Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Homs - Al-Waer district

According to Al-Masdar, rebels and the Army managed to agree in leaving of rebels the district thus all Homs is under control of the Syrian goverment. The rebels have yet to leave the area, but there are no clashes [1]. Oroszka (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

For now it should probably be marked as under truce. Rhocagil (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Change to cease fire if we no have more news will be change to contested again the next days --LogFTW (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Al-Waer is under truce for sometimes till evacuation is completed. Once evacuation is completed, it goes to red, see e.g. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Dec-02/325534-deal-reached-for-last-holdouts-to-exit-homs.ashx.Paolowalter (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter Rhocagil Oroszka [according to this] some rebels will remain in al-Waer following truce and therefore the suburb should remain contested or under joint control of rebels and govt.Prohibited Area (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the area now is considered reconciled. The rebell parts that didn't agree to were transferred to Idleb. The rebell part that did agree stays and will act as some kind of protector to the peace-agreement. Thera are other areas like this around Damascus. The area should not be marked as contested it should be marked as under peace (purple) or as government (red).Rhocagil (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In practical reason at the end of the period it should go red because the truce is a thinly veiled form of surrender. But honestly it does not matter much. The war is over in al-Waer.Paolowalter (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Green-Yellow color map huge change

Someone changed every joint rebel-YPG icon to yellow color in the entire Raqqa and Hasaka province. This is the biggest edit on this map since its creation and no source was provided. We had no discussion on the talk page about it, only few troll arguments and nothing was agreed about that. 13 rebel groups are part of the SDF in Hasaka province, 5 rebels groups are part of the Burkan Firat coalition in Raqqa province, 2 are working separately.......... The user who made this edid should be lifetime banned. DuckZz (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This topic was discussed in depth and agreed by most if not all editors. You can find the arguments above.

Calling trolls all the editors who joined the discussion is extremly offensive and should bring you to lifetime ban. In summary: the few (former rebels) groups that joined YPG to form SDF basically abndoned their original agenda of fighting the government and are dedicated to fight ISIS and sometimes other rebel groups like in northern Aleppo.Paolowalter (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Here are the main discussion on this topic here And here confirmation that we need use yellow color for SDF it is that SDF comprises nearly the 40,000 fighters source and most of them are 30,000 units from the YPG.source plus YPJ and Jaysh Al Tuwar which joined to YPG. 46.201.223.212 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The SDF has no presence in Raqqa province. The SDF was created and operates in Hasaka. Liwa Thuwar Raqqa stated that they work independently in Raqqa province and that they have 6 000 members (i don't care if true or not) and Burkan Firat still exists in Raqqa province and they control Ayn Isa, Tell Abyad and Sarrin. Every rebel group from Raqqa said that they are a FSA group but not linked with other rebels in Aleppo. They deserv their own color, they are not Kurds, not Kurdish groups. Joint control is a must in Raqqa province, while i agree for Hasaka that we should not mark every village as under joint control, until we have 100% source. Raqqa should be changed ... i do not believe you actually did this. DuckZz (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Totholio I dleted your comment for using in appropriate language. we agreed on not usinh terrorists behaders or Assad filthy dogs in this page. please abide to rules Helmy1453 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz The edit was agreed by the majority of editors on the basis of the clashes between FSA factions in north Aleppo making it hard to distinguish between the various factions. Therefore we adapted the map so that the yellow icon represented the Kurds including the affiliated Syrian Democratic Forces. Euphrates Volcano is also a part of this SDF therefore the yellow-green icons in Aleppo and Raqqa governorates were also changed to yellow, which indicates either Kurdish or SDF control.Prohibited Area (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area You're making a big mistake. 60% of the discussion wasn't about Raqqa at all, you discussed about because no color was changed to dark green or smth like that, other arguments around 20% were about Hasaka, and .. somehow i do agree because the YPG is the main faction there and the color should stay yellow, until we find an Kurdish source where it says that "rebels" alone captured something. But Raqqa wasn't mentioned at all and that's a huge mistake. Rebels gained a lot since Kobane, and Thuwar Raqqa brigade stated and repeated itself that they have at least 6 000 soldiers now and are working seperately, and according to them, they captured Tell Abyad alone (hard to believe but still) also SOHR stated that Rebels captured the 93.brigade near Ayn Issa, and the town was captured by both Rebels and Kurds. Basically Raqqa province is full with various rebel groups, some of them are part of Burkan Firat, others arent, and this province is important for rebels more than Kurds, and it's crazy to mark everthing with yellow where under the description yellow stands for "Kurds" which is crazy. I hear a lot of complainment about this change, from twitter to facebook, from both opposition members and even Kurds. This map can't show the situation like this. JUST LOOK AT THIS, he's a reliable reporter and we use him as a source. What will happen is rebels capture Raqqa, it goes yellow too ? I mean what the hell. Change Raqqa province as it was, and it will be fine, because Hasaka itself is a big edit, and you have my approval because i find it OK, but changing 2 provinces is too big for 1 edit. I edit this map for 2 years now, and believe me i want only the best for this map. DuckZz (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't this dispute be solved by changing the color to something besides yellow or green. Maybe purple? It seems to me DuckZz's main concern is that yellow has been used on this map to represent the Kurds, so it's confusing to extend it to non-Kurdish groups. A color change would solve that. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We should avoid making the map more complicated than necessary. There are so many different revel groups and factions that we could have about 20 different colours but each time one is added things just become more confusing. All we need is

Government + Allies = Red, ISIS = Black, Kurds + Allies = Yellow, Main Rebels = Green

Having a separate colour for Nusra is pointless because they fight alongside numerous other rebel groups on almost every front. Trying to differentiate which towns are controlled solely by Kurds and which are controlled by Kurds and Rebels is an exercise in futility. Keep it simple. Conservative Thinker (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz I didn't realise that there were rebel forces operating in Aleppo and Raqqa not part of Euphrates Volcano. Why rebel groups are these? If you can provide a source for their control of partial control over towns in the respective governorates then I agree they should be changed to to mixed control.Prohibited Area (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area No you don't understand. The Raqqa province was edited for more than 11 months now, every village was backed with at least 2 sources (SOHR in most cases) and you can't really expect me now to find again 200 sources for every edit i want to make in Raqqa....SDF was created 1 month ago, and before that, everything in Raqqa is the same as today, you can't change everythinh because now there's 1 new coalition. To make this more understandable, you can now change every black spot to green, why ? Well because ISIS was an allie with rebels in 2014, but now working seperatel. Same logic. Or why don't you change every grey dot with green, because now Nusra is inside the Jaish Fateh coalition, a groups with 80% groups considered as rebels, and not Nusra. Same logic. Green represents rebels, it doesn't matter in what coalition, group or operation room they are, it's not like they changed their identity, i mean for Raqqa alone they said for themselvs that they are the true opposition groups, not like other "FSA" group which are allied with islamists in Idlib and Hama. They lime-yellow color was made just for Raqqa province, to solve that problem, and now you're are ignoring that by creating another problem that doesn't exist, it doesn't exist because it's already solved, by the joint icon, and 11 months of work. Now you're basically reverting 11 months of work with 1 edit. That's crazy and the biggest mistake for this map. Change back Raqqa province as it was, nobody is complaining about that but Hasaka, and i already told you that i don't see a problem with that, and you thought that by changing 1 province, you need to change everything else, which isn't true. DuckZz (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Most of the villages controlled by rebels and Kurds in Raqqa and Aleppo were a part of the Euphrates Volcano coalition, which is a part of the SDF. The icon for joint control was no longer necessary as the yellow icon now represents control by the Kurds or such affiliates: Syrian Democratic Forces. We shouldn't apply different standards to each governorate, therefore villages in Raqqa and Aleppo that were captured by rebels affiliated with birkan al furat should remain yellow.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area 99 % of the people who look at this map consider yellow to represent only Kurds/YPG. Which makes sense. I mean why don't you remove the grey color I ask you ? Al Nusra is inside Jaish Fatah coalition, together with 6 other groups which are considered as rebels, same logic. Your agrumeents don't make any sense, and you are considering your opinion to represent new standards that doesn't exist and make no sense. I ask you now, when Raqqa town is captured, how it will be marked, as yellow ? Wouldn't that be too funny ? Both Ayn Issa and Tell Abyad town are under local rebel control (Arab) with no YPG presence inside, no FSA presence also. You are actually also breaking the rules, why ? Well because the colors of this map represent only 1 side of the conflict, which means either 1 group is considered as 1 and it can fight against other group. Which means, government forces are always red, it doesn't matter if they fight against rebels, kurds, or if they are under some truce pact. Yellow represents Kurdish forces, not Kurds in general, why, well because you can then mark yellow towns which are under government control, but those soldiers are Kurds, like around Kweirs airport. Kurds are also Jabal Akrad, Jaish Thuwar, Division 16 etc, they are rebels and we mark them green. The SDF is a coalition of 20 groups, and not a group itself, you are breaking the rules if you mark them as a seperate color. If SDF captures something, we need to consider which group exactly did it, if not, mark it yellow. Raqqa province is finnished, with 11 months of work, if a village was captured by rebels, you can't mark it now under SDF yellow control, 4 months after just because you like it. This is not my opinino and it deservs it's own section.

Please sign your posts in future. Presumably this is DuckZz. First of all the key is there to show which colour represents which: the yellow is clearly labelled as Kurds (Including Affiliates, therefore that should rule out confusion to those using the map. I don't oppose removing the grey colour, I didn't partake in the discussion to add it in the first place, however I believed it was added because of its affiliations with al-Qaeda and it had been recently targeted by OIR. I don't see why the colour should be removed either, it adds more detail to the map which I think is useful and makes this map unique amongst others. Secondly I don't understand why marking Raqqa as yellow would be funny, presuming it had been captured by SDF which is majority Kurdish. Thirdly I don't understand your latter argument - red does not solely encompass the SAA it also includes loyalists forces such as the SDF as well as mercenaries amongst others, therefore making it similar to a coalition. Alike SDF, I don't know where the rule that you can't label a colour according to a coalition originates from either.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

DuckZzProhibited Area I agree with Conservative Thinker and ArchPope Sextus VI . Lets stop fighting and think for a second. WHAT IS THE POINT OF COLORS . what does a color represent ? it doesn't represent reliegon as red has shiaa, cristians and athiests in it, not ethinity not ideology as black and some green has same idelogy . what a color represt is a side in a war. a group fighting together controlling together coexisting together . if two groups shares the same battels and dosn't have major clashes and coexists peacfully they get the same color. now we have two major inconsistencies here in this mape that are due to editors political views and not facts. fisrt is having the yellow color for kurs and it's affiliation which makes it looks like any kurds. This color should change and the wording under it must be more clear that these are no longer kurds color. these are the group that fights againist Black basically and some green but they are in good terms with some other green and all red. DuckZz If you say AL-Rakka rebels are green let me ask you this did they have a single battle agaist red ? no . does Russia bombs them ? no does SAA air forces strike them ? no . Russain foriegn minister had clearly said he has no problem supporting them with air strikes . so these cannot be green any more. these are the new color. the second ionconstence in this map is Al-Nusra grey color. this is verry verry wrong. Al-nusra is a part of green has alway been . they have different idelogy so what . Hisbullah and SAA and iraninan and iraqi Millitia all has completely differnt ideologys and goals yet they all are red and they al must be red as long as they fight the same battles and coexist peacfully. Conclusion change yellow to some other color and change wordings to I don't know what maybe modereate rebels and kurds, US backed rebels and kurds I don't know whatever wording I am fine. but something represnts the team correctly and remove grey color make it green again. Helmy1453 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That Jabhat al Nusra should have green color is a valid point considering how al-Nusra and other islamists are interrelated in every aspect. However, SDF should retain its yellow color as there is no reason to change it to orange or pink! Moreover one can change the description of yellow to what suggested earlier in the talk page, something like SDF (including bla bla) or simply SDF. Roboskiye (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the color but some may argie is that red and green came from different flag colors. black is Islamic State falg color yellow is Kurds flag color. What is the SDF flag color I guess green like original FSA flag. anyway my point is I am trying to satisfy all sides . Helmy1453 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yellow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces#/media/File:Flag_of_Syrian_Democratic_Forces.svg Roboskiye (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I oppose changing Al-Nusra back to green because: 1) It adds more detail to the map, making it more unique. 2) In the international community al-Nusra is often separated from the rest of the rebel groups because of its affiliation to al-Qaeda there making it distinct and raising the argument it should have its own independent colour. 3) Nusra has often clashes with other rebel groups eg. Hazzm and SRF.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Roboskiye makes a very good point. The SDF's flag is yellow, so it only makes sense that their color on the map should be yellow. I'm definitely convinced that they should remain yellow on the map now. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

1) It adds more detail to the map, making it more unique, ectra details are confusing so it might be a negative pooint not posotive. 2)In the international community al-Nusra is often separated from the rest of the rebel groups because of its affiliation to al-Qaeda, That is ideology or political openion ect but not control on land, Hizbullah is a terrorsit organization for many countries YPG is for others all that doesn't mean any thing. simmilar groups fighting together coexisting peacfully is what it matters for the map. 3)Nusra has often clashes with other rebel groups eg. Hazzm and SRF, This is a valid point, but my openion is these clashes are not often and minorand doesn't justify seperate color. Helmy1453 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the better way is to let Al-Nusra and allies (ahrar,...) be grey in Idlib and around and make SDF be yellow-green around Raqqa. by the way world powers and neighbours are going to meet soon again in Newyork. We can wait and see the results of the summit and after that make a discussion about the colours. this way we are just repeating the ideas in each topic in talk page. and i'm agree to yellow-green for SDF till the discussion. 85.15.42.246 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

SDF in Raqqa: Here is images of ceremony for 30 ethnic Arabs who have joined YPG in northern Raqa. The SDF flag is officially flown at the ceremony:

A) http://www.hawarnews.com/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B6%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85-30-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%83%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B5%D9%81%D9%88/

B) http://hawarnews.com/%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%83%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B9-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D9%83%D9%84-%D8%B4/#prettyPhoto

Roboskiye (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh! I knew it! People are once again letting their personal opinions effect their judgement of facts. That "discussion" as you call it was so full of bias that it makes some of the heated arguements on the ISIL page look perfectly legitimate? And when did this discussion turn into an arguement over the color of Al Nusra on the map? That isn't what this discussion is about! Either someone is easily distracted or they're trying to distract everyone from the main point of this discussion! Can we please get back on track? If the reports of fighting between rebel factions over an alliance with the Kurds was what caused this bias and propaganda filled arguement, then why has no one mentioned the truce that was declared? Sources for this information are on several pages related to the subject. They state that all but one of the rebel groups agreed to abide by the truce. I would get them myself, but it seems that someone needs to watch this page to make sure that it stays true to the facts. As I said before, the "discussion" mentioned in this topic was full of bias. For one thing, the opinions were entirely one-sided, with an inclination towards supporting either Assad's viewpoints or the Kurds. There was even a "God bless the Kurds" comment near the conclusion. Such a comment has nothing to do with the discussion, contributes nothing to the arguement being made, and is a clear indication of the editor's personel view of the Kurds. The rest of the "discussion" was full of similar remarks, like "the government doesn't consider them allies", or some insult aimed at those who disagreed. This new section seems to have the exact same problems. The talk page is for discussing FACTS, not OPINIONS! We don't stray from the topics at hand, and we don't resort to mudslinging and petty insults! Can we please discuss this civilly? I apologize if this comment seems harsh or aggressive, but enough is enough! Now then, I'd like to point out that arguing these rebels shouldn't be green just because they haven't fought the government in Al-Raqqah is ridiculous, there are no governemnt forces anywhere near the joint Kurd-rebel positions in the province for them to fight. The government barely has any presence in Al-Raqqah Governate. As for Russia, we all know very well that Russia is bombing both the rebels and ISIL. That Russian plane that was shot down was nowhere near ISIL controlled territory. The only reason Russia isn't bombing the rebels is because they are with the Kurds, which the Russians seem be somewhat supportive of, though their primary focus is supporting government forces. The Russians will not risk bombing the Kurds just to kill the rebel factions of the coalition. That would be a foolish move that would jeopardize Russia's relationship with the Kurds and worsen the already unstable political situation. You're going to need better evidence than that to support your views. Anasaitis (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015

"YPG (and Affiliates" should be changed to "YPG (and Affiliates)" or even better to "YPG and allies" given that SDF is an alliance (as stated on their wikipedia page) and affiliate isn't that clear as to what it means. Formagella (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Schluppo (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

SDF are only a force of 2000 (If that) men mixed in with around 40,000 Kurds, just because someone makes a wiki page doesn't mean its factual. This map would be to complicated if we started adding all the various groups that make up Syrian Armys alliance, which many have forces much larger such as Hezbollah estimated 15000-20000 where is their colour? Or the IRGC 10000 where is their colour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.237.246 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

SDF comprises nearly the 40,000 fighters source and most of them are 30,000 units from the YPG.source plus YPJ Also SAA have 178,000 fighterssource Hezbollah (4,000-5,000 in Syria) and more then 1,000 Quds forces all these part of governmnent forces under the supervision of the Syrian army and they jointly with SAA hold areas and we use for them the red color. Since we use green for all the rebel groups such as: FSA(more 40,000), Islamic Front(40,000-60,000) and some others. With the exception of such as: Anhar Al Sham, Jund Al Aqsa and Junud Al Sham it is allies of Al Nusra.sourcesource for these groups we use grey color. FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just use "SDF" in the legend? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

SAA readvance south Aleppo

Government forces captured villages of Khalasah, Al Hamra, Zaytan, Qal`ajiyah and most part of Birnah.SOHRsourcesourcesource FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't we already have Khalasah and Al Hamra under SAA control anyway? This means that they were under rebel control until today, in contradiction to previous al-Masdar reports? Schluppo (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It was taken by rebels last week but not reported on much .86.135.154.68 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Schluppo Sometims situation may change too fast, and not always possible to keep track of all changes on the ground. FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Rebels take full control of Banes [2]. Also there is conflicting information about control of Birnah in two al-Masdar articles from today: 14 hours ago: SAA control 80 percent of village Burnah. [3]. 12 hours ago: Birnah is "islamist-held" [4]. I would propose to go with the latest article, that is, the article stating that Birnah is islamist-held. Schluppo (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree to keep Birnah contested for the time being and wait for a reliable source to cleary and unambigously report on the matter. Schluppo (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Al Sooda, Latakia, Green??

Al Sooda in Latakia is green but is a newly added village of last month and was added green with no source, every map I see pro opp and pro gov this is not shown as rebel held, it is a very small village, why would they bypass this small village on a main supply route to take a bigger town? Plus all the force in that area. Just making the case that it is highly unlikely this is rebel held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.239.182 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Map of this area available in the last month are somehow contradictory between themselves in this area.

Some maps report e.g. Turus and Bayt Ablak rebel controlled. Paolowalter (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The coordinate of Al Sooda are lat = "35.803", long = "35.981" that on wikimapia corresponds to [Karabacakli http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=35.803057&lon=35.980997&z=15&m=b&show=/33804611/Karabacakli]. The name is wrong the possession dubious, the village is tiny and of no particular relevance: I support removing it.Paolowalter (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter reports of Mughayriyah taken by SAA no confirmation yet .86.135.154.68 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Peto Lucem had this as rebel held on the 21st November https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUWHh0lWwAArlmz.jpg Conservative Thinker (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

SAA\NDF captured village Mughayriyah to north-east of villag Kafr Dulbah.source FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/673934729884901376 reports that SAA pulled out shortly after taking it.Paolowalter (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimapia is very unreliable (specially) in this area. I saw some recently added hills, switched to terrain mode and found a valley there! Whoever is adding these data is not very precise. I recommend detailed check before using wikimapia data. --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source said that the SAA advance in Latakia and captured Burj Al-Qasab, the strategic village of ‘Ikko, the small villages of Bouz Al-Khirbat, Beit Fares, and Al-Mughayriyah, Point 1154 and Point 1112 near the southern perimeter of Kabani.source FoXrEpOrTeR (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Red and Yellow icons for Oil/gas

There is a redundant shade of black in red and yellow icons for oil/gas which gives the wrong impression as if they are under siege by ISIS. Can someone correct this by changing the current icons to the respective monochromatic colors. Roboskiye (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a bit confusing. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

wanted to say that comment longtime ago, but feard overloading the admins who can do it. Helmy1453 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

YPG advance ahainst al Nusra/Ahrar al-Sham to north Aleppo

Clashes broke out between the Kurdish fighters and al-Nusra militants in the villages of Tanb, Kashatar and al-Malikiya north of Aleppo. Also Al Nusra/Ahrar al-Sham bombing the YPG-held village of Shawargha.source Sûriyeya (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This is pro-Kurdish source. can't be used as an evidence for kurdish gains. do you have pro-rebel or pro-government source ? Helmy1453 (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking that is right, but wasn't aranews considered 'relaible source' so that all news from it could be used?Paolowalter (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I never heard of aranews before. who considered it a 'relaible source' ? I know that per this page AL-Masdar and SOHR are the only confirmed reliable source no matter what side they report advances to . Helmy1453 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ARA News it is Kurdish pro-FSA and pro-YPG source but clear anti-SAA source. 178.94.222.47 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The source says SDF advances againist Al-Qaida in northern Alleoppo. So it considers all non SDF rebels Al-Qaida or Islamic State. They are clearly pro Kurds. and can't be used for kurdish advances. If pro rebel or pro-government states these advances I will accept it. otherwise I can brign pro Islamic sorces claiming they still control Tal-Abiad. Helmy1453 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area Why don't you just put the entire green on map to black based on RT claims that Russain airstrikes is tageting Islamic state in Idlib and Aleppo. your edits moving rrandom cities to gray is really really unacceptable. Helmy1453 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Helmy1453 I didn't realise this discussion was occuring. I would identify ARA News as a reliable source for editing, and has been used for Kurdish advances in the Hasakah region therefore I presumed it was also acceptable in any other region of Syria, especially when anti-Kurdish sources specifically do not state there losses to protect morale, the only reliable way of representing the war is to use biased sources as long as they are reliable. RT, isn't reliable.Prohibited Area (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War detailed map: Dating the map

Posted 12/9/2015. The map says "This page was last modified on 12 November 2015, at 07:28," whereas that is clearly not true, per JPG and "talk page" discussion. Is there not a better way of dating changes and identifying significant changes that have occurred than digging through the debates on the "talk page?" My suggestion is that the map page should be undated, and that in place of the date near the page bottom there should be a link to a "log page" summarizing significant changes, minimally with dates and description of change. For example, I had to dig deep to understand that the color changes south of Hasakah and in northwest Raqqah province are due, apparently, to a change in definitions, not a change in territorial control. --- Thanks, PNA PaulNalabama (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One can find the detailed editing history here. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 13:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mahin and Huwwarin

Here SOHR stats SAA bombed the two towns...http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/clashes-in-homs-and-lattakia-countrysides/ ...maybe they really said "around" them and this was a bad translation, or the two towns are back in IS hands? Not clear, need to read the original Arabic...Fab8405 (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

SOHR said that ISIS racaptured Mahin and Huwwarin.source Sûriyeya (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Gov. source also confirmed that the ISIS captured Mahin and claim that clashes still ongoing in Huwareen.Al Khabar Sûriyeya (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

IS-sources claim that IS took Jabal al-Hazzm (aka Hizam Hills) near Sadad, but we have to wait for reliable sources to report on the situation in this area. Schluppo (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell Ayyoub and Umm Zulaylah south-east of Kweiris Airbase

According to our map (and based on previous al-Masdar reports), SAA controls these two villages for several weeks. Of course we cannot use the folowing pro-SAA map as a source, but it shows current pro-government claims: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/675063271653810178. So I think it is appropriate to doubt whether SAA really controls these two villages, and in fact, anything south-east of Aqulah farms. We should look out for reliable information about actual control on these locations. Also I would like to note: al-Masdar is reporting a lot of fishy or at least ambigous information in the recent weeks. Schluppo (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'am telling this since weeks... there was 0 footage from Tell AyyoubTotholio (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Some times the SANA also said that it is ISIS-held towns. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Multiple pro-Government sources have these villages as ISIS held. I do consider al-Masdar reliable but they are not perfect (no source is) and the evidence is pretty clear that they have got this wrong. Conservative Thinker (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Seams like they should be changed to black for now.Rhocagil (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Goverment forces capture the ISIS town of Om Twaynah

Source [5] Mr.User200 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SAA captured villages of Umm Twaynah,Zanuba and al-Qatshyeh.sourcesource Sûriyeya (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A useful resource for maintaining this map.

I've made this kmz file. It's useful for both making sure that the cities and towns marked on this map are in the right place and also for identifying cities that we have overlooked. I don't know Arabic so it's hard for me to find sources on these cities but it might be useful for someone else. Some of these cities are really obviously under one groups control because all of the surrounding cities for a very long way are controlled by that group. Anyways, I hope you guys find it useful. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, also, it updates automatically when the png file is updated. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am an arabic speaker. If you need help finding any source or anything i am glad to help you. I can't check your file now as in my work they block dropbox but i will see it over the weekend Helmy1453 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, one thing that I've noticed is that the city of Anadan appears to absent from the map. I've done some research, and based on this webpage it seems that it is rebel held. I know that there have been reports of Anadan being a ghost town, but based on this webpage there are definitely people still living there. It's pretty recent too. The article's a bit ambiguous about whether Anadan is completely controlled by rebels, though, and I'm also not sure if it's of a high enough quality to be used as a source and I was wondering if there are some higher quality articles in Arabic on the subject. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

ArchPope Sextus VI just plugging Anadan in arbic numerous news comes about firce russina airstrikes on Anadan that indicates a preparation for a major attack on this area in the next few days. 1 This source though is a Govermental syrain source stating that Anadan is rebel held and that the syrian airforces are sticking it destoing millions of terrorists in area bala bla bla. So ya Arabic sources both sides states it as green for now, untill we see what that comming attack will lead to. Helmy1453 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Government force advance to south of Aleppo

SAA captured the villages of Abu Ruwayl, Sa'ibiyah,Murayqis,Dulamah,Qurayhah,Al Sahibiya.sourcesourcesourcesource Sûriyeya (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again we already had Sa'ibiyah under SAA control since several weeks but in fact SAA took it only today. Schluppo (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Schluppo I researching the history of editing and earlier Sa'ibiyah was marked as under SAA without any sources. Sûriyeya (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

SAA also recaptured Banes.sourceSOHR Sûriyeya (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Birhan under SAA.sourcesourcesourceSOHR Sûriyeya (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Latakias Border with Turkey in control of The Syrian Arab Army.

The situation in Latakia North along the border has been fully controlled by the SAA, lack of updates over the last three weeks means there is now 7-10 strategic hilltops and around 20 towns and villages along this route that are not shown in Syrian Armys control,,Not even on the map, I bet if it were some Al queda FSA group though it would be updated instantly. Al masdar has been active in stating most of these villages over the last 3 weeks, why has latakia not been updated??? just blanks where the SAA have been advancing??? and This map just looks the same for the last year in Latakia area even though in the last 3 weeks over 170 km squared captured here:

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1768499

https://www.facebook.com/syriareport2/photos/a.182874025237056.1073741828.180341428823649/427512634106526/?type=3&theater

http://sana.sy/en/?p=63906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.111 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I and others update quite regularly the map relying mostly on Al Masdar. In some cases it is difficult to locate the positions of hills and villages, in other I did not mind changing small hills close to toher positions in order not to clutter the map. The sources you quote are heavily biased pro-government and cannot be used. If you have reliable sources reporting change of control not recorded on the map please post them here.Paolowalter (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Marj as sultan

Several posting e.g. [6] and [twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/676346089642065920 islamicworld ] point to the base of Marj as Sultan in East Ghouta fully taken by SAA. I have seen some news also SOHR reports SAA advance [www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/violent-clashes-in-marj-al-sultan-airport-in-the-eastern-ghouta-and-casualties-in-the-airstrikes-on-harasta-and-clashes-in-the-northern-countryside-of-latakia/ SOHR]. It is time to turn red the north military airport and enlarge the government controlled area on the detailed map. Opinions?Paolowalter (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Many pro-gov sources also are posting about this.[7].Lists129 (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Lists129Paolowalter Opp.source said that the SAA captured over town of Marj Sultan in eastern Ghouta, after fierce clashes against the Syrian rebels.source Sûriyeya (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Opp.source confirmed SAA recaptured the town Marj al Sultan.StepAgency SY 46.201.162.214 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: SAA managed to control the town Marj Sultan and its airport amid unconfirmed reports from most of the fighters withdrew from the town and the airport.SOHRSOHR 46.201.162.214 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

AlMasdar contradicts claims that SAA fully took control of whole the town and the northern base. I am a bit puzzled.Paolowalter (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter SAA advance in Eastern Ghouta and captured the town of Marj al Sultan and Marj al-Sultan air base in the eastern suburb of Damascus known as Eastern Ghouta, and which was held by rebels for the past three years.sourcesourcesourcesource 46.201.162.214 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Northern Hammah

I see Pro-oppositon sources stating control over Masasinah, Mahruqah and Hissa. and Pro-red sources claiming that SAA regained control over all points lost. All my sources are in arabic 1 23. but keep and eye on these three villages, if any news come up. Helmy1453 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)