Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

Boredwhytekid come here only to made changes favouring the Jihadists and anti government group

I have nothing against this user User:Boredwhytekid, some of their edition are correct but be listen he come here for doing only editions for making progress against the Government.

For him and others users don't care if the red town goes to Yellow, Black, Gray or Green, he just want another color different than red on towns or at least to put non red circles in red places.

So be clear he is not a neutral editor --Pototo1 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I marked SAA advance using a pro-gov't source myself today lolBoredwhytekid (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And I marked SAA advance using a pro-gov't source yesterday too! Why? Because they were accurate edits - both towns being on the front lines - and they improved the accuracy of the map. No objections there? lol but when I try to do the same (create a contested town not previously on the map) using a pro-op source here.. it's a problem and I am pro-op? Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just we need to adhere to the rules of editing. Do not use a pro- opposition maps to show the rebel success but also not use to display progress army pro-government maps. And then all be in order. Or at least one problem less. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And meanwhile editor Boredwhytekid is one of those editors who are want that would the our map showed the real situation. Although this is only my opinion and others editors may disagree with me. But still I will stick my opinion. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not always closely following this page, but I have the distinct impression that both Boredwhytekid and Hanibal911 do their best to accurately present the real situation on the map, as I do myself. That doesn't mean we don't have disagreements from time to time, but we try our best. ... However I must confess that I do have some doubts about Pototo1 and a few other editors ... André437 (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I definitely agree with André437 and Hanibal911, also two of the well respected editorsAriskar (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nawa is controlled partiality by Al Qaeda (Nusra)

According to Anti Gov SOHR Nawa is controlled by Nusra. http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-qaeda-capture-key-southern-town-monitor-193046956.html http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Nov-09/276995-syria-rebels-nusra-capture-key-southern-town-monitor.ashx

This situation happens with basically all towns near Israeli border --Pototo1 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the same dispatch of AFP, published on 9 Nov (over a week ago) by the 2 sites. That was just after the rebels, basically FSA flying the independence flag, took the city. There is little evidence of significant involvement by al-Nusra. In the south al-Nusra is not in conflict with the FSA or Islamic groups, and doesn't control any cites or towns independent of them.
BTW, all units associated with the FSA South Front (some 30000 strong) are committed to a democratic future for Syria. André437 (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL democracy ?

Are you stupid ?

Common this is wikipedia dunno come with bullshits here any sense person know they are a bunch of sectarians killers addict to captagon backed by Israel and paying by Saudi Arabia

Hardly heard something more stupid and false. I hope you know you are lying. More relevant, this site is for discussion for the situation on ground not political opinion or whisful thinking. Therefore you are off-topic, stop vandalizing this page.79.6.145.184 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, by your stated standards, 5 of your 7 sentences are "off topic".
1) Indeed, all groups joining the Southern Front must commit (in writing) to supporting a democratic future for Syria. 2) No. 3+4+5) Diatribe without substance. ...
I suggest you need to learn a little critical thinking, as well as better manners. André437 (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You say democracy...I say Adolf Hitler lol . Then JAN must of signed up there a big part of the southern front haha Andre437 you see the world through western eyes because western governments don't bomb citys killing civilians do they or torture people do they . The so called moderates will sign anything and fight along side anyone as long as it helps them. Pyphon (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on topic and civil, please. The important note in the "southern front" is that JAN and related Islamist militias do not have the type of numbers/sway to consolidate administrative control the way they have in Idlib, and formerly did in Deir el Zor. True, the many of the moderate groups have shown that they will say/sign whatever it takes to gain advantage on the battlefield, but that does not necessarily mean that their stated democratic leanings are disingenuous - there's really no way to truly know their intentions/philosophy unless/until they are in a position to govern/demonstrate it. In any case, it does not appear that JAN is the predominant military force in the south, though its presence there should not be understated either. We'll see how it plays out... Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed ! Bored the voice of reason ;) Pyphon (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Pototo1, again

Pototo1, here you used an amateur pro-government map to remove lime concentric circles from around al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maara, forcing Hanibal911 to waste his revert here to undo your vandalism. Then you added 5 red towns based on the same amateur pro-government map. Then you removed lime concentric circles around Nassib border crossing and Mahajjah, again based off of the same amateur pro-government map. You have been editing here long enough to be fully aware that you are breaching protocol by pro-gov't editing from pro-government sources. Your flagrant violation of this most basic editing rule has gotten to the point of vandalism - as there are not enough reverts in a day to undo the blatantly bias and rule-breaking edits you make. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to correct some changes made by this editor but then I'll be blocked. So I suggest that the editor Pototo1 himself would correct this. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Peto Lucem proved always their maps always are correct there is the map https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/499490650812080129 and is clearly visible in al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maara the insurgent presence no exits

We put on map these circles during long time adding a insurgent presence who no exist in al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maara and Assal a Ward just because the pro insurgent editor User:Boredwhytekid want to have that there - ok we let him have these greens circles but after many weeks he no is satisfied and he want continue having these insurgent presence who no exit there and accused me of vandalism

There are not evidences of insurgent presence BLOCKING al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maara only a bit in (Many weeks ago) in Assal a Ward and the insurgents where eliminated ..... --Pototo1 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's al-Bawaba, Daily Star, pro-gov't al-Manar, pro-gov't Syrianfreepress all reporting clashes around Assal al-Ward in the last 24 hours. And you persist in making pro-gov't edits based on pro-gov't sources. It is not for you arbitrarily to decide that concentric circles are no longer needed - that's a talk page discussion/consensus needed edit if you don't have a source. The lime circles next to Flita, Assal al-Ward, Ras al-Maara, etc, are positioned to show insurgent presence just to the West, in the Qalamoun wasteland region that is the Syrian/Lebanese border - we didn't show those towns besieged at all, just the extant insurgent presence to the left.. which is accurate. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the Insurgent clashed near Lebanese border in the West with the Syrian Army MANY WEEKS AGO and minor clashed in a substantial distance AWAY from Assal a Ward the Town some insurgent die the rest dispersed the Insurgents NO BLOCKED the West of Assal a Ward they are not able to besiege this zone in other Side the Lebanese Army are striking them too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsal

Basically in this area they are just small groups very weak armed gangs no able to attack or blocked Assal a Ward - This is not the Israeli Border when the Insurgents are very stronger able to captured places and made substantial advances, the Lebanese Army fight these groups - The Israeli Army not, the Israeli Army only attack the Syrian Army position that's one reason because the Insurgents are stronger near Israel.

