Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This Article Should Not At All Be Deleted

The battle is ongoing and is being discussed by numerous media sources.75.72.35.253 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Who has talked about deleting this article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.160.189 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Mother of All Battles"

I've been reverted the first time I tried to fix this, but I think it's a bit silly to have the "mother of all battles" quotation in the first sentence. The quotation is from a pro-government newspaper and is just an empty bit of hype; it's not even a description of the current battle, but just a prediction for the future. If it needs to be kept, let's at least move it down in the article; we can probably agree that this newspaper's prediction is not one of the 5-10 most crucial facts about the battle. Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Why it is silly? We have a "Operation Damascus Volcano" at the same place in the Damascus Battle page and other editors opposed the addition of (by the rebels). The mother of all battles sentence has been used in every media now. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, fair enough. However, the linked source only names one Syrian newspaper as saying it. I think my summary of the source was fair to give context; I'm not sure why you changed it without providing other sources. Perhaps we could get a third opinion? Khazar2 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the same case than in the Damascus page. There is one source who called it like that and it took off in the media and now it is commonly used. Make a google search about Aleppo mother of all battles and you will see.--DanielUmel (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, found a washington post piece that supports your claims and inserted it in place of the Yahoo citation if that's okay with you. Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mother of All battles is not academic, and looks silly. Especially when you compare this little skirmish to actual battles of enormous scope and historical signifigance, like Stalingrad, where the number of Germans and Russians killed in the space of an hour was even greater then the numbers killed over the past few weeks in Aleppo. Get rid of it. ArcherMan86 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Mother of all battles is pretty stupid to be honest. It comes from a pro-government newspaper and not even the government. If you remember the Damascus battle it was repeatdly called the "final battle" by both the government and the rebels. Yet on that page the only names are "Battle of Damascus", "Operation Damascus Volcano" the latter being what the rebels actually called the operation before they lost and kept quite about it. It was one of their leaders Qasem Sadedine who called it that. That's different from "the mother of all battles". Especially seeing as how losing Aleppo won't damage anyone permenantly. The rebels don't need it and half the city hates them. The Government will keep it's Damascus core intact while knowing that the rebels can't use it as a Benghazi because of the loyalist support.62.31.145.100 (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Daniel is right that the phrase has gotten a good deal of hype in Western media, even a "meta" article discussing the history of the phrase (the WP piece cited in the article). But there's no reason to present it out of context here as he previously insisted on. Perhaps we could change that section to read "nicknamed the Mother of All Battles by a Syrian newspaper"? Or move it down lower in the article?Khazar2 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just get rid of it. Its not Academic, and the phrase is attributed to Saddam Hussein and the Persian Gulf War anyhow. It does not deserve any mention, let alone being offered as an alternative name for the battle ArcherMan86 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Mother of All Battles - it just sounds like something a 12 year old would come out with whilst playing Call of Duty. Yes, the regime called it the mother of all battles, but not in an offical capacity and just to show the scale they predicted the battle to be, not an actual title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.226.114 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

12,000 foreign fighters

It's interesting to see how the article puts in the most absurd number by Syrian media sources in order to be non neutral. Such "balanced" editing does not benefit the article. Obvious propaganda should be avoided. Guest2625 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's absurd, but as long as it's clearly flagged as a Syrian state media claim, I think it's worth keeping, if for no other reason than that it's interesting to hear what they're claiming. Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

At my knowledge this is the only non rebel numbers we have --DanielUmel (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any difference between taking information from Goverment sources and opposition sources? Seeing as how there is more than enough evidence showing that the opposition is willing to lie or force civilians to say certain things? I'd say both of them should be kept. The truth is somewhere in the middle and most media organisations don't bother or can't verify what the opposition is saying is true. 62.31.145.100 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother bringing this one up. Sorry to say it, but EVERY article about the Syrian Civil War is downgraded in value because some people put SANA reports in. Every day, SANA claims that at least 30 "terrorists" are killed, every day the army destroys cars/technicals, and still the Free Syrian Army advances. The neutrality argument is invalid. If you look at CNN, BBC and Sky News, or Al-Jazeera, they all have boots on the ground in Syria, and all of there reports are more linked to opposition figures as regime figures. It's like listening to North Korean news, and trying to pierce through that imaginative world. But still, as to the "neutrality", we should propably endure crazy SANA reports for some time longer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The articles also quote the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," hardly a reliable or neutral source, either. It would be good to find reliable sources, but unfortunately, almost all primary sources of information are propaganda outlets for one side or the other. Even more troubling, it is difficult to determine whether many of the primary reports are simply fabricated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Media organisations that have boots in the ground are either in government held areas that are very safe or are embbeded with rebels. Accurate reporting isn't very common as we saw last year in Libya. Also there isn't an argument about the prescence of forgien figthers in Syria seeing at how Libyan figthers have been boasting and rebels have been admitting Jihadis are working with them. They are present and the rebels will diminish their number/importance to keep the money/weapons tap open while the government will exaggerate to demonise the rebels. If you want to be strict on reliable source then the majority of the sources used on the Syrian uprising pages should be deleted. The vast majority of information comes from opposition sources who have time and time again been shown to lie and distort the truth to support their cause. These people aren't in the business of reporting news with any kind of journalistic standards. They're aim is to change their government.62.31.145.100 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting though, the state media inflates the number of rebels. You'd expect them to do the opposite?

Rebels Shariaw law , executions and Al Qaeda

I have provided sources (Reuters) showing that rebels had established Shariaw law courts where they are judging and executing captured soldiers.

I have also provided a source showing that the rebels had executed ans slit the throat of a soldier. (again Reuters)

Thirdly, a rebel commander has acknowledged that Al Qaeda was fighting in Aleppo. So they have to be included.

But some editors are trying to prevent rebels abuses from being shown in this page. All of this has to be ketp. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Alqaeda clause is unsourced. He only recognized that Alqaeda was in Syria, not that they were fighting in Aleppo city.

Second is that the Reuters source does not mention sharia courts once in its 30 or so paragraphs. Sopher99 (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources are 1)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-syria-crisis-justice-idUSBRE8700KT20120801 2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-syria-crisis-hospitals-idUSBRE8700IE20120801 3)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/01/syria-crisis-aircraft-attack-aleppo-live

--DanielUmel (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

About Al Qaeda, the citation of link in my 3) "Al-Qaida are now in different places in Syria, they work separately, they are even in Aleppo. We do not work with them. They have Syrian and Arab fighters and they have their own targets and weapons." --DanielUmel (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

