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

ISIS counterattack in Sarrin countryside?

May be someone has a data from neutral sources about situation around city of Sarrin. Becasue a pro Kurdish sources reported that they advanced and captured several villages. But pro ISIS source reported that ISIS launched counterattack and recaptured villages of Qerat,Ra's Al 'Ayn, Erna and Kark.hereGeneral Shami Hanibal911 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Was just about to ask the same thing, because Pro-Kurd sources are also contradicting themselves on the grain silos, and where YPG forces are stationed. Some say the silos are taken, others say IS repulsed the assault despite airstrikes, and others are saying they are fighting in Sarrin itself, others say they are being pushed back by IS counter-offensive. I think what is going on is that because both sides are thin on forces there, small units on both sides are punching each other at the same time as IS moves up fresh company sized forces to replace fought out units and atritt YPG and hit their smaller detachments with maimum force while Airstrikes hit largely vacated positions. Similar to what the NVA did Tgoll774 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDSSbkVUkAAeAcZ.jpg Chuck Pfarer a pro-YPG source, but yesterday he said YPG took the silos, now he has backtracked. https://twitter.com/freelancejorno/status/591352696990466049/photo/1 Pro-IS saying IS has successfully counter-attacked. I don't see any other sources so I can't say what is going on, but its pretty clear heay fighting is going on and YPG backtracked on saying they captured the silos. https://twitter.com/mrasiell/status/591337540088700929 Pro-IS Source. Don't know at this point, just going to have to see what other sources come up. But it looks like with Tishrin Secured, the YPG have hit the limits of their advance. Tgoll774 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDTtgO6UgAAWAeF.jpg Pro YPG source, but admits Khirbat al-Burj and Qirat Kurdan, as seen on the map as retaken by IS, Ras al-Ayn looks contested. Tgoll774 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDdoE0SXIAAFxZw.png:large Pro-Kurd

https://twitter.com/mraseill/status/592025037038837760/photo/1 Pro-IS

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDdi9O2UsAAP3h5.jpg Pro-Kurd

Leave it to you guys to cross reference Tgoll774 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sugar Factory

Pro-gov source report on the sugar factory amid fierce clashes,here.Lindi29 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Just need put semicircle near this factory and nothing more. As we earlier made near Brick Factory which was attacked Al Nusra before they retreated.Latif HassanSyrian Rebellion Observatory. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 But pro government source also indicated that the clashes in surroundings of this factory but not inside this factory.Leith Al-Halabi so for now not need any actions let us wait more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 OK,then put a semicircle near the factory.Lindi29 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also pro opposition source confirmed that the city of Jisr al-Shughur still under control by Syrian troops and that rebels and Al Nusra still located on distance of 3-4 km from the city.Conflict ReporterConflict ReporterConflict Reporter and another pro opposition source Cedric Labrousse also confirmed that the Jisr al-Shughur is still under regime control as rebellion forces took some checkpoints north, west and east to city.Syrian Rebellion Observatory and that rebels didn't take any real strategic objective as the offensive aimed to do. Qarmid battle turned to blood bath.Syrian Rebellion Observatory and regime Ghab plain defense line (despite Simaniyah defeat) is more strongest contrary to what was expected.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Hanibal911 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29Rebels just shelling Sugar factory here so for now not need put semicircle but still need monitor the situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 shelling and clashes are confirmed by both sides so the semicircle is needed.Lindi29 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm with a semi-circle but not more. The rebels are waging an important psychological war ever since their semi-successful counterattack in Aleppo in February. They claim victories before (if they) happen. Yesterday all rebel sources claimed the Qarmeed aka Brick factory was captured. Today we saw it shell rebel positions. Same goes for all checkpoints, bases etc. Waiting a few days is no problem considering the fluidity of the frontline. To be fair, rebels are winning the media war that's for sure. Regime media outlets are lacking in war coverage and loyalists are becoming more and more demoralized. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That depends on what media war you are talking about. The international media war is in favor of the SAA. More people abroad than even oppose the rebels. However, you are correct about the domestic media war. The rebels managed to, very early, get their super weapon into the arena "SOHR". For almost 3 years, it was one of the only sources for events in Syria. Whether you were pro-opp or pro-gov, you read SOHR. This effect has lessened, but is still strong. The SAA also seems to be making the mistake of not even trying to wage a media war. If you look at the Deir-ez-zor front, you will see numerous videos by the SAA of weapons seized, positions taken, and dead ISIS fighters being dragged through the streets. I believe this to be one of the reasons why ISIS's media war in Deir-ez-Zor is a failure. Other than there, however, the SAA has not been active since their old strategy of "deny deny deny" failed. The rebels constantly post videos of their exploits, even if they are faked, giving the illusion of daily progress. That is why the rebels' most fervent supports are still confident in total victory. If the SAA wants to turn the tide, they THEMSELVES [not their loyalists] have to start making ISIS style propaganda videos. Show captured positions, weapons, and dead rebels. Make the SAA appear larger than life, this strategy worked great for ISIS and has been proven effective for Gen. Zahhridine in Deir-Ez-Zor. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Here pro opposition source but not such dreamer as a archicivilians clear showed that rebels shelled this factory from distance herehere So for now not need put semicircle. This pro opposition source clear showed that factory in area which still controled of army and rebels position to east from factory from where they shelled him. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I put grey semicircle near Manshara Checkpoint and green semicircle near Bshlamon Checkpoint that would show that the clashes in surroundings of the plant. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR also reported that clashes near the city of Jisr Shughour.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Ghouta

Guys I don't know why Mayda'a and Zebdin are marked as regime held. SAA forces pushed into them but retreated via loyalist sources showing them under rebel control ever since their summer offensive: [1] [2] [3] [4] I could not find newer sources partly because it has been a calm frontline. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mayda'a was from SOHR, but Zebdin is only partly controlled by the SAA, but no one has fixed it since. I do not know how to. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 They both contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested perhaps, but not regime held, change it to contested then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.157.18.68 (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree either contested or rebel-held but definitely not regime held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 I ask editor which updates maps and he update map and mark these towns as contested. Although now he busy but he updat map later. I necessarily remind him about this! Hanibal911 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Thank you! ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tall hamaka

No reason to put Tall-Hamaka green. We are back to take SOHR as the source of truth. Other sources no more partisan than SOHR states the opposite: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/591614810837618689 and https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/591612029724663810. Just let's put it contested and wait.Paolowalter (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

according to sohr arabic ,saa recaptured tall hamaka http://www.syriahr.com/2015/04/%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AB%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%86-44-%D8%BA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%B7-%D8%AC%D8%B3%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%BA%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B9/176.42.119.155 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Khalkhalah air base under seige

