Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Urum

Assad's forces advances in town Urum to east of town Renayan near Aleppo.ReutersThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo area SAA advance

Press TV [1] reports SAA advance in Aleppo area. It is a government biased news agency and shall not be used solely. Do we have any further confirmation from other sources regarding these news?Ariskar (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a new Aleppo map here from SyrianPerspective. Of course, that's also regime-friendly, but the maps there seem to have been fairly accurate in the past. I'm not suggesting it be seen as a source, but it can point where to look. At the very least, it can be compared with rebel-produced maps to see the things that both sides agree on. Compared to the last map from October, it shows SAA gains on the outskirts and some rebel gains in the centre around the citadel. What surprised me is that PYD is no longer shown to be controlling territory in Aleppo. Esn (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it seems that the Syrian Army has lunched yet another offensive with last sources saying they had entered the Industrial area so the Alepo map is pretty much inaccurate as the army alredy sized Naqarrin and the map just shows the area north of "Base 80" as contested but it should be red and from there to the Sheik Najar area should be contested.It is rely out of date and does not show new advances made by the Army.Daki122 (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A german source reporting the same [2] and I found Talet al-Ta'aneh on the map to be on the southeast edge of the industrial zone. EkoGraf (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We should add the town.Daki122 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I added Tel Ta'anah and al-Zarzour Hanibal911 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This german website is directly linked to a Press TV report as a source, which is kind of unreliable. Maybe these two towns should be changed to contested first (since there is some government advance confirmed by other sources) OberschIesien90 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If press tv is used, even in quotations, we are going to have major problems with what is reliable and unreliable. Sopher99 (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It logical. I just dont immediately noticed that source used information from Press TV. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the army has advanced into the Industrial area so it is logical that they have captured this small towns anyway state TV also aired footage [3] from the area it is clear that the Army has control over the eastern outskirts of Alepo and it is also reported by western media that they had advanced a lot these days.Daki122 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Syrian army recaptured al-Nakkarin, al-Zarzour, al-Taaneh, al-Subeihieh and Height 53 in the eastern countryside of Aleppo.Z NewsYahoo NewsDaily News India Al Jazeera also confirms that now clashes in industrial town Sheikh Najjar and that rebels might lose it.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This most reliable evidence. Syrian army, along with pro-regime militias, captured Naqareen and four other adjacent areas.The Wall Street Journal Hanibal911 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is also clashes in Kafr Hamra: http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=1319&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UtUOUPRdXmp178.240.40.162 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is clashes in Seikh Saeed: http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-news-3/ and http://sastvnews.com/provinces/aleppo/1042-fsa-targets-regime-forces-in-sadkob-factory-in-sheikh-saeed-neighborhood-aleppo178.240.40.162 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's use only reliable sources. This source Sas TV(5 August 2013) he already outdate. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

According to pro-rebel source SOHR http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=1319&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UtVyhvtmNC6 Dahra-Kafak Hamra is contested (SAA vs FSA/IF) and FSA took control of town Maskan from ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.225.171 (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Division 17

I wouldn't be so sure about the "lifting the siege" yet

http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=1330&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UtXMhp5dVsO

Sopher99 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Siege is still up someone revert as I reverted alredy.Daki122 (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Incoming reports on Twitter,SOHR etc...that ISIS prepares the storming of Division 17. ISIS themselves claim to storm the base "soon". Right now they are pounding the base with a hail of mortars. Sascha,Germany 84.171.8.188 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell Alam

Tell Alam east of Aleppo is under the Army control and troops are heading to liberate the Thermal power station.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Give us a source please so we can make the change. EkoGraf (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

PRO-ASSAD

this whole map is unreliable,because it´s fed largely by pro-Assad-propaganda-sources. For example Assad´s troops are not controlling all places in the countryside of Eastern Hama and Eastern Homs. Furthermore you should cancel the contested places,because it´s useless. For example some places in Northern Syria are contested between ISIS and other rebels,while in the south the contests are between Assad and rebels. The contest-points are chaotic and even hurting the eyes. The whole map should be changed to make it better and clearer for the viewers. Sascha,Germany, 84.171.8.188 (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

PRO-TERRORIST POV-PUSHERS

Funny to see that the same people that dont say nothing about the map when the so-called "rebels" were advancing (and everything seems to be possible in order to make the map as green as it could be possible: using Twitter, Facebook, blogs, partisan sources, distorting the sources, etc...) are now barking at the moon as the "rebels" are loosing edge day by day...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the rebels control the country sides but not any towns and for your info those pro-Assad sources tend to show a video and a lot of pictures as evidence while SOHR and other pro-opp are quite going heavy on the text you know activists say that and this with rely no evidence.Daki122 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the changes are made based on reports from SOHR, a pro-opposition source (un-biased though). As for East Hama, SOHR confirmed that during the last major offensive in that area the military recaptured all territory lost. And why should we cancel the contested areas? Fighting is ongoing there, so it stays marked as contested. EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Jasim

Why Jasim is contested on the map? The city is under rebelion control since december, this source (Financial Times) can confirme this http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf51f198-7df6-11e3-b409-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2qY0iVPpt if you cant in, here is the text: "But in redeploying forces in Aleppo, the regime has had to give up control of the southern city of Jassem and the long-contested Ghouta neighbourhood east of the capital, Damascus", please put green

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellsurvivor (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rebel towns in Eastern Ghuta besieged army.NOW France Presse The Guardian Hanibal911 (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How it is possible to put Jasim green because of only one source ? (Financial time, is it a joke ?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.108.64 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Darayya

We should put Darayya back to contested the army may have taken the biggest part of it but I think we underestimated rebels there who don't only control a small western part. There are many reports today about a helicopter (or two?) downed by rebels and clashes in the eastern part of the city which would mean they are still present there. It seems like Darayya rebels have not said their last words yet. --Amedjay (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a feeling, not a proof. 2 helicopters down ?. Please, be serious or give sources. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.108.64 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here : Source and the video Sorry to learn you that firing at a helicopter can down it --Amedjay (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

They shot down 1 helicopter but either way clashes are taking place in the eastern pocket of Daraya which is the last rebel stronghold of rebels in the town a week ago the Army captured the Sakina Shrine[4] and yesterday SOHR reported they have taken over the train station which are both in the eastern side of Daraya.Daki122 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List for me the village under ISIL

List me the areas under their control so I can change these areas from green to gray or black. Alhanuty (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Saraqeb https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/529769-syria-jihadists-kill-5-rebels-in-bombing Rogal Dorm (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Binnish, Taum, Saraqeb: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/07/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-terrority-gains/

Azaz: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55326743

Kafr Zita: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war#Kafr_Zita

Maadan: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/11/isis-syria-raqqa-iraq-maliki.html#

