Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Al-Safira Base and Research facilities

I have been wondering if in an area widely controlled by rebels from Khanasser to Al-Safira town and Tall Hassel village, it makes sense and is legit to maintain the "Al-Safira Base & Defense Factories" and "Al-Safira Military Research Facility" marked as government held. Is there any information on those?Ariskar (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

These have definitely not been overrun. They are massive facilities and are one of the main chemical weapons sites in Syria, their capture would grab major headlines. This is along the "desert road". The area is far from "widely controlled" by either side—recent rebel advances have served only to break up government control into pockets and deny full use of the road. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Heads up for the clarification Lothar!Ariskar (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As of Oct 9, 2013 the outlet UPI is reporting that government forces have retaken at least part of Al Safira including the research and plant facilities. See

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/10/09/Syria-Capture-of-key-chemical-base-aids-UN-mission/UPI-26851381346931/ Fonen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A new suggestion

Hi, recently I have read the SANA, SOHR, western media discussion and reliability problem. I think measuring realibility must not be our concern. Lets label every media source as pro-regime or pro-rebel. Lets make two distict maps, one is based on pro-regime media and the other one is based on pro-rebel media. So no single information is lost. Pro-regime map must be maintained by pro-regime editors and pro-rebel map edited by pro-rebel editors. (I assume every editor to be honest at self-integrity check and reliability of its news sources) So finally, we build up a third map using these two maps, marking contradicting places as contested and non-contradicting ones as is. So one can look at 3 maps and get regime and rebel point of view of current situation and most reliable map depending on consistent news. It must be the viewer to decide which to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Source reliability is a fundamental concern of Wikipedia. If you wish to pursue such a project, you can do it in your own userspace. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am just wondering how things are handled in some cases. Recently you said that SOHR is useless, so would you rely on an Reuters news which explicitly declare SOHR as source? i.e. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE97P0FG20130826

If you say no, it is OK for me, the discussion ends, but if you say yes, then there is a problem of consistency. Either SOHR must be reliable or Reuters news depending on SOHR must not be reliable. Thnx for your patience

By the way, another fresh news from Reuters depending on SOHR. It seems Reuters is not on the ground and just referring "activists claim", "SOHR says", "SANA said". Who is really on the ground as reliable media source and doing its job with fresh videos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A small note, I am pro-rebel and shooting at my own leg by the posts above. I am telling this to prove that i am not mudslinging to western media but pointing to the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically this is how it works: we are not journalists. It is not our task to look at WP:PRIMARY sources like SOHR, SANA, etc. For our purposes at Wikipedia, these are to be avoided in favour of WP:SECONDARY sources, like news media and analysts. Declaring a source to be unreliable here does not mean that nobody can use it, it just means that we can't use them on their own. If a journalist or analyst, however, uses a primary source in their coverage, then we can use it.

Think of it this way: you're not going to put crude oil in your car. It's not "useless" generally, but you're going to junk up your ride if you try to use it as fuel. However, you will put crude oil that has been properly processed into gasoline/motor oil/etc. into your car.

This is an imperfect system, but a perfect system is not attainable in this conflict anyway. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your detailed explanation, things are more clear now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Some more towns are mentioned in this article that are not on the map. They are near the lebanese-syrian border and to the SW of Damascus. http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syria-golan-village-under-nusra’s-thumb Hadar and Erneh are in government hands. Between them and the eastern slopes of Mount Hermon, where the Syrian army’s 90th Brigade is located, some towns are in opposition hands. This includes the town of Beit Jinn. Beit Jinn is on the map. I believe these pro government towns would be just to the left of them - right near the UN line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.32.11 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Idleb Countryside

Ariha is under syrian army control since 4th of September, as was updated correctly. Somebody chance the map without sitting credible information to contested!!!!!!!!--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the rules for references need to be made more visible somehow. When I started posting here, I wasn't aware of them until Lother informed me ... it is a little different from other parts of Wikipedia, where one's personal knowledge (or "expertise") can be acceptable.

Of course that can't apply here. André437 (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No idea what other "parts of Wikipedia" you're talking about, the site is kind of actively against that kind of stuff. Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and that can lead to some real consequences. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In the past it was definitely presented as an option. Your essjay reference suggests that it might have changed sometime after 2006. (My first contributions were long before then, generally in scientific/technical domains.) One of your links indicate that currently facts could be presented without references if "referencible". Maybe a substitute for a previous "personal expertise" rule ? André437 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would avoid as much as possible in this topic area. Leaves the door open for unchecked misinformation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like the rules have been tightened up a lot. And for this topic, with all the ongoing changes, it is difficult enough to ensure reliable info. André437 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Jinderis, Aleppo

Not sure if you guys want to check this out, but their are heavy clashes going on between YPG vs ISIS, FSA & Al Nusra in Jinderis which is close to Efrin. http://www.hawarnews.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=442:serious-clashes-going-on-in-efrin&catid=1:news&Itemid=2 http://www.hawarnews.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=443:ypg-sends-tanks-to-cinderis&catid=1:news&Itemid=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.26.221 (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not in Cinderis itself, but in the area of it. Southwards, to be exact, on the road to Atmah (controlled by al-Qaida). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

LaChronique mentions ISIS casualties (but not YPG) in this area, between Atmah and south of Jinderis, but not (yet) change of territory. They say it was started by ISIS attacks. No mention of FSA or al-Nusra involvement. André437 (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The YPG, as a PKK affiliate, tends to underreport its own losses while inflating those of the opposing side—though all told, it seems reasonable that the YPG would suffer fewer casualties as is (both because they appear more unified, disciplined, and better-trained and because they have not suffered significant reverses). At any rate, at least one fighter (in this case a YPJ member) has died in the clashes. Sources close to the YPG do seem to indicate that ISIS is the only "rebel" force on the ground there (in contrast to other battlefronts). There have been some rumours that local FSA enlisted the help of the YPG and promptly bailed, but I'm sceptical on that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the YPG a PKK "affiliate", but otherwise I'm inclined to agree with your comments. I have the impression that the ISIS is trying to take the Bab al-Hawa border crossing a bit to the south (from rebels), if they don't already control it.

BTW, what do you think of (1) having separate tables by governorat and (2) non-link labels ? (Details on your talk page)

BTW2 : Can you point me to a translator utility for kurdish ? It would be really nice to be able to read your references (and others encountered), to have a better sense of things. thanks :) André437 (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

PKK—>KCK—>PYD—>YPG. Sister organisation, regional branch, local affiliate, all the same. I doubt that these clashes are related to Bab Hawa, they're kind of the wrong direction. As it stands, the mini-emirate of al-Dana sits just off the Bab Hawa road, a nice chokepoint.

Dividing by governorate seems fine (I don't really pay much mind to the tables as is). As Tradedia said, nonlinked labels show up as a total mess for me (probably for some others too), so I vote no on that.

As for machine translators, I am not aware of any. My advice: find some Kurds :) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It will be interesting to see what develops in this area. I hadn't noticed that al-Dana was so close. With taking control in Azaz, it looks like part of a definite ISIS strategy.

