Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 → Archive 35

Raqqa province

Pro opposition source Ara News said that Raqqa province is the only Syrian Province which is completely controlled by the Islamic State.source Hanibal911 (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

But I will not rush to edit the map because I want to hear the views of other editors about this. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that area is really hard to know. In my opinion, the IS controls all of Raqqa, but many sources indicate otherwise. We to look for other sources I guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.251.145 (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so say we do end up changing the remaining green dots in Raqqa to black (probably a good idea); how do you propose showing the presence that the rebels still do have on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, in "the contested Tishrin Dam region"? We would have to add towns in this region - some contested, some rebel held.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Its a popular misconception when some say the whole Raqqah province is ISIS-held when in fact there is that small part to the west that is still rebel-held and a forgotten front. Sources [1][2][3]. Not to mention the non-existence of reports that would state the ISIS actually captured that area.EkoGraf (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

These maps will never be perfect, the best we can do is show a small part of the overall picture. If Raqqah is under effective control of IS, then it should be solid black and a different way of showing FSA activity made. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-october-2014_18856#7/34.883/40.545 Issue settled. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Al-Harrah Daraa

Why has this town turned to green?.Only one report from alnusra front said it had taken it published by ynet. Back to red unless more sources can be shown.Pyphon (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)pyphonPyphon (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That source from ynet that you refer to said that JAN CLAIMED TO HAVE captured Harrah. However, the pro-opp editors took it and ran with it and so far no one has changed it back. Seriously, and people consider this to be a pro-regime map. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, look at the news. Al-JAzeera, CNN, BBC, Daily Star, LA Times ... al have reported that Harrah is under rebel control. Zimrin and Um Awsaj too. There is plenty of video evidence backing this up. Sorry, but your grand SAA has taken one hell of a beating in Daraa and Quneitra in the past two months :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I need links friend, I cannot just take your word for it. Also, your rebels have taken a beating.....um... everywhere else =) P.S. Please do not link YouTube videos and twitter, as those are unreliable sources. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please report reliable source that Harra is rebel controlled, otherwise change back to red. Otherwise I'll do it.Paolowalter (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There are like 200 videos and photos from this rebel offensive, not just in Al Hara, it's pretty obvious.DuckZz (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Photos, Videos, and pro-opp sources are forbidden on Wikipedia, and I will tell you why. Can you PROVE to me 100% that that is a photo of Harra and not some other village, or even if that man is a rebel fighter? You need a reliable source, and since it is SO obvious, you should be able to easily find at least one. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This totally untrue. You obviously have never read WP guidelines. Or have let you pro-terrorist-regime sympathies take control of your reason.
As well, in this case, videos from the top of the hill of captured regime base make it abundantly clear that the rebels control the area (it is the highest regime base in the south), as well as videos showing the large amount of captured arms and munitions.
It is indeed useful to be sceptical in the light of Hollywood inspired manufactured videos from regime or daesh (ISIS/IS) sources, but rebel videos are not of this nature.
BTW, the so-called reliable sources are generally based on so-called pro-opposition sources. In the case of Daraa and Quneitra, the SOHR has always been slow in reporting rebel advances. Apparently they have few local contacts there. André437 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source does not turn out quickly, it goes back to red.Paolowalter (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This is another example of inadequate procedure. Postings to the map should be based on updates to the tables, which would allow transparent reviewing of info of all map locations. The current procedures mean that no-one knows how valid the control of a location is except very shortly after it is updated. If at all. It is a waste of everyone's time.
BTW Paolowalter, you could very easily verify the change yourself : it has been very widely reported the last 2 days. Note that the rebels captured an important Russia-Syria surveillance headquarters in the base. Videos show a rebel leader commenting the numerous russian/arabic captioned photos on the walls.
While you are at it, why not update the Daraa table for Harra ? André437 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
All of you that say that this news is obvious and widely reported have one thing in common, none of you have a reliable source. When someone changes a town to a color, THEY have to verify accuracy, not the people challenging them. And let me enlighten you on Wikipedia policy, Videos and photos are not allowed PERIOD, so I am not sure where you are coming up with this -"This totally untrue". You cannot say that rebel photos/videos are acceptable evidence because the rebels have poor adobe Premier/Photoshop skills. Either show up with a reliable source, per the guild lines, or Harra is to be changed back. At this rate, I might as well make an account and change it myself. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The original source, which just quotes al-Nusra. Khamakar Press reporting the Syrian Coalition's claim of taking al-Harrah. Another report of al-Harrah falling to the opposition and the SAA falling back. LWJ saying al-Harrah fell (at the bottom of this page you can access all of that controversial video evidence). Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The source quoting the SNC and JAN can be disregarded. The source from Al-Mustaqbal is unreliable because that newspaper is ultra anti-assad per: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsfeatures/syria_says_no_to_the_future___: The LWJ is basing the fact that Harra fell on the videos, so that is unreliable.I also thought that LWJ was a pro-opp source, but I am not sure. One more thing, the link you provided was from the LWJ Matrix, which is a blog and not an authoritative source. The fall of Harra would be a massive blow the the regime, so I expect that CNN, BBC, Daily star, Al-Monitor, at least SOHR for God's sake, has a report on it. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, LWJ, for the purposes of this map, is considered pro-op. I just ran a quick search because no one has really provided any links even though you've asked a bunch of times. I do disagree with you on one important point though. The fall of Harra would not be a massive blow to the regime. Harrah is meaningless. Tell Harrah* is what was important - it's the site of the local SAA base and the highest point in Daraa province. Harrah itself has no strategic value beyond that hill. And, hence, mainstream media reported on the battle up to and until the hill fell - since THAT was what was important about the fight. It's true across the board, for every media outlet. They go straight from Tell Harrah to Zimrin. EA daily beast al jaz business insider. Harrah town falling seems to have been disregarded as insignificant given that whoever owns the hill overlooking it necessarily dominates the town. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nimr, Al-Hajah, al-Dwayah, Rasm al Sayd, Rasm al Kharrar and Mamtinah

