Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Syria (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kurdish presence in aleppo[edit]


same account have also mentioned about kurds+fsa rebels in Qazel, Ghara/Yani yaban, Dalhah & Baghirin these villages aren't even marked in this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talkcontribs) 00:49, 2 February 2015‎

YPG in KOBANE[edit]

According to this confirmed source YPG controlls zorava tel aotk korabi and susan are they even marked on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 2 February 2015‎

Joum Ali in kobane.[edit]

Joum ali in kobane

It's completelly liberated why does the map show ISIS presence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talkcontribs) 00:58, 2 February 2015‎

Nasrat & Hanash - Hasakah[edit]

Are there any sources on why these two towns were changed from SAA held here to IS held? MesmerMe (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

MesmerMe Source:here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think he wanted a real source, not a rather vague unannotated map ... André437 (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The same unnanotated map was used to expand govt holdings in the Khabur area from three into eight villages and to remove the shared YPG-SAA control from many areas in south Qamishli so in case we are going to revert these changes (which is a legit idea, Cetin never cites his sources) we should also revert govt control in the river to only Bab-al-Khayr and the other two close-by villages and restore most of the shared villages SE of Qamishli. (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It is good neutral source that not biased to favor one side in this Hanibal911 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Hanibal911 That is not a source, that is an unannotated openstreet map from an unknown contributor apparently based in Russia.
1) Anyone can contribute anonymously to an openstreet map. I've done that for my local area.
2) Russia is a regime ally, in case you hadn't noticed.
3) You repeatedly claim that desyracuse is biased pro-rebel, despite no evidence of that, and his giving considerable detail to describe changes on his maps. But claim that this unknown map with no supporting descriptions is reliable. Try being coherent.
4) No map alone is sufficient to make ANY changes to a WP map. All changes are supposed to be documented, with reliable references, according to WP guidelines. A drawing by an unknown source is never a reliable reference.
5) So please do not use maps to make changes to our map André437 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
André437 Firstly I dont know why you think that it is a Russian source. Secondly we can said that it is partialy pro Kurdish source but it is clear not pro government source. Also he showed success by ISIS. Also many source confirmed that Syrian troops captured many villages on road to the town of Tall Brak.Al AkhbarAl Jazeera Also about Russia here I agree with you that this country is a supporter of the regime but also some EU countries and the United States including some Middle East countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Turkey supported of rebels but we are use their sources for display success by rebels. My country also supports the moderate opposition. I also fully supports of the moderate rebel in their fight against terrorists from ISIS. But in fight rebels against regime I try to be neutral editor. Also the most of the same villages that was marked as under control of the Kurds and the Syrian army to the south from the city of Qamishli also marked as under their control on the pro opposition map from deSyracuse.deSyracuse Also this source which made this map also some times use pro opposition sources. Here this source used data from biased pro opposition source of archicivilians for editing the map which showed situation inside city of Hasakah. When was clashes between Syrian troops and Also if you look this source used data from many sources so we cant said that this source pro regime or unreliable. He not opposes against not one of the parties in this conflict. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
André437 Also if this guy which made those maps from the Russian or he Russians this not mean that he support Syrian regime because it is not Russian official source also in my city live many people from Russia and some from their against Syrian regime but supported rebels and in Russia some people also support Syrian opposition. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hanibal911 But WP policy says we need documentation to support changes. Not counting additional requirements for our page. A map without supporting information is just a drawing, not documentation. And anyone can make a drawing. It may coincide with the situation on the ground, but without clear references, there is no way to confirm it.
So unannotated maps are NOT acceptable for changes to our map.
However desyracuse maps come with documentation (on the link with comes with all twitter posts.) So depending on the info provided, we can use desyracuse posts. Based on the info that comes with the map. Some maps have annotations with dates and places, they could be used.
Of course this also depends on reliability, the clairity of the info and assumed bias.
For images that can be verified by geolocation, that can be good if the time frame is reasonable. (For instance, Euphrates volcano (kurd/fsa) images in areas previously long controlled by Daesh.)
For other types of information, subject to the reliability of the source, there is also the consideration of bias. Following WP guidelines, a claim of gains by a party to the conflict is not adequate. By this, for example, Almasdar, which simply quotes regime reports, cannot be used for any changes favourable to the regime. Similarly for reports that come from rebel, Daesh, or YPG sites, for changes that favour that party. This would include gains of any party to the conflict against Daesh, if not supported by objective evidence.
However we have an additional rule for our page : a source which is biased in favour of a party to the conflict cannot be used for changes of gains for that party. Here the problem is determining bias. According to WP guidelines, just because an independent source would prefer a certain outcome, doesn't mean that reports from that independent source is biased in their reporting. And it is the bias in reporting that counts.
That is why SOHR has long been accepted as an unbiased source. They report, to the best of their knowledge, what actually happens on the ground. It doesn't mean that they report everything, or that it is always accurate, because like any other source, they can't possibly know everything that happens.
There is also a WP guideline that, where possible, tertiary sources be preferred. That is, sources that analyze reports from independent sources. This is where desyracuse reports can be useful, since he is a tertiary source. As well, he reports info from both neutral, pro-rebel, and pro-regime sources. I see no sign of bias in his reports.
We should analyse each report of whatever source according to the above criteria. As well as is the information provided sufficient to support the proposed changes to the map ?. On this last point, the recent regime offensive north of Aleppo never succeeded in establishing control, and the regime ended up losing territory in the counter offensive. Yet many editors were prematurely claiming that the regime had made (sustainable) advances. We have to be more careful about this.
Anyway, I know you're trying to do your best. André437 (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


According to SOHR SAA recaptured full of handarat (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Peto Said the Army controlled it

