Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Roads

Shouldn't this map show at least the major roads and railways? After all, maneuver is critical in warfare, and that would explain more why this or that city or village is strategic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.182.120 (talk)

Absolutely. Someone please create a version of the base Syria location map with those features drawn. Alternatively, we need a picture file that has syria roads on it and nothing else. I can then use the "overlay_image =" parameter in the "Template:Location map+" to overlay that "road file" on top of our map. For an example of the result of this parameter, see a "Location map+" where a picture file with arrows was overlayed on top of it. Unfortunately, i don't know how to create picture files. If anyone can create such a file (same size as our map; with a transparent background) and put it in commons, then i can overlay it on top of our map. Tradedia^talk I brought this back from archives as this is still an ongoing issue. And while we are at this, it would be good to also draw Lake Jabbūl Tradedia^talk

I agree that adding some of the most important highways to the map would make it more useful. It would have to be done delicately, because it could quickly make the map very cluttered. Looking at road maps of Syria, I would suggest something showing a few major highways, along the lines of this [1] (scroll down slightly), rather than something more like this [2], which would overwhelm the map. Hulahoop122 (talk)

Good idea. Between those 2 examples, the difference seems more how the roads are drawn (thin red lines vs. wide light brown lines), than the number of roads. In some areas, there seems to be more roads on the first map with the roads in red.

Note that our map is bigger, so we could probably place more roads (if appropriate) without problem. In some areas there are many alternative roads allowing easy passage around the main routes, so it might be a good idea to indicate that.

With a good source map with the roads already on it (and not too many complicated things in the same colour), I could produce the road overlay. The colour of the roads could be changed to whatever you like.

There is a map on my computer that might be good, with many roads, except it could be as much as 20 years old. (The latest date on the map is a 1994 border treaty.) It is better to have something not long before the civil war started.

According to my map, most of lake Jabbul is dry much of the year. (All except the north-west corner.) It also has rivers and railways, which might be interesting to show. (the roads, water, and railways could be put on separate layers so as to be easier to maintain, if necessary. Not hard since they are all different colours.) André437 (talk)

If you have the skills to put that map layer together, that would be great. You could post it on a test page, just as you did with all of the conflict icons you created, and see how the community reacts. Hulahoop122 (talk)

Ok, as I have time. It could take a while, since I will have to use google maps or equivalent to fill in the few places where a small window overlay covers roads, etc in some areas, and also clean up any stray marks I find. (There are a lot of annotations, but mostly outside Syria.)

I'll also have to adjust the scale and align it, which will be the most difficult part.

I'll put the roads/water/railways in separate layers initially as well. Easy to do since they are separate colours. That way it will be really quick to modify (or remove) one without affecting the others.

That icon project helped remind me of a few tricks with the software I use. (gimp)

BTW, I have an unrelated idea for locations contested from one side only : using a semicircle open on the opposite side. And for truces, using a broken outside circle, instead of a continuous one. Just mentioning it as something to think about.

I'll keep you posted :) André437 (talk)

This section disappeared for a while and I became occupied elsewhere, but my map turned out to be so overwritten with place names so as to be almost useless. Most roads, rivers, etc were obscured in many places. It would be faster to draw features freehand using google maps in satellite mode. Not one of my talents. So I can't help much with that.

I've noticed that some waterways have been added. It looks really nice. André437 (talk)

Deir Ez Zor contryside

SOHR reported that the rebels took control of many villages after clashes against ISIS https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/536128479828828 waiting for more sources FS1991

Khalfatli

According to SOHR, this border town is currently controlled by ISIS. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152562069038115

IS in Damascus Pocket

According to AP -citing SOHR- the IS controls parts of Damascus pocket. They are now in "Al-Hajar Al-Aswad, Tadamon and Qadam in southern Damascus" https://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-press-offensive-against-jihadists-near-damascus-110556227.html To have an accurate map of greater Damascus, should the Damascus map be altered for part of the green pocket to be black? It is fascinating to see this map develop and how much input people have put into it.

map changes

The map may soon need to add a new color. See news here on major split occurring within rebel ranks: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10301860/Syrian-insurgents-seize-3-towns

Eastern Gouta

IS controls Mesraba in Eastern Gouta but I cannot see it on Damascus map — Preceding http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/870192.shtml

Tabqa Airbase

Fights in Tabqa Airbase per pro regimee [3] and other sources. Unconfirmed rumours that troops are being evacuated but base is currently contested in anyway.

Out of subject but why Ar Ruhayyat (above Raqqa city) still appears regimee held under IS siege? I haven't seen any reports that there is a government presence in the area anymore. Constantinos7 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ar Ruhayyat is a left over of the recent past and should be turned black. For the base, a repelled attack is mentioned. I think no change is warranted at the moment. Paolowalter (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/jihadis-near-syria-army-base-30516471.html the villages/towns around the base should be made black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.202.163 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bemiyHidGng Video Evidence: Tabqa Airbase will likely be cleared by tonight followed by an official IS announcement. Safe to say base is captured by this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.202.163 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730733/ISIS-march-DESPITE-U-S-airstrikes-How-terror-group-expanding-thanks-lucrative-hostage-trade-capturing-swathes-territory-seizing-oil.html Villages around Tabqa Airbase are in IS hands. We should have official word soon that Tabqa Airbase has fallen once ISIS cleans up the tunnels. 184.20.122.52 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

http://world.al-mustaqbal.net/islamic-state-storms-syrian-army-kurdish-militants-and-iraqi-sahawat/# Good as official confirmation. Tabqa Airbase has fallen to IS. It and surrounding towns should be changed to black. Assad no longer has a presence in Raqqa Province. Tgoll774 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Your source it is pro IS source and he cant be use to displayed of IS advance. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

IS not taken Tabqa Airbase clashes continue around Airbase.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Also today SOHR said that clashes still around Air Base and no confirmation from the reliable sources that IS captured the Tabqa Air Base.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The base largely fell on the 21st, twitter feeds and pictures were posted before Twitter ban hammered them all, the following is what I have been able to save. https://twitter.com/isisnews4/status/502399762448924672/photo/1 https://twitter.com/YazidMuawiya/status/502510856731508736/photo/1 https://twitter.com/isisnews4/status/502125787906994177/photo/1 Main fighting is in the tunnels under the base and the remaining bunker with SAA trying to counter attack. Considering the size of the base, 6 klick by 5 klicks, its a large place to comb so the official word won't come till the final holdouts are dealt with. Tgoll774 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Some IS sources on Twitter said that they entred the airport and some buildings and a companie of Air Defense inside the airport have fallen.[4] 11:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC+1)

Tabqa Airport has fallen.[5] 12:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/islamic-state-claim-control-tabqa-airbase-syria-805309165 Base has fallen to IS and officially confirmed by IS. But wait http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/jihadis-part-syrian-air-base-25101754 states at least part of base has fallen if not all of it. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You must be joking! Why do you post here this garbage that is 100% is not a reliable source.

https://news.yahoo.com/jihadists-enter-syria-military-airport-first-time-ngo-000006397.html Its official, even Syria has admitted it. Tgoll774 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

IS takes over parts of Syrian air base but clashes continue.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

IS claims the airport to be taken 14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC) [6]

SOHR reported that the Islamic State took control almost completely over the Military Airport of al Tabaqa amid clashes with the regime forces in several points inside the airbase.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabqa air base not under siege The Islamic State attack repelled

Several TV Channel including the Iraqi TV doing a tour inside the air base https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX5QZDbpqqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1xNua7rFg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQR_tshYHwA

Whole base is working without problems radars, aircraft and helicopters.

The IS attack the base yes but the attacks were repelled and Army take severals areas around the base http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=10850 http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=11003 --Pototo1 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabqa Air Base is under control SAA. Not only base but also surrounding area. IS attacks failed.source Hanibal911 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR 10min ago - fighting resumes in the southern part of Tabqa Airbase https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573164966125179 Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

All the external perimeter from the base is clear at the moment.

Visual evidence showing warplanes, Helicopters, radars and cargo plane working without problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n96WpOsPkZA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfL16UiFDhw

Are visible inside tanks and IFVs in the external perimeter of the base effective siege no exit anymore the IS back to their position on north.

TV Channels from Lebanon and Iraq confirmed these reports

Tabqa air base are not the brigade 93 and division 17 on these place the troops were totally encircle in Tabqa are opens supplies from grounds https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/485716436678365184/photo/1

Another report from RT http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b68_1408815953

That's the situation at the day 23/8/14 --Pototo1 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This pro gov source said the base are no longer encircled http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-news-tabqa-airbase-syrian-army-longer-encircled/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7f1_1408850706 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zGNSfhQo0k

12345678 vs a crappy anti government SOHR claim seems they are just a bad losers. --Pototo1 (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/islamic-state-claim-control-tabqa-airbase-syria-805309165 Base has fallen to IS and officially confirmed by IS. But wait http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/jihadis-part-syrian-air-base-25101754 states at least part of base has fallen if not all of it. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So far all you guys have provided are SANA or SANA-esque sources and twitter comments. Doesn't cut it.

