Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Roads

Shouldn't this map show at least the major roads and railways? After all, maneuver is critical in warfare, and that would explain more why this or that city or village is strategic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.182.120 (talk)

Absolutely. Someone please create a version of the base Syria location map with those features drawn. Alternatively, we need a picture file that has syria roads on it and nothing else. I can then use the "overlay_image =" parameter in the "Template:Location map+" to overlay that "road file" on top of our map. For an example of the result of this parameter, see a "Location map+" where a picture file with arrows was overlayed on top of it. Unfortunately, i don't know how to create picture files. If anyone can create such a file (same size as our map; with a transparent background) and put it in commons, then i can overlay it on top of our map. Tradedia^talk I brought this back from archives as this is still an ongoing issue. And while we are at this, it would be good to also draw Lake Jabbūl Tradedia^talk

I agree that adding some of the most important highways to the map would make it more useful. It would have to be done delicately, because it could quickly make the map very cluttered. Looking at road maps of Syria, I would suggest something showing a few major highways, along the lines of this (scroll down slightly), rather than something more like this, which would overwhelm the map. Hulahoop122 (talk)

Good idea. Between those 2 examples, the difference seems more how the roads are drawn (thin red lines vs. wide light brown lines), than the number of roads. In some areas, there seems to be more roads on the first map with the roads in red.

Note that our map is bigger, so we could probably place more roads (if appropriate) without problem. In some areas there are many alternative roads allowing easy passage around the main routes, so it might be a good idea to indicate that.

With a good source map with the roads already on it (and not too many complicated things in the same colour), I could produce the road overlay. The colour of the roads could be changed to whatever you like.

There is a map on my computer that might be good, with many roads, except it could be as much as 20 years old. (The latest date on the map is a 1994 border treaty.) It is better to have something not long before the civil war started.

According to my map, most of lake Jabbul is dry much of the year. (All except the north-west corner.) It also has rivers and railways, which might be interesting to show. (the roads, water, and railways could be put on separate layers so as to be easier to maintain, if necessary. Not hard since they are all different colours.) André437 (talk)

If you have the skills to put that map layer together, that would be great. You could post it on a test page, just as you did with all of the conflict icons you created, and see how the community reacts. Hulahoop122 (talk)

Ok, as I have time. It could take a while, since I will have to use google maps or equivalent to fill in the few places where a small window overlay covers roads, etc in some areas, and also clean up any stray marks I find. (There are a lot of annotations, but mostly outside Syria.)

I'll also have to adjust the scale and align it, which will be the most difficult part.

I'll put the roads/water/railways in separate layers initially as well. Easy to do since they are separate colours. That way it will be really quick to modify (or remove) one without affecting the others.

That icon project helped remind me of a few tricks with the software I use. (gimp)

BTW, I have an unrelated idea for locations contested from one side only : using a semicircle open on the opposite side. And for truces, using a broken outside circle, instead of a continuous one. Just mentioning it as something to think about.

I'll keep you posted :) André437 (talk)

This section disappeared for a while and I became occupied elsewhere, but my map turned out to be so overwritten with place names so as to be almost useless. Most roads, rivers, etc were obscured in many places. It would be faster to draw features freehand using google maps in satellite mode. Not one of my talents. So I can't help much with that.

I've noticed that some waterways have been added. It looks really nice. André437 (talk)

There are maps like that, already. Be patient, they load slowly because they are "Flash". - http://www.fps-predators.com/#/middle-east-conflict/4585140400 Shaded areas show more detailed maps of the same area (click on them to access). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comins2008 (talk • contribs)

Syrian Army captured more Towns in North Hama

Syria TV report with subtittles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wx-VBCu4X0

Al Qaeda is in All Green Towns

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

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

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

Menagh & northern Aleppo

A frightening situation , this article explains that FSA has withdrawn from Menagh and Nursa has taken control of this. It says fighting between Nusra and FSA has moved to Aleppo’s countryside. So it is not just in Idlib countryside now. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/jabhat-al-nusra-idlib-islamic-emirate.html

Dozens of fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra pledged allegiance to the IS northeast of Aleppo.SOHR

Kobane

Here updated map which show situation in Kobane area on 16 November.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
AS to some tiwtter sources, Isis had taken cereal hangars and kobani pass to turkey. --Khalil.aifaoui (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Jaz'ah

According to SOHR's report http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/7-militants-died-in-clashes-with-ypg-in-ras-al-ayn/ 2 villages(Mestriha and Felastin) south of Jaz'ah should be contested.

There we Go Again ...

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

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

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

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

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

Shaer

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/the-commander-of-soqor-al-sahraa-groups-killed-in-clashes-in-shaer-area/

Ongoing violent clashes in the area, I think it would be correct to put a partial black circle around the Shaer dot, if not a contested one...Fab8405 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

https://ia802702.us.archive.org/23/items/m_Gzws/gzws.mp4 IS has retaken the Gas Fields.184.21.191.36 (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Battalion 559 in Eastern Qalamoun

Remember this discussion? I'm not asking for any change I just found something that proves my point back then when I showed pro-opp sources stating rebel withdrawal from the area. I know YouTube videos cannot and should not be used to depict any changes/advances but here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6mcpQHk3ro Just to prove my point that rebels have indeed retreated from the warehouses --> NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

YouTube videos cannot be used as references to make changes to the map. If you have a recent, valid, trustworthy pro-opp source that shows this change, then we can make the change. Please refer to the rules regarding this map, videos are not reliable sources.

I know that.. please read what I wrote then reply.. I did provide before clear pro-opp sources regarding rebel withdrawal from the area yet the editors refused them. I just wanted to prove my point using this video. I AM NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ON THIS MAP BASED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO. ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94, I believe that you are correct, and that the rebels have withdrawn from the two bases/warehouses in Eastern Qalamoun that are shown on this map. The one and only reason I am against removing them is that they are literally the only indication this map has of a rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun at all. The problem is that, while the rebels are moderately active in the area, it's a barrens, a wasteland, kinda like Western Qalamoun between Ras al Maara/Assal al Ward and the Lebanese border - there's just a dearth of towns to add. So, while changing those two bases to red or removing them outright from the map is probably a more accurate representation of those two specific sites, doing so would also completely eradicate the only indication of a rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun that this map has.. That's my line of thought on this topic in general. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This map is site based not area base as many others available. Each dot on the map represents the status of the control of a specific site. 'Presence in the area' is not supposed to be represented. Therefore if these two sites are not under rebel control (but also not under SAA control), they must be removed. Paolowalter (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It was reported last week by pro gov almasdar that saa were advancing on Ad Dumayr .we have this town as in truce but it might be rebel and could have been base to take the two bases and then withdraw to . Pyphon (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

For now we only have two pro opposition maps which show that in the city of Al Dumayr truce.herehere And for now moment no one source not said that the city of La Dumayr under control by rebels or that the truce in this city broken. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid, thank you and you do have a point with keeping the rebel presence in the area. How about red with green circle around it? (I wasn't asking for this but since the discussion has been opened why not). OT: I think a new icon should be added to looted warehouses/defunct bases/destroyed checkpoints etc.. What do you guys say?

Paolowalter is right, this map is supposed to be representative of specific sites, not presence in areas, but, if an accurate depiction of the ground situation is what we are aiming for, we have to indicate rebel activity in Eastern Qalamoun in some fashion. ChrissCh94, thanks to André437, we now have icons that may help us with the whole Eastern Qalamoun dilemma. I would be on board for the following: remove Battalion 559 and Khan Abu Shamat from the map; put directional lime concentrics roughly outlining/bordering the Eastern Qalamoun region - specifically, just to the East of Dumayr Military Airport, to the North of Sayqal Airbase, the East of Jayroud, and the East of Storage Base 555. I know, I know, none of those 4 SAA sites are being attacked/pressured - I'm not trying to propose an arbitrary rebel addition. But, I think that would resolve the Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat discrepancy in a way that correctly shows the status of those bases and still does justice to showing some rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun. If we can work out a consensus along those lines, I'm game. Otherwise, I've gotta stick to my guns about keeping Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat as is, simply in the interest of a semi-true representation of the region. I mean, if we remove them and don't add said lime concentrics, then this map won't show any rebel presence within some 150mi.. which is patently false. Idk. Open to reasonable suggestions. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid Seems like a nice option. How about turning the Battalion 559 to red with a green circle around it, keeping the Khan Abu Shamat area rebel held, and adding green half circles near the SAA sites in the area? ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can get on board with that suggestion - not sure if the unsourced addition of those green directional circles will fly though. Any other editors have comments/opinions/objections? Boredwhytekid (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with "directional lime concentrics roughly outlining the Eastern Qalamoun region". However, keeping the 2 military bases (whether green or red) is unacceptable. Tradedia^talk 03:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well they still exist don't they? I mean Battalion 559 is mostly tank warehouses/storage but it comes with a small base nearby. While I have provided pro-opp sources stating that rebels withdrew from Battalion 559 and its base, anyone can find proof of rebel activity near the SAA sites in the area since a rebellion in a desert area such as Eastern Qalamoun would surely have the upper hand -mobility wise- over a static conventional army. And we have no sources stating that the regime forces took over the Khan Abu Shamat area. So my vote and I'm sure Boredwhytekid agrees, is Battalion 559 to red with a green circle around it, Khan Abu Shamat stays green, and we add half lime circles around some SAA sites in the area to indicate the rebellion presence there just like we did for Western Qalamoun. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your source showed that “rebels withdrew from Battalion 559”. However, it also showed that they took the tanks they could, and destroyed what they could not take so that the army could not use them again. Also it showed that many tanks were destroyed by the airforce. So you cannot assume that because the rebels withdrew, it means necessarily that the army has taken the warehouses back. Why would they take them back if all what is left is just a bunch of empty burnt buildings? You would need a source saying they were re-occupied by the army and used as a military base. The reality is that the latest sources makes it painfully obvious that we do not know if these warehouses are gov-held, rebel-held, or just abandoned. In cases like this, we simply comment out the icon until further information become available. Tradedia^talk 05:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So what we actually know is that rebels withdrew from Battalion 559, but it's unclear if the SAA reoccupied it. And we have no recent sources for Khan Abu Shamat. Tradedia, you clearly want both removed, ChrissCh94, you clearly do not - so let's follow the sources, and remove Battalion 559 because it's no longer rebel held, leave Khan Abu Shamat up for lack of sources and add the lime directional circles as outlined above. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the part about the warehouses being destroyed & emptied is true; but again huge warehouses such as those are protected by a small base (shown in the upper video I provided and in rebel videos while they were bombarding it) and some checkpoints. The warehouses are gone but the nearby base well has been recaptured by the regime ==> Rebels stating they withdrew + Video of regime recapturing it. The regime is "desperate" enough not to leave an empty base in the desert without occupying it. Plain logic. Removing Battalion 559 (no matter what its color is) would reduce the accuracy of this map since it would make us forget about an important rebel raid in this area. As for Khan Abu Shamat it stays green since we haven't heard about the regime re-opening the Baghdad-Damascus highway. Adding half lime circles would also be useful. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If we dont find the evidence presented from the reliable sources that the rebels left the Battalion 559, we should leave it as it is without any changes. But if there is confirmation that the military base is again under the control of the army, we just need change the icon color to red. Also we cant just mark green marks near the towns or villages which are under the control of the army without confirmation that close to these towns or villages are located rebel positions. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I did provide in the same post 3 weeks ago pro-opp sources stating rebel withdrawal from the area (You saw them and approved at first) Here they are just to remind you:

http://stepagency-sy.net/%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B9-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-559-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8/

http://eldorar.com/node/48440

https://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=1bf19643b8e23f7cc01c87d035bfee97

http://justpaste.it/islamicfront559

http://www.syrianarmyfree.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-68912.html

Combined with the video shown here the warehouses (or at least the army base nearby) are regime held. And we are not asking for green dots: we are asking for those half circles (THE BESIEGED FROM ONE SIDE) symbols to be put on the SAA sites in the area because the rebellion is kinda active there. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning khan abu shamat, there is no information at all about its present status. We know that the warehouses are empty from the chemical weapons. So at this point, we do not know if they are presently occupied by rebels, or army, or just abandoned & empty. We do not want to be guessing and get caught being wrong and ruin the reputation of the map. It is better not to have something on the map, rather than to have it wrong. If khan abu shamat is removed from the map, I am willing to accept that brigade 559 be made red with a green ring and that "directional lime concentrics roughly outlining the Eastern Qalamoun region" be put in place. Tradedia^talk 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why remove Khan Abu Shamat area? It's a series of cement factories located on the Baghdad-Damascus highway and as far as I know is STILL occupied by rebels since we haven't heard of any regime attempt to re-open the highway. Keeping it rebel held shows that this vital highway is cut thus reflecting the reality of the situation. While we agree that Battalion 559 should become red with a green circle around it, we should not remove the Khan Abu Shamat area nor even touch it since no regime source stated clashes there nor rebels stated their withdrawal. We also agree about the half green circles placed around SAA sites in the area since they are subject to occasional bombardment. So do we have a consensus? Boredwhytekid Hanibal911 Tradedia ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have only one requirement: brigade 559 should not stay green. For the rest, I’ll go with whatever is the consensus. Tradedia^talk 00:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's what we agreed on: Brigade 559 to red with green circle, Khan Abu Shamat green, SAA sites in the area with green half circles. Boredwhytekid Hanibal911 Tradedia ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In situation with the Khan Abu Shamat army base or Khan Abu Shamat area pro-opposition map show that armed forces now are near of this area.here Also we cant just pick up and put green marks near the towns and villages in the eastern part of the Qalamoun area which now under control by army without confirmation from reliable sources that near those towns or villages located a rebel positions. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright but Khan Abu Shamat stays green that's my point. If you don't want to add half green circles near SAA Army sites that's fine but Khan Abu Shamat stays untouched and rebel held without any siege. As for Brigade 559 we agreed that it should turn red with a green circle around it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Please make the changes we agreed on in my upper post ^ ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Icons for Kurd controlled cities

While looking at the map, I noticed an inconstancy in the style of the icons on the map. While the controlled cities for all of the other factions are represented by a single, monotone color, the ones controlled by the Kurds appear to a) have a gray outline, and b) have a white spot in the middle. For the sake of consistency, wouldn't it be better for them to be a solid yellow? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the kurdish color should be a bolder yellow. The one user to talk to would be Andre437. He is the one that makes the icons. You could ask him if he would be willing to do a color change. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw this comment, and found that the dot already existed. It now replaces the old one in the map, including the caption. I've been thinking about changing it for a while. Thanks for suggesting it :)

The name is Location_dot_yellow.svg, the same format as the other dots. André437 (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The new yellow color its too bright also it seems to melt with the light yellow color of the background of the map. Try to look for a long time the Yellow dots, its annoying, Anyone else noted this200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I noted this shit too. The new color is f****** terrible to watch. "The sake of consistency" does not matter (I never even noticed it). This is not a piece of art it´s a bureaucratic map. Revert and get rid of the epileptic-yellow fly-shit-dots already please!!Rhocagil (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Our bellicose visitor has a point.. the current yellow is semi-blinding Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revert to the old yellow, or change the background color of the map 8fra0 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the majority of people really find it worse... I guess we should change it back. It would be better for everyone though if we just made it a darker, still monotone icon (if that reasonably doable) or if we just changed the background map color to a darker shade, like 8fra0 suggested (of course then we would probably have people complaining about how they liked the old background color instead) :) ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I think I have an easy solution. I found the current file for the yellow dot and created a darker version () and reuploaded it to wikipedia so it can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Dot_Yellow_Darker.svg. So, what do you guys think? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the old ones were/are much better. If you should change any dots, change the red, green and grey ones to the same as the "old" yellow ones.Rhocagil (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Like you said, this is a "bureaucratic map" and it should be as simplistic as possible to allow for viewers to quickly get a sense of the situation. The monotone colors help accomplish this by standing out against background (at least if the yellow icon is darkened) an effect which is diminished in the old yellow ones by the neutral gray border. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yellow dots on a yellow-isch background requires some kind of borderline. You can solve the problem by making the background grey, but then you will have the same problem with the grey dots. So why bother at all. I say revert and don´t bother.Rhocagil (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Solution: Brown Background. Also, I think that the darker yellow ones will be easily discernible against the current background. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, change back yellow until you get your "brown" background.Rhocagil (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble, everyone ... I found the existing icon, put it in place, and realized that it was too strong ... I then made a lighter icon (with a thin grey border), only to loose my internet connexion for 2+ days. I now have 3 such icons, with different degrees of lightness.

Now the caption for kurd control shows (from left to right): The old icon, the strong icon, my 3 new icons from light to lightest.

Please look at these icons and give your feedback : I suggest the second from right. But if you have other ideas, don't hesitate. I can change (or remove) the border if you wish, but I think that some border is a plus. (BTW, the other colours have an extremely thin/invisible border).

Awaiting your feedback. When decided, I can change all the yellow dots on the map. Thanks André437 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revert to the old colour. The new colour is really hard to see. Readability is far more important than consistency. Esn (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The middle one or the old one. Rhocagil (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the strong pure yellow dot in favour of my middle light yellow icon, Dot_yellow_ff8.svg. (Now tagged with * in the caption at the bottom). I suspect that my less pale icon might be preferred. The old icon was on average between the 2. The caption now shows the old icon and my 3 new ones.

Tell me what you think :) André437 (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The kurdish held towns are still very hard to see, I strongly suggest to revert to the old icons, at least until the background color of the map has been changed 8fra0 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes still very hard.Rhocagil (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revert to the old icons. Yes, these ones are better than the previous ones, but they're still hard to see. Esn (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not just have a solid colored icon with a light gray border that's the same shade as the original icon? Wouldn't that be both visible and match the other icons? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to stop editing the maps (especially the Iraqi map where there are plenty of yellow dots and icons) because I can't see what I'm doing, especially adding places/checking if towns are already on the map has become almost impossible. Please revert to the old icons. 8fra0 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Al khazanat camp near khan shaykhun

SOHR says rebels try to advance Al khazanat camp. Al khazanat camp should red. http://www.syriahr.com/archives/38882Hwinsp (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Also in English - https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708 If the base is not marked as gv-held,then it should be an red circle aroynd it or a contested icon.SOHR strongly pro-opp.Also, what aboyt Taybah ?

