Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Abdul Jabbar al-Oqeidi is dead

sources: [1] [2] [3] Dafranca (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, now lets try some WP:RS EllsworthSK (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

CBS published an article where he was interviewed. A good way to inform that he is alive [4] But also, we have to know that there are sources that are in favour of the rebels and they are allowed in Wikipedia. For example see the Timeline article. LOL, pure propaganda.--Andres arg (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

20,000 rebels fighting?

This article says that according to "Arab diplomatic sources", there are 20,000 rebels fighting in Aleppo. I have no idea about this site, is it reliable? Has that been mentioned anywhere else? If it's reliable, the infobox should be updated. Esn (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Rebels' casualties and flags

The rebels casualties shouldn't be marked with flags as now... There is FSA flag, but reports aren't specific. For example, vast majority says rebels were killed, and rebels are the jihadists as well, so it is impossible to separate jihadist from FSA casualties. The number of jihadist casualties is simply unrealistic considering their presence in Aleppo. We should remove those flags. --Wüstenfuchs 21:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are actually not that many Jihadists in Aleppo: [5] [6], contrary to what Assad wants us to think. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are... rebel commander said there is some 500 foreigners, but probably far more... Jihadists would trash their reputation. Nevertheless, foreign medias also report large number of jihadists, including the Guardian. Still, this is not the question. The problem are those flags. --Wüstenfuchs 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't now how is that Billionaire thinking about Assad's intentions but at least we are living the situation around us AS IT IS. Bustan al-Basha and Sakhour districts are mainly under the control of FOREIGN JIHADISTS.--Preacher lad (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

25 October 2012

Now, at this exact moment, heavy clashes are going on between the FSA and the armed groups of the Kurdish PKK in the Ashrafiyeh and Syriac quarters.... I wander how some editors are still insisting to classify the Kurds as a pro-FSA power!--Preacher lad (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no clashes. They simply left. Besides the Popular protection committees is different than the PKK. Sopher99 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because Wikipedia editor "Preacher lad" isn't a reliable source? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sopher is very funny... what about the Syrian Army tank that advanced towards the al-Zuhoor main street?? I took photos by myself but I will not upload so don't ask about them.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why won't you upload? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if he does upload; it wouldn't be a useable source, anyway. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That will uncover the moves of the Syrian Army.... ok I will upload one photo of the terrorist snipers.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not forcing to accept my photos as a source... I'm only interested about what I see on the ground...and I'm feeling safe now as the army is advancing through our district reaching the main roundabout that connects al-Zuhoor with Ashrafiyeh area.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, now we know the general direction in which troops are headed. Your continuing use of partisan rhetoric and labels makes anything you say (or upload, for that matter) suspect. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine, from the beginning I said I will not upload any photo, and yes I am pro-Assad.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked Preacher Lads' photos on Commons. A lot of the recent photos seem that he claimed to have taken are pictures of places in Armenia, not Aleppo. Care to explain? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well my clever mate... maybe you don't know that the flight Aleppo-Yerevan-Aleppo is still being operated twice a week.--Preacher lad (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Praecher's POV there now seem to be indications [7] the military is regaining control in some areas after the rebel push this morning. EkoGraf (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, Ashrafiyeh and Zuhoor areas are under full control of the Army and the people are chanting for the Syrian Army... The Kurdish PYD flag is raised again on the roundabout at the entrance to the Ashrafiyeh district upon the escape of the Jabhat al-Nusra militants.--Preacher lad (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I thought you said there were no PYD flags in Aleppo. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I said and I was wrong.--Preacher lad (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am gratefull for Preacher trying to inform us on the situation in the city. It helps in the way so we can sift through all of the different info that comes in, but we still need reliable news sources that confirm the retaking of Ashrafiyeh and Zuhoor. Until that happens, per the sources that are available, we can only stick to FSA and Guardian reports of the situation that have been coming in since this morning. Situation maybe becomes clearer tomorrow or later tonight. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please check out: I took the photos on the spot earlier today, during the offensive of the Jabhat al-Nusra in the New Syriac quarter (al-Zuhoor). Early morning offencive civilian killed by the militants--Preacher lad (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me how you know that they are Jihadists, and how do you know that it was them who killed the guy, who you claim to be a civilian. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

