Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

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 ?

See Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 22#Names of some villages and towns Tradedia^talk 11:47, 12 September 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)

If we are removing icons/locations from the map simply for lack of news and strategic value, then most of Tartus province should go, as should the majority of miniscule, unimportant locations - most of the remote Kurdish towns, the ridiculous density of tiny towns around Qusayr, almost all of Deir el Zor province. If that is really the logic you are imposing, do it across the board, and not just for 2 rebel locations. I'm on board, if it's applied evenly. Til then, nope. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we are not removing icons/locations from the map simply for “lack of news and strategic value”, but rather because a source (Dailystar) said rebels “made off” (= to depart in haste; run away) with the weapons & ammo. This raises “serious doubt” about the present status of these bases. Your examples are not good because there is no doubt that Tartus province is gov-held, Qusayr towns are gov-held, Deir el Zor province is ISIS-held (except in & around city where gov places are well documented). I had done the same for many red bases, a few months ago, for the same reason. Tradedia^talk 00:16, 22 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)

See #Question on East of Damascus Tradedia^talk 11:47, 12 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.30 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot ban editors unless they break the rules. Hanibal is by far one of the most senior and valuable editor on this map. Also, you are being way too vague with statements like "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". On Wikipedia, we have no room for vagueness. Everything must be substantiated by reliable sources. If you know of so called SAA losses in these regions, you have to back them up with SPECIFIC articles. Also, hurling ridiculous accusations at other editors like Pototo like him being " a regime-affiliated Syrian " does not help your case in presenting yourself as the unbiased editor. The system on Wikipedia is very simple, reward the regime with opposition sources, reward the rebels with regime sources, or reward both with neutral sources, and above all, NO YOUTUBE VIDEOS. Finally, Daraa and Quneitra are by far the most difficult regions to edit. Rebels crank out propaganda about events here more than any other. Many times have I heard stories about 80%+ of quneitra being under rebels control [clearly not true], rebels controlling the whole Israel-Syria boarder [also not true],of 1000's of SAA defections and casualties in Daraa [If this is true, how is the regime still alive in daraa?], and the looming "Southern Front" [where is it!]. Hanibal is doing the right thing and being cautious when editing here, rather than accept a single sentence from SOHR. Simply follow the above guidelines for editing and hanibal will not bother you. If you want Jasim and Tasil to be rebel-held, YOU NEED A RELIABLE SOURCE!2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exclusively a comment on your "vagueness" point - I would urge you to look into the specific cases of Qalamoun/Assal al-Ward and Halfaya, Hama. Assal al-Ward: SOHR and other sources were referencing fighting in the area were ignored for MONTHS, until a syrianperspective (sic) map confirmed a rebel presence in Qalamoun; Halfaya, where SOHR reports of the SAA bombarding and barrel bombing the town AND a (pro-gov't) syrianperspective article talking about rebels attacking Mhardeh THROUGH Halfaya were, combined, still rejected as not proof enough to mark the town contested.

I still stand by my above statement that I have no contest with 75%+ of Hannibal's edits. I'm commenting exclusively on specific topics/trends.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in what world, in what academic circles, in what encyclopedia is the onus not on the person using a source to first make sure the source is corroborated and accurate before using it? I'm not making a vague claim - I'm talking about the use of the deSyracuse map which we have discussed several times now on the talk page. It's a bit naive of you to say something like "The system on Wikipedia is very simple, reward the regime with opposition sources, reward the rebels with regime sources" as if all sources are created with the same accuracy. If I say that SOHR is more accurate than SANA and regularly reports regime advances, this is not me being biased towards the rebels, it is stating a fact. If I say that the language used in many pro-regime outlets (rats, vermin, terrorists) casts a shadow of doubt on said outlet's ability to produce trustworthy news, this is not me being biased, but stating a fact. This so-called golden rule is the reason why this map was always one week behind during the battle in northern Latakia, and it is the reason why Daraa and Quneitra are now inaccurate by months. This is all, however, not what we are currently arguing about. What we are arguing about is the fact that the editors are bending these rules to show regime advances, while upholding this rule and even making new rules to make sure that rebel advances are not shown. As we have said: Regime towns in Suwayda were returned to red literally within a day after the end of fighting because "we have not heard reports of fighting". Tasil on the other hand, has not had reports of fighting in months, is clearly behind rebel lines and is rebel controlled even according to pro-regime maps, and is not being turned to green because ????. Anyone denying this is a problem needs to wake up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.30 (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And just a final (dark) humorous point to end my rant: when the IS had taken Tabqa airbase, there was a red ring around the base for a couple of days. Why? Because some poor SAA soldiers had managed to retreat to some small hamlets before being found and slaughtered by the IS. Being marched across the desert in your underwear and retreating with nothing but the clothes on your back is now considered "besieging" according to some of these veteran, unbiased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.30 (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should not attack just Hannibal, although I agree with the assessment that he is not neutral. Today I looked up this map and saw in Qunaitra province two hills added as regime checkpoints, just to add more red to the map. Should this mean that every hill the rebels captured in Qunaitra and Daraa should be added also? Let's see ... two hills near Naba al Sakhar, the hill near Qunaitra, hills south of Jasim ... this is total madness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We not use the pro opposition map to show the rebel successes as well as we not use the pro government map to show progress of the army. And I added them on map not as the hill but as military objects because on the pro opposition map they are marked as army base. And if you are not familiar with editing rules do not need to accuse me of bias. Also if the pro government sources or one of the reliable sources say about the success of the rebels then I mark this on the map but also if pro opposition sources or any of the reliable sources say about the success of the army I mark this on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you guys dont like this map, Go follow stupid archicivilians or arabthomnes maps.Or you guys create a map and make map all green.Hanibal or others mostly use sohr (PRO OPP.) ,And you guys still crying.I support haniball.195.155.200.75 (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would urge all who have here registered a complaint to fastidiously monitor all edits, ensure valid sources are being used, and dig up/provide sources for changes that make the map more accurate. If you truly want to curb bias, if you want to make the map better, don't stop at typing out a rant - scour for sources, and check the legitimacy of ones used for edits. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok to those who think this is a pro-gov map they must be with an IQ of 10.Have you seen the sources that we use I mean god damn it they are 90% form SOHR or other opposition sources quoted by MSM.We have never used SANA or PressTV or any other source that i so called pro-regime source for edits.So if you don't have any sources(TWITER and AMATEUR YOUTUBE FOOTAGE AND OTHER AMATEUR SHIT ARE NOT SOURCES) that prove you are right I suggest you get the off this page.Daki122 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As a fellow reader and user I'd have to say Hannibal's work is tremendous. He respects all rules of editing. All editors are allowed to have an opinion on this conflict but this must not interfere with the work that's being done here. As for Hannibal: Hats off! ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support for Hanibal from my side, even though I'd like to use some pro-rebel sources, he's the only one who truly follows the rules.DuckZz (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I second the above statement. Hanibal is one of the best editors at this map and does not deserve to be blackmailed by frustrated people. Whoever you may support, the civil war can't be "won" on this wikipage, so instead better help to make this map accurate. Accurate with proper sources and not with biased youtube videos or other amateur stuff. Major kudos to Hannibal and the other editors who work on the credibility of this map. Heisenberg99 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal needs to bee revoked or even banned from editing, all the suggestion made are commented and changed by Hannibal. he does have Pro-government bias. He is reluctant to everything that would admit what is happening in the ground especially if it was IS advance to some degree Rebel advances. and very eager to put SAA advance or add areas to the map with significance to show They are under SAA are YPG control. I mean there are more dots in Ain Arab - YPG's part of Hasaka and Sinjar than dots in entire Iraq-Syria map Combined. Not to forget the circle around Tabaqa Airbase and 121 Milibia Base. Syrian soldiers were been dragged in their underwear and IS guy was standing on the wing of the MIG and there was red circle around Tabaqa. I just want to tell Hannibal that soldier soldiers in underwear were running to besiege the airbase..LOL

Look kid. We use circle when fighting around the town-base or when this place under siege.Sohr says is and saa fighting around the base so editors add red circle around the base.You should learn the rules first(need brain). Haniball is one of the best editors at this map and he mostly use sohr(pro OPPOSITION). And you little f*king kids still talking. I support you hannibal. Dont listen these little brainless jihadists 92.44.169.34 (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Look child you are the biggest idiots IP 92.44.169.34|92.44.169.34 in the history of Wikipedia. there were videos of detained soldiers in underwear and videos of IS chilling in the Aribase . SANA was saying they are evacuated the base assembling in a nearby village, IS twitter accounts were saying the soldiers are in some nearby village and they are trying to cut off their escape. You are dumbest person to think towns are besieged that way and that is not even fighting around the base but you obviously lack the same thing you taking about(brains) if you see videos of IS inside the base chilling and want to circle the base for SOHR article that was many days old. you probably have a turd for a brain. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 02:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You probably do not carefully watch because many reliable sources confirm the retreat of the rebels.Yahoo NewsThe Jordan TimesNaharnetThe Daily StarDAWN NewsAl Arabia Also SOHR said that regime forces recaptured Zor Balhsein area and the town of Khattab located in the west of Arze and Kherbet al Hjame villages after violent clashes with Jundo al Aqsa and the Islamic and rebels battalions. They also recaptured the two areas of Zor al Masaleq, Zor al Jdid.herehere and also source said that regime forces backed by fighters from the National Defense took control over the city Khattab. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 So anonymous editor which have IP adress [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ stop make delusional statements and no need of insult other editors, even if they you do not like or you do not agree with them. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

IS capture tabqa airbase 2 weeks ago.After they capture sohr reported fighting around the base.So editors put a red circle around the base.We dont use videos or twitter to change map.Learn the rules or stfu.And you support ISIS and talking about brain.LOL.AWBW (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC) There were clashes around and inside Hasaka but there were no black circle around it. There were clashes Hama and there still are and there is no green circle around it. Hanibal is Pro government editor and everyone knows that. Hanibal eager to put Khatab say that Khatab was in regime hands while rebels were in khatab taking ammo from there an dusing it to it airbase. and AWBW you are an idiot. national Defense Facebook was used as source for khatab claiming that it is under regime. nad you saying no twitter account if they are pro-regime. so you better stfu because you dont even follow your own rules(desperate Basharist)

Stop talking nonsense no one reliable source not said about clashes in town Hama. And if you stop making unfounded accusations and look closely you will see that SOHR also confirmed that army captured city Khattab and many other villages.herehere this data also confirmed many reliable sources.The Daily StarAgency France PressThe Jordan TimesNaharnetAl Arabia and biased pro opposition source said that regime forces backed by fighters from the National Defense took control over the city Khattab. [www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Syria Direct: News Update 9-9-14] And now army recaptured south part of the city Halfaya SOHR and al Tarabia Checkpoint near city Halfaya SOHR So that anonymous editor which have IP adress [1] stop make delusional statements. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wadi Barada

Why has the rebel presence from this area (valley NW of Damascus) been removed from the map?Jafar Saeed (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This pro-opp map -https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/506900833087528960 - does not show it, so it was removed [not by me]. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This map is very rough. The presence of rebels in the valley is likely still there. E.g. https://twitter.com/Isham_AlAssad/status/509145609023275008/photo/1 reports surrendering of rebels from Wadi Barada. The same mistake must be corrected on the Damascus map. Unless there are sources supporting the changes, of course.Paolowalter (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Such maps are sometimes was mistaken and here confirmation for my words: Map from Reuters on 3 July 2014 said that the city of Maydaa in mostly under government control. But many other source said that in this town was clashes Syrian rebels against IS and Syrian troops no present in this city. So that we need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Serghaya , in rebel or government hands? or contested?