ISIS appears to have this base under seige following its recent assault there: IS jihadists 'down regime aircraft in south Syria' Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Source just said that ISIS shut down aircraft the Syrian aircorce and that according to data from SOHR the fate of crew members remains unknown. Source also said that ISIS tried to storm the airport on 11 April but loyalist forces maintained control of it.The Daily Mail Also early reliable source also confirmed that when ISIS attacke Syrian troops counterattacked and pushed bask ISIS. Here earlier several reliable sources confirmed that the Syrian troops 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 You need carefully read your source before making statements. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you are saying Hanibal911. The fact that ISIS has positioned themselves outside the airbase and is apparently downing aircraft at their leisure would suggest an update to the map might be in order, although I'm happy to wait for additional sources. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nulla Taciti Any fighter from ISIS could shot down the Syrian Aircaraft from long diastance so this not confirm that ISIS also located near airport and even more so that he in the siege of ISIS. And many reliable source clear said that later troopp pushed ISIS from area near airport and surrounding area. And that for now ISIS not located near this area. So your data even indirectly not indicates that the airport is surrounded by ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hudhud SAA held ?

Is the town of Hudhud east of Manjib really SAA held ? and if so how did they get there as all places around are ISIL held .Can someone explain thankyou .86.178.97.133 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

86.178.97.133 Here is the editor without any foundation noted this village under the control of the army.here It is unjustified action that violates the ruleы of editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rebel Hama/Idlib offensive

Section for questions and request of changes DuckZz (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Jisr ash-Shughur has fallen under Jaysh al-Fatah control.

Or at the very least, is being contested. I have no idea whether it should be listed as Green or Grey, since both Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham are operating in/around this area.

https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/591860301055700993 (pro-Gov source showcasing JaF in Jusr ash-Shughur

http://i.imgur.com/aV7yzto.png (picture from pro-Rebel source showing list of conquered buildings)

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/591869301663010819 (AFPfr claiming that the city has fallen outright to JaF)

Al Nusra and several Islamist factions control large parts city of Jisr al-Shughour troop still control hospital SOHR and pro opposition source confirmed that Syrian troops still control hospital and the area on southern outskirts of the city here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And remember that Ivan Sidorenko not pro government source he just publish data from some sources pro opposition and pro government. And SOHR clear said that Al Nusra and several Islamist factions control large parts city of Jisr al-Shughour. And your source Agence France-Presse also said that Al Qaeda and allies overrun city of Jisr al-ShughurAgence France-Presse not only rebels. And pro opposition source confirmed that army still control hospital on outskirts. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Again as I said in the first post. At the very least, this city is contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.188.171 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

76.126.188.171 I marked the city under the control of Al Nusra and insurgents, and added the hospital which under control of the army. And reliable sources and SOHR reported that Al-Nusra Front and its allies took control of almost all the city.Al ArabiaAgence France-Presse And this confirmed that at least hospital still controled Army. Nevertheless, I marked city under control by Al Nusra and rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And pro opposition sources also said that Al Nusra and rebels captured largest part of city. But also pro opposition source also confirmed that for now the National Hospital it is the main stronghold of Syrian troops in Jisr al-Shughour.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR said clashes are still continuing in some pockets of Syrian troops and their allies in the southwest of the city.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 The sugar factory and Bishlaymun were captured last night. I have only pro-opposition sources so someone else needs to agree so i can change it. Also they said that rebels captured the hospital too. DuckZz (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And again I have the same problem with this joint control. Al Nusra did participate, like in every offensive, but how much ? I have already posted a source where the Idlib council says that Idlib will not be controled by a Rebel group but by the council itself, and it's said that "JAN moves on", and this Jisr Shugur offensive is just the confirmatiom. Idlib is still under joint control.

• This opposition infographic shows what groups did participate in Idlib/Hama offensive. I can post every group and their videos/pictures, just to confirm their presence. My question is, how come that 22 groups are smaller than Al Nusra, and even Al Nusra was using another logo in their videos/pictures, to show presence of other groups mixed with them. I don't want to post 50 videos from IF and etc groups, that would be ridiculous. DuckZz (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz This only data from pro Al Nusra source and we cant use this data for displayed success of rebels. And military sources denied this and reported that all southern area near Jisr al Shughour including Sugar factory and hospital still under full control of troops.here So that we need confirmation from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not start again this discussion. Reliable sources have clearly indicated that the city was taken by Al Nusra and several Islamic groups. And we cant use in this issue pro opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bishmalun is west of Jisr Shugur. It has been captured last night (according to pro-rebel sources). This video is from this morning showing IF members in this village capturing a checkpoint near it (means they already captured the village itself) DuckZz (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 And yes, i want to hear what other editors think about this. I belive that Jisr Shugur shouldn't go under Joint control. The areas around it are already marked as grey. The town is full of videos from other rebel groups. But i'm not the one to decide. DuckZz (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz But Al Nusra claimed that this their victory.Also, if you look closely you will see that in the city visible only black flags of Al Qaeda. hereherehereherehereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 As you can see. Those pictures show both JAN and rebel fighters. The same pictures are published by IF and other rebel groups because they show their fighers, and JAN. To prove this, look at the pictures, you can see 2 logos, one shows JAN, the other for Rebel groups. But whatever, we both know that we have different views, i want other editors to give their opinions. Something else, map is published by IF showing the situation, it looks like SAA fled from the entire area to Istabrag. DuckZz (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZzBut this [here] only claim from Islamic Front but we not confirmation from reliable(neutral) sources that this map showed true situation. Also I was never against what would hear constructive opinions from other editors but if they are not biased and without insults. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Here, the only pro-opposition source who said that Zijarah village is still under government control says that rebels actually captured it. Now we have SOHR and pro-opposition sources confirming this village under rebel control. Or do you have something else ? DuckZz (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro SAA sources are saying counter attack has begun sugar factory retaken and fighting at western entrance of City but we need pro opp sources to confirm as we need pro saa sources or neutral to show rebel gains .86.178.102.168 (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 Ahmetyal This is what i was talking about the whole time. The most famous Syrian reporter Ha.Abdulah (on rebel held territories) says that Al Nusra does not hold Jisr Shugur and Idlib town. He said on his twitter account that Jisr Shugur is held mainly by rebel groups and not JAN. He is the most reliable person we have, why ? Well because he was both in Idlib and Jisr Shugur town, now he's in Ghab plain too. I belive him, now the question is, what do others think ?DuckZz (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent Agathocle http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Idlib-hama-situation-26-April-2015-@deSyracuse.png confirms partially report from Al masdar and PetoLucem: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-armed-forces-recapture-territory-during-night-raids-in-west-hama/, http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/update-from-jisr-al-shughour-fierce-clashes-at-national-hospital/, https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/592250947193143296, https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/592248757930074112, https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/592246915217108992. At least Sugar factory contested and Tammiyah contested. In practice contested for Agathocle means under SAA control.Paolowalter (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Intence fighting now as tiger force arrives from west and Hezzbolah arrive from south .86.178.102.112 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ishtabraq is in rebel hands, even Leith Fadel admits it https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/592435410644672512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:103:A000:A501:9C6C:A29C:D93E:B5F6 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really, in the post it say that rebels are there not that they took the town. In the same post there is a claim that it is controlled by NDF. There is contradictory info: https://twitter.com/Amin_Akh/status/592439271031713793 states it is under rebel control, while https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/592452479155048448 it is on the front line. Let's go fpr contested.Paolowalter (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest Al masdar report http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-secures-ghaniyah-in-the-al-ghaab-plains/ contradict several locations in the Al-Ghaab plan.Paolowalter (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source confirmed that the village of Ziyarah still contested.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 .Have rebels taken brick factory east of Ariha ?86.178.102.112 (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR reported that rebels captured Brick Factory and Al Masdar reported that the Syrian troops retreated from this facoty. So partialy pro opposition source and pro government source both confirmed that factory was taken by rebels with support Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 You still didn't gave any opinion regarding my post about Hadi Abdalah and how he says that JAN did not captured Jisr Shugur DuckZz (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Maybe if Al Nusra does not control as much area in city as controlled a moderate rebels and if Al Nusra not is a leading force in the capture of the city we can do as we earlier do in city Kobani just put small grey dot inside city and all. Because militants of Al Nusra also took an active role in the capture of the city and we cant just ignore this fact. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 We can't ignore it, but lets be fair. The same guy said that JAN hasn't even control of Idlib. But lets say leave Idlib to joint control. JAN has 2 circles around Jisr Shugur. If you wan't to be fair and belive that guy (who is currently in Qarmed factory) then one of these 2 towns should go under rebel control. If you ask me, i belive that JAN did had an important role in capturing Jisr Shugur, so it should stay under joint control. But then Idlib should be changed because we know that JAN "moved on" (i already posted that IF statement), and to confirm that, we have Jisr Shugur and Qarmed factory offensives, with JAN influences. DuckZz (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I think that the best solution in this situation will mark both these cities of green dots and put grey dots inside of their. Because we not have confirmations from not biased neutral sources that Al Nusra left city of Idlib and toward to the city Jisr Al Shugur. Also the reporter Juan Cole reported that the the coalition led by Al Nusra captured both cities of Idlib and Jisr al-Shughur in Idlib province.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

