File talk:Battle of Aleppo map.svg/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Area around citadel

I don't know why you guys insist on showing the area around citadel as regime controlled when there are reports that the citadel is surrounded by rebels. How do you think rebels blew up the Carlton palace( which is very close to the citadel ) if they did not control the area around it? If you want to show its surroundings as fully controlled by army then provide sources. Look at this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITPsBW8OnuI , the rebels are only few meters away from what looks like the palace of justice and just some hundreds meters away from the citadel. --Amedjay (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Citadel is such a huge landmark so not all areas around it are the same. I think the map gives it justice as The SAA is stationed in the Citadel and keeps on clearing its surrounding area but like the video shows, the area around it is always contested especially to its south east. And its not besieged because the army accesses it regularly from the north west point and most of the buildings around it are under SAA fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.15.164 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Farafira is being shown in a very misleading way. Clearly the SAA has a path or punches one to the citadel, however the entire area is contested, not SAA held. Hnano base is also surrounded again on the East, South, and West, as indicated by recent video. They have a checkpoint going to the front in Karm Al Jabal, and one heading NW to regime held areas. Maysaloon is still a front line from what I can tell. The push towards Muhafaza is true, but opptimistic. Have only seen limited reports of FSA incursions there. Hamadiya also has reports of some limited fighting. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Farafira taken by SAA, Baath brigades & allies: Pro-regime Sunni fighters in Aleppo defy sectarian narrative. So, continue blabbering and crying if ya want...--HCPUNXKID 11:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Al monitor source is not credible. Farafira and Jdeydah are not in SAA hands. These areas are mostly FSA held, some areas contested. The source on Farafira if you actually follow the link, is a pro-SAA youtube video. There is no credible evidence that the SAA holds these areas, and plenty of evidence most of these areas are still in FSA hands. The SAA launched an assault and took some video.. they do this all the time but seldom hold the ground a day later. Also, why do people insist on showing Khaldia in SAA hands after I have posted credible mainstream news sources with photos showing the FSA in this area. There are also DOZENS of recent videos showing the FSA holding ground there in the NW corner. On a final point.. Aziza and Baloura should be shown as contested.. The SAA made a failed attempt at Lutfi about 1-2 months ago. Dozens of news articles and videos show the FSA holding much of Aziza. Baloura is a no mans land. The SAA hugs the airport perimeter road. It's misleading to show it all as SAA held. The FSA holds the west part of what is shown on the map. Al Maamel is also incorrect... The SAA has some positions on the perimeter road. The area shown on the map is a developed area. If the SAA has anyone there, it is an isolated post.. they do not hold the urban area at all. The front at Myasar is also misleading. It shows the SAA all the way up to intersections where there are known FSA gun implacements. The area for 1/4 to 1/2 mile to the east towards base 80 is contested.. not SAA. You don't put cannons on the front line.. the FSA front is west of what's shown. Everytime the map gets close to accurate.. someone goes and Fu#$s it up.. This is about accuracy.. not politics.. some of you guys need to stop relying on SAA propeganda and be more careful about your sources. ~ GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent SAA advances

Sheikh Najjar is now contested - it's an area just to the north of the green zone on the upper right of this map. Esn (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The situation is fluid and changes fast! While the little village of Sheikh Najjar as the larger map shows has been in SAA hands for a week now, the Industrial city named Sheikh Najjar is contested. The Industrial City is Divided into Branches. The first branch (the south western branch) in now in SAA hands, they overran Jabal Bedro yesterday and took over the whole first branch of the Industrial City. They are fighting the Islamic Brigades in the second branch (To their north) but are not in contact with the third branch which the ISIS took a few days ago! (Third Branch which is to the east is not on their way to the Central Prison so it seems they just want to move in that direction for now). https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=745599718792758&set=a.206704882682247.54019.203720666314002&type=1&theater

This seems to be the information also coming from the Revolutionary Sites not just the Government sites. Also in-fighting broke in this area between the FSA brigades according to other sites! There are 4 different forces now fighting each other SAA, ISIS, and two FSA forces with one including Al-Nusra front and one opposing it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.15.164 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

SAA advance appears to have reversed. Front line is pushed back to Sheikh Najjar with many videos showing FSA in control of at least part of the village. Naqareen and Base 80 being hit. The map continues to incorrectly show Hanano and Adr Al-Hamra as contested. The SAA swept further east and north. These areas have been fully under FSA control.

FSA is now claiming to have fully recaptured Aziza, but I have seen no official news report as of yet. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.184.233 (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Even pro regeim sources acknowledge that Aziza is contested. http://www.albawaba.com/conflict-syria/syria-war-565232 The fighting has been going on there for weeks. ~ GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mislabeled districts

Upon close and careful examination of the labeled districts and their position on the map, it has come to my attention that Sheikh Lutfi area is actually much to the south of where it was originally positioned, while the current place it is placed in is actually part of Marjeh District which is known to still be in opposition hands. Also, "al-Maamel" which literally mean "the factories" in Arabic is actually the district just south of Sheikh Saeed district (and thus south of where the map cuts-off) and although it is in government hands (with rebels trying to enter it), it is NOT a part of the map. I will label al-Maamel on Wikimapia and will update this map now. Moester101 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hanano Base/Barracks

Multiple sources from both pro-rebels and pro-gov reporting heavy clashes in this area. Some rebel sources say it has been taken but it is probably to early to say this is definitive.

Jdeydah

Since this district has been raised as a contentious issue in the talk, I decided it deserves it's own section. Myself, have no recent reports indicating control one way or the other, however others apparently do.--41.51.93.132 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the eastern part should be coloured green or at the very least contested and the western one contested/red. --Amedjay (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

From the pro-opp site map [1] it appears that Jdeydah is red that is under government control.Paolowalter (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

When somebody has spare time, always from pro-opp maps, somebody should make the north of Bustan al-Qasr red, Ashrafiey probably red, the norther part of Saif-alDawla red, the norther part of Saad alAnsar red. And also the right part of the map above base 80 should be red according to the same source.Paolowalter (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

North part of Bustan Al-Qasr is red. Saif Al-Dawla is contested, which is fine.--197.171.164.160 (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can only find one reliable reference to this district. Some of the recent articles on Hnano Barracks state that the attack came from Arghoyl in addition to the major blast and assult from the eastern side. This indicates the FSA is still in control of eastern Jdeydah. I have seen no other independent news references for the district in some time. Jdeydah was changed because of someone citing a pro-Assad news source. So in my mind, it should never have been changed to begin with. There are a few unofficial reports on twitter and in blogs indicating ongoing fighting at the north and west perimeters of Jdeydah. If true, the FSA continues to control most of it, but without a credible source, it should revert to olive. As I've said, the person that changed it to red based it upon a pro assad news source to begin with, so it shouldn't even take a credible news source to undo that change. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Most recent report on the district (from yesterday), watch the video, by a Wall Street Journal reporter on the ground saying the Christian district is government-controlled. Case closed. [2]

Al-ameria

Pro-opp source confirm SAA presence in al-Ameria (southern half of Tar al-Zarazir [3] (I wonder which exscuses will be found to reject this source!!). This part should be named separately on the map as in [4]. Paolowalter (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sakhur

Why is it contested olive? It should be green. No fighting there in a while. Last time it was mentioned it was being aerial bombed by the syrian airforce. Sopher99 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC) http://www.gulf-times.com/region/216/details/389317/syria-calls-presidential-poll-as-civil-war-rages

That southwestern corner, not the whole district, was always contested because the Army reached the roundabout in that area months ago. EkoGraf (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that SAA is on the other side of the Sakhur Roundabout does NOT mean that the eastern side is contested. Actually, there hasn't been clashes here in a very long time. Moester101 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

When we had the report that the Army reached the roundabout, it did not say whether they were on the west or east side. Speculation that they were JUST on the west side is unsourced original research. EkoGraf (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Er, not really. Reading the source literally, the army had not captured the roundabout, only reached it. So they are only on one side of it. If we were to completely ignore previous sources, we would not know whether the SAA advanced from the east or west. Since we have a previous source they are in Arkub, the conclusion is they are on the west side. That would mean Sakhur is not contested. --41.76.208.114 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself Mr. IP Moester101 (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Karaj al-Hajz crossing

SOHR [5] mention the crossing Karaj al-Hajz (quoted many times before) as being in Bustan al-Qasr and with figting ongoing. I guess it correspond to the garage in [6]. That, together with many reports in previous weeks and to the AC mapo quoted above, should make the north side of Bustan al-Qasr at least contested. Paolowalter (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You "guess"?

It could just as easily be this garage here (not to mention this garage actually crosses districts http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.198799&lon=37.143881&z=19&m=b

Lets make the southern part of Masharqa (government controlled) contested. Sopher99 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Zahraa/airforce intelligence

Not sure if it is worth noting,but tweets from both sides of the fence are talking about battles within zahraa and around the airforce intelligence base. Does anyone have any sources from either side? i am aware the map can not be changed untill we have solid evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.129.106 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC) I think that color of AL Alayrmon must change to green and Zahra must changed in contested area because rebels are besieging air intelligence building and control some parts of building in Zahra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.242.15 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This info are from partisan pro-rebel source and there fore cannot be used to change the map.

In any case, eben the most optimistic statement talks about a few buildings taken by rebels at most.Paolowalter (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Updated map from twitter https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/454351857402396672/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.129.106 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Several changes pro-government should be implemented according to the AC map on the east and north west at least.Paolowalter (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Major developments and some old housecleaning. Air Force intelligence. FSA controls all areas to the west and northwest. The actual block on the map with the air force intelligence building should be shown in olive, although the FSA currently occupies all of that block except the actual AFI building. http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-news-3/ http://eaworldview.com/2014/04/syria-daily-insurgents-capture-air-force-hq-near-aleppo/ Also supported by multiple videos showing the FSA in the Red Crescent building, technical services building, and the residential area just west of it. Courthouse has been breached but it's unknown if the FSA hold it. Air force intelligence building also breached but SAA still holds it. FSA should be shown as controlling the area currently in Olive. SAA has been pushed out entirely from anything NW of the airforce intelligence building. The FSA also controls the NW corner of Kaldiya, and I've posted numerous credible news articles in the past on this, why won't anyone change it??. Just SW, the FSA are hitting Wafa and have tried to storm the bunkers at the Air Defense and Artillery base. Military research center is partially surrounded and under assult as well. I realize that no one will change the map since the only sources so far are video and blogs.

