File talk:Battle of Aleppo map.svg/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Kafar Hamra

The Army regained full control of Kafar Hamra, a suburb of Aleppo. Government forces liberated the area after heavy fighting with the foreign-backed militants. (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me laugh it's an iranian pro-assad website and since the start of the battle the army has already lost 5-6 tanks... They still can't see the color of Kafr Hamra -- (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@ IP: Agreed bro, allow me to share your joy, LOOOOOL haha Moester101 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure of the status of the full area, but photos today show FSA in Kafar Hamra and not too worried about SAA in the area. Looks like the SAA moved in, shot up the place, took a few PR photos and pulled out. - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Kafar Hamra is occupied by SAA. The front line is around Hreitan right now. (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The date in the description of the video is 10-6-2012, and the title is "أول معركة حقيقية في حلب" which can be translated into "first real battle in aleppo", so this is about old events... Tradedia (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


"rebels fought to claw back gains by Assad's forces in several districts. Pro-Assad forces came under attack in al-Sakhour. Fighting also raged in Suleiman Halabi, a district largely held by Assad's loyalists."-Reuters. According to this Sakhour is not green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say that at all. It says there is fighting in Sakhour, but it's not mentioned if that's on the edges near Suleiman district or in the eastern part. It seems loyalist forcess have taken up some positions inside Sakhour, but they have not taken over the entire district. Else there would be mention of fighting near Shaar and Hanano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said 'whole' district. This is only for orientation. Frontlines never follow city geometry :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talkcontribs) 08:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No footage yet, but it sounds like there is heavy fighting around the military research center and New Aleppo. I have not heard of fighting there for a few months, and at the time it sounded fairly limited. Also new fighting reported around Al Assad Miltary academy. Looks like maybe a new push from the west of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've also heard news about this and some even say rebels have taken control of half of the Research center -- (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


"rebels seeking to reverse gains made by loyalist forces in the commercial hub over the last two months, activists said." - According to Aleppo battle article - there are no SAA gains in last 2 months. May be some of news about SAA advancing are actually real. Problem is - we can not be sure about districts. I've read posts in last 2 months about SAA advancing - they pretend for advancing in Sakhour, Bustan al Basha and attacks on Hannano from nord??? and south east/probably from airport area/. Missing confirmations from both sides make map updates very dificult. For example FSA anounced 'we will close M5 highway' - so isn't it already closed? Or is reopened without both sides confirmed that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talkcontribs) 06:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Konstadin, there have been gains by pro government forces in Aleppo during the last two months, which we have duly documented in the map and talk: Tel Sheghaib, Al Aziza, Babis, Syriac Quartet, Bustan Pasha, Palace of Justice in Leyramoun... All in the last two months, prompting map updates where the area was actually part of this map.-- (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Most of them are moving forward and backward front line within small distance. Actually I see last two months SAA loosing ground slowly - possesion percent going down /from 60-70% to 40%/. So if compare possession there aren't significant saa advances. May be Reuters article isn't correctly named area. Probably they talk about province generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talkcontribs) 12:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Re the M5: It would seem the rebel sources were referring to the stretch of M5 between Hamidiya and Khan Al-Asal. They apparently closed it yesterday by taking Rashidin suburb, but this has yet to be confirmed. At least we cleared that up.-- (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


where is the central square of the city located. (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

North-east corner of Jameeliya district. -- (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
so the government still has the upper hand in the city. (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Aleppo is thousands of years old, and as such has a rather irregular layout, making it hard to talk about a definitive "central square". The Old City, centred around the citadel, is the best candidate for the "city centre". I wouldn't say it has a "central square" as far as the western understanding of such a feature might go, but the ancient Souq al-Madina marketplace just west of the citadel around the Umayyad mosque ([1]) would be the best analogue. Further west, there's also the Presidential Square [2], and north of that there's Saadallah al-Jabiri Square [3], which is sometimes referred to as the central square. But Aleppo is so big that control of any square isn't necessarily indicative of overall control. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Saadallah al-Jabiri Square and the adjacent park was the one I was referring to, as along with it's central location it's also where most government offices are. However, control of the central square means very little for the government forces which are cut off from all supplies and outnumbered by all accounts. Jameeliya is a predominately Christian district with a number of military and political institutions (most notably the Baath party HQ), so it is quite likely to be the very last district of Aleppo to fall to the rebels.-- (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Saif al-Dawla

Does anybody read about possession of this district? I have read some sources, but they are 'non-reliable'.Kostadin24 (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it appears to be mostly under rebel control. They control the whole district exepted a strip in the northern part of the district where clashes happen sometimes there. I think the map is good at this point. -- (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Army is holding only the sports complex in Salaheddine, so it's fair to assume Saif al-Dawla is in their hands.

BTW, does anyone have any news on Khan Al Asal and the nearby army fueling base? Last I heard there was fighting in April.-- (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything that would make me think that it's fallen out of government hands. This map (by a generally pro-rebel source) shows it as within the "red zone". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Lothar map that you provided as example is showing too much area and is not drawn very accurate. Both sides make noise when make significant progress so I think frontline is not moved here last weeks.Kostadin24 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For the person who asked about Khan Al Asal: SOHR reported yesterday that rebels have cut the road between Khan Al Asal and Hamdaniya. I guess they cut the road at the forrest zone. It appears that happened after rebels took southern Rashideen. I'm gonna show these cha rnges on the map -- (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Be careful there, it sounds like the rebels took Rashidin suburb. This is entirely south of the M5 highway. Area north of it seem to be predominantly rebel, but it's not clear. Keep those olive.-- (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct district borders This map is not reliable as military positions, but have clearer district borders. Districts at city end are drawn better than current Allepo map.Kostadin24 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well this maps seems to be pretty "pro-SAA" and according to it Sheikh Said, Ashraffiyeh, Hanadarat and large parts of Sheikh Maqsoud are under army's hands which is false. Maybe that's because the map is from April 2013 -- (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's from April, of course it does not show the current situation! --Andylee Sato (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey! I'm offering map as source for district borders, not military situation. I repeat - district borders.Kostadin24 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I got that one. ;-) that's why I replied to the IP and not to you. everythings fine.--Andylee Sato (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, i'm sorry I didn't read your whole message Kostadin... my bad. But yet the situation in Khan Al Asal is changing -- (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the district borders, the map you provided is based on wikimapia so it's nothing really new... Wikimapia -- (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If borders are not correct some districts are huge and it is difficult to understand where exactly is fight.Kostadin24 (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

General Twitter feed

Not sure how true it is, but alot of tweets stateing that the last open road in aleppo has been closed? Might be worth turning Rashidin green? Scotty 1235 (talk)

The road is the stretch of the M5 highway between Khan Al-Asal and Hamidiya. Agreed, provided more evidence than tweeter feeds surface, area south of M5 highway should go green.-- (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Top part of the map

One thing is unclear and it is somewhat bothering: are two rebel held (green) areas connected over the Kurdish (yellow) area?

Perhaps the map should be slightly extended to the north to clarify this. Currently, yellow area is just touching the top part of the map, making it botheringly unclear what happens just above it. -- (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Another version of city map

Black lines shows polulated areas.

Hello, I made this map modification using satellite images. Map shows areas with buildings and without buildings. Black lines shows area with buildings - city and nearby villages. Knowing where really we have building gives better look at positions and movements. For example - SAA using airforces can easy find target in area without buildings. FSA can use streets to block heavy army units. Both sides use terrain advantages and disadvantages. Between Bustan al Basha and Ansari we have river and In Sheikh Maksud too. Open areas between districts makes difficult to sneak and are used as advantage for defending. We all know about castle on city center hill, but there are lot of such obstacles. Free space at Nord West part of city can explain why SAA failed with recent attaks - FSA uses new weapons to destroy tanks and there is no cover between buildings like in street fights. My general idea is to create layer with terrain obstacles and human made obstacles. --Kostadin24 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort and idea behind this, but I personally don't agree with this step as it will make an already messy and crammed map look more messy and crammed, and it won't really do much to show who controls what since we have colors for that. But good contribution nonetheless. Moester101 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not necessary to replace current map. Just another map for people who want more info.Kostadin24 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate this new look. Very interesting. --BuenaGente (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I like this new version more than the old one because it adds valuable information Tradedia (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, the offensive from Bustan Al-Zahra didn't fail due to new weapons for the FSA, but because of terrain. SAA attempted to launch a tank assault downhill, which Soviet tanks cannot do.-- (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw Soviet era military maps of Europe. They marker very accurate all obstacles for tank attacks. I've read that SAA preparing border to prevent technicals crossing easy. This kind of info don't have place on this map, but shows us how important is to know terrain of batlefield.Kostadin24 (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


