Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Idlib Province

Reliable sources informed SOHR that some IS fighters reached individually to the village of al- Barah, town of Kensafrah and the eastern countryside of Ma’arret al- Nu’man to support al- Nusra Front and Jund al- Aqsa Organization in their clashes against the Syria Revolutionaries Front.SOHR This indicates that the ISIS partially cooperated with the Frente Al Nusra although for now their cooperation is minimal. So maybe we will soon have to add a new color for the Frente Al Nusra or if their collaboration with ISIS will become more apparent then we can mark their in black color how for now we marked the towns and villages which is controlled by ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this one: Nusra seems to be going rogue following the Coalition Airstrikes. My vote is waiting then adding a new color representing Al-Nusra. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Front Al-Nusra captured the village of Deir Sinbel and also controls most of the other towns and villages in the area Jabal al-Zawiya. SOHR also said that Front Al Nusra "seized SRF arms and tanks, and some of the rebels swore allegiance to Al-Nusra. Also Al-Nusra was backed by jihadists from the Islamic State (IS) group in the operation, though the two organizations are fighting each other fiercely elsewhere in Syria.Naharnet Hanibal911 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a casefire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.82.122 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This unreliable source but many reliable source reported about clashes between Front Al Nusra vs other rebel groups.Yahoo NewsThe Economic TimesAl Arabiya Hanibal911 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nusra is cooperating with other rebel groups,so i believe we should leave it the same color,or we can make a map representing the situation.Alhanuty (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

True but Jabhat al-Nusra is not under the "FSA Umbrella", it is the Syrian Branch of Al-Qaeda and it's beating the crap of the SRF & Hazzm Movement in Idlib, right now twitter is blowing up with reports that JAN has taken a town from HM. Al-Nusra needs its own coloring code on the map, imo.99.160.184.97 (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it´s getting more and more clear that the cooperation between FSA and Al Nusrah is coming to an end; Syria 'moderate' rebels lose ground to Qaeda (News from Al Jazeera) Rhocagil (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make the new icons. Does medium grey (as another violent jihadist group) sound good ?
(BTW, I suspect that those of SRF and Hazm joining al-Nusra did so because they come from Idlib and want to protect their villages/families. So if the other FSA associated groups unite against al-Nusra, that could be reversed. Something that wasn't done in Raqqa against the ISIS.) André437 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not a dark green? Something between the green and black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.1.105 (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree! New icon of medium grey color it is good idea. Since this will be a great solution in this situation. Also I against the dark green color for the new icon. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
SOHR said that Al-Nusra fighters captured the town of Khan al-Subul after the withdrawal of the Hazm movement, a moderate opposition group. The advance comes a day after the Britain-based Observatory reported Al-Nusra fighters had seized the in Idlib province the bastion the Syria Revolutionaries Front (SRF) another western backed opposition group.Naharnet Hanibal911 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree also New Icon for Jabhat al-Nusra should be medium grey99.160.184.97 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Per all. Saw most sources today stating that the SRF defected to Al-Nusra, like this here. We need a new color dot.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 15:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Trusted source reported to SOHR that Jabhat al-Nusra took control the towns of ( Maarr Shurin, M'sran, Dadikh, Kafar Batikh and Kafr Rumah) where located the Islamic battalions and Hazm. Jabhat al-Nusra took control on Khan as Sabil town last night after Hazm movement pulled back from the town.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Pro opposition source said that most of southern Idlib province now under control of Jabath al Nusra and collapse of moderate rebel forces continues.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am against the grey color. Most members of Al Nusra are from Syria, and are fighting the Syrian army. Dark green color would be perfect with the name "rebels/jihadi" , and the color should be only present in Idlib province. Anyone agrees ?DuckZz (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not agree! Since the reliable and pro opposition sources say that the Front Al Nusra in currently fights against other rebel groups in the Aleppo province and Idlib province and they already captured the big territory in south and central part and also some areas on north of the Idlib province. So it is more likely that a repetition of such situation as it was with ISIS. So I support the New Icon for Jabhat al-Nusra and it is should be medium grey color. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes they do control, but it's not (as it may seem) a full scale war between opposition groups and Al Nusra. Yes they expelled Hazm and some Kataib Tajamnu fighters from the town they control now and they deserve their own color but dark green is still my opinion. They agreed and SOHR confirmed about a casefire in Aleppo and South Idlib, between Div13, Al-Adya brigade (latakia), Suqur al Gab, Liwa Al Masha, Liwa Fursan Al Haq etc ... After all they are still a part of the rebel coalition in Syria, some members do favor ISIL but most of them would fight against them anyway, reason why they withdrew from Deir Ezor.

As I said, dark green is still my opinion, name "rebel/jihadi". You can make a poll if you want.DuckZz (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Front Al Nusra with the support of Jund al-Aqsa now fight against other U.S.-backed rebels in Idlib. And some fighters from other rebel groups joined to the front Al Nusra. And USA has been attempting to train a separate, moderate rebel groups as part of the campaign against the Al-Qaeda splinter group ISIS, as well as the Nusra Front, both of which have been targeted by coalition airstrikes.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We absolutely need a new color dot for Nusra. AOnline (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Syrian activist Assad Kanjo said that Al Nusra fighters have been gathering in the town of Sarmada in the northern Idlib province, some 4 miles (6 kilometers) from Bab al-Hawa border crossing. So if Front Al Nusra fighters seize the crossing, it would block an important supply line for Western-backed rebels. The SOHR also confirmed the details.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How about blue dot for JAN?Pyphon (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Just go with MEDIUM GREY Jumada (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's confirmation from pro-opposition source that Jabhat Al Nusra started offensive against Syrian Revolutionary Front and the Harakat Hazm brigade in Idlib province.EA WorldviewEA Worldview Hanibal911 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
New icon of medium grey color it is good idea. Also only JAN present in remaining of east Qalamoun.Ariskar (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

JAN must be separated from the rest because it is an Independent Terrorist Group, the only people who do not want to expose JAN are the opposition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9400:20D:6DB1:66A:9DE5:1A8A (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a set of medium grey icons for al-Nusra. Thanks for the feed-back everyone :) André437 (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Another Daily Star resource. BBC Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bored and Andre the evidence of complete breakdown between JAN and rebels is now apparent I think its time to actPyphon (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

What we are waiting for? AOnline (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest Dark slate gray? Kami888 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It is more distinctive than just gray, doesn't blend in with provincial boundaries as much, looks kind of similar to ISIS but you can still tell them apart. And in general it seems to be something in between lime (rebel) and black (ISIS) which seems very appropriate. Kami888 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll switch to it for now until there is a consensus on a better alternative. Light grey is irritating my eyes. Kami888 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately dark grey ("darkslategray") for al-Nusra is not very distinguishable from dark grey ("black" which actually displays as very dark grey when surrounded by white) for daesh/ISIS.
If medium grey bothers you so much, what about medium dark grey ? It would be halfway in between medium and dark grey, and still fairly readily distinguishable from "black" for al-Nusra.
As for colours, note that other countries have a light grey background, the provincial boundaries are thin medium grey lines, and the national borders are dark grey. "darkslategrey" is a little darker than the national borders. André437 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, any color will probably work as long as it's easily distinguishable from the provincial and state boundaries. Kami888 (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Meskin [again]