SOHR: Hama Province: Violent clashes took place yesterday night between the regime forces supported by NDF against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions in the north of Morek town which is held by the regime forces, where al- Nusra and the battalions have attempted to advance towards al- Khazzanat Camp near the city of Khan Sheikhon in the southern countryside of Idlib, information reported casualties on both sides.

Change it to red

I'm sorry but the Arabic version says that it's rebel-held. We didn't hear any news of a regime takeover recently not even from Loy. Sources. Khazzanat Camp stays green. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No ,arabic version says rebels tried to capture Al khazanat camp.But regime sources never say saa captured Al khazanat camp.Maybe sohr make a mistake.I think we should contestedHwinsp (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Hwinsp (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I read and understand Arabic. You could translate the Arabic version and read it. Khazzanat isn't contested YET. Regime forces are on its southern outskirts so we might add a southern half red circle. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultra pro gov Syrian perspective say saa took khazanat plus sohr say rebels trying to retake .Red with green to north would make sense .Pyphon (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Sorry sohr said jan so gray . Pyphon (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

The Arabic version of the post said the Khazzanat camp is controlled by the latter referring to the rebels. The English version contained a typo. Khazzanat camp stays rebel-held with a red half circle south of it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arabic version said "محاولة من الأخير، التقدم باتجاه" which means " in an attempt by the latter to advance..." . It says nothing about the rebels being specifically in control. In its English post, it clarifies that the "latter" is JAN and company, meaning that the SAA is in control. This is not a translation error or a typo, a whole sentence has been changed. The area should be made red. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the rather confusing status of the information, contested seems the better choice. In any case fightings are ongoing around it. 79.21.132.210 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no contested icon for bases, airports, checkpoints. Only for cities and towns. That is why I feel red with a green circle is best. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay I'm gonna end this discussion. The original SOHR text seen here: http://www.syriahr.com/archives/38882

says that: شمال بلدة مورك، التي تسيطر عليها قوات النظام، في محاولة من الأخير، التقدم باتجاه معسكر الخزانات" "القريب من مدينة خان شيخون بريف إدلب الجنوبي which is translated to:"North of the town of Mork , controlled by regime forces , in an attempt by the latter, progress towards the near reservoirs camp of Khan Shaykhun the southern city of Brive Idlib". SO ONCE AND FOR ALL, Khazzanat camp stays rebel held, green with a half red circle to its south. ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We need more data from the reliable sources. Because a pro-government sources claimed that armed forces have recaptured Camp "Khazanat" the Army Fueling Base which located on south east of city Khan Shaykhun.herehere I provide here this data in order to gather as much information about the situation in the area. But this data can not be used for editing in favor army. Perhaps in this area now clashes between the army and fighters of Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok then its gray with red circle until we get more sourses .Pyphon (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

One fact that should be noted is that all SOHR posts are written first in arabic, often followed by very poor english translations. The arabic posted by SOHR (translated by google) clearly indicated that the camp was still rebel held. Also, many articles, if al-Nusra is mentioned, place them first, generally followed by references to islamic groups and/or rebels. Even when, as is usually the case, al-Nusra is a minority of the forces involved. So the grey should only be used if it is clearly shown that al-Nusra is exclusively or dominantly in control. Which is the case for many small villages in Idlib, but much less likely for towns and cities. André437 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the translation made by several translators: took place late last night of violent clashes between supported by the National Defense Forces on the one hand the regime forces and fighters of the Brigades and Islamic fighters Front victory (al-Qaeda in the Levant), on the other hand, in the north of the town of Mork, which controls by regime forces, in attempt by the latter, progress toward camp reservoirs near the city of Khan Shaykhun the southern countryside of Idlib.here So that SOHR clearly said that the clashes between the army supported by the National Defence Forces and the Islamic militants from Front Al Nusra north of city Morek which is under control by army. In attempt by the latter (meaning Al Nusra Front) to advance toward the Camp "Khazanat" near the city of Khan Shaykhun the southern countryside of Idlib. Also here another reliable source also confirmed that Syrian army now control the Khaz'zanat Camp.Elijah J. Magnier And now is advancing in Khan Sheikhoun and surrounding Kfarzita.here Also Al Arabia said that clashes in the city of Khan Shaykhun. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Southern Aleppo

It seems that the rebel offensive has stalled/has been reversed. Many loy. sources stating that rebels never actually captured 3 villages but 1 that was later recaptured. I'm sure that we would have read in international news agencies that the regime has been besieged in Aleppo if that's what happened. I mean cutting the regime's only supply line to Aleppo has to be something important and heard of don't you guys agree? I'm not immediately suggesting we change them from contested to something else I'm just asking for more sources on the matter either they are pro-rebel or pro-regime. Just a clarification on who controls them. Small villages such as those can't be contested they're too small. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Which specific villages are you talking about? The ones around al-Safira? The last reliable information - to my knowledge - about that front moving was with Ahrar al-Sham's shortlived offensive, the SAA's repulsing it, and the front stabilizing as shown presently on the map. As goes your remark about small villages - the front line's gotta be somewhere. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well if this true then the road to Aleppo must be cut. That must be a huge achievement for the opposition. Yet barely any rebel sources celebrated it. Usually they celebrate it for days on end. I just saw on their pages a couple of breaking news where they announced their control over those villages then nothing. Considering renewed regime offensives in Aleppo and the diversion attack launched by the opposition on Nubl-Zahraa', I would say that the road to Aleppo isn't cut therefore those village are regime held (at least the ones directly overlooking the highway). Your thoughts? Boredwhytekid ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

sources say saa repelled nusra attacks and this villages under saa control. 1- http://arabic.rt.com/features/765443-%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8/ 2-http://www.alahednews.com.lb/fastnews/240232/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%87%D8%AF-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9#.VHThoousWQlHwinsp (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay till now we should turn them to red.. Any pro-regime source saying they are rebel controlled? ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So far the only sources you have are pro-regime (RT and Ahed) talking about pro-regime gains. So not "till now we should turn them to red". Please try to be unbiased when you are working on this map.

Well SOHR is a pro-opposition source and we use it to show rebel gains heck we even used SOHR as a source for those villages also when do you think the opposition sources will admit that they were repelled from the area.Also RT has pretty good coverage and I don't know why is it called pro-regime just because it is from Russia it does not mean it is pro-regime.It is like calling all western and gulf media(with some exceptions) pro-opposition as there own states are all funding and supporting the rebels.Also SOHR will never report that the Army repelled the attack as there are no clashes in the area and they only report from where clashes are happening it is like waiting for conformation that will never be reported by any opposition source.The village of Fajdan is an example set by SHOR they reported clashes there a year ago and it is still contested but i'm pretty sure the Army has pushed them out of that village as it sit's near a vital supply road for the Army but SOHR never reports from here as there is no clashes.That is why you need to compare both parties sources and see where they differ.If the government(pro-gov source) took over a village and suddenly SOHR(or other opposition sources) stops reporting from there it means that the first party took the village.This also go for pro-opp media reporting gain and government sources stop reporting on the matter then the opposition advanced and if both parties claim control you put them contested until a there is clear info from the area.Daki122 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Daki122 for expressing my point of view. As for the kind person calling me biased check my post just 1 section above this one (the Khazzanat one) :-) RT is neutral the same way SOHR is. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, there is at least one person who will call an editor pro-regime simply for trying to change green circles. So have we reached a consensus on the three villages. Also, are we going to do anything about Fajdan? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editors. The "contested for ever" is a know problem of the rules regulating this map. It is easy to turn small villages contested, but very difficult to be sure that clashes stopped and who control it at the end. In absence of clear statement, we can assume that control has not changed, therefore all these villages including Fajdan should go red.79.21.132.210 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with you guys ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Another confirmation that army still control these villages.Asharq al arabi Hanibal911 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this edit. We've got nothing but speculation as to the status of these villages, no confirmed, usuable sources (by the rules of this map) supporting a change. They are the front line villages - no one is suggesting we make further changes in the area, and since both rebels and SAA control villages directly adjacent these in question, regardless of who controls them they are the sites of continuous, probably daily small arms fire. I think this perpetual push to rid the map of contested icons is silly. We're talking about an active front line in a bloody conflict - and you want to (based entirely on speculation) take down the "fighting ongoing" icons? Also, Fajdan, Ja’arah (just north of Bluzah), and Aqrabah don't sit on the main highway supplying the SAA in Aleppo, which runs through al-Bab, East of Fajdan - so changing Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah based on the lack of reporting on that supply line being cut doesn't make sense either. Soo, come again on why exactly we're making this edit? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because we have enough evidence(sources) that the rebel offensive in the area has been repulsed.We have several sources claiming that the Army pushed out the rebels and we have the fact that no opposition source is claiming any kind of fights in the area as well as SOHR which has not reported about fighting in the area form more than a week.SO unless you give a viable source that states the rebels are still in the area than we can talk.But the silence of opposition sources and the fact that no opposition source is gonna come out and say that the rebels were defeated and the fact that there were no other sources than SOHR(this is a pro-opp source that works on the data of anti-gov activists) has claimed a presence(more of a hit and run to distract government forces from other fronts they are doing the same against Nubl and Zahraa) of opposition fighters in the area.So to sum it all up we have enough evidence to support the changes that were madeDaki122 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer to this problem is to not put small villages as contested . Only change them when your sure they have been taken ,there are to many contested villages flashing away for months with no fighting going on .Pyphon (talk)pyphon

Daki122 , you seem to be missing the point - the onus of providing a source is on the editor proposing a change, not on an editor saying the map should stay the same. Not a single source has been provided that specifically names the towns in question. What evidence are you referencing? Two nonspecific pro-gov't sources (RT and Ahed) have been posted, and that ain't enough by the rules of the map. Again, what is this weird fixation with taking down all of the contested icons? You guys act as though since there is no major offensive ongoing that there is no fighting on the front line. When the SAA pushed back Ahrar al-Sham's offensive, EVERY village that had gone green got reverted back to red (as was in line with the facts) - you yourself made one of the edits, here. These villages though, Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah, were where the front line stabilized and has remained ever since, hence they've stayed contested because that's where rebel and regime lines meet. Provide a specific source justifying the change of status, or they've gotta stay contested. No valid argument has been made thus far - they do not sit on the highway, so lack of rebel media attention is not in and of itself a good enough reason for changing them. Yes, the rebel offensive was stopped.. and in your mind, that's reason to, for instance, make Ja'arah red but leave the towns within a 1/4 kilometer of it green? That argument makes no sense.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok dude read above I explained why RT Arabic should be taken into consideration as a source I will not write it again.Also you have the upper sources stating that the Army pushed back the rebels.I also pointed out the problem with not taking into consideration government sources in the upper section(Opposition sources will never report that they have lost a battle the same thing is done by the government except in extreme cases like government source SANA reported about withdrawal from Nawa or Sohr about let's say the Hama counter offensive).Also your argument about the 1/4 kilometer distance beats it self because how do we know that the government isn't on the outskirts of the rebel held village or the fact that every rebel held village on the front line in E.Ghouta is 1/4 of a kilometer away from Army positions.I don't say that you are wrong and I'm right but what I want to say is that we need to compare sources and use all possible information to follow this war and make this map as accurate as possible.If you think that I am wrong than change it but keep in mind that that does not change the facts on the ground.Me and several editors have given sources and valid reasons for the change and have all agreed to make this changes per sources above.Daki122 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I read your take on RT Arabic, but, still, that remains your take, and not the map rule - RT Arabic has always been taken as a pro-gov't source, not usable for gov't gains. When the army pushed back the rebels, all rebel gains were reverted.. Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah were marked contested way before Ahrar al-Sham's offensive, so changing them to red is going beyond what the sources indicate. Which source specifically names those 3 towns? Is there one? Besides pro-gov't videos, which are as unusable as pro-rebel youtube videos. The sources all say that the SAA repulsed Ahrar al-Sham's offensive and retook all ground that they lost - and we turned all villages of the Ahrar al-Sham offensive back to red. Changing Fajdan Ja'arah and Aqrabah to red isn't indicative of the SAA regaining lost ground, it's showing them advancing beyond where Ahrar al-Sham began its offensive... what usable source says that? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Daki122Boredwhytekid Maybe as a compromise, we should put the green circles around these villages or green marks near to them. This marks can show that the rebels are still present in the area. Because sources said that troops still control these villages but not said that offensive by rebels ended and they retreated to their original positions. So that guys as you are such compromise solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

But another Lebanese source also confirmed data from arabic source (RT) that the army still control these villages.Charles Ayoub Hanibal911 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If we cant reach a compromise on this issue, I again mark these villages as contested. So that guys let's continue the discussion and data search on the situation in the area. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think green half circles on these villages would be a good compromise because it will show rebel presence to the west and the villages as Army held which we have In my opinion enough sources to confirm them.Daki122 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Show me one source that specifically names those villages as SAA held, and I'm on board with that. No source = stay contested. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For now we have two Lebanese source which reported that villages Aldjaarh, Tata and Aqraba near the defense plants in the southern countryside of Aleppo still under the control of the army.herehere But as I said earlier that if we even so not reach a mutual compromise in this situation. I just again noted these villages as contested. I really dont want have another war edits. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

BoredwhytekidDaki122ChrissCh94 So that guys after examining the data provided by some sources in this issue I need your opinion. What will we do. The first option = mark those villages as the contested. The second option = leave these villages under the control of the army. If today we cant come to a mutual decision tomorrow I will mark them as contested. But before you decide I ask you to consider the fact that there was no more reports of fighting in the area. So maybe Al Nusra offensive failed in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well what I saw was: Pro-opp sources stating control of those village thus cutting the most important supply route in Syria v/s Pro-regime sources denying it. But later on we saw: Army advances in Aleppo, Nusra diversion attacks on Nubul-Zahraa' and a lack of media coverage by the rebels of the cut supply route. So to me and in my opinion, in addition to some of the sources provided here, the Nusra attack has failed and therefore, my vote is the second option: keep them regime held BUT WITH green half circles to the west of them ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ChrissCh94 seems best option until we get another source .Pyphon (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Option 2 is by my opinion the best option for this situation.Daki122 (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Erledigt here Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah area

Document sy says saa captured several villages in hasakah area after IS withdrawal.source: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/841304632598961 name of these villages: الخير والجموHwinsp (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed. SAA captured 2 villages الخير والجمو But i dont know the location of these villages. http://www.syriahr.com/archives/39288Hwinsp (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Highways

I know this might be far-fetched but I'm just gonna suggest it: why not add ONLY the main Highways (M5-M4-M20)? This will greatly increase the importance of some towns/cities/sites on this map helping readers further understand the strategies and tactics used by the different sides in this conflict. Opinions? ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree Ariskar (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree and see #Roads. Unfortunately, rivers were added instead of highways. Rivers are useless in explaining the war and clutter the map and interfere with the blue labels... Tradedia^talk 00:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Southeastern Hasakah

According to SOHR, http://www.syriahr.com/archives/39288, regime forces have advanced and captured the Bab-Al-Khayr and Al-Jamou area in the south-eastern countryside. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also found another source that proves it as well: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-hasakah-syrian-army-captures-2-villages-isis-field-commander-killed-battle/ --Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I found bab al khayr. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.532381&lon=40.407393&z=17&m=b&search=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1Hwinsp (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Khan Sheikhoun

SAA took Camp Khazanat and entered Khan Sheikhoun [www.almasdarnews.com/article/idlib-syrian-army-enters-khan-sheikhoun/]. That confirms various Twitter reports and (as far as concerns Camp Khazanat, a previous ambigous SOHR report https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708.79.41.9.162 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian Army has entered Khan Sheikhoun for the 1st time in 6 months; SAA captured Camp Khazanat:

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/idlib-syrian-army-enters-khan-sheikhoun/

also change Khazanat to red and Half circle in south of khan Sheikoun please. Thanks.

If they really took Khazanat, that went totally dark by pro-rebel media, and they always report it. Wait for SOHR confirmation, as differently from Al-Masdar, they always report advances for the other side.

Al-Masdar is just as reliable as SOHR is. But, if you insist, here is SOHR for you confirming the news: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nawa is controlled partiality by Al Qaeda (Nusra)

Nawa as many others Towns is with Al Qaeda elements there sharing the control with others irregular armed groups.

• http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-qaeda-capture-key-southern-town-monitor-193046956.html
• http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/afp/2014/11/syria-conflict-clashes.html
• http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/11/10/syria-rebels-and-al-qaeda-capture-key-town.html

Sources in Spanish =

• http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/internacionales/filial-de-al-qaeda-en-siria-arrebata-al-regimen-una-localidad-meridional/20141109/nota/2499577.aspx
• http://eltiempo.com.ve/mundo/violencia/combatientes-del-frente-al-nusra-filial-de-al-qaeda-en-siria-y-de-varias-milicias-rebeldes-e-islamistas-arrebataron-hoy-al-regimen-sirio-la-localidad-meridional-de-nawa-informo-el-observatorio-sirio-de-derechos-humanus/161529

Put the AQ presence there again --Pototo1 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Al nusra are a larger force in Darra than some editors seem to think they are involved in all major fights but cannot have there own icon because they fight alongside moderate forces although it begs the question how moderate can you be working with AL QAEDA .

They are not fighting there, so no need for Nusra to appear there. Also, Assad is allied to Hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization, and to Iran, whose official name is Islamic Republic of Iran. Funny how Assad can be allied with religious extremists and non-secular countries, but you guys act all moderates, blablabla about the rebels. They are not allied with Nusra because they like it, but because they need it.

Yes Hezbollah is a terrorist org. if your an Israeli and iran is called Islamic republic but not as extreme as some arab states unless you are Israeli

Lets try and get back to editing the map political debate could go on and on .Pyphon (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Al Qaeda is in Nawa and many sources (Anti Assad Sources) confirmed that.

End of the discussion --Pototo1 (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

isis presence in Hula (northern Homs)?

Documents.sy reports about bombardment of isis postions around Hula, in the north of Homs, by Syrian Army. So maybe add a black dot or change it from green to black?

