published sources can only be used "as sources of information about themselves" (see WP:SELFSOURCE). This includes facebook. Thus, we can use SOHR facebook page to talk about SOHR, but we cannot use the information they post on it about what is happening in Syria. Also, many of the links were simply to the general SOHR facebook page, with no actual link to the post in question, making those references about as useful as simply referencing aljazeera.com, and no other information. Hopefully there are third party sources that can be used here, but facebook cannot. Jeancey (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise I would agree with you. However, we have been using this as a source for months now. It is the official page of the highly notable SOHR opposition group. And almost daily numerous respectable international media outlets (like BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Reuters, AFP, etc) have been using the information from those same posts in their reports. Thus that gives in-on-itself reliability to the posts. The posts that we are using are all exclusively made by the organisation itself, not unknown Facebook users, because the page has been made in a way that only the SOHR organisation can make posts. As for your privacy changes fears, there are no problems in that regard, the page is open for all users to read, has been from the start. And I am not alone in this, because, besides me, multiple other editors of this page have been using SOHR as sources for this article, specifically for casualty figures and locations of fighting. So in conclusion, the posts are nether self-published or questionable (as Wikipedia would put it) given they are posted by the organisation itself and are used by notable news media. EkoGraf (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. However, to ease your fears and for compromise, I will try and replace those face sources which are replaceable with others, for the sake of compromise and to ease your fears. EkoGraf (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanket objections to particular sources seems a bit foolish to me. I think each source needs to be taken within the context. Many reputable organizations use their facebook page to broadcast news and events; SOHR's english site IS the facebook page for example; likewise youtube footage that clearly has a date and location, should also by all accounts be accetable, as should SANA in cases the information is consistent and not objected. However I do agree other sources are prefered *when* available.

175.106.63.3 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I replaced maybe 5-6 facebook sources with non-facebook sources. Wasn't able to find alternatives for the rest. EkoGraf (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

SOHR's facebook page is as pro-rebel as SANA is pro-government, just with more reliable figures. Name me a day in which they reported more dead rebels than soldiers. They now have pictures of captured Syrian soldiers on their facebook page. I thought they were observing human rights violations, not rebel successes. Unlike Libya there are few foreign correspondents on the ground, the front line is all over the country and these two sources (while heavily biased) are the best we have. We should only quote from SOHR when mentioned in a "respectable" news service like BBC, Al-Jazeera and Reuters. (Cjblair (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

Offensive from the west

Perhaps it should be added that rebels advance from the west and are on the outskirts of the western side of the city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.167.150 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back that up? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We probably have to wait till Monday, but there are clashes near Military Research Centre in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.167.150 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

PS:They just downed a plane there, videos all over the youtube. Press will wake up on Monday like usual... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.167.150 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Frontline Operations