I want to raise the debate on the six towns mentioned above. All six are located in southern Quneitra province. In the past three days, rebels have taken over Harrah, Zimrin and Um Awsaj. Fighting in Quneitra itself is located near Khan Arnabah and Jaba, far from those towns. There have been no reports of fighting there, except near Nimr. Also, these five towns (excluding Nimr) can't be reinforced by the SAA, because rebels control land on all sides of those towns. It could be a Nubl and Zahra scenario, but then there would be reports of fighting (video's, twitter sources etc.). There are none. Should we make the majority of those towns green? Nimr can stay red for the time being, since a supply line could be envisioned near contested Simlin town, but the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, Al-Hajah and Al-Dwayah to green. The rest of regime held central Quneitra stay contested, and Nimer stays red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.251.145 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not wait a couple hours, or days? The rebel advances are very recent and rapid, so the prospect of SAA/NDF troops stuck behind enemy lines is very plausible - as is the possibility of an SAA supply line running roughly Simlin-Nimr-Hajah-Dwayah. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid, I doubt it. It seems Nimr has also been taken. Today there were twitter reports with video's and photo's of an airstrike on Nimr. Also, Simrin is contested. If you look on Wikimapia or Google Earth, you'll see that there is only a small country road leading towards Harrah and Nimr. The large road is through Zimrin, and that is rebel controlled. Of course SAA troops could be besieged, but we have no single source of information for that from either the SAA or de rebels themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it too haha. Just trying to make the case for patience. You're right, we have no information confirming or denying SAA/NDF troops stuck behind the rebel advance in Daraa/Qunietra. But, therein lies the problem - generally speaking, unsourced, "common sense" edits (such as this case, when it's a reasonable assumption that the gov't pulled back from those towns but no source has confirmed it) are going to require a community consensus. I think it's just a little too soon; the situation is just a little too fresh and fluid, for that consensus to materialize. However, if Nimr is confirmed fallen to the rebels by what count as reliable sources, your/this proposed change will be strengthened. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

All of this towns(Nimr, Al-Hajah, al-Dwayah, Rasm al Sayd, Rasm al Kharrar and Mamtinah) under nusra and jihadists control.We know that SAA and NDF retreat from there.But we should fix raqqa too.source say raqqa province under is control.Rebels didnt control villages in raqqa.source: http://aranews.net/2014/10/islamic-state-militants-kidnap-100-kurdish-civilians-northern-syria/Hwinsp (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The conversation about Raqqa has its own section. Nimr, al-Hajah, al-Dwayah, etc - provide a valid source, or get a consensus from the editors.. as are the rules with any edit, ever, always.. this isn't new stuff here. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You know we cant provide valid sources about this villages because rebels control this villages before the 2014 (as far as i know).I cant found this sources.But i read couple a saa sources today.Source said :' saa retreat from tell harra area to zimrin judayyah area' I give this sources if you guys want it.But i dont think we can find a valid source about this villages.Hwinsp (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Post that source, please! Even if it cannot be used by itself, it will be a point of reference, a small building block in making your case, if/when the decision is made to change the status of said villages Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Here: https://www.facebook.com/dimashq.now/posts/599180706874212 Source said saa retreat from tell harra area and installed new defensive position in zimrin area.Hwinsp (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Jafar Saeed, you are welcome to join this discussion, but changing Nimr arbitrarily and without a source is uncalled for. You cited this post, that reports the bombardment of "Nemer". There is no "Nemer" in Daraa province; SOHR has been using the name "Nemer" for the town "Namer", found here but not on our map. How can I say that SOHR is referring to Namer and not Nimr? Because SOHR has been reporting the bombardment of Namer for weeks - and Nimr's status has only been in doubt for a matter of days. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

there is no road that leads from Nimer to the towns of dwayah,rasm al sayd at all,doesn't make sense at all that SAA can still control these areas also,alot of reports that the rebels control 80% of Quneitra province,the frontline in Quneitra has moved north.Alhanuty (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also,this map gives us a view on the situation on the ground,https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/519242255895257088,i lean that those Quneitra cities are rebel-held,deal.Alhanuty (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tal Mald (North Aleppo)

SOHR https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/593584060749936 reports fighting between SAA and rebels near Tal Mald http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=36.446142&lon=37.229233&z=13&m=b, that is quite far from SAA controlled area. Is it a mistake or are we missing something?Paolowalter (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Weird. That has to be a typo.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure. On one hand SOHR specified that this is the Tel Mald near Mare', so that is pretty unusual for a typo. However, it is unlikely that regime forces are that high up, let us wait for more sources. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Its from facebook disregard it unless more reliable source comes.Pyphon (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)pyphonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=67#

I tend to think this report may be authentic.Ariskar (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There clashes are probably against the Islamic State. Conflicts in this area were reported some time ago: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573009922807350 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.200.160 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a place called Ard al Mall between Handarat and Haritan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.9.59 (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tall Shair

Reliable sources reporting that this hill was retaken by ISIS [4]. Also fits with common sense, as it seems unlikely that the YPG are holding an outpost like that significantly outside Kobane as the situation is so dire that their headquarters in the city just fell.Nhauer (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reports this as well Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Um

Alhanuty , you changed Judayyah to contested based off of this, which says clashes around, not in - and we already had a green circle around Judayyah. You changed Simlin to green based on the same post. Simlin is on the front line. Not sure how you gathered it was rebel-held from that post. You changed Nimer to rebel-held based off of this and with the reasoning that "makes no sense that it (SAA) still controls it after the fall of tal-harra" - all fine and dandy, but "common sense" edits without sources require community consensus, which you did not even try to obtain. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits were based on reliable SOHR reports,for Nemer it reports bombardment on the town,and it is deep in rebel territory.Alhanuty (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

also,the reports talked about heavy Bomdardment for both Simlin and Nemer,and it doesn't make sense for government forces to heavily bombard a town,if they still have troops there.Alhanuty (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, reliable SOHR reports, but you misrepresented them. Again, that source says nothing about fighting IN Judayyah. Nothing at all. And Simlin has been both bombarded and contested by both sides for over a week. It is on the front line. Nimer is behind rebel lines, yes, but no sources say it's rebel held (I too believe it to be rebel held, but that is not of consequence). If reports of bombardment continue, and if no reports of fighting/besieging Nimer are found, and if you put the issue before all the editors here on the talk page - then, Nimer may be made rebel-held. Since when has it been ok to make unsourced edits without a community consensus? Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jadia=Judayyah,Silmin doesn't look to be on the frontline,the frontline moved westwards,and there is literally multiple reports of bombardment on simlin.Alhanuty (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jadia=Judayyah? The post still doesn't say anything about fighting in that town. And, Simlin isn't on the front? Look at it - it's right next to SAA held Brigade 15 and Sanamein! Not to mention the situation in Simlin itself isn't even verified! The SAA bombards towns that it has troops in all the time. Morek. Zabadani. Nawa. al-Karak. Bosra. Damascus! Daraa. Deir el Zor. Aleppo.... Simlin. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

it says in Jadia area.Alhanuty (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence the green circle around Judayyah. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Southern Aleppo

