Talk:January 2026 Aleppo clashes: Difference between revisions

By /

@PawWiki2: The background section is an exact copy of the article December 2025 Aleppo clashes. It has to be removed from either one of these articles. Wikipedia is not a database. I suggest merging all 3 articles:

Into a single Aleppo clashes (2025–present). As they all lack enough information to have their own articles, and evidently, are just copy pasted edits of each other. Ecrusized (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion they should stay stand-alone articles. However i do agree that the background section for each article should be slightly adapted to them. PawWiki2 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PawWiki2: How do you wanna approach this then? I’ve already removed the copy pasted sections but you appear to have restored them. I’m not sure if you did this intentionally since you also appear to have made other unrelated edit conflicts while I was editing the page at the same time with you. Ecrusized (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why did you delete all of it? As i said i would like to summarize the background sections for the articles so that the most important points are included, like the 10 March Agreement, the April Agreement and previous blockades of the neigbourhoods. PawWiki2 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted all of it, because all of it is copy pasted from the article December 2025 Aleppo clashes. Do you understand what duplicate means? Ecrusized (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then you need to summarize it. Can’t just delete everything. PawWiki2 (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean “you need to summarize it“? No one has to summarize the copy paste edit you’ve made besides yourself. Ecrusized (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then don’t complain? What is your point? You cant just leave the background section empty. PawWiki2 (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“You cant just leave the background section empty“. Yes I can. Ecrusized (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And also i didnt paste this in, this was made by someone else, i just reinstated the edit when you deleted everything. PawWiki2 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to argue with the guy who pasted the section in to begin with. Lol PawWiki2 (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

add categories:

[[Category:January 2026 in Asia]] and [[Category:2026 in Syria]] ~2026-18346-2 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most government sources deny that people were harmed by the SDF suicide bombers. SOHR is a horrible source. Daseyn (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article in general reads as SOHR Assadist pro-SDF propaganda. To be fixed. Daseyn (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Daseyn I agree with this. There is no mention of the Asayish troops deported out of Aleppo today and the kamikaze drone attacks from SDF into Aleppo. Rurik96 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

5 asayish member carried out suicide terror attacks in Sheikh Maqsoud, in this article, we should replace “fedayeen-style attacks” to “suicide attacks” or “suicide bombing” Usernameturk (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also they did more attacks, used suicide drones on GOV building and police station. Took hospital hostage and used civilian shields. Reports of suicide bombers trying to target the busses evacuating people. Daseyn (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, the current SOHR causality estimate for Asayish/SDF is one killed, and that figure has stayed frozen on this article for the past several days now. This is despite the fact that I’ve seen footage of far more Asayish fatalities on twitter then that, they are clearly drastically loosing ground to STG forces, and there are some alleged reports of their fighters carrying out last ditch suicide attacks. It’s even more jarring that the STG death toll is updated on a daily basis here.

Although I can understand how difficult, if not nigh impossible, measuring causalities are in such a chaotic situation, the one Asayish fighter dead number makes absolutely no sense in light of the developments in these last few days. If possible, it should probably be updated with more reliable information. Randomuser335S (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how SOHR is still considered and used as a reliable, primary source on Wikipedia. For several years now they are known to be pro-SDF and have been caught multiple times of downgrading SDF losses (significantly) and exaggerating SNA, Turkish and now Syrian army losses. There is a graphic footage from today on X and Telegram, showing dozens of SDF members killed who refused to surrender and retreat in Aleppo. Yet we still have a ‘’1 killed per SOHR’’ figure at the infobox. I mean, surely this is just misleading the readers on this site, no? And this isn’t the only Syria related article with this issue. Woxic1589 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Western Syria clashes used to mention how unreliable SOHR is after informed people protested over SOHR, nazis, tankies, and other disinformation vectors being used for the article but it looks like they removed the notice about SOHR being unreliable. I hope somebody that knows how to adress Wiki staff can do it. It has been unreliable since 2014. https://web.archive.org/web/20190719124022/https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/syrie/2014/12/19/la-credibilite-perdue-de-rami-abdel-rahman-directeur-de-losdh/ What he is doing now is a new low, even accusing Tom Barrack of trying to do a Kurdish genocide. Daseyn (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Woxic1589 Seems like the SOHR and SDF have finally updated their estimates to 5 or 6 Asayish dead. That’s still a comically low figure given the amount of footage depicting at least dozens of Asayish bodies that you mentioned. I agree with your assessments on SOHR, and it’s extremely suspicious that the SOHR has been daily updating the STG fatalities while being overly slow with updating the SDF fatalities in this round of fighting.
The ratio of 1 to 6 Asayish dead to a minimum of 25 Syrian Army dead per the SOHR estimates gives the illusion of the SDF loyalist steadily holding their ground and inflicting heavy losses against STG forces. Yet, all I’ve been seeing the opposite with news articles and reports of STG forces securing and clearing Sheikh Masqsoud, and the talks of negotiating deals for Asayish pockets surrendering and evacuating their positions in buses. Randomuser335S (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On January 10 SDF launched multiple suicide drones towards Aleppo:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/1/10/syria-live-fighting-resumes-in-aleppo-after-ceasefire-collapses

