Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Status in info box (order, and what to include)?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I created this section to resolve

whether to include current status first in status field first, then past ones, or in reverse.
Should past statuses be included?
Some parts of past statuses should be moved to territory field in info box/status de-cluttered.

From Template:Infobox_military_conflict:

“

status – optional – for ongoing conflicts, the current status of the conflict.

”

Gizmocorot (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In regards to what you said in the edit summary. The way the result section is, is the agreed to wording over the years, and in that specific order. This has been the way we wrote for the past 4 years in this article. And this has been the established template for all Syria war-related articles for the past 4 years where we also write from top to bottom. However, I am willing to make a compromise. Namely...I have had my concerns for some time and I am willing that we remove 90 percent of whats in the results section at the moment because it has become too inflated and contains unnecessary information. What I propose is to write something as follows:

City divided between a government-held west and rebel-held east, with two northern districts PYD-held, since July 2012
UNESCO World Heritage Site Ancient City of Aleppo largely destroyed in the fighting
Syrian Army supply lines cut between October 2012 and October 2013, before being re-established from the south
From mid to late 2014, Syrian Army captures the eastern and north-eastern approaches to the city

Would you agree to this? EkoGraf (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

De-cluttered new version much more concise and clear, order not important any more. What about utilizing territory field of Template:Infobox_military_conflict? Gizmocorot (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, I don't think we should (my opinion), because WP policy says this should not be used for overly lengthy descriptions and there has been a really large number of territorial changes over the years. EkoGraf (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Updated with current status of the conflict per Template:Infobox_military_conflict, moved some entries to territory Gizmocorot (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is little better than pro-NATO propaganda

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A reviewer wrote the following regarding the article's neutrality: "Article is richly cited, with almost every statement cited. Cites I have randomly checked are reliable news sources, and the information in the statements matches that of the source, so I haven't found evidence of original research. Article appears to meet all three requirements for criteria".

However most if not all sources cited are biased in favor of the war launched by the United States, NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council in 2011 to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Some of these biased sources are:

CBS News, ABC News, the Independent, the Guardian, Reuters, the BBC: all pro-NATO corporations that repeat the official lies of Washington and England.

Al Jazeera (owned by the Qatari royal family, Al Jazeera has been cheerleading attempts to overthrow the Syrian government before the blood from the NATO invasion of Libya had dried, while Qatar has sent tens of thousands of armed terrorists to Syria) The Daily Beast (a US-based right-wing tabloid that unquestioningly repeats USG lies) The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (consisting of one man living in London, Rami Abdel Rahman, probably on the payroll of a NATO-member intelligence agency such as the CIA. If not, prove it.) The Washington Times (right-wing publication founded and owned by the demented Sun Myung Moon) The Australian (Australia has a right-wing government that is part of the US-NATO anti-Assad bloc) The Daily Star (A British tabloid) Washington Institute for Near East Policy (A Washington DC think tank) Al Araby Al Jadeed (published by Fadaat Media Ltd, a biased pro-NATO firm based in the UK)

Just as noteworthy as the biased sources the article uses is the complete absence of sources from the other side, such as the Syrian Arab News Agency, Al-Watan, Press TV, RT, Syrian Perspective, Al-Safir, Sputnik, SouthFront.org.

Why is the partiality of sources important? The article quotes the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, stating, "The battle has been marked by the Syrian army's indiscriminate use of barrel bombs dropped from helicopters, killing thousands of people". This is in the first paragraph, and is presented as fact. In the same way, the sources cited above routinely repeat USG lies blaming the Syrian government for atrocities committed by the foreign mercenaries backed by the US and the GCC, such as the sarin gas attack in Damascus in August 2013, or the May 25, 2012 massacre in Houla.

Because of the exclusive use of pro-US and pro-NATO sources, to the complete exclusion of sources near to Syria or sympathetic to the Syrian government, this article should not receive approval from Wikipedia as it is little better than propaganda put out by forces prosecuting the illegal war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeahGibson (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only countries that support Syria lack free press outlets, and Wikipedia's community of editors has generally agreed that media outlets controlled by authoritarian governments are not reliable sources, especially for reporting on situations where their masters have a particular interest (such as the interest Russia has in Syria, which has the only major Russian military base and deep-water port outside the former Soviet Union). If the situation were different and a country such as France or Canada, which have freedom of the press, supported the Syrian government, then obviously Le Monde and The Globe & Mail would pass muster here. But that would sort of defeat the point, wouldn't it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This not a flaw of Wikipedia, but a feature. Wikipedia's policies state that it must be free of bias, and must not give undue mention to non-mainstream views (see: WP:FALSEBALANCE). The Syrian Civil War has at least two opposing sides, with at least two contradictory "storylines". A lot of misinformation has been reported by both sides. However, a greater percentage of the international community opposes Assad's government than supports it, therefore the news organizations of countries who are pro-Assad are non-mainstream and do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. This is why Wikipedia can only rely on reports from the anti-Assad side of the civil war. Any pro-Assad point that you may wish to add will have to use anti-Assad news media sources that are considered to be mainstream by Wikipedia's editors, so good luck with that. It can be done, but it may be more trouble than it's worth.

Now, some will object and claim that "no, Wikipedia does not show only one side, it simply shows the verifiable truth", but this view is erroneous because in war-time, news outlets from both sides tend to be biased and report propaganda (for many reasons). Nor is it always clear which countries' media may be "compromised", because many countries are far more involved in this civil war than they're willing to admit in public. Labeling the news media of all countries on the other side of Syria's civil war inadmissible, as Kudzu1 has done above (all of them just conveniently happen to have an "unfree press"), ensures that articles about the war continue to have a bias in favour of the side that's favoured by the international mainstream (the mainstream within Syria itself doesn't matter, only the majority international view counts, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned).

In other words, LeahGibson, this is a lost cause. It likely won't be possible to change anything on Wikipedia on this topic unless NATO decides to drop its regime-change operation, at which point the news media of NATO countries will suddenly begin running stories about everything that had been reported only in the media of countries with an "unfree press" for the past few years.