I'm looking on red arrow pointing to Ashrafiyeh and contested area there. Is there sources for such change? At moment SAA is engaged in several attacks in different directions and in defence on west city entrance. Is it realystic to expect significant advance against Ashrafiyeh? Please provide sources!--Kostadin24 (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

yeah, I thought the change was weird too, especially since the video the user provided had nothing to do with SAA offensive on Ashrafiyah. Although I should say that what we currently show as Ashrafiyah actually contains SAA held al-Zuhoor area in the southern portion of the area. Should I change that instead? Moester101 (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The edit seems to have been made due to an update on the main page. The source article for that however has only a statement from I believe Rami Abdul Rahman, and is not corroborated with anything else to back up his claim about the army operations in Ashrafiyeh. That line will likely be removed from the main page due to the above reason, and we definitely should revert the update to the map.-- (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading some sources over internet - probably clashes are periodically not because army trying to take control over Ashrafiyeh but army send suply convoys to prison hospital and prison to Nord of city. convoys just run over main streets and continue to nord. On thei way they shell each other with opponents.Kostadin24 (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
They may be trying to push north, but the hospital and prison have been pretty firmly cut off for a few months now, ever since, rebels and YPG increased cooperation in Shex Meqsud and rebels took over Shqayyef and Handarat. There have even been several calls to loosen the siege on the prison to allow for humanitarian aid for the prisoners caught in the fighting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bustan al-Qasr situation

Hi, I just wanted to point out this interesting BBC video showing how people get through the most widely-used crossing between the two sides of Aleppo. The video mentions that Bustan al-Qasr (or at least some of it) is "no man's land" but in the map here it is entirely rebel-controlled. Can someone explain the discrepancy? Also, if we know the exact location of these crossings (apparently there aren't that many) would it make sense to add them to the map? Esn (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Wikimapia, you will see that Bustan Al-Qasr is divided into a government and rebel area. I propose this section of the talk be removed.-- (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the answer. I also had a question about whether the geographic locations of the crossings between the two sides are known or not. Esn (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Layramoun and Kurdish sector

Two things:

  • Apparently there has been fighting in/near the village of Dahrat 'Abd Rabu as the army attempts to push north; we show the area of the village currently as under full rebel control: [4] (picture caption) [5]. Mark as contested with a red arrow pointing into it.
  • Government troops have recently been trying to push into PYD-held Shaykh Maqsud without success: [6] [7]. Red arrow pointing at yellow part, but no territorial change. Also, I'm not sure how "contested" the eastern parts of the district still are, and if they are really so large. At the very least, the green arrow should be removed, and the olive area probably reduced if not also replaced by yellow/green hatching.

I'm technologically inept, so a competent individual should make these changes if there are no objections. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks now and still no changes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
ummmm I've already labeled Dahret Abd Rabbo as contested on May 29, and as for Sheikh Maqsood the SAA hasn't been able to move in, but I agree it should be a "yellow/green hatching" but I don't think that's possible to do, or at least I dont know how to do it. Here's a video from the ground denying SAA "advances" in that area [8] Moester101 (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Whether they are gaining ground or not is immaterial, the fact is that the army is trying to advance there. Rebels have not broken into the airport, yet we still put green arrows pointing at it. The extent of the contestedness of Shaykh Maqsud should be reduced if it can't be hatched. No indications that it's really such a big area. I found this map, which would indicate that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done Kurdish areas less contested, and red arrows pointing at Kurdish areas added.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Situation in the western entrance of Hamdaniya

The situation in the western side is clearly changing. Rebels have cut the road between Khan Al Asal and Hamdaniya and I tried to show this on the map with even a source but it got reverted without any apparent reason. If you still don't believe that here are videos: View to Assad military academy Another view Some more proof and here's a video of the rebels real close to the sports stadium in Salahedinne spotting the stadium in Salahedinne also as a sidenote here's a video of the rebels close to what is said to be the Hanano Barracks Hanano Barracks thanks. (Amedjay not connected) -- (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amedjay, I see the videos you provided, and according to those videos they are taken in Khan al-Asal, which is far to the west of Hamdaniya. Please note that the FSA itself has not announced it has begun any battle on Hamdaniya (especially since it has not yet taken ALL of Rashidin). Please realize that I did not partially revert your edit just for the sake of it, but because there really is no FSA attack on Hamdaniya (yet). Unless the FSA at least announces that it is going to attack Hamdaniya, we really should not try to make western Hamdaniya olive b/c that would be misleading, and none of your videos were taken from INSIDE Hamdaniya. As for Rashidin, please realize that although the FSA has taken large parts of the large district, it has not yet been announced fully "Liberated" so we shouldn't yet turn it green. I personally think the best time to turn Rashidin to green is when the FSA takes over ALL of Khan al-Asal AND Rashidin (but this is just my opinion and it's up for discussion). But for now, Hamdaniya remains red. Moester101 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Amedjay, the rebels have been surrounding Hanano and the sports stadium from three sides a long time now. The positions themselves though are too strong to take without heavy weapons so the fighting is stalemated. I've seen the edit, Moester did it because he had an issue with the green arrow. If you have the video to prove rebels in western Hamidiya, then just color the area without the arrow. BTW, I suspect the rebels have been in Eastern Hamidiya for a while now too. There was a report about them taking a mosque south of the sports complex, and the only mosques south of that are in Eastern Hamidiya.-- (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello IP, the mosque that was taken by FSA you are referring to is this [9] which is NOT in east Hamdaniya. Please note that Hamdaniya remains a government stronghold b/c of the military academy, and the regime will try its best to keep it so b/c of psychological morale reasons. Once the FSA reaches the southern gates of the sports complex, THEN we can make southern portion of Salaheddine green. Agreed? Moester101 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I just couldn't find that mosque on wikimapia so I assumed it was one in Hamdaniya which I did find. Thanks.-- (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that color of Rashidin district should be changed because fsa took control of it.Fsa took control of Hoina hilltop today.These are some important situation about western entrance of Aleppo city.

Hoihna village takeover is strategically important, but it is off map, northwest of Mansoura.-- (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I have already discussed situation of Rashidin above, but as for tell shuwehneh (hoihna), do you have any credible source that mentions it being taken by FSA? If so, then post it here and we will change it to green. thanks Moester101 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Check the configuration of roads in Mansoura and Hoihna and compare to the map. That village is not on this map.-- (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Videos now coming out claiming to show rebel advances from Rashidin into New Aleppo: [10] [11] [12]. Perhaps a green arrow in this direction?

Also, I feel that the southern artillery base should be expanded beyond only the blue point, as it is quite extensive. Additionally, the army "School of Wisdom" south of the al-Nasr neighbourhood [13] should be added (if the scale doesn't obstruct it). The olive south of Hamdaniyah should be expanded or a green arrow added as it seems that rebels are also inching forward in this area [14]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a rebel push toward (maybe not into) New Aleppo per [15]. Another green arrow should be added there, possibly some green areas as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need to expand the scope of this map. Add some land to the west and south of Aleppo, to show the frontlines. According to news sources the frontline runs along the following points:

In the north, rebels control Kafr Hamra and are fighting for control of Layramoun. The Justice Palace had been under loyalist control, but shelling proves rebels control at least parts of Layramoun district. Running to the west, rebels control the land west of the Air Defence Base and into Mansoura. They control at least part of Mansoura, for they have shelled the Military Research Academy with mortars (close combat weapon) and advanced to the outskirts of New Aleppo, as seen in the Al Jazeera video taken on the spot. It seems the rebels have encirceld the Research Center from two or three sides and pushed past it, as it is to fortified to take as of yet. Further south, rebels have taken control of Khan al-Assal and parts of Rashideen. The Assad park and the Hamidiyah Academy are under loyalist control, but most of the district seems to be under FSA control. Hamidiyeh itself is loyalist held and serves as a chockepoint for rebels: taking control of this part of Aleppo will cut off all loyalist units north of it.

South of Aleppo, rebels control Sheikh Saeed and maybe parts of Ramouse. Al-Azizia and Tell-Shebeigh are loyalist controlled, as is the road to the highway. But I believe the village of Nairab south of the airport is under rebel control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Lothar (I think?), few fallacies there: Rebels do not need to control a part of Mansoura to fire mortars at the Research center. It depends on caliber, but mortars have a range of 3-5 km. With the village of Hoihna north of Mansoura reported captured by rebels only recently, it is safe to assume at least a significant portion of Mansoura is in army hands. Although completely surrounding Khan Al-Asal recently, rebels are far from taking this suburb. Unless the army has withdrawn from it after the fall of Rashidin, though I am not aware of such a retreat? With the army control of Al-Azizia, Tell Sheghaib and the airport, rebels in Nayrab suburb would be completely surrounded, so I think it likely rebels withdrew from there in March.-- (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope, not me. I don't edit from IP addresses. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Khan Al-Asal is still not in rebel hands according to Al Jazeera and SOHR reports. Heavy fightings are reported and some buildings captured but not whole Khan Al-Asal.Kostadin24 (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
According to the Wikimapia link posted below, Hamidiyeh district is just north of the Citadel, so talking about it in the same sentence as Assad Park seems strange. I assume you mean Hamdaniya? Esn (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't find the video, but about 2 days ago a video was posted of FSA in the Assad woods. Khan Al-Asal is not entirely in SAA hands. I believe the SAA holds much of the eastern part, but there is constant fighting. At one point several months ago, video was posted of the FSA pushing along the Assad woods into Hamandaniya... I'm fairly certain they lost that ground over the last few months. Footage today showed the FSA in the research center, so the taking of the Hoihna hilltop was probably a parallel attack, and not evidence that the FSA hasn't advanced further. - GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Point I was making was not to dispute that there was FSA in Mansoura, but that they had complete control of it. Hoihna was referred to as a 'hilltop' village, which means that the army had a tactical advantage in northern Mansoura and that they had to have a secure supply line to the village if they were able to hold it. Ergo, army had control of at least the northern half of Mansoura until recently. That will likely change with the capture of Hoihna, if it has not already, so there's not much point debating it further.-- (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Where are the Assad woods and Khan Al-Asal? Are they off the map? Esn (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
See for yourself (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Ok, so Assad Park is immediately East from Hamdaniya, and Khan al-Asal is even further East and is not visible on the map we have here. Esn (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