There is clashes in Raqqa, Tal Abyad, Al Bab, Atarib, Darkush, Jarablus78.191.103.27 (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference for "Binnish, Taum, Saraqeb" says that al-Nusra has a presence in those towns, not the ISIS André437 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I read that they have lost control of Al Bab.Oussj (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There is clashes in todays reports: http://eaworldview.com/2014/01/syria-daily-fight-islamic-state-iraq-aleppo-province/78.191.103.27 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS controls Tal Abyad http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-11/243797-syria-jihadists-kill-5-rebels-in-bombing-activists.ashx#axzz2q6bl5600 OberschIesien90 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

So we got, as fully controlled by ISIS: Tal Abyad, Binnish, Taum, Azaz, Maadan and Darkush (rebel attack on it repelled).
As ISIS controlled but surrounded: Saraqeb
As contested: Raqqah, al-Bab, Jarablus
As rebel controlled but surrounded by ISIS: Atarib
Jointly controlled between ISIS and Nusra: Tall Hamis
Note for Kafr Zita - ISIS retreated from it [5]. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bab Al Salam Border Crossing is also in ISIL control: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/10/syria-opposition-isis-border-emirate.html#78.191.103.27 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Anadan contested [6]. EkoGraf (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

But Facebook not reliable source. WP:FACEBOOK Kafr Zita under control ISIS Mc Clatchy DC Hanibal911 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your report is from the 5th, the SOHR report from the evening of the 6th (and the SOHR is the source, not facebook), so Kafr Zita is controled by the rebels. André437 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Syrian rebels retake Manbij News1130 and Darat Izza Ahram Hanibal911 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS sources claim following areas: Qabaseen, Hayan, Hureitan, Anadan, Maskanah, Kafr Hamr, Deir Jamal, Tel Abyad, Ma'arat al-Aratiq

the Arab Chronicle (via twitter) says that 3 FSA groups occupy part of Tel Abyad along with the ISIS, and are negociating safe passage through Turkey for a number of the foreign ISIS who want to leave. (But not all the ISIS.) hereherehere (Also several other related messages.) André437 (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is not accepted by Wikipedia as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this map: File:Territorial_control_of_the_ISIS.svg. If that's at all accurate, there are many more towns with ISIS presence than are currently listed on the map, particularly in the east. Esn (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hrietan and Basraton in Aleppo province captured by ISIS, while 95 percent of Ar-Raqqah and its countryside is ISIS-controlled, only sporadic clashes with rebel remnants reported, source here [7]. I would suggest putting Ar-Raqqah black. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Any idea where "Basraton" is located? Also I'd recommend to wait with Raqqa. Kami888 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=es&lat=36.203283&lon=36.909599&z=13&m=b --95.22.81.84 (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIL is now in control of 95 percent of Raqqa and its rural environs.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS now reported to have won the battle fo Raqqa [8]. EkoGraf (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

SOHR says Raqqa rural area is under ISIS control. so all of the villages in Raqqa provience should be black. its all before this rebel clashes is also ISIS control.178.240.29.224 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The source I pointed to and this SOHR official source [9] both say if not all than most of the province is ISIS controlled, so most if not all the villages should go black like user 178 says. Except those that we explicetly have sources confirming rebel control and not ISIS. EkoGraf (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I offer to do black the villages that is by river. for river in Raqqa, the first city - Tabqa, the biggest city in middle - Raqqa and the last village Maadan in under control of ISIL , so it is not possible for rebels to control other villages between the river way from Tabqa to Maadan.178.240.40.162 (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Al Tabqa city, there is clashes: [10] 178.240.29.224 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Abu Kamal is under ISIL control: [11] 178.240.29.224 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Beza'a to ISIS [12]. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional source [13] Citing:

"ISIS has almost complete control on Azaz, Haritan, Ratyan, Der Jamal, Kfar Hamra, Zeitan, Hardatnein, Orom, Maaristi, Mayer, Meng, Maranan, al-Bab, Bazzaa, Kabbasin, Tadef, Mariameen and Deir Hafer." Ariskar (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS took full control of Saqareb, and also Afis, village north of Saqareb in ISIS hands. And Raqqa governorate mostly in ISIS hands, except kurdish held villages in the north-east and unclear situation in Taqba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.154.239 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tall Brak

YPG withdrew from Tel Brak and Tel Hamis after suffering severe losses.Al Monirot ISIS and allied control over area.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Villages around Kweirs military airport

Government troops have moved in to capture some positions abandoned by ISIS fighters such as the villages around Kweires military airport, east of Aleppo.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We should add the village of Kweirs as it is home to the barracks and housing of the soldiers of the Airbase an is next to it.Daki122 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In essence, the siege of Kweirs has been lifted and the villages around it should be government-held now. EkoGraf (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably the villages adjacent to Kweirs military airport can be added as controlled army. Rasm `Abbud ,Arbid,Karkiz,Judaydah `Arbin,Kuwayris Sharqi Hanibal911 (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ghazlaniya and Jdeit al Shibani

Rebel controlled suburbs of Damascus, per http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-17/244310-rebel-jihadist-fighting-claims-over-1000-lives.ashx#axzz2qbchGDHN Sopher99 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Only Ghazlaniya.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Shibani too

Per Daily star

Separately, a relief official said the government allowed food supplies to enter two besieged areas under rebel control near Damascus.

Khaled Iriqsousi, who heads the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, said that enough supplies to feed 10,000 people for a month had entered the suburbs of al-Ghazlanieh and Jdeidet al-Shibani. Sopher99 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But for map not have town Jdeit al Shibani. Hanibal911 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a place named New Shaibani. I think there is maybe a problem in the labelling of the locations in Wikimapia, and Jdeidet al-Shibani is somewhere in this region (or even this very place). Anyway, I changed al-Ghazlanieh per given sources. OberschIesien90 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This source The Daily Star could be mistaken. But Reuters say only town Al Ghuzlaniyah. Also, in Syria is not town or village Jdeidet al-Shibani. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Manbij

It seems that this city is now controlled by ISIS (pro-FSA sources via twitter). Does someone have confirmation from independent sources? --95.22.105.5 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Tal-Sobeha

Aleppo province: regime forces bombarded the villages of Tal-Na'am, Jobul,and Tal-Estabel, reports of advances for the regime forces as it taken over Tal-Sobeha (From pro-opposition FB) https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/476442645797412?stream_ref=1 For the location: [14]

Also reported by Pro-opp activist http://halabnews.com/news/46426

It would be interesting also to draw on the map the lake "Sakhat Al Jabul", east of Aleppo, to have a better understanding of the field situation.Kihtnu (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We do use pro-opposition source for regime gains, and we don't use pro-regime sources for opposition gains. Sopher99 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Somebody needs the Whaaaambulance

Sopher99 must be removed.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.107.242 (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Create youself a wiki account before speaking about removing people.... Oussj (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99 as usual...

As usual, this user is POV-pushing in his last map editions by using unreliable partisan sources (when several other editors had warned him about that) or distorting reliable sources to make them look like they were stating something that they dont. I cannot revert all his changes without breaking the 1-revert-rule, so please revert them. Perhaps its time to try to get that vandal blocked forever, that would be a great benefit for WP and its users...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the source is partisan, and I see no indicators that it is. It is also used throughout syria related pages. Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It even says in the same source "On other side, the Syrian government has retaken territory around the northern city of Aleppo, the military said on Tuesday, after two weeks of rebel infighting that has weakened the insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad." Sopher99 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Although Sopher's stated reasons for the changes are nonsensical given the sources provided, they are probably still correct from my understanding of the situation. Thus I have not reverted. But you would be within your right to demand proper sourcing.