I did find a Kurd a few months back, but she was totally uninterested in anything related to politics :)

OK, I'll procede with dividing the city table by governorate (sometime soon).

As for non-linked labels, if I can trace and fix the display problem, I'd like to (eventually) progress there as well, since it would overcome certain disfonctions in the current map. (After verifying that it would work for you, of course.)

To that end, could you tell me what browser and operating system you use ? Thanks :) André437 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DARAA

I don't know who is the person modify so quickly this MAP but, please give us you sources to explain why the Border in Deraa is green (as only Al Jazeera said that with only one VIDEO that can be done every where !. It seems again and again false flag. Are you going to put these 11 villages in Hama countryside supposed to be taken by rebelles (another Al Jazeera "great news" !). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.91.82 (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't me, but LaChronique has supporting posts here and here, and a map.

They say that the rebels took Qadim (the border post south-west of Daraa city), with an unconfirmed report that maybe Nasib, the main border post with Jordan (on the M5) was also taken.

They also say that the rebels have gained control of all of the al-Manshiya neighbourhood of Daraa, and there are combats in the central al-Mahata neighbourhood.

Note that his map shows that the towns of Naima (east of Daraa) and Yadoudeh (north-west) are controlled by the rebels. LaChronique a few weeks ago indicated that both had been controlled by the rebels since March. Neither is on our map, both being about the same distance away as the beseiged Hajana base to the south, André437 (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Facebook, facebook and again facebook. Please use commonly agreed more "reliable" sources. Do not cite: SANA, SOHR, Facebook, Twitter. These are totally unaccepted. I would suggest to moderators blocking the user Sopher99 for continous use of non-reliable or freely interpreted sources for one-sided editing.Ariskar (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Logic 101 : if a source is not reliable, than any source based on that not reliable source is not reliable.

The mantra you proclaim succeeds in disqualifying almost all references used. There is no Wikipedia policy that excludes Facebook sources as such. There is a policy on using reliable sources, which admittedly requires some judgement.

Coming back to the real world, refusing SOHR and LaChronique but then accepting vague reports based on hearsay without references, besides being incoherent, is favouring unreliable sources, however you may decide to qualify them. I'm not trying to say that anything on facebook should be accepted, but rather that the sources should be evaluated for their reliability. Many facebook sites are just personal opinions, without real sources, and not to be taken seriously. But both the SOHR and LaChronique have fairly reliable track records. For example, LaChronique was the first to publish rebel advances in Daraa province, the taking of the series of towns from the Golan heights to Dael, months before other sources. As well, both LaChronique and the SOHR have also been among the first to report rebel losses. So they are not one-sided, even though they do openly prefer that the regime loses.

So the question is : do we want the map to be based on fantasy, largely favouring the regime, or to reflect the real position on the ground ?

BTW, many pro-regime groupies refer to our map to say that the regime is winning, which mines the support of many governments for the rebels. Serving to prolong the suffering of the Syrian population. So don't think that this effective pro-regime bias is without human consequences. André437 (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Andre437. "La chronique" is well known in France for people who are concerned by what's happen in Syria. He's completely for Djihadists and, by extension, for rebelles part. You can't taking what he wrote on facebook as a reliable source if it is unique !!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.124.62 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear 81.43.124.62 : If you read LaChronique regularly, you will realise that he is essentially pro-laic (FSA) rather than pro-Islamic, and accepts djihadists only if they don't attack the population or other rebels. He is also pro-kurd. His main concern is seeing the regime overturned. One could say that he is the french-language equivalent of the SOHR, with more strident editorials (but clearly identified as such). He also has more videos, photos than SOHR, and detailed maps of current positions, that accompagnie some of his reports. True, there could be some misinformation from his sources, but I've not noticed anything that hasn't been eventually confirmed by other sources. Except some of the items that he specifically declares as unconfirmed. Unlike SOHR, he has relatively little body counts. An area where SOHR excels.

My point here was that since another site has apparently reported this gain, it is reasonable to accept it as verified, considering the supporting info given by LaChronique.

Note that our map has shown this border post as red until the last few days, despite the fact that it has been reported as beseiged by LaChronique for some months.

Now that the rebels take the border post, it shows as contested. Because SANA hasn't admitted the regime loss yet ? I suspect that Daraa city will fall first. André437 (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

On that note, how much of the city do the rebels need to take before the entire city is marked contested, not just individual districts? Even according to the most conservative reports, the rebels hold about 40% of Daraa city.--197.109.14.201 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

“The entire city” is already “marked contested.” “Contested” means that it is not entirely red or entirely green. If you look at Daraa city on the map, you see that the north of the city is held by gov (red), the south (Al-Balad) is rebel-held (green) and the center (Al-Mahatta, Al-Manshiyah) is contested (“blue”). For large cities that are contested, we want to provide information beyond that it is just contested. So for example, for Aleppo city, we don’t just put a large contested blue icon

, but rather we put an icon that is the Battle of Aleppo map

, which provides some useful information. However, there are large contested cities like Daraa, that do not have a control map anywhere on wikipedia. In this case, we try to mimic the Aleppo city icon by using a combination of green, red, and "blue" icons. This provides useful information about the status of parts of the city and neighborhoods. This is less detailed and precise than the Aleppo city icon

, however, it is still more informative than the contested blue icon

. Being the "detailed map", we have the responsibility of providing detailed control information about large contested cities that do not have a control map anywhere on wikipedia. Tradedia^talk 21:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect - that particular edit does not deal with part of Daraa which is regime-held but with Daraa as a whole city. Which is, as you said, contested. Daraa in itself is not really that large of a city, under 100,000 pop before war. In case of Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor we put a map because we have one. Unfortunately we do not have one for Daraa so most precise information we can provide about city as a general is contested, not regime held with small dots on 2 districts that are rebel-held. That may work in Homs given that vast majority of city is under complete and absolute control of regime and rebels control there only small parts of the city, even though some could argue about that. But not in case of Daraa where, according to this map we use (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Military_situation_in_Damascus_region_as_of_15th_of_September_2013.png), we have about 50 percent of city under rebel control including the only border crossing. If you really want to go into details of major districts there is nothing easier than having Daraa as general as contested, for it is, and also putting up contested dots with names of particular districts what I honestly find more chaotic but that is just one man opinion. But having Daraa as regime-held (which edit makes so) is incorrect, misleading and goes against the sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tradedia on this one. The purpose of the map is to provide information as close to the current cituation, as reference verifiable. Marking large cities as simply "contested" goes against the purpose. This has been discussed over and over, for Deraa and other cities. The main part of the city is mostly regime controlled, while the south (Al Balad) is mostly rebel held. There are reported daily clashes back and forth with subsequent front changes and occasional intrusions from both sides. However, the most recent and in fair stalemate parts of the city where the frontline is reported (2 "contested" dots) represent the most recent verifiable frontline and thus should remain the same. To my perspective, the Deraa (main) city should remain red, with a reduction in size, as it does not anymore contain a large part of its population size related to the rebel held and contested areas.Ariskar (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. Main part of the city is either in rebel hands on contested. If center is what you consider main part (Daraa al-Mahata, Palestinian refuge camp and north of Daraa al-Balad - all contested or in rebel hands). Main economical hub, border crossing, is in rebel hands. Suburbs are in rebel hands (Atman, Naima, Yadoudeh). Saying that main part of city is in regime hands is simply wrong, period. And again, Daraa is NOT a large city. It has population under 100,000 (had) which means that by most definition it is not even a city but a town. And even if it wasn´t, this city/town is contested. What is so hard about this simple thing? Do I smell a POV here? Why, yes I do. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Haggana Battalion