BTW I'm not removing the green circle who Boredwhytekid put in Assal a Ward a circle who for me no have a reason for be there I'm still keeping this green circle!

I'm just removing the green circles in al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maara who no have any reason for be there since a lot time ago, Peto Lucem Maps are the most correct maps who you can found in this conflict their maps always are right he got a very high credibility.

PS for me the green circle in Assal al-Ward should be removed too --Pototo1 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that you are completely ignoring the 4 sources - al-Bawaba, Daily Star, pro-gov't al-Manar, pro-gov't Syrianfreepress all reporting clashes around Assal al-Ward in the last 24 hours. You have made 4 pro-gov't edits based off of pro-gov't sources or unsourced edits here, here, here, and here - vandalizing not "just removing the green circles in al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maara", but changing al-Jebbah, Ras al-Maara, Nassib border crossing, Mahajjah, and adding 5 red towns. The rules are no pro-gov't edits based off of pro-gov't sources, and no arbitrarily editing without a source and without even trying to get a consensus here on the talk page. You're just taking down rebel/green circle at your whim, without providing sources or consulting other editors. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And now, to defend your unjust edits, you have broken 1RR, by reverting Hannibal911's edit here, and reverting my edit here. I will not be drawn into an edit war, though you're wrecking the module. Hopefully an admin will provide recourse to undo the damage you've done. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose we ban Pototo1 from this page if he persists in this vandalismJafar Saeed (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Any good faith edit to Wikipedia is NOT vandalism. An editor can only be banned by breaking the rules, not by community consensus. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He had a track record of using Syrian Perspective maps, SANA and Al-Masdar for edits without even talking to other editors about it. Enough is enough.

edits and talk page

More and more edits are being made to the map by editors without having other editors able to look at there source and discuss the edit . All perposed edits should be first put on this talk page before the map is changed this will allow all of us to understand the source and reason and should stop much of the reverts . thoughts anyone? Pyphon (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Indeed. As well as discussing on this page, we should also update the tables (with the references) BEFORE posting to the map. That way anyone can confirm the status of the locations, at least going forward.
Note that someone (probably an administrator) put a note to that effect on our main page (second note from the top).
If we want to be serious about this, we could even have a policy of unlimited reverts after notification on this page, for posts to the map that don't follow this policy.
Note that I won't be surprised if this isn't accepted by our editors, but think that at least posting all changes to the tables is an excellent way to ensure greater accuracy and less controversy.
My 2 cents André437 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Can this news be true ?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/free-syrian-army-abandons-aleppo-leader-flees-to-turkey.aspx?pageID=449&nID=74455&NewsCatID=409

Are there any information about the withdrawing on other websites ?

Some 14,000 militants of the Syrian rebel group have abandoned Aleppo, while its commander has fled to Turkey, according to Turkish security sources. pro opposition source Ea World Viev from other sources Iraqi Dinar NewsNews CloudGlobe MuslimsKurdish Daily NewsAfora DialogueGarguleGoing KuwaitiKaskusWar in IraqYerepouni NewsInfo BalkansTurkish News Today Hanibal911 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Probability yes but it no have major impact in Aleppo at the military point because they are the so called "moderates" so they are no needing there anymore because are others irregular groups better armed like Chechens, Islamic Front, Al Qaeda, Muhaidin etc.. They are non Syrian they dont care do sectarians massacres, mass executions, tunnel bombing in civilians areas because they do that just for money and is who now needing the states who controlled them.

After many defeats these moderated are for the states who are against the Syrian State just wasted of money that's because the elements who controlled them letting the more violent groups controlled these areas, the States who caused that now just want prolonged the conflict making people killed and destruction, but a real plan for change the Regime in Aleppo area is no possible for them the whole population is against them --Pototo1 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This may also be due to the fact that U.S. stop the weapons support for the moderate rebel groups.International Business Times Hanibal911 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing these article are mistaken, because they keep saying the FSA and it's leader Jamaal Maarouf fled, but Maarouf was just the leader of the SRF. Who knows though.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not mistaken the SRF was a reorganization of the FSA now the north is dominated by islamist/jihadi groups the only place where there is a strong moderate presence now is Daraa don't be surprised if Maarouf turns up there as there is nowhere else to go .Pyphon (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Also if you scroll back to ADD COLOR FOR JAN I reported FSA /SRF were threatening to do this and I was acused of being on crack lol .Pyphon (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

lol! Still, I'm skeptical that the SRF, formerly based in Idlib, had 14,000+ fighters in Aleppo city. That's not to say that maybe other "moderate" or FSA groups didn't tuck tail after the SRF collapsed. Whatever the case is, if even a few thousand rebels abandoned Aleppo, it's seemingly just another nail in the coffin for that city. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Maarouf's take on it here Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's more information about the situation in Aleppo. The Turkish military has acknowledged that the city is almost completely surrounded by the Syrian army. But It is clear that the regime forces have left an exit path of nearly 5 kilometers in width in the northwestern part of the city. The main road in and out of Aleppo toward the Turkish border city of Kilis, only 60 kilometers away, passes through this northwestern part of the city.Hurriyet Daily News Hanibal911 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the 14000 was likely the SRF strength in the north (mainly Idlib, also Aleppo and Hama), since not long after its' formation it was supposed to have 10000, and some other groups joined them soon after. Don't forget that there are other FSA groups in Idlib that were not part of the SRF, and SRF was only a small part of FSA presence in Aleppo and Hama. (I'm referring to provinces/governorats, not cities.)
The reason Maarouf left for Syria could be partly because thought he was an assassination target. Other SRF commanders were reported assassinated by al-Nusra since Maarouf left.
Note also that there are several reports of FSA rebels uniting in southern Idlib (Maarat al-Numan and Khan Shaykhun areas), some 10000 in number, claiming FSA is still the dominant force in Idlib. here here
There are also videos on line showing (former) components of SRF in southern Idlib no longer showing the SRF logo along with their own. André437 (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
But all this information is more like trying to wishful thinking, and this information is taken from 100% pro opposition sources.Archicivilians Thomas van Linge We need confirmation of this data from more reliable sources. In contrast to the information provided by the Turkish army.Hurriyet Daily NewsTurkish News TodayHurriyet Daily NewsKurdish Daily News pro opposition source Ea World Viev also informed about the retreat the big rebel group in Turkey. And also a Turkish military has acknowledged that the city Aleppo is almost completely surrounded by the Syrian army. But It is clear that the regime forces have left an exit path of nearly 5 kilometers in width in the northwestern part of the city.Hurriyet Daily News Hanibal911 (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What road out of Aleppo do you think they are talking about? If its the castelo road (north circuit ) our Aleppo map is wrong its more than the 5klm .Pyphon (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Also two weeks ago reliable source said that Turkey has warned that the regime of President Bashar Assad could recapture Syria’s second largest city. Officials said the Syrian Army and Hizbullah were making steady progress in their siege of Aleppo. They said the regime could be aiming to drive Sunni rebels out of Aleppo over the next few weeks through a ground invasion. Officials said that in Turkey been debating measures to save Aleppo from a massive onslaught by Assad and his Iranian allies. And Ankara could support a truce that might result in the withdrawal of most of the estimated 10,000 rebels from the city.World Tribune Hanibal911 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo under siege?

