Talk:2016 Aleppo summer campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Castello Road?[edit]

Most news reports focus on that particular highway. Any chance that can be reflected in the name or something? If not, thats fine, just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8080:C11C:ED27:D3F3:E7D0:79D (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is per the established template of names like the previous offensives that took place north of Aleppo, or in its northern outskirts. Also, the offensive is also taking place in the northwestern industrial zone of Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JaF is not part of this battle[edit]

Army of Conquest operation Room did not participate in this battle. All previous offensives they were part of they had their logo on all rebel media materials. All sources speaking of JaF participation are mistaken. Last week there was a protest in Aleppo Asking JaF to enter the City 3bdulelah (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, since the Sham Legion in its videos used the Fatah Halab logo instead of the JaF one, not sure about Nusra though. I'm changing it back. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even Nusra and Ahrar didn't use JaF logo in northern Aleppo. Thank u for the change. I Hope no one change it back. 3bdulelah (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's one more thing wrong. Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa does not participate as well. It's not even said in the BBC article cited to underline this fact. BBC says that Thuwwar al-Sham takes part, but Thuwwar al-Raqqa is not mentioned at all --134.245.115.91 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I've removed LTR and added the Levant Front with Thuwar al-Sham as a subunit. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

What's the point of all these links? David O. Johnson (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much Assad Propaganda used for reporting the events around Ramouseh Road[edit]

The Regime sources are not backed by video evidence while Orient news has video evidence. http://www.orient-news.net/en/news_show/119287/0/Opposition-takes-control-of-Sharafeh-in-south-of-Aleppo Geolocation reveals the rebels hold all gains made in their assault and regime counter-attacks have failed. That section of the article needs to be completely re-written. Also given the fluidity of the fight, wild claims from either side should not be included in the article. All indications are the FSA is winning the fight to break the siege. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orient News not likely a RS, it uses a lot of propaganda words."Assad terrorist", "Iranian Terrorist". Blah! See WP:SOAPBOXMr.User200 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, Orient news is pro-rebel/pro-opposition, so its hardly a reliable/neutral source. Second, the report on the SAA's recapture of locations lost was confirmed by the pro-opposition SOHR activist group, which is considered reliable by notable news media outlets. The SOHR has stated that the SAA recaptured 5 out of 8 lost positions. The remaining three are the ones that are listed in that news link you provided. Between, those three were captured some two days ago and that report is talking about the completion of phase 1, while the rebels said they were on phase 3, so Orient is lagging. Third, even the semi-pro-government Masdar news has also confirmed that those three specific locations are still rebel-held (so no lying/propaganda). And fourth, video clips, especially those from Youtube, are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. EkoGraf (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias regarding reporting combatant casualties.[edit]