If it's 100% confirmed the Offensive staring in February no were at fail after all despite the heavy losses --LogFTW (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This also confirmed pro opposition sources.herearabthomnessdeSyracuse Hanibal911 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The Syrian army backed by militia took Handarat after 10 days of fierce fighting with Nusra and other Islamist brigades.The Daily StarReutersAn NaharYahoo NewsLycos News Hanibal911 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@ LogFTW Before the regime offensive in February, the regime held Handerat and the hills south of it. In the rebel counter-offensive, the rebels captured that and other territory held by the regime before. The regime is far from re-capturing all the territory lost, so indeed, the regime offensive in February was a failure. Without the foreign armies fighting the Syrian rebels, the regime wouldn't have been able to recapture what they did. André437 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bashkuy in North Aleppo were captured by the Army in February 2015 a location who the beheaders taken in 2012 - the Offensive no is fail at all yet because it continue at the moment --LogFTW (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 But let's be fair and recognize that among the rebels also a lot of mercenaries from other countries and not just the Syrians. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hanibal911 Agreed that there are foreigners fighting on the rebel side, especially jihadist groups like Nusra, although generally not a very large portion. And Daesh, another party to the conflict, is a foreign force from Iraq, with a large element of former members of Sadaam Husein's army, as well as a high percentage of foreigners.
However the regime is using formally trained foreign armies, unlike the rebels. As well as being a considerably greater portion of regime forces than that of the rebels. Note that except maybe the elite iranian forces, these are recruited as mercenaries, paid to fight for Assad. Foreigners fighting on the rebel side aren't mercenaries. André437 (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I agre with you 100% Angre in the firsty paragraph, most ISIS important men are Iraqui Era soldiers, despite MSM label them as a Western-Become-Musslim Army. However how you know Iranians are paid and rebels not?Mr.User200 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Syrian troops backed by non-Syrian militiamen and Hezbollah have took control on al-Madafa hill and a farm around Hendarat after loosing control on it for more than 10 days after violent clashes against rebel and Islamic battalions backed by al-Nusra.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Syrian forces take control of Madafa hill near Handarat as well as a farm near it [1].Daki122 (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Andre just to remind you that almost all of the fighters that were killed on the regime side were locals from Aleppo while the rebels in the area have whole units made up of foreigners like the Uzbek unit that is fighting there.Most of the foreigners in the Regime forces are Hezbollah fighters or Iranian backed fighters who are in very small numbers that can be seen in the latest statistic where foreigners killed on the rebels and ISIS sides are 10 times more than those on the government side.Daki122 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Status of the villages around Tal Tamir[edit]

YPG has released a video (at 1:00) which has been clearly shot inside the Grain and cotton depot of Ghabshah here: Hardly IS controls fully Ghabshah, as the depot is a mere 200 metres from the proper village. For sure I would remove the west-besieged icon from Tal Tamir. --8fra0 (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The video is clear. Just outside the silos. (Looks like the north side.)
In addition to the soldier speaking, there are a number of others around casually, out in the open. They wouldn't have that demeanor if Daesh were close. André437 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to correct myself (I was distracted by the title of the video telling about Tal Tamir). There is another cotton depot south of Manajir which is almost identical to the other one, but with some details (roofing, buildings around) which best fit with the YPG video. So the video has been shot south of Manajir here: . So nothing can be said about Tal Tamir, but on the other hand I see that also Manajir has been marked as besieged, and the nearby village Al Ahras, near the depot, marked as IS controlled. --8fra0 (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That explains why it was a little hard to tell which side of the silos. Close to identical structures, but this one matches. The video was taken on the west side of these silos, which are just to the west of Manajir. So it looks like Manajir is no longer besieged from the west. Al Ahras is about 800m to the south. André437 (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont agree.When have we start using amateur videos also pro-side sources against another side? Lindi29 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Lindi29 We cant use Kurdish amateur video for displayed success of Kurds. Because according to the rules of editing we cant use the pro Kurdish source for displayed success of Kurds. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Also SOHR confirmed about that video being reliable: . So it can be used for sure, if one can find the exact place where it has been shot (and this is the case: in south-west Manajir). 8fra0 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 Hanibal911 Please everyone, objective analysis of the evidence.
1) So-called "amateur videos" can be the most reliable evidence, if they can be verified, by factors such as geolocation. Much more reliable than an article in a major western news source, which depends on we-don't-know-what. The expression "amateur video" is just a trick to denigrate potentially valuable information.
2) The question of pro-rebel|Daesh|regime only comes into play if we cannot otherwise validate the information.
3) In this case every detail in the video exactly matches the silos and the surrounding area. Including the roof and relative location and size of the adjacent shelter, other adjacent building in the video, the surrounding ground surface, etc. No room for doubt by any intelligent observer.
4) All information should be analyzed before being accepted to change our map. The idea that everything from a "reliable source" is automatically the truth is a fallacy. The best of sources can make mistakes, and even the worst of sources often tell the truth.
Images tend to provide the most reliable information, and although maps tend to summarize other info, they should never in themselves be considered reliable. In between we find other types of info, such as from major news sources. André437 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, too often here maps made by authors without any reference/proof of reliabilty are used as a source. One could create a twitter account, make his beautiful map, tweet it and use his own map as a source here in Wikipedia. --8fra0 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
André437I dont agree beacause this are pro-side sources which are not confirmed,also SOHR confrims the videos after it has confirmed the story.We also have many videos sources from rebels but nobody used them,but why didn't we use them beacause we have to many pro-side editors specially from Regime Faction and Kurd Faction and they always rejected rebels and jihadis videos calling them fake but if one amateur videos showed up from pro-side sources from the regime or kurd advancing they always made it a big news,but editors like you,Hanibal911 and others who are neutral i understand but in this case I am suggesting to raise a new Issue for amateur videos?Lindi29 (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
We have long agreed not to use amateur video as a source because it is very difficult to verify when it was filmed. Also we can not use the video from the pro-government TV stations to display the progress of army and also we cant used to display success of rebels video from pro opposition sources. And the same applies to pro Kurdish and pro ISIS sources. In this rule, there should be no exceptions. We can use the video if the data from this video confirmed reliable sources. So that let's follow the rules of editing. So how pro government or pro Kurdish or pro opposition and pro-ISIS sources very often distort the evidence in favor of one party in this conflict. Let's we will be the neutral when edit the map even if each of us support different sides in this conflict. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
According to a local pro-govt source, clashes are happening in Tal Shamiran, Tal Nasr and Ghabsnah villages: (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Pro-oppo Qasion News reports clashes in Tal Baaz, Tal Hormizd and Tal Fayda: (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015[edit]

