Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Battalion 559 in Eastern Qalamoun

Remember this discussion? I'm not asking for any change I just found something that proves my point back then when I showed pro-opp sources stating rebel withdrawal from the area. I know YouTube videos cannot and should not be used to depict any changes/advances but here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6mcpQHk3ro Just to prove my point that rebels have indeed retreated from the warehouses --> NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

YouTube videos cannot be used as references to make changes to the map. If you have a recent, valid, trustworthy pro-opp source that shows this change, then we can make the change. Please refer to the rules regarding this map, videos are not reliable sources.

I know that.. please read what I wrote then reply.. I did provide before clear pro-opp sources regarding rebel withdrawal from the area yet the editors refused them. I just wanted to prove my point using this video. I AM NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ON THIS MAP BASED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO. ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94, I believe that you are correct, and that the rebels have withdrawn from the two bases/warehouses in Eastern Qalamoun that are shown on this map. The one and only reason I am against removing them is that they are literally the only indication this map has of a rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun at all. The problem is that, while the rebels are moderately active in the area, it's a barrens, a wasteland, kinda like Western Qalamoun between Ras al Maara/Assal al Ward and the Lebanese border - there's just a dearth of towns to add. So, while changing those two bases to red or removing them outright from the map is probably a more accurate representation of those two specific sites, doing so would also completely eradicate the only indication of a rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun that this map has.. That's my line of thought on this topic in general. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This map is site based not area base as many others available. Each dot on the map represents the status of the control of a specific site. 'Presence in the area' is not supposed to be represented. Therefore if these two sites are not under rebel control (but also not under SAA control), they must be removed. Paolowalter (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It was reported last week by pro gov almasdar that saa were advancing on Ad Dumayr .we have this town as in truce but it might be rebel and could have been base to take the two bases and then withdraw to . Pyphon (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

For now we only have two pro opposition maps which show that in the city of Al Dumayr truce.herehere And for now moment no one source not said that the city of La Dumayr under control by rebels or that the truce in this city broken. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid, thank you and you do have a point with keeping the rebel presence in the area. How about red with green circle around it? (I wasn't asking for this but since the discussion has been opened why not). OT: I think a new icon should be added to looted warehouses/defunct bases/destroyed checkpoints etc.. What do you guys say?

Paolowalter is right, this map is supposed to be representative of specific sites, not presence in areas, but, if an accurate depiction of the ground situation is what we are aiming for, we have to indicate rebel activity in Eastern Qalamoun in some fashion. ChrissCh94, thanks to André437, we now have icons that may help us with the whole Eastern Qalamoun dilemma. I would be on board for the following: remove Battalion 559 and Khan Abu Shamat from the map; put directional lime concentrics roughly outlining/bordering the Eastern Qalamoun region - specifically, just to the East of Dumayr Military Airport, to the North of Sayqal Airbase, the East of Jayroud, and the East of Storage Base 555. I know, I know, none of those 4 SAA sites are being attacked/pressured - I'm not trying to propose an arbitrary rebel addition. But, I think that would resolve the Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat discrepancy in a way that correctly shows the status of those bases and still does justice to showing some rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun. If we can work out a consensus along those lines, I'm game. Otherwise, I've gotta stick to my guns about keeping Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat as is, simply in the interest of a semi-true representation of the region. I mean, if we remove them and don't add said lime concentrics, then this map won't show any rebel presence within some 150mi.. which is patently false. Idk. Open to reasonable suggestions. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid Seems like a nice option. How about turning the Battalion 559 to red with a green circle around it, keeping the Khan Abu Shamat area rebel held, and adding green half circles near the SAA sites in the area? ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can get on board with that suggestion - not sure if the unsourced addition of those green directional circles will fly though. Any other editors have comments/opinions/objections? Boredwhytekid (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with "directional lime concentrics roughly outlining the Eastern Qalamoun region". However, keeping the 2 military bases (whether green or red) is unacceptable. Tradedia^talk 03:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well they still exist don't they? I mean Battalion 559 is mostly tank warehouses/storage but it comes with a small base nearby. While I have provided pro-opp sources stating that rebels withdrew from Battalion 559 and its base, anyone can find proof of rebel activity near the SAA sites in the area since a rebellion in a desert area such as Eastern Qalamoun would surely have the upper hand -mobility wise- over a static conventional army. And we have no sources stating that the regime forces took over the Khan Abu Shamat area. So my vote and I'm sure Boredwhytekid agrees, is Battalion 559 to red with a green circle around it, Khan Abu Shamat stays green, and we add half lime circles around some SAA sites in the area to indicate the rebellion presence there just like we did for Western Qalamoun. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your source showed that “rebels withdrew from Battalion 559”. However, it also showed that they took the tanks they could, and destroyed what they could not take so that the army could not use them again. Also it showed that many tanks were destroyed by the airforce. So you cannot assume that because the rebels withdrew, it means necessarily that the army has taken the warehouses back. Why would they take them back if all what is left is just a bunch of empty burnt buildings? You would need a source saying they were re-occupied by the army and used as a military base. The reality is that the latest sources makes it painfully obvious that we do not know if these warehouses are gov-held, rebel-held, or just abandoned. In cases like this, we simply comment out the icon until further information become available. Tradedia^talk 05:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So what we actually know is that rebels withdrew from Battalion 559, but it's unclear if the SAA reoccupied it. And we have no recent sources for Khan Abu Shamat. Tradedia, you clearly want both removed, ChrissCh94, you clearly do not - so let's follow the sources, and remove Battalion 559 because it's no longer rebel held, leave Khan Abu Shamat up for lack of sources and add the lime directional circles as outlined above. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the part about the warehouses being destroyed & emptied is true; but again huge warehouses such as those are protected by a small base (shown in the upper video I provided and in rebel videos while they were bombarding it) and some checkpoints. The warehouses are gone but the nearby base well has been recaptured by the regime ==> Rebels stating they withdrew + Video of regime recapturing it. The regime is "desperate" enough not to leave an empty base in the desert without occupying it. Plain logic. Removing Battalion 559 (no matter what its color is) would reduce the accuracy of this map since it would make us forget about an important rebel raid in this area. As for Khan Abu Shamat it stays green since we haven't heard about the regime re-opening the Baghdad-Damascus highway. Adding half lime circles would also be useful. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If we dont find the evidence presented from the reliable sources that the rebels left the Battalion 559, we should leave it as it is without any changes. But if there is confirmation that the military base is again under the control of the army, we just need change the icon color to red. Also we cant just mark green marks near the towns or villages which are under the control of the army without confirmation that close to these towns or villages are located rebel positions. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I did provide in the same post 3 weeks ago pro-opp sources stating rebel withdrawal from the area (You saw them and approved at first) Here they are just to remind you:

http://stepagency-sy.net/%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B9-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-559-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8/

http://eldorar.com/node/48440

https://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=1bf19643b8e23f7cc01c87d035bfee97

http://justpaste.it/islamicfront559

http://www.syrianarmyfree.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-68912.html

