Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 22 December 2016

Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions

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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Middle East 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

	Other talk page banners
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 Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 July 2012.

Template:Findnote

Daily Telegraph and other links

Daily Telegraph and other "yellow-pages" media is sooooooooooooo authorative =) Why don`t we have an Wiki articles about Yeti or Space Invaders stealing food from your feezer in the night? So much newspapers wrote about it every day! 188.254.90.51 (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

ISIS in the infobox

I think the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be in the infobox because they have played a big role in the battle of Aleppo. They still control the outskirts and surrounding areas of Aleppo and have done for a very long time and still launch attacks/fight against both government and rebel forces near the city and surroundings. So ISIS should be put in the infobox as a belligerent. They have participated throughout!--PaulPGwiki (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It was decided long ago (years ago) on the discussion page to focus this article exclusively only on the battle for the city. ISIS is a littler over a dozen kilometers away from the city in the province's countryside. If they ever do reach the city we would add them. EkoGraf (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yeah i understand, its the battle for the city itself not including the surrounding area/countryside, that explains it, thankyou. And yeah if they ever do reach the city then they should be added.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016

This edit request to Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The opening paragraph makes no sense, I want to remove the phrase "and against the Kurdish People's Defence Units" because it makes no sense. I suggest either amending the grammar or removing this altogether.

Sammyh2000 (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Question: Can you be more specific about why it makes no sense and what you would like us to change it to? Topher385 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added UN statements on rebels shelling civilians

They come from UN News portal: The use by armed opposition groups of what is known as a ‘hell-fire cannon,’ a homemade mortar that fires gas cylinders packed with explosives and shrapnel, is also totally unacceptable,” the High Commissioner said, noting that the use of such weapons constitutes indiscriminate attacks, as they are virtually impossible to aim correctly and have frequently killed and maimed civilians in Government-held areas. “As no military advantage can likely be gained from their use due to their inaccuracy, it must be concluded that their primary purpose is to terrorize the inhabitants of western Aleppo,” he added

There are other sources confirming that the rebels do indeed shell civilians and terrorize the population.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The question though is whether or not they purposefully target the civilians, like the Russian and Syrian governments do, as military tactic. You know, like Luftwaffe strafing refugees on the roads in 1939, because that's pretty much what these two governments are doing. That's the difference. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is -- you Marek HAVE TO PROVE with factes that russian forces aimed civilian people. You have only rubbish propaganda in your words. So may be you are a volonteer of ISIS or Al-Quaeda than please correct your Wiki-name. Thanks. 188.254.90.51 (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The question though is whether or not they purposefully target the civilians, like the Russian and Syrian governments do, as military tactic. Of course they do, UN says so in the above statement and numerous sources state so as well. Why are you contesting this? The rebels in Aleppo include internationally recognized terrorist groups. That's the difference. Also, this "terrorize the population", I believe, is your own original, very POV, research and hyperbolic rhetoric which really just evidences your own biases in terms of editing this article What ? You realize this is a quote and statement from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? And the rebels include groups who routinely behead and execute people ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Here, report on the groups in Aleppo who you state "The question though is whether or not they purposefully target the civilians" and that "Also, this "terrorize the population", I believe, is your own original, very POV"

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/syria-armed-opposition-group-committing-war-crimes-aleppo-new-evidence

Armed groups surrounding the predominantly Kurdish Sheikh Maqsoud district of Aleppo city have repeatedly carried out indiscriminate attacks - possibly including with chemical weapons - that have struck civilian homes, markets and mosques, killing and injuring civilians, and have displayed a shameful disregard for human life, said Amnesty International today. Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director Magdalena Mughrabi said: “The relentless pummelling of Sheikh Maqsoud has devastated the lives of civilians in the area. A wide array of armed groups from the Fatah Halab coalition has launched what appear to be repeated indiscriminate attacks that may amount to war crimes. “By firing imprecise explosive weapons into civilian neighbourhoods the armed groups attacking Sheikh Maqsoud are flagrantly flouting the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets, a cardinal rule of international humanitarian law. “The international community must not turn a blind eye to the mounting evidence of war crimes by armed opposition groups in Syria. The fact that the scale of war crimes by government forces is far greater is no excuse for tolerating serious violations by the opposition.”

