File talk:Battle of Aleppo map.svg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

North direction

Some sources say: "Government forces are trying to advance to north instead of advancing in city. May be plan is to break rebel suply lines." If this information have confirmation - may be will be goog idea to have more space on map north to put info there." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Which sources are saying this exactly? Please give a link. Esn (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

) forgot to put link. By the way somebody already marked north as fighting area. But it is unclear how government forces moved there. Trough kurds area or this is clashe between kurds and rebels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Army held an enclave surrounding the infantry academy since the onset of the battle, map just did not reflect it. Last information received is that the academy has fallen, but the army still controls a pocket in Handarat so the area is contested. Also, the push in Bustan Pasha quarter was more likely an attempt to relieve the academy. If the army wanted to cut rebel supply lines, they would be moving south from Hanano barracks. 169.202.5.160 (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Madafet Al-Nairab

[report] from on the ground shows rebel fighters (mainly JN) stationed at Madafet Al-Nairab in their seige of Aleppo Airport. Doesn't this mean we should recolor the district to green, especially since regime infantry have not attempted to clash with rebels in district, or maybe we should color it olive? Moester101 (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the English version of that video, they claim to control all the entrances to the airport. Not sure if that means they control Madafet Al-Nairab. I think we should just leave it as it is now until a clearer picture emerges.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we know two things for sure: 1. Aleppo airport has been under siege for several weeks now, and 2. for a siege to occur you have to surround it from all sides, which in this case would include Madafet Al-Nairab. The least we can do now to make the image follow what's happening on the ground is show the district in olive, agreed? Moester101 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess. Sure.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I couloured Madafet Al-Nairab contested we'll change it back when there will be reports of any side controlling the district. Amedjay (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If the rebels controlled Madafet Al-Nairab, they would probably be able to take the international airport within two days and would certainly not be impeded in doing so by Base 80. The current information on the main page suggests Base 80 is an obstacle for the rebels to get to the airport. What is most likely is that when rebels are talking about Aleppo int. airport, they refer to the civilian airport and the adjacent military airport as a single complex. The confusion for a lot of people would be resolved if there were a grey building on the map depicting the military airport like there is for the civilian one. 197.168.45.44 (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Few points: 1) no one is saying that the rebels control Aleppo airport, you seem to confuse the olive color(contested) with the green color (opposition control), the district was colored olive (contested) b/c of the siege they are laying to the airport. Coloring the district olive does NOT mean the opposition controls the airport (like you are trying to say). 2) Base 80 has nothing to with the airport, the battle being waged there is completely different, please don't confuse the two. The rebels started sieging/attacking the airport BEFORE they started attacking Base 80, therefore Base 80 is not an obstacle to the airport. Moester101 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Airport

Flights to and from Aleppo international airport are conducting normally after the dedeat or push back of the rebels in the area since few days. However the map colour have all that area contested... Flight schedule of Damascus airport saws exactly the flight of Syrian Air coming from Aleppo and Latakia.....Damascus Airport flight Schedule--Dimitrish81 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The flight schedule of the Damascus airport is compiled by government employees. Unless there are credible evidence the flights in question actually occurred, this information should be treated as unreliable. 197.173.65.139 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with IP user above. The flight schedule you're using is from state-owned news site. Their primary mission is to make it look like nothing is happening in the capital and that life is normal. Regardless, the issue here is Aleppo airport and you seem to focus and Damascus airport. This doesn't change the fact that rebels are attacking and sieging both airports, see section " Madafet Al-Nairab" above for more details on aleppo airport changes we've made recently. Moester101 (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources?

What are the news sources that you used to make the map? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I based it on the map in the external links section of the Battle of Aleppo article. Not sure if it's accurate. I was hoping to get feedback from you guys. See the talk page of that article for more info. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's broadly accurate, but it's made by an open rebel sympathizer so the rebel gains appear to be overall exaggerated. The recent changes you've made, such as putting YPG into their own category are definitely among those I'd have recommended. The rest I can't comment on because information is too scarce, but some things are just unlikely. For example the latest reports say that there are clashes in west Fardous, but this map shows fardous pretty deep within rebel territory. Anyway overall it's good in my opinion. Kami888 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you are not accusing Futuretrillionaire of being an open rebel sympathizer? Because that is ridiculous. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Kami888 was probably referring to the creator of the source map, not to Futuretrillionaire. Evzob (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Thank you. -- Kami888 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Renewed fighting in Salaheddine

See this video from the BBC. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Color Suggestion

The contested area shouldn't be a color that is almost the same as the government control color. Perhaps yellow should be for contested and figure out a different color for the Kurdish areas. --MarsRover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 2 October 2012‎

Situation in Salahedine.

The situation in Salahedine , seems to be unclear. The area was capture in early agust in the army and since that moment a lot of sources are reporting fighting in the district , so if you have sources or information about the district lately , put it here --Amedjay (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reports of fighting around the sports stadium in early January actually refer to the area West of Salahedine. If FSA is able to attack this target, it would suggest they have a tenable hold over the whole of Salahedine, not just the eastern half of the district. 169.202.5.161 (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Map update appreciated

First, thank you very much for the frequent updates to this wiki. It would be helpful if the map were updated to reflect the situation in November 2012. While I realize those helping update this wiki have other more important matters to attend to, it would be very insightful if a time lapsed .gif of how the front lines have changed over the last six months or so to get a beer feel of the dynamic changes in the front lines. Bluntly put, while only accurate information (or the best information available) should be shown, to the extent that the dynamic picture shows rebel advancement, the many Europeans, Americans and Arabs monitoring this wiki will have more information to pressure their government representatives to increase rebel support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012‎

Ashrafiyeh

Ashrafiyeh should be colored contested (Government forces fighting in Ashrafiyeh) here is a news report from semi offical Alikhbaria) --Liquidinsurgency (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Couple of points to make: 1) Alikhbaria is a state-owned news channel created in 2011 for propaganda purposes only, but nevertheless they claim to have the proof with cameras that they are fighting in Ashrafiyeh so further investigation is required. 2) Govt troops have never attacked Kurdish militants since the uprising began, so I highly doubt they're going to open another front with the Kurds right now. 3) the videos provided do not show any real clashes between two sides, just quick shots of govt troops firing at air (for all I can tell), and I highly doubt the whole district can be considered "contested" (olive) Moester101 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The information is reliable, but the the context is wrong. Ashrafiyeh is a mixed district. Many videos have come out over the last month showing pro FSA rallies and 3 star new syrian flags. The government had little or no presence.. with or without kurdish support, at least part of the district is being used as a base for the FSA to launch attacks against tishreen, zuhoor, and muhafaza. This is why the SAA attacked it. In that sense, the pro government channel was telling the truth. In Tishreen, there is a SAA base that has been under assault for a few weeks and to my knowledge has not fallen and this is holding the FSA up. The FSA has however swung to the east from Ashrafiyeh and the syrian quarter to Muhafaza which is the current scene of fighting. It should be shown as contested. This is confirmed by CNN. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Journalists-die-amid-Syrian-clashes/-/1719418/18185970/-/8pyq4l/-/index.html Aziziyeh is also contested (or was a week ago), but I don't know if its coming from the same northern front, or from a push from the east in Jdeydeh. There has also been fighting in Sabil, but I have no news reports or footage. Zuhoor may have some SAA presence, but it's not under SAA control. This is getting very complicated because the front lines in many areas are disintegrating and there are numerous videos and reports of small scale FSA activity and groups in the heart of the SAA held city, such as in New Aleppo, Hamandaniyeh, Shahba, Furqan.. GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright , so you mean we should color western Rasafeh green with an arrow into Tishreen and western Ashraffiyeh contested? -- Amedjay (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, Ashrafiyeh is not contested. It is either FSA/Kurd controlled, or the southern part is FSA and the norther part Kurd.. Green arrow into Tishreen for sure. Not sure about Rasafeh, although it appears clear that it's green since the SAA base in Tishreen has been under siege from there for over a month. Per the CNN article, Muhafaza should be shown as contested. I don't have specific info on Zuhoor, but it's probably contested.. I'd hold of on Zuhoor for the moment until confirmed. Ramouseh in the south is also the scene of heavy fighting for about 2 weeks and should be shown as contested. It's part of a large push to the artillery base in the SW of the city. GFS.

A few related points: If we color Rasafeh green, the northern Layrmoun also needs to be made green for consistency, not to mention it's clearly in rebel hands. If rebels are attacking Muhafaza from Syriac, they are obviously receiving supplies from somewhere. Since the YPG is unlikely to allow the FSA to ferry supplies through their territory and Tishreen is at least partly in government hands, the only other route is from Bustan Pasha. This would indicate that the offensive from Midan has been largely suppressed (as was to be expected) and the red arrow from there needs to be removed. I know there is no RS for this, but surely we are allowed to collate information from several RS using common sense? 197.107.255.206 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe rebels controll some parts of Khalidyia and they launch attacks into Tishreen from there? --Amedjay (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not likely. They would then not be hampered in their progress by the army base in Tishreen, as they could just bypass it, and they would be able to lay an effective siege to the airforce intelligence building in Layramoun. 169.202.5.162 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Colours

The map isn't colour-neutral, in my opinion. Red and green are usually accepted as "hostile" and "friendly" colours, respectively, so attaching either one of them to any side might create a lot of unnecessary associations. Why not use green, blue and brown, like in the general civil war map ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at the map since it was created, and I never thought of such connotations to said colors. Even now that I think about it, I still don't see your meaning to the colors. At any rate, the reason the colors are the way they are is most likely because of the flags used by each side, govt flag has red as the prominent color, opposition has green as prominent color, olive is just a neutral color, hope that helps. Moester101 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the olive green is not unbiased. An alternate color might be a good idea. that said, there also appears to be a bias towards the government or a hesitancy to show conflicted areas. All areas are assumed to be SAA controlled unless proven otherwise by reliable news organizations or unquestionable video evidence with specific landmarks. To be fair, you could just as easily say all areas should be shown as FSA controlled until proven otherwise. Perhaps we need a 4th color to represent that there simply is no reliable information coming out of the area, or that there are unverifiable persistent reports of conflict. I say this because there is a lot of circumstantial evidence regarding who controls what area or where the fighting is, yet it remains unchanged simply due to lack of video with a landmark, or a cnn journalist. A prime current example is Muhafaza which is being bombed relentlessly by the Syrian air force.. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize they would not be doing that if it wasn't at the very contested if not under FSA control. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree we should have a fourth color, in my opinion it should be grey, to represent all the depopulated/empty lands/"no man's land" in places such as southeast aleppo, and the areas north of Sheikh Maqsood, etc. Moester101 (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How about stripes? Red-green stripes for contested, leave olive for unclear.41.13.44.145 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quarters and districts

If I am understanding the information about this correctly, a city district has several quarters? Perhaps to reduce the convulsion of the map we should leave only district names and only put up names of the most relevant quarters. 169.202.5.160 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheik saed neigborhood is taken by fsa why don't change the color of neigborhood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.234.219 (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is an unverified claim from a rebel spokesman. And because we have had it colored green from the start. Oooops :o 41.54.237.192 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Major faults in the map

I have just looked at google maps for Aleppo. Either this file contains some mistakes or the google maps are incorrect. The major roads network seems to be depicted consistently between the two files, but a lot of landmarks on this map are misplaced. This seems to causing some confusion

1. Myasar is misplaced The quarter designated as Myasar on this map is actually the Jazmati quarter. Myasar is just West of Jazmati. I also have a sneaky suspicion the Jazmati quarter is where Base 80 is actually located, but unfortunately google maps does not seem to designate the locations of army barracks so I can't confirm this definitively.

2. Sheik Saeed is not on this map Sheik Saeed is actually just beyond the lower edge of this map. The label should be removed, as it is causing unnecessary contention in discussions.

