Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Daraa Province

According to pro government SANA the army took over the town of al Hara(not displayed in the map)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It's shown as contested/unclear currently. Waiting for better news outlets to give information. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/10/318027/syria-army-continues-to-make-gains/ presstv also reported it.Daki122 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Lothar SOHR finally admitted the army take over of Hara city announcing that was took over my the army a few days ago!!!!!! Of course they didnt transmit that when it happen even that they knew it!!!!!!!!--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dimitrish81 , a few days for SOHR to confirm information is *not* an indication that they were intending to hide the info. Rather a reassuring indication that they were confirming the info before publishing it. Andr438 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lothar , I notice that Nawa has been changed on the map from contested to regime control, by the post 15:21, 15 August 2013‎ EkoGraf.
However to me the article indicates that Nawa is still contested, and not totally controlled by the regime : The full sentence is "Even in Nawa, a town of around 80,000 people where a July rebel offensive forced the army to evacuate several checkpoints, Assad's troops are still broadly in control."
The last reference, that resulting in Nawa being marked as contested, said that the rebels were in control of most of the town. So "broadly in control" (and not "totally") would confirm a continuing rebel presence.
Note that the article has a largely editorial style, rather than referring to specific information. (With a few exceptions, none referring to Nawa.) Andr438 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It has regrouped and consolidated its presence in towns such as Sanameen, Nawa, Izraa and Deraa city itself, which remain firmly in army control.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/15/us-syria-crisis-arms-idUSBRE97E0QH20130815 http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-supplied-missiles-boost-rebels-south-syria-144229964.htmlDestroyer1812 (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your references is the same as above, the other a slight variation by the same author. Considering that the previous change was based on the rebels controling *most* of Nawa, and the wording of these references, it indicates that the rebels still have a presence in Nawa.

So Nawa should revert to *contested* Andr438 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Raqqa

Jihadists push Syria rebels out of Raqqa.An armed group has expelled rebel Free Syrian Army fighters from their positions in the northern city of Raqqa, a watchdog reported on Wednesday.

"Fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have taken control of the positions of the Ahfad al-Rasul brigade in Raqqa," the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/jihadists-push-syria-rebels-out-of-raqqa http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/armed-fighters-push-rebels-out-raqqaMylassa2000 (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Its becoming very clear that in some areas that ISIS has the control and Qaeda we must start using other colours. Its not helpingthe ground situation to keep areas under rebels unified colours when ISIS and other Qaeda groups clearly sending the message that any other faction is going to be exterminated. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree totally Andr438 (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Damascus Countryside

According to pro government alalam the army took over the 90% of al Tazamen neighbourhood(not displayed in map) which is close to Yamrouk Palestinian camp and was a stronghold of Qaeda and Nursa elements.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Pro government SANA also announced the army took over over the al-Qarieh al-Shamiyeh(not diplayed in map) in the Eastern Ghouta.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Damascus Countryside

According to pro government SANA the army tokk over control of al-Khamissiyeh city in Eastern Ghouta.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lattakia Countryside

The villages of Abo Makke and Beit al-Shakkouhi has recaptured by the army according to pro government SANA--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In the same context the army according to SANAtook over the villages of al-Khrata, al-Khanzouriyeh, Barouda , Jabal al-Shabaan, al-Hamyoushieh, al-Ballouta and al-Sheikh Nabhan.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition group, said that fighting was continuing despite the governement advances and that the villages were not recaptured yet. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Aug-18/227736-advancing-army-kills-jihadist-emir-in-syrias-latakia-activists.ashx#axzz2cKYIe9vsDestroyer1812 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Sourcesalso adapting the above news of recapture the northern countryside except the village of Salma which was before and remains under rebel control.Other sourcesalso adapting. SOHR is not denying but also not confirming....(usual and logical tactic for moral reasons)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Assad's forces push back rebels in Syria's Alawite mountains.The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said Assad's forces have retaken all the military observation posts which rebels had seized when they launched their offensive two weeks ago, and regained control of nine Alawite villages.The army was still trying to recapture two villages, the observatory's head Rami Abdelrahman said, adding that heavy fighting continued on Monday.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97I0HW20130819Destroyer1812 (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lebanon neutral sources also confirming the capture and referring the admittance by SOHR(after the usual delay)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Add a colour for the ISIS and allies

Given that :
1) There are 3 major groupings of rebels : The FSA and associated (most rebels), the PYD and associated, and the ISIS and associated.
There is now green for most rebels, and yellow for the PYD.

2) The kurdish PYD are fighting the regime, so it is at least somewhat disingenious to not classify them as rebels. They are fighting mostly as the FSA did at the beginning (i.e. focussing on protecting their neighbourhoods and laying seige to regime forces), but there are and have been numerous open conflicts as well.

3) The ISIS and allies have frequently attacked other rebel units, often executing their commanders (FSA commanders in Latakia and Deir Ezzor, for example). There are reports on this page that they recently attacked another FSA unit in Deir Ezzor. They recently initiated a war with the PYD in majority kurdish areas, and ignored an FSA-negociated cease-fire. The PYD has been joined by some FSA units (and they seem to be gaining against the ISIS).

4) The FSA and associated rebels, are by far the most numerous, and have had some level of coordination with other rebels. The few conflicts with the kurdish PYD have been far outnumbered by conflicts with the much less numerous ISIS and allies.
With the FSA I include the SILF (allied, moderate islamic close to the Muslim Brotherhood), numerous small independant groups, and the SIF (somewhat more radical islamic but almost always cooperates with the FSA, despite numerous relatively minor conflicts with other groups, especially the PYD)

5) Although the kurdish PYD is officially autonomist (and against separation), currently they are denied full civil rights by the regime. (No schools in their language, most denied citizenship and thus even passports.) They are generally moderate and pro-democratic. (Areas under their control are sujet to local citizens committees.)
In contrast, the ISIS proposes to integrate Syria into a larger theocratic state, and it is evident from their comportment that they intend to impose their views on citizens, and are not open to compromise.
So in the longer term, the PYD kurds obviously have more in common with other rebels than the ISIS

6) Given these factors, it makes more sense to colour the ISIS (and allies) another colour (say dark grey) than the green of most rebels.
I would even say that it would make sense to colour the PYD green instead of yellow. Note that many kurds are already part of the FSA.

7) As far as practicality, we could use nested circles to indicate shared control between ISIS and other groupings, like we already do for others. Say red/grey/green/yellow for Deir Ezzor (if we still use yellow), grey/green for the Menagh airbase, etc.
Instead of nested circles, we could maybe better use multicoloured pies to represented places with shared control. (For 2, 2 demicircles ; for 3, 3 120-degree segments ; for 4 if needed, 4 90-degree segments)
Note that in the northern gouvernats, al-Nusra is allied with or part of the ISIS, and in the south al-Nusra (led by their original leader) is against the ISIS. So it might make sense to continue to display the southern al-Nusra as green. (Thus simplifying the distinction.)
Also most foreign groups seem to be associated with the ISIS.

In sum, I think it is worth the effort. If we suppress the yellow, it will probably be somewhat simpler to determine than now. Andr438 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be removed let the Kurds will stand out in yellow FSA fighters Syrian army green color red only need to add black to the Islamic State of Iraq and LivantDestroyer1812 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is only the PYD that is yellow. Many kurds are already green, being part of the FSA. (And largely involved in the battle with the ISIS.)

