Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 39

Zalaqiat Checkpoint - Hama
https://www.facebook.com/Syrian.Revolution/photos/a.10150397575815727.619133.420796315726/10155167574500727/?type=1&theater The official Syrian Revolution Page saying rebels liberated the Zalaqiat checkpoint. This means the checkpoint was/is regime held. I suggest changing the Zalaqiat checkpoint to regime held because the same page announced that Tal Kroum was liberated while we all know it wasn't. Zalaqiat CP to red and we could add a semi-green circle to its north. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason the Zalaqiat checkpoint is green to begin with is SOHR. Now you have a pro-opp source saying that the rebels just took it. Changing the checkpoint to red because a pro-opp source reported a rebel capture, however, may constitute original research as you are "reverse analyzing" the source. I support your solution, thought, so let's see what other editors have to say. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. Especially that this source has been used this way numerous times. Aka for Agop Hill, Durin Mountain, Tall Kroum and now here. They reveal they don't control the area by saying they are bombarding it. As for now the recent reality is that Zalaqiat is regime held and the rebels are attacking it. Until a reliable source confirms the capture, it should stay red with a green semi-circle to the north. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SOHR saying clashes are occurring near the Zalaqiat CP and the rebels are advancing ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I'll change the checkpoint to red and do nothing about the rebels' "advances". Seriously, why does SOHR not just specify the advances and make it so much easier. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pro-regime sources are saying that the attack was repulsed while a new SOHR report implicitly approves of that, since despite the earlier advances, there was no takeover + rebel casualties. So I also agree that Zalaqiat should remain SAA-held with a semi-green circle to its north. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There you go, rebels confirming their retreat from Zalaqiat CP due to heavy bombardment, while SOHR remained silent! ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have made the change to the checkpoint, however, I do not know how to add semicircles. I will ask another editor if they know how to. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Nusra in Dar'a and Quneitra
According to many reports, there is a steady presence of al-Nusra in the Dar'a and Quneitra governorates, controlling a significant number of villages. Some say that they cooperate with the Syrian Opposition in this area (Islamic Front and SRF), but they still form a separate and distinctive force. GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nusra doesn't control a single individual village and town in Daara/Quneitra. They share control of many towns, such as Nawa, but does not fully control village or town. Also, they are currently fighting a Free Syrian Army faction, the Yarmouk Army, accusing the FSA-linked brigade of having pledged obedience to the Islamic State, which the brigade denies. The fighting however is limited to a few towns, and the other Free Syrian Army factions, along with independent Islamic Brigades and some Islamic Front groups, are against the infighting between those groups, which stop us from changing some towns to contested between Nusra and FSA, since most factions of the Free Army are still working with both sides on the southern inter-insurgency conflict. I believe to maintain those towns Green unless the fighting between the Free Syrian Army and Nusra expands to another factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.152.90 (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not precise - for according to Al-Monitor, Beit Jan is controlled by FSA, while Mazraat Beit Jan is by Al-Nusra. In many cases, JAN control specific villages, though they do keep a cease fire with FSA and Islamic Front factions in the region.GreyShark (dibra) 21:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The villages are of course in Quneitra and Riff Dimashq accordingly, but they are adjacent to each other.GreyShark (dibra) 21:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Who and what controls in Syria
Moderate rebels are no longer one of the major players in the Syrian conflict! The four strongest authorities in Syria are the Assad government, ISIS, Nusra, and the Kurds. They rule close to 95% of Syrian territory: This leaves the hundreds of additional militias controlling the remaining 5%, but in some areas “No F.S.A. faction can operate without Nusra’s approval.” Jihadis prevailed in 2014.Joshua Landis Hanibal911 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Syrian government rules 45% of the land and perhaps 65% of the population, give or take.
 * ISIS rules 35%, but controls less than 3 million people.
 * Kurds may control about 8% or 9% of Syria.
 * Al Nusra another 5% of Syria.
 * So essentially, moderate rebels control 40-50% of rural Deraa and that is it? I was under the impression that they held more land. 2015 will be very interesting indeed. Who will seize the 35% of Syria when ISIS collapses, I wonder. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All do to their failure to unite. Over 3 years of war, and they never truly united as a military force. The Southern Front aside, the SRF was the last biggest moderate conglomeration I'm aware of, and it's been obliterated as a large entity. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will add XJ-0461, that after a possible ISIS demise most of this terrain will become local fiefdoms and some of them will sworn allegience to the SAA, obviously looking for protection againt ISIS.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There biggest mistake was getting into bed with jihadi groups which lost them support outside Syria and inside. There only hope now must be in a peace deal that gives them some say in running the country ,as for the jihadists the war goes on until the government and moderates are defeated .81.156.224.243 (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Kobane siege pro-kurdish outlet welati claimed areas controlled by kurds had a population of 3.5 millions, pre-Kobane numbers could probably be way closer to 2 million however, have to search a bit more of info on the matter.

179.32.121.230 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

While reading his previous articles I had a meaning that Joushua Landis has some menthal problems, while he suddenly posts something unrelated .. i can't remember now but he often used words such as "monkey, rats, gorilaz" describing rebels in Syria. I think his wife comes from Latakia, that could be the reason, nevertheless i always think he's a propagadna writer, nothing more, but this is just my opinion. DuckZz (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR said two weeks ago that government don't control more than 30 % of Syria anymore... The numbers of the beginning of this discussion are I believe quiet biased... I agree with the fact that moderate rebels do not control much of the ground but if you consider the territory still held by the Shamia Front in Aleppo, in Idlib, as long with the ground held by the Southern Front, and the Islamic Front in Damascus contryside, the more or less moderate military opposition forces are still a player on the ground that could rise from the ashes of the current Syria in the years to come of this ongoing war... Two years ago, who would have believed that ISIS would have taken that much ground today ? I think burying anyone now would not be serious at all.Oussj (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SOHR is no longer a reliable source, look at their main logo a FSA flag. Is there another proof necesary for their biased opinion.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have long found that Landis makes very superficial reports on Syria. (I've mostly seen his videos.)  He plays the role of "expert" in interviews, being an academic that supposedly focuses on Syria.  But he is probably less well informed than most of us, with a bias consistently underestimating moderate rebels.  Although it is probably true that many small moderate rebel groups are intimidated by al-Nusra, they do control territory that al-Nusra would be unable to control themselves.  In Daraa, it is only the reluctance of the dominant FSA to turn al-Nusra into an enemy instead of an ally that leaves them as a force there.  And it is similar in Aleppo city, with the recent alliance of the 5 largest groups, 4 FSA and one moderate IF group.  If the Islamic Front is considered moderate (they are closer to the FSA than to any other group), 5% control is ridiculous.  FSA and IF groups together in Aleppo province alone probably control more than 5% of the country, and another 5% in Daraa and Quneitra.  Not counting control in Idlib, Homs, and Damascus provinces.  Which is certainly not all al-Nusra.
 * I would take Landis reports with a few kilos of salt.
 * I would also note that the regime controls 0% of the 1/3 of the population which fled the country, probably dominantly pro moderate rebel. As well as noting that many fled to regime controlled areas to escape regime bombardment targeting civilian populations in other areas.  Not because they were attracted by regime terrorism.  (Or systematic gross human rights violations and war crimes, using the terminology of the UN.) André437 (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jordanian border
Can somebody who edited red dots and checkpoints all along the eastern Jordanian border in Daraa province give his/her sources? There has been no discussion here, but there have been edited some three border checkpoints, two red villages and the industrial zone near Nasib. Sources?
 * Pro opposition source ArchiciviliansArchicivilians clear show that this area to east from Nassib border crossing still under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

On this page the discussion is here Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 .A editor has taken them of map .Vandalism .86.141.225.40 (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm looking at the correct edit, it's not vandalism, check the history of the Module in future before claiming vandalism. Revert was done by the person who originally made this map because the source (Wikimapia) is unreliable. See User talk:Hanibal911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith the Gamer (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Um Kuheif and Abu Kabir south of Qamishli barrel bombed by Syrian Airforce
According to Aranews both villages have been bombed recently meaning they are in control of IS, from what I see they are not present in the map but mapping them out could prove useful to better detail the Tal Hamis area, specially if future offensives end up happening.