Are we sure if Serghaya (north of al-Zabadani) is contested or under the government, or under rebel hands as indicated on the map? http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/zabadani-syria-regime-bomb-opposition-rebels.html See URL above, it looks at the bloody fighting (including gov barrel bombing) in Zabadani. and that extremist groups such as Nursa are involved. It indicates government forces are being brought from Serghava to reinforce the govs attacks on al-Zabadani. It states: "supportive military troops brought by the army via Serghaya [north of Zabadani] to support its positions amid continuous shelling coming from the checkpoints surrounding Zabadani." Wouldn't that indicate that Serghava is either under siege itself, contested, or under gov control? If I am wrong , apologies.

Source say zabadani under siege.Ain hawr should red too92.44.169.34 (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jisr Shugur? Are you guys f.ing serious?

Why is jisr shugur green? Only this source say: http://news.yahoo.com/infighting-split-emerges-among-syrian-rebels-172309665.html And I think that is a mistake.Sohr and other pro opp sources never say that rebels capture jisr shugur. Jisr shugur isnt a little village.92.44.169.34 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism from Alhanuty. Reverted.Paolowalter (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If required see the pro-opp map of today http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-september-2014_16140#8/35.704/38.364. Jisr Shugur is red. Paolowalter (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ain M'neen

This place (marked as red on the map as Manin) just above the Damascus map went on truce according to http://eldorar.com/node/59187http://eldorar.com/node/59187http://eldorar.com/node/59187. Apparently there was a rebel presence non registered. But apparently they agreed to leave, so we can retain it red. Paolowalter (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree 92.44.169.34 (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm Batinah

Earlier SOHR reported about clashes on Tell Krom, still held by the Syrian army. Now SOHR reports that towns of Mashara (rebel held), Nabe Al Sher (rebel held) and Um Batinah are being bombarded, so maybe this town should go green instead of contested as it's too far away from Tall Krom mountain. You can see the distance on this pro-rebel map.Tall Krom can go just red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 10:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also pro opposition source confirmed that rebels still not taken the new city Al Quneitra they are now only aiming for city Al Quneitra. So we need marked him for red dot and put green circle around. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Khattab and Rahbet Khattab army base

According to alalam and NDF offical page saa recapture Khattab and Rahbet Khattab army base but I think we need to wait pro opp. source https://www.facebook.com/alalamarabic/posts/788910577812426 https://www.facebook.com/National.Defence.Forces.NDF/photos/a.434975923224445.97932.434107746644596/721610901227611/?type=1 https://www.facebook.com/National.Defence.Forces.NDF/photos/a.434975923224445.97932.434107746644596/721614414560593/?type=192.44.169.34 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Another source (http://slabnews.com/article/113740)

saa recapture rahbet khattab army base to according to sohr http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23188&Itemid=2&task=displaynews92.44.169.34 (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe my Arabic is just a bit rusty - but, can someone please show me exactly where this link http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23188&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VA7vBPnHeCN, which has been used to edit Khattab and Rahbet Khattab, mentions either of them? Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

yes92.44.169.34 (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Here pro opposition source confirmed that regime forces backed by fighters from the National Defense took control over Khatab and Rahbat Khatab military base in northwest Hama province from FSA-affiliated rebels and Jabhat a-Nusra. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that they both fell to the SAA - it's widely reported and undeniable. Just wondering where that specific source mentioned them Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source opposition commander confirms the loss of Khattab [2].Link is form google but you can read it.Daki122 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

sohr say regime capture khattab - rahbet khttab army base and 2 villages(start with zawr).I think sohr eng will translate in 1-2 hour92.44.169.34 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Since SOHR confirmed that Khittab and Zor al Jadid which are west of Qomhana were taken by government forces, I think it would be correct to change Qomhana to a red icon without besieging by rebels. We won't find in the media that 'the siege of qomhana was lifted' or 'qomhana is not being attacked anymore from the west' but it is something that can be deduced and makes the map more accurate. Hasan Rizvanbegovic (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Khattab and Qomhana are separated by a river - taking one does not necessarily roll/threaten the flank of the other, with the exception of an amphibious assault. Besides, reports within the last 24hrs of clashes continuing around Qomhana https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/580388675402808 Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014

Eib and Kuraym al Janubi at the same position. 87.117.178.100 (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Extensive parts from Al-Zabadani are under army control

May be I'm outdated but I think the army controlled extensive parts from Al-Zabadani town in fact according by pro Opposition Labrosse maps basically the Entire Al-Zabadani town except very small places on North east of it was under Army control --Pototo1 (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently we were somehow wrong. Zabadani is divided, therefore contested. On the other hand from http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/zabadani-syria-regime-bomb-opposition-rebels.html we have a clear picture of the status. On the other hand Bloudan should go red (probably a skirmish was reported) and also Ain hawr and Serghaya (less obvious, only indirect evidence).Paolowalter (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That city is divided and the SAA is besieging it - What do you guys think about marking Zabadani contested, with a red ring around it? Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Halfaya, Hama

SOHR reports and pro-gov't syrianperspective reports combined were not enough to make Halfaya contested when it was the rebels advancing on the gov't held city. Now Halfaya is rebel held, and has been marked contested based on 1 report from a pro-gov't media outlet.

If/when there is reliable information that Halfaya is contested, there won't be a peep outta me, but c'mon, this is ridiculous. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Jisr Shugur green for f. sake ?92.44.169.34 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That.. is also a good question lol Halfaya back to green and Jisr Shugour to red! The map is losing touch with reality.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree92.44.169.34 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid. Halfaya green and Jisr Ash Shugur red. No reliable information has emerged that can support any change concerning this topic.Hasan Rizvanbegovic (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not clashes in city Halfaya now government troops continue their advance in the western part of Hama province by moving towards Halfaya, a stronghold of the Syrian Al-Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And I also agree with Boredwhytekid in situation about city Jisr Ash Shugur. Here also pro opposition source clear showed that city under army control. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a fair assumption (omg! using a logical assumption in lieu of reports!) that the yahoo report stating Jisr Shughour was rebel held was probably a mistake. Personally I have not been able to locate a single corroborating source - and I imagine that it would have been pretty widely reported. That being said - take note - because, technically speaking, that report is the latest valid source that we possess.. soo.. if we abide to the T by the "rules of the map" instead of using our brains, Jisr Shughour would go green. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Shomra?

Can someone locate this town? https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/580962125345463 Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment in the country side of the town so I don't think we should add it as there is no clashes in the town and it may be only shelling near the Jordanian border against smugglers.Daki122 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Qunaitra

I want to start a logical discussion in Qunaitra province. As this map shows, it is confirmed that rebels have captured the following areas in the past week:

• Tell Mall hill
• Naba al-Sakher
• Masharah
• Kafr Nasej
• Qunaitra crossing

I know that rebels control a LOT more ground than this. Twitter reports, images and video's show rebels in control of at least five more towns, namely:

• Majduliyah
• Umm Batinah
• Mamtinah
• Al Mal
• Aqrabah

I know there are no "neutral sources" commenting on this, since the confusion and chaos of the battlefield is still large. So, I want to ask you all from a military perspective: how could rebels possibly take Kafr Nasej without taking towns further west, like Al Mal and Aqrabah? How can rebels take over towns like Naba al-Sakher and Masharah if towns south and west of them are governement controlled? The simple answer is ... they can't. So, as there is proof that these towns are rebel held, we should seriously consider editing this map along a logical line of though. I know this can be seen as a breach of protocal, but there are fewer and fewer neutral reports coming from Syria concerning small towns. The war is simply to complex and dangerous. I suppose we should try as best as we can to make up the situation with logical though along military-strategic lines.

On this region the Insurgents including elements from Al Qaeda are attacking backing by Israeli artillery shelling but you need to link the sources who you have for star to doing the changes who you want to do. --Pototo1 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tasil, Daraa

Is this town really contested ? The town was rebel held, clashes erupted in May between the SRF,IF on one side and NDF and Syrian Army on the other, and clashes lasted less than a month. After that the only info I could find is some barrel bombardment by the Syrian army in June SOHR, and July SOHR, if you don't like twitter, the same links are on facebook SOHR June, SOHR July. DuckZz (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections to make Tasil green.

On the other hand long forgotten places liek the green ring around the Qarmeed Brick factory next to Idlib and the contested status of Qalat al Madiq (maps show it red) should be fixed.Paolowalter (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Rebel advances cannot be added to the map until one or two years after the event and with the town being at least 500 km behind rebel lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.30 (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with a source about clashes still ongoing ? If not, the town should go green. For the post above, 500km is a distance from Nawa to Northern Aleppo ....31.176.252.157 (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Still vote for Tasil to go green. The Brick Factory - at least that's on the front line.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Tasil to green. We reverted Jasim to green for the same reason, and Tasil has been contested way longer. Also, every map (even Syrian Perspective) shows it under rebel control. Clashes and bombardment go on on the Nawa road, which is partly SAA held near Base 61. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To end Tasil situation i found a pro-goverment source that states that Tasil is rebel held (http://www.rtv.gov.sy/index.php?d=100244&id=158330) the source is dated 3 days ago Roy9955 (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated map Rural Hama September 09

This are Peto Lucem pro Government map but credibility is good he is many times is right https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxGj196IEAAQMlE.jpg

It showing Halfaya under Army control.

