Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 14

Alternative map for Aleppo
Since someone was asking here, I made a couple of alternative versions for the Aleppo area using the same principle as we have for Daraa, Deir Ez Zor, and Damascus.

One is basically the exact equivalent of the Aleppo map we have right now:

The other is similar, but without the contested olive, so it's more like the Daraa map.

For comparison, this is the existing Aleppo map:

Some of the advantages of the new maps is that they are: -prettier on the eyes -fit the same standard as the one we already have for other cities (Daraa, Damascus, Deir Ez Zor) rather than sticking out -covers a bigger area (this was a frequent complaint on the existing Aleppo map IIRC)

The advantage of the existing Aleppo map is that it is: -probably easier to update -is attached to the "Battle of Aleppo" article where it's presumably kept up to date

Please vote for which version you'd like to see included in the general map. 1 - new map with olive. 2 - new map without olive. 3 - existing map (no changes)

Also if you'd like one of them to be included but with certain changes, please also tell me what changes you'd like to see. Thanks Kami888 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Right now the underlying OSM map is just a png snapshot, but don't worry if it is selected I'll change it to the proper svg export. Kami888 (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Another advantage of the old map is that it has many more place names listed, which makes updating it easier for those unfamiliar with the geography. I really like the new maps, though! The "zooming out" in particular was much-needed. Can you describe how you decide which area is colored olive and which is not? Of your two maps, what do you think is the advantage & disadvantage of each? Esn (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The areas colored as olive are basically the same exact areas that are colored as olive on the map we have right now, I tried not to stray from it too much. As for the map without the contested areas, I made it primarily because I am just not a big fan of olive and prefer clean frontlines with no "contested areas", even if that means I need to make some guesses in approximating them. However, having those areas as contested is probably overall more accurate. Kami888 (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would just make one correction to your map which has not been made to the already existing map that we are using. The Khaldiya neighborhood has been completely taken over by the Army, so it should go from partially contested to fully red. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, at the time that i made the map, Khalidiyeh was still marked as contested on the current Aleppo map. I see someone changed it now, so I guess I'll change that on the new map as well. Kami888 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ..actually it seems quite a few changes are necessary all of a sudden. Kami888 (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer the one with the contested areas.Oussj (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I like your map more than the one we already have, for 3 reasons:
 * 1- It covers a bigger area which was indeed a frequent complaint on the existing Aleppo map.
 * 2- It has roads on it.
 * 3- Last but not least, is an issue related to my point 1-. Since the map covers a bigger area, we can remove dots/towns just like we did for Damascus. As you know, our map is facing a size problem. When the map hit 221k in size on Feb 23, it crashed and disappeared. On Feb 24, the size was reduced to 204k (by inserting the Damascus map). Last time I checked, the map size was 209k on March 4. This means that the map size increased by 5k in 8 days. This is an average increase of 0.6k per day. If we keep up this same rate, the size limit will be hit again in (221-209)/0.6=20 days. Using your new Aleppo map would allow us to free up about 40-50 dots/towns which could be used for new added dots/towns in the future. Tradedia talk 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think both maps should be maintained. The actual one, if updated now it is not, provides the fine detail of the position in the city neighbours. The new one provide a better picture of the area surrounding the city. The serious problem of the size could ba handled removing many superfluos points. Lot of tiny yellow points in Hasaka or 50 red dots next to Homs say very little. We know who control this areas. All tiny red and green villages close to Salma (Lattakia northe east) are there for historical reason linked to the rebel offensive last year. Fine details is required only in contested area to mark the frontline and signal recent changes. Once an area is stably assigned the level of details can be scaled. Paolowalter (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, the old map will continue to be attached to the "Battle of Aleppo" article either way and will be kept updated there. I have also one more question about the scope of the map - I'm afraid I overdid it and included a little too much area (I've tried to include stuff all the way until Kwers airbase, but I'm not sure if it was necessary). Do you think the new map should be cropped a little, particularly on the eastern side? Or is it fine the way it is now? Kami888 (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer number 2 ,it will give us a better idea of the frontline but number 1 is good too FS1991 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I updated the map with the contested areas. Here's the new version . Do you think this version should replace the existing map? yes or no. Kami888 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I vote for it (YES)
 * I'll change to the new version then. Kami888 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Manbij
Al-Akrad is in battle with ISIS in Manbij. The city should be changed to "contested: Kurds-ISIS" according to this source. http://hawarnews.com/index.php/2013-02-14-17-53-15/11107-2014-03-05-09-10-14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.253.244 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Akrad has launched an attack on ISIS headquarters in a place called El-Heye that is located 15 km from Manbij city. Since it is a place whit military value it should be put up on the map by some one white the know-how. And then of course its status should be contested. Here is the source. http://en.firatajans.com/news/news/kurdish-al-akrad-front-launches-operation-against-isis.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.253.244 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Zarah, Homs
Why is it contested? Syrian forces just took it earlier today. Source-1, Source-2--Homan 056k (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are sources confirming that the Syrian army seized of the city Al Zarah.ReutersAl ArabiaNOW NewaThe Wall Street JournalThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tharda mountain under Army control
The strategic Tharda mountain, near Deir Ezzor city, was earlier reported to be under attack by the Army and has been now reported as captured by government forces. Please add it to the map. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Eko it also states fighting is continuing.Alhanuty (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the source carefully. Clashes continue in the area, not on the mountain, which the source clearly says regime forces regained control on the Tharda mount. So, on the mountain they are in control, around it clashes continue. So, red dot, with lime ring. EkoGraf (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-Facebook source here. EkoGraf (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tareq Al-Sad Aleppo
SOR quots that Tareq Al-Sad in Aleppo is under government control. Does anybody know where is it? Is it Tareeq Al-Bab? The latter is marked green on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably should be contested. It now is green in a red circle.  If so, we should definitely have Busr Sham in Deraa contested as well.  (Instead of red in a green circle.)
 * BTW Sopher99, the source is SOHR (which is neutral), and not facebook. André437 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

AYN ISSA!!

It´s absolutely hairrising,that you mark Ayn Issa as red because of some Assad-propaganda-channels.There is absolutely no basis to believe,that Ayn Issa was seized by the besieged Brigade 93-soldiers! This is ludacris! Absolutely idiotic! Ayn Issa is under rebel/Islamist control and the Brigade 93 is tightly besieged! This map is turning more and more into a pro-Assad-laughing stock,far away from reality! I will leave this map,if nothing changes! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.6.127 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source that confirms that Syrian army captured of the city Ayn Isa.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The map is pro-Assad? Is that some sort of joke? The no. 1 POV pusher in here is Sopher99 who has done several hundreds of edits and not one single pro-government one. The citymap of Aleppo is so biased towards the rebels it makes my eyes hurt. If anything the map is pro-rebel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that the people "moderating" are actually the most biased of all. Sopher99 and others. Why doesn't everyone make changes regardless of the outcome he or she prefers? I know they're not journalists, but could they at least pretend to be?