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's terrible to realize there are people out here who prefer terrorists close to al-Qaida over Russia and its allies. Some people haven't realized yet the Cold War ended decades ago! Piotr Ukalev (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• While the text about "hell fire cannons" might be disputable, this text is about something different and clearly does not belong to the page because it describes events before this battle even started. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• No it is not, it is about events during fight for Aleppo. Where did you get this idea?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I think all such materials should be combined in a single section entitled as either as "Human right abuses" or "War crimes". My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MyMoloboaccount, this is very relevant to the article.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"began ... as a part of the Syrian Civil War"

@EkoGraf: Regarding this edit. I know we are an encyclopedia, and I know historical context is important, but the grammatical structure you restored carries an implication that the battle outlasted the "official end" of the war and so at some point stopped being part of the Syrian Civil War. My wording doesn't take anything away from the context-setting function of the sentence, because no one is going to think it started before the Syrian Civil War and later became part of it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Aleppo (2012–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005053229/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49141 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49141
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005053225/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49158/ to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=49158/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

US and Russia

Why are the US and Russia sectioned off from the rest of the belligerents? There's a line that separates them from the rest, and I'm wondering why.  WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智  09:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed claims

Page says that russisan and syrian forces indiscriminately bomb schools and hospitals. This has been proven to be misrepresentation of the facts, and that these "schools" and "hospitals" aren't used for their intended purpose, but as terrorist strongholds. See Vanessa Beeley reports as example. Mimosveta (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of western propaganda.DerElektriker (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is ridiculous, but what can be done? Our media reports it this way and we don't have anything better right now. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Terrorists

Why are terrorists in this article still called "rebels" ? There are nor "rebels" in Aleppo. It's a mix of different radical islamic groups. If we call them "rebels" then we need to call ISIL rebels to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not even ISIL should be called terrorists. And yes, calling ISIL "rebels" is perfectly legitimate for Misplaced Pages. It's just unpopular and "militant", another relatively neutral term, is more commonly used instead. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The term "rebels" indeed has a strong scent of POV as it suggests bravery and legitimate resistance which can be disputed with a lot of arguments, from extreme abuses like mass beheadings, murder of captives and other proven severe abuses, further from the point that several crucial elements of the armed opposition consist of foreign merceneries and organizations declared terrorists in several UNSC declarations. Anyway, a wholesale use of "terrorists" would be POV as well. Why not using terms like militants, fighters, or armed opposition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.139.235 (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Bravery/resistance and atrocities aren't mutually exclusive. The term "rebels" is really neutral - it only means that somebody has rebelled and is fighting against somebody who is/was in power. Nothing more. 94.253.224.183 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Many of these "rebels" aren't even Syrian nationals, many if not most of them receive foreign payment, practically all of them get weaponry, gear, fuel, and ammo paid by external sources, so not few of them are rather foreign fanatics or local and foreign merceneries. Thus "rebels" is obfuscating that aspect which is worth to be considered as a factor of this "civil war". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.231.138.133 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest calling them armed factions : that is the most neutral term. They are indeed armed factions, which does not imply any moral judgement concerning their objectives. Because they are diverse in Syria, we cannot call them all insurgents nor terrorists. Michaël Lessard (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Despite the fact that they commit the sorts of crimes terrorist groups are known to commit and belong to groups that have been considered terrorists by even the US in the past? Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Victory claimed

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in Britain, the last rebel neighbourhoods have been abandoned. It's too early to definitively state in the article, but it's likely the end of this battle. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

rt.com cited as a source

rt.com is generally recognized as a vendor of conspiracy theories, but is used a a source for at least two statements. If these statements are true, it would probably be good if a better source were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHarris (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Aren't there still neighborhoods under rebel control in West Aleppo?