Combined with the video shown here the warehouses (or at least the army base nearby) are regime held. And we are not asking for green dots: we are asking for those half circles (THE BESIEGED FROM ONE SIDE) symbols to be put on the SAA sites in the area because the rebellion is kinda active there. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning khan abu shamat, there is no information at all about its present status. We know that the warehouses are empty from the chemical weapons. So at this point, we do not know if they are presently occupied by rebels, or army, or just abandoned & empty. We do not want to be guessing and get caught being wrong and ruin the reputation of the map. It is better not to have something on the map, rather than to have it wrong. If khan abu shamat is removed from the map, I am willing to accept that brigade 559 be made red with a green ring and that "directional lime concentrics roughly outlining the Eastern Qalamoun region" be put in place. Tradedia^talk 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why remove Khan Abu Shamat area? It's a series of cement factories located on the Baghdad-Damascus highway and as far as I know is STILL occupied by rebels since we haven't heard of any regime attempt to re-open the highway. Keeping it rebel held shows that this vital highway is cut thus reflecting the reality of the situation. While we agree that Battalion 559 should become red with a green circle around it, we should not remove the Khan Abu Shamat area nor even touch it since no regime source stated clashes there nor rebels stated their withdrawal. We also agree about the half green circles placed around SAA sites in the area since they are subject to occasional bombardment. So do we have a consensus? Boredwhytekid Hanibal911 Tradedia ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have only one requirement: brigade 559 should not stay green. For the rest, I’ll go with whatever is the consensus. Tradedia^talk 00:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's what we agreed on: Brigade 559 to red with green circle, Khan Abu Shamat green, SAA sites in the area with green half circles. Boredwhytekid Hanibal911 Tradedia ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In situation with the Khan Abu Shamat army base or Khan Abu Shamat area pro-opposition map show that armed forces now are near of this area.here Also we cant just pick up and put green marks near the towns and villages in the eastern part of the Qalamoun area which now under control by army without confirmation from reliable sources that near those towns or villages located a rebel positions. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright but Khan Abu Shamat stays green that's my point. If you don't want to add half green circles near SAA Army sites that's fine but Khan Abu Shamat stays untouched and rebel held without any siege. As for Brigade 559 we agreed that it should turn red with a green circle around it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Please make the changes we agreed on in my upper post ^ ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan clarification

Are we sure that Tall Brak and Tall Hamis are controlled by ISIL?

All maps (pro-opp, neutral, and pro-gov), show these two towns under IS control, so it's very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are the same Is is a shortend version of ISIL.Pyphon (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

isis presence in Hula (northern Homs)?

Documents.sy reports about bombardment of isis postions around Hula, in the north of Homs, by Syrian Army. So maybe add a black dot or change it from green to black?

I am new here so i dont know if that is an reliable source in this case. if not sorry. here the link: http://documents.sy/news.php?id=12172&lang=en

ThanksBlockeduser2014 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Blockebuster there have been reports of isis in many places by single sources but this is not enough evidence to change the map unless more sources say the same thing .Pyphon (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Kobane

Here updated map which show situation in Kobane area on 16 November.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
AS to some tiwtter sources, Isis had taken cereal hangars and kobani pass to turkey. --Khalil.aifaoui (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Khazzanat Camp

The 11th Tank Brigade (which was credited by some users to have taken the Khazzanat camp) DENIES in it's official page that the Khazzanat camp has been captured by the regime. They acknowledged advances towards it but NO CAPTURE. Therefore Khazzanat camp goes to GREEN with a red half circle south of it. https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/749090718504420 Translating it can be tough since he's talking in informal Arabic BUT he clearly denies the capture of the camp whilst confirming advances ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And according to the SAA FB account they took it. https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary (scroll down a bit)SyAAF (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro-regime source can't be used to illustrate pro-regime gains ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think what he is trying to say is that there is a lot of evidence that the SAA has in fact taken the camp. Al-Masdar, SAA facebook page, Syper, and even SOHR say that. Now we also have many sources declaring that fighting is happening in Khan Shiekhoun, making it very likely that the camp is in SAA hands. Still, you have brought compelling evidence that the camp may still be in rebel hands. So, would you and the others be ok with me changing the camp to green with a FULL red ring [SAA in Khan Shiekhoun]? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 I too Agree that we cant use pro-regime sources to show army success! However, these data indirectly confirmed by other sources.SOHRAl Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 I believe it was you who said al masdar and sohr should be used carefully and I agree .SOHRs two posts seem to contradict each other and al masdar said saa took the base then advanced on Khan shiekoun .We now have other sources saying Khan sheikoun is contested so if al masdar got that right ,with carefull consideration I think his post was correct .Pyphon (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

ALrighty then just wondering why it hasn't hit the big news yet. Fine Khazzanat to red and Khan Shaykhun so contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No reason to hit big news for the conquer of a (important) military camp. For the 1000000th time: the point is not is if a source is pro-somebody but if it is reliable. Few days ago, the israel paper Haaretz was used, that certainly is anti-government. Al-Masdar, has proved over the time to be reliable and does not need additional evidence.79.45.138.153 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Chrissch94 once again you have shown how unbiased you are .those who accused you of pro gov bias are clearly wrong .Keep up the good work .respect .Pyphon (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Thanks I appreciate this! All I'm doing is based on the need of an accurate map depicting the tough reality on the ground. Kudos to you too :) Pyphon ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Troops control of Khaz'zanat Camp helped regime forces inside Al-Zohour military airport to advance into near-by Tal Selmo and Mustariha villages.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Elijah J looks a fair source, he claims SAA troops entering Khan Shaykhun later to confirm Goverment presence there. The Saa its anvancing in many fronts attacking small objectives, Aleppo North East, Khan Shaykhun, Deyr el Zor, Sheyk Maskin, East Goutha.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here reliable source said that pro-FSA activist's in Idlib now confirming that Syrian army have taking Camp "Khazanat". Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Finally a clear confirmation on the matter! Thank you Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Also according to local the opposition activists on front between city Morek and Khan Shykhun are empty and no rebels around.Elijah J. Magnier And this makes easier task for the regime to capture the city of Khan Shaykhun.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

NAWA/SHAKH MISKIN ROAD

Pro gov sources say saa have taken Nawa-Shakh miskin road including tel al hamad and 112 army base but no pro op source said this yet so we must wait for more sources .Pyphon (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Reliable source said that however, despite the rebel advance, Assad’s forces remain strong in the area, holding bases in critical locations that the rebels will find difficult to capture.

