Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Qusayr

I demand no map change. Wrote just to inform. Keep an eye on Qusayr

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Jan-02/242906-lebanon-army-deploys-as-rebels-advance-near-syria-border.ashx#axzz2pDevAAlp

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1550734 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A little bit exaggerated I think as this may be a spill over from the Qulamoun battle were the Army is on the offensive.From the article:"Advancing from a range of barren hills toward the Syrian towns of Jousieh and Qusair".The only mountains are the Qulamoun mountains which are at least a dozen kilometers to the south-east [1] I think those are the hills we are talking about as they are exactly on the border with Lebanon and are between Qaa and Jousieh.This also may be why the Syrian Air Force lunched airstrikes over the border on the same mountains[2].Daki122 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

army units foiled some militians infiltration from Lebanon into the border town of Talkalakh in the central province of Homs through al-Bqaiya'a site, killing and injuring scores of them.Business StandardYahoo NewsNew Kerala Hanibal911 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said above the fighting was a spill over from the Qualamoun area nothing big for now. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-03/242975-qalamoun-battles-spill-over-into-qusair.ashx#axzz2pF9pxHTI Daki122 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Syrian government forces have “wiped out” a group of militants who were trying to infiltrate from Lebanon. Al AlamThe Times of IsraelNews Daily7 NewsABC NewsWAND TVKWLLSIFY News Hanibal911 (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Al-Nusra leader Abu Mohammad al-Golani and ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took the decision to officially and openly enter Lebanon, the leader told the Washington-based United Press International."They want to be militarily present in the country until Hizbullah withdraws its fighters from Syrian territories and frees all detainees it is holding as captives,” he explained.Naharnet Hanibal911 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clear from the sources above that the militants were trying to enter from Lebanon into Syria and failed.That is why there was shelling and air strikes over the border into Lebanon.Daki122 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell Chuera

Tell-Chuera this archaeological site ((Also "Tall al-Huwaira") Ancient settlement mound, settled in the 3rd millennium BC and in the Late Bronze Age (Mittanni and Middle Assyrian Periods). The Name of the Middle Assyrian city was Harbe.)No sense mark on the map of archaeological sites. And no evidence that someone had captured them. Let's not add archeological sites and ruins of villages. After all, there is no sense of their capture.Hanibal911 (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tal brak is also an archeological site. 24.0.210.152 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

Barcaxx1980 (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC) your work is great. please update it, we wait you :).

new changes: in Damascus: All Barzeh under SAA control. in Hasaka: Tel Hamees under Kurds. In Aleppo: big changes between Da'esh and Al jabha alislamiya. No FSA anymore in 90%. What about adding new colors to highlight the different parties and their lands.

Best Regards. b

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Al jabha alislamiya (Islamic Front) refused to participate in the clashs with isis. Hassan Aboud, its president, explained their view on Al Jazeera this morning. Those who are fighting Isis (Da'esh) are the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (FSA) and the newly formed Jaysh Al Mujahiddin (which is close to the classic FSA rebels and others rebel formations and represents a major actor in Aleppo now). FSA controls large parts of Aleppo itself, of its countryside, large parts in the South, in Idleb Governorate and all the "liberated" towns of Homs governorate.. However, a new color should in fact be added for Da'esh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oussj (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

|ans=no

Neutral Proposal for the eastern Ghouta

A lot of sources founded have confirmed that some of the cities in the eastern ghouta on the map that appear red on the map is in the reality not clear who controls it,but some editors insist to keep it as government control,some claiming that rebels can sneak through and bypass them towards otaybah ,which militarily is impossible because the opposition forces need to control the towns ,so that they can control the roads leading to the other cities further,reliable sources,including Joshua landis have confirmed that cities west of otaybah,in an area of 40 km have been captured,and during the late rebel conter-attack sources such as Reuters confirmed that 7 towns west of otaybah were captured,with government forces recapturing three of them,with fighting reported in otaybah itself,a recent editor has brought a source that says that rebels have taken towns in their latest counter attack,and even sana admitted that there was fighting in otaybah itself and that the fighters came from west of otaybah,so with all of this the situation has became unclear,and a lot of editors aretelling that the situation looks deceiving with leaving the towns in red,alot of editors have proposed of leaving it as least unclear for the moment and we will vote on the issue,this needs to be done ,because altos of editor who are saying that the situation looks deceiving because altos of sources are confirming that the situation looks unclear,are putting it contested,but other editor revert it an then Edit wars occur for this issue,so my proposal is it vote on this issue and each editor argues why it should be unclear or in red,with sources.Alhanuty (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Leave it unclear per that a lot of source are confirming fighting there. Sources. http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/battle-east-ghouta-damascus-rebels-claim-kill-800-syrian-army-soldiers/ http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/uk-syria-crisis-damascus-siege-idUKBRE9AN09320131124 http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-rebel-offensives-in-east-ghouta.html https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/457644061010604 Alhanuty (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC).

