Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Tal Buraq

According to SOHR SAA forces captured Tal Buraq near the town of Mashara without any clashes here is source: http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2181&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2Ei3pya33A MZarif (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Toward al-Bab

Advance of SAA east of Aleppo toward al-Bab [1]. These places are in the detailed map of Aleppo region. Furthermore FARS reported that ocuupation of Suran, that is in the middle [2]. The problem is that the Aleppo region map is not updated. Paolowalter (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

and sohr reported Shammar is under army control. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/519775321464144?stream_ref=10 and ramouseh under army control http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/04/syria-army-retake-kassab-turkey.html .We need to update the aleppo map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nawa, Daraa

{{edit semi-protected|Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map}} Please change "Nawa" from contested to green with red circle.

Last paragraph indicates rebel control http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/04/syria-army-retake-kassab-turkey.html# And interview with opposition spokesman attesting that Nawa is in rebel hands @ syriadirect.org under title "Rebels Say United Efforts In Quneitra Leading To Victories" Both sources are from the same side/perspective/affiliation - will try to dig up neutral and/or regime confirmation Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Regime bombing Nawa http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2185&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2EPqE9OWCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredwhytekid (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dont need talk nonsense because your source Al Monitor does not say that Nava under rebel control. A source of Syria direct is a pro opposition source and cant be used to display rebel advances also fact that the army bombed the city does not prove that he is under rebel control. Also a few day ago, the opposition source confirmed that the army controls the northern and eastern parts city of Nawa.Arab Chronicle Hanibal911 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

- #1 Hence I wrote "indicates" and not "says". #2 Yes, pro-opposition source, I said that myself - thanks for the reiteration. Don't need talk nonsense. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

But you asked change the city of Nawa under the rebel control but you not provided data from the reliable source on the basis of which was possible to change the status of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well yea, I asked - I didn't jump in and change it. I posted it here, on the discussion page to see what other people had for sources, knowledge, etc, because those links were the first I had come across in support of opposition control (as opposed to contested status). Everything else I've dug up in the meantime supports keeping it as contested though.. for instance: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/04/article55331655 Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nawa just recently broke its seige when rebels took Brigade 61, http://syrianobserver.com/News/News/Rebels+Break+Siege+Around+Nawa+in+Deraa so it should be green however what is missing in the map is the 4 large army bases to the north and east of the city, please review the map http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.893426&lon=36.093693&z=13&m=b&search=lahaya%20checkpoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.80.233 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nabain

Sohr says army advancing inside the nabain.We should make nabain contested.http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18648&Itemid=2&task=displaynews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.222.102.201 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Double checking

Cedric Labrousse shared two maps regarding Daraa. Hope you see the anomalies on map like Qarqas, Al-Rafid, etc

https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/461558278170746881 https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/461583617706045441/photo/1/large — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

twitter is not a 'source' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally no, but it was agreed a long time ago to use twitter maps from opposition sources if they report on government advances and vice-versa. EkoGraf (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. When was this agreed? The Arab Chronicle is as biased as it gets and not reliable in any way. Whoever put Jasim as rebel-held is a horrible POV-pusher and should be banned. Edits are only allowed if a neutral source confirms this or the opposite side reports it. Stop the vandalism and refrain from POV-pushing please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It was agreed following multiple previous discussions. You should read them. And also, seems you did not understand me. You said Edits are only allowed if...the opposite side reports it, which is the exact same thing I said. Arabic Chronicle's reports, per previous agreements, are NOT used as sources for rebel advancements. AC's reports are ONLY used when they report on government advances. And I would remind you that using the language such as Bullshit is inflamatory and not according to Wikipedia policy on civility. So I would ask you to refrain from it in the future. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully support EkoGraf because he is absolutely right that it was decided to use the maps from Twitter for editing so we use a map from a pro government source to display the achievements of the rebels, and vice versa. And you dear anonymous if not apprised of the situation need not be indignant and insult other editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I withnessed recently editing the map for regime advantage referencing SANA & farsnews. So there are people who can edit the map and ignore the rule you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone uses the data directly from the site of SANA or Fars News to display progress army he broke the rule then I also like some other editors I try to correct such violations. But also I am against use the data directly from the site of SOHR to display the rebel advances because it pro opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why Inkhil went green? No reliable source is quoted. Paolowalter (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fix inkhil.Make contested.We dont have a source to make inkhil green — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone uses SANA or Fars about government advancements that are not backed up by opposition sources than that edit is reverted. As for SOHR it has been established and agreed that 90 percent of their reports are eventually confirmed as correct and despite them being an opposition activist group they stick to a high level of neutrality and have been attacked in the media by both sides for reporting advances, casualties and war crimes of both sides. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok Hannibal, just look back at Samra case. 3 references. Sana, Fars, almayadeen news (lebanon based - anti sunni) One referenced cedricLabrousse. I replied him with Cedrics own tweet just 4 hours later. It is marked as regime held without any discussion. Everytime regime advances, just in half a day it is reflected to the map with no discussion. But when rebels advance, there is a strong resistance/hot discussion among map editors for reliable resources. Reliable, 2nd hand resources are ok for me. But we must apply the policy for two sides strictly.

Another issue is CedricLabrousse case. I am following many pro-rebel resources. The others fail sometimes coz publis rumors, but Cedric does not publish rumors. He has references from ground. Generally trying to confirm news. Whenever he gets a refutation/change in situation for previous news, he publishes immediately. I withnessed that he published rebel loses, too.

A third issue, there are many contested areas on map which is isolated, not a frontline, but any 2nd source never attempted to publish a news. (As if Rebels have forgotten them, advancing towards another direction, keeping threat behing them) They seem not that much curious as keeping a map updated. In some cases there are news/video/maps from pro-rebel resources, but no refutation from regime resouces. 2nd sources are not interested either. So shadow areas are starting to appear on map. Hope you get it. (There must be a timeout, or something for illogical cases) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if anybody says twitter is not a reliable resource, cedric has a website also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Daraa: Ibbta, Sheikh Maskin and Tasil

Fars news about rebels inside Sheikh Maksin: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921101000852 The Journal Times about rebels close to Nassib border crossing: http://jordantimes.com/injured-syrians-pour-into-jordan-as-border-clashes-rage

This should mean that Sheikh Maskin should be green with a red circle, since the army base north of the town is still in loyalist hands and able to shell and shoot into the town. South of Sheikh Maskin, we are missing the town of Ibbta on the map. It's around half the size of Dael and should be in rebel hands, since the supply lines towards Sheikh Maskin extend from the Jordanian border towards Dael and further north.