Rurik96 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so biased it’s actually hilarious. Almost everything claimed is supported by “SOHR said”, “SOHR reported” etc., where there are dozens of examples that SOHR is neither accurate nor an objective sources of information.
Sources for this article ar 85% Kurdish/SDF affiliated, 10% neutral and like 5% pro-government, and that’s scandalous.
Either half of this article needs to be deleted, or it needs to be expanded with neutral/pro-government sources to make up for the absolute mountain of “SOHR reported”.
Or it can’t be considered even nearly neutral and objective. ~2026-21105-5 (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Added an NPOV issue tag. I unsurprisingly agree with you. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely comment on Wikipedia pages since it’s very futile and usually involves dealing with supposed geniuses on this site for days, but WHAT?? I’m skipping past the entire issue of Wikipedia bias; I’ve never seen a more ridiculous article in my life. Nearly everything in this article relies solely on reporting from SOHR and takes everything it says for granted, despite the fact that the users here and on other talk pages pointed out over and over again that SOHR tends to mislead or straight up just make up data that heavily favors SDF and rarely bothers to produce evidence for its reports. This issue has persisted for years, but due to the actions of certain users I prefer not to name, the situation has worsened significantly, to the extent that some articles resemble state-sponsored government propaganda now. For example, the “East Aleppo offensive (2024–2025)” page still claims, while solely relying on SOHR, that during three months of sporadic clashes around the Tishrin Dam, the SDF managed to “kill” (not just wound, but kill) 488 Turkish-backed SNA soldiers, which is nearly four times the number of SDF deaths. This figure is, absurdly enough, higher than the SDF’s own claim of 324 SNA deaths, which is understandably a propaganda number published in the middle of a war. Users on the talk page later pointed out that SOHR had even downplayed the SDF casualties below the official SDF casualty claims. Similarly, on this page, despite the numerous photos and videos of corpses of SDF fighters and POWs taken and published by Syrian Army accounts, SOHR still claims that only 6 SDF fighters are KIA, which is inexplicably lower than the official number of 5 SDF KIA.

Overreliance on SOHR isn’t the problem here, as the certain individuals editing this page clearly have an agenda that goes beyond merely being highly selective about sources. The other issues that I could observe so far include:

– SDF’s suicide bombings being referred to as “Fedayeen-style attacks,” despite the fact that I never saw this term ever applied anywhere else on Wiki, while the sentence, itself for some reason uses ANHA (referred to as “Kurdish Media”), despite the fact that ANHA officially serves as the media wing of the SDF, which the usage of is a massive violation of Wiki rules (in case some of you still care about those)

– In the International Reactions section, the stance and announcements of the Turkish government is not given for some reason despite being (I cannot emphasize this enough) ***EXTREMELY*** relevant to the case (the Turkish government publicly told the Syrian government that it is ready to intervene in Syria if the Syrian government requests it), it instead covers local protests by Kurds in Turkey condemning the clashes while also using the openly pro-PKK Firat News Agency and the openly Gulenist Turkish Minute as sources. While also hypocritically rejecting the usage of any source that might even be slightly pro-Syrian or pro-Turkish government. (According to the Wiki guidelines, both sides should not be used as sources.)

– SDF’s suicide drone attacks are completely overlooked despite the fact that they’ve been going on for days and despite the fact that they just publicly attacked the Aleppo governor’s office building in an attack that is better documented (we have video recordings from multiple angles) than any of the claims SOHR puts up on average.

– Does not point out the extremely important fact that the suicide drone attacks are being launched from Deir Hafir, which is a massive escalation that risks the clashes spilling over to a full-scale invasion of the AANES. I feel like that matters at least a little bit.