Ramouseh is contested. The FSA control much of the area including the garages and the giant traffic circle. verified by the article above and multiple other sources and videos.

East of Aqrab, the area up to Al Nasr is contested contested. Multiple new sources say that the Army "school of wisdom" Heckma School is under siege. Only video and blog sources so far.

East.. Aziza has been contested for weeks. I've posted previous sources. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-31/251773-regime-tries-to-rally-on-coast-after-taking-qalamoun-villages.ashx#axzz2yeAl13ie Sheik Lutfi is NOT contested it's FSA controlled and has been since the failed SAA offensive 1-2 months ago. I posted sources back at the time.

GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I've stated before, the change of Farafira and Jdeydah to SAA controlled was based upon an SAA source. I can't find any current news articles, but recent videos and blogs still show the FSA front line to be as far north as Maysaloon which indicates they control at least the east half of Jdeydah, and other video shows the FSA in Bahraat square, indicating they control at least portions of Farafira. Given that there was no credible news source to begin with, I recommend changing these areas back to Olive. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional discrepancies. the small area labeled Ma'asarariya in Myaser is FSA held. I suspect based upon the multiple videos that showed no apparent concern for the south flank, that that area of Myaser is also FSA held or contested. I suspect the same to the north up to Jabal Bardo. The FSA artillery line is at the intersection to the far east. This also indicates the area further east is in FSA hands or contested to protect the artillery possition. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid using the position of the FSA artillery to conclude areas beyond it are not under SAA control is original research. Besides, it may not even be factual: FSA would position their artillery close to the front if that was the only position withing range of a strategic target, like say the airport.

Something I have noticed in this war, the term "siege" is not always used to denote a position has been completely surrounded and supplies cut but that the position is under constant attack.

Also GFS, I have to question the validity of your sources claiming FSA hold much of Ramouseh and are contesting the School of Wisdom. That would mean the rebels have effectively severed all supply lines to western Aleppo, an event that would receive massive coverage, which has not happened.

With regards to Zaharaa, I believe these information are deliberately misleading. To contest Zaharaa, the rebels would need to take either part of Al-Wafa, Zaharaa artillery base, New Aleppo or advance their front south of Nile street. None of these have been reported, so the article is likely embellishing the attack on Al-Wafa.--197.168.6.155 (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Um.. yes, the FSA has completely severed the supply lines to Aleppo. I'm not sure what else to tell you. There are a few news articles, tons of less reputable reports and videos with identifiable possitions showing them walking around in Zahraa and Ramouseh.. sorry if you don't beleive your lying eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Both sides have been reporting heavy clashes in zahraa today. No videos appear to have been posted yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.131.242 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[7] Will update the map now. Moester101 (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The change are done basically on rebel's source and therefore meaningless. Furthermore I required changes based on AC map that have never been implemented. This map is loosing credibility very quickly. Please revert the last changes and implement the government advance recognized by AC. 87.4.49.203 (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. The report on Ramouseh is from an Al-Jazeera correspondent on the ground, and fighting in Zaharaa has been reported by both sides.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point the situation seems to be: 1. Zahra (and Al-Wafa) is contested. There are rebel videos on different media sites that clearly show Zahra district. There is heavy fighting inside the district. You can argue about the valadity of these videos, but the landmark buildings are very visible in them, and so is the shooting. Both sides have confirmed the fighting. Air Force Base is still governement controlled, but Zahra isn't anymore. 2. Ramouseh industrial district and the highyway are controlled by rebel fighters. The Artillery Base is loyalist controlled, but comes onder heavy shelling. Fighting is ongoing there as we speak with rebels trying to take it. 3. Rashidin has been taken over by the FSA. The SAA has retreated towards New Aleppo, possibly to send reinforcements to Zahra and Ramouseh.

Any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This map is loosing credibility very fast. I am always specific to cite which sources are reliable, and which are speculative based upon on the ground news or video. This map is about accuracy and not politics. If you show an area as rebel held, or SAA held and it's not.. people could die over that. I stand behind all of my statements.. The areas that I confirmed with news sources should be changed. The other areas with only video and blog evidence should be watched, but not changed. FYI, the map change for Jdeyda as I have stated was from an SAA source. The front line is in Alhatab. This is in the NW corner of the district. Odd since the map shows it totally SAA controled for dozens of city blocks.. This map has been corrupted by SAA sypathizers and does not reflect the reality on the ground. Wikipedia should be ashamed. I post information when the SAA takes ground. My posts get reversed. I suspect the idiots doing so are far removed from the people in the neighborhoods who are actually under assault. I suspect they are far to dumb, or are being paid off so that they don't care about the fact they are showing safe SAA areas, which are actually controlled by the FSA. blood money... Those that post this BS are killing people. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PS Moester101.. thank you for at least trying to update the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI Wafa is now under assault. FSA positions from the area around the airforce intelligence building are hitting it. This means the FSA has taken the southern block of the areas surrounding the AFB. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not providing any source supporting your claims.

The last AC map [8] (that can be taken only to establish the areas controlled by SAA for sure) shos that Zahara is red and the are with Air Force intel and Palace of justice (brown in the map) is red. The are west of Al-Wafa is splitted in teo, so that it can remain contested. Paolowalter (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Updated pro-regime map shows areas west of layramoun are rebel held, not contested. Also regime doesn't control that much of mahamel, and areas west of baloura are not contested, but rebel held. http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/04/battle-map-of-aleppo-updated.html Sopher99 (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The situation on the southern-east side presented in the above pro-govermnet map is fairly represented in this map. Probably the east part of Marjeh should be red but it is not important.

For the section north-west the map present a mixed situation. Unless this area is further splitted in smaller areas, it should remain contested. Paolowalter (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Area contested north-west of Al Wafa should be green with a small part nest to the army base left contested. As for Ramouseh it should be green as the army has not reportedly recaptured it and reports announce rebels still advancing there, as they just took over Sadkop army base and are threatening the huge artilley base --Amedjay (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to turn this page in a propaganda site you can make all Aleppo green,

but AC (not exactly pro-government) in the map [9] claims control of a fraction of the district and in [10] report that SAA control the west, the east and the south of the neighborood. Paolowalter (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is a reliable source per WIKIPEDIA. That means that if Al-Jazeera carries a story, it is reliable information. This pathetic attempt by government supporters trying to label all outlets that are not favorable to the government as unreliable is tiresome. I don't know if you read the blog post and are deliberately lying, or you just couldn't be bothered to read and simply went straight to the video. It clearly states, in the first line of the post, that the information comes from an Al-Jazeera correspondent on the ground. Not second hand from the rebels, a journalist employed by the original source who was at the scene. Stop spreading disinformation!--41.48.223.232 (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

SOHR just reported that the position on the south went back at the starting point ofthe offensive & nid=17997 & Itemid=2 & task=displaynews#.U05adqZIfqV. It also report fighting in Laydrammon that should be contested again. No mention of fighting in Zaahra or arounng the Airforce intelligence etc. Apparently the offensive was repelled and the situation is abck where it was few days ago. Pleas update the map accordingly. Paolowalter (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't read Arabic but have seen the report's English version. It states that rebels took Sadkop and the police station, then states the army "reversed gains". It is not clear whether they refer to just the base and station or the entire district. On the north, the fighting was never in Zaharaa. The AFI building is in Layrmoun. Why most outlets kept insisting that AFI building is in Zaharaa, I do not know. Bottom line, Ramouseh is unclear, and southern Layrmoun is contested with the rebels holding the northern half. No change is warranted based on this source.--41.48.223.232 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the map does not show all of Layramoun as rebel held. I am not going to teach you how to read maps or repeat myself. And the "multiple" changes have been explained in the talk section under Mislabeled districts. If you are not going to invest a minimum of your time to actually read through the talk, you really have no business engaging in it.--41.48.191.238 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Very well then. You might want to think about who the moron is here after I tell you that the black lines on the map are not district borders. They are major roads. Which you would of known if you had ever seen a detailed map of Aleppo. The label "Layramoun" in fact covers a larger geographic area than the black-line-delimited segment of the image the letters are in. And yes, it includes the AFI building. Due to the black lines not being actual district borders, the image can be more fine detailed, as in assigning only parts of a district to one side if the other side controls the rest of the district. Which had been previously done for Salaheddine and is currently the case in Bustan Al-Qasr.