Map update suggestions: 1. Zahraa area dont seem to have(west of the army positions) activity and army positions there aren't claimed by ground assault (they have army manned facilities in the area) 2. The attack in Kurdish area has repelled and no action from there is reported today. 3. Aleppo airport area also does not seem to be a battlefield-ongoing fight area also. 4. Bab Al Nairab area or parts of it are mentioning as an ongoing-conflict zone(quit logical if we think that the area is attached to the old city)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually rebels Captured the area around the airport 3 weeks ago, and the army has not taken it back since. Same with the Zahra and new aleppo. The FSA took Sukkari, so it should be green. Furthermore clashes are going on in the Izza (radio building) and thus should be put to orange, also the government controlled Aizizya should be put to orange now. As far as I know there are no clashes going on in Bab al narab other than shelling, and the rebels were not repulsed from Shekh mehsud, in fact the SOHR says the PKK retreated from many areas. Sopher99 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rebels did capture Sukari, but later several sources, including rebel ones, confirmed the military made an advance into it and since than the area has been contested. Just yesterday SOHR reported clashes in Sukari. Some countryside on the edges of Zahra and New Aleppo is under rebel control, but not the districts themselves. I say some because its already been confirmed the military has still a western ground route out of the city toward the Turkish border, for which the rebels have been fighting to gain control for the last 10 days. Several people have asked for the location of Izaa (including me), but nobody seems to know where it is actually located. We should try and figure it out because it seems one of the main rebel headquarters is located in Izaa. EkoGraf (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not a rebel headquarters, but rebels are fighting government forces constantly there. Its the small rectangle on the map that says "tv station". Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my bad, I thought it was because one of the meetings of the battalions a few days ago was at the headquarters of the Tawheed brigade in Izaa [7]. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with ground assessment of Eko and confirming that Izaa is the tv station area. After yesterday claims of SANA of successful repel of rebels, today we do not have clashes report from any source about fight there as i know(kurd area). PKK-PYD, after the first fight with the rebels gave its positions to the army who repelled the main assault(this in order to be done has some coordination between the two of them). Rebel presence and clashes are not referring at all in the area of the airport which is under government control. All rebel assaults are coming from the east of Aleppo. If rebels had access and ground presence in other areas, this would be shown in the decisive attack of them, due to the fact that attacking from behind is an advantage you cant throw away.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Partly done -Okay these are the changes I have made: (1) area around the army base has been changed to red from orange, due to lack of ground activity; (2) The area south of the airport has been changed to red, due to lack of activity; (3) Izza (TV/radio/media center) area has been changed to orange; (4) Aizizya, a small neighborhood bordering the southwest corner of Hamidiya, is colored orange. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, a few people have asked me to make some color changes to the map, especially the color of contested/unclear. They say it looks to similar to the Syrian Army color or something. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Howabout we JUST keep the orange. Take out rebel control. Take out Government control. Its too hard to really know who controls what, as all that counts as control is where the tanks and troops are. You can't say anyone controls empty countryside. Lets only have the map for where clashes are currently taking place, orange. Saying where governmental and rebels control is arbitrary. It would also save us from alot of fighting over who controls what. Sopher99 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, its quiet easy to have the picture and now we have it as much as we can, thanks to Futuretrillionaire changes. The eastern part of the city is controlled by rebels, the western by government (including the airport(PYD position is clear). The rebel assault is in the city centre areas mostly, which were controlled by army and we have marked some of them(were assault and clashes are active) as orange already.... the battle is ongoing.... and I think we have a pretty reliable cover of it...--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As of the colour of the conflicted zones you can put something with lines or a colour of your choice, if the existing one is similar????(dont think so) with the army colour.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Map looks great at this stage, no need to change anything at this time. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you missed this. "Another unit of the armed forces targeted a gathering for terrorists near the Cotton Gins area, east and north of al-Jandoul roundabout in Aleppo." Rebels did not contest it http://sana.sy/eng/337/2012/09/30/444374.htm I would say we should turn Shqayyef industrial area and Owaija district brown. Exat (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Map update Suggestions (1) Kurdish area Masqoud is not part of the frontline operations, controlled by Kurds.(SANA dont even attempt to claim control there) (2) Some other media today, transmitted SANA claims ,that Halabi and Sakhour neighbourhoods are under government control.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sana is not reliable. Sopher99 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You sound like a broken record. Sana is the state run news network where journalists and people report to. The same people who go and tell your CNN's, Euronews, Reuters etc the news. Exat (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

we have disgusted this and nobody wants to admit that SANA and others news sources are unreliable. However i believe truth facts can not be hidden from the light of truth. Kurdish areas are secure from Kurdish militia's, whoever due to SANA non objectivity we must, i sppose wait from a different source. CNN and others are not mind, whoever the existence of those (nonobjective sources) due to my opinion seems obligatory to stand an event here. Your conclusions are yours. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Map update Suggestions Can you include the Great Mosque of Aleppo as a landmark? The Citadel is listed on the map, both are subject to fighting and both are strategically and internationally important. Thanks in advance. (Cjblair (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