Source is aranews: http://aranews.net/2014/12/syrian-regime-renews-airstrikes-militants-near-qamishli/

According to wikimapia Abu Kabir is the village directly north of Tal Hamis, here:

http://wikimapia.org/8649183/Tall-Hamis

Um Kuheif however I can't find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.112.200.23 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Aleppo map
Is it possible to shrink the size of the Aleppo city sub-map on the overall module? If we could scoot the right side of it over to say, lined up with Safira, we would better be able to document the territory around Kweiris Airbase and the clashes north of Lake Jabboul. al-Masdar, SOHR, and the ISW all report increased fighting in the area. Tradedia talk I know you are a creator of the map; André437 you've done some graphic design for this. MrPenguin20, Kami888, I see you two are involved with the Aleppo map as well. Opinions/options? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's even a better idea to remove the map for Hasaka and instead make a map for Kobane, there are plenty of uptades and sources showing the situation.DuckZz (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No! It is very bad idea! Because those maps show more detaled situation but also in some cases prevent the war of edits. Just need on these maps timely do update. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I do think Boredwhytekid has a good point and I also think DuckZz has a good point in making a map for Kobane. Rhocagil (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you evaluate the year of 2014 in Syria (and even Iraq) ?
I mean: Who won in long term, who lost power. What were the major terriorial changes in this year? What do you expect in 2015 ? What do you think about the rise of ISIS in the eastern parts of Syria and half of Iraq and the rising of Al-Nursa "emirate" in Idlib ? Do you think that the "moderate" rebels will play any role in the future (Failure or succes of the American foregin policy) ? Do you think that the Assad-goverment will collapse sooner or later in long term (lack of manpower)? You can share your own toughts or send some professional analisis (with links of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of job security, Assad has never been safer since the start of the uprising. The "moderate" rebels are on their last legs and ISIS and JAN do not care about overthrowing him, only expanding. In Idilb, they have lost all territory and they have become puppets in Aleppo. The only place they are truly relevant is the south, which brings me to a discussion on Eastern Ghota. That pocket of rebel resistance is also on its last legs, and will probably not survive this winter. There are 20-25k pro-gov forces besieging the place. When the fight is over, they will flood the southern front, giving the moderate rebels a real issue to deal with. As for the government's lack of manpower, that has be touted since 2012, and nothing has come of it, so I do not give it much thought. The real wild card is ISIS. It is an unstable entity that holds 35% of Syria. When it collapses, the final outcome of the war will emerge in my own opinion. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Victors by Governate for 2014:

Raqqa: ISIS victory Deir-Ez-Zor: ISIS victory over rebels /SAA victory over ISIS Hasaka: YPG-SAA victory Homs: Major SAA victory Hama: SAA victory Aleppo: Major SAA victory Latakia: SAA victory Tartous: N/A Swayda: N/A Rif Dimashq: SAA victory Qunietra/Derra: Major Rebel victory Idlib: JAN victory XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Hasaka is a YPG-SAA victory, yes, IS carried out several failed offensives but the first of these knocked out SAA from Regiment 121 and most of the southern countryside of the city, rest of frontlines save for Qamishlo South Front (YPG-SAA victories) have been more of a stalemate, with very little difference from the situation we had starting the year despite many offensives carried by all three parties.

Aleppo is also somewhat of a IS victory over rebels and YPG too since they got control of half of its northern countryside almost getting to Azaz while taking most of the Kobane countryside which YPG won't retake anytime soon if at all.

179.32.121.230 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis might seem credible if it wasn't for the "SAA victory over ISIS in Deir Ezzor". Being besieged in an airbase can in no way be interpreted as a victory. Anyways, the year 2014 was significant for many reasons. The rise of IS in eastern Syria is probably the biggest event to happen, followed by the tightening noose around Aleppo, as well as the rebel resurgence in the south. Other significant but less influential events include the Kobane media spectacle and anti-IS coalition conducting strikes in Syria, as well as the very recent fall of the Ma'arat al Nu'man SAA bases. The events in southern Idlib cast a shadow of doubt on the SRF: how come Al Nusra was able to come in and do what it did in one month that the SRF couldn't do in over a year? All of these events will continue to play out into 2015. In the south, the question is whether the rebels can push further and bring some relief to Ghouta, or if the so-called "Southern Front" will crack like the rebels have done in the north. Another question is how the rebels in Aleppo are going to maneuver: will they stick around and form another "Ghouta" or will they retreat ala Homs? IS is a big question all on its own, and all the questions we have are well known, the biggest one is whether the combined efforts of local and international belligerents will at least be able to slow them down. In Idlib, we are wondering whether central Syria is no longer a safe haven of the regime, and whether Al Nusra will be able to break the defensive line of northern Hama and push into the province. Of course these issues do not even encompass 50% of the war, and only a full paper could discuss everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.72.175 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Iraq [Late June] [Now] Yeah as a whole is generally bad for Everyone except ISIL until before June. Iraqi Government about the same as June, Kurds slight loss of ground since then, so ISIL has slight gains.

Syria [January 18th [Now Kurds: Massive loss of land around Kobane, slight loss in North East, little change North west.

Rebels: Loss of all land North East, not helped by Nusra truces with ISIL. Good progress in the south, have regained strong control of the border of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone, much to the worry of those who are pro-Israel, as well as those who fear Israeli involvement. Israeli strikes on Hezbollah shipments alleged provision of weaponry to rebel groups may have helped, though personally I believe Israel does not want the Assad regime to fall, as Assad has kept peace with Israel. Rebels have traded roughly evenly with the Regime around Hama, Homes and Aleppo, but have lost ground to ISIS around al-Alab.

Regime: As well as the above listed, after rebel buffers between it and ISIL fell, it has lost sparsely populated areas, as well as denser areas between ISIL and Hama and between ISIL and Homs. It looks as though IS were trying to go straight for them.