And by the way, Kudzu1, the Russian news media actually displays a much broader range of perspectives than our media here in Canada does. Russian talk shows frequently invite guests from various NATO countries as well as from Russia, and allow them to present their views, while here in Canada our news media never invites any figure from the Russian political mainstream, and usually invites no Russians at all. In the Canadian news media, the arguments of the "other side" are usually never even acknowledged, or only a grotesque caricature of them is presented. Esn (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Battle of Aleppo (2012–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph and other links

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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)

They did reach Aleppo city back in late 2013 (with other rebel forces), but they were expelled from Aleppo city in January 2014. After that, they never really managed to return to the city proper, despite the repeated attacks throughout 2015 and 2016. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

At the time (2013) they were allied with the rebels, and their conflict against the rebels in January 2014 lasted only for a few days before they were expelled. Only a few days of conflict as a separate force within a time-frame of four and a half years (time of the battle) isn't really notable enough to warrant them having their own column. EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

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)

I have added UN statements on rebels shelling civilians

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

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"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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. Wiki Winters ☯ 韦安智 09:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed claims

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia. 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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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 [1]. 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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

As major media sources have definitively claimed that the battle ended yesterday,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] 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.[2]--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)

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

Warning to Editors.

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago84 comments17 people in discussion

There is a clear consensus against inclusion of the proposed text in the article's lead. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 [3]. 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 [4] 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 [5] and within 10 minutes of this edit of mine [6]. 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 Wikipedia 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)

The burden of proof is on those making the claims of "massacres". So far, there's nothing besides unverified claims. So yes, what Patrick cockburn wrote is very much to the point. And by the way, it would be best if you remained civil...or, well, you know how these things work...Athenean (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The "burden of proof" is WP:V, i.e. to show that it has been covered in reliable sources. That burden has been met. Now you seem to have decided that we should ignore reliable sources because you managed to find one opinion piece on the internet which questions these sources. That's not how this works and you know it. And i've been perfectly civil and you might want to take your own advice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No you haven't. All you have is a soundbite by Zayd Riad Hussein, a member of the Jordanian Royal Family, and a tweet by Jan Egeland. You got nothing. And not only that, but you here you sneakily [7] removed sourced material you didn't like (the part about Russia denying targeting first responders). Won't look good at AE. Athenean (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

First, please stop making threats. Making threats can be taken as a personal attack and a form of WP:HARASSMENT. You do recall how the last... what, three, four?, AE reports that got filed against me ended? I believe it was with some BOOMERANGS flying around.

Second, read the source. Do you see "this is disputed" in there anywhere? No? Then why should the text be in there. What happened here is that somebody (was it you?) saw the text, said "I JUST DONT LIKE IT" and then added "Russia disputes this" even though that wasn't in the source. Which is pretty much the definition of POV pushing.

Third, no, what we actually have here is a statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Also have Reuters. And the New York Times. And Washington Post. And Human Rights Watch. And about another dozen of reliable sources. The only way you can describe that as "you got nothing" is if you don't actually want to follow our policy on reliable sources. Do you?Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Not making any threats, just a warning to be more civil, which. It's unfortunate you see it as a threat, all the while bragging and making threats of your own. The sources you post just repeat the unverified and unassessed allegations by Hussein, who is a member of the Jordanian royal family, which in case you didn't know, is invested in the conflict and hostile to the Syrian government. See, this is how propaganda works: Someone somewhere makes some unverified claims, and then the media repeat the claims ad infinitum, thereby amplifying the message. Has the "massacre" been investigated? Where is the evidence. So far all we have is "so and so said there was a massacre". Athenean (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Won't look good at AE" is a threat, so please quit it. You have been unable to discuss anything with me without resorting to personal attacks or threats. I guess you think that's intimidating. Whatever.

As to the topic at hand, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, Human Rights Watch are all reliable sources. If you believe otherwise, WP:RSN is over that way --> Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, deceitful editing, where you conceal undiscussed removals in an unrelated revert is disruptive and grounds for arbitration enforcement. And you've been doing quite a bit of that lately here [8]. That's not a threat, that's a statement of fact. It would be best if you ceased and desisted from deceitful editing going forward. I won't warn you again. Athenean (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't refer to my good faithed (and quality) edits as "deceitful editing". That's a personal attack and a violation of WP:CIVIL. And yes you are making threats, whatever you want to call it. Please stop. You are also failing to address the issue that Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, Human Rights Watch are all reliable sources. If you believe otherwise take it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Good-faith editing"? Please explain why you removed (without any discussion) [9] "this is disputed by government and Russian sources", "The rebels also burnt buses meant to evacuate sick and elderly civilians" (both sourced) while claiming to "restore well-sourced material". And the sources you mention don't have a single reporter on the ground in Aleppo, all they do is repeat press releases. The only outlet with people on the ground is Al Masdar News, in case you didn't know. Athenean (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks and behaving in an uncivil manner.

And it's not your job to question reliable sources. That's original research. Like I said, take it up at WP:RSN if you feel strongly about it. That's the proper venue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing whether these sources are reliable or not though. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So why are you trying to remove text based on them?Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@VM: Instead of making false allegations and playing victim ("please stop making personal attacks"), answer my question: Why did you remove well sourced material while claiming to do the opposite? Thank you. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Not playing victim. Reminding you that you need to start observing WP:CIVIL and stop trying to intimidate those who disagree with you with threats. That's sort of a minimal standard for talk page behavior so I'm not clear on why you're having such problems with it. Like I asked you repeatedly - discuss content, not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Care to answer the question I asked you instead of evading and playing victim? Athenean (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop. Making. Personal. Attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A question is not a personal attack. Please answer the question. Athenean (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Athenean: you should also check this out: [10]. 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 [11]? Look, if you don't like Wikipedia'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)

Um, but these sources are nothing but reports based off of unverified, uninvestigated, unattributed claims made by unknown people. Most users on this thread agree. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No, these are reliable sources, which are reporting on what UN said. Your whole sentence is a textbook example of original research (and btw, "most users agree" is not what actually determines what is and what is not original research, since as the policy states, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable). The whole sentence you just wrote is just stuff you made up. We don't get to base Wikipedia editorial decisions on stuff we just make up. That's why we have WP:RS and that's what we follow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This is what some of the sources, which Volunteer Marek cites above, actually say:

Reuters - "Syria's government forces and their allies have almost certainly violated international law and probably committed war crimes by (...), the U.N. human rights chief said on Wednesday." ← "almost certainly" and "probably" both indicate that the claims rest within speculation and nothing more.
New York Times - "Earlier on Tuesday, fears had mounted as the United Nations said it had received reports that Syrian troops or allied Iraqi militias were gunning down families in apartments and on the streets, with the toll reaching 82 civilians." ← The "received reports" claim begs the question: {{by whom}}
Washington Post - "There have already been disturbing reports of abuses (...). The U.N. Human Rights Council said it was given the names of 82 civilians (...). According to Rupert Colville, spokesman for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the reports asserted that Syrian soldiers and allied Iraqi militiamen entered homes and killed people (...)." ← This one stinks of WP:WEASEL wording. "There have been reports"^{[from whom?]}; "it was given the names"^{[by whom?]}; and again "the reports^{[by whom?]} asserted"
Human Rights Watch - "The UN has said that it has received reports that pro-government forces executed 82 civilians (...). Local activists told Human Rights Watch that they have heard similar reports." ← "it has received reports"^{[by whom?]}; "Local activists"^[which?]; "heard"^{[from whom?]}; and yet again "reports"^{[by whom?]}

When claims of a supposed massacre are that ambiguous but are reported in a number of WP:RS news outlets, we can include them in the body of an article, with proper attribution. But this is as far as it gets. It is definitely not lead material (per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE), and most definitely not the kind of stuff that warrants a standalone article. To keep repeating "these are reliable sources" doesn't automatically make this stuff verifiable. But now it's my turn:

- Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:22, 23 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 ^talk 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)

No, it's not well sourced at all. Quite the opposite in fact. A tweet by "Jan Egeland" is not "reliably sourced". Athenean (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

False. Nothing is being sourced to a tweet. The sources are New York Times, United Nations, Washington Post and Reuters. Please stop pretending otherwise. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

They are NOT sources for the claims, they are sources that say the claims have been made - I know you know the difference, so please stop pretending otherwise. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are ... SECONDARY sources. Which is *exactly* what we're suppose to use. See WP:PRIMARY. This right here is actually the fundamental misunderstanding of the matter - you want to base what we put into the article based on your own understanding of primary sources (the reports) rather than what secondary sources say about them. This really is, and I'm not trying to be condescending or anything, quintessential original research. Not your job to to evaluate "claims". It's the secondary sources' job. As long as we're reliable we use'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Not your job to to evaluate "claims". It's the secondary sources' job. - This is exactly our job: to discuss what sources claim on a talk page thread. It is also our job to mention exactly what those sources state about such claim in our articles. When a claim can't be verified in a source and when there are other sources explicitly confirming this particular wording (that it's "unverified"), you do not get to represent such claim in an article as if it were a fact. What is WP:OR, however, is to introduce our "evaluations" into WP articles, which no one even remotely suggested. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's actually not. Please read WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY, WP:NOR and WP:TRUTH again. Evaluating what secondary sources say is original research. The only "evaluation" that we, as encyclopedia editors, are suppose to do is whether given sources are reliable or not. Now, if you wish to argue that New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Deutsche Welle etc. are not reliable feel free to bring that up at WP:RSN. But second guessing reliable sources, because they didn't write some story the way YOU think should be written, is a no-no. It's Wikipedia policy. Please abide by it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest you actually read people's comments before deciding to lecture them on "policy" and put words in their mouths? And I'm not sure why you're insinuating that I'm not "abiding" by policy. I explicitly used two distinct keywords here: "source" and "claim". It is perfectly allowed to discuss the latter on talk pages (or even "evaluate" it, as you call it). But when did you ever see me claim that NYT, WPost, etc were unreliable? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you insisted/keep on insisting, that we get to question what reliable sources say. We don't. That's original research. The only thing we evaluate is whether sources are reliable or not. Which is done at WP:RSN. Please, please actually read WP:NOR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No Per arguments above. We shouldn't allow Wikipedia to become an unwitting propagator of false, unverified claims of massacres and atrocities. How is this even a question?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
No Unreliable sources with a political agenda, as has already been pointed out several times. --Harlowan (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post, New York Times, United Nations and Reuters are reliable sources. If you think otherwise take it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

By discussed (the revert), I mean that there's a really strong consensus against this. I don't believe the UN and others are unreliable, but I believe that those reports are based off of unreliable information. These claims probably belong to the body of the article at best. --Harlowan (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

One more time. YOU, nor I, don't get to decide whether secondary sources did a good job of evaluating "unreliable information". That is original research and that kind of editing makes it POV. We just report what secondary reliable sources report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - so let me get this straight. Apparently, the fact that the rebels burned a couple of buses is worthy enough for the lede, but the murder of scores of civilians is undue? I see. And apparently, when the United Nations reports on something, that's just "unverified rumors", but when SOHR reports on something that must be included in lede in Wikipedia voice as absolute truth [12]. Oh wait, I'm confused. I thought "SOHR was unreliable"... when they reported on atrocities committed by Assad and the Russians... now they're not only reliable but worthy of being included in the lede. This is... strange. I believe it's what we call POV. Anyone care to explain this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is whether these claims can be verifiable or not. I'm afraid the civilian deaths cannot be verifiable since we don't know who made those claims. However, the incidents over the buses can be since the claims can be easily verifiable through videos and photographs. But more importantly, major factions within the Syrian opposition acknowledged that these events occurred (even western news media outlets such as the BBC, Independent, and even the Washington Post conceded). Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Admittedly I didn't look very hard, but not much came up. There are news articles from when the claims first circulated ([13]) but there's not been much since. Could you please link a non-opinion/editorial piece that can be reliably used to source that info Volunteer Marek? (See additional comment below)

The mention of the buses is another issue, and I certainly believe it deserves a dubious tag for now. It's sitting in the lede, incriminating 'the rebels', whilst the article actually cited clearly states that there's confusion over who exactly burnt the buses or whether it was even intentional. Jr8825 • Talk 05:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Jr8825 Sure - here is New York Times "United Nations said it had received reports that Syrian troops or allied Iraqi militias were gunning down families in apartments and on the streets, with the toll reaching 82 civilians.". Here is Washington Post "The U.N. Human Rights Council said it was given the names of 82 civilians who were summarily executed in two neighborhoods on Monday. According to Rupert Colville, spokesman for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, the reports asserted that Syrian soldiers and allied Iraqi militiamen entered homes and killed people “on the spot.” Among them were 11 women and 13 children, he said.". Here is Human Rights Watch "Human Rights Watch reached a Syria Civil Defense member, a local doctor, and a journalist still in opposition-held Aleppo, each of whom said that they had received reports that entire families had been executed in areas recently taken by government forces. " (it even specifies the neighborhood). None of these are opinion pieces. I've already listed them several times. Users like EtienneDolet or Athenean keep pretending that these are "just rumors" - whatever they are, they are being covered in reliable sources. This whole discussion is an exercise in absurdity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Jr8825 I agree. There's nothing wrong in being more specific when it comes to the perpetrators of the incident. It can be changed from 'rebels' to 'rebel factions' if that's a more accurate way of putting it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet - you are arguing that a bunch of buses being burned belongs in the lede, but the massacre of dozens of civilians does not, because "UNDUE" or something. Just stop and think about that for a moment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional Comment - There's actually already an page on this: Aleppo massacre, which is linked to from the war crimes section of this article. ~~That article has a host of sources.~~ At the moment the discussion seems to be ~~(bizarrely)~~ about whether or not the event happened. Surely the discussion should be about whether the event is significant enough to warrant mention in the intro? (Otherwise this RfC would belong on the Aleppo massacre article's talk page) Jr8825 • Talk 05:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Edit: After doing some proper reading on the event I've stricken out some of my points.