I think it is premature to show this battle might be over. The reason is that rebels still control 2 neighborhoods in West Aleppo. These are the Al-Layramoun and al-Rashidin suburbs. The sources do call them as neighbourhoods of Aleppo, not as separate settlements or town. So is it right to call it Syrian Army victory when some neighborhoods are still under rebel control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.159.240 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The situation is unclear and there are conflicting reports. People shouldn't change the status in the lead or infobox until the dust has settled. We've had all four combinations of the two over the past 24 hours. Mezigue (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mezigue I wasn't talking about East Aleppo where the rebels are reportedly surrendering. I was talking about West Aleppo, the one which has been mostly in hands of the government since the beginning. There are 2 neighborhoods in West Aleppo however that haven't been captured, with Syrian Army instead focusing on East Aleppo. 117.214.159.240 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

These neighborhoods are part of Aleppo city. I think it's incorrect to call the battle over until these neighborhoods have also been captured by the regime. We can, however, make a note that East Aleppo was taken by the regime, and that they now control ~95% of Aleppo city. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The battle for the eastern part of the city is nearly over, however rebels still holds two neighborhoods north to the city as will as one neighborhoods south west to the city as our wiki map shows, also SDF controls Shaikh Maqsood and the surrounding area, the conflict and the title should site that this battle is ongoing 3bdulelah (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle for Aleppo has not been completed

Completed the last offensive on the city. Al Bab, Al Rai and Azaz are controlled by the Turkish army and the FSA. All three belong to the city of Aleppo. Battle for Aleppo is not over yet because parts of northeastern municipalities controlled Islamic State. Severozapdne parts of the Municipality of Aleppo controlled by Kurds.--Baba Mica (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The Syrian Free Army has been defeated Syria is not at war with Turkey. The battle is over.Both the Russian and Arabic wikipedia's have it as so. --2601:3C5:8200:B79:6915:97E6:95C7:A2B9 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Al-Bab, Rai, and Azaz are part of the greater war over Aleppo governorate. The Battle for Aleppo city is largely over, but not quite. Even after East Aleppo completely falls, Syrian rebels still hold the following areas in the Western outskirts of the city: the Military Research Center, Layramoun district, Rashideen district, and a part of Zahraa district. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Aleppo city, The battle for the eastern part of the city is nearly over, however rebels still holds two neighborhoods north to the city as will as one neighborhoods south west to the city as our wiki map shows, also SDF controls Shaikh Maqsood and the surrounding area, the conflict and the title should site that this battle is ongoing 3bdulelah (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