I am new here so i dont know if that is an reliable source in this case. if not sorry. here the link: http://documents.sy/news.php?id=12172&lang=en

ThanksBlockeduser2014 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Blockebuster there have been reports of isis in many places by single sources but this is not enough evidence to change the map unless more sources say the same thing .Pyphon (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Army offensive against ISIS in Hasakah

Earlier one of the most reliable source The Independent reported that Syrian forces have retaken 20 miles of territory in the north-east of Hasakah province. Also pro opposition map show some success of army in this area. According data on this map army now control some villages (Tawarij, Tall at Tibn, Jiha Kabirah, Halabiyah and Khirbat Hassan) to south from city of Qamishli. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Today Syrian troops regained control over the two towns of al-Khair(or Bab Al-Khayr) and al-Jammo in Hasaka countryside after fierce clashes with ISIL. This data confirmed pro government sources Turkey NewsAl ManarAl Masdar pro opposition source Documents.syAra News and also this data confirm SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, can you put out the villages not already on the map please. Rhocagil (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In support of data from reliable source The Independent the opposition map shows which the villages for now are under the control of the army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun

Pro government sources herehere reported that the troops (11th Tank Division) recapture of the Camp Khazanat after weeks of heavy firefights with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham north of the city of Morek and Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham retreat to north to the city of Khan Sheikhoun. And as a result of the capture of Camp Khazanat, the troops has entered southern Khan Sheikhoun.Al Masdar News But for now we cant on the basis of these data edit the map, we need confirmation these data from a neutral sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)s

Al-Masdar is just as reliable as SOHR is. Still, I have brought along a SOHR link: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Arabiyya (pro-rebel source) stating clashes IN Khan Shaykhun: http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2014/11/27/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85-%D9%82%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A5%D8%AF%D9%84%D8%A8-%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9.html

قالت الشبكة أيضاً إن اشتباكات عنيفة تدور بين الجيش الحر وقوات النظام في مدينة خان شيخون بريف إدلب، بعد محاولة قوات النظام اقتحام المدينة.

The Network also said that violent clashes taking place between the army and the forces of the free system in the city of Khan Shaykhun Brive Idlib , after regime forces try to storm the city. So Khan Shaykhun to contested but why has Khazzanat been turned to regime held? What are your sources? Please provide pro-rebel sources stating this. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition reported that only Al Nusra will be the responsible group if the Regime retake Khan Shaykhun and Khazzanat Base.archicivilians So there is clearly something going on in this area. Also previously pro opposition source said that regime troops in Murek are preparing for this offensive, while Al Nusra preferred to fight some factions from Free Syrian Army in the same area.archicivilians Also Pro government sources herehere reported that the troops (11th Tank Division) recapture of the Camp Khazanat. And reported that troops has entered southern Khan Sheikhoun.Al Masdar News and this data also confirmed Saudi TV Channel.Al Arabia And just two days ago SOHR said that violent clashes between the regime forces and NDF against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions north of Morek town which is held by the regime forces, where al- Nusra and the Islamic battalions have attempted to advance towards al- Khazzanat Camp near the city of Khan Sheikhon in the southern countryside of Idlib.SOHRSOHR So maybe this means that al- Khazzanat was captured by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 The Arabic SOHR you provided states that the REGIME IS TRYING TO ADVANCE TOWARDS THE KHAZZANAT CAMP. The English post had a typo. Look: دارت في وقت متأخر من ليل امس اشتباكات عنيفة بين قوات النظام مدعمة بقوات الدفاع الوطني من جهة ومقاتلي الكتائب الاسلامية ومقاتلي جبهة النصرة (تنظيم القاعدة في بلاد الشام) من جهة اخرى في شمال بلدة مورك، التي تسيطر عليها قوات النظام، في محاولة من الأخير، التقدم باتجاه معسكر الخزانات القريب من مدينة خان شيخون بريف إدلب الجنوبي. Using google translate it says: Took place late last night of violent clashes between the subsidized National Defense Forces on the one hand the regime forces and fighters of the Islamic battalions and fighters of Al-Nusra Front ( Al-Qaeda in the Levant ), on the other hand, in the north of the town of Mork , controlled by regime forces , in an attempt by the latter, progress towards the near reservoirs camp of Khan Shaykhun the southern city of Brive Idlib. SO THE LATTER is the REGIME FORCES occupying Morek. Khazzanat stays green with a red half-circle south of it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Carefully read the source! In Arabic version of this article clear said that violent clashes between regime forces supported by NDF on the one hand and fighters of the Brigades and Islamic fighters Front victory (al-Qaeda in the Levant) on the other hand to the north of the town of Mork, which controls by regime forces, in an attempt by the latter, progress toward camp reservoirs near the city of Khan Shaykhun.here And here english version of this article: Violent clashes took place between the regime forces supported by NDF against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions in the north of Morek town which is held by the regime forces, where al- Nusra and the battalions have attempted to advance towards al- Khazzanat Camp near the city of Khan Sheikhon.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Also this military base(Camp "Khazanat") located near strategic highway from Hama to Idlib here and if be army not take this base would be extremely difficult to attack the city of Khan Shaykhun because they left be in its rear of the rebel forces that could attack the they from the rear. As previously some reliable sources said that if army dont take this base they will not be able to attack the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a native Arabic speaker but okay whatever I give up. Not even SANA nor Al-Mayadeen mentioned it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Pro governmnet source said that 11th Tank Division has announced the capture of Camp Khazanat (Reservoir Camp) after weeks of heavy firefights with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham (Falcons of the Levant Brigades) north of the city of Morek.here But I dont noted it is military facility under the control of the army but I will not say that 100% sure that it was captured. But many sources reported about this. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Army is advancing in Khan Sheikhoun and surrounding Kfar Zita so advancing on 2 fronts: Morek & Hama-Idlib main road.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Khazzanat Camp

The 11th Tank Brigade (which was credited by some users to have taken the Khazzanat camp) DENIES in it's official page that the Khazzanat camp has been captured by the regime. They acknowledged advances towards it but NO CAPTURE. Therefore Khazzanat camp goes to GREEN with a red half circle south of it. https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/749090718504420 Translating it can be tough since he's talking in informal Arabic BUT he clearly denies the capture of the camp whilst confirming advances ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And according to the SAA FB account they took it. https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary (scroll down a bit)SyAAF (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro-regime source can't be used to illustrate pro-regime gains ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think what he is trying to say is that there is a lot of evidence that the SAA has in fact taken the camp. Al-Masdar, SAA facebook page, Syper, and even SOHR say that. Now we also have many sources declaring that fighting is happening in Khan Shiekhoun, making it very likely that the camp is in SAA hands. Still, you have brought compelling evidence that the camp may still be in rebel hands. So, would you and the others be ok with me changing the camp to green with a FULL red ring [SAA in Khan Shiekhoun]? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 I too Agree that we cant use pro-regime sources to show army success! However, these data indirectly confirmed by other sources.SOHRAl Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 I believe it was you who said al masdar and sohr should be used carefully and I agree .SOHRs two posts seem to contradict each other and al masdar said saa took the base then advanced on Khan shiekoun .We now have other sources saying Khan sheikoun is contested so if al masdar got that right ,with carefull consideration I think his post was correct .Pyphon (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

ALrighty then just wondering why it hasn't hit the big news yet. Fine Khazzanat to red and Khan Shaykhun so contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No reason to hit big news for the conquer of a (important) military camp. For the 1000000th time: the point is not is if a source is pro-somebody but if it is reliable. Few days ago, the israel paper Haaretz was used, that certainly is anti-government. Al-Masdar, has proved over the time to be reliable and does not need additional evidence.79.45.138.153 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Chrissch94 once again you have shown how unbiased you are .those who accused you of pro gov bias are clearly wrong .Keep up the good work .respect .Pyphon (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Thanks I appreciate this! All I'm doing is based on the need of an accurate map depicting the tough reality on the ground. Kudos to you too :) Pyphon ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Troops control of Khaz'zanat Camp helped regime forces inside Al-Zohour military airport to advance into near-by Tal Selmo and Mustariha villages.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Elijah J looks a fair source, he claims SAA troops entering Khan Shaykhun later to confirm Goverment presence there. The Saa its anvancing in many fronts attacking small objectives, Aleppo North East, Khan Shaykhun, Deyr el Zor, Sheyk Maskin, East Goutha.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here reliable source said that pro-FSA activist's in Idlib now confirming that Syrian army have taking Camp "Khazanat". Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Finally a clear confirmation on the matter! Thank you Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Also according to local the opposition activists on front between city Morek and Khan Shykhun are empty and no rebels around.Elijah J. Magnier And this makes easier task for the regime to capture the city of Khan Shaykhun.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Abu Duhur Airbase

Many reports that Hamaimat & Mustariha villages north of the Abu Duhur Airbase taken by SAA, e.g. https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/537939481274642432.87.4.48.70 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This report did not say (taken) it said (try to storm).Pyphon (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

The maximum that we can do this is put a red mark to the north of the village Haymat ad Dayir. Because pro opposition source only said that Assad-forces try to storm Haymat ad Dayir north of Abu ad-Duhur - Military Airbase.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

According to almasdar news SAA has captured and ended the 2 years siege and captured 2 other villages...while al-nusra captured 3 other villages.here Lindi29 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The news of controlling these villages by SAA was confirmed by this source: http://www.almayadeen.net/Latest/a,D3pyT8S0qcHSQPaAoP7g/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7--%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%8A--%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA--%D9%88-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%A9--%D9%81%D9%8A151.238.167.31 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just the message from progovernment sources. And, as a compromise, we decided to use the data from the source Al Masdar if these data are confirm other neutral sources. So we need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Control of the Khaz'zanat Camp helped regime forces inside Al-Zohour(Abu Duhur) military airport to advance into nearby villages of Tal Selmo and Mustariha.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanano

Its been 4 days since Almasdar and other pro gov sources said saa advanced and cut the road from jandoul roundabout to hanano also advancing in owieja and hanano districts but not one pro op source has said anything about this .Its a major event as it puts rebel held Allepo in siege cutting the last supply line .Any thoughts?Pyphon (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Wait some days, SOHR would confirm that info once their informants manage to escape safe and sound that place.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR latest post on Aleppo JAN is fighting SAA near Aleppo prison and at the airport .They must be advancing against the army pro gov sources must be lies or SOHR ?Pyphon (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

SOHR's reliability has greatly decreased in Aleppo, due to increasingly unreliable information as well an increase in SOHR's rhetoric against the regime. For more than a month now, SOHR has reported constant fighting at Handaarat, so often one would think that the rebels were on the verge of retaking the area, yet even pro-opp sources acknowledge that the SAA has advanced from there since Oct. 3. Also, when mentioning fighting in Aleppo, SOHR, no longer refers to the SAA as "regime forces and NDF". It now refers to them as "regime forces, NDF, Quds brigades, shia militias and Afghan fighters" in an attempt to discredit the SAA. In more recent times, the SOHR reported that JAN attacked Nubl and Zahraa, yet remained silent when the main attacking force was defeated. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Syria direct pro op new map shows saa advance near jandoul roundabout ,owieja ,hanano .Pyphon (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Maybe you mean this map.Syrian Direct Hanibal911 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is that one. Thanks. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes not a good map to many flags on roads but its first pro op source to say saa advance to make almasdar map look correct .Pyphon (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

SOHR is now quoting al nusra and its allies on his posts for Aleppo and Idlib which are unreliable his moderate sources have gone .Pyphon (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Stop to deleted towns in As-Suwayda governorate.

These towns are here a very precise map. https://twitter.com/petolucem/status/534388773598285824 Lucem Maps are the better and most precise maps that know everyone who follow the conflict

And these pro insurgent map favouring a lot the insurgents showing these place under army control too. http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SW-Syria-10-nov-2014-total.jpg http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-syria-civil-war-8-novem_21226#13/32.7092/36.5884

DeSyracuse is not pro-insurgent nor pro-govt188.141.199.13 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Entire As-Suwayda governorate is under Army control this is well know for all, so stop to deleted these places because both maps Lucem maps and pro insurgents coincided 100% --Pototo1 (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pototo1You are right but when you add those towns to map it was necessary to provide a link to this discussion. Here's how need was to do : here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

East Damascus: The road in east Jobar is controlled by Army

The map in East Damascus showing the East Road in Jobar in conflict. http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010802646190.jpg

This is the Lucem map and showing this road http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010809625795.jpg

Same case with this another favouring the insurgents http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010813695846.jpg

The insurgent in Jobar are totally besiege ?

Not at all they using the tunnels to East Ghouta as resupply system, put the surface is controlled by the Army this oncluding the road --Pototo1 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree! This road also earlier was noted under control by army on some pro-opposition maps.11 September20 September16 October20 October8 November10 November Hanibal911 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fix that in East Damascus map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer/File:Rif_Damashq.svg --Pototo1 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The road on the east edge of Jobar has long been nominally regime controlled, with rebel control on either side. There used to be a number of dead regime tanks along the road, which was patrolled intermittently by regime tanks during the day. The rebels used to frequently cross the road at night, as well as using the numerous tunnels under it, to access the eastern Ghouta. I doubt the situation has changed much since. André437 (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The infiltration no count as disputed control all pro insurgent maps put this road under army control --Pototo1 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Menagh Air Base

Why and with what sources has the air base changed to a green dot without any infromation while it still under al-nusra controll? do we have a vandal here or what ? Lindi29 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

But situation about Menagh Air Base still unclear. For now we have report from the source Al Monitor in which says that tensions between the FSA and al-Nusra soon moved to Aleppo’s countryside, where the latter besieged the Northern Knights Brigades. And on 4 November Northern Knights brigades(FSA) burned a T-62 tank before withdrawing from Menagh in northern Aleppo countryside. Al-Nusra also killed a field commander from the Dawn of Freedom Brigades.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

DeSyracuse is NOT pro-insurgent

Some people here often use DeSyracuse (http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com and https://twitter.com/deSyracuse) maps as pro-insurgents, therefore using this source to justify government-held town. However, I did not find any evidence that DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent nor pro-government. Although he did some maps with Archicivilians, those maps are quite reflecting reality. So unless anybody has evidence DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent, I would suggest not to classify him as pro-insurgent188.141.199.13 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes DeSyracuse is pro insurgent their maps usually favouring the Insurgents same case with Archicivilians.

Pro Government maps are Peto Lucem's maps but these map are very correct and precise based in my experience following the conflict.

Labrousse maps was the most precise pro Insurgents maps but he stopped to made maps time ago. --Pototo1 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

But 188.141.199.13 the source (deSyracuse) for changes on the map is very often use pro opposition sources . And he had long been recognized by as the opposition source. So if you do not find confirmation that he is pro opposition source it's your problem, and you need a better look. His maps are very similar to other pro opposition maps. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When I look closely at the maps, I do not find any evidence of what you say. More, some maps such as http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/[email protected] or http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/[email protected] seem more in favor of Syrian govt. Moreover, if you have a look at the legends and tweets, he never use the term "Regime" but "Loyalists", so unless you provide a clear reference more serious than "he had long been recognized by as the opposition source", I suggest he is not classified as a "Pro-opp"188.141.178.174 (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Hanibal here, Peto Lucem is more or less pro-regime despite stating rebel gains sometimes. DeSyracuse is moderate pro-opp but with very reliable/accurate maps. Archicivillians is way too pro-opp ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Lucem's maps are more representative of the situation. Desyracuse's maps have many errors, such as understating regime presence in Hasaka, the isolation of the regime in Deir-Ez-Zoir, and overstating ISIS's control of the desert.In any case, I support maintaining the current status quo, with Lucem being pro-gov and Syracuse being pro-opp. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Green Circles in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa should be removed if you no have sources.

Last map from this area in August 2014 no showing these places no blocked by the insurgent in the west https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu6MGKyIEAA46Ji.jpg they are more away to Lebanese border

Link something as evidence the insurgents are BLOCKED Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa in the West side or these circles should be removed --Pototo1 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We can not just pick up and remove those marks on the basis of outdated the pro government map. We need more solid evidence that in this area no rebels. But we can as an alternative add some sort of new icon that show the presence of rebels in the mountain area in western Qalamoun on the border with Lebanon. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be more clarity about what the semi circles mean. There should be no suggestion that they mean besieged or blocked but simply that they allude to a rebel presence near by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Link something just that!

The army take these place a long time ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qalamoun

If close this area the Insurgents got a presence we must put all the Towns in Homs in Red circles is well know the insurgents in this place are not Stronger because the Lebanese Army fight them too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsal ...

They are now in low scale insurgency no able to blocking these places --Pototo1 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

To avoid war of edits I and another experienced editor André437 for now try to find the best solution. trying to solve the problem as note the presence of rebels in the mountainous region in Qalamoun area near the Lebanese border.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole utility of the semi-circle icons that Andre437 created is that they allow us to show a belligerent's presence to a specific side of a town/city without incorrectly show said town/city as besieged.. That's why the Ras al-Maara, Assal al-Ward, etc only have lime to the west, and not in any other direction. Those towns are definitely not besieged, they are securely SAA held, but there are constant reports of fighting in the Qalamoun wastelands directly to the west. al-Bawaba, Daily Star, pro-gov't al-Manar, pro-gov't Syrianfreepress all reporting clashes in the area mid-November. Hence the necessity of the lime quarter circles to the West.. so that the map actually shows that there is still indeed clashes/rebel presence in the mountains Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• This first source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa
• This first second source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa
• This third source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa
• This third source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa

Sources 1234 only talk about Assal al-Ward, i'm not removing the green circle in this place only in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa because the editor Boredwhytekid no showing a single evidence these towns are blocked in the west by the Insurgents.

Conclusion Boredwhytekid no have a single source to draw these green circles in west of Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa. --Pototo1 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pototo1, I am done with you and your persistent vandalism. YOU are proposing a change to the map - YOU have to provide a source, not me. You edited without a source. I reverted because, for the umpteenth time, you have to provide a usable source. You reverted my revert, again trying to instigate an edit war. André437 ChrissCh94 Hanibal911... anyone other than myself give a crap enough to revert this vandalism? Really tired of being accused of being pro-op just because I'm the only one countering Pototo's pro-gov't vandalism... Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You are accusing me of Vandalism?

The only who are doing that here are you! Show me a single link saying Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa are blocked in West Side JUST A SINGLE LINK! ?

YOU NO PROVIDE A SINGLE FROM PUT THESE GREEN CIRCLES THERE!