The base is taken over by ISIS, SANA confirms it http://sana.sy/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8.html 77.161.206.160 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Make the base black again. It's IS held as proven by many pro-regime and pro-rebel forces. Stop the vandalism: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jihadists-enter-syria-military-airport-first-time-ngo-110006692.html#EXpo0d1

Orient news reported that SAA took most of Airplanes out and agree to hand it over to IS. There are only three helicopter left with some guards. IS was attacking for 5 days and Migs war bombing IS. there are reports that the regime is trying to reach a truce especially after UK officials said they will coordinate with Syria. also there reports that some soldiers are tying to defect. The airbase is most likely under IS control

But later SOHR reportet that the Islamic State took control almost completely over the Military Airport of al Tabaqa amid clashes with the regime forces in several points inside the airbase.SOHR So SOHR cleary said that clashes continue. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That is true. That is what SOHR is saying. Twocircles.net and AL-mmonitor also confirmed the IS took control of The Airbase. The casually reports were conflicting. there were reports of 4 atacks since tuesday. SAA lost 25 while IS lost around 70 to over 100.

Helfaya in Hama under rebel-held (confirmed by AlJazeera)

AlJazeera confirming the rebel-held of Helfaya. AlJazeera 178.77.185.46 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And in what part of the video do the say that ? They are showing the city empty because civilians are fleeing due to rebel advance on the north, that's it.DuckZz (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

it looks like Halfaya is under rebel control via https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573047822803560,where the source states "the warplanes carried out some raids on areas in the town of Khattab and the village of Kherbet Al Hjame in the northern countryside as well as areas in the town of Halfaya".and i don't think the government is crazy to bombard their owwn-held towns it just doesn't make sense. Alhanuty (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So suddenly this town is rebel-controlled without any news of a fight? I think it should be left alone until we get reliable sources saying that it has been taken.

SOHR reported there is airstrikes in the town,and the regime is not that stupid to bombard it's own held towns.Alhanuty (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It only said parts of the town. Besides, SOHR is a pro-opposition source and is not reliable anyway. Wait for reliable sources.

SOHR only said that helicopters dropped explosive barrels in Helfaia area but not said that in city. And also SOHR previously reported on the clashes on the south from city so that, according data from SOHR army bombard rebel near town. So stop distorting the facts.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC) And today SOHR said that clashes in area Halfaya but not in the city.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also SOHR by mostly support opposition and when we all agreed to use his data carefully. And if really have serious clashes in the northern part of the Hama province especially in cities such as Mhardeh or Halfaya about this already must reported many reliable sources but they are silent and it makes you wonder. So let's edit the status of towns or villages only if source clearly said that clashes go in town or village, and are no more. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many twitter reports saying there is heavy fighting ongoing in Mhardeh right now. The Dam seems to be taken over by Jabhat al-Nusra. Rebels are trying to storm the town from the eastern side, from Halfayah. Combined with the barrel bombing story, it seems Halfayah is indeed under rebel control. The army wouldn't bomb a town with such an inaccurate weapon if it's own soldiers were there. Maybe we should make both towns contested?

You can confirm your words of data from a reliable source. And if not then do not talk nonsense. And post in Twitter from opposition activists it is not reliable data. And also anti government source SOHR said that clashes around the city Maharda.here So calm down. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I wish Hanibal was as fast to condemn the people using SANA in the Tabqa airbase section as he is quick to condemn the use of SOHR in this case. "Unbiased" editing at its finest.

Jihadists from the Islamic State group have seized the Tabqa military airport, the last remaining Syrian army base in northern Raqa province.Yahoo News Hanibal911 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Gov't is bombarding "IN" Helfaya - https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573384699436539, https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573047822803560, https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/572718089503200. It would seem at least a contested icon is warranted.. the gov't did not just randomly decide to shell itself.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a pro-op source so not authoritative on this topic but nonetheless http://eaworldview.com/2014/08/syria-daily-assads-expanding-war-islamic-state/ Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this source not said about clashes and given the fact that SOHR partially supports the opposition reported about air strike not enough that noted this city to contested. Also pro opposition source said that Regime forces shelling some areas inside Halfaya, after the increasing of the Rebellion sleeper cells inside the city.here The military carried out an operation to destroy the sleeper cells of rebels. So now green circle around city Halfaya enough. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

i agree with boredwhytekid,the status of the town is unclear,why would the government shell its own towns,leave it contested agreed,secondly SOHR is reliable,not biased to any side.Alhanuty (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't make changes to contested or rebel-held. No reliable sources reporting town is captured and no reports of fighting within the town itself. One report of one round of air-strikes than complete silence afterwards. I would add lime ring around the town for now until situation becomes clearer. As for the shelling, we all know that the rebels have come right up to the outskirts of the city, but again, for now SOHR has made no reports of fighting in the city itself. EkoGraf (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

One more thing to add to the uncertainty and why I'm advocating only the ring for now...Kuna reported [7] the shelling, that we talked about, was of the Halfaya area. EkoGraf (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR clearly said that warplanes attacked areas on the outskirts of town Halfaya but not inside the city.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SyrianPerspective reporting that Nusra is attacking Maharda THROUGH Halfaya.. http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/08/tabqa-ab-trap-for-isis-syrian-army-devastates-nusra-rats-at-muharda-in-hama.html. That plus the two SOHR reports of the Syrian Air Force bombing INSIDE Halfaya.. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573384699436539 https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573047822803560.. what more are we waiting for? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR cleary said that warplanes attacked areas on the outskirts of city Halfaya.SOHR and if the source said attackink it means that the town or village was shelled from artillery or tanks bu not clashes. And here yesterday SOHR cleary said that several shells launched by al Nusra Front struck areas in the city of Mharde which is inhabited by Christians.SOHR and here SOHR said that violent clashes between the regime forces and their militiamen against al Nusra Front in the vicinity of al city Mharde which is inhabited by the Christians. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Rebels were repelled from Maharda per pro-opposition activists [8]. Still no reports of street fighting in Halfaya by any sources. Also, no confirmation the town was captured by SOHR or any other reliable source. EkoGraf (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Also today SOHR reported that clashes continued after midnight between regime forces and Islamic battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra around the city Maharda.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

why is helfaya green now?92.44.119.129 (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

the link on the edit is SOHR http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=22481&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U_yAAk9OXOF which confirms - talking about Nusra members policing the streets of Halfaya Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And finally confirmed in English https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/574383409336668. Halfaya is yet ANOTHER example of our map changing a town straight from red to green and COMPLETELY MISSING OUT ON THE CONTESTED STAGE because some delayed and denied and denied and delayed. In this thread are numerous reports of the SAA air force bombing Halfaya, of pro-gov't SyrianPerspective acknowledging Nusra moving through Halfaya, etc, etc. Yet we did jack. We left it red, and didn't show it contested when it actually was. Kudos for keeping the map inaccurate. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Red Towns deleted from Hasakah province why ?

We used before a pro insurgent source https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/562706100504399 for draw these towns the discussion is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_21#SAA_advancing_in_Hasakah

Why it was deleted

Incorrect location or a new vandalism case ?--Pototo1 (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 22#Names of some villages and towns Tradedia^talk 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

al-Tayyara checkpoint

I think that al-Tayyara checkpoint should be added on the mapnear Tabqa airport as IS-held per [9]--DCGT888 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Northern Homs.

According to SOHR, Islamic State fighters retreated from their held areas east of Rastan in Northern Homs towards Eastern Homs and handed their areas in Northern Homs to Nusra. So change those IS held towns from black to green.

: Done Hanibal911 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The area was subjected to vandalism, put it green again. Also Tabqa Airbase to black please, as it was also vandalised.

al Adeyyi and al Dahreyyi

SOHR said that Islamic and rebel battalions, al Nusra Front and al Akrad Front Brigade took control over the two villages al Adeyyi and al Dahreyyi near the town of Soran E’zaz after violent clashes with the IS fighters who controlled the two villages few days ago.SOHR Who knows where these villages located on map? Hanibal911 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabqa Airbase is IS held

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jihadists-enter-syria-military-airport-first-time-ngo-110006692.html#EXpo0d1

SANA also confirmed it. SOHR confirmed it. International media confirmed it. All free-lancer reporters on twitter reported it. The base is IS held(unfortunetly) It was already black and you changed it to red for some reason, not put it back to black.

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamic-state-captures-tabqa-airbase-last-government-stronghold-ar-raqqa/ Stop vandalising it, it's IS not regime held. Also, this pro-regime website claims this ends all SAA presence in Raqqa, so all red towns need to be changed to black.

Daara central prison

For some reason, it was excluded from the map. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-19/250704-syria-army-fighting-for-control-of-krak-fort-official.ashx#axzz2uAA4pFGD It was taken in March.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pt&lat=32.597879&lon=36.166477&z=15&m=b

Here is it's location. Put it there as a rebel held facility(just like Aleppo Central Prison).

Islamic State holds Gweran neighborhood in Hasakah City

http://aranews.net/2014/08/ypg-spokesman-cooperation-syrian-regime-logical-current-conditions/

My sugestion is either put the old map of Hasakah and put IS in control of that neighborhood or put it as a 3-way battle between IS/SAA/YPG (while YPG and SAA are sharing control of Hasakah, they are not allies, so make it that way would be good. Anyway, the area is Islamic State held

Actually, the SAA and YPG are allies in Hasakah and are jointly fighting against ISIS, besides sharing control of Hasakah. This was widely reported and admitted by the Kurds themselves almost a month ago [10][11]. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said myself, they are, but the Islamic State controls a neighborhood in the city.

Taldou

Pro opposition source Syria Direct said that the Taldou plain in Homs province to besieged by Syrian troops. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1513-syria-direct-news-update-8-25-2014 Hanibal911 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Towns controlled by SAA in Hasakah province

Are these https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/562706100504399

These towns were deleted or ISIS controlled it now ?