Deraa-based activist Ibrahim Hariri said that while government forces collapsed in some parts of the province, they still hold much of the city of Deraa and control the Deraa-Damascus highway, “the spine of the province.”The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

خطأ في إنشاء اتصال بقاعدة البيانات

Al Nusra have captured city Rastan in Homs Governorate after clashes with other rebel groups. This confirmed pro opposition sourcehere pro government sourceherehere and some other source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If this is true rebel infighting is spreading south but is not in Daraa yet .Until we get reports of this type in Daraa no icons for jan there .Pyphon (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Al Qaeda is in all places when are others insurgents group different than the Kurdish, but in what place they have a total control is unclear --Pototo1 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been a long time I've not contributed to the map... Can Twitter be considered a relable source now ? I did not read about that anywhere else...2A01:E34:EF99:8A90:280F:5B5:B138:4865 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It depends on who owns the account. Peto Lucem and Elijah J. Mangir are two examples of reliable sources on twitter. In this case, Hanibal is using twitter accounts known to be associated with the rebels to change a city from mainstream rebel held to Nusra held, which is, as far as I know, in line with the editing guidelines. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

But other opposition sources clarify the situation with the city of Rastan. Al Nusra haven't gained control of Rastan. They just entered along with Ahrar and many other battalions to arrest Wanted people for the court.herehereEldorar So for now we not have other confirmations from reliable sources that the city Al Rastan was captured the Front Al Nusra. So I again noted him as under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Peto Lucem also says that JAN has taken over Rastan here https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/538681709332799488 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

DeSyracuse is NOT pro-insurgent

Some people here often use DeSyracuse (http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com and https://twitter.com/deSyracuse) maps as pro-insurgents, therefore using this source to justify government-held town. However, I did not find any evidence that DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent nor pro-government. Although he did some maps with Archicivilians, those maps are quite reflecting reality. So unless anybody has evidence DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent, I would suggest not to classify him as pro-insurgent188.141.199.13 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes DeSyracuse is pro insurgent their maps usually favouring the Insurgents same case with Archicivilians.

Pro Government maps are Peto Lucem's maps but these map are very correct and precise based in my experience following the conflict.

Labrousse maps was the most precise pro Insurgents maps but he stopped to made maps time ago. --Pototo1 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

But 188.141.199.13 the source (deSyracuse) for changes on the map is very often use pro opposition sources . And he had long been recognized by as the opposition source. So if you do not find confirmation that he is pro opposition source it's your problem, and you need a better look. His maps are very similar to other pro opposition maps. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When I look closely at the maps, I do not find any evidence of what you say. More, some maps such as http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Hama-loyalists-offensive-24-Oct-2014-by-@deSyracuse.png or http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Hasakah-26-Nov-2014-by-@deSyracuse.png seem more in favor of Syrian govt. Moreover, if you have a look at the legends and tweets, he never use the term "Regime" but "Loyalists", so unless you provide a clear reference more serious than "he had long been recognized by as the opposition source", I suggest he is not classified as a "Pro-opp"188.141.178.174 (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Hanibal here, Peto Lucem is more or less pro-regime despite stating rebel gains sometimes. DeSyracuse is moderate pro-opp but with very reliable/accurate maps. Archicivillians is way too pro-opp ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Lucem's maps are more representative of the situation. Desyracuse's maps have many errors, such as understating regime presence in Hasaka, the isolation of the regime in Deir-Ez-Zoir, and overstating ISIS's control of the desert.In any case, I support maintaining the current status quo, with Lucem being pro-gov and Syracuse being pro-opp. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

East Damascus: The road in east Jobar is controlled by Army

The map in East Damascus showing the East Road in Jobar in conflict. http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010802646190.jpg

This is the Lucem map and showing this road http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010809625795.jpg

Same case with this another favouring the insurgents http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010813695846.jpg

The insurgent in Jobar are totally besiege ?

Not at all they using the tunnels to East Ghouta as resupply system, put the surface is controlled by the Army this oncluding the road --Pototo1 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree! This road also earlier was noted under control by army on some pro-opposition maps.11 September20 September16 October20 October8 November10 November Hanibal911 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fix that in East Damascus map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer/File:Rif_Damashq.svg --Pototo1 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The road on the east edge of Jobar has long been nominally regime controlled, with rebel control on either side. There used to be a number of dead regime tanks along the road, which was patrolled intermittently by regime tanks during the day. The rebels used to frequently cross the road at night, as well as using the numerous tunnels under it, to access the eastern Ghouta. I doubt the situation has changed much since. André437 (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The infiltration no count as disputed control all pro insurgent maps put this road under army control --Pototo1 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Add to al-Zaahra and Nubl that there is heavy fighting going on there right now with shelling, carbombing etc.

