Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 19, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2012. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

A news item involving Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 July 2012.

Wikipedia

Military history: Asian / Middle East / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Arab world High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Syria Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Old IP comments retrieved from GA

In cleaning up old GAs I found that some comments by an IP had been made on what was supposed to be a GA review page. The comments were overwritten by the GA review. I am posting the comments here to preserve them; they're old so are probably out of date anyway, but it seems wrong to overwrite and ignore them. I know nothing about this conflict so am not expressing an opinion about the validity of the IP's comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im truly and absolutely ignorant about the internal procedures of Wikipedia, but bear with me, whoever, if any, editor read this:

What's up with the opening paragraph of the article? All the citations reference " West " sources. NYT, CNN, etc. And on fairly controversial claims. Cant hardly believe there's no credible sources from Syria POV ?

I try myself to keep an open mind on this topic, reading all the media available. But a total lack of Syrian or Russian POV or at least citations on the " war crimes " topic seems like a serious oversight.

Just read this with a neutral eye :

" Various claims of war crimes emerged during the battle, including the use of chemical weapons by Syrian government forces[103] as well as barrel bombs by the Syrian Air Force,[104][105][106][107] the dropping of cluster munitions on populated areas by Russian and Syrian forces,[108][109] the carrying out of "double tap" airstrikes to target rescue workers responding to previous strikes,[110] and the use of highly inaccurate improvised artillery by rebel forces.[111] During the 2016 Syrian government offensive, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that "crimes of historic proportions" were being committed in Aleppo.[112]"

Where are the proofs of these claims? Not on the citations, thats sure. What about Siryan or Russian arguments? Not a SINGLE citation?

I came here to try and find an unbiased, unified brief of the conflict, but after those first lines, its obvious WHO is writing this article.

Seems like the battle was between some US coalition and " SOMEONE ".

Truly dissapointed.

Thanks for reading.

Edit : CITATIONS :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Since_2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria#Reactions

How come the most important battle of the war have no reference about these claims? CIA involvement? Legality of coalition presence? Shouldnt the first paragraph speak about the origins or causes of the conflict instead of jumping directly to "claims" of war crimes? And from the mouth of the only side who ILLEGALY participated? ( And arguably provoked it? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.175.235.183 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]