In short, they don't need to control the roads to travel between towns, they are guerrilas after all. As for towns captured by rebels...that Brown Moses article that makes these claims is a known heavily opposition source and not to mention its a blog, reminder - Wikipedia for the most part does not accept blogs as sources, especially blogs of dubious reliability (same goes for that joshualandis blog - 800 soldiers???). On the question of that reliability, Moses makes his own personal analysis, almost borderline speculation, all based on both government and rebel propaganda videos from youtube (which Wikipedia also does not accept as a source). As for the reuters article, its out-of-date, more than a month old, and also never names what territory/towns the rebels captured, only that it was some small villages. EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I would remind that just four days after these reported advances by the rebels in late November, activists within East Ghouta themselves denied any advances were made and said they were still besieged while activist networks harshly rebuffed opposition websites that made claims of advances [3] (note - earlier claims were made mostly by opposition coordination commities and rebel officers outside of East Ghouta). EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That was strictly Otayba, and they didn't deny fighting in Otayba, just denied capturing it. I agree with Al Hanuty Sopher99 (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not say they denied fighting in Otaiba, please don't put words in my mouth, and it was clearly stated that they are still surrounded at Marj that means the line has not moved and you can check SOHR's daily reports which confirm continuing fighting around Marj. EkoGraf (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This source http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/battle-east-ghouta-damascus-rebels-claim-kill-800-syrian-army-soldiers/is not reliable.Hanibal911 (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Eko Graf can you prove that all these villages are still under governement hands? At the very least we HAVE to put them as unclear because what is certain is that the situation in Eastern Ghouta is not the same as before the offensive. The siege has not been broken but the situation is not as desperate as before for rebels. --Amedjay (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Joshua landis's blog is so reliable.Alhanuty (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Need confirmation of neutral and more reliable sources. Facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. WP:FACEBOOKWP:BLOGSHanibal911 (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules, blogs are not accepted as sources, no matter what your personal opinion on its reliability is Alhanuty. Sopher, the source doesn't talk about strictly Otayba. The source clearly states that activists, including those within East Ghouta itself, denied and rebuffed the rebel command's and the opposition commities claim's of capture of Otaiba but they also clearly denied other advances during the previous days by saying and I quote The areas of Marj and Eastern Ghouta are still surrounded by Assad troops and their mercenaries. That means, if the rebels did advance, the fighting wouldn't still be raging at Marj, which it is. SOHR still reports on an almost daily basis fighting in the Marj area. If the rebels did capture all those towns than the fighting would have moved on from Marj. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Eko and Hanibal: Read WP:BLOGS again, please: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Joshua Landis fits that description perfectly. If anyone's using "personal opinion on reliability" here, it's you guys dismissing a respected and well-known scholar out-of-hand based on your demonstrably false interpretations of "WikiLaw". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to Brown Moses Lothar, not Joshua Landis. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And Eko, you should really stop thrashing the precise wording of that November source given the fact that there are more recent sources giving more temporally relevant information. Earlier you trumpeted that the offensive must have failed since no statements were released by rebel groups, but now we've got such statements (and a deluge of videos) coming from them. Also, think long and hard about what a "media blackout" means and why activists might try to enforce it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Youtube propaganda videos are not reliable sources Lothar. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Lothar I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't mind me using Presstv as that media source is under the mainstream media and you wouldnt mind me using RT arabic because that is also a mainstream source.Blogs and opinions of single people cant be used because as you refer to these people "experts" are rely strong supporters of the opposition and always tend to blame the regime for everything so you are basicly saying we can use sources that support the opposition but we can not use in any case sources that support the regime.That is rely one sided of you. Daki122 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This has jack shit to do with "mainstream media" and everything to do with "scholarly sources". Joshua Landis (who has devoted decades of his life to studying Syria) and his blog can absolutely, per policy, be used as sources. Here he actually attacks claims by "mainstream media" that government troops were shot after allegedly disobeying "orders" to fire on demonstrators in Banyas back in 2011. But good try, presenting totally irrelevant whining about your favourite pro-government outlets as if it were an argument. Oh, and here's a fun fact: Landis is married to a Syrian Alawi from a prominent military family. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Even a pro-Assad site has admitted that all cities east of otaybah except deir salman is contested Here is the link https://twitter.com/keepingtheleith/status/416609073790844928 Alhanuty (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter? Really? Twitter is not accepted as a source by Wikipedia period. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That same guy reported that the SAA took the hotel in Maloula from rebels in a counter-offensive during the Qalamoun offensive; so unreliable.--Rob2014 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.184.97 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is an own admission by a pro-Assad site confirming a rebel claim that all cities west of otaybah are contested,and you can check tradedia saying about own admission by either side.Alhanuty (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Like why you EkoGrak and Daki and Hanibal911. Insist on keeping the cities west of otaybah as government controlled.Alhanuty (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this map really needs to be updated to reflect the rebel advances in East Ghouta. Even the wildly pro-government website, Syrian Perspective, has published a map clearly showing that the rebels control several of the towns immediately west of Otaybah (including Qaysa, Abbadeh). Here is a link to the map dated December 27th; https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1545110_625046274207708_1878932820_n.jpg I think it might be fine to show some of these border towns as contested. Is there any coherent argument for why these changes should not be made? If I knew how to make edits to that map, I would do it myself. Hulahoop122 (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Fars News Agency is also reporting heavy ground classes(on December 28th) in Deir Salman, with the government killing many rebels. The link is here;http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921007000662 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulahoop122 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I just changed Deir Salman to contested. When I did that I noticed that the Marj al-Sultan Airbase (in East Ghouta) is incorrectly listed as under government control. The base and surrounding town was in fact taken over by rebels in November 2012, widely reported and here is a link from the BBC; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20487492. The Wikipedia maps for Ghouta fighting show it deep in rebel held territory. I can find no information about the government retaking or attacking that airbase. I will try to change that to green, if I can find it. (It takes forever to scroll through all those place names.) If you have information to the contrary please post here. Hulahoop122 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I just made that change to Marj al-Sultan (as it turns out the airbase was already green, but the town had to be changed to green). If anyone knows of shortcut to finding location names when editing, please tell me.Hulahoop122 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fars News and map from Twitter is not reliable sources. If everyone starts to use such sources. map will turn to shit. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hanibal911, can you explain more clearly why the Fars News Agency is not a reliable source in this instance. I believe it is the official news agency of Iran, which is a reliable news source, just generally biased toward the Syrian government (just as Voice of America is generally reliable, while biased toward the US). FARS may tend to overstate the military successes of the Syrian government in attacking the rebels in Deir Salman, but not exaggerate the rebel successes. (Or am I misunderstanding you to mean that Deir Salman should be listed as green (rebel held) rather than contested, because FARS is biased toward the Syrian government?) What sources are you hoping for? Hulahoop122 (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the official information resources should be used but many users say Iranian sources may not be reliable. But let's not use maps from Twitter so this information is not reliable.Hanibal911 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is this there is an own admission by Assad media that all cities wear of otaybah is contested and most editor agree that all cities west otaybah should be put contested.Alhanuty (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter is not accepted as a source on Wikipedia in any form Alhanuty. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok you dont get it dont you even in the syrian perspective map the towns are marked as government held except for two the ting is that the districts around the towns are marked as contested but not the towns them self you can clearly see the syrian flags over the towns and on top of that you dont have the sources to change the situation you only post self promoted rebel videos which claim that they have captured some villages but never give the names of those villages either those baboons are stupid as hell or they are lying there pants off.How can government and other media(Reuters The Daily Star) continue reporting with firm evidences and names and facts while the opposition is just saying: "Well we captured 10 villages but we dont want to give there names because giving names is too mainstream".And the most stupid thing of all is that the fighting(SOHR and other pro-opp media) is still concentrated around the Marj area which means rebels haven't moved a foot from there and that is why they attacked Adra because they failed to capture any village and failed to open a route to Ghuta form the direction of Otayba and are now trying to open a route through the north.And stop calling it Assad media it pretty much shows who you rely support and the Hulahoop guy can keep his tone down because some people have edited the map for more than a year and have contributed to the Syrian civil war portal a lot and he all of a sudden barges in and starts making rules.Daki122 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Daki122, I want to thank you and the other long time editors of this page for the hard work you have done to make this map probably the most important resource for understanding in detail what territory is held by whom in this conflict. (This is sincere, and not meant to be snarky.) If you look at my few posts on this page, I do not make or even propose rules, but rather am asking questions about what guidelines should be used. (Rereading them, perhaps I could have been more deferential.) I am new to this page, but if you look at my history I have contributed significantly to the Syrian civil war portal too. In relation to the issue at hand, both rebel and pro-government media are reporting fighting in several of specific towns west of Otaybah now listed as red. This fighting is not being reported in major mainstream Western media outlets, perhaps because this type of fighting is no longer considered newsworthy, because it is a constant in Syria. It may never be picked up by them. This fighting is simply more important to people living in the Middle-East, and I think it is ok to use these Middle-Eastern or Russian (ANNA) news agencies when both pro and anti-government sources agree with each other. (So I guess in this case I an supporting that suggestion made by others). Hulahoop122 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian army took control of a strategic town in Damascus countryside after pushing back the armed rebels from Al-Nashabieh and Douma towns in the same area.The army regained control of Al-Baharieh town in Damascus countryside after heavy clashes.Fars NewsIslamic Invitation TurkeyHanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Should wait confirmation from neutral sources about the situation in East Ghouta.Hanibal911 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hanibal911, I noticed that you reverted my change from red to green for the town of Marj al-Sultan. Can you please cite some type of source for being contested or retaken by the government? As I posted above in this section, the BBC and other mainstream media reported the town taken over by rebels in November of 2012. Searching in Google news (and just Google) I can find no evidence of any ground fighting there since December of 2012. By the way, the Wikipedia page for the town describes it as being long held by the rebels; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marj_al-Sultan. If you have information to the contrary, you might want to update it there too. Also the most recent map for the Rif Dimash engagements for September through November, shows the town as being relatively deep in uncontested rebel territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rif_Dimashq_offensive_%28September%E2%80%93November_2013%29Hulahoop122 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hanibal911, I noticed that you have completely removed the town of Marj al-Sultan from the map. Did you make a mistake, or do you have some type of reasoning behind that? Hulahoop122 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hulahoop122 are you crazy? I just noted air base Marj al-Sultan not besieged government troops.Hanibal911 (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Hanibal911, instead of changing the color of the surrounding area (representing the town), you removed it. I see now that the circle was not tagged with the town name. I re-inserted the lime circle representing Marj al-Sultan, but did not label it (as I'm not quite sure how). Also, I have interacted with you politely, and I would hope that you would do the same with me. Hulahoop122 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I offended you. But you accused me that I deleted village Marj al-Sultan but I didnt this. Maybe need add this vilage Marj al-SultanHanibal911 (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Daki122, I see that you have changed Marj al-Sultan town as being controlled by government troops (or the Marj-al Sutlan base as being beseiged by government troops). You may have missed the discussion slightly above. Can you cite a source to support your change?Hulahoop122 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hulahoop I have not changed anything the marj village should be added left of the airbase I only put the marj airbase under siege because thats what those circles are used for when they are around one another the marj town hasn't been added and if it is added it will be with a red circle around it because everything in E.Ghuta is under a heavy siege by the Army.Daki122 (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Near Damascus, several opposition neighbourhoods have been under a tight army siege for a year, causing widespread shortages and malnutrition.Activists say the army is besieging residents of opposition neighbourhoods to push the rebels into surrendering.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Daraya

