Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Kurdish presence in aleppo

source https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/561985092890144768

https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560952310776750080

https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560576534407565312

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 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 February 2015‎

YPG in KOBANE

According to this confirmed source YPG controlls zorava tel aotk korabi and susan are they even marked on the map?

https://twitter.com/ColdKurd/status/561294811094065153 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2015‎

Joum Ali in kobane.

Joum ali in kobane

https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/561974858951950336?lang=sv

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

SSAF bombarded another rebel meeting

According pro SAA source SAAF bombarded large Opposition Forces meeting in Busra Al-Sham (in my oppinion it is stupid to make meeting near army territory). According IvanSidorenko1 - over 70 killed and injuring including mamy high rank commanders, according leithfadel 70+ dead, including 5 commanders. In the last months in Ildib gov SAAF bombed meeting high-ranking members of JAN. 217.99.129.185 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But this source not said that the town of Busra Al-Sham under control by rebels. Syrian airforce also bombed town of Busra al Sham when he was contested between army and rebels. So I am sorry but this is not enough. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But I do not want to change the city, it is only urgent information post. How rebels lost their high rank commanders some like JAN 217.99.129.185 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This begs the question of how strongly pro-regime sources (using typical regime wording) would know what happens in rebel held territory, but no reports from neutral or rebel sources. Sounds like propaganda to me.

As well as not changing who controls the town. André437 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Latakia

Some news from Latakia almasdar. For our map it is simply stating that Rabiya is contested, that is already.Paolowalter (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter many new villages have been added under rebel control and some saa held have been changed to rebel held ,do you know why ?86.178.97.43 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

IS attack on Khalkhalah Airbase in As-Sweida Governorate

IS death cult launched an attack on the government's Khalkhalah airbase but they were repelled. This article also states that the attack was launched from an IS held town of Al-Lijat on the border of the Dara’a Governorate: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-surprise-attack-in-as-sweida-ends-in-a-disaster-for-them/ This town needs to be marked on the map.

Al-Lijat it is not town it is area in the Dara province. And source made mistake because ISIS attacked in area of Tal Dalfa to east of Khalkhala military airport in the northern countryside but army stop this attack and retake area which was captured during the attack ISIS.SOHRSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro-government forces repelled an attack on a key Syrian airport during a fierce battle in which they lost 20 fighters but killed almost as many militants, activists said. Rami Abdel Rahman, the head of the SOHR said there was an attack on the outskirts of the Khalkhalah military airport in Sweida province but the army has been able to maintain control over the airport and its surrounding areas despite losing 20 fighters. At least 15 militants were killed. Although the Observatory was awaiting confirmation on the identity of the attackers, Abdel Rahman told AFP they were likely to have been jihadis from ISIS.The Daily StarThe Malaysian InsiderNaharnetAgency France PressThe Economic TimesKhaleej Times Hanibal911 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear editors!!!

Be careful when you use reports from SOHR in English. This is largely erroneous reports and they distort the original data in reports from SOHR! Here in original report SOHR reported that bombing helicopters morning barrels explosive areas in the town of Al-Lataminah countryside north of Hama and other areas in the village of Abu Hbeilat in eastern part Hama province and there was no information about casualties so far.SOHR But in the report which was translated was says that the helicopters dropped barrel bombs on places in the towns of Kafar Zita, Morek and Allatamnah in the north of Hama leading to kill a man from Allataminah.SOHR It would be best not use the translated reports and use only original reports. Also here original report from SOHR reported that the number of death toll rose to at least to 20 elements of the security forces and gunmen loyal to her, including 12 of the Palestine Liberation Army who were killed yesterday during an attack by militants believed to be from the "Islamic state" on area of the hill Tall Dilfa and its surroundings.SOHR But in the report which was translated was says that the 12 members of the regime forces and allied militiamen died while others were wounded, some of them seriously wounded, due to an attack launched by unknown fighters on Tal Defda’ area in the east of the airbase of Khalkhalah. And that clashes are taking place between the regime forces and allied militiamen against the Islamic battalions near the airbase of al- Tho’lah, amid mutual bombardment between the two sides.SOHR But SOHR not said about this in original report or in other original reports. So that someone in the during translation willfully adds excess information and these reports can not be used because they was distorted and report false data. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Best to use original Arabic reports. English versions tend to be mistranslated (bad English). EkoGraf (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