Apparently Al Kafat in Hama Province has been taken by FSA/Nursa according to this article in addition to the unmarked (on this map) Zur a-Sous air defense base. (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is just data from biased pro opposition source which we cant use for displayed success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Also according to data from pro opposition map this town located deep in area which under control by Syrian So need confirmation from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Also SOHR just said that clashes are taking place between the regime forces and Islamic factions near the village of al- Kafat in the countryside of al- Salameyyah after by detonating a booby- trapped vehicle near a regime position.SOHRSOHR But SOHR not said that the rebels captured something in the area. Also in this Syria Direct source just said that the Abu Abdu a-Shami spokesman for Jabhat a-Nusra said that al Nusra liberated the town of Kafat in the east Hama countryside and the Zur a-Sous air defense base.official Al Nusra source So we cant use this data. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Also pro government NDF source just said that NDF destroyed two car bombs which trying to target a checkpoint outside the town of Al So for now we have conflicting data. And SOHR justa said about clashes between Syrian troops and Islamic factions near the village of al- Kafat after by detonating a booby trapped vehicle near a regime position.SOHRSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Certainly not enough to say taken by the rebels, so answered "no".
Some other reports say clashes, or rebels only in surrounding countryside. If you think there is enough info, should we mark it as contested or besieged-one-side ? André437 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Later the pro opposition source said that the alawite militias recapture most areas including Kafat (mainly an alawite populated village).Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cédric Labrousse) Hanibal911 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Syrian troops launched a counteroffensive in Aleppo[edit]


Pro opposition source reported that YPG backed by allies stormed the town of Sarrin the last stronghold of ISIS in Kobane countryside.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

8fra0 Because moderate rebels and Kurdish troops jointly fight against ISIS not correct use the pro opposition source to display success of Kurds. Also it it very importent of strategic town and maybe we need wait more confirmations this data from neutral sources. So maybe you hastened mark it as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
8fra0 Also another source said that ISIS still holds Grain Silos and depot near Sarrin amid heavy clashes.Jack Shahine also another pro Kurdish source just reported that YPG took control of farms in west of Sarrin but small clash. ISIS abandoned So that probably the town of Sarrin still under control of ISIS and YPG for now only prepare attack against this town. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
1) Hanibal911 and others : just a suggestion, but could you use something more specific than "pro-opposition" ? Like pro-rebel (which could include the kurds), pro-kurd, pro-ISIS (Daesh), etc.
Note that the regime is also in "opposition" to all the other groups. André437 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
2) The Aranews report cites kurd/FSA military saying that Sarrin is contested, so we need to await confirmation.
The twitter post claiming Daesh taking control of some farms west of Sarrin and abandoning HQ in Sarrin, is not detailed enough to be useful. Whatever the supposed reliability of the source. (Daesh could have escaped Sarrin to these farms, or could still control most or all of Sarrin.) André437 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
8fra0 Also here reliable source said that it was all are false news that YPG entered in Sarrin he said that ISIS still holds Grain Silos and Depot to north from Sarrin and YPG/FSA jointly forces not entered in the town.Jack Shahine Hanibal911 (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've just seen Jack Shahine tweet. I don't know why but sometimes Aranews publishes fake/fabricated news, we shouldn't use it anymore as a source. --8fra0 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
All the rumors that YPG getting closer to the town of Sarrin east of the Euphrates River south of Kobani are Hanibal911 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
While Jack Shahine is at least in Kobane, the "Independent Journo" is just a bloke who copy-cats ISIS statements or twitter feeds. Not sure why should we devout any sort of attention to him. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree on the "Independent Journo" Twitter account. It's an "ISIS fanboy" account which is wildly unreliable in my experience. Ryn78 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Hanibal911 You should check out sources a little before using them.
As noted by others, "Independent Journo" is a very virulent pro-Daesh/ISIS site with no evidence of substance. If anything, his denial of rebel presence in Sarrin suggests the contrary.
Please, in future do a little investigation and analysis of your sources. Thanks André437 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No such claim from YPG Kobane or general command. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Chuck Pfarrer's latest map (released just minutes ago) shows Sarrin still held by ISIS: [2] Ryn78 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Although he also says he has had reports that the YPG has taken the police station in Sarrin: [3] Ryn78 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure we've said we're not using maps as reliable sources, but there could be something to look for in reliable sources. Banak (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-OT: Hasakah 2015 offensive article.[edit]

This wikipedia article:

According to it 100 Hezbollah soldiers are fighting in Ras-al-Ayn/Serekaniye area with a very biased (pro-opposition and anti-PYD) source being quoted, which I assume goes against WP policies:

Could anyone revert that if it's not much of a problem? I would do it myself but I have no idea how to do it, thanks in advance.

Edit: The apparently original report in twitter, two days prior to thiqah1:

Again, pro-opposition source. (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes proposed for another WP article should be done on the talk page for that article.
Then you could put a link to that proposed change here if you like.
Although, in passing, I agree that Hezbolla forces supporting the YPG seems improbable.
As for reverting a change, click the history button at the top of the page in question, use the comparison feature to locate the related post, then click the revert option, enter the reason why, then save.
You might have to use an account to do this, as is the case here. It depends on the policy for the page. André437 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Done it. We have WP:RS policy, I will not even discuss it. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks André for the very detailed answer, despite Ellsworth doing the change (thx too) I will take it into account next time something similar happens, regards. (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