But I think is better wait for more info anyway. --Pototo1 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro-gov sources cannot be used to make government advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.30 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

no, it doesnt show Halfaya under army control, and it isnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.182.130 (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It shows Halfaya contested. That is what I argued yesterday but it was not accepted. Let's wait more news. Paolowalter (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Daraa and Quneitra

According to sohr Al nimr under SAA control and Kafar Nasej, al-Taiha, Aqraba under al Nusra control source: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/581243318650677AWBW (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And according to pro opp map zimrin under SAA control http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-september-2014_16140#13/33.0345/36.0855AWBW (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Zimrin should be contested or green. Multiple neutral sources from August claiming fighting in the area:

• http://news.yahoo.com/syria-army-kills-32-rebels-daraa-province-ambush-141805650.html
• http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/50-rebels-killed-in-syrian-army-ambush_957025.html
• http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/syria-army-kills-32-rebels-in-daraa-ambush-ngo_957059.html
• http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/50-rebels-killed-in-syrian-army-ambush_957025.html
• http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/124864849

So I suggest making Zimrin green, as this is just a Twitter map your referring to, not a real source. We don't use Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I urge you to watch Zimrin. It was changed to red based on the desyracuse map, which, again, is a random individual's map used for pro-gov't edits regardless of what mainstream media is reporting. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I follow several maps. desyracuse has nice maps, but most of the times he is behind the news. For example: in his map, Nimr is rebel held, but it is proven by SOHR itself that is is SAA held. Also, he shows two rebel advances like a pincer, while sources on this page have already confirmed that the entire front is moving. If you compare him to other maps like Archivilians, Thomas van Linge of Arab Chronicle, he has several severe mistakes ... I personaly think desyracuse is the least updates and gifted pro-opposition map maker :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

zimrin should green but i think desyrcuse maps better than other pro opp. maps :)Hwinsp (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rebel retreat in the western countryside of Damascus

Per SOHR, rebel fighters have pulled back from the western countryside of Damascus into the northern countryside of Daraa, after rebel advances between Reef Dimashq and Quneitra. Source here [3]. I am speculating this refers to the Beit Jinn-Mazrat Beit Jin-Maghar Al Mir area (since no other rebel-held Damascus area so close to Quneitra). If so they should turn to red than. EkoGraf (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro-government source [4] now speculating the area the rebels retreated from is (prob.) approx. 25 miles NW of the areas captured by insurgents recently. So this would most likely also indicate the area I previously pointed to. Some speculation about the separate west Damascus besieged rebel pocket at Khan Shik may also be it but I doubt it, its farther from Quneitra than the Beit Jinn area. EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Most likely you are right. Because everything facts points to the fact that the rebels really retreated from the area! Hanibal911 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf was absolutely right! Here another confirmations from pro opposition source that rebels retreat from this area.herehere and here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

smh

2x now in the last 24 hours ALL rebel presence south of Halfaya itself has been taken off of the map - despite the fact that no sources have been provided, except ones that vaguely refer to the SAA "advancing towards Halfaya"

Zimrin, Daraa, has been changed to red, despite mainstream media reporting that it is rebel held, exclusively based on the desyracuse map. Somehow, one random individual's map is authoritative enough to make pro-gov't edits in complete disregard to what the media is reporting.

And we wonder why accusations of pro-gov't bias abound. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Zimrin changed to red based on a pro-opposition map from two days ago, so not seeing how its pro-government bias. EkoGraf (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's bias because 1 that map describes itself as not 100% accurate, 2 literally no other source has reported this, 3 the only mainstream media reports that we do have about this town actually report the exact opposite. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

First, no evidence provided that the not-accurate part refers to Zimrin, second we have made changes for both of the combatants with lot less sources, third those were not mainstream media reports but a report by SOHR and in comparison to this map an out-dated one. EkoGraf (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The desyracuse author openly admits that he/she is creating the map based off of sources available on the web - if we can't find even a single source to corroborate the spots where desyracuse's map differs from ours, odds are that the "not accurate" part is applicable. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The archi twitter guy also creates his map from sources available on the web but we still use him as well. And once again I remind you we made changes to the map numerous times based only on one source. In any case, a source has been provided, a pro-opposition one at that. You not liking the source's is your prerogative. EkoGraf (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

lol it is my prerogative - if they are using sources available on the web, it should be a no-brainer for us to locate said sources to corroborate their maps! If in all of our collective efforts we can't find the source, I'm invoking desyracuse's self-titled "not 100% accurate" Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your talk of desyracuse not being accurate about this specific town has become redundant since the al-Monitor (provided by Paolowalter today) has confirmed it to be government-held. EkoGraf (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Precisely - we located a secondary source to validate the map, so I am 100% behind the edit Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well rebel presence south of Halfaya has actualy been wiped out as you can read sources above in the section for Khatab that Syrian forces took checkpoints along the road to Halfaya as well as in other sources where they say the Army advanced to Halfaya.I do not know where Zimrin is so until I find it I will not comment(a little help would be nice).And for the maps I would also argue that we used pro-gov map to change villages in north Hama to green and that was the only source.Daki122 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We've got confirmed reports about SAA advancing through Khattab, the base around it, Qomhana and the villages between them - nada about Majdal checkpoint area, al-Sheer, and Bteich area. On the contrary, still reports coming out of fighting in that area https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/581134951994847

Zimrin is a size 6 dot about half an inch due north of Jasim, in Daraa province Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Today SOHR reported that army retake the Tell an Nasiriyah Checkpoint on Tell an Nasiriyah hill which located on north of city Khattab and on east of city Halfaya and this means that army advances in toward city Halfaya from the city Khattab.here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So, make Nasiriyah checkpoint red, remove the green circle around Mhardeh, and place a red circle around Halfaya - but as goes the fighting around al Sheer and the Bteich area, all reports indicate that clashes continue Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

With the news below from Halfaya all opposition presence south of the city is gone.

We can leave at most the green ring around Bteich for safety because some clashes were still

reported yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

But maybe we need remove green circle around the Majdal checkpoint. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Halfaya

sohr says clashes between saa and nusra in halfaya national hospital and outskirts of halfaya.I suggest put a red circle around halfaya source : http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23275&Itemid=2&task=displaynewsHwinsp (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - remove the green circle from around Mhardeh too please Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Halfaya contested obviously. It is so since yesterday.

On the other hand Zimrin stays green or at most contested. The map from desyracuse

is not very precise in general.Paolowalter (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Halfaya national hospital located inside the city Halfaya Hanibal911 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with editor Paolowalter in situation with the city of Zimrin! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Idk man.. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.261507&lon=36.629326&z=19&m=b that hospital is inside Halfaya the same way that powerplant is inside Mhardeh - not really.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Look closely and you will see that Power plant located outside the city Mhardeh in area between the city of Halfaya and the city of Mhardeh and Wilimapia it clearly shows. Pro opposition map also showed it is. here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I know - but look, that hospital is the same distance from Halfaya proper as the power plant is front Mhardeh proper Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Many twitters states that Bteish and Halfaya were taken by SAA e.g.https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/509725756684263424 .Paolowalter (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Continued fighting https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/581388908636118 Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for info: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/581438378631171 South Halfaya under SAA control. Paolowalter (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Following http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/tiger-forces-capture-tal-nasariyyah-west-hama/ also Bteish is under control by SAA (Tell Batesh). Paolowalter (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra

Some info on status of Quneitra in http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/syria-golan-rebels-attack-control-quneitra.html. We should try to decode it understanding if it can help.Paolowalter (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

From this article we can solve our previous discussion: Zimrin is controlled by government. It is listed with al-Harra, al-Sanamayn, al-Jidiya (all controlled by government) as towns where reinforcements are grouped. It goes red (congratulation to deSyracuse :-) ).Paolowalter (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And we can also solve many towns that need to go to green, based on this article:

• Quneitra city
• Qathaniya
• Al-Mal (on this map already surrounded by rebel held villages)

And half-green ring showing fighting nearby:

• Khan Arnabah
• Madinat al-Baath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Monitor said that city Qathaniya under rebel contol and source said that rebels take control of the old city of Quneitra near border crossing which had been completely destroyed by Israel before its withdrawal in 1974.Al Monitor And rebels captured Tell al Mal military object but not village Al Mal.SOHR Also pro opposition source confirmed that rebels still not taken the new city Al Quneitra they are now only aiming for city Al Quneitra. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The rebels have not taken Al Mal? Really? How they would control a hill JUST OUTSIDE the village and many villages nearby and not the village itself? And Al-Monitor have mentioned Quneitra city to be under rebel control, so at least change it to contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.61.161 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please learn to read, Al-monitor said A REBEL ACTIVIST CLAIMED THAT THE REBELS HAVE taken Quinetra City. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please learn how to think. How in the world the rebels have taken Tell Al-Mal and not Al-Mal? How have they not conquered the areas in middle of Quneitra, have their soldiers teleported? You guys are pathetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.61.161 (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are the simple rules on Wikipedia, get a reliable source or stop complaining. We have our source [Al-Monitor]. I am sorry if you cannot read it due to your illiteracy. Also, in regards to your "have their soldiers teleported?" comment, you forget that these are insurgents, infiltration is a habit of theirs. Seriously, why is it so hard for you to get a source instead of complain since you seem so sure of yourself? If you don't like the map here, you are always welcome on ArchieveCivilans maps.2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor 84.24.43.183 you are already bored with your delusional statements that are based on your violent fantasies and more than anything. So if we follow your logic, we should also note under rebel control the citys Al Zahraa and Nubl in the Aleppo province , which are currently under the control of the army but are surrounded by rebels. We cant edit map only based on your desires and fantasies. The same applies to you, anonymous editor which IP adress 186.212.61.161 your logic very funny but we also cant edit the map based to your guesses! And for the future carefully read the sources before you making unfounded statements. Because SOHR clear said that rebels captured hill Tall al Mal which located on west from the village Al Mal for a distance of two kilometers and also source clear said that rebels captured old city Quneitra near border which had been completely destroyed by Israel before its withdrawal in 1974.Al Monitor But New city Quneita which located to the east at a distance of 20 kilometers.The Daily Star And pro opposition source reported that now rebels prepare to attack this city.www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The rebel bases near Dumayr

Look guys, I don't care if they are in the middle of nothing, or any of your blablabla. Same case as Daara or Quneitra. Do you have a source for removing it? No? Then it stays there. You want to maintain Tasil contested, and all those villages in mid-Quneitra that are obvious rebel held as regime held based on no sources, even while is obvious rebels control them, same thing now. Add them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.212.61.161 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeaaaaaaa pro-government vandalism at it's finest. 2nd time now those bases have been removed WITHOUT A SOURCE - I encourage any editor that adheres to wiki's neutral point of view policy to uncover who is making these illegal reverts and sanction accordingly Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

See #Question on East of Damascus Tradedia^talk 11:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

See new Al-monitor article, which is probably one of the more neutral sources you will find on Syria, it shows that both rebels and government hold towns in Syria's Golan heights: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/syria-golan-rebels-attack-control-quneitra.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.3.204 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Hasakah

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)

What would display more detail situation in the city Hasakah was better put on our map this map which showed situation inside city and on its outskirts. I ask the other editors to express their opinion. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:50, 11 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)

This map have been almost never updated in the past. It gives a misleading point of view showing government and YPG areas separated, while the city is managed jointly. The only external entity is IS in one neighborood Gweran. By the way SOHR reports https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/581767065264969 that part of Gweran has been taken by SAA. Paolowalter (talk) 15:20, 11 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)

It is better but i think the map is outdated Roy9955 (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently there is probably coordination between Assad forces and Kurdish forces in the city of al-Hasakah, yet Kurdish denial of it, implies more or less the transient character of that relationship. Prior to ISIS' offensive, al-Hasakah city saw increasingly frequent clashes between NDF elements and YPG. Thus, the status quo can change quickly. Another factor ignored by the current map is the neighborhood of Guerran which is held by a pro-ISIS group, so far Assad forces could advance into the western part of the neighborhood but clashes are ongoing. So, both in regards of that fragile Assad-Kurdish relationship and clashes in the Guerran district the detailed map should be reintegrated. --TheoDor12 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Halafaya