ISIL: Pretty much all in above summaries. --John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay,for the first three months of 2014,Momentum was on Assad's side,Qalamoun/Aleppo/Homs,from April to June,it was really a stalemate,hence Aleppo/Qalamoun/Ghouta for regime,but Kessab/Daraa for rebels,Deir ez zor for ISIS,from July till October,it was ISIS offensives hence Raqqa/Hasakah/Aleppo/Homs,for the rest of the year,it was like Momentum for the rebels and Assad and ISIS, for rebels Idlib/the major breakthrough in Daraa through breaking the first defense line towards Rif Dimashq/Quneitra,ISIS really nothing,for Regime only Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta.Alhanuty (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

for 2015,government advance in Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta is expected,the war will overall stay a stalemate,unless the rebels capture the garrison city of Izra,which will effectively alter the course of the war in Southern Syria,and give the rebels back the momentum that they enjoyed from July 2012 till April 2013 and will make all regime advances irrevalent.Alhanuty (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont see the rebel Offensive going forward Sheyk Maskin its clear that the 4th Daraa Offensive its the FSA/South Front higheast watermark. The Offensive stalled just like Kessab. And again, like someone said the moderate Rebels cant go on the offensive without Nusra support. This have made believe the Nusra leaders that they are indispensable, see the Idlib take over, a complete coup between to sides of the Anti-Assad forces, now the JAN faction have its own colour in the Map. You see? This war its taking shape like the Chinesse Warlord Struggle from begining XX Century. A lot of small factions guided by lord with feudal(regional) interest, the uprising itself "topple of Assad" is no longer an ISIS /Nusra priority. Only the FSA and some Western Foreign interests are interested in taking out Assad. And thats will be the reason of its demise(FSA), they are fighting something too powerfull while Islamist became stronger draining them terrain, weapons and men. They have bite off something they cant Chew.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

there is a difference betweem fighting in an ultra-loyalist area like Kessab, and fighting in a pro-revolutionary area like Daraa. Alhanuty (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont want to cause controversy, but thats an opinion that lacks coherance. The Southern Front offensive is freezed by the SAA ongoign fighting in Sheyk Maskin.

Also, the infighting in Daraa has ended. Alhanuty (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

all sides in the war except the kurds will be degraded through the fighting.Alhanuty (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wont be sure, Kurds are the only one without a safe place to hide, they wont be greeted by Erdogans Turkey neither by Jordan or Iran, in case of an Hipothetical Second ISIS Offensive they only have to retreat towards they territory. They are strategically more susceptible to a ISIS genocide.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot tell you how many times infighting in Idlib was "ended" too. The Southern front is extremely overstated in value. If you look at Peto Lucem's western Ghota map, you will notice that Damascus is completely surrounded by military bases facing the south. Any idea that the rebels could somehow storm the capital from the south is absurd. Taking the entire Deraa governate will be easier than taking all those bases.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

38,000 rebels storming from Daraa and Quneitra will be enough to overwhelm those defenses,and force them to collapse.Alhanuty (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A few points. One, there are not 38k rebels down there, only about 20k. If they had such manpower, why are they stuck at Shiek miskeen? Two, those defenses were built to withstand an attack in the event of an IDF invasion. Do you think such bases will be brought down by rebels? Three, the rebels have had enormous problems mobilizing their forces due to disunion and the threat of the SAF. Without direct foreign military intervention on behalf of the rebels, those bases cannot be brought down.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say a lot depends on outside support. Daesh has its' global jihad + Iraqi Sunni discontent + ressources largely stolen from rebel groups, al-Nusra has important support from al-Qaeda + ransom money via Qatar (which seems to have ended with Lebanon kidnapping) + ressources largely stolen from rebel groups, the islamic groups have some outside (mostly arab) funding + some local ressources, and the moderates much of the same, with potentially much more outside funding, should pro-Syrian supporters loose their fear of enabling the rebels to win, as opposed the the more important dangers of a protracted conflict.
 * The reason the SRF lost so readily in Idlib was that they were totally unprepared to defend themselves against al-Nusra. Had they been prepared, the outcome would have been very different, since al-Nusra did not have the numbers necessary to overwhelm a prepared SRF.  And Hasm made the mistake of attempting to act as mediator, instead of supporting the SRF.  The other FSA associated groups in Idlib were either too far from the initial conflicts or too small to make a difference.  The SRF debacle showed the lack of formal military training of Malrouf.  Al-Nusra had the advantage of veteran al-Qaeda leaders in that regard.
 * The subsequent quick taking of the 2 major regime bases in south-central Idlib is simply due to al-Nusra taking the heavy arms of the SRF (and some from Hasm), and putting their ressources, held in reserve before, against the 2 bases, in cooperation with more numerous other rebels. These bases were worn down by years of siege, with limited capacity to resist.
 * In the south, the Southern Front has overrun almost all the important defenses against Israel, which are/were in Daraa and Quneitra. South of Damascus is only a second line of defense, which will indeed be difficult to breach, because Assad defenses are progressively shifting there.  The rebels are advancing there since they have the numbers, and despite a severe lack in arms and equipment, are wearing down undermanned Assad defenses by attrition.  Once the rebels take north-eastern Daraa, I would expect little if any resistance from Suweida.
 * In Aleppo, the moderate rebels (including islamic groups) are far from dead. With their alliance with the kurds, they only need a steady supply of heavier arms to dominate.  Neither Daesh nor Assad forces have the manpower to control all of the province.  But the moderate and islamic rebels do, given sufficient arms.
 * To me the big problem is the US mindset that the rebels should not be given sufficient arms to win. Rather just enough to ensure that Assad (and Daesh) can't win.  That severely underestimates the determination of the Assad regime to resist, supported by Iranian intervention.
 * It is not in North American, European, or Arab interests for the war to go on indefinitely, nor for Assad to stay in power. (Assad has long fomented regional terrorism, as well as terrorizing the Syrian population.)  Even if, in the worst case scenario, an islamic group ended up dominating (not al-Nusra or Daesh), it is highly unlikely to be as bad as the Iranian regime.  And with a little support from the west, likely a federal variation of Tunisia.  It all depends to what degree the west abstains from supporting moderate rebels, in light of considerable support for other groups.
 * my 2 cents :) André437 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The last part of your analysis its very far from reality, i dont see the U.S worried in the future of Syria or its people, they simply look for their interests, economic ones I will add. They dont want Assad in power, their first objective was to tranform Syria in a puppet state with help of the Syrian Coalition Governing, like in Lybia. However it failed miserably, (like the foreign policy on Vietnam) and now the current control of cities benefies Assad a lot, followed by ISIS. The FSA its non existent, with their manpower reduced by massive losses(by SAA & SyAF) and deflections to JAN+ISIS. Neither with all U.S support the FSA could turn the tide, they lost their golden oportunity because of "goign to bed" with Hardline islamist groups.