It´s absolutely hairrising,that you mark Ayn Issa as red because of some Assad-propaganda-channels. Since when is Arab Chronicle an Assad propaganda channel? EkoGraf (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's "hair-raising" that some unsigned post on here have a say on the edits whether backed up by pro-opp or pro-gov sources. --Homan 056k (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know Kurdish sources are also considered pro-government propaganda. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo map (2)
Clicking on the map redirects on the old map. Does somebody know why? The old map is absurdly obsolete. I suggested updating but I got no reply. Can some of us take the task of keeping it updated? Paolowalter (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You should review things before saying something wrong. The old map is more updated than the "new map". For example, it showns Halak as ISIS-held, while the new map dont. So please dont try to impose that map in all the articles, it works fine on the general Syrian map, but not on the Battle of Aleppo article, as the old one is easier to update.-- HC PUNX  KID 23:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the actual link to it. I don't know anything about changing it so I'll leave it to somebody who knows. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Rif_Aleppo2.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.29.123 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll direct it to the new map instead. Kami888 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You should update the map to incorporate the changes in the old map recently in the

for what regardsana Hanano and al-Hamra. Furthermore Bustan al-Qasr is contested from many sources pro-opp and pro-gov.--Paolowalter (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra
AP reports via Syrian TV that the army captured Rasm al-Hour and Rasm al-Sad in southern Quneitra, anybody know where these towns are at? -Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Could not locate them on the map. However the small city Ain al-Tineh in the southeastern part of the Quinetra province is under loyalist control. Can someone change the green dot to red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.202.239 (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The town Ain al-Tineh is not facing the occupied town of Majdal Shams as quoted in the article. It is in a complete different position several tens of km south http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=32.993691&lon=35.975761&z=13&m=b There was probably a mistake in the article. From some pro-opp sites it should be green, but I cannot have indipendent confirmation. The few villages in thes aread have been recentòy taken by the rebels. Definitely we have no source stating it is red.--Paolowalter (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I found on http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=33.268546&lon=35.782728&z=14&m=b which is the location quoted in the article above facing the occupied town of Majdal Shams. It is called al-Qunaytirah (truly tiny). The article was traslated and there was probably an error. I am adding this location as red and turning the true Ain al-Tineh as contested. Fighting are going on in al-Hajah just few hundreds meter away.--Paolowalter (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

this is another source that says army is advancing in the Golan.Daki122 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reports "Quneitra province: 2 air strikes on the town of Ghader Al-Bustan, accompanied by shelling by regime forces on areas in the town. violent clashes between regime forces and Islamic battalions in the southern countryside of QUneitra" Ghader Al-Bustan is located http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=32.920952&lon=35.913277&z=14&m=b&permpoly=66978 just west of Al-Mu'allaqah (green on the map). It should be added on the map as contested. I have seen in the last days several sources (mostly partisan) like https://www.facebook.com/pages/Islamic-Invitation-Turkey/344851995600272 about the taking of "Bariqeh, Koudneh and Rasm Al-Shouli" corresponding to first to Baqiqa, the second to Kawdenah (not reported on the map it is in http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=33.012118&lon=35.887012&z=14&m=b&permpoly=66978, between Bariqah and Al-Rafid, to be added as red). Previously https://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/page/22/ Beer Ajam was reported by pro-opp source as under attack. Putting together this evidence it seems that SAA moved from north to south along the demilitarized zone seewping the vilages there down to Ghader Al-Bustan or at least to Al-Rafid (see also from Yallsouria "Alqunaitirah | Arrafeed | Regime artillery shelling on the township injuring many civilians"). The villages north of Al-Rafid should become red, the other contested. Furthermore Suysah is located a bit farther north just below al-Dwayah. Just easy of al-Dwayah there is al-Hajah, that is contested (or under attack at least) as result from many reports from SOHR e.g. Pleae add it.

paolowalter (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A report fromyallasouriya (strongly pro-rebel) recognize that Bier Ajam and Mumtannah were contested three days ago https://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/tag/quneitra/. They should go or contested or red.Paolowalter (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

For Hanibal911: before reverting changes you can look at previous postings and wait for justification. Furthremore you reverted also the correct positioning of some towns (Suysah, Ruwayhinah). The other sources are: https://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/tag/quneitra/ used only when reported something in favour of the government or just stating that some fighting was going on (e.g. " regime forces attempted to break the siege on Touloul AL Homr" implies that "Tell Ahmar" is in SAA hands); another source is http://www.documents.sy/news.php?lang=en going through the archive we learn that kawdenah is in rebel hand (www.documents.sy/news.php?id=9999&lang=en); that Ghadeer al-Bustan is in rebel hands but under attack from SSA and that fighting is raging in Qarqad and Al-Hajah (http://www.documents.sy/newsletter.php?action=download&id=884&lang=en#en11); from http://www.documents.sy/newsletter.php?action=download&id=880&lang=en#en11, we get that Nasiriyah, Al-Hajah, and Ain al-Tinah are in rebel hands but contested. Maybe not all infos have been reported fully correctly but I am working on it (the traslitteration of the arabic names is very different in the various sources). In some case I use logic: SAA is coming from al-Harra (it was written in some pro-opp sources), it controls Masharah and Ain-al basha, and is attacking Al-Hajah from the north, therefore it must control also Naba al-Sakher. If not perfect, it seems a reasonable attempt to update (and fix in some case) the situation in Quneitra. I strongly suggest to revert to the version with my changes and then discuss one-by-one each poit separately if required.--Paolowalter (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not use not reliable sources for editing. These sources Syrian Documents Yalla souriyaare not considered reliable for map editing. But if you use them it will be vandalism. And Facebook is also not a reliable source WP:NOTFACEBOOK Hanibal911 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Using pro-opp sources for confirming government gains has always been done. Using SOHR for confirming government gains has always been done, may time. www.documents.sy is a neutral source not worse than all other use, otherwise provide proofs otherwise. In Quneitra is basically impossible to have neutral source on grounds and is rarely mentioned in main stream media given its little relevance, Therefore the only way is glueing together all the infos from variois sources (without considering those supporting gains for their sides). Finally, we must note that most of the quoted locations in Quneitra are small or minuscuolous villages. We cannot expect that changing hands of those will make the headline of international newspaper, but we have to rely on scant information of the warring sides. --Paolowalter (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

From yalla sourya Tal Alharah (or Tell Ahamr on wikimapia) is under SAA control. That corresponds to information from the same source back few days ago. If there is no objection, I'll put it red. Also, as discussed above Ain al-Tineh should go green (maybe with a red circle around it) because the article mentioned above probably has an error in the translation and clearly was pointing to another village in north Quneitra . If somebody has motivated objections, he should state them here and not reverting the change without reason. --Paolowalter (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Riima farms
SANA reports the conquer of Riima farms and of the hill overlooking Yabroud.