According to SOHR Halafaya is "almost" under SAA control https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/581827448592264. Several twitters state that is in full control. Of course, we will wait till the news is confirmed.Paolowalter (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

according to alalam saa recapture halfaya: https://www.facebook.com/alalamarabic/posts/790582687645215Hwinsp (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

According to http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/strategic-village-halfaya-liberated-tiger-forces-west-hama/ saa recapture Halfaya. It is enough to change it on the map.Paolowalter (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry bro but Al Alam and Al Masdar it is pro government sources so we cant use their to display of army success need confirmation from more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Masdar news source is reliable. It reports on the losses and gains of both sides and has been correct in its reporting about the events at Hama. The only issue it has is that it uses the word "liberate" in context of SAA victories, but that shouldn't be an issue since SOHR uses "liberate" in context of rebel victories. Still, I can wait. Halfaya cannot hold out. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no way Halfaya holds out - it's bound to be retaken by the SAA - when it is, it will be reported by SOHR, SANA, Daily Star, al Jaz, etc.. why jump the gun Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Here SOHR reported that rebel group Front victory withdrawal from the city and area between the city Halfaya and the city Mharda.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Also earlier some reliable sources confirmed that regime forces supported by Iranian officers retook a large part of the Halfaya area from rebels and jihadists of the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front.NOW NewsAgence France-PresseGlobal Post Hanibal911 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

oh the waiting game. my bet is that confirmation of the SAA taking Halfaya comes within 6 hours. any takers? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are right! Hanibal911 (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think by now, you should put the village in red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The city Halafaya under control by Syrian troops and their allies.Al AkhbarAl Khabar PressGoing Kuwaiti Hanibal911 (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Another source [5]. Daki122 (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

SAA Command has announced full control of Halfaya https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=75408279466551Hwinsp (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=170553&frid=23&seccatid=20&cid=23&fromval=1 --Pototo1 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Army in Halfaya city [6] and some pictures from Halfaya today [7] city is under full control of the Army.Daki122 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrian troops capture major central town Halfaya in Hama province.The Daily StarThe Washington PostABC News Hanibal911 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Tulaysiyah and Zegbeh to Green again

Those 2 small villages have been changed to red because? Any source? No? Change it back to green or provide a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.205.128 (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Zegbeh and Al Tulaysiyah under control by army "on the ground" activist interviewed by pro-opp TV chanel.here Hanibal911 (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Why shaat -junaynah -fan ash shamali -aqser abu samra -balil and qaser al maukharram green?Only one map from twitter says this villages under rebel control.sohr or other pro opp sources never say this villages under rebel control.Hwinsp (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

But on map which previously showed that this villages under rebel control was some errors that were later corrected.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We need to fix it too. Hwinsp (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, i want to note that the SyrianPerspective map maker corrected Al-Tulaysiyah and Zegbeh on his map a few hours after i changed them on our map based on pro-opp TV! Conclusion: SyrianPerspective map maker is copying our map! Tradedia^talk 11:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. I just contacted contacted one of editors from Syrian Perspective, and notice on their mistake! What would when we use they map in which were originally made ​​mistakes we dont broke our map. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not ours to speculate (OR) but to edit per the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by the Syrian Army Command; Video--99.160.184.97 (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, we have no sources that would confirm that the rebels captured the villages to south of the city of Al-Tulaysiyah. Except of the village Qaser Abu Samra which previously been noted under control by rebels based on the SOHR report. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Haniball is right.Sohr say only qaser abu samra under rebel control.Other villages still under army control.Hwinsp (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think it would be right. So that guys now if other editors not have claims we assume that the issue has been resolved. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Morek

We still dont clear the situation with the city of Morek because we have a lot of reports from the SOHR which said that clashes still ongoing in the city. But some reliable sources said that the army’s next target appears to be the rebel strongholds of Kfar Zeita and Morek, which are on the highway that links Hama with Aleppo.The Washington PostABC NewsFox News Pro government map also does not give a clear answer about the one who controls the city. Maybe we should mark it to green circle and put around it the red circle. So I ask other editors to express their opinion about this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. Several weeks ago we had SOHR reporting that rebels captured the southeastern part of Morek. Fighting continued "inside the town", but SOHR is notorious for it's use of in/near/around towns. Sometimes they don't seem to master English that well to distinguish between English forms. Green with a red ring or half circle should do for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Go green with a red circle for the time being, and let's just be diligent to update accordingly when the SAA launches offensive operations against Morek / Kafr Zita area. On the flip side, if the community consensus is to leave it contested, that's valid as well seeing as how Morek is on the front line and we don't have 100% proof one way or the other Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So that guys you are everyone agrees that the city must be to marked the green circle and put red circle around him. So if anybody does not have other data issue has resolved. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. There is no indication that SAA in not present in the city anymore. Lack of news cannot be used to change the status of a city. Back to contested.Paolowalter (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Paolo. Just a few days ago SOHR reported clashes inside the town. EkoGraf (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

New version of the pro government map dated 15 September clear show that no clashes in city Morek but showed that now clashes in the cities Kfar Zita and Al Lataminah.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

gov source: mork completely under rebel contro, SAA controls southern part of lataminah. no info on kfr zita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.183.4 (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Qal'at Al Madiq, Al jalma

This cities is under the control of SAA according to this map.MZarif (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC) http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/updated-map-west-hama-whats-next-syrian-army/#prettyPhoto/0/

Sorry, that's not a valid source. It's a Syrian Perspective map and extremely pro-SAA :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

it is a valid source. Report on both sides losses and gains accurately, just like SOHR. Also, that is not a Syrian Perspective map. They just repost them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Maps from Keepingtheleith are very accurate abd have proven to be reliable. More than SOHR actually. We should use them both for pro-rebels and pro-gov changes. Otherwise many places will be frozen for ever in a wrong status given the shortage of good pro-rebels maps.

In particular Qal'at Al Madiq is clearly behind the lines with no sign of fighting, while Al jalma is located in a contested area where many of our information turned out to be wrong. Red is their most likely status now.Paolowalter (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Paolowalter, but you yourself said: "this map is no place for guesses and own initiatives". So it stays contested until a NEUTRAL or pro-OPP source claims so. Your own argument ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The only rule is "use reliable source". A source is considered reliable based on its track record. These maps and www.almasdarnews.com/ proofed to reliable and objective over several months. If the rule is "no pro-gov for pro-gov changes" and "no pro-rebels for pro-rebels" changes, then SOHR cannot be used. Actually SOHR was accepted after its track record was considered reliable. Those maps and www.almasdarnews.com are at least as reliable.Paolowalter (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You mis the point. This "Almasdar map" is NOT an Almasdar map. It's made by Syrian Perspective, who has an established account of pro-SAA advances and propaganda. Just like we don't use Arab Chronicle of Archicivilians map to show the situation on the ground. This map simply can't be used to make pro-SAA gains, just als pro-OPP maps can't be used to show rebel gains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm on board with .183 and .195 - the map is a republication from syrianperspective, which, just to point out, is essentially the ONLY map considered pro-gov't here. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand the need to lie for supporting your unjustified statements, but these maps are not from syrianperspective!!!!!!! They are produced by a guy Keepingtheleith on twitter.

You have not produced a single argument against their validity. On the other hand, if no pro-OPP maps can be used, not even pro-OPP source can. Therefore we revoke the status of reliable from SOHR. It cannot be used anymore. Finally www.almasdarnews.com produces reliable information and it does not only publish somebdoy else map. I was mentioning those information to be considered reliable. Paolowalter (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ayn Aysha

It looks like, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ayn Al Basha is under rebel control according to this pro-government map , the village is located under Majduliye, somewhere near the Islamic Front logo west to Al-Hara. Also I found this rebel video allegedly from inside the city ...DuckZz (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue and let us edit only those villages which clear indicated on the map. And pro opposition amateur video from YouTube is not reliable source and also we cant use pro opposition source to display rebel advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is more. What about the towns of Rasm al Kharrar and Rasm al Sayd? This pro-SAA map shows Mamtinah as contested, but both villages are south/east of Mamtinah. Should they be made green? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Map clearly do not show this so that maybe be better to mark these villages as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that could be a temporary solution untill there is more news. It's a shame that the Golan region is so isolated yet strategicaly so important. We get little to no neutral sources and a lot of activity on the ground. Nightmare for every Wikipedia editor :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true. Massive amounts of propaganda come from the Quneitra governate, usually in the form of rebel or IDF propaganda. Unfortunately, it is our job to keep this map as accurate as possible and we cannot simply freeze the map in time as a solution. Another problem is that SOHR, a rebel propaganda outlet, essentially has a carte-blanche on wikipedia [it or its quotes are responsible for about 75% of all edits to this map] because editors are unwilling to reconvene and form a new consensus. Until the "smoke clears" around the fighting, all the information we will have about the fighting there will come from SOHR. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You guys will find any excuse...the rebels have the upper hand in Quneitra. This is a fact. You might not like it, but that's just the way it is. Stop finding excuses for your biased editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.184.15 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased editing? SOHR, the mouthpiece of the rebels, is responsible for 75% of all edits on here. If anything, this map is biased in favor of the rebels. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that indeed rebels have taken over large parts of Quneitra, and advanced into northeastern Daraa. There are even reports of the army retreating from areas close to Dayr Makir in southern Rif Damashq. But we don't have sources for that. What supprises me is the seeming ease with which rebels have advanced in two weeks time. As for Rasm al Kharrar and Rasm al Sayd, I think contested would be the best for now, although I personally beleave them to be rebel held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you guys feel about changing Al-Ruwayhinah to green? https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/582287055212970 SOHR reported it to be rebel held. At very least Al-Hamadiyah from this same post was confirmed by Peto Lucem(pro-regime) to be captured by the rebels(who now broke the siege of the Ufaniya and Al-Huriyah villages). Considering that all pro-rebel pages reported the takeover of Al-Ruwayhinah, we can at least search for a pro-regime page about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.157.18.51 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Zimrin

Zimrin under saa control: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/syria-golan-rebels-attack-control-quneitra.htmlHwinsp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro-SAA map of Syrian Perspective showing it as rebel held. I think contested is the best option, since Al-Monitor says SAA forces are massing "in the area of". So maybe not the town, but close by? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This town was marked red few days ago relying on al-monitor article. The map (not by Syrian Perspective, but by Keepingtheleith twitter account) put it on the front line compatible with the article. Therefore it stays red.Paolowalter (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea the al-monitor article is the latest source on Zimrin - SAA controlled Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right guys! Now the city of Zimrin under control by army and this confirmed from reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Also according pro opposition map city Zimrin under control by army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Rumah

SOHR reports 3 airstrikes on this city. IS there any SAA presence in this city ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The city as far as i know is divided between the government and the rebels and represents the front line near the base of Hamadiyah.Air strikes are probably targeting rebel lines near or in the rebel part of the village.Daki122 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In early June pro opposition source reported that two pro-regime soldiers were reportedly killed while 4 others wounded, during clashes with fighters from the FSA in the town of Kafrouma in Idlib countryside.here Maybe someone else of editors have other information about the situation in the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

IS control in eastern Hama?