The area south of Hamdaniya is in fact sourced. If you can be bothered to look up articles about rebel advances on the Agrab area, that is the area changed. You might also want to check out Wikimapia, which is the OS for the production of this map.--197.104.180.3 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm frustrated at times. As I've said before, I try to distinguish between factual statements, which I corroborate from multiple sources including at least 1 reputable source, and more speculative statements, which involve unverified video or blog evidence. I do not advocate changing the map based upon speculative information. I provided this because it is always well researched and usually followed a few days later by actual news articles. On that note, on the speculative side, It appears Hanano Base is under a major assault. I would not change it to contested until more verifiable sources come in, but both sides are acknowledging it, and some photos in the last hour show smoke covering the entire section of the city with reports of 3 major blasts. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait to see if it's a sustained attack. If they are still fighting there in 2-3 days, then it should be changed. Best news I have found indicates the FSA blew a hole in it, and entered, but were pushed back. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

New Contested Areas

Please update as per this comprehensive article: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/syria-aleppo-offensive-rebels-jabhat-nusra-regime.html# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.58 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, new sources indicate recent rebel advances. Rebel attacks on Aziza [11] indicate rebel control of Sheikh Lutfi area, and although Aziza remains in government control, Ballura should be olive to indicate Rebel presence/advance. [12] source indicates rebel offensive on northern Zahra (Wafa) district so it should be olive. Also, Rebels have launched offensive on Hanano base [13]. Will update map now.. Moester101 (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The change on Ballura are simply speaking a lie. Not the slightest evidence in the source. The fighting on NW are on the outskirt of Zahra, not at all so much in depth to justify turning olive a wide area. The attack on Hanano have been repelled. Nobody talks anymore on Ramaushe, government sources claims that the all district is back under SAA control and nobody has contraddicetd them. Therefore all the changes must be reversed. There is still a long list of areas well documented above waiting to be turned red (like Bustan al Qasr north). 192.135.12.144 (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For the enteenth time, this time in big black letters so no one misses it: NORTHERN BUSTAN AL-QASR IS RED. Seriously people, read a map...--197.104.180.3 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you need something more to return the Hanano district red? http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/syria-aleppo-it-seems-clear-that-the-rebel/ Furthermore most of the changes were done with no reliable sources. Ramouseh was partialy taken by rebels and now is all or in large extent back in SAA hands. SANA has already told. Pro rebels sides stopped talking about this district. There is no indipendent reports on the ground, what are we waiting for? Paolowalter (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually Marmilade the rule is, if an opposition source confirms a government advance, or a government sources confirms an opposition advance we make the change. In this case, an opposition sources confirmed the attack on the barracks was repelled. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that Eko. I was referring to the situation in Ramouseh, where opposition sources have not admitted defeat as far as I know. I am just saying that an area cannot be changed just because a source has stopped talking about it, even though Paolowalter is probably right about the regime taking Ramouseh back, because Rebel outlets would be all over this victory by now. Dr Marmilade (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Paolowalter. Why would you advocate turning the Hnano area red? The FSA just blew a hole the size of a large building in the fort. and fighting has continued off and on since. While it's clear that they were driven back out of the fort itself, every indication is that they continue to attack it and control all the ground on 3 sides. Hnano Base should be a red dot in a sea of olive or green. Also SANA is not a reliable source. It is the official news agency of the syrian government. Hardly an independent source. It's not just biased, it is the SAA. Regarding Ramouseh, the only people saying it's in SAA hands are SANA. All other sources say that about 80% of it is controlled by the FSA. This is confirmed by a continuous stream of videos over the last few days showing the FSA in control of identifiable areas within Ramouseh. It should remain olive or even green for the northern half of the district. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As to the small district with the Hanano barracks, looking at http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=36.209308&lon=37.170460&z=16&m=b&permpoly=105540 you can see that the eastern part of the district "is" the Hanano barrack. Unquestionably they are in SAA control and there is no major fighting there anymore. The western part (e.g. Maysaluon cemetery) has not been touched by the recent attack. Therefore the situation is unchanged compared to prior to the rebel's attack. The barracks have always been on the front line, but that does not make them contested. As to Ramouseh, your statement about 80% are not supported with adequate sources. The only position somehow documented with videos are the Sadkop fuel depot on the north side. Even rebel sources stated that the south, east and west of the district are under SAA control. As to the reliability of SANA, it is to be remarked that it is true that SANA does not report defeat and is not credible about losses (like SOHR) but I cannot rememmber a single false statement about territorial gain. On the other hand SOHR and Yalla souria still report fighting in the area and Syria Perspective admits that some pockets of resistance is still there. As a indirect proof of the situation, rebel claims that western Aleppo is surrounded has disappeared in the last days. The changes on the South East were so obviously wrong that I am not surprised that nobody is justifying them. Paolowalter (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep your eyes on Ramouseh. There are unverified claims that the main road was taken back this morning. The source is an SAA general, so I'm skeptical, but it is possible since the SAA launched a counter attack, and the area would be hard to hold. Suggest leaving it contested until there is further clarification. My guess is that the attack on Ramouseh was to block reinforcents from Al Safira and the eastern aleppo front while the FSA took the airforce intelligence building. The FSA may never have intended to hold it. The next few days will be very telling.

[14] reports that Ramouseh road is under SAA control. I guess it supports the Ramouseh area becoming red. Paolowalter (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Also [15] confirms the SAA control of the road and therefore, I'd assume, of the whole district. Paolowalter (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

RE Zahraa area, there is a misleading video out today claiming the FSA is shelling the air force intelligence building with tanks. They are doing so infact, however from a distance. There is an authentic video showing this.. The video showing repeated shelling is inacurate. I found the building and it is actually in the mosque compound just north of it. It's blown to pieces, but the FSA does not hold it. The FSA holds the residential areas just to the west, technical building, red cross building, but not the mosque, AI building, or courthouse. All SAA controlled buildings are being shelled and shot at heavily however, so they should still be shown as contested. Have no news on the North Al Wafa Front. Last update was about 2 days ago and showed FSA inside it. Pro assad sources claim that the FSA has been pushed out of Zahraa and that they have moved into south Layramoon, but I'm very skeptical given recent video evidence and posts by people on the ground in that area. I don't have any official news sources at this time.. just wanted to give people some updates and context on what to look for. I still stand by my statements on Aziza.. The only reason it's not being shown as contested is paolawalter's statement that "the FSA only holds 2 checkpoints". Unless someone wants to micromanage the area.. it should be contested. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.202.62 (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Scratch my comment on Ramouseh. As usual, the regime source was full of it. The road and district are NOT under SAA control. The road that partially restored the SAA's connection to west Aleppo is actually a part existing, part newly constructed route that goes south of Ramouseh, and through Al Sherfee.. The FSA still hold the ring road at Ramouseh, and most of the northern portion of that district. It should also be noted that Sherfee has been shelled off and on for a week or more, so this new road is tenuous. Paolowalter. yalla souriya is not an objective source. It is pro FSA. Turns out they were just posting information and had not fully investigated the claim. As I stated in my original post, I had doubts about the credibility of the claim and the map should not be changed. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.107.2 (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like good news for government forces. Since this is now a strategic area, is there any information about Brigade 552 and Tell Mutah? I do know the rebels hold the munitions factory in Kahn Tuman and I had heard that the rebels took the air defense base in Sharfee about two months ago. --41.54.251.83 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Only recent news I've seen is that they blew up the cement factory, although it's still in SAA hands, and that there is still shelling of the artillery base gates from ramouseh. The FSA have are clearly holding the ring road and north part of the district, but not sure where the front line is right now. From what I can tell, the FSA is hitting everything on the western front. If a single point fails, they will rush in. There are unverified sources claiming FSA is hitting deep inside zahraa and new allepo. I have no evidence to back that up yet other than the fact it was a complaint on pro assad websites. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.185.170 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

New changes that should be reverted

Moester101, I would urge you to revert Baloura back to red and Sheikh Lufti back to contested because none of the provided sources indicated Baloura has become contested and we have no source saying rebels took full control of Sheikh Lufti, your assumption that because they attacked Aziza than they must have captured Sheikh Lufti is considered Original Research by Wikipedia and is not allowed. So I would kindly urge you to revert the southeastern front situation to back as it was. Also, same goes for Al-Waffa, we have confirmation of fighting around the intelligence building and palace of justice (north of Waffa), but not in Waffa itself. The youtube videos that were provided here on the talk page can not be used per Wikipedia policy and are forbidden. So return that also back to red please. The area northwest of Waffa should remain contested. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't using youtube. We have confirmation fighting is occurring in the residential zahra district. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/syria-aleppo-offensive-rebels-jabhat-nusra-regime.html# Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That source talks about Zahra, not al-Waffa (two different districts). EkoGraf (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why, just because Wikimapia says so? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a trend developing in the reporting: rebel sources label Al-Wafa to be part of Zaharaa, and government sources are careful to make the distinction. As I stated previously, the only way the rebels could contest Zaharaa is for them to take a sizable portion of Al-Wafa, capture the Zaharaa artillery base or push south of Nile street in Khaldiya. The reports I read about the rebels advance in Al-Wafa is that it's limited to a foothold in the northern part of the district, so they could not have pushed through to Zaharaa.--41.48.191.226 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that Hanano was also marked as contested, despite that no more fighting has been reported there since the rebel attack on the barracks was repelled a few days ago per an opposition source [16]. So that also should go back to red.EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fighting at the hanano barracks less than 24 hours ago. http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/newsbriefs/2014/04/18/newsbrief-04 Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you would read your source more carefully the very first paragraph notes it is talking about fighting that occurred on 17 April. While the newer opposition source talks about the situation as of 18 April. EkoGraf (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Last report from SOHR [17] "Confirmed reports that regular soldiers, Hezbollah fighters and NDF combatants advanced in the perimeter of the air intelligence and the al-Leirmoun area" It might be time to turn red the area with the Air Force Intel and olive south al-Leirmoun. Statemnt about Aziza "(rebels) took hold of the al-Dasham and Burj al-Hamam checkpoints in the outskirts of the A’ziz village" are unsifficient to turn olive the whole Aziza area. On the other hand SANA and SAA reports still some fighting in Ramouseh. It is hard to say if they are sufficient to put olive this area. In any case Sopher99 changes are vandalism as usual and must be reverted. Paolowalter (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I love how people who accuse others of vandalism and POV-pushing are usually themselves the #1 perpetrators of both behaviors. Regardless, I have uploaded a new "consensus" map which should hopefully answer most peoples' concerns. Moester101 (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that perhaps because you dont know the looong history of Sopher99 and his incredible twisted edits, or perhaps because you also like to misinterpretate sources, as your edits show.--HCPUNXKID 22:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have told Paolowalter numerous times that AFI is in southern Layramoun. Either he thinks I'm lying, or is just deliberately biased.--41.48.191.226 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The new consensus map is great, good work. EkoGraf (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Please put Ramouseh and the air intelligence building back to contested. "advanced in the perimeter of the air intelligence" is not retaking the red crescent and technical service buildings that were captured by the rebels. SOHR is still reporting heavy clashes in the Ramouseh district. Moester101, maybe helpful for a final edit? http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/aleppo-syrias-stalingrad-10320