The same person is at it again, this time using another non-authoritative source, as indicated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Akhbar_(Lebanon). The latest SOHR report here -https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/610282935746715- states only that rebels gained new points, but not that the city has fallen. Please change the city back to contested (again). XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

why are pro-government sources saying that Shiekh Maskeen is rebel-held.Alhanuty (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Because that source you linked is unreliable, as stated in the Wikipedia article about it. It blends fact and fiction and relies too heavily upon singular sources. The SOHR is much more reliable than Al-Akhbar [You agree right?] and it clearly states that fighting is ongoing. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well ... it seems that doesn't matter does it? We had many sources about the military bases around Nawa falling, and some of them are still red. So Sheikh Maskin might be contested, but that doesn't matter. I want a neutral source to change it back to contested :)

Pro opposition source said that clashes take place between Syrian army and Islamist battalions in Sheikh Miskin town of Daraa countryside coinciding with an areal bombardment reaching clashes area and causing casualties.Documents.SY Hanibal911 (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You do not seem to read well do you? I just cited THE SOHR for my evidence. That is reliable enough. It needs to be changed back.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SAA captures Al Ameria

SAA has captured the Al Ameria district of Aleppo city, confirmed by new map from pro-opposition source [1]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This was already confirmed by SOHR when they reported fierce fighting north of Al-Ameriyya. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Al Rami

Pro-opposition activist said that Al Nusra take control of the city Al Rami in northern Zawiya mountains after SRF hand over their weapons.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about official policy on this, but I do know that Mark has a terrible record of reliability. I would wait for more sources. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Another confirmation of another pro opposition activist.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Miskin

according to sohr ,fighter from Jabhat al-Nusra killed during clashes against regime forces in Shekh Meskin.Sheikh Miskin should contested. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/610963605678648Hwinsp (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Meskin

Someone has used a non-authoritative source to mark Sheikh Meskin as rebel-held. This SOHR article- http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/18-people-killed-in-daraa-today/ - states that the regime is advancing in the city. Please change Sheikh Meskin back to contested. Thank you. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Sheikh Maskin is still contested. Does anbybody have new information about Dael? We made it contested because SOHR said there was fighting, but we haven't heard anything in the last three days. There seemed to be an SAA offensive going on, but they didn't press on? As Nawa has fallen, they might pull back to reinforce other positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide source which can confirm that there are no more collisions in the city Dael then do it. Otherwise we cant change map just based on assumptions. Although your suggestion is interesting and I think that now we need to search more information about the situation in the city Dael. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


That's the big problem in Daraa. There are lesser sources than in the north because of IS and Kobani there. A lot of journalists focus on the north. But we can make some safe assumptions on our own: 1. Sheikh Maskin is contested, fighting is ongoing since Brigade 82 and the outskirts are in SAA hands 2. Dael is unsure, there might be fighting on the outskirts, because the SAA launced a SCUD on the town. That weapon is innacurate, so the loyalistst would not have fired it if there own troops were deep inside the town 3. We should keep an eye out on Nawa. Fighters there might try to advance norhtwest to cut the northern supply route to Sheikh Maskin 4. We should search for information on Al-Karak (near Busra al-Harir), bacause it is contested here but was rebel held for months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are partly right! And so you need to try and find more information. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, maintain Nawa and all of it's bases green. Reuters and other sources clearly stated the rebels controlled the town and all of it's surroundings. So Brigade 61 and Tell Harfouch need to stay green. Also, there may be a Brigade 112 south of Tell Harfouch, here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pt&lat=32.860357&lon=36.088006&z=16&m=b

All under rebel hands, according to reliable sources, whether you pro-regime editors like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.192.139 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and if that isn't enough, we now have HQ videos from the basis which can clearly be geo-located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You can provide the reliable source which said that Brigade 61 and Tell Harfouch under control by rebels. Because as long as it's only words and no more. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I add on map Army Base Brigade 112 which seized by rebels.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/09/us-mideast-crisis-syria-insurgency-idUSKCN0IT0PN20141109 and http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ngo-syria-rebels-qaeda-capture-key-southern-town-426611549

It states that rebels took over "the city of Nawa and the surrounding areas". It lists the areas rebels took. Brigade 61 was not mentioned, but it was already under rebel control for months. There has been no report of fighting, not even on Twitter, for the past two days from Nawa. There is no SAA left there. So, all bases back to green. Else we could also change a lot of red towns to contested just because there are some rebel groups nearby (like Qalamoun). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But earlier pro opposition source showed that the Army Base of Brigade 61 under army control.here Also the village Khirbat Bajjah located on distance of 5 kilometers north of the city Nawa and not confirmation that this village also taken. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe for now as a compromise need just put green rings around a village Khirbat Bajjah, army base Brigada 61 and Tell Harfouch. Also I ask other editors express their opinion on this issue! Hanibal911 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm on board with putting green rings around all 3 - for now. But if there are no reports of clashes/fighting/SAA holdouts in the next week or so, we should take at face value the reports that the rebels overran all of the military posts and towns of Nawa area, and change them to green. The rebels were/are apparently strong enough to take Nawa and every other surrounding base/position - it's doubtful that these 3 locations, now isolated completely, are somehow the exceptions and are by themselves somehow holding out. But, let's give it a week or so..Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Boredwhytekid This will be a good solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Boredwhytekid. We have to make sure that this proposal follows through. Let's give it a deadline of 17 November. If no further information arises with regard to these bases, we go with the general proposition that Nawa and its surrounding areas are taken by rebels.Jafar Saeed (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This includes the village of Khirbet Bajjah.Jafar Saeed (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Methinks it's time - especially in light of this pro-gov't source that states that there is an ongoing battle for Izra, far to the north east Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. But I would make not major improvement because source not say that in the city of Izra now go clashes. Source only said that according to a military source, the reinforcements entering Dara’a will be concentrated in 3 strategic areas: Sheikh Miskeen, Nawa, and Izra. And for over control of the Dara province is more importent will be the battle for the city of Izra. This clarification for those who do not carefully read the source and and who can want on the basis of this source edit the city of Izra on contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Perhaps the one fight that has received the least amount of coverage, yet is far more crucial to the control of Dara’a is the battle for the city of Izra" - I do not propose making Izra contested, but we should seriously search for more sources that may validate a semi-circle to the south, east, or west (because surely there is no rebel pressure from the north) Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Izra