Two days ago pro opposition source reported that Revolutionaries targeted the eastern checkpoint of ISIS in al-Shaddadi area, which is one of the biggest and strongest ISIS checkpoints in the area, killing the eastern sector’s commander along with other militants. This is the first special operations after ISIS gained control of al-Shaddadi in al-Hasakah province.RFS Media Office Hanibal911 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also another one pro opposition source reported that after attacks in North Syria. A new brigade Jaysh al-Islam which dedicated fight against ISIS led an attack near al-Shaddadi in Hasakah province.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Also moderate rebels claim that they killed several ISIS fighters during an undercover operation in city of Also pro opposition source ARA News reported that the several leading members of the Islamic State group ISIS were reportedly killed in an attack by rebels of the Hayzoom Unit (linked to the Army of Islam) in the city of Shaddadi (60 km south of Hasakah) The military operation, described by the rebels as “strategic”, targeted a security checkpoint of the Islamic State in eastern Shaddadi, where a group of military commanders from the radical group were holding a meeting. The targeted checkpoint is considered the most highly equipped IS-led checkpoints in northeastern Syria. Khalil al-Hamidi, a local from Shaddadi, said that the attack led to the killing of Abu Mohammed al-Janoubi, “Emir of al-Qate’ ash-Sharqi” (prince of east Shaddadi), and the injury of Abu Mahmoud ar-Raqqawi, head of the security apparatus in the eastern areas (ah-Sharqiya).News Hanibal911 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Anti-ISIS insurgency is nothing really that new. Remember the break out in Manbij or the assassinations in Deir ez-Zor. But when it comes to map, I have serious doubts that presence of underground resistance / insurgent movement would qualify for contested dot on a map. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. André437 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

YPG-IS clashes in the southern bank of Khabur river - Tal Tamr area[edit]

I will copy my messages from the previous discussion re. Tal Tamr which is kind of dead by now:

"According to a local pro-govt source, clashes are happening in Tal Shamiran, Tal Nasr and Ghabsnah villages: "

"Pro-oppo Qasion News reports clashes in Tal Baaz, Tal Hormizd and Tal Fayda: "

In addition to these two sources, now kurdish media also claims clashes are happening in roughly the same villages, with the extra mention of Tal Heyfan:

I think that's enough material to mark the following villages:

-Tal Baaz -Tal Hormizd -Tal Fayda -Tal Shamiran -Tal Nasr -Ghabsnah -Tal Heyfan

As contested, or at the very least besieged from north.

What do the other editors think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that although these reports all come from anti-Daesh sides, that since it comes from both pro-regime and pro-rebel/kurd sources, plus the fact that we will unlikely ever have confirmation from Daesh, that it would be fair to show these locations as contested. Note that the reports use relatively neutral language, which suggests that they aren't propaganda. André437 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone make said changes then? Unless someone else disagrees but as you say with sources from three sides it would be a fair idea. Regards André. (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This all are pro-opp,pro-gov,and pro-kurd sources which in this case we cant use them until a reliable source confirms that.Lindi29 (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


In the last few days, rebels seem to have begun a large offensive around Bosra al-Sham and the Daraa-Suwayda border region. DeSyracuse has made a new map showing the situation, which can ben found here:

According to this map rebels have advanced north and south of Bosra al-Sham. This would translate on this map to making green: Umm Walad, Jamrin, Khirbat al Mahara, Samj and Samad, and to making contested: Bakka, Barad, Zibin.

Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

DeSyracuse is a pro-opposition source and cannot be used for rebel gains. Sources like Al-Masdar have also denied any rebel advancement in the offensive, so for now it is best to wait for a neutral source to make a statement. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Why was Bakka still edited as under attack? MesmerMe (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Firstly deSyrcuse it is a pro opposition source and we cant use it data for displayed success by rebels. Also he just said that clashes between villages Bakka and Zibin also he is marked these villages Bakka, Barad, Zibin as under control by Syrian troops you need carefully see on map. And secondly without confirmation from a reliable source we cant marked as under control by rebels these villages (Umm Walad, Jamrin, Khirbat al Mahara, Samj and Samad) Hanibal911 (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Also SOHR and pro opposition source Documents.Sy just said that clashes between villages Bakka and Zibin and nothing more.SOHRDocuments.Sy Hanibal911 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider any map without annotations as more than a suggestion of what to look for.
There is an annotation on the map which says that the regime still controls eastern Bosra al-Sham, so it keeps its' status of contested, since well over a year.
Another annotation says a "raid" around Ashlihah, Suweida, which is not enough to change its' status.
Yet another annotation says heavy fighting between Bakka and Dibbin. So maybe partial siege southwest of Bakka, northwest of Dibbin. We could wait for more info from this or other sources.
The SOHR link by Hanibal911 discusses Hama, not this area, and the Syria Documents link says almost nothing. This last source rarely gives useful info on any clash.
For other changes, I would favour waiting for explicit written confirmation, since the front lines are rarely as neat or hermetic as we might like. Otherwise we wouldn't have rebel leaders traveling by land from Daraa to meetings in Turkey. Desyracuse could well be making assumptions about the control of other points. (Even while trying to be objective.)
A generally reliable pro-rebel source has posts saying that a media blackout has just ended, and that activists report that
1) the rebels took the main checkpoint east of Bosra, and
2) the road from Bosra to Suweida is cut for now.
So we should keep an eye on developments around Bosra. Note that there is a small regime base just north-east of the town.
Note that this source (Labrousse) in the past reported rebel advances in the south some months before SOHR noticed, and foreign media only noticed much later when a regime official complained publicly.
BTW, I don't know why some editors keep saying that Desyracuse is "pro-opposition". Maybe because he is neutral and not "pro-regime" ? There is absolutely no evidence of bias by Desyracuse.
As well, critical reading of Almasdar posts, cited by XJ-0461 v2, tell us that it is only echoing regime claims. Thus, Almasdar is not just pro-regime, it IS a regime source. Not surprising that the regime has not claimed rebel advances.
We don't yet have enough info to make many changes . André437 (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Now the NDF has published a video claiming clashes outside Bakka village. So with this regime confirmation, we have enough info to put it at least besieged by southwest (according to Desyracuse map), if not contested. André437 (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
André437I against the use of Al Masdar as a reliable source but dont need said that Syrian Rebellion Observatory (Labrousse) more reliable or that this source more reliable than SOHR because SOHR partialy support opposition but (Labrousse) on 100% biased pro opposition source which clear opposes against Syrian government so we cant use him data also many times we will agree that deSyracuse pro opposition source. So for now we have data from SOHR which we can use for displayed success for all sides in the Syrian war and not more. I see that XJ-0461 v2 completely supports by the Syrian troops and opposes Syrian rebels but you are André437 completely supports Syrian rebels and opposes by Syrian troops. So let's just wait for data from neutral sources about the situation in this area. But I ask both of you dont need to write great messages in try to prove who pro government or pro opposition sources are more reliable. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

