Talk:Aleppo

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

Armani + Mitanni[edit]

User talk:66.214.143.69, User talk:198.228.216.17, User talk:166.137.210.22 and User talk:198.228.216.46 I asked you several times to have a discussion, please contribute and give a reason for putting Armenians link even after linking Armani to its article, also please refrain from adding Armenian to Mitanni, the consensus is that mitanni wasn't an Armenian state, the citation you are giving was discussed in the Mitanni Talk page Talk:Mitanni#Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context and it was considered a mere conclusion not a fact, so you cant call Mitanni an Armenian-Hurrian kingdom--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious violations of NPOV[edit]

The "Syrian Civil War" section is obviously biased towards government forces and against the FSA. The first four paragraphs are fine, but the subsequent content is heavily oriented towards criticism of the FSA. An example: "The Free Syrian Army has reportedly rounded up and executed prominent supporters of Bashar al-Assad and pro-regime activists.[66] A series of car bomb attacks[67][68][69] and extensive looting[70] have been attributed to forces loyal to the Free Syrian Army." Source 66 does not even mention the FSA. Sources 67 and 68 mention car bombings but do not attribute them to the FSA. Source 70 is an opinion piece, blatantly violating the criteria for reliable sources, and even then does not mention the FSA. Can everyone agree that this needs to be removed or rephrased? B14709 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I both agree and dont agree with you, the crimes attributed to the FSA are true so its not biased against them, BUT there is practically no mention of the crimes committed by the government. its clearly mentioned that the FSA blow the historic building but the editor failed to mention that it was the government air strikes that destroyed the old souq !!! its like when the FSA do a crime it immediately published but when the government do something its always attributed to the conflict in general and not to the government and that's so biased, not to forget the barrels attacks which left not only the old city but most of the city destroyed ... so I agree with you, this section should either be deleted or balanced..--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Old souq was burnt by the armed militants and not destroyed by the air strikes. However, the car bombs, looting and the destroy of many historic buildings are clearly attributed to al-Nusra Front, the FSA and the Islamic Front. Until July 2012, Aleppo has been the most safe city in Syria, until the armed groups entered to the eastern neighborhoods and the Old city. And yes, they executed pro-Assad people as well as officers and members of internal security forces residing in their branches.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Attar-Aram syria: @Zyzzzzzy: I think both of you may be conflating the FSA with rebels in general. It is true that rebels destroyed the Carlton Hotel, but no sources I've found implicated the FSA; it seems the Islamic Front was responsible. And again, most of the sources listed at the top of the section do not mention the FSA, only "rebels" and "terrorists." B14709 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zyzzzzzy: the Fsa was inside the Souq .. they will not destroy it over their heads ... and why wasnt it mentioned that the regime also killed whomever activists they could reach ? why wasn't it mentioned that the criminal low life air force intelligence agency used to throw burned bodies outside its headquarters ,but one see what they want ... any way this syrian war topic is the one topic I try to avoid .. so i have no interest in editing it.. but something should be mentioned about the barrels attack that whipped out entire neighborhoods and its a much more serious crime than the Carlton hotel
@B14709:you can change the phrase FSA to the phrase opposition .. they are still responsible for many crimes yet not compared to the regime .. believe me both assad and the opposition are pieces of garbage, murderers , thieves and cruel --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. B14709 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Aleppo[edit]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS[edit]

Not a mention of John Cantlie and the ISIS videos, no mention of kidnap and torture and recent beheading and evidence of past ISIS crimes here, why?

ISIS presence recent beheading Swedish nationals prosecuted

--Pennine rambler (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Whats for Aleppo residents as a reward? For cooperation and friendship with <Voennaia Rozvedka>. More than in Turkey or less?PoliceOfficer12345678 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

out of date?[edit]

I see nothing in this about the fact that aleppo is currently literally burning.184.60.31.237 (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too many details[edit]

Events such as bombing or airstrikes is happening too frequently to be included in this article. The section "Syrian Civil War" should only include events such as large-scale military operations or other events that may be recorded in the city's history. My opinion is that the paragraph of Russia bombing a hospital should be removed, as bombing of hospitals is reported every month. Detailed news also makes the article biased. Esiymbro (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a great deal of the second half of this entry strongly suggests that there has been a significant restoration of the city functions after the total destruction of the city. Yes, there has been reconstruction but an encyclopedic article would offer some detail on the process and would disclose the financing, there of (given the great expense). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:900A:C600:21AE:6111:4964:E6CF (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aleppo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Population/density aren't accurate[edit]

This article lists Aleppo with a population of 2.1 million, an area of 190km^2, and a density of 210 per sqkm. One of these numbers is massively off, and given the metro population is listed at 2.1 million as well, perhaps the actual city's population is unknown? Rip-Saw (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


80% Sunni population - I assume that number is pre-war. Any % for the current situation. With ISIS involved the number still there must be almost 100%. 2601:181:8301:4510:B4BF:3672:E696:4BF3 (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ISIS in Aleppo.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not in general true at all times (e. g. not even in 2016 when the above comment was made). You'd have to distinguish it by time/year, and attribute fighting groups accurately, in order to make such a generic yes/no statement. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I am missing in the article is the change of population in Aleppo. So, rather than just see a singular number, it would be a) better to see how the number changed from year to year, as well as b) how one came to these numbers. Recently I watched a CNN video where they claimed that Aleppo was "leveled". I do not doubt large-scale destructions (irrespective of who was responsible), but if I then go to wikipedia and see a number of 2.1 million people in 2021, even IF the number is lower than that, then I instantly know that CNN videos that speak of "leveling" can not FACTUALLY be correct. And this is why wikipedia needs to be as objective, as accurate and as "broad" (in its statements that can be VERIFIED) as possibly can be. Otherwise we will always be dependent on state-media or corporate-media, or any other group with certain objectives that are, for whatever the reason(s), not focusing on the facts. Note: the current article also has that problem in that the number is not really explained, so how do people who use that number know it's not more or less? We need more objective ways to verify numbers reached or reject these numbers. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

