Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Saphyr99 (talk | contribs)
Line 359: Line 359:


[http://www.syrianewsapp.com/1/Article/2114/102566896#.Vi5yrxvluUk syrianewsapp.] which is pro red states that SAA and its allies withdrawn from points between Ithrea and zakeya chackpoint. problem is I don't know where the hell is zakiah checkpoint ? does anyone knows where it can be ? [[User:Helmy1453|Helmy1453]] ([[User talk:Helmy1453|talk]]) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
[http://www.syrianewsapp.com/1/Article/2114/102566896#.Vi5yrxvluUk syrianewsapp.] which is pro red states that SAA and its allies withdrawn from points between Ithrea and zakeya chackpoint. problem is I don't know where the hell is zakiah checkpoint ? does anyone knows where it can be ? [[User:Helmy1453|Helmy1453]] ([[User talk:Helmy1453|talk]]) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

: Could it be this here? [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=35.403183&lon=37.841291&z=14&m=b] Reportedly, IS took it today. [[Special:Contributions/84.138.74.98|84.138.74.98]] ([[User talk:84.138.74.98|talk]]) 22:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


== SOURCES AGAIN (FOR THE 1000TH TIME) ==
== SOURCES AGAIN (FOR THE 1000TH TIME) ==

Revision as of 22:35, 26 October 2015

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

Add lime northern siege icon "map-arcNN-lime.svg" to Jubb al Ahmar, which is a government held area per pro-government and reliable source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-attempt-to-recapture-jubb-al-ahmar-amid-the-syrian-armys-offensive-in-salma/ 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is 5 days old now, if they had captured it we would hear and if they were still around it we would have heard, no point really yet, unless confirmed by elsewhere or a new fresh report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talkcontribs) 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody reading this page?

#Bir Khalah and other things to fix! I spent quite a lot of time looking for thinks to fix, but I can't change it myself since I don't have autoconfirmed status. So, can I have the status or someone else will do the changes? --Hogg 22 (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't edit the article and would like to request an edit, you can use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13(talk) 09:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Paolowalter (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South of Aleppo

Many news are flowing in about south-west of Aleppo AlMasdar alMadar SOHR SOHR. Summarizing: Khan Thuma and Kalidya contested [1], they are on the ALeppo main page; Al-Huwayz taken by SAA. TellQuhra[ taken by SAA. [http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=36.120752&lon=37.092590&z=14&m=b Munition Storage & Army Base taken by SAA (I guess). Honestly the information are not always clear. Do you agree on these changes?Paolowalter (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trust your judgement. Rhocagil (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Army and Hezbollah Capture Tal SyriaTel in Southern Aleppo.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-and-hezbollah-capture-tal-syriatel-in-southern-aleppo/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Syria Tell is a strategic hill around 7 kilometers west of Al Hader, it is not shown on the map, a lot of places are not shown on the map, only places really insignificant in ISIS/FSA/AL Nusrat control get added, the Government towns get deleted by the many insurgent supporters on this article.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's near al waddihi, but you are right, strategic and not shown. There is actually a dispute where it is.Totholio (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a SyriaTel here but it seems in a area controlled by SAA since long time. I cannot find another close to the front line.Paolowalter (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East Aleppo

Isis confrims that they are still in controll of Muflisah,Dakwanah,Halabiyah here,also pro-regime source confirms this to here,Al-Masdar primary source is this guy Ibrahim Joudeh.46.99.68.133 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IS statement cannot be used in its favour. Maps cannot be use not even to support the opposite site. What is the point about Al Masdar? The latest info from AlMasdar states that Dakwanah is taken by SAA while Al-Mufliseh is still in IS hand with SAA on its outskirts. Halabiyah was taken some days before. SOHR speaks of clashes around al- Dekwani. Let's say that Dakwanah is on the front-line contested, Al-Mufliseh on the front line under IS control and Halabiyah most likely SAA control.Paolowalter (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, this is why I highly doubt SOHR credibility(a lot of times masdar also) They got 0 source in IS/SAA, just guessing the casualties/progress.Totholio (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-rebels sources claim: Regime force controls village of Dakwanah and other villages nearby surroundings of Kweiris Airport and Thermal station after ISIS withdraw.https://twitter.com/abohafsalhamoe/status/656125309708804096 Assad's forces in control of villages Dakwanah and Baqisha less than 10 km from Kweiris military airport after the decline ISIS.https://twitter.com/Raman_Yusif/status/656166075122364416 https://twitter.com/saleelalmajd1/status/656139117164531712 46.200.207.127 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA launched a counter-assault from their positions at Burayjah in order to recapture western farms of Tal Sab’een and not only captured the western farms, but also captured hilltops overlooking of Tal Sab’een and forced ISIS to retreat further north. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/cheetah-forces-press-further-in-east-aleppo-hilltops-overlooking-tal-sabeen-captured/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoura

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/regime-forces-advances-in-al-ghab-valley/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.87.204.184 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR claim that Mansoura Grain Silos under control of Regime forces. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/regime-forces-advances-in-al-ghab-valley/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Al Jumaymah in S Aleppo

Please add Al Jumaymah in S Aleppo, based on Al-Masdar article. This pro-Assad news portal reports about rebels retreating from Balas to Al Jumaymah, which means the willage is definitively under rebel control. This area has too few villages on our map. --Hogg 22 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did before I read your post. In anycase you can do it yourself.Paolowalter (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POST DELETED - Twitter is not a source, 46.200.207.127. Don't use it as one.DaJesuZ (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted, invalid sources shouldn't be used to edit, but shouldn't be deleted from the talk-page. There are few reasons to delete a comment on a talk page. In addition, twitter sources aren't necessarily bad, it's the person who makes the twitter post we should consider (here, Leithfadel). Banak (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leith has been shown, on several occasions, regardless of his position as an editor for al-Masdar, to be biased and unreliable (based on his Twitter feed), going by it, without confirmation from al-Masdar, means there is a greater chance for inaccurate editing of the map. This guy's feed is not a source. Re-deleted. DaJesuZ (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious that Leith will post stuff on twitter before he has had it confirmed, not to mention some of his tweets are just intended as wind ups. With his pieces on al-Masdar he seems to be much more careful and while he might make the odd mistake there does seem to be a genuine attempt at accuracy. al-Masdar does report some rebel advances and recently as de-bunked some stories of more extravagant SAA advances. Therefore while I think it is right to use al-Masdar as a reliable source it would be a huge mistake to consider Leith's twitter account as reliable. Conservative Thinker (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafr Dulbah and Tartiyah

Looks like i was in a cave for the last ten days. When did Kafr Dulbah moved from contested to red? the last info i can find online about it from RT (Pro-red)RT is That Kafr Dulbah is contested. (They stated the army is making progress in Kafr Dulbah which means they don't fully control it) if there is later news I can't find please inform me. Tartiyah on the other hand I heard no news of clashes overthere. waiting for answers Helmy1453 (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another Pro-red source (bousla states that RT claim advances in Kafr Dublah) just today stating advances for the SAA in Kafrdulbah and killing ,tens of terrorist bla bla bla. The point is if pre red states clashes and advances in the are how is it red already ??? If I get no reply by midday I will change it to contested Helmy1453 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been absent, I am sorry for you but all changes were done following reliable sources. Therefore you are not going to change it unless new sources become available. The source you posted is in arabic, which I cannot read, and automatic translation ofetn confused 'inside' with 'around'. None of the usual sources posted any news such to require a change in the map. Tracking the sources that supported the changes can be a little time consuming but it is up to you if you want to check if they are good enough.Paolowalter (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. fair enough.  I will wait till a source in english states it, but many times I find sources in arabic with no equivelent in english. also those towns every one speels them his own way in englsih which make ssearch on google impossible where in arabic it is always spelled the same. But you will see that in a week or so we will here news from Kafr Dulbah that it is "captured" by the regime or clashes will hapen. let's wait and see. Helmy1453 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rasm Hater west of Al-Ithriyah

I´m adding the tiny village Rasm Hater (as under SAA control) just 2 km west of Al-Ithriyah, because I think it´s important to show as much information as possible around strategic places such as Al-Ithriyah. Of course I can´t be 100% sure about who is in control, but I think it´s a fair assumption that it´s government held. If anyone has an argument about this, please post your opinion. Rhocagil (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is probably government-held. Good edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References to comments

Dear colleagues,

I propose to make it mandatory to put link to the source not [only] in the edit description, but also in comment after the changed line. As far as I understand, two dashes ( -- ) should work fine? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of putting comments after each line in the code might become tedious, but it is an interesting idea. I am all for making edit summaries and sources mandatory, as there is too much unsourced editing going on around here. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Waha Report?