Iam reverting all edits whitch downplay rebels losses while using rebels claims of higher government losses in the InfoBox. Numbers regarding losses should be equal, if a given criteria its used for reporting government losses; the same criteria should be used for rebels losses too, be fair! use the same source for both combatants, and the same criteria. ECOGRAF why you use the lower estimate by rebels sources of rebels losses and use A PRO-REBEL Source for Government losses??? WP:SOAPBOX Mr.User200 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source in question is not just any pro-opposition propaganda source. Its SOHR. The issue of SOHR has been discussed by Wikipedia editors at least a dozen times during the last 5 years. Always ending in the same consensus, that its an extremely reliable unbiased source when it comes to reporting numbers of casualties and territorial gains or losses by ether side and would be thus used accordingly. This consensus was always based on the fact that: many reliable media outlets consider SOHR an authoritative source on the Syrian war; it is consistently used as their primary means of factually reporting events from Syria; and SOHR has been attacked multiple times by the rebels themselves as being pro-regime/biased due to their reporting that for the most part turns out to be truthful. Per this, we have used SOHR as almost exclusively the primary reliable source on casualties for both sides in all of the battles since the start of the war. Finally, an answer to your question about why using A PRO-REBEL Source for Government losses, because we are already using a pro-government (and highly biased) source for rebel losses (800 dead claim). You say you want to remove any sources that downplay rebel losses, even though we provided a source (pro-opposition I remind) that downplays government losses (and I didn't see you remove this claim of downplaying). Our job is to be neutral and report all claims by both sides. Excluding one over the other is not neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edit the previous version was wrong, it claimed 19 rebel losses in 3 August, when the source claimed 11. Second, you are displaying a rebel claim of Government losses as neutral, and using 3 independent reports of SOHR of rebel losses to considering it the whole losses in a longer epriod of time.Not using a straight source. This is the problem with all your edits regarding battle boxes(the same problem that happened with you in a Yemen-War Houthi death report, and in the Syrian Civil War battle Box,; you errased all my edits of Turkish losses). I have noticed that you have the same problem of criteria. To use a range of reported losses (rebel claims, pro rebels claims and neutral) and display them as a single valid data; you are mixing both sources(neutral and pro rebles) to display them as a neutral claim. At least display whats the source in brackets. Something the last editor made and was reverted by you.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new source claims 250 rebels losses admited by them, i am posting it, IN BRACKETS.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, SOHR isn't a rebel source, its a pro-opposition source, so incorrect terminology. Second, the source for August 3rd stated: 3 dead from Aleppo province in Aleppo, 10 dead from Idlib province in Aleppo and Latakia, 11 dead from Hama province in Aleppo and Latakia, 1 dead from Raqqa province in Aleppo; estimating possibly 2/3 of those from Idlib and Hama died in Aleppo that brings the count to at least 19 (nowhere is 11 mentioned as you claimed). Third, combining three day-to-day, back-to-back sources, is per WP: CALC. Fourth, added the claim thing in brackets. Fifth, I did not erase your edits about Turkish losses, you are incorrect, they are there in the section on other soldier deaths. Sixth, since you said you want me to report you for the 1RR violation, expressed no desire to cancel your action in this regard, nor discuss the issue to find a compromise instead of edit warring (even though I asked you), I have reported you for the violation. EkoGraf (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Made an attempt at compromise wording. EkoGraf (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail?[edit]

Thanks for this nice article. But in some parts, it appears to carry an abundance of details. I think it is not necessary to mention attempts of attacks that do not result in territorial changes; also it is usually not essential to repeat claims/denials of territorial control of one of the involved parties. I think that all those details are cluttering and obfuscating the actual events to some extent, as they import some of the fog of war into this article. E.g. the sentence "By this point, rebel commanders reportedly decided to abandon their pre-planned six-stage offensive to review future military maneuvers in the region, with plans being made for the next attack wave" appears to be irrelevant for this article. It is not necessary to repeat every alMasdar-statement that mentions Aleppo. As an example of imported fog of war, notice that the article is contradictory: it states that on August 1, "the military managed to recapture the 1070 Housing Project neighborhood," while also stating that on August 4, "the Army was still trying to fully recapture the 1070 Housing Project", indicating that SAA captured (at most) parts of the 1070 housing project on August 1. 87.158.141.120 (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of unnecessary information: "The rebels were reportedly irritated by the lack of progress at the 1070 complex, Military Academy, Sawmill and Ramouseh [..]". Whether the rebels are irritated or not appears to be completely irrelevant. 87.158.141.120 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is casualties ??!! (Hiding truth)[edit]

Where is casualties ??!! just look at Jihadists top commanders casualties. near 30 main commanders with dozens of field commanders are reportedly KIA .is it really possible that their casualties be 300 (as they claim) when 100 of them are commanders ??!! hiding the truth of death toll is REAL bias .just look at last night battle only in northern axis, 60+ Jihadists with a tank commander are reportedly KIA .[1] do not hide the truth in favor of some globally recognized terrorist cells[2] such as fatah alsham (nusra front). P.rafati (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The casualties are listed in the two sub-articles to this parent article. EkoGraf (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-aleppo-field-report/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabhat_Fateh_al-Sham

SDF involvement[edit]

The SDF didn't participate in this campaign and doesn't support any side, especially regime side. The source which was added itself denied the allegations that they are in regime side. Here is the source,.[1] Other sources are unreliable and not directly saying the SDF is a part of the this campaign. Ferakp (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you misinterpret the infobox. It is not stated that the SDF supported the government, but that they fought and advanced against the rebels at the same time as the government. This is well sourced. Applodion (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://aranews.net/2016/08/clashes-continue-syrian-opposition-rebels-kurds-aleppo/. Retrieved 25 November 2016. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2016 Aleppo summer campaign. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleppo offensive (June–July 2016). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Aleppo_summer_campaign&oldid=1196703496"