Nassib border crossing is loyalist controlled, but rebels seem to surround the towns there since taking over the Gharaz prison and silo's. Green with a red line maybe?

I was not able to find anything about Tasil. No mention of fighting in Tasil could mean two things: loyalist control, or rebel control. I don't know, but it seems strange to me that there is still fighting ongoing in Tasil as rebels are advancing already further north in Nawa and Base 61? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Data in your source outdated. Because Fars News article reports on developments in late January and in this article does not say that the city is under rebel control. Also pro opposition source shows that much of the city under the control of the army. Another pro opposition source also reveals that in the city there are fights. Just your source that says about the progress of the rebels near the town of Naseeb dated early March and since then there were no reports of fighting in the area but the pro opposition source in late March shows that the Naseeb border crossing and the city of Naseeb under the control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Homs truce/surrendering?

[3] reports that the rebels will leave Homs or surrendered. Let's just keep an eye on it. Paolowalter (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also SOHR confirms: [4] As well as other sources: [5], [6]. Today or tomorrow it should go red. Paolowalter (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

pro opposition source confirmed too https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/462212028375908352/photo/1 Make homs red . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.228.244 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How many truces have been declared and then violated in this conflict? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/clashes-syria-yarmouk-halt-aid-delivery-20143451218856800.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/03/04/new-clashes-blockaded-area-damascus-halt-aid/rE6l2nNLH2Q2ptHsFMKfoN/story.html http://www.alarab.co.uk/en/?id=2082 http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/world/meast/syria-peace-talks/ Let's wait until confirmation of the complete rebel evacuation before changing the status of Homs. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

== Homs ==Please change Homs to red now. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/08/361832/last-group-of-militants-leaves-homs/ I think all homs should be changed to red now According to several opposition sources http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2014/05/02/هدنة-بين-النظام-والمعارضة-في-أحياء-حمص-المحاصرة.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali bachir (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1590593 MZarif (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

All Homs is now in full regime control http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-homs-idUSBREA410CA20140502

The pro rebel SOHR said "The agreement stipulates a ceasefire and withdrawal of Islamist and other fighters and brigades from the besieged districts of Homs towards northern rural Homs province,"

The Cease fire is just for let the Insurgent out from Homs city — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Make homs red. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27252396

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/syria-homs-truce-rebels 'The guardian says a deal that will bring the country's third-largest city under the control of forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad.'

Sayqal Air Base

On what source does the map show this base as besieged? Dumair air base has been shelled, and the area between Dumair and Sayqal has seen clashes, but has there been any information at all that indicates Sayqal is surrounded/has been shelled/anything? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-idUSBREA410MY20140502 Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dumayr and Sayqal air bases are not besieged - On this link NO SAID the Rebels besieged the Dumayr and Sayqal air base there just said "Activists" who obviously support the Insurgency claim the Rebels "Shelling Away" the Dumayr air base..

Dumayr and Sayqal air bases are NOT under siege and Rebels NO Captured a Chemical weapon facility....

common don't made the map a Sh1t again — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just shelling.NOT besieged.and rebels NOT Captured a Chemical weapon facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.228.244 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Reuters has confirmed that the opposition fighters have taken the chemical factory ,and that they have isolated the sayqal airport,and that they are attacking the Dumeir airport.and and to keep you update,we use the circle over an area if it is besieged or attacked.Alhanuty (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source said: Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held.Reuters In the source only said that because clashes hampered the transport links with Sayqal air bases and it makes it difficult to export the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons there because because it isolated air base located in the desert but the source does not say that it is the rebels besieged it. Also source only said that Dumair air base, came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels but source not said about clashes in this base or around her. So you were wrong when noted these two air bases as besieged. So that Alhanuty I suggest you correct this mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arab chronical reported a rebel attack on thedumeir airport.Alhanuty (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arab chronicle isnt a 'trustable source'.He is pro opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The green circle around Sayqal is not justifiable then. Dumair has been bombarded, so it's slightly more accurate to keep the green circle there to at least indicate the rebel presence in the vicinity and the shelling. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Daraa fixes

This map was made by the pro-government Syria Report in Feb 2014 and shows the following cities/towns that are currently marked as 'contested' under rebel control: Inkhil, Simlin and Adwan. It also shows some other towns under rebel control that are not yet on the wikipedia map.

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2014/Feb/17/LiveLeak-dot-com-81f_1392660892-1911638_219655471558911_209120125_n_1392661324.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bade9f4d4cdedea663&ec_rate=230 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KajMetz (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

February is outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.58.143 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This link does not work. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Homs Agreement

Why is there still a little green dot in the center of Homs? An agreement was reached that all rebels would be pulling out to the suburbs. Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-03/255214-rebels-to-abandon-homs-as-part-of-cease-fire-deal.ashx#axzz30fQTLw1z 213.204.103.19 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Until rebels withdraw from old homs it should be green in center, after official confirmation of withdraw we should change to red. any reports about situation in zabadani countryside? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.62.27 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems Insurgents not controlled a Chemicals weapons Facility in Rural Damascus

These Activists who obviously support the insurgents claim only =

Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held.

They said just believe...

it sound with nothing consistence

Their claim about Dumair air base was totally false.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HokKlpJoHos http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=149609&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1

And the 'Activists' just claim "Shelling Away"

Journalist > Anonymous activist — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And they make jayroud contested.Seriously people.If you guys want to map all green without a source,do it.But it doesnt change the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.113.127 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Syrian forces still have control of al-Dmeir airport. Alba Waba And stop unjustified statements about situation in the city Jayroud. Because at present we do not have confirmation from reliable sources that in the city of Jayroud clashes between the Syrian army against rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

_________

Insurgents not controlled a Chemicals weapons Facility in Rural Damascus called Khan Abu Shamat - Nothings evidences about it.--LogFTW (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Al waer

Al waer is part of the homs agreement.Not contested now.Rebels will leave the city.sources sohr 1-https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/522988744476135 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-03/255245-talks-continue-over-rebel-withdrawal-from-syrias-homs.ashx#axzz2y1Av8mqx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Abreeha / Abriha, Deir el Zor

This report http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/05/thousands-flee-rebel-clashes-syria-east-201453221755682932.html allegedly references SOHR saying ISIL burnt down houses in Abriha, Deir el Zor. If true, status of Abriha should be amended to reflect ISIL presence. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Deir el Zor Generally

Any interest in adding additional towns? It would help to paint a clearer picture of the ongoing internecine fighting. http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2233&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2j5oU9OWCU Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Rebels not controlled Chemical Plant in rural Damascus with called Khan Abu Shamat

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-idUSBREA410MY20140502 These Activists who obviously support the claim only = Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held.