I apologize for not citing sources. Most of my comments should not even warrent a source. The map looks fairly accurate. I'll reiterate a few points and have posted sources for most of them in the past. 1. Al Aziza is contested. I don't know where the exact front line is, but both sides have acknowledged fighting for weeks and it's clear the FSA holds a portion of it. 2.Wester Jdeydeh at the very least is contested or in FSA hands. Supported in mainstream articles describing the attack on Hnano Baracks as well as multiple video's and other non credible sources. Again, I remind people that the change of the district from green to red was based upon an SAA source and it should be undone. I cannot find any official news from the area but video and internet sources continue to show the FSA in this area all the way to Maysaloon. Someone post needs to post a source showing the SAA holds this area. To the best of my knowledge the SAA punched a new line to the citadel from the NW, however it's highly misleading to show the entire section of the city in SAA hands. The FSA appears to hold the majority of the district. 3. Khaldia's NW quadrant has been in FSA hands for a long time and I have posted multiple credible sources for this, yet it's still shown as SAA held. 4. Unless there is recent news that I can't find, the NE corner of Al Wafa is not contested. Only the very fring is being attacked by the FSA. 5. My info on this is 2 weeks old, but the eastern front towards base 80 is wrong in the sense that the FSA has fixed positions on the current border, and the area shown as SAA is actually contested for some distance. No sources should be needed for items 1-4 since those changes were never supported by sources to begin with. GFS

All this, without sources, is considered Original Research by Wikipedia and is not allowed to be used as material on which edits are to be based. But I will respond just to some points you put out. Al Aziza was reported fully recaptured by AC and SOHR weeks ago (check edit history and talk for sources), fighting has recently been only reported in its outskirts. Jdeydeh was reported under Army control as early as yesterday by a Wall Street Journal reporter on-sight. Khaldia is being reported on a regular basis by SOHR as a government-held district that comes under daily rebel mortar fire from outside it, and just yesterday SOHR reported fighting between the Army and rebels in Layramoun, which would be northwest of Khaldia, not in its northwestern part. Last sources we have for city districts in the east of the city near Base 80 was they were captured by the Army. Unless new sources show up that claim to the contrary it stays that way. So your claim that sources were never provided for those changes is inaccurate. Only thing I agree is for Al Wafa because there have been no sources reporting fighting in it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, you are kind of correct ekograf.. Al Aziza is probably majority held by SAA, however the FSA holds small parts of it and there is fighting.. ie... it should be olive. Jdeyda is a large area. Please tell me why if it's under SAA control according to someone who is not on the ground.. why are we seeing reports of fighting well into the district and videos of recent assaults from that area??? um.. because the wall street journal reporter is an idiot and was reporting upon a small portion of the district being retaken by the SAA. Most or some of the area is in FSA hands. It's undeniable from videos and other reports. It should be olive. With respect to Khaldia, I've always said it's mostly in SAA hands. The NW corner has been in FSA hands for months however. I am talking about the gas works and surounding few blocks.. verified by many news and video sources. s Dozens of news articles, videos, etc. have shown this.. Layramoun is definately contested, the SAA has lauched an attack. Unclear if they hold any territory. GFS

Its your right to call the reporter an idiot and claim in your own opinion everything you said. But fact is, without sources not one of the edits you requested can be made per Wikipedia policy, and per Wikipedia policy the reporter is a reliable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Some changes that need to be made

There are a lot of places that need to be coloured differently: Sheikh Kheder, western Sakhour and southern Bustan al Basha must pass from contested to green,as well as bab al Hadid which is clearly under rebel control since months. How could rebels attack Hanano base if they were not in control of bab al hadid? Area north west of the Military Research Center must be coloured green or at least contested, even syrian perspective maps report that and we have the rule that pro governement sources can be used to show rebel gains Syrian perspective aleppo map. Finally northern Saad Al Ansari must turn red as most if not every maps from all sides show it as regime controlled? plus the TV station has not been under attacks in months. --Amedjay (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

From SOHR [18] : al-Shekh Sa’id and al-A’mriya is contested (the same is reported by SANA [19]). Ramuseh is still probably contested as reported by SANA, but the Hanano barracks are under SAA control. Also the situation on NW and SE (close to the airport) is better represented by the map of Dr. Marmilade. The changes in favour of the rebels are not supported. There are atill a list of modification if favour of the government discussed above in Bustan-al- Qasr and surroundings (based on the latest AC map) that are not implemented. Paolowalter (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the new changes by Dr Marmilade and HCPUNXKID. New sources (which supercede old ones) report attack on Hanano repelled (and no new fighting for a week), Rasmouseh road recaptured (and being used by the Army to send supplies) and fighting in Layramoun again with Army advances from the intelligence building (most if not all reported by SOHR). EkoGraf (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please specify the "new sources" you're talking about with direct links, because the only source provided here is [20] and actually does not mention what you just said. On the contrary actually. And I shall discuss this source more thoroughly and make changes based on it and will discuss it below. Moester101 (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

SOHR source provided by PaoloWater [21] has been completely emptied of its original descriptions to fit the POV of the person(s) who decided to use this source. On the contrary, I will actually use direct quotes from said source to show how the source was misinterpreted, and not only revert recent changes by POV-pushers, but also make new changes based on this same source. Here goes nothing: 1) "Violent clashes broke out...in the perimeter of the bakery in the al-Ramousa area" which means that clashes are ongoing in Ramouseh district and is therefore contested (olive), NOT SAA controlled (red). 2) The "cement factory" the report keeps mentioning is actually south of Sheikh Sa'eed [22] in Al-Maamel (and thus outside where the map cuts-off) thus making this piece of information completely irrelevant towards making any changes to the map. 3) This quote "Clashes broke out...in the perimeter of the al-Zahra’ artillery and the air-intelligence building" actually proves that the rebels are still surrounding the air force intelligence building (contrary to what EkoGraf tried to say) AND the rebels have begun an offensive on Zahra artillery base (which I shall now show in my new update/revert of the map). Please note that whenever I use ellipses (...) in my quotes it is to make the quote more concise by taking-out the specific names of the battalions involved in each battle (which are irrelevant). Finally, the moral of the story is: don't cite sources if you're not willing to objectively examine them to make unbiased changes to the map. Thanks and bye. Moester101 (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Contrary what you said I did not make claims about Zahra. What I was referring to was the Hanano and Layramoun situations. Opposition source here [23] confirming that the attack on the barracks was repelled which means the whole area around the baracks should be red (PS no reports of fighting anywhere around the barracks has been reported since than). As for Layramoun report by SOHR here [24] stating renewed fighting in the district, which means that southern corner of the district should be marked more largely as contested. And once again, I have seen no reports of fighting in Al-Wafa (youtube videos don't count per Wikipedia policy), so that too should be fully red. For the other changes I don't mind at this time (Ramouseh and Zahra). EkoGraf (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take out rebel offensive on Hanano barracks, which are already red. But area around should stay olive as the tunnel that lead to Hanano barracks was likely started from the barracks surrounding area, and reports of SAA repelling rebel offensive make no mention of SAA pushing out of Hanano but rather being stationed in Hanano. As for Wafa, northern part should also stay olive since when the change was originally made it was from sources of rebel offensive on Zahra around air force intelligence. Moester101 (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with your comments on the situation in the rest of the city, for now, but I see you didn't change the situation in Hanano. You just removed the arrow. You didn't fully color the district to red. Comments such But area around should stay olive as the tunnel that lead to Hanano barracks was likely started from the barracks surrounding area is considered OR (original research) by Wikipedia. So I ask again, revert Hanano fully back to red. No evidence of any fighting in any part of Hanano at this time. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, do you have proof that SAA controls area around Hanano? My proof is that the opposition did attack Hanano, is there proof that SAA counterattacked or any evidence on its presence outside Hanano? No. And this is why olive is ideal in this situation b/c it is literally the middle ground. Moester101 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the map veeeery closely, there is a small part of the map section that houses Hanano barracks that was red prior to the failed attack and is now olive. It would be fair to restore the map to the same state it was in prior to the attack, as the rebels have been pushed back to their starting positions. Don't know if it's worth an entire new version for such a minor change though.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, do you have proof that SAA controls area around Hanano? I provided proof. I provided you with a link that clearly states the attack on the barracks was repelled. That means, like user 41.76... says, the rebels were back to their starting positions before the attack, which is back in the Bab al-Hadid district. Before the attack the Army controlled the Hanano area. While I have not seen any sources reporting continuing clashes in the area of the barracks. So please, follow what the provided source says and edit the map accordingly. EkoGraf (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Even though I still don't see the sense in how SAA repelling the attack on the base means they secured the base's surroundings, but I honestly won't fight over such a small detail. I'll change it in the next edit. Moester101 (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ramouseh and Al-Ameriya

Ramouseh is not contested any more, the fighting is now in the Al-Ameriya district (which is part of Tal Az-Zarazir district in the map) https://twitter.com/2Rook14/status/460766237031555072/photo/1 Consequently, the southern part of Tal Az-Zarazir should be changed to olive. Hasan Rizvanbegovic (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That photo is not much evidence, especially since it comes from an unknown sources whos reliability we can't check. EkoGraf (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That might help: [25]

Actually, this source is not credible as 1) I have never heard of "Oman Tribune" and 2) It used a military source in its description: "A military source told Sana that army units continued to advance on Sheikh Said and Al Ameriyeh in Aleppo city." Moester101 (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many reports from pro-government sources that SAA advanced in Al-Ameriya and Sheikh Said. Fighting in the latter neighbourood are also quoted in [26] and [27]. Therefore both should go at least olive. Paolowalter (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

First, both these links direct to the same page. Second, I must be blind because I did not see what you were referring to in the source, can you please give me the direct quote from the source mentioning your note? Moester101 (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for referring to the same source. The exact quotation is "The combatants of the islamic battalions targeted, by mortar and tank shells, Al Iskan factory in Al Sheik Se’id". That means there are government position in Al Sheik Se’id.