What's the sources for all the black Islamic State dots in eastern Hama province and the neighboring part of Homs province? IS having an enclave of control here seems like it should be a big deal, but I haven't heard anything about it. GeoEvan (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS has an isolated pocket of control in eastern Hama and that has been recognized by multiple maps of the region. They do not advance from there because they are isolated. ISIS also has isolated pockets in Hajar Al-Aswad [Black rock(s)] neighborhood in Damascus, and they do not try to advance from there either. Their lack of advancement is the reason why they get such little reporting. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:69C3:C978:EC5B:8449 (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Where are the sources on what specific areas are controlled? GeoEvan (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources were put in the edit history and there was a discussion on the talk page here. SOHR (even though pro-opp considered neutral when reporting battlefield events) reported that district, which encompases all those towns, to be ISIS-held. We overlapped that over a map of a slightly pro-opp source and per that made the edit. EkoGraf (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's sometimes very difficult to track down the sources from the edit history, not knowing exact keywords used in the edit summaries or around what time period it was edited. It would be nice if there was a more easily-accessible record of sources (perhaps arranged by city and governorate), but I understand that you guys are already putting in a lot of hard work. GeoEvan (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

no,the ISIS-held area in Eastern Hama is connected to Raqqa Province and to the Homs Badiyah. Alhanuty (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No it is not , it is isolated. In order to be linked with Raqqa, ISIS has to control Al-ithryah, which lies on the Hama-Raqqa road, and they do not. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:69C3:C978:EC5B:8449 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just throwing this on here b/c it's another map showing IS presence stretching into Hama province http://www.businessinsider.com/the-syrian-civil-war-is-on-the-verge-of-getting-even-worse-2014-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredwhytekid (talk • contribs) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:69C3:C978:EC5B:8449 is wrong. An officer on pro-gov TV clearly says @2:25 that ISIS in Hama is “open up to the Iraqi border”. So they are not isolated. Tradedia^talk 00:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Mahmudiyah

SOHR said that violent clashes took place between YPG fighters and IS fighters in the village of Al Mahmudiyah in the eastern countryside of Ayn al Arab ( Kobani)SOHRHawar News So maybe someone knows something about what the village in question. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

SAA advances in Hama

SANA and an opposition activist in Hama reported the Syrian troops have captured several towns in Hama province including of Taibet al-Imam, Lweibdah and Zour Abo Zaid. Please find them and add them with red dots. Source here [8]. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Here confirmation this data from other reliable sources.Denver PostNewsOKThe Modesto BeeCharlotte ObserverDecatur DailyThe Epoch TimesPost StarBNDSun HeraldThe Jordan TimesThe News Tribune Hanibal911 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal lol, why do you post those sites if they all wrote "SANA quoted" in their article ? I say we wait for SOHR or a pro-rebel map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I not use data not directly from the news agency SANA this information confirm reliable sources and secondly source said that a Hama-based opposition activist who goes by the name of Yazan Shahdawi also confirmed that troops captured the areas in Hama province. So that DuckZz stop making unfounded accusations! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned two weeks ago that the opposition has captured Taybat Al-Emam,but still you refused it and ignored it,next time when SOHR mentions that The Regime is bombing a town in the center,turn the city to Rebel-held.Alhanuty (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are partly right but sometimes the army also bombed the town or village in which there are clashes and air force bombed rebel positions that to help army in clashes. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also source SOHR partly biased in pro opposition side but we agreed use him but announcement that the regime is bombing a town or village not enough that would change it to a contested especially if it's a large city. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In any case, confirmed by pro-opposition activist, add red dots please. EkoGraf (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Actualy Taibet-al-Imam was never captured by the opposition it was at most contested because neither SOHR nor did the rebels on the ground reported that.It was a spill over from the nearby offensive which aimed to capture Hama airport.And if someone is bombing the city that does not mean the city held by the other party at max we can make it contested as both sides may have parts of the town under their control and are bombing the other one.Daki122 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

al-Waer

Probably we need change al-Waer residential neighbourhood near Homs under rebel control but in besiege the army because we see that no truce in this area broken because army shelled and bombing this neighbourhood. But not one source nit said that now clashes in this neighbourhood. So I ask other editors to express their opinion about this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there will be a truce although it is still possible because fighters in this area are deprived from both food and water due to the siege so rebel control with a red circle around it for the time being until we have more info Roy9955 (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Area is marked as contested because the SAA controls a part of it since May after they made advances in the district. EkoGraf (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right! Still, let's listen to other editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we do contested icon and a red circle around it? I think EkoGraf is right - the SAA has entered select parts of al-Waer, but we need to show it besieged as well Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree! Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Regime Enclaves

The siege of Abu l Duhur airbase has not been lifted since we would have read about it either in pro-gov or pro-opp sources so I suggest removing the "Supply Route" the airbase has on the other map. On the other hand I suggest drawing a small supply route to the regime controlled part of Deir l Zor since many pro-regime sources have spoken about reinforcements (Vehicles included) to the Deir l Zor airport. Your thoughts? ChrissCh94 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tall Hamis

Documents.sy has reported that YPG Has controlled Tall Hamis (https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/801761649886593) Roy9955 (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If not to change Tall Hamis yet, at least be true to Tall Brak, which is held by a local tribe, not by IS, as this pro-rebel(enemy to both the Kurds and the IS) map shows: https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/2000px-syria6.png?w=640&h=562 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.157.18.51 (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

YPG not controlling Tal Hamis yet, but 5 villages north of it:

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/582922601816082

Abu Qasayib is one of them and should be changed to yellow.

186.119.179.151 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro oppositiom Kurdish source clear said that town of Tel Brak under control by IS.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes Hanibal911, one source vs the other 1000s of Kurdish sources saying otherwise. But well, mantain it that way, is just a small town, not going to kill anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.42.21 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah province

SOHR reported that YPG have taken over the villages of Rahiyeh, Hajiyeh, Kabib and Harikeh, Abu Khazaf and its surrounding farmlands. I found Abu Khazaf but I can not find the rest may be someone knows where these villages.source Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is this map from late December YPG offensive on Tal Hamis which shows all of the mentioned villages:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxdZNSuCAAEAdMS.png

186.119.179.151 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

the problem,is that IS three months ago has seized all the villages up to Tal Marouf and the villages up to Tal Tamer,but the YPG didn't report this,but now the YPG retook those positions,now,the Wikipedi map has became inaccurate,it needs to be more accurate.Alhanuty (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hama countryside

Apparently SAA took control of the village Al-Zilaqiat northe of Helfaya on their way to Al-Lataminah. Let's look if a neutral source will report it. Paolowalter (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Mayadeen TV live report from Hama's eastern countryside in Salamiyah - ISIS

Pro Syrian-gov Al Mayadeen TV channel confirms that ISIS controls Akash, Awademi, Um Meil, Abu Hubaylat. Al Mayadeen TV is going to make a report on the situation in Hama's eastern and western countryside which will be aired on September 18, than we will know more how the situation is on the ground. Link: http://www.almayadeen.net/ar/Newscast/id9YdiSiT0,8cKOgALmBrg/10/2014-09-08

However i followed Facebook pages which belong to pro-gov NDF and youtube videos which confirm that...

ISIS controls the following villages: Ez al-Deen,Tloul al-Hemer, Aydoun, al-Dalak, Soha, Uqayribat, Salam Sharqi, Al-Jawadiyah, Abu al-Hanaya, Qleib and Al-Makfar.

SAA controls the following villages: al-Masudiyah, Berri West and East, Fritan, Tel Dara, Aqarib, Tel Tout, Khneifes and Sneida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YasminSham88 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah province

For the third time, Tell Brak is considered by this pro-rebel source to be local tribe held, which is consistence with the reports on the time of it's fall, where YPG handed it over to a local tribe.

Also, according to this pro-YPG source: https://twitter.com/r3sho/status/511178350589509632 the IS control the village of Al-Rawiyah west of Serêkaniye(Ras Al-Ayn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.42.21 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know which villages are being referred to here: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583303985111277 ? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Rawiyah being left as disputed as well as Til Xenzir is good, they might not be fighting there right now but clashes emerge every week or so as that place is quite an active a frontline between YPG & IS forces.

190.67.248.154 (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also pro opposition source reported that Kurdish fighters from People's Protection Units , the official armed wing of the Kurdish Supreme Committee captured the villages Tall Khalil and Hadeyate.World Bulletin But I only found on the map the village Tall Khalil but I not found on the map the village Hadeyate maybe someone from the editors know where located this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Many reliable sources confirmed that Kurdish militias capture 14 villages from IS in northern Syria but not said what kind of village.Vancouver DesiFox NewsYahoo NewsIrish Sun abd pro Kurdish sources also did not specify exactly which villages were captured.Firat NewsHawar NewsRudawa Hanibal911 (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State fighters seized 16 Kurdish villages west of the predominantly Kurdish city of Ayn al-Arab(Kobani), in a rapid advance in areas near the Turkish border. HaaretzSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Deir-ez-Zor

According to SOHR the Army has all the crossings over the river in control with the exception of the central one which was bombed and destroyed. Source:[9].Daki122 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Another source:[10].Daki122 (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Daily Star quoting SOHR http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Sep-15/270734-syrian-army-destroys-isis-controlled-bridge.ashx#axzz3DOXMORdd Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jayrud/Jayroud

SOHR reports that the air force just bombed part of this town https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583301061778236. I do not know of any source that reports a rebel presence in the town since April http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1WlVjya8mfMJ:www.middleeasteye.net/news/syria-raid-kills-civilians-while-businessman-announces-candidacy-president-1498124180+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us which I think was an asymmetric/hit-and-run attack. Nonetheless - I guess this is good reason to leave Khan abu Shammat and Brigade 559 up, because it seems that there is still some level of rebel activity in the eastern Qalamoun Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reports clashes "near" Ain al Nuriyah https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583302425111433. Most likely taking place amongst the army encampments between SAA held Ain al Nuriyah and rebel held Ufaniyah, seen here here. Just something to keep an eye on Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Still clashes near Ain al Nuriyah https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583661818408827 Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583529065088769 Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Rural Hama map for updates

Peto Lucem Map is Anti Beheader map but quality is very good is always 95% right https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxlnO9MCMAAvb57.jpg:large — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.251.99 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is ture, Peto's maps are very high quality and accurate, but what are you suggesting. Should we put red rings around Latamenah and Kfar Zeta? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:1910:8A37:B370:889B (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the triangle (Latamenah, Kfar Zeta and Morek) are contested but I think we should wait for more sources Roy9955 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

According to this map Jalma is under SAA control, not even contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.127.250 (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Western Damascus

video news from Quneitra: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/syria-rebels-advance-near-golan-heights-2014915231059492134.html

It says rebels broke the siege of towns northwest of Hamadiyah, including Jubata al Khassab, Turnajah and Beit Jinn. This video report is from after the alledged rebel retreat from western Damascus. Sources on Twitter reported a week ago that this area was in effect the area around Dayr Makir and Kanaker. So, according to this source with images from the region, rebels control Jubata al Khassab, Turnajah and Beit Jinn areas in Quneitra/Western Damascus.