Pro-gov't al-Masdar confirms that the rebel advance in Daraa has reached all the way to Izra. "According to a military source, the reinforcements entering Dara’a will be concentrated in 3 strategic areas: Sheikh Miskeen, Nawa, and Izra. Sheikh Miskeen is currently the most volatile of the 3 battles" ... "Perhaps the one fight that has received the least amount of coverage, yet is far more crucial to the control of Dara’a is the battle for the city of Izra." Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have changed Khirbat Bajjah, Brigade 61, and Tell Harfouch to green, per the time limit consensus at section "Sheikh Meskin", and in light of the new pro-gov't report on the extent of the rebel advance. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Small correction because source not said that rebels captured all road from Nawa to Izra. Syrian rebels for now only declare that they take control the road between the city of Nawa and city Jasim.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody fix the mess Pototo made here - he deleted two lime circles without providing a source, and for no apparent reason changed two Abm-green-icon.png to Abm-lime-icon.png... the latter of which does not exist. I already reverted today.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FixedDuckZz (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

22 Pointless Red towns added in 24 hours.

14 of them here. 2 more here. 2 more here. 4 more here. Every single one based EXCLUSIVELY off of desyracuse amateur map - self-described as "It is based on comparison analysis and compilation of on several sources. The map is updated as often as I have time to do it. It is not purposed to be 100% accurate as reliable sources are sometimes difficult to obtain, but the work is aimed at giving a global view on Syrian civil war positions to non-specialist people".

NONE of the 22 (!) villages add ANY value or insight to our map at all. They are just clutter. Based on 1 amateur, non-authoritative source. Pointless. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro-opposition sources which is the creator of this map cooperated with other pro-opposition sources Archicivilians. And we know that sources Archicivilians is 100% is the opponent of the Syrian regime and as you know, we use pro opposition sources to display army advances and that would to display areas which under control by army. Here is a confirmation that these sources cooperate.here Below on map indicated the names of creators. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time I'll state this - these are amateurs just like all of us here. They do not have top secret clearance or anything of the like. They only have access to the same open-source web material that we do. Desyracuse self-describes as not 100% accurate/not an authoritative source. It is ludicrous to add these non-essential villages - just straight pro-gov't propaganda. ALL of the villages are behind SAA lines - it's territory we already show as gov't held - the addition of these dots doesn't add any new information to our map at all.

Desyracuse is the only map we use that shows every. single. little. miniscule. locality in Syria. If we let this fly, gov't held territory will be a sea red dots (there is no similar source to add villages en mass in "rebel", Kurdish, or IS territory) - none of which provide any insight into the conflict. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok! I will more not add on the map so many villages using only map from @deSyracuse. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
So in the future I will use this map only for edit the objects that are already on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Or, if there is a secondary supporting source that would be ideal as well Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid. DeSyracuse's maps should NOT be used for edits. He is an amateur and has no authoritative credentials. It is simply ridiculous to claim his maps are reliable. There are numerous examples of him expressly stating that certain zones of conflict are unclear.Jafar Saeed (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with Boredwhytekid not to use these maps from the source @de Syracuse to add new cities and villages but these maps will uses to edit the cities or villages which already exist on map. These maps are created together with another pro opposition source Archicivilians. And as I said earlier we know that sources Archicivilians is 100% is the opponent of the Syrian regime and as you know, we use pro opposition sources to display army advances. Also Jafar Saeed you cant judge the correctness of edit especially after you are using the biased pro opposition source noted under control ISIS the villages in the southern part of the province of Hasaka which were previously marked under the control of the army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
deSyracuse maps shouldn't be used at all, unless he actually writes something on the map. deSyracuse is a non-biased source in the conflict between Assad & IS, and he claimed that IS took the regime held areas around Sab'a in Hasakah.159.92.9.130 (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Izra / 12th Armored Brigade

Pro-government al-Masdar news explicitly states that there is a battle for Izra. The battle is not IN Izra, but is apparently active/raging enough to be compared to the Sheikh Mishkin and Nawa fronts by al-Masdar. Clearly the rebels have not reached Izra from the North, West or direct South. The Izra front is to the West of the city, as shown here on a pro-op map. The rebel corridor north from Hirak to the pocket of towns west of Dama (Sur, Asim, Matallah, etc) runs right along the 12 Armored Brigade - it's the closest spot the rebels are to Izra, and surely they are not NOT pressuring the enemy armored brigade that they are in direct contact with. This is the only logical spot that al-Masdar could have been referring to as an Izra front/fight. Lime concentric circle exclusively to the East of 12th Armored Brigade. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here new version the map dated in 10 November which also show that not clashes near the city of Izra but map clear show that clashes in area the 12 Armored Brigade. here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

SHAER GAS FIELD AND SHAER MOUNTAIN

According to SOHR , SAA recapture shaer gas field and shaer mountain: http://www.syriahr.com/archives/35027Hwinsp (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Daily Star too Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And here's another confirmation from a reliable source.Romandie Hanibal911 (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Hanibal911 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/611418302299845 Sha'er is being contested again and T4 is heating up again.173.209.212.224 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

Syrian132 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I live in syria and i know exactly whats happening may i help you

Hi there. This is for making specific requests about the page (eg "please change X to Y"). 00:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You could help by letting us know about current status or changes. We have to depend on what we consider "reliable sources", but your input could help us know what to look for. As well, if you can find info published on the internet to support your knowledge, that would help.
Additionally, you could provide info to groups like SOHR, which is one of our reliable sources. After confirmation from others, they publish info on their their arabic and english pages, which we use on our map. André437 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

YPG retakes villages in Hasaka

This is the SOHR link: http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/ypg-retake-some-villages-in-ras-al-ayn-in-al-hasakah-province/ please add the villages or if they're already added put them under YPG control Saeed alaee (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Today SOHR reported that YPG after clashes against ISIS took control 4 villages and a strategic hill south of Ras al-Ayn.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasaka again

Why SAA postions south of Hassaka has been removed ??? This decision is unjustifiable and against all the rules, I ask to remedy this immediately.

I asked the person responsible for changing them to provide a good source, since the one he used was not authoritative. since he has not responded, I will change them. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
For this edit was used too questionable source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
How is it a questionable source?159.92.9.130 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Because ISIS never reported any gains in the south of Hasaka. Add to that the fact that this source is relatively unknown around Wikipedia and this source comes out to be highly dubious. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, in addition, fighting is occurring to the east of Hasaka and not indicated here. Some months ago I remember a town was red here and I've seen reports of fighting but the whole area is made to look black. This website http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-hasakah-update-violent-clashes-jabal-abdel-aziz/ just reported for instance a government offensive with fighting in the villages of Tal Barak and Tal Aswad; and the mountains of Jabal ‘Abdel-Aziz. But that whole area is listed as black on the map.

What are you talking about al-Masdar is pro-gov!159.92.9.130 (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. But what I have seen on this website they are considered to be more accurate, with less exaggeration then some of the other pro-regime sites. & Where are the sources that say Tal Barak is also IS? IS beheads journalists and does not say anything when they loose a location. This is also a very remote location, that SOHR doesn't seem to report on much. If a pro-government source says its captured, yes, i agree when should not put that unless a neutral or anti-regime source says that (and vice versa with rebels,etc), but when a source claims fighting is occurring, shouldn't we take that under consideration? especially in such a remote location.