SOHR confirms the occupation of the hill. No change yet on the map, but let wait for confirmation. --Paolowalter (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right we should wait for confirmation from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If SOHR said it, I really do believe it's true. I think SOHR here is more than enough.Oussj (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

lets wait for other sources, but when sana announced this, its for sure. i want to tell all of you, when we get confirmation from other source and put rima in red, pro rebel user will made change something on map, every time when assad capture town they without anuy source changing the map. i kindly ask admin to stop this in future. remember what i say today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.51.207 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait for confirmation of this information from more reliable sources and then to edit the map. And anyway, I suggest we all refrain from editing maps using as source data only site SOHR without confirmation from other information sources thus we can avoid war edits. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal, sincerly, have you ever been confronted to an information that SOHR published and was not true ? I personaly have not... If you do I'm truly interested.Oussj (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * SOHR reported weeks ago the fall of Aleppo's Central Prison, and within' hours it was exposed that it was a lie. Well, they later say that it was "a misunderstanding". Yeah, of course...-- HC PUNX  KID 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Later they changed their story to say that 80% of the prison had been liberated and over 300 prisoners had been freed. They stuck with that story, though later reporting withdrawal. However, to my knowledge, not a single evidence of either claim had thus far surfaced and everything we know about the attack today points to it being a complete failure. The rebels never held even 1% of the actual prison complex, and they never released a single detainee. Kami888 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You must bring data from a reliable source than Facebook. The Syrian troops captured the Rima orchards in the surrounding areas of Yabroud.Yahoo NewsGlobal TimsFirst Post Hanibal911 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed today that the Rima farms and hills have been taken by the army [http://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/497732623668414 ] FS1991 (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rima Farms
Rima farms taken by "Syrian Forces" via Reuters--Homan 056k (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Regime controlled new small town in Hasakah ?
The Iranian TV (Pro Syrian Gov source) claim army captured a Small town there "Sabah el-Khair" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0aa_1394104048

but will be important try to confirm and found the location for fix map if it is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * SOHR reported it a few days ago. It's already been added to the map (look northwest of Shadadi). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is strange how the army is holding a supply line logistic from hasakah to sab'aa,it is pretty a long distance.Alhanuty (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the Kurds are aligned with the Army in this province many times the Army supports them with logistics like Air cover.During the battle for the border crossing near Iraq the SAF carried out several strikes in coordination with the YPG.Also lets remember that it is in both parties interest to keep ISIS and other rebel groups out of the region.Daki122 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you look at google maps, it looks like a river runs from Hasakah down to this area. I believe Sabah is an extremely small town? Its hard to even find on google maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.3.204 (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Checkpoints
I noticed that there are some checkpoints like Madajin and Abu Shafiq in northern Hama countryside, that have long ago been captured by rebels, still listed as red. Given the fact that the rebels don't stay in this checkpoints I suggest someone should remove them or any checkpoint that has fallen from the map.FS1991 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You must provide a source that would confirm this information. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

About the Madajin checkpoint I remember an old post of SOHR in February that mentioned specifically this checkpoint and that the rebels took hold of it but i can't find the post at the moment;The Abu Shafiq is in rebel held territory so i would consider it as taken too. FS1991 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So if no one has serious reasons against it, I would be very glad to remove that unnecessary icons from the map.-- HC PUNX  KID 17:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Checkpoints still added in the map should be deleted for several reasons:
 * First, only government-held checkpoints are portrayed here, when is well-known that all sides (opposition, kurds, ISIS...) had erected them. A clear example of double standards in this map... If we are going to add checkpoints, we have to add all, not only the ones from one side.
 * Second, all the checkpoints in the map where added many months (or even more than a year) ago. Due to the innate mobile nature of the checkpoints (in contrast with other fixed infrastructure, like military bases), its impossible to know if that checkpoints are still in government forces hands, or if they even still exist.
 * Third, is inconceivable to add checkpoints when there are still military bases (a much more important infrastructure) not added to the map. Not to mention the non sense of putting checkpoints on a map without roads, its like putting naval bases on a map without sea...

I disagree with something. You said that checkpoints are mobile... But it's not always the case tight now in Syria. IN fact, there are often permanent checkpoints which are almost barracks... Oussj (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with the checkpoint mobility. All of the checkpoints that are listed on the map are not known to have moved anywhere ever, I don't know where you got that idea from.
 * Regarding your other points:
 * If you know of the opposition-run checkpoints, why don't you add them and fix the problem this way? Or post links here and let someone else add them? Adding useful information is always better than removing it.
 * And third, it is perfectly conceivable to have checkpoints listed when certain military bases are not, because the purpose of the map is not to list every single military object but only those that are important and relevant to the conflict. So those bases that are far away from the front as well as towns in Latakia and Tartus and whatever are normally either overlooked or added last. Kami888 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Kami888, are you really saying that, for example, Madajin checkpoint is relevant to the conflict? Or Rami checkpoint? Let's be serious, Menagh or Division 17 are relevant to the conflict, not a little checkpoint on a lost road with a dozen of soldiers. "All of the checkpoints that are listed on the map are not known to have moved anywhere ever". As I said before, that checkpoints were added several months or more than a year ago, so, do you have any evidence that this checkpoints still exists now (March 2014)? If so, please present it. If not, its simply outdated and probably wrong information, as can be seen below. And finally, why you consider adding checkpoints "useful information"? Useful for what?.-- HC PUNX  KID 22:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

abu shafiq checkpoint has been captured by rebels since the last year! you can see the rebels having a tour with the Aljazeera reporter inside the checkpoint at the end of this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldPtK-0Hzuc.Amensnober91 (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Listen Amensnober91 I ask you not to use long deprecated sources in places active fighting. Because that the situation could change dramatically six months from the date of publication of this article.Al Jazeera Especially in area of the ​city Morek where now go intense clashes. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that, but whether the fighting is still going or not, the checkpoint was destroyed and become a rebel held territory since the last year, and there is not a single report of the army having control of this checkpoint since that time. if you have a source saying the opposite then put it on the table to backup your words.Amensnober91 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Amensnober91, per Wikipedia policy, any youtube video is forbbiden as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No offence, but where you read that?.-- HC PUNX  KID 22:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably not understand what I wanted to tell you. I just asked you not to use older sources at map editing in areas where now active fighting is taking place. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

you didn't understand what I told you. I said "I know that", and about this topic: whether the fighting is still going or not, the checkpoint was destroyed and become a rebel held territory since the last year, and there is not a single report of the army having control of this checkpoint since that time. if you have a source saying the opposite then put it on the table to backup your words.Amensnober91 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Army Base Brigade 552
I appeal to all editors, how do you think whether you want to note on map the military base which is located near town Aleppo in the area which is under control of the army. And this confirms this. I ask you to express your opinion about this. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty small base relative to the other bases the government has in the region (and which don't have specific markings). Does it have any specific strategic importance that others don't? If not, I don't really see why it needs its own symbol. It's already marked on the Aleppo map as you pointed out yourself. Kami888 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