3. Nairab is misplaced There may be differences in transliteration, but the only two 'Nairab' I see on google are either the westernmost tip of red area in the south or an area NE of the airport that is outside this map.

169.202.5.161 (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Checkout Wikimapia.com, I know it sounds hard to believe but its actually a much better source for seeing the districts than google maps is.Moester101 (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, google didn't even have salaheddine labeled for the longest time65.25.199.132 (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)mango

Link to Wikimapia [1]. This is what we use. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is located 599 base that is overrun by free syrian army and how is situation in Salahadine neighborhood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.224.30 (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Putting color 'unclear' forever made map unclear. May be good idea is to set uncleat 'temporary' - for example 1-2 weeks. If no info for changing control - return to previous color.If have info for change area control - change color. Now we have some funny mas over internet - for example BBC - they mark fightnig area and never clear it - so on their map - rebels control western Allepo and government nord and eas :) Nobody clear info after time. To be clear put date of setting unclear and users will understand is this info new or old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Olive color doesn't just depict unclear areas, it also depicts contested areas. Contested means the army holds one part of a district, the rebels hold the other part. Front lines do not run along district boundaries. 197.174.47.177 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont mean olive or other color to be. Olive for several monts doesn't show realistyc situation. For example - some districts are marked as 50:50 possesion after long stalemate there. It is funny to read that one of the fighting sided attacked controled by other district, but map shows in already attacked. Because nobody clean old loive from screen. Some maps over internet use color icons to show armed units in not fully controled teritory - to show presence, but not full control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There are far more credible reports of clashes than there are of the locations of rebel or army units, so using olive to indicate contested areas makes more sense than estimating the front-line positions of troops. Sheikh Saeed was already labeled as rebel held when the FSA announced they had captured it, but the map is generally pretty accurate146.151.101.18 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mango

Video

What do you think of this video ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwviBs2waVM&list=UUAoA66dH7UHEMwTJBTbO3Nw&index=1 Maurcich (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused as to what his sources are, myself. 146.151.101.18 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Mango

rebels seem to cross unharmed the southern motorway in Sheik Said district between the "Electric Sub Station" and the "lumber yard" (Wikimapia terminology). Primary source is Ugarit News. No date, but obviously winter. The southern motorway links aleppo international airport with the army bases in the western outskirts of Aleppo City. pirxl

motorway in Sheik... http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/syria-aleppo-rebels-cross-the-motorway-in-sheik/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.178.94 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Font cleanup

Can something be done to clean up the fonts used for each district so things look at least somewhat uniform? It's fine to use different sizes for smaller things, but the random bold and squished text makes this look like an elementary-schooler designed it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sheikh Said contested ?

While I am fully aware that SANA is not a reliable source, they claim that the Army has killed rebels in area of the cement factory in Sheikh Said. Some photos of army troops in the area have appeared in a pro-government group at a certain social network as well: [2] [3] [4]. Should the area be considered contested ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do the pictures have dates on them? Army could also kill rebels in Sheikh Said with long range weapons and aircraft without actually entering the district, so regardless of the source, this information proves nothing. 41.76.208.114 (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Photos appeared yesterday. Some additional ones available here [5]. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The cement factory is outside of the area depicted in this map. So these pictures will not affect the Sheikh Said district. But on a more general level, if these pictures prove nothing then those videos that show rebels crossing the highway and taking over the cement factory also prove nothing. Susurri (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's really amazing how wikipedia users stubbornly fail to contextualize information. For example: Credible information was available that army was using the Sheikh Said-Ramousse bridge until late January. No information was available about Rebels using this bridge at that or any previous time. Video evidence surfaced in Feb of rebels crossing this bridge freely. Conclusion: Rebels seized the bridge in late January/early February. To this conclusion we arrive because this video, based on the previous information available, could not have been produced prior to this date. Now, when a day later the government release pictures of army soldiers at this bridge, to arrive at the conclusion that the army has retaken the bridge, we must have credible evidence these pictures were not taken prior to the rebel seizure of the bridge, which based on information available they could of been. The date on which the pictures were released proves nothing. There could have passed an X amount of time between the pictures being taken and them being released. I really hate sounding like a smart ass, but there really is no other way of explaining common sense. 41.76.208.114 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the link that Tourbillon posted? The pictures don't have any bridges in them. They only show rebel corpses and their equipment amidst of government soldiers at the cement factory. I still cannot comprehend how pictures of dead rebels at a cement factory where no rebel had gone before prove nothing, but videos of alive rebels and their equipment at the very same cement factory make perfect sense in the contextual information that we have. Susurri (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, no I have not. Now that I have, I am a bit puzzled. These pictures reputedly show regular army troops, yet only a handful have complete military uniforms, most wear sneakers and almost none of them have helmets? The only thing that would distinguish them as government troops is a few small flags on the soldiers' vests and a flag that if you look closely is being taken off a jeep. If it wasn't for the title of that page, I'd be convinced I was looking at rebel forces. 41.76.208.114 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a more careful look at the three photos I linked to above. One of the soldiers has a Syrian Arab Republic flag with Bashar Assad's portrait on the back of his vest; one of the obviously militia fighters wears an Arab Republic flag as a scarf; government flags can be seen in other details (AK mags for example). The force is obviously not completely regular, but it certainly is pro-government. This said, I'm not insisting that the government is completely in control of the site, but I don't think Sheikh Said can be considered under complete rebel control if there are government troops there. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikimapia, Sheikh Said ends at the highway. The cement factory is on the other side of the highway. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to (France24) and (PBS) the cement factory is in the Sheikh Said district.--Liquidinsurgency (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope it's past of the highway and it's not even in the map. Please let's stop this is nonsense. --Amedjay (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

AJE confirming that the highway is now the dividing line [6]. Map is correct, case closed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Airport

Looks like the airport is now under control of the FSA. http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/rebels-overrun-military-airport-north-syria-%E2%80%93-afp Lev Lafayette (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a different airport in Aleppo province.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's Jirah airport... --Amedjay (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Feb-12/206090-rebels-overrun-military-airport-in-north-syria-activists.ashx#ixzz2Kfu1yQx0%20 --Amedjay (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the rebels have taken over much of Brigade 80 and attacking the Nairab air base. [7] --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah thanks , I added it to the news --Amedjay (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Base 80 is in FSA hands [8] Moester101 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, al-Manara checkpoint, the last in Malikiyah district, is now in FSA hands, according to source provided by futuretriollionaire earlier, and also seen on other sites. Even 'Assan bridge in the southeast has been taken, so area west of madafet nairab is now in opposition hands. Moester101 (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In his twitter on February 12th @finriswolf referred to the following map: #Aleppo: MAP Int. Airport - areas currently under attack by #FSA http://imgur.com/pFas3d8 - regrettably without giving a source. The map shows contested areas between base 80 and the airport. Also with date of February 13, some pro-FSA twitters speak more carefully of FSA having liberated "most" of base 80. For the time being, maybe you're better off with marking base 80 and the area between base 80 and airport as contested. On February 10th, @finriswolf referred to the following " 79% accurate map" http://twitpic.com/c2kwbq implying that the airport column that was headed to Al-Safira has left the airport area on the southern side without facing FSA resistance. If true, the area south of the airport seems to be SAA controlled. Finriswolf's sources cannot be identified in the english twitters/facebook pages. Either the guy has access to non-english sources or suffers from fertile imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.178.94 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"The area between base 80 and airport" ( Malkikiyah ) is cleary under rebel control because of the SIEGE of the int airport. Rebels control areas north of airport , west of aiport , partially east of airport and most likely south of aiport. --Amedjay (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this, the army is preparing to try and take back Base 80, so yes, it is under rebel control. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some more videos

Here's a video of the rebels in the cement factory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKXkmptwidM ( pro rebels video ) and this video is showing rebels in Ashraffyieh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSZsmKUhlRY ( unverfied pro rebels video ) --Amedjay (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Futuretrilionaire ,is right that color of sheikh saed became all green because fsa took control of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.236.143 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumor from syrian activists is that Al Muhallab military base in Tishreen has fallen. I have not seen video confirmation, but 5 videos of a major assult came out today. Here is one showing some intense fighting. The tank is FSA... it's bit confusing since it's shooting just past the cameras but the other videos show more of the vantage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVWxnv8dILk&feature=youtu.be

no footage yet, but these areas around Tishreen are also seeing heavy fighting. Nile Street at the Al Arabi roundabout, FSA assualting from Khalidiyeh district. Heavy fighting reported south of Tishreen in Sabil. This is in line with other reports of fighting in Mogambo, Mohafaza, and Shaba. To the west, the FSA appear to control most of Khan Asal just off the map. They are shelling the artillery base and Al Assad military college. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfskDiGgiAQ Fighting reported in Mansoura. Sporadic fighting every few days reported at the university, new aleppo, and Zahraa. Also in Salahadine, FSA surrounds the stadiums on 3 sides now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWXEAwT6mSs To the east, it appears Kweres is in serous trouble.. FSA is a few hundred yards from the command center. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZCt-ioJmts Oddly, there is still fighting in Kindi to the north.. must be an SAA base still alive in the area. Granted I originally predicted Aleppo would fall by now.. but the writing does appear to be on the wall. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As a side note.. I have seen recent video from the Syrian Quarter and Jdeydeh that indicate there is only about 600 yards now between the two fronts. Hnano Baracks and Midan will be cut off soon if they don't pull out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The location of this footage can't be documented, but is in line with recent reports from Bustan Al Basha. The video proports to show FSA in Midan. I can't confirm, but other videos and sources lead me to believe, the FSA has indeed pushed into Midan to at least some minor extent. At the very least, the SAA arrow should be removed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7aNLbawxjg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxNTYz_jGdQ

Another unverifiable video, from the area around Khair Mosque. This area is between the citadel and the great mosque, it has been a wasteland for months. Both the Citadel and the Mosque are cut off. There is either a single line of SAA supply, or it's being air dropped, or the SAA is busting through on a temporary basis. The FSA generally controls this area if anyone does.. the whole area is a death zone and should be shown as contested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlOxKNfdyMU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@76.104.... thanks for your videos. I'm asking you, do you have any videos reported fighting next to the int Airport or even inside the airport, any videos of rebels or army in the Madafet al Nairab district? --Amedjay (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing showing the FSA inside the international airport. They appear to be very close, but as far as I know, have not attacked in force. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S12on8bSPkM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tn0JKN_hyw I did see another video about a week ago of FSA sniper positions overlooking the main gate, but I can't find it now. To the south, the FSA control Madafet al Nairab as far as I can tell.. I've seen a few videos from this vantage. It's been bombed heavily. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyvrAsZKOgg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What about Salahedinne? --Amedjay (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Salahedinne appears to be mostly FSA controlled. The SAA is making incursions from the stadium towards the Saad ibn Abī Waqqās Mosque to the East from reports.. There are also at least 3 videos showing the FSA attacking the stadium grounds. One video from the north, one from the east, and one from the south, so I suspect that the SAA isn't making any progress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpZlwIA9c4Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Amedjay, you asked about Nairab. I found this new video today. I don't speak arabic so I'm relying on the accuracy of the translation, but it appears to be aerial bombing of Nairab. You can see 2-3 FSA and a few civilians running through the smoke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=thapOk_2RWo If the SAA is bombing it, it means it's almost certainly under FSA control. The SAA typically doesn't bomb their own districts when the FSA assults. Generally they bomb FSA territory, or on some occasions, disputed territory in a major drawn out fight. Numerous videos of the FSA attacking the int. airport from the south confirm it's FSA held. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 76 , your videos have use because they help us to see were fighting is. With the takeover of base 80, airport has no more protection and it appears to be under almost complete siege maybe there is still some SAA presence in north of the district but like you said the army wouldn't shell its own territory. --Amedjay (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you report fighting in Arqoub or Suleiman al halabi? --Amedjay (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see this post Amedjay. I have seen nothing out of Arqoub for about 2 months. Last video I saw was from the FSA. It appeared the area was extremely heavily destroyed. The video showed nothing alive... not even a sniper. I have not seen video out of Suleiman al Halab with the exception of footage by the FSA filmed from Kheder. This was about 1 month ago. The highway was forming the front line. SAA appeared to hold Suleiman al Halab completely, or at least in the area filmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been a stalemate in the area apparently. The area seems silent as for the Almohalab base here's a video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzibax6v-Rw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Video from today showing a large FSA mortar group in Arqoub. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TPM2SwUecRk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, the guy in the video is saying: "... we are shelling the regime checkpoints and troops gathered in Arqoub and Suleiman al halabi..." Tradedia (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