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/593872090721133 SOHR and the neutral Charles Lister:https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/519783029326090240 have reported the rebels seizing all those villages in south Aleppo, in a recent offensive by Ahrar Ash-Sham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.181.92.207 (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/cabcs7/posts/783599751683570 Rebel sources sayed the villages of Kashuta, Higher Zaraa, Lower Zaraa, al Barzanaia and Bashkawi had fallen to Ahrar AsSham mouvment. 11:20, 08 October 2014 (UTC+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalil.aifaoui (talk • contribs)

sohr says rebels capture Qashouta, al-Baraznia, Deman, al-Ezraa and al-Zeraa location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.023488&lon=37.298927&z=14&m=b&gz=0;372562694;359987366;0;289509;319290;485233;376796;273544;823116;131924;799083;0;557041;54161;594806;134701;534725;189547;9441;295757Hwinsp (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


I have updated Qashuta, Barzaniyah, Diyman, al-Zaraa, and al-Adnania. Could not locate al-Ezraa, al-Tahtatnia, al-Foukania, or Jam'ia al-Zahraa Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Jam'ia al-Zahraa and al zeraa and al-Zeraa al-Foukania is the same. al-Ezraa and el ezra al-Tahtatnia is same too .You should add only al ezra(el ezra al-Tahtatnia).Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.009499&lon=37.318647&z=16&m=bHwinsp (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Danke for the insight. I don't see al-Ezra (al-Tahtatnia) at that wikimapia location though. I see Umm Jurn, Zeraa, and Azziraa. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

zeraa=al ezra= al-Ezra al-Tahtatnia :)Hwinsp (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. lol. ok so nothing else needs to be added b/c I already updated al-Zaraa. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"neutral charles lister LOL and SOHR" congratulation wikidiots, it was denied by SAA that any village was captured, it gets changed in HOURS if a twitter jihadist fanboy and Sohr claims something WITHOUT any evidence, but when Handarat was taken it took 3 days to update half of it. SHAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That same SAA that denied Tabqa airbase fell? That same SANA news that hasn't acknowledged a single rebel advance in 3.5 years? The only reason Handarat took so long was because the individual city maps are do not have as many editors.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There was videos the next day of the capture, and SAA did not denie the fall. We are talking about ahrar al sham, jihadists who pledged alliance to IS, it is for propaganda to boost moral. Still not a single evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

SANA described the fall of Tabqa, and I quote their English site, "Our forces have completed a successful regrouping operation after withdrawing from the air base and they are still carrying out precision strikes against the terrorist groups in the area." Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
These changes need to be reverted. SOHR is pro-rebel and NOT a neutral source, therefore their reports can not be used to confirm rebel gains.--CommieMark (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you need to read the WP guidelines. Paraphrasing the guidelines, it is not the preferred outcome of the reporter that counts, but the reliability of the reporting. In terms of reliability, SOHR is one of the most accurate sources, their errors generally being that of omission (not reporting changes right away), particularly in the south (Daraa, Quneitra), where they seem to have fewer sources on the ground.
As far as sources being pro-rebel, that is a claim often made here about sources who have close contacts with the rebels. Any neutral sources reporting on rebel activity would necessarily have contacts with the rebels. SANA obviously doesn't, being a party directly in conflict with the rebels. (Which disqualifies it from being a reliable source for regime advances, both logically and according to WP policy.)
BTW, I don't know why some persist in claiming that ahrar al-sham is associated with the IS/ISIS/Daesh. They are part of the Islamic Front which is fighting the ISIS, nor are they jihadists. Just because a few of their fighters are reported to have deserted to the ISIS doesn't make them ISIS. By that argument, the US, UK, and France are all ISIS and jihadist. Obvious nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by André437 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Charles Lister, a neutral and very reliable source, confirmed the advances. And SOHR is widely considered reliable by pretty much all news outlets all over the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.179.158.54 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is not considered reliable as it is openly supportive of one side. It doesn't matter if some western news sites cite it. It is run by some guy living in an apartment in Coventry, England. Not a single reliable source is reporting what some editors are trying to portray as a large advance. This is ridiculous. Until a verifiable source is cited the changes should be reversed --46.7.83.115 (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Something you do not understand about this map, not only is SOHR ironically reliable, it is the "bible" of the civil war. Its word is taken above all and most edits to this map are made based on SOHR [around 80%], so every time you come here, you are looking at a SOHR map if SOHR ever made one. Editors will justify by saying that SOHR has reported accurately, but many of those same people will shoot down sources like Al-Masdar. Even though it has also reported accurately, it is run by a regime sympathizer and is not reliable. Ironic, isn't it? As for trying to get SOHR removed, do not bother. A consensus was established years ago and all attempts to challenge have thus far been ignored. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Every time this comes up, the only reasoning given for limiting the use of SOHR is that "it's pro-op!". No one ever posts examples of it's inaccuracy, or proof of its unreliability. Show me. Show me that SOHR reports are wrong more than they are right. Show me an SAA advance that was not reported by SOHR. You're right, rants about the green flag in the background of the SOHR never go anywhere - but that's not because of pro-rebel bias, it's because no logical, empirical evidence is given to discredit SOHR's reports of battlefield gains/loses. Stealing from Andre: "Paraphrasing the (WP) guidelines, it is not the preferred outcome of the reporter that counts, but the reliability of the reporting" Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
"The Aleppo Central Prison is now in Rebel Hands!"" Rebels have recaptured Al-Burj roundabout and foiled army plans to lift siege of Aleppo central prison!""Latakia City struck by Grad Missiles!" There are some right there. And to your point about "Show me that SOHR reports are wrong more than they are right", how come you reject Al-Masdar. They have been right about almost everything so far, yet they are unreliable? Why is that? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

