Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Creepz55 (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 27 January 2015 (→‎Villages around Kobane). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Not justified editings!

So as earlier I said that I am neutral editor then I want ask why the cities Al Hirak and Al Zabadani which earlier was marked as contested but today have been marked under control of army. If there is no data from reliable sources that those cities under control of army they should again be marked as disputed. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed both cities to contested. No source for the changes were provided.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Zabadani is the biggest rebel stronghold in Al Qalamun. There are dozens of pictures posted only this year from opposition activists from inside the city. Rebels are clashing west of the city with SAA forces where SOHR reported that they managed to destroy 1 tank and kill dozens of Government foces. The city is controled by rebels and SOHR and other channels are reporting heavy airstrikes and barel bombardment on the city every few days. DuckZz (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"they managed to destroy 1 tank and kill dozens of Government forces" Right, sure they did, but the SAA just uses its 3D printer to make more fighters. Zabadani is not fully rebel controlled, there is a strong SAA presence inside the city, that is how the rebels keep attacking checkpoints in the city, so it should go back to contested. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed SOHR did mention before attacks on CP's inside the city. Zabadani back to contested since Bloudan is so close and somewhat part of it and is entirely gov-held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did Google News checks on both of these locations. Where is this information coming from that there is ongoing fighting at either of these locations? Isn't SOHR just a single guy in the UK? Shii (tock) 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific article/statement saying that the areas are government held? If not, then we cannot change it. As for SOHR, you are completely right, it is one guy in the UK claiming to receive phone calls from people in Syria. He is, however, considered a reliable source with corroboration, and there are other sources confirming fighting in Zabadani such as Al-Masdar news. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, where can I find the links to Al-Masdar news? I went to the relevant Wikipedia articles and looked at the entries in the big table, but found nothing like this. Shii (tock) 00:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here is the link describing fighting in Zabadani as of January 4 of this year: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rif-dimashq-al-nusra-front-forced-withdraw-felita/ XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this helps me understand where the info is coming from Shii (tock) 02:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A critical reading of that lamasdarnews article :
1) It generally just echos regime news reports, as it does in this case, so it must be considered pro-regime.
2) Al-Zabadani town is the main population centre of al-Zabadani district. Bloudan is a small suburb of the town in the same district, at a somewhat higher altitude in the mountains. The news report referred to a regime presence in the district, which we already acknowledge in calling Bloudan regime controlled.
3) Al-Zabadani town was under truce several times in the past, truces broken by regime bombardment. As far as I know, the regime has not been able to make significant (if any) inroads into the town, which is in a high mountain valley. The regime gained control of the much smaller Bloudan when the rebels there surrendered. (If I remember correctly, it was reported because of a food and ammunition shortage.) The regime must be supplying Bloudan by helicopter, since the only land route out is by al-Zabadani town.
4) Around al-Zabadani town there are regime checkpoints, which would be in the al-Zabadani district.
5) This almasdarnews report is from 2 weeks ago. There have been regime bombardments on al-Zabadani reported most weeks in the last few years, even when it was under formal truce.
6) So I would say that al-Zabadani is most probably still besieged as it was when the last truce was broken, and not contested. It is highly unlikely regime controlled. Considering that the tables on the main page are not being maintained, it is probably a little difficult to verify this. André437 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soran - Aleppo

It seems Sawran is ISIS-held since this recent video depicts rebels shelling ISIS positions IN THE CITY. [1] ChrissCh94 (talk)

What do you guys say? I vote we change it to contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read, I have no opinion. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also reliable source reported that Syrian rebels target ISIS at the outskirts of Souran in Aleppo province.Elijah J. Magnier On the basis of the video from the pro opposition source.FMC News And on the video clearly shows that the rebels shelled the city Souran from their positions near city of Souran. So probably the city still under control of ISIS.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the green semicircle from Etihimlat, that's for sure but I think we need some other sources to change Sawran to black. DuckZz (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911,ChrissCh94,DuckZz,André437 I think we should mark Sawran contested according to many twitter sources plus sources that you guys provided.What do you think ? here. Lindi29 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of video evidence nor twitter. But the video title clearly says rebels are shelling the city and shows exactly that. Yes we cannot use videos to depict gains but why not use them to depict setbacks? As for Lindi29, I did look in twitter from the arabic hashtag of Sawran, most of the results I got were about ISIS attacks on the city but rebels were holding their ground. Because such a change cannot be made based on a single youtube video, despite it being perfectly clear, I agree with Hanibal911, the least we could do is mark it as contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ChrissCh94 I agree.Lindi29 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree .Pyphon (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon[reply]