70.90. are you the same user as 76.104? --78.232.100.63 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Yes.. I try to sign my posts GFS but often forget. I am on a couple different networks depending upon where I am or if I'm travelling at any given time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed markers

In the talk, we agreed that Tishreen and Ramousse are contested. Ramousse is fine, however Tishreen is still red and Zuhoor has been colored contested. Also, the red blot in the south should be colored contested as well. There are no structures there, and considering the rebels surrounding the airport and now extending their control along the east bank of Quweikis, plus the information that they had attacked As-Safira way back in December, makes this red bulge look kind of silly. 197.109.0.105 (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I think. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we should even coulour green the western part of the depopulated area next to airport because of the takeover of the highway leading to the airport. --Amedjay (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Unverified reports. The fluidity of the situation appears to have grown significantly over the last few weeks. With a few exceptions, I can't find the front lines anymore and I suspect the map is growing increasingly inaccurate. The problem is, there is very little info coming out of Aleppo even compared to 1 month ago. For example, credible reports of heavy fighting along with a few videos have come from these areas. Nile Street, Tishreen, Al Sabeel, Shaaba, Muhafaza, Jamileeya, Zahraa, Mansoura, Al Nasr, Hamdaniya, New Aleppo, the university, Hamidiya, all areas surounding the citadel and mosque, Midan. Note that all of these are in SAA held territory on the map. Very few reports have come in going the other direction. SAA appears to have attacked and mostly withdrawn from Ashrafiyeh, areas of the Old city, Salahadine, Bustan Al Qasr. None of these actions gained any ground. All of my info leads me to believe, SAA held Aleppo is now 100% cut off, and in some cases, their own territory is cut off from other held districts. In some cases FSA incursions have reached into the very center parts of the city in SAA held territory. I guess my point is, that I don't think the map is fully accurate anymore, but I don't have a clue as to what to do about it. The only thing I know for certain is that the lines are shifting in on the SAA in several areas, and the infiltration by the FSA forbodes several rapid losses of districts to the FSA at some point probably soon. My best guess is that the FSA is hitting the center city from mostly the north through Tishreen, and from the west through Jdeydeh. Probably to the extent that the 2 fronts can literally shake hands in the middle during some operations. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The city has been surrounded for two months now, ever since the fall of Khan Touman. Lack of ammunition, and especially a lack of fuel, is taking it's toll on SAA operational capacity. Further exacerbating the situation is the apparent unwillingness of SAA commanders to adapt to the complete role reversal from July. They are still trying to hold on to everything and even continue the offensives. When the fronts finally do collapse, it will be extremely rapid. --197.107.24.74 (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Almohalab barracks are misplaced. They are in Tishreen, not Zuhoor.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Location looks correct, I think the confusion is in which roads are being used to divide the districts and colors on the map. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Base 80 overrun

See here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The SOHR is only saying that rebels seized 'most of' Brigade 80, inherently implying that it is still contested and that government troops still control at least part of it. Should remain as olive for now. 68.149.163.72 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The recent changes also should not include the Jibreen district (between Base 80 and the airport). It is not a given that the takeover of Base 80 results in the takeover of Jibreen.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks like Malikiyah; Jibreen is off the map. And as for "most of", news outlets report that it "has come under insurgent control". Maybe a few govt troops scattered in a few holdouts, but that's the norm for when a base gets overrun. Unless there's credible evidence of a major govt counterattack there, it should remain green. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In the next weeks the int. Airport is going to be in serious trouble I guess. --78.232.100.63 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Woops , forgot to connect --Amedjay (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

According to some sources 80-th military brigade is 15km far from Allepo/east direction/. So current position on map is wrong.

No, it's right. Base 80 is the artillery base that protects the airfield. It forms the military ground together with the Nairab Army Base just southeast of the airport. I read though that rebels claimed to have "fully encirceld" the airport and the Nairab base. But on Google Maps and Earth, there is a civilian town south of the airport (seen here as Nairab on the map). Shoudn't that be green? Also, I'm not sure about Saif al-Dawla, since it seems that district is firmly in rebel hands and fighting had again moved into Salahhedine or grounded to a halt in the overall stalemate in the city. At this point, it seems strange that rebels are contested in Saif al-Dawla, while also fighting in eastern Salahhedine (since this wouldn't give them a proper line of advance and communication back to their front) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not strange at all. The contest may be in northern part of Saif-al-Dawla, from Izra and Al-Kawakibi, which would still allow the rebels a line of communication to the sports stadium in SW Salaheddine.--197.171.149.252 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes your right indeed. Hadn't thought about that when I wrote this part ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Salahedinne has been considered as unclear or SAA controlled for a long time , but most of the fights are reported in the western area of the district so maybe we should color the eastern part green? --Amedjay (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I made most of seif al dawla under rebel control ,except the northern tip which I made it still contested . Abdo45 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Old city gates

According to Le Figaro article few days ago rebels overran Bab Hadith, Bab al-Nasr (Aleppo) and Bab al-Faraj (Aleppo) gates which are entrances to old city of Aleppo. Hadith and Nasr are in contested area on map but Faraj are in regime-controlled - the square above Umayyad mosque - [9]. Cheers EllsworthSK (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider putting the whole old city as unclear. Fighting rages there since October 2012... --Amedjay (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should put al-asrafiyah neighborhood as contested because there is fighting in the neighborhood . Abdo45 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone has information on Ashrafiyeh, I'd suggest it remain as Kurd or FSA/Kurd. The only reports I've seen are of limited short term incursions followed by quick withdrawls by the SAA. I've seen no evidence of them holding any territory. If I'm wrong, someone please post some links. I'd also like to hear what's going on in Tishreen. I've heard nothing since the videos about 10 days ago showing a major FSA assult on the base there.

76 here's a video of rebels in a tank supposed to be situated near or in the almohalab military coumpound however I couldn't verify the source however http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2CA0gX3YAo --78.232.100.63 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the Old City, it has been disputed at the very least for months. From videos and mainstream news sources, it is quite clearly mostly FSA controlled. The SAA only holds the citadel, and the mosque. From time to time they appear to retake enough ground near Bahraat to reach the mosque, but I'm not sure if they have been able to reach the citadel for months. For all practical purposes, the FSA controls the territory around both, but the front lines are fluid enough that I'd show it as disputed. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with city gates to old city that I´ve sourced. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The link you posted is from july! Tradedia (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

New York Times post along with 3 videos. FSA appears to have taken the Umayyad Mosque. http://projects.nytimes.com/watching-syrias-war/rebel-fighters-seize-great-mosque-of-aleppo GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Footage of FSA in the courtyard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHuCTusVZHY&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC) FSA took control of Ummayad mosque and market near of mosque the color of this should changed in green.Why dont change in green ummayad mosque because it is in hands of fsa.

al-Maady and al-Marjeh neighborhoods

Artillery bombardments carried out by Syrian Army take place over many positions of al-Maady and al-Marjeh neighborhoods of Aleppo countryside. - See more at: http://www.documents.sy/news.php?id=6018&lang=en#sthash.0g64rXhL.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.201.27.57 (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the talk on the map. Modern artillery has an effective range of 20 km, that shelling could have come from anywhere.--197.104.237.65 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Police Academy taken

Several videos on youtube show this, BBC confirms. [10] Do not confuse though with Military Engineering Academy which is far larger and further up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joinisf (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The police academy you mentioned is waaay of map to the west, so it won't make the map change Moester101 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we put the police academy on the map? I can't see it, given the number of people who have died fighting for control I think it an important piece of real estate. (Cjblair (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

All the reporting I've read clearly indicates that the captured police academy in question is that in Khan al-Asal: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1549167&lon=37.0109712&z=16&l=0&m=b . It's located about 10 km. from the center of Aleppo and accordingly can't be shown on a map of this scope.
A map with a broader view of Aleppo's environs out to one or two dozen kilometers or so would be quite helpful for understanding the battle given that outside the main built-up area of the city there's a lot of operational-level maneuvering for control of supply routes and air and other military bases.
A scale intermediate between this map and the nation-wide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_Civil_War.svg is needed, but its creation won't be a trivial undertaking and I'm not really up to the task at the moment. Riyuky (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two locations that can be termed "Police Academy". One is south of Khan Al-Asal, the other to the west of it. Which one are we talking about here?

The one in Khan al Asal case closed. --Amedjay (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ashrafieh

I've read info for fighting between SAA and FSA in Ashrafieh. According to map this is kurdish held area. Does anybody know about possesion change or fight between SAA and FSA in this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.118.68 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@46.... i've seen videos of fighting between FSA and SAA but also fighting SAA vs PYD --Amedjay (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ashrafieh is mostly controlled by the PYD, but it is a mixed neighborhood. The initial stance of the PYD was to arm and hold their neighborhood but avoid conflict with the SAA. It worked to both parties advantage. About 2-3 months ago, an increasing FSA presence formed there and there were a few clashes between the FSA and PYD. The dispute was resolved and the PYD released public statements supporting the revolution. The FSA has had access to the neighborhood for some time. They were more and more open about using the area and I've seen a number of videos of the FSA there, which is why the SAA bombed it. Once the SAA bombed it the PYD became actively engaged in the fight. They are now fighting alongside the FSA. For all practical purposes, the PYD is now an active combat force fighting in aleppo. They have a distinct and different command structure, but so do many fighting units there. We use the term FSA rather loosley here. the PYD could be considered to be FSA in the same way Al Nusra Front or any other independent revolutionary fighting force could be considered to be FSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is from Ashrafieh, but it illustrates the current status of the PYD in the war. At least the Aleppo PYD has put aside it's political differences and is directly working with the FSA. It will be some help, but from what I've seen, although the kurds have a long history of independent militias and armed resistance, they have shown very little evidence of being an effective military fighting force at this scale of battle. They are newly joined in the battle and it will be months before they are hardened enough to do much. I hope I'm wrong... Still, the unity of the PYD and FSA is a very positive sign for Syria. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eZwqtyZXXw GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the YPG doesn't really attack SAA , they just protect their territory and as for Ashraffieh , I think it's safe to say it has majoritary kurdish presence in the north , FSA presence in the north-west and SAA presence in the south --Amedjay (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Amedjay, I think the situation has grown more complicated. In some towns, the PYD appears to be holding a truce with the SAA, although there has been recent fighting in the NE of Syria. In others, they have been fighting the FSA although I have heard no recent reports of that happening. In Aleppo/Ashraffieh, they are clearly at the very least, holding an armed front of their territory and fighting the SAA incursions, directly with the FSA. I don't have any info showing the PYD on the offensive, but they appear to be at the very least holding the battle line to support the FSA in offensive manuevers. The PYD in Aleppo is no longer on the sidelines. The pressure will grow for them to support the FSA in a more and more active manner. I am just speculating, but I believe that things changed when the FSA tried to move through Ashraffieh to support their battle lines and hit the SAA back in October. There was some fighting between the FSA and PYD, resulting in the kidnapping of a PYD leader. After that the FSA released them and a series of PYD videos emerged supporting the FSA.. since then, the FSA has had a growing presence and the PYD has been increasingly active and agressive towards the SAA. As far as I know, the SAA has NO presence in Ashrafieh.. only limited incursions unless they are holding territory from very recent assults. There are also interesting recent reports of some FSA soldiers joining the Kurds because they see them as a more moderate stabalizing force less prone to looting and other war crimes. This is making the PYD in Ashrafieh a more diverse force, but also a less well armed and less agressive force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the lack of follow up by the FSA on the attack of the base in Tishreen, and numerous videos showing joint FSA/PYD defense of Ashraffieh, I believe the SAA does infact hold some ground in there. I can't tell where the front line is. It would be misleading to show the whole district as disputed since the FSA appears to control the vast majority of it. Anyone have clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Khan Tourman