✅. Checkpoints added in the map dont have specific strategic importance (unless you are talking locally, in that case every single infrastructure -military or civilian- have it), and obviously, a military base is far more important, have a bigger number of soldiers and weapons than a checkpoint. And Brigade 552 has almost exactly the same size as Brigade 599, wich is already added to the map.-- HC PUNX  KID 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What should be done with Template:Syrian civil war detailed map?
A TfD for Template:Syrian civil war detailed map recently closed as no consensus. The reason for this seems to be that though consensus clearly indicated it should be kept, there was virtually no discussion on what form it should be kept in. Therefore, I'm holding this RfC to decide what form this map should take. I've listed all of the options I've noticed in the TfD. If someone has additional options, please add them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Convert to article
Move the article to article space, possibly giving it a lead and some other prose.
 * 1) Support As proposer. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Transclude on at least one article
In at least one article, most likely Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War, transclude this template, possibly in collapsed form.


 * 1) Support Readers will search and find the existing article. This would not interrupt or disrupt the ongoing work on this template and the template would further improve an existing article.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. See Discussion below. Tradedia talk 06:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep as orphaned template
Retain this template in template space with no article-space transclusions.
 * 1) Support. WP:IAR and stop bogging this endeavour down with bureaucratic rigmarole. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This represents the least constraints, which allows us to do the best job possible.  Tradedia talk 04:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I know of no-one among the active editors of this page who wants otherwise. Collectively we are creating this very positive asset to WP, and I think it that it is a good model for other similar contributions, such as Iraq.  BTW, the first 2 supporters of this option are the driving force behind this project. André437 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Proposal #2 is unrealistic. If you'll look over here, I've made a "little" simulation of what this would be. Oh, wait! Where's the map? Oh, there it is—that nice little bluelink below the lead section. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice that both the reflist and the Syrian Civil War templates also fail to render. Simply put, this template is far too massive to fit on a page, even when transcluded. Not to mention the page takes for-effing-ever to load on a slower internet connection, both for viewing and for editing. Transcluding this template onto another page will cause problems—and real ones at that, not like this vexatious attempt at manufacturing some moral panic over "orphaned templates".

This map was initially transcluded on the "Cities & towns" page, but the transclusion was removed last November after we first ran into this problem. The map has been standalone ever since. There was a fairly lengthy thread about this issue, but due to what seems to have been an issue with OneClickArchiver complicated by a minor title change, it landed in a phantom archive. I just fixed things, and the thread may be read here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see it breaking the post-expand transclude size limit. If I can fix that issue without removing any information or making it too hard to edit the map, would you be okay with proposal 2? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is no longer a hypothetical. Between fixes to the location templates and this template, I've cut its post-expand include size from about 1,800,000 to 600,000 bytes (as well as reducing its render time from about 30 seconds to about 10) with no loss in functionality or editability at all. It now transcludes on the example page with over 200,000 bytes to spare. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see your example. This approach raises a number of concerns :
 * There seems to have been a lot of useful info removed to create the example on Lothar's page.
 * 200000 characters free on the main page is not a lot with all the changes occurring in the war.
 * Could you enumerate in detail the specific format changes you propose ? Even if we decide to keep the map separate, according to what you say, they would reduce the load on WP, and probably speed up edit times.
 * It would be better if any transition, if it is made, were made as transparently as possible, with minimal disruption to the process. We would be interested in any proposals you have in that regard.
 * BTW, please note that I am a programmer, and would like the technical details.
 * Thanks André437 (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at his page closely. I was basing off of what would happen on the actual page.
 * I did a little more work since I posted that. As of right now, the page uses 645,912 out of the allowed 2,048,000 post-expand characters. With the template transcluded on it, it uses 1,724,651 of them. The page (not counting the template) would have to nearly double in size for it to come up against the limit again.
 * I already made the changes to the map and the associated templates.
 * Ditto. (If you're talking about transcluding it rather than the fixes here, it would work perfectly to just drop it onto the page at this point).
 * See Module:Location map (which is entirely new).
 * Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the overhaul! Had no idea it could get nearly so "thin". At this point, the map can be transcluded again. The template will, of course, remain a template and will be where all the editing occurs, so there won't be any real change on that front (other than speedier loading/editing). On the other hand, André is correct to note that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that this map will expand past the limit again. There will always be the lurking contingency that it will wind up an "orphan" once more. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Should we go ahead and close this early and do that then? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely ok with it, as long as there will be no problem if, in the event we run into a space shortage again, that we use the map as an ordinary page. (Assuming Lothar and Tradedia agree.)
 * Transcluding was our original goal, since it does look better. I had had concerns about the overhead of the cascading transcludes.  (But no idea of the associated overhead.)  Thanks again for the necessary rewrite.
 * You did answer all my questions above. I'm planning to take a close look at the new module. :) André437 (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your improvements! I will go ahead and transclude back the map. Tradedia talk 06:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Al uh wash
Why al huwash is marked gov controlled.Alhanuty (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Residents of the valley, who are now more adamant about taking up arms against the militants. Indeed, with the increasing attacks against the residents, a new batch of fighters has been arriving almost every day from surrounding villages like Bahzina, Hanambra, Shallouh, and Hawash to the sand barriers, to enlist against the militants. Al Akhbar Hanibal911 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Source clearly said that from this village gaining the Christians fighters to fight the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is in Homs wadi al nasara,not Sahel al ghab in Hama,make the change in Homs,not Hama,revert the Hama hawash one back. Alhanuty (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Self revert yourself hannibal.Alhanuty (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not edit the village Al Huwash in Hama province, but I thought that you are referring the village Hawash in Homs province. Just next time you need to ask the question more precisely! Hanibal911 (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yabroud under Government control
Source-1 (Al Arabiya English) & Source-2 (Dailystarlb)--Homan 056k (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, likely true. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/syrian-army-captures-strategic-border-town-20143167587954232.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian forces, backed by Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, are in full control of Yabroud after clearing out rebels holed up in the strategic Syrian town for months, Syrian state media and opposition activists have reported.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported that fighting was going on in small parts of the city http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16564&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UyWILPl5OYg FS1991 (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the above article from Al Jazeera there clearly stated that opposition activists confirmed the capture of the city Yabroud. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A fighter in Yabroud from the Nusra Front confirmed to Reuters the rebels had decided to pull out and said they were heading towards nearby villages including Hosh Arab, Rankos and Fleita. ReutersWorld BulletinGulf News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wadi Barada
News are coming (e.g. [syrianewsdesk.com/en/2014/03/16/news-fierce-bombardment-targets-wadi-barada-rif-dimashq]) that the valley going from the Zabadani area to Damascus are experiencing military activity. Some towns as (following wikimapia translitteration) 'Ayn al-Fijah, Dayr Miqrin should be labelled as contested. While I cannot easily identify other towns that should be green but are ubder attack. I guess we shoudl add these towns to the map. Another info reports clash in  Ard Al Dahr that in wikimapia should corresponds to Al-Drayj (?) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=33.619623&lon=36.258144&z=15&m=b Has anybody more info? Apparently these used to be under rebel control but government forces are attacking and in some of them cleahses are ongoing. Help in clarifying the situation is welcome.--Paolowalter (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You can understand that we can not use the pro opposition sources to display the rebels advances. Need confirmation from a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no statement about rebel advance, They are reporting attack from government forces.

