File talk:Rif Damashq.svg

Yarmouk

Yarmouk contestedAriskar (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source? Kami888 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/856947/syrie-les-violences-reprennent-dans-le-camp-de-yarmouk-treve-rompue.html

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-03/249043-clashes-shatter-week-old-truce-in-syrias-yarmouk.ashx#axzz2vBRVGXpY Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Oussj (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Kami888 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qudsaya

There was at one point truce in Qudsaya, but it seems that it may have been broken: [1]. Perhaps a small olive pocket there? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I forgot about that one. Kami888 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Qudsaya the truce is not broken but there is a tense situation that brought to tightening control from SAA [2]. It is not contested, no fighting are ongoing. It must return to be violet.Paolowalter (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LVR's source is newer. Kami888 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked carefully and after some air attack around the 20th March no other fighting are reported. The most recent source is [3] (I do not how reliable) that states that the city is under siege but not under attack. I'd put back to violet. Paolowalter (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yarmuk

Yarmuk should be marked as under a ceasefire again (violet). Ceasefire has been confirmed after an agreement was reached [4]. P.S. This source [5] says Jobar is government-held. Don't know if its correct. EkoGraf (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maliha

The city of Al Maliha should be marked as contested because in this city now are continuing clashes Syrian army vs rebels.sorce source Hanibal911 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC) The city of Al Maliha & Al Neshabieh should be marked as Red because SAA occupy these regions : http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930115000268 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MZarif (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SOHR said rebels and regime troops were fighting in the town of Mleiha in the Eastern Ghouta area.NOW News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are claims from SyrPer that the city is under gov control, but no indipendent information.

Question: why the previous suggestions are not implemented in the map? Paolowalter (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From [6] Al Maliha is at least partially under government control. ht rest is probably contested. Paolowalter (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

== This whole setup has proven wrong. Since the map change (from dots to small maps) nobody is updating the "Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map". Now it looks like nothing is happening in those cities (Aleppo, Daraa, Damascus...). It used to have several updates per day, now nobody is updating those maps for months. If that is what was intended you have done great job. You should revert it back to old system (with dots)... ==

Question: Would you please change the type pf map to Dots for ease of change? MZarif (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can keep this template in the table below the map, but for the main map we need a format that allows for quick changes. The dots are easier to read and easier to change.213.204.101.17 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: When this map got change to Dot map?Where can we see the changes happen these days which caused by recent SAA Operations in Aleppo And Dameshq?MZarif (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree... A "dot map" is not clear at all. And what is the interest for the map to be easier to change if their is actually nothing to change. The front lines almost don't evolve at all for months.... It will be more than sufficient if the map is updated once in three months for exemple.Oussj (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barzeh

Barzeh under the control of the Syrian army this confirms a reliable source. Source said that the Mortar bombs struck the regime-held neighborhoods of Bab Touma, Tabbaleh and Barzeh, and the suburb of Jaramana, killing one person each in Tabbaleh and Jaramana, the Observatory added.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want to make that change? We know that Barzeh consists of several parts, some of which are definitely regime held, but in others we know there is a truce. There's a chance that neighborhoods with power-sharing arrangements will be referred to as "regime held" occasionally. Let's wait and see if other sources also treat it as such. Kami888 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From [7] Qudsaya is under truce, not contested. Please turn it violet. Paolowalter (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read any of that but I'll take your word for it. I'll change it in the next update. Kami888 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mliha

Mliha has been captured [8] by the Army. Change to red please. EkoGraf (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter? Kami888 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not sufficient in general as RS. Anyway there are also [9] ("On Saturday, Assad’s forces entered in the rural town of Mleeha near the capital, Damascus, state-run television and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.") Also [10] and [11], even if they fall short of claiming the take over of the city by SAA.

SAA declared officially the control of the city [12]. Paolowalter (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, its the twitter account of the AL RAI Chief International Correspondent, who just yesterday had an interview with the BBC (so reliable). Second, if you would check the main civil war map, we have started using credible twitter reports for some time now (for months). Third, a non-twitter source [13] confirming full capture. EkoGraf (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source confirming data the editor EkoGraf.source Hanibal911 (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I hope I won't have to change it back in a few days. Kami888 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting ongoing in Mliha http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2214&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2e4NPldWgY Sopher99 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought everybody agreed SOHR was biased. There is a rebel flag right there on the homepage, why would you think this is an unbiased reliable source? Somebody please revert Sopher's changes. 213.204.103.19 (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

________

This is just a fanboy fb page https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary/posts/649919915089394 - And this is pro Insurgen Source http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2214&Itemid=2&task=displaynews

However according to this liveleak Items rebels are lying about their claims in Mliha http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f7_1399375193

This Arabic news agency from Lebanon claim the Army controlled that full http://en.alalam.ir/news/1591635

This is the Syrian Official news agency there said now Army is disabling the explosive factories there but no specified if the 100% of the zone is captured http://sana.sy/ara/336/2014/05/06/542903.htm

The official video from SANA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv-FdKXQI30

seems the whole of the place can be in Syrian Army control now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]