Ah common guys why are those dots still black? it's now several days that no one proved a reliable source for this edit and it's still black, change it back to red!SyAAF (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I again noted under control by army some villages which were noted to under ISIS control on based biased the anti-government source. For the such serious change need confirmation from a more reliable source. Because according the rules of editing we cant use anti government sources for the display success of the anti governmenet forces. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dara'a frontier

Rebel group made this map: note the eastern half of the border with Jordan is gov-controlled per pro-opp source. https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/533097089711222784?lang=en ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this pro-opposition map army controls the border strip to the east of the Nassib border crossing and the city of Bosra al Sham and some small villages near this city. Also this map clear show that the city of Izra under control by army and a city of Shaikh Maskin still contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if there are any other sources to corroborate the border strip - we are not familiar with the author of this new map, and its information runs contrary to the sources found/used to make the border region as is on our map. Izra = 100% SAA controlled, Sheikh Mishkin/Maskin contested - 100% agree. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think you're right. So I think we should try to find more information about the situation in the area. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Even thought I think Sheisk Miskin is completely rebel held, it should stay contested until SOHR or someone else shows a rebel attack on brigade 82 and radar base north of the city. DuckZz (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The city of Sheikh Maskin still contested and we will change it only when a reliable source said that this city captured by rebels or army. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
And SOHR reported tha clashes continue in Shekh Meskin between regime forces and Islamic battalions accompanied by regime's bombardment on the area.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well a rebel brigade made this map so I think they know more stuff on the ground than we do.. I say take this map into consideration only for the border region with Jordan and Bosra Al Sham. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Inkhil

Pro opposition source reported that severe clashes take place between Syrian army and Islamic battalions in Inkhil, and Barka in Dara countryside.here But it is not enough that would change such a big city on the contested. Maybe someone from the editors have more data about the situation in this city. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Its says clashes IN the city and describes those clashes as severe, so I think it would be appropriate to make Inkhil contested. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR said Dilli COULD be taken so it turns green then servere fighting in Inkhill but no change whats going on? Come on guys stick to the rules you just complained about POTATO for doing something like this but when it suits you its fine . Rules is rules everyone should adhere to them.109.154.87.146 (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Several twitter sources say Dilli WAS taken by rebels, as well as resisting a regime counter attack. This is a least the second time recently that SOHR says could instead of was for a change of status. The other time it was confirmed by numerous sources later that the change took place. I suspect it is a translation problem by SOHR, since the original text is always in arabic.
I don't know about Inkhil now, but in the past there were often clashes on the well guarded outskirts without penetrating the town. It is not far from important regime strongholds. From my recollection, Syrian Documents is not noted for distinguishing between clashes IN and clashes around or near. So we should wait for some confirming source. André437 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
In the case of uncertain statements from reliable sources, maybe we should accept clear twitter posts for clarification. The apparent SOHR use of could instead of did is a case in point. WDYT ? André437 (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do remember that Brigade 15 is maybe some 10 meters from the town of Inkhil and is regime held. So they infiltrate the city at their wish I guess, but the town is rebel held

Twitter is not reliable and against our rules . Not one reliable post has yet stated DILLI is rebel held but someone changed it this has to stop .109.154.87.146 (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Also earlier pro opposition maps showed that clashes in the city of Inkhil or on its outskirts.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Inkhil should be contested since regime forces have a presence in its eastern part. Via many pro-opp sources ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Qamishli province

While its northern region is controlled by the Syrian government, its south is a base for ISIL militants. The city also lies along a major route for relief supplies to Iraq and Syria.CCTV America also Syrian troops control the city Qamishli.Veooz USA Edition Syria troops advance against ISIS in Qamishli province and now Syrian forces have retaken 20 miles of territory in the north-east.Independent Hanibal911 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

For Qamishli,the news is taken from Al-Alam,also there was no report of the YPG retreating from Qamishli,it will be hard to define the frontline,btw Regime and ISIS forces.Alhanuty (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-syria-the-story-of-the-martyred-soldiers-who-fought-to-the-last-bullet-to-avoid-the-fate-of-captured-comrades-beheaded-by-militants-9854693.htm no village south of Qamishli withing 30 km could be black. I suggest to turn red Khirbat Jammu and Khirbat Askar.Paolowalter (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with Paolowalter. Because those villages located in area which Syrian troops cleared from Islamic State. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreement between Islamic State and Al Nusra Front

Islamic State and Al Nusra Front have reportedly agreed to stop fighting one another after a meeting among militant officials in a farmhouse in Syria last week. Included in this agreement is reportedly also the plan for ISIL and Nusra Front to team up and attack U.S.-backed rebels throughout Syria.Albawaba7 NewsThe Associated PressABC News Hanibal911 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

They are all based on one AP report, on or before 13 nov. (The date of one of the articles referring to the AP report.) But a more recent report (15 nov) claims that it was an al-Nusra and Islamic Front proposal that was refused by ISIS since al-Nusra and Islamic groups are all "apostates". (I would assume at least the IF-associated Ahrar al-Sham, which has been fighting with al-Nusra in Idlib, if not the entire IF.)
Although it did support the content stated above of the proposal. Obviously a dangerous sign for the moderate rebels in the north. In the south, the moderate Southern Front is dominant, and advancing against the regime, so not (yet) a lot of risk there. André437 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Another report on the issue. Covers more angles. André437 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Blinded by feuds the Syria’s rebels turn guns on one another on South front.The National So that according to the latest reports the rebel groups in Syria already at war against each other not only in the Idlib province. Already the same situation in the Dara province and other areas. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Al- Nusra Front and Jund al- Aqsa cancel the agreement with ” the factions that support Jamal Ma’ruf”.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

al- Dalli

SOHR reported that rebel and Islamic battalions could advance in al- Dalli area and seize wide parts. And regime forces retreated from the area.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Report said could take not did take someone revert back please.109.154.87.146 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Pro opposition reported that clashes in Dilli continues.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Pro-opp https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/533728762391564288 and https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/534092535195762688 states that Dill was retaken by SAA; also pro-gov https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/533956113046466560. In any case the original source http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/the-rebel-and-islamic-battalions-advance-in-al-dalli-area-in-daraa

stated only that the rebel advanced in the town, not that conquered it. At most contested, but now it shoud go back to red.Paolowalter (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro-opposition source reported that army retake the village of Dilli. But this source later said that Field activists confirmed that village Dilli is under Rebels control, after the Regime failed attempts to retake the village.here But later other the pro-opposition source said that clashes in Dilli still continues.here Some other activists reported that army recaptures Dilli and checkpoint.here Pro government source also reported that army and NDF have recaptured village Dilli.here Thus we have a very confusing situation. Thus it seems to me that the best solution in this situation can be only one. Mark this village as a contested. But this just my personal opinion. So that I propose to other editors express your opinion on the issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The pro-gov sources generally seem to agree that the SAA recaptured Dalli. However, the pro-opp sources are [very unusually] dissenting among themselves. Until things clear up, I agree with Hanibal that the village should be contested. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think its not unusual for the Oposition to dissent on enemy advances since some oposition groups have their informants in the Battle and other simply relly in second hand accounts. So its better to wait until more sources corroborate this. However i think it should remain contested. Archivillians its heavily pro-opposition & disorganized, with that conflicting reports someone should be more cautious its not the second time its lose credibility, you should use a better source.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If you agree to it stay contested, why it is red?