They reached the area with two stolen public transportation buses, painted on them Jabhat al-Nusra in Arabic language, chanting Allahu Akbar. They were checking the ID card of the people on the streets, when one of the civilians refused to stop and started to run away before being shot by the militants. Early morning, during the incident, there were no any presence of the Syrian army in the area.--Preacher lad (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the first pic but the second pic I know you stole from twitter. I saw that second pic being passed around by the pro assad accounts many hours ago. Sopher99 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is forced to believe my claims, I'm not even interested in editing the article as it needs much effort to correct the misinformation being shown there. I know that Wikipedia has turned into an anti-Syrian or anti-Assad propaganda outlet.--Preacher lad (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am an amateur network activist and I have released many photos regarding the events in Aleppo. I do not care about who believes or not... I believe in what i see on the ground!--Preacher lad (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If the first picture could be verified, it could be a nice addition to the article. I have no idea how one would go about verifying it, though... I don't suppose Google made any streetviews of Aleppo? No, probably not... Esn (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You are not requested to believe... but every kid knows the street styles in Aleppo and the famous Aleppine stone used in the buildings.--Preacher lad (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Very complicated situation. I dont buy the supplies trick for the army pull back??? they have depots and solid food to last with a true war and certainly they are no shortage of that there. Nevertheless they have air routes for emergency supply as in Deir Ezzor however it will be interesting to have the opinion of Preacher today. Its just an opinion but he claim he is on spot.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like Preacher lad was telling the truth despite the hostility toward him. Well according to Joshua Landis the guy who broke the story yesterday about the rebel advances. The government has taken back the neighbourhoods by the evening. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhvfRJ43JLE&sns=tw

There is also video of people in Aleppo celebrating the arrival of the Syrian Soldiers. The fact that this many civilians are out at this time of the day without fear suggests that the rebels were kicked out and never had full control of these areas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-RGIWMLlU&feature=plcp 62.31.145.100 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Its clear today that the army intervened and relatively easily pushed out the rebels from districts that the residents are clearly proAssad. Its also clear that Kurdish militia clash directly with the rebels and push them back, under their doctrine of neutrality for their areas. Also the Armenian area was confirmed clear as Preacher told us. It will be nice if we have more reports from him, even if they are not verified immediately, to have the picture.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October assault

By the facts uts clear that we are not talking about a rebel assault but for an infiltration of rebels throw the unguarded kurdish areas to the back of the government held areas. After the response of the army and the awake of kurdish militia in a few hours the rebels backed from the gov areas including of course the armenian Zukoor(as Preacher accurately wrote last night).--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Third column in the infobox

I think it's time to create the third column for the Kurdish militia... Now they are fighting the FSA. It's not about only 3 killed Kurdish soldiers anymore. --Wüstenfuchs 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As EkoGraf said, the Kurdsish commanders have recently given the FSA a warning, meaning that they haven't declared open hostility yet. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What about todays clashes? They gave warning about the protests, but they nevertheess gave resistance to those rebels trying enter their territory. --Wüstenfuchs 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The main battle is still between the Syrian Army and the FSA. A couple of clashes is not enough for the Kurds to be included in a 3rd column. I reccommend adding a note in the infobox next to the Kurds that there has been some minor clashes with the the Army and FSA.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. This can serve as a temporary solution. --Wüstenfuchs 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree to the note mark, for now. EkoGraf (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Kurds are protecting their neutrality of their ground not permitted forces of both opponents to enter. As they stand untill today they are certainly, in Aleppo, the third power. However this is not happening in Qamisli and other north east towns where they have selfgovernment with the army however remaining in the barracks and the Syria flag overlooking the towns and the public servants salaries been payed normally--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think if we keep this PYD phrase in the article, we should have the third column: "We have chosen to remain neutral, and we will not take sides in a war that will only bring suffering and destruction to our country". If they are neutral, there is no way they can be on the same side of the Syrian opposition.--Andres arg (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Their stand until this day, saw that they are the third power in Aleppo.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, PYD seems to clash far more often with the FSA than with the regime, still they are included on the FSA side of the infobox for some reason. Now, the thing is, PYD has released a statement declaring neutrality in the Battle of Aleppo: “We have chosen to remain neutral, and we will not take sides in a war that will only bring suffering and destruction to our country,” the statement said. So why were they still included in the side of the rebels?Kermanshahi (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Also... as reported, the Army defended the Kurdish area alongside the PYD militias... :/ --Wüstenfuchs 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Something that PYD itself denied when they said that they were shelled by Syrian army just day before those clashes. Third collum is factically correct. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we made an agreement on this one. --Wüstenfuchs 01:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