SE of Aleppo City; outside the map but may have significance for situation in Aleppo City: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWGNkk0R8E&feature=youtu.be and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih5Ipnrm-YQ seem to be at the NE-Gate of the Depot here: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1257573&lon=37.0923018&z=16&l=5&m=w; Could anyone check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.178.94 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Front lime

Map provided from USA. We know their anti Assad position so this map can not be called pro-SAA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ballistic-missiles-strike-aleppo/2013/02/26/35719c50-808a-11e2-a350-49866afab584_graphic.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.118.68 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Here's a map of the fighting in Aleppo provided to Human Rights Watch http://twitpic.com/c7bkx8 This Washington Post map is VERY inaccurate. If you were a resident of Aleppo trying to use that map to figure out how to safely move about, you'd end up dead. There are so many flaws, I can't even begin to list them. The Wikipedia map is far more accurate. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Labels are missing but big streets can be recognized. You say 'inacurate' because frontline is different from map here. You can be sure in one thing: USA and especially CIA have perferct satellite maps. And because they give to FSA comunication equipment - they can easy detect FSA positions. So map is accurate. It wouldn't be acurate if SAA provides it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.118.68 (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about the washingtonpost map. Should be accuate, but the frontline is not. Frontline seems to be some two months old (before rebel advances around Aleppo airport). CIA might have some perfect frontline estimates, but washingtonpost is not CIA and the article map purpose is to show bombing sites, not the accurate frontline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.17.37 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

user 46.40, there is a big problem with your logic. The CIA probably has perfect maps... but the "USA" is a vague term the way you seem to use it and it does not = the CIA. Newspaper journalists, average citizens or even 99.99% of military and government employees do NOT have perfect maps or access to CIA data. The CIA probably does have pretty good info on the FSA front lines but they would NEVER publically release such a map. This map was prepared by a reporter or more likley, a college intern at a newspaper, who probably gave it all of 5 minutes worth of reasearch and grabbed the most recent publically available map they could find on google... Which appears to be at least 2-3 months old. Unlike some countries, there is no link or relationship between the media/press and government intelligance agencies like the CIA. It would be illegal, immoral, and the concept would not even occur to anyone. Not that the CIA doesn't monkey around where they shouldn't from time to time.. but they don't use private US media as a propeganda machine... politicians might... but the CIA and intelligence agencies don't (with the exception of a few isolated specific operations mostly in WWII) GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The police Academy has fallen. There is some debate online about this, but a video just came out showing the FSA walking the entirety of the compound with identifiable landmarks. No idea yet if the SAA surrendered, was killed, or managed to flee. Either way, this frees up hundreds of troops to move on towards Aleppo. I'm not aware of any other SAA holdouts in the area, which also means the FSA not only frees up troops, but can deploy more efficiently in the area. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPUOv19tkQ8 - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this the Police Academy or Police School? It seems to me you are talking about the position between Khan Al-Asal and Cordoba Hills, but that is actually the School, not Academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.170.228.98 (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

changes

I'm going to make some changes based on the following:
1) Shqayyef district in the north is in govt hands after months of being colored "contested" even though there are two large SAA bases there neither of which has been touched by the FSA, thus its clear the district is in govt hands
2) Fix the position of al-Aziza neighborhood
3) There are now dozens of vids that show the FSA in control of Umayyad mosque, and the weapons they captured from the area. But I'll keep that place olive. However, the citadel is now going to be colored olive because the FSA now surrounds the building, plus there is exchange of fire on the citadel. See [[11]] which shows the main checkpoint to the citadel has been abandoned and shows how the opposition is literally next to the citadel.
4) Remove "Zuhoor" area which is labeled as part of Ashrafiyeh district, and replace it with the much larger "Tareq ibn-Ziyad" district
5) Remove the red lines found around the center of the image which are actually supposed to be black b/c they're streets
Hope you guys like it. Moester101 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Citadel should remain red, although it is completely surrounded the rebels have not entered it. And Al-Aziza is not even on this map, that label should be removed.--41.55.156.107 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all or most of the edits, but have 2 comments/questions. 1. Can you make the citadel a red dot, to help indicate it's still SAA? 2. Do you have more specific info on Shqayyef district? It seems clear that the SAA still has some permanent presence there, but I'm not sure the district itself is under their control. I thought at least 1 of the 2 bases was sacked about 2-3 months ago. You may well be right, but I'd like to understand better since I have only vague info that would indicate it's more disputed with the exception of perhaps a single base. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Shaqqayf still has fighting. Al Ansari and Tal al zarazir can be made light green, no fighting there in months. Sopher99 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Khaldiya should also be marked contested. There have been reports of fighting on Nile street for weeks, including around the fire house. If Nile street is the front line, the whole area north of it could be considered rebel territory, though contested is a good enough marker for now.--197.175.242.76 (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be reports that the Umayyad Mosque is green, even if the area around it is not. At the very least, the Old City area directly south should probably be 'green', and there should be an arrow pushing in that direction. http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syrian-rebels-reportedly-seize-control-umayyad-mosque-aleppo Lev Lafayette (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

According Spanish press the Umayyad Mosque is under rebel control. The rebels also would attack a "Police Academy" in the west of Aleppo.--Emiliokun5 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[12][13]

Mohammad al-Khatib of the Aleppo Media Center activist group said the Great Mosque was indeed in rebel hands, although clashes were still raging in the area. Observatory director Rami Abdul-Rahman said rebels have been in control of at least half of the mosque for days, but he could not confirm that they now had captured the entire grounds.http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Mar-02/208537-syria-risks-dissolution-un-chief-warns.ashx#axzz2MKeEKzwd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.201.27.92 (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Who keeps turning Shqayyef Red? It may or may not be. All I hear are scattered infrequent reports of fighting (mostly ambushes) in that area. I know the SAA still has a base on the northern section, but do they really control the district? If someone has any info, please post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@76.104. I've seen many videos about Ashraffyieh lately effectively showing rebels in the districts but also warplanes and helicopter shelling. I deduct there are effectively Army Soldiers in the district but the southern part and the area next to the Almohallab Base which is still under siege. --Amedjay (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Airport

al jazeera and huffpost reported today that the army retook the highway leading to aleppo airport. AJE reported that SOHR corroborated, so, can we get a red arrow pointing towards (or from) the airport, going northwest? It would seem appropriate to me. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/03/201332145439859542.html

146.151.101.18 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Mango

Well done for this comment !. Aljazeera (for rebels) reported the same information as the AAS Headquater. So, it is a quite sure information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.41.156 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be changed to reflect the army retaking the highway leading to aleppo airport... Tradedia (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this highway even on the map? If so, which road is it? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is likely related to the news of the army retaking Tel Sheghib on the 1st of March. There is a road that goes from this town to the aircraft shelters that seems to be just off the map.--197.169.193.179 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are correct mr 197. http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-news-2/ says: "just south-east of Aleppo, Government forces managed to retake control of the town of Tel Shghaib, enabling them to reopen the road from Hama province to Aleppo International Airport for the re-supply of materials, men and weapons at the bases surrounding it." Tradedia (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait to change the map. it took the SAA a week to get a convoy 20 miles. The fact that they punched through does not mean they actually hold the ground they drove through. The area should be shown as disputed until there is some clear indication they actually have an armed presence protecting the road and the ability to run convoys through it without significant resistance. If you changed the color of the map every time a bullet was fired or an supply convoy got through, the whole map and whole country would be olive... GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

They only seized a strategic village , I'm not sure they went through the aiport breaking the siege. --78.232.100.63 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You have proof from both sides and you still have a doubt ? (any news coming from rebels soon ?). You don't have too much precautions when you put circles on green !. I'm not sure that you know this road : it'is crossed by several villages. If army (any army !) said that this road is safe, it means that villages are safe too !. It means that all the road is safe !. You can ask AlJazeera if you want no ?. Thanks a lot for the sentence : "If you changed the color of the map every time a bullet was fired or an supply convoy got through, the whole map and whole country would be olive". Implicitly (even for "a bullet"), you confirmed what Pro-Bachar said from the beginning : Fights are everywhere in Syrian territory !. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.39.202 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And we're still stuck with the fact that this road, is not on this map. So drop it.--197.174.162.102 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Listen up guys, the SAA recaptured Tel Shegheb, which is a town southeast of Aleppo airport which leads to said airport which is waaaay off map to the south (see [14]) As you can see, the map shows that there is no "highway" between the town and the airport, and actually the closest road from the town to the airport is exactly 5 miles (calculated using wikimapia's distance measure feature) which is kinda a lot considering that these last 5 miles are full of FSA presence. Overall, the SAA capture of Tel Shegheb does NOT mean that the SAA is even close to airport. Until the reinforcements arrive to the airport or clash with the FSA besieging the airport THEN we can change the map, but for now it will stay. Moester101 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

One more piece of info I think you should see is [15]. It shows FSA blowing-up the main bridge that connects Tel Shegheb with the airport. Case closed, for now at least. Moester101 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you jocking with your video ?. Where is the rivier ?. Do you think that tanks can't go in the other side ?. I know very well this road and this bridge is here because ther is another road below !!. Realy ridiculous !.

No Highway to go from Aleppo city to the Aleppo Airport ?. Do you think that Syria is like Bengladesh ?. See carefully Aleppo governorat MAPS and please think a little more !. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.39.2 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Guardian (March 10) Map of Aleppo Frontlines/Held Territory

Last week the Guardian published an article about the bodies found in the "River of Martyrs" that included a map of the Aleppo territories held by the SAA and FSA, respectively. It also includes a third category of contested areas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/mar/11/syria-bodies-river-aleppo-massacre

Their map largely mirrors the excellant Wikipedia map, originally created months ago by map maker extraordinaire, Futuretrillionaire, and updated by several others. (In fact I suspect that the Guardian used the Wikipedia map as one of its references.) The biggest difference is that the Guardian map shows a contiguous strip of territory held by the SAA to the citadel, also held by the SAA. I think that makes more sense than showing the citadel and all the areas around it as contested. In all of the media reports I have read, I don't think I have read anything about the SAA held citadel being under attack, or even under seige, with the SAA troops cut off from their supply line.