They said just believe...And they claim is only about Sayqal air base claiming this place was "shelling away by rocket" when they "believed"

They no talk about Khan Abu Shamat chemical weapon facility....

And before was confirmed the Dumair air base it's not under siege-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Somethings need to be fixed.

• Homs city is now 100% under control of the Regime the cease fire MANY Sources said the Cease Fire for 24 hours was just for the Rebels withdraw the city.

• Dumayr air base it's not under siege
• Sayqal air base it's not under siege

The "Activists" who support the Insurgency said http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-idUSBREA410MY20140502 Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held.

• There not said the CW Facility were captured by the Insurgents ...

• There no said Dumayr air base is under siege pro Insurgents activists just claim "Rebel Clashed with Assad forces" Near Dumayr air base

• There no said Sayqal air base is under siege pro Insurgents activists just claim Rebels launch some rockets in direction to this base but away...

Pro regime sources claim no exist any siege on Dumayr http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/05/terrorist-advance-on-jaramaana-and-al-dhumayr-ab-debunked.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The pro government sources not said that Dumayr air base or Sayqal air base in siege.Syrian Perspective Hanibal911 (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Haniball please fix the map.You are the only trustable editor.Every source says homs under army control and there is no source about bases and cw facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Woah. NO source says Homs is under regime control, yet. The truce has been declared, but truces get broken every other week in this conflict. Wait for confirmation that the rebels have indeed withdrawn. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Okey cedric labrousse.Dont get mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha why jump the gun? If the truce holds, confirmation will be forthcoming. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Make the air bases Dumayr and Sayqal under siege is just a trolling action common it's just "Activists" just claim the Insurgents "Clash With Assad forces" near Dumayr and "Rocked" the Sayqal air base zones when Regime troops are more Stronger is Damascus Labrousse it's not credible he exaggerated everything if Rebels launch a Home made Mortar in Jaramana killing fews children in a School he wrote on Twitter "BREAKING THE REBELLION ARE DOING A HUGE STRONGER STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE IN DAMASCUS WITH IMPORTANT PROGRESS" ..... And make a CW Facility in Insurgents Hands is a Meta Troll action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) LOGWTF take an English course before editing on the page please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.94.46 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dumayr air base not Under siege and working without problems there is official Source is the Syrian News Agency https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0e_A-QVzE — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Al-Waer is also under the deal in Homs[7]. Dumayr AB and Syqal are not under siege the sorce says rebels clashed near the Dumayr base but SOHR today said rebels clashed with a convoy heading to Syqal AB. SOHR:"Violent clashes taking place between regime's convoy which is moving from al-Domer airport, against Islamic battalions on Damascus-Bagdad road, reports of human losses in both sides."Daki122 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the green circle in Homs can be removed. The evacuation has begun. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27306525 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/05/fighters-begin-withdrawal-from-syria-homs-20145773755680799.html Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nawa in Daraa is contested place no under rebel control

The only recent source from Nawa come from Iranian news agency. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930212000251

It said =

Syrian armed forces, in heavy clashes with militants in the villages and towns of Nawa, Tal al-Jumou’, Jellin, al-Mzeireeb, Dael, Atman and al-Rusoum in al-Lajat area and in Kherbet Mama in the countryside of Daraa, killed a large number of rebels.

If the rebels capture Nawa you will be see that in Al Arabiya / Al Jazeera very quickly... --LogFTW (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Al Rafid

Please change "Al Rafid" from green surrounded by red circle to green. 80.79.80.233 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It doesn't make sense that the city of Al Rafid in Golan is still under siege when all the army bases in the area have fallen, especially the north and south Tal Ahmar recently.

That is true for many places across Syria, 'ring around' tends to stay for ever. Paolowalter (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 123chess456 (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Saida

Please add to the Map the contested city of Saida and Army base 38 80.79.80.233 (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.652817&lon=36.211281&z=13&m=b The Map is missing a major city on the contested road between Daraa and Khirbet Ghazaleh called Saida as well as the Army base 38 north of the city, the map is showing a small neighboring town called Kahil and doesn't show the major city where the real action is happening.

No problem. As soon as you provide sources reporting the status of the city.Paolowalter (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This map lists the town as rebel-held[8] with regime troops just west of the town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.140.22 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Facebook isn't a reliable source 123chess456 (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

al-Zabadani

On what basis has this been changed to contested. Multiple sources reported that the rebels surrendered the town over a week ago and that the SAA were in full control. Nothing credible has yet contradicted that or suggested that anything has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.149 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday they make jayroud contested and bases are under siege and facility under rebel control(they dont fix facility).Now they changed zabadani contested without a source.They got problems with damascus region — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.236.196 (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, It was changed to contested based on this source:http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-01/255046-activists-clashes-near-damascus-kill-14-rebels.ashx Dr Marmilade (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a single report of clashes in Zabadani around the 1st May. Then reports of clashes in the surrounding mountains. If no new of clashes arrives in the next days, it shouls become red with a green ring. Paolowalter (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Red with a green circle indicates the rebels have the town surrounded, are mortaring it or have it besieged in some way. There is absolutely no indication of this. The town should go to solid red, no circle. 99.246.110.7 (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeaaa. Is there any source at all supporting the besieged circle around Zabadani? Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Map

An interesting map, related by Joshua Landis, a reliable scholar with somehow pro-opposition leanings: [9] and [10], Map 22. It is indicated as coming from BBC. Of course, it is not a perfect map. For example, the area between Deir Al Zour and Al-Bukamal is not under ISIL control, or the area West of Hassakeh is under ISIL control. But it is quite interesting, and can help us on the WP map for locations without belligerents.

And here: [11]. Precise maps of every district in Syria, full of names, in Latin alphabet, for placing locations on WP map.