For the record I am referring to the changes for Darayya, Darkush, and Qah here. Regarding the Hardatin and Ratyan, the source looks okay to me so no reason to revert. Kami888 (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So, green light for using Press TV or SANA? Otherwise would be a clear example of POV-pushing and double standards (cannot use journalistic sources supporting Syrian government but can use activist sources supporting so-called rebels. Another push into decreasing WP's credibility...).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sopher! I have big request to you dont use this source Zaman Alwsl. It pro opposition source and he is not reliable. This source uses opposition symbolism and is not neutral or reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I won't use it per your reasoning. Sopher99 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The link given points to a number of accurate reports, including about regime gains. Even if the writer may have a preference, the reporting seems even-handed and coincides with reports from reliable sources such as the SOHR and the Arab Chronicle, both of which have excellent track records. Although obviously it doesn't use the propaganda language of regime organs such as SANA, so it can't be pro-regime. André437 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So, a YouTube video showing an ISIS car bomb on a town checkpoint is sufficient to declare that town "rebel-held" (Darkoush)?. Because the text didnt say nothing about that town being "rebel-held". Interesting...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And now reports about advances in a town are equal to taking that town (Urum al-Kubrah)? OK, I will start to change colours in towns were SAA are advancing by putting them in red...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE THAT IS ENOUGH

I don't know who is Sopher99 but please ban him(her). All his(her) sources are not reliable and from one side only. If you let him changing what he wants when he wants, it means that this MAP is not reliable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.91.50 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My sources are reliable. I just used yahoo news too. I just stated above that I won't use Zamanalwsl per hanibal's reasoning. Sopher99 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Jarabulus should be black (ISIS controlled) according to your source, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your right. Read too fast. Sopher99 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The map has been unreliable since maaaany months (or years) ago, as users like Sopher99 act like this is an activist blog instead of an encyclopedia. Everything seems to be valid to them to reach their objectives: Using Facebook pages, Twitter, unreliable sources, distorting reliable sources, etc... And then, some will be surprised when more and more people everyday talk about the fastly decreasing credibility of Wikipedia...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Halab

Any sources as to why it should be contested? Sopher99 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Source only say that clashes near Kfar Halab.The Daily Stat But I think better remove vilage Kfar Halab because we dont know who controls it. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Or just put it back to lime. Sopher99 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Village Kafr Halab previously was not on map. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But perhaps it is under control of opposition. Since were no reports that she was captured ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Alepo Army offensive

Hey guys I've been reading SOHR and other news outlets and pro-opp media like the Arab Chronicle and pro-regime media and they all seem to agree on one thing that there are massive advances by the army east and north of al-Safira and that the Army controls the road from Houssain to Tell Alam and that the army advanced on the Alepo power plant.Here are the reports:[15][16][17][18]

We seem to have missed out on this updates as many places like the small villages around Kweris have been abandoned by the ISIS so they can send fighters to battle rebels in towns like Al-Bab and Raqqa.Daki122 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Military map showing situation east of Aleppo.Map (pro government source) Hanibal911 (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Different Animated Gif to represent rebel/ISIS conflicts

Do you think it might be possible to use a different animated gif to differentiate fighting between rebels and ISIS from fighting between rebels and government forces? The gif file now used on the map to represent all fighting is "mark=7X7 ANIM PX COLOR.gif" and is taken from Wikimedia Commons. In the Wikimedia Commons area there are not a lot of alternative choices but there is another animated map gif file listed as "mark=6X6 Anim 5PX.gif" which has black in it and could be used to differentiate the two different types of fighting. You can see both of these animated gif map icons here; [19]. Alternatively, someone could upload an even better gif icon that alternates between green and black. (Something similar could done to differentiate fighting between Kurds and rebels, versus fighting between Kurds and government forces.) Hulahoop122 (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A good idea to have better icons, but I would suggest non-animated icons. On my system, animation is turned off (which saves me a lot of useless distraction), so I would favour static icons with a 2-coloured border. Or if alternating, at least always showing the 2 colours. (Just switching places in that case.) If everyone agrees, I could make something for static icons. (And maybe animated, I have to check my tools.) André437 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you make more better icons it will be wonderful. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont see the utility of that. The legend says "Contested", not "FSA-SAA contested". If someone want to know more precisely the opponents, just look to the Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War article, wich needs a lot of info and references. If we made your proposed change, there should be at least 6 different contested icons (SAA-Rebels -as it seems FSA is almost dead-, SAA-ISIS, SAA-YPG, Rebels-ISIS, Rebels-YPG, YPG-ISIS), and that would make the map a bigger mess than it is now. Not to mention that Rebels (excluding ISIS) sometimes fight against each other, wich would made a seventh contested icon. Sincerely, I dont see it...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The legend of course can be augmented. The problem with the current system is that for many parts of the map its impossible to figure out who is fighting whom. The Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War gets updated relatively rarely. For example, if you click on almost any town/locality in conflict around Aleppo (e.g. Anadan) you get a description of the locality typically dating back to 2012, and not describing any conflict at all. The map itself is updated much more frequently, and I think including it in the map would be more efficient, as people visiting the map typically just want to know who is fighting whom, and where that is happening. Hulahoop122 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course the legend could be augmented, but with at least 7 more icons (if not more)? I think that it would be more useful to update more regularly the Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War article instead of having dozens of icons, as normally maps are more easier to understand with a limited number of icons on the legend.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still working on the icons, they'll be ready tomorrow. Going nicely but I'm simplifying them to make them clearer. They are animated (with a 1-second delay between images), so there will be alternation of the 2 colours, which are the same red/green/yellow/black as the different sides. I'll put a link to them on my talk page so we can review them before using them. It will be easy to adjust them if wanted.

BTW, I'm making 6 icons (with possible alternatives), no need to make a 7th. If we have information that a location is contested, we generally have info of the contesting parties. If confused, we could always use the existing icon.

If ever we have 3-way conflicts, I could always make more. Straight-forward now that I know how. André437 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok finally the icons are ready for review here. It took a while to find a site to host animated .gif. There are static and animated (2 frames at 1-second intervals) icons for the 6 possible 1-on-1 conflicts, plus an animated (3 frames at 500-ms intervals) icon for ambiguous conflicts. (It was easier to make the 7th right away, just in case.) As well as feedback on the images, we need to decide if we go for static or animated icons, and if animated, if the proposed frequency is ok. Once we decide, I can give them permanent names and import them. They are currently named in the format 8x8red-green*.gif, the * being to assure display order. The 7th is named 8x8anim_3colours.gif. (The names aren't visible in the display sample.)