As 3bdulelah says, the subject of this article is the battle for the city itself, not the whole province. SDF is not in a conflict with the government, so that they still control Shaikh Maqsood doesn't mean there's a battle there. As for Layramoun and Rashideen in the city's outskirts, even though they are still rebel-held, overall, reliable sources state after this the Battle of Aleppo would be over. We write per what the sources state. Also, we had the Siege of Homs article which we concluded because reliable sources stated the siege of Homs had ended after the Old Homs areas was captured by the SAA, even though rebels are still besieged and holding out in one district on the city's outskirts. EkoGraf (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you at least wait for the evacuation to begin? It is too early to show it as a victor because a rebel commander has stated that ceasefire might break as has in the past. Why are you people so hasty? As from what I'm reading the sources are considering "the battle is effectively over". Some editors had even declared the battle as over using Twitter sources. Can't you wait for some time? 150.129.197.84 (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We should go by the sources here. The 3 neighborhoods are pretty outlying anyway. But We should wait for rebels to surrender and leave. Besides I think this is the first military article where "reported victories" is being used in infobox. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As of now its still ongoing until the rebels leave. EkoGraf (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a notice, it is now much past time the rebels were supposed to be evacuated. However, not even a single person, even civilian has been evacuated (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-delay-idUSKBN1430BS). For the time being, it is better to leave this battle as ongoing until the evacuation starts. There's no telling if the agreement might break down. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are still resistance fighters, but there is no way those 3 neighborhoods will make any difference.The battle is over. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't about the three districts anymore. Its about the surrender deal being carried out. As is usual some sources prematurely declared the battle as over. But sources are now reporting, the agreement is not being carried out (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-delay-idUSKBN1430BS) with rebels blaming Shiite militias (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/14/syria-rebels-civilians-obstructed-pro-assad-shiite-militias/). There might be a danger that the ceasefire might break. Instead of making premature edits, we should wait for the agreement to be fully implemented and evacuations to start. Wait for some time please. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I disagree several wikipedias including the Russian and Arabic wikipedia have the battle ending today. Also not every battle ends in a surrender some end in a capture of a city which is what happened. I don't think my edits are premature, wikipedia had this same problem with people wanting to make the Iraq War go on longer when it was already over. This is what I believe and I'm sticking to it.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Just of note this is causing a complete contradiction with Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Knowledgekid87--Fruitloop11 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I know some will have prematurely nominated it based on some editors declaring it as over and only those who nominated it are at fault. But we here go by sources, not Arabic Misplaced Pages or someone choose to nominate it. The battle was declared as ended by some earlier because the rebels had agreed to a surrender agreement. But if there's no surrender, until then the battle cannot be considered over. How can a surrendered battle be considered over when there hasn't been a surrender? As for nonsense accusations like I'm "pro-freedom Syria" or telling me to move on, that is not good behavior. Please don't bicker over this issue. What are you going to do if the battle reerupts within a short time because the agreement might be broken by someone? Still show it as ended despite that it wasn't? And as sources are now declaring the surrender agreement is yet to implemented, we must wait. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and Reuters now are clearly saying there is a ceasfire holding (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/residents-east-aleppo-anxiously-await-evacuation-161214033846622.html) (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN14300Y). Any battle that is over doesn't have a ceasefire. Yes, you have clearly made premature edits. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

As I already pointed out that Al Jazeera and Reuters clearly say there is a ceasefire holding and the surrender agreement hasn't been implemented. If you still disagree, I suggest we seek a consensus from the wide community instead of edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A lot of battles and wars end in ceasefires. Take wars involving Israel like the 2006 lebannon war that didn't end in a surrender from Hezbollah but the war is still considered over.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Fruitloop11 This isn't a war. It's a battle for a city. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of reverting me or anyone else repeatedly, I suggest to you that we seek a consensus over the issue. Whatever most of the community supports, we will go with it. Are you ok with it? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

:::: Ok how about Battle of Shuja'iyya that didn't end in a surrender. Also Looking at this edit and others you seem to be pro-Syrian Free army (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(June%E2%80%93October_2016)&diff=prev&oldid=750351318)--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are ridiculously calling me "pro-free Syrian Army". I made the edit because I thought the battle was still ongoing. Should I call you "pro Syrian Army" because you are showing government victory? Don't falsely accuse others of bias because theyt contradict your edits. And one thing you are forgetting, the battle you are propping up to me wasn't for capturing he city, but for eliminating terrorism or in this case Hamas ("terror fortress" is stated in the lead). The rebels still control territory per CNN in Aleppo (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/14/middleeast/aleppo-syria-government-gains/). The battle clearly hasn't ended yet. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is tons of other battles involving cities I could post, but it's kind of pointless because you'll make up an excuse. The majority of the city has been captured and there is a ceasefire. That sounds to me like a pretty good indication the battle has reached it's end. Focusing on such minor things such as three neighborhoods is very trivial.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I never talked about the 3 neigborhoods here. I am talking about ONLY east Aleppo which CNN said rebels still control territory in. And you well know the offensive from November 2016 is for entire Eastern Aleppo. Now you yourselves made your earlier edits stating about sources saying its over. But when I present you sources that contradict your stand, I am making an excuse? You have been bashing me since the beginning without reason. Your constant insistence that only you are correct is harming the quality of the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Al-Masdar News too is now reporting that the evacuation has been indefinitely postponed. Not just that it says there was also sporadic gunfire and the agreement might break down. (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/evacuation-jihadist-forces-delayed-east-aleppo/) I already cautioned that such a thing might happen, and this is why I thought against closing it in case the ceasefire doesn't hold. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The ceasefire has now been broken barely hours after it came into force with shelling being resumed n rebel-held areas . I already said to wait as this might happen and it did. As such now, there is no reason to show this battle anymore as ended especially seeing the ceasefire didn't even last for a full day. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Total death toll