Kihtnu (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This map shows the ISIL in control of almost the entirety of Deir Ezzor province. It is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Map is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: - BBC map has been reviewed time ago here and judged as unreliable for its numerous errors.--HCPUNXKID 02:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Al buwaydah

Opposition source say al buwaydah under army control.https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/462301534399635456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.228.244 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Blatant pro-"rebel" and anti-ISIS source AC is clearly unreliable for that.--HCPUNXKID 09:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cute. You do realize that Buwaydah is in Hama, south of rebel held Morek and north of regime held Suran. The front is just south of or on the edge of Morek.

If I recall correctly, this town has been coloured red/regime held for a while.

Interesting that you think that the ISIS has a significant presence in Hama. André437 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Tafas

From SOHR [12] government presence in Tafas. Should we do something? Paolowalter (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say there are governement forces in Tafas. It only notes some skirmishes and bombardment. Like in Nawa, there are still governement forces near Tasil. Sheikh Saad north of the town is loyalist controlled, so the road to Tafas is open. Tafas city itself is under rebel control, and has been for months. The only thing is that skirmishes along outskirts of several shells falling already counts for contested on this slightly biased map (as are loyalist checkpoints dotting up everywhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

In the source is clearly stated that several regular soldiers were killed and injured by islamic bombardment on the eastern side of Tafas town. So that in the source is clearly stated that in the city of Tafas there are soldiers the Syrian army.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why Al-Shaykh Maskin is contested in Daraa ?

Seems nothings happens there and since many time it's under Army control

in base what source some one make it contested  ?

Cedric / Insurgents videos / SOHR Claims are not enough as source because they support the irregular Armed group you need to link a news agency (at least Al Arabiya - Al Jazeera) or it must be change to red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --LogFTW (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

New map of Golan/Daraa [www.facebook.com/the.arab.chronicle/photos/a.454685571308535.1073741828.453010751476017/525948297515595]. Pro-opposition source so only edits in favor of the government should be allowed, right?

You've spent about a week getting ignored for your obvious POV-pushing and yet, you keep going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I can draw a map too put it in facebook and claim it's true... we need at least a source from a single news agency - If we considerate Cedric claims as true we need to considerate Syrian perspective claims as true also — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun

Can anybody help me out with trying to find a source showing that Khan Shaykhun is rebel held with the exception of several army checkpoints to the South-West of the city? I can only find an AC source on the issue.I think by keeping the army base to the SW of the city red and changing the actual city to green, we can more accurately reflect the actual situation on the ground.Jafar Saeed (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny map

This map is really funny, Hama and DeirEzzor and North Raqqah are full of mistakes.

83.110.77.231 (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source when requestion changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Mliha

Mliha has been captured [13] by the Army. Change to red please. EkoGraf (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Another source to that end: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-03/255245-talks-continue-over-rebel-withdrawal-from-syrias-homs.ashx#axzz2y1Av8mqx Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

New rules accepting twitter comments now ? (first reference)

The second reference had a comment "The army backed by Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah fighters made gains east of Damascus, advancing into the rebel-held town of Mleiha after several weeks of daily bombardment, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"

That most certainly does NOT say that the regime took full control of Mleiha. The regime has been "advancing into" and retreating in Mleiha for weeks. In effect, it says that it was still contested. André437 (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors

Seriously, everyone on twitter and other websites and social networks are laughing about this map and calling it pro-assad map. Jubbayn and uqairbat in hamah are with rebels, kafr zita is not besieged by regime, sayqal airbase which is called Seen airbase is besieged by rebels, waer in homs is still with rebels but besieged by regime. khan shaykhun with rebels and battles are going on the southern regime's checkpoints. mre'iyya in deir ezzor is contested and t2 pumping station is not activated like omar (largest oil field in syria) and jaffra and tanak oil fields that are not presented in the map. jayrud in eastern qalamoun is under rebellion control but besieged by regime from months. tranja and jubata in quanitra are under rebellion control but besieged by regime. mleha in damascus is contested and there is no actions in darayya but besieged. kobar, jezreh and jadid uqaydat in deir ezzor are contested. isis recently left there area in homs. north of raqqah city is contested since division 17 forces are semi-advancing and attacking the districts there. ma'adan in eastern raqqah is under isis control.

Please take care for your edits. 83.110.77.231 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

By "anyone" you mean drama queen self-declared expert Cedric Labrousse? Come on, try to be serious...--HCPUNXKID 15:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And loyalists are saying this map is pro-opposition. If you dispute anything, please provide sources and then we can edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.140.22 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We need a 'SOURCE' pro arab chronicle.Do you have a SOURCE ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 13:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source when requesting changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It has been agreed that SOHR and AC can only be used to update regime advances and SANA and Fars can only be used to update rebel advances. The obvious problem with this is that the former have been completely equated with the latter when in fact SOHR and AC regularly report regime advances while SANA was still denying anything was happening well into late 2012. However, this is one of the main rules that has been used to build this map so it will not change. In any case, the map isn't too terrible, you just have to keep in mind it has a moderate pro-regime bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

All statements about the bias of this map in favor of the government is an complete nonsense. And stop make not unfounded accusations. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arab Chronicle is the most unreliable source.While the offensive in Qualamoun was going on he claimed that the rebels were advancing the next day Yabrood fell same goes for Qusayr and same goes for every other thing that he had reported as an rebel advance.SOHR is also unreliable as it calls the rebels martyrs while reffering to everyone else as being killed.Also on social media most of the critics of this map are pro rebel and they mainly dislike the constant advances by the Army.We should only look at the truth and not what other people think about this map.Here the truth and reality comes first everything else is to no concern to us.If those who dislike this map because it does not fit there imagination and the side they support(both regime and rebel) can create there own map but that does not mean they have changed the reality on the ground.Daki122 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If the truth and reality is so important to you, Quneitra and Daraa would look completely different. Kassab wouldn't be besieged. Every single town in northern Homs wouldn't be besieged. As I pointed out in the section I created, the editors are very quick to show regime advances and besiege rebel towns which are not besieged, but require a whole litany of proof and sources to mark the smallest rebel advance. During the northern Latakia offensive, every single rebel town was marked as besieged regardless of whether it truly was or not. They were marked as besieged even as the rebels were pushing further into Latakia and fighting was focused around point 45. The fact that only pro-regime sources can be used to show rebel advances is a terrible way to go about this because, as a rule, those sources tend to be heavily engaging in media warfare and disseminating false news and propaganda and they will never report rebel advances. These are simply the facts on the ground, pro-regime outlets are directly controlled by the regime so they will not report rebel advances. SOHR and other opposition sources, however, are based outside of Syria and regularly report regime advances. Equating SANA with SOHR is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's say that pro-opposition people dislike more the current upper hand of the loyalists in the battle fields (And ISIL in Deir El Zor area) than the map itself. Please don't blame the map for that! Sure, some corrections could be done, but in both directions (For example, why is the Khan Abu Shamat CW near Al-Dumayr still in green?) Kihtnu (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The application of the "besieged" circle seems to be such a recurring and contentious point. I second Paolowalter's definition: "In general the circle means vaguely: city on the front line with fighting just outside (the surrounding or the perimeter), not besieged. I am against defining additional distinctions (semi or quarter of circle). In the vast majority of cases we lack sufficient info to draw these distinctions and it will bring endless discussion. In any case the whole issue is of rather limited relevance." Perhaps some bickering could be avoided by simply altering the legend and redefining the status of the enveloping circles from "besieged" to something closer to what they are actually being applied to represent? Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Zahraa and Nabl