AlhanutyLindi29HCPUNXKIDPaolowalterXJ-0461 v2DuckZzAndré4378fra0ChrissCh94 Let's for now we all make this very important decision which in the future help all us not make mistakes and not make wrong edits only based on erroneous reports. So I ask support from other editors in this decision. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that we should be careful about SOHR english reports because often poor quality translations.

Note that the english language articles are not necessarily direct translations of the published arabic articles. They could be based on later info (as maybe your first example) or earlier info (possibly the second example).

However since the initial info is always in arabic, those articles are probably more accurate at their point in time. If you recall, SOHR used to often give frequent updates of casualties from the same incident. And later daily summaries were corrected, so frequently different (generally higher) daily totals than the sum of individual reports. (Sometimes lower when he transferred counts to previous days.)

André437 (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I dont agree on the airbase of al- Tho’lah,this pro-opp sources that you provided admit clashes and bombardment near the airbase I provided a pro-goverment source who admit clashes in the Westren side of the airport,EkoGraf provided the same source as Hanibal provided that doesn't specify anything olny admit clashes near the airport,but you are not showing that you are hiding this fact so Ekograf you need to rv yourself.Lindi29 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Pro government source said just clashes near but not indicated that rebels attacked this base or that the in the vicinity from this base but pro opposition sources just said that clashes between the towns of Al Karak and Umm Waled. So not need semicircle near this air base. Understand that if a collision at a distance of several kilometers, and if it is not an attack in order to grab an object this is not the basis for the semi-circle. Also sometimes reports from Twitter about clashes are erroneous or inaccurate. Also I have already provide you the cases when the source said that the clashes near but in fact they were at a great distance from the object. But all reports from the pro-oppositions sources which I was provide you only said that rebels shelled this airport and not more. Also this discussion not apply to this airport. So not need provide in this discussion the superfluous data. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 The source clearly said clashes near the airbase the pro-opp sources are proving that to,this is not a matter of distance if it say it's near the airbase we always put the semicircle? if we dont put that semicircle it means that there are no clashes? like I said to you before you always are misunderstanding reports this is not an hit and run thing like the one on The pumping station in Deir-er Zor when you put the semicircle this is not hit and run attack this are clashes that are happening near the Westren side of the airbase by the source I provided but still you are ignoring it mate.Lindi29 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In Deir ez Zor it was not clashes near Pumping Station this was attack on this object but later I removed this semicircle. And when source said that clashes between two towns this not mean that we need put semicircle near Airport which also located in this area. And not one reliable source not said about clashes near of al Tho’lah Airport so that this mean that no serious clashes near the airport itself as it was in area of Khalkhalah military airport. Also I no ignore source which you provide I just provide other the pro opposition sources which not indicated that rebels attacked on Airport only shelled him. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should only use the main arabic version of SOHR. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess we should only use use the Arabic ones, since I noted translated mistakes when I go to SOHR for reports. Per all.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 19:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yarmouk Camp 2

ISIS pulling out of Yarmouk and the Falastine streets inside the camp. Following battle.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Lafarge Plant

Seems that YPG is clashing with ISIS in the vicinity of the plant per SOHR (this time Arabic). --Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 19:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