Savalito (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source reported that fiercest attack by Al Nusra against Nubl and Zahraa on the southern gate failed. Popular committee in charge of defending captured at least four jihadists.Elijah J. Magnier And SOHR also today reported that Al- Nusra detonated a booby- trapped vehicle at the entrance of the town of al- Zahraa town followed by violent clashes between local gunmen and NDF against al- Nusra Front, Ansar al- Din Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions on entrance of the town.SOHR But not said about clashes inside city. Also reliable source said that according pro opposition source a suicide attack was taking in this place here on south entrance the city Al Zahraa in industrial area.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source said that was only one suicide attack which carried by Al Nusra Abu Hasna Jazrawi against city Al Zahraa (not two) and he didn't reach the gate of Al-Jood complex.Elijah J. Magnier And source said that cities of Al Zahraa and Nubol are still holding despite repetitive attack. SAF is dropping supply to surrounded cities.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanano

Its been 4 days since Almasdar and other pro gov sources said saa advanced and cut the road from jandoul roundabout to hanano also advancing in owieja and hanano districts but not one pro op source has said anything about this .Its a major event as it puts rebel held Allepo in siege cutting the last supply line .Any thoughts?Pyphon (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Wait some days, SOHR would confirm that info once their informants manage to escape safe and sound that place.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR latest post on Aleppo JAN is fighting SAA near Aleppo prison and at the airport .They must be advancing against the army pro gov sources must be lies or SOHR ?Pyphon (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

SOHR's reliability has greatly decreased in Aleppo, due to increasingly unreliable information as well an increase in SOHR's rhetoric against the regime. For more than a month now, SOHR has reported constant fighting at Handaarat, so often one would think that the rebels were on the verge of retaking the area, yet even pro-opp sources acknowledge that the SAA has advanced from there since Oct. 3. Also, when mentioning fighting in Aleppo, SOHR, no longer refers to the SAA as "regime forces and NDF". It now refers to them as "regime forces, NDF, Quds brigades, shia militias and Afghan fighters" in an attempt to discredit the SAA. In more recent times, the SOHR reported that JAN attacked Nubl and Zahraa, yet remained silent when the main attacking force was defeated. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Syria direct pro op new map shows saa advance near jandoul roundabout ,owieja ,hanano .Pyphon (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Maybe you mean this map.Syrian Direct Hanibal911 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is that one. Thanks. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes not a good map to many flags on roads but its first pro op source to say saa advance to make almasdar map look correct .Pyphon (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

SOHR is now quoting al nusra and its allies on his posts for Aleppo and Idlib which are unreliable his moderate sources have gone .Pyphon (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Al Nusra continues to offensive against moderate rebels

Jabhat al-Nusra executed 13 Syrian rebel in village Kawkaba to south part of Idlib province after JAN taken this village.An-NaharElijah J. MagnierSOHR Also reliable source reported that JAN stormed the town of Kafr_Nabudah SRF and FSA handed over all their weapons.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed Kafr Nubudah to JAN-held. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys you think Rastan should become JAN held? My vote is yes ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And my vote "yes". Many sources reported that Al-Nusra seized the city of Rastan. Egyptian source Masralarabia Al JazeeraAl QudsAkhbarakYemen Economist Pro oppositio source Al Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I support this change as well XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done I marked city of Al Rastan under control by Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Alepo Province

Acording to SOHR al-nusra captured the Aghoub Hill in al- Brej area hereLindi29 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Villages in Idlib

Can somebody find and add these villages in the map 2 are captured by SAA and 3 are captured by al-nusra i think 1 of the villages is contested in south idlib between al-nusra and the free syrian army Kafr Sajneh or it is only Sinja hereLindi29 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We cant just use data from progovernment sources to show the success of the army. So that we need confirmation this data from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought al-masdar was a reliable source ?! other users did make changes with news of al-masdar even if it is a pro-goverment source.Lindi29 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There is still some contention about Al-Masdar. I believe it can be used on its own due to its record of reliability. Still, those other users you refer to had corroboration from other sources. If you edit the map with just Al-Masdar, I would support it, but someone else might revert you, so I would wait for more sources. Also, you actually can use this source [without any opposition from other editors] to add the towns that JAN took from the rebels. Regards XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

al tanf crosing border caotured by is İDHaberTakip (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You can proved reliable source which can confirmed you data? Because reliable source said that ISIS tried captured Al-Waleed border crossing from Iraqi side of border and failed.here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And source Al Arabia said that sixteen border guards, including a captain, were killed and four wounded in an attack targeting their headquarters in Al-Walid, near the Syrian border. But not said that this border crossing was taken by ISIS.Al Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done until a source is provided. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday well-known source Elijah J Magnier was talking about this on Twitter...he specified there was images of the attack and partial takeover by IS only about the Iraqi side of the border, not the Syrian one( there is a long distance, in a desert area, between the Iraqi and Syrian side). Fab8405 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Icons for Kurd controlled cities

While looking at the map, I noticed an inconstancy in the style of the icons on the map. While the controlled cities for all of the other factions are represented by a single, monotone color, the ones controlled by the Kurds appear to a) have a gray outline, and b) have a white spot in the middle. For the sake of consistency, wouldn't it be better for them to be a solid yellow? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the kurdish color should be a bolder yellow. The one user to talk to would be Andre437. He is the one that makes the icons. You could ask him if he would be willing to do a color change. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw this comment, and found that the dot already existed. It now replaces the old one in the map, including the caption. I've been thinking about changing it for a while. Thanks for suggesting it :)

The name is Location_dot_yellow.svg, the same format as the other dots. André437 (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The new yellow color its too bright also it seems to melt with the light yellow color of the background of the map. Try to look for a long time the Yellow dots, its annoying, Anyone else noted this200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I noted this shit too. The new color is f****** terrible to watch. "The sake of consistency" does not matter (I never even noticed it). This is not a piece of art it´s a bureaucratic map. Revert and get rid of the epileptic-yellow fly-shit-dots already please!!Rhocagil (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Our bellicose visitor has a point.. the current yellow is semi-blinding Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revert to the old yellow, or change the background color of the map 8fra0 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the majority of people really find it worse... I guess we should change it back. It would be better for everyone though if we just made it a darker, still monotone icon (if that reasonably doable) or if we just changed the background map color to a darker shade, like 8fra0 suggested (of course then we would probably have people complaining about how they liked the old background color instead) :) ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I think I have an easy solution. I found the current file for the yellow dot and created a darker version () and reuploaded it to wikipedia so it can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Dot_Yellow_Darker.svg. So, what do you guys think? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the old ones were/are much better. If you should change any dots, change the red, green and grey ones to the same as the "old" yellow ones.Rhocagil (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Like you said, this is a "bureaucratic map" and it should be as simplistic as possible to allow for viewers to quickly get a sense of the situation. The monotone colors help accomplish this by standing out against background (at least if the yellow icon is darkened) an effect which is diminished in the old yellow ones by the neutral gray border. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yellow dots on a yellow-isch background requires some kind of borderline. You can solve the problem by making the background grey, but then you will have the same problem with the grey dots. So why bother at all. I say revert and don´t bother.Rhocagil (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Solution: Brown Background. Also, I think that the darker yellow ones will be easily discernible against the current background. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, change back yellow until you get your "brown" background.Rhocagil (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble, everyone ... I found the existing icon, put it in place, and realized that it was too strong ... I then made a lighter icon (with a thin grey border), only to loose my internet connexion for 2+ days. I now have 3 such icons, with different degrees of lightness.