Anyone going to make this town contested? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/daraa-battle-map-syrian-army-captures-village-dilli/ Dilli remains red.Paolowalter (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Menagh Air Base

The air base is controlled by al-Nusra since 4.november. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/jabhat-al-nusra-idlib-islamic-emirate.html# Lindi29 (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tried changing it but couldn't figure out the color thing. EkoGraf (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll make the missing icons for al-Nusra colours (and other groups) in the next day or so. And change this location in the process.
Quite likely much the same combatants in control that fought under the ISIS flag before. André437 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mare

Clashes took place between regime forces and Islamic battalions around Tal Madee near the town Mare.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time SOHR has reported saa/rebel fighting in this area the first time we put it down to a mistake . May be saa advance north is more than we know .Pyphon (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

U.S. stop the weapons support for the rebels !?

The U.S. is withdrawing its weapons support for the moderate rebel groups it previously backed in northern Syria after they suffered major defeats in Idlib province last week at the hands of an al Qaeda affiliate. It seems "likely that the weapons will stop,” Mohammed Ghanem, a senior political adviser in Washington at the Syrian American Council, a grassroots organization based in Chicago, said. “The situation now in Syria … it's not pretty to be honest with you. We don’t have high hopes.”International Business Times Hanibal911 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Crazy, right? Where will this end. Well, with the SRF and Hazzm movement losing Idlib and the Islamic Front predominant in Aleppo.. the "Southern Front" groups are the only rebels left in any strength that the US would even possibly support. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Off topic, we are supposed to describe the situation on ground, not general news on the war. Even less opinion.Paolowalter (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 that info could fit exactly in the main Article of the Civil War or in the Timeline of Events, since soon the FSA would be displaced by more Islamist Forces(JAN etc.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC))

I still belive this Al Nusra color is the most stupid thing on this map. They don't care about controling towns, at least half of them you see here are not under their control. There are dozens of rebel groups in Idlib, and only one of them (SRF) was in conflict with the Nusra front. Everyone (Div13, 5corp, DOF, Islamic Front etc) else are still present in bigger towns, especially Marat Numan and Kafranbel.

This article http://www.ibtimes.com/us-stops-flow-weapons-moderate-syrian-rebels-considers-vetting-new-groups-south-1725240 Saying "the moderate rebel groups it previously backed in northern Syria after they suffered major defeats in Idlib province last week at the hands of an al Qaeda affiliate. " This is incorrect they defeat were in Morek all of them Al Qaeda, FSA, Islamic Front, Mujahideen etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mork

US provide a lot TOWs to all these groups in Idlib more than a Year including more than 9 mounts in Morek they lose in Morek and lose again trying get some parts in Idlib City the days latter when the lose in Morek now they claim is Al Qaeda who defeated the "moderated" lol but the reality is Al Qaeda + FSA + Others insurgents got defeated in Morek and Idlib by the Army Al Qaeda is just a reason for justified their fail.

They are now trying in the Israeli border when the Insurgents are backed by Israeli military and is a more safer zone for them.

Al Qaeda is everywhere when are the so called Moderated --Pototo1 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Al Masdar status

So guys this might become a heated debate so keep it civilized: Should Al-Masdar be considered a neutral source the same way SOHR is? Both report rebel and regime gains and both have biased editors in chief. Your thoughts? ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

They are highly pro-regime in my opinion. That wouldn't be a problem if the editors aren't from the same site as syrianperspective. According to Al Masdar, there are only Al Nusre groups operating in Nawa, Sheik Miskin .. which is of course more than a propaganda.DuckZz (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"which is of course more than a propaganda" Source? Al-Masdar has been highly consistent in its reporting. Their reports are almost always accurate, so I am not sure where the "Highly pro-regime" is coming from. They are not more pro-regime than SOHR is pro-opp. Also, Al-Masdar's reports are greatly different than Syrianperspective's, so the editors are not the same. I feel that they are a reliable source. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes but I'm referring to reporting territorial changes. SOHR does have the Syrian revolution flag in its logo and does refer to Assad as "the killer of children" and the NDF as Afghan mercenaries. All I'm saying is that both SOHR and AlMasdar have biased editors in chief and political opinions and they call opposing fighters by false/bad names but both report rebel/regime gains so why not use them both equally and carefully? Although I respect your opinion. ChrissCh94 (talk)

Still waiting for Al-Masdar to admit Tell al-Harrah to be rebel held. And for them to admit FSA to play a MAJOR role in the south. They claim is only Nusra, funny, since ALL the videos I see from advances are made by FSA and all other sources admit FSA to be part of them.

Still waiting for SOHR to discuss the SAA advances at Saker Island. Also, I remember that before the current crisis, the pro-opp mafia used to say that the FSA plays a MAJOR role in Idlib. That turned out to be not so true after all. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are right to a certain degree and both of you prove my point: SOHR and Al Masdar are biased but they report regime and rebel gains so why not use them both EQUALLY and CAREFULLY? ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Neither source is totally neutral, but they both report accurately, so both should be used. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Masdar regularly §disseminates biased and false information. The editor is @KeepingtheLeith on Twitter, who is also part of the heavily pro-regime site 'Syrian Perspective', which we do not consider a reliable source. There is no reason why we should use this source. SOHR is used because it is deemed to be reliable by all major news outlets. Al-Masdar news, as far as I am aware, hasn't been adduced by any.159.92.9.130 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Al-Masdar regularly disseminates biased and false information" Prove it. Al-Masdar's information is reliable. How many western news outlets carry it is irrelevant. Unless you can prove "disseminates biased and false information", you have nothing. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, you saying that a site should be considered reliable until proven otherwise. Don't you understand that it should be the converse ?
The SOHR has a long record of unbiased reports, condemning human rights violations where they occur on whatever side. Of course the regime, almost universally recognized as a massive violator of human rights, gets a lot more criticism. Even the UN security council, including Russia and China, has unanimously recognized this fact. Al-Masdar is far from the track record of SOHR. André437 (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR more than a activist site its a propaganda tool for the Green(Non-Islamist) rebels fighting in Syria, its full of pure anti regime propaganda, and sometimes its own propaganda dont make sense, like the Aleppo Prison assault that was a complete flop. However sometimes its gaves good info about the Islamists, but anyone clever knows their are part of the propaganda tools of those former rebels fighting now in the Southern Front and Aleppo. There are lesser Rebel held terrain thought Syria, Deyr el Zor was captured by ISIS and Idlid changed to JAN. This means thats SOHR have a very low credibility it those places,since it have less informants, another point SOHR rarely give names of dead in the battle field, Almasdar does despite its close to the goverment. Almasdar its less pro goverment than SOHR its Pro Green Rebels. Thats clearly for Sure. Its simply nonsense the way SOHR report news, a lot of killed SAA soldiers and all non Goverment deaths are civilians, a complete lie, the war have killed thousands of rebels fighters too, they have no more men than 2012. And with the war ongoing this way the rebels will held less territory than the Kurds, prepare to take out the green dots from the Map template soon, FSA will be removed from Syria and SOHR propaganda will become a lost cause soon. 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