"Bizarrely" is EXACTLY the right word for what is going on. You have the same editors who are arguing to *merge* the info from that article into this article, who are arguing to *remove* the info from this article. Which strongly suggests that this is just an attempt to *delete* the Aleppo massacre article without having to go through the standard AfD process where outside editors could comment (check out the edit histories of all the "no" votes here and look for patterns).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

And I've already raised the fact that the RfC is badly formatted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that page consists of nothing more than a pragraph and a heavily POV background section. There is actually a discussion over there over a merger. We are indeed discussing whether these events should be in the lede, but as you can imagine, if their veracity is in question, it goes without saying they shouldn't be. We are deep, deep into WP:UNDUE territory already. Athenean (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be included as something widely published and significant, although this may need some rephrasing. Now, speaking about including this related info, this is not the subject of this RfC, but I think this can be included as a compromise solution. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Note - this RfC was started by Athenean on December 17, 6:00. At the time, the info that is the subject of discussion was in the article. Per policy then, the info stays until this RfC concludes. Trying to use starting an RfC as a way to "protect" your own version is disruptive. Please leave the info in the article until this RfC is closed at the very least.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no policy that says that. There's this, however. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually WP:RfC does say that changes shouldn't be implemented until after RfC is closed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Stop making stuff up. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure it does. Read the thing, then comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the one that needs to read it is you. And when you have, come back here and quote us the exact part where is says "changes shouldn't be implemented until after RfC is closed". Thanks in advance. Athenean (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again, this edit removes sourced information that is not a part of the text at the top of the RfC. Yes, it is related. So what? I think this RfC was (mis)used to exclude from intro any sourced information about killing civilians by military forces of certain countries. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Russian military, the current revision of the lede mentions 'accusations that Russian and Syrian forces conducted "double tap" airstrikes to target rescue workers and first responders to previous strikes[100]'. Jr8825 • Talk 00:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No - It belongs in the body of the article for now as, per Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield, the event's veracity is in question. Jr8825 • Talk 04:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- No. There are only unverified reports and as above there is no clear evidence anything happened. It is not notable enough for the led.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Decisive victory" vs. "Victory"

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

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" [14][15][16]. 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 ^talk 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do we always mark any Syrian Army victory as decisive? Even in Palmyra we called it decisive and then they lost it and more of it's surrounding territory after only 9 months! After 4+ years of fighting and 1000's of KIA regime solders and distraction of the city and hundreds of civilians fleeing the city and with SDF controling shaik Maqsood and the rebels still around the city and in fact still present in Rashdun, Layramoon and the Research center this can't be anything but a Pyrrhic victory. http://www.arabnews.com/node/1027461/columns https://magpie68.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/fall-of-east-aleppo/ https://day.kyiv.ua/en/article/topic-day/aleppo-pyrrhic-victory-moscow-and-damascus http://surrey604.com/blog/2016/12/14/assads-pyrrhic-victory-what-the-fall-of-aleppo-means-for-syria/ 3bdulelah (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and a Wordpress blog cannot be used. Besides they have taken control of almost all districts of the city. Rebels don't seem to be in a shape to capture it. Besides as far as I remember, the Palmyra offensive was launched by ISIL when Syrian Army was busy with Aleppo. Because of this they were able to capture it, however started being beaten back omce reinforcements for the Army came. 117.199.84.230 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are just adding another reason to call it a Pyrrhic victory, Assad lost areas in Syria because he was very focused in Aleppo, btw clashes still ongoing on the remaining Rebel held 3 neighborhoods so it should be marked as "ongoing" for now. 3bdulelah (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We write per the sources. Sources state that with the capture of rebel-held East Aleppo the battle has concluded, and most reliable (neutral) sources state that with the SAA's capture of rebel-held East Aleppo the course of the conflict (and possibly outcome) has swung in favor of pro-government forces, which would make it a decisive victory (for which most editors here seem to agree). EkoGraf (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I still can not see why you call YPG factions in Sheikh Maqsoud SDF... THEY ARE NOT ! Your understanding is erroneous, SDF have not replaced YPG. SDF is a U.S arrangement incorporating YPG and Arab fighters under U.S commandment in their anti-ISIL campaign northern Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.102.82.173 (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A new map

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Battles usually don't have map like this where a map is simply shown as under one side control. I think a new map should be created showing the major offensives and advances over the 4 years. This current map should be kept as separate becuase it is used in other places like the module and Syrian civil war. 117.199.84.230 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merkel and Kerry

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone explain why statements by two people who are obviously very notable (or is this gonna degenerate into pretending that John Kerry and Angela Merkel are not notable anymore, like happened with John McCain) are being removed [17]? These are obviously very pertinent and on topic so they should be included. The sources, again, as with other info, are reliable. This appears to be more of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

How exactly do you edit collaboratively with individuals who edit with complete disregard of Wikipedia's content policies? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

See the above discussion at the RfC. The claims by Kerry and Merkel are based off of reports from unverified and unknown claimants. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

One more time - who cares what they are based off of? Your opinions about what they are based off of are completely irrelevant. All that matters is that a) these are notable individuals and b) their statements are widely reported in reliable sources. If you don't care to follow Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, go edit some other place on internet. NPOV and RS are non-negotiable. See WP:NOTHERE. See also WP:ADVOCACY.