PKK discussion from my talkpage.

I moved a discussion about the PKK that was going on at my talk page to here:

PKK fighters who the past decades entering and living Syria for their fight in Turkish territories have no match in guerilla war, specialized to this, against the Turkish regime. Rebels and the army are far behind in abilities and training to match the PKK fighters.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not true. The PKK only attacks the Turkish army once or twice a month, as compared with the FSA which attacks the Syrian army everyday. The PKK are usually just random kurds with guns, as opposed to veteran fighters with a loyalty to a specific chain of command. I7laseral (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

PKK is a speacial welltrained fighting force which leaves in the mountains areas of the eastern kurdish populated provinces of Turkey. Their stand to their cause since 1980, fighting a western type organized army and their ability to inflict casualties to them are a study of guerilla war. FSA is not a tactical organization. Its a band of unorganized (in command and structure) of armed teams that proclaimed their selves brigades. Everyteam is for theirselves (the team only) and to that mixed foreign fighters came and proclaim their own brigades especially in Alepo (Chechens,Turks,Libyans, Saudis....). All of them are supported by different sources and with different targets!!!! This fragment organization is not having even a common cause to fight for(thats why they luck of leadership). PKK has an objective and is fighting for that for 32 years constantly surviving the hunt and looses and claim important presence in the Kurdish eastern provinces of Turkey. In the moment that the syrian army partly take a stand in the fighting FSA was stategicaly located only in the boarder provinces with Turkey loosing in tactical field and being vanurable to a hostile environment far away the boarders areas with Turkey where they supplies run from. This failure to receive massive support from Syrian populations made them more and more to be backed by foreign countries for support and menpower. PKK its an original Kurdish fighting force that never had foreign material or men support to fight, but remains in the field in the hearts of Kurds as their army. As for the FSA even the leadership of local military council they have cannot control and discipline units locally and they even didnt focused on an objective of the essence they fight for. What is the Syria that they are fighting for? Its a Saria Law country? Its a western style democracy? Its a turkish Islamic(in paper) and little bit of a modern state??? The PKK has one only objective to unify Kurdish populations under a Kurd State.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There are 3 brigades with over 10,000 members (Al furuq, the Unity brigade, and the Sham Falcans). Some FSA want western democracy, some what islamic democracy (like iran). But they are united under the common cause of killing the regime. 50% of the rebels are united under the province military councils, who respond to Mustafa al Sheikh and Ali al Haj. As for the PKK, they are nothing but a bunch of people with guns and personality cults of Kurdish leaders. Maybe at one point they were a real organization, but the Syrian government corrupted them into kurdish Shabiha. Please discuss this on my talkpage, not futuretrillionaure's. I7laseral (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

PKK and Kurdish party in Turkey are one, as the road block saw some weeks ago, inside Turkey when PKK detachment stop and salute the Kurd members of the parliament with total absence of Turkish state.They are strong(PKK) in areas that are in their responsibility(Turkey). Some time ago again PKK proved with massive attacks to turkish regime targets their fighting skills. PKK is not fighting at the time inside Syria but if they have, they will do it to defend their population and not the government. Its even most sadly that their population is receiving threats by the rebels!!!!(freedom fighters as they call themselves), who are not knowing exactly for what they fight for and day by day they turn against all minorities in Syria, the same time that they are close alleys with a foreign country!!!!(Turkey). Thats the dangerous thing. See, all about demonstrations was for reforms and democracy. Armed extremist whoever are sawing day by day their true face, that hide until now from the West, in order to receive some air help like in Libya. Its to much that we dont really tell us in our countries and learn only after some digging....big discussion I7 and we are going to conclude that we disagree seeing things from different angles. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a general forum. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

SOHR citations

I brought this up on FT's talkpage, but I want to point out here to y'all that you should link to the specific post from SOHR's facebook by clicking the timestamp. Otherwise, there is no relevant context for verifiability.