According to ALOT of youtube videos Haggana base near Dara'a city has fallen to FSA Insurgents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRX8NE2RIyU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.42.78 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

More videos of Haggana in hands of rebels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOCn4bxZrQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAFRD8ksZZo

And maybe this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiHhN4vrBL0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.62.213 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hajana Battalion at south of Daraa is claimed to be liberated by rebels according to a number of youtube videos shared. However, I don't know if such videos are accepted as reliable reference according to wikipedia policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_fuNUZaAf0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Done per other more reliable sources. Tradedia^talk 22:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nasirya

The town is not contested but there was only a skirmish on the bases and army checkpoints around the town it is not contested pls change it SOHR is confirming this and if they are confirming this and they are pro-opp it is a realible source you can go check it out on FB SOHR and here is the report

Reef Dimashq: Areas in the cities of M'adamiyat al-Sham, Douma and Daraiya were bombarded by regular forces which led to several injuries along with clashes between rebel and regular forces in the outskirts of M'adamiyat al-Sham. A child from A'rbin city died of wounds received by shrapnel from a shell launched by regular forces yesterday morning. At least 19 regular soldiers were killed and dozens wounded by a rebel attack on regime centres, warehouses and strongholds in the al-Nasriya area of al-Qalamoun at midnight.

79.126.246.118 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This SOHR quote does not say that it is not contested, only that the attacks were ongoing at midnight.

As well as the SOHR post, another post which seems to refer to the same location : LaChronique says that in the Qalamoun mountain area, the military supply base 413 was taken by the rebels (Liwa al-Islam and local allies). This reference includes a video taken during daylight hours, suggesting that the rebels were there for at least 6 hours. (The sun rises 6 hours after midnight.) So it is reasonable to mark the place as contested, since we also have a reference that says the location was taken by the rebels, and we don't know if they are still there, so it is at least uncertain. André437 (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Khanasser, Aleppo

Regime forces (mostly mixed of SAA and NDF) have taken hold of some parts of the town according to activist.

https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr

Your link isn't specific, and the only thing I find on SOHR is a long 3-day old post containing, among many other points, various mentions of regime bombardments on and around Khanaser, as well as helicopters dropping barrel bombs on a nearby village. As well as the rebels downing a regime airplane.

But no indication of ground clashes. (Another site did report what it called a false claim in al-Watan.) . . . Plus you should sign your post. André437 (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ariha and Khanseer

Ariha is not contested change it and also Khanseer is not government held but is actualy contested pls change this now!79.126.228.121 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

References please ! André437 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your reference says it was SOHR and al-Watan which reported the retaking of Khanaser by the regime but :

1) there is no such claim on the SOHR site, the latest related post being on 1 October, reporting nearby clashes, and air bombardment (and downing of a regime airplane).

2) LaChronique says that al-Watan made a false claim of the regime taking Khanaser, that the town is still held by the rebels.

So it looks like a false claim by your reference. André437 (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well then change Ariha it is no contested but under government control 79.126.200.120 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, we have 2 secondary (facebook) sources that disagree, and one tiertiery source (replicated word-for-word on a number of different sites) based on one of the facebook sources. So whichever of the conflicting sources you believe, you are ultimately believing a secondary facebook source.

So if you insist that facebook doesn't count, that means that Khanaser should remain as rebel-held. Otherwise you are validating facebook references.

Note that quoting the secondary source directly would have made it easier to verify. In this case, the SOHR claim regarding Khanaser was buried after claims of other locations, in the same post.

BTW, the LaChronique site has been vandalised, most of the posts of the last day or so removed, including the source I quoted. André437 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SOHR is used by many respected international media such as Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, and others, as SOHR positioned as a neutral source. And your La Chronique du Printemps Arabe way affiliated frankly and openly oppose the Syrian government and many news from this source are basedon movies rebels from YouTube authenticity can not be verified and are not edited in Wikipedia based on videos from YouTube. And the fact that Khanaser under the control of the army has already proved a lot of sources. And we use data provided by the SOHR when he is mentioned in a particular article, and not from the page to the SOHR Facebook!.178.94.222.117 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Both the SOHR and La Chronique are opposed to the syrian government, SOHR for many years. Both have direct independant sources on the ground, and both try to verify them (La Chronique by alternate contacts) before publishing the information. Both qualify as secondary sources under Wikipedia policy, unlike SANA which, as an organ of the regime, is a primary source and thus not useful as a reference under Wikipedia policy. It is true that La Chronique uses videos to support information provided by his contacts, but it is not true that he depends primarily on such videos. Many of his posts have no videos. The main difference between the 2 sites is that La Chronique is essentially in French, with some bilingual maps, and sometimes a bilingual post, and SOHR (on facebook) is only in English. (SOHR has a site in arabic as well.)

You may be able to make a case for general reliability, but being posted on facebook instead of some other blog site should not be a factor. (Many of the other sources used are posted on a blog site, many of which are so vague that it is often difficult to determine what exactly is being proposed. Often presenting exactly the opposite of what really happened.)

Both SOHR and La Chronique, by their practices, are effectively journalistic sources. Unlike the SOHR, all editorials on La Chronique are clearly marked as such. It is understandable that being a francophone source may make it difficult for many of you to appreciate the quality of the site. (Particularly if you depend on Google translate.) Like any source, it is subject to errors, but in the past it has been the first to report a number of changes reported much later by other media. This case seems to be the first important error by La Chronique, whereas SOHR and others did not note the important rebel advances in southern Daraa for at least a month or 2 after noted by La Chronique. (If I'm not mistaken, it was claims by SANA that alerted other media to these rebel advances.) As well, La Chronique offers a lot of insight into the strategy of various rebel groups and supporters, typical of what is found in tiertiary journalistic sources. Something not found on SOHR.

It would be helpful if there were more direct usage of secondary sources such as SOHR and La Chronique. The mantra of "no Facebook" is a perversion of Wikimedia policy which instead talks of "primary", "secondary" and "tiertiary" sources, as well as "reliability" which depends on the methods used by the source in question. For the purposes of knowing the current positions on the ground, in my view tiertiary sources don't add much.