The data in the box - 108,174+ people killed on the opposision side - are incorrect! The reference is to the Violations Documentation Center in Syria report, which gives this number as a total CIVILIAN death toll in THE WHOLE Syria (both sides), not only Aleppo! Apparently (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/26/the-death-toll-in-syria-what-do-the-numbers-really-say/) it's hard to find any reliable data for now, so I would remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.85.221 (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle over, skirmishes are not

As major media sources have definitively claimed that the battle ended yesterday, I've edited the infobox. I'm aware of ongoing skirmishes and fighting, but it's clear that the main phase at least is over. That's why I've edited in an ongoing "skirmisher" phase along the lines of several other articles. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That is completely absurd. Even if it were just skirmishes, by definition the battle would not be over. Now more bombing is reported today 14 december and the ceasefire has crumbled. Everyone needs to stop jumping the gun on an ongoing event. Mezigue (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Mezigue, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. We could endlessly change the status based on how much fighting is still going on but that's not what we're supposed to do. When all reliable sources state that the battle is over, that means we say the battle is over. You're saying that the definition of a battle and the amount of fighting still happening means the battle is not over, but this clearly constitutes WP:SYNTH. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What ON EARTH are you talking about? Fighting is going on today 14 December hence this is not over. There is no synthesis in that. Mezigue (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde There are no skirmishes. Some of the sources prematurely declared the battle as over when a cessefire was reached, I stress ceasefire. This isn't the first battle thwy have declared over prematurely. Others battle like Sirte, Rutbah in October 2016, Fallujah, etc are examples that essily come to mind. Others however declared it as "effectively over". It is usual for ceasefires to be enforced and be broken in a conflict. Now the whole surrender deal is broken. Classifying it as "skirmishes" is actually SYNTH when sources are clearly now saying fighting has resumed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde If you need further proof that these aren't skirmishes, Syrian Army has captured more rebel-held East Aleppo today (http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-russia-idUSR4N1E4021). I had already stated to everyone earlier to wait for some time. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

While this probably will be a victory for the Syrian government, I think we should wait until the situation has crystallized. Reports say that new air strikes and shelling are going on, and that fighting resumed on Wednesday, the 14 December.--R2D2015 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MonsterHunter32 and Mezigue. Yesterday's declaration the battle was over was premature due to the announced ceasefire which already collapsed today with heavy fighting, air-strikes and shelling resuming. Rebels still holding 2.5 square km of territory. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reluctantly agree, may god have mercy on all of the innocent people caught up in this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that the battle should be kept open. Classifying it as skirmishes is incorrect seeing the recent violent clashes, the breaking of the ceasefire and the Syrian government forces advance. 61.1.57.77 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016