In the future, I will revert on sight any additions using the SOHR mainpage as a bare link, as this fails WP:V. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

New map of the situation

This the new version of the map that was used before for the one in the infobox, please make needed changes [8] New map should show offensive from the western suburbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.81.202 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This map is rubbish: Rasafeh area in the west is under FSA control, the Syriac quarter and Zuhoor are not under the control of the PYD, Hazzazeh is an unclear area, 80% of Bostan al-Pasha under the Syrian Army control and the soldiers of the army are drinking coffee now in the sports academy of Bostan al-Pasha, Sakhour is an unclear area as well.--Preacher lad (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the same map as the one used before for maps in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.81.202 (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I originally used that guy's maps to make a svg map from scratch. I did not intend to keep using his maps. I intended to update the map I made using reliable sources. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I heard another story diametrically opposed in connection with the events of October 25th. The frontline would not have really moved. They would be 200 men who deeply advanced in districts held by regular army but without succeeding in making them rising up and who thus would have been pushed back rather quickly. On the other hand it is possible indeed that regular army benefits from the truce to forward reinforcements weapons and ammunition to its troops downtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.202.245.44 (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC) To the guy who started this topic , do you know any other maps like the one you gave us? Situation seems to be shifting again today, in reverse. Government tanks seemed to have moved into the main street running along those two Christian areas forcing the rebels to retreat to the Kurdish area they took. Also seems the rebels opened fire on a Kurdish protest in that districts, killing one protester and wounding five, leading to the Kurds warning the FSA fighters they could come into conflict. Sources in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we note that reels broke the trouce attacking an amry barrack placed on the Damascus-Aleppo highway? --Wüstenfuchs 16:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we note that that is outside the scope of this article? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

To the guy that started this topic : do you know any other maps like the one you gave us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please upgrade the map?

I think that the actual map should be upgraded. western area is under rebel control and rebel gained checkpoints in salahedine. But the army regained control over bostan al pasha. Can you please upgrade the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide sources, such as news? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Checked the Net. Couldn't find any sources to confirm this. EkoGraf (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well i'm new here so i don't know how to do this but for salahedine you write like 2 weeks ago that rebel claimed capturing salahedine again.Now for bustan al basha preacher wrote that it was at 80% under army control so i would like you to please upgrade the map from my or your sources. Oh and i've got some news about rebel attacking the army airbase at Taftanaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC) You can also add to news that rebel excuted army personel in Saraqib 2 days ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvp1HXjXWIs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Taftanaz and Saraqib are totally different battles that are separate from the Battle for Aleppo. So we don't include that info. As for Salahadine, I am aware of that specific report, however at this point its unreliable. Because one week after that claim was made, the rebels again claimed to had captured Salahadine, but was not confirmed, and also around 10 days before that report they also claimed to had captured it. So you see, in just a month the rebels claimed on three separate occasions to had captured Salahadine, which was never confirmed by AFP reporters who are on the ground. As for Bostan Pasha, 80 percent doesn't make it government-held. It makes it contested, which is already indicated on the map. EkoGraf (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The battle of Taftanaz like you say is different because it hapened 7 months ago. But i am talking about an OFFENSIVE not a battle which is different. The rebel are attacking it because it is a key airbase and it is where helicopters and jets that are supporting army in Damascus and Aleppo come from.