Now the caption for kurd control shows (from left to right): The old icon, the strong icon, my 3 new icons from light to lightest.

Please look at these icons and give your feedback : I suggest the second from right. But if you have other ideas, don't hesitate. I can change (or remove) the border if you wish, but I think that some border is a plus. (BTW, the other colours have an extremely thin/invisible border).

Awaiting your feedback. When decided, I can change all the yellow dots on the map. Thanks André437 (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revert to the old colour. The new colour is really hard to see. Readability is far more important than consistency. Esn (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The middle one or the old one. Rhocagil (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the strong pure yellow dot in favour of my middle light yellow icon, Dot_yellow_ff8.svg. (Now tagged with * in the caption at the bottom). I suspect that my less pale icon might be preferred. The old icon was on average between the 2. The caption now shows the old icon and my 3 new ones.

Tell me what you think :) André437 (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The kurdish held towns are still very hard to see, I strongly suggest to revert to the old icons, at least until the background color of the map has been changed 8fra0 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes still very hard.Rhocagil (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please revert to the old icons. Yes, these ones are better than the previous ones, but they're still hard to see. Esn (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not just have a solid colored icon with a light gray border that's the same shade as the original icon? Wouldn't that be both visible and match the other icons? ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to stop editing the maps (especially the Iraqi map where there are plenty of yellow dots and icons) because I can't see what I'm doing, especially adding places/checking if towns are already on the map has become almost impossible. Please revert to the old icons. 8fra0 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Southern Aleppo

It seems that the rebel offensive has stalled/has been reversed. Many loy. sources stating that rebels never actually captured 3 villages but 1 that was later recaptured. I'm sure that we would have read in international news agencies that the regime has been besieged in Aleppo if that's what happened. I mean cutting the regime's only supply line to Aleppo has to be something important and heard of don't you guys agree? I'm not immediately suggesting we change them from contested to something else I'm just asking for more sources on the matter either they are pro-rebel or pro-regime. Just a clarification on who controls them. Small villages such as those can't be contested they're too small. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Which specific villages are you talking about? The ones around al-Safira? The last reliable information - to my knowledge - about that front moving was with Ahrar al-Sham's shortlived offensive, the SAA's repulsing it, and the front stabilizing as shown presently on the map. As goes your remark about small villages - the front line's gotta be somewhere. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well if this true then the road to Aleppo must be cut. That must be a huge achievement for the opposition. Yet barely any rebel sources celebrated it. Usually they celebrate it for days on end. I just saw on their pages a couple of breaking news where they announced their control over those villages then nothing. Considering renewed regime offensives in Aleppo and the diversion attack launched by the opposition on Nubl-Zahraa', I would say that the road to Aleppo isn't cut therefore those village are regime held (at least the ones directly overlooking the highway). Your thoughts? Boredwhytekid ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

sources say saa repelled nusra attacks and this villages under saa control. 1- http://arabic.rt.com/features/765443-%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8/ 2-http://www.alahednews.com.lb/fastnews/240232/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%87%D8%AF-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9#.VHThoousWQlHwinsp (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay till now we should turn them to red.. Any pro-regime source saying they are rebel controlled? ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

So far the only sources you have are pro-regime (RT and Ahed) talking about pro-regime gains. So not "till now we should turn them to red". Please try to be unbiased when you are working on this map.

Well SOHR is a pro-opposition source and we use it to show rebel gains heck we even used SOHR as a source for those villages also when do you think the opposition sources will admit that they were repelled from the area.Also RT has pretty good coverage and I don't know why is it called pro-regime just because it is from Russia it does not mean it is pro-regime.It is like calling all western and gulf media(with some exceptions) pro-opposition as there own states are all funding and supporting the rebels.Also SOHR will never report that the Army repelled the attack as there are no clashes in the area and they only report from where clashes are happening it is like waiting for conformation that will never be reported by any opposition source.The village of Fajdan is an example set by SHOR they reported clashes there a year ago and it is still contested but i'm pretty sure the Army has pushed them out of that village as it sit's near a vital supply road for the Army but SOHR never reports from here as there is no clashes.That is why you need to compare both parties sources and see where they differ.If the government(pro-gov source) took over a village and suddenly SOHR(or other opposition sources) stops reporting from there it means that the first party took the village.This also go for pro-opp media reporting gain and government sources stop reporting on the matter then the opposition advanced and if both parties claim control you put them contested until a there is clear info from the area.Daki122 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Daki122 for expressing my point of view. As for the kind person calling me biased check my post just 1 section above this one (the Khazzanat one) :-) RT is neutral the same way SOHR is. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, there is at least one person who will call an editor pro-regime simply for trying to change green circles. So have we reached a consensus on the three villages. Also, are we going to do anything about Fajdan? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editors. The "contested for ever" is a know problem of the rules regulating this map. It is easy to turn small villages contested, but very difficult to be sure that clashes stopped and who control it at the end. In absence of clear statement, we can assume that control has not changed, therefore all these villages including Fajdan should go red.79.21.132.210 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with you guys ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Another confirmation that army still control these villages.Asharq al arabi Hanibal911 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this edit. We've got nothing but speculation as to the status of these villages, no confirmed, usuable sources (by the rules of this map) supporting a change. They are the front line villages - no one is suggesting we make further changes in the area, and since both rebels and SAA control villages directly adjacent these in question, regardless of who controls them they are the sites of continuous, probably daily small arms fire. I think this perpetual push to rid the map of contested icons is silly. We're talking about an active front line in a bloody conflict - and you want to (based entirely on speculation) take down the "fighting ongoing" icons? Also, Fajdan, Ja’arah (just north of Bluzah), and Aqrabah don't sit on the main highway supplying the SAA in Aleppo, which runs through al-Bab, East of Fajdan - so changing Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah based on the lack of reporting on that supply line being cut doesn't make sense either. Soo, come again on why exactly we're making this edit? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because we have enough evidence(sources) that the rebel offensive in the area has been repulsed.We have several sources claiming that the Army pushed out the rebels and we have the fact that no opposition source is claiming any kind of fights in the area as well as SOHR which has not reported about fighting in the area form more than a week.SO unless you give a viable source that states the rebels are still in the area than we can talk.But the silence of opposition sources and the fact that no opposition source is gonna come out and say that the rebels were defeated and the fact that there were no other sources than SOHR(this is a pro-opp source that works on the data of anti-gov activists) has claimed a presence(more of a hit and run to distract government forces from other fronts they are doing the same against Nubl and Zahraa) of opposition fighters in the area.So to sum it all up we have enough evidence to support the changes that were madeDaki122 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer to this problem is to not put small villages as contested . Only change them when your sure they have been taken ,there are to many contested villages flashing away for months with no fighting going on .Pyphon (talk)pyphon