But I do agree that the important point is to distinguish the ISIS on the map Andr438 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that ISIS must have their own representasion in the map, even their name means Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, leaving no doupts about their intentions comparing to other groups. Caution however in the the colours. In case of double control we are going to use i suppose of double colour mix(Qamisli-Hasaka....)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, jihadists need to get their own colour. EkoGraf (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I also mostly agree. It's seems to me that most area which is mentioned as under the FSA control in real is under jihadist's control which is mostly consisted by non-Syrians. But the problem is that there're a lack of information about such areas. It's seems to me that FSA became mostly a formal organisation which is taking a part in different conferences and just represent themselves in mass-media while in real mostly non-government and non-kurdish territories are not under FSA control, but controlled by various jihadist's groups from all over Arab world. --Ліонкінг (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo province

clashes Ourm al-Kubra and Ourm al-Sughra ( it this map Urum-....) https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/394115330696811

al- sfeira bombarb. ( it is al-safira??) https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr?hc_location=timeline#!/syriaohr/posts/393639220744422 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcinkrkpl (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, al-sfeira is another spelling for al-safira André437 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ill have to put it on capitals: FACEBOOK IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SOURCE, PERIOD. Read Wikipedia rules before ruining more its decreasing credibility...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But "reliable media" quoting facebook or SANA can be ? Get a grip, there are virtually no independant observers available. A facebook page depending on direct local contacts is more reliable than either SANA or "reliable media" without direct local contacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by André437 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

4 shells landing in farmlands ≠ "clashes" ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

New clashes in Afrin and Hasaka.http://www.taz.de/Heftige-Kaempfe-im-Nordosten-Syriens/!122179/ ([User talk: DE1588])15:35, 21 August 2013 (ME) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE1588 (talk • contribs)

Quneitra

According to pro government SANA, the army take over and secured two villages in the province named Mas'hareh and Tall Mas'hareh. Any attempt to put them in map will show as the army movements in the province.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

confirmed by al-Jazeera: http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/rebel-factions-including-al-qaeda-linked-nusra-front-killed-government-soldiers-syrias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The above villages take over is confirmed by pro and anti government sources. Please locate and update. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. If you want a change to be made, you need to find the sources to support it. RudolfRed (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

al-Rashdiya

According to SOHR (https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/411139682327709) al-Rashdiya village (Near Khanaser of Aleppo) is liberated. So it must be green instead of red. By the way, there is no link but some withness tweets that regime was forced to pulled out of Khanaser yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

SOHR is not reliable source we need confirmation from a 3rd side 79.126.186.36 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is another (more reliable?) source: http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=115868 82.113.106.167 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

not reliable look at this sentence from the article: "Heavy clashes took place early Friday in Damascus' central Abbasiyyin square, where opposition groups seized the main road between the city center and the Jobar-Qaboun suburbs, local sources said".This is from the article it is clear that this is propaganda.The army has pined down the rebels in jobar and Qaboun and is on the offensive this is less reliable then SOHR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hama provinces/ idlib provinces

Could you update Hama provicses details : https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/390547044386973 Hayalin Marcinkrkpl (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr?hc_location=timeline#!/syriaohr/posts/394114697363541 al-latamna bombarb.( Lataminah) (16.07.2013)Marcinkrkpl (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I undustantand that syrian govermant propaganda talk diffrent things :) and I undurstant ground situations :) but could you think about update Idlib prov. map, http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2013/07/11/syrian-army-advances-on-areha-lattakia-road-and-retakes-two-villages-in-idlib/ this is SAA opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcinkrkpl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Saraqeb besieged - add red cyrcle??? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=203863293 http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC) The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Saturday President Bashar Assad's troops have besieged the town of Saraqeb in Idlib province, pounding it with rockets, tanks and air raids. The Observatory says at least three people, including two children, died in a single airstrike on Saturday.http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syria-forces-besieges-town-saraqeb-idlib — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.254.38 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I full understand "ground situations" and that facebook it is not only good sorces, I think that this map i very good sources and 97 % of localisations is ok, maybe it is not at map few city but generally ok, faceebok talk that there are clashes in Souran https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/396478550460489 maybe add this town ( contested), http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pl&lat=35.281282&lon=36.732413&z=14&m=b&search=souran Marcinkrkpl (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

SANA sources about figt. not veryf. :) maybe someone find another sources about it ? Units of the armed forces carried out operations against Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists' gatherings in al-Hweiz and Rasha towns in al-Ghab area in Hama. An official source told SANA that the army units killed and injured several terrorists, in addition to destroying their weapons and equipment in al-Hweiz town. The source added that another army unit killed all members of an armed terrorist group affiliated to Jabhat al-Nusra who were firing mortar shells on the citizens in Rasha town. Army units destroyed hideouts for Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists in the towns of Zour al-Hesa and al-Traimseh, eliminating a number of terrorists and destroying their equipment http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/07/24/493999.htm Marcinkrkpl (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

fighting in prov. https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/399420216832989, sana sources for example http://sana.sy/eng/337/2013/07/24/493999.htmMarcinkrkpl (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

situation in Jena https://maps.google.pl/maps?hl=pl&ie=UTF-8, today sources talk about arresteds/raids etc. regime actions, means that regime control this villages youtube http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jenan+hama&oq=jenan+hama&gs_l=youtube.3...5982.9966.0.10465.10.9.0.1.1.0.158.443.8j1.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.zCFEMa39IxA talk about libaration by FSA in decembre 2012 and fighting in jauary 2013 Marcinkrkpl (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I find this very fine map of Hama prov. You can find there many villages and city like souran http://www.orangesmile.com/common/img_country_maps/syria-map-0.jpgMarcinkrkpl (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- very detailed -- for those interested, it covers the governats of Tartus, some of southern Latakia, the western half of Hama, and western Homs (except the part south of Qusair). It marks the Lebanese border, but not limits of the governats.

The best I found before was http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_wall_2004.jpg. Less detail for Tartus-Hama-Homs, but it covers all of Syrie André437 (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

NAWA (DARAA)

Are you sure that this town is red ? (as even SANA said today that there is artillery shell on town). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.156.2 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the SOHR, on the 22 August regime forces bombarded Nawa and al-Kark al-Sharqi. https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/410913515683659 That indicates at least a rebel presence in Nawa, if not total control. The reference supporting the last change of status for Nawa did *not* indicate that the regime had taken complete control of the town.

As well, also regime aerial and artilliary bombardment on Nawa 23 August. https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/411133715661639

So the last change making Nawa regime controlled should be reverted to contested. André437 (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

La Chronique [1] confirms on 2013-08-30 that the rebellion controls the major part of Nawa since a few weeks André437 (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the map template, for ease of use

Currently the map template starts with (actually the 4th line) :
<div style="overflow: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">

Suggest changing to :
<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">

The "overflow: auto;" term causes the map to display with a scroll bar in the body of the page (just below the map),
instead of at the bottom of the browser page (as would normally be the case.)
This means that to horizontally scroll the map, which is typically much wider than a users' window, the user must scroll to the bottom of the map, scroll horizontally, than scroll up, hoping to have scrolled enough horizontally.

I'm proposing that the overflow option be removed, so that the browser horizontal scroll bar is always available, whatever the vertical position in the map.

Note that this has no side effect on the layout of the map itself. It only affects the location of the scroll bar.
If we have a consensus to do this, I could make the change.
Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by André437 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a good idea. You could do it and if people don't like it, it could be easily reverted.194.158.25.65 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, seeing 1 support and no objections, I'll try it :) André437 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, and no side effects. (But weirdly, WP always says my last change contflicts with my previous, if done soon after the previous. So these 2 comments will show the same time. WP persists a third time. Really weird.) André437 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ariha

According to SOHR, Ariha town in Idlib Province is liberated by Rebels. Can somebody update the map, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.73.76 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

SOHR is not reliable source we need confirmation from a 3rd side

SOHR is one of the more reliable sources available, and you should sign your comments. The reference for SOHR is https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/411545698953774

A reference from the SOHR on 25 August of Ariha being bombarded by the regime is https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/412017918906552

Another reference from La Chronique on 24 August, with more details and a video is https://www.facebook.com/ArabChroniclebyCedricLabrousse/posts/574194262617465

Note that this is an important gain for the rebels as it greatly weakens the defenses of the city of Idlib, a little to the north André437 (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To question SOHR's reliability when Reuters is referencing it for the capture of Khanaser is not a consistent behaviour. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE97P0FG20130826) So Ariha must be green. It is bombed recently many times by SAA planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera also referenced to SOHR together with Reuters. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013826124946176888.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Consistantly reversing rebel gains because they were not claimed by western media, which relies on sites with local sources, is logically incoherent. Ariha is reported taken by 2 sites with local sources (SOHR and La Chronique, the latter giving more details), although it is still subject to bombardment by the regime from a distance. (As are most rebel held areas. And conversely, all of Alep and most of Damascus is bombarded by the rebels. They should all be green ?) There is no information suggesting anything other than full rebel control of Ariha. André437 (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear my friend, if our criteria for changing the map is the news from western media(Reuters, Al Jazeera) who does not hesitate to reference from SOHR, do we have to wait for them to copy-paste from SOHR to mark it? If SOHR is not relialible source, then I suggest to not to trust the news above from Reuters and Al Jazeera about Khanasser which referenced SOHR and mark Khanasser as contested, too instead of green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.235.20 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Latakia