— a few facts: the hot fronts are usually held by Nusra, including all of Nawa and most of Shaikh Miskeen. Masdar reported on the fall of Tall Harrah. As for SOHR, their numbers are complete BS. The fact that major news sources trust them is a very low event for those news sources, doesnt mean we have to fall that deep, too. Oh, and SP is a commedy site. lol, who thought otherwise?

"facts" ? If al-Nusra played a significant role in Daraa recently (Nawa, Shayke Miskin, etc), they conveniently chose to fly the independence flag, or chose to avoid publicity. Rather doubtful. Spouting your fictions doesn't make them true. If you've been following Idlib recently, you would see that al-Nusra has decided to target the FSA far behind front lines recently, instead of regime forces on the front. Don't be surprised to see an FSA retaliation against al-Nusra and allies in Idlib, like occurred a year ago against the ISIS. Note that al-Nusra actively recruited ISIS members in Idlib at the beginning of the year, so FSA is probably fighting many of the same combatants. All the FSA needs is a good supply of arms and munitions, as occurred a year ago. André437 (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Nov-09/276995-syria-rebels-nusra-capture-key-southern-town-monitor.ashx XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So guys what will the verdict be? I know "syrianperspective" is by no means reliable and heavily pro regime but Al-Masdar till now has proven MORE OR LESS reliable.. Close to SOHR.. Your thoughts? Please be respectful ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You wont get consensus on this issue we have discussed this before and any pro gov source will not be agreed upon by the many pro op editors . I think it can only be used if other reliable sources state the same thing (don't quote me on that) Pyphon (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

No way. No even remotely reasonable argument has been brought against Al-Masdar. It has reported government losses not even quoted by SOHR. If not, I state that SOHR is biased (as is) and unreliable (got much worse recently) and we won't use it anymore. I'll keep using it regularly for my editing.Paolowalter (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand. People keep saying that Al-Masdar is a propaganda tool, yet have failed to come forward with evidence proving regular use of lies. All the while, they insist on using the SOHR even though it has "messed" up many times[Termesah, Aleppo central prison, Saker Island, Hasaka advances, Tell-Mastuma, etc] and is run by a Syrian Ex-convict. On a list of people with a vendetta against the regime, it does not get much lower than that. Al-Masdar has reported on events in Syria accurately, and since that is our main criterion for a reliable source, it should be used. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Evidently, you "do not understand". (1) The initial Aleppo central prison report was an error made by many sources, not only by SOHR, and which SOHR quickly corrected. Rebel infiltration did not get quite as far as reported, and was reversed with the help of regime aviation bombardment. (2) Not reporting Saker Island could be called an error of omission, which just means that SOHR does not have sources in the area. In such cases it is appropriate that SOHR not comment. (3) Hasaka has had so many advances and retreats by 3 sides that it is often very difficult to know the current situation, even if one has local sources. (4) Technically one could say that someone arrested and tortured for complaining about human rights violations is a convict, but it is the Assad regime that is the real criminal. (5) I have seen some very questionable al-Masdar reports posted here. Not close to the professionalism of SOHR and numerous other sources.
(6) In sum, I agree that you "do not understand". André437 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
No, you seem to be hopelessly suffocated by your own POV/bias. You continue to make baseless claims "I have seen some very questionable al-Masdar reports posted here" despite being repeatedly told that claims without support will not suffice. " Technically one could say that someone arrested and tortured for complaining about human rights violations is a convict, but it is the Assad regime that is the real criminal." No one cares. We make the map based on reliable sources, not whom you think is evil. Rami was arrested three times by the government, so if anyone hates the Assad regime, it would be him. The Aleppo central prison was error was made by many source, because they were all quoting SOHR. And finally, " have seen some very questionable al-Masdar reports posted here. Not close to the professionalism of SOHR and numerous other sources" at least Al-Masdar can use proper English syntax, which is a very big indicator of professionalism. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there will ever be a consensus on al-Masdar. I guess the onus of responsibility for digging up corroborating sources falls on the editor that wants to use al-Masdar as a primary source in any given instance. That's really not that different from how SOHR is used.. We always try to find additional sources to verify or refute the information. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC) I agree.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Well I fail to see how SOHR became such a reliable source.. Anyways my vote goes to the simplest solution: Use both CAREFULLY and EQUALLY. If they report a gain of their side (Pro-regime gain for AL Masdar or Pro-rebel gains for SOHR) change to contested and wait for additional sources // If they report opposing gains: that's obvious enough. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I give up...

According to a maintenance page, there are eleven links to disambiguation pages in the article Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. But upon checking, it said that the links were in a subpage or template. But no matter what I did, I could not find what piece of this article actually contains the links to disambiguation pages. So I need help... The Banner talk 22:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you kindly give a link to the maintenance page ? So we know what to look for. André437 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Articles With Multiple Dablinks. The actual links to disambiguation page you can find here. The Banner talk 19:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I found this link for links to disambiguation pages, but on reflexion decided that this is solving the wrong problem. The real problem is that many links from the template are misdirected.
1) All links should go to a point giving detailed info relating to the conflict at the location in question. This means not to some article with general info about the location. Generally the link will be to an anchor in the tables of the cities and towns page associated with the map. Sometimes it will be to another page covering the conflict.
2) A link to the cities and towns page will usually be to a section in the tables specifically about that location, particularly for cities and larger towns. Note that there is a separate table for each governorate (or province).
3) If there is not separate section for the location, a link to the cities and towns page should go to the other cities section of the table for the governorate. (Initially at the bottom of the sortable table.)
4) Correcting disambiguation is not the important problem with links from the cities and towns page. Rather correcting the links as outlined in points 1 to 3 above. Such corrections will automatically correct the few links to disambiguation pages. These would only be possible on the very few legitimate links outside the cities and towns tables, and readily verified.
5) So it would be useful to systematically scan the links in the template to ensure that they point to the right place. We should set a section in this page that monitors the progress, to help collaboration in this process. We have to establish some means of determining what parts of the template are being verified, perhaps by latitude range or some other criteria. Using name could be problematic, as likely there will be corrections in the process. By governorate would be ideal, as it would coincide with the tables, but that would probably require re-ordering the template to be useful.
Once we have established the criteria, editors working on this can easily indicate the ranges they are working on verifying and have verified, to avoid duplicating effort.
6) We should document procedures to enter new locations to the map, including the associated links. Evidently a lot of locations are not correctly added.
7) As well, we should document the procedures to modify the map. This should include references being placed in the tables for reference and verification, which is not currently being done. Leading to endless discussions as to "why is town A red" or "why is city B green", etc. Just annotating edits (often inaccurately) is woefully inadequate.