– Sugarcoats or just ignores everything that might put the SDF even in a slightly bad spotlight.

– No mention of Turkish drones flying over Aleppo during the clashes.

– Overreliance on SOHR (again, cannot emphasize this enough)

And these are only the problems that I observed here, as the problem is obviously far larger and systematic. As someone who uses Wikipedia regularly despite all its flaws, it’s just impossible to ignore the situation here, and I feel the need to point this out, especially since so many people and AI search engines rely on Wikipedia for getting info for topics like this. TGungen (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: mixed up the “SOHR still claims that only 6 SDF fighters are KIA, which is inexplicably lower than the official number of 5 SDF KIA.” Its the other way around TGungen (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly this has been a issue on almost all Syria related articles. Some changes need to happen regarding this SOHR being used as a primary source. Its not even close to be considered reliable. Woxic1589 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Woxic1589 Not exactly, but it’s covered on most related articles to the clashes between the SDF and the Syrian central government Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedoxm I think we could add an NPOV tag to the article because there are a few points that caught my eye, especially in the reactions section; even Druze community are included, but there’s not a single statement from the Turkish or Syrian government. Many people are insisting that this article needs to be rewritten. Kajmer05 (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kajmer05 I agree, note that the main article has a lot of SDF-leaning sources and perspectives, one pro-SDF source there (now removed) even called the Syrian government “terrorists”, which is IMO absurd and against WP:NPOV Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PawWiki2, since you’re the main contributor here, would you mind explaining why there are so many potential biased sources? Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Levant24 reports

https://x.com/Levant_24_/status/2010132112616349997/

also Al-Ikhbariya

https://x.com/AlekhbariahSY/status/2010133091516592499

Al Jazeera as well

https://x.com/AJABreaking/status/2010136165123334496 

Midgetman433 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So ummm…. Why are we calling this a ceasefire in the result section when STG literally took control of the SDF-held areas. Whatever it’s called officially doesn’t change the fact that Aleppo is completely under their control now. So at least in this particular clash, they won. ~2025-43729-29 (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are calling it a ceasefire because the Syrian government didn’t unilaterally declare victory, but they declared ceasefire not once, but twice. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefires were declared to allow for Asayish, YPG and other SDF-affiliated fighters to leave.
Right now there is no SDF presence in the city, which was government objective from the beginning. That should qualify as a government victory.
Similiar events (cities or districts surrendering) during civil war have been called government victories, despite rebel fighters being shipped by buses to Idlib or other areas based on some agreements. ~2026-21927-4 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s insufficient to convince me to do it; I will be completing your edit if you can link a generally reliable source that says that almost all Syrian soldiers declared victory. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 11:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally different from previous clashes that resulted in a ceasefire, There are videos of Soldiers parading through the neighborhood. The entire SDF presence in the city is gone, all weapons confiscated, and being put on a bus to leave the city and go to Deir Hafir. A ceasefire implies the people there have stopped fighting as if they are still present, but there is no presence, it was a negotiated surrender and a withdrawal. There is no presence of the SDF administration anymore in the neighborhood, the Police deployment is govt police, and the services being deployed are also by the state. Midgetman433 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does the soldiers opinion mark reality on the ground?
If you asked any Asayish fighter who was there, he would likely say they won, bacause they were able to defend for 4 days against larger force.
“Victory” is reality on the ground and whether or not discussed side achieved it’s objectives – for STG all their objectives for this operation were completed. They control the city, and nothing in the larger world happened connected to this events that could benefit SDF, like strong international backlash etc. Meanwhile SDF achieved nothing they wanted (maintaining control of the district, USA/Israel intervening on their side, etc.)
That marks victory more than any general, politician or regular soldier declaring it. ~2026-21927-4 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, both “declaring themselves victorious” and “declaring a ceasefire” are done with politics in mind. By the end of the Gulf war, a ceasefire was declared. But we don’t call it a ceasefire but a coalition victory. Because winning and losing are measured by which side achieved their goal. If the government explicitly declared a victory, they’d admit that they’ve entered a war against the SDF and that’s the last thing they want right now. They want the previous integration deal to continue. It is the job of the third party observers to see which side achieved what and make the conclusion. CynOptim (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if anyone disagrees that its not a Government Victory, please show us the SDF presence in the neighborhood. Everything is gone, not just the SDF fighters, but the SDF Police and the entire administration. Everything is govenment now, with the Aleppo governate taking over the social services and its own police force and its own fighters going door to door clearing boobie traps and collecting weapons left behind and confiscating weapons depots. Midgetman433 (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gains by one belligerent are not automatically classified to be a “victory”. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 15:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian government’s objective in Aleppo was to eliminate the Asayish force, and they appear to have achieved their goal. The last SDF elements were evacuated by buses. Even with a ceasefire, the SDF has suffered a strategic defeat. Kajmer05 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, there isn’t an SDF presence in the city, neither civil nor military. Everyone was evacuated. The 2nd belligerent ceased to exist in the place(Sheikh Maqsood Neighborhood in Aleppo) the clash was taking. Thats not a “ceasefire”. Midgetman433 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – It’s now labeled as a unilateral government victory. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 15:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saying its unilateral is silly, thats like saying the Taliban didn’t win and take over Afghanistan, b/c the old government technically didn’t accept defeat. Midgetman433 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Change “Result=Ceasefire” to “Result= Tactical Syrian Transitional Government victory”