At what specific time on the guardian page does he say that? Tell me the literal time (4 hrs ago - 9 hrs ago ect) Sopher99 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1h 3m ago --DanielUmel (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharia courts does not mean Al Queda presence, Sheik is talking about Aleppo province and also this AQ thing is frankly getting on my nerves as some journalists are describing every jihadists as AQ. Is al-Nusra jihadistic? Yes. Is it part of AQ? No. Were those foreign fighters who abducted two journalist few weeks ago jihadists? Sure, they even had their own emir. Were they part of AQ? No. And most important of all, AL QUEDA DOES NOT HAVE A FLAG! Shahada above the moon is battle flag that jihadists claim that was used by Muhammed during his campaign in Arabia, hence they adopted it. It does not belong to AQ, al-Shabaab or whatnot, it is simply is. I am also going to kick into hornets nest as bring up WP:DUE. There are journalists in Aleppo, none of them reported AQ presence, rebels inside the city meanwhile denied it Where are they? The Chechens, the Africans and the Pakistanis, all with so many weapons?. Hell, even state media did not say that AQ operates inside the city (aside the usual terroristic criminal gans) EllsworthSK (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you again acting like you know better than the media sources? Wikipedia goes by the media sources, not by EllsworthSK opinions. The rebel commander said Aleppo, not Aleppo province. And he said Al Qaeda, not Jihadists. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You know DanielUmel, you could add this source yourself. It can serve better while in article. --Wustenfuchs 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don´t really have to give a bloody damn about your opinion. First. WP:DUE. Second. WP:RS. First one is self-explanatory and RS goes for Sheik who is not a RS. That settles, I do not know why I have tried to have any discussion with you. It is useless as useless gets. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Murder or execution

The article says the following,

The Al-Berri tribe announced that they will avenge Zaino Berri, executed by the rebels. The Syrian Observatory confirmed that Berri tribesmen joined the fight in Aleppo after the murder of Zaino Berri by the rebels, the previous day. [84]

But the actual reference says Zaino al-Berri was executed. I'm changing the sentence to, "... the execution of Zaino Berri by the rebels, the previous day."

87.50.2.170 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Tribes and Shabiha

The rebels are calling the Al Berri Shabiha because they oppose them.

We should take the neutral approach and just say the facts: Shabiha are mainly Alawis militia men that were assembled during the civil war to counter sunni rebels. The al-Berri are a local Sunni tribe that existed well before this civil war. It means that they are not Shabiha, just pro governement tribe. We can mention the oppositions accusation of Zaino being a shabiha, but not in the infobox --DanielUmel (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse, but with a reliable source. --Wustenfuchs 18:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Shabiha comes from all sects, al-Berri was well known before he was executed and he was leading thug in the city, you´d just have to read some arabic sources to know that. They are also not a tribe, but a clan. Big difference. Removing them from infobox, that is something I support. They are not that significant to deserve their place in there. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All sources say they are a tribe, but I guess one more time you know better than the source like AFP, Reuters and all others? Anyway, they are completely notable since they are now part of the battle. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I never saw a source claiming they are part of Shabiha, so I think it would be good to add them as a separate combatant. Article about Shabihas also states that they are exclusively Alawites, while the Berri tribe is Sunni. Also important to note, all sources mention them as a tribe, while al-Jazeera mentioned them as a "Sunni clan". --Wustenfuchs 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No? [1] [2]. Many sources reported it, Shabiha is not Alawite exclusive, just read the article about them. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are full of it. As usual. Is France 24 not a RS [3]. Is Telegraph not RS [4]. LA Times? [5] and load of others. So why dont you just shut up? EllsworthSK (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, on Wikipedia clan page "Clans can be most easily described as tribes or sub-groups of tribes. " --DanielUmel (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharia?

An editor reverted my attempt to remove this unsourced information. [6] I've taken it out again, but others may wish to keep an eye out also as I'm off to bed. The source clearly does not mention sharia, courts, or executions in the hospitals. Since these are extreme claims, I'd suggest we find a very clear source before allowing this information back into the article. Khazar2 (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been reverted again without discussion. I won't do a third revert, but someone else should look into this issue; this source is clearly being misrepresented. Khazar2 (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If only you was able to read. It was already decided on the same talk page above. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Skip the personal attacks. All I see above is you saying "All of this has to be ketp" and Sopher pointing out that you're completely misrepresenting your sources. Is there another part I'm missing where everyone starts to agree with you that it's okay to have unsourced claims of extrajudicial executions? If you have a source about Sharia law, just put it in the article already. Khazar2 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is above. It is in my 1) or my 2) . It is quite unfortunate that you have to be babied so much just to find something obvious. And at the end you will be forced to agree with me because that's what written in the source. I find it amusing that you are losing your nerves so quickly for something you don't understand. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's a better source all right. Why didn't you just put it in the article to begin with? Connecting it directly to the hospitals is a bit WP:SYNTH, but a period instead of a comma would fix that part up. I'll insert it in a minute. In the meantime, you might read WP:V; controversial claims need sources in the articles, not a link to the wrong article. Khazar2 (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm probably near enough 3RR myself that I don't want to tamper with this further for 24 hrs. But Daniel is correct in his source (if not his bizarre hostility). Will someone use his sources above to rewrite the "Sharia court" paragraph into a more sensible form? Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

The source describing that there is alqaeda in Aleppo is false; the Word Alqaeda coulnt be find in the Guardian arcticle but only in (ONE!) comment in the comment section; so no proof for alqaeda 79.238.63.35 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The word Al-Qaida is however used. --Remiason (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can't expect protection of the page as it needs to be constantly updated and its on main page also... so... its protection could only make damage. --Wustenfuchs 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This page cant be updated, this really needs removed as its quite irritating. Also, can someone with the ability to do so add in 14 tanks for the FSA in the campaign box? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/world/middleeast/as-conflict-continues-in-syria-assads-arms-face-strain.html?_r=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.237.65 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - please be specific about exact changes. -— Isarra ༆ 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah

The source for involvement of Hezbollah in the Battle of Aleppo doesn't say at all they are involved or fighting. I don't want to start a new edit warring, I'll rather try to explain the problem here. The source in its title says that Hezbollah was "sent", but later in the text it is states that Hezbollah "could be used in the Battle of Aleppo", now some users must know a difference between words "could be" and "is". --Wustenfuchs 14:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We can put "Alleged" Sopher99 (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't as it is not alleged. It is only stated that they might be used, which means they aren't still used, if they are even in Syria. And alleged informations aren't good thing in Wikipedia. If we would add alleged infos, then you can freely add that Elvis is allegedly still alive in article about him. Besides, no other newspaper mentions such thing as Hezbollah in Aleppo. --Wustenfuchs 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

your justifiction is not valid to delete the source, as its a good and an official source.Ahmad2099 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's also important what the source says. Did you even read the source? What you are making is the WP:OR, you make your own conclusions. This source doesn't say Hezbollah is involved in fighting. I ask you kindly to remove your edit as you are making an abuse of the source. --Wustenfuchs 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

NOBODY WRITES AL QAEDA OR HEZOBOLLAH UNTIL YOU BRING A STRONG NEUTRAL SOURCE .(third time (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC))

Al Qaeda flag

There's a flag of Al Qaeda on the article about the civil war in Syria why isn't it put here? Nienk (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Cause some users objected that Al-Qaeda has a flag, even though without any source that would support the claim. --Wustenfuchs 19:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, I am tired of talking about this over and over again. Go to that "flag of Al Queda" image and look at the first paragraph. It says CAUTION: This is not "the flag of al-Qaeda"." [7] There are load of sources there as well. Saying that AQ has exclusivity on that flag is OR. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

NOBODY WRITES AL QAEDA OR HEZOBOLLAH UNTIL YOU BRING A STRONG NEUTRAL SOURCE .(third time (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC))

Shabiha executions

This Al Jazeera report shows evidence that Shabiha members that were captured and executed were subcontracted by the Syrian regime and issued with official weapons permits clearly identifying who they were. This was used as evidence in the decision to execute them. This should be added to the article. حرية (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not in your link --DanielUmel (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the video. I'm sure it is easy to find a text version if you are unable to view it. I shall have a look. حرية (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wheres the discussion about protecting this page?