Two weeks ago, reliable source said that Syrian rebels were believed to be hold about 20 percent of Aleppo. And also said that Ankara could support a truce that might result in the withdrawal of most of the estimated 10,000 rebels from the city. In October, the army together with Hizbullah and other Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias captured what was termed a strategic area that produced weapons.World Tribune Hanibal911 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

An article the last few days said the Turkish gov't has said that the worry about the rebels collapsing in Aleppo city is past for the moment, but the situation is still precarious, repeating their call for a no-fly zone in the north of Syria. It did say that the regime seemed to be trying to force the rebels out of the city, leaving a 5km wide escape route. Sorry, I don't have the source handy. André437 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Here, I found it http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nID=74561&NewsCatID=409 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That's it. Thanks André437 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Talbiseh

Violent clashes a erupting between the regime forces and Islamic battalions in the city of Talbise leading to kill a fighter at least.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


So Talbiseh to contested!

In this situation, dont need hurry. I think that before change the such a large city as Talbiseh on contested we need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There have been often reports of fighting in this town. Probably SAA is present in the (or next to) the outskirts.

Nevertheless for a middle to large city to become contested the fighting should repeated over some time or at least a small part of the city should occupied by the attacking site.79.44.142.148 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

look what Hanibal saying!!!! and some of user calling him pro asad user....

Anyone who changes a green dot to anything else is a pro-Assad user in some editors' eyes.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
So that at the moment I'm not find more confirmations that now inside city Talbiseh go clashes troops against rebels.I only find message from pro-opposition source dated 18 November which said that Syrian rebels destroy the Assad regime tank in Talbiseh.here But still it is not enough so it can have someone from the editors have more information about the situation in this city. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

JAN south of Aleppo

Any source why these once saa controlled villages are changed to JAN .Pyphon (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

According to RT arabic , Aqraba ,tat and jaarah under saa control and al nusra attack repelled. source: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/Hwinsp (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Lebanese source reported that villages Al djaarh, Tata and Aqraba near defense plants in the southern countryside of Aleppo are still under the control of the Syrian army.Al-Ahed News Hanibal911 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand. Was the SOHR report wrong or did the SAA retake the village. Should be place the villages as red or as contested icons? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone agree for putting these villages to green instead of JAN controled ? SOHR reported that " Islamic battalions (Islamic front groups) and JAN did capture those areas". Now on every pro-rebel site it has been said that the main groups were Ahrar Al Sham and other smaller factions in the Islamic front, Al Nusra members only participated during the clashes and there's no logic for saying they control those 3 villages. Should I mark them as green ? DuckZz (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say so, if the regime has indeed lost control. al-Nusra is few in numbers but they have more heavy weapons, so are useful to help take positions. But it takes numbers to control. André437 (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources (rt and alahed) clearly say Aqraba ,tat and jaarah under saa control.And another video from yesterday shows saa inside Aqraba ,tat and jaarah.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q95UwnbOWE&feature=youtu.be .Please, fix itHwinsp (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Since we have no clear confirmation (pro-opp saying Rebel held and pro-regime saying regime held) I vote let's turn them into CONTESTED ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll change them to contested. DuckZz (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you.Pyphon (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Quneitra

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.627635

According to Israeli Haaretz, only Baath and Khan Arnaba in Quneitra Province are under SAA control, and Baath sieged or contested...so, the other red spots in this province should turn green...or maybe, grey( Haaretz specifies that Nusra is the dominant force within the rebel in Quneitra).Fab8405 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Source said that town Khan Arnaba and town Baath it last major bastion in a province Quneitra. The source says that from the major cities only these cities under the control of the army.Haaretz But there are still some military sites and villages that are still under the control of the army. This today confirmed the pro-opposition source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hanibal. Especially in the case of the cities of Turnajah and Hadar, which are majority Druze cities, which have more or less stood by the gov't in this conflict Carnegie Here's an Israeli source from this month confirming at least Hadar (and I suspect Turnajah as well) are still gov't held, or at least held by a local militia loyal to the gov't and hostile to the rebels. What we can take from haaretz is that al-Hamidiyah should probably be changed from contested to green - the rebels are launching attacks from there, and even being interviewed there apparently. It seems that - at this moment - green is on the offensive towards Madinet al-Baath, and al-Hamidiyah is at least for the time being securely rebel held. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Boredwhytekid about a village of al-Hamidiyah. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree maybe saa presences to east of Hamidiyay until we get another source. Pyphon (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