West* and west* :) (Amedjay)-- (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright people, so we know that the southern "al-Rashidin suburb" has been in FSA hands for at least 2 weeks, and just yesterday I've been hearing from multiple sources that the entirety of Khan al-Asal is now in FSa hands, so SAA only has al-Assad Park and (perhaps) Benjamin neighborhood left in Rashidin neighborhood. I'm still gonna wait until these last two areas are in FSA hands before making all of Rashidin green. Anyone have differing opionion? Moester101 (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC) This website says that all of Khan al asal is in rebel hands — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Khan al-Asal

City of Khan al-Asal is not in the hands of the insurgents in the city there are fights.!/syriaohr/posts/39648790379288746.200.245.82 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes Moester I agree i've heard some sources lately stating that rebels had launched an offensive on Khan Al Asal. Reports say they took the northern part and are now battling for the southern part. Also for the map i've already prepared the changes but I agree with you : we have to wait for the moment til the situation gets clearer (Amedjay) -- (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Khan Al-Asal should not affect the Rashidin district. Only if Benjamin is taken should the northern part of the district change color. If Rashidin suburb (south of highway) is in rebel hands, color of that should be green already. Likewise, space between Rashidin and Al-Nasr should be olive. Please also take note when reading sources that Mansoura is considered part of the Rashidin district.-- (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually the remaining parts of Khan Al Asal still under control of the governement are besieged now --Amedjay (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Amedjay, please revert your changes. New Aleppo change may be acceptable as reports of rebel attacks on the district have surfaced so the situation is 'unclear', but changing west Hamdaniya is definitely not. The M5 highway which you stipulated as justification runs through Khan Al-Asal as well, which is where the rebels have actually severed it.-- (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No [16] EllsworthSK (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think we should add Khan Al Asal to the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Southern perimeter

Is there any indication how far south SAA control extends? I know FSA controls the munition stores in Khan Touman, SAA holds the cement factory and water treatment facility south of Sheikh Said, what I am curious about are the two smaller bases south of Ramouseh. I suspect this to be a strategically important area, as it seems that SAA control of these bases would enable supplies to reach army forces in Aleppo through the airfield and Al-Aziza. Granted this would not be much as there are no roads here, but the improvised bridges over Queiq river would allow limited supplies to be brought in on foot.-- (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I found an interesting article here about a new road that the Syrian army paved earlier this year that supplies Aleppo from the south, replacing the main highway which has been cut by the rebels. The Al-Nusra Front released a statement that they're going to be targeting this road now, which is apparently not far from Khan al-Assal. Esn (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The article that you cited relies on a SOHR post. If you read that post you'll see that the road Jahbat Al Nusra is actually talking about is the one between Salamiya and Safira (desert road as stated). The rebels and the army are fighting for that road. (Amedjay) -- (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Khan al-Asal was just the westernmost outpost of govt control in the area. Desert road runs north from Salamiyah in Hama Province up through Khanasir, skirts west of the Safira base complex, then goes north through Tall Shughayb up to the international airport. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Dahrat 'Abd Rabo

Video footage coming out which supposedly shows Dahrat 'Abd Rabo empty of government forces. You can even check the filmer's path against satellite imagery: [17]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's to be expected, SAA only ran through the place with APC's on their way to Menagh last month.-- (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Menagh's resupply has only come by air. "Northern Storm" sputtered out before it got beyond a light drizzle. The plan was to link western Aleppo city to the Zahraa-Nubl pocket to Menagh and cut to the Turkish border, but no links were ever successfully established. If they had been successful, the situation on the ground now would be much, much different. The army is finding out the hard way that Aleppo isn't Homs. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I did read on the Menagh article that a resupply by land had reached the base. It didn't say whether it was from Zahara or Aleppo, though I assumed that the news of the SAA advance to Dahrat 'Abd Rabo was related to that resupply.-- (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
When rebels attacked Kurds in Efrin in late May, the government made a successful major airdrop of supplies, but I don't see any mention of a land-based supply mission, nor have I heard any reports of such. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've also read reports of it back in opposition hands. Not only that, but they are pushing further south into the industrial area of layramoun. Will change. Moester101 (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Western Areas

Not sure if this counts as footage. But large numbers of FSA advanceing into western areas of aleppo — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Clashes reported in New Aleppo. Military research center shelled. Rebels advancing on Rashidin. [18] (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some others videos about the fighting in New Aleppo, the research center and Rashideen (last one is pro-opposition) -- (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like rebels advanced deeply near the Research center and towards new Aleppo we'll change the map when we will have confirmations -- (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebel offensive in western districts picked up by AFP, green arrow should be added: [19] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera too: It seems the rebels have so far taken control of parts of Rishidin (brown already), shelled the Research Center and fought thre way into New Aleppo. I think it's best to make the western part of New Aleppo contested with a rebel arrow pointing towards the Research Center? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Arrow has been removed, should be re-added. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Color military research center dark green.

As well as Suleiman Al Halabi. [20] Sopher99 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Alot of videos of what appears to be of rebels shelling the research centre on the twitter feed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

EG — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reports of fighting around the big mosque in Al Wafa. This would be new territory for the FSA. Also video from several angles overlooking and shelling the stadiums from directly across the street in Hamdaniyah as well as the Coral Martini hotel on the otherside of the freeway. This indicates significant gains. Also more reports of fighting in New Aleppo. FSA is also hitting the Hnanno Baracks again. Just about every distract is being hit today for that matter. GFS

Clashes broke out between rebel and regular forces in the neighbourhoods of al-Itha'a, Seif al-Dawla, and Salah Iddine of Aleppo city. (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reports of heavy fighting in New Aleppo are coming in today. Also reports the SAA is bombing Shudada which lies between New Aleppo and Salahaddine. Very significant development, but map should not change until more official news or video footage comes in. GFS.

Shudada? Skeptical. The army may not have had time to prepare defenses in New Aleppo, but it's hard to believe the rebels would have advanced so quickly in a district bristling with strong defensive positions. Unless of course they advanced from Salaheddine, which makes this likely to be just a diversionary raid.-- (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your map of Western Areas of Aleppo has multiple conflict with the map shown in the 01 August, 2013 BBC video "Who controls what in Syria since the fall of Qusair?" about 1:43 into the report, which can be found here: (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Menagh Military Airbase

where is the mingh base — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

20 miles north of Aleppo. Not relevant to map Moester101 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ah ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the menagh airbase has been definitely taken today. (Amedjay) -- (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See Menagh Military Airbase and Siege of Menagh Air Base. Boud (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should make the intelligence bld olive — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC) here is another source — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Prison

I have seen alot of videos of this been shelled by the FSA. Maybe its location could be marked on the map (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Aleppo central prison is in Muslimiyah, 10 miles north of the map's top edge.-- (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Map of destructions

Here [21]Kostadin24 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I get a "Sorry, we can't find the page you're looking for" page. I've also checked with the Internet Archive, and couldn't find anything.Mogdonazia (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for broken link. This works:

Kostadin24 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Second map that shows more of the area

Is it worth someone createing a map that shows the situation on the outside of aleppo also.It will help people understand the fuul extent of whats happening on the ground (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Right now, no. The frontline has moved almost entirely into the map.-- (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It still crosses some edges of the map and top part seems particularly unclear (Is north of the Kurdish held area an the map rebel held?). -- (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It is in rebel hands.-- (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This certainly isn't obvious from the map, but it would be if the map would be expanded just a little bit to the north. -- (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes are needed on the map

In Reef Aleppo, violent clashes are taking place, between regime forces and rebel fighters, in the areas in Kafarhamra and al-Lairamun, and news were received about casualties among regime forces. (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC) I agree the map has not been updated in a while and there are changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Renewed ethnic violence around Kurdish quarter

Clashes have broken out between Arab rebels and Kurdish militia again in Northern Aleppo. In addition to the usual clashes on the fringes of Shaykh Maqsud and 'Ashrafiyah, it seems that clashes are also occurring in the vicinity of Shqayef to the north as well as in parts of Rasafah (Youth Housing and Bani Zayd—likely meaning that we have understated the Kurdish zone here. Sources: [22] [23]. Yellow should be extended to the northwest with a fringe of olive, with opposing green and yellow arrows there. Our olive area at the northeastern ring road probably suffices for Shqayef, but some arrows should go there too. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Or our control map was correct, and these clashes indicate a PYD offensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
No, neither PYD, not rebel groups involved mention PYD offensive. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The PYD also has no strategic interest in capturing any larger, Arab-dominated part of Aleppo. All of their engagements in this area have been defensive in nature. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Map misleading

All latest reports indicate that regime forces in Aleppo are surrounded. The map should pan out, as the map seems to suggest that there is a corridor out of the city for pro-Assad forces, which there is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Face it guys, expanding the map is too much work. It ain't happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is actually a corridor between western Aleppo and the airport, the rebels cut the supply line much further south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


Quite alot of twitter talk saying Al-Aziza has been taken by the FSA, not sure how true it is. (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, there's still fighting going on. FSA has begun storming the village, but it's not over yet. [24]. Let's wait a little more before changing it. Moester101 (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

30 September,Rebel fighters launched several domestic rockets on regime strongholds in the A'ziza village. (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

al-Sakan al-Shababi neighbourhood

Clashes broke out last night in the al-Sakan al-Shababi neighbourhood of Aleppo city between YPG fighters and rebel fighters, intermittent clashes are still ongoing between both sides. (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Map edit is incorrect?