Shouldnt there have been some discussion fist? Also, this is an ongoing battle and information needs to be updated constantly, i cant see why this is protected its more harm than good to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.169.78 (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Admin decision following strong edit war. No discussion necessary in that case. Also, it is temporary protection. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Qaeda

One of the main rebel commander confirmed the fact that Al Qaeda was in Aleppo. The source given is extraordinary clear. Now, the fact that you don't like that Al Qaeda and several other islamists groups (that you also try to remove in the main page) are a part of the war, I can't help you. Anyway, your opinion have not to interfer with what the sources say.

You multiuples times showed that you think you are superior to any source, but Wikipedia do not work like that. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The only rebels saying that are specifically saying that there are individual jihadis, there are no rebels or reliable sources claiming Al Qaida as an organization is functioning in Syria. Provide a single source other than the Assad regime's state media. You can't; those sources don't exist, because the claim is untrue. حرية (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I provided the source in this talk page alread a few days ago. The main rebel commander confirmed it. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Show the specific ref here. حرية (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, you might want to show some basic manners (not to mention WP:CIV) and voluntarily change this section's title to something more appropriate. حرية (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Al-Qaida are now in different places in Syria, they work separately, they are even in Aleppo. We do not work with them. They have Syrian and Arab fighters and they have their own targets and weapons."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/01/syria-crisis-aircraft-attack-aleppo-live

It is annoying to have to demonstrate the same thing 10 times because people are not searching themselves. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"we do not work with them"

"They are different hardline groups"

You want to add them to the rebels side, however this source clearly indicates several times that Al-Qaida are just as much an enemy of the Free Syrian Army as they are an enemy of the Assad regime. حرية (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Again? Have I explained it not enough on this talk page already? The things you chose to ignore? Aside of what arabic user posted here, Sheik is not reliable source. He is general of FSA based in Turkey, not independent journalist. Bytheway if we are taking FSA commanders now as trustworthy source can you explain how come that we do not have the same merit on the commander of FSA in Aleppo who denied presence of foreign fighters on very same Guardian link you like to use? EllsworthSK (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And as for the main page, you are throwing here words such as your opinion have not to interfer with what the sources say yet you chose to ignore the source which clearly states that Ahram al-Sham and Fatah al-Islam operate under flag of jihad and not their organization. So don´t talk to me about sources, especially given how you love to use SANA as RS and your history of edit warring which led to warning and few days later to your block. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sheik, interviewed by a journalist or issuing a statement is a perfectly fine rebel source. You have absolutely no argument here. You have been edit warring the whole day on the main page and normally the same rule should be enforced to you. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been edit warring the whole day on the main page Cute. Daniel trying his first report. We shall see how that goes.

Also other argument is WP:DUE

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" about those specific views

One source, quoting unreliable source fits that description perfectly. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, where is the problem with sources? All three state clearly - Al Qaeda fighting in Aleppo. Where is the problem? I need explanation in order to see why you insist so much there is no al-Qaeda in Aleppo, and at the same time you ignroe those three, very much reliable, sources. At the same time, we can see Ahmad's effort to add Hezbollah with very shivery source. Nobody complains, why is that? Neither he wants to explain. Explain me this in detail and we are fine. --Wustenfuchs 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Three very reliable sources? Are you kidding me? Mathaba is very reliable source since when? Jesus. Haaretz article is under paywall, therefore WP:BURDEN is on editors who use it as source. So far not one user was able to provide any proof that would say that Haaretz article talks about Al-Queda. Third one, goes again both WP:RS and WP:DUE as was already explained. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK is saying that he is a better source than the main rebel commander quoted by the Guardian. If rebels admit that Al Qaeda is in Aleppo, even if it hurts their image, it must be true. Guardian quoting rebel commander > EllsworthSk attemp to protect rebels image. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You really want to be reported for violation WP:NPA? I can find a large collections of your violations of that rule what will get you blocked. So stick with commenting on content, not on the contributor. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that a threat for pushing me to not counter you personal opinions based edits? You ignore all the source if it is contrary to your opinion. As usual. --DanielUmel (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ellsworth, who says Haaretz is unreliable except you? Who supports your claims? Stop removing the sourced information. Also Haaretz was very clear. No user needs to prove anything (WP:OR --Wustenfuchs 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"According to reports coming from the territory surrounding Aleppo, dozens of organizations are involved in the fighting, including Salafis, groups associated with al-Qaida, independent Kurdish forces, and local gangs. The general assumption is also that every organization is backed by a foreign power – providing support for “their” activists." - Very clear I believe, and with other two sources very much reliable. --Wustenfuchs 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I will just asume that you read quickly and were not able to read properly what I wrote otherwise you would have notice this

Haaretz article is under paywall, therefore WP:BURDEN is on editors who use it as source. So far not one user was able to provide any proof that would say that Haaretz article talks about Al-Queda.

If that is part of that article (once again, under paywall) than it says salafis associated with AQ, not AQ itself. I am sorry but you just shot yourself in the foot. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no. This source is valid. Anybody is able to check it out, you only need to be registered (for free as you may have noticed). Do you know what the "Salafi" means? It is a fighter, a Muslim fighter who fights for Islam. Those fighters are, as stated, associated, connected respectively, to al-Qaeda. Read it like this - fighters associated to al-Qaeda. Neverthelss, here is the meaning of the word "associated" - "to join as a companion, partner, or ally: to associate oneself with a cause." ([8]) Also, you can't use the WP:BURDEN here as any editor may check the information, also read the WP:SOURCEACCESS --Wustenfuchs 19:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn it, I just noticed. However it is still 10 stories per month, not that much. Will register anyway.

Point two. Salafi is not a fighter. Mujahideen is a fighter, jihadists is a fighter, salafism is a sunnni muslim conservative ideology. Regardless, it makes no difference, article talks about fighters. And I know, that is why I pointed it out. Associated does not mean that it member of AQ. AQ is an organization. Ansar al-Sharia are an associates with AQAP. But AQAP and Ansar al-Sharia are two different groups. Ansar Dine is an associate of AQIM. Yet there are two different groups. FSA is associated with SLA. Yet they are two different groups. See where I am going with this? You are using source that states that those fighters are not AQ, but allies of AQ as reference for inclusion of AQ to the infobox. Therefore it cannot be valid. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be constructive to also add foreign fighters then, also noting their connection to Al-Qaeda. --Wustenfuchs 20:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My own opinion is that we are talking about chaps from al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, but I guess I will just have to sit and wait till someone clarifies that (dozen of journalists in Aleppo and no one asks). I guess the mujahideen and under that foreign fighters would be ok (muji making it clear who we are dealing with, foreign fighters makes it clear that foreigners are presented there as well), in the similar manner as is in the infobox of the main page. Just please remove that mathaba source. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I did removed this ref. Now, what, we leave al-Qaeda until we don't get the whole picture or change it to "Mujahideen foreign fighters" or something like that? --Wustenfuchs 20:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion something like this would work

---

Mujahideen

• Foreign fighters

Or maybe leave just Mujahideen, that name after all incorporates both internal and external elements. I don´t know, I´ll go with any of these version, you decide. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

sources don't belong to the mentioned part.Ahmad2099 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

POWs (Captured fighters?!)