HANIBAL911 .Thankyou .86.178.102.112 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source reported that the Syrian troops recaptured village Ziyarah, Tanmiyah checkpoint, Kunsfra and Tall Qastun and that street clashes in the village of Qastunhere and that troops advancing more to the north and keep the advance until village Jadraja village.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

What are his sources? Being "pro-opposition" shouldn't be a carte blanche to legitimize regime claims, it seems clear he is quoting regime sources. He actually claims to be neutral, it's regime supporters who call him pro-opposition. Opposition sources have denied this, adding that regime photos only confirm they're at the outskirts of Ziyara, not even in Ziyara or let alone Qastun.[5] [6] When the opposition makes such big claims, despite their reliability record, you force them to wait days. But you immediately change regime gains based on their claims only, which is far from fair. NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB .I have to disagree with you on this point ,if we have a opposition or neutral source that backs up pro government source we can use it those are the rules .The same applies to rebel gains and Hanibal911 has proven time after time to be a unbiased editor .The reason we have to wait some times to change the map is we need to stick to the rules .You would have something to complain about if changes were made without the rules being applied .86.178.102.112 (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You're stretching it. What's a pro-opposition source? We don't know where Bosno Sinj gets his information from. For all we know he's just quoting government reports. We can't treat everyone with a Twitter account as a source. I can now use my Twitter account to report gains claimed by loyalists and you might use me as a pro-opposition source to confirm this. It's ridiculous and does not reflect what the rules say at all. The rules apply to those like SOHR or rebel groups and activists with presumed opposition contacts, not wanton sympathizers of their side who are just quoting what they see on Twitter. The issue is not with Hannibal but with the Syria editors in general; don't pretend you didn't notice how it takes days to confirm blatant opposition gains such as Idlib city or Nasseeb crossing but you continue to have newsflash updates of government gains. It's a very serious double standard. Either you wait on both or you quickly update both. And by the way, rebel sources report airstrikes on Qastun. They are not even bothering to address the claim that it was lost, fyi. [7]NightShadeAEB (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem using twitter accounts for showing advances agreed there was a time when no twitter ,facebook or video evidence was permitted but that seems to have changed because of the time waiting for more reliable evidence to show us the situation .How ever I disagree about the time you say it took to change Idlib but agree about Nassab but that was because of sticking to the rules also we must take into account there is a problem uploading the map at present i think they are working on it .Last thing I hope you agree Jisr ash Sughur and the brick factory were changed to rebel held in good time so its not always the case .Thanks for responding .86.178.102.112 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We should not rely on poorly know twitter source like Bosno Sinj for any change. That make the editing slow but we can live with it. The other comments from NightShadeAEB are irrelevant and false.Paolowalter (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Ghaab Plains

Report from https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/592683182392274944 and https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/592692955967844352 that Qastoun and Ziyārah are taken by SAA. Let's watch out.Paolowalter (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

More reports: https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/592686039304646656 and https://twitter.com/Amin_Akh/status/592702548668186625

Map: https://twitter.com/Amin_Akh/status/592695492510875649 - Qastun under SAA control. Stharkov (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