and Change:“Kurdish forces in Sheikh Maqsood reject the ceasefire and evacuation” to “Kurdish forces in Sheikh Maqsood reject the ceasefire and evacuation but eventually agree to it after deadly clashes.”

Reason: The entire city is under the government control right now. Remnants of SDF fighters mostly left the city of Aleppo. The so-called ceasefire was done to allow them leave the city. This type of things happened even in a few battles during the civil war( most notably during the 2018 Southern Syria offensive when the baathists allowed those who gave up territory to leave for Idlib and those battles aren’t called “ceasefire”, but “Decisive Syrian and Iranian victory” or things like that.). Since we still don’t know if this is a long term victory, I added the “tactical” part. But it should be considered as a victory.

Sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Southern_Syria_offensive CynOptim (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – The majority of Syrian forces have called for a ceasefire, not victory. Implementing this would also be against WP:NPOV in favor of hardline Syrian government bias. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/1/11/syria-live-sdf-fighters-pull-out-of-aleppo-after-deadly-battles

I’ve issued a POV dispute tag on the article, and I am inviting (pinging) the following:
@Kajmer05, @Woxic1589, @TGungen, and @PawWiki2 so that we can find a solution to rid the potential bias on this article, and to cease complete dependency from SOHR sources (even if it’s reliable). Everyone else is welcome here to discuss it too. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 09:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in particularly the war crimes section, uses way to many first party sources. Hawar News Agency and ANF News are direct media outlets of the SDF. This article was almost entirely written by @PawWiki2: so you might want to discuss with him. I don’t mind the inclusion of these, but the amount which PawWiki2 added them is so large, that it makes the article unreadable. Ecrusized (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecrusized, yes, but I am already attempting to discuss with them (first by pinging, then by warning them of POV) Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 10:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also going to be gradually phasing out a lot of SOHR sources without discussion if this isn’t resolved before 14 January. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 10:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve cleaned up some of the clutter from the clashes section, while leaving the war crimes largely intact. I’m somewhat more satisfied about the NPOV state of the article now. Ecrusized (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaned this, but unfortunately this isn’t the first time. SOHR particularly exaggerates the casualties of the STG; there’s nothing wrong with including them, but it needs to be done in a balanced way. Kajmer05 (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR has been unreliable since 2014. Rami accused Tom Barrack of being “pro-Kurdish” genocide, never backs up his claims, and provided guestimates. SNHR is the only such credible organisation but they take time to publish the data. I believe having a flag for SOHR unreliability should be on the page. The article mentions exclusive pro-SDF partisan sources, the gov sources for example denied that the first 6 suicide bombers killed people. There are no mentions of the boobytrapped cars, Qurans, bikes, and SVBIEDs. No mentions of the subsequent contingent trying to attack the buses, no mentions of using civilian shields in the hospital, no mention of Kurdish snipers targeting civilians. It just reads like a partisan article which plagues much of Enligh-language Syrian Wikipedia, even tho progress has been made post 2024. Daseyn (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Daseyn Where on wikipedia does it say that SOHR is unreliable? It’s not on the perennial sources list. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 13:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does one appeal that decision given the volume of work Rami has produced since 2014? Daseyn (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR was flagged as such when scholar rightfully protested over how badly Western Syria clashes was written, seems like that decision was overturned. Daseyn (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that the targeting of government officials like targeting Hind Kabawat twice. SOHR claims for SDF losses are lower than SDF ones – at least for previous clashes. Rami has been inventing beheadings, etc.Daseyn (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result is, no need for black PKK/SDF propaganda, government forces captured all targeted objectives. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.syriarevisited.com/p/martyrs-of-the-sheikh-maqsoud-battle Daseyn (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is a highly regarded scholar and his piece has premilinary numbers about gov losses – 39 fighters, dispells claims SNA units were used, etc. Needs to be included. Daseyn (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be important to add another sub-section to the “Human Right Violations and War Crimes” part. As reported by Rudaw (actually they seemed to be rather proud of it, but that’s a sidenote), there was a 14 year old girl actively fighting (and subsequently dying) on the side of Asayish. Moreover, it is said that she was recruited in March 2025, so when she was very likely 13. Also, a local commander of Asayish made a video with her and several other fighters 2 days before her death, saying they will fight to the death. Not to mention that all of this happened without her parent’s consent.