Hi! Is http://wahareport.com/ considered reliable source? --Hogg 22 (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can monitor and see. As far as I could see, it reports news correctly but nothing different from other sources.

It should be understood if it has sources on ground or if it just copies news from other sources.Paolowalter (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking because today's report says "Opposition and SAA forces clash in Bayt Awan, north of Latakia. Reports of casualties on both sides.", and Bayt Awan is red on our map. I will be bold and change it :). Feel free to revert it if You disagree. --Hogg 22 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jabbul

Isis has retaken Jabbul 8 days ago and pro-regime source Al-Masdar didn't report that,but other pro-regime sources did.PetoLucem,here.46.99.17.6 (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the news but it is not available on what we condider reliable sources but only on map and twitter. Let keep an eye when and if it will be reported through reliable sources.Paolowalter (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA probably withdraw for tactical reasons or something as we have heard nothing from either SOHR or Al-Masdar. Otherwise I think it´s very strange that two of the most pro-regime sources makes their maps without showing SAA presence in Jabbul. Rhocagil (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA captured village of Tal Sabin south of Kuwairis Airport.source Also pro rebels source confirmed that Jabbul under control of SAA. https://twitter.com/Abboud11S/status/656581621840220160 46.200.207.127 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paolowalter which is that reliable source that we should wait to report this that didn't report it 1 week ago ? Al-Masdar?? that is reporting that the syrian army are only 1 village close to the airport or that of pro-rebels source who some are saying they captured Jabbul some say they recaptured Bashiqah!?.Tell me please.46.99.72.61 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand your question. Opinions on Jabbul differ even between pro-government outlets. It is reported that SAA pulled out without fighting (and therefore went unreported) to defend Tell Naam. We can also put it contested (in any case is next to the front line).Paolowalter (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another advance toward the base http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-cheetah-forces-enters-sheikh-ahmad-4km-left-to-lift-the-siege-of-kuweires-airport/.Paolowalter (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat pro OPP Agathocle deSyracuse has Jabbul contested on his (today 21 oct) map. Thou I have no idea how credible his maps are. Anyway it might be logical as Paolowalter says to put it contested.Rhocagil (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA advance to South of Aleppo

SAA advanced and captured three villages to south of Aleppo(Sufayrah,Al-Qarassi and Al-Huwayz) village Balas contested.source 46.200.207.127 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro FSA source reported that the vilages Khan Touman and Balas under control by rebels and that Tal Al Mahruqat,Al Waddihi,Kadar,Tank Battalion,Al Sabaqiyah,Abtin,Tel Shaheed,Mount Azzan,Al Malahiya, Rasm Bakru under control of SAA.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRzAFStUYAAXgTZ.png:large 46.200.207.127 (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes between SAA and opposition forces in al-Eis http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.000924&lon=37.052078&z=13&show=/21654766/Al-Eis-%28Qinnasrin%29&search=Al-Hadher and al-Hadher http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.995508&lon=37.024441&z=13&show=/1696731/Al-Hadher&search=Al-Hadher, southwest of Aleppo. http://wahareport.com/2015/10/20/syria-daily-report-20102015/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA entered the imperative town of Sheikh Ahmad on the fringes of the Kuweires Military Airbase after intense firefights with ISIS.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-cheetah-forces-enters-sheikh-ahmad-4km-left-to-lift-the-siege-of-kuweires-airport/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA captured villages of Tal Maflass http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.004257&lon=37.237988&z=13&m=b&show=/object/history/list/?object_type=1&id=33938090&lng=en ,Al-Ayoubi(including its surrounding farms) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.004257&lon=37.237988&z=13&m=b&show=/object/history/list/?object_type=1&id=33938090&lng=en and Air Defense Battalion Base.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-and-hezbollah-make-massive-gains-in-southern-aleppo-rebel-defenses-collapse/ 37.53.191.209 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA advance in southern countryside of Aleppo and captured Ghayghar, Al-Ajoubiyah Farms, Tal Mafless, Balas, and Jawar Al-Jahish after fierce clashes with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham and Harakat Nour Al-Deen Al-Zinki. SAA also advance deep into the town of Kafr ‘Abid, which is located directly south of Balas and directly east of Kafr ‘Abish. So Kafr Abit still contested.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/hezbollah-and-the-syrian-army-capture-several-sites-in-southern-aleppo-dagestani-emir-killed/ 37.52.24.103 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whole of Al Zahara district captured by The Syrian Arab Army, Goverment forces

Sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Al Zahara captured by the legitimate Government Armed forces of the sovergn state of Syria: [2] http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-overpowers-jabhat-al-nusra-in-west-aleppo-entire-al-zahra-quarter-captured/

SyrianObserver2016 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm not sure what they mean by that. For example, they say " this left the Islamist rebels with their backs against the wall at the Great Prophet Mosque located on the western fringes of Al-Zahra" and "religious site that has now become a battleground between the two opposing sides" which sounds like they didn't really captured entire Az-Zahraa district because the mosque is not really on it's western edge, there are some building blocks behind it. Considering how File:Rif Aleppo2.svg (not very precise anyway) currently looks like, I don't think it requires any changes. But, thanks for the heads up, anyway :)! --Hogg 22 (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that they mean what they mean and not what you think they mean. I am sure when they state "Whole of Al Zahara captured by the Syrian Arab Army" that is what they mean, not what you think they mean. SyrianObserver2016 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on SyrianObserver2016, quit being such a propaganda-hothead. Jesus Christ ... "legitimate government armed forces of the sovergn (grammar mistake, mind you) state of Syria". Don't let my laugh. I read the article. For one, it's from Al Masdar. They claimed weeks ago that "rebels" didn't even enter Al-Zahra district during their offensive. Now, the rebels are pushed out? Strange, since, according to Al Masdar, they were never inside in the first place. Find some decent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on Mansour and it's grain south of it

I've seen pictures I trust of rebels taking control of grain south of Mansoura. these sources are Pro-Rebels and don't meet this page criteria so I am not posting them or updating anything, just saying keep aware if any reliable(per this page) sources anounce it. P.S looks like SOHR is in a coma lately they rarely report anything at all. all our updates lately are per Al-Masdar if this continues for long time we will need to find another Pro-Rebel reliable source other than SOHR, but that is a discusion for another day. Helmy1453 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

East Hama

Does anybody know where al-Sa’en al-Aswad is SOHR? Paolowalter (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nusra and Jund Al-Aqsa launched a powerful assault on strategic town al-Sa’en in Hama Governorate but resulting in a series of intense firefights between the aforementioned Islamist group and NDF throughout the day they was unable to break-through the frontline defenses of Syrian troops and were forced to retreat to north in order to evade both the Syrian and Russian Air Forces that were lurking around the Hama-Idlib border.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/important-battle-brewing-in-northern-hama-jabhat-al-nusra-attacks-al-siin/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the news. I just asked wher eis the town.Paolowalter (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made the edit as an arch in the north, per ALMSDR news reporting the attack at the outskirts and a retreat north-ward.Ariskar (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paolowalter I don´t give much for this map but it points out the village you requested.Rhocagil (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Change "Hawsh Haju" to contested per reliable source: http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/is-mobilize-its-soldiers-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-hama-and-ongoing-clashes-in-the-northern-countryside/

This source reported that the Islamist rebels and the government were clashing violently around Hawsh Haju near Homs. I think we should do a contested icon for that town, but a green siege icon would also do the job. " 2601:C7:8303:22DC:290C:A330:6FCA:AE4D (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cant marked Hawsh Haju as contested because SOHR only said that clashes near this town between Islamist rebels and Syrian troops. 46.200.207.127 (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this place?Paolowalter (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.268608&lon=37.376175&z=12&m=b&show=/4560831/As-Si-in&search=Aleppo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MesmerMe (talkcontribs) 08:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's As Si'in. Hawsh Haju is near Homs: wikimapia. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please make the edit?2601:C7:8303:22DC:862:D47F:F030:9061 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Ahmad et al.