It's like the Battle of Berlin even once it ended in early May 1945 there was still fighting going on until the end of May. The OP is right.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:5DAC:80EC:6D44:FAA0 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The battle went on OUTSIDE Berlin not inside. The battle INSIDE Berlin was over on 2 May. The battle of Aleppo is going on in Aleppo where a large number of rebels in East Aleppo haven't surrendered and control territory. It was only a ceasefire which fell apart hours later. And Syrian Army made a large advance today. That is not a skirmish. I know some hastily want to declare this battle as over without considering all the facts, but it isn't. A new deal has reportedly been reached, though Hezbollah denies it. But unless they actually evacuate and withdraw, it is premature to say it is over. There is no hurry, the world won't end without closing it for some time. 61.1.57.77 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is now reporting that the rebels have blocked the evacuation of the wounded people from Foua and Kefraya, in exchange of which rebels are to be evacuated from East Aleppo. It also states that the Syrian Army will again attemp an evacuation in Foua and Kefraya again tomorrow, if it fails, then it will likely halt the evacuation in Aleppo. (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/militants-exit-east-aleppo-also-blocking-civilians-leaving-fouaa-kafraya/) 117.199.87.92 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Even after Japan's surrender on Aug 15 1945, there were ongoing skirmishes in the Korean peninsula and Manchuria between the Japanese imperial army and the Soviet army. But it does not mean that the situation was not over after the surrender. The ceasefire has been settled in Aleppo. All the rebels are being evacuated, except few reckless guys. I would say that the battle is over. Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Except, we aren't having skirmishes here. When the first ceasefire attempt collapsed they were back to total war with shelling, air-strikes etc. Hardly skirmishes. The current ceasefire can also easily collapse, we don't know, and we cann't predict, WP: NOTCRYSTALBALL. There is still a force of 5,000 rebels holding three districts in Aleppo and the Syrian and Russian militaries have both said their operations in Aleppo are coming to an end, but have not just yet finished. When the last of the rebels leave, without a return to fighting, and the Army assumes control of those last three districts, then its over. EkoGraf (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

While giving your example you forgot that the Japanese holdouts didn't control any territory (they were like modern-day insurgent guerrilas) and the rebels haven't surrendered. The deal was for evacuation and surrender after which Syrian Army will control east Aleppo. By the way, this is a battle for a city, not a war for a large country.MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also the ceasefire and the deal have collapsed again (http://news.sky.com/story/assad-forces-have-completed-aleppo-liberation-russia-claims-10697666). There's no point in giving examples whose end results have vast differences with this battle. Such deals have been made in the past in the civil war but have many times been collapsed. Besides there is no hurry here. The world won't end without it. Oncerebels do nt control any territory, I promise this battle will be shown as closed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(TP/References)

1. Battle of Aleppo ends after years of bloodshed with rebel withdrawal, Reuters
2. Recapture of Aleppo: What next for Syria?, BBC
3. The Battle for Aleppo, Syria's Stalingrad, ends, The New Yorker
4. After Aleppo's fall: 'Nobody can claim victory', Al Jazeera

Warning to Editors.