And if rebel take this key airbase it will become harder for army to send jets to Aleppo and Damascus— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk • contribs)

Taftanaz is in Idlib region... it is close to Aleppo, but it's not part of the city... It's like Cleveland and Pittsburgh. --Wüstenfuchs 14:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that Taftanaz is close or far away of Aleppo. I said that the rebel attacked its airbase because it is where planes that are bombing Aleppo come from. Seriously guys am I the only one that thinks this map needs a little update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC) No replies? ok... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Only Zahraa area unclear? you should make the extreme western area green and then unclear til Zahraa. Military research center and the other important places should stay red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets be cautious about area control. Taftanaz and Zahraa cases are out of the newswire for some reason. Fireworks are not real in many cases and the thing is that situation is becoming always clear in 24 hours. The notorious October assault of rebels was nothing more than an infiltration of rebels using the unguarded(in the start) areas of the Kurds into the back of government areas, where army didnt have manpower mainly because it wasn't the front-line. It wasnt a real takeover so we must sometimes wait until everything clears.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, videos and information regarding fights in western suburbs of Aleppo were available since a month or so, and mentioned here before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.81.202 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A rade in an area or an attack in a checkpoint is not control over an area. These hit and run tactics are standard guerilla war showing no real ability to take and hold ground. That was clear in October infiltration were rebels were quickly step out of areas that the temporary infiltrate. Also for time to time there were assaults to Aleppo airport that also repelled as Taftanaz. Summarizing is another thing the raids an another thing ground control. Cities of Numan and Saraqeb are areas that rebels manage to take ground control without whoever successful area cleaning. Main army base under army control still as of others in the wider area.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying that rebels cannot capture and hold the ground after what large parts of the country are under their control is not bold statement, but ignorant. Anyway, not general forum, bring it up on talk page. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not much to discuss. This ability varies from area to area as we can see.Controlling some boarder small cities and a part of Aleppo where vast buildings are providing coverage is not ability to control large parts of Syria. On the contrary.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed there is not much to discuss since you are completely wrong. Here STRATFOR map from today, here Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war article which specifically deals with it and last but not least Syrian civil war article which you should probably read. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it seems like we're not right with each other. I think the best thing to do is waiting for some news for updating the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please log in and sign your posts. Its easier to discuss. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent clashes

Residents told AFP reporters that Liramun at the northwest entrance of Aleppo has been bombed by warplanes and shelled by tanks [9]. There has been fighting reported at the roundabout at the northwestern entrance of the city and on the Aleppo airport road on the southeastern side [10] [11] 138.123.80.61 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay , i'm 78.232.100 etc etc... i created an acc to discuss with you guys . As for the leramoon district i suggest to bring a satellite view of aleppo where we could see the oustskirts of aleppo like leramoon. this map would also have rebel and army controlled zones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amedjay (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you guys think about that? Amedjay (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest to add the artillery faculty on the map. It is situated on south west direction from sukkari Amedjay (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You can also add the rebel assaults on the aiport. You should make Nairab unclear because of the clashes Amedjay (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bustan al Basha Midan

There are constant reports from SANA of army operating in specific areas in Bustan al Basha for some days now. How it is possible the army not to control Midan and however operate daily in Basha area?? Not a single report by rebels os fighting in Midan area is not accidental. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

SANA is not RS. How many times does this have to be repeated? Along with thing such as WP:OR. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Its indicated most times that SANA is accurate in Ground control and clashes reports. Look at the past reports, every single one of that type was accurate. SANA is over seeded in casualties reports something also we can distinguish and not take them as a fact. SANA is used as a source by the international media, as the SOHR and other prorebel sources. Preacher days ago told us, without sources, for the situation in Aleppo. Next day his reports were confirmed. He mention also about Basha area...Army is clashing in that area and it is not making sense to believe that their back is rebel controlled. The other scenario is that they are bypassing the Midan area throw Kurdish areas to reach and fight in Basha area, something that i put to your common judgement. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as it is designated by RSN as not RS, it is not RS even if they had in press newspapers from Early Edition. SANA is used as the government mouthpiece, as well as SOHR is used as rebel mouthpiece, both not RS, both which should not be on this article but unfortunately WP:NOTNEWS is unknown term here. And you are throwing here another WP:OR. I suggest reading WP:PG.EllsworthSK (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly both of them are used extensively in news broadcasting by western media due to luck of alternative sources in the ground. Taking that as a fact its pointless to say again and again that they are not credible news sources because they are the only prosides sources. I recognised very well SANA progovmt stand but seeing simply the past news i jump to the conclussion that in ground contol they are accurate and in numbers they are false(exaggerating them). However by question how the army fights in Basha area and has not secured the Midan area remains.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Car loaded with explosives was stoped in al Midan Aleppo neighboorhood(video footage from 0535 Syria TV English News bulletin 10.11.2012), the area is gov controlled and the two persons in the car was detained.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nujeen Dirik alive?