Dear colleagues,

don't you think that it would be right to add towns of

  • Settlement name in latin script (population 2004, coordinates) date captured by SAA [references] (Settlement name in arabic script)
  • Al-Nasiriyah (?, 36°6'30"N 37°28'20"E) 16.10 [3] (الناصرية)
  • Al-Huwayjinah (1112, 36°6'40"N 37°26'35"E) 17.10.2015 [4] (حويجينة)
  • Burayjah (1448, 36°7'17"N 37°28'59"E) 18.10.2015 [5] (بريجة)
  • Dakwanah (688, 36°8'14"N 37°29'23"E) 18.10.2015 [6][7] (دكوانة)
  • Tal Sab'in (890, 36°7'11"N 37°30'29"E) 20.10.2015 [8][9][10] (تلة الصبيحية) (AKA تل سبعين)
  • Sheikh Ahmad (697, 36°9'4"N 37°31'46"E) 21.10.2015 [11] (شيخ احمد)
  • Al-Halabiyah (1858, 36°8'22"N 37°28'0"E) 22.10.2015 [12] (الحلبية)

that were taken by the asadists on the respective dates according to Al-Masdar News? Yes, I undersand, that most of these are small towns and villages, but without them this part of the map look unreasonably empty and doesn't reflect the real situstion. (2004 population data according to [13]). Tal Na'am, for example, was put on the map, despite it's of no more importance that listed above. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 17:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing like 'asadists', it is called SAA, army or government foces. Those locations are located in the are covered by the detailed Aleppo map. There is a red dot on the map which I cannot understand what it is referring to. Tal Na'am is just outside the border of the map and was given its own point. The changes you require should be addressed to the Aleppo detailed page.Paolowalter (talk)

Al-Masdar map of N Homs

Check this map by Al-Masdar. Some of the rebel-held areas on Al-Masdar map are marked red on our map. It this just sloppy journalism or we can rely on this? --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus on not using maps. I saw some discrepancies but they are not large, al-Halamuz seems the largest difference.Paolowalter (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels E and SE of al-Hamraa (NE of Hama)

I think we have some wrong data on the map. Please find city of al-Hamraa, NE of Hama, on Hama-Idlib border. All willages S and SE of al-Hamraa are red, but some pro-SAA sites are reporting rebel attacks in that area.

For example:

  • syria 24 english: SAA Destroy TWO (2) Militant tanks EAST of Hamra
  • Al-Masdar: [rebels] launched several attacks on the SAA’s positions along the Hama-Idlib border, targeting the Syrian Government controlled towns of Sukayk, ‘Abdel-‘Aziz, Al-Hamra, and Qal’at Rahiya on Friday morning. I believe ‘Abdel-‘Aziz and Qal’at Rahiya are willages Tall `Abd al `Aziz and Ruhayyah SE of al-Hamraa, see wikimapia. We have those willages on the map as Ruhayyah and Tall Abdelaziz.

Does anyone has more info on this area? --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand which changes you requires. The map is essentially correct Paolowalter (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is: Iranian (pro-SAA) farsnews.com reports of airstrikews on rebel-held Tawal al-Dabaghin, which I found on wikimapia, just east of Al-Hamraa! I'm adding it to the map. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Arab Army, legitimate Government Forces capture more towns in Aleppo.

Sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Source for captured towns: [14] Sana: "Army units, in cooperation with the popular defense groups, established control over al-Huweiz and al-Qarasi villages in the southwestern countryside of Aleppo province, a military source announced." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2016 (talkcontribs) 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already turned red some days ago.Paolowalter (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo maps

There are two maps of Aleppo, but the first primary one does not show the so called- ammunition storage base as a goverment held territory while the other does. Both are created by MrPenguin20. In addition, the Rif-Aleppo map, Maryamayn is indicated as rebel-held and KafrAbid contested, showing rebel advatage. Is it true ? What do we know about the infarntry school ? Pro-gov. sources don't mention it's under SAA control. Oroszka (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as we know, the infantry academy is still under Islamic State control, so the map looks a little off in that area. Regime forces haven't been mentioned to've entered the academy, but have been in its vicinity, and to the east of it for days. DaJesuZ (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo supply road cut