Please refrain from disruptive edits from other Users, autoconfirmated or Anon. The use of Sources and criteria should be used for every revert. See WP:JDLI Mr.User200 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the following text "Following the re-capture of parts of Aleppo by the Syrian government in December, the United Nations received reports that pro-government forces were carrying out massacres of civilians in Eastern Aleppo. At least 82 civilians were killed, including children, described as 'war crimes'." be in the lede of the article, and in particular the second sentence ("At least 82....")? Athenean (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - this RfC is malformed since the sentence is NOT "the second sentence".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see what you mean. Still the RfC is written in a confusing manner. In particular you seem to be trying to have two RfCs for the price of one, which is just going to lede to a lot of confusion. Can you make it more precise?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• No. It is pure unverified propaganda - editorialized to imply it is a fact, including specifics down to numbers and ages, known for certain. Entirely unsuitable for lead content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Funny, reliable sources say otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If I send the UN reports about the funniness of Volunteer Marek, with claims about the precise number of jokes per day he cracks on Misplaced Pages, could they go into the lead of the satire article? The reliable source says it has received reports (reports from sources it does not name), they are not its own reports and it does not state that the reports are true either in whole or in part (nor could it, given that there are no UN or neutral observers on the ground, as the source also states). So entirely unsuitable for lead content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"If I send the UN reports about the funniness of Volunteer Marek, with claims about the precise number of jokes per day he cracks on Misplaced Pages, could they go into the lead of the satire article?" - if reliable sources report on your report, then hell yeah! (And it's about time if you ask me). But if they don't, well, no. Same thing here. It's not just that reports were sent to UN. It's that 1) reports were sent to UN, 2) UN publicized them and 3) reliable secondary sources reported on UN doing that. Clear? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Then I'd hope other editors would be quick in opposing uninvestigated unverified claims by unstated persons about a person's alleged joke cracking abilities being inserted into Satire's lead! The UN source would support article content stating that the UN had received unattributed reports alleging massacres, that these allegations were not possible to be verified, but that a UN spokesman was concerned and alarmed. It would not support content about specifics such as numbers or support wording that implied the allegations within the anonymous reports was known for certain to be true (or even said to be true by the UN), and none of this is content suitable for the lead. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, then you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how an encyclopedia works. If other editors were to oppose these claims made by reliable sources they'd be doing so based on their own original research. It's simply not our job to vet reliable sources and decide whether they're "uninvestigated unverified claims" or not. It's our job to report what reliable sources say. That's it. Look, as an encyclopedia (especially an online one) all we got is WP:RS and WP:NOR. We give those up, we give up claims to being an encyclopedia. Without WP:RS and WP:NOR we'd be just another internet forum where people get to post whatever nonsense they fancy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. See for example here . As Patrick Cockburn points out, there is more propaganda than news coming out Aleppo these days, since there are no journalists on the ground, and the western media relies on what they are told by the "rebels". Not to mention redundancy. First we have "During the 2016 Syrian government offensive, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that "crimes of historic proportions" were being committed in Aleppo.", then we have "Following the re-capture of most of Aleppo by the Syrian government in December, the United Nations received reports that pro-government forces have been carrying out massacres of civilians in Eastern Aleppo.". Athenean (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly nothing. All you're saying there is that you have been able to find some opinion piece by somebody out there on the internets (congratulations!) which says something you like, and that this opinion piece should override our standard policy on reliable sources. Nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "some opinion piece by somebody out there on the internets", the Independent is a reliable source and Patrick Cockburn is an award-winning journalist. Please don't deride reliable sources just because you don't like what they say, it's disruptive. Athenean (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This on the other hand, is just some tweet by some obscure "UN Human rights adviser" making rather comical threats against Russia. Really don't see how it's lede material. Also seems like a "revenge edit", as it was made very quickly within two minutes of this edit of mine and within 10 minutes of this edit of mine . Athenean (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. People out there have opinions. Did you know that? And since the internet contains lots of opinions you can always find one that you like, as opposed to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Here, let me give you a couple of opinions from reliable sources :

Aleppo Massacre: Assad Is Only Getting Started

We are watching Aleppo burn in real time. And just like in Bosnia and Rwanda, we do nothing

Aleppo’s fall is our shame, too

and I could keep going. Now, these are editorials. Just like your Independent piece is an editorial. But there's also a ton of regular articles which are not editorials and which report on the massacre.