Just noticed a map edit has been made based on Updated the map based on the information provided on Battle of Aleppo (2012-13) and Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war As far as i know al-Aziza is under attack from the FSA and other parties. I am unsure as to what the situation is at the airport though. Could really do with real information from trust worthy [and uptodate] sources before edits are made? (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have Reverted (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some guy's trying to ruin the map. Since it needs an update, I got this [25] pic from opposition source from 2 days ago which is very accurate based on street level. Major changes based on it, looks like we had a lot of areas wrong... Moester101 (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes you can tell just how accurate that map is that it marks such obvious locations as Hanano barracks as being partially rebel held, all the Kurdish areas as "rebel controlled", no govt presence at Marat Artiq, etc. Next time they'll just color all of Aleppo green and you'll say we need to adjust the map to this new reality. Actually they already did, do you want me to get you the "greenest" map of Aleppo for you from rebel sources? "Major changes" indeed XD (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, because the Syrian rebels are totally reliable source...Kermanshahi (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the changes are in government's favor, such as making the large area above the airport red. Also, I didn't copy the opposition map 100%, I just used it template for unclear areas where we don't hear much news about. Next time really look at the changes before making your comments. Moester101 (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The page Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war was recently updated to show al-Aziza as gone from disputed to government held. Someone just updated this map to show that development, a necessary update. But I guess if you're not in business of Takfiri propaganda you're just trying to "ruin the map." Kermanshahi (talk)

The government propaganda edit on the Cities map will be dealt with, as apart from Aziza, the same edit also marked Maarat-Al-Numan and Hajar-Al-Aswad as contested. The latest information is that there are clashes in Aziza. And there is in fact no government presence in Maarat Artiq, the last news from that area was that rebels took Hohni. -- (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: user who made the Cities map edit has apparently been banned. That pretty much clears it.-- (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
There was a government presense in Marat Artiq 4 days ago and I've heard no news of its capture by rebels. What happened?
From LCC:
"In Aleppo, FSA targeted regime forces gathering centers in Maaret Artiq, and regime forces gathering centers in Sfeira as well. FSA also targeted Nubbul and Zahra villages with many artillery shells and scored direct assaults. In Aleppo as well, FSA targeted Soap Factory that is considered as a regime forces center in Old Aleppo neighborhood."
Here's also a video of FSA firing mortars at Marat Artiq, also 4 days ago: (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

...firing mortars at... hmmm well SAA fired mortars at Raqqah. Following your argument perhaps we should change Raqaah to 'contested' Just check the violations documentation center(pro rebells page) and see the 'martyrs' during last days...there is dead from SAA'mortar shelling... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC) 0

oh god, what? No, that's not my logic at all, please learn to read English. (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Last thing known, the army tried to capture Marat Artiq in May and failed. In a counter offensive, the rebels seized Hohni, which was the furthest point of the army's advance towards Marat Artiq. Is this not what happened?-- (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, you tell me. :) I just know a lot of rebel sources claim that there is fighting and rebel shelling of Marat Artiq, I had provided some of those but there are many more. I don't know where Hohni is or what is the situation there. (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The map here is very old and needs update neighborhoods that are south of the Airport are government held and with recent advances by the army they lifted the siege and the route to these neighborhoods is open. Madafeit-Al-Neirab,Neirab and Aziza are government held not contested and also some people seem to spread propaganda on this page like user seems to be out of his mind showing us a video of rebels lunching mortars in that case we need to put every town and city in syria contested instead of rebel held cuz you know the regime has an air force and they are shelling all the time. (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to end the Maarat Artiq dispute by pointing out that town is not even on the map!-- (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Saif Al-Dawla captured by SAA?

Accroding to this story (in Arabic) with footage from inside the district, Syrian Army gained control of the neighborhood by end of July. Ahmadac (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn´t. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Any proof of it or we have to agree with your sacred word?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
How about the main article, where the last entry is about a rebel attack in Salaheddine? I really don't see how they could go about executing that if they did not control Saif Al-Dawla.-- (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I don´t need one, genius. Unreliable source will remain one no matter what you wish for. Just as when your guys tried to pain Laraymoun red because Fars said so. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent map versions and reverts

Please check the current map version, if it's correct I'll probably lock it as there's some edit warring again. Maybe there's a new sock involved there. --Denniss (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


Sakhur is marked as not contested? Please provide sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check the archive, it was agreed when Sakhur was marked contested two months ago (when there were clashes around the water company) that it would revert to rebel held if no clashes occurred there in the next two weeks. It has been two months.-- (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. No clashes for 2 months means it's not contested. Moester101 (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Another perspective- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is that map from? Who made it? Esn (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It is from syrian perspective: their views are obviously biased toward the government, however their maps are actually very accurate and represent the situation on the ground.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 

This map is outdated by ~1 year — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the map linked above, or the Wikipedia map? Esn (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The map linked above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The imgur map is not outdated 1 year, map is current for last week. See talk and military situation. South: road to aleppo open near tal aran and tal hasel after government offensive. West: govmnt advance direction etcetera. North: shqayeff not gvnmt held (1year ago gvnmt held). why you insist map is outdated 1 year? == Map of control ==

That map happens to be the first and so far only indication of the army attempt to recapture Khan Tuman and Khan Al-Asal since they fell to the rebels, so you might understand how some may be skeptical due to it's source.-- (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand you. Skeptical is allright. But reflection: the map means that khan asal and tuman is precisely even not gvmt control/held, but means is under attack from saa….and not safe/stable fully rebelheld. Greatings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that map more closely, it strikes me that areas depicted under attack from the army have a wider conflict zone than those under rebel attack. Even with an advantage in firepower the army has, that is unlikely. What I think may be used in that map is the ignorance of the public on how far artillery ranges. It's a trick many pro-Asad editors here have tried to use as well.
Also, while the capture of Khan Tuman would improve the safety of supply lines, retaking Khan Al-Asal would grant the army no tactical advantage, and I don't believe they would launch such a resource expensive operation just for propaganda reasons.-- (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


The map needs to show the actual city limits.

The vast lands around long roads are controlled by no one and should not be Green/Red/Etc. in accordance with proximity to nearby roads.

In addition, The map needs to show the southern neighborhood around the Cement Factory - it is important because it was the link to the other northern neighborhoods under the government's control.

Starting October 1st. The 12 brigades that rejected the Coalition control areas that must be labeled in a color other than Green. It has been mentioned that the map should have maybe 'Black' or otherwise non-green.

Starting October 7th, and after liberating 35 little towns on the way to Aleppo, the Government now opened the road to Aleppo again. Salameyeh - Khanaser - Aleppo. This Particular map needs to show more southern neighborhoods under the Government's control showing how they connect to the rest of Syria under the government's control.

Also, there are Government troops in the Yellow Area. It should also be RED given that there are no fights between them and the red areas and only between red & green or yellow & green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The 12 brigades you speak of rejected the National Coalition, not the Military Council. It was a shift in political stances rather than military alliances. There has to date been no record of confrontations between the newly formed alliance and units still recognizing the National Coalition and no indication that the units on the ground ceased mutual cooperation. ISIS is the only anti-government group to show hostility towards other groups, and there are no reports of ISIS presence in or around Aleppo.-- (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

According to a map published by syrianperspective Nayrab district and the area around airport is under government control I can't say anything about the validity of this website or the map. Someone more informed about the specific website could do something [26]~~Jorj~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, citing reuters claims that AlAziza is under government control. Dunno why this is not depicted in the map...and it is almost one month old.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This had been depicted in the map previously, unfortunately the user who done so also made Salaheddine government territory (it's not) so the edit had to be reverted and the map has since been locked.-- (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


The map must be reverted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

South Of Airport

The army has secured Nairab village and today re secured Aziza village according to AFP, as part of the supply route to the city that has reopened many days ago. Why the area south of the airport is contested?--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the well-known vandal Sopher99 continue his POV-pushing without problems, as always...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Aziza

village of Aziza, which is under the control of forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Section restored, as it had been deleted by notorious vandal Sopher99. As the user above states, Aziza must be coloured in red, its a non-sense that in the Battle of Aleppo map appears as contested while in the Syrian civil war map appears as SAA controlled.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ashrafiyeh largely under SAA control, map change needed

Ashrafiyeh district largely under SAA control according to this 9 November 2013 source, so the map must be changed to show the real actual situation.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide one more source so we can be sure ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are sources saying the opposite, mentioning fighting between the islamic state and rebel brigades in Ashrifiya, as well as mentioning the YPG. At most I would make it dark green to describe unclear status. But I would keep it Yellow. Sopher99 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"In the northwestern Ashrafiyeh district, which is largely under regime control" here are the sources: (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"PYD controlled districts of Ashrafiya and Sheikh mehsud" Source dated today