Once again, the Assadist idiots have removed the green circles from these towns which are besieged beyond a shadow of a doubt. You retards are ruining the map with your bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This language is forbidden here (and in all civilized places). Restrain from using it or leave the page. Paolowalter (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Back to the real thing, Zahraa and Nabl are clearly surrounded by rebels. The delivery of aid was single shot because of the agreement in Homs. They have no direct link with the other areas controlled by government. In any case they are on the front line. So they need a green ring around. I can't understand the reason behind removing it. I don't want to start a revert war, so who has objection should speak on this thread. Otherwise I'll revert the ring around them. Paolowalter (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Second the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredwhytekid (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ma'adan, Raqqa

Pro-opposition source claiming ISIS reinforcements were being dispatched from Ma'adan, Raqqa (inference of control, 3rd paragraph from the bottom.) http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/05/syria-isis-jabhat-nusra-south-deir-ez-zour.html#

"In Deir el-Zour, clashes between the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) on one hand, and Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic Front and FSA-affiliated factions on the other, continued, notably on the axes of Jdid Aqidat, Jdid Bakara, Harmoush, Tabiya and Sobha." Where are these villages? Concentrated clashes are apparently taking place in their vicinity. I'm striking out searching thus far. http://www.aranews.org/en/home/syria/1346-accused-of-cooperation-with-syria-rebels,-20-civilians-executed-by-isil-in-deir-ez-zor.html Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

YPG/FSA advancing against ISIS around Tal Abyad.

According to pro-YPG source hawarnews.com YPG forces destroyed ISIS HQ at Mabroukah & ambushed 3 fleeing vehicles destroying them, it's unclear if the town is now under control of kurdish forces but at least it should be changed to contested seeing how they are pushing towards a siege on Tal Abyad.

http://www.hawarnews.com/index.php/2013-02-14-17-53-15/13601-2014-05-11-16-28-50

Also, reported by Arab Chronicle FSA took control over Shar Karak from ISIS and is now clashing with ISIS at Marouda, from what I have read he is not a valid unbiased source but in any case here is the map in case anyone is able to verify from other sources:

https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/465605376394928128/photo/1/large

Some 10~12 other populations have also been reported as taken by kurdish/rebel coalition in the area and at least 8 of them confirmed by pro-ISIS twitter user ajaltamimi, but they're mostly small villages really nearby to those already shown as YPG captured in the map.

(Elthosian (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)).

I go with contested,I will do it right now.Alhanuty (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alhanuty, and about Shar Karak, xeber24.net (pro-YPG paper, same as hawar: http://xeber24.net/nuce/22000.html ) has reported the same info (sans assault against Marouda) that Cdric Labrousse about FSA beating ISIS there, do you think it should be changed to contested or it's better to wait until more sources comment on the clashes there?

(Elthosian (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)).

 Comment: Now you are using pro-YPG sources like Hawar news or AC to back YPG advances? So, time to use now SANA, Al-Manar, etc... to back SAA advances in turn, isnt it?.--HCPUNXKID 16:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Listen,it ha been agreed long ago between all editors,to use hawarnews and SOHR and Now as sources,because they are neutral,the rest are unneutral,either pro-Assad or pro-opposition.Alhanuty (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First, dont equate SOHR (an activist source) with Hawar news or Now (journalistic sources). Second, stop lying, it has never been agreed to use pro-kurdish sources to back kurdish gains, as it has never been agreed to use pro-opposition sources to back opposition gains, or pro-government sources to back government gains. I will revert that blatant violation of rules ASAP, be sure of it...--HCPUNXKID 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon Now neutral? Hahaha, come on, dont make me laugh, look what the NY Times (not precisely a pro-Assad source) said about it, quote: ...said Eli Khoury, an influential organizer of the March 14 movement in its early days. Mr. Khoury is also the chief executive of Quantum, a strategic communications company in Beirut, and the publisher of Now Lebanon, a pro-March 14 online news service.. If that's neutrality, Al Manar must be sooo neutral too, isnt it?.--HCPUNXKID 21:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

SOHR this pro opposition source and this is confirmed by in many reliable sources such as Reuters, The Daily Star and Al Arabiya. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But still SOHR is reliable,it is used by reuters and big others,it also reports rebel losses,and still hawarnews is reliable.Alhanuty (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC) SOHR is unquestionably pro-opp. We just agree that it can be used as possible source also for rebel gain. A source must be judged on its relaibility in supplying info not if takes side in the war. SANA is superbiased but its reports on SAA advance are always correct, on the other side it never reports rebel's advance. AC and Syrian Perspective give false information. Paolowalter (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Colourising the map

Should we consider colourising the entire map? It would make it much easier to understand who controls the vital supply routes. This well made map is a good example [www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=821832261169356]. For instance in Deir Ez-Zor its impossible to know if ISIL or SAA control the vital M7 highway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Tal Melh & Al-Jalmah