I think that it’s very important information, that Asayish was actively recruiting and using in combat roles child soldiers. ~2026-25514-5 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone with permission to edit the article will see this before people in Rudaw get the briliant conclusion that it’s not exactly a good look and try to delete the video. ~2026-25514-5 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1. You presented the information by fact-checkers well, just want to add Rudaw claimed that her monther was proud. That being said @PawWiki2 consistently uses only SOHR and sprinkles some other pro-SDF partisan sources for the article. The result is a complete distortion of the realities on the ground. Daseyn (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Daseyn @~2026-25514-5 if you believe something should be added, feel free to include the source and make a request if you are unable to do so yourself. I have so far tried and failed to verify the claim that the fighter in question was underaged or under the age of 18 at the time of her death. Rudaw certainly does not make this claim. Sisuvia (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Independent fact checkers proved she is 14. Gregory Waters, for example, https://x.com/GregoryPWaters/status/2010787710815133931?s=20, https://x.com/GregoryPWaters/status/2010787710815133931, https://x.com/GregoryPWaters/status/2010784450402255007?s=20. Even the Rudaw report says “youngest dead”, “joined after dropping out of school at an early age in March 2025”. Other Kurdish-related media gloated that she is underage. Here is her official obituary. https://ypjrojava.net/en/?p=22156. All of that ignoring that she is visibly underage and there are other videos that SAA fighters took of SDF-related entities(YPG,PKK, etc) doing perfidy and using children.
Video from her mother, although the translation by the post’s author is bad: https://x.com/Raqqa_SL/status/2011150348291879084. She said her daughter went out with revolutionary yout and didn’t come back an she appeals to Abdi to return her.
I don’t know how detailed the intra-SDF tensions are on Wikipedia but Abdi is on the wing that is anti-child abductions, anti-suicide vests, and wants to work with Damascus.
Not like they hide they recruit children https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/10/02/northeast-syria-military-recruitment-children-persists. German public broadcast documentary that even younger than tweens recruited: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odLvsf2NwzI Daseyn (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I re-propose merging October 2025 Aleppo clashes, December 2025 Aleppo clashes, and January 2026 Aleppo clashes into one unified article, Northern Syria clashes, per consistency with Western Syria clashes (name only). As @Ecrusized pointed out, all three articles have too little information to have their own separate articles. WP:UNDUE doesn’t apply here; the merged article won’t be too long. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support all these clashes (especially those in October and December) are small pages, and it would be good to put them together. Farcazo (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please make sure to add credible sources to the articles in that case and diversify from the outlandish claims SOHR makes compared to the reality on the ground. Daseyn (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedoxm can you point out where you think a LLM has been used. Sisuvia (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is filled with traces of sentences filled by a LLM, due to unsourced content and grammar issues. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would be appreciated if you could point them out for me.
Separately, I do not agree with your removal of SOHR-attributed casualty numbers from the infobox. Their (SOHR) reliability has been questioned many times and the general consensus as far as I’m aware is that any claims made by the organisation should be attributed, which they were. Sisuvia (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation is consituted by 1 person. Their claims have no verifiability and have been unreliable since 2014. Notable for the STG-SDF clashes he provides more favourable numbers that even SDF. Rami also claimed US officials want to genocide the Kurds and other conspiracy theories. I can link a lie for each day of posting. Please use organisation that work with institutions like ACLED, the French government, etc – SNHR. Daseyn (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top