Anyway, that is how I see it. André437 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Damascus countryside

Hi, I can not seem to find the coordinates of the cities mentioned in this article Rogal Dorm (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

oops, in this article sorry: http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/836981/une-localite-cle-de-la-banlieue-de-damas-sous-controle-du-regime-grace-au-soutien-du-hezbollah.html Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You and me both I cant find it either, but according to the syrian cw map on wiki, it is between the highways south of damascus but just north of the Sahya Mountains where the Syrian Army is stationed. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.428146&lon=36.307240&z=13&m=b&search=Aleppo%20Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.42.78 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Quinetra Province

According to pro government SANA the army seize control of the villages of Oqania and Ein al-Beida in the province.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some other source, but other villages: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920717001415 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.211.49 (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Damascus Suburbs

According to Neutral sources the syrian army took over the suburbs of al-Thiabiya and Husseiniya.--Dimitrish81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source for these and it is reliable http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/11/us-syria-crisis-damascus-idUSBRE99A0CZ20131011

Also to point out that Seyada Zeynab is not contested and it is government held And one more thing is that the town of Thiabiya(according with the description given by Reuters) is I think also known as Al-Dhiyabiyah on wikimapia and it is the larger part of the area called Az-Zayabeyeh. Here is the map:

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.433841&lon=36.351013&z=14&m=b&search=Aleppo 79.126.206.82 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the name status confusion. Pro government SANA is referring to the two cities as al-Ziyabiyeh and al-Husseiniyeh clarifying the above notice from user 79.126.206.82--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Shakka, Rif Dimashq

It seems Government forces have taken another town in eastern ghouta, Presstv reporter is in the town of Shakka which is located Northwest of the Damascus International Airport. Rob2013 (talk)

Pro government Press Tv reports the capture of the small city as Rob mentioned and have undisputed video footage during a tour in the city and in the general area under the escort of army. Map location of the city will be useful.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I shouldve added the map coordinates which I had on the computer screen but forgot. Here you go :) Shakka; http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.435739&lon=36.468258&z=15&m=b&search=Damascus%20Syria Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.29.101 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Idleb Province

Once again without providing not a single source certain editor is averting the ariha city to contested. Previous times the editor also try to link us with old news or similar news that in no case are confirming the editing. as for pro government and pro rebel sources(SOHR), the city is under syrian army control and nothing have changed. More experienced editors in necessary averts.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ariha and Marat al Numan back as they were Ariha government controlled Marat al Numan rebel79.126.203.181 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There are clashes in Ariha reported by pro-regime Iranian Fars News (mainly SANA primarily sourced) and clashes in Maarat al Numan bases are only reported by pro-rebel SOHR, not the city. The mentioned source did not contain information on the city and was reverted. SOHR sourced used for Maarat al Numan edit Ariskar (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Maarat al Numan was reverted to contested from report of SOHR of dead rebels "by" Maarat al Numan and the "by" Wadi al-Dayf military base. To my english language understanding, "by" means "next to" equivalent to "outside". The clashes in Wadi al-Dayf and Hamidiyah bases have been ongoing for over a year. SAA has been reportedly using Air force to strike rebel positions around the bases and in the city. A small number of deaths by unspecified type of force next to a place does not mean clashes or infantry intrusion inside it.Ariskar (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK who the hell changed Khan-Shaykun(i think it was the name of the town)in south Idleb to rebel held The town is government held if you dont have reliable sources you need to change it back now cuz the retake of that town for the rebels will have strategic win aginst the government and would be reported in AJ Reuters and others change it back79.126.206.82 (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted, thanks for reporting another instance of vandalism by Sopher99 using biased sources and loose interpretation of their input.Ariskar (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The link [[Hadar]] shows up it the list of links to disambiguation pages. Can somebody solve this minor issue by changing the link into [[Hadar, Syria|Hadar]]? Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. AOnline (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Qalamoun area

According to pro government SANA the army took over the city of Talfita in al Qalamoun area in the countryside.Photos of a "celebration" in the city were aired by the news agency.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

FARS, Press TV and Arab Today confirmed it

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920720001278 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/12/329000/syria-army-retakes-talfita-joroud/ http://arabtoday.net/breakingnews/army-regains-full-control-of-talfita-joroud-in-damascus-countryside.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.15.218 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Map display will be useful by more experienced editors. I think the city lies east of Saydnaya.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Talfita Coordinates: 33.70,36.32 captured on 13-10-2013 by government forces. Here is also a video from al-Ikhbariyah tv (Syrian TV)inside Talfita town today. Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WynCoqoiLE

Talfita is actually 2km west of Saydnaya. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.695780&lon=36.341400&z=12&m=b&search=Syria%20Yalda Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.27.188 (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree west, saw it in the map but confused in writing.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Al-Tall

I want to ask why is this town put as rebel held because i am sure the town is government held.If you have other sources that say otherwise post them here i want to see them if not put the town back to government held.Also to point out that if the town was lost to the rebels other media like Reuters and AJ would report it and another thing is that it is also a home to a large Military hospital and a few army underground fuels depots so i think it should be putten back to government held if there is no reliable source confirming it.Here is also a map of the area around the town witch is government held without any rebel presence:

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.618479&lon=36.320972&z=13&m=b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.179.230 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

According to an NYT correspondent on the ground in Syria: "On the back side, military bases alternated with towns of concrete-block buildings and domed mosques, like Al-Tal, where despite government control around the town, rebels inside it are active, residents say." So government forces do indeed control the area "around the town", but not inside.

In the future, please consult the template's revision history to see what sources have been used before posting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Dana, Idlib

It seems al dana is controlled by ISIS, they have now a "Islamic" police cars & a welcome sign https://twitter.com/zhoof21/status/385119766454992896/photo/1

https://twitter.com/zhoof21/status/382282737517748224/photo/1

Aziza

Certain editor once again try to misinform with acting unilateral in the map editing this time by using this link tell us that Aziza village is contested in Aleppo. The news in the site describe Nusra and ISIS activities in general and have a picture from the village of Aziza, with NO date and total WINTER CLOTHES, showing jihadists in a truck in the village!!!! However the article did not mention at all Aziza control, which is located in the strategic road that army recently occupies and control. Most experienced editors can act accordingly.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cities without info who control them

On map we have big cities and a lot of confilct points /cities and vilages/. mentioned in news. Of course it is difficult to understand situation without seeing all cities/vilages in area. Can we put empty circles for other cities? No color fill. Only to mark populated area on map. It can be second map for people who want to analyze map.Kostadin24 (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point I'd say we have most of the major cities and towns, and I'm wary of adding "fluff" to the map as we're already experiencing significant size issues. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Buwaydah, Damascus Southern Suburbs

Neutral sources are reporting the capture by the army of the town of Bweida south of the capital. It will be interesting if we have map display.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

here is the map: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.433071&lon=36.331444&z=15&m=b&search=Syria%20Yalda 79.126.186.53 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, even SOHR confirms this, but I cant find a direct link to their post, If experience members should post this town as taken by Government forces on the map they should put a red dot between on the left side; between Al Husseiniyah & Zayabiyah. Rob2013 (talk)