Now United States are abandoning the rebels slowly not to make their fiasco too visible. Any idea of the FSA defeating Assad and ISIS its delussional at this point. A mere Dream of someone disconected from the real situation in Syria, making their fantasy going against logic and reality.179.7.85.122 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Waer
Protests in Al Waer against the rebel groups there. In addition to, the protesters attacked the post of Sharia body in the neighborhood.Edward DarkSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Guess they've had enough of the siege and simple want the rebels to leave for it to end. EkoGraf (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The protests in Douma are much the same civilians are leaving to government areas because of lack of food and rebel infighting .86.141.225.40 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigmabot archive time
Having 303,376 bytes of talk page means we have roughly twice as much as ISIL's. Could we, perhaps reduce the auto-archive time? It's rare that we have 1 day between successive posts of discussion that isn't ended (I think I found one that was five days and the next largest I spotted was 28 hours). A large number of edits are about inaccuracies and updates that are quickly dealt with, normally within about a day. The only thing I would think might have an argument for staying longer would be RfCs, but I think they are protected from auto-archive. This will make 69 sections on this page. --John Smith the Gamer (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks of the heads up on my talk page. I agree with you the page is way to big. I have reduced the time before archive to seven days as an administrative action. This means that if a section is not edited for 8 days it will be archived. The problem we found on the ISIL page was that when a page has many sections some editors have a tendency to add a me to comment to the older sections so they do not get archived for may weeks after the last constructive comment was made. This bloats the size of the talk page and makes it more difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.


 * I have made the change in the archive time an administrative action under the general sanctions, if the page reduces to under 140k and less than 25 sections then notify me on my talk page and we can look increasing the number of days between archiving. -- PBS (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Mare'
Pro opposition source reported about clashes between Al Nusra and FSA after Nusra dominates on registration buildings in the wown Mare' in Aleppo province.Qasion News Also SOHR reported that some rebel fighters in the city of Mare’ opened fire on posts of al- Nusra Front and Ahraro al- Sham movement demanding them to leave the city on the backdrop of arresting some “mischief- makers” by ” the Force of Rad al- Mazalem” that consists of The Nusra Front, rebel and Islamic factions.SOHR So we need marked this town under the joint control moderate rebels and Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Why joint control ? According to that, you can change the entire map to join control since JAN is present almost everywhere. And SOHR says "some rebel fighters". Ahrar Sham is also present in Maree. Do you really think rebels would attack them if they were not the majority there ? DuckZz (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with DuckZz no need for joint control .If fighting persists then it might be contested .81.156.226.104 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon

I agree with Hanibal. Al-Nusra is present throughout rebel held land, but it is asserting itself here. That needs to be shown since Al-Nusra does have a very strong presence here if it is capable of such action. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Kabajeb
This arch-pro opp source insists on showing Kabajeb and Al-Shulah under regime control Archicivilians. Is it time to indicate them as red? Kihtnu (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Rebels vs IS, Damascus
There are no neutral sources about these events but i'll post what i have, so others can post their opinion. In this case it's either Rebel or IS sources.

According to opposition activists, and opposition group channels (Al-Asala Tanmiya, Islamic Front, Al Rahmam corps, and other FSA groups), Rebels (Mainly IF and FSA) have expelled IS members from Rif Damascus area (including Bir Qassab and "Eastern Qalamun" now showed as JAN area).


 * According to this photo, rebels (Authenticity and Development Front) are driving in Jayrud city after they expelled IS members. This is a bit confusing because according to our map, this city is shown as government held.


 * Islamic Front offensive in Eastern Qalamun
 * FSA rebels with captured IS gear.


 * On the right IS member using a captured TOW, and on the left rebels recaptured the same TOW after they advanced.
 * On the right IS vehicle, and on the left rebels captured the same vehicle.

More pictures of rebels in Eastern Qalamun taking IS locations, 1, 2, 3, 4


 * Video of rebels capturing an IS base in Bir Qassab
 * Video showing a rebel commander statement that they took Eastern Qalamun, and naming the groups that participated (IF, Al Rahman, ADF .....).

So what is the point of all this, and lets say everything above is ok for you, i would edit these things : Bir Qasab and Al Busayri to green. Eastern Qalamun rural presence from grey to green, at least 70% of the factions there are not from JAN org. The thing about Jayroud town is really weird, maybe it's completely empty and rebels did capture it but i don't know. DuckZz (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I follow the situation in Qalamoun since 1.5 year, my bet is on waiting til the winter ends, there are atleast 3000 of them(rebel,jan,IS etc) in Qalamoun, most of them will join IS maybe, they are surrounded by SAA/Hezbollah but not really, and the winter will be very harsh. It doesn't make sense to change anything in my opinion unless something remarkable happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk • contribs) 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about things that are not related to this section. I'm not mentioning Western Qalamun and the mountains. DuckZz (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DuckZz We did talk about Jayroud earlier in this page, I helped find sources indicating that Jayroud is self-ruled by a local militia (not under the order of the NDF unlike Madaya where local rebels have been enrolled in the NDF) and not comprising any Nusra/ISIS elements. It was part of a deal between Jayroud citizens and the Dumeir Airport leader who threatens to shell the town if neighboring SAA CP's or bases come under attack from the East. Thing is Jayroud is under informal regime control. The pictures you showed confused me as well because I've been through all Qalamoun facebook pages and all I could find was: local truce but biased towards the regime (not as biased as the Madaya truce where rebels are basically under the command of the NDF, but not as free/strong as the truce in Ruhayba or Dumeir where the rebels are stronger and more independent and have more equal terms with surrounding regime forces). That's the reason we didn't signal Jayroud under truce. Because like Madaya it isn't THE truce as we know it. And also many pro-opp maps put it as regime-held so there you have it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not provide any reliable sources. And you need remember that to for edit on the map need provide data only from reliable sources. Because data from the opposition sources we only can use if we want show the success army. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But that's it, you won't find any more sources than this. If you don't change things now, they will stay like this forever. I think Bir Qasab and Eastern Qalamun rural presence should go green. DuckZz (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But it would be a gross violation of the rules of editing. Because we cant use data from the pro-opposition sources for display success of rebels. So need confirmation from reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hanibal911, more reliable sources should be acquired because the situation there is pretty unclear at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Hanibal911, thing is what we have now is the closest to the reliable reality on the ground. It might be different but we cannot prove it using reliable sources. All actual reliable sources point to what we already have on our map now, that's why I think things should remain unchanged at the moment ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Still, I think we need to change the JAN grey area in Eastern Qalamun to green, as there is not much presence of Al Nusra, they are concentrated in Western Qalamun.

Rebels posted new pictures showing their fighters in
 * Qalamun1 (map)
 * Qalamun2 (map)

Also some videos : Captured ISIS fighters in Eastern Qalamun, Targeting Syrian army, Captured IS base in Eastern Qalamun. After all, the video in my first post clearly shows the rebel commander statement at the end of which groups are operating in this area, naming 5 different rebel and IF groups .. And yes, you will not find any other sources than this, neither JAN or Regime oriented, that's why we have a talk page, to determine which edit can be made despite some "rules" ... DuckZz (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DuckZz You must understand that it's all pro opposition sources we can not use them to display the success of rebels. So that we need confirmation those data from reliable sources. Because if we start use the pro opposition sources to show success of rebels then some other editors also start use pro government sources to show success of army. And as result we obtain unreliable map. So we need not prevent such a scenario. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a succes, they just changed roles. Why would any reliable source (news agency) write about this .. DuckZz (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also pro opposition source reported that according to data from intelligence chief of Lebanon Islamic State send 700 new fighters to Qalamoun and is now strongest force in border mountains.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Sorry me guys that are off topic but still congratulate all!
 * Happy New Year! Bonne Année! Glückliches Neues Jahr! سنة جديدة سعيدة! Buon Anno! Head uut aastat! Срећна Нова година! Sretna Nova godina! Mutlu Yıllar! Gëzuar Vitin e Ri! Laimīgu Jauno gadu! Naujųjų Metų! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to all my fellow editors/users. It has been and will be a pleasure working with intellectual people like you. And may this year bring some peace to Syria and the Syrian people. ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to you all, though not in my city (I live in Chicago), yet. Thanks for the efforts of this map.-- Damirgraffiti &#124; ☺Say Yo to Me!☺   04:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy new year everyone! XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