• http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/world/meast/syria-rebels-prison/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I wonder, how we can know those hundred prisoners were even fighting? Rebels label anyone who is against them as Shabiha... from children to eldery. No good source those captured where fighting at all. Those are just captured un-fighting "shabihas" (this word could be translated now as Assad supporter, not a thug) or civilians, which is really a war crime... :/

• http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/04/world/meast/syria-unrest/

Here, not a word about the POWs at all.

--Wustenfuchs 23:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete BS. Rebels have never labeled children and elderly as Shabiha. Shabibha is an actual organization. The Shabiha chant "We are shabiha, for your eyes assad" all the time. it was witnessed by other journalists even when they were chanting that in Ummayyad square. I7laseral (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We noted that those are opposition claims. That is enough I suppose. EkoGraf (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is. --Wustenfuchs 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Rebel commander

We have in the Commanders and Leaders section of the summary two rebel commanders, one named Abdul Gabbar Kaidi and another by the name of Abdel Jabbar al-Oqaidi. The two names seem strikingly similar, and I am fairly certain this is the same person, just different transliterations of arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.172.200.230 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So am I. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, ok, yeah. It seems so. I'll fix this. --Wustenfuchs 23:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Survivors' account

Horrifying. If it's not already in the article, perhaps it should be briefly included, as a first-account description of what happened.

Link here.

--Activism1234 03:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds versus FSA

It seams that we need to add Kurds as the third combatant. After various sources suggesting they have some sort of a pact with the government, and now after they clashed with the FSA, I think this would be very good thing to do. --Wustenfuchs 16:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested the same thing when I started YPG article and Kurdistan campaign as a whole. YPG may claim that they are not interested in politics and do not care about PYD, but fact remains that when it comes to it, they are armed wing of PYD who just share civic power with KNC. PYD policy has been always clear - whoever you are, whatever flag you have, stay the hell out of Kurdish territories. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The infobox has "Local Kurdish militia" on the government side - is that the same as the PYD do you think? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don´t think that is true. I think we are talking about one and the same which acts like they did in Erfin. There, FSA tried to go to the city, they were stopped at checkpoint manned by YPG which refused, they started shooting at each other, FSA retreated. Afterwards some media called them pro-Assad militia. Few weeks later they have taken control over more than half a dozen towns from government and got into gunfight with security forces in Qamishli. Suddenly they were FSA allies. They are like OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) in this regard, having simple policy of stay the hell away. Third collum would be much better for them. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I do think that those "Kurdish militias" and YPG are one and the same. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we agree on third column, that is, to add Kurds as a third combatant, i. e. to add them in the middle? They fight on their won, that is very clear. With, or without an agreement of Assad's regime, that doesn't even matter, the important thing is they never clashed whith the Army to backup FSA, neither they clashed the FSA to help the Army. --Wustenfuchs 18:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia infoboxes use 4 " - "s to indicate that the two sides don't work together. Sopher99 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I do. And Spher, yeah but in this case they´ve gotten into gunbattle with FSA. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with EllsworthSK that that Local Kurdish militia is most likely the YPG. Thus at first I did move them to the government's side of the box but one editor didn't approve of this due to the government-aligned militia not being named in the source and said it was OR. So for the sake of compromise I just set the wording as that. However, I think a third column would congest and mess up the infobox so I think we should put the Kurds on the side of the infobox with the combatant they are most aligned with, but still separate them with the 4 " - "s. At this point they seem more aligned with the government than the rebels due to them repelling an attempt by the FSA to enter one of their districts and the military even providing close-air support. And we all know the Kurds have threatened the FSA before about entering their territory. The Kurds have had only one fatal incident with the army thus far, the killing of the 3 of the group's members on the airport road, which we don't even know if it was intentional or maybe a friendly-fire incident. And for the end, once again, I state I am against a third column and am more for Sopher's proposition of the 4 " - "s. And not just because of the congested infobox, but also I think it would be giving undue weight to the Kurds since, except those few incidents, they haven't been much active in the battle and their role hasn't been that much notable. EkoGraf (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Right now, as it looks, they have some sort of an agreement with Assad's regime, as indicated by many sources, and this clash with the FSA only supports the claim they are more aligned to the government. So, yeah, I also agree we add them to the government's side, but separate them with the 4 " - "s. Until any strong source provides they are aligned with the FSA, we should keep them on the government's side. --Wustenfuchs 01:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While they have taken two districts from regime security forces. Kurds are neutral, their political leadership is very vocaly opposed to Assad, I do not see one reason why adding third collum would mess things up. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

When I said mess up I ment congest the infobox. And as for the taking of the two districts from government troops. According to the new report which cited the FSA vs Kurd fighting, the government forces weren't expelled from those districts by the Kurds, but rather the government itself called on them to take control in those districts so troops can be relieved to go fight the FSA on other fronts. EkoGraf (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

They did, FSA and YPG even before the battle started guarded together demonstration in one of those two Kurdish districts. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good map of battle of Aleppo found

I found a detailed map of the current situation in Aleppo. [9] I don't think it can be included in the article due to copyright issues, but it's still a good resource.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Another similar map from the BBC (slightly better in my view) is already included in the "external links" section. Could someone do an openstreetmap version we can incorporate into the article? AndrewRT(Talk) 19:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire, the map is just perfect... We only need someone to make us good .svg file based on this map. The one in the external links seems updated as it shows progress of the battle in August. --Wustenfuchs 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Reuters admits it was been hijacked

Reuters admits it was been hijacked by Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker And the Hackers played with reuters report to make it look like there is A rebel collapse ,and they are Going to lose and that they are losing land,So i Warn Wikipedia Editor to Not rely on the Last Reuter reports Because Reuter WAS HIJACKED BY Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker. And there is the source *http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reuters admits it was been hijacked

Reuters admits it was been hijacked by Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker And the Hackers played with reuters report to make it look like there is A rebel collapse ,and they are Going to lose and that they are losing land,So i Warn Wikipedia Editor to Not rely on the Last Reuter reports Because Reuter WAS HIJACKED BY Pro-Syrian Regimes Hacker. And there is the source

• http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-syria-crisis-hacking-idUSBRE8760GI20120807

Reuters blog has been hacked several days ago, not Reuters itself. And it has been fixed. So this section has no object. All Reuters reports are fine. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

i clearly said there last report to all of them (third time (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)).