I think this change (the Citadel, and supply line being red) can be made to the Wikipedia map, and the think that the Guardian article/map may be sufficient in itself as a reference for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulahoop122 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the guardian stole our map, not the other way around. If you color the grey dark green you will find that it is EXACTLY our map that we built from "scratch". That extra red patch is just their attempt to explain why the Aleppo citadel can be surrounded but soldiers still having supplies. The Aleppo citadel has underground passages, plus the FSA is not watching everything single corner. Sopher99 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Ard as-Sabbagh and ansari districts haven't had fighting in forever. Change it to light green. Sopher99 (talk)

Everywhere south of Hamadaniya but west of the artillery base should be colored contested, as rebels have seized Khan al Touman. http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syria-war-assad-third-year-20130315,0,1650959.story Sopher99 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Khan Tuman is pretty far off the map. Not sure if rebel presence there makes a difference here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Al rasideen district became contested and I turned it to olive brown Abdo45 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

New changes

I'm gonna make some changes to map.
1) reverse last change by alhanuty as the link source he provided doesnt exist. Also, it doesnt make sense to make all that area contested if the FSA still hasn't been able to capture Khan al-asal (which is more to the west than the area alhanuty tried to make contested).
2) I agree with Sopher99's comment above, there hasn't been clashes in Ard as-sabbagh in a long time since it was captured by FSA, so changing that.
3) [video], the first professional news video from salaheddine in a while, shows that FSA are strictly in control of east salahedine district up until the stadium at around 6:00 of the video. so changing east salaheddine. Moester101 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You have to take in mind fall of Khan Tuman and its military warehouses [16]. As for Rashidin - Abu Raed, who did not give his real name for fear of persecution by the regime, also said rebels seized a missile base in al-Rashideen area in Aleppo province. Another activist group, The Observatory for Human Rights, said fighting for the missile base was ongoing. In activist videos posted online Friday, rebels are seen walking around a warehouse, opening wooden boxes that contain missiles. The videos appeared consistent with reporting from the area by The Associated Press. [17]. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Khan Touman and its adjacent missile factory which were captured by FSA today are waaaaay off map and do not affect the map (kinda like the police academy from 2 weeks ago). See [18] to see how khan touman and its weapons factory are so off map. 2) as for the 'missile base' in Rashidin district, that is a false flag, since Rashidin does not have a missile base. The report about that was referring to the same depot in khan touman, which IS a missile depot. Hope that clears up things. I don't think the map needs any more updates for now. Moester101 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Khan Tuman is certainly irrelevant as far as this map is concerned. Nevertheless, Wikimapia seems to indicate a rocket base in Rashidin: [19]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but you were wondering about how could rebels reached Rashidin without taking full control of Khan al-Asal and Touman is one such way. Also as Lothar pointed, there is a missile base in Rashidin which even falls within the perimiter of map. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have an English transliteration for the district south of the highway and west of Al-Nasr district? I'm only seeing the name of it in Arabic, and since it borders the Police Academy, it's probably important. And Lothar, I have to express doubts about that "base" in Rashidin. I zoomed to the max, and I'm not seeing any structures that resemble rocket launchers. It looks like a production facility to me.--197.172.247.52 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have translated what u were asking for on wikimapia, and its not really significant. and I agree about the "missile base" in Rashidin, its polygon on wikimapia was created just 2 days ago, and it has no military vehicles whatsoever. Also, it is not walled, even though all other govt bases are walled. One more thing, inside this "missile base" is a "kitchen and modern furnishings" facility. Anyone seeing what I'm seeing here? It's a false polygon. Imma delete it on wikimapia. Moester101 (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, now, the "polygon" is named "Benjamin Neighborhood" and someone wrote a comment a few hours ago saying: "this is NOT a government army base. Do not label as such." Tradedia (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The map updates look correct to me. There are a few areas that I'd show more SAA or FSA.. but it's splitting hairs. I'd be negligent if I didn't point out that in some case those split hairs represent a km or 2 on the fringes of the city. GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Khan Al Asal

On the western front heavy fighting is reported in the Khan Al Asal district but I suppose you are aware of that. Rebels are trying to storm the besieged police academy, they took control of a checkpoint already. --78.232.100.63 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that district within the scope of the map? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not even part of Aleppo city but its suburb. Something like Darayya and Damascus. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Khan Al Asal is about 1km off the Aleppo map, or 4km from Al Assad Military Academy. The FSA controls most of the area up to about the Al Assad Woods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, so please be gentle. Wouldn't this very helpful map be much more helpful and informative if it covered a somewhat wider area to include suburbs like Khan Al Asal? I find this map very interesting and appreciate all the hard work involved in keeping it accurate and up-to-date, but every time I look at it I am left wondering what access/supply lines the area of Western Aleppo held by the Assad regime has to other regime-held territory. A map that covered, say, twice as much territory shouldn't be twice as hard to maintain because the outlying areas are less populated and would give valuable hints as to which highways leading to the city are under control of which side. I can't find that information on any of the maps for this page or the main Syrian Civil War page. Yes, a larger geographic scope would mean a smaller scale and/or more panning around to see the whole map, but wouldn't it be worth it?DCP123 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that would be interesting , that would show the western outskirts mostly under rebel control til the Al Assad forest. --78.232.100.63 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Breaking : a video of the rebels in the great Ummayad Mosque couldn't verify the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2s6vAegccw also here's a video of the rebels in the justice palace http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZNVlWjDQtU http://wikimapia.org/#lat=36.1970933&lon=37.1643367&z=19&l=2&m=b the old city is fronts are about to collapse. --Amedjay (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 217.77.221.59 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)The rebels seized the centuries-old Umayyad Mosque, which for months has been used as a military encampment and checkpoint by regime forces, after a day of fighting, Aleppo activists said (according to news http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syria-troops-rebels-battle-aleppo-20130226,0,3151201.story).217.77.221.59 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Khan al Asal is falling rapidly at this point. No need to expand the map since it's basically the only point to the edge of the map not currently fully controlled by the FSA. Several videos today show the FSA in the police school compound. The latest videos indicate they have not taken complete control of the entire base yet. The police school has been underseige for 1-2 months. The FSA had long since surrounded it on the north, west, and south. Recent chatter and videos that I can't confirm appear to show the FSA in almost complete control of Khan al Asal at this point. Today there have been reports of heavy fighting in Hamdaniya around the Al Asaad Military Academy. I can't confirm these reports yet since it usually takes 1-3 days for footage and reliable news to leak out. Strategically, this would make a lot of sense and I've seen indications for about 2 months the FSA was preparing to push through Hamdaniya (they have also been moving into New Aleppo). If they take the Asaad Military Academy, and crack through Salahadine, Aleppo would fall in a matter of days. The largest existing base in the area is the Artillery base in the SW. It is not currently in jeopardy, but has been taking artillery from the west and SW, and the main gates are sealed off by the FSA in Ramouseh. Cutting the rest of Aleppo off from this would be fatal. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You may be a bit off. The Police Academy was surrounded from north, south and east as the FSA have taken the Khan Al Asal residential area (between Hamdaniya and Cordoba Hills) earlier. On the west the Police Academy backs up onto the Military Administrative Affairs Academy in Cordoba Hills, which has not yet fallen. I see much confusion in the talk comes from mixing up the Al Assad Academy (Hamdaniya) with the Administrative Affairs Academy (Cordoba Hills). In strategic terms, both academies pale in comparison to the artillery base. The FSA has actually advanced closer to the city limits to the south of the highway by taking Khan Touman a few months ago. Also, it's a question how far has the FSA advanced into Ramousse, as they apparently hold the fuel depot, but there's no reports of them attacking the garages. The fighting in Khan Al Asal is basically a mop-up of a pocket that has already been cut off from Aleppo proper.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

41.76, I was not aware the Admin Affairs was still holding out. Still, my comment on Hamdaniya and the Al Assad academy was specif. There have been reports of FSA infiltration into the area for about 2 months, and reports of heavy fighting yesterday including attacks on the Al Assad Academy itself. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

41.76 I want to bring the following to your attention: https://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/fsa-controls-the-administration-college-in-aleppo-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4-2/ Where do you get your information about the situation between Khan Al Asal and the Assad's woods from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.178.94 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not from Wordpress. I had heard about fighting during that time, but was expecting the SAA to fight for Cordoba Hills a lot harder. I did hear the FSA took the residential area of Khan Al Asal in Jan along with the ammo dump and I'm now actually surprised that the Police Academy held out all this time! --197.104.237.65 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My info on Hamdaniyeh / Khan Al Asal is mostly from various twitter & blog posts.. However this video from today backs up my assertion. I can't pinpoint the exact buildings in the forground of the fire, but I think it's the NE corner of Al Nasr filmed from the fuel depot in Romouseh, which puts this giant raging fire the size of a small city right smack in the middle of western Hamdaniyeh, or possibly it's the entire Assad woods on fire just beyond. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ByVBbeE8gWI - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Follow up. I was able to identify 2 landmarks on today's explosion as well as find a video from another angle. I can't pinpoint the exact location, but if you draw a line from the NE corner of the fuel Ramouseh fuel depot to the very SW tip of the Assad Military Academy, you will see the mosque dome with the slightly odd minerate design. The blast is about 2 degrees counter clockwise. The 2nd video shows it in a populated area. This puts the blast probably smack in the middle of the triangular tip of Hamadaniyeh.. probably within a few hundred yards of Al Amal school.. It was a gov't air strike since they would not fire an inaccurate SCUD 1/2 a mile from the Al Assad Military academy. Unless they have taken to bombing their own territory, the FSA is, or at least was in the western triangle of Hamadaniyeh. Further confirmed by numerous accounts that the airstrike killed many FSA. I'd hold off changing the color until we see additional video showing the FSA are still in the area after that massive blast. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The fire is most likely from the petrol station along the highway, just west of Al-Assad wood. You can see it on Wikimapia.--197.170.158.189 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not the petrol station. I just confirmed the 2nd camera angle is taken from the southern edge of the Assad woods where it abuts the residential district. You can see the minaret of the mosque to the west of the Al Aman school and the Assad military academy in the background. This puts the blast right about in the roundabout 200m north of Al Amal school. This also corresponds to twitter chatter by the FSA for the last 2 days that they are in that area. GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

FSA is shelling the Al Assad Academy heavily. Reports of heavy fighting in Hamadaniyah, and of a constant stream of helicopters in and out of the base. As of yet, no verifiable footage of the FSA on the ground, so it's hard to say if it's a full assult. Camera angle appears to be the bunkers just SW of Al Nasr. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cXJ2c3Cdl9M GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

RASHIDIN OR NOT RASHIDIN

What's happended in Rashidin ? : An AAS unit destroyed a mortar, a car equipped with a heavy machinegun and a vehicle near al-Hikmeh School in al-Rashidin. And that's enough to put all this area contested ?. A man (Pro-rebel) and another (how many are they in a dictatorial state like syria ?)Human right organisation said something and thats enough !. First sentence is the truth and nothing else. Naively, you think that each Neighborhood of a huge city is hermetic ?. Who wrote that "a bullet" is not enough to put an area contested ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.39.2 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if there are fights in Rashidin, I think they are more likely towards Khan Asal. I don't think the rebels have made it far enough to end up on our map. So i think these areas should be put back to red. Let's be conservative and wait some more... Tradedia (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several videos of Rashidin, most are simply posted as Khan al Asal. several showing the north side of the woods by the sun angle. posted by both FSA and SAA, also corresponds to a lot of internet chatter. Therefore I think the map is correct in showing Rashidin as under dispute. The FSA are on the map in the west of the city. They are obstructed by 3 huge bases, and have also infiltrated further than the wiki map shows, into new aleppo and Hamdaniya.- GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Rashidin is a very big district and the rebels do have an effective presence in the district but only in the western part also they control areas north to the Al Assad park. So i'd keep it contested for the moment --Amedjay (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Unconfirmed video and recent activity

FSA is back in Midan. Footage of St. Vartan church. This is about 100-200m south of the ring road. Clearly the SAA still holds most of the district so I'm not sure I'd show it as contested even though the FSA has a foothold there again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4pDHneFxY&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Syrian observatory claim that fsa captured the Karm Al Jabal districts is it true?A cuople days ago some videos shows the liberation of fanfira districts of old Aleppo is it true ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.239.130 (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