You are making three greens circles in Places when that no exist with no a single evidence about it Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa it's very simple --Pototo1 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But, I didn't put them there.. They were already there, and you took them down, arbitrarily, without a source. I only "put them there" when I reverted your unsourced edit taking them down. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa are not blocked / Besieges in this place the links who Boredwhytekid provide talk only about Assal al-Ward stop to put green circles there--LogFTW (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, I DID NOT PUT THEM THERE. They were already on the map, but you two insist on removing them WITHOUT PROVIDING A SOURCE OR SEEKING COMMUNITY CONSENSUS. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

pro-gov't al masdar reports rebels on the outskirts of Rankous / rebuffed attack inside Rankous Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan clarification

Are we sure that Tall Brak and Tall Hamis are controlled by ISIL?

All maps (pro-opp, neutral, and pro-gov), show these two towns under IS control, so it's very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are the same Is is a shortend version of ISIL.Pyphon (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Forgotten Military Sites (Pre-2013)

While this map is getting better and better, it still lacks some precision. For instance, many military sites/checkpoints mentioned in Wikipedia Syrian Civil War articles, are missing here. The most striking example is the Khan Al Assal Police Academy where a huge battle had taken place that ended with a rebel victory. You can confirm the presence of such sites by seeing them deep inside the affiliated territory using Wikimapia etc. Cheers ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is also the Brigade 66 in Eastern Hamah Desert where it was besieged for some time by the rebels before the siege was lifted in late 2013 by the SAA. And if someone has some free time why not add the SAA bases in Latakia? Some of them were presumably bombed by Israel. ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

According to data from two the pro opposition maps herehere area where located the Army Base of Brigade 66 under control by army. So i add this base on map and noted her as under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know it's under regime control all I said it WAS besieged in late 2013 before the SAA attacked in Eastern Hamah and captured villages there (in September 2013). So I perfectly agree with you. But please also add the Khan-Al-Assal Police Academy in Aleppo it's an important military site that saw deadly battles between the 2 sides and lot's of casualties. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Can you show me on the map where this object located. And I add it on map because I have sources which can confirm my actions. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also i think that we need put on map the Air Defense Base (Brigade 599) located in area which under control of the regime troops. And this confrirmed many pro opposition and pro government maps.hereherehereherehereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright man I agree, add them if they are deep into regime territory. Here is the rebel controlled Police School/Academy I was talking about: here

The Wikipedia article about Khan El Assal battle proves it's rebel held (kinda obvious though)

You could also add the 2 army bases in the area they are deep into rebel areas so they are controlled by those rebels: here

and here

ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There is also this Radar Base which was taken in 2012 by the rebels then in 2014 by ISIS. I concluded that it is now controlled by ISIS and not the rebels because it is in deep ISIS territory: here ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94But in issue this Radar Base (Al Sha`allah) I'm not so sure of this! Because this Radar Base is located near the villages which are under the control of the some moderate rebel groups. And pro opposition map show that this Radar Base noe under cotnrol by rebels.here So we need more data before adding it to the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes you're right concerning this one. Feel free to add any other SAA bases/regiments deep inside Regime territory ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I also added some military facilities that are in areas that are under the control of the army on the basis of data from the pro-opposition map.here And I also want add some military facilities which located in areas which under the control of insurgents and militants ISIS according to data from pro-government maps. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright man great work! Keep me up to date on what you're adding so I can help! ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Thank you for your praise in my adress! I as well as you try in order our map was more detailed and if you have other suggestions about objects that we can add on the map you say me and I'll help you. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 The I think would be the best solution add military installations located in the areas which controlled by one or another party to the conflict.Here is a list of military objects which are likely under control the moderate rebels: Military Training BaseAir defense BattalionMilitary College and some military objects in Dara province which located in area under control by rebels. Here list of military objects which are likely under control the army:Army Base Brigade 552al-Muhlab BarracksAir Defense BaseArmy BaseAir Defense AcademyArmy Artillery Base and some military base in Tartus in province which fully under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Also here list of military objects which are likely under control the Kurdish: Army Bas which is located near of Kurdish village Tell Beydar Air Defence Base Also here list of military objects which are likely under control the ISIS: Qarah Burghul DaghArmy Storage BaseAl Taurah Airfield Hanibal911 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed for all the above except those 2 Kurdish sites since they come in areas of shared control between pro-gov forces and PYD. All the remaining sites have clear owners. Thanks alot mate! If you got some time check the list of military installations near Homs city. Lots of military brigades there! Cheers ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

NAWA/SHAKH MISKIN ROAD

Pro gov sources say saa have taken Nawa-Shakh miskin road including tel al hamad and 112 army base but no pro op source said this yet so we must wait for more sources .Pyphon (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Reliable source said that however, despite the rebel advance, Assad’s forces remain strong in the area, holding bases in critical locations that the rebels will find difficult to capture.

Deraa-based activist Ibrahim Hariri said that while government forces collapsed in some parts of the province, they still hold much of the city of Deraa and control the Deraa-Damascus highway, “the spine of the province.”The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

خطأ في إنشاء اتصال بقاعدة البيانات

Al Nusra have captured city Rastan in Homs Governorate after clashes with other rebel groups. This confirmed pro opposition sourcehere pro government sourceherehere and some other source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If this is true rebel infighting is spreading south but is not in Daraa yet .Until we get reports of this type in Daraa no icons for jan there .Pyphon (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Al Qaeda is in all places when are others insurgents group different than the Kurdish, but in what place they have a total control is unclear --Pototo1 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been a long time I've not contributed to the map... Can Twitter be considered a relable source now ? I did not read about that anywhere else...2A01:E34:EF99:8A90:280F:5B5:B138:4865 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It depends on who owns the account. Peto Lucem and Elijah J. Mangir are two examples of reliable sources on twitter. In this case, Hanibal is using twitter accounts known to be associated with the rebels to change a city from mainstream rebel held to Nusra held, which is, as far as I know, in line with the editing guidelines. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But other opposition sources clarify the situation with the city of Rastan. Al Nusra haven't gained control of Rastan. They just entered along with Ahrar and many other battalions to arrest Wanted people for the court.herehereEldorar So for now we not have other confirmations from reliable sources that the city Al Rastan was captured the Front Al Nusra. So I again noted him as under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Peto Lucem also says that JAN has taken over Rastan here https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/538681709332799488 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Syrian revolution command council

Syrian moderate rebel groups now combined in the Syrian revolution command council (SROC) it seems this to be a final attempt by the Syrian rebels to form a united front against Assad, ISIS, JAN, Hezbollah and others.herehere So now the situation is clarified and it becomes clear that an alliance of moderate insurgents and militants of Al Nusra Front officially cease to exist. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 what do you think this means for Daraa? Pyphon (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Notably, the new alliance excludes the Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, and some hard-line Islamist groups active in the north, such as Nusra’s close ally Jund al-Aqsa.Albawaba Hanibal911 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How curious that Moderate Groups calls itself SROC looks a lot like SOHR, another failed collective of moderate$ rebels, wait until Xmas they will be wiped out from all Syria beginning from Idlib to Darra.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Add to al-Zaahra and Nubl that there is heavy fighting going on there right now with shelling, carbombing etc.

Savalito (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source reported that fiercest attack by Al Nusra against Nubl and Zahraa on the southern gate failed. Popular committee in charge of defending captured at least four jihadists.Elijah J. Magnier And SOHR also today reported that Al- Nusra detonated a booby- trapped vehicle at the entrance of the town of al- Zahraa town followed by violent clashes between local gunmen and NDF against al- Nusra Front, Ansar al- Din Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions on entrance of the town.SOHR But not said about clashes inside city. Also reliable source said that according pro opposition source a suicide attack was taking in this place here on south entrance the city Al Zahraa in industrial area.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source said that was only one suicide attack which carried by Al Nusra Abu Hasna Jazrawi against city Al Zahraa (not two) and he didn't reach the gate of Al-Jood complex.Elijah J. Magnier And source said that cities of Al Zahraa and Nubol are still holding despite repetitive attack. SAF is dropping supply to surrounded cities.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

what happens in Battalion 559 in Rural Damascus?

I think after the insurgents get defeated in Yabroud -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arEnS1i3S7Y ; they move to attack this army storage base days latter and they claim they captured it -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k88uOBp5z4

But some one change that to red and put that besiege by insurgents

What happens there? --Pototo1 (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pototo1 its very confused .First rebels take base then saaf bomb base then rebels leave then no more news nobody says saa moved in to retake so we think is dead ,ruined . Some editors want it removed from map some want it to show rebels in that area .I think this new icon is compromise of the unknown situation .Pyphon (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Pototo1 Read this discussion there says it all.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We discussed it and reached a consensus about it earlier in this talk page. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should return it to green, with an X over the icon. (I just made a X icon for exactly that purpose.) to put over . You can see an example on battalion base 559 on the sandbox map. (Accessible via here.)

That way it will show the last known control, instead of disappearing from the map, or in this case falsely showing regime control.

So what does everyone think ?

Also if no-one objects, I'd like to change the kurd dot from (too light) to (flat tone about the same lightness as the old one). André437 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thing is we provided sources showing regime control.. not over the empty warehouses but over the nearby base. Please refer to the conversation to see what arguments were presented. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Presence in SouthEast Damascus/North of Suweida

A very interesting article by Al-Arabiyya (huge pro-opp source) mentioning areas in the Damascus Desert that are controlled by ISIS. This article explains 2 things: 1) It explains how Al Nusra managed to retreat from Deir-El-Zoor to Daraa' and 2) Reveals ISIS presence close to Damascus and the 2 border provinces of Daraa' and Suweida. http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2014/11/29/-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D9%8A%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B8%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7-%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-.html Translating it using google translate won't help but I'm a native arabic speaker and the areas mentioned under ISIS control between SE Rif Dimashq and NE Suweida are: checkpoints near the Al-Asfar (الأصفر) village + control over the Sarikhi/Saraykhi (الصريخي) area, and (شنوان والقصر والأصفر والساقية ورجم الدولة) areas which are Al-Qasr, Shinwan, Al-Asfar, Al Sakiyah and Rajm-Al-Dawla,Al-Saqrainyah.Alhanuty (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC) ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your translation is not accurate. Source not said that area about which you said between SE Rif Dimashq and NE Suweida are under control by ISIS. Because a little over two weeks ago reliable source BBC clear show that no ISIS positions in this area.BBC Just Saudi source of Al Arabia may not be a reliable source on this issue because they opposed to the Syrian regime and support Syrian opposition as well as those who are fighting against it.. And for such a significant change we need more information. Also here the map dated 29 November which clear show that no ISIS in this area. So we need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hold it right there.. I CORRECTLY translated what was in the article. YOU may consider the article inaccurate and that's okay but my translation? Excuse me but I've been living in the MiddleEast for 20 years :) I perfectly translated what was in the article so the CONTENT could be inaccurate but my translation is flawless. It's not my fault if the source is unreliable, all I did was CORRECTLY translate it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Desert areas have few sources ,if only camels could talk ;)Pyphon (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Source just said that after the Front Al Nusra (or Front victory) forces withdraw of of Deir al-Zour province (eastern Syria) a few months ago, and heading across the Syrian desert to shield the border province with Jordan (southern Syria), his territory in Deir ez Zor moved under the control of ISIS and also the Military airports and large number oil wells. Also source said that Al Suwayda it is one of the most secure areas are currently in Syria.Al Arabia And if you have lived 20 years in the Middle East why you translate this article using Google translator. But for now it is not important. Just although this source is dated for 29 November , but the article says about the events that took place a few months ago, however, I gave you the data from the sources which confirm my words that not ISIS militants in the Suwayda province.BBChere Hanibal911 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also here the map dated 20 November which also clear show that no ISIS in this area.Institute for the Study of War Hanibal911 (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

When I talked about Google translate it was addressed to you not me. How else are you gonna understand Arabic texts? I said using Google translate won't help you because the translation is not comprehensible. That's why I TRANSLATED IT. That's my translation that you can't get from the Internet. And a desert doesn't mean it is uninhabited. You have hundreds of Bedouin tribes there just look up the Syrian Desert article in Wikipedia :) All I did was suggest this article and translate it for you and suddenly I get attacked? Nice way of showing your open-mindedness. Here is another pro-opp source mentionning clashes in the area between rebels and ISIS: https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/537675628666187777

https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/537578297266155521 You're welcome. And thank you for your hostility. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

All I did was suggest this article so we could discuss it yet you mocked it, mocked me/my arabic? I wasn't asking for a drastic map change and for your information, this map isn't YOURSHanibal911, it's ours and belongs to the whole community. Every time someone provides a source you immediately counter with a series of sources. We're not attacking you here when we suggest articles/suggest map changes. We just want to make it better and more precise. So change that attitude of yours and open up your mind because this is a TALK page. WE TALK. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont attack you I just simply to provide a sources that confirms my words. And I proved data from reliable source but you provide data from the too biased anti government source. Although I agree with you and I think that the discussion of the data from some articles this is useful work for search of true. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay you cleared this up a bit. I did follow the rule: Biased pro-opp source stating ISIS/Regime gains is considered legit. It's like when a regime biased source states rebel/ISIS gains. And despite showing 3 very biased pro-rebel sources saying the rebels lost and ISIS won, I didn't immediately ask for a map change. (Even though I could have and it's perfectly legit). I'm just opening a discussion. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Nevertheless, I am sorry for abrupt behavior from my side in your adress. Just I have a bad mood today. So that buddy accept my sincere apologies. Also we cant use data from this source herehere because he openly opposed the government. We have already discussed this source and it was decided not to use this source for display success of all anti-government groups. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94And as I said earlier Archicivilians is an outspoken opponent of the Syrian regime and can not be an objective source in the struggle between the army and ISIS. Just as we should not use pro government sources in the struggle between ISIS and moderate rebel groups. Because their data cant be objective in this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks man apologies accepted :) Then it's my mistake I thought we could use a third party as a source in another conflict. I thought pro-rebel sources could be used in the Regime-Isis conflict etc.. But nonetheless Archiviliians stated something in the Rebel-Isis conflict where he admitted the rebels lost and Isis advanced on behalf of the rebels. Get my point? The regime is absent here in this discussion it's about Rebels and Isis ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Then here's my suggestion. We will not ignore this information but we must try find more information from more reliable and neutral sources about the situation in the area. Just as I convinced of the situation with the city of Rastan that there is no need to rush to editing but just need gather more information before proceed to editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright we wait for more reliable sources. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some points :

1) I've seen reference that say that ISIS came via the desert to a point in the desert not far east of Damascus. I don't have them handy, but there were several twitter references to one, on a web page with a map, as well as a wikimapia post indicating where they went to.

2) An earlier report from a western journalist held by al-Nusra and released for ransom (paid by Qatar when released at the Israeli border crossing), recounted being captured in the north, held in the Deir al-Zor area, and being taken on a long journey through the desert as al-Nusra fled during the night from Deir al-Zor, working their way south to Daraa, illustrates how easy it is to pass undetected.

3) Saudi references should be accepted for ISIS and al-Nusra advances, since the Saudis have been fighting al-Qaida even before the US. And sometime Qatar support for al-Nusra is part of the disagreements Saudi Arabia has with Qatar.

BTW, it is good to know that ChrissCh94 can translate for us, since google translate is TERRIBLE André437 (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you André437. I agree with you where it seems the sources here I provided are enough to prove ISIS and other rebel groups do use this area for transport, supply routes etc. But we don't know if they control any areas there since Hanibal911 correctly provided numerous pro-opp sources showing it under undisturbed SAA control. So we all have a point here. It's like the situation in the Homs Desert or Western Qalamoun only more difficult than those 2. So I agree with Hanibal911 that we should wait for more sources to mention it and for more clashes to appear so that we could have a clearer and wider view on the matter. And about the translation well, anything I can do to help you guys out with Arabic sources since many come in informal Arabic that's very difficult to translate over the Internet. Plus many areas in Syria (and the Middle East in general) are named after common names/colors/combinations. Even SOHR has this issue. So for example: Asfar (اصفر) in Arabic means Yellow, it's a color. But Al-Asfar area is not a color obviously. Google translate doesn't know that and so you'll get weirdly named areas. It's here where I could be of assistance. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with ChrissCh94 At the moment, we do not have reliable sources of clashes between the army and the ISI in the area. Also for now we not have clear confirmation from reliable sources that ISIS controls some town or village in the area. But If they use deserted area in the desert for smuggling weapons or anything else b this not a reason to display it is on the map. We need more data. Because now most part of reliable and opposition sources do not confirm the presence of ISIS in this area. So also Saudi news sources in this issue cant be neutral because Saudi Arabia for long time support ISIS. So that Qatar and Saudi Arabia for a long time supported an Islamic State.The AtlanticDaily PaulQatar Daily StarThe Daily BeastForeign PolicyYahoo NewsCNN Hanibal911 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You realise you've been conscripted ;)

As far as translation goes, I've had a lot of experience between english and french, and can largely make out technical writing in some other european languages. Even without counting synonyms or place names with a meaning (quite common in any language), google obviously does word for word translation with no consideration for grammar. Word order is evidently quite different.