An old article reports as well that this area is under opposition control [syriadirect.org/main/30-reports/947-wadi-barada-uses-water-spring-to-keep-regime-invasion-at-bay]

Same source as before reports fighting [syrianewsdesk.com/en/2014/03/01/news-regime-shelling-targets-ein-al-feejeh-rif-dimashq]

In late October there was a bar bomb exploding in Wadi Barada that was reported in the international press stating that the city was under opposition comtrol. See e.g.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) Paolowalter (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The town is under rebel control, but troops loyal to the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad were positioned right outside it, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.Israel National NewsTimes of Israel24NewsGlobal Post Hanibal911 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Facebook
Facebook is not a reliable source of information and can not be used for editing.WP:FACEBOOK All who will edit the map using Facebook will break the rules Wikipedia these acts will be considered vandalism. So I have a big request to all editors to refrain from the use of Facebook for map editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All users who blindly consider facebook a source (which is simply not true) and use that to reverse an edit based on a source published on facebook are engaging in vandalism which can be reversed as many times a day without breaking the rules.
 * Hanibal911, you should be intelligent enough to be able to read and understand what WP:FACEBOOK means. If not, you should not be editing the map.
 * It is true that most reports published on facebook are not from reliable sources. That is because facebook is largely (but not entirely) a socially oriented media, where users report their opinions not necessarily based on facts.  But most is not all.  Please re-read the guideline before spouting again this nonsense. André437 (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying about that all the information is not credible. I just propose to not use as a source to edit data directly from Facebook. I think it will be true and in a certain sense the compromise solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Point already discussed previously. Your compromise solution is simply following your point of view. For important news (like capture of Zahra) SOHR facebook deliver

the information faster and is regularly confirmed by other sources. Most of sources that are considered more reliable end up using SOHR or SANA anyway. I am afraid yuo confuse the source (SOHR or SANA) with the media. WP:FACEBOOK states clearly that FB pages can be used under certain conditions. These conditions are met by SOHR for example, pending that the source is biased pro-rebel. Also SAA has a FB page, that reports the same news as SANA and they are as much or as little credible. On the basis that most editors do not share your POV on FB, you and other should stop reverting map update by others that used e.g. SOHR and that always turned out to be correct just the day after (at least mine). Paolowalter (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

1) The new Aleppo-map is not yet functioning! 2) It remains absurd,that Ayn Issa is marked red! Ayn Issa is still under rebel-islamist control and the Brigade 93 is besieged,not able to carry out an own offensive to seize nearby territory! Absolutely hair-rising,how you "secret" pro-Assad-mapmakers act! You don´t want to hear the truth,but only the pro-Assad-propaganda-crap,which you believe on your own! All realistic guys,including the pro-Assad Ones know,that the Brigade-93-Soldiers cannot take over Ayn Issa,this is absurd! Furthermore SOHR has confirmed,that Ayn Issa is still under ISIS-control and that in recent days more reinforcements came to Ayn Issa to strengthen the pressure on Brigade 93! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.27.251 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop making unsubstantiated claims and accusations of bias. You must specify the sources that can confirm all your words, or you will be charged with defamation. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not feed the troll :-). This guy is just provoking us. Better to give no reply.

Paolowalter (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Calm down guys, although there indeed are some pro-assad editors here, you should not generalise it to all editors. As for Ain Issa i'm highly sceptical about it, as it is as realistic as surrounded rebels taking territory in Southern Damascus. Also funny how to see people start talking **** about the arab chronicle and then bring it when they are happy with the news reported. Anyway, Ain Issa should be contested til we know some more about there situation there. --Amedjay (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Facebook cannot be used, PERIOD. Its not me who says it, but WP rules and guidelines, although some pro-terrorist users here try to distort it and workaround rules. ALL Facebook pages used as sources will be deleted ASAP. You're warned.-- HC PUNX  KID 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your comment is a promise to vandalise. Note that any vandalism can be removed without limitations or discussion.
 * I don't know if it is a lack of understanding of english, or a lack of intelligence, or simple pig-headedness, but the WP guidelines most definitely DO NOT say that facebook cannot be used. Is it that you don't understand the difference between MOST and ALL ?  Or you just enjoy the risk of being banned ? André437 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can make all the threats you want, the only promise to vandalise is yours, trying to workaround WP rules. If you cant understand whats a primary source or you are so sectarian, ignorant and blind that you called Liveleak a "pro-Assad mouthpiece" (one of the dumbest and craziest claims I've ever heard in WP), there's little to discuss with you. Im gonna remove that Facebook links incorrectly used as a source, like it or not, because I respect WP rules, something you dont.-- HC PUNX  KID 15:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So citing the real guidelines, you consider a threat ? Why don't you re-read the guidelines a few times, and maybe get someone to translate them in into your mother tongue ?  I'm not the only one who has pointed out the obvious errors in your declarations.  Again, you are clearly promising to vandalize.  And you are the only editor here so intransigent in your POV pushing. André437 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo city map
The map is good to some extent, but it lacks accuracy at the southern conflict line between the Syrian Army and the so-called FSA. News have been reported that regular flights to and from the Aleppo International Airport were launched at the beginning of March 2014. The route from the city used by the public to reach to the airport, is the southern highway that connects the southern borders of the Hamadaniyah district with the airport crossing through the southern portion of Sheikh Sayid district. Many agencies have reported that the subject highway is safe and secured 100% by the Syrian Arab Army. However, the creator of the map ignored the fact that the highways is currently the only route to the airport and is fully under the SAA control. Consequently, I suggest to change the entire olive colour around the highway to red colour.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide source for your claims regarding the highway. Thanks. Kami888 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the only sources I have are related with the Syrian government or from pro-government websites, won't be accepted here as previously agreed.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Qamishlo
Violent clashes between YPG and regime forces in down-town Qamishlo. The status of the city should be changed to contested. http://pukmedia.com/EN/EN_Direje.aspx?Jimare=19318 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.252.248 (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think instead of what would change the whole city to contested will be better if someone from the experienced editors will create a map  which will display more detail the situation in the area. I think we need to do the same thing that was done in the area of and. This in my opinion would be the best solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As someone who follows this aspect of the conflict more closely than probably anyone else here, I can tell you that information on territorial control in Qamishlo and (especially) Hasakah is far too sparse and vague for that to be reasonable. There is a much larger body of information to draw on for Aleppo, Damascus, and Daraa, which is why it's easier to make accurate maps for those areas. With Qamishlo and Hasakah, it's difficult to even find maps that map the districts well to begin with, let alone who controls what. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Since in the Kurdish areas periodically occur skirmishes between army and  YPG but it's just only local clashes but not the full-scale hostilities. So my suggestion can solve this problem. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