I thought that Israeli sources were unreliable [They support the rebels with direct military support]. Could someone please fill me in on the status of Israeli sources? Thanks. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Haaretz article gives prominence to al-Nusra involvement, saying that they and Islamic groups have most of the heavy weapons, but says they are fighting under the FSA banner with other rebels, all totaling about 2000 fighters, suggesting "hundreds" belong to al-Nusra. So it is just paranoia to take it as an al-Nusra operation. But it makes exciting headlines.
BTW "XJ-0461 v2", what is your source for "direct military support" to the rebels from Israel ? Note that other editors have agreed that the article is not completely reliable. It is presented as from a Reuters source (with the Haaretz headline and slant). André437 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You. BTW, here are my sources: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/world/meast/syria-crisis/. Also, if you check on the Wikipage about the Qunietra offensive, you will find several instances where the IDF has attack SAA positions and bases XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The headline of your article appropriately (in my view) mentions al-Nusra after other rebels, and basically agrees with the content, which seems to largely reflect the situation back then.
As for direct Israeli attacks on Syrian regime forces, they are following their usual practices of the last 40+ years, that is retaliating against gov't forces for any attack from a neighbouring country. These are too limited to have a significant effect on Assad forces, except maybe their moral. The plane that was shot down strayed at least into the buffer zone, and the Israelis in the past (long before the rebellion) have shot down Syrian aircraft that even approached the border area. I would agree that the Israelis would rather the (more moderate) rebels win, but if they actively supported any rebel group, that would increase the risk of future armed opposition to them from more extreme forces in Syria and other arab countries. As well as inviting backlash against the rebel group supported. That puts Israel in a no-win situation for intervention. At least that is how I see it. André437 (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Israeli source are biased and unreliable. Furthermore most of infos are based on statements from rebels. Al-Hamidiyah was contested and no source support the change. Furthermore from [1] appears that NDF is present on the outskirts of Quneitra. Therefore also Quneitra green is wrong. Probably it should be contested. Paolowalter (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wadi Barada

New report on Wadi Barad from al Mansar http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/hezbollah-saa-capture-wadi-barada/ Some area in the valley here are or were controlled by rebels but it is not reported on the map. It shoule be in the upper left corner of the Damascus map but it was wrongly cancelled in the past. Not sure what we can do with these info. Also the pro-opp twitter https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/536106844746686464 reports clashes in the area in Baseema here. Thas is confirmed by SOHR https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/614642778644064. It should go contested on the Damascus map, but the higher course of the valley should go green up to somewhere before Zabadani. Paolowalter (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So that according a data from SOHR we need noted on map the village of Basima in Barada valley as contested and village of Der Maqran under control by rebels.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Earlier, in late September the pro-opposition map clear showed that Suq Wadi Barada under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Suq Wadi Barada is fine under SAA control, but Kufayr al-Zayt, Ayn al-Fijah, Ashrafiyet are shown green. Given that we know that Baseema is contested, it is likely that Ashrafiyet (south of it) is unde SSA control. As conclusion: Kufayr al-Zayt, Dayr Migrin and Ayn al-Fijah shoud be green, Baseema contested. Between Kufayr al-Zayt and Suq Wadi Barada I can't say.Paolowalter (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right. With a few exceptions because the another pro-opposition source shows that Ashrafiyet under control by troops here and here and Kufayr al-Zayt contested.here But in the rest, I agree with you. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Some more info from SOHR [2]. BrieflyBasima and Ayn al- Khadra contested and Ayn al- Fiji and Deir Maqran under rebel control.Paolowalter (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Very strange situation!

Now we have very strange situation in the Idlib province. Why the two rebel groups that are part of the Islamic Front are fighting against each other. Today was fierce battle between Ahrar al Sham (part of IF) and Jaish al-Islam (part of IF) in the Bab al-Hawa border crossing.here and later Jaish al-islam (part of IF) managed to take full control of Bab al-Hawa border crossing.here I have the feeling that in Idlib all fighting against all. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The rebels in Idlib are disintegrating. It is almost as if every group fights for itself. Yet here, we can do nothing. If we tried, we would have ten different colors in Idlib and a serious credibility problem [Who would be reliable to report what groups gains/losses?] XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that need to add a new color. I just want understand situation in the Idlib province. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, the Islamic Front was formed out of several rebel groups that made a treaty. It is a very loosely held group. Now that tensions are rising in Idlib, some of the groups that make up the IF have started to fight each other for their own gain, feeling that it is no long worth it to remain united. Whether this fighting [inter-IF] will continue, however, I am not sure. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
My take on this is that Ahrar al Sham (one of the more radical IF groups) has informally been allied with al-Nusra in Idlib against more moderate groups (mostly SRF but also Hasm), and the local Ahrar al Sham units got carried away and tried to take the border post controled by Jaish al-Islam (one of the more moderate IF groups). Jaish al-Islam being much more powerful, Ahrar al Sham leaders probably ordered withdrawal to avoid a war between the 2 factions. Which could easily have escalated into a war of FSA + IF against al-Nusra + Ahrar al-Sham in Idlib, to the detriment of the latter, much less numerous. André437 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

al-Zalaqiat checkpoint north of al zalaqiat village

according to sohr ,rebels and nusra captured al-Zalaqiat checkpoint north of al zalaqiat village.(zalaqiat village still under saa control) source:https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/615083831933292 Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=35.283261&lon=36.600687&z=19&m=bHwinsp (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done I add on map al-Zalaqiat checkpoint to north a village of al Zalaqiat.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

Favor cambiar { lat = "34.891", long = "37.391", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6",label = "Umm ar Rish", link = "#Umm ar Rish", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

por

{ lat = "34.891", long = "37.391", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6",label = "Umm ar Rish", link = "#Umm ar Rish", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

ya que el pueblo ha sido recuperado por el ejercito Nass py (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The two pieces of text are identical. Stickee (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that Nass py is proposing to change the color of Umm ar Rish from black to red (he probably messed up his copy/paste). However, you need to provide a source to support your proposed change. Tradediatalk 03:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Zebdeen / Eastern Ghouta

According to document sy , saa captured zebdeen town https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/838561236206634Hwinsp (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Documents.sy it is pro opposition source and if it reported that army captured town Zebdeen we can use this. Because according to editing rules we can use data from opposition source to show a army success. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
But I think that no harm will if we find for more data about the situation in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

documents.sy is somehow pro-gov and provides unbiased and quite dry reports on the situation on the field. It has been accepted some time ago as reliable source. The same news is reported by PetoLucem on twitterhttps://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/536117826407628800. Paolowalter (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Document.sy it is the pro opposition source. See this: hereherehere And you will not have any doubt that this is the pro opposition source. But you're partly right, this source is often was of rights. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
SOHR reported that Islamic fighters ambush and kill no less than 25 soldiers in regime forces in Zabdin area last night, what forces regime forces to pull back from the area.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Al-Masdar has contridicted, saying that the rebels did indeed launch a counter attack, but failed to hold on to the area http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/east-ghouta-battle-map-syrian-army-captures-zibdeen-tal-al-rayan/. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not specify what area of Zebdeen so contested should be the most appropriate.Daki122 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

present map of damascus is good. i heard something about capture of hannao in Aleppo by SAA?