The other source I meant is [28] that talks about the cement factory in Al Sheik Se’id. This factory is just outside the boundary in [29]. May be the fighting is just inside the district north of the factory.

In [30] fighting in al-A’mriya are reported.

Also "Islamic fighters launched mortar shells on regime strongholds in the Seif al-Dawla neighbourhood " reporting that at least part of this district is in SAA control. Paolowalter (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[31] Presstv tour with the Syrian Army in Ramouseh it is video evidence what else do you guys need.Daki122 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Press tv is not a reliable source. Sopher99 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to end this debate: To assert fighting in Al-Ameriya means Ramouseh is no longer contested is original research. Tal Az-Zarazir can be marked contested based on that source (provided it's reliable, which seems to be questionable) but it does not support any changes to Ramouseh. --41.76.208.114 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro-regime sources are not reliable. Sopher99 (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99 there is a video evidence that support my claims please stop being a rebel cheerleader and accept the facts.Daki122 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

They had announced their victory when it happened. Why would they keep announcing it two weeks later? Just because regime fanboys on Wikipedia cannot comprehend their team is capable of losing? --197.111.223.255 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source on Ramouseh.So stop whining and proceed with the necessary changes. The Syrian army has proceeded to consolidate its control over al-Ramouseh, secure its supply lines through Khanasser, to access the heart of the industrial city, recover the mills area and advance toward the neighborhood of al-Sheikh Saeed.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/04/syria-army-retake-kassab-turkey.html##ixzz30OBmd1ih Daki122 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

al monitor is a trustable source.And al monitor says al ramouseh under army control.Make ramouseh red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.155.233.103 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree, sources provided for Ramouseh, it should go red. EkoGraf (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Al Monitor mentions also 'advancing on Sheick Sayed'.

Ramouseh contested

Press TV (heavily pro-regime) a few hours ago said syrian army "is advancing on militant positions in ramouseh" http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/01/360808/syrian-army-inflicts-losses-on-militants/ Sopher99 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "advancing on militants" means that there are still clashes in the district with rebel offensive being pushed back by army offensive. I'll update to show it's contested while showing SAA as the repelling force here. Moester101 (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

New source from today http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=149356&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1 still fighting in Ramouseh. Sopher99 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Palace of Justice

Rebels have apparently taken the Palace of justice after advancing within Layramoun. This area needs turning back to olive rather than red. Clashes are still happening around the now surrounded airforce intelligence base. Only one source so far in regards to this. However this includes a few videos showing rebels at least in the area with landmarks visible. I understand more sources maybe needed. Can we also please be more mature on this article, i can see edit wars everywhere at its rather silly

Scotty 1235 (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC) http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-news-3

Source is unreliable even worse than SANA please do not post that kind of trash as a source the guy(who edits the page not you :) )sucks.If we listened to this guy rebels would have already taken Damascus.I don't mean to be rude but this will only create an excuse for other users to start using SANA,Prsstv,Al-Manar,Arab Chronicle.... and other patriotic source.Daki122 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, i will look for different sources next time 80.193.70.130 (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Regime Forces counterattack

Regime Forces progress in Sheik Najar raea and captured a number of militants. Clashes continue between Regime Forces and Armed Opposition Groups in Dowar Alborj in Allyramon area in north Aleppo and Regime Forces progress in the region.Hawar News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Najar is unfortunately outside the perimeters of the map, so can't do anything there. As for "Dowar Alborj" I have no idea where that even is. On top of it all, "HawarNews" is very much a questionable source which I don't think can be used to make solid changes to the map. Moester101 (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It is questionable not because it is Kurdish, but rather because I have never heard of it. It has no public or international repertoire whatsoever. Moester101 (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How funny but you quietly using data from facebook and from not a reliable source Press TV but why reject data from a Kurdish source. Although data from Kurdish sources are most appropriate to the conflict between the army and rebels since such data can hardly be called biased. I also urge you to be neutral and not to reject data from reliable sources on the trumped-up reasons although you are free to editing on the basis of data from Facebook or Twitter. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on today's events, a northern stretch of Owaija and Ard al-Hamra needs to be red. EkoGraf (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Map from the pro opposition source shows that the army carries out offensive in the north and in the center of Aleppo. And according to this source the army completely controls Salaheddine.Arab Chronicle Also pro opposition source said that the Hezbollah, troops and Iraq'i shia militias advancing toward Owaija on north of Aleppo, closer to the main northern access.Arab Chronicle Hanibal911 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Map Change

Please change the boundary of this map and expand it because lots changes a bit out of this map are happened.MZarif (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bani Zaid rebel controlled

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.239354&lon=37.133902&z=17&m=b&search=bani%20zaid

http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2014/05/02/aleppo-diary-stories-from-the-front-lines/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%253A%252F%252Fblogs.wsj.com%252Fdispatch%252F2014%252F05%252F02%252Faleppo-diary-stories-from-the-front-lines

Sopher99 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No its the northern third of rasafa marked olive. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I will make changes based on this article. "Then I asked him to take me as close as possible to a front line, and we soon found ourselves in Khalidya, which faces the rebel-held neighborhood of Bani Zaid." means that Khaldiya is the farthest Regime controlled part with Bani Zaid Rebel controlled. "On the northwestern side of Aleppo, a heap of earth and debris divides the neighborhood of Khalidya, which is under regime control, from adjacent rebel-held Bani Zaid." So the area between should be olive. "...schools like Suleiman Khater elementary, which sits on the front line in Salahuddin...It was one of the first areas captured by rebels when they launched their offensive. Since then, the regime has retaken a small section of it." This is the school:[32]. Also, "Syria’s daily flag raising and national anthem ceremony is still mandatory at all schools in regime-held parts of the country, but Mr. Abdul-Aziz said he skips the ritual in order not to antagonize rebels hunkered down a few yards away." So northern part is regime while southern is rebel. Will update now. Moester101 (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Northern part of Owaija and Ard al-Hamra

A northern stretch of the Owaija and Ard al-Hamra districts, from the eastern corner of the map towards the west up to Shqayyef, need to be red per the following sources [33][34][35]. EkoGraf (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

First off twitter is not a reliable source. Second pro Syrian army twitter accounts are even more unreliable. Third Owaija is not mentioned in the SOHR source. Sopher99 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The arab chronicle, (not reliable, but much more reliable than your pro-regime twitter accounts ) confirmed owaija and such are rebel controlled. https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Pro-regime? You serious? Elijah J Magnier is AL RAI's (Kuwaiti newspaper) Chief International Correspondent and he was interviewed by the BBC 2 days ago (reliable). How does that make him pro-regime? At the very least he is neutral. And twitter is not a reliable source? For months now we have been using twitter maps and reports for editing Syrian war maps. And like Marmilade said, pro-opposition sources can not be used to edit in pro-opposition gains and viceversa for government sources/gains. You got a neutral (maybe even a slightly pro-opposition source) stating the Army has reached Kindi hospital. That's what matters. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that no reliable media is reporting on it makes it alone skpetical. Second of all AlRai is an opinion based newspaper, not a reliable source (and alone correspondent on twitter is definitely not a reliable source). This is neither professional sourcing or opposition sourcing, but random twitter accounts. Sopher99 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You have not presented any proof to doubt Al Rai's reliability. Matter closed. EkoGraf (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

First: I suggest not to reply to Sopher99, he is just a troll and a vandal. The more you reply, the more he will keep writing. Just revert everything he does without farther comment.

Coming to the point, some red at the top right is needed. Nevertheless being conservative is fine, when the bulk of Owaija will be taken and Kindi hospital reached, SANA and SAA facebook page will tell.

Paolowalter (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only are those tiwtter sources not reliable, but pro-regime map released today show owaija and all firmly in rebel control (syrian perspective) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=683227328389602 Sopher99 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually that map shows the northern sliver/part of Owaija (which I am requesting to be red), up to the Kindi hospital, Army-held. So your assertion its showing Owaija fully rebel-held is in-correct. As for SAA facebook page, it showed a photograph today of the Kindi hospital. So back to main point, most agree the northern sliver of Owaija and Ard Hamra need to be red. EkoGraf (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that pro-government sources are correct, [36] please use this map to see how Breij and its respective roundabout (and even Kindi Hospital) are all north of where the map cuts-off. Making changes to neighboring districts based on developments in other districts is considered original research (eh EkoGraf?). Hope that settles things. Moester101 (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC) No, using correctly wikimapia to reproduce the Battle of Aleppo area you get http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.220734&lon=37.163315&z=13&m=b&permpoly=105540 and on the top right corner (with the mouse) you can see a corner of the south-west part of Sheick Najar that is under SAA control and on its left Bureij also under SAA control. Therefore the top right corner of the map must go red: the northern corner of Hanano and the are between Hanano and Owaija. Paolowalter (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, @PaoloWalter, I would like to remind you that calling other users "troll and vandal" are in flagrant violation of WP's Civility Policy [37]. You and other editors here have a history of name-calling editors who provide sources that contradict your personal POV (especially picking on user Sopher99). I hope I don't have to say this again. Keep it civilized or get out. Moester101 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The guy who I called troll and vandal, simpy deserves it every days. Editors spend a lot of times in reverting his completely unsupported claims and reading and confuting his sources that are either unreliable or outdated

or state something different from what he claims. I am more civilized and unbiased that you and if you do not like me you can leave. Paolowalter (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Thank you for copying my April 20 statement: "I love how people who accuse others of vandalism and POV-pushing are usually themselves the #1 perpetrators of both behaviors." I highly recommend that you come-up with your own original statements from here-on.
2) Can you actually pin-point any POV-pushing on my behalf? Or do you just throw around the term as you please? I on the other hand can actually PROVE your bias! Are you ready? Here goes: This [38] is your profile's homepage. On the right-half is all your deeply-held prejudices (anti-NATO, anti-Imperialism, support fight against political Islam) which are so evident in your edits. Need I continue?
3) Calling someone a vandal implies repeated and unwarranted desecration of files or articles, even though Sopher constantly provides sources for his edits. Accusing him of vandalism on the other hand would imply individual/isolated cases of said act, which would be a more acceptable term if said act was really carried out by the user and can be clearly shown to be vandalism. And what about Paolowalter's use of the term "troll"? Can you find an excuse for that one too?
4) Actually, Kindi is not in Owaija, and this map cuts-off halfway through Owaija district. See [39] and you'll note how our map only goes halfway through the real Owaija district, and how Kindi is NOT in Owaija. I think I'll stop now. Thank you for your understanding. Moester101 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