Daki122 , you seem to be missing the point - the onus of providing a source is on the editor proposing a change, not on an editor saying the map should stay the same. Not a single source has been provided that specifically names the towns in question. What evidence are you referencing? Two nonspecific pro-gov't sources (RT and Ahed) have been posted, and that ain't enough by the rules of the map. Again, what is this weird fixation with taking down all of the contested icons? You guys act as though since there is no major offensive ongoing that there is no fighting on the front line. When the SAA pushed back Ahrar al-Sham's offensive, EVERY village that had gone green got reverted back to red (as was in line with the facts) - you yourself made one of the edits, here. These villages though, Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah, were where the front line stabilized and has remained ever since, hence they've stayed contested because that's where rebel and regime lines meet. Provide a specific source justifying the change of status, or they've gotta stay contested. No valid argument has been made thus far - they do not sit on the highway, so lack of rebel media attention is not in and of itself a good enough reason for changing them. Yes, the rebel offensive was stopped.. and in your mind, that's reason to, for instance, make Ja'arah red but leave the towns within a 1/4 kilometer of it green? That argument makes no sense.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok dude read above I explained why RT Arabic should be taken into consideration as a source I will not write it again.Also you have the upper sources stating that the Army pushed back the rebels.I also pointed out the problem with not taking into consideration government sources in the upper section(Opposition sources will never report that they have lost a battle the same thing is done by the government except in extreme cases like government source SANA reported about withdrawal from Nawa or Sohr about let's say the Hama counter offensive).Also your argument about the 1/4 kilometer distance beats it self because how do we know that the government isn't on the outskirts of the rebel held village or the fact that every rebel held village on the front line in E.Ghouta is 1/4 of a kilometer away from Army positions.I don't say that you are wrong and I'm right but what I want to say is that we need to compare sources and use all possible information to follow this war and make this map as accurate as possible.If you think that I am wrong than change it but keep in mind that that does not change the facts on the ground.Me and several editors have given sources and valid reasons for the change and have all agreed to make this changes per sources above.Daki122 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I read your take on RT Arabic, but, still, that remains your take, and not the map rule - RT Arabic has always been taken as a pro-gov't source, not usable for gov't gains. When the army pushed back the rebels, all rebel gains were reverted.. Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah were marked contested way before Ahrar al-Sham's offensive, so changing them to red is going beyond what the sources indicate. Which source specifically names those 3 towns? Is there one? Besides pro-gov't videos, which are as unusable as pro-rebel youtube videos. The sources all say that the SAA repulsed Ahrar al-Sham's offensive and retook all ground that they lost - and we turned all villages of the Ahrar al-Sham offensive back to red. Changing Fajdan Ja'arah and Aqrabah to red isn't indicative of the SAA regaining lost ground, it's showing them advancing beyond where Ahrar al-Sham began its offensive... what usable source says that? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Daki122Boredwhytekid Maybe as a compromise, we should put the green circles around these villages or green marks near to them. This marks can show that the rebels are still present in the area. Because sources said that troops still control these villages but not said that offensive by rebels ended and they retreated to their original positions. So that guys as you are such compromise solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

But another Lebanese source also confirmed data from arabic source (RT) that the army still control these villages.Charles Ayoub Hanibal911 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If we cant reach a compromise on this issue, I again mark these villages as contested. So that guys let's continue the discussion and data search on the situation in the area. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think green half circles on these villages would be a good compromise because it will show rebel presence to the west and the villages as Army held which we have In my opinion enough sources to confirm them.Daki122 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Show me one source that specifically names those villages as SAA held, and I'm on board with that. No source = stay contested. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For now we have two Lebanese source which reported that villages Aldjaarh, Tata and Aqraba near the defense plants in the southern countryside of Aleppo still under the control of the army.herehere But as I said earlier that if we even so not reach a mutual compromise in this situation. I just again noted these villages as contested. I really dont want have another war edits. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

BoredwhytekidDaki122ChrissCh94 So that guys after examining the data provided by some sources in this issue I need your opinion. What will we do. The first option = mark those villages as the contested. The second option = leave these villages under the control of the army. If today we cant come to a mutual decision tomorrow I will mark them as contested. But before you decide I ask you to consider the fact that there was no more reports of fighting in the area. So maybe Al Nusra offensive failed in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well what I saw was: Pro-opp sources stating control of those village thus cutting the most important supply route in Syria v/s Pro-regime sources denying it. But later on we saw: Army advances in Aleppo, Nusra diversion attacks on Nubul-Zahraa' and a lack of media coverage by the rebels of the cut supply route. So to me and in my opinion, in addition to some of the sources provided here, the Nusra attack has failed and therefore, my vote is the second option: keep them regime held BUT WITH green half circles to the west of them ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ChrissCh94 seems best option until we get another source .Pyphon (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Option 2 is by my opinion the best option for this situation.Daki122 (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done here Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian revolution command council

Syrian moderate rebel groups now combined in the Syrian revolution command council (SROC) it seems this to be a final attempt by the Syrian rebels to form a united front against Assad, ISIS, JAN, Hezbollah and others.herehere So now the situation is clarified and it becomes clear that an alliance of moderate insurgents and militants of Al Nusra Front officially cease to exist. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 what do you think this means for Daraa? Pyphon (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Notably, the new alliance excludes the Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, and some hard-line Islamist groups active in the north, such as Nusra’s close ally Jund al-Aqsa.Albawaba Hanibal911 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

How curious that Moderate Groups calls itself SROC looks a lot like SOHR, another failed collective of moderate$ rebels, wait until Xmas they will be wiped out from all Syria beginning from Idlib to Darra.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

what happens in Battalion 559 in Rural Damascus?