Note that the current icon, 7X7_ANIM_PX_COLOR.gif, is 21 frames displayed at 200 ms intervals, with colours covering the entire spectrum from red to purple. With all the conflicts currently on the map, my browser displays the current icon as a sometimes flickering pink coulour. So if the animation is chosen, it should be readily visible. (And if not, it will look like the static icons.)

Note also that the icons are 8x8 instead of 7x7, giving equal space for 2 colours. So some points on the map may need to be adjusted slightly. André437 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There isn't clashes in Babbila

There isn't clashes in Babbila. The source that given don't says there is ongoing clashes78.191.103.27 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The source says rebels are there. Sopher99 (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the source only says "a number of rebel discovered and killed". it not means there is ongoing clashes and there is rebels in Babbila it only means there is dead rebels. 78.191.103.27 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact there are rebels there to begin with means its contested. If we go by your logic, many places currently contested should be made to lime. Sopher99 (talk)

You mean red Sopher as the government forces are far more equipped and powerful force than the rebels and every town that is under there siege is almost useless for the rebels like lets say Yarmouk,Yalda,Al- Hajr-al-Aswad,Qadam,Al-Rastan,Telbisah,Houla,Crack des Cheveliers,all the neighborhoods in Homs city and many other places they are just sitting there doing nothing and getting bombed and killed by the army's artillery and air force recent example was the ambush at Homs where 45 rebels got killed and while the army did not even lose a soldier(at least according to sources in the media) while they attempted to break the siege and yet the siege goes on.Just to point out that your precious rebels are getting beaten on every front just look at ISIS it was an ally to the rebels now it is beating the crap out of them.Daki122 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

1 - rebels are not being "beaten on every front" - the homs and the aleppo provence are the only provinces where rebels have less territory than they did 6 months ago.

2 - 85-90% of all syrian army gains the past 5 or 6 months have been from hezobllah and iraqi shiites. Take notice now that their gains have grind to a halt. Once the battle with ISIS is over, the syrian army is due for a major major reversal.

3 - Yes I agree the syrian airforce is doing alot of damage, and about the only thing right now keeping the Syrian army useful to the regime.

4 - ISIS was never an ally. it was always a fifth column.

5 - The rebels are doing considerably well given that they are fighting the syrian army, hezobollah, iraqi shias, and Iran all at once. The American army - considered the most advanced army in the world in terms of training, equipment, and discipline among marines - is struggling just to keep the taliban (30-40k fighters) at bay in Afghanistan. Rebels are in fact doing a better job in Syria than the USA is doing in Afganistan. Sopher99 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well let me tell you the Army won't stop with advances it is only beginning.A lot of troops are stuck maintaining security of the highway used by the UN for the transport of the chemical weapons once those are off the regime has a free hand and Russia and Iran are off the International pressure and can double there supply's for the regime which will result in a lot more bloodshed and losses for the rebel's.Either way if you say that the regime is doing bad you are very wrong it is in a way better position from the rebels.They have majority control in the provinces of Damascus(exept E.Ghouta and Yaabroud area),Suweyda(full control),Latakia(full control exept of Salma area),Tartous(full control)Homs(large majority)Hama(large majority), the Kurds control Hasakha(with regime control of Qumishli and Hasakha),Alepo(divided between the Army the rebels and the kurds and now ISIS) and Deraa(divided south in rebel hand the north controled by the Army) are contested the only provinces rebels have majority control are Idlib(the capital is in government hands and so are a number of other towns like Ariha),Deir ez Zor(Control is unknown here between the rebels and ISIS but government has presence in the capital which is divided 50-50) and Raqqa which is a known ISIS stronghold where more than 300 rebels have been killed over the past week so to sum it up rebels control rely not that much as it is described in the media.And about the Americans vs Taliban you say 40.000 taliban are fighting them well that is aproximetly the number of dead rebels in syria in 3 years so yo do the math.And for last, explain to me how can a force of around 20.000(even tough the number is certenly smaller) shiite fighters vs 150.000(estimate form wikipedia) rebels manage to take the towns of:Al Safira,Tell Arn,Naqqarin,Sabneha,Buweyda,Hatait Turkman,Qusayr,Shebaa,Tall Hasel,An Nabk,Qara and many more in just six months.I would say that if 20.000 can beat a 150.000 than you better pray another 20.000 don't come to fight as then Im sure the rebels will get there ass kicked(last bit is a little sarcasm for your claims that shiite fighters are the ones making gains and not the Syrian Arab Army :) :) )Daki122 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

1 - There is something called a vanguard force which makes most of the gains. For most wars and battles, less than 10 or 20% of an army's force makes around 80% of its gains. For example, that's the role of the United States Marines, and on occasion navy seals. Hezbollah and Iraqi Shias play the same role. The rest, like the united states army, is an occupation force.
2 - Rebels don't have 150,000 soldiers in Aleppo. They may have 50k max.
3 - The escorts for chemical weapons may be a few hundred at most.
4 - For those provences you listed, the syrian army has control over urban areas, and so it only seems like they control alot. The fact is that rebels control most rural areas in those same "syrian army dominated provinces (with the exception of sweida and tartous). before the war syria urban population was 56-58%. Now with the descrution of Homs and many Aleppo neighborhoods, that number is even less. Even more so the number is skewed by Latakia city, his has a strict urban center and very little outlying villages. Sopher99 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are some good points.Either way they control a lot more population then the opposition and those people are making the difference.About the Marines those are elite forces that are meant to punch a hole in the enemies lines for the Army or Division supporting them I would rely like to see how Marines and Navy Seals take a city with no air force or artillery and no tanks(Shiite militias don't have both) and for the vanguard force of Syria has The Republican Guard(25.000) 4th Armored Division(25.000) 15th Special Forces Division( 8.000-10.000 mainly Druze division 80-90% and you said the Druze are aginst the army and we should list them as blue :) )14th Special Forces Division(8.000-12.000 Air Assault Division) and for the last I would like you to explain me how can 200 soldiers can escort 50-75 trucks and on top of that my point was the security of the highway not the escort.Daki122 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the Shiite militias have tanks (which they man) and air and artillery support .. all provided by the regime. Especially in Damascus and Daraa provinces.