Jaza'a and surrounding villages

Jaza'a and surrounding villages are put on black, but KUrdish sources claim to hold the town. http://en.firatnews.com/news/news/ypg-4-gang-members-killed-in-jazaa.htm Should be put on contested. M.Burri (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jaza'a is held by Islamic State, they posted the photo set of their conquest and the failed results of a Kurdish attempt to retake it. https://justpaste.it/ja7im_pkk All these dead soldiers showed up in YPG films said to have been taken while recapturing Jaza'a, as you can see they died and failed.Tgoll774 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mahardeh, Hama

Ok, let's see if Mahardeh is ever going to show contested, or if we're going to wait it out like Halfaya. There have been isolated reports of fighting in Mahardeh for weeks. SANA http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=9444 thwarted "attempt to attack military checkpoint in Mhardeh city". Pro-gov't syriatimes http://syriatimes.sy/index.php/news/local/13972-syrian-arab-army-eliminates-over-34-terrorists-plus-several-foreign-ringleaders-outside-idlib-and-lattakia "attack on a garrison in Mhardeh city". SOHR https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/566724656769210 "clashes also took place between the two sides in Maharda town".

Now we have MORE reports. SANA 2 days ago http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=11099 titles "terrorists attack power plant in Mhardeh, Hama countryside".

We have Farsnews http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930604000401 "The Syrian army also raided the strongholds of the insurgents in the town of Mhardeh in Hama's Northern countryside".

SOHR. SANA. Syriatimes. Farsnews. All have reported clashes "IN" Mhardeh. We ignored similar reports for Halfaya and consequently WE NEVER SHOWED IT AS CONTESTED WHICH MAKES THIS MAP LOOK LIKE A JOKE. So, Mhardeh contested? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Al-Monitor http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/08/tabaqa-military-airport-falls-to-is.html# "Meanwhile, the Christian majority city of Mhardeh, in the countryside of Hama, was under the fiercest offensives by Jabhat al-Nusra SEVERAL DAYS AGO" - caps mine. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: SANA said that armed terrorist groups targeted an electric power plant in Mhardeh. So source said the rebels fired Mahardeh Power Plant which is located near the city.here

Secondly: SOHR today cleary said that Islamic battalions targeted regime bastions in Maharda city and Sahab village which is inhabited by Alawite.SOHRHanibal911 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And Boredwhytekid before you provide a source of study it carefully because he clearly said that Jabhat al-Nusra launched a major offensive on the city of Mhardeh in the countryside of Hama last Thursday in order to storm and control it. The clashes and battles are ongoing in the vicinity of the checkpoints of the Syrian army, which are deployed around the city to protect it. So source clearly said that the clashes around the city but not in the city and stop distorting the facts.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of equivocation that has made this map late on every single development in the Hama battle. I am updating Mahardeh on the basis of Farsnews - a pro-gov't site that validates the existence of "strongholds of the insurgents in the town of Mhardeh " ie: inside the city. Find a source that disproves it or leave it. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You probably do not carefully watched here SOHR today cleary said that Islamic battalions targeted regime bastions in Maharda city and Sahab village which is inhabited by Alawite.SOHR So SOHR clearly said that the city Maharda it is regime bastions and the rebels fired at it. And said that SOHR was informed that no less than 1500 fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra grouped in Helfaya and around Maharda, preparing for a wide attack on the city of Maharda. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely none of that disproves the multiple reports of rebel presence in the city. Yes, they targeted regime bastions - the gov't has bastions in Aleppo, in Daraa, in Deir el zor - that does not mean they possess the entire city. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Source clearly said that the city is regime bastions and 1500 fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra grouped located in Helfaya and around Maharda, preparing for a wide attack on the city of Maharda. So it shows that the rebels near the city but not inside city.source Hanibal911 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not. It says "targeted regime bastions in Maharda" - not that Maharda itself is entirely a gov't bastion. Look, this month I've watched you change the status of towns based EXCLUSIVELY on deSyracuse. Now, I have provided sources from pro-gov't, pro-op, and pseudo-neutral sources, and I am going to proceed based on those sources, because you are talking nonsense and ignoring them all. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You ignore all data that show that the city is under the control of the army so that I no longer have any desire to persuade you. Regards Hanibal911 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no data that shows the city exclusively under the control of the army. SANA and FARS are as pro-gov't as it gets, and they both say that there are clashes "IN" Maharda. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Pro gov. source SANA said that armed terrorist groups targeted an electric power plant in Mhardeh. But power plant located near the city Mhardeh not inside the city here and Fars News it is shit and not the source. And if look closely you'll see that SOHR sair that rebels from Jabhat al-Nusra grouped located in Helfaya and around Maharda, preparing for a wide attack on the city of Maharda, preparing for a wide attack on the city of Maharda which is inhabited by Christians, to gain control on the city and advance in the western countryside of Hama.SOHR But if for you this crappy source Fars News is more reliable than SOHR something more does not make sense to debate with you. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I'm using FARS is because you refused to let it go contested when I posted SOHR's report of clashes in the town OVER 2 WEEKS AGO https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/566724656769210 Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mhardeh from red with lime concentric circle to contested, per Farsnews linked above Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And today official Syrian source SANA only said that rebels fired a rocket shell that hit an electricity generating station here in Mharda in the central province of Hama, causing a fire to erupt in the transmission lines.source And SANA today just as SOHR no word said about the clashes in the city. So stop provide as a source to editing this shit.Fars News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to the section on this talk page titled "Mhardeh, Hama", where, TWO WEEKS AGO you refused using SOHR's report of clashes in Mhardeh https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/566724656769210. Now you want to use SOHR since they are no longer reporting clashes? Your inconsistency is a friggin joke man. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are a strange editor who is ready to be edited on the basis of their fantasies and you accuse other editors who tells you where your faults. So I'm more not interested to talk by you guy. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

lol SOHR posts are my fantasy? oo baby oo baby ;). I'm not accusing, I'm stating fact - you refused to use that SOHR post. Scroll up on this public forum to "Mhardeh, Hama" section, and there it is: SOHR reported fighting in Mhardeh on August 9th and you refused to use it. Now SOHR does not report fighting in Mhardeh and you are suddenly all about using SOHR. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok how should I put this nicely:First SOHR is a pro-opp source that will always report gains for rebels even if there are none look at their post from today[12] this is the biggest bullsh*t I ever read on that page while it inflames government losses( 110 000 government fighters killed that means the opposition losses are double than that just given the fact that they are getting bombed and killed by air raids and yet there fighter losses are still around 40 000 and that is since mid 2013!?) and hardly reports from the Allepo front where the rebels are under constant attack and have been pushed back from southern Allepo and lost Azzan mount(there are pictures of syrian journalists on the mountain) they give very murky reports in Hama where the rebels advanced in Halfaya but in the same report it says clashes took place in the city or where it says clashes are ongoing in a town and then two weeks later it says opp fighters are preparing to enter the town.Or should I mention the funny reporting about ambushes and the killing of tens of rebels where everyone is saying that the death toll is lets say 70 but SOHR says that is not true it is 30 and with the other 40 the rebels "lost" contact(Recent ambush was in Deraa where 12? where killed while rebels "lost" contact with dozens others?!??).And for last I would also mention the funny reports about bombings where every rebel mortar or at least 90% of them menage to kill a government(has the guy seen how the rebels fire mortars on video!?) while the government forces with far better weapons and an air force always misses(The famous SOHR sentence:Government jets bombed a village but there are no casualities).So stop using SOHR as a reliable source but instead try to read between the lines in there reports to try at least to more accurate.And always use both sides source and where ever the contradict each other that is a place where it should be contested where ever the agree than we mark progress on that but if we use sources form both sides spepratly we will end up making a mess.Daki122 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lets end the discussion now. Today's report from SOHR [13], rebels around the city preparing to attack it. So they are still not inside it. The end. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Double standard like a crazy. Ignore SOHR when it says fighting in the city, cling to SOHR when it says the rebels are not in the city. Ha ha ha

Daki - I'm with you. SOHR's numbers are ludicrous, and their info is somewhat biased. The trouble is that pro-gov't sources never report any rebel gains at all, pro-rebel media can't be used for rebel gains, and most western media use SOHR as a source - so if we abandon SOHR as a source, there will be practically none left to use for 1 of the sides in this 3 way war Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR report makes no mention of fighting in the city. As for the part about targeting regime bastions in the city that you pointed out, when SOHR used the expression before in the past targeting regime/rebel bastions they were referring to the use of artillery/rocket fire (from a distance). And the use of the expression like mofo is a violation of WP policy on civility that can get you band. So take care in the future. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported fighting in the city weeks ago. I posted it here, weeks ago. And it was refused. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/566724656769210. My apologies for 'mofo' - I did not start the profanity in this section, but nonetheless, won't happen again. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And after that report we had the archicivilians map which showed them still on the town's outskirts. EkoGraf (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EkoGraf here this map. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the same archcivilians map which incorrectly showed Halfaya as gov't held, and not contested, which we now know it was, yea? Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The bias is terrible man. We have 2 pro-op sources - SOHR and archcivilians - with conflicting reports, and immediately the decision goes to archcivilians, even though it's just another random map, no different then ours, no special access or sources that we don't have, but we use it as a source. I say "we" - I mean pro-gov't editors, who jump on these random maps - archcivilians, desyracuse, peterwhatshisface - and use them for pro-gov't gains. Why are we using random individual's maps? Does anyone have an answer to that? Why are we assuming their maps are more accurate then ours? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here reliable source Al Monitor on 24 August also reported that clashes around city Mhardeh which under control by Syrian troops. But I see that you and this is small. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually no. Halfaya was not contested at the time Bored. Halfaya became contested a week after that map was made. P.S. As the map shows, the power plant, that was mentioned earlier, is OUTSIDE the city, not inside it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What source are you basing that claim on? If you have one, why didn't you bring it forward to make Halfaya contested? Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Talbisa

clashes between regime forces against Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions in the western side of Talbisa.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamamiyat

The village Hamamiyat now under control by army this confirm pro government source here and pro opposition source here also showed that area neae city Kafr Zita which located village of Hamamiyat under army control. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

deSyracuse and pietervanostaeyen

Again, why are we using these as sources? These are nothing but two random individuals' maps. They are not authoritative at all. They do not have access to information that we do not. Only pro-gov't editors press to keep these jokes of sources to use them for pro-gov't editing. This is a sham and a discredit to this map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

DeSyracuse it is pro opposition source and here is proof map from the source DeSyracuse

is almost identical to another pro opposition map you can compare them yourself. So that if you looking at both of these cards is becoming understood that the source deSyracuse make most of edits on based on pro opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do they have like, secret clearance or something? We have tons of editors here scouring the internet for sources - why do we use these random people's maps as though they have access to info that we do not? Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Another reason I can't belive on this map is eastern Hama.This is the highway to Iritrhya [14] which is the supply route for Alepo so now all of a sudden parts of the highway are controlled by ISIS.Sorry but that would have made it to the news or at least SOHR.I rely don't think ISIS controls these villages or at least the ones near the highway which are 5-7km from the highway.I would hardly think the Army can advance like it is advancing in the moment without supplies so that section of the map is wrong as ISIS conttroled villages are way to close to the highway and with ATGM's that they have they can close the higway at will which is not the case.Daki122 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So ANY map you find floating around online, regardless of its authority or accuracy, can be used for pro-regime edits if the UNKNOWN, UNVERIFIED, UNQUALIFIED creator of the map claims to be pro-opp? This is like something out of the god damn Twilight Zone.

That's correct. Go make a map, show some miniscule gov't advance that is not true and we'll label you pro-gov't and use you as a source for pro-opp gains. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually we never used a pro-gov map for government advances until now but we have constantly used maps that are pro-opp for opposition advances which I frankly think is unfair given that the sources are fans of the opposition and will make any map to suit there imagination even tough that is not true on the ground.Daki122 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, show me where we are using amateur maps claiming to be pro-regime and using these maps to record rebel advances? The only people doing that are the ones using this Syracuse guy to show regime advances despite having no idea who this guy is, where his true allegiances lie, or anything else for that matter. SOHR is being used to show rebel advances because it has been proven to be more or less reliable most of the time, while regime news sources have not shown a single rebel advance in the entire 3 years of war. That's actually why this map is such an inaccurate mess - relying on state-controlled authoritarian media to fairly report the news. EVEN IN THE RARE CASES WHERE SANA ADMITS A LOSS - SUCH AS AT TABQA AIRBASE - THE EDITORS HERE STILL INSIST ON BEING BIASED AND BESIEGING THE AIRBASE DESPITE NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH A THING.

Stop vandalising Tabqa around

The airbase is NOT under regime siege. Is under full IS control, yes, some clashes maybe around according to SOHR, put SOHR reports clashes around many places, such as Deir Ez-Zor Airport, put you don't put it under siege, so why to put Tabqa? It's not under any siege, regime lost all of Raqqa for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.179.152.147 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be removed the red circle if nobody post sources here in next hours --Pototo1 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR said that clashes around al-Tabaqa military airport.source Hanibal911 (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

--Removed: flamebaiting

Can't say I disagree.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So essentially, ban everyone who does not agree with what you say the first time you say it. Yes, that will get us closer to an unbiased map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Syrian-soldiers-in-latest-brutal-killing.html

Fleeing soldiers from Tabqa airbase are marched in the desert and executed en masse...

Map shows the regime besieging Tabqa...

Fleeing soldiers...mass execution...besieging Tabqa...

Something is wrong with this picture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Suwayda province

In this map, Suwayda province is all red. This is not true. There have been clashes in the past few weeks, resulting in the loss of control of the SAA and NDF over several sunni Arab towns inside Suwayda province. Al-Monitor article: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/08/clashes-bedouin-druze-as-suwayda-syria.html Source of fighting near Al-Lajat and refugees: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hundreds-families-lajat-syria-home-dusty-cave-2032435396 Source for Dama with rebel presence nearby: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Aug-18/267518-druze-bedouin-violence-erupts-near-syrias-lajat-region.ashx#axzz3Bg3pKSV7 Zibin source: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/551874828254193

I suggest to green:

• Al-Lajat
• Eib (tiny village near Al-Lajat)

Red with green circle:

• Dama/Deir Dama
• Zibin

Also, this would make Busra al-Harir in eastern Daraa to green. I can find no source saying it's contested, maybe some barrel bombs. It was also not discussed on this page. Also, in eastern Daraa, I would like to add the towns of Al-Tayyibah and Mitayiah as rebel held. Those two towns are near the Jordianian border, which is under Jabhat al-Nusra control. This is the route weapons are smuggled into towns like Hirak and Bosra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly source Al Monitor said that Syrian army, backed by NDF, has managed to regain control over Deir Dama and managed to counter an attack against the Dama village in the countryside of Suwayda but beduin fighters still shelled villages Deir Dama and Dama. Thid also confirmed pro opposition map

And Al Lagat it is not town or village it is only area in Dara province.herehere

And SOHR said that the Islamic and rebel battalions targeted the regime - held areas in the city of Bosra al Harir.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I add on map the village Eib. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand. However, the map and SOHR clearly shows town in rebel hands north of Busra al-Harir. I advocate adding Mseihek and Jaddal to this map. This way it seems like Eib is flooting somewhere in the middle of nowhere without clear lines towards rebel held terretory. What about Zibdin and the town inside Daraa province near the Jordanian border west of Nasib? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reports about clashes near the village Zibdin was almost two months ago but more no was any messages about the clashes in this area. And we cant use pro opposition map to add rebel - held villages or towns. So that SOHR not said that Mseihek and Jaddal now under rebel control. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Daraa accuracy

Is there any proof whatsoever that Tasil is contested by the regime? What about Jasim? And I'm not talking about airstrikes or shelling which don't warrant a "contested" icon, I am talking about proof that there is regime elements in these towns fighting against the rebels in these towns which have been held by the rebels for longer than a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There have not been reports of fighting in these towns for weeks, months even. Unfortunately though, that logic only works if you are suggesting a pro-gov't edit, such as the Suweida conversation taking place directly above this section. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Jasim and Tasil should both be green. Rebels are advancing in Daraa, not fighting for their lives. This map is not showing what is really happening in Daraa/Quinaitra/Suwayda:

• Jasim to green, maybe red circle/half circle pressence nearby on two hills
• Tasil to green
• Add Beduin towns in Suwayda as rebel held — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You must indicate the sources who can confirm your statements about Al Suwayda province. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And also on 14 August pro oppositio source showed that Al Suwayda province under control by army. And later on 18 August another pro opposition source show that rebels located on small part in province Al Suwayda near the Dara province but not indicated that rebels now control any villages. So dont need make unfounded statements. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR had reports that clashes are taking place in both Tasil and Jasim towns until you have any better source they stay contested.Daki122 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR had reports? When? Tasil being contested is pathetic. Rebels control all territory north, south, west and east of it, no clashes have been reported for MONTHS, while it is still contested? If it was contested, at least we would see some ocasional gunfire in reports, but NOTHING is reported. What's the big deal in changing it to green anyway? You guys are putting the Tabqa Airbase to besieged for god know's what reason and you can put OBVIOUS rebel held town to green. Yes, you editors are pro-regime, everyone knows it, but this is borderline pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.47.29 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra

Rebels captured Quneitra crossing [15]. [16] --איש המרק (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

REUTERS reports that the urban center/ town of Quneitra is under state control. However the border crossing of Quneitra that is almost 20 kilometers west of Quneitra has been captured by AN and its allied western-supplied "moderate" rebels. http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/syria-crisis-border-fighting-idINKBN0GS04H20140828 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.3.204 (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra crossing fell to the rebels:

http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-syria-crossing-israel-occupied-golan-ngo-110506731.html http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Aug-27/268671-syrian-rebels-seize-control-of-qunaitra-crossing-into-golan-heights-activists.ashx#axzz3BaxIp9ci Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The rebels captured the crossing, but the town of Quneitra itself, 20 kilometers east, is still held by the SAA [17]. A red dot for the town needs to be added. EkoGraf (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bteich checkpoint

Bteich checkpoint should red. According to sohr :The Islamic battalions and al Nusra Front targeted regime’s gatherings in Btesh checkpoint by the heavy gun machines https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/575525282555814212.252.198.124 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

why Flitah change to red to contested ?

sources or it go to red again in next hours --Pototo1 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

via https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/575180572590285, Falita is contested and stop reverting edits with reliable sources.Alhanuty (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But SOHR partly biased in the rebels side and no one from another reliable sources not said that clashes in this city. And it can be was only hit and run atack because even SOHR more not said about clashes inside city of Flita. Also on 23 August SOHR reported that clashes in the city Talbisa but we not change him to contested because SOHR more not said about clashes in this city. I also didnt find reports about clashes in the city Flita in the reports on the site SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

still SOHR is reliable,and the masdar is a very pro pro-regime source and shouldn't be used and is eqivialant to SANA,and Paolowalter better stop using it.Alhanuty (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Al-masdar is a reliable source. You cannot just go around labeling sources as you like because they do not fit your "agenda". Al-Masdar reports have been reliable and they report of the losses of both sides. And no, SOHR is not reliable. The man who runs it has openly declared his hate for the regime. How can we trust such a person to deliver real news.