A member of the Supreme Military Council was in Latakia "to discuss battle plans" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23283079 and a "Blast hits Syrian port city of Latakia" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-syria-crisis-blast-idUSBRE95I09Y20130619. I think there are clashes near latakia. 85.65.12.158 (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Clashes in Latakia are around the edges of the Jabal al-Akrad and Jabal al-Turkman mountain ranges in the northeast corner of the province. The blasts at military facilities were probably Israeli strikes, and the rebels have denied any responsibility for them: [2]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this map today, according to it Ubin and villages southwards are in government hands (or contested). If this is not acceptable source, sorry then. Otherwise please update map. Thanks! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b9_1375669254 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen similar reports, but also not from reliable sources. I'm blanking the Ubin dot for now due to lack of clear and credible information. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

From the above reports, it seems clear that Jdeideh (that we have green from a long time ago) should be red. The rebels are certainly not next door to Haffah. Tradedia^talk 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not next door to Haffah, but next door to Quadisiyah, which is only about 2 miles away. I don't know about the contested areas on that map, but the FSA has gained ground to the west of the area shown, and the front line is not accurate. There is video today of lobbing anti tank missiles on Quadisiyah. ~ GFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.169.68 (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

well, now we can make it red ;) Tradedia^talk 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Maarat Al-Numan and Aramo contested

http://www.reuters.com/article/interactive/idUSBRE9750N520130806?view=small&type=worldNewsMylassa2000 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm, should we then turn Deir ez-Zor, Zabadani, and Qabun green too? Poor-quality map. Shows much of the Kurdish enclaves in northern Aleppo province as rebel-held, rebel/AQ areas in Raqqa as Kurd-held, and rebel strongholds in rural Idlib as government-held. Additionally, there is no such town as "Khan al-Assad". Specific mentions of clashes are needed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That map is poor i mean Marat-al-Numan or whats left of it is rebel held but the positions near the highway are government held, Qabun is contested we have ANNA news reporting on it (one of the nicest war footage from the war http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZTNRdGeH48&feature=c4-overview&list=UU0-BJmmq9v7sDwoEM5Xao8Q you can find others there also) I have for this map only one edit request and that is sige removal from Tadmur(Palmyra) cuz the army did take back the gas station near the town and there have been no reports on a sige.Daki122 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ring was removed from Tadmur(Palmyra) Tradedia^talk 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Daraa 3

La Chronique 2013-08-30 confirms that the rebellion already controls Inkhil and the surrounding area, as well as reporting violent combats in the centre of Daraa city, Nawa, and Jassim (the last 2 which they mostly control), and aerial and artilliary bombardments by the regime on Naimah, Tafas, Da'el and Busra al-Sham. (Inkhil is currently marked as contested.) André437 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

By 26 June, government forces had captured the villages of Itlaa and Basr As Sham and fighting was raging outside the village of al-Sheikh Maskin.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebels-say-they-need-us-weapons-now/2013/06/26/103d1d70-dd13-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html 37.55.210.57 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Idleb Countryside

According to Daily Star the Syrian Army capture the city of Ariha in the province, re-establishing supply lines in the area. SOHR also admits the take over.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The SOHR post referring to the city of Ariha being liberated by the army.62.121.55.82 (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Tradedia^talk 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal : separate city/town table by governorate

1) Each table being much smaller, updates will be considerably faster.
As well, there would be a lower chance of conflict between updaters.

2) Cities/towns are thus grouped by governorate.

3) Put each governorate in a separate subsection, so as to be indexed at the top.

Suggest ordering the governates by their number, which is largely in geographic order. This would also make the subsection numbering match each governorate's number. (1=Latakia to 5=al-Hassaka, 6=Tartus to 8=Deir-ez-Zor, 9=Homs, 10=Damascus, 11=Rif Damascus, 12=Quneitra to 14=al-Suwayda).

For the transition, I would work on it incrementally, editing in the current "cities and towns" section, putting each governorate in its' own table in a subsection, one governorate at a time.
A comparision of adjacent updates would veriry that no errors were made in the transition. If anyone wants to work with me on this, we should coordinate to work on it at different times, to avoid conflicts. I would expect to work on it mostly in the evening at utc-4, when most in Europe would be sleeping.
I would post a comment on the page to indicate which governorate I'm working on, for user's information. That governorate and those completed would show up as subsections in the menu.

BTW, if anyone wonders, I was involved in conversion to wikimedia (used by Wikipedia) from another wiki, so I'm very familiar with the table and other wikimedia coding. I have a few tricks to avoid errors, which don't cause a problem with the display. (I've also done a fair number of Wikipedia contributions.)

So what does everyone think ? If everyone agrees, I'd like to start with the smallest/least active governorates, to make the transition as smooth as possible ... awaiting feedback :) André437 (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC) this post simplied André437 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe I made it too complicated (or is everyone on vacation) ?

Propose a separate city/town table by governorate, instead of one global table. (I simplified the title)

This will separate cities by governorate.

It will also make updates much faster.

Will also put the governorates in the index at the top, for easier access.

I will do conversion, one governorate at a time

*** requesting feedback *** André437 (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Was complicated, sounds good now. OberschIesien90 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone *opposed* to this proposal ? It will make table updates considerably faster André437 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a preview of my proposed changes, taken from the table of a few days ago. Showing separate tables by governorate + index at the beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Andr%C3%A9437/Cities_and_Towns&action=submit

I can do the changes fairly quickly, by proceding in governorate order.

Long outdated leading text not (yet) corrected.

It makes visual validation of the table(s) a lot easier, since related towns are a lot closer. There are a lot of towns on the map which do not appear in the tables, some towns with assigned control but no supporting references, a lot of errors (from my personal knowledge) that are much easier to spot.

In short, in addition to being much much faster to update, it is very much easier to validate.

Once we have agreement to do separate tables, other format changes can be done more readily.

So could people take a look and see what you think ? I need a concensus before proceeding André437 (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Some points

Rouhayba is reported in rebel hands and the army is in the outskirts. Green with red circle? https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/death-toll-in-weekend-clash-near-damascus-rises-to-42

I also think the green ring from Kafr Nan in Homs should be removed. It was added for one single rebel attack in the Al Quseir offensive, wich was repelled. Unfortunately, i cant find the source. Can anybody help? OberschIesien90 (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

City Rouhayba is not under the control of militants, he contested for the army conducts raids in it says that most of it is in the hands of the army.https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/syria-forces-launch-deadly-raids-after-rebel-attack95.134.222.207 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

rebel fighters attacked army positions in the town, but the attack seems repelled since the fighting stopped. The city is under the control of the army[3] Rogal Dorm (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That source says no such thing, and we can't use it for the map anyway. All we can tell is that it's contested, really. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Horsh Arab reported in rebel hands in April 2013 OberschIesien90 (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Vielen dank! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The rebels withdrew from Maaloula [4] Rogal Dorm (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tradedia^talk 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The rebels are still in Maaloula and the army has it surrounded. The colors should be inverted, or marked as contested. RT Article and video review: http://rt.com/news/syrian-village-maaloula-fighting-555/5.69.230.213 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

RT is not a valid source! Syrian rebel fighters withdrew on Thursday after briefly capturing a historic Christian town in the center of the country as part of a campaign to take control of strategic mountains near Damascus, opposition sources said.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-maaloula-idUSBRE9850HH20130906

The director of the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says the government forces sent to Maaloula include tanks and armored personnel carriers. Rami Abdul-Rahman says that they have taken up positions outside the village, which is still under the control of local pro-regime groups. Al-Qaeda-linked rebel factions attacked Maaloula on Wednesday, and briefly entered the mountainside sanctuary before withdrawing late Thursday.http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/activists-say-syrian-government-dispatches-reinforcements-maaloula-following-clashes46.201.151.189 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