Ok i think it is enough that Daraya is contested it has passed a lot of time since all news outlets including pro opposition ones like Al jazeera confirmed that it was government held town and since there is lack of sources that there is actual fighting in the town I think it is time to put it government held since the last southern Damascus offensive from August there is not a single report of fighting in the town here are the sources [4][5][6][7][8][9] I would like to discus it with all editors on this page before taking any action.Daki122 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The rebel presence in Daraya was "shrunked" and it is under "containment" for a lack of a better word; there is fighting in Daraya but Artillery strikes on whatever is left of Rebel territory is the norm for now. anybody following this conflict closely should know this.--Rob2014(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.184.97 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok then present sources that support your claims.Daki122 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you used a Presstv source i'll use a Syrian TV source which claims it eliminated a rebel group in Daraya which means there is still fighting and this source from the dailystar claims negotiations for evacuation of civilians from Daraya (3rd Paragraph) which IMO puts Daraya in the contested or besieged "label" but not fully control under the Syrian Army. The lack of sources for Daraya does not mean the town has been fully captured.--Rob2014(talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Using opinion articles as sources? Do you slightly read WP rules? Put reliable sources to back your claims...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the best I could find. I know my claims and I stand by them.--Rob2014(talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is for reference, Videos of new Airstrikes in Daraya; Video-1 Video-2 Video-3--Rob2014(talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

An obvious pro-regime source (referring to rebels as "terrorists", reading like an extract of SANA) confirming a recent rebel presence in Daraya should be more than sufficient to confirm such a presence, and thus support leaving the Daraya status unchanged. André437 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Any proposal to put Daraya under government control should be backed by reliable sources, and not by a lack of reports.

The reports cited are all quoting SANA from at least 4 months ago, and as well as being from a party to the conflict (and thus not reliable), claims of taking the town were recognized as false at the time.

Using a lack of recent reports. one could put almost all of Daraa, Deir ez-Zor or Raqqa province under regime control, or almost all of Latakia, Suweida or Tartus under rebel control. Which is obviously nonsense. André437 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In Darayya still continues clashes. This confirm pro government sources and pro opposition sources.Hanibal911 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the opinions and sources :).Daki122 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Darayya it's not in conflict it's encircle but you know many people prefers put it in conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Darayya

Darayya

To be more informative to our viewers, I propose to replace the “contested” icon of Darayya by an icon that shows the rebel pocket in green and the surrounding gov-held areas in red. Articles about Darayya indicate that the rebel pocket is “in the western part of the city” but that the “army captured the northwest edge of the city parallel to the Mezzah military airport”, so I propose the following for Darayya... Tradedia^talk 11:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tradedia on this one. Daki122 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have narrowed down the area to represent that the army controls majority of the town especialy areas around Mezeh airbase and the western parts of the town. Daki122 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Adra industreal city

Adra industreal city under control army. this confirms pro government and pro opposition sources.[10][11] Hanibal911 (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That is the Ramadani Industrial city and Military zone it should be added just right of Adra city it houses several military facilities and factories.Daki122 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When I looked on google maps, i've remarked that Dumayr is closer to Adra than in the wiki map... Oussj (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fighting Locations b/w Jihadists

Reported in this article SOURCE

- Tabaqa (ar-Raqqa Governorate) - Manbij (Aleppo Governorate) - Tal Rafat (Aleppo Governorate) - Atareb (Aleppo Governorate)

Also fighting is reported in parts of Aleppo City, Idlib Governorate, & Hama Governorate but not sure which towns.-- Rob2014 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.184.97 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Request Reshuffle of Brigade Locations North of Damascus

Some of the brigades north of Damascus needs to be reshuffled: Brigade 65 is located just west of Hafir Fawqa, Brigade 67 should be placed right on top of saidnaya prison between Talfita & Seidnaya. Check the link to see the coordinates: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.695923&lon=36.387234&z=13&m=b&search=Daraa%20Syria Rob2013 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.36.67 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Tradedia^talk 12:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