And I don't see anything in the wording of the above RfC about Kerry or Merkel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The underlining argument is that all these sources are basing their entire knowledge of civilians being killed through unidentified, unverified, and unknown claimants. Switching the UN and Washington Post with Merkel and Kerry does not change that fact. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not the "underlining" (sic) argument, you're making stuff up. The underlying argument is that reliable sources are reporting what Merkel and Kerry said. What you happen to think about "claimants" is completely irrelevant as it's original research. Again, if you wish to write about how you think these are "unidentified, unverified, unknown claimants" you can go post on Reddit, tweet about it, share it with your facebook friends, send out personal emails, or start a blog. But as far as Wikipedia - an encyclopedia based on reliable sources goes - if it's notable (it is) and it's covered in reliable sources (it is), we report it. What you are trying to do is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by second guessing reliable sources. Which, along with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, is a textbook example of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(By your logic we shouldn't have an article on the Watergate scandal since that too was based on an "unidentified, unverified, unknown claimant" (until 2005). Which of course would be ridiculous. As is this notion right here.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"Politician so-and-so said this" and "politician so-and-so said that" is of very little encyclopedic value, much less lede material. It's that simple. Especially when said politicians are clearly partisan and support one of the parties in the conflict. Athenean (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Not when it's Merkel and Kerry. So I see WE ARE going to argue about whether Angela Merkel and John Kerry are "notable". Jesus Freaking Christ.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. No need for histrionics. This is not lede material, pure and simple. Per WP:LEDE, the lede is meant to provide a summary of the article, not "VM's favorite cherry picked politician quotes". Tell me what part of WP:LEDE you do not undestand and I will try to explain it to you. Besides I find it weird that instead of trying to add this to, say Aleppo massacre, you are edit-warring like mad to insert it in the lede here. Did someone say "revenge editing"? Athenean (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

How about you tell me which part of WP:CIVIL is giving you so much trouble? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the "civility card" again. Whatever happened to Merkel and Kerry btw? Athenean (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Burning of buses fit for lede, but massacre of civilians "undue"

Latest comment: 7 years ago63 comments8 people in discussion

This is a separate topic from the RfC above so it warrants its new section. We have reliable sources for both. But I am actually... "aghast", to put it nicely, at the logic that says that the burning of some vehicles is fine for the lede (because the rebels, allegedly, did it) but the mass murder of civilians is "undue" (because the government forces did it). Anyone care to defend this odious logic with specifics? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of whether SOHR is "a joke" and "unreliable" (in April) or a-ok to be used (in December)

~~Here is the funny part.~~ The material on buses being burned was added by User:EtienneDolet on December 18, 19:05 [18]. They sourced it to a BBC piece which relies on the... Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, SOHR. Why is this funny?

This is why

That link above is to a discussion where EtienneDolet impassionately argues that SOHR is "not a reliable source". Because "SOHR is a highly partisan outlet". Because "SOHR was rejected at the RSN by non-involved users" (actually, that's completely false, but there you go). Oh wait, this one's a gem. In the above EtienneDolet is actually citing BBC which cites SOHR. But here he says, quote, "I don't believe that just because BBC or some other western news outlet cites him in some article would change that blatant fact." I mean, you can't make this up.

More, all quotes:

"Citing a bunch of sources isn't going to make the SOHR anymore of a joke than it already is" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 2:30 (I don't think that was meant as an April Fools joke)
"It was the use of SOHR as a source in general, whether it be by BBC, Independent, Sputnik, and yes, even Wikipedia. (that ED rejects)" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 4:37 (my emphasis)
"There's plenty of academic sources out there that point to the fact that the SOHR is nothing but a mouthpiece of systemically biased western news media" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 1:30. When asked to provide these "academic sources" ED linked to a well known conspiracy website and a anti-semitic online magazine (read the discussion linked, diffs in there)
"Well, these are academic sources" - EtienneDolet, April 1, 5:46, when the nature of the websites he linked to was pointed out to him.

So EtienneDolet, how in the world do you square your previous adamant insistence that SOHR is not reliable, even when quoted by these evil biased "western sources", but here you insist on not only using SOHR in the article but even cramming it into the lede? Just because in one instance SOHR wrote what you WP:IJUSTLIKEIT and in the other what you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? I mean, I don't see what other conclusion is possible, given all this evidence.

~~I said this was funny. It's actually not. It's sad~~ and disruptive and pretty clear evidence of simple WP:POVPUSH and WP:ADVOCACY Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the SOHR is not the only organization that cited the incident, and certainly not the first to do so. You tried to make it seem that way, but it turns out that the article doesn't cite only the SOHR. There's others. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, completely false. Again. In the BBC source the claim is explicitly attributed to SOHR. Which you doggedly insisted, in April, was "not reliable", "a joke", "nothing but a mouthpiece of westernblahblahblah". And the BBC source is the ONLY source you've provided. I don't know what you're trying to do here - it's not like it's that hard to click on the diff and check [19]. The version on the left is yours. I mean, whom should I believe, you, or my lying eyes?

So, can you provide a coherent explanation for why in April you fanatically tried to remove SOHR from one article, and now you insist on it being in this one? I mean, something other than that one is a WP:ILIKEIT and the other WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'm listening.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I never tried removing SOHR from any article. Never did, and never intend to do so. The SOHR is characterized as pro-opposition and anti-Assad by many western news media outlets such as the BBC, Independent, Reuters, Times, and etc., so I find that it has a potential for bias. And again, you made it appear as if the SOHR is the only source used in the BBC article in this edit. However, the BBC source quotes not only them, but many other sources along with photographs and video which render these incidents verifiable. Even western sources couldn't wiggle themselves out of it this time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You sure did [20]. Let me quote you directly, verbatim, word for word, exactly: "*Exclude The SOHR was rejected at the RSN by non-involved users" (note, your claim was false and one these "non-involved users" quickly showed up to correct your misrepresentation)

And please don't start some WP:WIKILAWYERing argument over whether the words "remove" and "exclude" mean the same thing. I'm too tired and it's almost Christmas. And I really don't appreciate your continued attempts at trying to gaslight me.