SAA got control of Tal Malh & Al-Jalmah villages in Hama Province By this source: http://www.almayadeen.net/news in "آخر الاخبار" part.MZarif (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot get to the source. Could you provide a translation in english? I tried with Google translate but it did not work. Paolowalter (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The translation is that:"Syria: The Syrian Army get full control of Tal Melh & Al-Jalmah villages in Rif Hama province after difficult conflict with Free Syrian Army " the main source is:"سوريا: الجيش السوري يستعيد السيطرة على قريتي تل ملح والجلمة بريف حماة بعد اشتباكات عنيفة مع الجيش الحر" MZarif (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

put TAL MELH AS RED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Mayadeen

"Al Mayadeen prefers to refer to the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists," and to the actions of the Syrian government against its opponents as "cleansing" when reporting the Syrian civil war.[21] Following its first year of broadcast the channel began to be known[by whom?] as "anti-Al Jazeera".[22]"

Mayadeen is closely aligned to March 8 movement in Lebanon and the Syrian regime. Not an objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

NOW News is closely aligned to March 14 movement in Lebanon and the Syrian terrorists. Not an objective source.--HCPUNXKID 21:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not take this definition of 'not objective' source. Neverthess there are opposite report on this location (SOHR reports it is taken by rebels) and therefore contested is right now. Paolowalter (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

SOHR support the Insurgents is a NGO - Al Madayeen is pro regime but is a professional TV News channel-

This another source is pro regime too and talk about Army advances in Hama The army units took control of Al-Jadideh, Al-Malh and Al-Jamileh towns in Mohrad-Salibieh road in Northwestern Hama countryside. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930222000294 When they said Al-Jalmah mean to Al-Jamileh?--LogFTW (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Now we know why the map is such a mess, Hezbollah sources like Al Mayadeen and Iranian state news like Fars News are being used as reliable sources. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The main editors of this map are gonna have to sack up and admit that not all sources are made equal. Pro-regime media disseminates propaganda and false news reports at a rate Goebbel's would be proud of. We saw this just last month during the fighting in northern Latakia where, if we were to believe Mayadeen, Manar, SANA and FARS, the SAA had pushed into Turkey and was encircling Istanbul within one day of fighting after inflicting millions of casualties against the rebels. Mayadeen uses SANA as a source, refers to rebels as terrorists, and commonly lies about regime advances. In reply to the inanity of Punk Kid blah blah, you are actually exactly right, NOW is heavily aligned to March 14 and takes its cues from Future TV which in turn takes its cues from Al Arabiya. NOW is just as unusable for rebel advances as Mayadeen is unusable for regime advances. The pro-regime editors are using March 8 Lebanese sources to POV-push because other editors are not aware of these biases in Lebanese media. For the record, Al Mayadeen, Al Manar, NBN, and OTV are all heavily aligned with the regime in Syria. LBCI, Future TV, and MTV Lebanon are all heavily aligned with the rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Tel Mehl and Al-Jalmah are under rebel control, please change to green http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-12/256164-jihadists-retake-two-villages-in-syrias-hama.ashx#axzz31UDvqEHZ Arabthomness (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There just said the Pro Rebel SHOR and Islamic front claim taken these places but it can't be confirmed by neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

dailystar says 'took control of two checkpoints'.Not tel mehl and al jalmah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Read well what said the context from this article ^ The Britain-based anti-Assad monitoring group said that Al-Qaeda affiliate Nusra Front and the Islamic Front, alongside other Islamist brigades, took control of two checkpoints at the entrances to the villages of Tal Melh and Al-Jamla. The villages are located in the northern province of Hama.

Violent clashes erupted there Sunday night, killing almost a dozen of regime forces and disabling two tanks along other heavy weaponry.

An activist from the Islamic Font’s Al-Iman Brigade confirmed the Observatory’s report, saying that the villages of Tal Melh and Al-Jamla are now controlled by the opposition.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-12/256164-jihadists-retake-two-villages-in-syrias-hama.ashx#ixzz31cPXU9rU (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

That is who claim the Anti Government London Based SOHR and a "Activist" from the Islamic Front.........

The Neutrality here no exist if we considerate Mayadeen as pro regime we need considerate BBC / CNN and pro Al Qaeda the war is in all front it including the media.

Is important to know Madayeen got Journalist in the Terrain on Battlefield

Professional Journalist team > Islamic Front "Activists" - Anti Assad SOHR claims for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You can stop all the controversy over the status of these cities because the SOHR today confirmed that the towns Tal Melh and Al-Jalmah the under the control of the army after the rebels retreated.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That should close the discussion [14] Tel Mehl and Al-Jalmah go red. Paolowalter (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

al-Jabari village and its oil field in Tabaqa

According to sohr,army captures al-Jabari village and its oil field near the al-Tabaqa city.Source https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/527053974069612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

According to AC [15] there are importan advance of SAA in Raqqa province towards the ariport (but starting from where?). I cannot locate al-Jabari or Anbay. Is anybody able to find them? Paolowalter (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done.--HCPUNXKID 16:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Any luck finding these villages? "In Deir el-Zour, clashes between the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) on one hand, and Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic Front and FSA-affiliated factions on the other, continued, notably on the axes of Jdid Aqidat, Jdid Bakara, Harmoush, Tabiya and Sobha." http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/05/syria-isis-jabhat-nusra-south-deir-ez-zour.html# It would be informative to include them on the map Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Useful map from twitter: https://twitter.com/TahrirSy/status/466295016798060545/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

ISIS offensive

According to SOHR, ISIS take a lot of villages in al-Raqqa province: Al-Arida, Om-Hwesh, Zanoba, al-Sawan, Kherba al-Baqar, Em Al Hush, Fre’an, the western and eastern Boga, Ahyamr Al Arab and Ahymar Al Akrad. Sources: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/526657814109228 and https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe?ref=stream&fref=nf Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Add more cities to the map

Add more cities to the area in South-Eastern Idlib countryside. This area may see fighting at any moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.58.143 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Salba

according to the SOHR clashes have occured between rebels and the ISIS in Salba, eastern Hama. this would mean that the town is for sure not under government control. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/527257290715947 Arabthomness talk 22:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.82.230 (talk)

The pro insurgent SOHR claim it happens near Salba not in the tonw according with their claims who you are linking - They also claim the regime taken two news places in this area.

Hama Province: A man was killed and another was injured after receiving some bullets in clashes between the rebel and Islamic battalions against ISIS fighters in the vicinity of Salba Village. The regime forces have taken control over the two villages of Meleh and Al Jalma after withdrawal of Al Nusra Front due to regime’s bombardment on the area.