They put it near the Omar town i think.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This town is not contested the syrian army took it back from the rebels here are the sources:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/16/329746/syria-forces-recapture-strategic-town/

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-army-hails-recapture-rebel-town-near-damascus-144335985.html

79.126.229.29 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Returned to red. Last date of reported clashes 15th of October. Army claimed, confirmed by SOHR from 16/10. Another source:

http://www.teinteresa.es/mundo/Ejercito-recupera-Buweida-respaldo-Hezbola_0_1012698753.html Ariskar (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a town. Not even a village. Just farm fields with a few isolated houses. André437 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well either way it lies on the highways to the south it is a strategic place 79.126.206.33 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it just sits on some secondary rural roads [1]. The thing about this war is that every time any group captures even the smallest cluster of mud-brick huts, it's instantly billed as "strategic" even when it's really just marginal. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a strategic place it sits on a road junction that goes to Hajr-Al-Aswad and Qadam so with this the army cut the rebel supply in that area with other road passing near the Sahnaya mountains witch hosts large number of army artillery positions and bases the only good supply road was the one witch crossed through Al-Husenyah - Al-Zabeyeh - Buwayda. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.437351&lon=36.322517&z=14&m=b&gz=0;362866401;334139261;793075;0;662612;133247;498676;73073;348472;124651;314140;252150;193119;232095;71239;250718;0;427967&search=Syria%20Yalda

79.126.204.107 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hama Countryside

According to pro government SANAthe Syrian Army took over control of the towns of of al-Hamraa, al-Rahia, al-Lala, al-Rabi'a al-Janoubia, al-Afif, Qala't al-Rahia and Tal al-Dalil in the eastern parts of the countryside.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

According to pro government SANA, the army took control of the villages of al-Barghothieh and al-Arshuneh in the countryside. Map display will be useful also.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

According to pro government SANA the army took over the village of Slam Gharbi in the countryside. Map display will be in lighting.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, map display won't be anything unless you give reliable sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Bassel Al-Assad airbase

The icon representing this base suggests it is solely a helicopter base like Taftanaz and Menagh. It is not, it is capable of supporting airplanes too.--197.111.223.238 (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. On google maps it is called al-Bassel International Airport. On our map, Bassel_Al-Assad_International_Airport. (It is north-east of the port of Jableh, Latikia.) André437 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Tradedia^talk 21:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Idlib province

Can someone place Fu'ah and Kafarya to the locations they actually are? Thank you. OberschIesien90 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Tradedia^talk 21:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Homs Countryside

According to pro government SANA urgent title, the army took over the city of Hadath in the countryside.Wikimapia located.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Damascus Countryside

The town of Hatetat Al Turkman have benn captured by the army according to neutral sources. Edit has been made, sources are deployed for confirmation only.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Colours

The colours used to point out government and rebel locations show horrendous bias. It is well known that red is a colour for "enemy", green a colour for "ally". This is a civil war; why is it being characterised as a fight between "good and evil"? I suppose I shouldn't expect wikipedia to offer a balanced account of anything ; ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.116.162 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

So Russia marked his army as enemy during WWII :) Kostadin24 (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be stupid to colour Red Army in any other colour. Red Army was enemy of russians - it really depends on how you look on history: RA had losses in Findland(due to strategy of cannon fodder - or as they were called quotas of death - that describes how actually Red Army worked), massacre(some people call it cleanings) of great deal of army generals prior to Third Reich attack on Soviet Russia. Also common parades and military cooperation(to invade Poland) between Soviet Russia and nazi Germany. And fleeing from advancing german army from occupied western territories, leaving so much military equipment, that USA had to resupply, I would hardly call this army as friendly to their own people.

Similarities between WW2 and conflict in Syria are great - if Germans wouldn't had some world conquering and changing goals and they wouldn't continue massacres from where russians left, Russia wouldn't end war how it ended. So, this is history lesson which people are bound to repeat again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.19.240 (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at this flag. Which colour is the most prominent? Now look at this one. See a pattern?

Funniest thing is that for Libyan maps we used green for Gaddafi and red for the rebels and far fewer people bitched about it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

:D André437 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, he is not the only one who tought, that this map was biased with colors. Note that previous smaller nondetailed version used different colour pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_Civil_War.svg

And this map is using it everything around. It was *very* confusing, when smaller undetailed map was main source of information and was updated a lot frequently and then there existed something with switched colours(except blue). And there are many other signs of biased information, since there is a lots of outdated information and that's all is related to opposition. Well, call this map then "Map, based on opposition(whatever it is - I don't really care) information" and everyone will be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.19.240 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Homs Countryside

Al suknah city according to pro government SANA is back in total army control.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Towns of Sadad and Mahin

The town of Mahin is in government hands and there are only battles going on around Sadad and even that town was taken back read the full articles please. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/us-syria-crisis-christians-idUSBRE99L0U520131022

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Oct-23/235532-syria-rebels-advance-towards-arms-depots-activists.ashx#axzz2iSSXwwav

here what the dailytar article says:

On Monday, opposition fighters entered Sadad, aiming to advance through it towards Mahin and the depots.

But the army pushed them back and deployed its own troops in Sadad, said the Observatory, which also reported five killed in Wednesday's clashes there.

Stop making stupid changes and trying to sell propaganda! 79.126.176.5 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadad is not contested the link given for the change is not even working so it can not be used for any kind of change please revert the changes made on the map http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=240724775%20http://news.msn.com/videos/?videoid=5141d2e8-fb51-f432-a016-cdbb3498295b&ap=True

Page Not Found- this is what the link says

Someone reverse the changes made by Sopher99

79.126.179.106 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone should ban sopher99...at last — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.132.204 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He has already 2 x 1RR warnings. He should be blocked from this article.Ariskar (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sukhna

Recent pro-rebel sources declare capture of Sukhna town at east of Palmyra by rebels. This video shows the recent clashes. I think Sukhna deserves to be marked as contested at least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9DLkp_RzKk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say that this is rely one sided i mean how can we take videos and pictures(that are not reliable even if it is a picture from a reliable source it may have been taken a month or two ago and now is used for propaganda) to mark rebel gains but not take video footage from Press TV Al-Manar and other pro-government sources,I know that they are not reliable but at least they provide video footage of the town captured or taken by the army unlike the rebel sources that show fighter standing between some buildings firing there weapons at something that even they don't know what.I remember when i posted a source from Press TV with a reporter touring a recently captured town called Darushah (http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.394078&lon=36.129870&z=15&m=b&search=Hadath) I cam under a hail of critics saying that Press TV is a partisan source.Well i will argue that either we stick to the same standards and stop editing stuff and the only source you have are a picture of 6 fighters and video from which you can not find any land mark to confirm it is the town that the video says it is, and only use sources that are reliable and videos from where you can recognize the place (wikimapia can help you you can go to the town and try to find a land mar that is in the video)and stop using sources that claim this or that. Here is the report that i suggested for editing(http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/12/318419/syrian-army-regains-strategic-town/)and this is what Lothar said:"Interestingly, I have come across very few mentions of this town in rebel media even before this "report". Some news from last year about clashes near a government media building, but really nothing much. Strange, considering the ubiquity of "citizen activist" cameras in rebel areas." Well i have also not found a report from pro-gov media reporting on Suknha. I don't want to sound pro-rebel or pro-gov but instead i would like to see objectivity prevail on this map and not propaganda and some people who are cheering for one side or another this is not a football match but a war.79.126.211.77 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The link provides video and report of Syria TV inside al Sukhna, after the city was fully recaptured by the army. Many dead islamists, interviews with locals and undisputed signs of the location(km signs) of report from the city centre of the town.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some pro-rebel resources (twitter @markito0171) verified that rebels retreated Sukhna after airstrikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Watching carefully the report from the city centre with undisputed sign and labels of km and visable burn trucks of the jihadists there is not a single doubt that city is under army control. We have said in past that syrian tv is not the most credible mean but under these evidence i think its blind not to see the fact that the city is under army control and paint it contested.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Tafas, Dara'a