Combined with these sources proving rebel and jihadist presence [27] [28] [29], it remains Yellow. Sopher99 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not!. It is not fully controled by them. Read carefully your own source: 'PYD-controlled districts of Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafiya in Aleppo' Not whole, but controlled districts. The same story as Liaramoun districts -some controlled by one side, some from other. Kostadin24 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No - ashrafiya and sheikh mehsud are districts of Aleppo city. There are no "districts" of Leiramoon either. Sopher99 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 you understand that I am not saying that the area is completely under the control of the army, but the Kurds in control of only part of the area, and most of the control of the Syrian army.A source you cite is not entirely relevant.These sources here[1][2]provide information as of September 29,and this source of November 2,[3]. But these sources for November 9,[4][5] [6] and thus is more correct because it is newer. All this indicates that the area should be divided equally between the Kurds and the Syrian army. (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My sources are very revelent especially because the one from today says ashrafiya is controlled by the PYD. The most it could be changed to is dark green for unclear situation. Sopher99 (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Sincerely, its so difficult to colour the south-western part of Ashrafiya in red & the north-eastern part in yellow? Because this is the real situation, according to reliable journalistic sources shown above and even according to WP! (See Cities & towns during Syrian civil war article, Ashrafiya section, "held by" cell). Ah, and User:Sopher99, your alleged "source" is clearly a non-neutral pro-kurdish BLOG (remember what WP rules says about using blogs as sources?), wich states in its headline that its an OLD COLUMN not published in its moment in Rudaw, so its NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE, AND NOT FROM TODAY. Nice try...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Army is also present in the north of Ashrafiya, i posted a source in a new section below. OberschIesien90 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

clashes reached al-Naqqarin. map needs to change

On 12 November, the Syrian Army had penetrated the eastern al-Naqqarin district of Aleppo city, advancing further should be in dark green as its contested. [30] User:Albarood —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually al-Naqqarin beginning at end of map. Maj be just very small part can be shown because of east map border. Does somebody want to draw district? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talkcontribs) 08:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The field just above Base 80 should be set as contested. There are fighting in that area according to reuters ( ) and many rebel sources stated that there are fighting around the Transport Directorate building too. That building is located in the very center of that field of the map. Kalpet (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bani Zaid

Reuters reports that Bani Zaid area of Rasafeh district is contested by army soldiers who advanced in the area. OberschIesien90 (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Fights inside city

We discuss fights neat Allepo, but many clashes are ongoing inside city. Rebel commander talk about possible attacks against Hanano from nord??? and east???? If somebody have sources - please post here: Kostadin24 (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Salaheddine and Al-Ansari

On the ground, 16 militants were killed in an ambush while trying to slip into the Salah al-Din district. A number of other militants were also killed in a separate incident during clashes with the Syrian army in the Ansari district, adjacent to Salah al-Din.Al-AkhbarTMC Roma-borisov (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Ansari should be changed to the contested.Roma-borisov (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Army base 80

It is contested now, because it is partly recaptured by the Syrian Army. (SOHR)

SAA have it completely under control, even Aljazeera (prorebel) says that

Kalpet (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

FSA supporters, you're done here. Crawl back into the shithole caves you came from. And the article linked above clearly states that Nairab is under government control. Stop adjusting the map to fit your distorted pro-FSA views. This map is a resource for those wanting accurate knowledge of the situation on the ground, not for your personal fantasy games where FSA controls everything.

It would have been changed already if one of your side hadn't tried to use the opportunity of changing Nairab to try and color Salaheddine red. So you can go back to your ivory tower where you and Asad sip cocktails over latest Al-Manar news report and complain there!-- (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Relax men! Be polite. It doesn't help. Such words can revote users. This article depends on people interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talkcontribs) 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"AFP - Syrian troops have recaptured parts of a military base seized by rebels early this year in fierce fighting near Aleppo international airport, a monitoring group said on Friday.

Heavy fighting erupted at 4:00 am (0200 GMT) around Base 80 outside Syria's main northern city, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The troops were backed by militia and fighters from Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in their assault on rebel groups including the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the Observatory said.

"Regime troops have advanced inside the base and now control large parts of it, and rebel groups and the Islamic State are bringing in reinforcements," it said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please update the map: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the most inacurate map of all in the syrian civil war section sources clearly show that Base 80 is contested and the Neirab districs are government held. (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course is the most innacurate map of the Syrian war (and thats not easy), as some "users" (I would call it other thing, but I will try to be relaxed) continue reverting well-sourced changes. As the previous user says, Base 80 district must be coloured brown as its now contested, and a red arrow pointing north to the base showing the direction of the SAA attack. Ah, and as others had pointed in an earlier post, al-Aziza must be coloured in red, as its government-held according to journalistic sources. Will anyone made this changes, or POV-pushing fallacies will continue?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Acording to Reuters the Base of brigade 80 has been recaptured but here it is still colored in green (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok it would be nice for everyone to calm down and do not insult others A compromise would be a redesigned map where some regions around airport are clearly held by government forces. About Salahedine i am not the one who will decide who controls this area, but mark it as contested is a wise choice. Also, marking as contested the area where Mil.Brigade 80 is located would be fair. Another point is that users who systematically act without any other discussion and promoting their POVs sjould be immediately warned and after repeated violations they should get banned from altering anything regarding Syrian Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if all thes mentioned above have been pointed out many times there is a luck of Willingness-tolerance to put aside vandals who make those reverts and try to create a fiction image of the war.Aleppo map is by far the most misleading and pro rebel. Just take a look a few days ago and the lack of touch in ground control and this map.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo map might be somekind of troubeled, but its not easy to follow situation on the ground. As per Base 80, I suppose olive for now is OK, till some more news of complete retaking by Government troops will show up, then could go red. -- (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Base 80 edit is allright exept that the area marked as contested expands to far to the north. The real size of Base 80 is shown here. Contested area should reach only half that far to the north. OberschIesien90 (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

General trend on twitter seems to report that this attack failed and the rebels have began a counter attack. However as it is early days in this, the just north of the airport could be marked as contested (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made the edits, and will reduce the contested area around Base 80 if User:Alhanuty ceases to revert the edits made to the map. My opinion is that a broad ban on any Syrian Civil War-related topics should be imposed on him, not only because of what he's doing here. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to go bitching about neutrality here in Wikipedia and who gets blocked or not blocked,you betta watch your words,becuz you are sayin some tough words that you are gonna be responsible forAlhanuty (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of frequent one-sided reverts should be banned. Good work Tourbillon, I did agree with narrowing. -- (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The base has been retaken by rebels so I think we should make the base itself green with its southern and eastern side brown with a red arrow pointing at it. Sources: 1 23 4 I think we now have enough sources to say it's been recaptured by rebels Amedjay (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There are enough sources quoting the same source (SOHR), which does not mean we have enough sources to confirm if either the base has been fully recaptured or that fighting has ceased. I suggest we wait for a few more days before making any changes, and leave the area as contested.
EDIT: As expected, fighting continues. SOHR: Clashes are ongoing in the perimeter of the 80th division between regular forces, Hezbollah, NDF from one side and the ISIS, al-Nusra front and several Islamic battalions from the other. Reports that the clashes reached areas inside the 80th division. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Second edit, info by Daily Star: The Brigade 80 base has been reported to have changed hands multiple times in the past day. It first fell to rebels in February, but the government retook it last week. Activists said that it was recaptured by rebels overnight Friday but by Sunday afternoon, troops loyal to Assad were again in control, said the Observatory and a Lebanese television channel that closely follows Syria. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Syrian troops have regained full control of a key base in northern Aleppo province near its international airport, state television said Sunday, after fierce clashes with rebels. The recapture of the base was confirmed by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an NGO, which has reported fierce fighting at the facility since Friday. army-regains-full-control-of-key-base-near-aleppo-says-state-tv (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Contested teritory needs to be larger to the north last SOHR report says clashes are taking place in the al-Naqqarin district

Aleppo province: A defected officer was tortured to death in regime prisons. A fighter from al-Nusra front died of wounds received weeks earlier by clashes with the YPG in Ras al-A'in city in al-Hasaka. Activists reported al-Nusra fihters detained members of a rebel battalion who killed a female activist in Aleppo city yesterday and who also admitted killing more than 10 men in the city. Clashes are ongoing in the perimeter of the 80th division between regular forces, Hezbollah, NDF from one side and the ISIS, al-Nusra front and several Islamic battalions from the other. Reports that the clashes reached areas inside the 80th division. Violent clashes are still ongoing in the areas of al-Naqarin, al-Mwaslat al-Haditha and Tal al-Sheikh Yousuf between the ISIS, al-Nusra front and rebel fighters from one side and regular forces along with fighters who used to be members of rebel battalions from the other, the fighters paved way for regular soldiers to enter the Tal al-Sheikh Yousuf and al-Mwaslat al-Haditha areas. 7 rebel fighters were killed by clashes with those fighters (who were previously members of rebel battalions). Rebel fighters targeted 2 regime armoured vehicles in the perimeter of the 80th division. 5 rebel fighters were killed when their tank was destroyed by regular forces in the perimeter of the 80th division last night. (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Here, even the Saudi Al Arabiya confirms the news:Syrian army retakes northern military base in 3rd day of clashes but the photos and videos captured with the database: (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

AFP also says SAA recapture the base 80, and also SOHR accepts it in news: (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Also activists accept it; (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The base needs to be colored red as all sources say that the army retook it and now fighting is concentrated north of the base in the al-Naqarin area according to SOHR (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

According to REUTERS , Le Monde and several other WESTERN media Base 80 is fully controled by SAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral sources are giving the control of the base in Syrian Arab Army. Please proceed to the changes. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Most recent news also confirm and state the objective of army offensive is to reopen the airport.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC) A interesting report from inside brigade 80 is reported from al jazeera arabic.This is show that fsa control some part of it and i think that entire brigade is a contested area.All others information are even propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Seif ad-Dawla