According to pro opp source village Ziyarah, Tanmiyah checkpoint, Kunsfra and Tall Qastun under control by Syrian troops and street clashes in the village Qastun.[8] troops made new plan is to leave the main supply route south of Jisr Shugur-Ariha, and create dozens of new routes with capturing Qastun.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I belive that Ghani village is under rebel control, with no presence of SAA soldiers anywere near, Ishtabraq not included. What source did said that clashes are in that village ? This video clearly shows the village empty, with clashes far away from it. We may have a pro-government source because LeithFadel said that Ansar Deen rebels "are atacking Istabraq village and massacred 150 civilians there", of course this is propaganda and not anywere near the truth but it may confirm that Ghani is basically empty because this video shows the same group. DuckZz (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz We cant use pro opposition sources for displayed success of rebels it is a rule. And here pro opposition source clear showed that Ishtarbaq still under control by troops. Also we cant be sure that this village Ghani and when this is video was filmed. Because all pro government sources reported that troops recaptured this village maybe video was filmed a few days ago when rebels captured this village or maybe it is another village. We not have the confirmation from neutral source. Let's search for more data. Just understand I'm not saying that your information about Ghani is useless on its basis we can look for other evidence from neutral or pro-government sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"are atacking Istabraq village and massacred 150 civilians there", of course this is propaganda and not anywere near the truth but it may confirm that Ghani is basically empty..." So I will believe one part of what he said [the part that suits me] and disregard the other part. You cannot use sources like that. A rebel massacre does not prove control or the fact that the town is abandoned. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter This was the only source that said that Qastun was under clashes. Now he says that rebels have the control again. It can be used DuckZz (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No. There were several pro-governmet source stating it: see http://www.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CDnfNGsW0AEPdeN.jpg. It was just a backup pro-rebel source.Paolowalter (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter Hanibal911 The point is, we only had pro-government sources. After he said that Qastun was under clashes we changed it because of him. Now he says rebels control the town again. And now we only have pro-government sources saying that this town is not under rebel control. You get me ? Also something else, the same source says that rebels may have captured Fawru village and this pro-government source is showing Fawru under clashes, so the village should go at least to contested or rebel held, because i can't really see the difference in Petolucem'map between this red contested color. DuckZz (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Firstly yesterday pro gov. source not showed detaled situation on this map and not show Fawru so on pro gov. map not indicated that Fawru contested.here and yesterday pro opposition source clear showed that area wher located Fawru under control by army.herehere Also we can was marked Qastun as contested according to data from pro opposition source. According to the rules of editing we can displayed success of army based on pro opposition source but we cant showed success of rebels on data pro opposition sources. And this pro opposition source here just said that looks like rebels (#FSA Coastal brigade) captured village Fawru near Sirmaniyah, situation still unclear. And it's just the data from the source of the opposition and yet he was not even sure in this information. So we cant according this data marked as under control by rebels Qastun or (contested or under control by rebels Fawru). Many pro government sources reported that Syrian troops recaptured many villages and most part of Jisr al Shugur but we cant use this data for displayed success of army. But if we will use pro opposition source for displayed success of rebels then some other editors start use pro government sources for displayed success of army and we distort map. Let's not break the rules. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 But wait a minute. For Qastun, we had pro-government sources, and 1 "pro-rebel source". Now the same pro-rebel source said that Qastun is back under rebel control. So that means that now we only have pro-government sources. I think the rules are clear, no neutraul no rebel sources, only pro-government, that means Qastun should be reverted back. DuckZz (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Not! I marked Qastun as contested only according to data from pro opposition source I not use in this situation pro government sources. I against when pro government sources used for displayed success of army. But for now you wand marked this village again as under control by moderate rebels only based data from pro opposition source but this a violation the rules of editing. When pro opposition sources reported about army advances we use this data for displayed only success of army and when pro government source reported about the rebels advance we use this data only for displayed success of rebels. And nothing more. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also this source shows Qastun way behind rebel lines. DuckZz (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz And this again pro opposition source. And again pro government sources indicated that village under control by army pro opposition source claimed that under control by rebels. So that for now clear need data from neutral source. Such data will be able to clarify the situation. Since I also want find out who actually control this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Also another pro opposition source also said that Qastun still contested.EA WorldView Hanibal911 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also pro-government states Qastun is contested now http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/intense-firefights-ignite-the-battle-in-idlib/.Paolowalter (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Change Qastun back to rebel held. Rebels released a new video from Ziyara. They claim the fighting is at the Tanmiya checkpoint to its west. Ziyara should be green with a red push from the west. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsyT3O5klmc Also relevant: videos from Qastun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVLSMlLNB9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ52DePh5do NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Pro-Assad outlets claimed success with the capture of Qastoun, Misheek, and Zayarah, but pro-rebel accounts said the area is still being contested."

The EA link was vague and not specific at all. You gotta stop clasping at straws; we need specific claims that pertain to geography, not just general conservative statements. NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm switching Ziyara to contested due to overwhelming evidence. We should really switch Qastun too, the regime has provided no proof for its claims. Incidentally, a pro-opposition geolocator has shown the opposition taking the poultry checkpoint south of Sarmaniya. [9] NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday pro opposition source clear said that Ziyarah under control by Syrian troops and Qastun contested. And for now we not have confirmation from neutral (not pro opposition) sources that Ziyarah contested or that Qastun under control by moderate rebels. So that or prove data from neutral source or stop provide just data from biased sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The opposition source you quoted got their information from loyalist sources. The claims are very weak and cannot be taken seriously without evidence. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Map update

It seems like the map (Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map/doc) doesn't always update immediately after an edit of the module. To make the map update, just make an Wikipedia:Null edit of the documentation page. --Ahmetyal (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Does purging not work? Banak (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

YPG advance south of Manajir

According to their official media they captured three hills south of the town:

http://ypgrojava.com/en/index.php/statements/616-military-operations-in-kobane-and-cizire-significantly-concluding

This is confirmed by SOHR so we could make the change (northwest Tal Tamr = Manajir):

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/04/ypg-advances-in-the-countryside-of-al-hasakah-and-seizes-new-areas/

Problem is, no source actually mentions the name of the hills, does anyone know where they are located?

186.112.206.36 (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarrin under YPG control

On April 25, reliable source Jack Shahine reported that YPG/FSA entered Sarrin and fought ISIS in the town.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jackshahine/status/592083393103409152

Relying on Jack Shahine's report, Chuck Pfarrer reported that Khirbet al Burj was under YPG control.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/592098005035122689/photo/1

I suggest that based on these reports, Sarrin be changed to contested between YPG and ISIS, and Khirbet al Burj be changed to YPG control. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:4831:6879:2CA4:C5A2 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

2601:0:B200:F7D9:4831:6879:2CA4:C5A2 Chuck Pfarrer it is pro Kurdish source. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

IS sources report the city has repelled the YPG assault. Also Chuck Pfarer has been wrong before due to misinformation by Jack Shahine. Since IS is also launching still a counter-attack, I suggest not making any changes till we have corroborating evidence. Tgoll774 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jack Shahine is a reliable source. We have used him to show Kurdish advances before, he is one of our only neutral sources for that. Besides, pro-IS sources will never report their defeat. They always lie.

Also here are other sources:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Feeney4Batman/status/592326934442463232 2601:0:B200:F7D9:4831:6879:2CA4:C5A2 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jack Shahine has been wrong before and IS always reports its defeats.

That said https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDi1C68WoAALYPi.png:large This shows YPG clearly on the outskirts of Sarrin and Khirbat al-Burj being contested http://36.media.tumblr.com/9d4d9473c2da3d0b3dfd12929f2c5bac/tumblr_nnggncZnLy1svp8ywo1_500.png Chuck Pfarer shows YPG halted on outskirts.