Kurdish Militia

There is mention of a "local kurdish militia" fighting the rebel forces in Aleppo. The source is said to be this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/world/middleeast/fighting-grows-more-intense-in-aleppo-syria.html?_r=2&hp

But I see no mention of such Kurdish militias in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielUmel (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian army offensive

Syrian Army says it has lauched an offensive, rebels said the Army has launched an offensive. So the new section title has to be Syrian Army offensive by all logic and sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Salaheddine situation

The Salaheddine situation described in the last AFP report is nothing like Sopher99 tried to spin it. Rebels said that they were just in parts of the quarter triying to stop the army, which was controling the key roundabout, to advance. It was nothing like was written before. It also contradicts the Los Angeles Times report for the moment. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless the LA times report was describing a later situation. And if the Syrian army only holds the roundabout, they only hold the roundabout. Sopher99 (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1832197&lon=37.1265321&z=18&l=0&m=b&search=Aleppo Sopher99 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We will see if the Los Angeles Times report was the latests report. So far no Press agency have confirmed it and it was based only on a rebel account. It may turn out true or false. But the way you wrote the AFP report was simply dishonest. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Daniel. The Al Jazeera and AFP sources never said the FSA recaptured the district, they only said fighting was ongoing, and in parts of the district not the whole one. The roundabout thing was only one of those parts, not the only one. For now only the LA times relayed the supposed rebel recapture. And the Al Jazeera report on continuing fighting had been first published this afternoon. Except the LA times, no other reports of the recapture. If it is not reported on by tomorrow by any other agency it will be speedily removed as ether a false report or an out-dated one. EkoGraf (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The very last report from AFP are 3 syrian journalists captured by rebels, Homs shelled and dozens of casualties but no evolution on Aleppo. The Loas Angeles Time looks legit but the fact that no press agency has reported that when they have the most sources is a question mark. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Giving the news from the LA times blog a few more hours, but it has been 15 hours since it was claimed and nobody else reported on it. If in a few hours no new news comes out I'm removing it on the basis it was not mentioned by anybody else and thus unduweight. EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You guys of course realize that what they reported is what the rebels claimed they did, nothing more.76.70.43.49 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Press TV is not a reliable source

Just saying.76.70.43.49 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Press TV showing syrian soldiers in Salaheddine in a video is absolutely reliable. --DanielUmel (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Press TV is not RS, it was discussed too many times on RSN with always one and the same result. That applies to every Press TV content. Besides, we already have RS stating that rebels withdrew from Salaheddine. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed. Anyway, point about me being a treacherous rat stands. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

frontline is at the roundabout?

what does that mean exactly?.76.70.43.49 (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably some roundabout in Aleppo, in some district. It would be a good to add in which part of Aleppo... --Wustenfuchs 22:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have writen exactly per the source. The roundabout is in Salahadine, it was already mentioned in two earlier paragraphs. However, the source doesn't say that a new frontline is at the roundabout. Just that rebels were continuing to send groups of 20 or so to attack it, with it being their main focus among other things, albait to no success with them being kept back by tank and mortar fire. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess we are talking about this one. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably that one, there is no other roundabout in the Salaheddine suburb. --Wustenfuchs 14:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tanks fired into the Saif al-Dawla district today, that would mean government troops are already on the opposite edge of Salahadine from where they started if they are that close to al-Dawla. EkoGraf (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to the news I added, Salaheddine is clear and Army prepares to clear other districts. No reports about fighting in Salaheddine however. --Wustenfuchs 15:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There were reports yesterday about shelling of Salaheddine. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hit-and-run attacks by remaining rebels most likely. EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Battalions made of brigades?!

There is something wrong here, about rebels' units. It would be logical that one brigade is composed out of 3-5 battalions. I suggest we remove those "18 battalions". --Wustenfuchs 15:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I though that was strange too at first but there is no need to remove it. They are only "brigades" in name, but are all battalion-sized. I have found its standard practice by Middle-east militant groups. For example, you had in Iraq groups calling themselves for example "Lions of Iraq Brigade" or whatever even though there was no more than 100 of them or so. If what the rebels say is true there is no more than 6,000-7,000 rebel fighters in Aleppo, that is just a bit more than the standard size of one brigade (5,500). However, the 7,000 figure would be in line with the claim of 18 battalions being in Aleppo, since a battalion can be anywhere between 300 or 1,200 fighters. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FSA about 70 % of city under control as of 8/11/12

proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJYU7rs7ADg&list=UURrRxshEUBmSOUHRLVRKpNA&index=3&feature=plcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.50.139 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is not a RS. Even if we accepted this is AJA report it still looks to me like interview with rebel commander. Its translation, as you seem to understand arabic, would also help. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Rebels have been controlling 30-70% of the city since two week and the percentage change each time a different rebel leader is interviewed. We should abandon percentage or give range. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's impossible to say which percentage of the city do you control. We should only note captures of certain districts by any side. --Wustenfuchs 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's most likely about 50 percent (most cited percentage) or less given they lost Salahadine. EkoGraf (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In thie interview, we can see the field commander of the Liwa'u ul Tawheed; or the Unification Bataillon(which by the way includ the Nour al-Haq Brigade and the Abu Bakr brigade, for infobox). In says in the intervie addiotionally, that there more than 8000++ under his command; plus ther were other bataillons. They ware all cooperation and they all nee anti-air-heat-seaking missiles. He also mentions that he support the SNC and all fighting units who are against the System to "reestablish the rights of all people, including minorities". He also mentions something about the Berri-Militia-Leader, that all shabiha who don't use the weapons against the demonstors and the FSA, will not be harmed, but if they still fight for Assad, than they will face, as killers, the same.

Another point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_nLoLOI8os&feature=g-u-u In this AJA video from today, we can (also without any language) that there is still fighting in Salaheddin. The reporter spokee in the first 1:30 minutes about the sitaution there and then switched to the Old City. So the info in the infobox is worng, Syrian Assa Army is still fighing there, as well as the revolutionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.50.139 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

AJA is a neutral source not pro-government nor pro-rebel,NOT LIKE SANA WHICH IS PRO-GOVERNMENT,and the source says there is still fighting in salaheddine,which a part under rebel control and another under governemt control.so THAT MEANS EkoGraf THAT your infornmation is wrong. (third time (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)).

Not really. Do you speak Arabic Alhanuty? Can you confrime to us that IP isn't telling something wrong? Besides, You Tube isn't a reliable source, and videos published by some users of YT can't be counted as reliable authors. Lots of things you can do with a video. --Wustenfuchs 01:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

this isn't about youtube this is about aljazeera,this a program on aljazeera where they broadcast meetings with diplomats military leaders,yes i understand arabic,and it confirms that salaheddine is contested yet,aljazeera is a neutral source not pro-government nor pro-rebel. (third time (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)).

Al Jazeera is pro-rebel, no doubt about it. However, we can't add You Tube as a source. --Wustenfuchs 01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

tell me what makes you think that,because it look opposite than that .third time (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First, it's Qatar's television network owned by the certain sheik, who is, I'll just note, a Sunni Muslim, which wouldn't be a problem at all if we wouldn't have number of reports stating Al Jaezeera is a "propaganda tool of Qatar", a country directly involeved in the conflict. ([10]). --Wustenfuchs 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

that sectarianism,channels don't be judge by countries or their sectars ,it is judged by it experience and its performance and lot of reports proved that aljazeera is a NEUTRAL CHANNELif you know THAT Alhanuty (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC) .