From the video footage and chatter I've seen, I don't think it is completely true. The best I can tell is that the FSA is present and able to move freely in at least part of Karm Al Jabal, however they do not appear to hold the whole district as I've seen footage of fighting in the heart of it. Farafira is similar, although perhaps the FSA has a stronger foothold. There is constant fighting around Bahraat square, and the SAA makes repeated incursions with troops and tanks through Farafira in the Bahraat area and around the great Mosque. I think that most of the SAA activity is trying to retake the mosque and base of the citadel, and that the FSA hold the area to the north more securely up to about Hamidiya. There are reports they have been fighting in Jameeliya and Muhafaza but I have seen no confirmation. They are likely isolated incursions. I can confirm the FSA is also in Maysaloon and at least western Arqkub again. - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@76.104. I've seen a video of a tank passing through the Maysaloun bridge taken from the Maysaloun square. FSA appeared to hold the southern part and the SAA the northern. --78.232.100.63 (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army Liberated Sheikh Maqsood. This must be handled in the Map.

http://www.lccsyria.org/11148 : In Aleppo, the FSA targeted the battalion of Engineering with mortars and announced control over Sheikh Maqsood area entirely, in Aleppo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.66.197 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - According to AP, only the eastern portion is contested.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes according to news clashes occured in eastern Sheikh Maqsood near Bustan al Basha --78.232.100.63 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC) The color of this district should be change in green,not in olive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.224.58 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Aleppo batlle page - 31march 2013 there is counterattack so olive is better for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.118.68 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The PYD and FSA appear to be fully reconciled in Aleppo. Although a fair number of Kurds want to stay out of it, or are supportive of Assad, the Kurds are now fully committed politically and militarily. This will probably spread over the coming weeks to all corners of Kurdish controlled Syria now that their brothers in Aleppo are fully in a life and death struggle. While under armed and not combat tested, it adds a trained militia of thousands or even tens of thousands to the FSA cause. We'll probably see more action in the NE of the country where an uneasy truce between Assad and the Kurds has mostly held so far. We'll probably also see a steady influx of reinforcements to the Kurdish lines in Aleppo from surrounding areas. TActically, this is opening yet another front for the SAA to defend in Aleppo and cutting off their already uneasy hold on a few areas north of the city. Perhaps turn the yellow a bit more green? or better yet, a striped yellow/green. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the battle talk page, the FSA and YPG have not aligned. YPG has made a statement that the army tried to attack "Arab areas held by opposition" through their sector. Correlating that to the report of fighting between Bustan Pasha and Sheik Masood, it seems the army tried to attack Bustan Pasha via Sheik Masood. I can't see the "engineering battalion" base mentioned to be in that area, so I'm guessing the statement may have referred to a unit, not a base? Anyway, YPG claims the army was repelled by kurdish fighters. If no fighting is reported from the area in the next week, it can go back to yellow. --41.76.208.114 (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

208.114, my sense is that certain factions within the Kurds have been cooperating with the FSA for quite some time. While technically, the PYD as a larger organization has not to my knowledge made an official nation wide policy statement, but there is overwhelming evidence of increasing kurdish support of the FSA. If the PYD involvement was as you state, limited to defending a small section of their territory from an SAA attempt to flank the FSA... then why did half the district fall almost instantly and a large FSA presence appear there as is documented by some video and numerous but unconfirmed people on the ground??? The larger context of Kurdish negotiations with Turkey also suggest they have infact chosen a side. They are a diverse population and I'm sure many support the Assad regime, and there is no conclusive official policy statement... that being said, the writing on the wall is pretty clear. Could it change tomorrow? possibly, but unlikely.. There is also a lot of video evidence of joint kurd/fsa operations in Ashrafiyeh, and the increasing fighting in the NE of Syria suggesting the uneasy ceasefires between the Kurds and SAA is no longer palatable.. this is accompanied by conciliatory language from the FSA and more hardline rebel groups.. The kurds might be semi-autonamous, but they are not indifferent. The evacuations say as much. If it was as simple matter of telling the SAA to stay out of their neighborhood, in which the SAA had some minor standing presence... you would not have seen tens of thousands of people fleeing. this was a larger statement, which was SAA get out.. FSA, come in under our terms. - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that the regime has continued to attack into SM through the PYD-held area, and that the YPG has counterattacked them and checked the advance [20]. I propose that a red arrow be made pointing into the yellow part, with a yellow arrow opposing it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Shqayyef

[21] looks like FSA is finally starting to attack shqayyef district from east, I'll turn the district olive soon as I can double confirm or something. Moester101 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! --Amedjay (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the Citadel (and the immediate adjacent area) really contested?

This is an interesting report from Press TV on 4/5/2013 from in front of the Citadel in Aleppo. This seems to show the Citadel, and the immediate area around it as firmly controled by the SAA. Soldiers & press are walking in the street in front of the citadel. They state that there was a weak FSA night attack that was repulsed, but I continue to question why this area, and at least the central Citadel, are not marked in red.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=287_1365200256

That Press TV reporter was killed last year. That video must be from summer 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.33.172 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up in March, when I shared the map of Aleppo with areas controled by the FSA/SAA published by the Guardian. They show the Citadel as uncontested. Someone here claimed that it was under seige, and was resupplied by underground tunnels. This does not seem to be the case. Is there any agreement that this should be changed?Hulahoop122 (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's time yet. There are two walls to the citadel, I'm not sure if this is in front of the inner or outer wall. --41.76.208.114 (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The citadel has been one of the key strongpoints for the army in central Aleppo since the beginning of the battle. Even if rebels are in the streets around it, the citadel itself remains firmly under government control. No reason to show it as contested. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a few days ago I saw like three vids taken by FSA literally at the foot of the hill (which has the citadel on top). So although the citadel itself is firmly in SAA hands, the region/neighborhood it is in is indeed contested. I strongly vote for keeping it olive. Moester101 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well not a very long time ago, it was reported that rebels had taken over the palace of justice just south of the citadel. --Amedjay (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I thought the Palace of Justice was no where near the citadel, but rather in the northwestern part of the city. It is highlighted on the map. Are you saying there a second Palace of Justice south of the citadel? Hulahoop122 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Yes sir affirmative even thought it is less important than the one is NW. --Amedjay (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

However I think you guys are right. We need to show the citadel itself is still under govt control. I'm going to add a red circle on the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.232.100.63 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Done --Amedjay (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have done more research on that video I posted above, and the anonymous poster above is correct that this video is from last year (September). I also did find the videos from March in which rebels are attacking the "Justice Palace", and found it on Google maps (listed as "government building/court house") and Wikimapia. This location is a couple of hundred yards south east from the citadel itself. I didn't find evidence of fighting at the citadel itself, so I still think the Citadel and the road around it should be red. I notice that Moester101 when he edited the map, made the red circle smaller around the citadel, but that it was reverted. Not a big difference, but I think that his smaller red circle around the Citadel is more accurate. Hulahoop122 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What? Moester made a red dot? When? As far as I know I made the red dot (Amedjay) --78.232.100.63 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Al-Aziza

Since fighting around the village has broken out, this would be a good time to remove that label from the map. The village is not where the label indicates it is, but further south, off the map.--197.104.249.114 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the second time you bring up this same topic, so I think I should respond this time. [22] If you still can't see that al-Aziza is right below the lowermost black line on our map then I will frankly ask you to buy a pair of glasses. Please stop bringing-up this topic, the map's geography is as accurate as can be. Moester101 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a small red arrow pointing north in the Al-Aziza area, reflecting that this is part of an government offensive (with not just shelling, but movement of troops)? Hulahoop122 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There should be, the government is obviously advancing from that direction. But the rebels have brought up reinforcements and are trying to retake the village, so a green arrow towards Aziza would be needed as well. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

enlarge map

Probably long overdue, but is anyone able to enlarge the map so that at the very least, it includes Sheikh Sayed district, down tot he cement factory, or ideally, to Khan Touman, the outerlimit (minus the police academy) of Aleppo's defenses? And to the east, to show the end of the airport and the contested? supply route that was opened up a few weeks ago? And to the north to show the limits of Shayyef industrial area? We can always save the smaller map as a more focused insert too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.169.49 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good idea (i don't know how to edit maps though) Tradedia (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be extremely helpful to see the map enlarged. Who controls the highways leading into the regime-held areas of West Aleppo and the area around the airport is of much greater significance than who gained control of which small area in Old Aleppo yesterday. Probably the most important recent event over the last couple months was the success of a regime column in reaching the airport area from the south, which probalby prevented the airport from falling to rebels, but none of the areas essential to that resupply mission are even on this map. Without land supply routes, a conventional military force cannot hold out for long.

Tragically, I also have no idea of how to produce a larger map.DCP123 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that fsa control Karm al Jabal because the Assad's force are shelling this disctrict.From report came information about clashes in Hamdania district,a video show fsa forces in a building few meters away from the stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.229.164 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Sheikh Maqsoud became a area contested because all reports from Aleppo told for fierce clashes betwen fsa andpublic commites who are group pro governative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.224.58 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• • can't figure out how to create a new wikipedia category... Recent updates which need to be verified. FSA claims to control all of Khaldiyeh. Clear footage and reports show a strong presence, but no way to confirm control. FSA footage of fighting in Midan confirmed, but unclear if they have gained a foothold or had to withdraw. Arkub similar recent videos of fighting, but no idea who controls it. It should probably be shown as disputed and is mostly a wasteland of devastation at this point. Also footage of recent attacks on Hanano Barracks, although I believe the SAA still controls a supply route there to the north in Maysaloon. There are still limited reports of fighting in SAA held territory such as Nile Street, New Aleppo, and Zahraa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sheikh Saeed, again. And Al-Aziza

Clashes in Sheikh Saeed have been reported in the last few days both by SANA older report quoted by HP, under "Armed Forces Eliminate Terrorists, Destroy their Vehicles in Aleppo" and SOHR [23][24]. Security forces and rebels are obviously fighting there, so I suppose the district should be coloured as contested.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a little appalled that recent edits have not shown this, as it is indeed quite significant - it could mean the government reopening the route between the airport and SAA-held western Aleppo. Can someone please change Sheikh Saeed to contested? 68.149.163.72 (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, it appears that Aziza has been retaken by the government. (Tourbillon, not logged in). 193.19.172.171 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with both Tradedia (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ramouseh

rebels have not tried to push into this district for over a month now, I vote for turning it red as it is no longer seeing fighting. Moester101 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We can remove the arrow, but the rebels did initially enter part of the district. Unless they were subsequently pushed out, leave contested.--197.111.255.227 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes there were some reports 2 or 3 weeks ago saying that rebels passed the highway and kept their postions even if they were being heavily shelled from the very close artillery base (Amedjay) --78.232.100.63 (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Shqayyef