Then using the same logic change Tasil to green ya manyak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Question on East of Damascus

Does any evidence exist showing that the khan abu shaman base and battalion 559 remain in rebel hands? These are both shown as green but the rebels have no green towns in these areas. These are directly east of damascus. Any information on this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.67.155 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They are rebel held. If regime had retaking them, at least pro-regime source would had talked about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.47.29 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The rebels no have a a full control from a single town in these areas --Pototo1 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

so no evidence either way- nothing showing they are rebel or gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.3.204 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

These are desert areas north-east of Damascus. The area has many sand dunes and similar rolling terrain, which at least partly explains why the regime has been not retaken them. They don't have any strategic value except their proximity to Damascus. And the fact that the rebels at least had a large number of captured tanks there. There are many tank shelters to hide tanks from aviation. (This info was well documented when the rebels took the area.)

Without any indication that the regime has recaptured the area, it is highly likely still rebel held. André437 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How do they survive out in these dunes? No towns? No sources of food? Totally surrounded? We never hear of them attacking anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.67.155 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1-The Dailystar gives more details about base 559. It says: "After seizing military base 559 in eastern Qalamoun last week, they found themselves under air attack Friday, as the regime sought to neutralize their capture of large quantities of weapons and ammunition. In the end, the rebels claimed they made off with 35 regime tanks – the biggest such haul of the war – while 70 were destroyed by regime aircraft." Notice that it says "they made off". According to online dictionary, "made off" means: "to depart in haste; run away." So this implies that the rebels are no longer at these warehouses. They took the tanks they could, and destroyed what they could not take so that the army could not use it again (not mentioning what was destroyed by the airforce). So at this point, these warehouses are probably destroyed & empty and we do not know if they are occupied by someone, or just abandoned. In any case, they no longer have a strategic importance. Therefore, this icon should be "commented out" of the map until more clear information become available.

2-There is no information about the present status of khan abu shamat. In any case, we know that the warehouses are empty from the chemical weapons. So at this point, we do not know if they are presently occupied by rebels, or army, or just abandoned & empty. In any case, they no longer have a strategic importance. Therefore, this icon should be "commented out" of the map until more clear information become available. Tradedia^talk 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Jaba, Tel Krum and Al Ruach in Quneitra under Government control

Source is here: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184549#.VABh0mPDV4F

Jaba coordinates: http://wikimapia.org/3133169/Jaba Tel Krum coordinates: http://wikimapia.org/30805600/bs/Tel-Krum Al Ruach coordinates: Can't identify this one Thanks --79.97.182.2 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ayyash

Ayyash is contested. Assad is battling ISIS for it, according to the Syrian Observatory. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/575759959199013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wethrman2 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You need something more information too poor.

At least 9 sources and two visual evidences confirm Ayyash is under Army control sources from July 2014 = Source 1 (Official Syrian Government)Source 2Source 3Source 4Source 5Source 6Source 7Source 8Source 9Visual confirmation 1Visual confirmation 2 --Pototo1 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone strip Pototo of his editing privileges? He is deceivingly using regime sources to make/revert/oppose edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. While I'm at it, I will also remove the editing privileges of anyone who doesn't agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:ECBD:9174:D5B:7880 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Al-Mari'iyah

I also think Al-Mari'iyah must be under the control of ISIS by now because ISIS is beginning to siege the Deir Ezzor airport. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/574903665951309 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wethrman2 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop distorting the facts because SOHR only said about clashes around Der-Ezzor military airport. So for now moment this village should remain marked as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Umm Sharshouh Mistake and Qanitara changes

I think it was problem in situation of Um Sharshouh because Syrian Prespective oppsed that this city was under the control of SAA from 28 August and the clashes happened in round of this city.

http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/08/isis-crushed-in-homs-scores-of-terrorists-killed-at-maryamayn.html According to this source these villages are under the control of SAA :Tal Al-Kuroom, Al-Rawaadhi, Jibbaa

http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/08/syrian-army-kos-terrorists-in-qunaytra.html I know that this source is ProGovernment but must of it's news are true.MZarif (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not allowed to use Syrian Perspective for a few reasons: 1. The site operator openly declares his friendliness towards the government. 2. He refers to rebels as "rats" and "terrorists".3. He has the Syrian Flag boldly emblazoned on his website to remove all doubt about where his loyalty lies. However, feel free to use SOHR for any changes on the map. They are a reliable source because,1. The site operator openly declares his friendliness towards the rebels. 2. He refers to rebels as "martyrs" and "heroes".3. He has the Opposition Flag boldly emblazoned on his website to remove all doubt about where his loyalty lies.

SOHR is pro Opposition they used the word "Regime" and "Fighters" regime us a word used by anti government sources.

Anyway the official source for army gains is SANA or Syrian TV Channels --Pototo1 (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Suwayda is a big city put it more bigger

Suwayda is too small on map it's more bigger if you see that on google earth is more big than Idlib --Pototo1 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

city sizes are based on 2004 census (last available census) so As-Suwayda size was correct & consistent with the other cities (for eg, manbij is more populous than As-Suwayda). According to 2004 census, Idlib (=98,791) is larger than Suwayda (=73,641). All city dots were sized a long time ago based on precise standards, so no need to change them anymore. Tradedia^talk 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The map

The map is extremely big (at least in Chrome) - maybe box it? Christian75 (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

YPG captured Jazaa

YPG captured Jazaa according to documents sy. source: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/793896884006403176.33.113.206 (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Another source is here [18]. Updating. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That source is actually pro-Syrian Government site. nad since YPG and government proxy. that information might be mere a propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.239.127 (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

https://justpaste.it/ja7im_pkk Jazaa'ah is under IS control.Tgoll774 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeHVdHCy7pQ

Video uploaded yesterday showing YPG control over Jazaa.

190.67.157.13 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Video was posted the 31st of August, check reverse video search and the commander speaking on it is dead and in the IS photo release from the same day. IS still has the town and YPG was forced back to prepare for an expected IS offensive from Tall Hamis. Just paste it has deleted the original content but I have the PDF saved. But have no way to paste it onto this page, if you know how to do so, please tell me and I'll plug it in.Tgoll774 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Al Kafat contexted in rural Hama?

It's deep under army held area on Hama insurgents are on north Hama

There is the map https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwWhnb8IQAEwtCM.jpg

If you no showing here source / Visual evidence it must be back to red again --Pototo1 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources for put Any ad Dananir contexted in Homs

Any source or information about this place ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pototo1 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Eib in Daraa under insurgent control what is your source?

Eib in Daraa is on map under insurgent control but it look in too deep Army held territories what is the source who you used to put that on green? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pototo1 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion on Suwayda province. Multiple sources given for several small towns in the hands of Beduin rebels and Jabhat al-Nusra fighters. --84.24.43.183 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC) guest

: Maybe this sourceHanibal911 (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tasil in Daraa contested what is your source? Tasil in Daraa is on map under contested control but it look too deep Rebel held territories what is the source you used to put that on contested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, Pototo al Assad, the reason why Daraa looks wonky is because it and Quneitra province are ridiculously inaccurate because you and other editors are POV-pushing and ruining the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The pro Opposition SOHR is who made on this map the 95% of the changes I'm not who make Tasil on conflict but it's close to Nawa who is partiality under Army control --Pototo1 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeaaa Daraa and Quneitra have been outdated for months. Good luck barking up that tree though. I spent over a month pushing to show the rebel presence on the Lebanese border, in the Assal al-Ward and Ras al Maara area - and it was shot down, reverted constantly, despite near daily reports of conflict in the area, until syrianperspective published a map acknowledging the rebel presence. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Zabadani is point and case. Government hasn't controlled it in over a year - on our map here, it was red until barely a month ago. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about. At the conclusion of the Qalamoun offensives, literally tens of sources declared that the rebels had surrendered in Zabadani. I am not sure why it is even contested on our map to begin with. It is clearly government held territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the point. The Qalamoun offensive still hasn't ended - take a peak at SANA, or SOHR, or whatever source you please. "Rebels surrendered in Zabadani" was eagerly interpreted as "Rebels surrendered Zabadani" - meanwhile, SANA continued (continues) to report "cleansing terrorist dens in Zabadani" and the like, and SOHR continued (continues) to report barrel bombing and street fighting in the city. Yet it went red and those reports were ignored for quite some time. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/08/latest-updates-from-the-ground.html .. http://syriatimes.sy/index.php/news/local/14041-syrian-arab-army-kills-al-nusra-front-ringleader-in-zabadani-outside-damascus-destroys-large-number-of-terrorists-cars-outside-lattakia .. Did you even try to research the situation in Zabadani before you typed nonsense?

Look at you linking a .sy source and then talking about nonsense. Pototo go ahead and change Eib, you're right it's too deep in regime territory, and on that same note, change Nubl and Zahraa in Aleppo to green - they are way too deep in rebel territory to be regime held. Oh and Kefraya and Fu'ah. What about western Deir Ezzor city? That's super deep in IS territory, change that to black as well. Abu al Duhur air base? That's WAY DEEP in rebel territory, and we haven't heard news about that place in a while. Change it to green.

Idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

lol nice. I only posted a .sy to demonstrate the diversity of sources that support Zabadani's contested status

This anti government map showing this place in Daraa under Army control http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-august-2014_14181#12/32.9472/36.3774 --Pototo1 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jordan border

Some pro gov sources including visual evidences claim the Army cut some Supply Lines between Jordan, Quneitra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05Wh9sBWhk http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930611000772 --Pototo1 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC) -- It is not clear which modifications you are requiring. In any case it is a pro-gov source and the change would be relevant for the Daraa map.Paolowalter (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro-gov source cannot be used for government gains and YouTube videos cannot be used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) It's not you tube this is the official Syrian TV report --Pototo1 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh it's a SANA report? Sorry man I thought you were using a pro-regime biased source, go ahead and make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.67.215 (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Tasil and Hamidiyeh (Golan)

Can Hamidiyeh go to contested: http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog

-- No. AlJazeera is pro-rebel a cannot be used. Nevertheless, I found similar statements elsewhere (SOHE I guess). Hamidiyeh should get a green ring around.Paolowalter (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, back to the Tasil-case again. In the last days there have been several updates of this map along the lines: 'if there is no actual report of fighting anoymore, revert this contested city to red'. Tasil should - following this line of thought - go to green. There are no reports of fighting anymore, and it is deep inside rebel held territory. So: green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Can Hamidiyeh go to contested", your source says clashes around the town, not in it, so no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Aljazeera English is very reliable.Alhanuty (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Tell Brak to blue

https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/2000px-syria6.png

This pro-opposition map(which is neutral in a area with only YPG/IS)says the town in held by a local tribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.92.34 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

North Hama

According to this Pro-opposition map, al-Safsafiyah should go just red, and maybe Kafr Rumah to green since there are no clashes there, I highly doubt regime would bomb their own soldiers including Marat Numan. DuckZz (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jisr ash-Sghigour

I have read some articles about the tensions between Nusra and the SRF/Hazm in Idlib. I stumbled upun multiple articles from neutral sources claiming that Jishr ash-Shigur is held by Jabhat al-Nusra since three weeks. Checkpoints south of the city remain in SAA hands.

• AP/Yahoo source: http://news.yahoo.com/infighting-split-emerges-among-syrian-rebels-172309665.html
• Zaman source: http://www.todayszaman.com/son-dakika_al-qaeda-group-seizes-syrian-town-on-turkish-border_353777.html
• Al-Arabiya News source: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/05/25/Syria-s-Nusra-Front-targets-army-with-four-suicide-bombings-.html

Note: Al-Arabiya says that "Ariha and Idlib are SAA controlled", it doesn't mention Jisr ash-Shigur (a major city) as SAA held anymore.

• Syrian Observer note on clashes in a Alawite village close to Jisr ash-Shigur: http://syrianobserver.com/News/News/Rebels+Attack+Military+Bases+in+Maarat+alNuman

Note: on closer inspection, Ishtabraq is south of the main highway, and south of Jisr ash-Shigur. It was previously though that rebels did not operate in that area. They can only advance there if they have indeed taken over Jisr ash-Shigur.

• Wikimapia: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.804519&lon=36.313248&z=14&m=b

This should mean: Jisr ash-Shigur to green with a red ring, Ayn al-Suda to full green. Checkpoints and army bases south of Jisr ash-Shigur along the hihgway stay red, no green circle since there's no report of serious clashes there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

-- Hardly ever read something more meaningless. Your sources are either outdated, or biased or irrelevant. We cannot draw conclusions on some place from figtingh elesewhere. Any change of status in Jisr ash-Shigur would be trumpetted by rebels, we would not miss it. No change.Paolowalter (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wishful thinking! if rebels conquered Jisr Ash-Shugur we would have heard about barrel bombings in the city, that would be at least an indication. Hasan Rizvanbegovic (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to keep an eye on it. Generally I agree with Pao and Hasan - there would have been more coveraged/reports of SAA bombarding the town if it had fallen. The yahoo link is interesting though, in that it states Jisr al Shughour was taken, but I haven't been able to locate any corroborating sources, or even the alleged claim by SOHR director. ISW and other sources attest to the ongoing fighting around the city http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2014/07/rebel-operations-in-idlib-province.html. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Halfaya

According to documnet sy. Severe clashes occur between the Syrian army and al-Nusra Front in south Halfaya town .Halfaya should contested. source: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/795285273867564176.42.115.40 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC) --There are many reports about clashes South of Halfaya. There may be an issues of translations between 'South of Halfaya' (outside the city) and 'South Halfaya' (in the city). Better wait more robust sources. Paolowalter (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

deSyracuse and pietervanostaeyen

Once again I would like to invite all rational editors to IMMEDIATELY REVERT ANY EDITS THAT ARE MADE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON MAPS CREATED BY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS. Absolutely preposterous. It is a farce to use these as primary sources. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This map from pro opposition source And many editors have agreed to use the data from the pro government map to display success by rebels and vice versa. So stop hysterical and unfounded accusations. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had issues with these maps, you should have spoken out WAY before now. These maps have been in use on Wikipedia for a while now. Now it appears as though you are trying to stop regime gains acknowledged by these sources. Besides, in order to "IMMEDIATELY REVERT ANY EDITS THAT ARE MADE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON MAPS CREATED BY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS", you would need a community agreement that these sources that you named are in fact unreliable on all fronts.

I have brought this up multiple times over the course of months. Anyone can create a map online. Are these individuals' maps or major media maps? Why do we assume these individuals' maps are more accurate than ours? Why are they classified pro-op? Do they have access to information that we do not? There are tons of editors on this page who scour the web for information about the Syria conflict daily - why are we assuming the editors of these random maps are somehow "in the know" about gov't or rebel advances that we, collectively, find no other data on anywhere on the web? BTW - I'm of the same opinion about syrianperspective maps.. it's not a partisan thing.. it's a, it makes no sense to overturn edits based on major media reports simply because one random individual's map shows a different color, thing. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's amazing how illogical Hanibal's reasoning is here, and how obvious he is being about his pro-regime bias at this point. Boredwhytekid was not discussing whether or not deSyracuse claims to be pro-opp or not, since any random idiot can go online and claim to be whatever he wants. He's discussing the fact that WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO THIS GUY IS, WHAT HIS SOURCES ARE, AND ON WHAT BASIS HE IS MAKING HIS MAPS. Sources have to be RELIABLE, you can't use them just because you want to push your bias on the map. I can go make a website now, claim to be pro-regime, and create a map showing all of Damascus in rebel hands. It doesn't work that way, and anyone with half a brain who is trying to make an objective map will see what the problem is here. We can't even make a 100% accurate, very old, and well known change (Tasil to green) because of how overbearing the pro-regime bias is on this map.

Red green yellow or black circle around the town or village

Let's not clutter up the map and we will put a circle around the city only in the case if the city is besieged by so how often we put a circle on the basis of the reports of fighting near the city or in its vicinity. But we can not be sure exactly that the clashes were continuing, and maybe it is just had an attack and retreat. Circle can be installed around the city or village if for a long time we have a message that there clashes continued around these citys or villages. So that often on the map is set circle around the town or village but clashes around this settlement maybe has long been ended and this not right. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

-- We should consider removing the ring alltogether. They are of little use and generate a lot of discussion. Furthermore they are positioned almost at random. Let's just remove them. Paolowalter (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tasil and Jasim in Daraa contested: what is your source?

Can somebody show me a valid source from the past two months or so that indicates protracted fighting in the towns of Tasil and Jasim in Daraa province? I can't find any, so that makes this map inaccurate... --84.31.204.195 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC) PolarBear

I agree that we need note the city Jasim in Dara province under rebel control because no one from reliable sources not said that this city still contested. Because also the map from the pro government source in late May showed that this city under control by rebels. But if someone else has a source confirming that the city is challenged he need provide this source. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I turned Jasim contested based on SOHR news, I do not know how the situation changed since.Paolowalter (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Also the status of Shayck Miskin as contested. It used to be red but sometimes there are claims that bombs are thrown on the city and pro-gov map shows a pocket rebel controlled on the northern outskirt. I'd turn it red with a green little dot on the north side.Paolowalter (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Paolowalter, that is complete nonsense. Shayk Miskin is a rebel held but besieged town, cut off from Ibbta in the south (minus some tunnels or back roads) by a string of army bases. Nawa is splitt in half between the rebels and the SAA. Jasim and Tasil are both under complete rebel control, but subjected to severe shelling because they are supply lines to rebels fighting around Nawa and Inkhil. Also, the rules of this map are very clear: if rebels hold even one building of a town, it is as a matter of fact contested. SOHR never said there was fighting in Jasim, only fighting on the outskirts ... which means propably the two hills southeast of the city that are under SAA control and used to shell the city and Nawa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested and Besieged towns - Revert to solid color after a month or two of no information from any source

I have been a lurker to this page for a couple of years and I have a thought. Why not have a "Time date bomb" to cities that have a contested or besieged symbol on them. Say the cities or villages revert back to a solid color .... agreed to by the group ...... after a certain amount of time of not getting any info about fighting in the area. Active fighting gets press, lack of active fighting does not get any press. SO if the fighting has moved on the besieged and or contested symbology stays on the map forever. You can always reactivate the active symbol is fighting returns.

-- Because sometimes (e.g. Nawa) the city is actually split in two even of there is no fighting for a protracted amount of time. The other problems is that for small villages, quoted only occasionally, it is not clear who controls the town after the fighting. In any case, in general, barring the first case above (of actual splitting of the town), we shoudl revert to the old color after some time without reported fighting. Paolowalter (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a good point about the split control. Then I propose that active fighting be delineated by an active contested symbol and split control with little to no fighting be delineated by a static contested symbol.

Tal Khazne in Homs why contexted ?