Here is a twitter post from a very reputable source (a page run by numerous well-known mapmakers) https://twitter.com/IUCAnalysts/status/657547319181709312

Here is a post from an IS source (assuming it's IS at least) displaying that they defeated an attempted Government counterattack. https://twitter.com/maghrebiwtis/status/657649089300049920

Here is an article from a source of unknown bias outlining the situation. I am not an Arabic reader by the way, so someone would have to translate for me. https://a3maqagency.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%81%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%83-%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B9-%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.188.171 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian regime is suffering from a manpower shortage, so an advance by both the rebels and Islamic State like this is very possible (however, this is simply my point of view, and POV edits are not allowed), but that would mean we have several town and cities marked incorrectly. The Arabic source you provided states that the Islamic State has severed the Syrian government's supply lines to Aleppo. I have no idea if this is true, but keep an eye out for more stories about it. This would be a massive development, and would influence the battle for Aleppo city, massively. DaJesuZ (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this pro ISIS source https://a3maqagency.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%81%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%83-%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B9-%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84/ And more reliable source reported that the Syrian Army Reopens the Ithriyah-Salamiyah Road in East Hama After Defeating ISIS. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-reopens-the-ithriyah-salamiyah-road-in-east-hama-after-defeating-isis/ 91.124.122.78 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This very source clearly states that IS holds parts of the Aleppo-Khanasser Hghway: "While the Syrian Armed Forces were successful in the aforementioned military endeavor, the Syrian Government’s main supply route along the Aleppo-Khanasser Highway that leads to the Aleppo Governorate remains cutoff by ISIS; this report has been confirmed by multiple sources from the Syrian Arab Army and National Defense Forces in the Hama Governorate. As long as ISIS has control of the Ithriyah-Khanasser Road, the Syrian Armed Forces will not have direct access to the imperative Aleppo-Khanasser that leads to the Aleppo Governorate’s provincial capital." 84.138.74.98 (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA advance in Latakia province

SAA capture of Kataf Al-Ghaddar and have advanced inside the strategic city of Salma, capturing several building blocks and hilltops from the Islamist rebels, while also minimizing their losses at this volatile front. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-special-forces-sweep-through-the-hills-surrounding-the-strategic-city-of-salma/ 91.124.122.78 (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo changes

Rebels have retaken the villages of Al-Qarassi and Ayyubid yesterday and today. Those two villages are shown as SAA held on this map. We should change them to green. Source: http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-iraq-news-5/

The road between Khanassir and Aleppo has been cut by Islamic State fighters. Fighting is ongoing, but the sources are clear: the road is closed. We should make the red dots for the supply road black. Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/24/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUKKCN0SI08U20151024 Source: http://www.muscatdaily.com/Archive/Gcc/Syria-army-battles-to-retake-Aleppo-supply-line-from-IS-4dn6 Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0SH2D520151023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source too biased pro rebel source.http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-iraq-news-5/ Also Syrian Army Reopens the Ithriyah-Salamiyah Road in East Hama After Defeating ISIS.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-reopens-the-ithriyah-salamiyah-road-in-east-hama-after-defeating-isis/ http://isis.trendolizer.com/2015/10/breaking-syrian-army-reopens-the-ithriyah-salamiyah-road-in-east-hama-after-defeating-isis.html 91.124.122.78 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only Islamic State members, speaking to Reuters via internet from inside Syria, said their group had taken control of the road southeast of Aleppo. But SOHR only reported about fierce fighting between Syrian government forces and Islamic State in area of this road.http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/24/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKCN0SI08N20151024 So we not confirmations from reliable sources that ISIS captured some part of this road. The road was closed due to the clashes but not under the control of ISIS. But reliable source clear said that the Syrian Army Reopens the Ithriyah-Salamiyah Road in East Hama After Defeating ISIS.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-reopens-the-ithriyah-salamiyah-road-in-east-hama-after-defeating-isis/ 91.124.122.78 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so this means that we can't use Al-Masdar as a source when "members of the Syrian Army claim to have taken a town"? Because we used some of those articles last week to make changes in Hama governorate? If your line of reasoning is solid, we can only use direct statements from sources on the ground in the area.