Hope you guys understand Arabic [25]. Shqayyef is now under opposition forces, including the army bases, I will change it to green. Also, Handarat district (further north and not shown on map) has also been taken by opposition, FYI. Moester101 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I advise you to bring a source confirming that the district fell to the rebels Alhanuty (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, why did you delete the arrows in Aziza? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

a TV news report from inside the district and its army bases is just as good of a source as any online news report (if not even better actually.) There's actually even more vids coming out now from the scene like this [26] showing FSA's plunders from the army bases, and this [27] showing FSA showing their love for the statue of Hafez alAssad from the Rahba base. You guys need anymore proof? Please realize I don't make changes unless I'm sure what I'm doing. Finally, as for the arrows in Aziza, that was an accident as a result of me using a previous map for editing so the map that I edited didn't have those arrows, minor mistake, but now that I look at it, I think the map looks better without it as the arrows were too squished. Hope that clarifies things. Moester101 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Arrows are too squished"—too bad this is not a beauty contest. You removed key information about current actions. Put them back. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, don't worry Lothar, I got this. But what have I to do for Shqayyef? (Amedjay) --78.232.100.63 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're still not convinced, [28] showing more blunders from the bases, and [29] showing two captured conscripts from said bases. Folks, if this was the theory of evolution we're talking about, then I would've already provided enough evidence for it, I think we should move on. I'm reverting the pic, while fixing the arrows that Lothar seemed so worried about. Moester101 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

and just in case you're still not convinced, another video I just found [30]. I rest my case. Moester101 (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The only indication that the area is captured by video on You tube channel report namely Orient! This channel is the Syrian opposition can not be objectively so why take his information for the truth while all Syrian state television and news sites called propaganda of the regime and the opposition believe. And about the video invaded there is not any of independent confirmation of where and when it is removed because there is a rule that the videos from You Tube are not proof as it can be removed anywhere, anytime95.133.187.51 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Then if we believe Orient TV and let's believe gosudrstvennomu Syrian television station that transmits that Eastern Guta near Damascus almost entirely under the control of the army http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaGvZ4nqySo&feature=player_embedded95.133.187.51 (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The video says that the army has increased its siege around Eastern Guta (by controlling the road between otaybe and adra, east of Eastern Guta). You can even see the map they show at 35 seconds that show eastern guta under terrorist control. Tradedia (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about the media's "bias" then you won't accept most news agencies which cover the conflict extensively like Aljazeera and your beloved SOHR, etc which many claim are pro-opposition. I used the Orient vid because it shows the situation from inside the district, NOT like the example you brought up of Syrian state TV which wasn't even claiming to capture eastern Ghouta like user:Tradedia mentioned above. By the way, have you seen ANY pro-Assad report from inside Shqayyef that tries to show it is still in govt hands? Of course not, because the govt troops have either been killed or fled from Shqayyef. I reeeeeeally think we should move on with the map. Peace. Moester101 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how people aren't understanding that independent confirmation of any information coming from Syria is not going to happen because there's no one independent there to confirm it. Reporters are banned by the government. And even if Orient TV was being openly run by the rebels themselves, it doesn't mean absolutely everything they say will be a lie. If they claim rebels took a complex and then show a video of rebel fighters inside said complex, then I would say we give them the benefit of the doubt. This is why we often used even SANA as our source. It's not like the area is strategically decisive anyway, so move on.--197.111.223.227 (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well Moester it looks like you were right about the Rahba base, it has effectively been taken by FSA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNwqiF002MY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB8DH_tNIdk . But as I guess you know it, there's a second base west of it and it's way bigger so I guess the capture of it will be way harder. (Amedjay) --78.232.100.63 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I love your persistence Amedjay, but notice that the second video you provided [31] at 0:06 cameraman clearly states in Arabic "Muhajireen Army takes control of Rahbat al-Shqayyef after cleansing Rahbat al-Jandoul". Of course Rahbat al-Jandoul is the one closer to Jandoul roundabout (the eastern Rahba), while Rahbat al-Shqayyef which is where the video was taken is the more western Rahba. So the only thing the video proves is that both Rahbas have now been taken by opposition. Thanks for the video confirmation. Moester101 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Kurds, Northern Entrance and more

Recent days has seen a new round of important developments in and around Aleppo city. First of all, heavy fighting broke uit in the Sheikh Mahsoud district of the city. After initial confussion, mutiple sources in Aleppo and in the west claim dat the YPG units in the district sided with the Free Syrian Army. Sources: 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-nisman/have-syrias-kurds-had-a_b_3036931.html 2. http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/could-syrias-kurds-change-the-course-of-the-civil-war/?smid=tw-share

We need not forget that the Kurds of Syria are neither unified, nor have one single gole. The Kurdish Worker's Party might have proclamed there is no alliance between them and the FSA, they can't speak for every Kurdish district in Aleppo. Governement forcess shelled Sheikh Mahsoud and Ashrafiyeh. They only shell area's were no loyalists are. So, I think it would be better to make Sheikh Mahsoud green and Ashrafiyeh contested, because there are reports of loyalists inside that part of Aleppo.

Also, Al Jazeera reported that rebels had taken control of the northern entrance to Aleppo. Source: http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syrian-opposition-says-it-gaining-ground-government-forces

On this map, that northern entrance is still contested, although ditricts south of it (Khaldiyeh and Tishreen) are contested. I think we should make Bellarmoun district green, and so move the front south until the part of the Justice Palace, that is still contested. Also, Azzizia is governement controlled. Rebels are clashing with the loyalists around the village and try to get back in, but I'm not sure if they succeeded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On another note, can someone please mark Sheikh Saeed as contested? Sources reported clashes between the SAA and rebels about a week ago and it was listed further up the page but no one ever changed it. 68.149.163.72 (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Reuters introduced 'ceasefire in kurdish areas' - to collect corpses from streets. I have read some sources, but most of 'big' media didn't write about. Does anybody read about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read that to and a quick google throws up a few results. They state that the gov commander on the ground was worried about disease spreading 80.193.70.130 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The report also stated that the bodies were pulled out of no man's land in Sakhour. If there is no man's land in Sakhour, doesn't it make the district contested? And does anyone know if the truce is still in effect and to how far area outside of Aleppo does it entail?--197.172.226.162 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Palace of Justice

Some sources says: Heavy fights arround Palace of Justice near Citadel. May be there are 2 buildings with similar names. One in NordWest other in city center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anybodie tell me about the situation on Khaldiyeh district, fsa took control of gas station in districts yesterday?And about the situation in Salahadine a couple days ago the rapresentative of UN visit the district acompanied from a high ranking official of fsa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.28.244 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"took control of gas station" -> Yesterday I took control of gas station - result my car is filled with fuel. Now seriously! Stop with such messages! It is not possible to mark every move on map. There are hundeerds of small groups with arms in city. We can not draw movement of each. This map is updated on blocks or districts, not on single garage or MacDrive :)

My advice would be making eastern layramoon and al rasefah neighborhoods under rebel control Alhanuty (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sheikh Maqsud

Fighting in the area is still ongoing, with government forces still trying to force their way through the PYD sector, but being blocked by the YPG and other Kurdish brigades [32]. I think a red arrow should be made pointing at the yellow part (maybe from the Syriac quarter). Additionally, I think that the brown region is a little too large and that the green arrow is outdated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Airbase

BBC reports rebels have now begun to enter the airbase in aleppo. Not sure if it is the airport shown on the map http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22279313 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.70.130 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, that'd be the Minakh Air Base well to the north of the city. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, like Lothar said , it's the Mengh airbase north of Aleppo next to Azaz. It has been reported partially stormed by some and fully by others but we still don't have pictures of videos of the rebels storming the whole base. --78.232.100.63

Situation of northwest of Aleppo is changed because in Al Alirimon district doesnt has fighting since one month ago and this district is under fsa control.Fighting broke out early in may in Zahra district and fsa repel atacks of syrian army in khaldyia district.Please somebody give me extra information about this costation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.241.8 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Every second day I'm reading info about clashes between rebels and army in this area.

Please

Please read carefully messages in news. Information for fights in district can be: 1) Fight in city part 2) fight in areas in district, but far from city. If you look carefully to administrative map - every district at city suburbs have residential area, factories and large area far from city. They all are called with name of district, but area is very big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Prison attack and clashes

Clashes reported around aleppo prison. Dont know where it is located http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22536489 80.193.70.130 (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue where it's located either. Can someone help us find it? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the prison is located between Hanadarat and the village of Muslimyiah but yet it's off the map. The rebels are currently besieging it. (Amedjay) --78.232.100.63 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rebels were forced to retreat from the prison and soldiers had re-secured it. Rebel fighters continued to hit the facility with rockets late into the night.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-troops-push-back-rebels-who-stormed-central-prison-in-northern-city-of-aleppo/2013/05/16/f81e3046-be16-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html92.113.70.0 (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo's Central Prison is far-off the map to the north, do not bother trying to show rebel offensive on it. Moester101 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

They didn't reatred because they were repelled , they retreated because the soldiers were so desesperate that they started throwing prisoners out of the windows. And as far as I know , the base is still besieged. --78.232.100.63 (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Map update?

This map could do with an update if possible to reflect any changes on the ground if any. Has not been updated in a while 80.193.70.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your wish has been granted. 1) This report [33] from on the ground shows FSA now controls road between layramoun r/a and Shihan r/a and areas north in FSA hands. I also made arrow showing rebel offensive on khalidiyah which has been happening for like 2 weeks now but I never bothered adding it before 2) the vast area in the northwest of the map is not truly in the hands of the govt or opposition (see a satellite image), especially since opposition controls norther part of the area which I have changed to reflect that. 3) word "Layramoun" has been enlarged and centered to show the size of the district. Moester101 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of these changes --78.232.100.63 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you mark Sheikh Saeed as contested as well? It very clearly is and has been for weeks now, but no one has yet made the change.68.149.173.125 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't put updates if we have no informations about the ground. The frontlines seem to be calm --78.232.100.63 (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Should Sheikh Saeed be marked as contested? This article (though lacking specifics) mentions a recent battle there and says that the SAA has "pushed back". Esn (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not mention a "recent" battle. All it mentions is a battle, without any temporal placement of it. Could've happened two days ago, two weeks ago, or two months ago—we don't know, and we shouldn't claim to know. What specifics it does give is that the army took the "construction company building", which would indicate that it occurred in the industrial zone south of the ring highway, which is off the map and as such not marked as under rebel control. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sheikh Saeed should have been marked as contested weeks ago, both sides have reported clashes on several occasions...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

hmmmmmmm....from what I've been seeing recently is that sheikh saeed is still under opposition control, but the govt army is trying to retake it via shooting at it from the cement factory (south of sheikh saeed) and by bombing it with artillery from Ramouseh artillery base (to the southwest). So I guess we can show a red arrow pushing into sheikh saeed from below it, but the district itself is still in FSA hands. Agreed everyone? Moester101 (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The article Esn posted shows that even the rebels acknowledge that fighting is ongoing with government forces inside the district. It is quite obviously contested and needs to be marked as such, not left as 'in opposition hands'.68.149.173.125 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Any idea where these [34][35] are exactly ? The district isn't exactly small, and it seems there isn't much precise info to determine where the clashes have taken place - in the district or at its borders. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Any change (red arrow or colour) to signify the status would be preferable to doing nothing. Although, the whole airport nearby is marked as contested even though it's still in regime hands, so maybe Sheikh Saeed should be treated similarly, for consistency. Esn (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Or we could mark the airport as we have the citadel and solve that inconsistency right there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In this map, infrastructures have no color only districts and area do.--78.232.100.63 (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There aren't clashes in the district itself but at the entries and the cement factory as regime forces try to storm the district but as Moester said the whole district is still under FSA hands --78.232.100.63 (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, I've made the airport red. Also, I made the far north of the city olive b/c it's depopulated and I've actually seen FSA on the northern highway (as opposed to YPG) and we don't know who controls the ten or so buildings just below the northern highway (see map if you don't know what I mean.) As for sheikh saeed, I didn't make changes b/c only northern half is shown on map (which is irrefutably in FSA hands) and I can't show a red arrow pointing from cement factory to southern sheikh saeed. Until the SAA launches a major offensive, the district will remain green. Happy everyone? Moester101 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems good. It's a shame that the map doesn't show a little more of the outskirts, but I guess it would be really difficult to do anything about that at this point. Esn (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right as for Bustan Al Pasha does anyone have news about it? It seems to be mostly under rebel control in northern and center part and SAA in the southern part maybe we should show that in the map? What do you guys think about it? --78.232.100.63 (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the northern half is in FSA hands, the southern half is the frontline between FSA and SAA (olive/contested) I'll change it next time I make changes to the map. Moester101 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Last Saturday SANA reported that "army units regained control over the village of Dahret Abad Rabah in al-Lairamoun area in Aleppo."[36] SOHR also confirms that "Several regime forces' machinery were able to enter to the Dahr A'bd Rabo area around Aleppo city."[37] I've been trying to locate this village and noticed today that someone has recently marked the housing area north of the Soap factory as Abd Rabbo [38]. What do you think, should we mark the north eastern sector of al-Layramoun as contested? Susurri (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

agreed, I changed that, along with northern bustan basha, and also Syriac and suleiman haven't seen clashes in a while and are in govt hands. Moester101 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you are getting your info on Suleiman and Syriac areas. I have seen video of FSA moving into Suleiman within the last week. I have not seen footage of the Syriac area, but I do know for a fact that some of it is either in FSA hands or is disputed. There have been a number of reports of fighting in the Sulaymaniyah and Syriac area, including some reports by pro Assad media. Even the pro Asaad media state that "the FSA attacked 'safe' portions of of sulaymaniya" meaning at least some of the area is FSA held. Unless someone has information to show the precise front line here, it is extremely misleading to show it as regime held. Please reverse it to disputed or provide detailed information on who holds which portions of the territory. Not that people of Aleppo likely use this map, but you don't want some civilian walking in there thinking it's safe and government held.. it's not and they might get killed - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Susurri and Moester101, As a side note, you should generally refrain from using SANA as a news source. It is an official government agency and part of the Syrian Ministry of Information. It is NOT and objective news source. Many people consider it propeganda for that matter and not a news source at all. Citing SANA is like making changes based upon tweets or posts by an FSA commander. Please cite objective sources or at the very least cross reference sources to find independent corroboration. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern/interest. First, I do NOT use SANA as a source (ever). I make my changes from various other local news sources and also based on tons of videos coming-out of aleppo. Second, northern portions of Syriac and Suleymaniyah cannot be labeled contested just b/c rebels fired a few shots at said districts. and how can they be contested if FSA still hasn't taken southern Bustan Pasha or eastern Sheikh Maqsood? Please realize that ALL fronts and areas in the map have been carefully studied to be as accurate as possible by myself and other editors here. The map right now is as good as it can be, for now of course. Moester101 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