YPG seized bread factory and the building used by the regime as a customs centre in the district Qadurbak.Firat News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for a map since the violence in the city is sporadic, low-level and non-notable compared to the other cities. EkoGraf (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

For qamishli I think there need to be two yellow rings and one red ring, because certainly the Kurds control the majority of the town. Alhanuty (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably do not see that the city marked in yellow color because much of the city under the control of the Kurds and with a red circle in center that would show that the army controls some areas in the city center and a red circle around the city that  would show that army also is around the town Qamishli. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You guys should really change Qamishlo and Hasaka, because a random guy who takes a look on the map perceives those citys as being dominated by regime forces. This is not truce and not in line whit the reality, since YPG and its affiliates control about 80% of the two citys. The regime only got a significant presence in the central of the to citys so why should there be an red outer circle? The artillery bases and other regime positions are already on the map, so its not necessary to have a red outer circle to. You cant have the cake and eat it to. Its wired that this two citys have been looking like this for so long, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.252.248 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not need to invent! Because some sources claim that YPG controls 80% of the city Qamishlo but not one source not claims that YPG controls 80% of the city Hasaka. The regime still retains wide control in Hassakeh city and in the city of Qamishli.Al Monitor Also I think now the best solution is to leave everything as it is. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Government controlled important part from this city including the airport there are different TV reports from 2014 in this place..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcSebcXXrhs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyjTRwbnDlI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYvwpwZU5EE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDyoOwlHLY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk8PiWhBln4

This one from 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtdJPUlhKic

I don't get it. What source have you used to justify an outer red circle? Which positions do the regime have in the outskirts of Qamishlo and Hasaka? In This source it is stated that regime forces are in control of the city centre will the Kurds control the outskirts of the city (16:00). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2zxlFQxkQ4 The best solution is not to leave it as it is, it is to base things on facts. The map should comply with the reality on the ground. When it comes to airports and military bases, they are all ready positioned on the map so it's not necessary to have outer circle because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.254.5 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The regime still retains wide control in Hassakeh city and in the city of Qamishli.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you base your argument on that source then you have to immediately remove the red outer circle. There isn't any question about it. They only mention the regime in one sentence and the information isn't specific or even clear. Wide control isn't specific enough and it can mean any thing. Seriously, you are starting to piss me of. You haven't presented enough facts to convince us whey there should be a red outer circle. Since you failed, the red outer circle has to be removed.

Hanibal911
The user Hanibal911 is continuously mobbing me reverting almost all changes I make. Apparently almost all sources are partisan and unreliable, facebook cannot be used (e.g. sohr) even if it claims advance of the opposite side and now even blog cannot be used (yallasouria reporting something in favour of the government). To justify that he misinterprets wikipedia rules about facebook and blogs. His comments are quite meningless: "And no need to use to edit such sources as yalla souriya because has repeatedly was proved that this source is not reliable. And sometimes some editors start using it in order that to display the rebels advances and map turns into trash." It is obvoius that yalla souriya cannot be used to certify rebel advances but is fine to report SAA advances. All this mess because I turned one village in Quneitra from green to contested!!! Can somebody stop him, assuming he has no special role in dictating rules to ther others? In any case, most of Quneitra villages are contested following a variety of sources but they do not pass Hanibal911 rules and that block any improvement of the map. And Ayn al-Tinah is green as I discussed at length in previous editing. What is the opinion of the other editors?Paolowalter (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I myself have tried to note the village Ayn al-Tinah to the lime but my editing was revert other editor.thisAra News And I revert only the ones  your editings which were  made ​​using not reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored green Ayn al-Tinah for third times. Hopefully the last.

No you keep reverting everything. Relying on opposition sources to support government advances (and viceversa) has been long accepted. Paolowalter (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Be glad you found in Hannibal one of the few editors who undo edits of advances of both rebels and government forces... Most editors here only care about green or red dots instead of reliable sources. For once I need to compliment Hannibal for not turning a blind eye here. Heisenberg99 (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Heisenberg99 for your praise to my address. I have always believed that it is necessary when editing to adhere only to the reliable data and no matter in which side is  the editing or it is in favor of the government or the opposition. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

full support for hanibal. Ras al-Ain contested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.207.40 (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How can you claim support for a fan of neutral sources and than claim

that Ras al-Ain contested without any source? Here is one but manay won't accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I mistyped in adding Shayzar. The source is a pro-opp site http://syrianewsdesk.com/en/2014/03/17/news-fsa-captures-8-regime-soldiers-hama-countryside-village.Paolowalter (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Redur xelil
Redux xelil,the spokesman of the ypg confirms,that there is fighting in tal khanzir and khirbet banat,proving that ISIL was able to regain tal sabkhan and khirbet ghazali,I rerequest to add the two new cities are contested,and put the two latter already cities as ISIL controlled.Alhanuty (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sarrin
There are heavy clashes occurring as we speak in Sarrin. There is a battle raging between alliance FSA/IF/YPG against ISIS. I'm getting my information from various sources updating as we speak via twitter. By the sounds of it, YPG led attack is succeeding. Malik Danno (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Local sources report Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) seized Sîrîn town that is near to Kobane. After the fierce clashes between Syrian Armed Forces and ISIS members in the town, ISIS got control of the town. This confirms Kurdish source.Hawar News Hanibal911 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That reference is way off base. (Maybe a bad translation ?)  The ISIS have held the town (35 km SSW of Kobane) for quite some time.  The YPG, E-K, and FSA are in a coordinated campaign to evict the ISIS, as mentioned in the first post in this section.  It is a critical link for the ISIS, between NE Alep and Raqqa.  See, at the end (of many available references). André437 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Daraa city map
rebels have captured the daraa/gharaz central prison, and there are clashes in this area since two month ago which makes the road from daraa to umm al-mayadin contested, and the area of the central prison green.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkUhG-7e2js&feature=youtu.be

http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16693&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UymCbUwUGHU

someone should change the map. Amensnober91 (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