Fars reports that insurgents have fled the Seif ad-Dawla area. If no other info surfaces, I'll change that to red. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

However, militants were forced to withdraw from the region after they lost the ground to the army troops and after government forces won control over residential areas and other positions in the region.ABNA Roma-borisov (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, army has advanced to Saif al-Dawlah neighborhood and seized control over a number of sites.Breaking News Network correspondent pointed out that the clashes are still taking place between the army and insurgents in the very neighborhood.Breaking News Roma-borisov (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sure FARS... Don't you know it's pro regime iranian news? -- (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering that rebel sources have been increasingly silent on Army advances as of late, and if there is no evidence pointing to the opposite (i.e. SAD being under rebel control), I see no reason why not to change. (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Suleiman al-Halabi neighborhood

There are some tweets from pro-rebel accounts that "Rebels killed many #Assad-forces in Suleiman al-Halabi neighborhood". So I think we must keep an eye for a youtube video or news. It is seen government held on the map. After a trustable evidence found, it must be marked as contested I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Twitter or Facebook aint reliable sources, no matter wich is the account owner. YouTube aint also a reliable source unless its footage is from a media outlet.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheik Maqsood

"A string of stories followed about his heroism in retaking large areas of Sheikh Maksud, where they had been surrounded for days, killing many rebels, and another picture gallery tour of his mobile phone showing him and his men inside Salah el Deen, astride tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article says this only occurred at first week of the battle. Ie July 2012 Sopher99 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The article says no such thing, Sopher99. Sheikh Maqsood should be colored olive at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fast forward to today, what a remarkable difference a few years and a civil war can make. Sitting across from me in a trendy café in west Aleppo in May, he told me of his rise to prominent commander in the Baath Brigades and boasted of his exploits, battles and victories."

"It is this conviction and motivation that gives them an edge over the regular army units, especially those made up mostly of conscripts. This is why they‘ve been used to spearhead many offensives into rebel areas, including the old city, Layramoun, Sheikh Saeed, Sheikh Maksud and Salah el Deen. "

First of all all it says is that when there were offensives, the baaht brigades led them. doesn't say sheikh mehsud is contested or held by anyone. Second of all he clearly says all his info he got in May. The end. Nothing to say about sheikh mehsud being contested right now. Sopher99 (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

May 2013 is NOT "the first week of battle. ie July 2012" as you claimed in your previous post. The burden of proof is on you to show that since May 2013, the district has been under full Kurdish control as this map shows. Because the evidence that we have now points to the contrary, that "large areas" of the district have been retaken by the government. The district should be colored olive to reflect this. This isn't a game, Sopher, we want an accurate picture of what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


map is total outdated.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Old City

Some of it captured by the Army, worth changing to olive ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the whole OLD City is SAA controled, according to SS TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing good news from rebels usually means losses. In the past I put info about Old city possesion, but was slammed as SAA supporter. Actually most of Western media will keep silence as long as they can - to keep rebels morale high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

old city suppose to be change to red as the army captured it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Most media agencies prefer to write about problems between rebels and 'forgot' about main fights - SAA vs. Opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As I watched at the most of the old city and the area surrounds the Umayyad Mosque (except the south of that areas - nearby Kallaseh)were at hands of SAA now. Street signs are quite clearly seen on the tv shoot that shows the current situation and it's undeniable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Watching the video I have a first logic request: The Ummayad mosque cell in the Aleppo map must be changed from green to olive. The video shows clearly that its no more a FSA-controlled zone, the Syrian TV crew wouldnt be able to record the mosque as near as shown in the video if it was still controlled by them.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. Sopher99 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

YouTube aint a reliable source when they are amateur activist videos (like the so-called FSA and other terrorists ones), but its a reliable source when its a broadcast from a TV or a news agency. What is not reliable is to use Facebook pages or blogs from activist and not journalistic sources, but people had explain this to you several times, but you dont want to learn. I suppose that its what it takes to be a POV-pusher...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"So-called FSA and other terrorists ones" so this is not POV pushing then? --Amedjay (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, that's simply my personal opinion. POV-pushing is trying to apply that personal opinion when editing, by using non-reliable sources (Facebook, blogs, partisan media...), by distorting and manipulating the sources (like stating something not included in the citation given), etc...Understand the difference?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We just can't change the map everytime we see a pro regime or a pro opposition video... the map would turn from 75% red to 75% green to 75% red every hour... --Amedjay (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That include Al-Jazeera videos? Because several changes in Syrian civil war-related articles are based on arabic videos of that channel. Or perhaps you dont consider Al Jazeera as pro-opposition?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right AJ is actually biased but not as much as SANA or al Manar who claimed like 10 times the army retook Jobar Qaboun and Barzeh and last time I checked it's still under rebel control. Sana and the regime officials are the most biased sources in the civil war. --Amedjay (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Report of 5 FSA killed on Baron St. in an ambush. This indicates the FSA has pushed into Aziziyeh. Also recent reports of FSA in the Syrian Quarter and Jamiliyeh. If they can bridge the gap and hold it for a month or two, it would cut 1/3 of regiem controlled aleppo off and have major implications. Aziziyeh should be shown as contested, but reports on Jamiliyeh are too vague. GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Base 80

Base 80 may need to be marked as contested, at least round the far edge. A few reports indicateing at least parts have been retaken by the rebels as per I know its not really main stream source but this website tends to put together multiple sources to get an idea of whats going on on the ground. Probably not a sign of a large advance due to the winter, but worth noteing (talk)

Highly unlikely. The Army is fighting with insurgents in an-Nakkarin which is only a few hundred metres away from Base 80. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How to edit this map

As far as i get it you change the map per paint, but how to upload the file correctly? OberschIesien90 (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

al-Sheikh Maqsoud captured by Syrian Army

Aleppo offensive gives it last news that sheikh maqsud and al jbanat captured by Syrian Army: (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

They've captured a few blocks, not the whole neighbourhood. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Bani Zeid

Most of Bani Zeid area in SAA control, per [31].--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Coloring Bani Zaid red is nonsense how can a district be controlled by the army when the northern entry is controlled by rebels, the western entry also controlled by rebels, the eastern entry controlled by the kurdish forces and the southern entry unclear without being besieged? You can make an arrow towards Bani Zaid and leave it unclear but coloring it red is too much --Amedjay (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Amedjay, your point would have some merit if the shadings on this map were accurate. We really don't know what the hell is going on or who controls what.

1. Sheikh Maqsood is not fully Kurdish controlled. If you look at previous (reputable) articles people have posted, you will see that the Syrian army controls at least some part of it (to what extent, we really don't know). Why Sheikh Maqsood isn't colored olive to reflect this, and still remains yellow, is beyond me.

2. Again, we really don't know that the western section is actually controlled by the rebels (or if the east is controlled by the Kurds as I mentioned previously)- this map is inaccurate and there is very little info coming out of Aleppo from reputable sources.

3. Just because a section of the map is colored olive does not mean that one group does not have safe access to adjacent neighborhoods. It is completely plausible that a neighborhood is divided evenly between two sides, the fighting isn't necessarily fluidly spread throughout an entire neighborhood.

Unless you know someone in Aleppo who is willing to travel around and check the accuracy of this map, all we have to go off of are articles from reputable websites like Al-Monitor. Like I've repeated so many times, the truth is no one knows what the hell is going on over there or who controls what. Taking this map as the truth and basing your arguments on its contents is quite frankly moronic. Al-Monitor states that the Syrian army controls much of Bani Zeid, so this is what we will show on the map to reflect this reality. If you have any actual proof to indicate otherwise, you are free to post it and we can adjust the map accordingly. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal, color Bani Zeid red with the western and northern edges of the district that border rebel territory as contested. EkoGraf (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the SAA "holds" anything in Bani Zaid. I've seen FSA footage as of about 4-5 days ago at Blleramoun circle. I know the SAA has been pushing N and W from that part of the city for a while, so it's possible they have pushed into that area, but to say they hold or control it is probably inaccurate unless someone can prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

First, the Blleramoun district is not the same district as Bani Zaid, any map will show you that. Second, Youtube videos are not accepted as sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia goes with what news sources say, and this one says they hold much of it. Third, our personal opinions are also not accepted by Wikipedia. So, like I proposed the compromise solution, color it red with the western and northern edges contested.EkoGraf (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I couldnt expressed it better. This is (still, I hope) an encyclopaedia, not a blog where to pour our personal opinions and try to made them look as facts.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The only info talking about SAA control of Bani Zaid that I can find is from pro-regieme sources. I did however find several non-partison articles on and around January 6th citing a major battle between the ISIS and FSA in Bani Zaid. The battle was reported by several sources.. so I have to ask, why are you so insistent that Bani Zaid is in SAA control, when most sources clearly state that it was in an ISIS factions hands and then taken by the FSA? I have read unconfirmed chatter that the SAA launched an assault in that direction in late december/early january, but the majority if not all of it was in FSA hands before, and several days after your post. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree, if we put Bani Zaid as army controlled which is highly unlikely because of only 1 pro regime source then we should put Rashideen and Mansoura green as the research center is surrounded on 3 of its 4 sides. --Amedjay (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Kafar Hamra , Sheikh Said