al-Adnania and al-Safirah, Aleppo

Ok. As the map currently stands, al-Adnania is contested. This edit was based off of the SOHR main page and this is also widely reported on twitter (secondary sources, of course) here and here just to note a few. Also, al-Safirah has a lime ring to the SW based off of this SOHR post - the post claims clashes "in" Safirah, but that may be a typo, and Safirah is far too large and strategically important to have its status changed to contested based off of 1 SOHR post. I think this is suitable for the time being, given the fluid situation on the front line in this area. Just kinda throwing this up on the talk page so everyone can comment/complain/debate/provide additional sources for affirmation or refutation of said situation. Cheers. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I hardily think the rebels have reached Al-Safira as the way to the city is blocked by the defense factories west of it.May opinion is that SOHR is either trying to boost a little propaganda(not unusual for them) or they had just translated a statement from the rebels.But please keep an eye on this situation as many times the Army recaptures this villages without SOHR or any other neutral source reporting and the all off a sudden we find reports of fighting way deep into rebel lines as many editors on Wiki refuse to take into account making changes based on pro-gov sources.As many previous offensives that were lunched by the rebels turned out to be only temporary to relive pressure from another front(Handarat) and then simply vanish(Hama,Latakia,Dokhaniya) from the from the front line and the Army takes back ground that it has lost. Daki122 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid. It was most probably a typo, because all other SOHR reports about fighting on that front are reporting only clashes in the villages near the town, not the town itself. And at the moment, fighting is concentrated in al-Adnania. EkoGraf (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Further SOHR posts about fighting around Adnaneyyi (Adnania). A SOHR post of clashes in the defense factories. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Clashes in the area of the factories not in the factories.Just to correct you.Daki122 (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup - I marked the lime presence around the factories, didn't mark them contested :) Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-west-handarat-farms-babinnis-ahrar-al-sham-offensive-safira-repelled/, that is reliable reporting regularly also government losses, all the lost villages were taken back by SAA.Paolowalter (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This was actually expected. I believe this is the third time rebels have tried to cut this supply line. This offensive was clearly an ill coordinated attempt to relieve pressure off Handarat, therefore it does not shock me that the villages were recaptured so fast. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly,Al-Masdar is an unreliable source,and all of us knows whom is the editor in chief of it,secondly,this current rebel offensive on the supplyline looks to be planned accordingly and planned monthes away,thirdly,why where villages in Latakia turned read with an unreliable source like Al-Masdar.Alhanuty (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a literacy problem. Have I not already proven to you that your argument, where you trash the editor in chief of Al-Masdar, to be wrong. For the last time, if you want to work on editor affiliation, SOHR is banned because its editor is openly pro-opp. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Second, how do you know that "looks to be planned accordingly and planned monthes away". Do you have contacts with the rebels by any chance? Reliable sources are determined by thier accuracy record and so far, Al-Masdar has been accurate. So Al-Masdar is a reliable source. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is not reliable. It's a pro-regime source. Actually, it reported Tell Al-Harrah to be regime held, even with some 100 sources saying otherwise. Not SOHR, not ANY reliable media reported ANY regime regaining those villages. Should the regime retake then, we will know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.179.158.54 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It reported the first attack to be repelled. Rebels attack again later and took the hill per: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/518897087644041216 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It has been discussed many times and nobody has ever brought a proof that Al-Masdar is not reliable. It reports regularly gain and loss on each side. I updated the map based on tis info. A couple of villages behind the lines remains green temporarily for lack of information.

If no further news arrive, I'll change them to red later.Paolowalter (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You will change them to red if you provide a source stating as such. Until then, they remain as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.36.35 (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Al-Masdar has NOT said anywhere that the rebels have taken Tell Al-Harrah. It said they repelled a attack(which is a lie) and ignored all other proofs. Any source that does this=NOT RELIABLE. Your pro-regimeness is getting you to ignore what's a good source and what is not. If we where to believe in Al-Masdar, we we're supposed to change this whole map to red, since it reports RARELY minor rebel gains. I mean, the rebel advances in Daara and Quneitra(big advances) are being ignored, while in Eastern Ghouta, Aleppo(now the rebels advance in the south and the regime did not retake those villages), Hama, where the regime is advancing they report any single advance, sometimes reporting the same advance twice, without mentioning that the rebels retook some territory(such as Dukhania, where the rebels took control after never holding it, regime took it back according to Al-Masdar, but a week later the regime took it back AGAIN, this time with SOHR and other sources confirming it). In Quneitra, they actually claimed the regime to be advancing, taking Naba al-Shaker, but hey, guess what, the rebels never had held in the first place, and the other day the rebels actually took it. Just the mistakes in Daara and Quneitra makes it EXTREMELY unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.179.158.54 (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This particular almasdarnews.com article starts with the preposterous phrase "The civilian-led National Defense Forces (NDF) ...", and goes on to use typical biased SANA terminology. It has all the appearances of propaganda. It also says the report is based claims of regime forces, so it can't be any more reliable than direct regime claims. (Re-read the article if necessary, this point should be obvious.)
It should not be accepted as a reliable article, without collaborating evidence. That without any consideration of the source's general track record André437 (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be completely lost not only regarding Wikipedia policy, but on this war as well. The NDF is made up of Syrian civilians. It is like a national guard. I did not even think that was in dispute. As for biased terminology, how many "martyrs" died when "Islamic battalions liberated" an area? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You are just proving that you have never read WP policy. Or have a very short memory, if not incapable of understanding it. As far as the war goes, I've been following it almost since the beginning, and following the Syrian dictatorship generally for over 10 years.
Claiming that the NDF is like a national guard is admitting that it is a government led military organisation. You say it is made up of civilians. Before they enroll maybe, but while they serve they are military personnel, not civilians. Your comments suggest that you have read "1984" or "Animal farm" (by George Orwell) a few too many times.
As well, you haven't addressed the fact that the article claims the regime military as its' source.
Although SOHR does sometimes use biased language, which could bring such an article into question, their articles generally use unbiased language and are corroborated later by other sources. This article, as well as using consistently biased language, contradicts numerous other sources available André437 (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Almasdarnews has never been acceptable as a primary source for this map. It's equivalent to Orient news for the rebels. Not sure where anyone is getting a different idea about it. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But Boredwhytekid, I thought you said that a source can be used if it has a reliable record. All of Al-Masdars reporting in hama and Damascus has been reliable. It must get the "SOHR treatment" and be allowed to edit the map. After all, SOHR is still a reliable source even after reporting inanities like the fall of the Aleppo Central Prison 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are the neutral, primary scources then, guys ? SOHR displays a huge FSA style-flag on Facebook and it's homepage, and are you calling it reliable, independent scource ? Oroszka

Grasping at straws to discredit the SOHR : Prematurely reporting the fall of the central prison after the rebels did enter the outer courtyards only to be repelled by regime bombardment was the only major error by SOHR in over 3 years. Displaying the independence flag does not mean SOHR reporting is biased. Sites that display the regime flag don't necessarily support the Assad dictatorship which adopted it in 1980.

Note that the SOHR has erred more in delayed reporting of rebel advances.