But earlier the pro opposition source reported that ISIS blew up the plant after evacuating its contents and transferring them to the city of Raqqa and the blast led to the destruction of 80% of the plant.ARA News So now it just ruins and there is no reason to keep it on the map as the cement plant. And another pro opposition source also reported that ISIS destroyed this factory.here and here other data here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So I guess we can remove the plant symbol since they destroyed it, because apparently, someone added back that symbol into the map. Or should we not?--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 21:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite being destroyed the plant is still being contested between the two groups suggesting at least some grade of importance as a military position, so I would suggest leaving it in until the frontline moves far enough away from it for it to become irrelevant. 190.67.245.194 (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Some pictures of the plant have been published today, and the factory seems almost intact. https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/587632498248671232 --8fra0 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be deceptive though. If the key internal machinery is missing, the plant is worthless. Especially without power. YPG can't supply it as satellite imagery confirms.Tgoll774 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Regime advances in Eastern Syria

SOHR reporting that regime forces have advanced in Southern Qamishly countryside and captured a village from ISIS [1] If anyone knows what village they're talking about, that would be great.

Official Syrian Revolution Page (pro rebel) saying regime forces have captured advanced posts outside Ayyash in Deir el Zoor and have secured the riverbank there. [2]

This means Ayyash is regime held since they launched an attack from the village to expand the security perimeter. This comes when pro-regime sources reported that SAA forces have repelled an ISIS counterattack on Ayyash. [3] ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Pro government source reported that Syrian troops in coordination with NDF and the Assyrian “Sootooro” milita captured village of ‘Umm Ghadeer to south from Qamishli.here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright then we have the name. Hanibal911 What do you think about Ayyash? ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 For now I look your data about this town so I answer you shortly. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Maybe you are right that the town Ayyash for now under control by troops. But I also found a map which showed situation in this area for April 8 and this map showed that area where located TV tower now controlled by troops.here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 here is the full report of the village of ‘Umm Ghadeer.Lindi29 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 why is Ayyash changed to red?Lindi29 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 This was confirmed data in this discussion. But if you think that those data not confirmed that Ayash under control by army! I will revert this. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 no reliable source was provided for this town? The one that Chris provided was a pro-opp source and this case we cant use it.Lindi29 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 We can use data from the pro opposition sources for displayed success of troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 No we cant beacasue that against the rules,we cant use pro-side sources against another belligerent which he is fightning.Lindi29 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 But pro opposition sources not support Syrian troops they clear opposes to Syrian government but sometimes they can distort data for ISIS in clashes against troops because almost three years ISIS and rebels jointly was fighting against the Syrian army. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 they were fightning the regime when they were a small group then they broke up and now are fightning each other so we cant use this sources beacause this is not a reliable source.Lindi29 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Well rebels fight ISIS and the regime so we can use rebel sources to display regime advances and ISIS advances. It makes perfect sense when we use one side's sources to display his opponent's gains. Even if you want to consider rebels and ISIS in the opposition, we could use their sources to display regime advances. Therefore either it was an ISIS or a rebel source, when they admit regime advances that's the ultimate confirmation. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29ChrissCh94 As I said we can use pro opposition sources for displayed succes of army in clashes against ISIS and rebels(including JAN) and can use pro government sources for displayed succes of Syrian rebels(including JAN) and ISIS in clashes against Syrian troops and sometimes for displaye success of Kurds except of Hasaka province where Syrian troops and the Kurds cooperate in fights against ISIS. Also we can use pro opposition sources for displaye success of Kurds except of Aleppo and Raqqa provinces where rebels and Kurds cooperate in fights against ISIS. But we cant use the pro opposition sources for displayed success of ISIS against Syrian troops because rebels and ISIS three yers coopirated in their fight against Syrian troops so sometimes a pro opposition source also deliberately distort the data in favor of ISIS. And we can use pro ISIS sources for displayed success of rebels against ISIS and for YPG against ISIS and also in fight Syrian troops against ISIS. Also I think that not need use pro government sources for displayed success ISIS against rebels because sometimes the some sources accussed that Syrian government helps ISIS in their battle against moderate rebels. And if we stick to these rules, we will not have problems in editing a map. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, so Ayyash to SAA-held? What about Nab'l Murr in Latakia? It is staying green? ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Pro government source said that Nabi al Murr under control by rebels and we marked this village to green and pro opposition source confirmed that Ayyash controlled by Syrian troops and we marked him to red. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94,Hanibal911}} it doesn't matter how long the fighted togther,this is not acceptable,using pro-opp source to show the succes in this time for the regime??No this is not acceptable beacause they are differet faction.Lindi29 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Wait what? So now we can't use rebel sources to display regime gains? Yeah that makes perfect sense.. let's just use rebel sources for rebel gains that's more credible *irony*. When your opponent acknowledges your gain, that's maximal credibility. Therefore when rebels admit to regime gains or ISIS gains, that means they conceded defeat thus making their statement credible. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 LOL you dont even know what are you talking about,I am saying how can we use pro-opp source against Isis to display regime gains,check again what we are talking about here,If we use pro-opp sources against Isis than we will use it agains the regime to.Lindi29 (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 We can use antigovernment (including pro opposition source) to show success of Syrian troops but we can use antigovernment (including pro opposition source) to show success for all antigovernment groups (including ISIS) because antigovernment (including pro opposition source) throughout the conflict openly opposed against the Syrian army and their data can not be neutral to show the success of opponents the Syrian troops. Almost all pro opposition sources distort data to favor rebels and JAN in clashes against Syrian troops or ISIS. But many from this sources also distort data in clashes between Syrian troops against ISIS in favor by ISIS because Syrian government it is the main enemy of the Syrian opposition and the Syrian rebels (including Al Nusra) for nearly five years of conflict in Syria and they deliberately distort information in favor of the opponents of the government. As well as sometimes accused pro-government sources that they distort the data not only to favor by army but also sometimes in favor by opponents of the moderate rebels. It is clear that if the source constantly opposed against Syrian troops he cant be neutral or not biased when he publish data which confirm success of antigovernment forces. I also believe that we should not use the pro government sources to display the ISIS success in the fight against the rebels since many rebels accused that the Syrian government partially collaborating with ISIS in their battle against Syrian rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 THen why have you opposed us when we showed you a rebel source citing regime advances and takeover of Ayyash? ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 so you agree to use pro-opp source to display Isis success? I opposed it beacause it's against the rules,I never did that,you now mention it you came out with this and look Hanibal911 what is saying i qoute "I also believe that we should not use the pro government sources to display the ISIS success in the fight against the rebels since many rebels accused that the Syrian government partially collaborating with ISIS in their battle against Syrian rebels" this means that we can use pro-opp against Isis to display regime success, but we cant use pro-gov source to display Isis success against rebels,and your reason is based on accuses not facts.End this debate here beacause you are not giving any good reason on this case.Lindi29 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Of course I do agree on using rebel sources to display ISIS advances. Whenever a side states enemy advances, they are true. Therefore when regime sources mention rebel/ISIS advances, we believe them. When rebels state regime/ISIS advances, we believe them. When ISIS states rebels/regime advances, we believe them. That's my point. Based on that, we should keep Ayyash red. End of argument. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 so you are eating your own words? All that you said was i qoute "When rebels state regime/ISIS advances, we believe them. When ISIS states rebels/regime advances" thats what we do ofc but you didnt' give any pro-Isis source or reliable one to confrim,instead you used a pro-opp source for the first time to change Ayyash and you displayed success to the regime and no reliable source even confirm that. END. Lindi29 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 We cant use data from pro opposition sources becasue they are too biased and clear opposed to Syrian government and throughout the conflict distort the data in favor of all those who are fighting against the Syrian army. So we cant use data from the pro opposition sources to show the success for all anti-government groups because their data can not be neutral. And very often, pro opposition sources distort the data in favor of ISIS in their fight against the Syrian army because many opposition sources welcome ISIS action against the Syrian army also in addition more than three years ISIS and moderate rebels be as allies and fought together against the Syrian government and it is can also be a reason for that would exaggerate the ISIS success in the fight against the government. Since the many pro opposition sources always welcome failures of Syrian troops in the fight against the rebels but also against ISIS. The same sources who openly oppose the Syrian government and has an aversion to the Syrian army, their data can not be neutral in the struggle of the Syrian army against the rebels, or ISIS. And in this issue can not be compromises or exceptions. Just as I said earlier will be better not to use the pro government sources for display the success by ISIS in their fight against moderate rebels because many times Syrian opposition accused the Syrian government in supporting ISIS against moderate rebels and some from Western countries also claims that the government is partialy working with ISIS and that the Syrian Air Force sometimes bombed rebel positions when ISIS advance against moderate rebels as well as the rebels accuse Syrian troops that they helped ISIS in their attack on the rebel position in the Yarmouk camp. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