IS took TWO sections of the highway near Ithriyah. One section between Ithriyah and Salamniyah and one section between Ithriyah and Khanaser. The Al-Masdar article clearly states that SAA retook only the section between Ithriyah and Salamniyah but that IS still controls parts of the highways between Ithriyah and Khanaser! 84.138.74.98 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assad's forces control Tel Ambassador from the nearby village of Jabboul after another against ISIS. https://twitter.com/24Aleppo/status/657958483917197313 91.124.122.78 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tweets are not a reliable source. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR claim that the clashes continue between regime force and IS on Khenaser-Ethria road in the southern eastern countryside amid advances for the regime in the area.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/human-losses-and-continued-clashes-in-aleppo/ So SAA advance against ISIS in this area. 91.124.122.78 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state that SAA took full control of the area, so it should not be changed to red (yet), as clashes are still ongoing. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But also for now we cant marked this road on black color. So for now I think we just need remowed this icon. For now we only know that SAA advance in this area. 91.124.122.78 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar News (as well all know is very pro-Government) mentions that only the portion between Salmaniyah and Ithriyah has been reopened. The portion between Ithriyah and Khanisir is still held by IS. The article even states that. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-reopens-the-ithriyah-salamiyah-road-in-east-hama-after-defeating-isis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.188.171 (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to all reliable sources, the highway is still blocked by IS; though SAA may make progress, SAA does not have full control of the highway which is the SAA's vital supply route to the whole Aleppo region. This should be reflected by the map, and some IS presence should be shown between Ithriyah and Khanassir. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Idlib changes

I've seen some changes in the past few days. I have some questions about them:

  1. Which source was used to make the town of Al Taman'ah (east of Khan Shaykun, Idlib) contested between the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra?
  2. Which source was used to make Tell Al-Teri red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was heavy fighting between the moderates in Taman'ah and today jund al aqsa left jaish al fateh cause they are too moderate for them. More moderate infighting soon.Totholio (talk 16:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source please? Your not giving one, just talking. I can claim "the SAA retook Idlib city when they landed on the back of a Divine Budha Elephant". Doesn't make it true. Also, Al Taman'ah was contested BEFORE Jund al-Aqsa left Jaysh al-Fatah, so your argument is invalid.

User: Sakultah

User Sakultah is on a source-less editing rampage. More then ten non sourced edits the last week (did not ever give a sourced edit). Latest Ex; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Can somebody that knows how block this editor. Rhocagil (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talbiseh (Homs)

SOHR claim that clashes continue in Talbisa between regime forces and Islamic battalions what devastated 2 tanks for regime forces.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/continued-clashes-in-homs-countryside/ 91.124.122.78 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Aleppo IS offensive

Al-Masdar [15] states that IS took Tall Riman [16] and Salihiyah [17] before moving in the direction of Tel Aran [18] and Aziziyah [19], without taking the latter two. Non-reliable sources also reported clashes between SAA and IS at Tal Hasel [20] and the cable factory [21]. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reliable sources should not be quoted at all. They cannot be used, more often than not false and just increase confusion.Paolowalter (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. SOHR confirms [22] clashes between SAA and IS near al-Sfirah [23], Tal Aran [24] and Tal Hasel [25]. The article does not state change in ground control though. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro SAA source https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSKq0qGUEAAmmZ7.jpg:large https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/658278280513081344 and Pro ISIS source http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/871561aleppoe20151025M.jpg showed that al-Sfirah [26], Tal Aran [27] and Tal Hasel [28] under control SAA and that clashes still far away from these cities. But both of these sources confirmed that ISIS retake Saligiyah and Tell Riemann to north of Al Safira Saphyr99 (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reliable sources. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southe Aleppo

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/4th-mechanized-division-and-hezbollah-capture-over-45km-of-territory-in-southern-aleppo/ I'd say Al-Hamraa with a green ring on the west/south side, Kafr-Abid contested (as is), Shugaydilah contested. Any objections?Paolowalter (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note, Al-Masdar states that the road Ithriyah - Khanasser still is blocked by IS: [29]. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph also states that IS seized the highway [30]. Until we have a reliable source stating that SAA took back FULL CONTROL of the highway, we should indicate some IS presence between Ithriyah and Khanassir. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rural icon in south Aleppo deleted