I do agree that the regime forces are supposed to provide security for moving the chemical weapons. But they are behind schedule, which seems to reflect a lack of priority, as they control the route from the region of Safira to Khanasir to Hama, and presumably from there to the coast and on to Latakia. They are reported to have over 100 tanks and a lot of forces in proximity to Safira. André437 (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sopher, if we go with your logic Yabrud and Douma should be clashed so there is too many killed rebels in this cities for last weeks. i am saying it again your source not saying there is ongoing clashes it and only says there was rebels, they discovered and killed 1 week ago (your source date 08 jan).. and if there is clashes we should have seen any other clash news for 1 week. Similarly there is killed rebels in Kafr Hamra and Sheikh Saeed (They should be also clashed in your logic)78.191.103.27 (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: There are reports about a FSA-SAA truce in Babbila and Beit Sahem. See here. We need confirmation by journalistic sources, but this could end the discussion about the status of this towns.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

in fact there isn't any reliable source for clashes in Babbila, only an unreliable source says SAA killed some rebels 1 weeks ago... and it is not clear where it happened in babbila city or suburbs? how many rebel killed? is there contunuing clashes (if there is clashes we could see it in other news for 1 weeks but we could not have seen any news )... so it should be red - there isn't any ongoing clashes in Babbila in reliable sources and also there isn't any attack there from rebels..78.191.103.27 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

When was it reported that the regime took control of Babbila from the rebels ? Why should it be red without (reliable) reports that the regime took full control ? BTW, Babbila is a suburb of Damascus. André437 (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Babila was reported taken over in late November early December I think there were dozen of sources claiming that(look into the archives of the talk pages I think they are there).Daki122 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

But those reports were just as reliable (and controversial) as the reports that said that the regime took full control of Daraya. It doesn't make much sense to rely on pseudo-reliable reports, in the face of conflicting reports. André437 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Military map of current situation In Syria

Map taken from pro opposition source.thomas van Linge But I think this map not quite correct. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably the best mapping effort by opposition supporters thus far, it has some problems though. For example we know there should be a broad connection between Ghab plain and Idlib enclave (Islamic Front made a whole video about government checkpoints there) but there isn't one on the map, then for some reason there is no trace of government bases near Marat Nuuman or the government control of the road leading up to it. Houla and Rastan are shown as one enclave rather than two separate ones. Darat Izza is under ISIL for some reason.. Overall pretty good though. Kami888 (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Here this Map taken from source loyal to ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, his Aleppo area maps are still godawful for some reason. Check this out: [20] (the first one is his). Kami888 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell Alam

Tell Alam possibly captured Syrian troops. This confirms pro opposition [21] and pro government [22] sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But I think need more confirmations from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you got a combination of a pro-opposition and a pro-government source confirming the same thing than it should suffice. EkoGraf (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats hypocrtical for most users. I have done that plenty of times and I was told to stop. I recommend self-reverting unless you truely want that to become policy. Sopher99 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sopher I also on basis pro government and pro opposition sources change Eastern Ghouta. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok Sopher first you have never done that (using pro-regime and pro-opp sources to make a change you only use very much pro-opp sources that are actually less credible than my Facebook status) and you have nothing to whine about second of those threats that you make out that you will start to use some other policy that is called vandalism and you will be reported for it stop expressing your support for the rebels as that discredits you even more and makes you an unreliable person to add this map as you always lean to support and promote the rebels and always twist articles to make an illusion that the rebels have taken a town or make a town contested(recently an example is al-Safira).Daki122 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Daki122. It is honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.91.50 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not his support to the "rebels" (as far as I know, users are free to express their opinions on WP), the problem is his constant breach of WP policy and rules in order to push his personal opinions as facts, what is commonly known in WP as POV-pushing...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Al-Ghizlaniyah

Al-Ghizlaniyah/west of Damasus airport/ has been set to green. Where are sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.58.237.203 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

some one should change this town to red. sopher99 again doing his work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.107.242 (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

SourceReuters Hanibal911 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This source doesn't say rebels are inside that town. It says the aid supply has reached Ghizlaniyah ("delivered to"), but it could be just its destination in a government-controlled area before that loyalists would deliver it to the rebels. ("[this] delivery was the first to reach Ghuzlaniyah, on the edge of the rebel stronghold of East Ghouta region"). It is unlikely to be in rebel hands given that Hatit al Turkuman, Nawlah and other towns between Ghizlaniyah and Ghouta pocket are controlled by SAA... --95.22.97.106 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

agree with you, back to red! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.126 (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Town was changed to green per Daily Star. OberschIesien90 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The town is government held not rebel held Syrian TV aired footage form the town and the siege was mentioned in a wrong context in the Daily Star it should have said the siege of E.Ghouta this town is not under siege nor is it rebel held.

Al-Jazeera[23] live blog: Syrian state television broadcast footage of aid trucks arriving in the town of Al Ghuzlaniyah, close to Damascus airport, as part of an ongoing delivery to civilians displaced by the country's ongoing civil conflict.

The Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) delivered the aid in cooperation with UN organisations in preparation for distribution, according to the official SANA news agency.

United Nations aid deliveries to Al Ghuzlaniyah in southeast Damascus began on Thursday, a day after it said that Syrian authorities had promised to allow humanitarian supplies through to areas cut off by fighting.

Pictures shown on Syria TV showed aid boxes bearing the symbols of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, while children and women were seen walking with aid boxes and Red Crescent workers were observed talking to locals.

A UN spokesman said earlier in the week that a convoy assisted by the Syrian Arab Red Crescent had brought food, medicine and winter relief supplies.

Along with another convoy planned soon to a neighbourhood west of Damascus, the two deliveries would help a total of 20,000 people, Khaled Masri told Reuters news agency by telephone from Damascus.

Thursday's delivery was apparently the first to reach Ghuzlaniyah, on the edge of the rebel stronghold of East Ghouta region which has been under military siege by President Bashar al-Assad's forces for more than a year.

Daki122 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your the one taking out of context. It is under siege, and just because aid is allowed in doesn't mean it isn't under siege. Sopher99 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the Al-Jazzera/AP report it says state media covered the event and do you think they would be allowed in a rebel held town.You are out of context not me as I got the sources to prove it.Daki122 (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Moudamiya

Ok it is time we put this town as government held as already two reliable sources BBC[24] and the Daily Star[25] have pretty much made it clear that the town has surrendered to the army.Read the articles especially the Daily Star as it is said that the rebels are finished with the armed rebellion in the town.There is no denial and the article says that the rebels have given up they are not fighting the government they have accepted all agreements and I think this describes the situation best:"If you want to train a dog to be loyal, you starve it, then give it a little bit of food, and it is grateful for the little it received. The regime has trained the people to be loyal dogs." and "As much as I hate to say it, Bashar Assad’s policy of starvation has finally paid off. It worked. They have managed, by starving them, to change people’s minds – turning them against the revolution and in favor of the regime. Their message is: We can feed you, or kill you. The opposition can only starve you." Daki122 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record I disagree. The army is not in the city, but the rebels are, hence government control is not an appropriate representation. It needs to be Red-Green-Red. Kami888 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Who said/wrote this sentence ?. You or the regime ?. If it is you, it is just your opinion and it is not reliable to any prouf on the ground. It is a mess to think that the devil is only on one side. I don't hear you regarding the 2 cities under rebel siege for months in North oust of Aleppo. Do you think that they are not to blame ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.91.50 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, your blind support to terrorist "rebels" make you mad, Neither Daki122, neither what you call the "regime" wrote that sentence, but one of your beloved "rebels". If you had taken a minute to read the source you would know it, but I suppose that doesnt matter to you...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It was stated by an opposition media activist and rebel council member, so read the sources next time before you make accusations user 86.220.91.50. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EkoGraf. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK all. That is true, I didn't read the source before my post but I was so angry by this sentence that I wrote without thinking. Now, thanks to yours, I know that it is a rebel sentence. So, for me, it means "nothing" (and I assume my beloved country like she was before !!). But I repeat my question : Why puting this sentence ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.156.20 (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Source for edit. EkoGraf (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed Moudamiya back to truce per Reuters. Its a statement of the Red Cross on Reuters that says the town is still besieged, this should be more reliable than some conclusions that were made by users out of a activist interview that did not even said explicit that the city was captured. Since every side in this conflict claims victory when they capture a single hut or goat, takeover of Moudamiya should be much bigger in the news if it occurs. OberschIesien90 (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Arab Chronicle maps