There is clashes in Kafr Hamra: (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is also clashes in Sheikh Said: (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Te east area of the city is mostly contested as per the news agencies. the current map should be totally change.SAA is advancing to the north too. albarood —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Also the SAA reached the edge of the Marje as they also took Shikh Lutfi north west of Aziza (much of the bottom right corner should become red). Then the top right corner should show Shiekh Zayat which is also now red next to Ard Alhamra on the template page (much of that area to east is red now though this map isn't big enough to include). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheik Lutfi is not under SAA control (it may have been for a few days earlier in the month). The SAA reached Lutfi, and were repelled. The Islamic Front faction appears to have full control of Sheik Lutfi. Not sure about the clashes in Sheik Said. Only recent references I can find are with respect to the FSA hitting a convoy on the airport road. Unless there is more info comming out of the area, I wouldn't call it contested. ~ GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed clashes from Al-Shaek Saeed. Both Dailystar and a pro-rebel site report recent battles in al-Sheikh Saeed district.[32] [33] Top part of the district should be contested with southern part as red(from Zanoubia compound). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talkcontribs) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

New Aleppo map from SyrianPerspective

As of 2014-01-12: [34]. Comes from a pro-regime source of course, but the maps there in the past have been relatively accurate. It shows some recent offensives that are not shown on the current map. Also, interesting that it now shows no PYD presence at all, whereas their last map from October did have a yellow-colored PYD section. Esn (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably PYD are concentrated on fights in Nortern Syria. They don't have chance to control part of Allepo when conflict ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The map is fairly "optimistic" on the part of the SAA from what I can tell. Here are some discrepancies. 1. FSA controls at least some part of the area near the industrial district south of Sheik Said (from video I saw a few days ago). 2. FSA has apparently recaptured Al Aziza within the last few days. 3. SAA has not pushed that far into Ansari. 4. FSA controls significant portions of Ashrafiyeh up to the Afrin Garage, and towards the east since they have been hitting the Syriac quarter. 5. FSA completely control Rashadin and the front all the way up to the scientific research facility, as well as up to the Al Assad woods. 6. Last I saw, FSA controlled much of the area east of Hnano base. 7. Although SAA continues to occupy a few small areas in Ancient aleppo, for all practical purposes it's under complete FSA control. 8. One correction in the opposite direction is SAA andvance to the north of base 80. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, if we base on Syrian Perspective maps , we could show areas west of Hanano base and north of Citadel green as it shows it even if syrianper is highly biased towards the regime. The citadel is pretty much surrounded on all sides exepted maybe a thin supply line going on from the regime controlled Aleppo centre south east to the Citadel. --Amedjay (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

West of Hanano up into Jdeydah has been in FSA control for quite some time. The FSA swung inbetween Hnano base and the citadel and have held the ground up to Maysaloon for a year or more. For a long time, they had Hnano surrounded except for a single exit. The FSA lost ground, but are still fighting in Maysaloon, so they didn't loose much. The problem is, that this is a very dense area and no one has been able to establish the exact front line. Some areas are very clearly FSA controlled and not contested, but good luck figuring out where the line is. I agree the citadel is surrounded except for a supply line. the big question in my mind is whether the SAA actually holds the supply line, or punches through ever few weeks. It does appear that the SAA continues to hold a handfull of buildings outside the citadel on the perimeter, but I've also seen a lot of footage from every angle of the FSA completely surrounding it. From articles, I speculate that the SAA punches through in convoys. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Citadel is supplied through underground tunnels.-- (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone please post some facts on Rasefeh. Other than 1 pro SAA source citing fighting to the north, I have not seen a single indication that the SAA holds it. That info was quickly disproven by reports of ISIL and FSA fighting in the area. Also, most of Ashrafiyeh is in FSA/Kurd hands, the fringes are contested. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Marjeh and Myassar

Both districts (or at least parts of both districts) should be marked as contested as the SAA has begun a push into them, as per opposition sources.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The land Between Aziza and Marjeh is called Baloura (west of Airport). That land is now fully under the control of the SAA. Marjeh is a small district but this map assigned the larger plain next to it as part of it! MY MAP 25 JAN 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Karam Al Qasr under SAA control, source and map - — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
SOHR also reported it: [35] Esn (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not likley, the FSA has re-taken Al Aziza.. I doubt the SAA controls the land inbetween Marjeh and Aziza. ~GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Army is advancing from Aziza nad Neirab they took Ballura and Kasr al-Tarrab.[36]Daki122 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

True. It isn't about what is likely or doubtful, its just what is taking place. And my map is correct regarding the advances of the SAA. ARMY ADVANCES IN EASTER ALEPPO — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, your map is not correct.. and you can replace my statement of what's "likley" with what's actually true... See my post about Sheik Lutfi above. I understand why you changed the map, however the SAA advance was repelled. The articles regarding the SAA advance in Ballura and Kasr Al-tarrab are from regieme sources. Your own article states "Al-Watan newspaper, which is close to President Bashar al-Assad’s government, said the troops made the advance on Monday and also seized the districts of Ballura and Kasr al-Tarrab.".. hardly unbiased. As of yet, there is no credible evidence of the SAA controlling the area. At most it should be shown as contested. I stand by my statement on Lutfi however, that is currently clearly FSA controlled. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, i have a suggestion! please take it seriously! why dont we do a map like those of damascus, deir ez zor, homs!?? they are much more realistic and clear! thank you Alaane94 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, for your information there are maps that do show control in these cities even if they aren't pretty much the same as this one look : Deir Ezzor Homs city Damascus and outskirsts --Amedjay (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! i know what i meant is why dont you do a map of aleppo that look like those of Deir ezzor and Damascus. The current map isnt very representative of the current situation because the city is divided into pieces and we can't see the city map. thank youAlaane94 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Karm al Tarab in Army hands [37][38] also army has taken Naqqarin[39] months ago why is the area north of Brigade 80 still contested it should be red and beyond that it is contested the map is very old.Daki122 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

SAA did not take Naqqarin months ago. Fighting has been ongoing, although reports are that they hold it currently. That being said, the map should show the SAA holding further north along base 80. They appear to hold it to the edges of the industrial district. The map should also NOT show the SAA in control of Marjeh or Lutfi. These areas are clearly FSA held. Multiple news and video sources showed that several weeks ago. They were briefly contested.. unless someone can find some more recent footage and articles, they are in FSA hands now. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is Feb 20 and things have changed from 'weeks ago' till now. Still even by any rebel account, No rebel advances have taken place anytime in the past weeks in this area and the trend continues with the SAA gaining ground. Naqqarin is not contested it is SAA for over a month now and as mentioned earlier it should be red on the map as this map is wide enough to show the western side of naqqarin. Those areas and NOT CLEARELY FSA held they are CLEARELY SAA held. The SAA has past that point long ago and Took the village of Sheikh Najjar on the edge of the Industrial city a few days ago and is fighting now in the industrial city first-left district. The SAA seems to advance only after securing the areas they gain. Whether one likes the government supporters's media or not there is a trend of more truthful footage from their side in areas that locals can easily verify. This map is recent and from aleppo (map makers arent going to make a map that make residents go to such areas to get killed by clashes! they are sure of their maps) there are many footage you tube showing these areas clear of FSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Major fighting today in Sheikh Najjar. It's contested, not SAA. Some reports even have the FSA retaking it. Naraqqarin is in SAA hands. I'm too lazy to post articles and videos. FYI Be skeptical of SAA videos. They tend to rush in and film footage of an area they can't hold, for propeganda purposes. These areas are often retaken within the day. I've seen the same by the FSA but to a significantly lesser extent.~ GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Who is Fighting in Aleppo

ISIS, Al-Nusra Front, FSA Brigades.

While the city control map here on this wiki page has green / yellow / red only. This map of February Aleppo shows 10 districts under ISIS and 10 under other Islamic Brigades (Al-Nusra + FSA) There are rarely any fights among any of the Anti Gov rebels but some districts should be black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Only ISIL districts should be black. Nusra Front is independent, but does not attack the FSA and is is in open warefare against the ISIL. Technically, they are Al Queda, but they are surprisingly somewhat restrained and nationalistic. While radicalized, they don't appear to pose an immediate threat and probably won't until a post Assad Syria. After that, I'd guess they will try a political/militia approach to enforce their vision of the country.. probably not open warefare.. but who knows... Most other islamic batallions have direct or tacit alliance with the FSA. In allepo, Kurds, Islamists, FSA all appear to be working together with the exception of the ISIL. ISIL appears to be fighting everyone although some of the more conservative islamic groups are probably in a state of truce off the record. ISIL in some areas appears to be coordinating directly with the SAA, mostly, fighting kurds and FSA, and in a rare few, is still fighting the SAA. I don't think their commanders know what's going on at the moment.. idiots... ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jabal Badro District

Jabal Badro District is under SAA control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadac (talkcontribs) 20:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Only the rural areas are under SAA control. As it shows on the map, the right 60% of Jabal Badro should be shown as SAA. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all the eastern edge of this city map should be red.

Hanano , East Aleppo

Who keeps modifying the map based upon the AL Monitor's article??? It is citing a syrian army source and talks about how they PLAN to take over Hanano.. It doesn't say they HAVE taken over Hanano... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The article states the SAA took Talat al-Ghawali. The red shown at this town should extend all the way to the top of the page, but the FSA holds territory to the west of that line. Most SAA held territory is off the map to the east. Sheik Najar is actually in dispute, so the very top right corner should be olive. ~ GFS


Following [8] the Al-ameria district should go olive. It is the southern part of the Tal az-Zarazir district in the south-west of the city. Fighting in Bustan al-Qasr are reported [9] These reports are on daily base from many pro-opp and pro-gov sources. It should become olive as well.