I think after the insurgents get defeated in Yabroud -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arEnS1i3S7Y ; they move to attack this army storage base days latter and they claim they captured it -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k88uOBp5z4

But some one change that to red and put that besiege by insurgents

What happens there? --Pototo1 (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pototo1 its very confused .First rebels take base then saaf bomb base then rebels leave then no more news nobody says saa moved in to retake so we think is dead ,ruined . Some editors want it removed from map some want it to show rebels in that area .I think this new icon is compromise of the unknown situation .Pyphon (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Pototo1 Read this discussion there says it all.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We discussed it and reached a consensus about it earlier in this talk page. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should return it to green, with an X over the icon. (I just made a X icon for exactly that purpose.) to put over . You can see an example on battalion base 559 on the sandbox map. (Accessible via here.)

That way it will show the last known control, instead of disappearing from the map, or in this case falsely showing regime control.

So what does everyone think ?

Also if no-one objects, I'd like to change the kurd dot from (too light) to (flat tone about the same lightness as the old one). André437 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thing is we provided sources showing regime control.. not over the empty warehouses but over the nearby base. Please refer to the conversation to see what arguments were presented. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

IS & SAA advances west and south of Hasakah

Following news items from Aranews (pro-opp, but has correctly reported most of SAA advances in the zone) claim IS control of Rafraf & Mafraq al-Saddiq plus the al-Siddiq junction, and Makhrum being contested between the two sides.

http://aranews.net/2014/11/syrian-regime-resumes-anti-isis-attacks-hasakah/ http://aranews.net/2014/12/islamic-state-seizes-villages-near-syrias-hasakah/

Aranews also reported recently that SAA controlled Bab al-Kheir and al-Jimmo:

http://aranews.net/2014/11/hasakah-turmoil-violence-intensifies-pro-assad-forces-isis/

--186.119.184.83 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a source openly opposed against the Syrian regime. And already discussed this source and we can not use it in this issue. So that we cant use biased the anti-government sources to show success for anti government forces. Also more reliable source reported that village Rafraf under control by army.Elijah J. Magnier Also about that army captured two villages Bab al-Kheir and al-Jimmo also reported many other sources pro govTurkey NewsAl ManarAl Masdar pro opp Documents.sy and also this data confirm SOHR So the fact that too biased antigovernment source (Ara News) sometimes report true information does not make it reliable. So how pro government sources also sometimes report accurate information but this is no reason to use them to show the success of army. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This pro-government source [1] states that Rafraf,Mafrak AlSadeek,Um AlKebar and Tal Tamer are under ISIS control.192.135.12.144 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an authoritative source. You cannot just grab and page on Twitter, it has to be reliable. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OK! I can add them on the map but I dont know their coordinates. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

now Al-Alam confirmed it http://www.alalam.ir/news/1654439.Alhanuty (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh - Qalamoun, again

Here's Pototo arbitrarily removing lime circles. Here is me reverting. Here is him doing the same, again. Here is the conversation. Here, I restored, again, the sites he vandalized/unsourced edited. And finally, here our good friend LogFTW, still on a 6 month ban from this page, has restored Pototo's vandalistic edit. I can't revert or I'll break 1RR, and I feel like I'm opening myself up for charges of edit warring, but this has got to stop. I'm starting to wonder if this is sock puppetry. In any case, the trend is pretty obvious - I mean, LogFTW was willing to violate a 6 month page ban to support Pototo's clearly unsourced and blatantly false pro-gov't edit.

Concerning the Qalamoun region in general - I am for removing all of the lime concentric circles (Assal al Ward, Ras al Maara, etc) as soon as new icons for showing combatant's presence in a general area are ready to be applied to the map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Green_Circles_in_Al-Jebbah_and_Ras_al-Maraa_should_be_removed_if_you_no_have_sources.

You no have sources to make these green circles in these towns

End of Discussion. --LogFTW (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not make them. They were already there, and Pototo removed them without a source. All I did was to revert his unsourced edit. I do not need to provide a source to keep the map as is; you need to provide a source to change it. What is it with this reverse logic? An unsourced edit is made, reverted, then the first editor accuses the second of not using a source to revert an unsourced edit lol. You are banned from editing the module for 6 months for exactly this type of behavior. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Waleed border crossing

News are saying that isis attacked the border crossing and killed 16 iraqi soliders. here.here.here.hereshould it go contested.Lindi29 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29 Al Waleed border crossing located on Iraqi side of border. And reliable source said that ISIS tried captured Al-Waleed border crossing from Iraqi side of border but failed.here This issue has already been discussed.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Green Circles in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa should be removed if you no have sources.

Last map from this area in August 2014 no showing these places no blocked by the insurgent in the west https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu6MGKyIEAA46Ji.jpg they are more away to Lebanese border

Link something as evidence the insurgents are BLOCKED Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa in the West side or these circles should be removed --Pototo1 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We can not just pick up and remove those marks on the basis of outdated the pro government map. We need more solid evidence that in this area no rebels. But we can as an alternative add some sort of new icon that show the presence of rebels in the mountain area in western Qalamoun on the border with Lebanon. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be more clarity about what the semi circles mean. There should be no suggestion that they mean besieged or blocked but simply that they allude to a rebel presence near by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Link something just that!

The army take these place a long time ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qalamoun

If close this area the Insurgents got a presence we must put all the Towns in Homs in Red circles is well know the insurgents in this place are not Stronger because the Lebanese Army fight them too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsal ...

They are now in low scale insurgency no able to blocking these places --Pototo1 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

To avoid war of edits I and another experienced editor André437 for now try to find the best solution. trying to solve the problem as note the presence of rebels in the mountainous region in Qalamoun area near the Lebanese border.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole utility of the semi-circle icons that Andre437 created is that they allow us to show a belligerent's presence to a specific side of a town/city without incorrectly show said town/city as besieged.. That's why the Ras al-Maara, Assal al-Ward, etc only have lime to the west, and not in any other direction. Those towns are definitely not besieged, they are securely SAA held, but there are constant reports of fighting in the Qalamoun wastelands directly to the west. al-Bawaba, Daily Star, pro-gov't al-Manar, pro-gov't Syrianfreepress all reporting clashes in the area mid-November. Hence the necessity of the lime quarter circles to the West.. so that the map actually shows that there is still indeed clashes/rebel presence in the mountains Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• This first source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa
• This first second source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa
• This third source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa
• This third source who Boredwhytekid used no mentioned Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa

Sources 1234 only talk about Assal al-Ward, i'm not removing the green circle in this place only in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa because the editor Boredwhytekid no showing a single evidence these towns are blocked in the west by the Insurgents.