Are they reliable? If so, they could be used as a source. My only argument against is that they are published on Facebook or Twitter, social networks wich could NOT be used as sources. Please, share your thoughts.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This source can not be considered neutral or reliable as most of his information is based on opposition amateur video from YouTube. But I think we can use that information if confirmed more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of them are pretty obviously horrible, for example check out his early map of Aleppo in 2013. Same with the conflict in Qusayr - he's been showing it as contested many days after the town officially surrendered per mainstream media. He's gotten a little better since then I think, but still he's still just some guy, not a mainstream agency, furthermore he's an open and strong opposition supporter. Kami888 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, with that info I agree its not a reliable source wich can be used.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

He is an historian with many contacts on the ground in Syria. Some of his maps might be a day or 2 out of date when released (it takes time to make up a map), but they are all based on confirmed sources, much like the SOHR. That doesn't mean that some recent events are not missed (very frequent with mainstream agencies), but rather that what he does report is accurate, and is reflected in his maps.

As for Qusayr, his maps reflected the changing situation more quickly than any other media I saw. He even showed the retreat paths of rebels and civilians, during the final conquest, something I didn't see elsewhere.

As well, he often says that he will confirm info (of rebel or regime advances) when reported by commentators on his sites.

The biggest disadvantage he has for being taken seriously is that he has been reporting mostly in french (he is based in France), and the mainstream media cited here is in english. He has started reporting in english as well, but his french-language reports are still the most lucid. His maps are mostly in english or bilingual. BTW, most other maps are fairly close to agreeing with his maps. Our wikipedia map probably disagrees the most, as locations with conflicting reports are almost always decided in favour of the regime (and now the ISIS). His maps reflect confirmation from multiple sources.

Also, videos pro-rebel are generally automatically dismissed as "amateur videos" here, while those pro-regime are frequently accepted as evidence. An obvious double standard.

Note that the Arab Chronicle does not use videos from youtube (often cited in rejecting his evidence), but rather videos directly from his sources on the ground.

A case in point : Recently the total rebel control of Jasim was not accepted for 2 weeks after being well documented by the Arab Chronical with both a detailed description of the final battle and many videos taken outside during the battle and after inside the last regime stronghold (the regional hospital), until a "mainstream media" made a simple undocumented report of the fact. The town had been otherwise long rebel controled.

BTW, I'm not saying that we should decide on the basis of maps, but rather if a map shows the control of some area, we should start taking the reports which support such control more seriously. And not reject something simply because it was published on facebook. (Or even reports rejected because the source -- SOHR or Arab Chronicle -- has a facebook site, even if published on their non-facebook site.)

It is using opinion articles (primary sources) on blogs that is against wikipedia policy, whether published on facebook or twitter or even sites associated with mainstream media. (I've seen the latter accepted here on more than one occasion, after rejecting a documented report on facebook.)

We should really start being more objective in our decisions. André437 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you still cant understand the difference between a blurry activist amateur video and a professional edited journalistic video, I've got nothing more to say to you...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In this context, I think we should have a policy that all changes posted to the map be first posted with supporting references to the Cities and Towns tables. That way, we can easily verify the control long after the fact.
As well, we should start putting missing supporting references for positions already on the map in the tables.
Plus, we should put our special policies in the heading of this talk page, to remove ambiguity.
What does everyone think ? André437 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Zahraa and Nubl

We should make the outer circle of Besieged Zahraa and Nubl as black because there hasn't been any clashes there in months. We all know that the ISIS rarely (almost never) attacks loyalist held areas. Moreover if rebels were in charge of the siege, they would certainly try to storm those shia enclaves. --Amedjay (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Those enclaves have a lot of soldiers and militias in them so if the rebels took 12 months to storm the Mengh airbase which was defended by 300 soldiers they are unlikely to storm those 2 towns which are defended by its population militia and soldiers which number in the thousands.Daki122 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, without denying the extreme difficulty of storming Nubl and Zahraa, I must add that theire are still thousands of civilians their... Not everyone in the FSA is ready to assume responsibility for civilians innocent loss, even when these are shia...Oussj (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday SOHR reported fighting at Zahraa and Nubl between the Army and rebels so...case closed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It´s always difficult to storm besieged towns because you need much more manpower than the defenders. If the opposite is the case,a storming is almost impossible. Remember the Bosnia war. The heavily-armed serbs controlled 70% of Bosnia in summer 1995,but because of their infantry-shortage they were unable to capture the large muslim cities like Sarajevo,Zenica,Tuzla,Gorazde,Mostar and Bihac,because all these cities were flooded with tenthousands of bosnian muslim soldiers. The Serbs couldn´t storm them,because their ground troops were simply not sufficient. Sascha,Germany, 84.171.8.188 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not about the manpower they are well in range of artillery that is positioned around Alepo and there is the Syrian Air Force which can do a lot of damage on the advancing rebels, and storming besieged towns is the Syrian Army speciality a recent example was Al-Safira a town of 130.000 people stormed and taken in two weeks but of course the Army has tanks,APC,aritllery,MLRS,SCUDS and of course an Air Force that can back the Infantry.Daki122 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Though I understand your points, Mayer is ISIS' controlled and while rebels would often shell the shia enclaves, the ISIS haven't attacked it for a while, even with car bombs (their speciality). Moreover we've seen that ISIS rarely faces the regime forces in an open/direct fight. They prefer to withdraw to attack rebels in their back as they did with Base 17 --Amedjay (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on that point that the ISIS has not engaged in fighting with the Army lets remember Kindi hospital and Mengh airbase they actually provided the suicide bombers and did much of the work for the rebels they are pretty ugly force to face as they are very hard to defeat as an example you saw what happened to the rebels after a few days of success the ISIS is coming back in force and it stroke back fast taking Raqqa Al-Bab and other towns.And they also attacked Base 17 yesterday according to SOHR.Daki122 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your first examples fail : the ISIS did not provide suicide bombers in either Kindi hospital or Menagh air base. For Kindi, it was one suicide bomber from al-Nusra, another from an islamist group. For Menagh, the outside was breached by heavy weapons from the ADF (Saoudi trained and supplied), and regime forces broke out through ISIS lines. Instead of combatting the regime forces (who passed unscathed only to be captured when passing through nearby kurdish-controled territory), the ISIS entered through the breach opened where the regime left. So they entered just a little before the ADF, and claimed all the arms and munitions there. As for base 17, it is in close proximity of Raqqa city, where they mostly control the city and suburbs. So it is not surprising that they would attempt to consolidate their hold on the area.