Where is the source? I'm reverting this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=prev&oldid=521661738 till we find a reliable source stating that, because all I found was only one tweet.--Andres arg (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Video with her alive from 10.11.2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zlPQPz5mo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebell44 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Zahraa Area

Addounia TV News Bulletin saws video footage(from 0830 minutes) from Zahraa area secured by the Army.Confirm it from other sources.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but showing one angle at one street from Syrian state tv doesn't prove that clashes don't occur there daily. Addounia is not even reliable (UTC)Sopher99 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

agree with you sopher99, syrian state tv is spreading false propaganda information,worse than the nazi propaganda in the last days of ww2 Alhanuty (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway , dimitrish come to my talkpage to discuss about battle for aleppo. If you want to of course :D . Sopher you can come too Amedjay (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Usually how it works is that discussions on making changes to the map is done on this article's talk page or mine. As for general discussions about the topic, such as those seen in forums, those are more appropriate on users' talk pages. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. Amedjay (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok then come please discuss with me on my talk page. I am new here so i need to meet the people. Amedjay (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Regiment 46 base was taken.

Expect news soon. Numerous videos of capture now available including take over of tanks, artillery, prisoners and plundering of ammo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.81.226 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Confirmed. http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/11/20121119155411532198.html 76.99.169.45 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The base is 25 kilometers west of Aleppo city, near the border, not in it or on its outskirts. Like we discussed in the past, we include only fighting in the city or on its outskirts. Fighting in the rest of the province is a separate issue. EkoGraf (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. The capture of the base of a major combatant within the city is absolutely within the scope of this battle, strategically speaking. Battles are not hermetically sealed within arbitrary geopolitical divisions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Lothar. This is huge news for anyone following the fighting in Aleppo. AFP described the base as "a strategic prize in the battle for Aleppo" months ago. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.51 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from using wording as rubbish. This is a military battle for Aleppo city. The base you were talking about is at the city of Atarib, a totally different city. The Marat al-Numan fighting on the highway is also considered to be of strategic importance for the Aleppo city battle, but you don't see us including information on the al-Numan fighting in this article. If you check the edit history of this article you will see that I am one of several editors that have in the past removed any info that is not about the fighting in the city or on the outskirts of it. Info that is not directly related with this battle. EkoGraf (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"info that [I EkoGraf do not find appealing]". Mind you EkoGraf is living in a fantasy world where there is no fighting in the city of Damascus (uh...), so maybe it's better to just wait for the battle to be over to improve the article rather than have to argue every step of the way with an Assad supporting shill. Everyone has biases, the trouble with these regime fetishists is that they actually willingly retard articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.25 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Re "Maarat al-Numan": Actually, we do include information on the fighting there: "On 9 October, rebels claimed control of the highly strategic town of Maarrat al-Nu'man, a town on the Aleppo - Damascus highway where many of the Syrian Army's reinforcements were joining the Battle of Aleppo. The seizing of the town was believed to be part of a campaign to isolate the Syrian Army fighting in Aleppo." Rightly so: the biggest reason why the town is fought over is because it is a vital chokepoint on the road to... Aleppo. This is not some random, unrelated clash in some nameless village. Same with Anadan: "Rebels seized a strategic checkpoint in the town of Anadan north of Aleppo, gaining a direct route between the city and the Turkish border, an important rebel supply base." The capture of the 46th Regiment's base is no different. If you'd want a separate article, that could be arranged for, but it'd still have to be mentioned here.