So Sarrin should switch to besieged, but not contested Tgoll774 (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDnp-DoWYAARGJd.jpg Fighting still on outskirts and Khirbat al-Burj still contested. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State offensive against SAA/NDF south of HASAKAH city

Pro-govt local source reports clashes ongoing in the Abyad village south of the city:

https://www.facebook.com/HASAKAHNEWS/photos/a.590294967758347.1073741825.279287895525724/737069523080890/?type=1

Meanwhile, pro-IS source reports gains for IS in the Abyad-Hasakah road:

https://twitter.com/mraseill/status/592409943212449793

Kurdish sources, on the other side, report clashes south of the city without really specificating:

https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/592402292416053250

And pro-oppo local source report IS launched an offensive against Abyad:

https://www.facebook.com/raman.yusif/posts/827483420665333

While this confirms Abyad was still under govt control despite being marked black, the fact that a reliable pro-govt source reports it as contested means it should be put as red-black contested and not outright red, so unless someone is against it I suggest that the proper edit is made. 186.112.206.36 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, but the map is slow to update.Paolowalter (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Syrian troops managed to stop the ISIS advance towards the city, the battles going on at several points and helicopters bombing ISIS sites.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SAA&NDF take control of Al-Dawudiyah south of Hasakah after clashes with IS: Stharkov (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/592687392072536064

Changes should be made to the city map as well. I do not know how that is done, but the western part of the city shouldn't be IS held anymore sinceUmm al-Kabr is contested. MesmerMe (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You should provide source for it. Then you can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Hasakah.svg in the talk session and ask for change motivating it.

MrPenguin20 is the user mantaining this page and will change it (yuo can contact him personally).Paolowalter (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That'd involve editing a SVG file in this map, which are infrequently updated (in comparison to other parts of the map). Not sure which you mean, there are 4 in the map.

• File:Rif_Aleppo2.svg last updated 20 March 2015.
• File:Deir_ez-Zor_clashes_(2011).svg last updated 16 January 2015.
• File:Battle_of_Daraa_City.svg last updated 28th February 2015.
• File:Rif_Damashq.svg last updated 4 April 2015

Hope this helps Banak (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

News from Al-Masdar about ISIS-SAA clashes in south east Hasaka.Paolowalter (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC) PaolowalterEkoGraf Antigovernment source reported that after clashes between Regime forces against ISIS to south Hasakah the Regime forces successfully seized over 5 villages completely and over the International school and pushed ISIS fighters on distance around 20 km to south from the city.Qasion News So source confirmed report from Al Masdar here and indicated that Syrian troops pulled ISIS on long distance from Hasakah and captured over 5 villages. So what you think about this. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC) That confirms again and again that Al Masdar is one of the most reliable source available and only jihadist supporter prevent it being used routinely just because they are obsessed when more red points arrive on the map. The action is now to turn red the villages indicated by the various sources.Paolowalter (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Jabhat al Nusra control

DuckZz I ALREADY discussed this a month ago and gave all my sources and nobody bothered to move a thing - I was busy writing my paper and now I have time to correct this. The map looks like a mess, with people arbitrarily doing stuff that makes no sense, taking the most miscellaneous reports to decide who controls what. Binnish, the capital of Jabhat al Nusra, is marked green, while Maarat al Nuuman, the stronghold of Suqur al Sham and the FSA is marked as grey (not all FSA is SRF & Hazzm). Changing Maarat al Nuuman, the second largest city of the province, to shared control is "POV"? Or Rastan where you still have Faylaq Homs and Ahrar al Sham? Or Marea where Nusra continues to arrest corrupt FSA? There is zero consistency in this. The compromise is to make them all into shared control, otherwise we can go into details based on how dominant is Nusra to make some fully green or fully grey. It doesn't matter what you choose, but be consistent about it, and don't ignore discussions that have already been presented. NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed both green and grey towns into shared control - it's not like I just sided with one faction. So I don't understand where the "POV" comes from. Here's the discussion where I outlined my arguments stemming from both the facts on the ground as well as Wikipedia's guidelines. [10] NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't said that changing things is a problem, but you didn't made 1 edit, you made a quite alot of them just like that. And here is my problem

• Why do we even have 2 colors, because obviously you can literally change every village/town to joint control lol ? Where's the sense in that, then basically you can remove the grey color because it wouldn't make sense to have 2 colors ...
• You can't make a joint control just because "there are some number of rebels or JAN members here and there", because joint control means if 1 group has at least 40% of presence in that town, while that's not important for small villages (where we use only 1 color), but it's important for bigger towns like Idlib, Marat Numan, Binnish.
• We also use pro-government sources, the same sources like to show "Al Qaeda" flags everywere even though that's just because they're anti-rebel orianted (Binnish has IF flags)
• If you like to change a place, then create a new section just for that single town/village, then we can decide whether you're right or not. Why are you in such a hurry DuckZz (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I was in no hurry. I made a section last month. What was done about it? Nothing. I presented my sources. Every single edit I made I had already addressed in the discussion to be met with indecisiveness and lack of interest. You're all preoccupied with current territorial changes you left behind a huge mess from the inter-rebel war. Binnish is well known as the capital of Nusra in Idlib, it has been this way since 2012. Yes Binnish has Ahrar al Sham, Jaysh al Islam, Faylaq al Sham, I dunno whom else, but it's obvious in the event of war, Binnish will be the first town to become 100% Nusra. It doesn't make sense that you are putting Maarat al Nuuman, Darat Izza, Rastan and Ram Hamdan as Nusra held while keeping Binnish and Marea as green. If you don't want joint control, then make them all green. Because if Binnish isn't part grey, then no other major town is grey at all. Last time I changed Saraqeb and made my case, since everyone was reluctant to pursue it nobody changed Saraqeb back. It's clear I can keep doing this one town at a time, but what's the point? You've already forgotten to change Rastan back.

You have three choices:

• 1. You can stick to places where Nusra ousted the others, which excludes Maarat al Nuuman, Saraqeb and Rastan because they are major towns with numerous factions not affiliated to the SRF/Hazzm/Faylaq 5. This is the maximalist green position.

• 2. You can be fair since there is no clear information on the exact percentage of control, and make all disputed major towns half-green half-grey.

• 3. You can look for specific information on each town to see who is clearly dominant, which'll likely result in Binnish being grey, Marea and Maarat al Nuuman being green, with a question mark on Rastan, Ram Hamdan, and Darat Izza.