andré you little snackbar lover. 1. Al masdar is not a regime source, the editor lives in the US and he has friends from SAA. There was biased posts there til 2014 but since months they are writing about fallbacks also. Still it is pro regime that's why it is not used here. 2. EVERYONE (except pro opposition supporters who are mostly paid are believing there's still "rebels" and "moderates") knows there are only beheader jihadists vs SAA. 3. Both desyracuse and labrousse are 100% biased with markito and their delusional "reliable activists" who made the bullcrap Aleppo map 2 weeks ago claiming whole Handarat, Duwar zaytun was taken meanwhile 2 buildings on the outskirts was taken, and ofcourse their freedom fighters are already attacking Aleppo central prison! they do this every time a "offensive" is launched like South aleppo half year ago, in Idlib, Quneitra etc and after 3 days everything is lost and beyond. Only obvious edits should be made with video evidence on both sides backed by neutral sources like Elijah. Most likely SAA reinfocements will arrive and nusrats will lose even what they held due to syrian air force and heavy artillery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talkcontribs) 11:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Totholio Kid, when you grow up and decide to engage in intelligent conversation, you might be taken seriously. You obviously don't have a clue.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by André437 (talkcontribs) 06:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I updated map in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Hanibal911 You say that "we" agree that Desysracuse is a pro-opposition source, so if your "we" says that the moon is made of green cheese, that means others are obliged to accept that as a fact ?
It would be much more useful to your arguments if you could provide reasonable evidence of any bias by Desyracuse. Pointing out the occasional error is not adequate. Since he readily works with any other source to try to improve accuracy, there is every evidence that he does his best to be neutral. And has a very good track record. Note that I'm saying to take all maps only as a guide, but in his case accept as accurate the annotations on his maps, and comments in his articles. After analysis, of course. Admittedly this probably doesn't make a lot of difference in what we accept, since his reports are generally soon reported by other reliable sources.
SOHR is pro-human rights, and is not a party to the conflict. Evidently the vast majority of and worst human rights violations come from the regime. However SOHR has a long track record of reliable reports, which is why it has been accepted as reliable. As the WP guidelines clearly say, just because a source would prefer a certain outcome (in this case the cessation of human rights violations) does not mean it is a biased source.
As far as Labrousse, I agree that he is anti-regime, as well as very strongly anti-Daesh/ISIS. (The middle east is his area of specialty. If he weren't anti-regime, there would be something wrong with his value system.)
He also tends to favour moderate or islamic rebels over jihadists like Nusra. However, of his many reports, very few have been shown to be mistaken, and particularly in the south (around Daraa), he tends to accurately report situations before others. So his preferences are clear, and they may influence his reports, but evidently very little. Note that his reports generally indicate if a situation change is stable or not. For instance, his last reports indicate that the road out of Bosra is cut by the rebels, "for now". Thus not yet stable, so we wait. We should analyse all reports like that.
André437 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it looks like Labrousse was right again. All sorts of photo evidence of rebels in control of Bosra. A few examples. 1234 5 6 From the rebels, of course. As well as a video declaration also by the FSA-led Southern Front. (Which includes Ahrar al-Sham, now the biggest member of the Islamic Front.) But since Bosra is one of the most distinctive locations in Syria, the images are the strongest possible evidence. a little history
Just in case you don't like the irrefutable evidence coming from the rebels, Charles Lister concurs. (He also notes that the rebels took about 12 checkpoints in Idlib city.)
I'll let you people change the status of Bosra to rebel held. André437 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
André437 More reliable source SOHR just said that rebels seized 7 regime checkpoints but the regime forces retake 4 of them back.SOHR and you source Syrian Rebellion Observatory {Cedric Labrousse} and some other pro opposition sources just very exaggerated achieve rebels. So we cant use the data from biased pro opposition sources because firstly they are not reliable and distort the real situation and secondly, by the rules of editings, we can not use the pro opposition sources to show the success of the rebels. Also abiut situation in Bosra here the spokesman for the Southern Front of the rebel alliance, Maj. Isam Rayes, told that regime forces were holed up in the historical citadel in Busra and that he denying reports that the town had been taken.The Daily Star And please dont need to list all of what you have data from a pro rebel sources since we can not use them without confirmation from neutral sources. However, we noted the town of Bosra under rebel control on the basis of data from SOHR but put a red semicircle as according SOHR clashes is still going on the outskirts of this town. Still, your data is useful for that would researching data from both sides of this conflict. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Also SOHR just said that the clashes continued around many checkpoints for regime forces around city of Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally read the date on a video as 2015 when it was dated on 2014. Please delete this.[edit]

Please ignore this. Video was from last year. (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen that your video dated 23 March 2014. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I just did, and I feel like such an idiot...

Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's okay everyone can make mistakes! This was in time of the rebels offensive in March 2014 2014 Latakia offensive but later army regained this territory.The New York TimesCNS NewsThe Daily StarAssociated Press Hanibal911 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

answered=yes since request withdrawn ... we all make mistakes ... thanks for letting us know :) André437 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Pro-opposition source reported that an agreement about cease-fire was settled between FSA fighters in Al-Qadam and Al-Asaaly neighborhoods with regime under a cease-fire agreement in the area.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Hanibal911,André437 Big News Many Reports are saying that Al-Nusra started an offensive around location around,here,here,here,here,here,here,the offical statement from Al-Nusra launching the offensive here.Lindi29 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 All these data from the too biased antigovernment sources! SOHR just said that The Islamic battalions targeted by some shells the regime positions in al- Konsarwa checkpoint and that violent clashes between the regime forces and allied militiamen against the Nusra Front, and other Islamic factions in different points and in the vicinity of the regime checkpoints near the city of Idlib.SOHR Also pro opposition source reported that Al-Fatih army shell over regime forces sites in Al-Ghazal, Al-Inshaat, Al-Sadkob, Al-Zait and Kourneich barriers east of Idlib.Qasion News and that Al-Fatah army seizes over Sadkowp camp eastern Idlib city.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hanibal911 first Conflict reporter is not a biased souurce,also here we have relibale and neutral source who confirms this dailystar,foxnews,longwarjournal,i24news,todayonline,newser,jpost,from pro-gov sources presstv,PetoLucem.Lindi29 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