RT also confirms that with video coverage as per the above link5.69.230.213 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera

I think that this media outlet is not a reilable source especialy its live blog its giving very confusing reports for the situation on the ground as there using youtube videos as well as not providng proof by any independent source or a citizen that is living in the area there mainly going for propaganda and are saying something that has no base. It is less reliable than SOHR its self and if you read they give some information on the ground that even SOHR is not confirming and they are pro-rebel.I personaly think that Al-Jazeera is the most one sided media in this war as it is reporting rebel gains(even those are questionable)but skipping regime gains like the strategic one in Ariha.Daki122 (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree for live blog OberschIesien90 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about the other points, but the rebels took Ariha, then lost it about a week later. (It is critical for regime supply lines to Idlib city.) So maybe before al-Jazeera realised the rebels had taken it, the regime had already retaken it ? As far as al-Jareera reporting gains not reported by other media, LaChronique, which has a lot of local contacts, often reports gains only reported much later by other media (including SOHR), often giving detailed maps. André437 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria Battlefield Map needs to be updated

Current situation shown here.[5]50.157.103.28 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

yes it is an absurd card and still kraynk from a dubious source so anyone and everyone can draw a map and upload them to file sharing if we are going to make changes based on such sources here then it will not map reflects the reality of the situation, and nonsense. there's a lot of these cards https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=568208689882689&set=pb.217139528322942.-2207520000.1378575524.&type=3&theater46.201.151.189 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Southern Damascus

I recently stumbled upon the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(March_2013).svg which is used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(March_2013%E2%80%93present). Is this internal reference a valid reason to update the many "contested"-markers in the southern Damascus suburbs? --Andylee Sato (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Ghouta

Since the frontline is now at Deir Salman, i think reports that Qaysa is in government hands can be considered true. OberschIesien90 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This would be in line with the article on the Rif Damascus offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(March_2013%E2%80%93present)) where Quaysa is marked as army-controlled on the map.--Andylee Sato (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Homs province

Government forces control most of central Homs province, parts of which have suffered some of the fiercest fighting and destruction in Syria's 30-month war.https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/12-alawites-killed-by-jihadists-in-syrias-homs-ngo-says37.55.131.162 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Towns with no description

I found some towns on the map who dont have a name or a description. Those are, in Homs one red village near Talkalakh (also Rabah/Fahil links are on one village together). In western Aleppo is a green noname town what I think is supposed to be Al-Atarib or Al-Gina? Are there sources? Please repair or delete. P.S.: Anyway, thanks for the map. Its the best one to understand the ground situation. OberschIesien90 (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Atarib/Base 46 source OberschIesien90 (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

They do have names, but some sort of rendering issue with the labels means that there is an area after each blue name that is still "covered" by a nonexistent label. I tried a while to remedy this by making an alphanumeric key for placenames and removing excessive labels, but it seems that User:Tradedia has returned many of the names to the map. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is indeed due to “an area after each blue name that is still covered by a nonexistent label.” However, this is not solved with alphanumeric labels. The only time I have removed alphanumeric labels was here and as you can verify, the problem (Atarib) was already there before my edit. The Atarib dot is “covered” by the Salqin label. However, you can verify that even if we replace the “Salqin” name, by the alphanumeric label “I1”, the problem still remains. The only solution I have found was to move the line code that draws the dot (atarib in this example) and put it after the line that draws the label (Salqin in this example). I have just edited the map to solve the problem for 4 towns. If anyone finds the problem for other towns then let me know and I will fix them. Tradedia^talk 11:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

East of Masyaf (Kafr Buhum, I think) is covered by the invisible box. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tradedia^talk 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Lataminah needs to be fixed too. OberschIesien90 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tradedia^talk 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In Homs that one red village east of Fahil, and there is something under the Talbiseh writing. OberschIesien90 (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tradedia^talk 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Maaloula???

This town should be contested as the last report of SOHR pro opposition says there are clashes in the town. SOHR: Reef Dimashq Province: News were received about the death of an armed man in the Ma'ula city, due to clashes with rebel fighters, where regime forces, backed by defense forces and pro-regime people's committee, were able to enter the Ma'lula city and take control over large parts of the city, yesterday at noon, and retrieved from the city at night, because large numbers of rebel fighters entered the city and took control over almost the entire city. Regime forces retrieved to the marginds of the city, and it is still unknown whether defense forces and pro-regime people's committee are in the city's houses or they've retrieved with regime forces, where clashes, described as violent, took place between the two parties.n A shell landed near a photographer in the Mqelbiya town, last night, and no news were received about casualties. Clashes took place yesterday night, between regime forces and rebel fighters, on the Damascus international airport road, in the Beit Sahm town, midst regime forces' bombardment on areas in the town and no news were received about casualties. A man, from Hteitat al-Turkman, died of wounds he received by regime forces' bombardment on the blat area of the Mleiha town, in the middle of last August. News were received about the death of a civilian and the injury of 3 others, when a shell fell on the Ra'ed nursery in the Kabas area, in addition to damages in civilian's properties. A rebel fighter, from the Ras al-Ma'ara town of al-Qalamun, was killed during clashes with regime forces in the Ma'lula city. A fighter, from the Yabrud city, was killed during clashes in the Ma'lula city. News were received about the death of around 17 rebel fighters during clashes with regime forces and pro-regime defense forces, in the Ma'lula city. Areas in the Ma'adamiyat al-Sham city and the Hosh A'rab town were bombarded by regime forces, at midnight of Saturday-Sunday. leading to a number of injuries. Violent clashes took place at midnight, between regime forces and rebel fighters, on the Sbeina town junction and in the Ghozlaniya area, midst regime forces' bombardment on areas in the Sbeina town, using mortar, and no news were received about casualties, from both parties. Regime forces bombarded areas in the Harasta city and the cities and towns of al-Ghuta al-Sharqiya, using mortar, and no news were received about casualties. Bombardment was renewed, today morning, on areas in the Ma'adamiyat al-Sham city, midst violent clashes, between regime forces and rebel fighters, around the city, and news were received abour casualties among regime forces. It was a quiet morning today around the Ma'lula town, where the clashes that took place yesterday, in the town and around it, have led to the death of at least 17 rebel fighters, including rebel battalion leaders, and the injury of over a 100 others and the death and injury of tens of regime forces, defense forces, and pro-regime people committees. A fighter, from the Hafeer al-Foqa town, was killed by sniper, during clashes with regime forces in the Qalamun area. Fighters from the Tahreer al-Qalamun front and al-Nusra front are still in control of the Ma'lula town, since yesterday night, after violent clashes with regime forces, armed people's committee, and pro-regime defense forces. Warplanes carried out an air raid on areas in the Yabrud city, leading to a number of injuries. Areas in the eastern mountain near the Zabadani city are under regime forces' bombardment. Areas in the Duma city are under regime forces' mortar bombardment, and no news were received about casualties. Violent clashes, between regime forces and rebel fighters, are still taking place around the Ma'damiyat al-Sham city, midst regime forces' bombardment on areas in the city. 2 fighters, from the Sbeina town, were killed during clashes with regime forces.

LAST REPORT FROM SOHR SAYS SITUATION IS UNKNOWN SO IT SHOULD BE CONTESTED Daki122 (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

RT reports today that the military is in the town and has pushed back militants out of it.Rebels have stationed them selfs in the sourounding mountains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4LcysndedgY#t=73

Change it to red with a green circle Daki122 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Acording to the BBC the regime and the rebels agree that the rebels are not in the village anymore: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23986076 85.65.12.158 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This source is next to useless - an anecdotal report of other reports. Why not go to the sources ? André437 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still hevy fughting in the village acording to RT and the footage mentioned above Daki122 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

According to pro government SANA the army clear Maalula and the Damascus countryside Governor was toured today in the city after of course the rebels eliminated. Pictures of the visit are published also. Please proceed to the necessary update.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Tradedia^talk 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the town back in Rebel hands? Rob2013 (talk)

Military situation in Damascus region

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Military_situation_in_Damascus_region_as_of_15th_of_September_2013.png95.134.192.148 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

According to this internal source, Ghabaghib should be red from contested194.158.25.65 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd take that map with a few grains of salt. Although most may be accurate, it doesn't give sources, and a number of points controled by the rebels (with video evidence and reports of regime bombing those locations) are shown in red. It is possible that most of the inaccuracies are due to recent changes, since in the last week the rebels did take a number of points in Daraa (I have yet to post my info here) André437 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ariha

Ok how the hell is this town contested it is clearly said in a dozen reports of Al-Jazeera and BBC and CNN and other news networks that the town has been captured by army units change it to red!