The Military Barracks & Military housing in Tafas should be included in the map. The military sites are under rebel siege and the town is being bombarded by syrian air force & Artillery. Tafas is located here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.733646&lon=36.066313&z=14&m=b&show=/16717425/ar/مدرسة-طفس Their are alot of videos of the conflict there heres the link http://www.youtube.com/user/SHAMSNN/videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.31.246 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this town should be posted on the map; along with the Military housing & Barracks thats located there. Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.47.76 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

pro-rebel sources announced that Tafas near Daraa is fully liberated by FSA after regime retreated from military baracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ1M3ZLR6Nk

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=32.734927&lon=36.081569&z=17&m=b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

SOHR also verified the news. https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/439659226142421 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Need actual conformation from a neutral source mainly because sources above are pro-rebel and we need conformation from other sources that are not pro-rebel like Reuters or others79.126.179.106 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If SOHR confirms it,then okay,because we had a discussion,and we agreed that SOHR can be used because alots of news organizations,including Reuters uses the quoting of SOHR in its reports.Alhanuty (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

SOHR is one man behind a desk writing stuff on FB and if we use SOHR than we are unbalancing the sources cuz we are actualy not using state media not even presstv which is said to be pro-government so if we use SOHR why not use SANA and Presstv aren't they sources.And let me mention one more thing SOHR also says there info is coming from activists so we don't rely know who are these activists they may be rebels who are trying to get a desperate victory to bolster there moral.And also there is no video or photographic proof about there capture on youtube videos(which rebels constantly post) so i will take this claim with my reserves before jumping into conclusions.Lets remember how many times was SOHR wrong when it comes to town control on the ground.And as you mentioned Reuters does use this reports but after they confirm that rebels captured something I don't see Reuters nor even AJ which is highly pro-rebel does not report this so lets wait before we do any changes!79.126.179.106 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent map.

Just a note: Much of the combat in the south as of now is on the "barrier" ( as they call it ) between Tafas and Da'el, The rebels holding Tafas, and the Government Da'el. Should update this. --Batchuba (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

When did the regime take control of (even part of) Da'el, long in rebel hands ? André437 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing that is bugging me, since they captured the "Military Barracks", what is the situation for the "Military Housing" which is east of it? I thought tafas was always in control by the rebels but the only bumps for them where those two military areas?? Rob2013 (talk)

For whom who are still suspicious: Tour inside army base of Tafas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3EHScm6nqI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats the Barracks not the housing. Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.46.248 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Countryside

According to pro government SANA the syrian army took control of 11 villages in recent operations including Talzghaib, Turkat, al-Nayrab, Tal Abour, al-Barakeh, al-Masyadeh, al-Hbayseh, Taat, Burj al-Rouman, al-Amyreh and al-Hmyra. Neutral sources are also confirming the event of the road that reopened from Khanaser to the city of Aleppo establishing the supply routes to the city for the regime. Please investigate if the above villages are in the above axis and by defition it was inevitable to controlled in order that road to reopen, which is an undisputed fact.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That article says that SANA says the road is open, but the quote of SOHR is conditional, and indicates that it is still disputed. ('the road remains "very dangerous" and susceptible to ambushes.') So we can't assume that all the villages along the route are indeed controlled by the regime. (Unless we take SANA as a reliable source.) André437 (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

'the road remains "very dangerous" and susceptible to ambushes.' This does not mean "contested". The source is Secondary, hence acceptable. This means that the road has to be considered fully under government control according to this reliable source. The source does not cite anything related to the villages. SANA is not to be used on its own. The acceptance of the cited SOHR, of regime control over the road does not extend to villages by the road. Even though common sense means that acceptance of the entire road under regime control means that villages crossed directly by this road would also be controlled, this is yet to be verified by other sources.Ariskar (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

So the regime is in "full control" of the route of some 100 km, just subject to attacks along the road ? It certainly depends on what is meant by "control". That sounds like it isn't fully controled by either side. Even if the regime controled all the villages and towns along the route, there is a lot of space between settlements. André437 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This villages have long been in SAA control the only thing that was contested was the area around Khanaser this is the suply route of the syrian army and most of the villages along the road are controled by them SOHR and other sources say that the road is still dangerous cuz rebels are in the area but not presumably in the villages or towns near the road but actualy there countryside(you dont have to control a town or a village to attack a road).185.5.7.104 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It will be useful those villages, which are under government control, to put in map in order to understand better the area control. The word dangerous can be used in every part of Syria. The road is under government control as many foreign sources retransmit, including AP, which is used in my previous link of the news.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

How can the regime be in full control the route from Khanaser to (the airport area east of) Alep if the rebels control the largest town on the route, al-Safira, which probably blocks the route much more than Khanaser did ? . Unless we are only talking about the route Khanaser - chemical plants near al-Safira ?

BTW, the regime doesn't have to control the route to pass supplies. It just has to be not controled by the rebels. The rebels manage to get supplies almost everywhere except the coast, including neighbourhoods of Damascus, passing by routes not controlled by either side. André437 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

According to this report, as of October 9, SAA is near Al-Safira. See around 1:40 in the below report. Al-Safira might soon need to be changed to a green circle with a red circle around it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28qI-IAu59c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonen (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Even before rebels shut off the desert road last time, the army didn't control Safira/Tal Aran/Tal Hasil. Convoys skirted around them like this: [2]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

One other confirmed village is Abu Jurayn right next lake/swamp Jabbul. On the same video Fonen posted go to 0:30, Abu Jurayn is seeing in the background. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.42.78 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed by rebels - http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/syria-aleppo-safira-markito0171-assad-forces-hezbollah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral sources are reporting that the Syrian Army is in the procedure of attacking the city of Al Safira in order to further secure the area and the road that links to Aleppo. Red cycle or contested is advised based in the source(original REUTERS).Beyond that, according to pro government SANA, the army secured the city Abu Jareen near al Safira.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have neutral source, the army take control of a strategical village, south of Al-safira. The village is Abu Jurayn: http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/837206/syrie-violents-combats-pres-dun-site-chimique-presume.html Rogal Dorm (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think map positioning is needed by a more experienced editor. Its the same village-town. In wikimapia seems to me more than village formation.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Gentleman there is no need for another "Aleppo Countryside" section, Abu Jurayn is already confirmed to be taken by Government forcs. Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.47.166 (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Pro government SANA is claiming control of more than 40 villages and the full reopening of the road Hama-Khanaser-Aleppo. Villages which are named are Tal al-Hammam, Tal Bsis, Abu al-Kurouz Mount, Tal Khanaser, Tal al-Kerbatieh and Tal al-Zarour. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Safira