It is poor historiography to remove events from relevant context, merely because that context is some kilometres outside of the entirely arbitrary geographical limits that you (Wikipedia user EkoGraf) have decided to impose on the conflict. Sources reporting on the base [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] describe it in terms of its significance in the battle for Aleppo, and by excluding it from even being mentioned here, you are going against what the sources say in favour of your own personal preferences. I did not write paragraphs on its capture, I merely put a brief description to provide the vital context. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not just me, I am starting to take high offense at your tone, several other editors have also been imposing the limits as you put. Talk to them also. EkoGraf (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, you and several other editors. Doesn't change what I'm saying. The base is located around 30 km from Aleppo proper—about the same distance that Dafniya is from Misrata. Tawergha is even further—nearly 50 km. Yet all of those were mentioned in the Battle of Misrata article, with no objection from you. Battle of Stalingrad includes information on Operation Uranus, which took place far beyond the limits of Stalingrad proper. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with EkoGraf... some users have double standards. When Army captures an important place outside the city - it's outside the city; however, when rebels do such thing it's strategically important to the battle and thus it can not be erased from the article. That's rubbish. It's outside the city. --Wüstenfuchs 14:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

when is the last time the Assad army captured anything? They are getting their collective asses kicked up an down Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.25 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to gently remind you of the fact that talk pages are not a forum. Please keep comments about the actual information, and not general comments or opinions about the topic in general. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User 92.40...please try and keep a neutral POV and like Jeancey said, there is no room here for personal opinions. Although, since you asked, the military cleared the Midan and Suleiman districts of Aleppo during the last few weeks. [18][19] EkoGraf (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That is in Aleppo. He asked about towns/bases/whatever that are of a strategic importance for the battle of Aleppo. If something important happens that influences the battle (like Maarat al-Numan) it should be mentioned (what happened and why it is important). The rest can go in a separate article. Wasn't Aleppo being shelled from Base 46?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.23.252 (talk • contribs)

There is a difference between Aleppo city and Aleppo province. The province is really big you know. Areas in Aleppo city were shelled from a base of the 46th regiment yes, but it was a base in the northwestern Zahra district of Aleppo city. Not the base that was captured. The 46th regiment has multiple bases, and the one captured was located at the town of Atarib, 25-30 kilometers west of Aleppo city, close to the Turkey border. EkoGraf (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Since you argument was that the capture was important because it could potentially affect the battle for Aleppo city, than rest at ease, for the moment there will be no immediate affect on the battle, because SOHR has just reported the military recaptured the base after killing 25 rebels [20]. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

SANA is garbage propaganda. WP:RELIABLE SOURCES state that half the base was captured and probably remains so. It seems ill advised for you to play these cheerleading games when your side is losing EkoGraf. [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.79 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That is the base at Sheikh Suleiman, we're talking about the one at Urum al-Sughra. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

None of those is in Aleppo... --Wüstenfuchs 02:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read my comments to EkoGraf above on the topic of geographical OR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

by the way wustenfuchs and ekograf,what the army has captured has no strategic importance,and i doubt that they made any progress in these last weeks, meanwhile the rebels has make big stategic progress,including capturing Regiment 46 base , as long as Maarat al-Numan is under rebel control,the regime has zero chances to make important or stategic progress,and if the rebels cut the m4 road,the regime will be doomed in Aleppo,and by the way i have realized that wustenfuchs is pro-regime editor and his neutrality is doubted in editing in this article,every has to be neutral while writing in this article . Alhanuty (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with your comments, as they could be construed as personal attacks. Wüstenfuchs is no more biased towards the regime than other people are biased towards the opposition. To be honest, the goal isn't to have every editor be perfectly neutral and unbiased, the goal is for the end result to be neutral and as unbiased as possible. A good way to do that is to have editors with opposing viewpoints come together to reach a neutral consensus, which is what has been happening (for the most part). Jeancey (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

a neutral perspective of the events is what has to be written, not with regime or the opposition side and by reading wustenfuchs current and former comments I find him very biased to the syrian regime, i am not attacking him him,I am informing that he can't be that a lot biased toward the syrian regime . Alhanuty (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)