Anyone got any source why this was change to red to contested ? --Pototo1 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tell Mahl in Hama to red, what is the source?

In Hama the town of Tell Mahl had been green until yesterday. Suddenly today it is red. No source is given. So, what is your source? If there is none, revert it to green. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

most recent map from Hama https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/505988237777969152/photo/1 --Pototo1 (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, revert to green. Reason: using pro-Gov Twitter source to show army gains. That is not possibly, as you yourself have often claimed based on pro-opposition maps showing a rebel advance. Revert to green please until neutral source indicates that change is certain.--84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The map is outdated (August 31) but is the most recent who I know at the moment (I'm not very active on that now) . --Pototo1 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Still: pro-gov map cannot be used to show SAA advances. This map is a Syria Perspective map, pro-gov. Just like maps from Arab Chronicle are not used to show pro-rebel advances. So, green until a neutral source is provided... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Source here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah of course, no actual confirmation of the change so the deSyracuse trick is back to make an uncorroborated, untrue, pro-regime advance. Good job slimy editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.30 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Bteich Checkpoint

Bteich checkpoint should be green. It was recaptured by the regime on August 28th, but now appears to have been retaken by the rebels according to sources. For example:

http://eaworldview.com/2014/09/syria-daily-continuing-regime-assault-jobar-damascus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkknight30 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is consistently reporting clashes around Bteich. Maybe there's a case to mark it contested, but having it red with green ring essentially symbolizes the same thing. In any case, no pro-rebel edit will be made exclusively based on eaworldview. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point and would accept contested. I don't see evidence that the regime is firmly in control of the checkpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkknight30 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately however, since the last confirmed report of "who controlled it" said it was SAA controlled, and no source specifically stated that fighting is IN the checkpoint, there really isn't an ice cube's chance in heck of having it changed to contested. I'm not shooting you down or anything, just saying, the opposition to that proposal will be insurmountable until further sources are provided. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra

Mainstream Israeli news says rebels seized the old city http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4565454,00.html / http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Jabhat-Al-Nusra-unlikely-to-target-Israel-soon-senior-army-officer-says-374271

Mainstream (right wing) US news says SAA is bombing Quneitra http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/09/01/islamist-rebels-syrian-forces-clash-near-golan-heights/

Random news reports rebels seized the old city http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2014/8/29/new-video-surfaces-of-syrian-jihadists-seizing-golan-heights-border-crossing#.VAmp3E9OXOE=

Mind you the Israeli sources don't prefer Nusra to the SAA, so it's as unbiased as we're going to get. Not to mention that they can literally see it. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliablity of Israeli sources, mostly the IDF in this case, is questionable. The reality on the ground is that you have the IDF shelling SAA positions even when it was the rebels who shot at them and plus you got Israeli hospitals taking care of injured rebel fighters. Just based on this it makes enough of a case to consider Israel/Israeli sources biased towards the SAA. EkoGraf (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a broad generalization. Israel has treated FSA and SRF fighters, yes, but not Nusra members - who constitute the predominant force in Quneitra as of late. The IDF and Israeli news are as anti-Nusra as they are anti-SAA. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Al Qaeda / FSA is the same scum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.253.209 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

How constructive. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Is true they are in same side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.253.209 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

But on 1 September another source reported that clashes resumed in area where the militants have wrested control of a key frontier crossing and it was not clear whether the Syrian army had managed to retake control of the Quneitra crossing.Al Akhbar Hanibal911 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That source does not talk about Quneitra's old city, so it has no relevance at all to this topic. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Akhbar is a Hezbollah media outlet...pretty sure you know that Habibal...keep up the good work slimy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.30 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Jobar

according to pro-Government source, Jobar is under opposition full control. 2.88.63.55 (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. You have the northeast section around the mosque area which has been captured by the SAA. EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeaa. It usually plays out that I'm the default advocate for showing rebel gains, because no one else plays the part, which is unfortunate, but I'm 100% with EkoGraf on this one. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Talbiseh

SOHR reported that clashes took place between regime forces and Islamic battalions in the western side of city Talbisa.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That post says "clashes took place between regime forces and Islamic battalions in the western side of Talbisa city". You JUST TODAY reverted a green ring around Salamayn based off of this SOHR post https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/578906808884328 that says "Violent clashes took place yesterday night between the regime forces and the Islamic battalions in the southwest of al Sanamin town" - you said, and I quote, "SOHR said that there were clashes east of the city but the source said that the collision is near the town". Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to compare! The difference is that in the case of the city Al Sanamayn SOHR said that violent clashes took place yesterday night between the regime forces and the Islamic battalions in the southwest of al Sanamin town and in Samlin.here But in the case of the city Talbiseh SOHR said that clashes took place between regime forces and Islamic battalions in the western side of Talbisa city.here But even now I do not insist that the city should be marked as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what's your point? Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I just added information on the talk page to we tracked the situation in the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. You have to admit, it's a bit duplicitous though - the red circle went up around Talbiseh based on an SOHR post that used THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/548848095223533 "clashes against the regular forces in the western side of Talbisa". Yet SOHR reports the same about Salamayn and... nada. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey guy now you refuse to understand that you are not right. And a red circle around the city Talbisa was raised as a compromise because SOHR also reported about clashes in the city but we have agreed to this compromise because except SOHR no longer one of the reliable sources not reported about clashes in this city. And two big differences when the source said about clashes in the southwest of town and if source said that the clashes in the southern part of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I suggest in the future used to edit only the information which was taken directly from site SOHR but not from the page in Facebook. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(: you read into it whatever you want. When it's Talbisa, a gov't advance, "in the southern part of the city" is enough to make an edit. When it was Halfaya, a rebel advance, day after obstinate day you refused to use SOHR reports of the SAA bombing and shelling the city https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573047822803560, https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573384699436539. All I'm saying is let's try to avoid the Halfaya mistake - where we ignored reports of clashes so long that we missed the entire contested stage and ended up switching it straight from red to green. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Mashara, Quneitra

The first thing I saw were pro-rebel tweets saying rebels took control of this village, and then SOHR wrote that Syrian jets are targeting this village. Tweet1 Seized weapons Syrian Airstrikes 109.175.65.25 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested. EkoGraf (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

According to https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/797385220324236 SAA gaining ground in Mashara.Paolowalter (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra province

This section is mainly for changes in this region as clashes intensified between insurgents and Syrian Army. My first suggestion is to change the status of Tel Krum, shown here as a town/village, but actually it's just a checkpoint, as you can see on wikimap. Also new rebel map for this region, use for government advances, althought the map is much different than here.DuckZz (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There are TV reports from the situation in Quneitra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OThKX-j_XFQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD5jCET8LU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHcHB76aXqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF0mgT63a34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMX5xEmzG4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GsyMuG3K9s nothing especial basically seems insurgents are attacking the province in direction from Israeli with a bit Israeli artillery support Held territories Army send the troops from Damascus this is not the first time when this happens anyway --Pototo1 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Heteta al-Jersh

Government forces captured Heteta al-Jersh [19]. Please add it to the map. I think its near Zabadin in the Qalamoun area but not sure. EkoGraf (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is in Easternm Ghouta, east of Maliha, north of Zebdeen. is name in wikimapia is Hatita Al Jarsh. It is located in the Damascus map. I have already asked to update the map.Paolowalter (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

sohr says saa capture Heteta al jersh: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/579212688853740 Heteta al jersh location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=33.490408&lon=36.390324&z=14&m=b&gz=0;363880920;334853258;17166;119538;219726;126696;243759;41518;24890;0;0;122401;100421;123117 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.155.233.226 (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And we should change darayya: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/579305658844443195.155.233.226 (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Too early. Negotiations are underway. The source just presents the requests of the rebels. At the moment there is only a ceasefire. We will follow the evolution of the discussion between rebels and government.Paolowalter (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah map?

I haven't been on this template/page in a while, and I am curious to know as to why the Hasakah map was removed?—SPESH531Other 04:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC) We concluded that the city is governed in collaboration between the government and YPG, between which there have not been clashes since the beginning. Therefore the separation of the city in two section did not correspond to reality and we went for a joint administration.Paolowalter (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Because some dumbs users decided put all Hasakah City under the Kurdish insurgent control that's because some members decided but that in truce / Shared control --Pototo1 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Bases in eastern damascus + rebel held territory in NW damascus

Hello! I am just a reader, not an author. I noticed that there were 2 rebel-held bases in the east or damascus province (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_civil_war.png). Why have they been removed? Is the linked map out of date? Another thing that I don't understand is the little rebel area NW on the damascus map. Is this really still rebel-held if the 2 dots right outside the map are regime-held without being contested or having a green circle? Both questions just for me to understand what the map is actually showing and no proposals for changes at all! Thanks in advance!--Andylee Sato (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Those bases where captured by the rebels maybe some 3/4 months ago and remain that way. They are in the middle of the desert, so the rebels can easily go across the regime held territory around it. Anyway, unless some pro-regime dude presents a source for it not being rebel, it should stay green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.154.167 (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The base who you are talking about were not a military base at all basically small army depots from reparation of vehicles according to videos who the insurgents uploading on you tube, the insurgents uploading these videos after get defeated in Qalamoun area including Yabroud

According by site rules you tube is not a source for draw bases / Towns the zone allegedly taken by Insurgents is in a deep controlled army territory the insurgents no controlled a single town in the zone when is this allegedly Army place who they claim to take.