However, today, on wikimapia,the brigade located just west of Hafir Fawqa is labelled "Brigade 67 Army Artillery Base" and the brigade placed right on top of saidnaya prison between Talfita & Seidnaya is labelled "Army Base (Part of Brigade 67)". Anyone has an explanation on what is happening? Tradedia^talk 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

YABROUD, RIMA FARMS, DOUMA

Hey I just wanted to ask should we put the place as contested or put the Rima farms(they are realy close to Nabk only a 1.5km) as contested as given the close proximity of Yabroud to An-Nabk (5-7km which is in the range of direct fire from all Syrian tanks and artillery)and the recent report from the Daily Star. Just asking for opinions before making any changes don't want to make some premature changes?Daki122 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Better not, since attack hasn't started yet. OberschIesien90 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I know but the Rima farms are actually bordering both towns which I think should be putted contested it is as close to Nabk as it is to Yabroud.Daki122 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree Rima farms should be put under contested; even pro-rebel & pro-government are reporting fighting within Rima farms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.184.97 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please, if it is possible to put Rima and Yabroud highlighted as sources from both sides talk about fighting inside both areas (from several days for Rima). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.156.251 (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.13 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have any sources please publish them so we can see them and take the right course of action we can not change anything without sources. Daki122 (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fools do not know what city al-Thawrah . Burst mode makes it clashes with insurgents in the city . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.186.166.94 (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please, explain me how is it possible that there is fight in Yabroud and not in Rima farms ?. I confirm that there are fights in these 2 areas. And please again, put Douma lightning. Finally, it is not necessary to give sources as they are full !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.30.104 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Douma, see Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Douma. Concerning Yabroud, an edit that changed it from green (with red ring) to lightning was rvt because it used a dubious source that copy/pasted word for word a SANA report. Battle for yabroud has not started yet… patience… when it starts, we will know because all the major media will talk about it… Tradedia^talk 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fourth color

I have noticed that YPG forces are displayed in yellow and the rebels in green and SAA in red, but with the current tide of events, Al nusra and ISIS cities should be painted in black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.170.187 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC) I definitely agree, especially since there are clashes between ISIS and FSA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.153.190 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Been saying this for a year now. EkoGraf (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and you're still wrong. Despite all the complaints that the so-called "FSA" makes about ISIS, there is no real ongoing conflict between the two. In fact, we've seen rebel leaders even talk about how ISIS is "reality" and so they are cooperating. ISIS has risen to the "most powerful rebel group" (according to SOHR) in northern Syria by exploiting the fact that other rebels aren't willing to offer concerted resistance to them. When ISIS took over Azaz, groups like Liwa al-Tawhid totally abandoned fellow "moderates" like Asifat al-Shamal instead of helping them. Additionally, ISIS and Nusra are present alongside other rebel groups in many places, and now we even have non-Qaida Islamist groups scuffling with "FSA" near Bab al-Hawa. There is no clear dividing line between "rebel" and "Qaida" that we can use to enact such a change. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The main page now has a section for FSA-ISIS fighting. Maybe the time for the fourth color has come? 66.30.251.10 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Isis in map black colour

another color (black) to the strongholds of isis is needed. now isis is in total war with the rest of the rebels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.179.131 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, ISIS has become a completely independent player in this war.--Hasan Rizvanbegovic (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.Alhanuty (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. AOnline (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. Hanibal911 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A newly formed Syrian rebel alliance has declared war on the powerful Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and joined other opposition groups in battling the extremists.NOW Hanibal911 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to the FSA and ISIS are in a full out war.Daki122 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Syrians launch new 'revolution' against Qaeda group.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree too but Which cities are controlled by ISIS ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Here some cities that under control ISIL: Azaz, Kafr Zeta, Saraqeb, Harem, Raqqa, Tell Abyad Mc Clatchy DCCNN ReutersThe New York Times Hanibal911 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any independant source yet but the Syrian Revolutionaries Front declared on its official Facebook page that Kafr Zeta and Harem have been liberated. And Al Nusra Front published a document saying that the Isis fighters in Azaz have leaved Isis and joined the Jabha.Oussj (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. Manbij in Aleppo governorate captured by FSA (5/1).Ariskar (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree. This will get way too complicated. There's not just ISIS - there's also al-Nusra, the new Saudi-backed "Islamist Front," etc. Lots of factions which sometimes fight together against the Syrian government and sometimes fight each other. Every little "emir" wants his own little "emirate." It's hard enough to keep track of what's in government versus "rebel" hands, so trying to keep track of all the various factions and shifting alliances among the "rebels" would likely be impossible....And does the "Free Syrian Army" even still exist today? Seems that it doesn't - at least not as any sort of unified force with a central authority. It's just a name some of the factions use sometimes. The Islamist Front took over what had been their nominal headquarters. -Helvetica (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Helvetica, you are not right. Even if there are a lot of factions, there is globally a coherent action against the regime and today against Isis. Al Nosra, Islamic Front, and FSA (which still exists principally under the name of a new coalition the Syrian Revolutionaries Front : they controll large parts of Idlib Governorate, of Aleppo countryside, Aleppo itself, Homs northern "liberated" countryside, and in the South and dont't forget other factions which are close to the "FSA" like the newly formed Army of Mujahiddine or like the coalition of the Soldiers of Sham in Damascus) are today united in a coherent action against Isis, which shows that Isis has become a new player in the war distinct from the regime, the YPG and the rebellion.Oussj (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree Oussj - Your comment above actually highlights one of the major problems with trying to differentiate between which "rebel" factions are allied at any moment and which are fighting each other. You list al-Nusra as being currently allied with the FSA in their fight against ISIS, which may now be true in some parts of the north, but it's a very different picture in the south. Around Damascus ISIS and Nusra are still working very closely together.