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Sep-03/229788-syrian-forces-capture-strategic-northern-town-opposition.ashx#axzz2enaoTUlN

http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcayanuy49noy1.tgk4.html

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920613000786

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-forces-capture-strategic-northern-town-opposition-102419542.html

If you got anything better than this show it if not change it.And if there is some fights near the town it is not in the town it self and the army controls the town!Daki122 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably happening because the rebels really did hold Ariha for about 10 days recently, before the regime retook it. (It is on the only supply route to regime-held Idlib) ... although the rebels still control a lot around the town. André437 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Tradedia^talk 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 Undone per http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/09/19/fierce-fighting-in-northern-syria?videoId=273816536 Tradedia^talk 06:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This video does not show any proof that Ariha is contested it says that the country side around Ariha is contested and not to mention that on the begining it says that reuters cannot verefy this footage so change it if you dont have better sources cuz here you dont have a single proof that Ariha is contested nor did the reporter said it is contested she said that rebels are figthing government soldiers around Ariha but not in the town it self!Daki122 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I suggest you put the town in government control cuz clearly the source you posted does not suggest any fighting inside Ariha and if you read the topic of the video you will see this clearly - Battles rage in Northern Syria as rebels and government forces clash in the mountains of Idlib province. Deborah Lutterbeck reports.Daki122 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed map format clean up

There are a few things that could be done to simplify the map format (without changing the layout), that will speed up the display (which is sometimes slow), as well as editing save time (always much slower).

So I propose :
1) Removing the unnecessary page name in many links. (This will speed up processing and make editing less error-prone.)

2) Removing the link from the labels, which only duplicate the link already present from the icons.
In a few cases the label and icon links are different. These will be verified and corrected before the label link is removed.
(This will speed up processing. It changes the label colour, but no effect on display layout.)

3) In some cases a displayed label blocks clicking on another point. This can be fixed by defining the label *before* the icon that is blocked.

4) Many labels are present but deactivated with a 0 parameter. It is better to remove them until needed, since the 0 parameter is the only distinguishing factor other than the label text, which will be in the icon link.

5) To make editing more reliable, the optional _label_ field should be with the other label-related fields *after* the _link_ field. (In most cases it is before.)

Only points 2 and 3 would have any effect on functioning. Labels will be black instead of blue (with most browsers), and they won't be links to the table.
But all icons will become clickable links.
Currently, icons are often blocked, and clicking can lead to following a label link of another location.

The goal is a faster map which is easier to use, and easier to maintain.
So I would like to proceed with this clean up. Any objections ? André437 (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

sounds great, go for it Andylee Sato (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK :) André437 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry André437 but i had to undo your edits. Unfortunately, your proposal will not work. Below i respond to each of your numbered points:

1) The page name is actually necessary otherwise, the link will not work if you are viewing the map directly on the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map page or on Portal:Syrian civil war

2) "Black labels" should not be used on this map because they appear as a "garbage pile of black letters" for some operating systems and/or browsers. For example, this problem happens with Lothar's computer. See here my conversation with him on his talk page after he undid my edit related to this issue: User_talk:Lothar_von_Richthofen/Archive6#Template:Syrian civil war detailed map. See here another user's discussion with him: User_talk:Lothar_von_Richthofen/Archive6#Template:Syrian civil war detailed map 2.

3) There is a section about this above: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war#Towns with no description. I have volunteered to fix these as people report them...

4) We cannot remove "labels with a 0 parameter", otherwise, when we hold the cursor over the location, the name will not display at all. Tradedia^talk 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tradedia

Whatever you like, but I don't entirely agree with your objections. Note that the only thing I had posted was step (1).

1) There is an easy workaround when viewing the map directly, which would be only done by those editing the map. All that is needed to verify a link is to have the main page open in another tab or window, and do a (very quick) search. It works well.

For the portal, it is just necessary to replace the transclusion of the map with a link to the civil war page, where the map appears on top. This would be my preferred option, partly since in my view a clickable map doesn't really belong on a portal page, but its' your call.

Alternately, one could transclude the civil war page (with configuration to not permit modification from the portal page). This would have the disadvantage of making the portal page slower. (I have done variations of this with wikimedia on other sites, if that is what you want.)

As you would have noticed, removing these unecessary names decreases the page size by about 15%, as well as making the code more readable. Note also that only about 1/3 of links actually contain the page name. In order to make the map as it is now included fully functional on the portal page, one must add the page name in every link in the map, to increase the size by about 30%. Which would make the civil war page slower.

2) The colour of labels before my changes was dependant on the configuration of links for whatever browser was used. Unvisited links usually being blue, visited links usually voilet. In any case, having 2 links per reference is redundant, and the displayed text links can easily be accidently clicked and followed when trying to click another icon.

It should be possible to specify that all text be always blue, as long as wikipedia formatting doesn't block it. I'll test this and let you know. Note that the current blue for label text offers very poor contrast with the dark grey syrian border, so it might be better to choose another colour. (Or maybe make the syrian border a lighter grey ?)

3) Since posting the step 1, I had found quite a few errors and was correcting them, but your undo cancelled my next post. I'll let you know when I encounter them again.

4) I realized that early on after doing step 1, and was no longer planning to do that. I hadn't initially considered the popup factor, but only the link that shows up in the status line of virtually every browser. The popup nicely reflects the label text, which evidently is not necessarily the link.

5) I still think that it would be better to move the optional label name field after the link field, so that all the label related fields are together. Even though it is usually (but not always) useful to define the label name.

Note that these changes were motivated by wanting to speed up the processing on the evidently overloaded Wikipedia. Removing the unnecessary page names (for which there is an easy workaround) and unnecessary duplicate links would help, as well as certain positive side effects in usability.

BTW, did you see my proposal to divide the city and towns table by governorate ? Template_talk:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map#Proposal_:_separate_city.2Ftown_table_by_governorate

This would produce a significant speed in processing (verified by my testing in previews), as well as regrouping towns in proximity (the same governorate), which would facilitate correctly updating the map and table(s). As well as allowing indexing by governorate at the top. I did a trial run of complete conversion in just a few hours, one governorate at a time. See User:André437/Cities_and_Towns#jouer avec carte

So what do you think ? André437 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Below i respond to your points:

1) It is not true that the map would be viewed directly only by those editing the map. It is possible for someone unfamiliar with civil war articles to end up directly at the template page through a word search. The map links need to work for that person just by clicking on them.

Also, we don't get to decide how and where the template is used/transcluded. Any group of users who decide on a consensus, can transclude the template wherever they like. The map links need to work for them just by clicking on them. Personally, I am opposed to replacing the transclusion of the map with a link.

Also, it is not true that "one must add the page name in every link in the map". The towns that are not in the "table of cities" are linked to their wikipedia article. The towns that are not in the "table of cities" and that do not have their own wikipedia article, are not linked to anything.

2) It doesn't matter to me. But if it doesn't look right on Lothar's computer, he will revert you...

5) I am indifferent about this.

Concerning your proposal to divide the city and towns table by governorate, I am indifferent… Tradedia^talk 06:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm only interested in improving the map for everyone, so I'll work where we can find a consensus.

1) Ok, I'll leave the page labels (and maybe add a few missing). (That only has a limited effect on performance)

I think I can make alternate shorter labels that will make editing easier. I'll verify that before making a future proposal on this point.

2) I'll coordinate with Lothar on a few discrete tests. (This point should have more of a performance impact, but especially usability.)

BTW, my tests confirm that it is very easy to make the non-link labels any colour one wishes.