It also says: "Hamidiyah is important because it opens a corridor to the northern countryside already under rebel control". It says rebels also took control of the towns:

• Jubata
• Ufaniyah

Another source claiming the Israeli border is now under near total rebel control: http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebels-said-to-control-most-of-israel-border/

So: Jubata al Khassab, Turnajah and Beit Jinn to green. I don't know about Mazraat Beit Jen, because they speak of the "Beit Jinn area" in the video. Maybe contested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly your sources do not say that about the villages Turnajah and Beit Jinn. And SOHR clear said that rebel fighters have pulled back from the western countryside of Damascus into the northern countryside of Daraa, after Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have taken over Kafar Nasej, al-Taiha, Aqraba, and Tal al-Mal, between Reef Dimashq and Quneitra.here Also opposition activist said that rebels retreated from three villages Himrit, Maas, Sabsaba) after controlling them for 1 day only.here So stop inventing and distorting the facts. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also here pro opposition map clear show that village Jubata al Khassab under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that changing Beit Jinn to red was a rushed decision. It wasn't clear from where the rebels have retreated from. Why not to wait with Beit Jinn area as green until the situation becomes more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.42.21 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I noted the villages Turnajah and Jubata al-Khashab ubder control by rebels according data from Al Jazeera here but source not said about city Beit Jinn from which previously rebels retreated. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the question, you know. Western Damascus is large. This is a neutral source claiming the Beit Jinn area under rebel control. As I said, Himrit and Maas are not even near Beit Jinn. So, how would rebels have been able to retreat from there of areas like Sasa and Kanaker were still SAA held? I think we have made a mistake in Beit Jinn ... this video report certainly says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

But the problem is that this source not said about the city Beit Jinn. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a report posted a day after SOHR reported rebels' retreated - it states that Beit Jinn is rebel held and besieged by the SAA Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Done I noted the city Beit Jinn under control by rebels but in besiege Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you did, someone vandalised it back to red. So change it to green(besieged) again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.42.21 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tell Malh And Jalama

Saa recapture tell malh and jalama :https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/802732783122813Hwinsp (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

pro opp confirmed too: https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/511839471818792964Hwinsp (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So a SANA source + random "pro-opp" guy on twitter was enough for this change. Let's keep what happened in this section (one among many that goes ignored) fresh in our minds the next time a pro-rebel change is being challenged for not enough sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

First document sy is not a sana source and document sy more trustable than sohr and document sy is not pro saa source.Second , i gave this pro opp twitter source because some editors say' we need to wait pro opp source to confirmed it'.So please stfu and stop crying.ThanksHwinsp (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, user "Mark" is obviously an authoritative twitter source (sic) lol. I agree with the edit - in all probability the SAA overran this area. But, I agree with user .86.39 too - using "Mark" as the rebel source is really reaching. Also, please refrain from profane phrase like "stfu" as it violates wiki policy. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I say stfu because he says document sy is a sana source.Document sy. is pro opp source and shares tow videos and makes rebel propaganda.Look at this document sy videos: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/videosHwinsp (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I get that, but Wikipedia says, don't say "stfu" - so, please keep disagree civilly and avoid cursing. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editor using IP 85.112.86.39 address if you look at the history of editing, you will see that that village Tall Malah was previously marked under the control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with Boredwhytekid! Hanibal911 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also I agree with Hwinsp that Document.sy it is biased pro opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also here another confirmation from pro opposition source that rebels lost villages Jalma and TallMelh.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say stfu but 85.112.86.39 should stop lyingHwinsp (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SOHR also confirmed that Syrian troops recaptured the villages Tell Malh and Jalama.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrian army captures several areas in Hama province - 16/09/2014

SANA (in arabic), opposition websites and other media outlets confirm that Syrian army captured Al-Jedideh, Jalma, Tell Malh, Kafr Hood and Tremseh today. YasminSham88 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Provide/link pro-op or neutral sources to validate SAA advances and the appropriate edits will be made. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition map clear show that the city Tremseh under control by army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tremseh is already on our map and red Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I know just stating a fact. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

gotcha :) Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also army recaptured the towns Jadidah and Zallaqiyat and now the Syrian troops are at the outskirts of the town of Al Lataminah.Global Post Hanibal911 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SANA is very a credible source. --Pototo1 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hama Map Mistakes - Northern Hama province

The opposition controls: Al-Arbaeen, Hamamiyat and Al-Buwayda. YasminSham88 (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Source? Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reports that the regular forces raided houses in al-Arba'en and al-Hseinat, reports of detaining many civilians. This confirms the fact that the village al-Arba'en under army control.SOHR Also pro opposition map show that area to west from city Kfar Zita where located the village Hamamiyat now under control by troops.here Also remember that in the future before you post information on the talk page you need find a source that can confirm all your data. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL yasmin that is where SAA is attacking Kfar zita from. Don't be silly. snackbar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.127.250 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, can you create a map showing the situation in Hama province ? 78.214.63.247 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Flita, Qalamoun

SOHR still reporting clashes in the Qalamoun wastelands here. No need for adding additional green presence around Flita, because this action took place in the wilderness - I'm just posting this as an up-to-date justifier for the green circle to the northwest of Ras al Maara Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's more information about the situation in the area. Al Nusra Front fighters hit in ambushed the Syrian army in the Qalamoun border region of Flita, some 7 kilometers from the border with Lebanon, shortly before midnight and retreat to the border where they clashed with the Lebanese Army.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SAA capture Gweran neighborhood (Hasakah)

sohr says saa capture gweran neighborhood (Hasakah) https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583889075052768 Hwinsp (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

another source: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/803185179744240 please fix hasakah map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Hasakah.svg Hwinsp (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Tradedia^talk 00:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Tell Malh And Al Zalaqiat

Nusra recapture tell malh and al zalaqiat according to sohr : https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/584006361707706Hwinsp (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

: Done Hanibal911 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is not a reliable source for rebel advances, please find other pro-gov sources or neutral sources, otherwise put those villages in red again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessi94 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually SOHR is the only opposition source we acknowledge when it comes to rebel advances because they have been shown to be 95 percent correct and are considered an authoritative sources by neutral sources that also use SOHR such as AFP, Reuters etc.

This is completely wrong !!! SOHR is just the rebel equivalent of SANA. If we follow this logic, all the SANA reports about SAA advances and rebel losses are true. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The rebel equivalent of SANA? lol. SANA has not reported a single rebel advance in 3+ years. Not a single one. SOHR is pro-op, but reports both advances and loses for the SAA, FSA, IF, IS, YPG, etc.. Though I don't know why I typed this. It's self-evident. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that SOHR is blatantly pro-opp., we are willing to ignore that because of an old consensus established that somehow determined that SOHR was reliable anyway and no one is willing to revise or remove this consensus. Interestingly enough, SOHR Facebook posts are prohibited by that consensus, so technically, SOHR website is "reliable" while their Facebook page is "unreliable".2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Raqqa province

Here new pro opposition map which show IS advance in Tall Abyad countryside in the north eastern part of the Raqqa province. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we need pro YPG sources to clarify the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessi94 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This pro-YPG source lists a number of villages that have been taken over by ISIS in the last few days. http://www.alkurdiya.net/2014/09/blog-post_231.html Dulldul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

IS have taken over 21 villages inhabited by Kurdish civilians, in the western and eastern countrysides of Ein al-Arab "Kobane". But they do not specify which ones. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/584403375001338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are maps that show how advances the IS insurgents offensive in the area city Ayn Al Arab (Kobani). herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As-Suhknah

As-Suhknah (Near Palmyra) has suddenly turned black. Any reliable source about that? Kihtnu (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I corrected this mistake city under control by Syrian army. This also confirmed pro opposition source here And not one of the reliable sources not said that the city is under the control of IS. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Saa recapture Tell Malh area

saa recapture tell malh source : http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23669&Itemid=2&task=displaynewsHwinsp (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This also confirmed pro opposition source.archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Kobane

Many of the edits from this reference have already been made - thanks Hanibal - but let's keep an eye open for any other specific towns being named. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

daily star the guardian Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Qlib al Thour, Hama

SOHR reports airstrikes on this front-line town in eastern Hama. Please change from red, to black (or at least contested) Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Done I noted this village as contested because the source does not specify who controls it. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A Green dot in Deir Ez-Zor and a SAA base in Hasakah

Sources for both? The Subaykhan village in Deir Ez-Zor, while the area is unfortunetly all Islamic State held according to basically all sources. And that Hajanah Batallion deep inside Kurdish territory in Hasakah province? Either give a good source or exclude both of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.154.7 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hajanah Batallion located on area in the territory Rumeilan oil field which still under control of the YPG and pro-regime forces. This data confirm pro opposition Kurdish source. here

Subaikhan it is the rebel-held town in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour.Shanghai Daily Hanibal911 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Shangai Daily is misquoting. The SOHR report from that date says the airstrikes were made "under the pretext of targeting IS posts" - pretty much saying that the air force ended up killing some civilians when they were bombing an IS held town Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Bored, its a misquote. Whole area is ISIS-held. EkoGraf (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The aranews source doesn't really warrant putting a whole battalion under SAA control in the middle of a territory where their presence was previously unknown, specially since they don't even confirm the base to be held by them but only say "an pro-regime forces in the area", it's too unspecific to make such a change without further sources.

190.67.144.104 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS terrorists captured more than 20 villages in Kobane - Names of Villages and their location

East of Kobane: Korek, Shawek, Menjuk, Bir Arab, Juran, Zurzuri, Kultib, Bir Hish, Khan, Zer, Qartal, Qarfel, Kublek, Qazali, Sarunj, Darb Hassan.

West of Kobane: Talik, Zarik, Turman, Ziyaret, Ashma, Jibnah.

South of Kobane: Belek, Qalhida, Qararishek. source YasminSham88 (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional Sources:

Todays Zaman (18.09.2014, ENG): "ISIL fighters ... after seizing 21 villages..."

Todays Zaman (18.09.2014, ENG): ISIL seizes 16 Kurdish villages in Syria, prompting new refugee inflow Civil population of these 16 villages is in Turkey's border.

Veooz (18.09.2014, ENG): ISIS seizes 21 Syrian villages in just 24 hours as terrified Kurds flee homes to avoid ‘massacres’

CNN (19.09.2014, ENG): Isis killed hundreds of Kurdish civilians in Til Hemis village in Syria "..activists reported a mass exodus of civilians from the neighboring villages of Kaalak, Zark Qumshi, Zalkhek, and Turaman.."

CNN (19.09.2014, ENG) ISIS advanced its grip on portions of Syria and Iraq, seizing 16 predominantly Kurdish villages near the Turkish border.

Alexyflemming (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Some tweets indicate, that Kurds lost completely the access to Euphrates river. Of cause, it is not reliable source, but keep an eye on that area.11:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)82.100.1.6 (talk)

Alexyflemming Where did you find the names of the towns? And do you know the locations of those that are not on the map already? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Kurd forces withdraw from around 60 villages.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

English SOHR post Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hama province

SAA capture abu raidi and hasara according to sohr: http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23718&Itemid=2&task=displaynews location abu raidi:http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=35.331302&lon=36.571941&z=14&m=b&gz=0;365391540;353191171;0;214272;139045;0;314140;78433;121879;261531;12016;178214 location hasara : http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=35.349593&lon=36.526279&z=15&m=b&gz=0;365208721;353398093;0;76312;117588;0;232601;81213;8583;73512 And i think jubbayn should redHwinsp (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Hwinsp (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here this report from SOHR in english.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right and we should note the village Jubbayn under army control. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So I think that after army captured villages Abu Raidh and Hasariyah and now troops located on outskirt of city Kafr Zita no sense put the village Jubbayn as a contested because rebels left this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with hannibal. + saa inside jubbayn : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgp_No-ljcM&feature=youtu.beHwinsp (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is only today that Jubbayn was taken by SAA: https://twitter.com/SyrianLion_/status/513401169063190529/photo/1. Paolowalter (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Xerabnas

Clashes are taking place in this town near Ayn al Arab. https://twitter.com/isabelhunter/status/512932750178136064 Dulldul (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Regime battalion near al Madaabah

What was the source used to put a regime controlled battalion so deep into kurdish controlled territories? Regime only has presence in/south of Qamishlo and in/south/east of Hasakah.

190.67.144.104 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You need carefully closely looked because all clearly described in this section A Green dot in Deir Ez-Zor and a SAA base in Hasakah So before you write messages with questions need a close look at the talk page can someone already post here all the information on the subject. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I had ctrl-f'd the page with some keywords but didn't figure that a simple Hasakah would do, many thanks :)

190.67.144.104 (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasaka

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-strategic-area-isis-militants-al-hasakah/ a lot of infos about the situation in Hasaka. We could try to turn into useful information for the map.Paolowalter (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hama and Lataminah

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/fierce-clashes-west-hama-result-heavy-losses-2-nusra-emirs-killed/ news about SAA presence in the outskirt of Kafr Zita and Morek. SAA should also be present on the outskirt of Al-Lataminah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Masdar news is rather pro-government and I would be very careful about any changes, but it can be true, SAA gained a village today, which is just 5 km distant from Kafr Zita and Al-Lataminah. Maybe you could add red ring around these cities or just partly from western side. Or let's wait for some other confirmation...77.240.103.2 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should add red rings around both cities and wait for further conformation before making them contested. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:44BE:6E96:8239:5004 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

See also http://the-levant.com/fierce-clashes-west-hama-result-heavy-losses-2-nusra-emirs-killed/ Paolowalter (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Kobane / Ayn al-Arab

Seeking community opinion on proposal:

Let's add some more of the known-to-be-Kurdish/YPG-held towns. #1, right now it looks like the Kurds have nada but Kobane proper and a dozen scattered towns. #2, we'll get a step ahead of the game, because more towns in this area are bound to be in the news soon. #3, adding a handful more yellow towns would clarify the front line and true areas of control in this region.

Offhand, I propose adding the following - Dikmatash Salib Ayn al-Batt Kabbajq small Kabbajq large Qurmza

Other editors - what say you? Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Alhanuty (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree too, and some villages which we are not sure, who control them, could be shown as contested in this area.77.240.103.2 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911? EkoGraf? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested mean "fighting" ongoing in the town. It does not mean "We don't know".

For the towns quoted no sources are mentioned. If there are sources, fine, otherwise no.Paolowalter (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

An hour ago I would agree with you Bored. However, I think we shouldn't rush it because I just read a source [11] where SOHR confirmed ISIS captured another 39 villages today, making a total of 60 now in the last three days. So in essence, we have no idea where the frontline is at the moment other than a report by the Kobane Kurdish commander saying ISIS is within 20 km from the city. P.S. I would ask all editors to try and find out the names of these 39 new villages. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

that looks to be impossible EkoGrak,too much,but looks the Battle for Ain Al-Arab(Kobani) isn't far away,unless the US Airforce strikes sooner,France 24 reported that IS fighters reached the Western Neighborhood of the city.Alhanuty (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the EkoGraf and Boredwhytekid. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New map (not proposing any changes here, just found this and thought you would like to have it): https://twitter.com/abuaminah_/status/513243576667353088/photo/1--Andylee Sato (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported that violent clashes have erupted between IS and YPG in the village of Qarah Mog.SOHR Who knows where located this village? Hanibal911 (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS fighters armed with rockets, artillery, tanks and armored vehicles seized from the Iraqi army in Mosul had advanced to within 20 km of Kobani.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New map of Kobane area. I don't think we get anything better now. What do you think? https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByQl9HGZDeRXUXZJdkxfMDhTNTg/edit 77.240.103.2 (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Between the report that IS is within 20mi of Kobane, and the desyracuse map, we should be able to roughly approximate which towns are still Kurdish held no? The ones within 10mi of Kobane can be added with confidence

Ain al-Hand Mahmoud KolmdQurmza Kurabi Bani Saba

It's just that the map at present isn't an accurate representation - we pretty much show the Kurds pushed all the way back to Kobane already, when all reports indicate they have a 15-20mi buffer still I'm on board with using https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByQl9HGZDeRXUXZJdkxfMDhTNTg/edit in this instance tooBoredwhytekid (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Reuters report - They are not within 15 kilometers from the city. EkoGraf (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Also IS took control of the village of Qara Moog, Bobby Hill and the village Ghareeb (20 km east of Kobane).Ara News I add the village Gharib but I dont know where located village Qara Moog(Qarah Mog) Hanibal911 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

IS shelling areas 10mi from Kobane SOHR Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS fighters located on distance just in 10 kilometers of the strategic border town known as Ain al-Arab(Kobane).The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Daraa Map

Map is from Around 1-7 to September situation is basically the same http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/td540b68c5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pototo1 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New updadted on Jobar on front of damascus

September 19 https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/513035203799818241/photo/1

There is September 3 (Similar Who we are using now) https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/507207133772128256/photo/1 --Pototo1 (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro-regime source. We used it only to change an area that was all contested to a green area, but we cannot use it to show a regime advances(specially since neither SOHR nor any other sources claim any regime advances in Jobar area) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.177.193.133 (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Peto Lucem Maps are a very credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.137.14 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A part of the northeastern section of Jobar known as the Taiba area has been confirmed by both sides to be SAA-held. Government source [12] and for the opposition source google FALL OF JOBAR 'WOULD SET US BACK TWO YEARS' (can not link it here because syria direct is black-listed by Wikipedia). So that sliver needs to be red. Also, pro-opposition source [13] confirmed Abadeh is SAA-held, frontline is just west of the town. EkoGraf (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

sohr arabic confirmed flita tower(biggest tower in jobar) under saa control 2-3 days ago(source: http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23666&Itemid=2&task=displaynews ).But i didnt see this news in sohr eng.Sohr eng doesnt translate about jobar.Hwinsp (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by Al-Masdar: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-makes-strategic-gain-jobar-fighting-around-east-ghouta/ 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:44BE:6E96:8239:5004 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Shams

SOHR reports the air force is bombing at least parts of Kafr Shams, Daraa Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, it is not enough that would change it to the contested but we need to closely monitor the situation in the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to contested the situation is unknown, also put a green ring around khirbet ghazala,there was clashes occuring near by it,

also there is a rebel-held zone in the western ghouta near Kiswa and A Pro-government analyst pointed it out via https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/513382288479256576

also there has been many SOHR reports of Air-raids on Dirkhabiyah, Zakyah, Mukaylibah, Al-Taybah, there was also may SOHR reports about clashes near Kiswah western frontier , and it is not good to keep towns under government control, if the government shells those cities.Alhanuty (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

We put green or red ring only if the city or villages is besieged! Hanibal911 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

My gut agrees with you Alhanuty. But, let's just keep an eye on them - if the air force is truly bombing Kafr Shams, more reports will follow, and perhaps even reports of clashes on the ground, since Kafr Shams will then be the front line. What are the sources for Dirkhabiyah, Zakyah, Mukaylibah, Al-Taybah? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid because of 13 september two pro opposition sources clear show that the city Kafr Shams under control by army here and here And there were no more reports about clashes in this city or that he was captured by the rebels. So I think that the one report about air strike on the city is not enough to change the city for the contested. Also you must provide reports from SOHR which confirm your data. Because about villages Dirkhabiyah, Zakyah, Mukaylibah, Al-Taybah only pro opposition source said that they under control by rebels.here and here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A Pro-government source posted a map of it confirming the opposition presense,https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/513382288479256576.Alhanuty (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC) https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583846421723700 https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/585315961576746 https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/585233134918362 http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23692&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VB4Ba_ldWSo http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23506&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VB4BqPldWSo http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23497&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VB4ByvldWSo http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23068&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VB4CGPldWSo

the sources mentioned that Taybah and Zakyah and Mukaylibah and Dirkhabiyah as bombarded with barrel bombs, i think that it should be considered to mark this rebel-held zone. there is frequent reports of Bombardment, what else has to be brought also a Pro-Government analyst PetoLucem confirmed the rebel presense,by posting a map of the rebel held area in the Western Ghouta. Alhanuty (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

and these are like four towns.

and here is another one http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=23274&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VB4D3vldWSo. SOHR links. Alhanuty (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right a bouta Taybah and Zakyah and Mukaylibah and Dirkhabiyah and thank you for your sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Add those back, as someone deleted those dots. Also, paint that area green in the Damascus and W/E Ghouta map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.176.177.244 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Maps of the big cities

The map of the cities are more and more obsolete, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Hasakah.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Damashq.svg are obviously wrong contradicting some recent news on which there is consensus. It looks like their editors have no interested in keeping them up to date. Is somebody willing to take care of them (I am unable to change the maps)? On their talk page there are some comments for improving them. Paolowalter (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think We should fix hasakah map. sohr says saa capture gweran neighborhood (Hasakah) https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/583889075052768Hwinsp (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:-I've updated the Hasakah map, but I understand editors ain't interested in updating it, moreover when some other editors decided to scrap it from this template without a proper justification. Are we going to add it again to this template (as the Damascus, Aleppo, Daraa & Deir Ezzor maps) or what?.--HCPUNXKID 01:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would hope so. This all started when a user vandalized the map and listed Hasakah as completely Kurdish held. The exchange of reverts keep going back and forth until it was decided simply to used the symbol for shared control. Even though it is true that SAA and the Kurds share the city together, bringing back the old map would show more detail and show the ISIS presence in the town.2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But Syrian army with the support of the Kurds pushed back IS insurgents from the city Hasakah. After the Syrian troops seized the Ghuweiran neighborhood in city Hasakah in city Hasakah and it was the only area in which there were present IS fighters.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Reinstate the map on this template. EkoGraf (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Kobane

What in the name of fuck have you done with that? You do realize that you just gave area which includes several hundred villages to ISIS because SOHR said "60"? Goddamn, who was editing it? Fricking Chewbacca on ecstasy? EllsworthSK (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing they made the edit based partially on this report [14] where yesterday a Kurdish activist said the frontline is 20 kilometers to the east and south of the town, and 25 kilometers to the west. Also, a number of sources have been put forth for the names at least 30-40 captured villages. And don't pick on Chewie, he sacrificed himself for Han's children. :( EkoGraf (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish forces have evacuated at least 100 villages on the Syrian side after the IS militants started onslaught against the Kurdish villages.Al-Akhbar Hanibal911 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Fighting 13 kilometers from the city now [15]. EkoGraf (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

to he honest IS advance has been very shocking, and how tens of villages fell is shocking. Alhanuty (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This entire war is shocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessi94 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But to answer the question, all this Kurdish villages are hamlets who should not be on the map, if we were to put all the hamlets and localities, the map would be full of little dots, there has watch wikimapia.