Zabdin area should remain contested. Document.sy (pro-opposition) and Masdar (pro-government) said the town was captured in the morning, Masdar and Peto Lucem (pro-government) said in the afternoon the rebels recaptured parts of the town but were pushed back soon after and SOHR (pro-opposition but neutral in reporting) said the town was divided. In the evening SOHR said the Army was pushed back following an ambush. The battle is too fluid and info is contradictory, should stay contested for now. EkoGraf (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Today SOHR reported that clashes taking place between regime forces and Islamic battalions in Zadin.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Map changes needed for readability

Due to the escalating nature of this war and the expansion of dots, its harder and harder to read individual dots, so I propose the following:

1. Map resolution be increased to double its current size to better fit all the dots.

2. This map be merged with Iraqi Map as well, since these wars are not separate and IS has established itself as a state which is seeking to establish its borders so its pointless to have separate maps for Syria and Iraq and it will gie a more accurate picture of the conflict.


-- agreed. while people are at it, the png map could need an update, too. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_civil_war.png#filehistory)

Such a map is already there.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Zahraa

Attack by rebels on the pro-government enclave Zahraa http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/jabhat-al-nusra-and-islamic-battalions-take-control-on-al-maamel-area-in-advances-of-their-massive-attack/. Unfortunately it is exploited by a well know vandal to turn the town contested, while the fighting are on the outskirts. Should I revert it or anybody else stop vandalism?Paolowalter (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

this SOHR article http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/violent-clashes-continue-around-nubol-and-al-zahraa-photos/ removes any doubt that if the rebel entered the village, they have now been expelled and fighting is on the outside. However, I want other editors to weigh in before I change it back. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

the article clearly states that the rebels entered the town of Zahraa,and took the ma'ameel area inside of Zahraa,nothing change in Nubl,but in Zahraa it did change.Alhanuty (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Paolowalter,you should better stop your personal attacks on me,okay.Alhanuty (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR just said that Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have taken over al-Ma’amel area south of al-Zahraa town after violent clashes against regime forces and allied gunmen from the towns of Nubol and al-Zahraa towns.here But this not inside city Al Zarha this area (al-Ma’amel) is located south of city. And also later SOHR clear said that violent clashes continue around Nubol and al-Zahraa towns which are inhabited by Shia.here So that means a city of Al Zahraa still under siege by rebels but not contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Al Masdar has just weighted in here http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jabhat-al-nusra-attacks-al-zahra-nubl-syrian-army-captures-hanano-road/ . It says that the attacks on both cities have been repelled, but fighting on the outskirts has yet to dissipate. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Also other reliable sources clear said that the fighters advanced overnight on al-Zahra, north of Aleppo city, seizing territory to the south and also trying to take land to the east in an attempt to capture the village.The Daily StarYahoo NewsReuters Hanibal911 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Fighting is south and east of the town, not inside it. Its still besiege but not contested. EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The offensive of Nusra & Islamic Front against the cities Nubl & Zahraa failed. And they have no chance take these cities.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasaka

Some advance of SAA in Hasaka from https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/535534891803607042 and http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-captures-4-villages-near-ar-raqqa/ We should find those places and mark them red. Paolowalter (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I add on the map the villages of Sabha, Rafraf, Amar Kabir. But I can`t find the village Tuq al-Meleh or (Tooq Al-Malah). Hanibal911 (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like Sabah and Rafraf are misplaced, where did you take the coordinates for those villages? Moreover, it looks like the main source is this: http://breakingnews.sy/en/article/49299.html If we think that this source is reliable, we can also edit the villages mentioned on the Hasakah-Raqqa road. 8fra0 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added two villages in west Hasakah, please correct Sabha (maybe it is Sab'a in south Hasaka?) and Rafraf or provide some sources for their position. 8fra0 (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Source clear said that army extend control over Sabha,Rafraf,Qaber Amer &Tuq al-Meleh on East and West of Hasaka. Not on south.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but the village you pinned just 500 m east from Tall Brak (IS stronghold) is called As Sabakh and hardly is the same village of Sabha mentioned in the news. I think it is elsewhere. The same for Rafraf. 8fra0 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Understand that sometimes the names of cities or villages of the in some sources different from name on the map this can be seen in a lot of sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And village Sabah located at a distance of four kilometers to east of the city Tell Brak. Also a few days ago SOHR reported about clashes between the army and the ISIS near the town Tell Brak. But now I can not find this message but as soon as I find him then I provide this message. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Anybody know where the village Makhroum (mentiond in this article here) is located on the map? If it isn´t there, can someone please place it out. :) Rhocagil (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Shaykh Miskin

Al-Shaykh Miskin was changed green without discussion based on an occasional citation from a newspaper that was talking about something else [3]. It is reporting concerns of a citizen from a neighbouring town. The situation in the same city was discussed the same day in [4] showing in details how it was contested. No other source mentioned any change, nor SOHR nor twitter nor documents.sy. Therefore the city must remain contested.Paolowalter (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The town should stay contested until rebels capture brigade 82, which is part of the town itself. The only thing that boders me here is the fact that someone changed the brigade 82 icon for a circle, not logical, the brigade is part of the town and a checkpoint at the same time. I say we change back the icon ? DuckZz (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