'Conflict reporter is not a biased souurce' LOL. And other sources (dailystar ..) say :according to 'activists' rebels capture some cp s ,but according to army sources say Army units and armed forces BLOCKED TERRORISTS groups trying to infiltrate the city of IdlibHwinsp (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 You probably kidding! Firstly here,Conflict reporter it is on 100% biased pro opposition source and this was confirmed many times. And secondly I'm not saying that the news about offencive rebels and Al Nusra this not a true. I just said that about rebel sources distort data because clashes still going on the outskirts of the city. Also pro gov. source Lucem just said that according to pro-opposition source rebels captured some areas on the eastern+western outskirts of city Idlib.But he not confirmed this data. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 Also all these sources dailystar,foxnews,longwarjournal,i24news,todayonline,newser,jpost just said that the rebels alliance had launched attacks on several areas of Idlib including army outposts but had not yet breached the edge of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hanibal911 OK, if conflict reporter is biased source then we will not used on reports against the regime,PetoLucem source that you provided it's not working it's dead link,look the source i provided from PetoLucem it confirms the offensive and the capture of some palces(checkpoints) from the regime,I didn't say about the inside of the city but on the outskirtis the barriers the checkpoints the factories that are located in the outskirt of the city.Lindi29 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Idlib maps might help, this one RizeOrDie Idlib Map and this one Archicivilianc Idlib Map . Jumada (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Well this source is a pro-opp source but according to many reliable news that reported for this issue I think we can use it,Hanibal911 what do you think.Lindi29 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 In the pro-government source PetoLucem which you provide was said that according to pro opposition source Al Nusra+other insurgents captured some areas on the eastern+western outskirts of city Idlib and not more. But he not confirmed these data but just republished and noted that this data from opposition source. Jumada This map showed that clashes on outskirts of city But this map from the biased pro opposition source.archicivilians And this map we cant be used for display success of the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29Here pro opposition News chanel just reported that rebels only captured Sadkowp camp eastern of Idlib.Qasion News and Inshaat military camp to east from city of Idlib.Qasion News So this means that also the pro opposition news-source not confirmed by most part informations about which said the biased pro rebel activist.archicivilians So let's wait for data from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hanibal911 well I provided many realiable sources ,but the strange thing is that always when the regime advances without confirmation from realiable source always change immediatly without even disscusion,like the villages in north of aleppo,and if we go right with sources now it will be the right desicion to put some semicircle on the checkpoints and factories.Lindi29 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I asked Leith (editor of al-Masdar) about the situation in Idlib he said they took over a factory , and claims of 'rebels' were exaggerated. I assume he was talking about this factory So here you got pro gov confirmation. i suggest we put a siege on the Idlib for now. Spenk01 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Spenk01 For now we just need add on map and marked as under control by moderate rebels Sadkop Factory and put semicircle near some checkpoints and no more. Hanibal911 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Also pro opposition source reported that Government send reinforcements to city of Idlib to stop rebel Hanibal911 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Also pro government source said that the source in Idlib said that the fighting has died down. In the city is Hanibal911 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The rebel "al-Fatah army" military room 1 2, composed of Ahrar al-Sham (IF), Sham Legion, Nusra and other Idlib groups was formed to coordinate the rebel attack on Idlib city. They have reported taking a number of checkpoints in the outer defense ring around the city. It is too early to report any major changes, as any advances could be quickly reversed. Just as they have been several times before around the city. For example, it is not the first time rebels were present in the electrical distribution centre. The regime put it out of service while repelling rebels from there a year or two ago. We don't want another north-of-Aleppo-city reporting fiasco.
However if we can confirm the checkpoints taken, it would be useful to update them.
André437 (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
SOHR said that some Al Nusra and other Islamic factions seized 7 regime checkpoints but the regime forces retake 4 of them back.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
SOHR said that violent clashes are still continuing between regime forces and gunmen loyal to her hand, and fighters of the Front victory (al-Qaeda in the Levant) and Jund al-Aqsa and the Ahrar al-Sham and Islamic factions on the other hand, in the vicinity of the barriers at the edge of the city of Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"too early to report anything" yester nusra "activists" reported nusra is already in the city. First defense line is holding. Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talkcontribs) 09:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham and Al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa seize 17 checkpoints of Syrian troops and their allies in the vicinity of city Idlib and its outskirts.SOHR SOHR confirmed that rebels to supported by Al Nusra and their allies captured 17 checkpoints in the vicinity of city Idlib city and its outskirts. So I in addition of these data I take some data from map with pro opposition source.hereherehereherehere becaue SOHR just said about the checkpoints of al- Mahlaj, al- Kaziyyi and al- Kahrabaa in the vicinity of the city of Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So that I marked as under control by rebels some checkpoints: Mafraq Bab al-Hawa, Binnish, al-Mahlaj Factory, Sadkop Factory, Old Textile Factory, Slaughter House, Electrical sub station, Livestock Feed, Monastery barrier between Idlib and Al Fu'ah, Maqbarat al Halfa, al-Qal’ah, The Conserve Factory, al-Ram, Kazinat, Mathane, Ayn Shib, Al Maslakh. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar News is biased[edit]