Areas in east of the town of Akayrabat were bombarded by the regime forces with no information about casualties. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/527257290715947 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) --LogFTW (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Homs = Al waer (al-Wa'ar) still in conflict ?

The map in this article put this zone in red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Homs

In base a what source you put it in conflict yet ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Al Waer is still under partial rebel control, see the last line of this article

http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/syrian-rebel-attack-backfires/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.149 (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

^ There said nothing abaut al-Wa'ar — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The final line of the article says "Only the Waer district in the north-west of Homs now remains under partial rebel control, but is sealed off by government checkpoints." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.149 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo province

Pro government source confirmed the information that the Kurds and rebels retake some teritory from ISIS in the province of Aleppo. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is used as a source, amendments are needed to the Kobane area as well; for instance the towns of Qal'at al-Hadid and Dik Darah are shown as Kurdish controlled on this map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarrin and Qarah Qawzaq being YPG controlled? Are there any other sources on that? Neither hawarnews nor xeber24 or pro-kurdish twitter activists have commented on such thing, the farther YPG has gotten into controlling them is having strategic positions at nearby hills.

(186.112.218.221 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)).

The permanent red circle of doom

Just want to point a few things out, as a simple observer.

1. When the rebels took Kassab, Nabi Ain, etc... in northern Latakia, all of these towns had red circles "besieging" right from the get-go of the rebels taking them over, despite the front lines being all the way at Tower 45. Right now on the map, Kassab is shown as besieged despite having direct rebel held land to Turkey and to eastern Latakia/western Idlib. Having a front line on the southwestern perimeter of the town does not make it besieged. Besieged implies something entirely different.

2. Nabul and Zahraa in Aleppo are no longer besieged by the rebels because...they allowed aid into the towns? Is this real life?

3. Really, all I'm saying is to take a chill pill before throwing the red besieged circle on every single green thing on the map. I look at this map every day and it's the best map out there, in spite of this problem. It's just that this tendency to immediately besiege rebel held towns does two things, it cheapens what is meant by 'besiege', and it also makes the map less accurate.

4. Perhaps a special icon for oil fields/towns? To make the Deir Ezzowr battle more coherent? As it stands is seems like the ISIL and Nusra are slaughtering each other just for some small towns out in the middle of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The circles in Latakia are there because the army has large presence near the towns just like rebels have near Zabadani.Daki122 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

But there is no explanation for the red ring around kasab city,loyaltist forces are way far from kasab,for the other one the frontline has moved to the 45 hill,where rebels are trying to capture it,but they failed. If you want to check check the 2014 Latakia offensive page.Alhanuty (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And sources are reporting fighting in mt nisr,why is it showed as government controlled on the article's map.Alhanuty (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree in essence with the "red circle of doom" commentary. Semi-circles indicating front lines would be more appropriate and accurate, especially in areas such as the Latakia towns - where it's hands down silly to indicate that there are regime forces between Kasab and the Turkish border. In light of the regime's 'besiege and starve' tactics, the full red circle is misrepresentative of the actual situation on the ground in any case where a town/village/city is not actually, completely cut off. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please restore the green besieging circles around Nabul and Zahraa .

And yea, taking the green circles off of Nabul and Zahraa is POV pushing - they are besieged, beyond a shred of doubt. Restore the map to reality please.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I reinstalled the green circles around Nabul and Zahraa. Clearly they are still surrounded. In general the circle means vaguely: city on the front line with fighting just outside (the surrounding or the perimeter), not besieged. I am against defining additional distinctions (semi or quarter of circle). In the vast majority of cases we lack sufficient info to draw these distinctions and will bring endless discussion. In any case the whole issue is of rather limited relevance. By the way, several sources pointed to fighting around Kassab. Paolowalter (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of pointless argument would be avoided if more editors and onlookers interpreted the circle as such. Touche'. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: So, now a source (well, its two sources really) that talk about the "break of the siege" is not enough for you. Tell me what would be your next sally... Oh, and thank for not bringing sources to back your claims, very professional attitude...--HCPUNXKID 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No sources talk about "break of the siege". At all. Aid convoys were permitted in. It was a one time deal in conjunction with the Homs agreement. The geographic locations of Nabul and Zahraa negate what you are saying. They are isolated. No other regime force is anywhere nearby. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Aid convoy arrives in N. Aleppo- quote: " An aid convey consisting of 12 trucks has arrived in Nobl and Al-Zahraa towns on the northern outskirts of Aleppo city on Friday, breaking the siege laid by the opposition gunmen on the two towns more than one and a half years ago.". So get glasses or think before talking lies. And one more: Massive Blast Levels Historic Syria Hotel - quote again: "Rebels recently agreed to lift a siege of the nearby government-held towns of Nubl and Zahra.". Now you can say with Homer: D'oh!--HCPUNXKID 21:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You realize the phrases "breaking the siege" and "lifting the siege" can be used to refer to temporary holds on the siege to allow aid to enter the towns right? Your sub-average IQ is getting in the way of you making sense. You should go play somewhere else instead of tarnishing the map with your incessant POV-pushing, Khomeini boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, my time is too valuable to loose it with p*ssies like you, at least I have done an important job adding content to the map based on reliable sources, while your contribution is bitching and crying like a baby, fortunately most people here just ignore your disparage, Jihadi beheaders allahu akhbar shouting-lover...--HCPUNXKID 16:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As a reminder to all editors: please keep it cool. This message is procedural, as {{edit semi-protected}} is for non-controversial and quick fixes, such as for typos. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

rebels vs isis

clashes in uqayribat (south east hamah) between rebels and isis and rebels advancing in area 83.110.77.231 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

New map of Raqqah province

I found this Map of Raqqah. It has a few ekstra villages and shows some advances by regime. Should we add them?