Al-Masdar is a very unreliable source,and why where those villages changed with a biased and unreliable source such as Al-Masdar,the pro-Government map maker Keepingtheleith is literally the editor in chief of Al-Masdar,this source should never be used to report government gains.Alhanuty (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I believe you are trolling. I already explained to you that Rami Abdullrahman is a pro-opp writer. So SOHR will never gain be used to report opposition gains rights? No, of course not, because SOHR has a "golden ticket"! You only want to apply your logic where it benefits you. It matters that Al-Masdar's writer is biased but not that SOHR writer is biased? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
There is consistent evidence that SOHR is not biased in its' reporting. If anyone is trolling, it is you André437 (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kissin-North Homs (houla plain)

new Pro opp map shows kissin under saa controll source: http://i.imgur.com/C7P9PZr.jpgHwinsp (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is no source, this is a second-hand Twitter map from an unknown source. We don't use Twitter sources and maps, not even pro-SAA maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

map is from Revolution in Homs media (pro opp)Hwinsp (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Douma

Government forces captured Rayhan in the Douma outskirts there are vidoe and photo evidence of the advancement:

-https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/519998427506434048 -https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/519998595358289920 -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNcvE_uECew&feature=youtu.be Update the map when you can.Daki122 (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You know that we cannot use twitter info except for maps of some users. (Even if I believe the info) Paolowalter (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

One more source mentioned it, albait not a major/reliable one. Though it sounds probable, I'd suggest we wait on this edit. http://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/2ip7sd/recap_on_what_the_syrian_arab_army_captured_in/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.150.132 (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-republican-guard-liberate-al-rayhan-liberation-jobar-coming/Paolowalter (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sadaya (South Aleppo)

Sohr says rebels captured sadaya: http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=24832&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VDj6pfmsWQmHwinsp (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, saa sources say saa recaptures 5 villages around defence factories. https://www.facebook.com/hosienmortadapressnew/posts/976608189031347:0 https://www.facebook.com/Manqolmnn/posts/706345019459455 .I think we should waitHwinsp (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No they didn't. First, reliable sources in this are foreign analists and media. SOHR is only considered because it always reports regime advances and is considered a reliable source by many medias such as Reuters. Once SOHR or other media reports the regime advances, we use them(oh, and for the ones saying Masdar is reliable, they still haven't admited Tell al-Harrah to be rebel held, despite dozens of sources claiming otherwise, including international media and youtube videos on top of the hill) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.181.84.171 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Offical saa sources says , saa recaptures bash kuy - quashutah - dıyman - al zeraa -adnanıyah and umm jurn.We should wait pro opp sources to confirmed it https://www.facebook.com/addounia.channel/posts/753681931358465 https://www.facebook.com/syria.net/posts/740456386009707Hwinsp (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with SOHR is that sometimes it does not report take over of rebel held villages by the Army(the small ones like in this case) and many times it goes unnoticed until some analysis from neutral media which takes about a month or so.Last time south Aleppo was changed we had to put a dozen villages to red form green after a month of their take over.That is why I say we keep an eye on the situation and wait either for conformation from neutral sources or at least credible video evidence.Daki122 (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC) SOHR only reports saa advances after other outlets report it.it makes him look reliable source sitting in his London apartmentPyphon (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)pyphonPyphon (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Morek

Just something to keep an eye on: pretty much every pro-op news outlet is reporting that the rebels retook the tank battalion in northern Morek 1 2 3 4 5, and the pro-op syriadirect update for today's date (can't link - it's blacklisted) Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very common for rebel outlets to issue what I call "retractions". Essentially what that means is that the rebels will state that they have regained an area shortly after losing it to minimize psychological impact on themselves. We have seen this in Handaarat, Dukhanniya, Khitab, and Al-Burje roundabout [Aleppo under Central Prison] to name a few. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The rebels loosing and regaining the tank battalion base north of Morek has been reported by the ISW (Institute for the Study of war). It should be considered a neutral and reliable source. The same group also reports (more frequently) on the conflict in Iraq.
BTW, it is easy for inexperienced observers to imagine the front lines are fairly static, but that is not how wars are fought. It is very common for advances by one side to be quickly reversed.
This has happened in Handarat (rebels regaining, noted in the ISW report above), Dukhaniya (regime regained territory they effectively admitted having lost), etc. André437 (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wadi Ayn Termah

The news reports say that this area in rif dameshqe was captured by SAA:MZarif (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.almayadeen.net/news

Also Petolucem posts it, he's reliable https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/520889603721818113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyAAF (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC) You have to wait for SOHR to post it. Its his map now don't you know.Pyphon (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon

SOHR reported advances [5]

While Danny Makki [6] who is a political analyst for Syria(Had seen him on RT and Al-Jazeera) also said that it has been retaken.Daki122 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

See also http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-liberates-vital-city-east-ghouta/.Paolowalter (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR at his best making a saa gain lock like a defeat oh such reliabilityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=67# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

SAA captured wadi ayn tarma source: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/595755190532823 LOCATION: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=33.505761&lon=36.357365&z=15&m=b&gz=0;363349628;334950430;24032;158349;78535;134912;145912;127755;196552;164432;254917;152803;297832;127397;342464;30061;282382;0;0;103422;27465;157813 Damascus map shows as contested.We should fix the map.ThanksHwinsp (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by SOHR https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/595755190532823.Paolowalter (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo north

Bashkuy contested according to pro-opp www.facebook.com/AMCenglish/posts/526980007439424. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.327020&lon=37.120743&z=14&m=b Paolowalter (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is against the rules used pro beheaders sourses to showing beheaders advances link something more neutral pls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.140.28 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that the biggest "beheaders" are the Assadist cluster bombers. They shred the victims in the process. Compared to the regime, the ISIS are amateurs. André437 (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no place for your propaganda. And this statment here: "Compared to the regime, the ISIS are amateurs" reveals how horribly ignorant you really are about what happening there. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Paolowalter is trying to show an SAA gain through the pro-opp Aleppo Media Centre, which is allowed. It really does not get any more pro-opp then that. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about politics, andre gtfo. The only beheaders are the ones who post their beheading by the hundreds, IF,nusra,FSA etc

Also SOHR confirms SAA is already near the infantry school north to Aleppo https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/595842903857385?fref=nf confirming Peto Lucem's map showing that Babinnis was taken several days ago. https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/520278356412354561/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

South Aleppo

Saa advancing in southern aleppo and recapture sadaya according to sohr: http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=24851&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VDmPj_msWQkHwinsp (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Regime Afghan mercenaries? Seriously? Nevertheless, the "Almighty SOHR" has spoken, back to red. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
More constructive commentary eh? Afghan mercenaries - Vice News al-Arabiya Washington Institute Foreign Policy Fox News Wallstreet Journal Really man, you do nothing but bash SOHR but don't even put forth the effort run a simple google search to see if there's any justification for their claims. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed the regime to have taken all the villages they lost in the Ahrar ash-Sham offensive. http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/regime-forces-advance-in-aleppo-countryside-and-rebels-advance-in-aleppo-city/

Also, Suleiman Halabi district need to be contested, the rebels control more then half of it already — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.181.84.171 (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Only in your dreams.... I am living in al-Midan near Sulaiman Halabi.... SAA only!--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC

And I'm living on the moon. Suleiman Halabi to contested(but it is so small I doubt it will be significant on the map).