This source claims that the town of Sufaira is now besieged. Please change the map and put a red circle around it to show this. Esn (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO the city is not fully under attack by SAA/NDF forces yet BUT there is no doubt that are some Artillery & Airstrikes upon the city. Heres a video of Al Mayadeen reporter next to an Artillery position near Abu Jurayn & Al Safira recently uploaded today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBfp2vLJ8ME Rob2013 (talk)

Also, there's a WSJ article with some news about it: [3]. It mentions that one of the nearby villages has already been recaptured by the rebels, but doesn't specify which one. Esn (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Great reference. It looks like you have to pay to read it :/ André437 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh, that's odd, I could read it without paying back when I posted the link. I'm not sure what happened. Maybe it only works if you access it through Google News or something like that? Esn (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that is it. Just tried to access it directly, and was blocked André437 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've confirmed that it definitely insists that I pay to see the article. Maybe it was initially viewable for free, but not any more André437 (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read the article. It reiterates that there are SAF airstrikes and a siege by the government, which is in line with the current notation. No infantry intrusion or clashes in the city are reported. WSJ is a "reliable" source, with a limited free views.Ariskar (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision 579586552 by AOnline is based on link he added, but in this link, there is no mention about Al-Safira, it is about Al-Sfeira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reconquistador289 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Tal Aran

According to several tweets from kurdish accounts, the town Tal Aran which is located here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.117909&lon=37.334290&z=11&m=b&search=Aleppo%20Syria North West of Al Safira is being shelled by Government forces from the Military factorys; I know twitter is not a full proof source but if anybody else can provide some info it will be highly appreciated. Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.36.193 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Tal Hasel

Also according to a Kurdish site; Tal Hasel which is located Northwest of Tal Aran is also being shelled by Govenment forces, source; http://www.hawarnews.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=572:syrian-army-attacked-til-hasil-and-til-eran-14-dead&catid=1:news&Itemid=2 . Tal Hasel http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.140925&lon=37.313004&z=12&m=b&show=/street/15441135/ar/دير-حافر&search=Aleppo%20Syria Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.43.19 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jisr Al shougur(Idlib)Talfita(Damascus)Al-Safira(Alepo)

These towns are not contested Talfita was retaken by government forces just a few weeks ago along with Jayroud and as far as I know Jisr-al-Shougur is a government stronghold and there are no reports of clashes in the town.There are no reports on government soldiers in the town yet but they have besieged the town.185.5.7.226 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well. actually this comes from an anti-Assad source,(SOHR) Violent clashes in the eastern side of al-Sfeira city, amid regime advancement into the city and taking new parts of it. The regime forces are attempting to take over all of the strategic city, which is next to the Defence factories and the Salamiya-Aleppo road. So a pro-rebel sources claims that government forces have taken part of the city and are trying to capture the whole 'Al-Safira' So at best for rebels Safira is contested but in no way it is under their full control — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.225.171 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC) checked it its ok185.5.7.226 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Alleged Goverment Al Qalamoun Offensive

Sorry for the long title, I know this aint a article of any of the battles going on in syria but IMO we should be aware in the next coming days of an alleged offensive by Syrian govenment forces and see what are the coming changes in the Al Qalamoun area. Ive seen reports of heavy shellings by SAA on Yabroud; allgedly the offensive have already started due to reports ive seen of very heavy shelling on Yabroud and its surrounding areas. Here's a couple of sources. http://www.yalibnan.com/2013/10/21/hezbollah-will-pay-a-heavy-price-in-qalamoun-fsa-warns/ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/10/21/Syrias-civil-war-foes-line-up-for-the-next-big-battle/UPI-97181382379152/#ixzz2iOCxxA8l http://news.yahoo.com/weapons-fighters-flow-syrias-next-battlefront-offensive-looms-133331614.html Rob2013 (talk)

Interesting new piece here in Al-Akhbar: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syria-war-qalamoun-didn’t-begin-because-it-never-stopped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.3.204 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Countryside

According to neutral sources(AFP), the village of aziziyeh is back in syrian army control. Please update.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It is right here just incase somebody wants to know; http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.100261&lon=37.370381&z=15&m=b&show=/29364374/ru/Азизия the name is written in cyrillic but can translate in google.Rob2013 (talk) 2 November 2013

Tal Kocer(Yarubiyah), Hasakah Countryside

Alot of reports from pro-rebel & pro-YPG in twitter of heavy fighting between YPG & ISIS/JAN in Tal Kocer. YPG is in the offensive there, the town should be labeled as contested. Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.37.125 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

YPG Kurds have made a big advance last night. https://www.facebook.com/ArabChroniclebyCedricLabrousse?hc_location=timeline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.233.77 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

According to neutral sources the boarder post of Yarubiya has been capturd by YPG kurdish fighters who they drive ISIS out of the post and the area.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2013 (UT

Done Tradedia^talk 01:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Suran

Should Suran be marked as contested? Because there is no information about military actions in Suran from the middle of 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.86.90 (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But there were refs posted here in the past month or so about clashes in Suran, and some claims the rebels occupied the town.

Although it is true that the table often isn't updated when the map is updated. André437 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is rely no info on that town but i don't know who controls it there was a recent military offensive by the Syrian Army in the region when they captured dozens of villages and Halfaya.On the point of Andre437 i will rely question that capture because in Hama province we had multiple times rebel claims of capturing towns but in the end they turned out to be false just read the articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Hama_offensive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Hama_offensive

There is no mention of Suran being taken by the rebels but on the contrary it shows the town in government held area which may be true because the rebels in HAMA got as far as Tybat-al-Imam from which they were ousted in the government offensive this summer.

But as long as we are in Hama province i would like to ask for an edit the town of Kirnaz is not rebel held but government held read the articles above and here is another article confirming that someone should change it to red

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130207/syria-regime-retakes-town-damascus-clashes-rage-0

79.126.182.140 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Even in table the town of Kirnaz is put as government held someone should change the towns color 79.126.198.196 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Even at http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/, which is strongly pro-rebel, i have read recently, that regime holds Kirnaz and there are clashes around Hamamiyat. Check this: http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/syria-hama-markito0171-rebels-destroyed-hq-of-assad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are old references about Suran, from June. I was referring to rebel advances reported in several places in August/September. (After Khanasir fell in Alep province.) Our map was changed at the time, so I didn't post any of the several references that I saw elsewhere. Note that our tables often aren't updated at the same time as the map, but the references were posted on this page at the time. André437 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well Andre you can present those sources so everyone can see.But the situation in Kirnaz is still not changed even tough it is confirmed it is government held79.126.235.186 (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have them handy, since that was over a month ago (and didn't seem necessary for me to keep), but they should be in previous posts on this page. There were a number of different sources during at least about a week.