I think so, because it corresponds to the news of advance of SAA in Raqqah province and all addition are small viallages anyway.Paolowalter (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source for capture of Jubb al Abyad. http://tahrirsouri.com/2014/05/14/isis-advances-on-the-rebels-of-ar-raqqa-while-the-regime-attempts-to-rut-a-path-to-the-tabqa-airbase/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.215.52 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

and tahrirsouri is pro opposition source. and he says jubb al abyad under army control.We should add them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 11:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems credible. Who will add these villages as governmentheld? (Bir Hajj al Mufazi, Bir Akhu Hadlah, Jubb al Abyad): http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.707214&lon=38.629217&z=14&m=b&show=/25602276/Bir-Hajj-al-Mufazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, please correct location of Al-Jabari. It is slightly southeast of Bir Hajj al Mufazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I did my best to include all suggestions. Not sure on some of the names. Please have a look.Paolowalter (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Its perfect - good edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: I removed the towns in red added based on that map, as its a Syrian Perspective map. We agreed that we cannot use pro-gov. sources to display gov. gains, so...And those who accussed me of lack of NPOV and of being unbalanced, take this as a lesson and do the same.--HCPUNXKID 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@HCPUNXKID I think that it seems credible to use at this time since others like Tahrir Souri are reporting that they connected the city to the airbase and all the cities listed are in between Al-Jabari and the airbase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Between Syrian Perspective and Syrian Observatory for Haman right in London i no see too much difference imo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.174.194 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Army taken the control in new town in Rural Hama (2?)

Official Sources report the Army control of these places https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlckxSO6Mog

الجيش العربي السوري يعيد السيطرة على بلدات تل ملح و الجديدة والجملة Translation Syrian Arab Army restores control of the towns of Tel salt and the new sentence

The question now is when they said "The new sentence" mean another town ?

Need a Arab Talker for more details- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They captured three towns: تل ملح = Tal Malh الجديدة = Jdaida الجملة = Jalma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.159.38 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ill hope some one with access to edict put these places on map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.174.194 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Deir Ezzor

This article emphasizes the importance of certain sites that are not on the map. http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/islamic-state-iraq-and-al-sham-and-%E2%80%9Ccleansing%E2%80%9D-deir-ez-zour

Please add the below sites. Wikimapia locations provided.

as-Suwar "The area of the as-Suwar – Deir ez-Zour – al-Basira triangle that is the ultimate focus of the offensive also indicates that ISIS wants control of the local oilfields and facilities" http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.504422&lon=40.639859&z=12&m=b&search=as-Suwar

Jafra oil field http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.308541&lon=40.426254&z=13&m=b&search=al-Jafra%20oil%20field al-Omar oil field http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.104086&lon=40.576630&z=12&m=b&search=ConocoPhillips%20Syria

Anyone want to add these? They are kinda important for a clear picture of the province. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We could add them if we have sources wich say who control that places now, something I doubt. I added the Conoco gas plant as I found a source stating that ISIS controls it: http://news.nawaret.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%83%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%88-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7.--HCPUNXKID 23:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: That report could be a good material to work with, but take care, as I have found just looking it slightly a big mistake: It says that government forces only control some places on the northern part of Deir Ezzor city, when in fact the part controlled by the SAA & allies is most of the southern part of the city. There's no SAA presence in northern Deir Ezzor city. So take care on basing edits on that report...--HCPUNXKID 23:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well then, do not alter SAA possessions. But the oil fields and as-Suwar should nonetheless be added. Especially the oil fields, because that seems to be the ultimate prize for all parties in the province, no? Also, here's a secondary source for ISIS's control of Conoco plant http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-12/256111-isis-seizes-territory-in-deir-al-zor-province.ashx#axzz31sfMBLN8 And here's SOHR's report that indicates "who owns what" for all of the above and more: http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2189&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U3YEY09OWCU .. The wells' approximate locations are provided in the report; I think they should all be added, obviously. Anyone else?Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Mz7 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's less about user rights, more about competency. There's no competent editor here that cares enough to do this? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun

We have A map from an opposition source claiming Khan Shaykhun is entirely under rebel control. Can you guys find any neutral or loyalist source confirming this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC) No, we can't because it is not true. If it were, the rebels would have trumpeted their victory. Such an event does not pass unnoticed. Only a few days ago another AC map showed more than half of the city under SAA control and no news of major advance has surfaces in the meantime. Paolowalter (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC) here is another map showing basically the same https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/466128904365694976, city is under rebel control, clashes are now at the al-Salam checkpoint west of the city and in the arms depot southeast of the city. Arabthomness (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.82.230 (talk)

This pro opposition source and can not be used to display the rebels advance. We need confirmation of this information from a reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There will be no reliable source, since journalist don't get so close to the front lines anymore. Also, I think that Skaykun itself is under rebel control. In fact, it had been partly before the offensive started. There seem to be the Salam checkpoint and the army fueling base that are still in loyalist hands. So, the rebels have not yet taken over Shaykun. There is more wrong however ... Morek is still contested on this map, and the fueling base is not marked as under siege. This is strange, since rebels have closed the M5 from Morek to Ma'arat al-Numan for weeks now. Every loyalist position there has been cut off. Shaykun and Morek to green with a red circle I would argue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hay guy enough publish data from partisan sources. We can edit the map only on basis of reliable data from reliable sources. And now many reliable sources detailed illuminate the Syrian civil war and we have enough information so that if the city was captured this data must confirm the reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

SAA denies that rebels control the town. They say that their supply convoy just passed throe the town bringing supplies to Aleppo without any problems. http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/05/idlib-front-disaster-for-terrorists-as-western-media-lies-hysterically.html I think it should be changed from "green" to "contested" (if not to "red") since the situation is, at least, under dispute.

Nawa and tasil

this pro-government map shows both Nawa and Tasil under rebel control https://twitter.com/confusion8888/status/467436158595891200/photo/1 so I suggest making them green with a red circle around it. Arabthomness (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2014

We agreed to use twitter only if it from known sources. Never heard from this source. There is no reason to believe he/she has any original infos more precise than those we have. Furthermore the map is very vague and of poor quality. If Nawa would have conquered by rebels, they would have announced very loudly; and they haven't. In AC it is clearly stated that their goal it take control of Nawa. And fightings in the city have been reported frequently in the recent past. Paolowalter (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The rebels have said so. They said they had broken the "siege of Nawa". Besieging a town usualy means that town is in opposition hands. Also, we have recent video footage of 60 GRAD's raining down on Nawa and a loyalist convoy trying to get to the city and being rebuffed. Usualy, you don't use GRAD's against a city were your own soldiers are stationed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has ever stated that Nawa is all in government control. It is contested: the west to the rebels, the east to SAA (more or less). Fighting inside the city has been reported often in the recent past. Paolowalter (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We need the confirmation from a reliable source that the city is under rebel control. And until we get the this data the city will remain marked as contested. And data from the pro opposition sources we cant be used to display of the rebel advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)