South West Aleppo countryside

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/hell-reigns-supreme-over-hell-syrian-army-makes-substantial-gains-in-the-south/ the poultry taken by SAA. Al-Wadiha seem contested. Objections? 87.9.149.62 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly object to chicken farms being added to map just because there is fighting there .86.178.97.43 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Updates in Kobane

Based on Chuck Pfarrer map1 & map2, Shash, Khan mamid, Jaban, Sal, Hamadun(&jayl), Qalat hadid and Nur Ali are with YPG. Mitras is with ISIS. Ricardomoha (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We cant use pro Kurdish sources for displayed success of Kurds. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

By this logic all western sources are pro-kurds, also SOHR can't be used as well.. Then only ISIS sources or Regime sources are accepted which makes no sense to me. Ricardomoha (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Latakia

Have the rebel forces advanced in Latakia ? many more villages added and some taken from the SAA ? I have not read of any resent advance ,can someone kindly explain the situation .86.178.97.43 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

SAA is in or near Rabia ... If u change towns, only with Sources please. To much anti-governments editors

WTF is that for nonsense? He/She who changed all those towns to green in Latakia better change it back to red or post some decent sources here.SyAAF (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The area has been changed several times due to different reports. Pro-opposition maps are showing always the same, and editors are changing this region according to them when a pro-gov or neutral source poops ops with a statement which might confirm that. And SOHR and some other sources were reporting that rebels atacked gov positions with GRAD rockets here and there near Latakia city, which might be logical because they are this close, and the range is limited. DuckZz (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No Reliable Source is backing those changes actually? Are you saying that?Mr.User200 (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor who made these changes needs to explain why they were changed or they should be reverted as its not one village but a big area .86.178.97.43 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea, because i did not change it. But the user posted a pro-government source and a pro-opposition map which both match up, so i guess it's ok as we often use pro-opposition sources combined with government maps to make edits in favor for the government. DuckZz (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

change

{ lat = "34.015", long = "38.098", mark = "80x80-lime-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Al Ulayyaniyah", link = "Al Ulayyaniyah", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "34.015", long = "38.098", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Al Ulayyaniyah", link = "Al Ulayyaniyah", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

source:

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/syria-situation-report-april-7-14-2015

2601:0:B200:F7D9:1562:E9FB:1354:9CA9 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This data from the pro opposition source so that need confirmations from a neutral source. This source called Syrian troops as the regime forces and this clear mean that this pro opposition source and we cant use him for displayed success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Institute for the Study of War is not a pro opposition source. It is always been used as a reliable source, especially to show both Isis advances and retreats.