the Telegraph has confirmed that Sheikh Maskeen is rebel-held.PERIOD.and all of us know that the Telegraph is a very reliable source,also pro-regime sources confirmed that the rebels took Shiekh Maskeen,so the bottomline is other editors must stop reverting this edit.Alhanuty (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Also Al-Masdar is a pro-regime source,so it can't be used for a regime advance,so stop whining Paolowalter.Alhanuty (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, so it CAN be used to keep Sheik Miskeen contested, that is also, by the way, NOT considered a regime advance. Also, one other thing, the source that your source cited for the fall of Sheik Miskeen did not mention it [broken citation], so your source is questionable. Still, I am willing to wait. If SOHR or another rebel group talks of fighting or rebel gains in Sheik Miskeen, it will be changed back. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Broken,Broken,Ahahah http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11247798/Syrian-Christians-Help-us-to-stay-stop-arming-terrorists.html.Alhanuty (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, Look at the article you just linked. Now look for the part were it says the rebels captured Nawa and Sheik Miskeen. You should see that the text is blue. Click on the link embedded in the text. Very good. Now notice that nowhere in THAT article [which is being used as a citation] does it say that Sheik miskeen was captured. Apparently, the citation is not the only thing that is broken. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
1) Base 82 is a little north of Sheikh Maskin, NOT part of the town. Once the base is taken, it is certain that all of Sheikh Maskin is taken, but not the converse, since other points around and inside the town are already taken, and base 82 is besieged (according to various reports).
2) The video from the Telegraph says that the main highway by Izra is contested (although used by the regime) and along the front lines (it runs just west of Izra), which suggests that Sheikh Maskin is behind the front lines (the edge of the city being 4km west of the highway.
The tone of the video is pro-regime/anti-rebel (it is filmed in regime-held territory), although it does say that only a small minority of the rebels present any danger to the christian community which is the focus of the report.
3) The almasdarnews article cited near the top of this section is simply not credible. Despite the fact (confirmed by many sources) that al-Nusra is a small part of the forces against the regime in Daraa and Quneitra, the article would have us believe that they are almost all. Nonsense. The article also reads like a quote from SANA.
4) Note that since the rebels took a regime communications centre in Daraa, regime forces in Daraa are probably more isolated, and less able to coordinate -- and more likely to flee advancing rebels (or desert). It shouldn't be surprising to see more rapid rebel advances in Daraa. André437 (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

According to pro opp source , clashes still inside sheikh miskin,sheikh miskin should contested : https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/photos/a.722911217736017.1073742271.217848338242310/1034937106533425/?type=1Hwinsp (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

the Telegraph is a very,very reliable source,this Vandalism,by Paolowalter must stop.Alhanuty (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

clashes still inside sheikh miskin: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/839542879441803

See [5] and a bunch of twitters from pro-opp side [6], [7] etc. I hope the issue is close for the time being. Once more Al-Masdar proved to be reliable.192.135.12.144 (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Severe clashes take place between Syrian army and Islamist battalions in the town Sheikh Miskin of Daraa countryside.Documents.sy Hanibal911 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Also SOHR reported that violent clashes are taking place between al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions from one side and the regime forces from the other side in the northern neighborhood town of al- Sheikh Meskin.here alsp pro opposition source said that fierce fighting is still taking place inside Sheikh Maskin as rebels desperately are trying to repel loyalist forces.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Most of the references given here are not even dated, or in such extreme rhetoric (almasdar) as to be totally worthless. However there are enough decent references to indicate that there are ongoing conflicts at least near the northern edge of the city (base 82 being a little to the north), as well as in the eastern edge, to call Sheikh Maskin contested. It may have been totally rebel controlled, but there is evidently a regime counter attack. Although the Telegraph video suggests that Sheikh Maskin is probably rebel controlled (or close to it), that is not enough.
BTW, in case any editor thinks that the almasdar article is credible, it contains an obvious lie (al-Nusra is far from being the dominant force in the area) that makes it useless. Never mind the format that could have been copied word for word from SANA. André437 (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Today SOHR clear said that the number of people who died yesterday in the province of Daraa in clashes with the regime forces in the city of Bosra al- Sham and town of al- Sheikh Meskin has risen to 8, including 7 fighters from the rebel and Islamic battalions.SOHR So that this is clear in city Sheikh Meskin clashes still going. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah-Tal Abyad road

The Syrian troops with the support of NDF have captured the mills located on the road between the Hasakah-Tal Abyad in the village of Makhroum. Following the capture of the mills, the army took complete control of the Hasakah-Tal Abyad Road during the violent clashes against the Islamic State in the village of Makhroum; this resulted in the latter’s withdrawal to Jabal ‘Abdel-Aziz.IIT Turkey News Someone from the editors have more information about situation in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Same info from http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-strategic-road-al-hasakah/.192.135.12.144 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Sana it sounds like many of the villages in the area marked red and black (Makhroum, Al-Khama´il and more) should be changed to contested. Article is to be found here. I guess there i no problem changing red dots to contested when it´s a pro-SAA source right?Rhocagil (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah area

Document sy says saa captured several villages in hasakah area after IS withdrawal.source: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/841304632598961 name of these villages: الخير والجموHwinsp (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed. SAA captured 2 villages الخير والجمو But i dont know the location of these villages. http://www.syriahr.com/archives/39288Hwinsp (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Southeastern Hasakah

According to SOHR, http://www.syriahr.com/archives/39288, regime forces have advanced and captured the Bab-Al-Khayr and Al-Jamou area in the south-eastern countryside. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also found another source that proves it as well: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-hasakah-syrian-army-captures-2-villages-isis-field-commander-killed-battle/ --Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I found bab al khayr. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.532381&lon=40.407393&z=17&m=b&search=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1Hwinsp (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Khan Sheikhoun

SAA took Camp Khazanat and entered Khan Sheikhoun [www.almasdarnews.com/article/idlib-syrian-army-enters-khan-sheikhoun/]. That confirms various Twitter reports and (as far as concerns Camp Khazanat, a previous ambigous SOHR report https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708.79.41.9.162 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)



The Syrian Army has entered Khan Sheikhoun for the 1st time in 6 months; SAA captured Camp Khazanat:

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/idlib-syrian-army-enters-khan-sheikhoun/



also change Khazanat to red and Half circle in south of khan Sheikoun please. Thanks.

If they really took Khazanat, that went totally dark by pro-rebel media, and they always report it. Wait for SOHR confirmation, as differently from Al-Masdar, they always report advances for the other side.

Al-Masdar is just as reliable as SOHR is. But, if you insist, here is SOHR for you confirming the news: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Highways

I know this might be far-fetched but I'm just gonna suggest it: why not add ONLY the main Highways (M5-M4-M20)? This will greatly increase the importance of some towns/cities/sites on this map helping readers further understand the strategies and tactics used by the different sides in this conflict. Opinions? ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree Ariskar (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree and see #Roads. Unfortunately, rivers were added instead of highways. Rivers are useless in explaining the war and clutter the map and interfere with the blue labels... Tradediatalk 00:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun

Pro government sources herehere reported that the troops (11th Tank Division) recapture of the Camp Khazanat after weeks of heavy firefights with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham north of the city of Morek and Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham retreat to north to the city of Khan Sheikhoun. And as a result of the capture of Camp Khazanat, the troops has entered southern Khan Sheikhoun.Al Masdar News But for now we cant on the basis of these data edit the map, we need confirmation these data from a neutral sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)s

Al-Masdar is just as reliable as SOHR is. Still, I have brought along a SOHR link: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Arabiyya (pro-rebel source) stating clashes IN Khan Shaykhun: http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2014/11/27/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%85-%D9%82%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%A5%D8%AF%D9%84%D8%A8-%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9.html

قالت الشبكة أيضاً إن اشتباكات عنيفة تدور بين الجيش الحر وقوات النظام في مدينة خان شيخون بريف إدلب، بعد محاولة قوات النظام اقتحام المدينة.