BBC Map
Hey everyone, just want to bring to light this map BBC Map that shows some differences with the map presented here on wikipedia. Biggest conflict is Euphrates territory bordering Iraq (ISIS or Main Rebel Force?). What do you guys think about this BBC map? Malik Danno (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As we have said before is not worth using as source to edit the any not accurate maps map. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Besides the fact that that map is not annotated or in great detail (and thus not useful as a source), there are a number of very obvious errors. (1) Daraa city is NOT totally controled by the regime, and a large area to the west is rebel controled.  (2) Along the Euphrates river, both the regime and the ISIS has been evicted from everywhere between the border and the Deir ez-Zor city area.  I suspect that they are counting al-Nusra as part of the ISIS, but that doesn't explain the errors about a regime presence.
 * Their map does however recognize that large parts of the country are not controled by any side. André437 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ras al Ayn
Press TV reports that Ras al Ain has been liberated. I have a deep belief that this report is true. Change this city to Red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.151 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes just cause you have a feeling that is based on Press tv doesn't make it true, actually even SANA disagrees with you the town of Ras al-Ayn is contested according to this link from Yahoo.--Homan 056k (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ras al-Ayn now is contested this confirmed the SOHR.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * SOHR confirms Ras Al Aynn is in SAA and allies hands. --95.22.52.11 (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Bkhaa and Jobeh: these two villages in Qalamoun should be marked as contested or with red ring, as The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based NGO, reported fierce fighting between regime and rebel forces at a checkpoint near the town of Rankus, south of Yabrud.It said regime troops backed by Lebanon's Hezbollah and pro-regime militia were also fighting rebel and jihadist forces around the villages of Bkhaa and Jobeh in Qalamoun region. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-19/250704-syria-army-fighting-for-control-of-krak-fort-official.ashx#axzz2wLLjV4hG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.123.211.49 (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

✅. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Army units took over Ras Al Ayn, southwest of Yabroud.Gulf NewsNOW News Hanibal911 (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Rankus - Qalamoun
The pro-government source SyrianPerspective has reported that Rankus was captured by the Syrian Army earlier this morning at around 4:00 a.m. EST. Awaiting further sources to back up the claim. SyrianPerspective --KaanTurkiye (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

YPG liberation of 7 villages near Ras-al-Ain
The villages are: Can someone add them to the map? I don't know their latitude/longitude myself. Thanks. --Ahmetyal (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell Henzir
 * Tell Xezal Miço (Tal-Gazal Majo)
 * Ferisa Şerabiyan (Farisa Al-Sharabeen)
 * Ferisa Sofiyan (Farisa Sufian)
 * Ferisa Dişo (Farisa Desho)
 * Tell Boğan (Al-Buga)
 * Tell Meha (Tal-Almaha)

Okay, I found the town Tell Henzir (Til Xenzîr): 36.751264, 39.835125. I will add that one. --Ahmetyal (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Now with Arab names. --Ahmetyal (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The YPG fighters liberate by ISIS militants the villages Tel Ghazal, Majo, Farisa al-Sharabin, Farisa Sofiyan, Farisa Dasho, Tel al-Maha and al-Bogha.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tomb of Suleyman Shah
This area is considered "Turkish Territory" acc to agreements b/w Turkey & France. Should this be added?--Homan 056k (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 1| info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Suleyman_Shah 2| info: https://plus.google.com/109044970213631232914/about?gl=us&hl=en location: http://wikimapia.org/6673994/Tomb-of-Suleyman-Shah

Rebels belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have threatened Turkey to withdraw its troops from the Suleyman Shah tomb in Aleppo, which is officially Turkish territory.World Bulletin I think we need to note somehow this object on the map. Other source said the Tomb of Suleyman Shah is surrounded by ISIS.conflict antiquities Hanibal911 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Quinatra & Kasab border crossing (Latakia)
In recent weeks, rebel forces have been taking several checkpoints in Ouinatra province. A video crew of Al Jazeera was able to enter the border area and confirm that rebels control all villages but one. So, we should add every village in Quinatra province to green, except the village in the video below (that is red with a green circle).

Live source with images: live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/110074259

Also, rebels have taken over Kasab border crossing in Latakia province. Sources: http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/110082629 http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/110082574 http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/islamist-rebels-fight-to-take-syria-crossing-with-turkey_919407.html http://inagist.com/all/446893761172619264/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And carefully examine your source. In your source is clearly said that the Al Jazeera can not independently verify the content of this video. And this your source is clearly indicates that the fights go around Kasab border crossing. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not enough to note all the villages in Quneitra the under rebel control. Need more information. Syrian opposition forces say they are closing in on the last government controlled village in Quneitra province.Al Jazeera But it's just a statement of rebels and there is not any other acknowledgments of the fact that the rebels have captured all the villages in the province Quneitra. For such a major change need more information. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Also rebels not captured border crossing Kesab fights go around it.NaharnetAhramZee NewsThe Daily StarNOW News Hanibal911 (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kasab
Just to point out there are strong tweets reporting that the islamist rebels have retreated from the battle and NDF have retaken loss ground but of course we must wait for verification. One other thing, Kasab Border crossing and Kasab (town) are two areas seperately, somebody might want to edit the locations. Kasab (town) which is made up of clusters of villages and the Kasab crossing itself is just South-east of it.--Homan 056k (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Source clearly said that fierce clashes around the Kasab crossing.NaharnetThe Daily StarYahoo News But other sources said that the Syrian troops have thwarted an offensive and infiltration attempt by armed militant groups.Global TimesSina EnglishXinhua Hanibal911 (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another from Reuters stating that Government forces are in control of Kasab town but fighting continues on the crossing which are two seperate areas. So in my POV Kasab town should be encircled w/ green as it is and the Border crossing which is south-east should be disputed.--Homan 056k (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I noted the village Kesab under army control and noted the Kesab border crossing under rebel control with a red ring around because fighting is still ongoing on around the border crossing.Yahoo NewsReutersWorld Bulletin Hanibal911 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo kurdish towns
Some isis-kurd contested towns in aleppo should just go kurds.

I can't find any updates on those towns at all. Following ISIS withdrawal form al-Rai, we can assume ISIS isn't very prevalent in those towns and most likely withdrew.

The last time news came from one of the towns, Tal Shair, was an opposition-recorded barrel bombing on the town. 