Dividing cities and towns table by governorate has by far the greatest impact on performance, but also on how users and editors access the table(s). So I really wanted a wide consensus before proceeding. (My update times between the full table and the largest subtable fell to about 1/3.)

For the changes involved, it would go very quickly. André437 (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Homs Countryside

According to pro government SANA the army took over the villages of l-Sultaniyeh, Salam Gharbi and Salam Sharqi in the countryside.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop posting SANA, you've been told several times that it is useless for our purposes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont see others stop posting SOHR, even as a facebook source however i dont mind take their words as credible if others sources are verifying their story. That is answering also to your question, posting SANA or others sources in the past give us the advantage of posting verifications, or not, from other sources before proceeding to changes in the map. Why is this annoy you so much?--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

SOHR is also useless for our purposes, and putting two useless sources together does not make them useful, contrary to what some may think. This isn't about what your individual opinion on a source is, this is about adhering to this site's quality standards.

Perhaps when significant movements on the ground occur, such WP:PRIMARY sources may be looked at as auxiliary to what is reported news media or analysis sites. But as it stands, you're just needlessly cluttering up the talkpage with endless links to partisan claims of the seizure of a handful of mud-brick huts written in barely-comprehensible newspeak. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly but in this case there is no neutral sources on the ground and western and other media are supporting quiet often if not entirely by sitting sources of SANA, SOHR and other unidentified activists. AFP had a presence but not any more and the only English speaking media who transmit video and correspondences is RT, after CNN recall his correspondent from Damascus just days before the US possible strike . On the bottom line we got stuck with them and we must cross-check and even use them when sources are beyond doubt.

Also i am noticing unilateral changes in map like Ariha which turn contested!!!!!!!!! without proper discussion. Beyond the above the credibility of this effort is not questioned by the references or discussion but by those unilateral actions --Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Is our source policy a perfect solution? No. But it serves well as a filter to keep out some sketchy information, and keeps down the amount of propaganda we end up using. Reporters are free to use whatever sources they choose, whether SANA or SOHR. On Wikipedia, we are not journalists. Editors of an encyclopaedia must use different standards.

Based on what I am hearing from my own sources, there is an ongoing rebel offensive ("Zilzal") in northern Hama, several checkpoints (e.g. Abu Shafiq) and villages (e.g. Kurnaz) have already been overrun. It would be nice if I could indicate some of this, but I accept that the sources available at the moment do not pass the reliability threshold. I do not spam the talkpage with them in the hopes that someone might post some scant corroboration.

As for Ariha: Reuters released a report a few days ago showing the situation to be unclear: [6]. Never known you to be one to get upset over a green dot changing—why the double-standard? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because green dots are not changing in the event of news sources. The only media source of the government is SANA and their channels and not speaking in phone activists or other doubtful sources who we are see used extensively by western media. I hope you didnt forget the ridiculous claims back in August 2012 from rebels Its a mater of days to take Damascus or we are controlling all capital except city centre and other inaccuracies which were sited...

As for Ariha the Reuters report tell it in the start NEAR ARIHA and not in the city. The video Reuters admit is unverifiable and its not in urban environment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for your sources are again you tube videos which you are comparing with a news organization with a success in the past transmitting ground change control situation. Its far from announce that the army is conducting military cleaning operations in the mountains of Idleb, to secure the wider area!!!!!!!! the above video you are posting and your explanation simply saw that you dont care about credibility here but using it simply as an agenda tool.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I also do not forget SANA claiming back in January that the army "captured" Darayya when even today it remains contested, or their claim that Menagh was still holding even as al-Qaida was raising their flag over the watertower. SANA has proven to be one of the least trustworthy partisan sources, regularly fabricating lies to reassure loyal Syrians that everything is well even as this war grinds on with no end in sight. Rebels boast that they will (future tense) make gains, and they end up failing. The government on the other hand, regularly speaks of territorial advances that supposedly already occurred (past tense), but which turn out to be total lies.

If "being on the ground" was what makes a source credible, then we would write our articles on the Eastern Front of WWII based only on Pravda and Das schwarze Korps. As a result, our articles would be total garbage. That is more or less what you are proposing—that we trash our articles even more than they already are.

The Reuters report also says that there are reports that the "battle is not over". In any event, the city is either contested or has a green ring.

I fully acknowledged that the Youtube videos are not reliable and I did not propose that we make any changes based on them. I do care about credibility. You, on the other hand, continually spam this page with links to an utter laughingstock of a source, run directly by an involved party to the conflict and infamous for lying about territorial gains. Now, what does that say about you? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

SANA last report from Menigh airbase was that all airport guards are good in health(what does this report mean for you?)!!!!!!! (after they retreated in the near vy villages and islamists took over the base the next morning without a fight that morning). Yes SANA is claiming that Daraya is taken simply because the strategic part of Daraya is taken and Assad prove that by his visit. There is small meaningless pat of the neighbourhood near the Mazzeh base that some rebels are holed up but Daraya is fallen.....Even jihadists in their videos are not sawing nothing from Daraya for some time ago......

Check the map edition and tell me when i unilaterally change the map claiming SANA sources. Never is the answer, simply because i share claims of events from all sources and accepting also SOHR and others less credible. By posting here we compare and cross check, by not mentioning however we hide. As for SANA is an organized news agency and cannot be compared with some tube videos releases that Reuters in your case use to tell us simply nothing because they cannot confirm anything......so searching for the true facts is the answer and not abolish news simply because they are transmitted from the news agencies of the one side.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hama city not contested

User Sopher99, quoting a 5 day old, single line Al Jazeera page reference modified Hama as "contested".

I think we should reconsider Al Jazeera as a reliable source as well as this particular user's rights to edit this page after repeated recent vandalism (Sopher99). The purpose of the page is to provide an objective and verified image of the situation in Syria and repeated single-side purpose editing should not be allowed

Reference used: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139181118533493.html

Please share your thoughts on user's "Sopher99" recent edits and rectify the template. Regards, Ariskar (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we simplify our task and just mark "Syria" as contested, and wait a year or 2 until the war ends to see who has control ? ... I know, a lot less fun :) ...

Seriously, maybe we should have a readily accessible written guide which indicates what media we consider reliable, and how explicit the claims have to be. Some references have made general non-specific claims which have been interpreted as specific claims of total control, when in fact the other side was in mostly in control.

One example is Nara, where the rebels control at least most of the town, but the area around seems to be not really controlled by either side. ... But there have been some claims that the regime was "broadly" in control, taken as totally controlling the town. When there might have been no regime forces in the town. (It is now marked as contested, which seems appropriate. Or it could be green with a red circle.)

There are bound to be other examples for both sides, so a clear written guide would help. André437 (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that consistent one-sided editing with unreliable sources is vandalism. If one prefers a side to win the conflict, does not mean he has the right to repeatedly missinform.Ariskar (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for diverging ... on that point I agree ... just thought that clearly written and evident guidelines would help minimize this problem, since I didn't understand the system here at first André437 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Daraa

Opposition says government controls Al-Sheikh Saad and Adwan OberschIesien90 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That reference says the REBELS took control of al-Sheikh Saad and Adwan.