The Network also said that violent clashes taking place between the army and the forces of the free system in the city of Khan Shaykhun Brive Idlib , after regime forces try to storm the city. So Khan Shaykhun to contested but why has Khazzanat been turned to regime held? What are your sources? Please provide pro-rebel sources stating this. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition reported that only Al Nusra will be the responsible group if the Regime retake Khan Shaykhun and Khazzanat Base.archicivilians So there is clearly something going on in this area. Also previously pro opposition source said that regime troops in Murek are preparing for this offensive, while Al Nusra preferred to fight some factions from Free Syrian Army in the same area.archicivilians Also Pro government sources herehere reported that the troops (11th Tank Division) recapture of the Camp Khazanat. And reported that troops has entered southern Khan Sheikhoun.Al Masdar News and this data also confirmed Saudi TV Channel.Al Arabia And just two days ago SOHR said that violent clashes between the regime forces and NDF against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions north of Morek town which is held by the regime forces, where al- Nusra and the Islamic battalions have attempted to advance towards al- Khazzanat Camp near the city of Khan Sheikhon in the southern countryside of Idlib.SOHRSOHR So maybe this means that al- Khazzanat was captured by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hanibal911 The Arabic SOHR you provided states that the REGIME IS TRYING TO ADVANCE TOWARDS THE KHAZZANAT CAMP. The English post had a typo. Look: دارت في وقت متأخر من ليل امس اشتباكات عنيفة بين قوات النظام مدعمة بقوات الدفاع الوطني من جهة ومقاتلي الكتائب الاسلامية ومقاتلي جبهة النصرة (تنظيم القاعدة في بلاد الشام) من جهة اخرى في شمال بلدة مورك، التي تسيطر عليها قوات النظام، في محاولة من الأخير، التقدم باتجاه معسكر الخزانات القريب من مدينة خان شيخون بريف إدلب الجنوبي. Using google translate it says: Took place late last night of violent clashes between the subsidized National Defense Forces on the one hand the regime forces and fighters of the Islamic battalions and fighters of Al-Nusra Front ( Al-Qaeda in the Levant ), on the other hand, in the north of the town of Mork , controlled by regime forces , in an attempt by the latter, progress towards the near reservoirs camp of Khan Shaykhun the southern city of Brive Idlib. SO THE LATTER is the REGIME FORCES occupying Morek. Khazzanat stays green with a red half-circle south of it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
ChrissCh94 Carefully read the source! In Arabic version of this article clear said that violent clashes between regime forces supported by NDF on the one hand and fighters of the Brigades and Islamic fighters Front victory (al-Qaeda in the Levant) on the other hand to the north of the town of Mork, which controls by regime forces, in an attempt by the latter, progress toward camp reservoirs near the city of Khan Shaykhun.here And here english version of this article: Violent clashes took place between the regime forces supported by NDF against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions in the north of Morek town which is held by the regime forces, where al- Nusra and the battalions have attempted to advance towards al- Khazzanat Camp near the city of Khan Sheikhon.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Also this military base(Camp "Khazanat") located near strategic highway from Hama to Idlib here and if be army not take this base would be extremely difficult to attack the city of Khan Shaykhun because they left be in its rear of the rebel forces that could attack the they from the rear. As previously some reliable sources said that if army dont take this base they will not be able to attack the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a native Arabic speaker but okay whatever I give up. Not even SANA nor Al-Mayadeen mentioned it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Pro governmnet source said that 11th Tank Division has announced the capture of Camp Khazanat (Reservoir Camp) after weeks of heavy firefights with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham (Falcons of the Levant Brigades) north of the city of Morek.here But I dont noted it is military facility under the control of the army but I will not say that 100% sure that it was captured. But many sources reported about this. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Army is advancing in Khan Sheikhoun and surrounding Kfar Zita so advancing on 2 fronts: Morek & Hama-Idlib main road.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Abu Duhur Airbase

Many reports that Hamaimat & Mustariha villages north of the Abu Duhur Airbase taken by SAA, e.g. https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/537939481274642432.87.4.48.70 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This report did not say (taken) it said (try to storm).Pyphon (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

The maximum that we can do this is put a red mark to the north of the village Haymat ad Dayir. Because pro opposition source only said that Assad-forces try to storm Haymat ad Dayir north of Abu ad-Duhur - Military Airbase.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

According to almasdar news SAA has captured and ended the 2 years siege and captured 2 other villages...while al-nusra captured 3 other villages.here Lindi29 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The news of controlling these villages by SAA was confirmed by this source: http://www.almayadeen.net/Latest/a,D3pyT8S0qcHSQPaAoP7g/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7--%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%8A--%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA--%D9%88-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%A9--%D9%81%D9%8A151.238.167.31 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just the message from progovernment sources. And, as a compromise, we decided to use the data from the source Al Masdar if these data are confirm other neutral sources. So we need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Control of the Khaz'zanat Camp helped regime forces inside Al-Zohour(Abu Duhur) military airport to advance into nearby villages of Tal Selmo and Mustariha.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nawa is controlled partiality by Al Qaeda (Nusra)

Nawa as many others Towns is with Al Qaeda elements there sharing the control with others irregular armed groups.

Sources in Spanish =

Put the AQ presence there again --Pototo1 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Al nusra are a larger force in Darra than some editors seem to think they are involved in all major fights but cannot have there own icon because they fight alongside moderate forces although it begs the question how moderate can you be working with AL QAEDA .

They are not fighting there, so no need for Nusra to appear there. Also, Assad is allied to Hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization, and to Iran, whose official name is Islamic Republic of Iran. Funny how Assad can be allied with religious extremists and non-secular countries, but you guys act all moderates, blablabla about the rebels. They are not allied with Nusra because they like it, but because they need it.