When did I say I'm pro-imperialist or wahhabist? Putting words in your opponent's mouth never bodes well in a professional debate setting (ask anyone who's been in a collegiate debate team and they'll tell you the same, or you can just take my word for it). And since when was seeing someone's homepage stalking? The real-life equivalent of this act is if someone was walking down the street and saw your house and your response would be "Stop stalking me Creeper!" and the person walking down the street will likely roll his eyes and think you're....you know. As for me not having any cogent arguments...well, I just WISH there was a neutral jury to see this, they'd let you know for sure. And honestly now, how did I shoot myself with that comment on Sopher? Your argument was completely non-sequitur. If you can't prove why X is Y, then your argument is invalid. If your response is going to be that Sopher is always making biased edits, then I shall chuckle at the irony and move-on with my life. Also, I used a neutral source (wikimapia) to show how Kindi is north of Owaija, whereas you only showed me a pro-regime map (SyrianPerspective), and you completely disregarded my statement on how our map cuts-off halfway through the real Owaija district. And if you can't prove I've been biased on my edits of this map, then please refrain from making any comments. My contributions to the geographical accuracy of this map are undeniable, and if you don't like how I update districts' colors then that's really not my problem. Finally, if you are a High School Student then I highly recommend you join your school's debate club/team, or if you're in college then join your college's Forensics Team [40], trust me it will make you much better at this, it certainly worked for Me. Ciao. Moester101 (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kindi hospital is not in Owaija, it's in Handarat. Way off the map.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

About being biased (I skip the non sense about being biased because of anti-NATO and anti-Imperialism, Am I allowed to be anti-fascist at least (That is more or less the same thing)?)

In the map many patches in the south west and west correspond to countryside empty areas inbetween red and green. They are probably not held by any side being no-man lands. Not having names, their conquest and losses, assuming that makes sense to conquer an empty area, goes unnoticed. All this areas (execpt the one left of Al-Aziza) are firmly green to increas the green on the map. They should go olive unless positive proofs of their control from each side is available or unless one side takes control of all surrounding (named) areas. Paolowalter (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Midan

Midan contested ( or maybe even rebel held) http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/syria-aleppo-offensive-rebels-jabhat-nusra-regime.html Sopher99 (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to push from the east of the city at midan. It implies they were coming from the area of Midan Sopher99 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering that before that report Midan was confirmed as fully government-held, the sentence was implying that they were trying to push towards/at Midan, but like Marmilade said, nothing about them being successful. EkoGraf (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ashrafiyeh

Syrian state media say rockets have slammed into a government-held district in the northern city of Aleppo, killing 9 people. The SANA state news agency said on Monday that the overnight attack occurred in Aleppo's residential neighborhood of Ashrafiyeh. In this article clearly states that the area under the control of the army.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ashrafiyah is a PYD controled district. State media cannot be trusted either.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/18202

http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_openPrintPage.action?newsId=296767

Sopher99 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sopher you generally look at the publication date of your articles? Because your articles are outdated. Date of publication of this article Al Akhbar(12 January 2014) also date of publication of this article Todays Zaman(31 October 2013) while my article Al Jazeera published yesterday and thus in my article more new and more relevant data. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

To be precise Todays Zaman dates back to 31 October 2012 (!!!) and it just mention Ashrafieh as mainly kurds populated and there was a clash between YPG and FSA. Nothing else. The article from al-akhbar refers to Afrin where apparently there is a neighborood called Ashrafieh !! It is just another example of vandalism. Not worth replying. Ashrafieh is, at large extent under government control. It is shown in pro-gov [41] and pro-opp [42] maps, maybe some norther edge is under kurdish comtrol. Given that the only info about figthing in the area refer to occasional skirmish on the outskirts, Ashrafieh should become red and Sheick Massoud yellow (it was turned olive quite some time ago, for a few clashes that have no repeated). Even if the actual boundary may not fir exactly the ones drawn on the map. Same conclusion for south Resafa. It should go red, exactly as the north is green. Paolowalter (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Khalidyeh. Sopher99 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Rashidin (again) and south of Hamdanaya

Map pro-opp [43] and pro-gov agree in showing that the rashidin area south of the Military Research Center are red in the west and olive in the east. The source quoted above to push for Rashidin green (Aljazeera) is completely unreliable. In the same article grossly exagerate the advances of rebels in Ramouseh and Al-Zaahara. Furthermore the region south of Hamadaniyah is red up to Aqrab for consensus of the two maps Aqrab is contested because of differences between the two maps. That means the bottom left area must go olive and the one on its righr must go red. Paolowalter (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your source is 3 weeks old, and the Al jazeera source stating Islamists took Rashidin IS reliable. Sopher99 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My source is two days more recent than your (look at date before tipying). Al-jazeera is paid to lie from the same guys who finance the rebels. Paolowalter (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

An unreliable source a few hours or a few days newer does not beat out a reliable source. How do we know Cdric didn't make the map a month ago?

And if Al jazeera was paid, they sure are investing that money wisely by producing reliable news. Sopher99 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

AlJazeera (both its Arabic and English versions) has received many international awards for its journalism over the years, with many actually being awarded because of its exclusive coverage of the Arab Spring. And yet you and Dr. Marmilade try to say that SANA is a reliable source while AlJazeera is not, which makes me laugh whenever I think about it. Moester101 (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are lying (never said SANA has to be used for this map). The other argument are so obviously false to be not worth discussing. Ashrafieh is red. Paolowalter (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Olive areas proposed changes

Many users have been recently complaining about how there are a lot of districts that have been colored olive for months because once upon a time there were clashes there. I would like to fix that by returning many olive districts back to their rightful controllers. My propositions are as follows:
1) North Saif al-Dawla should be red while south should be green
2) North Sa'ad al-Ansari should be red
3) Area of Umayyad mosque should be green (just like how the Citadel is a spot of red in a sea of olive)
4) SAA offensive on Tareeq al-bab should be removed as there hasn't been clashes there for a long time
5) Olive areas of Sakhur and Sheikh Khedr should be green
6) Sheikh maqsood should be yellow
7) Halak was already discussed above and should be green
8) opposing sources on Ashrafiyeh means we should make north yellow and southeast red
9) based on recent WSJ article that I quoted earlier, the olive box in Rasafeh should be half green and half red as there are no clashes there/there's a stalemate
Most of these proposed changes have already been discussed in the talk page in last 2 weeks.
I would be more than glad to post a trial update map if my written descriptions are not clear enough. Post any replies below. Moester101 (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My opinion 1) yes 2) yes 3) I have no evidence to support it. 4) yes 5) yes for Sakhur. Where is Sheikh Khedr? Aslo Karm al Jabal and Bad al-Hadid, I guess, should be green. 6) yes 7) yes 8) Most of it is red from the map. Maybe the norther tip is yellow. Difficult to be more precise. 9) I'd put the southern area of Rasafa red. But is difficult to be precise.

Furthermore, for reason that I explained above: 10) From the maps, the green area south of Hamdaniya (left lower corner) should be olive and the area on its right should go red. 11) Some slices in the northern east (top right) must go red. They are in Shick Najar southern part and in Breji. Some parts east or north of Jabal Badro and Ard al Hamra should go olive. They are empty countryside under nobody's control. Same for the areas between Baloula and Sheick Lufti. Alternatively we can split evenly between green and red as is done with the empty areas between Aziza and Sheick Saeed. And we should restore the southern part of Tal az-Zarazir olive (if not red) as it was done, but then lost because of the multiple reverts and change its name in Al-ameria as used in wikimapia by the news. Paolowalter (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For Umayyad Mosque, Rebels took it over a year ago and have maintained it since, and although regime is close-by, it is still in rebel hands. Sheikh Khedr is just west of Sakhur. The green area southwest of Hamdaniya is Rashidin suburb which the rebels took several months ago while the olive area to its right is no-man's land because it is flat undeveloped land that separates the warring parties. The northeast of the map I already mentioned in previous posts as cutting-off just before Sheikh Najjar and Breij. The last things you mentioned in the end I think we should leave as is b/c they are quite accurate right now. Oh, and I just realized that south Bustan al-Basha (which is full of government security branches) should be red as rebels haven't attacked these government buildings. I'll upload a trial/test map now to show where I'm going with these suggestions. Of course, it is up for debate. Moester101 (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

f you look at Aleppo map in [44] you will see that Aqrab is at least contested (left bottom area) and the area on its right is red. So it should be on the map. Rashidin is almost completely out of the map. Furthermore who told that is in rebels' hands?