You also sure did spend a lot of time arguing that it was unreliable, that it was "a joke" (sic), that it couldn't be used, even when it was being cited by other sources (sic), hell, you claimed that there were "academic sources" which backed you up in your view of SOHR (those said "academic sources" turned out to be far right conspiracy websites) [21]

And yet, here you are, trying to use SOHR as a source, because this time, they said something you like. Because these "many other sources" you claim are mentioned in BBC article consist of... Syrian state media.There's also a statement from opposition forces but they don't blame "the rebels", so it's hard to see how you'd think that supports your text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A comment on a talk page is far more different than editing main space. With that said, I never removed SOHR from any article on this project. I'm always very cautious of having my personal opinions influence my editing, especially when it's against consensus (which happened to be the case at that article). If I really did act upon all my personal opinions, I'd be deleting SOHR all over Wikipedia. But clearly, we need to abide by what the community says, learn to let things go, and move on. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

First rule of WP:NPA is: comment on content, not on contributor. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't just a comment on a talk page. That was... many many many many many comments and a !vote in an RfC. Which you were very adamant about. Didn't you try to take me to ANI over it? Or was that something else. But ok. So now you're saying SOHR is reliable? Just want to make sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly about content, just by a particular user. It shows a pretty clear pattern, don't you think? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense. On one hand, you say that it's about content yet you also say there's a pattern or whatever. If you have a problem with such an editing pattern, talk to me about it directly or raise issue with it elsewhere. But to dedicate an entire section in an aim to lash out on an editor is nothing short of a personal attack. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a pattern in how you edit CONTENT. And I am talking to you directly right here. I'm asking you to provide an explanation for how you edit content, which doesn't lead to conclusion that your editing is just a WP:ADVOCACY and WP:POVPUSH. Because, as I've laid it out very clearly above, right now it's sort of hard to escape that conclusion.

To be perfectly clear - yes, I am saying your edits are non-neutral. I have also provided evidence to that effect, diffs and all. Criticisms is not a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, if you want to criticize me for not being neutral or whatever, drop a note on my talk page and let's discuss. Otherwise, the talk page of the Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) is not an appropiate venue to bring up such charges. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Since it concerns edits you made to this article, it's perfectly appropriate. We are already discussing and I'm still waiting for your explanation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is still unresolved as you haven't explained why at one point in time SOHR was "a joke" and "unreliable" but now it's okay to use. So please don't hat it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, please stop trying to hat this discussion. I genuinely want to know why you think that it's okay to use SOHR on this article when you were so adamant that it was unreliable and "a joke" just a couple months ago. And this is not a personal attack. Yes, criticism, but not a personal attack. Without being able to address your editing we cannot solve the content issue involved. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's also hard for this to be a "personal attack" since I mostly just quote things you said verbatim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Marek, don't play word games. Criticizing an editor and not on content is a personal attack. That's what you're doing, and you even admit to it. So if you want to criticize me and my "pattern", take it elsewhere. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am criticizing your edit practice in regard to content. In particular, how you have a tendency to dismiss sources as "unreliable" in one instance, then turn around and try to use them when they suit you in another. This has actually happened on numerous occasions, but the above discussion is focus on the incident relevant to the content of this article. That's not a personal attack. I mean, I understand, no one likes being criticized and the above diffs aren't very shiny, but that's not attacking you. That's trying to figure out how make this article better (where and how do we sources the burning buses stuff). And also helping you become a better editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's strange. I could've swore you said "pattern" somewhere on this thread. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you replying to my statement? Because I'm not clear on what in it it is you're replying to. Apparently now SOHR has magically become "reliable" - so are you fine with using it throughout in a consistent, neutral manner? Regardless of whether its reports are "pro-Assad" or "pro-rebel"? If so, how do you reconcile it with your extreme position from April? If not, then... well how do you justify that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to bus burning

The bus convoy burning, though a verified event, is not important enough for the lede, imo. The only pattern is that pov content addition causes disruption - the bus convoy burning content in the lede is there as a reaction to insistence on the insertion of pov unverified propaganda content into the lede. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm open to discuss whether it should remain in the lead or not. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the bus content issue. But the pattern still remains. Is SOHR not a reliable source, as EtienneDolet from April argued so vehemently, or is it a reliable source, as EtienneDolet from December insists? And why the difference? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops - I actually removed it from the lede without reading this. I tried to make the intro more of a general overview though, and I think it's fair to say that the argument Volunteer Marek had against the point was that it was too specific, so I believe the change of tone I was aiming for is a good justification for its removal.

However, as Tiptoethrutheminefield mentioned, it seems that the bus burning was included as a sort-of balance ('balance' is perhaps a bit generous, maybe 'counter' is more accurate?) to criticism of Assad and Russia, but not the rebels (not the right way to go about balancing the intro anyway). I removed the bus bit, but didn't remove the "double-tap" accusation (I googled it quickly and found a lot of hits from news sites, so decided to keep it) so I can see why it might appear I was pushing a pov. That's not the case, but I'm still a bit uncertain about whether the significance of double-tap bombs is sufficient for its current (prominent) placing in the intro of the whole article. Thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 03:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the effort (though I think this is the wrong section of the talk page). However, I still think that at least a brief mention of the UN reporting killing of civilians should be in the lede, as it's the culmination of the battle and also because it was so widely reported on (hence all the protests and demonstrations in London, Paris, New York, etc.) I actually don't care if the precise number is included in the lede, but a general statement is definitely warranted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Marek, you don't own the article. See WP:CONSENSUS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The "culmination" argument is very weak, and a few small demonstrations by Islamist sympathizers even weaker still. It appears we have a clear consensus not to include. Time to move on. Athenean (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is still ongoing and I've noted that you almost immediately started to reinsert your POV into the lede, after Jr8825 got done with his changes. And the fact that you refer to the turning off of the Eiffel Tower lights as "small demonstrations by Islamist sympathizers" sort of illustrates your bias here. Can you at least try to hide it a bit more? It's sort of embarrassing to watch.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Statements of fact are not "POV". It's interesting you see it that way. Anyway, you are entitled to your views. Just be aware that edit-warring against consensus is a bad idea. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

And watch the civility while you're at it. You're doing it again. Athenean (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when is describing the turning off the lights at Eiffel Tower as the work of "Islamist sympathizers" a "statement of fact"? I have been way more patient and civil than you have been.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing once again. I said the demonstrators were Islamist sympathizers, not the Eiffel Tower stuff. Or is the the "hell cannon" stuff you consider POV? Athenean (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not. The same sources which discuss the Eiffel Tower discuss the demonstrations of solidarity with the people of Aleppo. So yeah, when you refer to these folks as "Islamist sympathizers" you are including the mayor of Paris, the people of Paris, the thousands in London and the hundreds in Sarajevo and other places throughout the world. You are basically saying that anyone who does not agree with your view of things is a "Islamist sympathizer". Which is a slur. Wait... am I an "Islamist sympathizer"?