What you are proposing is that because you have been able to find one editorial in one outlet, which agrees with your POV, that means we should throw our policy of WP:RS out the window and remove text which is based on reliable sources. Because Patrick Cockburn said so! Nevermind that it's trivial to find editorials of the opposing view. Nevermind that we don't let opinion pieces trump reliable secondary sources. And you've been on Misplaced Pages for a long time. And you know how our policy on reliable sources works. So why are you even making ridiculous proposals like this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: you should also check this out: . Look at what this independent Canadian journalist says. There are no international organizations on the ground in Eastern Aleppo, so we really can't get any of this information verified. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"Independent journalist" is another way of saying "does not even come close to satisfying the criteria for reliability". Hell, I'm a freakin' "independent journalist" you know? And "FAKE MSM lies" youtube video? Seriously? From conspiracy theory folks ? Look, if you don't like Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources, then don't edit it. You want to use fake news sources there's plenty of internet sites for it out there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing "fake" about the fact that she said that, so it's really not important who uploaded that video. It went viral. The underlining question here is most important: were/are there independent observers in Eastern Aleppo? *cricket noises* Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, the way it usually works is that after you ask a question you give a chance to respond, THEN you start in with the "cricket noises". Not "howabouthequestioCRICKETNOISES!". And anyway, that's not the question. The question is what reliable sources say. That's it. Everything else is original research and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you're not gonna be willing to follow reliable sources then you're WP:NOTHERE for the purposes of building an encyclopedia. Are you? *cricket noises*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The UN says otherwise.--R2D2015 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• No as arguments people have said above. KMilos (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• No Per Tiptoe. --92slim (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per given arguments. Applodion (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per arguments above. --Երևանցի 16:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per everyone else. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per everyone else. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per arguments above. Also, if the Syrian and Russia army were really hell-bent on killing civilians, I'd suspect they'd kill a lot more than 82. There were efforts to evacuate civilians out of Aleppo, so if anything, these were the civilians that didn't leave and were caught in the crossfire. But of course, the western allies would label it as genocide or full-scale massacre or whatever. The real culprits are those that are setting buses on fire that are meant to evacuate civilians. That's the real atrocity here because that's as deliberate and 'purposeful' as it can get. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Should specific text "..." on page X be included? No, it must be rephrased because "every version is wrong version". This RfC is meaningless, just as many other RfC that asks the same question. It's not binding. Whatever will be outcome here, anyone is welcome to fix the text under discussion to reflect new info or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It indicates there is consensus on what a lead should contain and what it should not. It should not contain unattributed, unassessed and unverified claims, regardless of what those unattributed, unassessed and unverified claims are actually claiming. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• No It's UNDUE and as Tiptoethrutheminefield explains, I think there are reliability and NPOV issues present. If what we suffer from is citing bad journalism, we shouldn't be making such reporting more prevalent. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - It's well sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Decisive victory" vs. "Victory"

Why is there a need to use an adjective in the outcome of the battle? Why not simply write "Syrian government victory", the end? It is short, simple, concise. Basically, what is a difference between a "victory" and a "decisive victory"?
The war is not yet over, anyway, so using this term is misleading and premature. Also, considering the massive amount of human rights abuses and mass murder, some have labelled it a "pyrrhic victory" . I suggest we use the most neutral wording and avoid any kind of contentious claim, such as "glorious victory", "majestic victory" etc. --R2D2015 (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Phrase decisive victory is commonly used here on Wiki. Check some articles (= their infoboxes) about famous battles.

As for your sources: the first one is Ukrainian, second British, third American (moreover, this source is quite outdated because it has been written sometime in autumn, before the US elections). It alone speaks for itself, apart from the actual text of those articles which are obviously biased and propagandistic, full of notoriuos waffles like "moderate rebels", "brutal Russian campaign" and blah blah... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The number of sources that refer to the Syrian government's victory as a "turning point/decisive" is large. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Might as well call the Holocaust a "decisive victory" by that logic. I simply cannot understand the reasoning for applauding to such an utter destruction.--R2D2015 (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was destroyed after the Holocaust, it did lose, decisively and completely, so what's your point? The term "pyrrhic victory" applies when the winning party has suffered huge casualties that they are unable to hold the city. Civilian casualties and human rights abuses don't count and does nothing in undermining the military capacities of the winning party. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Decisive victory. Per everyone else, per the large number of sources that have called it both a turning point and decisive, and per the definition of the term decisive victory. EkoGraf (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support having "decisive victory" in the infobox. It was decisive from any viewpoint you look at it. --Երևանցի 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• Mid-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Low-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment