Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Amateur maps.

In 3 days time with nothing but an amateur map as a source, 16 red villages, 4 red villages, 6 red villages, 9 red villages, 5 red bases, 1 red base, 6 red bases, 2 red bases, 4 red bases, Khirbat al Atrah to red (which is a joke - to show any SAA-held village in NW Aleppo as NOT besieged), Hawsh Haju to red. How many of those actually add anything of consequence to the map? Are any corroborated by any other source? It's just a piling on of inconsequential red clutter, in most cases*.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

well it does provide a more accurate view of what sides hold villages and a large part of the population centers. If small IS held dessert villages are marked on the map, why cannot larger villages in Latakia and other areas also be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.156.148 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Because before the tiny IS villages our map didn't show that IS indeed held the territory, though it was common knowledge that it was. Adding villages in Latakia doesn't do anything but add more of the color red, since we already know and show Latakia as SAA held (NE section excluded).

Boredwhytekid We use pro opposition maps to show army success. So that dont need each time start one and the same discussion. Also on this map clearly indicated names of all military installations that I added. After all, we are also use the pro government maps to show the success of the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I cant understand why when we use pro-government maps to show the success of the rebels, no one is objection. But as soon as we use pro-opposition maps to show success army then some one of editors immediately begin objections saying that need another confirmations from other sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And this edit which I was made was need to show more detaled situation in this areas. We earlier also for improve on map add without specifying sources the several villages and military objects under control by rebels in Idlib and Aleppo province. And we all agreed with this and there were no objections. But when for improve on map and on the basis of data from pro-opposition map I added some villages and military facilities that are under the control of the army as it caused a protest. So I not violated the rule of edit because as we all agreed to use pro-government maps to show the success of the rebels and pro-opposition maps to show the success of army. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to say as a neutral every time I suggest a change, regime or rebel related, I get opposed. I mean it took me days to convince some editors to change Khazzanat to green, Bir Qasab to black and southern Aleppo villages to red. If an editor provides sufficient proof using a source that we have always used to show the opposite side's gains, then so be it. SOHR for regime (and most rebel) advances, Al Masdar for rebel (and some regime) advances, DeSyraCuse and ArchiCivilians for regime advances and Peto Lucem for rebel advances. There is no perfectly 100% accurate neutral source concerning both sides (except maybe AL-Monitor and Elijah). Wikipedia is for facts not opinions/fantasies. Hanibal911 with my help added rebel and regime bases yet got opposed by supporters of both sides. He did a fair job. We added 4 rebel bases in Southern Idlib/Aleppo and added 4 regime bases in Rif Dimashq. We also added some villages in E-Idlib after Boredwhytekid correctly suggested that we do. Yet every time someone is not satisfied. The sites we added exist so where is the problem? Of course "spamming" an area with towns/farms is not helpful but still military sites get a priority because they are less numerous. Sorry for the long post but all I wanted to say to some editors here was stay factual and don't be biased. It doesn't help the map. Adding something that exists isn't lying but also spamming doesn't help. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally i have no problem with the changes because the map from desyracuse is neutral in my opinion and doesn't favor any side. Some other things to bother me, for example

Hanibal911 that rural red presence icon north of Zabadani is just ridiculous and has no reason to be there (SAA has presence there but not in that way), the idea is not to fill every empty spot on the map with useless edits, more of them are in the Qalamun region (Umm Ruman, Army Fuel Base, Air Defense Base) and Daraa province (Tall Arid, Tall Qayta and those things south of Dili ...).

Also i don't like the thing that you favor Al Nusra when doing edits, we did agree not to mark a place under their control unless there aren't other groups inside the same article. DuckZz (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz You cannot expect us to have an equal number of rebel and regime bases. That doesn't make sense! Of course the SAA holds more bases than the rebels that's what non-traditional warfare is about. Umm Rumman was a rebel held site that the SAA retook.. we delete it? Just cause the SAA now controls it? I'm sorry but your opinion is a biased one. Spamming is bad but also not having any military sites in the area is just as bad. Loses all strategic importance. ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that desyracuse might be blindly copying military sites from wikimapia and that some of these bases might have been destroyed by the rebels... Tradedia^talk 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with you Tradedia that we should not add objects simply by using the data from the Wikimapia but now a source clearly indicate the name of the military objects. So if there is evidence that these bases destroyed then I will remove them immediately. As many editors may have noticed that I displayed on the map achievement for all parties because I just want that would our map showed a more detailed of the situation. But me offensively when other editors accuse me of bias and said that my edits not correct even though I always tried to be a neutral editor. I was accused in the fact that I'm editing in favor of the army and also that I'm editing in favor of ISIS or rebels but I just wish that the card has been more correct. Also dear editor DuckZz I see you clearly support the rebels and basically your edits in favor of rebels so if you just do not like my changes when I edit are not in favor of the rebels which you are support that is your own business but dont need to declare that my edits not well founded. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that desyracuse's is the ONLY map (from/for any side) that shows EVERY minute little town and village. And so long as desyracuse is considered both reliable and pro-op, people can just pull up his map, zoom into any government held part of the country, and add hundreds of completely irrelevant sites "because a pro-op source shows it SAA held." Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Khirbet al Atrah

This location was recently added to the map as an SAA-held town SW of Nubl/Zahraa, but looking on wikimapia it doesn't exist. The area labelled as it is literally a barren patch of ground [1]. I propose we remove it. Nhauer (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess it´s valued as a strategic hill and there for marked. (Like the strategic hill Tall Shair next to the west of Kobane) Rhocagil (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not added: it has always been there as a green dot. I changed it to red based on some maps I listed in the edit summary retaining the coordinates. Now I found a little better coordinate on wikimapia and I'll change them. Paolowalter (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

De-Syracuse

Boredwhytekid,Hanibal911,Alhanuty,ChrissCh94,DuckZzI have rasied this issue that De-Syracuse is not a pro-opp source,it is a neutral source who reports on everything that happens in Syria,reliable like Jousha Landisuses this source for his reports.here,here,here,here. Lindi29 (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes before, i belived that he supported rebel gains but now i just think he's trying to remain somehow neutral when writing about events on both sides (rebel and government). He was among the individuals who clearly said about the failed Al Nusra attacks on Zahra and Nubl, even before SOHR.

He isn't stupid, he wants to have both rebel and regime viewers and followers so he will use every source for his maps, both from opposition and government activits. My suggestion is, when doing edits, his map is a good indication but canot be used as a single or only source, there needs to be section on this talkpage when there's no other source so other editors can write their approval. DuckZz (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 deSyracuse it is pro opposition source but among the other opposition sources it is less biased. Also Jushua Lendis not said that this map showed a real situation in Syria. He simply used this map to show rough balance of power in Syria. Also deSyracuse several times jointly make maps in cooperation with another biased antigovernment source Archicivilians.herehere And the fact that this is the pro opposition source was have long been proven. I also propose to express their opinions and other editors.PaolowalterDaki122XJ-0461 v2EkoGraf Hanibal911 (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Desyracuse will state the source for his changes in certain points on the map. Many times, he has cited pro-opp sources of opposition activists as sources for changes on his map. This would make his information unreliable for absolute use here on Wikipedia [the rights given to a reliable source], therefore, he should be considered a pro-opp sources. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think that we could use it for add a towns or villages that are in the Raqqa province because we know that this province is completely under control of ISIS and in the Deir ez Zor province which on 95% controlled by ISIS and add some towns and villages which under control of the Kurds. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I also think that we could use this source to add some towns and villages in the Idlib province most of which under the control of anti-government forces. But from many reliable sources, we know that in this province the majority areas controlled Al Nusra and their allies who fought together against moderate insurgents. So we can add these villages if we can accurately determine who controls them Al Nusra or moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that desyracuse build his map on information he collect from various media exactly as we do. We should not assume he has sources on the ground.

The modifications made supported by his map were also supported by other source [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=641737354&oldid=641725859] (and now also by [2]) or by good sense [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=641740190&oldid=641737354]. Paolowalter (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes his/her maps are MOSTLY neutral but the fact that she/he does maps with Archicivilians raises some doubts about the pro-opp stance. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should take unannotated maps as suggestions at best. To me it is a serious mistake to take unannotated maps at face value. As has been previously shown, even a location on a map that was recently accurate could easily have changed since that part of the map was edited. In addition to accidental or intended errors. I'm not trying to say that we should ignore unannotated maps. Just that they need confirmation from other sources. (No, other unannotated maps is not enough, in my view.)

However Desyracuse does produce interactive maps annotated by place and date. As well, I would consider Desyracuse a neutral source, particularly because of his academic approach. He never makes the unrealistic claim that his maps are 100% accurate (impossible), and he never uses biased language. The fact that he sometimes cooperates with archicivilians probably helps archicivilians produce better maps more than anything else. In any case, that is what academics tend to do.

My 2 cents André437 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As well, anyone who considers Joshua Landis a reliable source has probably never seen one of his videos. Either he has a very shallow knowledge of the conflict in Syria, or he is subtly pro-regime. Most editors on this page are probably better informed. I suspect that he has no direct contacts in Syria, other than maybe the regime. André437 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid,Hanibal911,Alhanuty,ChrissCh94,DuckZz,André437,Paolowalter,XJ-0461 v2,EkoGraf,Rhocagil I see that editors are pro and against de-syracuse source and i think we should reach a consensus and vote? What do you think? Lindi29 (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-op, pro-gov't, doesn't really matter to me - amateur maps should not be used as lone sources. without consensus each and every time** Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah

There are some inconsistencies on the map next to Hasakah. The town Tall Majdan was added just outside the detailed map with coordinates 36.533,40.6. But Tall Majdan appears also on the on the detailed map. From Wikimapia the right coordinates are [3]. After correction, the dot ends up on the detiled map (as you can see now) in a black (ISIS controlled) area. Logically it should be removed. On the same basis the village Rafrar, taken by SAA following http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/archives/236 and https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/554776902876299264 it is located [4] in a red area on the controlled map. Should the Tall Majdan black dot removed?Paolowalter (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

El Mahash oil field

Hey guys how you think we can add on the map El Mahash oil field which locatedto east from the army base 137th Armoured Brigade map in area which under control by army using pro-government map here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree.We should also add the bordast tower to which is contested. Lindi29 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jabal al-Zawiya

Clashes between Al Nusra and SRF in Jabal al-Zawiya.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

SOHR reports the same, the say "wanted people" what could refer to ex-SRF members. DuckZz (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not surprising. I doubt that Nusra has as much control in Idlib as it likes to project. As well, SRF leader Malouf has made recent statements about frequently visiting Idlib, and preparing his return in force.

Note that the new moderate Shamiya group based in Aleppo now has components in Latakia, which suggests a presence in northern Idlib. It will be interesting to see how all this evolves.

contradiction in map

Why in the north-east of the country where YPG and SAA/NDF have truce to hold towns is it painted Yellow-Red, but around Aleppo and Idlib where both JAN and non-JAN rebels have truce to hold towns, these towns are not painted Green-Grey. They are painted only Green. This is a major problem with the map. It still acts as if JAN is in a united rebellion with these groups. They do have a truce and common enemy and are working together, but more and more we see JAN is its own group that is very dangerous to the rebellion and the people of Syria. Where JAN is not located the towns should be pure green. But where they are located it should be Grey-Green to show a truce, were rebel groups have sold out revolutions spirit to work with extreme fanatics. Khan Shaykun (in Idlib province) is one of the few places on map where this has been successfully done. That example should be in many other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.158.99 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also a small green dot should be added to Kobane- to show rebel FSA presence in Kobane to support YPG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.158.99 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, i see the propagadna is working really well on both sides. You act like you came here and saw this map 2 days ago but we know that is not the case. Every month or so the same editor (probably you) suggest the same idea over and over again just to ruin the map and make it more complicated to edit. Jabhat Al Nusra fighters are present in 60% of the areas under anti-government control. Same goes for the Islamic front, FSA and other rebel groups. Applying this rule will mean to change the entire map completely. DuckZz (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not an editor, just someone following events and chiming in here in the comments. and, Yes, I believe the map should be changed completely to reflect the situation more accurately- it should reflect a truce between blocs of groups that are very different ideologically, very different in who arms them, very different in goals, different tactics. Look at the towns of Nubl and Zahraa under siege. The circle around them is green. If you are a random viewer you would think, oh so the islamic front and fsa are sieging them.. but , reality check, those sieges are almost completely launched by JAN. Also you did not respond to my initial question: Why in the north-east of the country where YPG and SAA/NDF have truce to hold towns is it painted Yellow-Red, but around Aleppo and Idlib where both JAN and non-JAN rebels have truce to hold towns, these towns are not painted Green-Grey? This is a major contradiction of this map- that becomes more and more crystalized as time passes and JAN splits from the rebel groups that still are seen as palatable by certain state actors. Green should be for rebel groups that have not seized huge parts of rebel areas to run as their own caliphate and have not been blacklisted from working with all state actors. Grey , for JAN and its allies, represents a group that sometimes works with other more "palatable" groups but is obviously embarking on a much more extreme path.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.24.193 (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Thayyem field

There is a report from IavnSidorenko than IS pulled back from Al-Thayyem field, that are under control of local figthers allied with SAA. Is it OK to turn it red?Paolowalter (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I know IvanSidorenko supposed to be neutral source, but i sounds a little to good to be true (???). Since i don´t speak arabic I have no idea what the man in the clip says. Rhocagil (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There are videos as well of the capture. here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlzfAwP-9WQ&feature=youtu.be and here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV4CXRqVohw&feature=youtu.bevideos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.4.182 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

As a native Arabic speaker I could easily translate it: he basically said that the tribal forces have captured the Thayyem oil field. But this is video evidence that cannot be used to make changes. I don't know about other sources, but many news outlets (mostly pro-regime) reported it. We should wait for a more neutral source to show up. I believe that ISIS has indeed retreated since this coincided with its retreat from a couple of neighborhoods a few days ago. But we should wait for more sources. ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Thayyem field should be made contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.158.99 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 thanks for the translation! Anyway it´s interesting and we should keep our eyes open for more sources. Rhocagil (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar has also declared the field under tribal fighter control [most likely loyalists]. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/deir-ezzor-complete-field-report-battle-zone/ XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by Elijah J Magnier https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/555607509780946946/photo/1 Fab8405 (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tall Malid

Any source showing this village under rebel control ? A friend from Alepo said that ISIS bombs them in Mare' from this high ground village. DuckZz (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz I only found report from the pro government source of 20 December in which states that "Coalition Jets" hits Islamic Front in Tall Malid in northern Aleppo countryside.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tall Salmu

On our map a village Tall Salmu noted as under control by moderate rebels. But biased pro opposition source reported that today this village was captured of Al Nusra.here So either this village was contested between the army and Al Nusra then we must noted this village as contested between army and Al Nusra or if the Al Nusra took it from moderate insurgents we need marked him as under control by Al Nusra. But more likely it is that the village should be noted as contested between the Syrian troops and Al Nusra. Because source said that this village it is the gate of Abu ad-Duhur Military Airbase. So I ask of other editors express their opinions. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Judging from the source it seems that the claim is that JAN took it from SAA. The source is strongly pro-opp biased and therefore it cannot be used to register opposition advance. Just let's look for additional info fro other sources.Paolowalter (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea i saw that tweet too but the actual first reports were published few days ago on opposition channels, i have read some on facebook (Idlib news channel etc). All of them said that Rebels (not mentioning any group) "have put Tall Salmu under their control". Before this, i know that government forces managed to break some rebel lines to the north of the airport (last year) and that Tall Salmu (what is actually a hill and not really a village) came under heavy SAF attack, dozens of rebel casulties.

So I belive now they just reappeared on this strategic hill. Nothing should be changed. DuckZz (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tall Salmu it is not hill it is a village. And if pro opposition source said that Al Nusra captured this village it means that previously it village was not under their control so we need data from a reliable source who can confirm that the village would really captured or we have to mark it as contested or controlled by Al Nusra. Because pro opposition source said that Al Nusra captured this village but not moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, my opinion we should note this village under the control of Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that Tell means hill and Tall describes a higher ground with something on it, not sure but nevermind, i know it's a village but located on high ground (where everything else around Abu Duhur is flat) thats why it's important.

Previously JAN came from Idlib (After Marat Numan offensive) to Abu Duhur town and now they are on Tall Salmu, probably preparing for the next assault while rebels are around the airport aswell waiting. I don't see the logic puting this place under JAN control as we already said that their presence outside Idlib province is negligible and only present on frontlines (for example Alepo). If the airport falls, JAN will pull back to Idlib or go somewere else wherever their are needed.

You can change Tall Salmu to grey as long as the airport stays in government hands . DuckZz (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell does not always mean that this is hill. Here is look on map it is not hill it is a village.Tall Salmu al-Shamali Hanibal911 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

JAN is not "negligible and only present on front lines" as the above poster DuckZz claims. See the new neutral Al-Monitor report on rising role of JAN around Aleppo and its countryside. Also the tense truce that JAN has with others in the area. I would suggest, like others have on multiple occasions, putting many of the greens in Idlib and Aleppo countryside to Green with a Grey circle inside. This shows a truce between these groups as working together in the area. Similar to the yellow-red truce in the north-east of the country. It is important because it shows the JAN has really become a separate group across this zone. See here: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/01/syria-nusra-fighters-no-alternatives.html

It states referring to Aleppo, the Aleppo countryside and the road leading from TUrksih border/Azaz to Aleppo: "Jabhat al-Nusra is stronger in some areas of the city than others, and has set up more checkpoints on the road from the Turkish border since Al-Monitor’s last visit in late October. The area is nevertheless still mostly under the control of the more moderate Jabhat Shamiya, a group recently formed on the basis of the Islamic Front that fights alongside Jabhat al-Nusra on several fronts but is not officially aligned with it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.158.99 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Here pro opposition source said that Al Nusra released pictures for their fighters in the outskirts of Abu Ad Duhuhur Airbase after they took village TallSalmu.Archicivilians and that according to Activists: Rebels now controlling all the outskirts of Abu Ad Duhuhur Airbase after JAN took control of village Tall Salmu yesterday.Archicivilians So this is clearly confirm by the fact that the village was under the control of the army until it was captured by Al Nusra (13 January only according to data from pro opposition sources) and at the moment we have no evidence that the village was completely captured Al Nusra. So if we not have data from a reliable source which confirm that village was captured Al Nusra we need noted this village as contested between Syrian troops and Al Nusra. And it will be correct because we cant use data from a pro-opposition sources to display of Al Nusra success in the fight against the army. So I beg express their opinions other editors Paolowalter Lindi29 EkoGraf Alhanuty Boredwhytekid XJ-0461 v2 Daki122 DuckZz ChrissCh94 Hanibal911 (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal991 I agree with you.We must not forget that these so called activists also reported the capture of Nubol(or to be exact half the city of Nubol) they also reported that the rebels captured Tel-Bazzaq(Qunetra) but it also turned out to be fake.To note also that Abo-al-Duhur airport is operational and that means that there must be a safe zone around the airport established by the Army.Daki122 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 The problem with you is that you obviously don't understand English really well, everything what you said in your post above is the same thing i said in my last post. The airport is besieged, Tall Salmu was not in rebel hands due to SAF heavy airstrikes on that location, and that lasted for few days, the situation changes every 5 days because rebels, or JAN in this case, are not able to stay on Tall Salmu for a long time beucase that place is a strategic location that overlooks the airport. The SAA knows that and bombs Tall Salmu on daily basic. Do you understand it now ? I don't care for the color, that's not what i wanted to discuss. DuckZz (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hanibal911 beacause JAN are going in a big offensive to capture not only the air base but nubl and al-zahraa.Daki122 Ofc this is a pro-opp source but we dont use them to show advances against the regime,we only agree on some that are really trustworthy,yes they said they captured nubl and al-zahraa but we first disscus it that is true and to verify if that true we rely on others reliable sources who are neutral.Regard Lindi29 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

From [5] Tall Salmo is controlled by SAA; it must go red with gray ring on the south.87.5.44.175 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Firstly, I very well know English. Secondly, you many talk but you dont provide evidence of your words. At the moment, we have data from opposition sources which reported that this village under control of Al Nusra Archicivilians but we also have a data from a pro government source Al Masdar which reported that this village is still under control of army. So in this case, the best solution will be to noted the village as a contested between Syrian troops and Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is an unreliable source,and is a well known pro-regime source,also we can never use a regime source to show a regime advance in Tal Salmu,there is reports of Air raids in the area near by. http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/the-government-warplanes-attack-several-regions-in-aleppo-and-idlib/ Alhanuty (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alhanuty But we also can not use data from the opposition sources to show the success of the rebels and Al Nusra. But on our map this village was mistakenly marked as under control by moderate rebels although only a few days ago right away two opposition sources said that he was captured by Al Nusra only 13 January but also we have a data from pro government source which said that the city is still under the control of the army. Therefore, until we get confirmation from a reliable source that the village under the control of Al Nusra I noted it as contested between the army and Al Nusra. And SOHR just said that Syrian air force implemented the airstrikes on some areas in villages and towns in the countryside of Abu al- Dohur.SOHR But SOHR not confirmed that Al Nusra now control a village of Tall Salmu. So need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Demise of Green Opposition by 2015.

With the current tide of events a complete disband of FSA remain a option on the table. What will be the way to handle this scenario? Change colors and battle map distribution?, maybe at the very end of this year, the map will show a divided Syria between ISIS and the Regime. More rummors comes from a massive FSA disband in the Southern Front, with many men joining ISIS in the East. The same in Qalamoun Region, meanwhile all Kurdish Positions look in harms way with ISIS closing in.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

First: this is not a place for predictions.

Second: ISIS will never be able to overrun all Kurdish and Rebel positions in Northern Syria, they are already on defensive. SAA+NDF, while on offensive, are failing to actually deliver a crushing blow to the rebels, and are actually losing on some fronts. The opposition will not end in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.123.194 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking the land grab ISIS made on FSA on the East, and comparing the 2013 map with the 2014 its clear that the war is close for over for the FSA. At least if the tide continous this way, ISIS could take on Afrin after beating the FSA on the East of Afrin, since i doubt any real ISIS breakthrough in Aleppo, Too many SAA, FSA formations deployed in Urban Area, a possible sweep through North Aleppo city remain an option for ISIS strategists. For the SAA most of their advances have stalled thats true, but they continue having more or the same terrain from mid 2014, while the FSA its being eaten from inside by Hardcore Islamist, dont forget massive deflections to ISIS and JAN. Cheers for your lost cause 191.251.123.194.! 200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In 2010, the entire map was red. Now, not even half the map is red. Using your logic, we should discuss possible scenarios for the complete downfall of the regime :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.91.68 (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The uprising begun on 2011, in 2010 there where no armed opposition, ISIS, JAN. If we use YOUR logic the map will have noting to do with the conflict. A all red map would be the political map of Syria before the conflict200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Talbiseh

Pro opposition source said that clashes break out between Syrian Army and opposition fighters in city Talbiseh in Homs countryside.DocumentSyDocumentSy So that guys maybe some one of editors to have other data about situation in this city. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Fighting in this town has been reported several times in the recent past. I guess from SOHR. See also [6] (pro-opp). It is maybe time to turn it into contested.Paolowalter (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But also earlier 23 December pro opposition source reported that clashes took place between FSA and regime troops in the outskirts of the city of Talbiseh.Revolutionary Forces of Syrian Media Office Hanibal911 (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Talbiseh is a rebel stronghold. It is not contested. Just south of the city there is the Malouk army complex from which army troops attack the southern border of the city. This has been going on for months, but the rebels are holding up well... so the city is not contested & the clashes can still be reported routinely for months in the future along the same pattern. No evidence that army troops can do anything other than hit & run attacks. The red semi-circle is enough for now. Tradedia^talk 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you know that?Paolowalter

See [7].

Paolowalter (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC) If any, it confirms fighting inside the city.Paolowalter (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/homs-syrian-army-makes-swift-gains-north/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.17.25 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Idlib

I haven't seen this map in two weeks, and when I looked today I was rather surprised to see the addition of six red towns north of Idlib city (these are: Kafr Jalis, Ad Duwayr, one without a name, Ayn Shib, An Ghafer and Tan 'Isa). I've checked this talk-page, but there has been no mention of a government offensive on this area. I've checked the news ... no mention of any SAA offensive in this area. Recently, Idlib city was raided by Islamist rebels, coming from surrounding towns. And now, all of the sudden, those towns are marked as SAA held? Without a source? Every map you check - even SyrianPerspective - shows those area's as rebel controlled (some FSA, some Jabhat al-Nusra). So, why are those six towns suddenly red or contested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you one of those anonymous editors who constantly criticize the changes made in favor of the Syrian army. Although you are and some other anonymous editors like you can not provide any useful data for this map. About the situation in the Iblib province you are just duplicat data from report in the pro opposition source.Archicivilians Nevertheless, as I wrote earlier I think that the village An Ghafer more likely under control of moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well then change Al Ghafer, because we already had a section on this talk page where you suggested that Al Ghafer should be changed, and nobody complained. DuckZz (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just keep an eye on it as pro gov sources report attacks on Kafr Takharim and Almanaz north of Al Ghafer .Pyphon (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon

Al Waer

Apparetnly in Al Waer a truce was estblished few days ago [8]. It should be marked so on the map.Paolowalter (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)ú

It is a 24 hour ceasefire, in this time they will go to the table and hopefully agree on everything.

Syrian rebels and government reach a truce in besieged area. But so far only to the ten days.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The source SOHR confirms a truce process non a simple ceasefire. We put it on truce and wait for further news.Paolowalter (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference between a "truce" and a "ceasefire" ? .. only that a "truce" normally lasts for an indefinite period. So no point changing the status for something lasting only 10 days. There have been many such cease-fires all over Syria. Which usually don't last as long as intended.

But we should watch for a possible real truce. André437 (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Green-Grey needs to be debated here, for accuracy

Can anyone explain why khan shaykhun is the only city on the entire map that has a green dot with a grey circle within it? THis indicates a peaceful coexistence between JAN & allies (backed by no foreign states) with FSA&islamist forces that are openly backed by foreign states. That grey/green truce should be in many,many more towns that are now only showed as green. Its more and more clear that JAN should not fall under green. They are backed by no foreign states, they are the only rebel group to create their own break away caliphate, they do have truce and cooperation but they are also clearly on a very different path than the other "more palatable" rebel groups. They are launching their own raids into Lebanon. For this map to be accurate,which i think everyone wants, this needs to be seriously debated here.

My suggestion is to start gathering an evidence supported list of all locations where JAN is heavily present in rebel areas and then include within all these green dots a grey circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.24.193 (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you are kidding, JAN was made by qatari/saudi warmongers and sent to Syrian in 2012 by IS.

ok, so maybe they were, but I think its pretty clear that the NATO $ today is not going to them, its going to these more "palatable" groups and this is another source of the divisions between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.115 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My take on things :

1) The so-called caliphate of JaN is yet to be declared, since they don't yet have enough contiguous control. There are too many mostly moderate rebel groups, which still control most of the larger rebel held cities, such as Khan Shaykhun. A "caliphate" of discontiguous rural villages would never be taken seriously.

2) As a consequence of (1), JaN is usually in a truce with other rebels. So they let other groups control areas where they aren't a preponderate majority. Such as Khan Shaykhun. They might control a few checkpoints around the city, but not the city itself. (I could be mistaken.)

3) If the rumours are correct, JaN was just subsidized another 12M euros by Qatar to release 2 italian aide workers they had kidnapped. This sort of revenue surpasses the foreign assistance for the moderate rebels.

4) So I would favour only showing locations under JaN control where they control to the exclusion of other groups. This would be mostly villages, even though they are present, in relatively small numbers, in most rebel-controlled towns and cities. (This could include neighbourhoods of towns, but we rarely have info about that.) André437 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Talbiseh (again)

From [9] and [10] fighting in Talbiseh, Al-Mashrafeh, Al-Madrajeh, Al-Ghajjar, Al-Farhaaniyyeh, Al-Sina’ayyeh, Gharnaata, ‘Ayn Hussein Al-Jnoubi and Al-Zafrana. Some updatng of the map is necessary.79.10.133.67 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your articles cite regime sources indicating air attacks on Talbiseh, and confirming rebel (Nusra and FSA) control. The reports of fighting in/near the villages mentioned need to be clarified, as well as confirmed by neutral or pro-opposition forces.

Note that regime sources have a habit of exaggerating Nusra presence. (One black flag, and it is only al-Nusra.) As well, they frequently claim advances that never happened. André437 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ariha

Lindi29Pro government source said that in northwestern Idlib, the Syrian Arab Army’s 11th Tank Division warded off a number of attacks by the militants from the Islamic Front (Jabhat Al-Islamiyya) at the village of Ariha in Jabal Al-Zawiyyeh. According to a military source, 14 Islamic Front militants were killed in the clashes at Ariha. But source not said about clashes in the city of Ariha! Also Ariha it is not village and city of Ariha not located in Jabal az-Zawiya. And for editing the major towms to contested we need more information. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Also source said that clashes at Ariha but not said that clashes in Ariha. So if you not have more data which confirm that was clashes in the city of Ariha we need again mark Ariha under control by army. Also no one from reliable sources including SOHR not reported about clashes in the city of Ariha. Probably this source wanted say that clashes somewhere in the countryside near of the city but not inside city of Ariha. So we need more data before to mark the city as contested. But if you dont have another data that the clashes inside city, you are should noted Ariha under control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

So I beg express their opinions other editors PaolowalterEkoGrafAlhanuty BoredwhytekidXJ-0461 v2Daki122DuckZzChrissCh94 Hanibal911 (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I misread it .I wanted to rv that myself, but I was not here I was in a protest and it was not my intention to ruin the article or something.Sorry my mistake,I sincerely apologize. Lindi29 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 No problem! I myself sometimes made mistakes when editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no source(even the one above) that says clashes are in Ariha it is a government stronghold in Idlib with dozens of checkpoints around it most of the clashes are west of Ariha in the mountains overlooking the supply route to Idlib so reverted.Also to point out that many times city names are used to point out where the clashes are happening(in witch area or countryside).Daki122 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ariha cannot be easily penetrated/infiltrated. Had the IF/JAN entered it, we would have seen their usual coverage of attacks (videos statements etc.) So most likely those are clashes in the town's countryside. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously Ariha is still under SAA control. The source was not claiming fight in the town and in any case attacks were repelled.79.25.165.123 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Source says clashes AT Ariha, not IN Ariha. EkoGraf (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The rebels have long controlled areas just outside the town, so clashes on the edge of the town are frequent and not surprising. But since Ariha is a regime stronghold, not enough to make it contested.
The town was taken by the rebels for about 10 days, in a surprise attack a year or two ago. Regime forces from adjacent areas quickly retook the town. There is an important (informal) base a little north of the town. André437 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, from the vocabulary used, that almasdarnews article is evidently citing SANA, which glorifies the least success of regime forces, while overlooking any setbacks they might experience. Not the most credible source. (The "14" rebels killed is likely only the 2 named.) André437 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree almasdar news does report rebel gains .Pyphon (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon

I was referring to SANA, which almasdarnews was evidently citing. But almasdarnews is anything but a reliable source. Even if they sometimes report rebel gains. André437 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What about SOHR citing rebel deaths as civilians? André437 What about SOHR calling Bashar Al Assad the child killer/murderer? You can't judge a field source based on how it counts casualties and names belligerents. We judge them according to how reliable they are concerning battlefield changes. I'm not a fan of AlMasdarNews to be honest, but it does report rebel gains. That gives it some credibility, close to that of SOHR. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah

It seems the local truce between the YPG and the SAA is over:

1. http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Kurds-battle-Assads-forces-in-Syria-opening-new-front-in-civil-war-388043 2. http://globalnews.ca/news/1778386/syrian-kurdish-fighters-clash-with-government-forces-in-northeastern-syria/ 3. http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/170120151

Clashes mainly in Hasakah city. Twitter sources claiming that the YPG took several checkpoints, buildings and the grain silos. Reports of fighting in Qamishli also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt that it's true alright, since I found this here: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/17/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds-idUKKBN0KQ0KC20150117. --Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's not rush to conclusions. In this city, and had previously been local clashes between the army and the Kurds. But this does not mean that the cooperation between them over. Because Syrian troops and the Kurds still are fighting together against the ISIS south of Qamishli and west of the city of Hasaka. Just need to wait and see how events will develop further. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also a reliable source reported that new truce agreement has been agreed between YPG and Syrian regime.Elijah J. Magnier also this confirm pro kurdish sources: here and here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see now. Thanks for the heads up Hanibal.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hassaka_media twitter account is not pro-kurdish, (seems to be anti everything) which maybe makes it more reliable. Rhocagil (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not be so quick to judge. The YPG needs the SAA and the opposite is also true. They will not allow themselves to be weakened by infighting, knowing full well the danger of doing so in the presence of ISIS. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. They have a lot of very local conflicts, mostly YPG and allies vs. pro-regime militias. The latter often given to excesses, and the kurds wanting to keep their autonomy from the regime. But the ISIS threat means the kurds need the heavy weapon support of the regime, and the regime needs the numbers and discipline of the kurds. André437 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is ridiculous. There are clearly heavy clashes taking place between the regime and the YPG. The aim of this map is to detail the current situation so considerations regarding whether the regime-YPG are likely to settle things soon are irrelevant.Jafar Saeed (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Jafar Saeed I see that probably you are bad versed with this situation but there just local clashes in some areas in the city Hasakah. Also a pro-opposition source reported that for now going talks between Regime & Kurds (mainly YPG) for a ceasefire agreement in Hasakah front-lines.here Also pro government and pro-opposition maps distinctly shows that clashes took place on a small area in city of Hasakah.here[11] Hanibal911 (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell Mashta al-Nur

Pro kurdish source reported that the Strategic Mountain Mishtanour near of Kobane has been released and cleaned up from ISIS.Mazloum Mustafa Who else has information about the situation in the area. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alledgedly they also captured the radio tower. Here and Here DuckZz (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

SOHR reported to that this hill is captured.Lindi29 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

SOHR reported that YPG recaptured Mishtenur Hill SOHR so Radio tower also under control by YPG because this Radio tower located on this hill. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reconciliation plan

Reliable source reported that In the last days, 1000 civilians and 210 rebels left Ghouta and joined to regime area in capital for reconciliation.Elijah J. Magnier Also source said that more than 700 civilians and armed rebels came out of Mayda'a (Damascus) and join the reconciliation plan with Syrian army.Elijah J. Magnie Hanibal911 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

which means the town is rebel-held,and on the map it is shown under regime-control.Alhanuty (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. EJM did not say the central town itself, only the Mayda'a area, part of which is marked green on the map. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

How many people live in Mayda aprox, and how many rebels are located in all Ghouta.200.48.214.19 (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Kobane Region

I think we can still add town and villages in this region.Wikimapia. Lindi29 (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. We really need to show that ISIS controls all these villages and not just some, as the current map just gives the impression that there are areas where ISIS has no presence. If we add more black dots, it will show more accurately the ISIS encirclement of Kobani. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:F19A:3146:52EC:F471 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army captured more Towns in North Hama

Syria TV report with subtittles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wx-VBCu4X0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.137.34 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2014

Al Qaeda is in All Green Towns

All Qaeda is in All Green Towns not only in Idlib Towns

The so called Islamic Front Was created by Al Qaeda member Abu Khaled al-Suri he was killed by the ISIS http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-suicide-bombers-kill-al-qaeda-rebel-leader-in-aleppo-1.2548340

Even if you don't consider the islamic front as part of AQ, the nusra which is cleARLY AQ is in the vast majority of green areas. SHouldn't a grey dot be put then within most of the greens (if it can be documented)? That could be used to show they are working together. If hezbollah is the main garrison in any government town, I would understand putting a yellow dot within the red. Although I think they are primarily focused in a few areas, from what I've read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.161.166 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 13 November 2014

Menagh & northern Aleppo

A frightening situation , this article explains that FSA has withdrawn from Menagh and Nursa has taken control of this. It says fighting between Nusra and FSA has moved to Aleppo’s countryside. So it is not just in Idlib countryside now. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/jabhat-al-nusra-idlib-islamic-emirate.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.161.166 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 November 2014

Dozens of fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra pledged allegiance to the IS northeast of Aleppo.SOHR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibal911 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 November 2014

Jaz'ah

According to SOHR's report http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/7-militants-died-in-clashes-with-ypg-in-ras-al-ayn/ 2 villages(Mestriha and Felastin) south of Jaz'ah should be contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed alaee (talk • contribs) 06:39, 18 November 2014

There we Go Again ...

And again we have pro-SAA editors change the Daraa and Quneitra map towards their own views without sources. I want the following questions answered with neutral sources:

1. Why was Dilli changed back to red and why is the 60th Engeneering Regiment nearby deleted as a green army base dot? 2. Why is the green circle around Mahajjah deleted, whilst SANA itself says there were bombings there, so rebels nearby? 3. Why is the city of Bosra changed from contested to red without a neutral source given? 4. There is a grey JaN ring in Nawa, whilst there is no infighting in southern Syria. So why the grey ring?! 5. Why is Tell Antar contested? No sources given

And before people start bombarding this post with PetroLucum or Al-Masdar stuff, I mean neutral sources. Al-Minotor wrote an article which states Sheikh Maskin and Brigade 82 should be green, as well as many towns north of it. We ignored it based on Al-Masdar reports (could as well listen to SANA). So, if that's the case, I will use Twitter sources from opposition activistst to change towns to green, since that is what pro-SAA people here do to contested and rebel towns in the south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 19 November 2014

1- Dilli needs to be contested. The rebels took it, the regime counter-attacked and now clashes are happening inside the village. You used a totally pro-regime source to change it back to red. Also, SOHR reported 60th Batallion to be on rebel hands, so put it back(it's a small base, so maybe use a checkpoint icon).

2- Add the Daara Central Prison back, as it was AGAIN excluded. This is getting really boring.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.183.246.229 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 19 November 2014

Soran - Aleppo

It seems Sawran is ISIS-held since this recent video depicts rebels shelling ISIS positions IN THE CITY. [12] ChrissCh94 (talk)

What do you guys say? I vote we change it to contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Read, I have no opinion. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Also reliable source reported that Syrian rebels target ISIS at the outskirts of Souran in Aleppo province.Elijah J. Magnier On the basis of the video from the pro opposition source.FMC News And on the video clearly shows that the rebels shelled the city Souran from their positions near city of Souran. So probably the city still under control of ISIS.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I will remove the green semicircle from Etihimlat, that's for sure but I think we need some other sources to change Sawran to black. DuckZz (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911,ChrissCh94,DuckZz,André437 I think we should mark Sawran contested according to many twitter sources plus sources that you guys provided.What do you think ? here. Lindi29 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of video evidence nor twitter. But the video title clearly says rebels are shelling the city and shows exactly that. Yes we cannot use videos to depict gains but why not use them to depict setbacks? As for Lindi29, I did look in twitter from the arabic hashtag of Sawran, most of the results I got were about ISIS attacks on the city but rebels were holding their ground. Because such a change cannot be made based on a single youtube video, despite it being perfectly clear, I agree with Hanibal911, the least we could do is mark it as contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 I agree.Lindi29 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree .Pyphon (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon

In the video posted above, on 0:46 we can see a hill in the middle of the "unknown" city. If we look at this map and the location, i think it's the same hill. DuckZz (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The FSA media center thinks otherwise. They said in the title that they are shelling ISIS bastions IN Sawran. I'm sure Syrian rebels know their land better than us. ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with ChrissCh94 Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So contested or not ? Lindi29 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilder map Of Syria by deSyracuse.

Nice Map of Syrian Conflict with coments and tiles with colors of fighting forces. It does not display JAN, the only fault i have found.
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-january-2015_25484#11/33.3781/36.4351
200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We already used it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not justified editings!

So as earlier I said that I am neutral editor then I want ask why the cities Al Hirak and Al Zabadani which earlier was marked as contested but today have been marked under control of army. If there is no data from reliable sources that those cities under control of army they should again be marked as disputed. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have changed both cities to contested. No source for the changes were provided.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Zabadani is the biggest rebel stronghold in Al Qalamun. There are dozens of pictures posted only this year from opposition activists from inside the city. Rebels are clashing west of the city with SAA forces where SOHR reported that they managed to destroy 1 tank and kill dozens of Government foces. The city is controled by rebels and SOHR and other channels are reporting heavy airstrikes and barel bombardment on the city every few days. DuckZz (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"they managed to destroy 1 tank and kill dozens of Government forces" Right, sure they did, but the SAA just uses its 3D printer to make more fighters. Zabadani is not fully rebel controlled, there is a strong SAA presence inside the city, that is how the rebels keep attacking checkpoints in the city, so it should go back to contested. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed SOHR did mention before attacks on CP's inside the city. Zabadani back to contested since Bloudan is so close and somewhat part of it and is entirely gov-held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I did Google News checks on both of these locations. Where is this information coming from that there is ongoing fighting at either of these locations? Isn't SOHR just a single guy in the UK? Shii (tock) 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific article/statement saying that the areas are government held? If not, then we cannot change it. As for SOHR, you are completely right, it is one guy in the UK claiming to receive phone calls from people in Syria. He is, however, considered a reliable source with corroboration, and there are other sources confirming fighting in Zabadani such as Al-Masdar news. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, where can I find the links to Al-Masdar news? I went to the relevant Wikipedia articles and looked at the entries in the big table, but found nothing like this. Shii (tock) 00:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, here is the link describing fighting in Zabadani as of January 4 of this year: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rif-dimashq-al-nusra-front-forced-withdraw-felita/ XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this helps me understand where the info is coming from Shii (tock) 02:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A critical reading of that lamasdarnews article :

1) It generally just echos regime news reports, as it does in this case, so it must be considered pro-regime.

2) Al-Zabadani town is the main population centre of al-Zabadani district. Bloudan is a small suburb of the town in the same district, at a somewhat higher altitude in the mountains. The news report referred to a regime presence in the district, which we already acknowledge in calling Bloudan regime controlled.

3) Al-Zabadani town was under truce several times in the past, truces broken by regime bombardment. As far as I know, the regime has not been able to make significant (if any) inroads into the town, which is in a high mountain valley. The regime gained control of the much smaller Bloudan when the rebels there surrendered. (If I remember correctly, it was reported because of a food and ammunition shortage.) The regime must be supplying Bloudan by helicopter, since the only land route out is by al-Zabadani town.

4) Around al-Zabadani town there are regime checkpoints, which would be in the al-Zabadani district.

5) This almasdarnews report is from 2 weeks ago. There have been regime bombardments on al-Zabadani reported most weeks in the last few years, even when it was under formal truce.

6) So I would say that al-Zabadani is most probably still besieged as it was when the last truce was broken, and not contested. It is highly unlikely regime controlled. Considering that the tables on the main page are not being maintained, it is probably a little difficult to verify this. André437 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Hama

It has been a long time that we dont have any news on this area,but now Sohr reported that SSA carried out raids on areas in the villages of Qlib al- Thour, Jana al- Elbawi, al- Qasatel, Aqrab and villages in the township of Aqayrabat.SOHR,also according to pro-opp source shows that this towns are under Isis controll.here,here.Lindi29 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 village Aqrab marked under control by rebels and villages in the township of Aqayrabat now marked under control by ISIS. Also Qlib al- Thour marked as contested and SOHR not said that villages Qlib al- Thour, Jana al- Elbawi, al- Qasatel under control by ISIS. Need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 nobody raids the villages that controlls so its not logical that Regime attacks villages that are in his controll they attack only if they are captured or clashes are taken place in those villages.Lindi29 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Since a SOHR partially pro opposition source, we decided to use the data from SOHR for the change of status a cities or villages on under the control of insurgents or ISIS if it clearly says that those cities or villages under their control. So for now village Aqrab marked under control by rebels and villages in the township of Aqayrabat now marked under control by ISIS. Also Qlib al- Thour marked as contested. But we cant marked Jana al- Elbawi and al- Qasatel under control by ISIS. But if those villages located in area village of Qlib al- Thour we can mark these villages as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 OK got it.I searched for this 2 villages and found al-Qastel.here,as for Jana al- Elbawi i have doubts mb it has another name like other town and villages in syria dont know here.Lindi29 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 SOHR repoerted that SSA carried out raids on areas in the villages in Hama province bu this village Al Qastel here located in the Homs province. So we should better searching. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 yeah i read that,about al-Qastel archicivilians puts it near Homs :/ ,here,I to think we should search more.Lindi29 (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sa’sa (southwest from Damascus)

I found at the pro-government website "almasdarnews" that article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-captures-strategic-area-southwest-syria/

they report about the capture of "Al-Mahaadhiyyeh Orchards" near Sa´sa and Hassnou (not at the map?)

however the last lines of the article are my concern: "The success at Al-Mahadhiyyeh has led to the SAA’s advance towards the imperative village of Sa’sa; if captured, could lead to the counter-offensive in the Al-Quneitra Governorate." English is not my first language but for me it sounds like SAA is moving forward to Sa´sa so i would say Sa´sa is ´rebel´ held. What would you say?

Blockeduser2014 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

SAA recaptured the whole area at Sasa town. Well I don´t know but Peto Lucem and Al Masdar are about the same source.Rhocagil (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, two conflicting pro-gov sources. Does anyone have a recent pro-opp map of the area? As of 2 weeks ago, Sa'sa is under SAA control per http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-january-2015_25484#11/33.2671/36.1821 . Perhaps it was just an editorial mistake?XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Source clear said that Syrian army recaptured the whole area at Sasa in Western Ghouta. And Highway 7 to Quneitra now secured. But source not said atbout area insiede a town Sasa. Source just said army recaptured area near Sasa and secured the 7 highway to Quneitra. Also earlier a pro opposition sources clearly showed that the city Sasa under full control of the army.hereherehereherehere and also pro government source clearly showed that Sasa under full control by army here And pro government said that after the Syrian troops secured area on highway near Sasa troops is now able to send reinforcements to Quneitra.here And pro opposition. And another pro government source also just said that the Syrian Army in cooperation with NDFand Hezbollah has captured the strategic Al-Mahaadhiyyeh Orchards located near the imperative villages of Sa’sa and Hassnou on the border of the Al-Quneitra and Rif Dimashq Governorates in southwest Syria.here So we have no reason to mark Sasa as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Blockeduser2014 Source Al Masdar not said that Sasa under control by rebels or contested. And pro opposition and pro rebels map showed that this city under control by army.here and hereherehereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The same situation we had with the city of Ariha when this source Al Masdar said that clashes at the village Ariha but this data was mistake. And later pro opposition source says that city Ariha under control by army. So for now we have many data from pro-opposition sources whuch confirm that Sasa under control by army. And a one message from a source which repeatedly was seen in the publication of conflicting information. So for now we need leave things as they are and search for more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar misspoke. They meant to say that the SAA offensive came from Sa'sa and captured the surrounding area http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-detailed-report-west-ghouta-offensive/ XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Sa'sa was SAA held the areas near it was captured now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.15.105 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015

change

"{ lat = "36.871", long = "38.347", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Tirmik Bijan", link = "Tirmik Bijan", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

to

"{ lat = "36.871", long = "38.347", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Tirmik Bijan", link = "Tirmik Bijan", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

and

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

to

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Map-arcNN-yellow.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", }, { lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

Sources: http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-iraq-news-4/ https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/558683892782481408

Tirmik Bijan has been taken by the YPG, and Qarah Halinj is being shelled from Mishtenur hill. Please change from black to yellow, and add a siege icon.2601:0:B200:F7D9:34FA:6BF0:637A:7BB8 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I don't think your sources will pass WP:RS. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They are pro-opposition sources, but I think we can use them to show a Kurdish advance against ISIS. People have edited without discussion with less reliable sources.2601:0:B200:F7D9:34FA:6BF0:637A:7BB8 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC) 2601:0:B200:F7D9:4CE2:5F37:2591:5F10 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I admit, I can't find better sources, but I will let you know when I do. Can you put a semicircle icon instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B200:F7D9:34FA:6BF0:637A:7BB8 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tirmik Bijan (Kobane)

Source petercliffordonline.com says village (suburb) south next to Kobane Tirmik Bijan is under kurdish control. Article: Update 43 & Update 44 and map. I don´t know, but I think this source is neutral. Rhocagil (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RhocagilSource petercliffordonline.com is not neutral this is biased pro opposition source and we cant use this source to show success by rebels or ISIS in clashes against of army. But I think that we can use data from this source to show sucess a Kurdish forces in clashes against ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to write exactly about this village being under YPG control. There is also a Kurdish (not pro-YPG) source confirming this. http://aranews.org/2015/01/%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9-ypg-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%85/

Therefore, for now we change it at least to contested. Whenever there are further sources available we will change it to yellow. Roboskiye (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is another Kurdish source: http://basnews.com/ar/news/2015/01/20/%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D9%83%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B3/ . Roboskiye (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Finally here are non-Kurdish sources admitting Tirmik under YPG control: http://eldorar.com/node/68154 http://qasion-news.com/ar/content/node/11449 http://www.kizilbayrak.net/rss/kobanede-cetelere-darbe/ Roboskiye (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

Change

{ lat = "36.893", long = "38.354", mark = "80x80-yellow-black-anim.gif", marksize = "12", label = "Ayn al-Arab (Kobanê)", link = "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Ayn al-Arab", label_size = "90", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "36.893", long = "38.354", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "12", label = "Ayn al-Arab (Kobanê)", link = "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Ayn al-Arab", label_size = "90", position = "top" },

Source: https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/559434237993312256

http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kobane-24-Jan-2015-by-@deSyracuse.png

The reason I am asking for this edit so soon is that the battle for the actual city of Kobanî has been mostly resolved. You will remember the report of the Iraqi army taking the south entrance to Tikrit: that doesn't make the city contested. Though there is still fighting in the east, I think the city should be marked under Kurdish control. If you don't agree, then I'll just wait the few hours until the eastern part is completely secured by the YPG, then request again. But for now, I think it should go to yellow.

2601:0:B200:F7D9:A816:54EA:40F1:2784 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A Turkish news source (probably not fans of the Kurds), gives these reports:

http://www.imctv.com.tr/2015/01/25/65468/kobanide-4-sokak-sonra-zafer-var

http://www.imctv.com.tr/2015/01/26/65545/kobanide-zafere-son-adimlar

A Russian source (pro-Assad, generally) reports a Peshmerga commander:

http://www.vestikavkaza.ru/news/Kobani-svoboden-na-90.html

SOHR (anti-Assad) reports ISIS has been driven on to "the outskirts of al- Sena’ah area":

http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/ypg-fighters-seize-a-village-in-the-south-of-kobani-for-the-first-time-for-4-months/

Do I need more sources? There has been fighting on the outskirts of many towns: Tikrit, Samarra, Mosul; but we don't mark those contested. As of right now, I really don't think control of Kobanî is contested at this point. I think the Kurds have it. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:1498:3B64:993F:66D2 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Truce Areas (Homs incl.)

I have a problem understanding the map. Until few days ago, looking at the map I thought that Ad Dumayr and Ruhayban were government held, with some rebel presence inside the town. Someone said that thats not the case, as these 2 towns are under truce and thats the reason why theres a red-lime-red icon.

Now me, and probably 80% of the people looking at the map will think that those 2 towns are government held because thats what this red-lime-red icon is actually showing (government held - some rebels still present- with government surrounding). So i belive that this is a wrong way to show truce areas.

Just to make it clear. A truce means this "an Agreement where at least 2 sides agree to an casefire until further notice in which one of the side controls a location while the other allows such action under certain conditions". In our case, rebels "control" these towns in the same time they agreed to stop fighting SAA forces in Eastern Qalamun (thats true becaue we have no information about clashes here).

We have the same problem with Homs, it looks like the government captured Al Waer and now controls it with some rebels still inside, while the sources that were used to edit this (DailyStar and SOHR) report the opposite.

I think a good thing would be to use a lime-red (besieged) icon, because that's how it actually looks like in reality. A good view can be seen here.

I really can't find new "clear" sources about Dumayr and Ruhayban so be nice.

• Ruhayban town page
• Rebels donating fuel in Ruhayban.
• Snow in Dumayr town, logo shows a rebel group.

Opinions from other editors ? Hanibal911 you don't have to, i have read everything on your talkpage. DuckZz (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

red-lime-green denotes "mixed control with stable situation", but for some reason we don't have a visual representation of that in the key. If nothing else, I think we should include a representation of it there.

While I'm posting here, I've had some weird stuff happen with Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map. for some reason about 1/4 of the dots and fighting icons moved 1 pixel down for a few days (no idea why) and the background of the oil images changed colour since yesterday. I'm not sure why, any ideas? Not sure why File:Abm-red+icon.png needs a background, but that's a different matter.

Also, are we using File:Abm-red-icon.png or File:Abm-red-icon.png because we're using both here and it's slightly confusing. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

When the city of Dumayr was noted as under joint control between the army and the rebels also this data confirm biased pro opposition source Cedric Labrouce.here Also pro government source here and another one biased pro opposition source archicivilians showed that in the coties of Dumayr and Ar Ruhaybat now truce.here Hanibal911 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You really don't understand what i want to say. Yes they are under truce, but in the same time either under rebel or government control. The Cheldric labrouse source you posted confirms that "Truces where the regime accept to withdraw and let a rebel government in that area". The last known truce we had in Al Qabun district in Damascus, where SOHR reported exactly the same thing "A truce and withdraw of government forces". Every truce in Syria is the same, in favor for rebels in that area, while we mark it as purple on a town map, we should mark it as lime-red on the normal map..... A truce only means that a place should't be contested. That's why we changed Al Waer, but in a wrong way. DuckZz (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well even truces can be reported in an erroneous way. For example pro-opp sources portray Babbila as rebel held. While regime sources report it as joint held because both parties have established joint checkpoints inside the city. The checkpoints are either manned by local rebels (sometimes under the command of the NDF cf. Madaya) or NDF troops. Not all truces are like that, some are more balanced than others. But in most truces you could find JOINT checkpoints inside the previously contested area. It doesn't make sense that the regime accepts to retreat and honors a truce in an area where it had the upper hand. The rebels were FORCED into those truces (with huge discontent from other rebel areas) thus the conditions governing the truces are not favorable towards the rebels in many areas. Dumair is a counter-example. The SAA/NDF has barely if any presence inside. Waer is the same where gov forces are only stationed in the military hospital there.

Since we cannot make sure what are the conditions concerning every truce, I say we keep the symbol as it is since the favorable ones cancel out the not-so-favorable ones. ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz All you sources:

• Ruhayban town page
• Rebels donating fuel in Ruhayban.
• Snow in Dumayr town

cant be used in this situation because it is only just rebel amatuer videos and unreliable for this issue because we cant use their for show success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A few ideas here :

1) Maybe we should use a violet circle around a location icon to indicate a truce. I could make that pretty quickly. (Like the violet used on the city maps.)

If there is mixed control, we could indicate that, although usually it is only rebel controlled.

Note that when there are joint checkpoints, they are almost always on the periphery of the truce area, so that in itself doesn't count as mixed control.

2) I've made some pie chart icons for mixed control, not yet imported to wp. Most are 2 colours, although some are 3. They would probably make the mixed control clearer, expecially to casual viewers of our map. As well as being used for any mixed control truce areas that might still exist.

3) Also, there was some discussion a while back about modifying the colour of Nusra icons. The green colour suggested was very close to other greens already used on competing maps. I tested some greenish grey colours (slightly darker than the current grey), which would contrast better with the flat grey border colours. I could import them for feedback, it anyone is interested.

... so what does everyone think ? André437 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thinking a little more about this, it would make sense to have one integrated truce icon : lime green with a thick violet ring around it.

For any truce areas that might be partially controlled by the regime, we could have red/lime in the centre. (Since generally we don't have reliable detailed info of the conditions of a truce, we shouldn't try to cover all the variations)

These icons would be very quick and easy to make. André437 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The current version of icon for the cities and villages where truce has long been used and let remains without changes. Previously all agreed used this icon. But about the new color for Al Nusra can try. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also here pro opposition source clearly showed that a city of Al Dumayr under jointly control of Syrian troops and moderate rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We use violet for City truce situations so it would be logical to have plain violet icons for cities and towns .Pyphon (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon

André437 Here, what do you think about this. It will be better than to add a new color to the map, it's already difficult enough.

• Icon for towns under joint truce control (Ad Dumayr).
• Icon for towns under rebel truce control (Ruhayban, Al Waer).

And what about Al-Jayrud ? Pro-opposition sources were reporting truce situation a while ago, it is shown on deSyriacue maps for months.

And yes, post the new JAN color so others can see. DuckZz (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Jayrud under control by army and also we cant use data from pro opposition source to show rebel advances. Also I agree with icon for the city Al Dumayr but I disagree with new icon for Ruhayban, Al Waer. I think that we need use the same icon as for Al Dumayr.here Because this icon Icon for towns under rebel truce control here on the map will be more similar to the fact that the city is under rebel control. In general, the old mark which we was used for a long time was best solution and I think we need to leave everything as is. On our map and have so many icons so let's not clutter up the map. Because then we have to add the same icon for villages that under joint control of the army and the Kurds, or for those who are under joint control Kurds and rebels or rebels and Al Nursa. So we strongly clogged map. And for now this is not main problem. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I agree, not a good idea with new icons. Instead of that, we can just change the Al Waer and Ruhayban red-lime-red icon to lime-red or lime-red-lime.---- The source that was used to change Al Waer clearly said that a truce agreement has been made and that rebels will control the district. SOHR said the same thing ... so i don't know where's the problem about that. DuckZz (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Its getting to look like a decorated Christmas tree .Pyphon (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon

DuckZz I partialy agree with you in situation with Al Waer (lime-red-lime) because many reliable sources say that it is a last stronghold of the rebels in the area. But not one from a reliable sources not said that Al Ruhaybah controlled by rebels in this city now truce and he under jointly control by Syrian troops and moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To avoid the confusion concerning every truce, I agree with André437 on replacing the old truce symbol with the purple color used in the Damascus mini-map. We can't know for sure if the regime has CP's inside or not. This however should be applied to all the truce areas we have in order to avoid bias. If not, they we keep it how it was. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The situation as it is, is clear enough. I do not see any advantage in adding new color or new congigurations. Truce deal can widely change and we often do not the details. In any case, we must remind that a truce is a conditional surrender of the rebels, who stop figthin the government in exchange of some guarantees.Paolowalter (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling truces conditional surrenders doesn't accord well with the fact that almost every truce has been broken at some time, but the rebels have maintained control. Usually but not always a renewed truce has been arranged. Central Homs is the only area that I'm aware of that a truce ended with a sort of surrender. But even there the rebels had safe passage to other rebel controlled areas, supervised by UN observers. On the other hand, the regime has made advances in many areas where no truce was involved. Suggesting that truces are arranged only where the regime is unable to advance.

That aside, I'll import the icons I've already made + the new ones suggested to my talk page for review by everyone. (Coincidentally one of the icons suggested is a mirror image of one already made.)

On my talk page it will be easier to avoid mixing icon decisions with control on the map. I'll post back here when it is ready :) André437 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Paolowalter Hanibal911 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But also as I partialy agree with ChrissCh94 that sometimes could be used purple color but it can be confusing because we have on the map of the city and the village where a truce between the army and the rebels but also a truce between the army and the Kurds, and there is also in some cases a truce between the Kurds and the rebels and between rebels and Al Nursa. So it can be confused situation on map so it is best to leave it unchanged. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah Hanibal911 here does have an important point. Let's just leave it unchanged for now. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

For info, my idea was to put a strong violet circle around control colours, united in a single icon. So initially violet around lime, or violet around red-lime, but other colours could very easily be added. The new stable mixed control icons (already made but not yet imported) will have a cleaner less ambiguous appearance, as well as using a single icon for easier editing. Delayed by a problem with my computer, but coming soon on my talk page. :) André437 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kobane

Here new map from opposition source deSyracuse which showed that ISIS mostly lost their position inside city of Kobane.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Siege of Kobane is coming to a end soon. The battle South of the city is already shifted from urban to rural fighting, with YPG/FSA trying to advance to the villages south and west of the city. The only battle that remains is on the Eastern Front, where YPG recaptured the Islamic/Sharia school. There is now only 2 major targets for YPG to reclaim the city, Tishrin school and Tell Arabpinar. Maybe in 1/2 weeks the city will be under full YPG control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.157.18.100 (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you guys think to put a lime icon along Kobani, maybe without a name but just for the sake of ? I know for sure that 2 FSA linked groups are fighting there since the beginning, Kataib Shamal and Liwa Raqqa. They are regularly posting news, videos and photos of their figters there. The last information was that Liwa Raqqa fighters have captured the hospital in the south-west of the city. Before I start posting sources, i want to know what others think. DuckZz (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Here pro opposition source deSyracuse also showed that hospital in west part city controlled some moderate rebels. Perhaps we need make map as for cities Hasakah, Aleppo, Deir ez Zor and Damascus and on this map we can mark data about which says editor DuckZz Hanibal911 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Kobane is almost libarated, the entire map would be yellow so i don't see a sense in that because according to that we can also make maps for Hama and Idlib city which are all red.

• The best thing would be to wait until Kobane city gets fully out of ISIS hands, then we can add a lime icon right next to it (with no name/title) but just to indicate Rebel presence. I already have enough sources from photos and videos posted in 2015 from these 2 groups that i follow. DuckZz (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to find a way to indicate rebel presence in the city 3bdulelah (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro Kurd Twitter account Peshmerge Kobane has been fully liberated. Rhocagil (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 This is what i have.

• FSA Liwa Raqqa fighters storming a hospital in South-West Kobane.
• Same groups inside Memit vilage. Photo showing the same group raising their flag inside the vilage.
• Video statement of Pesmerga leader and FSA colonel Okaidi inside Kobani.
• Video showing FSA Kataib Shamal group, announcing the liberty of Kobane, raising their flag etc. They have a bunch of other videos on the same channel. Their flag on the hill.
• According to this, they are operating in the entire town, from west to east.
• These two facebook guys (Here and here) were reporting from Kobane, you can read what they wrotte. They also say that other rebel group atacked Daesh inside Memit

This is the official YPG statement. They said "We liberated Kobani together with and we thank them to Burkan Al Firat (Northern Sun) Kataib Shamal and other Free Syrian Army groups." Now just because this statement by YPG i can put a small lime icon inside Kobane because we can use that source. I want your opinion about the vilage Memit. ? DuckZz (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Masharah?

Why is the town of Masharah in Quneitra turned to contested? Last time there was any news, it was of rebels shelling Tell BRrizaq near the town. Can somebody provide sources or revert the contested status back to green?

This village was marked as contested only based the pro-government source but this violates the rules of editing. So that I fixed this. So that this village can be noted as contested if this data can confirm a reliable or pro opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Al masdar is relaible. More than SOHR. That has been discussed many times.Paolowalter (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Both SOHR and Al-Masdar are not reliable. Both can only be used for advances for the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.251.231 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Palowalter Al-Masdar is a pro-regime source we have disscus that.Lindi29 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We have discussed, and concluded that it is a reliable source that is biased, like SOHR. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No we haven't decided that at all. The status quo remains: SOHR is reliable, al-Masdar news is not.137.73.84.232 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No it does not, that is why we had the discussion in the first place. No reason for the status quo to be maintained. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Change

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

to

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

Sources:

https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/559837529709772801

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/559846335621656576

http://www.sasnewsagency.com/read/10221

Halinj village is YPG-held. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:6571:56B8:6EF9:5C27 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Shayk Maskin

Hello everybody,

I've been following the events in and around Shayk Maskin for the last two days. I have several questions:

1. Why is Shayk Maskin still contested? Brigade 82 was the last part of the town that was held by the SAA wasn't it? The fighting now seems to be around the Electric Grid Station checkpoint. 2. Does anybody have information about al-Dalli and Suhaliyah north of Shayk Maskin? Twitter sources posted videos and claims that both had fallen to the Southern Front? 3. Maybe add a green circle to the western side of Qarfa? Rebels are close by, that was the reason Rustom Ghazali burned down his own palace there in December 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a summary of events: http://eaworldview.com/2015/01/syria-daily-insurgents-celebrate-victories-across-country/

It seems that rebels have made another sweeping advance in Daraa, capturing the Engeneering Brigade in Suhayliyah and al-Dalli, and are currenty (according to twitter) fighting for Al-Furqan village. Some activists are even talking about fighting close to Izzra itself. We should keep an eye on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a pro opposition source and we cant use this source to show success of rebels. But more the reliable source said that rebels captured most part city of Sheikh Miskeen. But not said that city now under control by rebels.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are there so many edits north of Sheik Miskin, it's not possible to put them all there. What's about this Farun Storage base, does it even mention in some sources ? An under that, there also 2 checkpoints/bases which are covered with this edit. There's another one, third, you can see a fraction of it to the left. What's the point ? The map is overfilled DuckZz (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe taking a good look there is important. Official FSA news said they captured Dilli, Burqa, Faqah and al-Suhayliyah and one Battalion 60 base. That can't be used for rebel advances here, but we should really look at the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.251.231 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 the IP has a good point and we have to take a good look on this beacause he provided pro-opp sources but not sources from agencies news but from videos,and i think videos are more reliable like the kurds who were the first that reported the capture of kobane and villages nearby,but first we have to wait and see what happens if there are more reports and videos in the upcoming days.Lindi29 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is the rebels amateur video from YouTube we can not use it for display success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Broken links

Listen to friends if you want to use to edit a link to Arabic source is better to provide a link to it on the talk page. Because when you when you edit put a link to the source your link often displayed as broken and we can not verify data wgich you have provided as a source which confirm your editings. And here examples of this:here or here Because if we cant verify the accuracy of the information which was provide as a source. And this editing will be considered is not justified. I hope for your understanding. Regrds! Hanibal911 (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Brigade 82 in Sheiyh Miskin now belongs to opposition

Brigade 82 must be green now.88.224.195.133 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Nusra Front, several rebel and Islamic factions seize the Brigade 82: http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/the-nusra-front-several-rebel-and-islamic-factions-seize-the-brigade-82/
• Syria rebels overtake strategic base in south http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2925673/Syria-rebels-overtake-strategic-base-south.html
• Syria rebels overtake strategic base in southern Deraa province http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Syria-rebels-overtake-strategic-base-in-southern-Deraa-province-388895
• Middle East Updates / Nusra Front overtakes strategic army base in southwest Syria http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/middle-east-updates/1.638824
• Jihadist groups seize military base in southern Syria http://www.china.org.cn/china/Off_the_Wire/2015-01/25/content_34650893.htm 88.224.195.133 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just pointing out: the rebels seized the Brigade 82 HQ inside the city of Sheikh Miskin. That HQ is not shown in our map, since it is inside the city. The base pointed out as green here is still regime held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.251.231 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

According to pro opposition sources rebels captured only HQ Brigade 82 inside city and Army radar base (Brigade 82) which refers to the Brigade 82 here Archicivilians But main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here The base that considered as part of Brigade 82, located between NE-Sheikh Maskin and SW-Izzra', still under the Regime control.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral sources for Brigade 82 and Sheikh Maskin:

• http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/01/25/Syria-rebels-overtake-strategic-base-in-south.html
• http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/middle-east-updates/1.638824

Neutral sources?! Lol this is too funny. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So it seems the entire Brigade 82 should go to green together with Al-Shayk Miskin. Only the Military Housing remain red, and maybe the BRigade itself contested?

Sources not indicated that rebels was captured main base of brigade 82 but pro opposition sources clear indicated that rebels captured HQ Brigade 82 and Radar base (Brigade 82)here and here Btu pro opposition sources clear said that main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-govt almasdar reports that SAA retreated from the base: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/daraa-al-nusra-front-captures-brigade-82-base/

186.112.217.134 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar some times make mistake and it not said about main base Brigade 82 because Army radar base (Brigade 82) it is also base of Brigade 82. So as I said earlier we need more data. Because pro opposition sources clear said that main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here Archicivilians Also pro opposition only said that the Syrian regime lost the most powerful Air-Defense Bases in Southern Syria Brigade 38 in 2013 and Brigade 82 in 2015. But main base Brigade 82 still under control by Syrian troops Hanibal911 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What our map shows relating to base 82 :

1) The HQ, just north of the town, captured according to several reports, is labeled "brigade 82". It is still red on our map.

2) The radar base part, also captured according to several reports, is labeled "army radar base (brigade 82)". It is now green.

3) The main part of the base, to the north-east, is labeled "air defense base". There is another another icon to the east, of a smaller part of the base, labeled the same. Some reports say that these are now contested, if not still regime held. They are still red on our map.

4) There are 2 icons labeled "military housing" for the base, to the north and the east. They are still red on our map. At least one map I've seen shows a third such housing, to the north of the main base.

5) Interesting that the almasdarnews article claims that Nusra captured the base, without mentioning any others. Considering that besides one early report from Nusra, all reports and video evidence comes from the various FSA groups involved. Typical of almasdarnews (and other pro-regime) reports. André437 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

André437 Pro opposition clear showed on map tha rebels captured HQ Brigade 82 inside city and Army radar base (Brigade 82) which refers to the Brigade 82 here and biased pro opposition source Archicivilians also clear said that rebels today took Brigade 82 HQ in Sheikh Maskin, while clashes still ongoing around the base between Sheikh Maskin & Izzra'here and also said that the base that considered as part of Brigade 82, located between NE-Sheikh Maskin and SW-Izzra' still under Regime controlhere Also here video where Rebels inside Brigade 82 HQ in thetown of Sheikh Maskin.here But main base brigade 82 this clear showed pro opposition map here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically that coincides with what I said. Note that the brigade 82 HQ, shown on our map, is now lime (as it should be) instead of red. Sheikh Maskin town is placed a little too much to the west relative to the other positions. Note that it is debatable whether the HQ is in the town, or just north of it (as I see it).

If you look carefully, there is an icon labeled "air defense base" in the appropriate location relative to Izra. Since brigade 82 is THE air defense base in proximity, this must be the main part of the base. That coincides with the locations of the military housing as well.

From the various unconfirmed reports, I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of base 82 falls quickly, and likely Izra also.

BTW, since archicivilians frequently uses the phrase "unconfirmed reports", I wouldn't call him very biased in his reporting. I've yet to see that sort of qualification from almasdarnews. André437 (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Qarah Halinj

This village was marked as under control by Kurds only based data from a pro Kurdish source here but we cant use data from Kurdish sources to show success of Kurds. So if not have confirmation this data from reliable source we need again mark this village under control by ISIS. Let's not break the rules of editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if you have photographic or video evidences (this is the case) I think that it is not forbidden to use non neutral sources. The pictures shown have been shot exactly here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.855656&lon=38.379579&z=17&m=bs , you can easily recognize the water tower of Helinj. --8fra0 (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

8fra0 We can only use the video from neutral sources such as World news agencies but not amateur video. And this photos which provide the Kurdish activist from the village does not confirm that the village under the control of the Kurds in fact the same photos can be done from any city or village which is under the control of ISIS. On one photo we just see that soldier is near the village here and on other photo we see several cars which enter in the village here but how can we be sure that this Kurdish troops or that village under their control. We need more confirmations from a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For sure a single picture can not guarantee that a whole town or city is in full control by anyone, but (imho) a picture showing a YPG flag on the highest building of a village of 20 buildings, with a journalist roaming around, is enough to state that that village is in YPG control. However we have also SOHR confirmation: http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/ypg-takes-control-on-helnej-village-southeast-of-kobane/ --8fra0 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

8fra0 So we received official confirmation so that just was need wait. Good job! Hanibal911 (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

SAA DEYR EZ ZOR

reports of saa advancing in deyr ez zor any truth in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jabhat al akrad in aleppo countryside?

Hello i have been reading about jabhat al akrad lately and i watched tons of videos from them most of the videos are from clashes in northern aleppo but the map only shows the villages rebel held are there no jabhat al akrad in northern aleppo? Im also following people that are close to al akrad and they claim to be activly fighting in northern aleppo against isis together with Dawn of freedom and islamic battalions. Thus i think yellow dots together with green dots should be placed just like in kobane city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We marked 1 vilage under joint control because there was a source showing that, everything else is unclear. DuckZz (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jabat Akrad presence in Mare aleppo

First soure is map made by thomas(arabthomnes) 17 january 2015 https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/2000px-syria2.png

second source is known ypg source. https://twitter.com/ColdKurd/status/506045034958159872 31 august 2014

Third source is https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/525539988495400960 a guy known to be close to al akrad front — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Last 2 sources are a bit old. Try to find something from this year because the frontline has changed alot so the groups too. DuckZz (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Trusted Akrad commander source said that rebels captured Hawr Al Nahr. DuckZz (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Change

{ lat = "36.875", long = "38.302", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Minas", link = "Minas, Syria", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

to

{ lat = "36.875", long = "38.302", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Minas", link = "Minas, Syria", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

and

{ lat = "36.898", long = "38.268", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Kurabi", link = "Kurabi", label_size = "0", positon = "top", },

to

{ lat = "36.898", long = "38.268", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Kurabi", link = "Kurabi", label_size = "0", positon = "top", },

and

{ lat = "36.885", long = "38.291", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Mazra‘at Saghir", link = "Mazra‘at Saghir", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "36.885", long = "38.291", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Mazra‘at Saghir", link = "Mazra‘at Saghir", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

Sources: http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kobane-27-Jan-2015-by-@deSyracuse.png https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/560037597616295936 https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/560146708525748225

These villages have been taken by the YPG. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:D0EA:D699:DC28:4E9C (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Villages around Kobane

I couldn't find any reliable source or visual evidence (pictures, videos, and so on) confirming the YPG control of the following villages aorund Kobane: Kurabi and Jiqur (western front); Kulmah (southern front); Shiran and Mazraat Dawud (eastern front). According to this source those villages seem still in IS control, or at least disputed: http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kobane-27-Jan-2015-by-@deSyracuse.png --8fra0 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree but then again nobody can provide us with sources that ISIS controll all of the villages in northern aleppo and hasakah some of the villages that are shown as isis held in many place have probably been recaptured 10 times by rebels/kurds/al nussra front/saa Creepz

I have found this source (Journalist "embedded" with YPG in Kobane) stating the various frontlines around Kobane. https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/560033784822001664 I think that I can use this source to edit to IS held the villages which are out these frontlines. --8fra0 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is pro Kurdish source and according to the rules of editing we cant use it for display sucess of Kurdish forces. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hanibal911 beacause the YPG after a long devestating battle just recaptured Kobane,and i dont think they have just make an offenisve like this beacause they have still to clear the areas from mines.And i think this town should go contested except Kulmah which is Isis held.Lindi29 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Tabarat al Khashir

pro Al Nusra source confirmed that Tabarat al Khashir under control by army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Elijah Magnier said the same so this al-nusra front is mb an imposter account.Beacause JAN WILL never make such tweets for SAA.Lindi29 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29This official source of Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Deir El Zor

Greetings. So this pro-gov source here [13] and this neutral source here [14] [15] both show Jafra is still ISIS-held and/or contested while Mari'iyah is gov-held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

EJM elaborated on the matter, saying that only east Jafra is ISIS controlled here: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/560125702196842496. Perhaps we should extend the black color farther into the town. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did read that out and you are right, maybe push the ISIS controlled territory a bit more to the west just so it becomes clear that they control the eastern half. Or just make it plain contested to avoid confusion. Either way a clarification should be made. ChrissCh94 (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro gov (ish?) sources here and here shows that the Radio tower is relieved and no longer contested. It also shows on the Peto Lucem's map, which has been very reliable in the past here.MesmerMe (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ChrissCh94.Beacause Isis is near the airport and there is clashes between the 2 parties.And we should add Isis presence near the airporthere.Lindi29 (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Hamidiyah

Pro rebel source said that clashes inside Hamidiyah btw JaN and Assad here. Hamidiyah go to contested? (217.99.157.220 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

If its markito talking, then yes. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, markito showed army progress (217.99.157.220 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

FSA villages

source on balazah, banan al has and abu abdah being fsa held and not regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kobanî joint control

These villages outside Kobanî are under control of the YPG.

http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/advances-for-ypg-and-rebel-battalions-southwest-of-kobane/

This source was used to justify an edit of these villages. However, Syrian Observatory of Human Rights is a well-known pro-rebel source, and under the editing guidelines should not be allowed to show rebel gains. Therefore, these villages should be marked under Kurdish control. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:CC74:2374:3F11:4F92 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The source is used to show everyone’s gains, you don't have to spin the topic and use it for your own purpose. Kataib Shamal group published pictures showing their fighters inside those vilages here and here2. DuckZz (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that the Kurds control the village. The FSA are only acting as a supporting force, and they don't have full or even partial control of the villages. There is no joint control agreement between FSA and YPG. I think it is a misrepresentation to show joint rebel control of these villages. I would be perfectly happy with a green rebel presence icon, as I feel it would more accurately represent the situation on the ground. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:CC74:2374:3F11:4F92 (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, these YPG gains need to be added.

http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/advances-for-ypg-and-rebel-battalions-southwest-of-kobane/ 2601:0:B200:F7D9:CC74:2374:3F11:4F92 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we edit the map according to sources we have and not according to those we don't have, logically. There are at least 2 rebel groups (Northern Sun, Liwa Raqqa) present in Kobani area so we can assume they have a significant amount of fighters there, of course YPG is the main leading role and that's why we mark it only as partial rebel control and not full. Also if you're interested, they have their facebook channels with dozens of pictures from these villages. DuckZz (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

JA source claims JA controlls these villages

https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560578422511259648?lang=sv

https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560576534407565312

some of these villages are marked however Qazal,Dalha,Kara köpru,Tatmarash and Maryamin aren't marked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It is pro Kurdish source which cant be used for displayed success of Kurds. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a trusted commander source. We can only use it in this case, for example : there are 3 villages, 1-2-3, the first one is marked as Kurd control, the last two as ISIS. If this source reports that Kurds gained the village "3" located far more to the east, then we can change the village "2" under Kurd control, but not "3" as we need more sources. Understood ? DuckZz (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the guy makes sense because if you look at the map these three villages are the three villages al akrad might have ran to after being expelled from Dodiyan also there is confirmed al akrad presence in qara mazraah this explains from where al akrad are getting their support to attack qara mazraah which is far north dodiyan will probably be recaptured.

https://twitter.com/ShamiWitness/status/501400501804859392?lang=sv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

111th Regiment under Nusra control

SOHR reported clashes between Hazm and Nusra which ended in a Nusra victory and Nusra control over the 111th Regiment in Aleppo [16] with casualties on both sides as well as POW's ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done This once again confirms that the clashes between Al Nusra and moderate rebels not only in Idlib province. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Menas, Alblour, jolbeek + Qeremezre liberated

Confirmed source within YPG.

https://twitter.com/ColdKurd/status/560174122958086144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.194.177 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Qeremezre in the southeast of Kobani is also in YPG's control Confirmed by a reliable pro YPG source with pictures https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/560799992362053632 https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/560800122016395265 --88.72.87.121 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Azaz

City of Azaz need mark under jointly controlled by moderate rebels and Al Nusra because pro opposition source clear showed that this city under their joint control.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree.Lindi29 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't start it. If we start to do this, the map will be ruined in few weeks. Al Nusra has presence in almost every town where rebels are but in minority numbers. We already agreed to mark their presence only in Idlib province because everywhere else they have a small number of fighters. We can only mark a place under their control if a source, for example SOHR, names only their group inside an article, for example Wadi Daif etc. Therefore joint control edits are bad ideas. There were already enough sources from Jan channels saying that their soldiers are active on Alepo frontlines and mainly keeping checkpoints around towns/villages. I belive a week ago their checkpoint was atacked with an IED. DuckZz (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Well if you mentioned Idlib province this pro opposition source also showed that towns of Taftanaz and Sarmin jointly controlled of Al Nursra and Islamic Front.here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Arabthomes map is biased and full of mistakes, we already have deSyracuse, his maps are more reliable. . . . . . . . . . I meant to say full control, not joint control. All places that might me under full JAN control are already marked in Idlib province. We all know that there's probably a significant amount of rebel groups (Islamic front) inside Marat Numan but sources are still showing that JAN has the upper hand. Joint control is a pretty bad idea, at least for JAN-Rebel presence. On the other hand Kurd-Rebel is more logical since they don't fight each other. DuckZz (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have sources handy, but there were reports that Azaz was under full control of Northern Storm brigades, even though a small number of Nusra were present. Northern Storm is based in Azaz, and part of the new Shami alliance formed of one large IF group (of which Northern Storm was part), and 4 large moderate groups, as well as many smaller groups.

My point here is that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that Nusra has any control in a location just because they have a presence, nor that they are in total control just because they have some control. That might apply to small villages, but unlikely to larger towns.

Note that Nusra only ousted the SRF because they had a number of temporary allies. (And the SRF didn't plan protection against such an attack.) That doesn't leave Nusra in full control. We shouldn't jump to conclusions. We aren't regime propagandists, who like to claim jihadists under every rock.

As well, an unannotated map is not a good basis for control by itself, although it may indicate information to be verified by other sources. Additionally, some maps may only be indicating presence, and not control. There is surely a pro-rebel presence in Latakia city (from various incidents), but we're not about to show it on our map. André437 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)