I just want to bring this into attention of the editors who keep using Al Masdar website as a source that this website is Pro Regime and its Editor in cheif is this guy ( Who is known for Die hard regime supporter and most of his family members are fighting for Assad , So taking his news website as a source not a clever thing to do in my view , what is your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack6780 (talkcontribs) 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is pro-regime, yet it is accurate and reliable, I have yet to read an article on Al Masdar which later turned out to be untrue; something I can't say for pro-rebel sources. My personal opinion is Al Masdar gained its own reputation by not publishing lies or exaggerations and is even used by pro-opposition groups for the latest regime related news, offensives, updates. Recent Articles related to Aleppo, Handarat and the situation prove how accurate Al Masdar is, while rebel sources claimed the entire village was captured and battalion 602 was besieged, Al Masdar reported rebel presence in the south only, then days later when things were clear, it turned out AL Masdar was correct. This pattern can be applied to many other events in Syria: Daraa, Latakia, Deir Ez Zour, Hasakah, Damascus etc Jumada (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This point has been discussed here ad infinium. It is indeed true that the editor is pro-regime, but our criteria for a reliable source is not the stance of its editor, if that were the case, SOHR would have been gone a long time ago. We rate our sources based on reliability, how often do they present good information. In Al-Masdar's case, that is very very frequently. Many of the things they report end up being true. That is why it can be used with a "reportedly" tag to modify pages on the Syrian Civil War unless corroborated by a neutral, reliable source. Editing the map with it, however, is still difficult. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not only is Almasdar pro-regime, it only cites regime sources so Almasdar IS a regime source, and not a third party.
WP policy says that a party to the subject of an article must not be used as a source to support views in favour of that party. In our context, we are violating global WP policy to use Almasdar to support regime advances.
Just because SANA often tells the truth does not make it a reliable source for regime advances. We have always had third party and opposed party sources available for that.
As for SOHR, often brought into this discussion, it is a third party interested primarily in human rights. As such, they have criticised violators on all sides. For those even moderately aware of the track record of the regime (since the 1970's), as well as a considerable number of UN reports, understandably SOHR is more critical of the regime. But according to WP policy (as well as logically), that does not disqualify SOHR from being considered an objective observer.
The questions of bias and track record come into play when a source presents subjective evidence that depends on their reliability. There is also the question of sufficient information to justify the proposed change.
Each information, from whatever source, should be examined by all the above factors before being accepted to make changes.
Hopefully all editors will finally understand ... André437 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
André437 I personally thought that since this is 'map related only', whether pro-government or pro-opposition it shouldn't matter as long as the source is trusted and proven reliable [which Al Masdar is], and since we focus on the status of cities, towns and villages rather than causalities or political agendas; using Al Masdar to keep this map up to date has worked fine for now. As far as SOHR goes, if we really want to speak about political alignment then I'd like to point to SOHR's use of the terms 'Assadist' and 'Shabiha' in the early years of the conflict, while the FSA flag on their logo is another indication of their political stance. SOHR is strongly a rebel mouth piece and a rebel source. Also many of the 'activists' who operate for SOHR belong to rebel media groups reporting on behalf of [FSA/IF/Nusra], much like Al Masdars 'sources' being from government media groups operating on behalf of [SAA, NDF, Hezbollah etc]. So I dont know, I think you should either use both or neither since they are practically the same thing. Jumada (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Jumada, but you misunderstand.
1) The map is part of the Syrian civil war article, and even a map alone would be considered an article, so we are obliged to follow WP policy. Violations of that policy can be reverted without limitation by any uninvolved administrator. Luckily none has decided to do so yet, but much of our map could be reverted.
2) If you look carefully at Almasdar posts, you will see that they cite only regime sources (usually say "military"), even for rebel advances. Each citing of a regime source IS a regime source. Thus Almasdar is a regime source. As well, you might also notice that the majority of their posts regarding the south sound as if the moderate FSA does not exist, despite the FSA being the clear majority and in definitely control in rebel areas.
3) SOHR has many sources. Many of their sources in regime areas have been executed by the regime for leaking info. Just because a source is in a rebel area, does not mean the source is a rebel. There is an active informal citizen reporting network in rebel areas, which generally tries to be impartial. There are also many competing rebel groups, often mixed in the same areas. Even if they wanted to, the rebels can't control the message as easily as the regime can. As well, the better sources use multiple reports to verify incidents. SOHR and others have clearly stated using such methodology. As all major news organizations (at least should) do.
4) Anyone who claims that SOHR is biased because of the Syrian independence flag on their site is missing the point. The Syrian independence flag was probably adopted by both the SOHR and the FSA because the last (and only) democratic government in Syria used that flag. They were also the last government to respect human rights. I'm not sure, but I think that the SOHR use of the independence flag predates the revolution, and thus the rebels. The SOHR started in 2006 to protest human rights violations, some 5 years before the revolution.
The Bathist regime that took power in the 1960's coup changed the flag at the time of the merger with Egypt, which did not last long. The 1970's coup by Assad's father only accelerated the descent into tyranny.
5) "Shahiba" is what Syrians generally call the gangs armed by the regime to control the population, who regularly used extortion, and didn't always follow orders. So both for appearances and better control, the regime created the NDF. The NDF is well known to be involved in extortion, even of pro-regime populations. A group favouring respect of human rights, such as SOHR, has a responsibility to not hide such problems.
6) The regime in power is controlled by Bashir Assad, and was initiated by Assad senior in the 1970's coup inside the Bathist dictatorship. It is entirely logical and objective to refer to those supporting the regime as "Assadists". They are also sometimes referred to as "Baathists", after the Baath party that staged the 1960's coup.
BTW, "regime" is the political science term for a "system of government". The term is sometimes abused in democratic countries to refer to the party in power (or its' leader), but in Syria it is entirely appropriate. The Assad regime has long ruled by a reign of terror.
-- Hopefully these explanations help you better understand the situation in Syria.
André437 (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey André! Show me some democratic boys who do not take selfies with "independece" flags then behead civilians while yelling Snakebar! Your democratic freedomfighters won in Libya in 2011. Now, look at the democratic reforms, results in the country! Assad is NOT a vaccum, while if your democratic guys won, the country would be torn apart in 200 pieces by 200 "democratic" movements (de facto ISIS, Al-Nursa). I can say that the majoroty of Syrians support Assad, not because they love him but because he is still better than ISIS, Al-Qeda. If all sunnies (70% of the population) had taken up arms against the Assad-clan, the war would have ended by the end of 2011 and inmidiately a new conflict would have been started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talkcontribs) 07:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC) you fucking braindead oroszka 50% of the syrian government is sunni including the first lady and the army. And al masdar is a reliable neutral source compared to the nusra fanboys markito vivarevolt and their biggest lover andré
Why don't you feel the irony in my little writing and in my comment about the Al-Masdar website ? You should read more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talkcontribs) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebels Capture Busra Al-Sham[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talkcontribs) 07:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another pro government source confirmed that ‎this was a tactical retreat by Syrian troops and NDF‬ from the city.Syria 24Syria 24 and reliable source The Daily StarHanibal911 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
But later the spokesman for the Southern Front of rebel alliance, Maj. Isam Rayes, told that regime forces were holed up in the historical citadel in Busra al Sham and he denying reports that the town of Busra had been taken.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
So I think we need for now noted of this town as contested. Because rebels denied that town fully under of their control. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Hanibal911 The first Dailystar article link claims that the rebels are in full control of Bosra, saying "Syrian government forces were holed up in the citadel in the last hours before they finally withdrew". It was initially posted in late morning, and updated in the evening.
So the second link was an interview before the regime fully withdrew, posted around noon the same day. (The 2 articles had different authors.)
In other words, the rebels are indeed now in full control of Bosra. André437 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