Why was the rural icon, used to represent the Islamic State taking control of portions of the Hama-Aleppo highway? All sources, including al-Masdar, have stated that IS holds at least a small section of the highway. I do not know the exact coordinates of the icon, so I'm relying on someone else to place it again.DaJesuZ (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Markabah still under SAA

SOHR confirmed that the village Markabah in Hama still under control by Syrian troops.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/russian-airstrikes-on-hama-countryside-and-clashes-in-homs-countryside/ and other source announce that 23 October that the rebels(Regiment.111 & the 6th brigade) captured village Markabah, seized a tank and withdrew due to airstrikes.https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/657621744769966081 Saphyr99 (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear situation in Aleppo

The rebels claimed to have captured al-Hamra[1], but it is red on this map. What is the actual situation? The situation in Kafr Abid is similar. Al-Masdar said it was captured by the army on the 22nd, but it turned out to be contested. Both sides of the conflict provide very inconsistent news regarding the situation. I urge editors to confirm their sources more carefully. Deserttanker (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new from the rebels on their own conquest are worthless. They lie all the time. SOHR is quite reliable but the its statement is quite vague "information reported ...". Of course al-Hamra is on the front line and the situation there has to be monitored continuously. Same thing for Kafr Abid situation is fluid and the front line is close or within the town. Paolowalter (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road to Aleppo

There is a consensus on this page that the road from Aleppo to Hama has been cut off by the Islamic State. All sources on this page state that the road was cut off by the Islamic State, and some even state that the rebels from Idlib attacked the road. Al-Masdar DOES state that they cleared the road in one area, but at least one section of the road remains cut of by IS.

Someone on this page is deleting my marker, showing there being an IS presence there (I used the rural icon, as roads are not shown on the map, so I can't use a point to show control over a road, because of those being used for cities), and replacing it with a marker showing regime forces having fully opened the road, which they haven't, as shown by all sources have shown that IS fighters still hold at least part of the road.

I'll be copying the line for the marker I made, and putting it back in the edit page, should it be deleted, and deleting the army icon on the road to aleppo, should it be put back. DaJesuZ (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dots showing rural icons have a ill defined meaning. Nevertheless the road is at a large extent under SAA control with only some sections taken by IS. No reason to put black dots and removing red ones. The best solution is to remove dots alltoghether waiting that the situation stabilizes.Paolowalter (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

syrianewsapp. which is pro red states that SAA and its allies withdrawn from points between Ithrea and zakeya chackpoint. problem is I don't know where the hell is zakiah checkpoint ? does anyone knows where it can be ? Helmy1453 (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be this here? [31] Reportedly, IS took it today. 84.138.74.98 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES AGAIN (FOR THE 1000TH TIME)

  1. Mansoura (Ghab plain) changed to red without a legitimate source (so no Twitter, YouTube, rumors)
  2. Al-Taman'ah (Idlib) changed to contested between FSA and Al-Nusra, no sources given
  3. Khalasah (Aleppo) changed to contested without a legitimate source
  4. Mahija (Daraa) changed back to red, without a source mentioned here

When will this stop? You are completely destroying this map. Twitter maps are more accurate these days than Wikipedia is. It's a shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Khalasah - was marked as under SAA but I marked as under FSA because SOHR said that The Russian warplanes carried out several airstrikes on places in Khan Toman area, the town of al- Hader and the village of Khalsah in the southern countryside of Aleppo, coincided with shelling by the regime forces on the village of Dadin in the southern countryside of Aleppo.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/at-least-14-ndf-militiamen-killed-in-an-explosion-on-al-ramosah-road-and-the-regime-forces-retake-the-cement-plant/ village Al-Hamreaa near Khalasah marked as contested.
  2. Mansoura under SAA - http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-al-mansoura-inside-the-al-ghaab-plains/
  3. Mahija (Daraa) - was marked under FSA also without sources.
  4. Al-Taman'ah (Idlib) - changed to contested between FSA and Al-Nusra according to SOHR. And also (pro FSA) news source SyriaLiveNetwork also reported 20 October about clashes between Ahrar Al-Sham and Jund Al-Aqsa in Al-Tamanah town.here 46.200.206.144 (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]