All I'm asking for is adherence to consistency - which is clearly absent. Again consult the discussion from last month here. [11] NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be honest. I can't be neutral in this situation because i was the one asking not to make a grey color. But as it's already there. You can change every grey town to green if you ask me, but there are rules. I only have sources for towns where JAN has "currently" no presence, for example in Binnish, pro-government sources confirmed that with their maps. That's about it. Marat Numan and Rastan have a question mark for me.DuckZz (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please share that source on Binnish? It would be really helpful. Binnish was Nusra land, then ISIS land, then back to Nusra land. The battles for Fua and Idlib saw the Islamic Front and Faylaq al Sham play key roles in the town, but I don't think its status as a Nusra stronghold changed. Maybe Nusra moved to the north in Salqin/Sarmada/Harem, but I doubt it'd abandon Binnish. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DuckZz in situation with Binnish. And I also think that for now the situation with the cities of Marat Numan and Rastan very complicated and raises many questions. NightShadeAEBHere sources about Binnish here here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

PetoLucem is not reliable here, he just sprinkles the flags randomly. ConflictReporter (pro-rebel) and SchwarzSun (neutral with anti-Islamist leanings) both publish maps that deliberately specify which faction is where. Peto doesn't do that, he just sprinkles, for aesthetic purposes. Here's a different map showing Nusra in Binnish [12] And actually he doesn't know the geography of what he's mapping, he made that map to claim the opposition failed to take Fua, and when I told him the target was Deir el Zughb south of Fua, he didn't know what Deir el Zughb was. After he blocked me and erased his tweet, Deir el Zughb started appearing on his maps (compare the one I linked with the one you linked). NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty tired of villages flipping between grey and green, and starting to really dislike the idea of separate colours for them. It seems a bit of a waste of effort trying to decide what type of rebels we have. Banak (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In which case I agree, let's just remove the category altogether. It's a waste of effort that could better be used elsewhere on the map.NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait for some more comments, or we'll have more village flipping if someone disagrees. Banak (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Banak NightShadeAEB What to remove ? Joint control icon or grey icon completely ? Hanibal is the person you should ask about this, as i don't care for the grey color. DuckZz (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't care for grey, in particular because of joint control arguments. Banak (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We decided to add the grey color for Jabhat al-Nusra because there was a large fight between them and moderate rebels in Idlib province, and Nusra won. We wanted to show that Nusra controlled many towns and bases. personally, I think that if we knew all of the towns that are Nusra-controlled, then we should absolutely use grey dots to show these towns. But the fact is, we don't know which towns they have complete control over, and which towns they have only some presence in. All of the various sources covering this war disagree on which towns Nusra controls.

I think that if Nusra does something similar to what ISIS did and declares an Islamic emirate (they have already helped take Idlib and Jisr Shougour), then grey dots would be a good idea, but in the current situation with combined groups like Jaish Fatah, I think the grey color should be removed from the map. Unless we can verify each town and village, finding out if Nusra controls it, then making all those towns green is the simplest and best option. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:4587:3ABE:1820:29B7 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. ISIS is at war with every single opposition faction. Nusra is only at war with some of them. It gets along fine with Ahrar al Sham and other Islamists. Which is the main reason why this scheme makes no sense: what do we call a town dominated by Ahrar al Sham where Nusra has expelled the FSA? This is the main problem with Idlib province. NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

They should definitely be kept grey. They have a distinct goal and identity- their ideology is the same as IS. They do not work with any US and NATO sponsored rebels. They distinctly split from more moderate and secular rebels. They have ethnically cleansed any ethnic and religious minorities in their areas. I am shocked that some in moderate rebels still have no problem with identifying with and working so closely with JN. JN is Al Qaeda it should be a separate color. They are terrorists and should not be grouped with more moderate rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.92 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Islamist rebels outnumber pro-NATO rebels, and these guys all support Nusra as one of them. You and I obviously have a problem with al Qaeda, but most Islamists fighting Assad see it as a Eurocentric problem, and given that Nusra has given them more firepower against Assad than anyone, you can see where they're coming from. For all intents and purposes, they are the same faction in a four-way civil war. If we ever see a clear break between radical Islamists and moderates, then the characterization would make sense. But otherwise, they are fighting on the same side in Idlib and Jisr al Shughour, as well as in Daraa, against both Assad and ISIS. What Nusra does to other rebels is an extreme version of what rebels do to each other often, such as Jaysh al Islam to Jaysh al Ummah, or Liwa al Tawhid and Jaysh al Mujahideen to splinters from Tawhid and Alwiyat Fajr al Houria who are accused of corruption. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

well then maybe it would be a good idea to have a color for the more moderate and NATO vetted rebels, and a color for Nusra and the islamist groups who are so insane that they are willing to work closely with Nusra. Groups that work with and affiliate with JN are just as bad as JN. Furthermore, I think it would be interesting for the map to use an orange color for locations where hezbollah is present- that way we could see on the map where they operate.

I highly doubt you'll be able to agree where Hezbollah is, as there is little agreement about the extend of their presence in Syria. This is partly because some rebels have claimed that they are pretty much only fighting Hezbollah. As for splitting rebel groups: how confident are you in telling between two groups of rebels? Is there anything we can do that won't look cause unnecessary warring? Maybe split between Islamists and others if you must have 2 categories of rebel? Banak (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Banak, I think you'll agree with me that on the file image of this map, you are forced to make decisions about where the al-Nusra color goes and where rebel green goes, and whatever is produced is still inaccurate, as al-Nusra and other groups share most of their territory. With the Jaish Fatah Operation room, al-Nusra has shown that it intends to fully cooperate with the rebels to bring down the Assad government, not to be like ISIS and fight everyone who doesn't agree with them. Though I agree with other users who state that Nusra ideology is very similar to that of ISIS, the key difference is they work with rebels and share their territory. I think that the best option is to remove the grey al-Nusra color and make those towns green. This is not ideal, but it is still simpler and better than edit-warring over whether Nusra or rebels control a town every single time there is an offensive. Does anyone disagree? (I cannot edit myself, since I am not registered. If no one diagrees, can a registered user please change it?)2601:0:B200:F7D9:702F:20E2:A862:C320 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I was also considering abandoning the white colour on the map for Nusra as a step to avoid worrying about intricate colouring, which would not mean we have to remove the al-Nursa dots, like in [this past version] if we wanted to keep the dots for future reference, but I have no idea if the dots are still accurate. How often do we find out who is controlling a village after it is captured?

Also, drawing long and complex borders that don't exist seems like a bad idea. Banak (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rebel advance on Ariha

Faylaq al Sham has released videos showing fighting in Hawsh Musibeen, a green area. [13] [14] They claim to have taken Tal Musibeen and Hawsh Musibeen checkpoints. The presence of trees and heights in the video clearly shows fighting is here, well to the southwest of the army station near the Brick Factory portrayed in the map as regime held. Thus the station should be changed to rebel held, while the checkpoint after it should be contested. See the topography: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.852970&lon=36.660948&z=16&m=b NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB We cant use pro opposition sources for displayed success of rebels. Need confirmation from neutral sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with pro or anti. The rebels have videos that prove they are in Musibeen. Look at the video and look at the map I provided. [15] They're obviously atop a hill with forestation. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

YouTube videos and pro-opp sources are not allowed. Have you ever wondered why videos are banned. Because the rebels have falsified so many of them, they are no longer reliable. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure it's the rebels' fault editors hate them. What rule is there against videos? And you do realize there are zero ways of confirming the gains of any side without taking their claims and evidences into account, right? There's no "neutral" source, and relying on the reports of the enemy is only a secondary bonus not a primary tool. The methodology here is very flawed and like it or not you will use rebel sources eventually whether you realize it or not. In the mean time the only difference is that regime gains without any proof whatsoever are updated second by second through circumstantial "pro-opposition sources", while rebel gains are delayed by days until denying them becomes foolish.