No problem waiting before assigning control. Note that mere presence in an area, particularly the desert, doesn't necessarily mean control. If it did, the regime wouldn't be able to truck supplies to Deir al-Zor, nor pass supplies through the desert to Aleppo, through territories frequented by the rebels and Daesh. As well, much so-called regime control is illusory, as other forces often easily pass through those areas. Rebels from Daraa have been able to go all the way to Turkey without problem, just bypassing checkpoints en route. André437 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here map from BBC clear show that no ISIS in this area. Also here the map dated 20 November which also clear show that no ISIS in this area.Institute for the Study of War and here map dated 29 november also clear show that no ISIS in this area.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also here is the information about the fact how Saudi Arabia is fighting terrorism. Here Saudi octogenarian foreign secretary, Saud al-Faisal, said certain ‘circles’ inside the Saudi regime is assisting terrorist activities in the kingdom and overseas.AWD News Hanibal911 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then but just one thing I need to make clear Hanibal911, I never said clashes there were between ISIS and the SAA. I was referring to clashes between rebels and ISIS there. That's why I provided rebel sources saying they lost v/s ISIS there. The SAA is not concerned in this section just to be clear ^^. Cheers guys

André437 Hanibal911 the most serious debate i ever have seen on wikipedia,well ISIS does exist in Suwayda,i don't know why Hannibal wants to hide this one also,never mind,firstly alot of loyalist Accounts and pages from Suwayda have confirmed the ISIS advance via https://www.facebook.com/Lahitha.News.Network/photos/a.1430795117184616.1073741828.1429218997342228/1507280426202751/?type=1, https://www.facebook.com/Lahitha.News.Network/photos/a.1507861989477928.1073742144.1429218997342228/1507862066144587/?type=1, https://www.facebook.com/Lahitha.News.Network/photos/a.1507861989477928.1073742144.1429218997342228/1507862066144587/?type=1 ,Pro-Opposition accounts confirmed ISIS advance in Bir Qassab and Suwayda,and the most important evidence is that Former US Ambassador Robert Ford has confirmed the advance https://twitter.com/fordrs58/status/537678598250188800. Aldo Al-Mayadeen confirmed it via https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1507874006143393.Alhanuty (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well he did provide pro-gov sources confirming Isis advances in the area at the expense of rebels. I provided pro-rebel sources confirming Isis advances in the area at the expense of the rebels themselves. So please add all the villages stated in those sources as ISIS controlled, especially BeerQasab and the 4-5 villages I mentioned in my first post. ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We cant use as a source only data from the biased pro opposition activists. And I cant understand how we can use as source of broken links in Facebook which provide Alhanuty. And Robert Ford not proved that ISIS controlled this area. Also what makes you think that this account belongs the Former US Ambassador Robert Ford. Because on he page in Twitter about which you said did not specified that this guy is Former US Ambassador.here Ok, we can use as a source video from the pro-government channel Al-Mayadeen here But the problem is that the video is in Arabic and we dont know which villages indicate in this source. I also gave you a map which denies the presence of ISIS in the area about which you are talking.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just guys we need understand that I not opposed noted some villages which maybe controlled by ISIS. But before we show it is on the map we need to be absolutely sure that we properly edit. Just as you can see a SOHR have never pointed to the presence of ISIS forces in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And video from Al-Mayadeen basically tells about the events in the Quneitra province. But about ISIS source only said that Beit Jann is a key gathering place for insurgents and logistically located about six kilometers from the Lebanese Shebaa, the victory moved large numbers of fighters from the countryside to shield Bear cane area southeast of Damascus in an area up the countryside east of Daraa and Sweida Rural Damascus. "Daash" also sent in an earlier convoy time to the same area and made an agreement with local groups to enter through the countryside of Daraa and directed the Army of Islam, including the killing of a group of it which will affect the course of the victory in the battles.Al-Mayadeen But source not said that ISIS control some villages in Al Suweyda province. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And guys the one of most reliable sources BBC clear show that for now ISIS not present in this areas about which you said.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94André437AlhanutyOk! Let us as a compromise and in connection with a plurality of data we add on the map Bi’r Qassab about which mentioned by some opposition sources. And which show under control by ISIS the one of opposition sources.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this source is posted yet (you guys wrote a LOT), but here's France24 stating that the IS penetrated as far as Bir al-Qassab, the site noted about by Hanibal Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Erledigt I add village Bir Qassab. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, we compromise on having Beer Qassab ISIS held. Thanks Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I could not find mention of Bir Al-Qassad in there. Also, adding this village contradicts almost every map on the situation in Syria right now [CNN, RT, BBC, Peto Lucem, Desyrecuse, Archicivillians, and pro-ISIS maps]. I would strongly consider a lot more sources before adding and ISIS presence so close to Damascus. Even though ISIS is not advancing, nor do they claim too, our map continues to show them creeping farther and farther south. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Archicivillians (anti-gov) and Mayadeen (pro-gov), both deeply involved in the crisis, mentioned it. I don't expect CNN, BBC or any mainstream media to mention ISIS took control of a couple of abandoned houses in the middle of nowhere! ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hannibal,the links are clear Now,also the twitter account is confirmed to be that of Former Ambassador Robert Ford.why would multiple analyst follow him.Alhanuty (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC) http://www.alaraby.co.uk/politics/0c346e65-6636-4834-8a7d-bb570407fc66 now ,the new araby confirmed the advance.noe there is multiple sources,on that advance,please ass the towns.Alhanuty (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Now SOHR confirmed it https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/619229571518718.Alhanuty (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A note about BBC maps : they are notoriously vague, useless for any detailed information about locations held. For example, look at the BBC map posted in this section. The area around Kobane in the north (all Daesh held areas in fact recently acquired), and the Daraa border crossing in the south (rebel held in fact, with a link across the M5) are both inaccurate. So not reasonable to expect their maps to show smaller Daesh controlled areas in the desert or the south.

I don't think their map makers even intend to represent the detail accurately. Their focus is the general picture, for an audience that doesn't care much (if at all) about the details.

It is not only BBC that produces this nature of maps. Which is why I strongly prefer using maps only if annotated to indicate when particular locations were acquired. Like Labrousse/Arab Chronicle used to produce. André437 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Alam confirmed it http://www.alalam.ir/news/1654439.Alhanuty (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Erledigt Hanibal911 (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here source Middle East Eye in which map clear show that no ISIS in south part Syria. Nevertheless, according to the data given above, I added some villages in the northern part of the Suwayda province which controlled by ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Hanibal911 and I'm glad my suggestion turned out to be a useful one after all. Cheers guys ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly Alhanuty dont need make not justified editings. You sources not aid about calshes in the village Al Saqraniyah in Darra province. Secondly you source cleal said that ISIS captured village Al Safir in Al Suwayda province byt not said that ISIS captured Tall Al Safir.Al Araby And thirdly SOHR only said that violent clashes took place yesterday night between fighters and NDF in Ber Hamam area located between the two villages of al- Sora al- Kobra and Braq. SOHR said that ckashes in area of Ber Hamam but not inside this village and also sohr not said that clashes between NDS vs ISIS.SOHR It could be local fighters or smugglers. So Alhanuty or are you going to edit according to the sources or do I will notify to admins about your not justified actions and that you are editing as you want and you are deliberately distort the data as you need for edit. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal,firstly claim down,secondly i am not distorting info,thirdly don't threat me,fourthly the location that you put Al-Asfar village is wrong,the location yours is called Bir Asfar,while,the correct location is the Al-Asfar near Tal Asfar,secondly,Al-Shaqraniyah was mentioned inb the sources above as ISIS-held,for Bir Hamam,SOHR mentioned Clashes,so i putted it as contested.no need to send threats to fellow editors,and HANIBAL,I edit edit according to the sources,you also do the same mistake also.Alhanuty (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also,don't accuse me of distorting info.Alhanuty (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not going threaten you I have only said about mistakes which you made. And source Al Arabia not said that Al-Shaqraniyah now under control by ISIS and i correct noted village Al Asfar. And also no one source not confirmed that clashes in Bir Hamam between Army vs ISIS. And SOHR only said that clashes between fighters and NDF in Ber Hamam area. But dont confirmed that fighting in the area of village Bir Hamam was between NDF against ISIS.SOHR So that I correctly noted the changes on the map. And how I said in this issue we need more data. And pro oppositione source also on 2 December only said that ISIS took over a rebel checkpoint in the Bir al-Qasb area in northern Daraa. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1722-syria-direct-news-update-12-3-14 about this also reported.Alaan Tv And we cant use Saudi source Al Arabia because many source said that Saudi Arabia previously supported by ISIS The AtlanticDaily PaulQatar Daily StarThe Daily BeastForeign PolicyYahoo NewsCNN and still support ISIS.AWD News And pro opposition map also confirms of my editing.here And reliable source said that ISIS only captured villge Bir al-Qassab France24 Hanibal911 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

well,what does this mean واستبق "داعش" هذا التقدّم، بنقل قوات كبيرة تابعة له، من مناطق سيطرته في ريف حمص الشرقي نحو منطقة الشقرانية في محافظة ريف دمشق، ليتمكّن من السيطرة عليها بسهولة ومن دون أي مقاومة، - See more at: http://www.alaraby.co.uk/politics/0c346e65-6636-4834-8a7d-bb570407fc66#sthash.3otCpTAO.dpuf translate it and you will understand the shaqraniyah edit,for SOHR i believe they forgot to put IS before fighters,for Asfar,the location is wrong,here it is http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.012694&lon=36.589279&z=11&m=b&show=/11464910/al-Asfar-Village.Alhanuty (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly as I said if SOHR dont said about ISIS we cant draw their own conclusions as I said it could be a run-in with local fighters. And dont have to invent because Al Arabiya not said about Al-Shaqraniyah. We need confirmation from English source which can clear said tha this village was captured ISIS. And how I said in this situation Al Arabia is biased source which clear opposes of Syrian regime in this conflict. So let's just wait and the situation will clear up by itself. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

well Al-Arabiya mentions Al-Shaqraniyah, وفي هذا السياق، قال الناشط أبو خلدون المعروفي من ريف السويداء، إن فصائل المعارضة السورية رصدت رتلاً عسكرياً لتنظيم "داعش" شرق قرية الشقرانية التي تقطنها عشائر من البدو، so,please Hanibal,just admit your mistake

Also Al-Araby is known to be a neutral source,more neutral than Al-Masdar.Alhanuty (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Arabia said that ISIS transfer of large affiliated forces from the controlled areas in east Homs toward Alhqranih area in Damascus province, to be able to easily control them and without any resistance. But source not said that ISIS captured village Ash Shuqraniyah which located in Dara province. And Al Arabia only said that ISIS transfer large forces from east Homs in area village Alhqranih (Alhqranih it is not Ash Shuqraniyah) in Damascus province that would be able to easily take control but did not say that ISIS took control this village and also village Ash Shuqraniyah loacate in Daraa province. And i never said that Al Masdar is more reliable source than Al Arabia. They are both biased but to different directions. Al Masdar in government side but Al Arabia in the rebel side. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So that the maximum wherein I could go wrong it is in relation to the village Al Asfar. And here I am ready to correct his mistake but in the rest I'm right. And as i said my words confirms pro-opposition source here which clear show that no ISIS in area wher located village Al-Shaqraniyah. So let's in as a compromise we stop on it. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal,i will give you the translation ,الشقرانية=Al-Shaqraniyah,so stop distorting info.Alhanuty (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Only in your fantasy. And your source talking about Alhqranih in tha Damascus province but village Al-Shaqraniyah locaed in Darra province so dear, you are contradict yourself to yourself. I also gave you a pro-opposition map here which confirms my words so Alhanuty take it easy. And in the future I recommend you to provide data from English sources to avoid misunderstandings and disputes. Regards Hanibal911 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal i am an arabic speaker and i understand Arabic clearly,you don't,do you want another arabic user to come here and translate it to you,it is going to embarrassing when he gives you the same translation.Alhanuty (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrissCh94,can you please translate الشقرانية to hanibal please.Alhanuty (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Archicivilians stated 2 hours ago that Bir Qasab was retaken by rebels( mainly IF)...too biased to take it seriously? Fab8405 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Shakraniyya ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty Pro opposition source Al Arabia dated on 29 November and its data is not confirm not one a reliable source. Also you have to understand that source says about the village in the Damascus province but you mark the village under the control of ISIS in the province of Darra. This is contrary to common sense. Also I provided in here pro-opposition source which dated 1 December and clear show that area where located a village Al-Shaqraniyah still is under control by regime troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also Al Arabia just said that activist Abu Khaldoun Maaroufi said that the Syrian opposition factions spotted ISIS military convoy to east from village Alhqranih where inhabited by tribes of nomads. But not said that ISIS entered in this village or captured it. Nevertheless 1 December biased pro-opposition source confirmed that the area where located the village of which you spoke is still under the control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti Assad source from December 5 no showing IS Presence in this area http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=a3b60f0c-7f1c-4666-b671-5753603361d6&c=a494ff50-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76&ch=a499ba40-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76 --Pototo1 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source Al Araby confirmded that ISIS captured some villages in Al Suweyda province. Also pro opposition map show that amry recaptured some areas but some villages still under control by ISIS.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra continues to offensive against moderate rebels

Jabhat al-Nusra executed 13 Syrian rebel in village Kawkaba to south part of Idlib province after JAN taken this village.An-NaharElijah J. MagnierSOHR Also reliable source reported that JAN stormed the town of Kafr_Nabudah SRF and FSA handed over all their weapons.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed Kafr Nubudah to JAN-held. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys you think Rastan should become JAN held? My vote is yes ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And my vote "yes". Many sources reported that Al-Nusra seized the city of Rastan. Egyptian source Masralarabia Al JazeeraAl QudsAkhbarakYemen Economist Pro oppositio source Al Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I support this change as well XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Erledigt I marked city of Al Rastan under control by Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Alepo Province

Acording to SOHR al-nusra captured the Aghoub Hill in al- Brej area hereLindi29 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Villages in Idlib

Can somebody find and add these villages in the map 2 are captured by SAA and 3 are captured by al-nusra i think 1 of the villages is contested in south idlib between al-nusra and the free syrian army Kafr Sajneh or it is only Sinja hereLindi29 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We cant just use data from progovernment sources to show the success of the army. So that we need confirmation this data from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought al-masdar was a reliable source ?! other users did make changes with news of al-masdar even if it is a pro-goverment source.Lindi29 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There is still some contention about Al-Masdar. I believe it can be used on its own due to its record of reliability. Still, those other users you refer to had corroboration from other sources. If you edit the map with just Al-Masdar, I would support it, but someone else might revert you, so I would wait for more sources. Also, you actually can use this source [without any opposition from other editors] to add the towns that JAN took from the rebels. Regards XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

IS & SAA advances west and south of Hasakah

Following news items from Aranews (pro-opp, but has correctly reported most of SAA advances in the zone) claim IS control of Rafraf & Mafraq al-Saddiq plus the al-Siddiq junction, and Makhrum being contested between the two sides.

http://aranews.net/2014/11/syrian-regime-resumes-anti-isis-attacks-hasakah/ http://aranews.net/2014/12/islamic-state-seizes-villages-near-syrias-hasakah/

Aranews also reported recently that SAA controlled Bab al-Kheir and al-Jimmo:

http://aranews.net/2014/11/hasakah-turmoil-violence-intensifies-pro-assad-forces-isis/

--186.119.184.83 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a source openly opposed against the Syrian regime. And already discussed this source and we can not use it in this issue. So that we cant use biased the anti-government sources to show success for anti government forces. Also more reliable source reported that village Rafraf under control by army.Elijah J. Magnier Also about that army captured two villages Bab al-Kheir and al-Jimmo also reported many other sources pro govTurkey NewsAl ManarAl Masdar pro opp Documents.sy and also this data confirm SOHR So the fact that too biased antigovernment source (Ara News) sometimes report true information does not make it reliable. So how pro government sources also sometimes report accurate information but this is no reason to use them to show the success of army. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This pro-government source [1] states that Rafraf,Mafrak AlSadeek,Um AlKebar and Tal Tamer are under ISIS control.192.135.12.144 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an authoritative source. You cannot just grab and page on Twitter, it has to be reliable. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OK! I can add them on the map but I dont know their coordinates. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

now Al-Alam confirmed it http://www.alalam.ir/news/1654439.Alhanuty (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

al tanf crosing border caotured by is İDHaberTakip (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You can proved reliable source which can confirmed you data? Because reliable source said that ISIS tried captured Al-Waleed border crossing from Iraqi side of border and failed.here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And source Al Arabia said that sixteen border guards, including a captain, were killed and four wounded in an attack targeting their headquarters in Al-Walid, near the Syrian border. But not said that this border crossing was taken by ISIS.Al Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done until a source is provided. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday well-known source Elijah J Magnier was talking about this on Twitter...he specified there was images of the attack and partial takeover by IS only about the Iraqi side of the border, not the Syrian one( there is a long distance, in a desert area, between the Iraqi and Syrian side). Fab8405 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Qala'at Al Madiq - Hama

I have searched all available local news networks (pro-regime and pro-opp) and I can't find any clear information about the situation in Qala'at Al Madiq. Does anyone have a source that can help us know if it is: Besieged by the SAA - Contested - Under Truce - SAA held? The reason behind my query is that this village is strategic since it is considered the gateway to Al Ghab plain and and the second gateway to southern Idlib (other than Morek that is). So any useful sources on the situation? According to this source it is SAA held: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/529701072777256960/photo/1 I also found that Huwwayjah village (slightly north of Qala'at Al Madiq) is rebel-held according to this relatively neutral source: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/529002015062777856/photo/1 ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Only thing I've been able to scrounge up is this (assumedly pro-op) directory of rebel brigades - it lists Falcons of al-Ghab (Tajammu Suqour al-Ghab) as being headquartered in Qala'at al Madiq and is the sole source of the wikiarticle on the group. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Washington Institute report titled "The Potential for an Assad Statelet in Syria" lists Qala'at Al Madiq as rebel held (pages 23 and 24) - written 12 months ago Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I haven't seen any reports about conflicts there, not by SOHR not by SANA not by ANYBODY! So you guys think it's under some sort of ceasefire/truce? ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, but who knows. It's right on the frontline, so it doesn't fit the pattern of a ceasefire site, which have typically been isolated or surrounded areas. Let's keep looking for definitive confirmation on who controls it presently. In any case, I have to imagine that if/when the SAA makes a push into southern Idlib, up to date sources will present themselves. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC) That's the annoying part! How come such an important town has so little info about it? ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article about Qalaat al-Madiq (& sources in there):

“… anti-government rebels gained control over much of the town, but the Syrian Army has maintained its position in the fortress, which overlooks the town. In September 2011 the police were evicted from the town by the rebels there. Services are provided to Qalaat al-Madiq's residents by rebel groups in the town, the largest of which is Suqour al-Ghab faction which fights under the banner of the FSA. In March 2012 Qalaat al-Madiq was shelled and targeted by heavy fire for a successive 17 days by the Syrian Army in an attempt to oust rebel forces. On 28 March the army entered the town, but were unable to take full control of it. Since the March clashes, there has been a relative ceasefire between the two sides, with a few incidents where the army has allegedly attacked demonstrations, which have continued in Qalaat al-Madiq, as of late November 2012.”