It this clearly antigovernment source which used data from pro opposition sources and clear opposes to Syrian government and called him troops as regime forces or Assad troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Idlib

There are many mentions that SAA controlled Najd Kafr and Nahlaya. E.g. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-makes-fresh-gains-in-idlib-kafr-najd-under-fire-control/ from yesterday evening reports Najd Kafr almost taken. Teh same source states that Qameenas is contested. On the map Najd Kafr is already red, while Nahlaya is contested and Qameenas green. Any neutral source not on twitter reporting this changes?Paolowalter (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR also confirmed that Syrian troops recatured village of Kafr Najd.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

1) They are both considered controlled by the gov at the moment anyway. 2) They may have already retreated https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/588327180830171136 At the very least Kafr Najd should be changed to contested

SOHR confirmed that the village of Kafr Najd under control of Syrian troops so we cant mark this village as contested on based data from biased pro opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source said that the Syrian troops gained control over the‪ villages of Kafer Najed‬ and ‪Nahelya‬ in Idlib southern countryside after severe clashes with Islamic battalions.Document.Sy Hanibal911 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Acc. pro opposition source: Syrian Army imposes firearms-control over al-Muqblah town in Idlib countryside, after restoring Kafer Najed and Nahlaia today morning. Documents.sy 83.30.58.17 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This same source said: As clashes continue with fighters of al-Fateh Army around Feeloun and Qoureen villages in the southern countryside. Faylun - besieged on the south and east? 83.30.58.17 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Acc pro gov source ivansidorenko1 and pro rebel TheQalamon about Kurin - is also under control of SAA / fighting in city 83.30.58.17 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source also reported that Syrian troops also captured the town of al-Muqblah and that clashes continue with fighters of al-Fateh Army around Feeloun and Qoureen in the southern countryside.Documents.sy Hanibal911 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Another one pro opposition source reported that hevy clashes in the village of Kurin and Syrian troops are trying to take over Kurin.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Hanibal911 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Another source confirmed that Syrian troops captured three villages of Kafr Najd, Nahlaya and Muqbileh.World Bulletin Hanibal911 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Khanasser

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/main-government-supply-line-to-aleppo-cleared-syrian-army-captures-al-rashadiyah/ states that Al-Rashadiyah close to the Khanasser highway is taken by SAA. Where is this village?Paolowalter (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter Here village of Al-Rashadiyah here But need confirmation this data from neutral source becasue Al Masdar it is pro government source and we cant use him for displayed success of Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR reported about clashes in Rashadiyah in Khanasser area near the southern countryside of Aleppo.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS withdrawn from Yarmouk Camp

ISIS fighters have largely withdrawn from a Palestinian refugee camp on the outskirts of Damascus after expelling their main rival. The pull-out ISIS from Yarmouk leaves Al Nusra as the main group inside the camp. ISIS had returned to their stronghold in neighboring Hajar al Aswad, from where they had launched their attack. The Palestine Liberation Organization envoy to Damascus said that Nusra was now the main group in the camp. They and Nusra are one. They are changing of positions.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

But SOHR reported that ISIS still controlled 80% of the Yarmouk camp the remaining 20% controlled by Islamic groups and Palestinian factions loyal to the Syrian government and clashes still continuing.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Rebels reject cooperation with Al Nusra on Southern front

Essam al-Rayes' a spokesman of Southern front said that rebels in southern Syria will not cooperate with Al-Nusra after tensions between local rebel groups and Nusra in border crossing between Syria and Jordan. Essam al-Rayes said that "We reject all forms of cooperation with al Nusra and we dont want Syria to become a base for jihad, or the expansion of the Islamic State (ISIS),"The Daily Star So that as I said earlier the situation with the Al Nusra is becoming more similar to the situation with the ISIS which also previously cooperated with moderate rebels against Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