So it seems the alliance vs. infighting often has a lot to do with the particular circumstances in a given place/time. If the SAA is able to mop up most of the "rebel" held areas in the south and then make more major gains in the north then we might well see ISIS and the other groups working more closely together again out of desperation. In any event - like I said - it's hard enough just to keep up with accurate and reliable info on which towns are "rebel" vs government held without having trying to figure out which "rebel" faction (or group of factions) controls a given town any given time. -Helvetica (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. The problem with Isis is far much bigger. Isis has a very different behaviour with civilians than all the others rebel factions as a recent report of Amnesty international highlights it. It's the first time since the beginning of the military rebellion that we've seen that many rebels united in one action on all the territory. You say that in Damascus Isis and Nosra are fighting together, but lastly Isis has almost disappeared from Damascus countryside because the rebels there refused them. Today, everyone in Raqqa, including Nosra helped in the clashs against Isis, otherwise, it would not have been possible for rebels to take control of all the city except Isis HQ. If we accept that Isis is an independant player against whom the others are today fighting, it would not be very difficult to find the places Isis controlls. However, since they are losing ground every day let's hope they will be finished before we decide. Oussj (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Even the Comittee of Muslims Scholar of Aleppo (which is quite influent in Syria, especially in the north) has published a report declaring that Isis fighters are no longer Muslims, in the context it's quite something... I could finf it somewhere but it's in arab...Oussj (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Jassem

Jassem town is under fsa control last regime stronghold,the National Hospital was blown up by rebels.Now regime soldiers are bombarding the town with barrel bombs and fierce shelling are going on.Can anybody confirm this news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.251.44 (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Source mate the Hospital is outside the town not inside itDaki122 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

According to this source, the hospital is the last regime controled point in the town, and the rebels penetrated the last defenses in the night of 1st - 2nd january. At the time of the report, fighting was ongoing in the hospital courtyards. André437 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your source The Arab Chronicle not neutral or reliable he is based on opposition amateur video. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you can refuse to accept reports from neutral and reliable sources, to the detriment of the accuracy of wp.

An update says that the rebels gained total control 3 january. André437 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Need confirmation from reliable sources. Facebook not reliable source WP:FACEBOOK Hanibal911 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

truce reached in Barzeh

Truce reached in Barzeh and 200 fsa-nusra fighters gave themselves up to syrian army: http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2353859&Language=en http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/200-rebels-surrender-to-syrian-army-near-damascus-467355 78.191.187.188 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DoneAriskar (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Barzeh is a district of Damascus. If it is government-controlled, it does not need its own "dot" on the map.

2. The source talks of a truce akin to the one reached in Muadamiya earlier, not a government takeover. Please revise your changes. Kami888 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The rebels have given up their weapons and SAA infantry accessed the neighborhood to dismantle explosives and heavy machinery. The road and services are due to be reinstated. This means that the area will be government administered. Muadamiya has its checkpoints open, but the government has no access. Hence it is rebel controlled with no government administration or access (ceasefire truce). Barzeh rebels have given up control and weapons to the government in return of amnesty. These are two distinct cases. If SOHR (PR) prefers to present the second as a truce, I believe there a large difference between the two cases. Reverted to red dot, until further discussion.Ariskar (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in arab but it says that no rebel fighters have given themselves to the army and that it's in fact a truce like in Moadamiya and not a surrender. Moreover, it says that it has not been applicated yet and that clashs of less intensity are still happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oussj (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Oussj (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We know such truce in history - World War II - Germany signed truce for Unconditional capitulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What ?? Oussj (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE USE DIFFERENT SOURCES

It seems that André437 loves to use "the arab chronicle" site to say that something happens in Syria. The "great" Cedric labrousse is now well known and more than half of his "breakingnews" from 2 years were fakes or exaggerated. Please, be careful when you take a new from him. Confront them to others, even if videos were done....................

i can not belive that someone change map time to time with out any source, and its constantly pro rebel user.... do you fell good to change red to contested???? you can do it at home with crayons for drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.121.158 (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

From someone in Montenegro who doesn't even use an account, maybe you should open an account and sign your posts instead of hiding behind a URL.

As far as reliability of my source, there has never been any claimed rebel or regime advance that later been found to be false from this source, sometimes months before it is acknowleged by other sources. (e.g. rebel advances in Daraa, noticed by western media months later, only after a related article by SANA.) Most western sources depend on sources such as this, if not SANA, the government news agency.

As far as videos go, all videos in this conflict are "amateur", since western professional news media have no presence on the ground. Any videos presented by this source are in confirmation of whatever information is presented.

If you, 85.94.121.158, have other sources that collaborate or conflict with my sources, you are welcome to present them.

BTW, the few changes I make to the map are documented, most being related only to format André437 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not all the videos of this conflict are amateur. There is a big difference between a professional recorded and edited video by Al Jazeera or Syria TV (for example), and a shaky, blurry unedited amateur video by a partisan activist. Just like the big difference of credibility between journalist sources and activist sources...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Simlin/Inkhil was captured by Opposition

http://suriyedenhaber.blogspot.com/ Corpses of regime soldiers in liberated Simlin town. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he2KUM8oldA Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=33.041406&lon=36.097426&z=13&m=b&search=%20%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86 Alexyflemming (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Irony on) Oh, nice and very reliable sources, a blog and a partisan amateur YouTube video...(Irony off).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jafra (deir ez zor)

Rebels take control over new village near Deir Al-Zor Airbase http://syrianewsdesk.com/en/2013/12/27/news-rebels-take-control-over-new-village-near-deir-al-zor-airbase http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxHXTLMPVsA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKaREcjwmb0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqIwA1bHHc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellsurvivor (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of [12], not whole. EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Observatory chief Rami Abdel Rahman said the rebels have succeeded in taking control of part of Al-Jafra village, a few hundred meters from the airport.NOWThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

According to this reference, the rebels succeeded in taking all of Juffra the 27 december, after 2 days of assaults, to totally beseige the airport. Includes map of Juffra and Deir ez-Zor military airport. André437 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And according to this reference (SOHR)Source; Rebels were pushed backed by NDF & SAA. Use google translator to....translate.--Rob2014(talk)

Syrian troops and NDF Retake the Village of Jafra near Airport Deir Ezzor Syrian TV and SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

For information, it is not just "near" the airport, it is right next to the (main if not only) entrance to the airport, where the principle buildings are located. André437 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Khan al-Shih

Hahahaha Sopher u changed Khan al Shih to rebel held only because it said that the army droped a barel bomb so yea Douma is contested!Daki122 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

why is Khan Al-Shih under rebel control? source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.126 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This revision when 15:10, 27 December 2013 is wrong . "dropped a bomb on the town of Khan al-Shih" does not mean "Khan al-Shih is occupied" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pursuelife (talk • contribs)