Further evidence the Kurds won those towns. Sopher99 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also think it would be right. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This map from the pro opposition source The Arab Chronicle that displays where now there are clashes between YPG vs ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nawa and Sheyk Massin
The opposition news site Syria:direct has reported Nawa and Sheyk Massin as government-held with a nearby frontline between the rebels and the Army. For a source google and check the article THREE YEARS LATER, SOUTH SYRIA’S DARAA PROVINCE LOCKED IN STALEMATE at the site of Syria:direct, dated March 20, 2014. This would be in line with the pro-government source Syria Perspective which recently posted a map of the area, according to which both towns were government-held. EkoGraf (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the text "As Syria’s government trumpets ceasefires in the Damascus suburbs and victories in the Qalamoun region, rebels in Daraa have been unable to progress north past the line of regime-held towns at Nawa, Sheikh Maskeen and Izraa, even as daily clashes continue."Daki122 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - clashes in those cities are ongoing. Sopher99 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The source does not say the clashes are IN those towns and in the SAME sentence the pro-opposition source explicitly says those towns are government-held. So for all intents and purposes, they were talking about rebel attempts to pass those towns which continue to be government-held, that is, the fighting is happening at the very least near them, but not IN them, which the sentence never says and is in fact contradictory to that (your) view. EkoGraf (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there happens to be clashes in government controlled Daraa city, so same logic here. Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I had enough of uses pro-opposition sources for government advances and visa versa. Either we use opposition and government sources or we don't, because it is subjective judgement to decide whethe rsomething seems favorable to one side or another.

Secondly Here is an Al monitor source confirming Nawa and Inkhil are rebel held. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/02/syria-southern-front-escalation-clashes-damascus.html Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

First, nobody calls Daraa a government-controlled city (everyone calls it a contested city), second your source does not say Nawa and Inhil are rebel-held, third your source is from a month ago while this one is from yesterday, fourth if you object to the currently established policy of using sources than open up a discussion (P.S. you yourself used SANA when they reported fighting in towns otherwise reported to be exclusivaly government-held). EkoGraf (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You broke the 1 revert rule, and the last time I used SANA was months ago. Sopher99 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sopher let's be objective when you have changed the citys in East Ghuta you used information from blogs. And the source of Al Monitor not say that the town of Nava and Inkhil under rebel control. The best option to look for more information about these cities that it would finally stop arguing over whether who control these citys. Also I think the war of editors is counterproductive and destructive factor for the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It says the government forces are trying to make progress towards inkhil and nawa, and the fact that they are doing so tells us both are under rebel control. Sopher99 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The oppositionists said that the Syrian forces tried to make progress toward the towns of Inkhil and Nawa in the western countryside of Damascus. But now the opposition claimed that the city Nawa under the control of the army. And now we have the a contradictory situation. So I think in this situation we need try to find the more accurate data  who can finally resolve our dispute. Also if we will revert editings each other the admins can to block us and no one will benefit from this. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You should not talk with Sopher99. He is just a vandal with no

interest in the situation on ground. Now he just changed the status of three towns quoting sources that are not at all claiming anything: 1) Tasil : some rebels were coming from Tasil, that is contested, nothing to do with Tasil green; 2) a bomb planted in Qarfa dismantled by the army made the town contested!! 3) Sheik Saad might be true, but it is based on statement from opposition. Should we take them seriously? The first two must be reversed immediately. What about the third?Paolowalter (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the first two cases, you are absolutely right but in the third I think we can leave this editin because here at least is clearly stated that in the city there are fights. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nawa has disapperead on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with the article referred to above is that it talks in very general terms, and does NOT definitively say that the regime holds ALL of Nara, Sheikh Maskin, and Izra. Although I don't doubt that the regime holds all of Izra, there have been countless reports of fighting in Nara, and regime bombing on the town, and no reports specifically that the regime took all of the town, to the best of my knowledge.  Similarly, there have been numerous recent reports of clashes in Sheikh Maskin, including the regime bombing the town, but no reports of the regime taking full control of all of the town.
 * This article is indeed vague about whether clashes occurred in or around the towns. Thus, by this very fact, it is not enough to decide to change the status of Nawa, long contested, from contested to regime held.  Similarly, Sheikh Maskin should remain contested, although I'm not sure that our map has reflected the numerous recent reports of clashes in the town.
 * BTW, editors should always preview changes before posting, to avoid corruption. André437 (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have previously suggested we need on few days leave everything as it is and try to find more information that can explain to us the situation with the cities Nawa and  Sheikh Maskin. And if we do not find other evidence we again  change these cities on contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing about Nawa it was always government held the town was changed based on an article that said that the government bombed a colum of refugees in Nawa(never even said was it near or outside the town).But I will argue this if anyone has followed the conflict will remember that in late August Reuters published a story that Nawa was firmly under the control of the Army then in November another article I think it was Al-Monitor said "the Army stronghold of Nawa" this was during the Quamlamon offensive when it reported the rebels might strike back in Deraa and now we come at last to this article that again states that Nawa is government controlled(rebel statement).Daki122 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked at archive of http://www.documents.sy and I found recente references to fighting in Nawa:

as well as in Sheick Maksim plus many other in pro-opp sources. Even syria perspective map show them as contested. I have nose seen anything suggesting change in their status since.Therefore I will retain as contested. On the other hand we can keep Sheik Saad as contested for the moment, but if don't get any news of fighting in the next week or so, it will go back to red. Paolowalter (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed André437 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you in respect the city Nawa because your source is newer but  I not agree with you in respect  the city  Sheikh Maskeen because your report which said about clashes in city for 6 March but  source which provided editor EkoGraf for 20 March and this means that its source is newer. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

put Nawa with red and green sircucle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.45.12 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Iraq War detailed map
Hello everyone, I just want to ask (since many of you are interested in the Syrian Civil War) if you don't mind also contributing to the related events happening in neighbouring Iraq through Iraq War Detailed Map. Thanks! Malik Danno (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Kesab Border crossing
All sources used to change it as rebel held were miss read it says that the rebels have taken most of the border crossings with turkey and that heavy fighting was still ongoing on the border crossing.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2L0G020140322?feedType=RSS&irpc=932 http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-battle-syria-border-post-near-mediterranean-145446383.html?.tsrc=samsungbm

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the Syrian conflict, said the rebels had "in principle" taken control of the crossing itself, although fighting continued in the area and Assad's forces were still in control of Kasab village, barely a mile (two km) to the northwest.

This on the other hand is a claim by SOHR which is an anti-gov monitoring group and based on its release of information might I remind you that SOHR a "group" that gathers info from activists which are highly anti government and that unless those claims are confirmed by a third party or the other side we should restrain our self's from using that info to change the map.Daki122 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

again changes for rebels.... how long.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.45.12 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors the reliable source Reuters clearly said that heavy clashes continued for a third day around Kasab, where rebels have seized control of the border crossing but Assad's forces, who still control the nearby Kasab village, have been fighting back, supported by air power.Reuters So stop unjustified editing because the source clearly said that the city Kesab is under control  army and the Kesab border crossing now contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)