Again the east side of the map should be red and the southern edge of Sheick Said as well.Paolowalter (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Map from 6 days ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The map from is EXTREMELY inaccurate. It is sourced from a pro regime site, and includes even disproven reports of SAA positions and victories. If you were to take every regime report of a victory, and ignore all other sources, this is what the city would look like. I could literally find hundreds of videos and news articles over the last 1-2 weeks contradicting what is shown as contested or SAA held territory. ~ GFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually that map doesn't seem that different at all from the map of Aleppo that we have right now on this site. So if you can find hundreds of articles contradicting it as you say, you're certainly more than welcome to present them. Kami888 (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Frequency of the opposing articles proves nothing! Also rejecting the map made by the Aleppo resistance themselves is not wise. Show us other maps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Jabal Badro should go red as well as the Ard Al-Hamra.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In [40] there are some info on the situation in Aleppo. In particular Ard al-Hamra is under army control. It should be red not olive. Again Al-ameria and the north part of Bustan al-Qadr should go olive. See above reference. As to Jabal Badro, the eastern part should go red, it was taken by the army moving north. Furthermore, because of the army presence in Kafr Hamra, the southern part of Layramoun should be red. Paolowalter (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to stop vandalism from Sopher99 who just reverts any change he does not like, by blocking his access? Paolowalter (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC) The last change in map are ridicolous,please someone can do something right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Why is Hanano gov controlled, Assad doesn't control it at and are al hamra isn't gov control.for all editors here,Assad is advancing the eastern countryside of Aleppo city and this countryside isn't shown in this map,please return Hanano and add al hamra as rebel controlled,only keep tel al ghwali as it is ,who ever did that must self-revert himself.Alhanuty (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Also whoever says that al monitor mentions it,firstly it is an army claim that is not confirmed,which brings us to another rule we use,that if an army source confirms that the rebels advanced we use that source,and same if a rebel source confirms that the army advanced we use it too.Alhanuty (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not an Army claim, its stated as fact by Al Monitor. EkoGraf (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, Al Monitor using terms to describe rebels close to sana's or fars' ones and claiming some weird nonsense (if Hanano and Ard Al Hamra were taken then rebels would be in a seriously dire situation) But you know, it's up to you, being manipulated by regime propaganda. --Amedjay (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Hanano and ard alhamra claims,looks to be a typical gov propaganda claim,if it was true,situation would be dangerous and extreme for the rebels in Aleppo,and it clearly says an army claim Eko.Alhanuty (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

SAA does not control Hanano or any part of Jabal Badro. As I previously stated the Al Monitor source was a regiem official who was talking about strategy, not actual territory held. The FSA is hitting Al Naqareen, Shiek Najar, and Base 80. There are about a half a dozen videos of this from the last 2 days. None of this would be possible if the map was accurate and the SAA held Hanano etc. It's frusterating, I've been trying to explain this for a week or more, but people keep changing the map back based upon this false source, which doesn't even state what they claim. ~GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Justice Palace It must be captured by the rebels green objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 


What happened to that district, why is it black now? There is no information in the legend on what black shading means. Was the district's population wiped out by a black plague or something? An explanation is necessary, I can't find it anywhere. Kami888 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Reports of ISIS taking it and the FSA withdrawing.. Not sure how/why.. ~ GFS. Just as in the main map, black is ISIL (ISIS) but they have been in Aleppo for a while, the map link earlier under "who is fighting in Aleppo" shows their influence in many districts but maybe recently they resorted to one stronghold of Halaq

Aaaand what's the source on that? It would be highly surprising if ISIS suddenly re-appeared and took control of a district in the middle of Aleppo city given how they withdrew from the city in January and much of its countryside in february/march. Kami888 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, prepare to be "highly suprised", as ISIS is back in Aleppo: ISIS returns to Aleppo.--HCPUNXKID 11:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I sure am. Strange, however, that there appear to be no other reports on this development? You'd think this development would have a noticeable impact on the events in Aleppo. Kami888 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this map noting?

I found this map on the #aleppo twitter feed. Is it worth editing the wiki map to match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The map show that, besides the changes already introduced, the lowe left corner should become green. Also the northern part of Bustan al Qasr. And probably also the southern part of Kafr Hamra. Paolowalter (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is also this map from opposition source It is even more favourable to the government in some areas, e.g. Saad al-ansari should be red, ashrafiyeh also, on ther other hand it is probably fair to assign Karm al-jabal to green.

Paolowalter (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rerport from SOHR [41] states adavnce of SAA in AL-Ma'amel area, Between Aziza and Al-Shekh Sa'eed. That corresponds to the lowest corner of Al-Shekh Sa'eed on the map, that should become red. Loolking at the AC map all the southern edge of Al-Shekh Sa'eed should turn red. Paolowalter (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New Changes

Long video showing FSA in control of Tell Shuwehna in the west: [42]
two videos of rebel advancement into industrial layramoun and control, with fsa now seeing al-Wafaa district: [43] [44]
As for Hanano and Ard al-Hamra, they are firmly in FSA hands and NOT contested (aerial bombardment of these districts does not count as contention. Neither does SAA attack on Sheikh Najjar which is not shown on map) so these two districts go back to green.
Oh, and the FSA blocked the SAA offensive on Sheikh Lutfi area south of Marjeh a long time ago, so removing red arrow. Moester101 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not accepted as source per Wikipedia policy. Sorry. You need to provide reliable news reports for the changes to be made. EkoGraf (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, here [45] [46] [47] [48] Happy now? Moester101 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Now pro-government editors should really stop edit warring. (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Map finally looks pretty accurate. 3 items that still need house cleaning. 1. The stadiums in Salahedine... This NW quadrant of the area has been in SAA hands for some time. The SAA did make a push in that section of the city about 2-3 months ago and there has been no evidence of FSA hitting the stadium from the N or E since. 2. Rasafeh is still shown red based upon that earlier incorrect source relating to Bani Zaid. This is and has always been incorrect. The SAA holds only some limited area just outside of Tishreen base. The fighting at Bani Zaid was ISIS and FSA.. not SAA. No source needed, because no source every justified the change to red in the first place. 3. The FSA has been in the NW quadrant of Khaldia for months. The map showed it correctly for a while. Latest reports show they actually hold the Layramoun traffic circle, implying that their hold in NW Khaldia is at least semi-stable. little actual news, but many other sources show this. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Good notes, I agree, except I can't do Khaldiya b/c of the lack of separation from Tishreen. Will fix the other two though. Moester101 (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The stadiums are in the West of Salaheddine, not NW. NW corner of Salaheddine is a residential area.-- (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Moester, none of your sources say the rebels have full control of Layramon. First source talks about the hill, but the district is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Second source says they captured installations in the district, but nothing about the whole district. Third source says they made advances in the district, but once again, nothing about capturing the whole district. Fourth source is once again youtube, not accepted by Wikipedia. And its not a matter of me being happy, its a matter of Wikipedia being happy, in other words, sticking to Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, you also made changes to Bani Zeid, without providing any sources. If you made changes based on user's personal opinion that's also a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on editing based on OR (original research), editing based on POV (personal point of view) and unsourced editing. P.S. You claim the fighting that was reported in Bani Zeid was ISIS vs FSA and not the Army vs FSA, providing you with a source to the contrary [49]. If you want to make changes, provide a proper source please. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the source provided by user about Khaldiya does not actually point to the frontline that was in Layramon moving to Khaldiya. There has always been a frontline at Khaldiya from the direction of between Khaldiya and Rasafeh. In addition, I would point out once more all of user comments about Khaldiya were unsourced and edits based on them are against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Here, this is how its done. Here is a pro-opposition source SOHR [50] reporting continuing fighting in Layramon district from TODAY. Plus, another pro-opposition source [51] reporting fighting in Kafr Hamra yesterday, which means rebels still don't have full control of that area. So, based on this and the other sources you provided, I think it is within the boundaries of what is reported in the sources that the northern (upper) part of Layramon district is colored as rebel-held, while the southern (lower) part of the district is colored as contested (which it already is). As for everything west of it, including the southewestern part of Kafr Hamra as it is now, that remains contested. EkoGraf (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Kafr Hamra extends beyond the map to the west, and I believe includes Maarat Artiq. Based on other reports, this is likely where the fighting is occurring.-- (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Kafr Hamra and Maarat Artiq are two different areas, and it is Maarat Artiq that is not on the map. EkoGraf (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, the likely location of fighting is near Maarat Artiq, on the western edge of Kafr Hamra and off the map. Government supporters were adamantly against showing rebel presence in the west until Khan Al-Asal fell even though they were present in Al-Asad park a long time before that, we should use the same metric in this case.-- (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, or you may not be, in your assesment. Regardles, WITHOUT SOURCES we can not make edits, per Wikipedia policy. So, if the source says there is fighting in Kafr Hamra, than Kafr Hamra is contested. Besides, the southwestern edge of Kafr Hamra WAS already marked as contested, as per your assesment. So, Moester101, I am asking that you change back the southwestern part of Kafr Hamra to contested per the pro-opposition source! EkoGraf (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)