And IS took all these hamlets after the frontline sold because of YPG fighters are under-equipped and under-trained, and YPG activists and kurd population wants to save their lives and they fled, what the terrorists rebels takfiris do not care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessi94 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

64 villages, 15mi report Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Clashes continued between IS militant fighters and the Kurdish forces of the Popular Protection Units (YPG) in the vicinity of the village Mojik (about 6 km west of Kobane) and the village of Alishar (7 km east of the city).Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Find those two villages, mark them on the map, add black rings around them, and that's our frontline! EkoGraf (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Redur Xelil says that "The town of Mabrouka is now under our control". Mabrouka is in Hassaka on the way to Ayn Al Arab. The source is the Washington Post [16]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.240.216 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alishar Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also today one of pro-opposition activist reported that IS capture Tal Shair hill top overlooking on the city Kobane.here But not one reliable sources still is not confirmed this information. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that we need search more information on this subject. Since it is some sources indicate that the IS insurgents are already very close to town Ayn al Arab. Because the Redur Xelil, spokesman for the main armed Kurdish group said that Syrian Kurdish fighters have halted an advance by ISIS fighters to the east of a town Ayn al Arab. And now we have conflicting accounts of how far ISIS fighters were from Kobani. Because today Redur Xelil said IS were located on distance 20-30 km (12-19 miles) away, while Abdulrahman from SOHR said they were around half that distance from the town.The Daily Star but pro opposition Kurdish source today reported that clashes continued between IS militant fighters and the Kurdish forces of the Popular Protection Units (YPG) in the vicinity of the village Mojik (about 6 km west of Kobane) and the village of Alishar (7 km east of the city).Ara News So at the moment we have a lot of conflicting data but yet we need to get to the truth. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, most of us have accepted SOHR as something similar to a "neutral" source, while obviusly an YPG spokesman aint a neutral source, but a partisan one, no matter in what type of media speaks. So, (according to the rules agreed here) the SOHR source is more credible than the other.--HCPUNXKID 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here new pro opposition map which show situation in Ayn al Arab(Kobani) countryside on the 22 September. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Abu Qusey - Abu Qasayib

According to this source, the town is now controlled by YPG.

http://en.firatajans.com/news/news/ypg-4-village-and-3-hamlets-cleansed-of-isis-gangs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Abu Qasayib should be changed to yellow. http://en.firatajans.com/news/news/ypg-4-village-and-3-hamlets-cleansed-of-isis-gangs.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proletarii (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But we cant use pro Kurdish source to display Kurdish advance. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also confirmed by this source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-destroys-isis-supply-bridge-saa-advances-al-hasaka/ 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

I allow myself to bring this section back from archives & answer your question. Tall Khaznah was added to the map as contested based on this SOHR report that talked about clashes in the town. This was a one-time event (2 sept. 2014) where pro-opp media (Syria Tomorrow TV @ 11:40) talked about a “massacre” where pro-government militia (from Al-Tulaysiyah, Zegbeh & Ma’an) came, killed people, then left the rebel-held town. So, it is true that the clashes have stopped. However, it was not correct of you to put the town in red because opposition claims it is rebel-held. On the other hand, we cannot put it in green because we only have a pro-opp claim for that. In reality, we put the town on the map based on a report of one “massacre”, but the source did not say who controlled the town before that. There have not been reports of clashes after that. Therefore, we don’t really know who controls this town today. Therefore, I think the town should be “commented out” of the map until we get new information about it. Tradedia^talk 00:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Nasib

Nasib City and its border crossing need to be changed to contested based on the following source; http://jordantimes.com/article/jordanian-injured-as-syria-border-battle-escalates ALarabiya says rebels captured the remainder of the Syria/Jordan border this afternoon but need a reliable source to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.254.173 (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Source said that Nasib border crossing under control of army and rebels try advances towards to this border crossing. And not said about clashes in tha city Nasib. But source clear said that as of late Monday, Syrian government forces remained in control of the border crossing.Jordan Times Hanibal911 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also your source said that two major crossing points between the Syrian and Jordanian under control by Syrian troops and FSA has failed to capture their. So maybe Daraa Al Qadim border crossing still under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right on the Daraa border crossing per the same source different article which strongly suggests it's not clear who controls the Nasib Border crossing, so it makes sense to change it to contested - http://jordantimes.com/article/jordan-denies-syrian-border-closures-as-rebels-claim-crossing-seizure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.254.173 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Read carefully your source he clear said that as of late Monday, Syrian government forces remained in control of the Nasib border crossing. So do not distort the data. So according your source now two major border crossing points between the Syrian and Jordanian under control by Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But I think that we should not use this source because it contains a lot of mistake. Firstly the rebels maybe control 80% of the border area between Syria and Jordan in the Dara province but the rest of the border area in the Suwayda and Rif Dimashq provinces completely under the control of the army. This is confirm the pro-opposition sources here and here And perhaps the source wanted said that the rebels control 80% of the border area is in the Dara province. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also this article which said about clashes near Nasib border crossing dated on 4 February 2013 and is outdated here confirmation: Here is the original of this article from Jordan Times here and this article wich said that according to Free Syrian Army (FSA) sources, rebel forces had secured “90 per cent” of the Syrian border complex as of late Monday, with light clashes with “remnants of regime elements” posted at the crossing was dated on 25 March 2013 and is outdated here confirmation: Here is the original of this article from Jordan Times Jordan Times And there was no more evidence of this information. But pro two opposition sources on 8 September here and on 15 September here clear show that city Nasib and Nasib border crossing uncer control by Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Waer

Pro opposition source Syria Direct reported that the Syrian regime and the rebels agreed a truce in the Al-Waer neighbourhood the similar truce which to previously were agreed in the Old city area of the city Homs. The source in the negotiations told pro opposition Smart News, that the agreement, stipulates a ceasefire from all sides, the opening of roads into Al-Waer and the release of prisoners by the regime. In turn, rebel fighters would be escorted out of the city, in a similar fashion to an agreement that ended the regime siege on Old Homs this past spring. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1574-syria-direct-news-update-9-22-2014 Hanibal911 (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

West Hama

Some info about west Hama in http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-gains-ground-west-hama-another-village-liberated/ Apparently Hamamyat is contested or red with green ring. The check point Zileen is green (with red ring). It should be north of Halfaya. Lataminah is contested. Paolowalter (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition source clear said that rebels retreated from Hamamiyat village in N-Hamah.archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Damascus map

I see 4 green dots on Damascus map. That is against the rule. I am not questioning that these town are controlled by rebels, but such a change should be done on the Damascus map not adding dots. For one of those town a twitter pro-regime posting a TV report claims that it is going to be attacked soon https://twitter.com/2Rook14/status/514161196690206721 so it is likely to be green. As I mentioned in a previous comment, the Damascus map is not kept up to date. I (and others) suggested several changes both pro-gov and pro-rebels ans they were consistently ignored. Could somebody do something?Paolowalter (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Done--HCPUNXKID 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

First,Read the Kafr Shams section,and you will see that there is a consensus to add those towns.Alhanuty (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

First, the previous consensus was to not add dots to the city maps, so I dont consider logic or fair to break that agreement only in this particular case. That was done because if we add dots to the city maps, some of them (mostly Damascus & Aleppo) would be unreadable. And second, I find calling an agreement between only two users (when there are several more users editing this map) "consensus" at least a bit exaggerated...--HCPUNXKID 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

then i recommend kami88 to add the 4 towns into the reef dimashq map.Alhanuty (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove immediately these dots. Wait for the Damascus map to be updated. Paolowalter (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Then update it. That area is green as agreed in the Kafr Shams section.

Hasaka

Some info from Hasaka countryside http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-destroys-isis-supply-bridge-saa-advances-al-hasaka/ Several villages reported to be taken by YPG and SAA. Not sure where they are, close to Tal Hamis. Paolowalter (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Syrian gov. source unreliable for SAA-NDF advances.--HCPUNXKID 23:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The source has proven reliable in its coverage and is not a pro-government source [any more than SOHR is a pro-opp source]. Since we make an exception for SOHR, we must also make on here since this source has proven its reliability repeatedly. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ISW-Syria has also confirmed the cooperation. ISW Malik Danno (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case we have information from the pro government source which said that YPG and SAA taken several villages.Almasdar News and this data confirm the pro opposition source.ISW so that we can use this data as they have been confirmed by both parties. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

More (again)

As I said some time ago Morek is contested: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/586375511470791. Please return it to contested.Paolowalter (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But to be precise then the SOHR likely wanted to say that clashes on east from the city Morek. Also SOHR said that Al Nusra Front and the Islamic battalions targeted Abo Shafiq checkpoint which located on the west from the town of Morek.here So maybe clashes still going outside the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To the Editors

Unfortunately there is resistance for government advances change in this map and most editors are strongly Pro Opposition.It's very wrong idea that Every reports of pro government sources is non credible and needs for confirmation of Pro Opposition sources but report of SOHR or some western medias are completely true(!) and no need for confirmation However any aware person knows Western country and some Arabic countries and SOHR organization are Pro Opposition. I should add this, I have read the discussions about SOHR and I agree with some of ideas .insisting on completely true news of SOHR and ignoring the Non pro SOHR person reasons seems to be abnoraml.151.238.169.106 (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Adra Town

It's reported by Pro opposition and Pro government sources a lot of clashes happened in this city here are the sources: SOHR sample report "Rif Dimashq Province: The regime forces re- shelled areas in the town of al Teba, the city of Doma and the outskirts of al Mqelbeyyi with no information about casualties. Several shells launched by the regime forces fell onto the road of al Derkhbayyi. The regime forces launched surface-to-surface missiles on areas in the town of Ayn Terma.

The violent clashes between al Nusra Front and the islamic battalions against the regime forces have still occurred on the outskirts of al Dokhaneyyi area and in Adra area leading to kill 2 fighters at least in Adra." http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/09/terrorist-surrounded-in-adraa-as-saa-storms-areas-of-jawbar.html151.238.169.106 (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Adwan / Matallah?

Why is Adwan, next to Tasil/Tsil in Daraa, label "Matallah"? Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I fixed this bug in according of the map. Near city Tasil located city Adwan but the village Al Matallah located in the Rif Dimashq on area which under control by troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated! We might want to hold off on re-adding Matallah until we find sources - since it is located on the front line Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)