PYD and PKK presence

I have visited the Sheikh Maqsood district by myself and noticed that the PKK groups are present every where, which you can figure out through their flags. By the way, I never saw a flag of the PYD.--Preacher lad (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is OR. I am not saying that you are lying but simple "I was there" is not enough. Also I saw a lot of flags in other Kurdish territories (Erfin fe), all of them were "flag of Rojava", or simply PYD flags with few Kurdish flags here and there and protesters something waving with Ocaland and PKK flags. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Take or find a photograph of these PKK flags, then we'll talk. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know EllsworthSK (talk), that only remains OR. Anyway I will try to provide pics and links if found.--Preacher lad (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A journalist from The Australian [8] spent some time with the FSA recently and during that time he described the Kurdish militias as Assad-backed. So I'm questioning again whether we should move the Kurdish militia to the government column, with a separation line of course. Opinions? EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's official! There are PKK fighters in Aleppo: (New York Times) -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya, the reporter specificaly said PKK fighters are Assad-backed. So I was wondering whether we should put them in the government column. If people are against it than fine, was just asking. EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is: are all the Kurdish fighters in Aleppo pro-Assad? Do we even need a separate column for the Kurds if all of them are in the PKK? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the PYD column and put the PYD under the opposition column, while putting the PKK under the Syrian government column. I think that sounds fair. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, these two sources provided in the article suggest that PKK aren't the only Kurds in Sheikh Maqsud. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. The PYD and PKK are both in Sheikh Maqsud. They are reported to have ties with each other, but they are not on the same side? The PKK are definitely supporting the government, but aren't the PYD fighting against government forces? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's apparently very fractured opinion amongst Kurdish groups as to how they should play a role in the conflict [9]. I'd say just stay closely tuned for any more information to further elucidate this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Like Lothar said, there is a very confusing situation on the Kurds. On the one hand you had the incident in which government troops killed several PYD members on the airport road and they retaliated by killing 6 soldiers. It was the only incident of Kurdish-Army fighting in Aleppo reported. On the other hand, we have two reports of rebel attempts to advance into Kurdish areas and the Kurds, backed up by Army units and government-air strikes, repelled them. So you see the conundrum. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, we will not get any clear source about the situation on the ground till this is all over. What you see right now is many times bad journalism, there was no journalist in Shekh Maksoud or few in Kurdish controlled areas, all of them found strong anti-Assad sentiment. As for PKK, they broke ties with Syria after what Assad kicked Ocaland from Bekka and handed him to Turkey. Read this to get an idea about PKK position. As for Shekh Maksoud, YPG and PKK logos are very similar, may cause confusion and among those who are not even aware about PYD and YPG existance even more so. As for Aleppo, there is also this

Furthermore, clashes took place between rebels from the Tawheed brigade, pro-Syrian militias and YPG fighters in the Kurdish district of Sheikh Maqsoud in Aleppo last month when the YPG tried to drive both groups out of the district. Following this incident the Tawheed brigade threatened the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), an indirect reference to the PYD, on their Facebook page, and called on the “PKK gangs to drop their weapons immediately.” [10] EllsworthSK (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if that NYT article was referring to YPG as PKK just because the groups are connected. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, there are tensions between the rebels and the Kurds. The question is how these Kurdish fighters are organized in Aleppo. Are they part of the PKK or PYD or both? Are the two groups working together, or are the Kurds really just a collection of small militias, each with their own goals? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That quote says that Tawhiid brigade refers to PYD as PKK because of their connections. Frankly, my own opinion is that there are no PKK units but only PYD militia (ie YPG) which are being thrown to one lot or another as someone sees fit. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that the PYD is the Syrian branch of the PKK.Milliyet link1 Milliyet link2. Someone has to change the infobox immediately.--Preacher lad (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not and no one has to do it. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, PKK commander denies PKK presence in Syria. [11] The reporters might have relied on opposition accusations. Looks like we might have something like the Hezbollah-Iran debate again.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we split this page please?

Aleppo is the biggest city in Syria and fast becoming the biggest battle. The Timeline of the Syrian civil war has six pages over an eighteen month period. I believe that this battle will be edited at a later date but for now it needs to be split. It can't be split chronologically because it is based on phases of the battle not months.

In the alternative perhaps the paragraph titles should be changed to months. I believe that it would also make it easier for a novice user to follow and we are following events day by day it would, as an interim step it would only require some editing to place events into months and change the paragraph headings? Then, if needed, splitting it would be easier. cjblair 20:00, 4 October 2012 (WST)

There is already an ongoing discussion about it. --93.136.67.18 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

First we are making attempts to cut out all the extra non-notable junk stuff. But it takes time. We asked Future to look into it because he is a balanced editor. EkoGraf (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

And how about making timeline article and/or and articles about battles of some districts if this article still remains relatively big after that? --93.139.211.164 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So, will there be any splitting/forking? --93.142.247.217 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Articles like this are the norm for most Syrian civil war and Libyan civil war battle articles. People post new stuff as news arrives. Overtimes, it becomes a long timeline. The best solution would be to start summarizing the content already posted for a while. Give me a day, I'll see what I can do. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not make Timeline of the battle of Aleppo article and leave only relatively short summary of the course of battle here? --93.142.247.217 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a single good battle article on Wikipedia that does that. A separate timeline article is not necessary, and makes things harder to find for readers. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with FutureTri, I'd vote against a split, too. The size of the actual article text is not egregiously large. It just has a lot of references. And as some else pointed out in another discussion, the timeline articles appear to have little oversight and are highly POV. When this battle end we can clean-up this text by summerizing and splitting if necessary. --MarsRover (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. And how about the battles for key districts, like Battle of Salaheddine, is the idea to make such articles of any good? --93.142.247.217 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Salaheddine has changed hands multiple times, making one battle for it difficult.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)