I no deleted these places anyway. --Pototo1 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This has to be a joke. There was like, a HUNDRED sources at that time. If I ask you to give me sources of the regime taking control of a small village in 2011, will you have it? Ridiculous. Add those bases back, they we're accepted at that time, you CAN'T exclude then simply because you want it. Ridiculous. Pathetic. The rebels control those bases and unless the regime proves to hold those bases, they need to stay rebel held. Your pro-regimeness is making not only this map look ridiculous, but is getting out of control — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.154.167 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

: Done Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

agree with SineBot. For months now, this map has become more and more a pro-SANA paper. Towns are made contested or red based on sources from SANA or SOHR or Twitter even. But as soon as a red town needs to become contested or green, the world isn't small enough for some editors here. SOHR ... not good enough. Twitter? No source. Source on a website? Well, that is biased and we should wait for a neutral source. There are MAJOR wrongs in this map on Western Qalamoun, Daraa, Qunaitra and maybe even Idlib. It's a shame that this bueatiful map meets this fate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sinbot is the one who signs unknown comments, he is not an actual user. As for "There are MAJOR wrongs in this map on Western Qalamoun, Daraa, Qunaitra and maybe even Idlib", tell us what those MAJOR wrongs are and back them up with reliable,current sources [Not YouTube videos like most people try to do] so that we can make them RIGHTS.

Also, I would like to see ONE pro-regime edit made on here based on SANA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map

I've just set up Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map. It shares its points with Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map, so any changes to either of those will also update it automatically. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Rebels take over Brigade 90 in quneitra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg71nHy7u5k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.37.49 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition video from YouTube this not reliable source need confirmation from reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not true, and here's why. a) According to pro-rebel map, rebels are to far away from that base, they haven't even taken Jaba town. b) According to pro-rebel map, rebels have reached Nabi al Sakr, there you have two smaller checkpoints with weapons, some of them do belong to the brigade 90, but it's not the "brigade 90 army base", that one is much larger. So the location of this base is probably here.

As for all, we need some neutral or at least "obvious" rebel sources, can't see much going on twitter.DuckZz (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Saw this video from Al Jazeera about Quneitra and Golan situation, at 2:40 they said rebels have taken the city of Um Batinah and are not attacking Tell Krom. Also pro-rebel map shows this city deep behind rebel lines.DuckZz (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

More sources for rebel gains in Qunaitra (with extensive video evidence):

• https://malcolmxtreme.wordpress.com/tag/majduliyah/ (Ayn al-Basha, Majduliyah). Ayn al-Basha should be Ayn Ayshaa on our map
• http://eaworldview.com/2014/09/syria-daily-insurgent-offensive-southwest/ (Majduliyah hospital in town taken by rebels, backs source 1)

• http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syria-rebels-advance-near-golan-heights-1954231684
• http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Sep-07/269839-syria-rebels-advance-near-israeli-occupied-golan-heights.ashx#axzz3Ce4zFpee

This source backs claims that rebels control towns and hills around the crossing, that are shown contested on this map. The article can also be seen as supporting sources mentioned above by rebel gains around Majduliyah (several hills there, look it up on Google Maps).

So that means:

• Quinaitra and Qathaniyah to green
• Majduliyah to green
• Ayn Ashaa to green (or maybe contested)

I am unsure about Rasm al-Shayd and Rasm al Kharrar. It seems to me those two small towns west of Naba al-Sakhr should be green, as this is a logical supply route. Also, rebels are already fighting further north, as shown on this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Eaworldview and Today in Syria this is pro opposition sources and cant be used to display by rebel advances. And rebels captured only Quneitra old city but not taken new city Quneitra. And Daily Star or Middle East eye not said that rebel captured city Majduliyah and Ayn Ashaa. And not need invent information or provide pro opposition sources but you only need provide confirmation of your data from reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New source on Qunaitra in rebel hands: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/world/article/Islamists-advance-against-Syrian-forces-in-5737106.php This must be the new city, since there are no hills near the old city. So: green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your source only said that Islamists advance against Syrian forces in Quneitra. Source meant that Islamists advance against Syrian forces in Quneitra province but not in the city Al Quneitra. They taken the Quneitra border crossing and old city Quneitra .Khaleej TimesHanibal911 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are more cleary biased every day, you know that? This is the text of the news source: Fighting has raged in the province since August, when rebels and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front took control of a border post. “Rebels have since taken control of hills overlooking the border post, as well as several villages nearby, (after battles that killed) a large number of troops on both sides,” Syrian Observatory for Human Rights director Rami Abdel Rahman said Sunday.

So, we check wikimapia for the border post location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.133886&lon=35.874310&z=14&m=b Do you see any other towns nearby then Qunaitra and Qahtaniyah? I don't. Also, Twitter source with video conforming the roundabout east of Qunaitra has already been taken by rebels. Second, if both towns around the crossing are contested, how could rebels ever take the crossing? Surely they didn't come from Israel, so at least one of the two towns was already under rebel control prior to the attack. Hundreds of fighters don't just pop up in the Golan Heights.

Video report from Mamtinah by rebel fighters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njuBwqZ0Sb0 Five minutes of video with very clear buildings and streets that can be checked through Wikimapia or Google Earth. You can easily trace the entire village. Proof enough? Of course not, since this is a pro-opposition source. But I bet ... as soon as a report arrises concerning a town under SAA attack it's made contested or colored with a red ring. To obvious ....

Hanibal911

I suggest that we revoke the rights of Hanibal911 to edit on this page. He consistently edits with pro-regime bias and has led this map to become a mouthpiece for the Syrian government. This map is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.92.28.192.87 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to edit in favor of one side of the conflict so that it is not necessary to make unfounded accusations. I'm just trying to put in order the map. Also if you look at the history of editing you can see that I have removed most of not justified red circles around the towns and villages which now under control by rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk)

Your Right!!! Let ban the veteran editor Hanibal because he does not agree with us!!! He is obviously on regime payroll!! While we're at it, lets purge the map of all editors that dare change a city to regime control!![Can you feel the sarcasm] Seriously though, you cannot revoke the right of an editor unless he breaks the rules. Also you cannot ban an editor for not agreeing with you. How would you like it if I requested you be banned because you are the "rebel's mouthpiece"?

Still, I would like a honest discussion. This map is biased towards the regime, if you want to see it or not. Towns are made contested or besieged by the Syrian Army based on facebook posts. Maps of Syrian Perspective are used in Hama to advance the red dots, whilst Syrian Perspective is clearly pro regime. Extensive video evidence, twitter reports and even some mainstream media around Daraa and Qunaitra are shot down because they are 'not concrete enough sources' to change the map. I will list what's wrong with southern Syria only:

• Tasil is not contested, but rebel held. No source in the past two months justifies holding it constested
• Same for Jasim, even pro-SAA maps show it as rebel held, it's still contested here
• Edits in Qunaitra are only done after every possible delay is taken into account to ensure there is realy no SAA presence there
• small loyalist villages are added, but rebel held villages of the same size west of Nawa of north of Busra al-Harir aren't
• Daraa prison/grain silo's are rebel held but not showns as a army base (which it was), regime checkpoints of smaller significance are
• Towns in eastern Daraa near the Jordanian border are not shown on the map, just because they are rebel held, the same does not go up for small loyalist villages near Al-Qusayr in Homs

The list is growing rather alarmingly in the past three months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Tasil is rebel held - way behind the front line and no reports of fighting in months, plus plenty of video evidence that shows it's rebel held

Hannibal has massively, unwarrantedly, resisted the display of rebel advances in Hama province and Daraa province - refusing to use clear-cut SOHR reports of rebel advances whilst turning around and accept SOHR reports 100% for SAA gains (how the situations in Qalamoun/Assal al-Ward area and Halfaya, Hama were handled on this map, primarily due to Hanibal's resistance to any pro-rebel gains, was absolutely atrocious and made/makes this map look like a complete joke) .

I 100% agree that user Hannibal edits on a pro-gov't slant. It's only because of the flagrantly pro-gov't edits that I end up looking pro-rebel, because no one else is proactively, honestly, adding the rebel gains. That being said, user Hannibal is - without question - one of the most productive and thorough editors. While I am completely convinced that he edits pro-gov't whenever possible, I cannot and will not deny that 75%+ of his edits are legit in my book. (Thank you Hannibal) #1 complaint - STOP USING RANDOM INDIVIDUALS'S MAPS AS PRIMARY SOURCES! Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal's pro-regime bias is so visible that this section really does not need much explanation, just a quick look at the sources he uses to confirm gov. advances, and hypocritically his arguments against any and every source that shows the slightest rebel gain. Hanibal and Pototo have single-handedly made this map utterly inaccurate and useless for anyone who wants to better understand the fighting going on in southern Syria due to their refusal of almost any source showing the slightest rebel gain while at the same time adamantly using the most dubious sources to show SAA gains - as Boredwhytekid has stated, he is using a completely random and unverified map from some "pro-opp" person's website who we know nothing about other than the fact that he claims to be pro-opp and seems to produce maps that show sweeping gains for the SAA in a region (Daraa-Quneitra) whereas literally every other trustworthy international media outlet in the world is reporting SAA losses in this region. The fact that Tasil and Jasim - rebel hubs for probably longer than a year now - are still marked as contested, speaks for itself. The fact that Hanibal's refusal to change these towns to green is based on "no reports in months" contrasts greatly with the fact that he used this exact same reasoning "no reports in months" to revert towns in/close to Suwayda back to red really says it all. I don't know if he should be removed as an editor but a warning is certainly in order. As for Pototo who is most likely a regime-affiliated Syrian himself and has never made a proper edit on this map well, he indeed should be revoked from editing the map.