There are (since a long time) 4 sides in this civil war, even though there has been relatively little regime-ISIS and rebel-kurd conflict. André437 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Little "rebel"-kurd conflict? Ha! Tell that to the Hasakah Governorate kurds...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarrin and Keftin

Sarrin and Keftin was changed from lime to black, but I don't see any source for it in the history. Sopher99 (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you had taken the great work of looking more closely on the page history, or more easily, on the Keftin town article, you would find the sources from November (CNN) & December (Al-Akhbar) 2013. Unless a newer source is taken stating changes, I will revert your changes ASAP.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Same happens with Sarrin (September 2013). I'm changing them immediatly, hope the perennial block is applied on you soon...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

TAYBAH!!

There is a small town called Taybah northeast of Sukhna. Allegedly ISIS left the town last weekend to reinforce it´s fighting force in Raqqa and Assad´s troops moved in and seized Taybah. The town is not on the map! Sascha,Germany, 84.171.44.54 (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can add it but you must provide source. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Source is http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-news-3, in "TIMELINE – 13th JANUARY 2014 13.59 GMT:". Not sure if reliable but this is actually a pro-opposition blog, and the news about Taybah is pro-Assad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kihtnu (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Al Zarah and al-Husn

Heavy clashes raged in al-Zara and al-Hosn, villages on the Syrian side of the border with Lebanon.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Juseyah and Qusayr

The Christian Science monitor has mention in its report that the opposition forces have launch an offensive to regain QUsayr,with the source confirming that there is fighting in the town of juseyah,so with respect, there should be no edit wars,because in the next few days we might hear about clashes in other areas in qusayr,with fighting reported in qasr in Lebanon should we add qasr or not.Alhanuty (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a border area they have tried many times the army had it under control but we will leave it contested for the next few days to see how situation will develop either way it is a border so this are probably hit and run attacks like most of the time and that would explain the over border shelling by the army.Daki122 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Raqqah province mostly black

This source [26] and this SOHR official source [27] both say if not all than most of Raqqah province is ISIS controlled, so most if not all the villages should go black like users 178, 88.11. and Hanibal911 say. Except those that we explicetly have sources confirming rebel control and not ISIS. At the moment we have confirmed Kurdish control of those few towns in the northwest of the province (no reports of Kurdish-ISIS conflict there) and Tabqa contested/unclear. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so fast yet. Many of FSA and civilians retreated to ISIS free towns. I would wait for sources on individual towns first, or even better, a map. Sopher99 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS fighters have managed to recapture much of the northern province of Raqqa[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are we going fast? We now have three sources (Reuters, SOHR and AP) confirming much if not all of the province is in ISIS hands. The only ones we leave out of ISIS control are those that we have specific sources for. Besides, most of those Raqqah towns that are marked as rebel-held currently on the map were marked by you Sopher based on a BBC map coloring that part of Syria simply as opposition-held at a time when ISIS was part of that specific opposition. So, except for Daki, Hanibal, me and the two IP users, is there anyone else who agrees with this course of action based on the three sources we have? EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EkoGrafRogal Dorm (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

actually when we marked these cities it stated clear THAT ISIL controls them,but the isil retook raqqa from the south not north,so there is doubt for the north villages far from raqqa.and leaving raqqa with a buch of ghreen cities is awkward itself. Alhanuty (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Raqqa as a whole province is an ISIS stronghold and the rebels did say they had lost the majority of the province so i rely see no reason why is it green.Daki122 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the changes proposed. If we put all towns in Raqqah province in black that would be less incorrect than leaving it as it is right now. --Hasan Rizvanbegovic (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We leave Tabqa contested and the Kurdish towns as YPG-held since there were no reports of fighting there. EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The 3 references on ISIS are either focused on the city of Raqqa in the south (where most of the population is), or on Tal Abyad on the border with Turkey, or are vague references about regaining control of areas they controled in the province a few weeks ago. There is been little evidence of where they were in control before they started the war against the rebels. As well, many syrians (and some non-syrians) formerly associated with the ISIS are reported to have quit the ISIS because of their violence against rebels and civilians. So to me it makes much more sense to base control by the ISIS on explicit reports (even if not normally considered reliable).

Note that there were thousands of non-ISIS rebels in Raqqa city and province before the ISIS-rebel conflict, and there has only been about 1000 reported killed both sides in all the northern provinces. That leaves a lot of non-ISIS rebels unaccounted for.

Anyway, that is how I see it. André437 (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

All three references are actually also talking about the whole province, not just the city, so I'm not understanding how you could be seeing it differently. I will quote it for you. SOHR - The ISIS are in control of most of the city of Raqqah as well as the province. Reuters - ISIL is now in control of 95 percent of Raqqa and its rural environs. AP - ISIS fighters have managed to recapture much of the northern province of Raqqa. So I'm not seeing how that's not explicit enough. EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not all of Raqqa province is held but the towns around Raqqa must be ISIS held along with the towns to the east of Raqqa along the Euphrates river that is my opinion because they brought all of there reinforcements from the east so the far North can stay rebel held but the eastern and the areas around Raqqa should be ISIS held.Daki122 (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree André437 (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS take over Raqqa province, including the border crossing into Turkey at Tal Abyad plus many towns across north Syria.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS fighters have taken control of all the most important positions in ar-Raqqah Governorate. The only sites which they have yet to capture are the government military bases of the 17th division, 93rd regiment near Ayn Isa and the at-Tabqah air base.Strategic Culture Foundation Hanibal911 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Rukn al Din

This neighborhood maybe under control of syrian troops. Regular forces carried out a campaign of raids and random arrests in Rukn al Din. SOHR(pro opposition source) Hanibal911 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Its part of central central damascus like the baramkeh and malki districts. No need to change it because its not on the map in the first place. Sopher99 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Clear. Thanks for clarification. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

Something interesting? Maps showing ISIS control of Arima (Between Al-Bab and Manbij), Maskanah, Al-Kubar, Shadadi on the maps here: TAC TAC

These are FB but coming from a totally pro-FSA blog, and showing ISIS gains.

If its a pro-rebel source admitting losses to the ISIS than why not make the changes. EkoGraf (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, Tal-Sobeha (Between Safira and Kweiris) under Loyalists control for some days now, http://halabnews.com/news/46426 (Pro-Opposition) and SOHR. Location [29] Kihtnu (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Should add it to the map. EkoGraf (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

pro opposition sources

Do you think we can use pro opposition sources if it applies only to clashes rebels against ISIS militants? I ask you to speak on this issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I think pro-opposition news is fine in general as they admit the losses whenever they do have losses.

But obviously there is a (reasonable) bias within the opposition against ISIS. Therefore we should use any opposition source which doesn't flaunt a negative outlook on ISIS regardless of how much ISIS deserves one. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If an opposition source admits a loss than of course it should be used. EkoGraf (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

CHAOTIC MAP!!