Regime forces on Friday also pounded Douma east of Damascus, and dropped TNT-packed barrel bombs on Khan al-Sheikh southwest of the capital.NOW Hanibal911 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Dropping a TNT packed barrel on a town is still not a reason to change the town to rebel held how do you know that there are no clashes going on in the town.Daki122 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Khan al-Sheikh and the adjacent base 68 were taken by the rebels on 23 december after a 3-day assault according to this report. They captured 3 armoured vehicles, and also took the village of Husseiniya to the south. André437 (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Khan al-Sheikh is besieged and surrounded by the Syrian Army and No, Brigade 68 was not taken; what they meant was a barrier or checkpoint called "Barrier 68" manned by Troops from Brigade 68 hence "Barrier 68" was overruned which is why their are Air-strikes on the town. --Rob2014 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.184.97 (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That is NOT what the article says. It says clearly that all the zone of base 68 was taken, after taking the check point. A 3-day battle would be more than just a check point. (You can use the translate button to translate the french into english if you need to. Hopefully google translate will be clear.) André437 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your source pro opposition based on amateur video and is not a reliable source. Need confirmation from reliable sources.Hanibal911 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Information based on amateur video clips from YouTube are not reliable. not possible to establish its authenticity. Need to wait for confirmation from neutral and reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any source with contacts on the ground could be considered pro-opposition if it doesn't depend on SANA or other pro-regime sources. This source was the first to show rebel advances in Daraa province, months before it was finally noticed (and verified) by other sources. To my knowledge, this source has never reported rebel advances that weren't eventually confirmed by other sources, so it is effectively both neutral and reliable. (It has also been one of the first to report certain regime advances.) The photos and videos (not youtube) are supporting evidence of reports from this source's contacts. André437 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Khan al-Shih should be under Syrian Army "besieged" & not contested IMO & Brigade 68 should not be under Rebel "besieged".-- Rob2014 (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.184.97 (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

According to this source reported 27 december, Khan al-Sheikh and base 68 are controled by the rebels, who captured 3 armoured vehicles in taking the base. It says that they captured the base 23 december, after 3 days of combat. André437 (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You've used that source 3x already; find another one.Rob2014 (talk99.160.184.97 (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is only the second time. Does anyone else have a recent source ? (I haven't seen any others.) My source is much more recent than sources for the current status on the map. André437 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that dropping a TNT barrel on Khan al-Shih is not a reason to change it to rebel held, especially when 137th Regiment is bordering it & not under siege.

@André437: In your source, it says: "la rébellion avait décidé de percer une fois pour toute ce checkpoint et de prendre la zone de la base 68." Which can be translated into: "rebellion had decided to break once and for all this checkpoint and take the area of ​​the base 68." So he might be saying they decided to "take the area of ​​the base 68" as opposed to having done it already... I you look at the area of ​​the base 68 on wikimapia, you see a lot of Artillery Positions & stuff... So you might think that if the rebels took the whole area, they would have gotten more than just a few vehicules... When you look @ yallasouriya's (pro-rebel) coverage of Brigade 68, they only mention the "checkpoint"...

@Rob2014: A ring is not only used to denote a "besieged" status. It is also used to represent "pressure" from the enemy. This is the case for base 68, since the rebels have taken out (at least) its checkpoint... Tradedia^talk 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your translation of the introduction of the article. It goes on to say that the rebels first captured the checkpoint (with supporting video), and then captured the entire zone of the base (with another supporting video).

The article claims that the rebels had been watching the base for several weeks, and had noticed troops being transfered out of the base.

The map reference you gave shows base 68 with 3 artilliary zones. Thus it is reasonable that there needn't be many armoured vehicles on the base, which is immediately to the west of Khan al-Sheikh. The map shows many regime bases to the north, east and south of the town, but only one (isolated) base to the west.

Because of its' isolation (accessible mostly only from Khan al-Sheikh), it would be easier for the rebels to keep this base than the others around the town.

Note that this source rarely (if ever) claims the capture of artilliary pieces, generally only armoured vehicles, sometimes munitions. (For example, when the artilliary base south of Daraa city was captured, there was only a mention that the regime could no longer fire artilliary from that base on rebel positions in the city. I would suspect it is because the rebels don't have the means to easily move heavy artilliary, unlike armoured vehicles.)

Further note : the second post on the yallasouriya reference says "#Syria Rebels overrun Assads forces from the 68th Brigade capturing a Tank, BMP & Shilka", instead of just the BMP in the first post which claims the capture of the checkpoint.

So in sum, the full article does claim that during the period 20 dec to 23 dec, the rebels took the checkpoint + the entire zone of base 68, as well as the village of Husseiniya on the highway a little to the south. André437 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your source opposition. all information based on opposition amateur video on YouTube. And your source is not reliable. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Tall Hamis and the road to Qamishli

Press TV is claiming that kurdish fighters took over tall hamis , capturing it from rebel fighters. They also report that syrian government army units have taken over a "dozen villages" on the road between tall hams and Qamishli. If this is true then Tall Hamis should be yellow and some of the villages should be red or yellow/red- as a truce between yellow and red continues. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWkBtAyE0R4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.227.244 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Euh... I personnally have read the opposite, with medias saying that YPG retreated from Tall Hamis yesterday... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oussj (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ayyash

Can someone please add the town of Ayyash in east Syria as government-held (just just north of Deir ez-Zor). We have both government [13] and opposition sources [14] confirming the towns capture by the Army. Also, the town of Tal Al-Azaeh should be added. We have a government source saying it was also captured, no confirmation from the opposition on this, but it should be marked at least as contested. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is Tal Al-Azaeh? Kami888 (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

According to google translate on your opposition source "also received confirmed information about the withdrawal of the fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant of clashes with regular troops in town Ayyash, towards the Marsh Arabs and Raqqa province, as well as the exposed areas in shy of the industry and losses for the bombing of the regular forces"

This only confirms ISIS left - a group currently focused on fighting opposition rebels. Fars news is not a reliable source. Wait for a regular source or even a sohr facebook post first. Sopher99 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether it be ISIS or not, the source clearly says the rebels (ISIS) retreated from the town after clashes with the regular Army. So it goes red (government-held). Unless you have a source that says there were more than one rebel group in the town? EkoGraf (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic Front. [15]

And the FSA [16] Sopher99 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

By that I ment neutral sources. Both of those are heavily pro-opposition sources and borderline used as propaganda just like SANA and Fars. EkoGraf (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In the current situation, the retreat of Isis does not mean a capture by Assad troops... Oussj (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We edit based on the sources we have on-hand. And the source we have on-hand says the ISIS retreated from the town after clashes with the regular Army. Until it is proven to the contrary that means the town has been taken over by the Army. Speculating that there may be have been other rebel units in the town beside them is simply that...speculation, which Wikipedia does not accept. Besides, do I have to remind that we are speaking about the part of Syria where ISIS has almost unilateral control, according to most reliable sources?EkoGraf (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Isis in black

I still believe the recent events need us to change Isis-held to black. Saying that Isis and FSA or Islamic Front in the same side is not very serious now. here a little exemple [17]Oussj (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a WP:CONSENSUS as per the same topic talk page section above. It's just that someone should take up the task. Or that ISIS may get ousted too fast before that (Raqqa, Aleppo HQ, Manbij, only in the last few days). We have some YPG/rebel clashes, adding the ISIS/rebel(FSA & various islamists) clashes with flashing icons may lead readers to Assad/rebels clashes confusion.Ariskar (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way there is a map about the range of ISIS controlled territories: [18]