My 2 cents. BTW, putting "no" for the link is NOT CORRECT. It just introduces another error. André437 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What you say is not the point. The point is that eleven links lead you to nowhere. That is the present truth and something has to be done about that. Filling the encyclopaedia with a long list of article about who was fighting with who in super-tiny-village will not help at all. The result will be a merge proposal into Syrian Civil War and/or related articles mentioned in that article. The Banner talk 23:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Daraa - Bosra, Nassib crossing, Dilli

All contested or green based on actual news reports, all changed red based exclusively on AMATEUR MAPS. Kudos to accuracy. It is an absolute sham to change the status of locations - confirmed by main stream media - for no reason and with no empirical support except an amateur map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thais is an obvious lie. All changed are supported.

I would go for Bosra as contested, just as it was, Nasib besieged and Dilli under rebel control. Also, we now have:

  • Mahajjah back to red despite SANA reports of bombing in the town;
  • Tell Antar near Kafr Shams contested, no source given for the contested status;
  • No neutral sources given for the red towns on the Jordanian border east of Nasib;
Dilli is red by al-Mansar. Town on Jordanian borders were reported under SAA control recently but Icannot remember where.79.6.145.184 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Great pro-SAA editing from somebody. So that means: back to green or delete!

Your arguments are not grounded so stop talking nonsense. Also no one source not said that clashes in the city Mahajjah. Pro opposition and pro government sources showed that Nassib border crossing under control by army.hereherehere If you have confirmation from a reliable source that Nassib Border crossing under rebel control then you need provide this source or stop make unfounded statements. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also we previously agreed to use the pro-government maps to display success rebels and pro opposition maps to display success of the army. Also when some of not registered editors accuse me that I a pro government editor and that I distort the map when edit on basis not reliable sources in favor government. But why then those IP editors are silent when I edit in favor of the rebels use the same sources.hereherehere I just want that map showed the real situation and not the fantasy of individual editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nassib is fine, now that the lime circle has been restored around it. Bosra is way too important a city to have its status changed based exclusively off of an amateur map though. I'm against using amateur maps without supporting sources for any side - I've voiced that a bunch of times. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If we want that the map showed the real situation, we have to choose one the most reliable from the pro-government sources which we also can use for display the advances of all parties to the conflict. As we have done previously when we all agreed to use the anti-government source a SOHR to display the advances of all parties to the conflict. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

al-Masdar is the closest to a useable pro-gov't source. But even there, there is always conflict. al-Monitor says Brigade 82 fell to the rebels, al-Masdar says only part of it fell. SOHR reports on Saturday that rebels took Dilli, al-Masdar says the SAA threw them out on Friday. The only workable solution is to find additional sources to support al-Masdar's claims concerning SAA advances - the same way we try to find supporting sources for SOHR claims, and don't generally take at face value when SOHR states this or that town is being bombarded. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Good! I agree with you. So if we use source al Masdar when we want to show the progress of army also need confirmation this data from another source. But then in case when we use data from the SOHR we should not change the city or village controlled by the army on contested on the basis of only one message about the air strike. If all will agree with this it would be fine. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all, it woule make al Masdar useless. Al-Mansar alone is sufficient. As it is SOHR

when it states explicitly change of control. It is different and in general worng to draw conclustion from skirmish or bombardment. Thais is wrong either side. Paolowalter (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, no and no. al-Masdar is blatantly pro-government, it uses hyperbolic language and is edited by @KeepingtheLeith; the man behind the notorious regime mouthpiece: Syrian Perspective. SOHR reporting an airstrike on a town should clearly be used to make that town at least contested. Why would the regime launch an airstrike on its own location??Jafar Saeed (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Yes, and Yes [isn't baseless argumentation fun!]. Al-Masdar is completely reliable since you have repeatedly failed to prove otherwise and Al-Masdar's reporting have almost always been accurate. The man behind the "notorious" Syrian perspective is a man named Ziad, not leith [Reading is fun too!]. Also, the regime may launch airstrikes to stall out a rebel infiltration or advance. Finally-"it uses hyperbolic language"- this is hilarious, you mean to tell me that SOHR does NOT. Al-Masdar takes a more professional tone than even SOHR, which outright accuses the Syrian government of "killing children" on a daily basis and makes all sort of baseless propaganda against the regime, which can be seen solely by the way it counts its death tolls. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dael

SOHR post on barrel bombs and airstrikes in Dael town: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/612604175514591.Jafar Saeed (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dael used to be contested based on SOHR statement as well as pro-gov https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2qHwB1CMAAqGqP.jpg:large map. Why went it green? The 60th engineering bataillon was turned green on the basis of a single SOHR statement rather vague 'information reported that the battalions seized the Battalion 60'. In practice it is just a rumor without confirmation. Nobody claimes on twitter, no video, nothing. The pro-gov map above shows this area under government control. I guess we should change it.Paolowalter (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Paolowalter (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be vague, but SOHR is by far the most reliable source. And because a pro-regime source said otherwise, we cannot change it.

SOHE is not particularly relaible. No more than others like al-Masdar.79.6.145.184 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that when SOHR makes an implausible pro-regime error (Dael contested), it is accepted immediately by pro-rebel editors. Despite such an important regime advance not being reported by any pro-rebel sites. (Implausible also since it is long rebel held and is not close to any front lines.)
The context strongly indicates that it was an error. Possibly a translation error, since the english language SOHR reports are translations of the original arab language reports.
So reasonable analysis says that Dael is (and should always have recently been) green for rebel held. André437 (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious. Did you just use Original Research to declare that the SOHR report about the SAA in Dael is an error. SOHR said contested so it should go contested. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No analysi are requierd nor allowed. A pro-opp source made a clear statement and we follow it. Dael is contested. If you want to invent news you can make your own page.79.6.145.184 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheick Maksim