So since there is no news of clashes, it might be that the status quo has persisted to this day. Also, notice on our map all the checkpoints around the town (they were sourced to a Sep 2013 report by the Institute for the Study of War based on a video by a rebel group). So the army seems to have this area under some sort of a containment… Tradedia^talk 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

FSA fighter claiming that JAN captured him in Qalat al Madiq here Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Highway between Homs - Deir Ez Zor

Hey guys someone have there is data from reliable source about who controls it is highway. Which passes from the city of Homs through the city of Palmyra to the city of Deir Ez Zor. Because i found map which show that this highway still under control by army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles on Al-Masdar frequently imply that this road is still controlled by the government. Several of their reports about fighting in Eastern Homs have mentioned the importance of the supply route to Deir Ez Zour.

Haven't seen a source specifically mention to two major transit towns al-Sulah and Kabajeb in months. Is the SAA supplying via Highway 7? Or airdrops like Nubl and al Zahraa? Pieter v map shows the area as IS held. Unclear. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This highway is controlled by the army since October 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vudzW9u0BPA but no with extensive military presence ISIS cross this zone many times in Direction to Raqqah. --Pototo1 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bun other map show that this highway still under control by army.here Since, unlike Shia towns Nublo and Al Zahra the city of Deir Ez Zor too large and strategically important for government and would not be possible to maintain this city using only the supply of arms and ammunition on air. Also would be very difficult to supply fuel and heavy weapons into the city. Also this would be very difficult to supply fuel and heavy weapons into the city for the to continue fights against ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also here map which showed that ISIS fighters just attack this area where passes this highway but not said that now ISIS fully control this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Very true. Doubtful that either side has complete control or set positions Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My guess would be that the Army doesn't actually control the road 24/7 but that they occasionally use it to send in a very well protected supply convoy.

The Army can resupply Deir Ez Zor every the time using this road with tons of munitions, but it's not possible permanent presence in this way it's a desert, many areas in Black on these maps just need to be writhe the ISIS in Syria got too low manpower for controlled all this black territory --Pototo1 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So maybe that the some villages (Kabajeb and Al-Shulah) which located on this highway need marked in red with black circles around. According this mapherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh. I'd say more sources needed. The SAA probably goes down the road with well protected supply convoys to supply Deir el Zor, but we don't have any indication that they actually have a permanent presence/occupying force in any towns that far East of as-Sukhnah Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably you're right. But we know that, according to pro opposition map that the village of Bayt Alyawi Zubaylan which located near highway and a village of Nujayb which located on this highway for now under army control. So I suggest for now add those villages to the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Nujayb on the desyracuse map? As goes Bayt Alyawi Zubaylan - I mean, yea, go ahead and add it if you want, but, why? It's 2 random buildings right next to Bayt Hassun al Ahmad, which is already on our map. That's my take on it. But, no objections if you think it's necessary. The one thing that makes me uneasy about it though, is that desyracuse is the lone source. I mean, look at the Nawa area on his map - it's so outdated - THAT is precisely why I'm always against using these amateur maps as lone sources. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is anything coming of the "Presence" icons suggestions? This would be a perfect place to use them - between Kabajeb (IS) and Kasrat Faraj (SAA) we should mark both IS and SAA presence Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid Here pro opposition map show that part of highway which goimg from Deir ez Zor still contolled by army.here But who controls this highway further still unknown. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh - Qalamoun, again

Here's Pototo arbitrarily removing lime circles. Here is me reverting. Here is him doing the same, again. Here is the conversation. Here, I restored, again, the sites he vandalized/unsourced edited. And finally, here our good friend LogFTW, still on a 6 month ban from this page, has restored Pototo's vandalistic edit. I can't revert or I'll break 1RR, and I feel like I'm opening myself up for charges of edit warring, but this has got to stop. I'm starting to wonder if this is sock puppetry. In any case, the trend is pretty obvious - I mean, LogFTW was willing to violate a 6 month page ban to support Pototo's clearly unsourced and blatantly false pro-gov't edit.

Concerning the Qalamoun region in general - I am for removing all of the lime concentric circles (Assal al Ward, Ras al Maara, etc) as soon as new icons for showing combatant's presence in a general area are ready to be applied to the map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Green_Circles_in_Al-Jebbah_and_Ras_al-Maraa_should_be_removed_if_you_no_have_sources.

You no have sources to make these green circles in these towns

End of Discussion. --LogFTW (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not make them. They were already there, and Pototo removed them without a source. All I did was to revert his unsourced edit. I do not need to provide a source to keep the map as is; you need to provide a source to change it. What is it with this reverse logic? An unsourced edit is made, reverted, then the first editor accuses the second of not using a source to revert an unsourced edit lol. You are banned from editing the module for 6 months for exactly this type of behavior. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Waleed border crossing

News are saying that isis attacked the border crossing and killed 16 iraqi soliders. here.here.here.hereshould it go contested.Lindi29 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29 Al Waleed border crossing located on Iraqi side of border. And reliable source said that ISIS tried captured Al-Waleed border crossing from Iraqi side of border but failed.here This issue has already been discussed.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see a possible other unsourced green circle in Qalamun Again

Some one put a green circle in North of Rankous Link a STRONG evidences it's besiege on North or ill be deleted that.

Stop to putting besiege / Blocked towns alleging just small insurgents "Presence" so we can put all Green Towns in South Idlib, North Of Latakia with red semicircles on South because the Army have a presence there too.

Be mature use the logic. --Pototo1 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Check. the. edit. log. That circle is there per pro-gov't al Masdar. Same as with all the other green circles you took down - you didn't even check the backlog for the sources validating them. You just took them down arbitrarily without even looking.Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

True al masdar said JAN tried to enter Rankous but were pushed back . Because Arsaal is in control by Lebonese army they try to get in town its freezing in the mountains now .Pyphon (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

IS advance in Deir-ez-Zor

Reports on https://twitter.com/archicivilians of IS offensive around Deir-ez-Zor airport, claiming control of al-Mari'yah and advancing in the Jafrah area. Fab8405 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the biased anti-government source which clear show that he opposed to Syrian regime and we cant use data from this source in this issue. Need confirmation those data from the more neutral and reliable source. But still thank you for sharing the information. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Most news from archivilians and co. are retweeted from this channel, Syrian Opposition Department, pro-opposition obviously but not really biased, it has around 200k followers. You can scroll and look what they wrote about Deir Ezor and ISIS presence. Here are some SOHR reports from these days, 1, 2 and 3DuckZz (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We can use the data from SOHR in this issue but we cant use too biased data from from archivilians of Syrian Opposition Department This sources too biased and opposed by Syrian regime and it is data not neutral and cant be used in this issue. Regars! Hanibal911 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The two sources you linked are both pro-opp and cannot be used to show ISIS gains. Also, SOHR has had a very shoddy record with providing accurate information about Deir-Ez-Zoir [Failed to report airport clearing, failed to report SAA advances at Sakr Island, etc]. SOHR has made multiple posts within the last few months citing "advancements" for ISIS, only for them to turn out false. I suspect SOHR is now using ISIS as a source [who else are they talking to on the front lines?] We should wait for more sources. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro-opp say ISIS advanced but pro-regime deny it so NO changes till now. However this pro-opp map can help us confirm what the regime controls in Deir l Zoor city/countryside: https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/540281344891187200/photo/1 ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If it shows anything in favor of SAA. By the looks of it however, I do not think so. SAA control of Saker Island is VASTLY understated, ISIS control in city center is overstated, and area east of Airbase is marked as ISIS held, which is not true. In side news, several commentators on SOHR's facebook page are now ranting and raving about how SAA has fled the airbase, ISIS has stormed airbase, massive SAA casulties, and well, you get the idea. Expect clearer news to arrive very soon. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwSN45Ovcgs&feature=youtu.be, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-fighters-capture-village-near-key-syrian-air-base/, http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/middle-east/story/isis-seizes-part-key-air-base-east-syria-monitor-group-20141206, Quite a few changes warranted here. I made one change, but someone else has to edit the inset map of Deir Ezzor to reflect IS changes there.

Hasakah Governate New Map

some of the town are in isis controll but in the old hasakah map are in SSA controll so we should change them ? hereLindi29 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The map is a pro-opp source and cannot be used to reflect rebel/ISIS gains. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this pro-govt source IS withdrew from the village Makhrum southwest of Hasakah after YPG attacked it:

https://www.facebook.com/Somar.Hatem.News/posts/528756497227943

I understand fb sources cannot be used for changes but has someone seen other sources that confirm or deny this information?

179.32.127.90 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS offensivein and Army counter-offensivein in Al Mari'iyah

Opp.s.: #Islamic_State has captured Al-Mari'iyah area and clashes with #SAA in Jaffra village, located SE of #Deir_Ezzor Airport. #Syria source: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/540267300776333313 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrhorace (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Opposition Sources are not reliable to report ISIS gains. Peto Lucem is pro-gov, but he is quoting Opp-sources. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No need in debate because SOHR clear said that 19 members from the regime forces and NDF died when an IS militant blew himself up in a booby- trapped vehicle yesterday night at al- Masemekeh Building located in the vicinity of the airbase of Deir Ezzor, and due to the clashes followed the suicide bombing in Hwayjet al- Mre’eyyi area near the airbase, coincided with IS violent shelling on the regime held village of al- Jafra and its positions inside the airbase.SOHR So that SOHR clear saud that the village Jafra still under control by army and ISIS only shelling of this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this link http://syriadirect.org/rss/1729-syria-direct-news-update-12-4-14 Jaffra has been conquered by ISIS, and I quote:

"“Jafra is a town that sits opposite the airport on the other side of a main road connecting Deir e-Zor city to its eastern countryside,” a citizen journalist from Deir e-Zor city told Syria Direct Thursday, confirming the fall of the town from regime control to the Islamic State." Hence changes must be made in this map and in the Deir-Ez-Zor map, large offensive from ISIS from southeast on the march. Gomes89 (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by reliable sources, Al Meri'iyah and Jafrah under IS control, who also attacks in Saqr Island to sorround the Airport. https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/540547861826764802 Fab8405 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Meri'iyah teken by ISIS but not Jafrah. ISIS just gained control on new areas in it after violent clashes but clashes still ongoing.SOHRSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Mari'iyah to ISIS-held and Jafra contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I support this. At least the eastern part of Jafra contested. Problem we will have in the future is, however, how will we know if the SAA launches a counterattack? SOHR has not been helpful in reporting SAA gains in Deir-Ez-Zor. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Detailed report from Al Masdar [2]: basically Al-Mari’ayyi contested Jafra in SAA control. Fighting ongoing in several areas.95.244.159.103 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is reporting normally in Deir Ez-Zor. So, Elijah is one of the most reliable sources of Syria, so Mariyah IS held, and Jafra contested on the map. Someone should edit the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.185.190 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR informed that the IS took control al-Jafra village between Hweja Saker and the military airport and reached the gates of the airport after violent clashes against regime forces.source Hanibal911 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The reliable source reported that Army during the counter-offensive recovered Al Mari'iyah from IS and regain control of the Deir-ezzour airport perimeter from IS.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

He also implied that ISIS is not in fact in Jaffra or has been repelled here https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/540979262506143744. Should I change the map? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported about clashes between IS and the regime forces on the mountain overlooking Deir Ezzor. In this mountain there are a radar and an artillery battery and separates the airbase and the regime - held neighborhood of Deir Ezzor. Information reported that IS militants could control some positions and seize heavy machine guns and artillery, while the clashes resulted in the death of some regime elements.SOHR And ISIS took control on the missiles battalion to northeast of the Airport.SOHR But later SOHR informed that the IS advances in area the airport stopped after heavy shelling and bombardment by regime forces. Also ISIS pulled back from areas in the mount overlooking Deir ez Zor where located a radar and artillery battery after it was exposed heavy bombardment a regime forces.SOHRSOHRElijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean that the SAA retook the radar and artillery battalion? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did Al Meri'iyah turn back red? I know yesterday Magnier said this, but was before the late night- today morning offensive...if they are at the airport entrance, Al Mery'iyah is obviously black. Fab8405 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Two things. First, I need a source for the fact that ISIS is at the airport entrance. Latest SOHR post said they were repelled from the perimeter and out of the mountains. Second, you cannot assume that since they are at the entrance, then Al Mery'iyah is black. That is original research. You need a source that says that ISIS has recaptured it. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

From Elijah J Magnier, SyAF attacks IS positions in Al Meri'iyah and Sakr Island, so at least Al Meri'iyah is contested. https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/541605045314543617 Fab8405 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

desyracuse

Redundant post - This, the situation depicted in Daraa/Nawa is waaay out of date on desyracuse's map - THIS is why these random amateur maps should not be used as SOLE sources. Just felt the need to throw that out there, again. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid About situation with the city Nawa and surrounding areas pro opposition sources @deSyracuse later 10 November issued an amendment here for this Map. And then periodically publish updates for some areas in map.Situation in Kobane on 15 NovemberSituation in Kobane on 20 NovemberSItuation around Nubl and Al Zahra on 25 NovemberSituation in Kobane on 25 NovemberSituation in Hasakah governorate on 26 NovemberSituation in Kobane on 28 NovemberNorth Aleppo battle 30 NovemberNEW MAP #Damascus frontline evolution March 2013 to Nov 2014 Here link to site this source.Agathocle de Syracuse Hanibal911 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Do Something for stop the systematic Boredwhytekid vandalism in Qalamoun Area.

The user Boredwhytekid is doing systematic vandalism in Qalamoun area he or other pro Insurgent editor are drawing there green circles who no exit or he just is not got a good documentation about that (Is irrelevant who made these green circles because are incorrect anyway) -

• The Syrian Army in April 2014 took the control from al-Jebbah Here is the Official Syrian TV Report this is well know for ALL!

• In April too the Syrian Army captured Ras Maara Here is the Diadly Star source (A lot more exist just need to used Google) SINCE TODAY I NO FOUND A SINCE SOURCE TALKING ABOUT INSURGENT PRESENCE AL-JEBBAH OR RAS MARAA AREA

Boredwhytekid just no have sources for draw or keep these green circles there because that no exit very simple

• No sources no changes --Pototo1 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No sources no changes - those circles were there, you took them down without a source. And now you say, no sources no changes. There is no point talking to you. Those circles went up mid-October, based on this article, that specifies Jebbah AND the road/area between there and Assal al-Ward. You have not posted a single source negating this. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

those circles present the Jurud area,the mountain area near to the towns,because these moutains are under rebel control,the battlefield in the Qalamoun is different,than the rest of Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree! In this case semicircles are needed that would show that the rebels are still in the area and sometimes there are clashes in the area of these cities. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• This Field report Al Alam TV is in November from 2014 is the West from Assal Al Ward https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8AwcfSb3No how you can see in Assal Al Ward is not besieged on the West and I Let the Kid keep his green semi circle there.

The question is simple =

Are these towns blocked / Besiege in all the west sector by the Insurgents ?

No it's not.

If you put semi circles in these towns in Qalamoun you should need to put green circles in ALL Greens Towns in Homs province, in ALL Green towns of North of Idlib province and all green towns of North of Latakia, in all Greens tonws because clashed are usual there with army troops.

The Insurgents presence there is low they are no able there to made important actions against the Army basically just low scale armed activities - The Situation is very different in Jordan / Israeli border.

Minor clash is not enough evidence to make a entire west side for these towns under permanent siege In Qalamoun region the Army have a clear military superiority over the Insurgents so how can the Insurgents in this way made a permanent siegue in the West side of these towns ?

Just look Hirak town in Daraa in fron is the Brigade 52 base we should put Hirak blocked in the west by the Army too?

I'm against to put these greens circles in Qalamoun based on

• Nothing sources or too vague most sources talking only Assal Al Ward (Zone when the Green Circle are not removed)

• The solid Army control in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa is well know since April 2014.

• The Army got a very extensive military superiority against the Insurgents in Qalamoun

• The only zones when I have information from Insurgent activity is Assal al Ward and his attacks were defeated.

• The Qalamoun Battle finish time ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qalamoun

• Wikipedia old Map showing them with nothing insurgent presence near Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qalamoun#mediaviewer/File:Battle_of_Qalamoun.svg

• Lucem Map show nothing insurgent presence near Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu6MGKyIEAA46Ji.jpg

• The Lebanese Army fight the Insurgents and no let them used Lebanon as safe Territory (Different Situation with Turkey, Jordan, Israel) .

The Kid claim "Few presence of rebels still there" but clear insurgents group 100% in some cases is just impossible some examples = PKK in Turkey, FARC guerilla in Colombia, Drug Cartels in Mexico --Pototo1 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I just don't get the importance of those half circles (red or green doesn't matter). Just chill guys even if someone added them it doesn't change much.. just notes heavy armed presence nothing more so take it easy. Both of you Boredwhytekid and Pototo1 have helped make this map what it is now so try to maintain this consistency. Cheers to constructive discussion ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Gotta disagree with you buddy - though, in light of Andre's new icons, the half circles will be removed and this whole discussion is voided. Beforehand though, they are/were strategically important as the only indication on this map that the Qalamoun front existed, actively. That's important. They're important as a matter of principle too - editors can't just go removing things from the map without posting sources. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know that but I meant it isn't as important as adding new dots or changing their colours. I'm just trying to defuse the situation here by lowering their importance COMPARED to other aspects of the map. Good thing the problem has been solved with the Rural Presence thing ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So now we have icons to show fighting outside of towns and villages for every combatant group , its going to get very conjested as you cant just have this for one area or one group . I am against this but if this is what the majority want then goodluck .Pyphon (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

You can use the "Rural presence" Icons --Pototo1 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nubl and Zaharā

The circles must be there since both are besieged but the color must be Gray not Green.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is basically Al Qaeda is in all greens towns others groups like Islamic Front are considerate moderated rebels but their doctrine is the Same than AQ.

The Insurgents launch very powerful attempts to captured Zahara and I think the Islamic front was with them --Pototo1 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And pro government map confirm that moderate rebels besieged those towns. Syrian Al-Quds brigade in FB released this map of Aleppo City + Countryside.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Popoto1 and Hanibal911. Numerous (non-official) twitter reports support IF and/or FSA involvement. Note that al-Nusra is far from dominant among the rebels in Aleppo.