I would wait until the fighting dies down or one side loses. ISIS lost dozens of village and Aleppo city, and they are losing villages and fighting back in others to this very second. No clear picture what is or isn't held by ISIS yet, and its too fluid right now. Sopher99 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Village near Kweirs military airport

A village near Kweirs military airport has been captured by the Army after ISIS retreated from it. Source here [19]. It needs to be added to the map and in red. Problem is I can not translate the name properly from Arabic so a little help from someone who knows Arabic would be nice. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The village is Houssa. (I just translated it from the source above)Oussj (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't manage to find it on wikimapia. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hosah. I used Google translator. But village of Hosah do not exist on map. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

BARZEH

Please be serious !!. How it is possible to put this town green cercled by red after months of battle ?. SAA reached afterall to take more than 70% of this district, rebells gave their arms and, because an hypothetic "truce" (declared by OSDH = not reliable source anymore !, you put it green ?. You were more honest regarding Daraya........................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.156.251 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Also under the deal, fighters can keep their weapons and maintain control over the neighborhood, while regular forces can control main roads leading up to the areas, they added" http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2353859&Language=en Sopher99 (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Red circle over green means siege in progress. This is unacceptable representation. Acceptable representations are either muadamiya type icon or contested/unclear icon if clashes continue or situation is not clear enough. Kami888 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No it means partial control. PX amin color means siege in process. A siege has to involve fighting. A truce means no fighting. Sopher99 (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You are obviously wrong and you should know better. There is no partial control of Nubl, Zahra, Binnish, Rastan, Tabilseh, etc. These towns are besieged and the two circles represent this. PX anim on the other hand means contested or unclear situation, as explained underneath the map. Barzeh is not currently besieged. Please revert yourself, or someone else will revert you. Kami888 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I found information about town Harasta. But I dont know how use this information.7 News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you note the date, the report is from november. The final death toll reported about that time, if you recall, was about 200, and not the 31 cited in that article. The rebels had tunneled under the building to place the explosives, so evidently it wasn't far from rebel positions. Also other reports at the time said that the government only controled the edge of Harista, mostly still controled by the rebels. André437 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Barzeh is not under control of rebels.. also most of the rebels give them syrian army and there is a truce between them so you should do it like muadamiya78.191.187.188 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The two sides also agreed "the withdrawal of Assad's army from all of Barzeh, and the cleaning of the streets (of abandoned corpses), in preparation for the road to be opened" by the rebels, the statement said.

"The Free Syrian Army will be the one manning traffic" through the district, which has been blocked off ever since the opposition took over the neighborhood, the statement added.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/112752-syria-rebels-regime-agree-truce-in-damascus-barzeh Sopher99 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry all but it is simply unbelievable. These 2 articles came from the same opposition source. How can you believe that government could accept the terms of this truce ?. It is not a question to be pro government or anti government. It is just a question of intelligence !.

Well then we can say that the sources you brought in favor of the regime are all based on regime propaganda Sana or Fars. Barzeh is still under rebel control but the truce is a good thing for both sides : the rebels keep the neighbourhood and their weapons while the loyalists can enter it without being attacked or hurt and look for the dead bodies inside Barzeh. Moreover the roads leading to the neighbourhood should be open again which is also a good thing for regime. The best thing with this truce is that civilians should be able to come back to Barzeh and stay in there without experiencing daily clashes between rebels in the neighbourhood and the regime forces who have claimed 100s of times that they recaptured the neighbourhood. --Amedjay (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We here don't discuss based on intelligence dude... Moreover, there is no correlation between the months of siege and the surrender of fighters as both parties have shown us in the conflict. Nubl and Zahra are besieged for more than a year. Menegh lasted a year too... Homs old city is fighting for 2 years now... If your objective is just to turn positions red or green, as someone already said it on the talk page, go buy yourself pencils and do it home.Oussj (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

the sources says rebels surrendered to syrian army and give their all arms to syrian army ao there isn't any armed rebel group in the city and for that you cannot give them to rebels.. it is not fair, there is a truce in the city...78.191.187.188 (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Mr Oussj is quit angry. Barzeh was at more 60% under SAA hands before this hypothetical "truce". It is not the case of your exemples !. If you retook more than a half of your house after heavy clashes and death, suddenly, you make a "truce" ?. How we can be so stupid to believe that ?. Anyway, we can stand some days and we will see who is the fool in this episode................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.50.35 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

First, please do not insult. Then, if you want to change something on the map, give us a real source, not regime propaganda because real independant sources have spoken on the situation and it does not confirm your point of view.Oussj (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is completely false and crazy to label Barzeh as rebel controled... According to several sources rebels gave up and surrender so ...best case scenario for rebels is to label the area as contested while it is highly likely that SAA controls almost the whole region(highly likely but not 100% sure)

Please change it asap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.120.56 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Give sources ! The only independant ones which speak about it affirm that a truce have been concluded. I'm quite amazed to see that you know what Assad and his commanders are thinking, and what they will or will not do...Oussj (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

it is clear that if there is fighting it should be contested, if army advanced and take control it should be red, if the rebels advanced and take control it should be lime, if there is an agreement like muadamiyah and not fighting it should be mixed similar to muadamiya. and now in Barzeh there is an agreement (it is clear) so there isn't fighting (the opposition side says army get out of city and regime side says all of the armed men surrendered themselves and city in army control) 78.191.187.188 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The rebels have given up their weapons and SAA infantry accessed the neighborhood to dismantle explosives and heavy machinery, as per various sources. The road and services are due to be reinstated (porvided by the state). This means that the area will be government serviced and administered and not in a rebellion, regardless of the presence or not of security forces. Muadamiya has its checkpoints open, but the government has no access. Hence it is rebel controlled with no government administration or access (ceasefire truce). Barzeh rebels have given up control and weapons to the government in return of amnesty. These are two distinct cases. If SOHR (PR) prefers to present the second as a truce, I believe there a large difference between the two cases. Reverted to red dot, until further discussion. Clash icon (current) is definitely a wrong way to go.Ariskar (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Only the syrian army is claiming rebels giving up weapons. Sources say FSA control neighborhood except for entrances. Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The two sides also agreed "the withdrawal of Assad's army from all of Barzeh, and the cleaning of the streets (of abandoned corpses), in preparation for the road to be opened" by the rebels, the statement said.

"The Free Syrian Army will be the one manning traffic" through the district, which has been blocked off ever since the opposition took over the neighborhood, the statement added.

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/112752-syria-rebels-regime-agree-truce-in-damascus-barzeh Sopher99 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources given above quote the rebels, activists, and SANA. Just reading the text of the reports, the SANA version is the least credible.