Anyway, you shouldn't use highly charged, biased and POV language like that, in what is potentially (or make that, most likely) a false accusation/assertion, without backing it up. Where are your sources that these are demonstrations by "Islamist sympathizers"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, still mischaracterizing. If you think I said the mayor of Paris is an islamist sympathizer, isn't that a BLP vio? Shouldn't you do something about it? Athenean (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that a dozen or so Syrian Kurdish protesters are being characterized as "Syria's Kurds". Didn't know so little Kurds lived in Syria. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The stuff about the Kurds is really quite comical. First the source is ARA News, which is owned and operated by the KRG government, hence not reliable, second the photo literally shows 3-4 people demonstrating - in Iraqi Kurdistan. Doesn't get any more absurd. Athenean (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh, that does not make it unreliable. Also it appears your math skills could use some work. And also, I can definitely think of things more absurd. Let's see, arguing that a couple buses being burned belongs in the lede of this article, but a massacre of dozens of civilians is "undue" defiantly qualifies. The idea that Angela Merkel and John Kerry are not notable because they're "just some politicians" would also fit the bill of "more absurd". The idea that large demonstrations in major European cities (and Jerusalem) and Paris turning off the lights on the Eiffel Tower is just the work of some "Islamist sympathizers" - yup, that too will work as "more absurd". And of course arguing so strongly that a source, SOHR, is "a joke", is not reliable, "a mouthpiece of western propaganda", but then turning around and trying to use it because it says something that fits one's POV. Yeah that's absurd. I probably missed a couple other absurdities of the past couple days. And I'm sure more is coming.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this you arguing that a KRG owned sourced meets the criteria for WP:RS? Let's hear it. And you would be well-advised to keep the snark about "math skills" and "absurdities" to yourself, if you know what I mean. Athenean (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're the one who first described edits as "absurd". Or is this one of those things where you get to be uncivil to me all you want, make personal attacks and threats (which I've already documented at your talk page), but the moment I express a criticism of your editing and commenting style you start crying "civility! civility! civility!" ? As for math skills, you claimed "shows 3-4 people demonstrating", which is clearly not true. If you don't want to get called on it, don't make false statements. And ARA News is at least as reliable as several sources already being used in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

By "absurd" I meant the demonstration of 3-4 "Syrian Kurds" (not even sure if all 3-4 of them are demonstrating - some appear to be just chillin'). I see assuming good faith didn't last very long. Oh well. Athenean (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I was thinking the same thing about the "double-tap stuff". I think it's fine in the body but too much for lede. The paragraph should end with "Hundreds of thousands...". And thanks for your hard work, much appreciated. Athenean (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Like Jr8826 said, there's extensive coverage of it in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:LEDE again. The double tap stuff is too much detail for a three paragraph summary of the article. Athenean (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's two words, so no, not really.

It's actually a whole sentence, and a fairly long one, so yes, really. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No, there's couple things here. First, there's the purposeful targeting of rescue workers and hospitals. Then there's the double-tap attacks. And here is why the double tap is important - because it constitutes a war crime. It's one thing to shell a civilian structure or area. That happens regularly in these kinds of sieges, especially if civilian and military targets are close by. But making a double-tap attack is an obvious attempt to terrorize the local population. And that's *precisely* why this practice by the Russians got so much coverage in reliable sources. Now, the phrase "war crime" should in fact be in there, to highlight the importance of these double tap strikes. But hey, that got remove too. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so it's not "two words" then? No one is saying double-tap strikes aren't bad, of course they're bad, it's just too much detail for what is supposed to be a summary of the article. It's that simple. Nothing more. Athenean (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

. That happens regularly in these kinds of sieges, especially if civilian and military targets are close by. But making a double-tap attack is an obvious attempt to terrorize the local population You have already been told on this page that UN considers rebel hell cannons shelling civilians an attempt to terrorize the population. Why are you denying this again?

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--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We can substitute in a shorter sentence about Russia being accused of war crimes by human rights organizations for its bombing campaign if you want. Want to make a proposal as to the wording? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That's already implied. Of course, the idea is to have "Russia" and "war crimes" appear in the lede. Why am I not surprised? But this [22] I mean, really. Empty grandstanding by one of the staunchest "regime change" proponents out there. In the lede, no less. This lede fixation needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's only already implied as long as the double-tap sentence is in there. You remove the sentence then there's nothing to imply it. That's why it has to be either, or, or both.

And it doesn't matter what your opinion of Powers is. What matters is that this was something extensively covered in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

And speaking of "not the right way to go about balancing the intro" this addition by Athenean is basically that. He's adding these "hell cannons" to "counter" the fact that the Syrian Army used barrel bombs, in a typical false equivalency. Additionally, please not how it's being done, in particular with regard to the clause that follows it.

Too bad the rest of the wikipedia community does not agree with you. Once again. Athenean (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Original (Jr8825's) text: "including extensive use of barrel bombs by the Syrian Air Force,[88][89][90] repeated targeting of hospitals and schools,[91][92] and indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas"

Athenean's text: " including extensive use of barrel bombs by the Syrian Air Force,[88][89][90] and makeshift hell cannons by the rebels, repeated targeting of hospitals and schools,[91][92] and indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas."

The original text, which is based on sources, correctly attributes ALL of these things to the Syrian Air Force. Athenean's version, by sneaking in that "by the rebels" into the middle of the sentence now makes it seem like the "targeting of hospitals and schools" etc were done by the rebels.