Other references that say the same, including 3 regime bases in proximity : Sheikh Saad, Sept 12 and Adwan, Sept 13 André437 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification : the article in English is a little unclear, but the original arabic article even mentions that the rebels took adjacent regime bases, including capturing tanks and munitions (using google translate). This concords with my other references André437 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Citing the first article: "An opposition media activist told NOW". Makes me sceptical regarding reliability.Ariskar (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Black discharge for the Islamic State of Iraq and Livant

I would recommend the same. Similar incident in Raqqa few weeks ago where FSA's Ahfad Rasoul got kicked out by ISIS. Just today further clashes between FSA and al-Qaeda groups in Deir ez-Zor and Abu Kamal (border crossing).--TheoDor12 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend it as well. There are other reports that say the FSA has sent 200 reinforcements to the town, so Azaz would still be contested. With reports of ongoing ISIS vs FSA conflicts in other areas, we are now seeing generalised open warfare of the ISIS vs FSA, as well as the ISIS vs YPG. Note that the kurds control towns in proximity. They might joint the fight against the ISIS in Azaz. André437 (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose a black icon for cities controlled by ISIS Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I recommended the black icons for jihadists some months ago and still recommend it. EkoGraf (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I also concur. Ariskar (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We should change the color if it's decided at the Syrian civil war page that the "mainstream" rebels (i.e. the non-jihadists) and the jihadists (ISIS and Nusra) are now opponents. I suspect that this proposal will be turned down at that page unless there are more reported clashes outside of Azaz. If it's just a localized confrontation between jihadists and the FSA-ish rebels in one district town in Syria, that won't be enough to divorce the two factions from each other like the distinction made with Kurdish separatists. In many, if not most, rebel-held towns the two groupings fight government forces alongside each other and more-or-less cooperate in administering local affairs. If that begins to unravel, then I think we should make the distinctions. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ameer, there were also battles in the province of Idlib in August, an assassination of a powerful rebel leader in the province of Latakia in July, battle in Raqqa, ISIS take total control of Raqqa after clash with FSA brigade, and fighting in the province of Deir ez-Zor and in the city this last days Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to forget al-Bab, where ISIS announced to 'clean' the area from Farouq and al-Nasr groups few weeks ago. Today FSA's NB tried to recapture Azaz and Ahfad Rasoul remnants in Raqqa (Tabqa) fought ISIS. --TheoDor12 (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This very important page becoming misleading. FSA and great amount of jihadist's groups can't be mentioned under one colour. I agree that it's not so easy to make difference on whom the territory is occupied, but all in all we must do it, because WP gives wrong information. At least I can propose to add two more colours: one for the places which we know exactly under the different jihadist's groups control and for the places which are not known exactly if the're under FSA or jihadist's control. Of course, in the future we can use dark or light hues of colours at least for the biggest jihadist's groups (Al-Nusra, ISIS, Liwa-al-Islam, etc.), but for today we must make a difference between FSA and jihadist's. --Ліонкінг (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are an uncountable number of different rebel brigades on the grounds espousing just as many ideological platforms. "FSA" is a very blurry concept in and of itself. At the broadest, it encompasses everything from Nusra to the SMC command in Turkey—essentially a synonym for "rebel". In narrower senses, it refers to groups tied to Idris's SMC, which would include moderate-Islamist groups in the SILF (e.g. Liwa' al-Tawhid) as well as "true FSA" secular outfits (e.g. 9th Division in Aleppo). Then there are "local Syrian" groups like Ahrar al-Sham (SIF), a hardcore-Salafi group that is one of the most powerful rebel units in the country, that cooperate very closely and enjoy good relations with al-Qaida groups like ISIS and Nusra, but aren't al-Qaida themselves.

On the ground, there are no divisions that are universal enough that we can claim to make any clear distinction. In Azaz, FSA groups have large tensions with ISIS. But in places like Tall Abyad and Hasakah, "FSA" groups fight as comrades alongside al-Qaida against the Kurdish YPG. August's rebel offensives in Lattakia and Menagh Airbase were also joint operations between ISIS and "FSA" groups, and the ongoing fighting in Qalamun is the product of cooperation between "moderates" and "jihadists" as well. These clashes in Azaz, Raqqa, and Deir Ezzor are as of yet the exceptions to the rule. Headline-grabbers like ISIS are differentiated more often, but they are by no means the only radical-jihadist outfit on the ground in Syria.

Moreover, reliable sourcing on exactly what groups control which town is very scant. Most news reports just read like "rebels captured X village" or similar such wordings. Additionally, control of a town often shifts one it is no longer on the frontlines—this is how ISIS has taken control of numerous places. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Liwa' al-Islam is part of SILF and an SMC member. If that's your definition of "jihadist", I don't see why you would advocate for any change of colour. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A new attack [7] Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Liwa' al-Tawhid has brokered a ceasefire in Azaz and clashes have stopped for now. I still remain opposed to this change because the lines between ISIS and other brigades get very blurry and vary regionally. For example, how would we colour a fellow al-Qaida group like Nusra or SIF battalions like Ahrar al-Sham which closely cooperate with ISIS on many fronts, such as in Hasakah and Raqqa (against Kurds) and in Lattakia? Such a colouration would enforce a clearer dichotomy than actually exists. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Put a black icon for cities controlled by ISIS does not mean that Isis is at war with other rebels, it just serve to show where they are located on the map Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all it is right, ISIS has allies as well, that is to say Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra. I plead for a black icon of ISIS and its allies (Jihadists fighting for a Caliphate) in cities and regions where it is absolutely clear who has the power. This would be Raqqa, Azaz for now, Shadadi, Deir ez-Zor, Jarabulus, Tell Abyad, Sarrin etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoDor12 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In Azaz ISIS make a tactical manoeuvre to secure the boarder town and further more to cut the rebels from their passage with Turkey. This is a strategic overview that these forces(fsa) are the enemy for ISIS and must be isolated before they vanquished. The seize of fire came a reality after the objective was accomplished which is only a series of events that will follow in order to isolate and brake down the remnants of fsa and other so called secular rebels.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This reflects the fact that the leadership of al-Nusra is strongly against the behavior of the ISIS, even if nominally they share similar goals for Syria. Al-Nusra accepts that all rebels together decide the future of Syria, depending on persuasion of others, whereas the ISIS wishes to impose their agenda, as well as having plans to control areas outside Syria. Al-Nusra cooperates with other rebels to keep the ISIS out of southern Syria (Damascus and Deraa). Unfortunately, many al-Nusra groups in the north have listened to the proclaimed control of the ISIS over al-Nusra, and have effectively become part of the ISIS. The conflicts al-Nusra vs ISIS in Shadadi (southern Hasaka) indicates that not all al-Nusra units in the north have joined the ISIS.

Note that we already colour the YPG a separate colour, even though there is little conflict with other rebels, except for those affiliated with the ISIS.

Given all this, I would propose that only the ISIS and al-Nusra units that are shown to be allies of the ISIS be coloured black. This would restrict black to some points in the northern provinces, Latakia, Hama, and maybe Homs.

The growing presence of al-Nusra further south would remain green. André437 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of conflict between non-ISIS rebels and the YPG. Nusra claimed that they were unable to defend their facilities in Shadadi because their fighters were off fighting "kuffar"—i.e. "PKK" fighters. Ahrar al-Sham and Nusra are currently leading the jihad against the Kurds in northern Syria, fighing on multiple fronts and drawing in the support of local (Arab, of course) FSA groups as well. A senior Ahrar commander and co-founder of the Movement's Hasakah branch was even killed by the YPG a few days ago. Meanwhile, FSA groups have renewed their siege on Aleppo's Kurdish sector, failing to gain ground but inflicting plenty of civilian casualties. In fact, if there's anything that al-Qaida and other rebels broadly agree on, it's that the Kurds are The Enemy. "Little conflict with rebels" is a ridiculous misconception that should have been thrown out with the FSA's siege on Efrin back in May/June at the very latest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When looking at these various conflicts, it helps to distinguish between the various rebel groupings. There is the FSA, based on deserters and civilians that have joined them, the SILF (Syrian Islamic Liberation Front), a moderate grouping allied with the FSA, the recently formed ADF (Authenticity and Development front), also moderate and trained and well armed by the Saudis, the SIF (Syrian Islamic Front), a less moderate grouping that includes Ahrar al-Sham, that usually cooperates well with the FSA, but also often with al-Nusra and now the ISIS, particularly against the kurdish YPG. My information is that it was not the FSA that beseiged the Afrin area recently, but rather units associated with the SIF. The FSA and SILF have an agreement with the YPG that could be considered a sort of weak alliance or a non-aggression pact, depending on your point of view, signed before the May-June siege, to avoid misunderstandings. (Among other points, FSA and SILF units were to get the accord of local committees before entering kurdish residential areas, and any disputes were to be decided by arbitration and not arms.) Of course if all rebel groups are lumped in together, with only the YPG, al-Nusra, and ISIS considered separately, it gives a very different picture. As far as the Ahrar al-Sham commander (but not founder from your link) killed by the YPG in Yaribiyah, he made the mistake of helping the ISIS maintain control of a kurdish city. We both know that the ISIS is anything but civilised with civilians in areas under their control, so it is entirely reasonable for the YPG to evict, by force or otherwise, the ISIS and their collaborators, after they started their war against the kurds. Also note that the ISIS recently killed an Ahrar al-Sham commander the 10 Septembre.