It's not about sectarianism, I'm fine with that. We can't consider Al Jazeera to be reliable due to number of reports that it's not. Believe me, US Government is really strict when judging who is neutral and who is not. --Wustenfuchs 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs you already said a sunni muslim that is sectarianism . Alhanuty (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC

actually alot of reports say that aljazeera is a reliable source.Alhanuty (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, they do? The Independent marked them as unreliable, and the question of their reliablity varies, it's based on somone's point of view. But that's just not it any more. Also, to note this section from the article: "The television news network has always fiercely claimed to be editorially neutral, despite the fact that is owned by Sheikh Hamad bin Thamer al-Thani, a cousin of the ruling emir, and subsidised by the government of the Gulf state...". There goes their neutrality. And I wasn't chauvinistic when I stated he is a Sunni Muslim, I just noted, perhaps you didn't know that. --Wustenfuchs 02:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English can be quite reliable, while Al Jazeera Arabic is just laughable, worst than PressTV by all means.--DanielUmel (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Worse than Press TV? However, I´d keep AJA and al-Arabiya Arabic out of this for now. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am writing here without any name for security reasons, because many of my family are stille trapped in Aleppo, for example in Saif al Dawla and other contested parts. So no wonder because of IP (I am safe, but not my family) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.247.223.195 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You can still register under anonymous nickname. If security is your problem than you can register mail address on, for example, Gmail which is protected and log in to to it and to wikipedia from proxy servers. As long as you are not in Syria, these precautions should be sufficient. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I have the account... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC) I still would like to change the info about fighting in the infobox as there is still fighting there for example in the roundabout between salaheddine and firdaus or slaheddine next to hamdaniye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120813?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews "Yesterday we encircled the Salaheddine petrol station, which the army has been using as a base, and we killed its commander and took a lot of ammunition and weapons. This ammunition is what we are using to fight today," he said. Here it is: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1952058&lon=37.1156911&z=15&l=10&m=b&show=/25029152/Petrol-Station

--> So indeed still fighting in Salehddine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

fighting still ongoing on salaheddine

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/12/us-syria-crisis-city-idUSBRE87B0KW20120812 as written in the link; even though the regeme speads proganda of recapturing it. So PLEASE UPDATE the infoboy and the text or let me do it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Go Edit it,i told them that Salaheddine is still contested,and the new thing is that saif al dawla has seen some fighting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rebel hit-and-run attacks don't constitute a battle for the district. The rebels have pulled back from the district, and are now making guerrilla attacks against troops there. And it's not regime propaganda it was confirmed by multiple foreign journalists and FSA commanders themselves. EkoGraf (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about last week; I am talking about the days after the tactial retreat; I even read from foreign journalist the night after the announcement, that they were back again in Salaheddin. So no doubt there was retreat, but the came back and esablished pockets of resistance there and are still some neighborhoods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbude32 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets wait for a bit, shall we? There are clashes and there are not that many informations regarding it. It may be hit-and-run attacks, it may be that Salaheddin is divided into part that controls Assad and parts that rebels control, but we shouldn´t jump into conclusions just yet. I know that this is personal subject to you, but try to distance from it while editing. If reports keep coming about fighting there, we can always remove that part from the infobox. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2012

"On 20 July, according to a report from Bloomberg news, the military shelled the city and a Local Coordination Committee (LCCs) spokesperson added that "dozens of missiles fell in the city, and many houses were destroyed and flattened." Five explosions were heard in Aleppo early the next morning." shouldn't mention Bloomberg, as it's indicated by the ref link that follows; "On 20 July, the military shelled the city and a Local Coordination Committee (LCCs) spokesperson added that "dozens of missiles fell in the city, and many houses were destroyed and flattened."

The same with "According to The Guardian UK, General Adelnasser Ferzat made a video address in fluent Russian to Russia, urging Russia to stop backing Assad and back "freedom" and the rebels' side.", which should be "General Adelnasser Ferzat made a video address in fluent Russian to Russia, urging Russia to stop backing Assad and back "freedom" and the rebels' side."

I'm willing to accept objections or denials to the above proposals.

Furthermore, this article is written like an extremely long news article, not an encyclopedia article.

Thanks.

Editio princeps (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has serious issues. Just like you state, it is "written like an extremely long news article", but that is not the biggest problem; it is written like an extremely long news article written by Syrian state media, especially recent sections. The assertions of a totalitarian state media are simply presented as fact, and the article is far too long. حرية (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The page is not protected anymore. Closing request. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Aleppo has turned to a Battle of Attrition

The Battle of Aleppo has turned from a Decisive Battle to a Battle of Attrition,with the Regime Troops Failing to regain the city and the FSA began their advance to Al-Zahra neighborhood,with the Rebels sucessfully bisieging the airport and the media in Aleppo .Alhanuty (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No sources for your claims. The military is reportedly advancing on Sukari and Saif al-Dawla districts today, the rebels made an attack on a building in Zahra, not a full advance, and the siege of the airport failed a week ago when they pulled back their captured tanks. EkoGraf (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A Military advisor said to became a war of of Attrition secondly the advances on Sukari and Saif al-Dawla districts are only clashes and the neighborhoods aren't that big,the siege is still on the airport .Alhanuty (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@EkoGraf : I think you mix it withe the siege og Menagh Airport which is north western of Aleppo and is an Helicopter base. Alhanuty is talking about the Aleppo International airport which is in the south east of Aleppo. Another point. In Al Zahraa they attacked the Air Force intelligence and the Artillary base there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erwE1lKfzvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erwE1lKfzvI --Abbude32 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is not considered a reliable source. EkoGraf (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And what about this? (this is a LiveBlog from today) by the NGO EA. http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/8/16/syria-and-beyond-live-coverage-bombings-kidnappings-iranian.html#1910 Clashes in Slaheddine still ongoing, please change infobox!

EkoGraf,it is over the regime failed to regain the neighborhooods in Aleppo after a month,experts confirmed that it turned to a war of attrition .Alhanuty (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

assad's troops are only making incursions,he is using only the airforce to destroy the city . Alhanuty (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Prose

I'll try to fix the prose of the article, so it doesn't look like a group of news reports. I'll erase unnecesary informations, which didn't influenced the battle very much, like "5 granades were heared", or defection of the chief of intelligence in Aleppo, the chap wasn't involved in the battle at all. I'll edit only the older parts of the article. --Wustenfuchs 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Once the battle ends, we should collect all of the alleged war crimes and add them to the special section. Such infos only confuse the reader, as they suddenly appear in the article with no connection with rest of the prose. --Wustenfuchs 21:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think that Wustenfuchs should be given a free card to edit alone the page for a few hours in order to make it better style wise and looks more professional. I think there is a tag for it, reserving the page for big edits, but I don't know where to find it. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the information about painted walls is extremly important so... :) But, I'll edit this article in my sandbox and give the article for the peer review in order to improve its quality. --Wustenfuchs 21:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have touched up a bit the prose in the rebel attack section based on your model. EkoGraf (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. --Wustenfuchs 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, looking forward to it. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds on Syrian side

The Kurdish militias are not fighting on the Syrian side as is made clear from this article http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/5082.html. This an in depth article that makes clear what the position of the Kurds are in Aleppo. The Kurds are on the opposition side, but want to stay outside the fight between the Syrian government and the rebels. Also, placing the YPG Kurdish fighters and Kurdish militias on the opposite sides makes no sense since they are one and the same group. Guest2625 (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The source clearly described the incident in which a supposedly pro-government Kurdish militia engaged rebels in a battle in which the Kurds even had close-air support. And this incident happened almost a month after the opposition YPG was formed. And in private discussions several editors agreed on putting the term Local Kurdish militia on the government side, since obviously some Kurds are for the opposition, some are for the government, some are for nobody. So please do not remove the sourced information, you were reverted already by me and one more editor. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That air-strikes was just one rebel claim. I wouldn´t take it that seriously. There are many issues when it comes to Kurds, many misinformations, especially coming from Turkey and it gets messy. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If editors read this article http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/5082.html they wouldn't put such single source information in the infobox. Also, it would be helpful for this article if all discussions about the article were carried out here on its talk page, so that other editors can contribute there opinion. I'm a bit surprised not to see the 10,000 foreign fighters listed anymore in the infobox. Some editors most have realized that such information made the infobox look ridiculous. Guest2625 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, its just that the government revised its figure of rebels in Aleppo to 6,000-8,000. Which was more realistict and we put in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Line in infobox for combatants