See the problem here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I can see that the sources you rely on wouldn't mention anything about the use of hell cannons by the rebels to target civilians, but it's quite easy to find sources that they do. Athenean (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your statement, aside from being weird and false, is also a total non-sequitur.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But you know what, I'll bite cuz I'm curious. Since I take great care to only use reliable sources - I presume these are "the sources you (that'd be me - VM) rely on" you refer to - what exactly are these "sources that do" that are "quite easy to find"? Can you please provide them? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, just to clarify, my revision doesn't actually attribute all of those events to the Syrian Air Force, it only blames it for the barrel bombs (hence the comma before starting another clause). The other two bits ('repeated targeting of hospitals and schools', and 'indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas') do not place blame. Both the rebels and Syria/Russia have fired upon civilian areas with inaccurate weaponry (Rebels - mortars/shells, Syria/Russia - airstrikes/shells) and sources attest to this. Perhaps one side caused far more damage (I'm thinking Russian airstrikes), but right now I haven't got the time to gather sources and argue for a consensus in order to add a controversial statement such as that in the lede. Jr8825 • Talk 12:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between shelling areas where civilians live with crappy and imprecise artillery (which is what the rebels have done) and purposefully targeting hospitals and schools to terrorize the civilian population, as the pro-Assad and Russian forces have done. That's why actually that word "purposefully" belongs in there. This difference is indeed found in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, including UN and AI that point out the atrocities and shelling of civilians by the rebels. Including hospitals and schools. I will be more than happy to add them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount - I agree. Both sides, including the rebels, killed civilians. That's why the sentence It was marked by widespread violence against civilians,[86] repeated targeting of hospitals and schools,[87][88] and indiscriminate aerial strikes and shelling against civilian areas.[79][89][90][91] doesn't specifically mention any side. I've also reverted your edits adding in 'terrorize the inhabitants of western Aleppo' since both sides have been accused of the same thing and it's unnecessary to provide an analysis of the hell cannons in the article overview - that belongs in the main body. See my edit summary for my explanation. I think what might be a good idea is adding a sentence along the lines of both sides have been accused of using civilians to their own advantage (for tactical gains/propaganda/protection from the enemy/information war) etc (rewritten obviously). Jr8825 • Talk 13:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be good idea to phrase this neutrally, that both the Syrian government and opposition,including terrorist islamists groups fighting it have been accussed of war crimes and abuses, what definitely needs to be made clear is that rebels comitted atrocities too and part of the rebel force is internationally reckognized as islamic terrorists(UN mentions this clearly)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hezbollah is also recognized as a terrorists groups, so we can either call this a "terrorists vs. terrorists" wording or use neutral, unbiased wording that avoids contentious labels. --R2D2015 (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hezbollah's status as a legitimate political party, a terrorist group, a resistance movement, or some combination thereof is a contentious issue.[45] The Arab League,[46] United States,[47] France,[48] the Gulf Cooperation Council,[49][50] Australia,[51] Canada,[52] the Netherlands,[53] and Israel[54] have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The European Union, New Zealand and the United Kingdom[55] have proscribed Hezbollah's military wing as a terrorist organization, while making a distinction with Hezbollah's political wing.[56][57] Russia considers Hezbollah a legitimate sociopolitical organization.[58] China remains neutral, and maintains contacts with Hezbollah.[59]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

More blind reverting

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

by Etienne Dolet. [23]. There's nothing "pointy" about representing the source accurately. The previous version was a cherry picked sentence which omitted a key statement from the source. Two actually if you include the part about "quasi-judicial institutions" which ED also removed. It's hard not to get the feeling that ED just blind reverts any of my changes on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The bit that says: "while government forces have been responsible for the majority of violations in the conflict in Syria" is not directly related to the subject matter of the sentence. So yeah, it's pointy. As in, it's there to make some sort of point. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's straight from the source, and there is a reason why it's in the source. Omitting it misrepresents the source. Nothing pointy about accurately using sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I think this "correction" by ED was wrong. The source puts atrocities by rebels into certain perspective, and that perspective must be kept in the text. The phrase also logically connects two subsections of section "War crimes". My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a separate section for the government atrocities. This is wholly unnecessary. Athenean (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

True, but it's a short qualification, and without that qualification the source is being misrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Misrepresenting" would involve changing the meaning of a source, as in a source saying "X committed atrocities" and we writing "Y committed atrocities". This is not misrepresentation. We are not under obligation to reproduce the wording of a source verbatim. Otherwise we might as well just cut and paste a bunch of sources and be done with editing. Athenean (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Aleppo burnt buses

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This picture seems a bit misleading to me. Its caption reads

During the evacuation, rebel factions burnt buses meant to evacuate sick and elderly civilians

even though it illustrates buses that were used in the evacuation of two separate villages as part of a negotiated deal that encompassed Aleppo. The article body now explains this (kudos to EkoGraf), but it's a bit hard to explain that in a succinct caption. I've come up with:

Rebel factions burnt buses meant to evacuate sick and elderly civilians from two besieged villages, which were part of a negotiated civilian evacuation agreement also encompassing Aleppo

but I'm not sure it's particularly clear and it's pretty long. Is the picture unnecessary given the existing text? Any thoughts/suggestions for a better caption? Jr8825 • Talk 22:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Rebel factions burnt buses meant to evacuate sick and elderly civilians from two rebel-besieged villages concurrently to the Aleppo evacuations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EkoGraf (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Jr8825 • Talk 22:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Syria's Kurds"

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I find the addition of "Syria's Kurds also protested against the Syrian Army's disregard for civilians in its attack on the city. One Kurdish activist stated "Civilians in that war-ravaged city have suffered the most under attacks by regime troops and their allies, like Russia, Iran and Hezbollah." a bit much. The photo literally shows 4 people standing around holding signs [24] (there are some others in the background but their role is unclear). Worse, this is taking place in Iraqi Kurdistan, not Syria. And lastly, ARA News is wholly owned-and-operated by the US-backed Kurdistan Regional Government, which is hostile to the Syrian government. Athenean (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"shows 4 people" -- scroll down to the video. Clearly not just 4 people.

"this is taking place in Iraqi Kurdistan" -- well, yeah, that's why it's in the "Foreign Reactions" section. I mean, the protests in London also took place in British London, not Syria.

" ARA News is wholly owned-and-operated by the US-backed Kurdistan Regional Government" - so what? That doesn't make it unreliable. Indeed, this source is helluva lot more reliable than Al-Masdar News. And helluva more reliable than RT news or some dude's blog.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok the video shows, what, 14 people? 15 maybe? And this is used to say in wikipedia's voice "Syria's Kurds"??? There's two million Kurds in Syria, if they wanted to demonstrate, they would have. And ARA News is government-owned media - same as RT. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, the protests, for obvious reasons, are not in Syria. If you want to say "some of Syria's Kurds" or something then that's fine.

And it's already been explained a million times that the fact that a source is government owned is NOT what makes it unreliable. In the case of RT, it's not that it's Russian government owned. It's the fact that it publishes shit, fake news, and stuff like Holocaust Denial [25]. I have seen nothing from ARA News that even comes close to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the fact that it publishes shit I suggest being less vulgar.nd stuff like Holocaust Denial [26] Holocaust denial is illegal in Russia, and the link you provided make it clear that no Holocaust denial material was published by RT. I suggest removing this false claim.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, they just gave a prominent Holocaust denier his own tv show, but I guess they made him promise to not do any denyin' while on air, and just keep it to his twitter and podcasts (And the Soviet Union was the first country in the world to outlaw the death penalty, [27]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

[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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]