not yet here in New Jersey. Alhanuty (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish everyone a Roshna Tota, which is a good year in Aramaic. Let me express a hope that this old language will still be heard in the years to come. GreyShark (dibra) 13:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year fellas!! Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year Guys(Gëzuar vitin e ri)and best of luck!Lindi29 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year to everyone, may it bring some peace at last Kihtnu (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Deir er-Zor
According to SOHR IS militants are still fighting with the Regime Forces in al-jafra village,and violent clashes reported near 137 Brigade.here.Lindi29 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Infighting inside city Douma
Islamist fighters seized a suburb east of Damascus after driving out a smaller rival insurgent group in deadly clashes. Fighters from the Army of Islam clashed with members of the Army of the Nation group in Douma, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights(SOHR) said. Both groups include Sunni Muslim fighters opposed to President Bashar al-Assad's government, and the fighting is seen as more of a turf war than a conflict over ideology. The Observatory, which gathers information from a network of sources in Syria, said several fighters were killed, without giving details. It added that the Army of Islam had detained many of its rival combatants. The groups, part of a myriad of opposition factions in the war, have both fought the Syrian army as well as battling each other for control of Douma, a strategic suburb on one of the main roads linking the capital with Homs city further north. Islamic groups such as Islamic State and al Qaeda's Nusra Front have benefited from the infighting and have emerged as some of the strongest factions in the conflict. ReutersThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also pro opposition source reported that Jaish Al-Islam (Alloush)and Jaish Al-Umma (Abu Ali) are fighting each other in Douma.VivaRevolt Also reliable source said that Usud al-Ghouta (Lions of Ghouta) Damascus, surrender to Islamic Front and deliver all their weapons and military belonging Elijah J. Magnier and arrests Ahmad Taha, leader of Jaish al Umma and announces "he will terminate all bandits".Elijah J. Magnier Also Islamic Front issued a warrant against Nizar Khabbini of Jaish al Ummah (a group of 20 small rebels groups). Islamic Front is "cleaning" Duma/Jobar.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jaish al-Islam finished off Jaish al-Ummah pretty fast within 6 hours. Their HQ's was taken and their commanders was captured or killed.Elijah J. Magnier 1500 members of Jaish al-Ummah are invited to join Islamic Fron  within 24 hours.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Umm Rumman Hill
The Umm Rumman hill (تل ام رمان) is falsely placed here. It is a hill directly overlooking Dumeir (الضمير) and the Baghdad-Damascus highway (طريق بغداد – دمشق):
 * 
 * 

ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hanibal911 Please correct it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Barqa - Daraa Gov
Why is this town marked as rebel-held? These  show it as regime held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pro-opp map is almost 1 month old, I think we changed it to green somewere in mid December. DuckZz (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Village Barqa was changed under rebels control on 18 Novemberhere So that according to pro opposition map we need mark this village under control by army. If we not have other confirmations that this village still under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes if we don't have reliable sources denying this we have to change Barqa to regime held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree DuckZz (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Shulah
ilooked at Wikimapia and I realised that it is literally nothing but there is a gas station next to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.142.235 (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army against Islamic Front
Free Syrian Army declared war on Islamic Front Zahran "to hunt him down wherever he is". Jaish al-Umma is over.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The picture's fake, already confirmed by various groups (FSA linked) and opposition activists. Although it may be a declaration by a independent group, obviously not by the entire "FSA" southern front lol. DuckZz (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Powerful rebel group Free Syrian Army based in Deraa province to the south, meanwhile, said the Islam Army deserved to be considered a “partner of the regime,” and highlighted the long-standing accusation that Alloush’s militia is not devoting enough resources to fighting against of the Syrian government forces.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So my data confirm another a reliable source. Free Syrian Army accused Zahran Alloush militia in  the collaboration with the regime. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Al-Masdar confirms that FSA Central command has declared war on Jaysh Al-Islam: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rif-dimashq-rival-rebel-groups-declare-war-one-another/ XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Another prove that Al-Masdar is not reliable(SOHR also isn't). If the FSA and IF we're actually at war we would have news by now. Actually, they are fighting together in Aleppo(the new rebel advances in Aleppo wouldn't be possible without the Islamic Front and the Free Syrian Army working together). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.152.90 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * SOHR it is opposition source and if he said that now FSA opposed Islamic Front we trust this data. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Maqsomah and Mafraq Seddiq (Hasakah Province)
SOHR (article here) reporting clashes between IS and YPG in the village Maqsomah (Maqsuma) west of Ras al- Ayn and also clashes between IS and SAA in the village Mafraq Seddig west of Hasakah. I can't find any of the two villages on the map. Can someone locate them and put them out, please? (YPG source for the clashes) Rhocagil (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * SOHR said that clashes between IS and YPG in an area near the village of Maqsomah in the countryside of Ras al- Ayn. SOHR not said that clashes inside Maqsomah.SOHR Carefully read the source! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

there is no problem reading the source. The main problem for me is that it´s not on the map. You don't need to put it out contested or semi-sieged, but I still want it on the map. Maybee thou its hard to find (I can't find it on Google maps or wikimapia).

Other interesting news from the area from Al-masdar here is that it seems like village Mabrouka is under YPG control. YPG themselves reported a month (I think) ago that they where in control of the village, but no one else confirmed until now. I don´t know if Al-Masdar is a valid source for editing this? Rhocagil (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC) In this map Mabrouka is not called Tal Mabrouka like in Al-Masdar article so it might as well be a nearby hill, can anyone with arabic knowledge check if there is that's the case in wikimapia?