Yes Hezbollah is a terrorist org. if your an Israeli and iran is called Islamic republic but not as extreme as some arab states unless you are Israeli

Lets try and get back to editing the map political debate could go on and on .Pyphon (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Al Qaeda is in Nawa and many sources (Anti Assad Sources) confirmed that.

End of the discussion --Pototo1 (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop to deleted towns in As-Suwayda governorate.

These towns are here a very precise map. https://twitter.com/petolucem/status/534388773598285824 Lucem Maps are the better and most precise maps that know everyone who follow the conflict

And these pro insurgent map favouring a lot the insurgents showing these place under army control too. http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SW-Syria-10-nov-2014-total.jpg http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-syria-civil-war-8-novem_21226#13/32.7092/36.5884

DeSyracuse is not pro-insurgent nor pro-govt188.141.199.13 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Entire As-Suwayda governorate is under Army control this is well know for all, so stop to deleted these places because both maps Lucem maps and pro insurgents coincided 100% --Pototo1 (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pototo1You are right but when you add those towns to map it was necessary to provide a link to this discussion. Here's how need was to do : here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Menagh Air Base

Why and with what sources has the air base changed to a green dot without any infromation while it still under al-nusra controll? do we have a vandal here or what ? Lindi29 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

But situation about Menagh Air Base still unclear. For now we have report from the source Al Monitor in which says that tensions between the FSA and al-Nusra soon moved to Aleppo’s countryside, where the latter besieged the Northern Knights Brigades. And on 4 November Northern Knights brigades(FSA) burned a T-62 tank before withdrawing from Menagh in northern Aleppo countryside. Al-Nusra also killed a field commander from the Dawn of Freedom Brigades.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Al khazanat camp near khan shaykhun

SOHR says rebels try to advance Al khazanat camp. Al khazanat camp should red. http://www.syriahr.com/archives/38882Hwinsp (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Also in English - https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/616016338506708 If the base is not marked as gv-held,then it should be an red circle aroynd it or a contested icon.SOHR strongly pro-opp.Also, what aboyt Taybah ?

SOHR: Hama Province: Violent clashes took place yesterday night between the regime forces supported by NDF against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions in the north of Morek town which is held by the regime forces, where al- Nusra and the battalions have attempted to advance towards al- Khazzanat Camp near the city of Khan Sheikhon in the southern countryside of Idlib, information reported casualties on both sides.

Change it to red

I'm sorry but the Arabic version says that it's rebel-held. We didn't hear any news of a regime takeover recently not even from Loy. Sources. Khazzanat Camp stays green. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No ,arabic version says rebels tried to capture Al khazanat camp.But regime sources never say saa captured Al khazanat camp.Maybe sohr make a mistake.I think we should contestedHwinsp (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Hwinsp (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I read and understand Arabic. You could translate the Arabic version and read it. Khazzanat isn't contested YET. Regime forces are on its southern outskirts so we might add a southern half red circle. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultra pro gov Syrian perspective say saa took khazanat plus sohr say rebels trying to retake .Red with green to north would make sense .Pyphon (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Sorry sohr said jan so gray . Pyphon (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

The Arabic version of the post said the Khazzanat camp is controlled by the latter referring to the rebels. The English version contained a typo. Khazzanat camp stays rebel-held with a red half circle south of it. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The Arabic version said "محاولة من الأخير، التقدم باتجاه" which means " in an attempt by the latter to advance..." . It says nothing about the rebels being specifically in control. In its English post, it clarifies that the "latter" is JAN and company, meaning that the SAA is in control. This is not a translation error or a typo, a whole sentence has been changed. The area should be made red. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the rather confusing status of the information, contested seems the better choice. In any case fightings are ongoing around it. 79.21.132.210 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no contested icon for bases, airports, checkpoints. Only for cities and towns. That is why I feel red with a green circle is best. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay I'm gonna end this discussion. The original SOHR text seen here: http://www.syriahr.com/archives/38882

says that: شمال بلدة مورك، التي تسيطر عليها قوات النظام، في محاولة من الأخير، التقدم باتجاه معسكر الخزانات" "القريب من مدينة خان شيخون بريف إدلب الجنوبي which is translated to:"North of the town of Mork , controlled by regime forces , in an attempt by the latter, progress towards the near reservoirs camp of Khan Shaykhun the southern city of Brive Idlib". SO ONCE AND FOR ALL, Khazzanat camp stays rebel held, green with a half red circle to its south. ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

We need more data from the reliable sources. Because a pro-government sources claimed that armed forces have recaptured Camp "Khazanat" the Army Fueling Base which located on south east of city Khan Shaykhun.herehere I provide here this data in order to gather as much information about the situation in the area. But this data can not be used for editing in favor army. Perhaps in this area now clashes between the army and fighters of Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok then its gray with red circle until we get more sourses .Pyphon (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

One fact that should be noted is that all SOHR posts are written first in arabic, often followed by very poor english translations. The arabic posted by SOHR (translated by google) clearly indicated that the camp was still rebel held. Also, many articles, if al-Nusra is mentioned, place them first, generally followed by references to islamic groups and/or rebels. Even when, as is usually the case, al-Nusra is a minority of the forces involved. So the grey should only be used if it is clearly shown that al-Nusra is exclusively or dominantly in control. Which is the case for many small villages in Idlib, but much less likely for towns and cities. André437 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is the translation made by several translators: took place late last night of violent clashes between supported by the National Defense Forces on the one hand the regime forces and fighters of the Brigades and Islamic fighters Front victory (al-Qaeda in the Levant), on the other hand, in the north of the town of Mork, which controls by regime forces, in attempt by the latter, progress toward camp reservoirs near the city of Khan Shaykhun the southern countryside of Idlib.here So that SOHR clearly said that the clashes between the army supported by the National Defence Forces and the Islamic militants from Front Al Nusra north of city Morek which is under control by army. In attempt by the latter (meaning Al Nusra Front) to advance toward the Camp "Khazanat" near the city of Khan Shaykhun the southern countryside of Idlib. Also here another reliable source also confirmed that Syrian army now control the Khaz'zanat Camp.Elijah J. Magnier And now is advancing in Khan Sheikhoun and surrounding Kfarzita.here Also Al Arabia said that clashes in the city of Khan Shaykhun. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war/Archive_32&oldid=1136637449"