1 civilian was hit by a regime sniper in the Bustan al-Qasr neighbourhood. https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/37692999574867892.113.138.55 (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Clashes are taking place in the town of Kafarhamra, by the Sheikh Sa'id side, as regime forces try to storm the town. The village of Kedar was bombarded by regime forces. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=377006375741040&set=a.150495128392167.28686.121855461256134&type=192.113.138.55 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Army operation against foreign backed militants in the southern city of Haam was finished on Thursday morning as it was considered one of the key operations of the army.According to al-Alam correspondent, heavy fighting was also reported in eastern countryside of Aleppo on Thursday morning.The campaign against militant groups in the strategic city of Aleppo is conducted in the southern and northern countryside of the city with two different objectives. Moreover the Syrian army operation is continued near al-Negharain city near Aleppo countryside. Clearing this city of militant groups is among the key aims of security forces as it was located near International Airport of Aleppo.This is while the Syrian army also made great advancement near al-Mansoureh area in suburb of Aleppo. Syrian forces have killed great number of militants in this area.While the operation in southern parts of the city aims at securing the Syrian Army’s supply routes to Aleppo and northern Syria, the campaign in northern parts zeros in on cutting off insurgents’ supply lines. http://en.alalam.ir/news/1483883#sthash.lJ7YxIWH.dpuf92.113.150.41 (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sakhour

I think maybe Sakhour should be painted as contested, or at least its eastern half, because the Army managed to temporarily penetrate it today and fought street battles for four hours per SOHR [39]. Also it was stated that the attack came from the direction of the two districts of al-Sheikh Khudur and Shurket al-Kahraba' [40], so they are government-controlled and should be found and colored red. And of course we put two arrows from those two areas in the direction of Sakhour. EkoGraf (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done - But the closest thing to Shurket al-Kahraba' (the electricity company) on Wikimapia is this, which is deep inside Sakhour.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That would mean the Army already has an established foothold in Sakhour if their attack came from the electricity company. EkoGraf (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it possible that the army firmly controls Sheikh Khudur if the same SOHR is reporting clashes in Suleiman Al Halabi every week? I propose to color Suleiman red with an arrow towards Sheikh Khudur --78.232.100.63 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And the first sources states that the attack on Sakhour has been repelled... --78.232.100.63 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem, there is no Sheikh Khudur on the map, and the electricity company mentioned, from which the attack came, is actually in Sakhour as Future said. So its likely Shurket al-Kahraba is an area of Sakhour and that means Sakhour is contested territory and even if the attack was repelled it still makes Sakhour contested territory in which fighting is occuring. EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright but then why is Sheikh Khudur red? It should be contested with a red arrow and as I said there's fighting in Suleiman and about the northern ring between suleiman and Sheikh Khudur so why is this part red? --78.232.100.63 (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources didn't say those neighborhood were controlled by regime, only that the came from those directions, particularly the direction of the water/electrical station. There is more than enough room for them to attack shukur without controlling those neighborhoods

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=fr&lat=36.221461&lon=37.176661&z=16&m=b&search=Aleppo

SOHR also said they failed to advance, meaning shakur should not be that large of green. Sopher99 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think the Army are not holding those districts fine than color them as contested but that one side of Sakhour should also be colored contested because there is fighting in the area, doesn't matter if the attack has been repelled. EkoGraf (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm highly skeptical of any claims that the SAA holds territory in Sakhur or Sheikh Kheder. All indications are that the assult was repelled within hours. I've seen footage of the FSA in the water company that I beleive is within the last 3-4 days. In the last 2-3 days there have been several videos showing the FSA in Suleiman al Halab and attacking Midan. Infact, some sources claim the FSA has recaptured all of Suleiman, although I'm skeptical of that. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.237 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"I'm skeptical of that." - Hmmmm. May be this sentence will be next most reliable source for news. I'm skeptical for many thinks, but this doesn't make them fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have status on the water company? I found a video that appeared to show the FSA fighting there, but from the outside, which would indicate the SAA took it.. I do know that as of a last week or so, the FSA held it. Any confirmation on who currently holds the water company would lend a LOT of clarity to the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

changes

Apparently there's been a lot of weird edits to the map.
1) why was the northernmost area turned yellow just for the sake of "showing more Kurdish control"? I already previously explained why I made it olive, and it makes sense it should stay that way. The "proper" edit would be to make western Sheikh Maqsood yellow, while keeping the eastern half olive, which is what I did :)
2) why was arrow from Rasafeh to Khalidiyah removed? rebels do have an offensive there, and actually they have the gas company since 1 month on the olive side
3) why was all of sheikh khedr and west sakhur turned olive? we need to be more specific, so I reduced the area of olive, even though I don't know how SAA can advance from an olive area to another olive area...
4) the two arrows on the airport were meant to show the siege on it, so why was the west one removed?
5) the rebel offensive on Aziza is still continuing, so why was green arrow removed? I think I've covered all the changes. Moester101 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

update: I knew there was something wrong with Sakhur/Sheikh Khedr area coloring, this video [41] from on the ground shows FSA is still in control of the Water company despite SAA attacks. Will fix. Moester101 (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf made the latest change by making west sakhour/sheikh khedr olive with govt arrow from sheikh khedr to sakhour, which I very clearly addressed in my update above. So not only did I provide a (very recent) video from on-the-ground showing FSA in control of water company, but the source SOHR that EkoGraf used for his latest change just mentioned an "ambush" and it's actually on the dividing line between Sakhour and Suleiman [42] which is NOT inside the district! and how can you show SAA advancing from the water company (in FSA hands) into west Sakhour (if the SAA can only ambush the FSA on the dividing line)? REVERTING! Moester101 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ether an ambush or an attempt at an advance by the government sources clearly indicate fighting in the Sakhour distict. Per previous talk it was agreed that the western part of Sakhour, which borders Suleiman, be colored as contested because there is fighting in the area. If you feel so strongly about that advance arrow than remove it, but the western part of Sakhour is definitely contested and such the western half of Sakhour should be colored as contested. And I would advise you to discuss before reverting so we could find a compromise and not edit war. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, P.S., youtube is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright now, first you tell me not to revert before making compromise when you clearly do so yourself (hypocrite), then you mention youtube as not an acceptable source??? almost all the information that comes out of Syria is in the form of videos on youtube, including your precious SOHR (double hypocrite) in fact when we changed the status of Shqayyef from red to olive to green it was ENTIRELY based off the videos coming out of the district (especially since no news agency or even SOHR reported it at all) and even now Rashidin is having its videos seen for changes in status. Nevertheless, I will not start an edit war over this even though there is no "real" offensive on Sakhour and I will revert it the minute that there are no more clashes on the dividing line. Till then, I will be content by just removing arrow. Moester101 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I said that youtube is not acceptable as a source because that is one of Wikipedia's rules. If you have a problem with this lodge a complaint with Wikipedia itself. Second, I reverted to the version that was previously agreed to between me and 2 more editors, before you started reverting. Third, I did not insult you in any way, while you insulted me twice with the hypocrite thing. You are not assuming any good faith in the conversation which Wikipedia requires of you Wikipedia:Assume good faith and you violated Wikipedia's rule on civility Wikipedia:Civility. In any case, I totally agree with you if there is no fighting in the area than of course the are should not be colored as contested, but for now multiple sources are indicating ongoing or at least sporadic fighting in the area, thus making it contested. EkoGraf (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh give me a break, the way you said everything you did had the most snotty tone even if it was on typed words, nevertheless this doesn't really matter much to me. And throwing WP policies at me doesn't really help either, especially since I already mentioned how youtube was already used before many times to change the map, and you can't really be picky on when we can use it and when we can't even if WP doesn't encourage its use. Anyhow, I'm still removing the arrow as some user added it again. Moester101 (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'm a snotty hypocrite, let it be so than if you think that of me. I don't personally care. I'm here to contribute to Wikipedia and not pick fights. In any case, situation closed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly User:EkoGraf , there does not seem to be any Wikipedia policy against using YouTube as an acceptable source in this case (see Wikipedia:Video_links). Additionally, there seems to be a confusion about what the arrows actually mean. User:Moester101 seems to think it should be related to a large scale build up of men and materials, and a plan to push through at that point. User:EkoGraf seems to think it is where fighting has most recently occurred in the opponent's territory, even if they are just skirmishes. I personally prefer User:EkoGraf 's interpretation, but I would be happy with either one, as long as it is consistent. Tcooke (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please

"No footage yet...." - idea of this article is to show what happens, not what you predict. News without sources are not news. Without sources everybody can say: "No footage but X will win." Such news have to be posted on pro and anti sites. There are alot over the net.Wikipedia have to be neutral.

I post objective articles or footage whenever I recommend a map change. From time to time, I come across significant reports indicating a likely or possible future change in status. I do not report every little firefight or battle line change. Fighting in New Aleppo is inconclusive and the map should NOT be changed, however the number of reports and content indicate a major action. It is a heads up to give context if video or official news does start to come in. Actual evidence is needed to support a map change, however context is very valuable to help analyze the situation. There are plenty of examples of the FSA or SAA having a 24 hour photo op victory only to loose the ground.. so video evidence isn't always conclusive.. you need context and coraboration to make the map accurate. - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

sources

Some people accept sources as reliable when like news and several weeks later doesn't accept same sources as reliable because didn't like news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.118.68 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maarat Artiq

The arrows depicting this confrontation are oriented wrong. In the reports, the Army and Hezbollah are reportedly holding the high ground and launching attacks on the town. The only high ground around that town is to the west, in the town of Babis. This makes at least the orientation of those arrows problematic, as they make it seem like the army is attacking from the eastern/Aleppo facing side, which it is not. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure but it seems to me this confrontation is completely off the map. If I am wrong on that last one, I propose to just replace the green arrow with a red one, and not have a green arrow there at all. The rebels are defending, not attacking so there is no need for it.--197.173.156.27 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SOURCES

We can collect sources in separate article. This will help users to read our news sources and to inform themselves with more details. Probably 3 cections:

Pro government

Pro rebel

mostly neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)