Also I would not say that IF has the same doctrine as AQ. The official declarations of IF imply elections of some sort and never a caliphate, in contrast with al-Nusra. In addition to the level of brutality of al-Nusra. Not saying al-Nusra is as bad as Daesh, but their doctrines are much closer. André437 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

IS in Ghouta ?? Some green needs to be turned grey here ??

See tweet from reliable source Elijah J. Magnier: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/540587708163555328 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.129.12 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hardly. Magnier tends to be pro-regime, and doesn't take the rebels seriously. So it is not surprising that he amplifies the few defections from rebel ranks to the ISIS.

As well, with barrel bombs, air strikes, heavy artillery and the extensive systematic torture, the Assad regime is a much bigger, more violent enemy of Syrians, except maybe the relatively small part of the population in ISIS-dominated areas. Meaning that some rebels will be tempted to join the ISIS just to fight Assad. André437 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Source Elijah J. Magnier this is one of more than neutral and reliable sources which tells the true information. It is international correspondent which reported about situation in war zones in Middle East and Europe. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless he has changed radically from one to two years ago, Magnier is not present in Syria and has few local contacts, and often "fills in the blanks" (presumes from limited info), to produce false or misleading posts. When in doubt, he tends to favour regime positions. Note that Robert Fisk is an international correspondent with numerous awards, but is highly unreliable. So being an "international correspondent" doesn't necessarily mean much. André437 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of such incorrect posts? So far in covering the ISIS-SAA conflict in Deir-Ez-Zor over the past few days, he has been more reliable than all other sources/ XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Andre can you point to specific examples where he was wrong about something he posted? Otherwise its just a disparaging remark on your part.

Disparaging remarks are what he says to anyone who disagrees with his views .Pyphon (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Specific examples would date at least a year back, largely about the situation in the south. At the time he was definitely not in Syria. I'm not saying that he tries to be partisan, but there were many cases where his reports were later proven to be misinformed. Other "reliable sources" abstained at the time for lack of info. He didn't.

In sum, all I'm saying that it would be better to wait for confirmation from other sources. André437 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Any visual evidences from ISIS presence in As-Suwayda province exist ?

I know we no used random photos or videos from the Insurgents but is important to know

Any visual evidence from the ISIS in As-Suwayda province exit ?

Is possible to know the veracity of video comparing the structures visible on the video / Pothos with google earth--Pototo1 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer your question, but here is a guide to major ISIS presence in Syria (and Iraq).

It doesn't try to cover small locations, or isolated zones, but at least it presents major areas where they have a strong presence or control. Note that even in Raqqa, they don't have a strong presence in most of the territory. I think that this reflects the reality. How could they, with only 10000 to 30000 combatants (depending on the guestimates) have even a significant presence in a territory as large as Syria ? (counting both Syria and Iraq)

The group producing this map is a major independent international conflict think tank based in the U.S. They have a mailing list if you are interested in following their detailed analyses, which appear almost every day (for Syria and/or Iraq) see. André437 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This is cool as source so is the ISW is well know for their anti Assad tendency. --Pototo1 (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering the numerous condemnations by the UN and affiliated organizations of the Assad regime for gross violation of human rights, and the massive civilian protests against the regime, one should expect that any objective reporting would be anti-Assad regime on average. Note that ISW positions are often critical of US gov't policies. Although currently focusing on Syria and Iraq, they cover other armed conflicts as well. André437 (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

new icons

Just to make everything more complicated ;) , there are now new icons intended to show a presence in rural areas. (That is, outside cities and towns.)
Up to now, we have been using the besieged-one-side semicircles for that, but that has led to evident confusion and controversy. Thanks to Hanibal911 for ideas to work around this problem.
In the caption under the "control" icons there are now "rural presence" icons.
Originally the idea was a 4x4 grid of dots, but 3x3 seems to show the different colours better, since the dots are so small. I put both shapes there. When we have a consensus, I'll remove the unwanted ones. Enjoy :) André437 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

More complicated ,more conjested and more arguments this map was designed to show who controls cities and towns .If you really want to show presents in barren areas you should have made shaded areas like most other peoples maps do or extend the city maps all over Syria .Good luck with it .Pyphon (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

There has already been a consensus to show rebel presence in the Damascus province area using semicircles. This resulted from a recognition that such rebel presence had a significant impact on the situation. André437 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to and have never removed any icon from this map this so called consensus is made up of about 4 editors and I for one will give my opinion and if you ANDRE don't like it well its to bad .Also you stated that this was created to show rebel presence in Damascus , are you saying its only Damascus or for everywhere and all combatant groups? Pyphon (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Pyphon, what is your objection to the "presence" icons? Is it truly just that this map was originally intended just to show the situation in populated places and you think that's how it should remain? I don't get that. If we're all here out of some sort of interest in the Syrian war, then we have an interest in showing the reality of active combat zones anywhere in the country. We can use these icons to update Qalamoun (personal crusade lol) as we can use them to show the SAA presence along the highway to Deir el-Zor - those two applications alone make me on board with using them widely. Idk. Any way we can show a more accurate depiction of the conflict as a whole is an asset in my book. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bored .Thanks for your polite comment (unlike andres threats and bullying )First as you know I have always been unbiased in that I like clear confirmation before any changes be them saa or rebel are made to our map and this will present a challenge trying to get reliable info on areas such as barrens ,wastelands and other such areas .Its difficult to get editors to agree on cities and towns let alone these unpopulated areas .Second every time fighting is reported anywhere outside a city ,town or village editors will be asking for new icons which they have every right to do and the net result will be more and more icons and arguments about removing them .Third recently rebels tried to enter Rankous but were pushed back .That's as much as we know ,how far back ,where is the icon going to go .I know you want a accurate depiction and understand why you believe this is needed along with other editors so as I said (before being accused of vandalism} I do not think its helpful but I wish you good luck buddy ;)Pyphon (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

WOW ! that's a big bad ass icon lol .A few dozen of them and its going to get funky baby .Pyphon (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Haha smart aleck. To point - I think the dearth of reliable information is precisely why we need these icons. We know the rebels are in both Eastern and Western Qalamoun but don't have sources. Same for the SAA running supplies to Deir el-Zor. And for the IS in that blank stretch on our map between Raqqa province and their holdings in eastern Homs province. Place one of these big bad ass babies right smack in the middle of those zones and issue resolved until definitive sources come. You're right about the arguing, but, I've come to realize that's a mainstay of this talk page no matter what lol. Look, in one fell swoop all argument about Ras al-Maara, Jebbah, Flitah is POOF! Gone baby. Seriously though I hope your objection to the use of the icons will not keep you from lending your two sense as to where/when they are appropriate. Boredwhytekid (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok lets see how it works out. Pyphon (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Sorry Pyphon, for the negative comments. I had confused you with another editor. (A side effect of doing things instead of sleeping.) I commented out the negative parts. Hopefully you can accept my apology.

BTW, even though I made the icons, it wasn't initially my idea. I mentioned Damascus since using some icon to represent presence was discussed for areas in the Damascus governorates, but of course it could be applied anywhere that is appropriate. André437 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Andre437 Ok we all make mistakes you do a great job with the icons .Pyphon (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Talbise, Homs

From SOHR Talbise is contested [3].79.54.139.69 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Likely clashes in the western outskirts of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

IS positions in SE Damascus/N Suwayda

Why did they become red? The discussion over the past days seemed to have shown this presence...Fab8405 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This last anti Assad source no showing IS Activity in this place. http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=a3b60f0c-7f1c-4666-b671-5753603361d6&c=a494ff50-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76&ch=a499ba40-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76

When IS captured something is very usual to see mass beheading, executions and a lot evidences (Tons of photos and videos) right now the Only actions against the Army are on Deir Ez Zor Airport. --Pototo1 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What troubles me with the supposed IS presence in Suwayda, is the the IS (at least according to IS wikipedia article) has not made any claim of this teritory.Rhocagil (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think IS claims go from Spain to India passing for Africa...;according to archicivilians Bir Qasab is contested between IS and Rebels https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/541199007062585345 and the same American source talked about IS presence in the area http://iswsyria.blogspot.it/ ....about Suwayda, I think the previous discussion was exhaustive...Fab8405 (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

ISW says "IS cells reportedly emerged...prompting JN to deploy a heavily armed convoy..." The wording implies that the reports are unconfirmed. Moreover, it also implies that the regime does not control the areas. We need an icon for "unknown control." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckTheMad (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun

I suggest adding the dotted square thing, that you guys added in Western Qalamoun, in the Eastern Qalamoun region. It's fair considering both regions contain a relatively high number of rebels waging a guerrilla war against static SAA positions. Rebels can also travel easily between those 2 regions so it only makes sense adding that new dotted symbol in Eastern Qalamoun ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. There are also 2 black and 2 red ones that I think should be added. Red one between Kasrat Faraj and Kabajeb to show that the SAA runs supplies to Deir el Zor. Red one between Rasm Abu Alba and Al-Hamam to show the same but to Aleppo. Black one between T2 pumping station and Jabal al Ghurab. And a black one between Jubb al-Abyad and Qastal al Ghazi to show the IS presence between Raqqa province and their holdings in eastern Homs/Hama provinces. I think those, combined with the 2 green ones for Eastern/Western Qalamoun, are the spots of biggest need for this icon. And hopefully we can avoid argument seeing as how we'd be adding 2 for each side. Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Abu al-duhur airbase

At least four villages around Abu al-duhur airbase marked contested changed to green. Why? I is there a source for this? where? Please change back or please enlighten with a source.Rhocagil (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have same question. --Pototo1 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The villages were changed to green because the same source that was used to mark them contested (see Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Abu Duhur Airbase), later said the army went back to airport after hit & run attack: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/538330384359235584 Also pro-gov source (https://www.facebook.com/news.edlib/posts/1577309989167381) confirmed it. Elijah J. Magnier (the main source) further explains that “SAA won't spread in an exposed area when the airport represents a better shelter and defense line”.

However, later, this edit reverted back to contested based on http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-december-2014_23532#13/35.7665/37.1334 However, if you look at the map source and if you click on the red dot labeled “Humaymat ad Da’ir”, it will write: “On November 27, reports of Government troops coming from Abu Duhur base, seizing Humaymat”. Notice that the date is 27 November. This is a day before the source that was used to make the villages green. So this desyracuse map is based on the attack (27 Nov), but does not take into account the return of troops to the airport (28 Nov). This is all in spite of desyracuse map being dated “8 december”. So the desyracuse map is outdated compared to our map. It is therefore a shame that our map was correct, but we made it wrong because we copied an outdated map! We should realize that a map on the internet made by some amateur is not a real source. A source is a professional media organization. Amateur maps on the internet (desyracuse, Syrian perspective/petolucem, Thomas von linge, archicivilian, etc.) are not professional media organizations, but rather they are our competitors. Therefore, they should be used with extreme care.

Notice that previously to the attack, desyracuse map (for example the one dated November 8) had only the airport in red (and all other villages around it in green). So he made the villages red or contested because of the hit & run attack of Nov 27. However, he did not realize that the troops have returned back to airport. We were better than him this time and we might be better than him in the future… So keep that in mind, and use these amateur maps with extreme care. A real source is a media organization that has journalists on the ground and are reporting on what they are seeing… We don’t always have great sources to use, however, that does not mean that we should forget that some of the things we use to edit our map are shaky and should be used with care and a healthy dose of skepticism. The fact that desyracuse is considered pro-opp did not prevent him from overstating gov control around Abu Duhur! I am sure he didn’t do it on purpose. It’s just that it is hard to keep track of all the events (I wonder if he has research assistants) and no one called him from the airport to tell him the troops came back… Tradedia^talk 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point, well explained. Why, among other factors, maps with dated annotations are much better. André437 (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

TradediaThis source only said that army returned to air base. But source dont say that all military returned or the fact that they left the villages which was captured. Elijah J. MagnierAnd also this source just said that the villages had been captured but dont say that the all military just left the village because they could leave for protection of these villages NDF.here So need more data! 08:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

Also area where located village al khashir was marked as contested earlier in August because then it confirmed other pro opposition source.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement by Elijah J. Magnier: “SAA returned to air base.” was in response to the question: “Did they fall back or still hold those two villages?” So it means that the troops are no longer in the villages. Also, his statement: “SAA won't spread in an exposed area when the airport represents a better shelter and defense line” confirms this. We have to keep in mind the context. These are troops that have been under siege in the airport for a long time surrounded from every side by rebels. They are not in a position to keep control of towns. If in addition to this, we are not seeing reports of clashes in the area, then the most likely conclusion is that the troops returned to the airport.

The pro-gov source does say they returned to airport. Here is a translation of the source giving details about the operation:

“In early morning, army units heavily armed moved from Abu Duhur airport under cover of artillery and air force and began combing operations at the airport perimeter from the northern side until they reached the village of Humaimat Waldeyer 6 km north of the airport and the village was stormed by surprise and in hours has control of the village and combed and destroyed the nests of insurgents. Then the troops continued to progress to Almstrihh village 10 km north of the airport. The village was also stormed and violent clashes broke during which the Air Force intervened and destroyed a number of militants trucks. And after combing Almstrihh village at the time of sunset troops returned to airport and the results were successful where they killed and wounded dozens of terrorists and destroy their vehicles and their hideouts and captured a number of them also were confiscated light weapons and ammunition in addition to the herd of sheep was in one of the dens of terrorists in the vicinity of Humaimat Waldeyer. On the other hand, there were some light and medium injuries among the troops” (my emphasis added)

Now this is a real source! And not the “one sentence” articles that you have been linking… This here tells you the whole story. The source is called “شبكة ادلب الأسد الاخبارية” which translates into “Assad Idlib News Network”. So they are based in the governorates & specialize in military events in the governorate. This is as opposed to other general media who will just copy the news in one uninformative sentence…

Concerning al khashir, archicivilians in the link you provide says: ”No clear information about who is controlling al-Khashir checkpoint, but it was destroyed and burned by rebels in 2013” So since there is ”no clear information”, the right thing to do would be to comment out al-Khashir until more clear information becomes available. Tradedia^talk 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah province

According to Almasdar news villages Al-Siyyaha and Touq Al-Malah in west Al-Hasakah were taken over by SAA from ISIS. I know there is a discussion about the neutral reliability in Almasdar... But anyway I can´t find the villages on the map, so can someone please put them out.Rhocagil (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

But for now about this reported only government or pro government sources.Electronic ResistanceSyria 24Islamic Iinvitation TurkeySyrian Perspective Hanibal911 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Hanibal you are good with the map, could you fid the villages and put them out. red - black - contested, I don´t know? but still put them them out there. :) Rhocagil (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:

Can someone revert this edit? I already reverted 1x. The user has been blocked for making this edit. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the rule for vandalism unlimited reverts ? And aren't the edits of a blocked editor automatically considered vandalism ? If I'm not mistaken ... André437 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right, but was not going to press my luck and risk a block myself Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Map

I have removed {{Syrian Civil War detailed map}}, for the time being. It currently breaks the page. If it can be brought down to a reasonable size and remain useful, then it can be restored. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

The template was replaced by a scribunto module, for that very reason, so it is obsolete, and can be deleted.

The scribunto module uses much less memory and works very well. André437 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference below says that the template was automatically restored, and it turns out that it is necessary to access the module André437 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The map is far too large for any reasonable screen, and the page takes an extremely long time to load. The {{navbar|Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map}} does nothing useful, it does not take one to the appropriate places when clicked (I have removed it but you can test it in the history version). The module itself generates about 8,500 lines of HTML, about three quarters of the 11,500+ lines of the whole page, which runs to 2,961 kilobytes. Without the map the page (unsurprisingly) loads in about 3 seconds, which is reasonable for such a large page.

If this level of detail is needed, then I would suggest splitting the page by governorate, and maintaining an overview here.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

See also. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

I would disagree with splitting the map, as often the overlap between that adjacent governorates is very useful for understanding the situation. Many conflict zones cross governorate borders. (e.g. Homs/Hama, Hama/Idlib, Idlib/Aleppo, Quneitra/Daraa, among others. Only a few governorates are not much affected.) Note that when the map was much smaller, with many fewer points coded, it was still fairly slow to load. Switching to scribunto module sped that up considerably. Now it generally loads in much less than a minute. I would expect that users interested in following the map would likely leave it loaded, so the load time should not be a deterrent.

As for having to scroll to see the whole map, that is very easily done, as least in the desktop mode. The only down side is that the icon index only shows up when at the bottom near the left. (It is normally possible in html to code a floating index, but personally I don't know how.)

If the navbar removed wasn't automatically restored, its' removal doesn't seem to have led to any loss of function. All the clickable links seem to work as before. Even a (usually accidental) click on the background still links to the blank background image, which is rather inconvenient.

I do agree that it would be much better to document everything on the main page (where the map is transluded), but it depends on editors to do the work in a fast changing situation. The editors are few and overloaded. However, as noted, changes are documented on the talk page. André437 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot access the map anymore. What should I do to be able to edit it again?Paolowalter (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. A helpful outside editor made an incorrect edit.

If you have a similar problem in the future, don't hesitate to contact me. Usually I'll be able to fix it. If not, I have contacts who can :) André437 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No evidences from IS in As-Suwayda.

• Information too vague
• No Photos
• No Videos
• No Visual evidences
• SORH (Usual Anti Assad source) never report ISIS presence in As-Suwayda.
• This anti Assad source from December 5 no showing the ISIS in As-Suwayda.

Question

When they take these towns ?

When IS Captured something they usually executing and beheading a lit people.

If you want to prove the IS is in As-Suwayda you need to prove that town by town --Pototo1 (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS militants controls some villages in Suwayda province and it is proven from many sources. So just carefully read this discussionhere So you must stop to revert other people's edits. Just understand that if you will continue provoke the war of edits you can be blocked by admins. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No graphic information from IS in As-Suwayda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.211.172.80 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would classify the ISW as a neutral source and not anti-Assad, unless you want the classify the UN and almost all other sources not pro-Assad as anti-Assad. I would also classify it as reliable. But note that the ISW covers only major control areas, so it would not be useful for small areas of control like villages, which is the focus of this section.