There appears to be a dispute going on as whether to include a line or not a line in the combatant section of the opposition. Based on the consensus of the largest article covering the topic the Syrian civil war article there should be a line separating each of the parties: syrian opposition, foreign fighters, kurds; however, for some reason the same consensus has not been used in this article. Ekograph in the edit summaries states the reason that the Syrian opposition and foreign fighters should not have a line is because they are collaborating; however, the Syrian opposition is also collaborating with YPG[11], therefore following the previous logic, there should be no line between them either. I think the best thing to do is follow the consensus on the Syrian civil war page since the largest number of editors contributed to that consensus. Guest2625 (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Difference here is that the mujahedeen (Ahrar al-Sham) have been reportedly cooperating [12] on a level with the FSA, while the Kurds are simply staying neutral but are more for the opposition, read the previous discussion on the Kurds separation line issue. EkoGraf (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your discussion on the talk page. Apparently, we disagree on this issue. The consensus on the main page is to include the line. Until there can be consensus on this topic either all lines should be included or excluded. I look forward to hear what other wikipedia contributors think so that it is not just one or two editors pushing the topic about. Guest2625 (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule that the infobox combatants here must be a copy-paste from the main war article. Besides, sources have been provided that during this battle the jihadists have been cooperating and coordinating with the FSA and viceversa, thus they are allies during this battle. The separation line was proposed as a compromise solution for the Kurds exclusivly due to their ambiguous loyalties. P.S. I'm one of three editors that have been reverting you on this issue. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not created by reverting without discussion as is being done by the two editors who agree with you. At the moment, it is only the two of us who are having a discussion about this topic, therefore we are at an impasse on forming consensus. I do feel that the main Syrian civil war article should be used as a template for the other infoboxes across the Syrian civil war articles, since one it creates uniformity and two the main page has the largest number of editors working on it. Guest2625 (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It is confrimed that the Mujahideen are alongside the FSA, no need for the line. --Wüstenfuchs 07:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a source so that I understand what you mean by the fact that the Mujahideen are fighting alongside the Syrian opposition. To get an idea of what the line means in a war infobox see the World War II feature article. The line is used to distinguish between clear alliances and mere co-belligerents. In this battle, the Syrian opposition, the Mujahideen and Kurds are all just co-belligerents. Their distinction is made completely clear by the fact that each of them are groups with different flags and goals. Guest2625 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's so because those WW2 co-belligerents are countries that didn't signed the Anti-Comintern Pact so they weren't considered to be their allies, but rather helpers in war. Nonetheless, if we speak about certain battles, like the Continuation War (not really a battle but Finnish little war if I may call it so), the Germans and the Finns aren't separated as they are fighting side-by-side against the Soviet. Same thing in this battle. Mujahideen are with the FSA, side-by-side, whilst the Kurds don't give a damn. --Wüstenfuchs 08:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is proven cooperation on the ground between jihadists and syrian rebels. It is perfectly documented. The leadership in Turkey is against but don't seem to have any authority over this disorganized group.

A new source which show that groups like Nusra and Arhar al-Sham are considered elite among the rebels

"The Free Syrian Army is an alliance of loosely-connected brigades operating under the theoretical leadership of a Turkey-based group of defecting army officers who have generally condemned the emergence of jihadi groups.

But many Syrian FSA rank-and-file argue they need all the help they can get.

"Groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, Liwa al-Tawhid, Fajr al-Islam, Jabat al-Nusra have experienced fighters who are like the revolution's elite commando troops," says Abu Haidar, a Syrian FSA coordinator in Aleppo's Saif al-Dawla district."

We should remove the line everywhere as these two cooperate on the ground. What people locked up in Turkish camp matter very little compared to what really happen. --DanielUmel (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FSA is a mess. One can't tell who is in charge. Al-Asaad in Turkey claims he is, while even high-ranking FSA officers dispute his authority. --Wüstenfuchs 10:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to request a source on their coordination from Wustenfuchs since I already provided you with a source in my first paragraph of this discussion. You obviously didn't read it since you are requesting it again. EkoGraf (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting map

this is an interesting map, based on oppostion and govenment sources; it was puplished today. http://twitpic.com/ak3eja/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.247.209.80 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there clashes in the city?

Last few days there are not reports about clashes in Aleppo, is this another stalemate?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Syrian media stated two or three days ago that the Army is preparing to attack the Sukari district, near the Salaheddine district so I guess that Army won't launch a major attack until they organize the Army. I also heared that the Army is assaulting some district north from Salaheddine but can't confrime that. --Wüstenfuchs 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AJE has reported that there is heavy fighting at the airport, with no details on it as of yet [13] (later on in video). I think it's kind of silly to call lulls in the fighting lasting only a few days a "stalemate". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The battle has been one big stalemate since the initial opposition attack. حرية (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point its a war of attrition. The rebels initially managed to capture the whole northeast and most of the southwest (except Hamdaniya). Since than the rebels have failed in linking up in the city center (government forces resisting for a month at the old fort) and the military managed to clear Salahadine for the most part, although some rebels still conduct hit-and-run attacks in some areas. Military also resisting at the airport in the southeast, and the west of the city, which is government-controlled, has seen almost no fighting. That about summs it up. Now only question is, do the rebels loose their supply of ammo and weapons first or does the military's moral sink first. EkoGraf (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is at what point the ground offensive will start fully. In Homs there was one month of shelling before the city was retaken in a ground assault. In Damascus, there was an immediate reaction and the rebels were quickly crushed. The Syrian Army strategy in Aleppo seem different. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Homs was never retaken. Only Baba Amr, one district on outskirts. It is generally much easier to assault outskirts, than center of the city. Especially with mechanized army with no experience in EOD operations. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Mother of all battles"

There appears to be a concerted effort to muddy the source. User Wüstenfuchs, RIA Novosti does not claim that the opposition uses this term, they only ambiguously refer to "the media", which in Syria is completely state controlled. Until a source is provided that clearly states that the opposition uses this term, the origin of "the mother of all battles" must be made clear. حرية (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My feeling on the ongoing edit dispute is that the whole sentence should not be included in the lede and that it should be placed somewhere else in the article. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article and not a place for disputed material which this material appears to be. Guest2625 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute. The regime uses that phrase to refer to the battle, and no one else. That is a fact. The only reason certain people don't want it there is because it makes the Assad regime sound exactly the same as the Saddam Hussein regime (and we all know how that regime ended up). حرية (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, playing psychologist, eh? How it's related to Hussein because of that term, "the mother of all battles", I just wonder. Well, about RIA Novosti, how do you know that they refered to the Syrian media? --Wüstenfuchs 23:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I support Wustenfuchs. However, as a compromise, just note that its mostly referred to as the mother of all battles by the government's side. And that's that. EkoGraf (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do. --Wüstenfuchs 00:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In view of the controversy, we must strictly follow what sosurces state and don't add our own "clarifications". Fixed the phrase accordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