Having been reverted a second time without explanation, this time by Iñaki Salazar, I'm wondering (1) why and (2) how they reconcile their position with MOS:EMBED. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There being no response, I'll restore the changes. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aleppo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeliness[edit]

Timeliness tag added due to many of the cultural/social facts stated as if they are still currently true (eg. Aleppo is a quickly growing city, there's lots of construction currently happening...). With current destruction it's difficult to keep up with particulars, but clearly Aleppo has fundamentally changed in the last few years. Other, more knowledgeable, editors would be useful here. Sweet kate (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the pictures are outdated so they should be replaced by current ones.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aleppo is the most populous city in Syria, with a population of 2,132,100 - rather was.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions[edit]

There are contradictions between the figures relating to denominations in the text and the graph.

--Muzyk98 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aleppo. 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) 00:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Aleppo on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

For years, Syria has been the scene of a bloody civil war resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, and the destruction of entire cities. The recent image donation by the Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen (the National Museum of World Cultures) in the Netherlands shows another Syria. Many of these photos were taken in the 1980s and show scenes of daily life and images and cities not yet devastated by war. Other images show objects from the collection of the museum. A number of these photos were taken in and around Aleppo and may be of relevance here. Together, they form a valuable resource on Syria for the various Wikimedia projects. The upload consists of 352 photos in total and can be accessed here. It coincides with a photo exhibition in the NMvW on Aleppo. The upload was part of the project The Netherlands and the World, which aims to make accessible Dutch collections on non-European heritage. Kind regards, --AWossink (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aleppo. 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) 18:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018[edit]

Restoration of etymological texts in this revision, as they are actually correct despite the circumstances by which they were added.

they were correct ? Do u have a reliable source to prove this ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura CarteletTalk 15:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NO MENTION OF INDIAS CONTRIBUTION[edit]

WIKIPEDIA WAS MADE SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN SHARE INFORMATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY BIAS AND PREJIDUCE BUT I THINK THAT IS STILL A DISTANT DREAM, THE WHOLE PAGE OF ALEPPO DOES NOT EVEN MENTION ABOUT THE TRADE BETWEEN INDIAN CITIES AND ALEPPO, SO MUCH SO NOT EVEN MENTION THE HINDU TEMPLE IN HISTORICAL SITES OF ALEPPO, THIS IS DOWNRIGHT SHAMEFULL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.144.159 (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stop yelling, and fix it HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol attack[edit]

The article mentions a 'Turanshah' which redirects to the historical figure that died 10 years before the Mongol invasion under Hulagu Khan. No reference is given. Does anyone have an immediate remedy before I delete this passage? HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin had a brother called Turanshah, and a son called al-Mu‘aẓẓam Fakhr al-Din Abu Mansur Turanshah (b. July/August 1181 in Egypt). The wikilink in Aleppo article is taking us to Turanshah son of Ayub (who was a grandson of Saladin's brother al-Adel). The leader of Aleppo when the Mongols came was Turanshah son of Saladin (a very old man by then). There is no wikipedia article about him, and one should be created, but the passage here should be calrified, not deleted.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake[edit]

The 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake has impacted Aleppo very harsh. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? Aminabzz (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

So far three different users have attempted to remove the paragraph about Ali Janbulad under the claim that it is "unreferenced".

First, if you see something unreferenced on Wikipedia, you don't automatically delete it, especially when others want to keep it. You must open a discussion instead of trying to push what you want by force.

Second, in this case there is a link to another Wikipedia page, but those people are pretending to not see it.

Third, if the paragraph were unreferenced, those people should have looked for the references and added them to the paragraph instead of fighting with others to delete info that is correct and exists in Wikipedia.HD86 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you're missing the point, Wikipedia works primarily with consensus and the burden is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content. Please familiarise yourself with our guidelines, because so far, the only disrutive editor I see here is you, not the editors who reverted you.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you a disruptive editor is your intent. Are you fighting with me because your are concerned about the quality of the article? Or are you citing Wikipedia rules in order to justify bossy behavior that has to do only with ego and arrogance?

Everybody who reads this must know that you don't really believe that the info is unverifiable or wrong. If your intent is good, you should add a reference to the paragraph. Instead of doing that, you try to force me to comply with what you say because you want to prove that you are a boss here.

Please add a citation to the paragraph. Your job here is to improve the articles, not to boss people around.

I added many references to this article before, but this time I am not doing it because I see that there are people here who are trying to be bosses instead of being helpful.

I don't take orders from such people, who are really just disruptive editors.HD86 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I joined Wikipedia, I don't think that I ever deleted something that was contributed by someone else.

I did object to things and wanted them to be deleted, but I don't think that I just decided to delete someone else's effort without consulting with anybody.

I can't understand the audacity of those who do that. This website was supposed to be a collaborative work. How can a collaborative work succeed when people can unilaterally decide to erase the efforts of others?

I think that most of my disputes on this website were about this point. Some people here just can't respect the efforts of others. They think of themselves as bosses. As long as those bosses continue to be around here, my contributions can only be minimal. I can't waste my time contributing things only for them to be erased later by some boss.HD86 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not a ""boss" here, only an editor like many others. Secondly, "collaborative work"" does not mean edit warring, attacking fellow Wikipedians when you disagree with them and so on.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aleppo&oldid=1217167919"