On topic, the rebels are atop a forested hill. Feel free to claim the rebels filmed this in Daraa or even Qatar, by the time you feel like updating they'll have already taken Ariha. And so on. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB We adhere to the main rules do not use all the pro government sources including the video to display the success of the army but also we not using all pro opposition sources including amateur video from the rebels to show the success of the rebels. We made the only one exception to the SOHR (which clear partialy pro opposition source) because his data use many reliable sources but this all and no more exceptions. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What rule is there against videos? NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

None. This is rubbish. Videos are ok and within the rules. Twitter posts are not. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a complete lie and you know it. Amateur Videos are not allowed and I will revert anyone who tries to make an edit based on an amateur video alone or tries to find a way to justify breaking longstanding rules. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

When I will be interested in your opinion, you shall be noted. Until than consider that as nonfactual. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I really could care less whether or not you are interested. I will continue to enforce the rules you ignore. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This video from rebels and deSyracuse also pro opposition source and we cany use this sources to show success of rebels. You NightShadeAEB broke the rule of editing which was agreed earlier. And you EllsworthSK pro opposition vandal! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I had it with you, mr 2014. If you cannot be reasoned with, you shan´t be. This will be escalated onto admin level EllsworthSK (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal is right. Videos can be made by anyone. It's not the problem about the location, because we obviously can see where it was shoot, but the problem is "when was it filmed", because videos are being uploaded at least 24hours after the shoot. I really don't know what's wrong with you guys, can't you really wait 2 days for real objective and reliable sources for an edit, why do you need to change it basically 2 hours after the video was uploaded. I understand the problem with Zijarah and Qastun village, i do belive that rebels have full control but I'm patient and will wait. DuckZz (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with playing on admin is not knowing the rules, not to mention being aware of the consensual agreement reached on Syrian civil war main page years ago. Yes, Hannibal, this is directed to you. Generally the videos are being accompanied with the date, but regadless of that in case of Ziyarah regime had prior control of the village since end of French mandate. Video showing rebels in control of the village clearly says that it changed the control. This has been accepted even by self-style administration of this page as the source for reverting has been twitter post about recapture of the village by army units. Now, this opens whole new can of worms about going into such strawmens as pulling up as source anonymous twitter account from Sarajevo which does not reffer to any primary source, buut with this out of the line it clearly shows that the interest here was not in who captured the village (or if), but who recaptured it (or if). This is generally the result of what happens when you don´t think twice about logical fallacy that one can use in the argument, but it ain´t perfect world. Qastum is different thing, we have no proof of any change of control from regime to rebel as far as I am aware. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If pro-rebel/regime maps are ignored I would assume the Peto Lucem is not a valid source? He's heavily pro-regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:103:A000:A501:9978:957B:D402:A696 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, now why would you ask a question that has a basis of logic in it? Its obvious that such aspects are not welcomed here by those that mistook their nose for the mount Everest. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

EllsworthSK Amateur video from the rebels too is contradictory. Firstly they reported that the fully control Ziyarah but later publish video where they said that major battle continues in Az Ziyārah here and here thus they deny their previous statements. And also here maps from pro opposition source which also showed that more than half of Ziyarah under control by Syrian troops and Tanmiyat al Ziyarah under control by Syrian troops.herehere but nevertheless, all of these data completely refute your video in which it was said that Ziyarah completely under rebel control. So we will wait data from reliable(neutral and not biased) sources about situation in this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Now, now, my dear are we finally recognizing the long-established rule about audiovisual material as such? Well, you took your sweet time as you switched to discussion about what the content is. And are you again quoting as sources TWITTER POSTS? How exactly stupider can we get? Because I think we are reaching our limits. You definition of source is, and excuse my French, pulled out of the ass. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Then make Ziyara contested. Why are you making it red held when they are clearly near inside it? When the government controls one building in a village you all rush to make the village contested. I have no problem waiting for three days to see the dust settle, the problem is that others did not wait and changed Ziyara and Qastun to red and contested based on a miscellaneous tweet by an Al Jazeera Balkans journalist, who most likely considers PetoLucem and other regime side tweeps to be as valid as markito and rebel side tweeps. Which would make him neutral, not pro opposition. Agathocle is not pro opposition either, if he trusts pro-opposition sources like archicivilians it's because of proven long term reliability unlike Peto. I remember in May 2013 when the rebels took Tal Jabiya and Brigade 61 in Nawa, the regime claimed to have retaken it and Agath believed regime claims. Then when the rebels took the bases east of Nawa and entered Sheikh Miskeen, he acknowledged that Tal Jabiya probably fell back in May. Please, how is someone who gives regime claims the benefit of the doubt, a pro-opposition source? Agathocle is neutral, and Bosno, I don't know him very well but he hints at being neutral so far, Al Jazeera or not. It's his personal life on Twitter. And I never said Ziyara was completely under rebel control, I changed it to contested, but someone changed it back to red in authoritarian manner.

You folks have to make up your minds; either we wait a few days for confirmation on ALL minor changes, or we update all minor changes based on plausibility and verifiability, and whether you like it or not, this includes videos and non-neutral sources. There is no rule on Wikipedia against non-neutral sources, please read WP:NEUTRALSOURCE fully and understand it. Some pro-regime sources are more reliable than others, and some pro-rebel sources are more reliable than others. In the end a mixture of consensus, evidence, probability, and past experience should be used to determine which claims are updated and which are not. Until then, stop changing places like Qastoun and Ziyara by clasping at straws, then reverting anyone who rights it or uses new evidence. NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB If you dont want follow the previously agreed rules for the editors you can edit other maps. We not use pro opposition sources for displayed success of rebels and not use pro government sources for displayed success of army. And later pro opposition source confirmed that Syrian troops stormed Al Ziyarah and make a massacre in village.Qasion News You understand that if we start to use the pro opposition sources to show the success of the rebels also other editors will use the pro government sources to show the success of the army and we obtain a chaos on map. We do not use biased sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hanibal911 beacause long before we agreed to not use amateur videos as sources to edit.Also we cant use pro-side sources like some editor who used pro-kurd and pro-regime sources in Hasakah province and changed a lot of towns and villages without any reliable source confirmation.Lindi29 (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

By that pro-opposition source you must make it contested at minimum, which is what I did: I made Ziyara contested but you still reverted it. And you still have no proof the regime is even in Qastoun, you just relied on a journalist's Twitter who was seen making fun of rebel tweeps before and you arbitrarily decided he was a reliable pro-rebel source. You are violating your own rules in favour of the regime's gains.