1) International media have taken the sentence 2) When I wanted to put "by the rebels" after the ridiculous "Damascus Volcano" operation, it was opposed on the ground that the international media had picked up the sentence. So "by the pro governement media" disappear by equivalence. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Operation Damascus Volcano is a different thing entirely because it is the name of a military operation, like Operation Barbarossa, Operation Overlord, Fall Gelb, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Mermaid Dawn, etc., etc. "Mother of all battles" is just a superlative description of the action, no different that saying "very big fight". If it was "Operation Mother of All Battles" or something like that, then you'd have a case for "equivalence". But it isn't, so you don't. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RIA Novosti only mentioned the term in passing and is not a WP:RS known for its journalistic excellence. In fact, just some kremlin funded (and therefore pro-Assad regime) bias source. Anyway, RIA Novosti is a red herring, they are not even making a claim either way. The article provided is not a good source. حرية (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:‎ DanielUmel unless you have anything to add here to the discussion or any relevant references, stop deleting the source of this 'mother of all battles' title from the article. You are trying to sneak it out of the article without an appropriate edit summary. حرية (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As you did here and also here. حرية (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that everything can now be bottled up as mother of all battles. Year ago Kenya launched mother of all battles, now Assad, whose next? Panama? Anyway, I agree with Lothar, it is not name of operation, just a hype-term. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A rebel commander called it "mother of all battles" as well, per this source http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2012/0727/Syria-s-regime-rebel-troops-amass-in-Aleppo-for-mother-of-all-battles

--DanielUmel (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally an actual source for what you were claiming. See how easy it is when you actually follow wikipedia policies? حرية (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Essam Zahruddin

Commander Essam Zahruddin was never involved in the battle of Aleppo. He was in charge of capturing the city of at-Tal, north of Damascus, and he is alive, claims made by FSA about his death were proved for being rumors by the same day.

Ofcourse. I stated that days ago, but still he was constantly added. --Wüstenfuchs 16:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

About Zahruddin, rebels claim he is killed, and per Sopher, the "pro-Assad" source claims he isn't. Now, the best solution is to not add anything until a source states "Zagruddin was killed", and that statement musn't be anyone's claim or confrimed by both sides. --Wüstenfuchs 04:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems nobody knows what's happening

Syrian state propaganda says they capture districts, rebels say they captured districts. Both claims contradict each other. Is there any independent confirmation of the situation on the ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.118.92 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My advice to you would be to pretty much ignore anything attributed to SANA. This article has a major WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABLE issue with SANA claims being both overly represented as well as being presented as fact, when such claims by the regime media near universally turn out to be either exaggerated or total nonsense. حرية (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Nevertheless, this is not a forum to discuss the Battle of Aleppo or any other subject connected to it, including the SANA. So please, sustain yourself from hysterical statements. --Wüstenfuchs 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wüstenfuchs, it is not normal practice to remove posts on the talk page the are not obvious vandalism, as you did here. Refrain from this in future. حرية (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not normal practice to leave such comments at the talk page, such comments may be removed, and if you insist I will leave it here, but sustain yourself of such comments in future. --Wüstenfuchs 23:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit out of control lately, my vulpine friend. Rein yourself in before you put yourself at risk for sanctions. There is nothing "inappropriate" about discussion of source reliability, and your blanking of such comments is wholly disruptive and inappropriate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't refere me as "your vulpine friend" in future, please. --Wüstenfuchs 23:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

SANA is a perfectly fine source to counter balance the overwelming use of rebel sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, for myself I am from Aleppo, and I'm aware of many things going around here. Sending a group of armed people of the FSA (between 10-15 people at its peak) to a huge district like Jdeydeh, Sabaa Bahrat or az-Zahraa and posting some footages on Youtube, does not mean that the opposition had gained control over those districts. Even districts known for being controlled by the FSA, have a significant presence of the Syrian Army, such as the districts of Myssar, Qadi Askar and Hanano. In some cases, minor skirmishes took place in relatively calm areas, and again this does not mean that the FSA was able to make a serious progress in those areas.--Preacher lad (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure buddy, you're in aleppo right now?.prove it, leave your IP.76.70.43.14 (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wüstenfuchs here is your chance to prove how balanced and NPOV you are. While my post was clearly discussing improvements to the article, User:Preacher lad is clearly editorializing his own views. He has even already been warned for adding his own commentary to articles before... what are you waiting for? But oh wait he agrees with your POV, so that makes it ok right? حرية (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, I don't know what you are talking about.But SANA is %100 trash source.anyone who doesn't see that must be brainwashed.76.70.43.14 (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User Freedom, you are the last person who can talk about my views. And your comments should be about the article, not me. I hate that I need to write this right now, braking the rule that the talk page isnt a forum. --Wüstenfuchs 11:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User 76.70... I would like to remind you about Wikipedia's rule on civility and neutrality. Calling someone brainwashed can get you banned, and trying to remove SANA claims while adding rebel claims shows a non-neutral POV and does not give a neutral balance to the article. All points of view need to be presented per the core Wikipedia rule on neutrality, regardless of the editors personal feelings. EkoGraf (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess your lecture might mean something, if I had actually "tried" what you claimed.64.229.136.119 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother. Just add things and ignore SANA. In a statement on 23 August, as you can read in this article, SANA claims that governement forces destroyed EIGHTY technicals of the FSA. While numerous international reporters with video inside Syria report that the FSA doesn't have heavy weapons to mount on pick-ups. Also, if we believe SANA, they would have killed over 700 FSA fighters and destroyed over 81 technicals (which aren't even there), while losing only 20 soldiers themselves. It's complete rubbish and it's tainting this article more and more every day. The opposition claim of 292 killed FSA and 318 killed loyalists is far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree this article has become a complete disaster. The over use of Syria state media has made a complete mockery of Wikipedia and the idea of neutral point of view. Seriously, what purpose does it serve to place in quotes 41 times the word "terrorist". At first I thought it was important to try and correct such non-neutral language, but now I think it's better to just load up this article with the most absurd statements of Syrian state media, so that the reader of the article knows just to chuckle and not believe anything that's written. Guest2625 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I was quite literally laughing out loud at some of the recent lengthy SANA heavy paragraphs before I decided to call it quits on this article, with its ridiculous statements pronounced from its crusty GeoCities-esque website. Your point about the use of the word "terrorist" is a good one; try using ctrl+F (or cmd+F on a mac) to find the amount of times SANA is referenced in the article. Almost as bad. حرية (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I was using this page for a while for really up to date news on the conflict, with a wide range of sources that I wasn't finding elsewhere. But lately, it's just Syrian government propaganda. 216.106.40.136 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason of that is not a non neutrality. It is simply the fact that Syrian State medias have reported a lot about Aleppo the past few days, when little or no information was communicated by the rebels nor by the journalist being with the rebels. It is just that. It is not like the Timeline page, where editors are only writing 10% of what happen in a very biased way. All reports on Aleppo are almost immediately written in this page. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Split?

This is one big battle, which consists of many "sub-battles" for various districts. It will probably last long and this article is also getting pretty long. So it might be a good idea to split the timeline of the battle and leave its summary in the main article, or split into articles about notable battles of some districts (e.g. Battle of Salaheddine), or perhaps both.

Any thoughts? --37.244.212.80 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for that. The article is still short enough and how long the battle is going to last I can't say. --Wüstenfuchs 21:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, for now, no need to split. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)