SAA's Al-Husayniyah Enclave

The SAA's Al-Husayniyah Enclave has been destroyed by ISIL therefore it doesnt exist anymore confirm my Mark Monmonier

https://7496bff410df41fc380ad565a50f607d4b1e8372.googledrive.com/host/0BzN49CdHSAwmcGU4eEI5dVBGZXM/CizireCantonEN-2015-04-14.png

https://twitter.com/MarkMonmonier/status/588052895481864192

https://twitter.com/MarkMonmonier/status/588133817891876864

Who the hell is mark mononier (isil fanboy ) and how do you post on here without any name or number?86.178.97.43 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Haibal911 2 tweets and a map from 1 source and that's enough evidence is it? this map does not belong to you .86.178.97.43 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal, this edit is against the rules. While your source may not oppose the SAA directly, it is still not authoritative enough [we cannot tell how reliable its info is]. Think about it, if they really did "destroy" the enclave, why are the pro-ISIS fanatics not talking about it? We need more sources than just one twitter source to change an entire area from red to black. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There is no indication that this statetements from MakrMonmonier are reliable. Let's just ignore them. Paolowalter (talk)

PaolowalterXJ-0461 v2 Firstly this source is pro Kurdish and because Kurds and Syrian troops jointly fights against ISIS we can use data from the pro Kurdish sources for displayed success ISIS. And secondly here another source which also showed that now this area under control by ISIS and that the positions of Syrian troops for now located east from this area near of the city of Hasakah.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just another map .this is not like you to make quick changes without many sources .149.254.56.66 (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Qalamoun military sites

Why is there a rebel held site near Flita and a regime held Tall Hankal? There are dozens of those sites littered in the region so we can't just add 2. I suggest either adding all of the Qalamoun military/observation posts (IMPOSSIBLE) or just remove those 2 insignificant sites. There are full army brigades that we haven't added yet; why should we add a small post manned by 10-15 men? ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Pro opposition source reported that Syrian troops captured Tall HankalDocuments.Sy and I added it. Also later the reliable source said that rebels entered to Syria in area of Qalamoun from Lebanon and after clashes against Hezbollah they captured hill al-Mesh with overlooking on Flita.The Daily Star and I added this hill at map. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd tend to avoid cluttering the map with small locations of limited (if any) strategic value. SAA and Hezbollah are taking position around Zabadani every day, it does not mean we have to mark all of them.Paolowalter (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with Paolowalter and many of these sites change hands regulary, they're just small posts not important bases/checkpoints. ChrissCh94 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter ChrissCh94 Near the town of Zabadani, I added only strategically important hills from which the army shelled rebel positions in the city. Also in the area of town Flitah I added two hills for which there were hevy clashes because probably this is strategically important hills. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Add more villages in south-east Kobane canton?

Is it possible to add some more villages in the south-east of Kobane canton and north-west of Raqqah province? It would show the actual frontline more accurately, because there is "hole" on the map now.

I would suggest to use this map: https://twitter.com/MarkMonmonier/status/587511795180503040 It matches with the wikipedia map so far, although the villages spelling is different. So could someone please add JALABIYAH as held by YPG and SAB JIFAR as held by IS.

We will add new villages when there are reports about clashes inside them or that YPG/IS captured it. DuckZz (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Marks moving 1 pixel down

About 90% of the location dots and other marks appear to have moved 1 pixel down. This might not seem important, but it makes updating the .png map a lot slower, because I rely on finding the difference between screenshots to make the maps, and there are about 150 marks to go through on this map, plus those on the Iraqi map. I was wondering if anyone knew what the cause might be. Banak (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but I am one of the main editors of the "War in Donbass Detailed Map", and I remember making an edit to the page outside of the map, and that moved all of the dots down very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Donbass_War_detailed_map

You can look at the edit history of both to find a similarity. I hope this helps. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:D9DE:96EB:1551:6659 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nab Al-Murr

SAA captured Nab Al-Murr 1 year ago during the kesab counteroffensive. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/03/syria-kasab-opposition-army-battles.html and still saa control the town , please fix it92.44.119.74 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

read please , it clearly says saa recaptured the town http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Latakia_offensive

Tal Barak updates

According to this Map, which is from a pro-kurd source, Kakah said is with ISIS, also update the hasakah map with SAA advance. Ricardomoha (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Why am I getting this feeling that this and many others are just WP:CIRC? EllsworthSK (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Give me a proof not feelings. Ricardomoha (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)