And for the record, I don't mind regime videos. During the battle of Qusayr the only thing that proved regime victory was video footage as the rebels refused to admit defeat. The same goes for Idlib; only the rebel videos proved their victory. Whether you like it or not, the mass media relies on videos to determine who won, in addition to claims by SOHR and, to a lesser extent, SANA. In the end each time you acknowledge rebel gains in the mass media, you do so by relying on mediums that are quoting pro-opposition sources and judging for themselves their reliability. All you do is delay the process on this map while you instantly and with zero proof go and make Qastoun contested and Ziyara red. If you can't produce any evidence for the two, I'm changing them back to contested for Ziyara and green for Qastoun.

Finally, I highly highly doubt you can just make up "rules". There's no rule against using videos. What you're referencing is consensus, and consensus is not rock solid; it is subject to change. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

the long standing "rules" around this map based on consensus are key for holding this map project together and not making it so crazy-- if you allow videos this whole thing will become too bogged down with constant videos, videos shot by who knows at who knows where, even more difficulty at getting through the fog of war and massive amount of social media propaganda surrounding this war. It must be the most in history, as its a recent phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.154.235 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS against rebels in Quneitra

Pro opposition source reported about clashes between rebels and ISIS in the town of Qahtaniyah.Syrian Rebellion ObservatoryQasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also pro opposition sources reported that the rebels Southern Front has started a large operation against ISIS in Qaytaniyah and Hamidiyah in the Quneitra province.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also on official page of Army of Islam(Jaish Al-Islam) reported that town of Al Adnaniyah have been cleared and several ISIS members killed.Army of IslamArmy of Islam Hanibal911 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

According to pro opposition source the town of Qahtaniyah in Quneitra it is stronghold of Jaysh al-Jihad(ex-rebels) which allied with ISIS and also ex-rebel group Liwa Shuhada al-Yarmouk allies of ISIS launched attack against rebels in south-west part of Dara provicne and captured the town of Saham al-Jawlan also they attacked on the village Hayt of and for now the town of Shajarah contested.Syrian Rebellion ObservatorySyrian Rebellion Observatory Hanibal911 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Istabraq

According to SOHR, rebels captured more than 100 soldiers in Jisr and Istabraq. Pro-opposition sources are saying that rebels took control of this village here. Opinions ? DuckZz (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The village probably is in rebel hands. Still, I would wait for a reliable source. Sources seem to be covering the events very well. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/complete-field-report-from-jisr-al-shughour/ confirms Istabraq felt to the rebels. Furthermore SAA is holding the national hospital and Musbeen is held by SAA but under attack. Paolowalter (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposition sources indirectly confirmed that the village Al Ziyarah was taken by Syrian troops and NDF. Source said that Syrian troops and NDF make a massacre in village Al Ziyarah in Al Gabab plain last night source said that this happened after the Syrian troops and NDF broke into the village from all sides.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

‎Paolowalter About Musbin pro opposition source said that rebels just seize the woods near village Musbin.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro gov. source: NDF and Syria-n Resistance take control of Fawru in Al-Ghab Plain Hama after intense clashes with Jaish_Fateh. https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/593293046084538369 Photo: https://twitter.com/watanisy/status/593441667593719808 Stharkov (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Deir er-zoor

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-at-sakr-island-in-deir-ezzor/ states that al-Shoula is contested between SAA and ISIS. It confirms the red-black dot on the map.Paolowalter (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There is this map in http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/map-of-deir-ezzor-syrian-army-ground-development-since-january-2015/#prettyPhoto. The map is from an indipendent guy who put together infos from sohr and al masdar. It is quite similar tp ours. I think we can use it for some corrections. What do think?Paolowalter (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

YPG advance south of Serekaniye

The following maps from Res Publica show YPG advance via videos they published in the past few days:

https://twitter.com/_paulo34/status/593154163086884864

While I understand amateur videos can't be used to show advances, reliable sources had already confirmed 3 days ago that YPG advanced in the area and gained control of some points:

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/04/ypg-advances-in-the-countryside-of-al-hasakah-and-seizes-new-areas/

http://ypgrojava.com/en/index.php/statements/616-military-operations-in-kobane-and-cizire-significantly-concluding ¡ So could someone make the changes then and add the villages? Video footage supported by reliable sources should be enough in this case I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.254.21.203 (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added the villages showed here: https://twitter.com/_paulo34/status/593154163086884864 , Res Publica is a source not less reliable than the other editors (Marc Monomonier, De Syracuse...) often used as sources. --8fra0 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Fuwra

Dear Users, I#m new here and try to start. Confirmed by Photos: Government Troops recaptured the village "Fawru" from Rebels south of Jisr Al-Shugour. https://twitter.com/watanisy/status/593441667593719808

Please change from contestes to red — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkongorr (talk • contribs) 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Photos and videos may not be used. Furthermore, this is a pro-gov source mentioning pro-gov advance. We cannot use it to edit the map. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Photographs and videos despite being a clear evidence are not considered a Reliable source for Wikipedia or this Type of Articles. Only media web articles, newspapers, books etc. are consideres RS. Because those things are documented and can be sourced or referenced.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kingkongorr, welcome to Wikipedia/this article of Wikipedia (whichever you are new to). Thanks for contributing. Unfortunately we can't use this as it is very hard to tell where and when the footage was taken, or even if this means they control the surrounding area. However, stuff like this can be useful, because if you get a lot of sources saying the same thing it's a good indication that it might be happening and that you can find a neutral source that says so. Banak (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source confirmed that the village of Fuwra under control by Syrian troops.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Latakia Sama

Apparently there is an ongoing offensive in Latakia, Salma area by SAA http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-armed-forces-capture-strategic-hills-at-salma-in-ne-latakia/, some progress from SAA is claimed.Paolowalter (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC) A confirmation by SOHR http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/04/3-members-of-the-regime-forces-killed-in-an-ambush-and-the-clashes-continue-in-the-northern-countryside-of-lattakia/. Is al- Ghanmah Hill the location in http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=35.675426&lon=36.006918&z=14&m=b marked green on the map?.Paolowalter (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Other info on SAA advancement in the area https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/593886734280237056. Any confirmation?Paolowalter (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A map of Latakia area https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/593887781954420737. Basically it agrees with ours but it suggest Kafr Ajuz is under SAA control and Salma is contested. Paolowalter (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)