You better to stay there.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources? If not, then no status change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

TEL AL HARRAH

According to the Jerusalem post the rebels have just taken TEL AL HARRAH signal post.That must mean the saa are still in al harrah. Once again you have presumed to much to fast https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Tel al Harrah may be green but Harrah is at least contested. Please change it to contested. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/200-jabhat-al-nusra-fighters-killed-tal-hamra/ reports up to yesterday fighting in Tel al Harrah, recongnizing advance of the rebels but deniying it has been completely taken. Paolowalter (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Paolowalter and others : please don't start a line with a space, it causes special formatting. (I just fixed the format of your post.) For indentation use ":". (Multiple times for more indentation.)
Also, please use the preview button to see what your post looks like. Thanks :) André437 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, and an old source. Rebels control Harrah town. It was said so by multiple media outlets. In fact, rebels control Nimr and the red towns in Quneitra (south) also :) but as usual, this map is three weaks behind the actual events in Daraa and Quneitra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Parrot effect, only SOHR truly reported. And do you have proof of "In fact, rebels control Nimr and the red towns in Quneitra" or are you one of those whiners that consistently complain about how the rebels have taken Damascus yet have no proof to show for it? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree Paolowalter al harrah back to red ;)Pyphon (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)pyphonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=68#
I disagree. Despite the fact that there is still fighting in Tel-Harra, I think both tel-Harra and Harra town should be contested to restore the map to normalcy after it was disrupted by what appears to have been a rebel propaganda tsunami (Nimir, Zimirin, Tell-Harra, Harra were all victims). 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Even Iranian Television reports Harrah is rebel held. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Daraa

Nawa is shown as contested but no reports of fighting in the town I suggest green with red circle also shak maskin to red what do you thinkPyphon (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)pyphonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=new#

No, Nawa is according to many rebel and regime sources to be contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.177.197.133 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone post one of these sources of recent fighting in Nawa or Shak miskin I must of mist them thanksPyphon (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC(

Python Please put blank line between posts. Otherwise posts risk running into one another (on the same line), as happened here André437 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Andre437 seeing as you asked so nicely I will try;) Pyphon (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)pyphonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=60#
Another hint : please do not start a line with a space, it causes special formatting. Instead, use ":" for indenting, multiple times for more indenting. Also, if you use the "preview" button, you can see what your post looks like before it is posted :) André437 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

All maps (pro/opp and pro/gov) show Nawa divided between rebels and SAA. Shak miskin is largely controlled by SAA with a pocket on the north controlled by rebels. Also on this point there is a basic agreements bewtween various maps. Situation is stalled and th front lien i relatively quiet. No way important town are changed of the base of lack of infos Paolowalter (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm on board with Paolowalter's expressed opinion on this matter. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, sources frmo last month showed west Nawa rebel-held and east Nawa government-held with the frontline in the city center. No reports since than that the situation changed. EkoGraf (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou guys for your thoughts but iam not convinced that they still are contested anyway if things change sources will be postedPyphon (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=59#

Al Huwayjah

according to sohr clashes between saa and isis in huwayjah. Huwayjah should contested source: http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=25018&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VD2EWvmsWQl location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=35.454308&lon=40.034952&z=14&m=bHwinsp (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Harrah town sources

Some pro-SAA guys have changed Harrah to contested. So here are the sources to make it nice and green again:

1. http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/10/free_syrian_army_continues_to.php 2. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/595045263937149 3. http://eaworldview.com/2014/10/syria-daily-islamic-state-takes-key-hill-near-kobane/ 4. http://sherifazuhur.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/syria-update-july-26-2013-institute-of-middle-eastern-islamic-and-strategic-studies-by-sherifa-zuhur/ 5. http://mehriran.tv/article_read.php?a=605

So :) green please. Also, we should make the two town in southern Quneitra green. There has been no report of fighting there, and its way behind SAA lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

All of your sources are A) Pro-Opp or B) Unknown and therefore not authoritative. Please find a neutral source. Per RT: https://twitter.com/HebaDelacres/status/520819121055756289 ongoing fighting in Tel-Harra. Area is not as rebel dominated as some pro-opp editors would like us to believe.2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

My God ... longwarjournal is a neutral source, and we agreed to use SOHR. And you deny all that and give me a twitter source? While we all agreed not to use Twitter? This is the best joke I've seen since a few days. Maybe we should also make Jasim, Inkhil and all of Quneitra red again? The godly SAA is advancing steadily, right? I'm sure I can find a Twitter source or map claiming the SAA is already storming Israel itself :,) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment of tel Harrah https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/595758763865799. ISW "rebel forces... seize the town of Tel al-Hara" Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Ok so tel al harrah hill is in rebel hands and the saa are bombarding hill.That means the saa must be in the area . But according to this map they are nowhere near. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=59# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Artillery shoots a long way. And "bombarding" can also mean aerial bombardment. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a yery long way according to this map Kafr shams is the nearest place and as for aerial well the best the saaf has managed up to now is the odd air strike hardly a bombdardment ;)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=59# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 14:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Syria is a small country, Daara is a small province and the distance from Kafr Shams to Harrah town is, using the roads, 16km. Artillery doesn't use roads and it's not inside Kafr Shams, but on the outskirts. Most likely some 5/6km from the Harrah town, and for modern artillery, that distance is nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.177.197.133 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC) The report did say aerial bombard and one rebel killedPyphon (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=59#

After all these discussion no reliable source about Harra controlled by rebels has shown up. All sources (most unreliable) referes to Tell Harra the hill not the city. Therefore Harra stays at least contested. Do not invent a non existing consensus on Harra green, I do not agree.Paolowalter (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Even Iranian news says Harra is rebel held. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
From the many videos available it is evident that any party that controls the base on the hill overlooking the town controls the town. The town is almost under the base. As well, there are videos showing rebels in the town. One amusing one shows rebels chasing a regime officer on foot, overtaking him just as he gets to his car. They very easily could have shot him long before he reached his car, but I guess they didn't want to waste their bullets. André437 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You really believe every video you are fed, don't you. Remind me to show you the one where the rebels capture red square and chase Putin on foot too. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have another Tasil situation here ;) I wonder if the pro-regime editors here think that keeping these towns red/contested will somehow help the Assad army on the battlefield... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.29 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Shams, Darraa

Loyal sources reporting SAA attacks on Kafr Shams village in Darraa.