In any case, if the current trend continues, the FSA + SILF + FAD (who are fighting the ISIS in Deir az-Zor) + YPG + maybe even the SIF will end up eliminating the ISIS. In that event, black for the ISIS won't be very useful. André437 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Sounds like someone's been reading too much "Arab Chronicle". Unlike most editors here, I'm rather well versed in rebel groupings, so that synopsis is old news. "Less moderate" is an interesting euphemism for Salafi.

SIF groups certainly participated in the Efrin siege, but they were far from alone. Tawhid (SILF) was a big actor, and an FSA commander hinted at the fact that he could not restrain some of his fellow FSA from fighting as well. A shaky accord was reached (one of many), but it was for that specific region only and hasn't stopped all clashes. One could argue that a similar "non-aggression" agreement exists between the YPG and government forces in Qamishli and Hasakah cities (the relative quiet in these cites. Weeks later, the Aleppo SMC council kicked out Jabhat al-Akrad from the FSA due to its closeness to the PYD/YPG amidst clashes in Kurdish villages across northern Aleppo and Raqqa provinces.

Really, relations between the rebels—from FSA to ISIS—and the YPG have never improved significantly since Efrin. YPG and JA forces in Aleppo are facing attacks from both the regime and the rebels while clashes continue rage between Kurds and jihadi-led rebels in Tall Abyad and across Hasakah province (Ahrar and Nusra as well as ISIS). And even as the KNC sells itself to joins the SNC, FSA C-in-C Idris releases a statement wherein he froths at the mouth (in an eerily old-school Ba'athi fashion) about the sanctity of the "Syrian Arab Republic". To be quite honest, Assad has been performing a better diplomacy dance with the Kurds than rebels of any ideological stripe have.

Ya'ribiyah is actually an Arab-majority town, and if you'll make an extra mouse click on the reply from @syrianisis, you'll see that al-Kari'i was described as "one of the starters of Jihad in Shaddadi, Hasakah region", so my point stands.

A word of advice: while Labrousse is a dedicated investigator (and one hell of a cartographer) who has provided some valuable insights throughout the conflict, his warped ideological analyses should be regarded with some caution. More often than not, he falls into the trap of seeing groups who cooperate with the "bad guys" as poor sheep who have strayed from the fold rather than sovereign organisations with their own agency and motivation. "Contacts on the ground" are well and good, but at the end of the day, everyone has a story to sell that may or may not be close to reality, and one does not get the impression that he really bothers to control for that bias at all. He runs his operation with roughly the same tolerance for differing opinion as Assad and ISIS, making little distinction between Assad and al-Qaida ISIS (he tends to be rather fond of Nusra) fanboys and good-faithed observers who are seeking only to make sense of what is going on. He freely insults analysts and reporters he deems to be too deviant from his line of thought, but refuses to discuss anything with them. A valuable resource, sure, but handle with care... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with most of your comments, particularly the somewhat simplistic editorial bias of Labrousse (to which I have responded a number of times), but I would suggest that your blog source deserves similar caution - noting that both have insights not otherwise readily available. As far as twitter sources go, by their very nature they tend to be unreflected impulsive responses to current situations, so not to be relied on.

As I understand it, the local revolutionary military councils supposedly try to coordinate the activity of all rebel groups in their area, and not just the FSA. I realise that the Alep military council has an anti-YPG bias, falsely accusing them of being separatist. (Instead of autonomist. By that view, every canadian province and U.S. state is separatist. And I would suspect the german landers and swiss cantons, as well.)

For info such as the ethnic split of Ya'ribiyah, I'd really appreciate any info on good sources. It would be useful to have a static page that we could refer to giving useful sources and their reliability as references (for this project), as well a useful background info. (Maybe it exists already and I just hadn't noticed it ?) André437 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Careful, he'll block you if you do it too much :) Van Wilgenburg is a respected journalist specialising in Kurdish affairs who writes for credible outlets like Rudaw, Al Monitor, etc. True, Twitter is not "reliable" for editing here and can sometimes report incorrectly, but it (and similarly-unreliable FB) is where news breaks before anywhere else and therefore widely used by experts. Take my info as you will.

Keyword being "try to". They're a little better at it than the SNC maybe, but still not in total control by any means. Idris isn't just Aleppo commander, he is the commander of the entire FSA/SILF alliance that coordinates through the SMC (though maybe not anymore after Tawhid & friends went off to play with Nusra). Wherever there are YPG, there are many rebels nearby who have problems with them. Fighting is ongoing at the edges of literally every liberated Kurdish area now, and the vast majority of the aggressors are anti-Assad.

I'd have to dig around for "reliable" information on Ya'ribiyah's ethnic composition (really any information on it at all, it has been pretty non-notable until now). From what I understand from the online chatter I've seen (and my own "sources".....) is that it is in a majority Arab area with a small Kurdish minority, which has been part of the reason why YPG troops have had such a difficult time taking it. See e.g. [8] (referring to [9]) [10]. Again, it's Twitter, so take it as you will. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

He has never posted a negative reaction to any of my comments, and even posted "like" to some (but not against his posts). But then I've never flamed him, posting point-by-point counter views to a number of his editorials. . Van Wilgenburg may be a "respected journalist", but I'm always wary of anything based on media such as twitter. Even facebook allows more time for reflection.

You say the Idris is now head of the Alep military council ? It is no longer Abdel al-Qaidi ? He is the one who has been quoted with anti-kurd remarks, recently defending actions against the YPG locally. From which I assumed the anti-YPG bias of the local military council. If there is indeed fighting against the kurds "at the edges of literally every liberated Kurdish area", there are also reports of many arabs in kurdish forces. . Also, I've seen many reports of conflicts between rebel units of virtually all groups, most involving the ISIS.

As for Yaribiyah, I've seen comments somewhere that there is a large ARAB minority there, but no reliable info. It would be a bit surprising that a relatively isolated border town surrounded by kurdish populations both sides of the border would have an arab majority. The 2 twitter refs don't give any info on that, and unfortunately I don't read kurdish, nor does google translate.

In any case, agree that it is advisable for now to not colour anything black, considering among other facters the new declaration reportedly against the SNC by groups representing what may be a majority of rebels. I've seen references elsewhere and yours here, but nothing that lets me access a translation. Even then the implications could be unclear. André437 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Lothar, still it is wrong to display cities like Raqqa, Jarabulus and Azaz in the same color as FSA strongholds. FSA got violently expelled from most of these cities and this fact is indeed reportable. We could discuss and list potential black cities here. Beginning from west I would suggest: al-Dana, Azaz, al-Bab (contested), Jarabulus, Sarrin, Tell Abyad, Raqqa, Shadada, Yarubiyah, Deir ez-Zor, Al-Muhaseen. --TheoDor12 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There's an ongoing major alliance shift. Many brigades—including SILF "moderates" like Tawhid as well as SIF groups and Nusra—have signed a statement rejecting SNC authority in favour of only Shariah. ISIS is not specifically addressed, but this could shape up to be a tectonic shift towards jihadism. (Funny thing is, Labrousse seems to have been taken a bit off-guard by this. So much for "local contacts".) As I have said before, there are not enough clear divisions and the situation is too fluid for such a change. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Lother, do you know where I could get a translatable version of this statement ? I don't read arabic, and don't have any software to translate non-latin text from image, so the image doesn't do me much good. I would like to see what the text actually says. (I read English and French, and could use a translate utility for most other languages.) André437 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There are clear division. 'Secular' FSA forces getting forcefully expelled from certain cities/ regions define these divisions. Also I think it's too early to hint how this 'Sharia statement' will work out on the ground. --TheoDor12 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) And again ! http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/835805/syrie-des-jihadistes-avancent-vers-un-poste-frontiere-avec-la-turquie.html Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

How about displaying Bab al-Salam border crossing as contested? According to various reports, ISIS is pushing towards the border trying to gain control of it: Al Qaeda-linked group advances on Syrian rebels near Turkey, Syria jihadists 'advance toward Turkey border post' --TheoDor12 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)