For the north east (right top) it is not true what you said. I have already posted, but I repet: in [45] you can see the area covered by the map. At the top right there are Sheikh Najjar and Breij. Some read there is needed, furthermore large section on the right side should be olive because they are no man's land. Paolowalter (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See this [46]. The red lines indicate where the map cuts-off in the north and east, and they just barely show either Breij or Sheikh Najjar. However I am willing to compromise to show a tiny sliver in the northeast as red. As for Rashidin suburb/Aqrab, sources were provided when it was originally turned green some time ago. Moester101 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

For the north east, it is exactly what I meant. For south west, I quoted opposition sources in support of my suggestion. You can quote others in support of your, not simply referring to sources quoted some time ago. Paolowalter (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with all changes that were made with your last edit, although I agree with Paolowalter that the north-east corner of the map needs a bit of red due to the Army capturing the Bureij district. EkoGraf (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Army launched a major offensive in Aleppo. The Syrian army broke siege of the central prison of the city Aleppo. Also troops blocked all supply channels rebels in the eastern part of Aleppo.Arab Chronicle Also Hezbollah, Syrian troops and Iraq'i shia militias advancing toward Owaija, north to Aleppo, closer to the main northern access. This confirms the pro opposition source.Arab ChronicleArab Chronicle Hanibal911 (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This map shows the possible offensive line of SAA, not actual gain on ground. This map shows in the south west part (bottom left) red region much more extended than what reported in the map. I looked for Aqrab, that is marked as green and even the most pro-opp sources reported that a part of the town was takne in April. Nobody is quoting a full tak-over. Paolowalter (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Clashes in Sheick Said as I anticipated [47]. The southern part should go olive. Paolowalter (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Our Map cuts-off halfway through Sheikh Sa'eed. [48] the red line shows where it cuts-off. Unless the SAA has reached the northern half of it, we shouldn't change Sheikh Sa'eed. Moester101 (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That Arab Chronicle map is quite similar to this BBC map from 28 April 2014: [49], from this article [50]. Both maps show that: all the Military Research Center is controlled by the government, the Air Force Intelligence HQ is controlled by the government, Sheik Said is contested. Are two clues a proof? Ambaradan (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the BBC map shows that Aqrab area is in FSA hands. Also, Aqrab is barely developed with few buildings to be controlled anyways [51]. And no one is disputing that govt controls Military Research Center or Airforce Intelligence. As for Sheikh Sa'eed, Arab Chronicle shows it as fully FSA controlled. I'll update the map based on Arab Chronicle, while keeping Aqrab olive as there are contesting sources. Moester101 (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You cant mark the territory under rebel control on the basis of the pro opposition source Arab Chronicle. Since this source is not neutral also we cant mark the territory under control of the army on the basis data from the pro government source Syrian Perspective. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I think that the Research Center and the Air Force Intelligence HQ should be outlined in red like the Citadel and the Ummaya Mosque are. From this map it seems that the HQ and half the Research Center are contested, that is none have a firm foothold on those buildings, while we know the government firmly holds them both. Ambaradan (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Zahraa

A few sources from both sides are reporting clashes in this area These are mostly youtube videos from the twitter feed. I am unsure if any news agencys have reported it yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotty 1235 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Many youtube videos of rebels advancing are appearing 14:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

West Aleppo map fro m AC

AC map in western Aleppo [pic.twitter.com/EtRSZbmixG] (to be used only to define government position) shows clearly that the areas marked olive on this map in northern Al-Wafa district should be mostly red. The exception is the north west corner that they claim to be green and we can put as contested at most. Also the area wet of Al-Wafa in Kafr-Harma is red. Change the map accordingly Paolowalter (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is now getting out of control. You are demanding users who have tools for editing maps (I don't) to divide segments (something I know is difficult in svg files) just because your chosen side doesn't appear well enough for your liking. I urge a stop to this petulant behavior by simply ignoring it.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat myself: [52] states very clearly that Bustan Al-Qasr is contested. At least the northern part. That was reported many times. What are we waiting to turn it red (or olive at least)? Paolowalter (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeat yourself all you want, nobody's buying your ploy. As I said at least seven times, this map does show Bustan Al-Qasr as red in the north and green in the south. You are attempting to mislead everyone that Bustan Al-Qasr is further south than it really is to increase the government area beyond what it really is. Why this blatant POV pushing has yet to be sanctioned is beyond me.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody explain because in spite of endless reports of figthings, Bustan Al-Qasr remains green? What else shoudl be provided to turn it oliver in the nothertn part (at least). Paolowalter (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.199127&lon=37.143574&z=13&m=b&show=/14665985/Bustan-al-Qaser-district&search=hhalab--41.50.7.64 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallak

Why is Hallak black? Isis retreated from city http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10561857/Syrian-Al-Qaeda-group-ISIS-expelled-from-second-city-Aleppo.html http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3970378.ece Sopher99 (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I agree. I have not heard of ISIS in ALEPPO since a while, even less in Hallak. Unless there is a serious source, it should be green. Paolowalter (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Seriously, sometimes the ignorance, bad faith or simply stupidity of some editors here astonish me. Next time, try to review the "View history" tag before f*cking up the map to fit your POV. My source ISIS returns to Aleppo is from late February 2014, so unless you have a newer one just shut the f*ck up!. I dont like to be rude, but for some is the only language you can understand...--HCPUNXKID 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well here you go, punk kid: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Feb-28/248793-al-qaeda-splinter-group-withdraws-from-syrian-town-near-turkey.ashx#axzz2ubyeZMZO. One day after your source, so it's overruled. And don't even try to justify your behavior. Rudeness and obnoxiousness seeps out of every word you type, not to mention you're the most blatant pro-government partisan I have seen here in a while.--197.111.223.226 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Bustan Pasha

Which source was used to change it to government held?--41.76.208.114 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

See previous section. Moester101 (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just checked all the links in the previous section, maybe I'm missing something but the front line seems to be at best running through Bustan Pasha?--41.50.7.64 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I did! I made the northern half green and southern half red, see wikimapia if you're not sure where the halves are. Moester101 (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see now. I wonder though if olive would of been better here. AS far as I know, SAA only hold the agricultural institute, the rest of the district is rebel held. No, I don't have sources for that, sorry.--197.111.223.226 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The southern half used to be olive when Rebels tried to take security branches in the southern half, but their failure to do so means that the southern half should be red. A close look at the southern half will demonstrate how there's over 5 large government compounds, none of which the rebels hold claim to. Moester101 (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Rashidin to lime

Al Nusra took control of Rashidin a few weeks ago. Sopher99 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it was simply skipped over. That hasn't been fighting since either. Sopher99 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually a map [53] from the pro-opposition AC from about two weeks ago (newer than your AJ source by 2 days) shows the eastern part of Rashidin as government-held while the western part is contested (not even shown as rebel-held). So since we are on the subject, I would ask, based on this opposition source, that the eastern part of Rashidin be colored as red and the western left as contested. EkoGraf (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And a pro-regime map released the same day shows Rashidin as mostly rebel controlled. http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/04/battle-map-of-aleppo-updated.html Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That map actually shows the same thing as the opposition map. Western part rebel-held, eastern part government-held.

The fact is that we have a reliable (non pro/anti regime) source stating al nusra took rashidin. Sopher99 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Only pro and anti regime sources conflict. Reliable sources don't conflict. Rebels control the district per

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/syria-rebels-advance-aleppo-city-2014412101712303691.html Sopher99 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Read what I said above, they don't conflict. Western part pro-rebel, eastern part pro-government. They actually agree. Your source is older than those two maps. EkoGraf (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Brake it up kiddies... There is the Rashidin district and Rashidin suburb. Rashidin district is much bigged than Rashidin suburb. Rashidin suburb is in the Rashidin district, southwest of Hamdaniya. Rebels took Rashidin suburb, and it is clearly shown. Rashidin district is still contested.--197.111.223.235 (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Some reports now saying the entire area has now been taken 80.193.70.130 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ramouseh

Looking carefully in many sources pro-opp and pro-gov, I found no mention of fighting in al-Ramouseh in the last week anymore. SSA announced some time ago that was under its control, but mop-up and combing operation were still under way. It seems that are down with it. Therefore it should be turned red. We cannot expect to be announced, because it was already in the past weeks. Paolowalter (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent maps by arab chronicle and BBC show it contested. You shouldn't take everything the SAA announces at face value. 108.38.116.64 (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No need of being lectured about source reliability. AC map cannot be used to define rebel's gain. No BBC map is posted. In any case, the arguments are still valid, non fighting has been reported since a week and we know that the district was retaken by SAA. So it should go red, otherwise it will remain olive for ever. Paolowalter (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we know it wasn't retaken. The SAA announcement that Ramouseh was retaken was proven to be a lie. And what's with this obsession with Ramouseh? It's not like retaking it will save the government forces. If it really comes down to it, the rebels can just blow the bridge over the Queiq which is under their control and render the ring road useless. Fighting has stopped because they figured this out and instead focused on keeping the road south of Ramouseh open for as long as they can.--41.50.7.64 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

All these statements appear unfounded. Fightings have been going on for some time, then stopped and moved in districts further north. All the rest are speculations unspported by any source.Paolowalter (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that government presence in Ameria means that Ramouseh is taken by SAA doesn't make sense since they could have easily advanced from Artillery base west of Ramouseh. And without a neutral and reliable source that has mentioned Ramouseh retaken by SAA, it should stay olive. The only sources you've provided were from SAA spokesmen and the likes. Also, I have yet to find how Arab Chronicle is pro-opposition, so far I have only seen very objective reporting from their behalf. Moester101 (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Paolo is also referring to Sheikh Saed, but there his argument falls flat as Sheikh Saed is on the other side of the river and has no relevance for Ramouseh. If anything, the raid on Al-Ameria (BTW, no fighting reported there for a week either. Could it be that it's rebel again?) proves rebels are still present in Ramouseh. The army hadn't tried attacking that district before the ring road fell, and I'm preety sure they did this only to try and surprise the rebels and draw their forces away from Ramouseh.