Clashes are taking place between the rebel and Islamic battalions against the regime forces in the city of Talbisah in the north of Homs.SOHR But let's not rush to edit this city until we dont get more data because report maybe erroneous. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hirak and Busra al-Harir[edit]

Rebels have taken over Bosra al-Sham and nearby towns, and activists are reporting rebel advances around Umm Walad and into Suwayda province. Do we have any sources concerning Hirak and Busra al-Harir? Both towns have been made contested months ago because of some reports of fighting at the outskirts, but we haven't heard anything concrete since then, have we? What should we do with both towns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

For now moderate rebels just captured town of Bosra al Sham but clashes still continued on the western outskirts of the town. Also no one of reliable source not said that rebels advanced in area near the town of Umm Waled or in Suwayda province just clashes near village of Zibin near the town of Bosra. Nevertheless, we now have no reason to mark the towns of Bsra al Harir or Al Hirak as under control by rebels. But dont worry, we monitor the situation and if we get the data from reliable sources that these cities under control by rebels we note them under rebels control. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"moderate rebels" LOL It's al nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, when Nusra is even just tagging along (with no significant role) they publish videos. This time nothing from Nusra. Mostly FSA and some Islamic Front (HASI). André437 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib offensive[edit]

This needs a new section, so i made one.

First thing i want to change. I belive that rebels took control over Al Ram checkpoint north of Idlib. We know that SOHR mentioned 17 barriers & checkpoints, but they did not gave names, but that's a fairly big number.

I only have pro-opposition sources, so of course other editors need to give their opinion. First source (i don't know if he's pro opposition) and the video in Al Ram, which looks legit to me. DuckZz (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
When did SOHR become a neutral source? Why did all the CP's surrounding Idlib turn to green? Lol this is ridiculous. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
ChrissCh94DuckZz Ahrar al-Sham and Al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa seize 17 checkpoints of Syrian troops and their allies in the vicinity of city Idlib and its outskirts.SOHR SOHR confirmed that rebels to supported by Al Nusra and their allies captured 17 checkpoints in the vicinity of city Idlib city and its outskirts. So I in addition of these data I take some data from map with pro opposition source.hereherehereherehere becaue SOHR just said about the checkpoints of al- Mahlaj, al- Kaziyyi and al- Kahrabaa in the vicinity of the city of Idlib.SOHR
So that I marked as under control by rebels some checkpoints: Mafraq Bab al-Hawa, Binnish, al-Mahlaj Factory, Sadkop Factory, Old Textile Factory, Slaughter House, Electrical sub station, Livestock Feed, Monastery barrier between Idlib and Al Fu'ah, Maqbarat al Halfa, al-Qal’ah, The Conserve Factory, al-Ram, Kazinat, Mathane, Ayn Shib, Al Maslakh. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Also later pro opposition source reported that Mafraq Bab al-Hawa checkpoints still controlled by Syrian troops but in siege by rebels.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
An alliance of Syrian Islamist rebels including Al Nusra have overrun 17 checkpoints around Idlib in an offensive to take the city from the army and allied militia.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
According to pro opposition source al-Ram checkpoint under control by Al Nusra.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

all acording to pro opp. LOL .why dont you guys make idlib full green because nusRAT supporters in twitter says they stormed the city 3 days ago:).Hwinsp (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Since when do we use pro-opp data for pro-opp gains? These edits make no sense whatsoever. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
ChrissCh94 Here source The Daily Star said that an alliance of Syrian Islamist rebels including Al Nusra have overrun 17 checkpoints around Idlib in an offensive to take the city from the army and allied militia. So I use some data from pro opposition sources for addition that be updat map. But if you think that I made mistake you can fix this. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You and I both know that TheDailyStar (despite the fact that I like it) is a pro-opp media source. I'm not denying rebel advances there, even loyalists acknowledged them. But it's a very fluid battle at the moment. It's a tit for tat thing according to both rebels and loyalists. So I think this edit was rushed and since it only used pro-opp data, it is also biased. In my opinion the CP's should be contested until the dust clears: either the rebels enter the city --> CP's are rebel-held. Or the offensive is repelled --> CP's are in regime hands. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
ChrissCh94 Here map from pro government This map also as a SOHR showed that city of Idlib under control by army but rebels captured some area around of city Idlib and that some of areas in the Idlib outskirts for now contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You must have mixed it up with the Daily Beast which IS highly pro-opp biased. The Daily Star is not a pro-opp media source, its a neutral Lebanese newspaper circulated around the Middle East that has been around for more than 60 years and has been neutral in its reporting as much as Reuters or AP. However, in the case of the Daily Beast, yeah, the language of that one screams anti-Assad. EkoGraf (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as fluidity goes, I agree with leaving cp's contested until the situation stabilizes, but don't support the all-or-nothing approach in the event the rebels succeed or not taking the city. There is more than one area where the rebels hold some but not all cp's around an important location at least partially held by the regime. (Daraa city, Aleppo city, Wadi Daif base before captured, Abu al-Duhur air base, ...)
Also please don't rely on unannotated maps. We need explicit statements of control, to be sure that a location on a map wasn't designated by guess work, or is outdated.
André437 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Zionist backed beheaders organs eaters are inside the East zone of the city or not yet?

Seems they controlled partiality the industrial zone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)