186.116.26.93 (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Khan Abu Shamat military complex
Who added this site as rebel-held? The only source that was used was the recent Archivilians map known to be massively pro-opp. So please remove this site and only keep the Cement Factories as rebel-held since they were confirmed by regime sources in a previous discussion. The Archivilians map is quite inaccurate since it portrays Al Safa station, a gas station with a nearby restaurant, as a military complex. It shows the Battalion 559 still rebel-held despite rebel claims that they retreated etc. Therefore this map is not only biased but also inaccurate and cannot be used to display rebel-gains. So remove the rebel-held Khan Abu Shamat military complex but KEEP the rebel-held cement factories. ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I added it, and here's the reason. Regime sources were informing about rebel presence in the complexes north-west or Sayal Airbase, someone added the cement factory but not the military complex right next to it. Another reason is the big number of pointless edits on this map in Qalamun and Daraa province without a clear source, hills are being added which are pointless, empty and never were used as a base or a checkpoint, same goes for unclear "storage" bases of something. If you want to remove this rebel complex, then be prepared to remove dozens of other sites which are added because "Government or who else", "probably" controls it. DuckZz (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, my opinion is that we can leave on map this military object! I think we should not create a conflict situation due to a single object. But DuckZz also you need understand that if you in future will remove from map some objects without sources here this is will be regarded as vandalism. So I have to ask you not do this in future. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand, i will open a section here for requests to remove some sites from the map which are added without source given or are pointless or both in most cases. DuckZz (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DuckZz Why the aggressiveness mate? You can review the Khan Abu Shamat talk section earlier in this page. Point is what you added was done without any sources. Yes rebels have a presence there, yes they have cut the Baghdad-Damascus highway and yes they do control points there. But I challenge you to find me one reliable source pointing out they controlled the military complex, a notorious detention center and CW storage facility. They did not even post 1 video on YouTube about it yet they flooded YouTube with videos on controlling the cement factories. You may add any rebel held military facility deep inside rebel-territory just as we did with both rebels (check the earlier talk section as well) and regime sites. You just cannot go and add a rebel-held site with an unclear status just because you want to or want to make a statement. I absolutely DO NOT AGREE on this one. It is simply against the map's rules. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And besides we added both regime and rebel-held sites in a fair way. But it's not our problem if regime sites are more numerous because it makes perfect sense. Regime forces are the Syrian Army/regular forces and so most bases are theirs. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean you can go on and remove military bases just so they become equal in number to rebel-held bases. That isn't right. It is a fact on the ground that the Syrian Army still holds most military bases and you cannot alter that fact. I do however agree that we don't add random military non significant sites such as a random air-defense base in the middle of regime-held territory. But regiments and brigades are significant, the same goes for strategic hills/checkpoints or any military site on the front line. Again I advise you to check the section where we already discussed this issue. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tottaly relaxed, don't know why you think that. I already said that there was no clear pro-government or neutral source about this, only from rebel and pro-rebel activist channels. That's why I like to open a section here so we can discuss if an edit can be made even if there is no pro-regime source confirming that, something that is maybe too obvious.


 * I kinda thought not to add this complex but I have seen other editors ading pointless hills,facilities, bases etc. on the map without providing a clear source, so i thought this complex would be acceptable after all. I'm not reverting anyones edit, so do what you think it's the best. And yes, I have read the previous discussion and i'm not talking about those edits. DuckZz (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I got your point. But those hills, facilities etc. were added based on common sense. They sit deep inside regime territory. But the difference is that we added them to add strategic depth to out map. I was the one who suggested we add them. They were only 4 sites:
 * Brigade 13 near Dimas that was bombed by Israel.
 * Regiment 14 near Nabk showing that Eastern/Western Qalamoun are not totally connected.
 * The AirDef Base near the border crossing overlooking the 2 VITAL highways of Homs-Baghdad and Damascus-Baghdad.
 * And the Hosh AirDef Base that's bombing Zabadani and that was attacked by the rebels in the summer.

These are not irrelevant sites. Be sure I am very careful not to have a biased map. I was the one who convinced the editors to change Khazzanat to green, to show rebel presence near Madaya/Jayroud. I think this map is fair and accurate enough. But when you added this Khan Abu Shamat complex, you brought up an old consensus where we decided to add it back once we find reliable sources confirming who controls it. Personally I don't think the rebels control it because: If the rebels captured it, we would have at least seen some pictures, some videos of this "horrible" place. Yet none were shown while YouTube was virtually spammed with videos of the nearby cement factories. That's my opinion. And also according to the map's rules I'm sorry but we cannot keep the Khan Abu Shamat. Feel free to find sources on the matter. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a CW storage facility
 * It is a secretive detention center that housed hundreds of captives
 * It is well defended by surrounding bases


 * As in the last conversation about this, this source is still the only authoritative one ever mentioning the site, and is my #1 reason to still swing towards keeping the military site in green on the map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again it did quote a western Diplomat, not so authoritative. ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but it's the only source. We know the rebels took the cement plant, no doubt about that. And if they are able to "dominate the highway" from the cement plant, it stands to reason that the SAA isn't still in the buildings/base right next door. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you have 2 airbases nearby and SAA isn't doing anything at all. And you said it, we only have this biased source. I'm still not convinced it is rebel-held that's why to avoid further arguments just remove it till we could find reliable source. This map is based on accuracy not hunches. You also agreed before on this and pretty much nothing has changed. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, now i'll write some places that, in my view, have no reason to be shown on this map and you can discuss if they are worth it.
 * Umm Ruman (east to Dumayr), added on the map, why ?
 * Tell Mutawwaq (north of Jasim), any source showing rebels or any kind of base on this hill ?
 * Tall Qayta, small hill
 * Tall Ayyubah, empty hill with hard rocks
 * All Abod (south from Morek), destroyed building both by rebels and SAA, after they retook the south of this city. DuckZz (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey guys let we as a compromise leave on map this military base. I do propose not do from this big problem. If we find other data from the reliable or pro-opposition sources which confirm that rebels left this military object then in that case we can remove this base. But for now let them remain on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DuckZz Here's some proof:


 * Tall Ayyub it is military object(Army Base) this confirm pro opposition sourcehereherehere
 * About Umm Ruman we have said in this discussionEastern Qalamoun Hanibal911 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Al Aboud it is Military Checkpoint.here And where data that this checkpoint was destroyed. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tall Mutawaq had a small base/CP on its top and is rebel held. Umm Rumman hill was captured from the rebels not long ago. It's kinda like Observatory 45 in Latakia, used to monitor the nearby plains. I don't know much about the rest. People might complain about the numerous hills in Daraa but thing is they are mostly military sites built in case of an Israeli Invasion. Some were built after the civil war began. SAA is not naive enough to leave hills, monitoring vast areas, empty. This saves the SAA manpower. Instead of deploying 300 troops around a rebel held village, deploy 100 on a hill monitoring the village. Basic Logic. So most hills in Daraa (rebel or regime held) are indeed military sites. Personally I've been to Daraa and I've seen some of those hills, they do monitor large large areas. I don't think we should remove them no matter who controls them. But again about the Khan Abou Shamat complex, nothing new has occurred no new sources were provided. We compromised and agreed before to remove it so now what has changed? Nothing has changed so why add it back?! Doesn't make any sense. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The area is also called the Scientific Research Battalion by the Syrian activists/rebels because as Wikimapia and activists describe it, it contained Biological-Chemical research possibly on humans. An activist on Wikimapia also saying that the rebels retreated after finding it completely empty and deserted.
 * While here, a rebel source on the 4th of May says that rebels are shelling the Chemical Research Facility 2 days AFTER Reuters said they captured the facility . How could the rebels shell something they captured? While I'm not insisting we revert it back to regime-held, I also do not approve that we keep it rebel held --> Consensus: Remove it from the map. Hanibal911 Boredwhytekid And don't play on the words Chemical storage/Chemical Research facility. It is the SAME or BOTH considering how secretive the facility must have been. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As_Sa'an in Hama
Official NDF page reported rebel attacks on SAA/NDF positions near the town. Not the first of its kind. Should we add a green semi-circle to the north from the side of Rahjan? ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is just hit and run in this area. So dont need put semi-circle because we put this mark if we have several reports about clashes near city or village. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but it is not the first time, if we have multiple hit and run raids shouldn't we put a semi-circle? ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Green semi-circle above Sa'an would make sense there is one above Jubb Khasarah south of Sa'an so how about moving it north to show current situation .81.156.226.104 (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon
 * If reports of clashes near the city repeated then we put semi-circle. Because source not said that clashes near of this town still going likely it is only hit and run and but nothing more. Because if every time we on the bases of only one report about shootout near the town or village we will put semicircles in a short time the majority of towns and villages will be with such mark. We have already discussed it and decided to put a mark if the reports of clashes repeated several times. We have put such semicircle near the village of Jubb Khasarah only based on one message but there were no more reports about clashes near this village. So dont need to rush. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Abu Shafiq (Morek)
This guy (pro-rebel, pro-Ukraine lol) tried to show the front line west from Morek. According to him, it's right there and it does look like that.
 * Thoughts ? This is just an indication and not a source because i know the rules. DuckZz (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would look at the video referenced, to see if it indicates a real presence. (i.e. more than just someone with a camera).  If so, it should be taken as adequate info, since the image shown clearly corresponds with points indicated on the map.  It is not just lines on a map, nor just an unclear video.  It would be a map backed by collaborating video evidence.  And not just an unsubstantiated declaration, which is commonly accepted for changes on our map, if from a "reliable source".
 * Note that such correspondence is not available with most videos. This source is doing useful research to present this info.
 * This would allow us to put a green semicircle to the west. My 2 cents ... André437 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This biased the antigovernment source which we cant use in this issue. So that we need confirmation this data from more reliable source. And do not say that this source is reliable. He is not reliable source! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your getting a little confused. The source presents a video which can be independently downloaded from internet, along with a map, showing his geolocation analysis.  We can very easily confirm the geolocation analysis, so there is unrefutable evidence that the image was taken from the location indicated.  Viewing the video should confirm that there is indeed a rebel presence in the area.  (Unfortunately a configuration problem on my computer means I can't view the video at the moment.)
 * This is far from unsubstantiated claims. It doesn't matter how reliable we consider the source for other types of evidence.  Think for a moment.  How could any evidence possibly be more reliable ? André437 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Area to west from city of Hasakah
Pro-opposition source said that loyalists seized some towns to IS in area between mount Abdel-Aziz and Khabur valley. And that this area under the protection of YPG and Loyalists.deSyracuse (of 8 January) So i noted village Khuraytah under control by army and YPG and I think that we also need noted under the joint control army and YPG some other villages in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ma‘arrat Umm Hawsh and Harjalah
According to data from pro opposition source those villages under cpntrol by moderate rebels. Personally, I believe that these villages under the control of moderate rebels. Hey guys if have someone of you have other data you can provide their. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Harjalah should stay as it is. IS probably withdrew from Marat Hawsh after rebels recaptured Mare, looking at the map its just logical to mark it as green. DuckZz (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right! So if there is no other objection, we can note this village under rebel control. So if no objections, we can note it village under rebel control. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also maybe some one of editors to have data about situation in village of Al-Ghafer in Idlib province which located deep area which under control by Al Nusra and some rebel groups. Antigovernment source showed that it is village under control by antigovernment forces.deSyracuse Hanibal911 (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Afrin Area
Interesting fact, 2 opposition sources saying a regime convoy from Afrin was intercepted. I thought Afrin was entirely YPG-held. Any opinions, news, info on the matter? ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another source, pro-opp Kurd source saying regime forces were arresting people returning TO AFRIN FROM DAMASCUS. So I guess Afrin is under a truce? Kinda like Qamishli? It explains how the regime forces in Mennagh airbase were able to escape. Opinions? ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Last year, after the Menahg Airport was captured a rebels some soldiers retreated to this area.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Afrin is controled mostly by local kurdish groups, not really YPG, they don't want trouble with anyone so they allow free movement for rebels and regime forces inside their territory (certain conditions), confirmed after SAA withdrew from Menagh, confirmed after rebels started their offensive against ISIS last year.DuckZz (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Explain how a regime convoy was coming from Afrin yesterday? ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Any reliable source ? No, as far as i know. DuckZz (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Guys the sources I provided are from YESTERDAY! I am not talking about Menagh I just used it as an additional example. The sources I provided indicated regime presence in Afrin. That was my point. DuckZz Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Afrin is obviously Kurdish held. Those sources have to be crazy. Also, what is that village near Nubl and Zahraa? If the regime had ANY villages near those towns, they would be annoucing it or Nusra would be attacking them. The Kurds hold all territory west of those Shia towns, and there are no convoys coming from Afrin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.183.254.109 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with 179.183.254.109. We only have an unsubstantiated claim that any regime convoy came from Afrin.  A look at the map shows how improbable the non-kurd rebels could have had any access to such a convoy, as Afrin covers the entire north and west sides of the regime enclave.
 * As for the Menagh retreat 2 years ago, the kurds captured the regime convoy, including some 200 troops, numerous transport vehicles. and 3 tanks. (Giving all kurdish forces 4 tanks.)  The regime had probably hoped that the kurds would let them pass.  They probably wouldn't have made it to regime held areas in Aleppo city. André437 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A small clarification! Menagh Air Base was captured 6 August 2013. Just wanted to clarify because was said that the base was captured two years ago.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright all opinions respected. But why do you think would activists claim this? Propaganda? What about the checkpoints arresting poeple coming to Afrin? I also thought it was improbable but I thought it was worth the discussion. ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Point taken. That 17 months felt like 2 years ...
 * There are a lot of mixed emotions in this conflict, and many activists probably still have mixed feelings about the kurds and possible separatism. (Despite kurdish statements favouring a federal system for all of Syria.)  So they fantasize a bit.
 * As well, we can't exclude propaganda, particularly on the part of more extremist regime opponents. Such as has been done in Raqqa by Daesh, Idlib and northern Homs by Nusra, and Damascus eastern Ghouta by Islam Army, to justify attacking their strongest anti-regime competitors/opponents.  To give just a few examples.
 * Also, this particular claim is likely just based on a single source, picked up by both archicivilians (who only presented it as an activist claim) and al-Arabiya. André437 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright good call. Proves my point that not all sources are reliable as they may appear to be. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nubl and Zahraa
SOHR reports has talked aout clashes inside Nubl and Zahraa,but i believe more confirmation and reports must come inorder to change them contested any other opinions

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/638641326244209.Alhanuty (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