AC's editor is openly pro-opposition in his blog, however he has proven reliable in facts he reported. --197.111.223.226 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed only a few days after the rebel attack on Ramouseh that the military recaptured the highway area [54] in northern Ramouseh via which the rebels attacked from Sukkari. This would mean, at best for the rebels, they were cut off from the rest of their forces and still have a pocket of resistance surrounded in the district, at worst for the rebels, the district is under full Army control since no fighting has been reported there for some time. However, you also got this source [55] which states The Syrian army has proceeded to consolidate its control over al-Ramouseh. So, in any case, the map here shows only the northern part of the district, which was confirmed by SOHR to be back under Army control, and you also got that other source which says that virtually the whole of the district is Army-held. So it needs to go red. EkoGraf (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is quite a comical situation if SOHR reported that, because apparently Syrian Perspective believes the rebels still control the ring road in Ramouseh: http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/06/updated-current-map-of-aleppo-battle-642014.html. So we have a pro-rebel source claiming government control and a pro-government source claiming rebel control. Like I said, comical.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Bani Zeid

SOHR says Violent clashes took place between the regime forces and the Islamic battalions on outskirts the neighborhood of Bani Zeid source:sohr official: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/535422186566124 .But the our map shows bani zaid and resafa is all green.How could resafa all green If violent clashes outskirts the beni zaid.Beni zaid should stay green and down side should red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Resafa was red and Bani Zeid was contested but someone made all agree. In any case, since there is fighting on the outskirts of Bani Zeid a change is needed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That 'Someone' used credible sources which were very specific in their description of SAA/FSA frontline when he made the changes, if you recall. Also, Resafa (of which Bani Zaid is actually the northernmost part of if you see wikimapia) is NOT all green, the sources used to make the changes mentioned the frontline being in southern Resafa, which is why the section closest to Mohallab Barracks in Resafa is colored RED and NOT green! Hope that clarified things. As for the clashes, I would love to make the area divided by SAA and FSA to become olive, but if you expect to only make the opposition areas olive then you would be misinterpreting the source which did not specify what was happening on the ground. Regardless, unless there is credible and specific mention of who is entering who's territory, changes made are obsolete. If these clashes really do continue, then we should expect reports to come-out mentioning who's attacking, but until then, nothing should change. Moester101 (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

bani zaid neighborhood location and saa frontline in our map: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.233197&lon=37.139969&z=15&m=b&gz=0;371316862;362301331;26392;90606;72312;75030;102353;105317;95915;115873;123381;121411;114369;163291;40340;150139;0;131535;214;99432;36907;88010;72956;74597;100421;103672;146770;9346;52356;0 .Source say fighting outskits the bani zaid.Fix it.Or go to eye doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite aware where Bani Zaid is, and as for the frontline on the map right now, it's actually this [56]. Source provided doesn't make distiction between Resafa and Bani Zaid, whereas original source used to make change mentioned Resafa specifically as frontline between warring parties. Until now the only attacks on Bani Zaid I read of are via artillery or aerial bombardment, which doesn't count as contested per previous conversations we've had on talk. Moester101 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok,we should wait for more sources, i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 15:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Saif al-Dawla

Clashes reported [57] in the park in the southern part of Saif al-Dawla http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.185100&lon=37.127609&z=15&m=b The southern section of Saif al-Dawla should go red and/or olive. Paolowalter (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the clashes ongoing? It wouldn't be worth it to make the changes for something that happened overnight. Moester101 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Same report say ashrafiya is under army control ,it should red too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.44.118.168 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of Ashrafiya is already red, the northwestern section is yellow because other reliable sources mentioned it as YPG controlled. Moester101 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

From the pro-opp site [syriadirect.org/rss/1432-syria-direct-news-update-6-11-2014] the rebels want to launch an attack to Sheikh Saeed to liberate it. Therefore, at least a large part of the district in in SAA hands. Please change accordingly.

Paolowalter (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It takes more than being non-biased to make a source reliable. Syria Direct seems to be confused about geography, claiming Aziza is south of Sheikh Said. Also, there is no army base in Aziza, like this source claims, which suggests weak fact checking. For this, the source is suspect when it comes to reliability.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

SyrianPerspective map, June 12

New map from the pro-Assad side. Esn (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The biggest differences I see with regards to our own map's borders is that they claim that SAA controls eastern al-Rashidin (which is probably true) and Sheikh Lutfi (which is definitely false) while also claiming attacks on Halak and Layramoun (which I haven't seen proof of yet). On the other hand, they admit FSA advancment on al-Aziza, and FSA control of northern Ramouseh (which is shown on our map as olive, and they also show the buildings north of Sheikh Maqsood (just below the northern highway) as FSA controlled. The only unbiased edit I can do with this map is the last part I mentioned, which is make area north of Sheikh Maqsood green. Moester101 (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not seeing this map correctly, but is it not showing parts of Jdeydah and Khaldiyeh districts as contested?--41.50.7.111 (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Bustan al-Qasr

Clashes took place between the two sides in Bustan al-Qasr.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And also please update this map on based of this map Hanibal911 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kallaseh

Pro opposition source said that rebels of al-Mujahideen Army targeted military bases of the pro-Assad forces in Kallaseh neighbourhood in the city of Aleppo, using heavy artillery. al-Mujahideen Army fighters targeted gatherings of the pro-regime forces in the Fire Department in Kallaseh neighbourhood.source Hanibal911 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kalasseh

The source http://aranews.net/2014/07/islamic-rebels-attack-pro-assad-forces-aleppo-killing-five/ (thanks to Hanibal911) reports that SAA control all or part of Kalasseh neighborood, that is shown full green in the map. It must become at least partially red.Paolowalter (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This info fits with the map https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bsi8_1ACMAMCpc0.jpg:large that provides a picture quite different from the one from this map. It confirms that Bustan al Qasr is almost completely under SAA control. It should be used tp update our map.Paolowalter (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I already showed the flaws of Hanibal's source in my previous comment. As for the accuracy of PBS's map, the fact that they painted the Umayyad mosque and areas just south of the citadel (especially palace of justice) as red shows you how much these people know about the situation in Aleppo... Moester101 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Military Research Center

It has fallen. Only YouTube and Twitter at the moment, but the mainstream media should catch up soon.--197.111.223.228 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

News confirmed: http://eaworldview.com/2014/08/syria-daily-civilian-death-toll-spikes-125-killed-sunday/ --197.171.76.160 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Also rebels are entering al-Assad Suburb in Hamdaniya[58][59][60] Time to finally update this long stalemated map! Moester101 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the military research center claim, youtube and twitter are forbidden as sources on Wikipedia (you did not even provide the links) and eaworldview is a heavily pro-opposition site which has already been banned per talk at the main map of the Syrian war as a source, unless it reports on government advances. Also, as far as I can see, eaworld view is also basing its report on a rebel propaganda video (not really reliable). Otherwise, feel free to make the area near the academy contested, seems that has been confirmed by SOHR. EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am aware they are not allowed as sources, which is exactly why I hadn't posted the links. Last I checked, I am allowed to create a new section in the talk without sources, am I not?--197.172.37.191 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Military Academy

A neutral source [61] has surfaced stating the attack on the military academy was catastrophically repelled so please do not make further attempts to colour the area as contested. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

One more source saying the same http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/11/235982/moderate-rebels-face-worsening.html.Paolowalter (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The same source states that Haidariah is government controlled. The area where fighting is going mentioned in the source on is likely to be that between Hanano and Owaja (See map http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=36.252649&lon=37.199879&z=15&m=b&permpoly=105540).Paolowalter (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

On the west, the rebels made a push last week to capture the city’s military academy, the major government-held installation in the city’s western quadrant. But attack, however, ended in catastrophe, exposing the rebels to repeated attacks from the air, even at night, that made it impossible to move men and weapons freely. Also government already controls, the industrial zone and the al Haidariah district in the city’s northeast. Ledger-EnquirerCharlotte ObserverThe TelegraphSun HeraldVC StarMcClatchly DCIdaho StatesmanMiami Herald I think that no one will say that it is not reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

All those sources are of the exact same article which was likely relayed from the AP. While it only mentions Haidariyah in one sentence, if such a change in hands had occurred it would have been mentioned by SOHR at the least. Also, I don't see the logic in how the SAA can enter and control Haidariyah without first going through (and controlling) northern Hanano district [62] which wasn't mentioned at all. Can you blame me for being skeptical? Moester101 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you completely ignore the data that have been provided from reliable sources! But you immediately changed Military Research Center under rebel control on the basis of only one message from the pro opposition source! You are editing a map in favor of the rebels on the basis of delusional sources but reject military successes that prove reliable sources. If you edit a card, you must not be biased and edited on the basis of data obtained from reliable sources, but alas you not do this! Also you deny the fact that the rebels themselves have recognized that the Haydarya district under army control. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. All I said was that all those sources are actually counted as one because they are all the exact same article they retrieved from the Associated Press. Such a significant change as making Haidariah red would have undoubtedly been mentioned either by 1) SOHR or 2) in greater detail than the brief 1-sentence mention in the articles provided. Note that I did not say anything about the credibility of the sources provided. Don't forget that I've made numerous green-to-red and green-to-olive changes in the past, so claiming bias on my part is nonsensical. Finally you didn't respond to the fact that SAA can't possibly physically reach Haidariah without going through rebel northern Hanano. Moester101 (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Zahraa

This is interesting, SOHR says Jam'iaat alZahraa is taken by Islamists, anyone have more info? [63] This other post also mentions at least a part of Zahraa in FSA hands (while also mentioning FSA offensive on Breij which is just before Sheikh Najjar)[64] Moester101 (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

But in Aleppo there is another Al Zahra district.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

They have been attacking Breij for months now and have been repelled each time. Old news. EkoGraf (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Clashes took place between the two sides in al-Brej , and around the central prison of Aleppo in an attempt by the regular forces to advance towards al-Kendi, Eweja, and Hendarat camp

clashes continued between the two sides in al-Zahra neighborhood around the air force intelligence building, and al-Rasoul al-Adham mosque.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR was specific in saying Jamiat alZahara, not Bustan alZahra. And as for the attack on Breij I am simply trying to show that the SAA has not advanced further south to Haydaria contrary to what Hanibal was trying to prove earlier. Moester101 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

They are actually on the border between Haydariya and the Breij roundabout, while the military has put in efforts to advance from the direction of the prison into Handarat and cut the last supply line. They aren't trying to advance from Breij. EkoGraf (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bustan al-Qasr

SOHR reported that clashes took place between regime force and Islamic battalions in Bostan al-Qasir neighborhood.[source] Hanibal911 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)