I have no idea about Kirnaz.

We should tighten up our process here, and make sure that references are put in the table *before* they are put on the map, so they can readily be verified later on.

(I have a related proposal here, under #"Detailed_map"_too_large_to_be_transcluded_into_"cities_article" ) André437 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Kirnaz used to be red, but was changed by someone to green based on http://syrianewsdesk.com/en/news/hama-al-sheikh-hadeid-witnesses-massacre that said: "Syrian regime forces... pulling out of the nearby town of Karnaz" Tradedia^talk 01:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ar-Rastan

Syria news is reporting that government forces surround and are inside some parts of the city of Ar-Rastan (north of Homs). On the map this is labeled as Al-Rastan. This is currently colored green, you might want to put a red circle around it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPfY2TJo8vI (Oct 24, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.3.204 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This report says that rebels are in Ar-Rastan and nearby villages, while SAA controls northern neighborhood of Ar-Rastan, Ar-Rastan hospital, Ar-Rastan big bridge, Ar-Rastan dam (which is the second largest dam in the country-but not pictured on the map). Should this town be put with a red circle around it? Shouldn't the Ar-Rastan dam be added? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUAX-K2j888&feature=c4-overview&list=UUx6Uyh_iiqER337f0FPlmtQ

Yup, the damn is missing but I dont think its much of importance due to the size of the map and the size of the lake which is the "Al Rastan Lake" in wikimapia. but what I do think should be added is the Army base on the other side of the of the lake and city (Ar Rastan) which is still manned by the Syrian Army; the base belongs to a engineering battalion. The power plant that you see in 0:37 is the Al Zara power plant just northwest of the city.

Power plant & Army base (Engineering Battalion) Distance

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.970375&lon=36.694679&z=13&m=b&gz=0;366621494;349523675;0;61025;651454;0&search=Latakia%2C%20Syria Rob2013 (talk)

I also agree on this issue the town is under an army siege and the army controls the north parts of the town and the bridge nearby.185.5.7.226 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed to contested as per partial SAA control of the dam, north neighborhood and town entrances Ariskar (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the Army base (Engineering Battalion) Tradedia^talk 01:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition. What about the SAA controlled Ar Rastan Dam and the disputed control of northern district? (alleged SAA control with further citation needed) In the report, the entrances of the city are shown as controlled by SAA. Also, previous reports from the rebel held town centre indicated the same situation in the beginning of the 2013 summer. I feel that the town should be under one of the three following layouts:

- marked as contested, / split in north (contested) and main (rebel held) and Ar Rastan Dam (SAA held) / marked under siege (red circle around green circle)

Please provide your inputs on thisAriskar (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

I would like to request to add Mount Azan on the map, Mount Azan is where a Air Defense site is located and still under Syrian Military control but under siege by rebels for quite a while. Here is a youtube clip of the assault on Mount Azan uploaded on October 28th, 2013; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yRYHKjHuFvo Mount Azan is 1.35 miles west of the small town of Rasm Bakru, Map of Mount Azan & Rasm Bakru: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.057808&lon=37.176275&z=14&m=b&gz=0;371712112;360531237;0;42327;236892;0&search=Damascus%20Syria Also the Syrian army base in North of Ar rastan should be added; Ar Rastan, Homs, Syrian Army base; http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.950890&lon=36.729956&z=14&m=b&search=Damascus%20Syria Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.16.214 (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I added the Army base (Engineering Battalion) Tradedia^talk 01:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank youRob2013 talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.26.178 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Al Nashabiya Reef Damascus

Can we put this town at least contested or army controlled because this article says the army took it back from rebel forces

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920814000974

79.126.221.131 (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 - Obaida not contested, your source is old

The source for Obaida that given by sopher99 is old. And now it is not contested, syrian army stormed the village later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.118.45 (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes reverted! By the way: Sopher99 is making permanent reverts on Allepo page too. It should be reported to admins! Kostadin24 (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Al-Sabanih Damascus

First of all could someone revert changes made by Sopher99 on Suweyda. Al Sabanih has been captured by the military with the help of Abu-Fadl-Al-Abas brigade here is the source which is very reliable(who doesn't understand can google translate)

http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/840986/aidee-par-le-hezbollah-larmee-syrienne-reprend-une-cite-cle-pres-de-damas.html

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/519546-syria-army-retakes-key-rebel-town-near-damascus 79.126.234.120 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Al-Sabinah exist 2 times on Damascus map! Removing second one.Kostadin24 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And change Suweyda there was a car bomb attack in the town and Sopher99 changed it into contested the town is government held there are no clashes in the city hell there are no clashes in the province

79.126.234.120 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC) A car explosion, mortar shelling and warplane shelling does NOT constitute a change of control or characterization into 'contested' It needs ground forces involved into clashes to have sufficient evidence for such a change User named sopher99 keeps on making unverified changes and discrediting the whole wikipedia community Proper disciplinary actions should be taken Enough is enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.200.217 (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my stupid mistake: I made revert because of other problem, but didn't noticed Suweida status. Now I can not edit page for some time - After trying to solve mess by Sopher99 - I've been reported for broking rules of editing page. Somebody else can fix it.Kostadin24 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ariha not contested

Sopher99 reverted Ariha as contested but the source doesnt give any information about any clash in Ariha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.118.45 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Source from two days ago clearly says ISIS is in Ariha "The survey has established that ISIS also has a presence -- which is often hard for other rebel groups to challenge -- in the following towns: Sarmin, Salqin, Hraytan, Tabqa Dam, Hayyan, Al Eyramoon, Karm Al Meeyasir, Karm Al Qatarji, Al Atarib, Sarmada, Tal Halef, Menbij, Athimah, Maarat an-Numan, Saraqib and Ariha." http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/05/world/europe/syria-turkey-al-qaeda/ Sopher99 (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

it is not clear.. where is the fighting in Ariha? the city or the rural? and is there any causalties or when was the last fight in the city?78.191.118.45 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok Sopher99 if you realy want to know that there are clashes in a town go check out SOHR they report on all the clashes in syria and they are pro-opp.SOHR hasn't reported a clash in Ariha town since the army retook it that is two months ago ISIS may be has presence around the town but not in it79.126.187.30 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the need to scroll sideways

Hi, the map was much more accessible for a few weeks because the necessity of scrolling sideways to view it was removed, but somebody added it back in again. Why? It's really, really inconvenient, especially on smaller screen resolutions. Please change it back to how it was last week. (that is, the whole map could be seen on the page by scrolling sideways within the browser, not within a separate box) Esn (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Map is not scrollabve on small screens - now I can see only left half of map :( Kostadin24 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. It looks like an accidental change when an adjacent field changed. André437 (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Esn (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)