SOHR has a very bad English translation. The clashes are most likely in the towns outskirts. Nubl and Zahraa are fortified enough to hold any rebel offensive for quite sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.152.90 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In original article SOHR reported that clashes in the vicinity the towns of Nubl and Zahraa between Islamic battalions and combat brigades and Al-Nusra fighters (al-Qaeda in the Levant) of the party, and the National Defence Forces and local gunmen.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So that in the future will be better before edit find the original report. Since the reports which we read in the SOHR page in Facebook may differ from the original reports! Hanibal911 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to make an industrial complex icon right here. SOHR and other channels are always mentioning this area when talking about Zahra and Nubl clashes.
 * Also there's a Silk factory in this complex right here, so it would be plausible to make this icon which includes this factory and area around it.
 * According to rebel channels, regime forces control this area and rebels are shelling them with mortars. Here's a video, on the left you can see the white buildings. DuckZz (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hanibal911 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We should keep a eye on Nubl and Zahra. Nusra terrorists and IF launched a new offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.97.166.52 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Last night every attack was repeled by the SAA & NDF forces, dozens of dead JAN members, but they started another offensive this evening and they advanced towards the mid square of Al-Nubl. New map posted 2 hours ago. DuckZz (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pro government source here and pro opposition source here showed that clashes on the outskirts of the town Nubl. Syrian troops backed by NDF and Hezbollah already smashed two of three attacks on towns of Nubl and Zahraa and inflicted heavy casualties of Al Nusra. Last attack ongoing takes place to southeast of Al-Zahraa. Battle raging about 300 meters from the towns outskirts.herehere Also the reliable source reported that Al Nusra didn't managed to break into the East side of Al Zahraa despite claim on social media.Elijah J. Magnier Because in Nubl and Al Zahraa have more or less 6,000 fighters.Elijah J. Magnier Their last attack was repulsed.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also a reliable source reported that activists from the town Al Zahra denied report about Al Nusra advance in town of Nubl. Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am really confused. Now Al Jazeera is saying that rebels control 50% of Al Nubl lol. Hard to belive really but lets wait a couple of days. We know that rebels have a strong media, they will probably provide some photos/videos from inside the city if confirmed. DuckZz (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not found messages from Al Jazeera in which says that rebels control 50% of town Nubl. About this only said biased the antigovernment source Archicivilians here but anyway the reliable source reported that all Al Nusra attacks was repelled. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Bur SOHR reported that Nusra entered the towns for the first time,what do you suggest to be done,then Hannibal.Alhanuty (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since so many other sources have said that the attack failed, nothing will be done until more time has passed. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But another a reliable source reported that attack was repelled and Al Nusra not entered to the town.Elijah J. MagnierElijah J. Magnier And SOHR reported that al- Nusra and Islamic battalions could take control over streets in the south of the town al- Zahraa and buildings in the east town of Nubl  but NDF and local gunmen from the two towns could re-take these streets and building.SOHRSOHR Also pro opposition source reported that rebels still far away from Zahraa.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the SOHR the insurgents were briefly able to control streets in the southern part of Zahra and buildings in the nearby village of Nubl, north of city Aleppo. But the militants, who used tanks, were pushed back from both areas by the National Defense Force, a grouping of loyalist militias under the umbrella of the army.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also pro opposition source said that Al-Nusra insurgents seized several streets in the southern part of the village of Zahra and buildings in the nearby village of Nubl, north of the city of Aleppo. But activist Hazim Yunis in Aleppo reported that pro-Assad forces of the National Defense were able to push the al-Nusra fighters back on evening.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Syrian pro-regime militia have repelled an incursion by al-Qaida on two Shiite Muslim villages in the north of the country.

The villages of Nubol and Zahraa in Aleppo province had been under siege by Al-Nusra Front, al-Qaida's Syria branch, and other Islamist rebels for a year and a half. SOHR said that Al-Nusra fighters entered the villages on seven tanks. It was a major, simultaneous attack. The National Defence Force, a pro-government militia, repelled the attack with support Syrian air force and jihadists withdrew.NaharnetDaily MailArab TodayAD-HOC NewsReuters Hanibal911 (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic State sends fighters from Deir ez Zor province to Iraq
The Islamic State sends dozens fighters from Deir ez Zor province to Iraq to participate in battles on different fronts against the Iraqi forces and Peshmerga.Ammon News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Deir Ez Zoor
How should we deal with that ? Those places, al-Jnayneh and al-Hsan, are located on the detailed Deir Er zoor map. Could somebody spot them exactly? Could they be Мешия-Джнейне and Al-Hussainiyah Paolowalter (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On this occasion, you can turn to this editor MrPenguin20 In this discussion Deir ez-Zor clashes Hanibal911 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Allatamneh
Per this SOHR article, http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/the-regime-forces-open-fire-on-the-town-of-allatamneh-in-hama-and-violent-clashes-erupt-in-daraa-al-balad/, the SAA is inside the town. Could someone please change its status to contested [or at least add a red ring]. Thanks. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree .Pyphon (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon

It is not sufficient for turning it contested. A red ring is sufficient. Paolowalter (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What about Khan Sheykun. I think we should leave the red ring south of Khanazat but is there are logic doing the same for Khan Sheykun ? I think the SAA would attack Kafrzita instead of staying south of Khan Sheykun ? I know that SOHR reported about barel bombs falling in the vicinity of the town several times so far. DuckZz (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Marj as Sultan
From the article> "Marj as-Sultan ultimately did fall to the rebels, but has since been retaken by government troops."



Section intercepted conversations. Any news of this?Daki122 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is interesting... But despite the respectable reputation of the newspaper, maybe they meant the Qabr-El-Sitt airport? Or al Dabaa? Because no other source ever spoke of the Marj Al Sultan airbase being retaken by gov forces. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Syrian perspective did but I can not find it, at the time it was not elegible because of its pro government stance .Pyphon (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon


 * That article, obviously speculative from its' wording, has at least one serious flaw. The rebels controlled Qusayr until the regime started retaking it in May 2012, yet the article says the regime had a "secret" facility in Qusayr which they were forced to move because of conflict with the rebels in spring of 2012.  That "conflict with the rebels" was retaking the Qusayr area from the rebels, which took well over a month during the same period.  It was preceded by a month of heavy bombardment, and marked the entry in force of Hezbolla, who provided most of the pro-regime forces on the ground.
 * With such an evident flaw, I wouldn't trust any statement in the article. André437 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Misqan
Reliable source said that tens of killed and wounded among Al Nusra fighters in village Misqan north of Aleppo in consequence of the explosion two car bombs.Elijah J. MagnierElijah J. MagnierElijah J. Magnier So maybe we need add this village under control of Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 checkpoints, the one that was destroyed by an IED is located a bit outside the village, and by the way it's obviously destroyed so we can't even show it on the map. No informations about who controls the village but most areas north of Alepo are controled by the Northern Storm. Actually both checkpoints are outside the village. DuckZz (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But perhaps we need add this village under jointly control of moderate rebels and Al Nusra or add  this village under control of moderate rebels but add one of the checkpoints under control by Al Nusra in the vicinity of the village. Because this village located deep in area which controlled by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the location, can you post a wikimap link. I would add the vilage but the map is filled enough, it won't probably be ever important. How about to change Al Ghafer to JAN or rebel control, i thought you said the village is far away from government lines. DuckZz (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the place where located this village GeoNames or Wikimapia Hanibal911 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not found on wher located in the village Misqan by Al Nusra checkpoints. But a source said that one of this checkpoints which was destroyed blast was located inside the Misqan.Yahoo News So I add this village under control by moderate rebels but maybe we can put grey semicircle near this village to indicate that there is a position of Al Nusra in the village. As you think. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And there you have the problem. I think you should remove the village as nobody controls it. Most rebel and Nusra fighters are located near the frontline and near the Turkish border. That's the reason they have checkpoints near villages and towns in northern Alepo. There were videos showing those 2 checkpoints after the blast and they were clearly outside the village, the same was said by opposition sources who reported about that, same said by SOHR etc. We don't have any source about the situation inside the village so i think it should be removed. DuckZz (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So you realy think that we need remove this village. If you and other editors are in this assured then I remove it. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)