Also here pro-opposition map show Kafr Shams is rebel-held.

83.110.142.181 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Are any other sources available for this specific request? We currently have Kafr Shams marked SAA held with fighting around the town. Peto Lucem is pro-gov't, but it's still just a twitter source, so you're going to encounter heavy opposition to this proposal unless neutral or pro-gov't mainstream media confirmation is forthcoming. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That, and the source said the Kafr Shams area, not the town. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:21ED:77A7:3E7F:8550 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ALEPPO

saa repelled rebels offensive and SAA recaptures vilages in south aleppo (abu tabbah -qastunah- dıyman -barzanıyah - al zaraa -adnanıyan -umm jumm) accordin to sohr: http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=24866&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.VDpuVfmsWQlHwinsp (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

LOCATION: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.026403&lon=37.301159&z=13&m=b&gz=0;372560119;359961325;236892;705213;0;263140;259208;218017;767326;0;858306;91657;830841;284660;444602;433198;259208;731577;214576;667748Hwinsp (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

translation from sohr eng: http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/regime-forces-advance-in-aleppo-countryside-and-rebels-advance-in-aleppo-city/Hwinsp (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Daki122 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That SOHR post doesn't specify a single town by name. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

http://i.gyazo.com/60acf43a035cd97fed8734b9c8a5b5fc.png according to this map the cities of Rasm-al-safa and kafr Akkar are rebel held as well as Haddadin and al-wadihi on the border of the Aleppo map Edit: Kafr Abid and Balas are reported as theirs as well.

That is a Pro-opp map and cannot be used to turn towns green. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR confirms again SAA is near Aleppo infantry school fighting at the cement factory, https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/596416670466675?fref=nf
Babinnis was taken almost a week ago https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/520278356412354561/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/al-nusra-and-the-battalions-have-advanced-in-handarat-and-sifat-areas/ SOHR confirms rebels to have besieged regime fighters in Sifat and Handarat villages. Also, would you guys stop saying the regime has rebel held Aleppo under siege, because there's another road going into rebel held Aleppo, the Castello road. It's under a half-siege, because it's much harder for rebels to use the road, but it's not under full siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.177.197.133 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Idiot Castello road is the main suplly route not the "another"

SOHR reported fighting in Handarat area and sifat nothing about besieged please thankyou https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=58#

Multiple sources have stated that control of Handarat for the SAA is a siege on rebel held Aleppo. Also, there is not way rebel fighters can besiege the SAA in those areas, since the SAA controls the area immediately east of them. Also your sources says "Could" cut them off. Finally, these unspecified "advances" are the essential equivalent of SANA propaganda, this time being done by SOHR in favor of the rebels. As for your arguments about other roads, you are absolutely right. The rebels could trek anywhere they wanted to to deliver supplies, they do not even have to use a road. However, the easy rebel supply line has been eliminated. The rebels can no longer obtain supplies quickly, thus placing them effectively under siege. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because the 2 main highways from Turkey are blocked at one point (one at al-Zaraa and the another at Handarat) doesn't mean the rebels are incapable of using paved secondary roads to bypass the blockages. If the regime can do the same elsewhere (or worse, building a road through the desert to Khanisir when the rebels blocked the m5), why not the rebels ? It just means the supplies take a little longer to arrive. You just have to look at google maps (or wikimapia) to see the alternative routes. André437 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/10/aleppo-syria-rebels-face-islamic-state-regime.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.227 (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC) http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/15/382338/syria-army-makes-gains-near-aleppo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.46.49 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

West Hama

Info from almansar about west Hama countryside http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/west-hama-road-liberated-tiger-forces-salma-verge-liberation/. Not easy to interpret: Al-Haweeja is here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.523565&lon=36.372643&z=14&m=b&permpoly=5821924 (now is contested), Al-Jayid here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.550943&lon=36.311703&z=15&m=b&permpoly=5821924 (red now), Al-Tamana’a here (I guess) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.539630&lon=36.314964&z=15&m=b&show=/24199600/ar/%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%A8#lang=en&lat=35.539630&lon=36.314964&z=15&m=b (red now); I cannot locate Al-‘Aziziyyeh. Paolowalter (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Paolowalter,seriously stop your vandalism of the map,All agree that Al-Masdar is an unreliable source to report Government advance,and you are trying to enforce the government point-of-view on all the Syrian civil war articles.Alhanuty (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No "we" did not. You were already briefed on why Al-Masdar is reliable, I will not continue to spoon feed you. What about you and your Pro-opp, Pro-Kurd bias. Last I check, it was you who turned all of Al-Hasaka to yellow and Jisr Al-Shugor to green based on weak, biased sources, remember? Also, Al-Aziziyyeh is listed already. It is hidden under a nearby town. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is not reliable. Look at Daara, or Aleppo. In Daara, hundreds of sources claimed rebels to have Tell Al-Harrah and Harrah town, they said the regime pushed the rebels back(look at the ammount of videos, pics and articles from reliable sources showing otherwise). In Aleppo, they denied Ahrar to have taken any villages near Safira, 5 days later reported the SAA taking them back(how can they take something back if they never lost in the first place according to them?). Or Deir Ez-Zor, where not a single source reports any significant clashes between SAA and ISIS, and they make it look like SAA is beating a assault on the airport everyday(when in fact the ISIS has not even attempted to storm the airport). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.83.14 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost everything you just said is original research. Do you have a source saying the ISIS is not attacking the airport to prove Al-Masdar wrong? Also, in these articles -http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-reconaissance-drone-9-villages-liberated-southern-aleppo/- and \- http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-west-handarat-farms-babinnis-ahrar-al-sham-offensive-safira-repelled/- it is very clearly stated that Ahrar did capture the villages, they did not deny it. They said the attack on Safira was repelled, which it was. One more thing, Videos and pics are not reliable sources. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
1) You obviously don't know what "original research" means. How would the concept apply to this discussion ?
2) No other sources reporting (even much later) a major attack on a strategically important airport by the ISIS is a fair indication that it didn't happen.
3) Acknowledging losing villages close to a strategic asset only when succeeding in retaking them is typical of an unreliable source.
4) There was video evidence of rebels striking a major munitions depot, reportedly in the Safira area. Large secondary explosions don't lie. Much like the Israeli attack on the missile depot in Jaramana in 2012.
5) Video and photos can be reliable, depending on their nature. Obviously Hollywood type productions can be fakes, such as often produced by the ISIS. But videos with distinctive land marks, like from Tal Harra overlooking the town below, or a rebel commander doing a review of photos on the wall of the captured spy centre associated with Tal Harra, where each photo has an arabic caption with a russian caption underneath, leaves little room for doubt. It just takes intelligent analysis.
6) "Ipsit dixit" is not going to convince intelligent contributors. If you want to be taken seriously, try using plausible arguments. André437 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