Conclusion Boredwhytekid no have a single source to draw these green circles in west of Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa. --Pototo1 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pototo1, I am done with you and your persistent vandalism. YOU are proposing a change to the map - YOU have to provide a source, not me. You edited without a source. I reverted because, for the umpteenth time, you have to provide a usable source. You reverted my revert, again trying to instigate an edit war. André437 ChrissCh94 Hanibal911... anyone other than myself give a crap enough to revert this vandalism? Really tired of being accused of being pro-op just because I'm the only one countering Pototo's pro-gov't vandalism... Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You are accusing me of Vandalism?

The only who are doing that here are you! Show me a single link saying Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa are blocked in West Side JUST A SINGLE LINK! ?

YOU NO PROVIDE A SINGLE FROM PUT THESE GREEN CIRCLES THERE!

You are making three greens circles in Places when that no exist with no a single evidence about it Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa it's very simple --Pototo1 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But, I didn't put them there.. They were already there, and you took them down, arbitrarily, without a source. I only "put them there" when I reverted your unsourced edit taking them down. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa are not blocked / Besieges in this place the links who Boredwhytekid provide talk only about Assal al-Ward stop to put green circles there--LogFTW (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Again, I DID NOT PUT THEM THERE. They were already on the map, but you two insist on removing them WITHOUT PROVIDING A SOURCE OR SEEKING COMMUNITY CONSENSUS. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

pro-gov't al masdar reports rebels on the outskirts of Rankous / rebuffed attack inside Rankous Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

IS advance in Deir-ez-Zor

Reports on https://twitter.com/archicivilians of IS offensive around Deir-ez-Zor airport, claiming control of al-Mari'yah and advancing in the Jafrah area. Fab8405 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the biased anti-government source which clear show that he opposed to Syrian regime and we cant use data from this source in this issue. Need confirmation those data from the more neutral and reliable source. But still thank you for sharing the information. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Most news from archivilians and co. are retweeted from this channel, Syrian Opposition Department, pro-opposition obviously but not really biased, it has around 200k followers. You can scroll and look what they wrote about Deir Ezor and ISIS presence. Here are some SOHR reports from these days, 1, 2 and 3DuckZz (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We can use the data from SOHR in this issue but we cant use too biased data from from archivilians of Syrian Opposition Department This sources too biased and opposed by Syrian regime and it is data not neutral and cant be used in this issue. Regars! Hanibal911 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The two sources you linked are both pro-opp and cannot be used to show ISIS gains. Also, SOHR has had a very shoddy record with providing accurate information about Deir-Ez-Zoir [Failed to report airport clearing, failed to report SAA advances at Sakr Island, etc]. SOHR has made multiple posts within the last few months citing "advancements" for ISIS, only for them to turn out false. I suspect SOHR is now using ISIS as a source [who else are they talking to on the front lines?] We should wait for more sources. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro-opp say ISIS advanced but pro-regime deny it so NO changes till now. However this pro-opp map can help us confirm what the regime controls in Deir l Zoor city/countryside: https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/540281344891187200/photo/1 ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If it shows anything in favor of SAA. By the looks of it however, I do not think so. SAA control of Saker Island is VASTLY understated, ISIS control in city center is overstated, and area east of Airbase is marked as ISIS held, which is not true. In side news, several commentators on SOHR's facebook page are now ranting and raving about how SAA has fled the airbase, ISIS has stormed airbase, massive SAA casulties, and well, you get the idea. Expect clearer news to arrive very soon. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwSN45Ovcgs&feature=youtu.be, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-fighters-capture-village-near-key-syrian-air-base/, http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/middle-east/story/isis-seizes-part-key-air-base-east-syria-monitor-group-20141206, Quite a few changes warranted here. I made one change, but someone else has to edit the inset map of Deir Ezzor to reflect IS changes there.

I see a possible other unsourced green circle in Qalamun Again

Some one put a green circle in North of Rankous Link a STRONG evidences it's besiege on North or ill be deleted that.

Stop to putting besiege / Blocked towns alleging just small insurgents "Presence" so we can put all Green Towns in South Idlib, North Of Latakia with red semicircles on South because the Army have a presence there too.

Be mature use the logic. --Pototo1 (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Check. the. edit. log. That circle is there per pro-gov't al Masdar. Same as with all the other green circles you took down - you didn't even check the backlog for the sources validating them. You just took them down arbitrarily without even looking.Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

True al masdar said JAN tried to enter Rankous but were pushed back . Because Arsaal is in control by Lebonese army they try to get in town its freezing in the mountains now .Pyphon (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Shaer

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/the-commander-of-soqor-al-sahraa-groups-killed-in-clashes-in-shaer-area/

Ongoing violent clashes in the area, I think it would be correct to put a partial black circle around the Shaer dot, if not a contested one...Fab8405 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

https://ia802702.us.archive.org/23/items/m_Gzws/gzws.mp4 IS has retaken the Gas Fields.184.21.191.36 (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

desyracuse

Redundant post - This, the situation depicted in Daraa/Nawa is waaay out of date on desyracuse's map - THIS is why these random amateur maps should not be used as SOLE sources. Just felt the need to throw that out there, again. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid About situation with the city Nawa and surrounding areas pro opposition sources @deSyracuse later 10 November issued an amendment here for this Map. And then periodically publish updates for some areas in map.Situation in Kobane on 15 NovemberSituation in Kobane on 20 NovemberSItuation around Nubl and Al Zahra on 25 NovemberSituation in Kobane on 25 NovemberSituation in Hasakah governorate on 26 NovemberSituation in Kobane on 28 NovemberNorth Aleppo battle 30 NovemberNEW MAP #Damascus frontline evolution March 2013 to Nov 2014 Here link to site this source.Agathocle de Syracuse Hanibal911 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah Governate New Map

some of the town are in isis controll but in the old hasakah map are in SSA controll so we should change them ? hereLindi29 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The map is a pro-opp source and cannot be used to reflect rebel/ISIS gains. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this pro-govt source IS withdrew from the village Makhrum southwest of Hasakah after YPG attacked it:

https://www.facebook.com/Somar.Hatem.News/posts/528756497227943

I understand fb sources cannot be used for changes but has someone seen other sources that confirm or deny this information?

179.32.127.90 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)