I ask you again to cancel the icons "Contested", because we don´t need these icons. They are hurting the eyes and they create chaos. Furthermore no one knows,whether these places are contested between Assad and the rebels or between ISIS and the rebels. At least you should make a colourful difference between the ISIS/rebel-contested places in the North and the Assad/rebel-contested locations in the center and south of Syria.For example a newcomer-visitor doesn´t know,whether a town like Harem is contested between the rebels and ISIS or between the rebels and Assad etc......... Thank you,Sascha,Germany, 84.171.17.150 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Except you, for the last year nobody has ever complained that the map hurts their eyes. The contested icons are agreed to to represent towns that are contested and with each edit sources are provided and readers can find these sources in the edit history. And like I said before, of course its a chaotic map, its war, and war is chaos, you couldn't expect anything less. EkoGraf (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WELL,but at least we should divide the contested towns with different fix colours!!! We need to see the difference,whether a town is contested between Assad and the rebels or between the rebels and ISIS etc.....For example in Hama-province no one can see,whether a town is contested between rebels and Assad or rebels and ISIS. We need fix colours for these contested towns. thank you,Sascha,Germany, 84.171.52.115 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Tell us what you think of the new conflict icons ... see next section ... André437 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Talfita

Changed Talfita to green per NOW article. The source claims that the airforce bombarded rebell held areas near Damascus, then listing Darayya and Talfita. Since the government has well sourced presence in Darayya (contested), I think what they meant were rebel held parts of these cities. So maybe we should assume Talfita as contested too, how I initially planed to do. I think this would be the most accurate. OberschIesien90 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

City Talfita must be marked contested now it this most correctly. Because source only said that army bombed the rebel-held areas near Damascus but did not indicate that city is completely controlled by rebels. Likely situation in town Talfita similar situation in Darayya, and while he should be marked as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cease-fire cities

Increasingly these cease fire cities are becoming more and more difficult to know who controls what. That is why I am suggesting we change them to purple.svg, and just note on the map that purple means ceasefire. Not red not lime. This can include Barzeh. Sopher99 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We already have a symbol for ceasefire/coexistence scenarios, and it's better than the one you're proposing because yours does not indicate which factions are involved but the existing one does just that. There is no need to introduce a new symbol. Kami888 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We can simply label it on the map legend as cease-fire between rebels and government. Putting a green dot or red dot can be misleading especially since we don't know what degree each side controls of each cease-fire city. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Red-Green-Red combination means ceasefire power sharing agreement between rebels and government no matter who controls how much. If you want, you can include that in the label under the map. But don't need to change it to purple. It reduces the informativeness, not enhances it. Kami888 (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, Red-Green-Red is just fine. EkoGraf (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why not just use the color grey?--99.160.184.97 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For cases like Barzeh, where the rebels (FSA) have uncontested control of the entire town, I think that a grey circle around a green dot is most appropriate. Since the regime has zero presence in the town, and there is no conflict. In any case, the red dot inside is inappropriate in this case. André437 (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Andre437 Barzeh is not under the control of the opposition it never was only a part of the suburb was under there control go check out Barzeh on the map there multiple government and military facilities in the suburb like the Defense Research Institute and the Tishreen military hospital and a command post and several other government buildings like the police institute.So before you make any conclusions you better go and take a look at sources that are reliable as I last heard and read 70% of Barzeh was under government control.This is a video from the NDF in Barzeh [30] that makes your statement "have uncontested control" biased and pretty much false.Daki122 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In his defense, I think he was talking about Barzeh Al balad which is only a part of Barzeh. However he is right when he says that rebels have uncontested control over the area (Al balad) as the rebels only took this part of the district and since then they kept it despite months of siege of offensives from regime. I don't know if the truce only applies to Barzeh Al Balad but what is sure is that it is firmly in rebel hands. --Amedjay (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but on the map it is the district of Barzeh as a whole so cant put it rebel held and even in Barzeh al balad the Army had some positions but after the truce agreement they pulled out the heavy equipment and left only a handful of soldiers to keep up patrol with the rebels so you cant rely put Barzeh as rebel held.Daki122 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/26/347773/displaced-syrians-return-home-in-barzeh/ read text carefully. after ceasefire, free army retreat from barzeh. put barzeh to red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.126 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Azaz

I think would be more correct change Azaz on contested. This confirmed reliable source.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First, our map already shows Azaz, near the Turkish border, as contested. (The rebels + islamists are advancing on the surrounded and isolated ISIS in the town.)

Also, the author of the article cites the SOHR as his source. Thus it can't be any more reliable or impartial than the SOHR, so it can only be considered reliable if the SOHR is considered reliable.

Let us critically examine the article, which refers to many different areas of Syria.

At one point the article correctly refers to Aziza as a suburb of Alep, but says that the regime is advancing into a rebel-held area, when in fact the rebels are advancing into an area long held by the regime. (South-west of the airport.) At another point the article says Aziza is in rural Alep, contested between the rebels and the ISIS. Thus the author is geographically challenged in the Alep area (unlike the SOHR).

So despite no deliberate bias, given the author's evident confusion, his source, the SOHR, is much more reliable.

As an after thought, maybe you meant Aziza, the suburb of Alep south-west of the airport. Other sources refer to it as contested, but I wouldn't trust this article, given its' obvious confusion. Here is a more reliable and detailed source. André437 (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Director of the media center in the city of Azaz told ARA News that light and heavy weapons were used in clashes which lasted for more than one hour between the Islamic Front and the ISIL.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Al-Thawrah

It seems that Al-Thawrah is under the control of ISIS, what do you think ? https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/480807612027582?stream_ref=10 Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

North of Homs

Please look at this map Map Coming from a pro-FSA blog.

Is it correct to note cities like Talbiseh or Ghantu as besieged if belonging to a continous area under rebel control? Also, please add some indicated cities under Loyalist control such as AlDwair, Qizhel or Samalil (On the left) which are absent on the Wiki Map, for more precision. Kihtnu (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Opposition blogs are suddenly reliable? Sopher99 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition blogs not reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sopher what is that question mark for.Half of your edits are based on pro-opp blogs.Daki122 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's use only reliable sources. We can use pro opposition sources in clashes FSA vs ISIS. I think everyone will agree with this. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Most pro-opp sources in clashes "Rebels" (FSA is almost already dead) vs. ISIS will clearly not be reliable, as they will acclaim the "rebel" side wins while dimishing the ISIS wins, as they had done with previously with FSA vs. SAA clashes.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but in the case I mentionned before, I was asking to add some cities absent on the map (AlDwair, Qizhel or Samalil), under loyalist control, with information coming from a pro-rebel source. Which is, as far as I know, in line with this talk page policy. Kihtnu (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Partially done (the ones I found in the maps).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

From the rebel map, we should indeed add the regime towns. We should wait for confirmation from other sources before changing the rebel held towns to not besieged, although the map does show them as such. Assuming of course that previous reliable sources showed them as besieged. André437 (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Huraytan

In town Huraytan clashes Syrian rebels against ISIS militants..The Daily Star SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)