Who changed it to green?Paolowalter (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

al-Monitor today reported "The fall of these regions had a negative impact on the old road between Damascus and Daraa as militants took full control of Nawa, al-Shaykh Maskin and Brigade 112..." Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Paolowalter, I changed the status of Sheikh Maskin here and provided a valid source. You just reverted it here, and claimed that it was an unsourced edit. Assuming good faith here, maybe you did not see that a source was indeed provided. Please undo your revert, or I must assume that you are intentionally vandalizing. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Simply it is not credible. SOHR has reported continuous fight in the city in the last days, Petolucem reported the town contested and al.Masnar reports in details how the city is splitted and all of a sudden without any confirmation via twitter or any pro-rebel source the city has been taken by rebels. Very unilikely. In any case we are facing contradicting info, that warrants a contested icon.Paolowalter (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"In any case we are facing contradicting info, that warrants a contested icon" - I am on board with that reasoning, if you are on board with applying it fairly. By that reasoning, every time SOHR reports barrel-bombing/bombardment, that too warrants a contested icon b/c it represents contradicting info. If that is what you are proposing, I completely agree. If not, than the statement "In any case we are facing contradicting info, that warrants a contested icon" is disingenuous - in which case that al-Monitor report, being the latest on Sheikh Miskin, is valid enough to make the city green. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe a single bombardment makes a town contested. If it is reported repeatedly that there are clashes in the town, then it should be contested, like sheik misken. . We have seen much misinformation and disinformation regarding the south [not surprisingly], so we should "tread lightly" .XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on Lucem Map seems the Jihadists controlled the major part of Sheick Maksim not all but major part of it https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/534388773598285824 it's not a surprise so this area near Israel is a place when they have a huge concentration of Insurgents, you can put this place in insurgent hands if you wish at the moment.

But the Jordan border post Nassib Crossing it's not encircled (Not Now) so the Insurgent not operated in North of Jordan and east to the border post. --Pototo1 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

New icons

There are new icons for al-Nusra as requested, particularly for the helicopter base recently taken by them, and the update indicated in the Menagh Air Base section above is done.
There are also new icons for other colours missing. As well, the caption at the bottom of the map now contains almost all the applicable icons, so editors will know what is available. (The besieged map-circle-colour.svg icons are still missing.) Some have been renamed for coherence, so be sure to verify the current name by mouse-over.
Note also that the semicircles for "besieged one side" (or whatever you want to call it) best work if 4 sizes larger than the dot it besieges, according to my tests.
Happy editing ... André437 (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Mabrokeh and al- Dahmaa in South-West of Ras al_Ayn

These two villages should become contested according to SOHR report http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/clashes-between-ypg-and-isis-in-al-hasakah-countryside/ Also Al-Rawiyah and Tell Zinkat should be in Kurdish control since they're in the way of Mabrokeh and al-Dahma. Please edit them dear Wikipedians.

SOHR just said that YPG fighters targeted(it means shelling) IS positions in the villages of Mabrokeh and al- Dahmaa in the southwest of Ras al- Ayn city, information reported wounding of some IS militants. SOHR not said about clashes in those villages. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources that Rawiyah and Tall Zinkat are under YPG control. Let's wait for more sources for Dahma and Mabroukah as "reported wounding of some militants" hints that YPG is shelling them from distance rather than trying to control the villages, that front has been fairly stable for weeks now. 8fra0 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ma’er Kebbeh and Lahaya

Those villages {Ma'er Kebbeh and Lahaya) editing from the government control to the control by rebels based only one messages about bombing.here But source not said that this villages now under rebel control. In the extreme case we must noted those villages as contested. Or provide proof from a reliable source that these villages are captured a rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Pototo1

Pototo1- in your original edit here, you vandalized the coding of Brigade 91 and Tell Harfouch, and removed lime circles/rebel presence from around Qabr Fidah and Bayt Ablak without providing a source or even trying to seek a consensus on the talk page. I reverted here. I see that you have reverted my revert here and say "sources or no changes". In the interest of avoiding edit warring, I am posting this situation here on the talk page - am I the one who needs to provide a source, when all I am doing is reverting Pototo's unsourced pro-gov't edit? Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

He has a history of dubiously editing/vandalizing the map and in his forays on the talk page does not seem to understand the most basic rules of editing this map. I agree with you, Boredwhytekid.

This editor is not the only one who sometimes violates the rules of editing. At the moment, I do not want says about these editors, but still believe that such actions applied harm of the map. And I think that this problem should be solved during the discussion because if we will simply revert the changes that have been made without specifying the source or when the source is not credible or does not support the editing we just provoke war editors. But if for a long time those editors who make such changes and no matter in favor rebels or government he is doing those editings all the same it is a violation, and we need to react to such actions. But if those who makes such changes not responding to the notice of other editors that it was not right then in that case we have only one correct solution it notify administrators. Otherwise we just provoke a war of edits and we all will suffer. I think that the admins will be able to find a solution to this problem. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

he remembers me with editor Deonis2012,who used to commit the same behavior exactly as Pototo1,Pototo1 could be a sockpuppet.Alhanuty (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I not understand the logic of those editors who edit without identifying a source because if we all start to edit without source very soon our map will turn into the trash! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I just remove two green circles who some one draw with no reason I did nothing in brig 91. --Pototo1 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You edited Brigade 61 right here.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hamad desert

We need to re-add some of the IS-held locations in the deep desert SE of Palmyra and the T3 Station. al-Monitor is still referencing them and SOHR confirmation of coalition strikes in the area. The amateur pro-op map archicivilians and [http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-syria-civil-war-8-novem_21226#9/34.1168/38.8032 ] still show IS presence out there. NYT still shows the area as an "Area of recurring attacks (by the IS)".

Specifically, I want to add al-Halbah and the Jabal al-Ghurab. Thoughts? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I add on the map a village of Al Halbah but Jabal al-Ghurab it is only mountain and we cant add this object on map. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Every other mountain/tell is added using the abm icon Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

sohr and al monitor reports say '...the international coalition had targeted al-HAMAD desert region, to the EAST of Palmyra...' .But you guys added al HALBAH (SOUTH of palmyra).I think, its wrong.Al hamad and al halbah is not same.(my opinion)Hwinsp (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Hwinsp (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well al-Hamad refers to the entire desert, al-Halbah is a town in that desert, and the only specific town that we have any sort of source to justify adding. Idk, if you're really truly against it I guess we can look for another town - in my opinion though, the important thing is showing that there is an IS presence in the region. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Brigade 82

Pro opposition source confirmed that Brigade 82 in Shayk Maskin under control by army but are under siege and under heavy fire the rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

al-monitor says rebels took Brigade 82. al-masdar says rebels took part of it, SAA holds out in other parts. Contested is appropriate Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree! Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that al-monitor was referring to the army terrain just south of Shayk Maskin associated with Brigade 82, which almost certainly would be rebel controlled. So also agree that Brigade 82 north of Shayk Maskin should be contested. The rebels would need to take that base to securely advance to Isra and block the M5. André437 (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Abu al-Duhur Airbase

I just thought I'd say: the icon for Abu al-Duhur airbase looks really cool with the red airplane with the green background.Jafar Saeed (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

At first thought it looked like an icon to fix (I had changed the fighter jet background to transparent), as well as using a green circle instead of a green dot to indicate besieged. But on testing I found just adding the circle in place of the dot seems good, since it shows up behind the grey square of the jet.
Thanks, I wouldn't have noticed without your comment :) André437 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war/Archive_31&oldid=1136637443"