Another source with considerably more detail corraborates the rebel + activist version. It says that the truce was a comprehensive agreement including (1) the loyalist army withdraws entirely from the east side of the neighbourhood, (2) the FSA (particularly deserters) have authority in the zone, but it must let enter state services to reestablish water, electricity, etc (loyalist bulldozers have entered), (3) each side can find their bodies, (4) rebel artilliary is temporarily dismantled by the FSA and firing of heavy arms by the loyalists is no longer authorised, even if the truce is broken, (5) if foul crimes have occured, the two sides will turn the guilty over to the other side.

It goes on to say that the truce is a victory for everyone :

(1) For the FSA, which is now officially in control (the Islamic Front has promised to respect the truce), (2) the regime which although it admits it couldn't retake the zone, can now enter without arms "in peace", (3) an excellent news for the residents.

In sum, under the truce the FSA is officially in control of Barzeh, not contested by the regime, so it should be a lime green dot with no red circle around it. (And definitely NOT contested.) André437 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is first of all most stupid to put Barzeh under rebel control as the district was never in rebel hands the Army controlled the majority of the District the best solution is the one that is set for Moumadiya anything else is just stupid as the army controls large parts of the Barzeh district.Also the district houses many military facilities like Center for Studies and Scientific Research - Department of Defense and it houses Tishreen military hospital and many others so yo can't rely put it under rebel control because it is not under rebel control.79.126.248.154 (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I rely do suggest a solution like Qudasya and Moudamya as the neighborhood is now at truce and it is controlled by both the army(Most of the western sides and parts of the eastern around the Tishereen hospital) and the rebels(Eastern parts of the neighborhood).Daki122 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is Barzeh still with the "Clashes/Contested" icon? The truce has not been reported as broken since.Ariskar (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Pro government site claims this picture was taken in Barze district of Damascus on 08/01/2014 https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/q88/s720x720/1530346_618745838161202_1651310680_n.jpg Kami888 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Raqqa clashes

Raqqa contested as per: [20] , [21]Ariskar , [22] , [23] & [24]Ariskar (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

These clashes are documented well enough, hence I changed Raqqa city to "Contested/Clashes" icon.Ariskar (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Jihadists advance on Syria's Raqqa.NOW The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop putting ISIL/rebel towns as contested until you differentiate between them on the map. As long as they are both marked in green, the contested icon is not appropriate and is hugely misleading. Please revert or update the map. Kami888 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tal Berak

Hasakah province: ISIS fighters, supported by rebel battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra, have taken over the towns of Tal Berak and Tal Hamis, as well as villages in their surrounding areas, after days of clashes with the YPG; the YPG has retreated from the area. (Source SOHR) https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr?hc_location=timeline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellsurvivor (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

For god's sake, FACEBOOK CANNOT BE USED AS A SOURCE!!! How many times do I have to repeat it?. See WP:FACEBOOK.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How many times have you been told to stop mis-applying WP:FACEBOOK ? You may be challenged by your knowledge of english, but the rule quite clearly only applies to primary sources, which SOHR definitely is not. André437 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are still trying to convince anyone with your naïve prepotent non-sense opinions? Keep loosing your time if you want...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You have already been told by others that facebook itself is NOT A SOURCE. And you can repeat your misinformed mantra about WP:FACEBOOK all you like, but when you learn to read, you will see that it only applies to primary sources, and not secondary sources such as SOHR. In this case, it was also a report on the non-facebook site of SOHR. It is evident why you have been cited so many times for vandalism. André437 (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

SOHR as asource is reliable,and the info is found i=on the website.Alhanuty (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

SOHR it opposition source and cant be reliable source. Reuters even named this source pro opposition.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It may seem to be editorially pro-opposition (in opposing the violations by the regime), but it also vigorously opposes such violations by those against the regime (which are considerably less). Thus it is neutral in its' reporting, as well as being reliable. It focuses on human rights, and not the gains or losses of military control, so using its' reports, it can be more difficult to establish or verify such control. It is frequently used as a source by western mainstream media.

In short, SOHR is both neutral and reliable. André437 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is by all means NOT neutral. Evry time Reuters or any other media cites something from SOHR...they refer to it as 'pro-rebel source' UN has stopped citing SOHR several months. And btw how it happened that your 'neutral and reliable' SOHR miss some hundreds of civilians who were slaughtered in Latakia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.68.10 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. Some other site says it is pro-rebel, so it must be so. Maybe anything coming out of Syria not pro-regime is often tagged as pro-rebel ?

Correction re: UN. The SOHR stopped providing information to the UN as a protest against UN inaction on Syria. Without the background details, the UN loses their most reliable source (as well as some others like "Medicins sans frontières"), and thus can no longer produce reliable reports on casualties.

Missing some events means a source is no longer reliable ? In that case, since western media didn't notice rebel advances in Daraa province for several months after 'La Chronique arabe', and after the SOHR, by this standard they can't be considered reliable. Strangely enough it was a complaint appearing in SANA that first alerted western media to rebel advances. By this time they controled some 20 towns and villages there. (Which they still hold, and have since advanced further.)

Here is a web page Syrian Observatory for Humen Rights. SOHR On the main page flag of the Syrian opposition. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the whole syrian medias or organization cannot be considered neutral, or reliable at least, because when you put a logo you will have to choose between a red or a green flag and the red flag is by every syrian across the world considered to be a strong Assad regime symbol... Every french media consider SOHR to be at least reliable if not neutral. It depends from no one in the opposition, nor in the political or military. Every french serious medias consider it to be a free NGO. "ce corpulent quadragénaire s'est imposé comme la source de référence des médias occidentaux." in english "this forty-year-old man has become the reference source of the western media.

 In France, SOHR is considered to be the only neutral and reliable source from serious medias.

Let's remember that we are not here to discuss politic but to work on facts. And serious and independant press consider SOHR to be a reliable source of facts. So why would we not ?Oussj (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's like saying every Iranian media considers SANA as the most neutral and reliable media...or every Russian media considers PressTV as the most reliable. It is nonsense saying that In France, SOHR is considered to be the only neutral and reliable source from serious medias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.68.10 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Here Reuters : "Abdulrahman, 40, says he feels confident, not least because he has the backing of international rights groups such as Amnesty International which have strongly endorsed his work as reliable." Oussj (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just accept that there are going to be many misrepresented locations, because pro-regime trolls insist on denying reliable sources. Some western media talks to one local contact, and reads SOHR and SANA, and becomes a reliable source, while a source which specialises in following the war and has many local contacts (for verification) is considered less reliable. It doesn't make any sense ... André437 (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Jisr al shugour

Sana report not says there is continuing clashes in city, it only says a terorist group killed. it not means there is continuing clashes. if there is a rebel attack there the other sources needs to give the news and details.78.191.103.27 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It means rebels are in the city. Sopher99 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

it says rebel was in the city and now killed. it not says there is continuing clashes.78.191.103.27 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

if you do the city clashed with the killed rebel news you should do clashed yabrud and douma so dozens rebels killed in this city at last weeks with clashes.78.191.103.27 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)