Also note that I agree with Hanibal911 that one should reflect very carefully before reverting the edits of others. Either provide reliable contrary sources, or show how the sources provided by the original edit are not adequate. The simple lack of reports by some sources does not in itself negate reports by other sources. For example, SOHR often misses events in areas where they have few sources on the ground. And ISW never reports very small areas of control. André437 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

ISW Is anti Assad the ISIS presence in As-Suwayda just no exist --Pototo1 (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra towns

Found this article from the Times of Israel today: http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-will-attack-syrian-druze-town-if-troops-threatened/ and http://rt.com/news/212319-israel-helps-syrian-militants/

The article in the Times of Israel claims that "all of Quneitra is in rebel hands, except Hader and Khan Arnabah. I personaly think Brigade 90 and surroundings are under loyalist control, considering the alledged Israeli airstrike yesterday. However, what about the towns of Turnajah, As-Samdaniyah, Beit Jinn and Ma'dinat al-Baath? Last is loyalist I think, but the rest might be rebel held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly city town of Beit Jinn located in Rif Dimashq and now contested. Secondly Israeli outdated source (deted 3 November)Times of Israel or Russian RT not said that Turnajah, As-Samdaniyah, Beit Jinn and Ma'dinat al-Baath under control by rebels. And pro opposition source clear show that Ma'dinat al-Baath under control by army but As-Samdaniyah contested.here and we cant use in this issue Israeli source because Israel opposed to Syrian regime. And this situation has been discussed previously. So you can read this hereHanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Here is another report: http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/syrias-southern-rebels-draw-up-new-game-plan#page2 You are using a Twitter map for your opinion, but I give you three neutral sources. Each of them say that Hader, Baath and Arnabah are the last regime held areas in Quneitra province. That means that Turanjah, As-Samdaniyah and possibly Jabah should go to green. Neutral sources always win from pro-rebel or pro-regime sources, certainly if you start using Twitter sources and say "Israel is opposed to the Syrian regime". Israel is neutral in this case.

No need to invent! Firstly, after an air strike by Israel on territory under the control of the army Israel can not be a neutral party so that stop talking nonsense. And secondly your source The National did not say that towns of Turanjah, As-Samdaniyah and Jabah should go under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also biased pro opposition source on 21 November showed that town of Jabah still controlled by regime.here But maybe you are right about a situation with the town of Samdaniyah. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the neutrality of Israel, we should also consider the purpose of their attacks. If it is apparently against the Hizbolla (such as destroying arms destined for them), it is not overtly anti-Assad (despite the Hizbolla being an Assad ally), and should not be considered as such. Israeli attacks are too infrequent and selective to greatly impact the regime. Even though Israel would probably prefer Assad gone, if Israel were to overtly oppose Assad, it would backfire with increased support for Assad from arab countries, thus be counter-productive. André437 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Desyracuse, take 5.

Here, desyracuse has edited his map, showing SAA presence in Raqqa province, based on "On November 17, pro-govt Ba'ath Brigades announced having entered Raqqah governate". - so, he's editing his map based (in this case) exclusively off of what a pro-gov't outlet said. And, we.. then used desyracuse to make the same edit on our map, here. So, in summary, we took the Ba'ath Brigades at their word and made a pro-gov't edit based on their unconfirmed announcement. Explain to me again how desyracuse is pro-op? We're changing villages around Duhur airbase, and we're adding more villages based off his map, when he's just taking pro-gov't media at its word.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This source pro opposition because it is basically repeats the data from other pro opposition sources. Simply, he is more accurate than some other pro opposition sources. Also I remove red mark in the province of Raqqa. Because you are right and also the source @de Syracuse clear said that about the army advance in Raqqa in the province reported only government source but I did not pay attention on this notice. But on about the achievements of army in area the Abu al- Duhur air base also reported the some of reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

He clearly takes ANY source at it's word - if he's marking gov't gains based exclusively on Ba'ath Brigade announcements, how in the world can we consider his map pro-op biased? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And also area where I add those villages adding more villages under control by army and this also confirmed on another more biased pro opposition map.here Also this source previously changed the territory controlled by the Army on the ISIS controlled on the basis of preconceived opposition source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Also this map said that city Sawran to north Aleppo now under control by rebels but we only have data from opposition sources that now this city under control by rebels and ISIS tried storm him.here Also as we have previously recognized that the source @deSyracuse pro oppositionbut it is less biased and more accurate showed situation unlike other heavily biased opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If desyracuse is the only source, no edit should be made. It's that simple - he'll use any source to update his map... we should try to be better than that. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So, for the changing villages around Duhur airbase - any other sources? For all we know desyracuse got his info about this area straight from the Ba'ath Brigades... Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Also a reliable source said that control of Khaz'zanat helped regime forces inside Abu Al-Duhur military airport to advance into nearby villages Tal Selmo and Mustariha.Elijah J. Magnier Also earlier pro opposition source said that Assad-forces try to storm Haymat ad Dayir north of Abu ad-Duhur - Military Airbase here so maybe army captured this village.And here other source said that army controls the towns of Humaimat and Mustrihah in the vicinity "Abu Aldhor" airport in the southern countryside of Idlib.Kalam AkhbarCyber AmanLebanese Info[]El Marada Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's more like it. Objection retracted. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see some recent NDF reports in Raqqah but nothing official at the moment (I'm not very active now) --Pototo1 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view I think Desyracuse is moderately pro-opp just cause he/she works with Archicivillians, a very well known pro-opp and anti-regime activist. But DeSyracuse's work is quite honest and to be fair it's more or less neutral. Cedric Labrousse (a huge pro-opp activist) reported NDF activity from Ithriya towards Raqqa. You may check his tweets anytime. I'm not with changing all our map based on DeSyracuse's maps but when we lack sources I think he's a reliable one. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tradedia's insights here further cement me in the opinion that these amateur maps should be relegated to secondary source status for our map, only to be used when supported by reliable/usable primary sources OR community consensus on specific situations. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with ChrissCh94 the Desyracuse is moderately pro-opp source. So that in the some situations if we not have clear data we can use it. And about situation with some villages near Abu Al Duhur Air Base i provide some reliable sources which confirm my editings.Kalam AkhbarCyber AmanLebanese InfoEl MaradaAl-Fayhaa TVAl-QabasAl Ghadeer TV also here confirmation from pro government sources Al VefaghSyria unbreakableShaam TimesAl AlamHosein mortadaSlab NewsBuratha newsAl Baath MediaMiddle East PanoramaAlahed News And not one of the reliable and pro-government sources no said that the army later some time retreated from those villages. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And also here source @deSyracuse showed on map where most active frontlines on 8 December. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But all except 1 of those sources (not including the pro-gov't ones), are dated from the 27th or earlier - which still leaves Tradedia's point valid, that desyracuse's map is inaccurate in this case. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Fayhaa TV(independent Arabic television channel 29 November) Cyber Aman(28 Nowember) Hanibal911 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Correctly me if I'm wrong, but doesn't al Fayhaa refer to the rebels generally as "terrorists"? If so that doesn't really indicate a neutral stance.. Seeing as how any outlet that says "regime" instead if "government" is classified as pro-op.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid In Wikipedia says that Al-Fayhaa TV (Iraq) is an independent Arabic television channel which broadcasting from Suleymaniyah, Iraq which launched on 20 July 2004, and was among the first channels that emerged after the 2003 Iraq war, began its work in the United Arab Emirates.herehere Also source said that these villages were under the control of Al Nusra or allies which also and in US are called terrorists. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid Al Nuara has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United NationsAl Jazeera AustraliaABC News Turkey, Canada, New Zealand, Hurriyet Daily Newshere Saudi Arabia and United KingdomFox News the United StatesAl Jazeera United Arab EmiratesReuters Hanibal911 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki also says Al-Fayhaa TV (Iraq) leans toward Shia-Islam, and the Shia channels have been, for obvious reasons, overwhelmingly pro-Syrian gov't, the same way Sunni channels and state medias are pro-rebels - which is why we don't use most Saudi or Qatari outlets to show alleged rebel gains. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Fayhaa isn't the point though. It's the use of desyracuse as a SOLE source - and I think there have been plenty of proofs that his/her source screening does not meet the standards of this map (no pro-op for pro-op gains, vice versa). And it doesn't really seem appropriate to back up desyracuse's (Ba'ath Brigade announcement) edit with a Shia leaning outlet. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Al-Fayhaa TV article uses the expression: “ارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا” which translates into “the terrorists of the Syria Revolutionaries Front” Any source that calls Syria Revolutionaries Front terrorists is clearly pro-gov. Tradedia^talk 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also here confirmation from Qatari source that those villages was captured by army.here from another Iaraqi sourcehere Lebanese sourcehere and from some other sources.JP NewsChaled News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply, we can use the source @deSyracuse if its data are supported by other sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hanibal911, we SHOULD of course use DeSyracuse with other sources but we COULD also use his/her maps when we lack reliable sources. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• As long as desyracuse's source is not clearly the Ba'ath Brigades reporting their own battlefield successes, or any similar scenario regarding ANY of the groups/sides/belligerents. Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

1- None of your sources is reliable. You list 12 sources that you call “reliable”. First, I will remove Al-Qabas & Al Ghadeer TV because they talk about a completely different topic. Second, I will remove Lebanese Info, El Marada & Kalam Akhbar because they are dated 27 nov, so they are outdated. This leaves us with:

- Cyber Aman: This is not a source. It is a website that works following the model of Wikipedia. Anonymous users submit news! This one line news was submitted by an anonymous user called “Rabie Mahdy”!

- Al-Fayhaa TV: The article uses the expression: “ارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا” which translates into “the terrorists of the Syria Revolutionaries Front” Any source that calls Syria Revolutionaries Front terrorists is clearly pro-gov.…

- masdark: this is not a source but simply a website that collects articles from other sources… It doesn’t even say where they got the article from…

- iraqnacl.com: Look at it! It’s just a vBulletin message by an anonymous user called “Prince Adhamiya”!

- afwajamal.com: this is the mouthpiece of the shia Lebanese militia “Amal” (see Lebanese civil war for more info about it)

- JP News: they copied the article that uses the expression: “ارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا” which translates into “the terrorists of the Syria Revolutionaries Front” Any source that calls Syria Revolutionaries Front terrorists is clearly pro-gov

- Chaled News: is not reliable but pro-gov.

2- Now, lets look at the content of your sources (which are all unreliable as I showed in item 1- above). I skip those that are dated 27 nov, since they are outdated. All the articles are general articles about the events in the whole of Syria during the day. The events at Abu Duhur are covered in only one sentence. This makes these articles very superficial. We cannot conclude much from them. You say: “they didn’t say the army left the villages”. I say: “they didn’t say the army stayed in the villages!” In reality, in one sentence, you are not going to be able to say much. So these are not good sources. You need a source that describe the events in detail.

Conclusion: Not one of the “sources” you present is useful. On the other hand, we have a reliable (by your own words) source saying the troops returned to the airport and a pro-gov source detailing the whole operation and saying they returned back to the airport. See a translation of the details of the operation in Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Abu al-duhur airbase. Tradedia^talk 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice try but Fron victory (جبهة النصرة لأهل الشام‎ ) it is Al Nusra but not Syria Revolutionaries Front( جبهة ثوار سوريا) and sources which i provide here said that army retake villages from the Front victory but not SRF. And as I said above Al Nusra recognized by leading Western countries as terrorists. And Cyber AmanMas Dark and Al Fayhait is sreliable news sources which said about Al Nusra. Also reliable source Elijah J. Magnier just said that SAA returned to air base but not said that they all returned on base and just left villages which they captured. This message here was dated 27 November but also not said that army just left villages without protection and Al Nusra retake them and also more recent reports have confirmed that these villages under the control of the army. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Look at the article carefully. It calls both Al Nusra and Syria Revolutionaries Front "terrorists" when it mentions that they are fighting in Idlib (not at Abu Duhur). Look at Al-Fayhaa TV At word 34 from the bottom, it starts a sentence that says:

“تجددت المواجهات بين ارهابيي النصرة وارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا”

This translates into:

تجددت المواجهات بين = Clashes broke out between

ارهابيي النصرة = terrorists victory (Al Nusra)

ارهابيي = & terrorists

جبهة ثوار سوريا = Syria Revolutionaries Front

It is the same for JP News.

Concerning Elijah J. Magnier & the detailed pro-gov source, it should be understood that “they all returned on base and just left villages which they captured” (see my response @Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Abu al-duhur airbase for more details about this argument). Again, all other “sources” are unreliable & uninformative (one sentence) as I showed above. Tradedia^talk 10:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Here reliable source clear said that Syrian army took control of the towns and Humaimat Almstrihh in the vicinity of Abu military airport Aldhor Brive Idlib, while the number of people killed after clashes between the army and the victory of free front in the same area.Mas Dark Or do you even think that the Qatari source also government source. This also confirmed another not government source.Ceber Aman Also about source Afwajamal this source said that Syrian army took control of the towns and Humaimat Almstrihh in the vicinity of Abu military airport Aldhor Brive Idlib, while the number of people killed after clashes between the army and the victory of free front in the same area. And not said that rebels from SRF it is terrorists. Also we agree use for editing the opposition source SOHR but which many a reliable sources called of anti-government source but we in as a compromise, decided to use it because it has more data from the ground in Syria, though SOHR and opposed to Syrian regime. However personally I not opposed use data from SOHR because they have many activists in areas where going clashes. And all the data which I provided now confirmed in many sources and dont need blame me that all source which I provide pro-government. Also we use to display the success of rebels a news sources from Saudi Arabia and Qatari although these countries strongly support the Syrian opposition and rebel groups who are fighting against the Syrian regime. So that you need understand if the army left these villages and they are once again under rebel control, we need more data which clear says that those again under control by rebels. So me it was nice to talk about this issue but more I will not try to convince you. Since I gave you all the possible facts from reliable and pro-government sources which said that troops captured those villages and not one of these sources not said that the army had just stepped back and villages again under control by moderate rebels. Cheers! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that every time we have a source article, we should analyse it as Tradedia suggests above.

For deSyracuse maps, I consider them accurate for the time in question, but agree that by the time they are published specific locations are often outdated. He doesn't have the resources to update his maps on a daily or hourly basis. Meaning we need to confirm that specific locations are still up to date. As we should for all sources.

Even the best sources make mistakes, and are often quickly outdated. André437 (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Regime forces advances in Aleppo

Who has the information about this issue. Because reliable source reported that army secured a fresh advance, taking the area of Breij northeast of the city Aleppo.Daily MailThe Daily Star and also another a reliable source later said that army advance around Handarat and managed to control al-Breij, al-Hajal, al-Majbal in Aleppo overlooking to Hanano, Haidariyah and Duwayr al-jandul.Elijah J. Magnier. Also some a pro-opposition sources reported that regime advance in Al Brej and is dangerously close to laying siege city of Aleppo.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From Al masdar [4] gains

in al-Brej-Hanano area and in the north Malaah Farms (Mazra’a Al-Malaah) (I guess here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=36.284827&lon=37.122974&z=14&m=b&permpoly=216297). It gives similar info.Paolowalter (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

eaworldview also confirms that the SAA is pushing in Bureij - doesn't say who controls it though but it's clear the SAA is the side trying to advance Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also petolucem confirms fighting in the area.Paolowalter (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But yesterday reliable source said that troops advance around Handarat and managed to control al-Breij, al-Hajal, al-Majbal.Elijah J. Magnier So maybe still continued sporadic clashes in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The IS Presence in no exit.

The IS is not there I'm 99,99% the only information about IS presence in As-Suwayda come from Al Arabiya in Arabic only who most probability is a fake rumor.

The most usually Anti Assad source SOHR NEVER Report IS Presence in As-Suwayda --Pototo1 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no 100% reliable Source in this war, even SOHR looked ridiculous with the Aleppo Prison breach by AL Nusra. Witch resulted in a fiasco.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just be careful look for more sources, edit outright and keep an eye on past edits, info tends to change in content and numbers in time.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of sources discussed here. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Lots of sources" NO just one a single Al Arabiya link only in Arabic very vague.

Show me a Single SOHR the Link the "Official" Anti Assad source talking about IS Presence in As-Suwayda

Show me a single video a single photo?

Common the most recent ISW (Anti Assad source) no showing the IS there http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=a3b60f0c-7f1c-4666-b671-5753603361d6&c=a494ff50-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76&ch=a499ba40-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76

Just be realist the IS it's not in As-Suwayda --Pototo1 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

lol there are sources in that section from al Arabiya, archicivilians, lahitha news net, Robert ford, al mayadeen, france 24 and al alam - that's "lots of sources" Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Boredwhytekid many source confirmed the fact that ISIS present in this area and controlled some villages. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Pototo your blood pressure is to high.DuckZz (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 :) ... It is not a life-or-death issue for us as editors. We are just doing our best to create an accurate map André437 (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest from ISW acknowledges IS presence in the Bir al-Qassab area Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

^ There the Pro Israeli ISW Anti Assad club only talking abut Damascus province no about As-Suwayda --Pototo1 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Khan Touma army depot

The Khan Tuman army depot seem to be under SAA control. It is here. It is not marked on the Aleppo map. It should go red. Furthermore the Ammunition storage base is green, but it is located in a area marked red on the mapPaolowalter (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Also pro opposition activists also said that rebels try to regain Khan Tuman army depots on the south western outskirts of Aleppo.here Nevertheless, we need data from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS presence in damascus Suburbs, yeah Suburbs.

Check this, dont know if the Source is considered Reliable but found this some minutes ago. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/12/recent-developments-on-ground-syria-december-2014.html 200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In some areas in East Ghouta and to south of Damascus in city Al-Hajar al-Aswad but not inside city of Damascus.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition source said that pro-regime military forces imposed their control on the town of Darayya in the western Ghouta of Damascus countryside. One of the FSA’s fighters was reported dead Tuesday afternoon, during clashes with pro-regime forces in Darayya. Speaking in Damascus, civil rights activist Ahmed Sabbagh said that clashes broke out between FSA-linked faction of the Islamic Union of Ajnad al-Sham and members of the pro-regime forces in the Kornish Qadima area eastern the city, while the pro-regime forces blew up a tunnel in the region, killing at least one fighter from Ajnad al-Sham.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo

Syrian Army forces advance inside Aleppo source:[5].Daki122 (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah area

According to sohr , saa advancing in western hasakah and saa captured 3 villages. http://www.syriahr.com/2014/12/%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88-15-%D8%B4%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%8C-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7/Hwinsp (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)