They said the regime repelled the offensive in the day the offensive was launched, when Ahrar held those villages for some 5/6 days. And SOHR, Elijah J Magnier and any other source considered reliable are not even reporting clashes around the Deir Ez-Zor Airport, so yes, Al-Masdar are making them up or making those clashes look bigger. They are claiming hundreds of IS fighters killed, which considering that the Islamic State has, according to the CIA, 31.000 fighters, losing hundreds as it is losing according to Masdar would make the Islamic State incapable of holding the many fronts it's fighting(Mare, Kobane, Mabrukah, Tell Hamis, Anbar, Sinjar). In Kobane, which is the biggest offensive as of now, they have lost 330+ members and that is being considered A LOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.83.14 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that ISIS has recruitment right? They replace lost fighters. Besides, early on we assumed that ISIS only numbered around 15,000. Now we say 31,000. Who is to say that they do not number more. Also, about Deir-ez-Zor, you need a source stating that there is no action there. You cannot prove it is not happening because it is not reported. That, or you need a source stating ISIS advances. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Clashes leaving HUNDREDS of deads are not being reported? You guys are joking right? Anyway, Al-Masdar is not reliable. It keeps making fake regime advances and adding THOUSANDS of casualties to opp fighters. I mean, Jobar is according to them on verge of the liberation in the last 2 months right(I believe it will fall, but as of now is not on the verge of falling, let alone 2 months ago when they claimed it was about to fall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.59.83.14 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

All advances in Damascus, Hama, and Aleppo that were reported by Al-Masdar were completely real. As for this statement "It keeps making fake regime advances and adding THOUSANDS of casualties to opp fighters", you have yet to prove it [casualty figures are not reliable from any side, as they are almost always unverifiable]. Also, Do you have an article from them that is 2 months old that says, word for word, that Jobar is on the edge of liberation? The reason no one reports the Deir-Ez-Zor clashes is because they are defensive, neither side is gaining ground. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

al-Monitor summarizes events in the south

Article Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it reports on SAA units defeated at al-Harra and the fall of the very strategic fortified hill at that location, and islamist-rebel push to open route between Daraa and Quneitra

Sure they need to keep up with the snackbar losses by the hundreds in Jobar Aleppo to propaganda it and blame others before most of them defect to IS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Also Al-monitor reported yesterday, although cannot locate now, that wadi daif SAA base near Marrat al-Nu'man has either fallen or is being battled over right now with rebels penetrating the base:

Also more on Qalamoun: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/10/syria-zabadani-supply-outlet-route.html http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/10/syria-jabhat-al-nusra-attack-same-as-lebanon-brital-battle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.27.231 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

yikes.... looking in Daraa at Nawa if the SAA doesn't take the city it will probably mean the province is lost considering the 5 units stationed around the city. If they are all put on the run the I can see the rebels moving to cut government forces in two and surround the remaining forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Al Khtauniyah

This is the name of the black dot town that is located near Al Hawl. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Al+Khatuniyah%D8%8C+Syria%E2%80%AD/@36.4227498,41.2223553,2507m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x154b7ee98f2357e5:0x884f61b7b30c66b0 Lindi29 (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Al Halabi farm & Tal Al-Mazafah

these areas near Handarat village in the north of Aleppo are under the control of SAA www.almayadeen.netMZarif (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SAA offensive north of Aleppo

The syrian army has captured the village Al-Jbayleh (Jbeileh) , the cement plant and the Aleppo glas factory. Also add the Babinnis on the map!!

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/the-regime-army-could-seize-a-village-and-a-cement-plant-in-aleppo/ http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-saa-captures-many-areas-aleppo/#prettyPhoto https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/523523707793588225 (map) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.308209&lon=37.238417&z=14&m=b&show=/27503028/Jbeileh&search=Aleppo (location of Jbeileh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:2808:6100:4C2:4BAA:CC1B:2DBD (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Kinana Allouche with SAA near the glass factory, confirmation pictures.

https://twitter.com/2Rook14/status/523844869526016000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


SAA capturing al Muslimiyah. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SLshfIp111g west of the infantry school https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/523523707793588225/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported that clashes continued between regime troops backed by allies against the rebels in Hendarat area and Saifat northwest of the central prison of Aleppo, and in al-Hurra area near al-Maslamia village, reports of advances for regime forces in the area.source Hanibal911 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


As far as ISIS goes in Aleppo I feel that this map from @deSyracuse is rather unbiased http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-iraq-20-october-2014_19652#12/36.0775/37.3971 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Press TV reports that Mazra’at al-Halabi area and Madafeh Hill are under SAA control now. LINK --94.102.233.91 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Deir Ezzor

SAA forces advancing in Deir Ezzor, capturing a significant portion of Saqer Island. Corroborated by an al-Manar TV report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2sVtW9sTMeQ. Using Peto Lucem's map for this would be a helpful guideline: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/522485278800617472 Nhauer (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly in Deir Ezzor but what about the areas to the north between the city and Hasakah like Sab'a? Most maps i've seen have them belonging to ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Saqer island to contested http://www.albawaba.com/news/is-assad-syria-612993

Al Manar is the TV station of Hezbollah...find a neutral or pro-opp source for this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.29 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nassib border.

What's the name of the red dot located north of Nasseb ? I think Mayadin should go contested, according to SOHR, 2, 3 , amateur video, not as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong! It is a city Nassib which is located to the north of Nassib border crossing. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well then you should add Mayadin to the map, it's big enough, as this area has a bigger empty white spot.DuckZz (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This city present on a map the Battle of Daraa City. We just need ask to editor which commits update on this map that he would marked this city as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamic fighters targeted regime bastions in al-Jomrok area near of the Jordanian border and taken control the checkpoints of al-Falahin gas station, al-Jeser and al-Ma'sara near the town Umm al-Mayaden .SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The city Nassib under control by rebels.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2014 (U Note , al Jazeeras report is from sohr which did not state that Nasab is rebel held . only that there was a bombardmentPyphon (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Hanibal you are wrong ! back to red or contested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=28# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 08:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war/Archive_28&oldid=1079494480"