In the video posted above, on 0:46 we can see a hill in the middle of the "unknown" city. If we look at this map and the location, i think it's the same hill. DuckZz (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FSA media center thinks otherwise. They said in the title that they are shelling ISIS bastions IN Sawran. I'm sure Syrian rebels know their land better than us. ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with ChrissCh94 Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So contested or not ? Lindi29 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder map Of Syria by deSyracuse.

Nice Map of Syrian Conflict with coments and tiles with colors of fighting forces. It does not display JAN, the only fault i have found.
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-january-2015_25484#11/33.3781/36.4351
200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already used it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hama

It has been a long time that we dont have any news on this area,but now Sohr reported that SSA carried out raids on areas in the villages of Qlib al- Thour, Jana al- Elbawi, al- Qasatel, Aqrab and villages in the township of Aqayrabat.SOHR,also according to pro-opp source shows that this towns are under Isis controll.here,here.Lindi29 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindi29 village Aqrab marked under control by rebels and villages in the township of Aqayrabat now marked under control by ISIS. Also Qlib al- Thour marked as contested and SOHR not said that villages Qlib al- Thour, Jana al- Elbawi, al- Qasatel under control by ISIS. Need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911 nobody raids the villages that controlls so its not logical that Regime attacks villages that are in his controll they attack only if they are captured or clashes are taken place in those villages.Lindi29 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lindi29 Since a SOHR partially pro opposition source, we decided to use the data from SOHR for the change of status a cities or villages on under the control of insurgents or ISIS if it clearly says that those cities or villages under their control. So for now village Aqrab marked under control by rebels and villages in the township of Aqayrabat now marked under control by ISIS. Also Qlib al- Thour marked as contested. But we cant marked Jana al- Elbawi and al- Qasatel under control by ISIS. But if those villages located in area village of Qlib al- Thour we can mark these villages as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911 OK got it.I searched for this 2 villages and found al-Qastel.here,as for Jana al- Elbawi i have doubts mb it has another name like other town and villages in syria dont know here.Lindi29 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lindi29 SOHR repoerted that SSA carried out raids on areas in the villages in Hama province bu this village Al Qastel here located in the Homs province. So we should better searching. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911 yeah i read that,about al-Qastel archicivilians puts it near Homs :/ ,here,I to think we should search more.Lindi29 (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sa’sa (southwest from Damascus)

I found at the pro-government website "almasdarnews" that article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-captures-strategic-area-southwest-syria/

they report about the capture of "Al-Mahaadhiyyeh Orchards" near Sa´sa and Hassnou (not at the map?)

however the last lines of the article are my concern: "The success at Al-Mahadhiyyeh has led to the SAA’s advance towards the imperative village of Sa’sa; if captured, could lead to the counter-offensive in the Al-Quneitra Governorate." English is not my first language but for me it sounds like SAA is moving forward to Sa´sa so i would say Sa´sa is ´rebel´ held. What would you say?

Blockeduser2014 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA recaptured the whole area at Sasa town. Well I don´t know but Peto Lucem and Al Masdar are about the same source.Rhocagil (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, two conflicting pro-gov sources. Does anyone have a recent pro-opp map of the area? As of 2 weeks ago, Sa'sa is under SAA control per http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-january-2015_25484#11/33.2671/36.1821 . Perhaps it was just an editorial mistake?XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source clear said that Syrian army recaptured the whole area at Sasa in Western Ghouta. And Highway 7 to Quneitra now secured. But source not said atbout area insiede a town Sasa. Source just said army recaptured area near Sasa and secured the 7 highway to Quneitra. Also earlier a pro opposition sources clearly showed that the city Sasa under full control of the army.hereherehereherehere and also pro government source clearly showed that Sasa under full control by army here And pro government said that after the Syrian troops secured area on highway near Sasa troops is now able to send reinforcements to Quneitra.here And pro opposition. And another pro government source also just said that the Syrian Army in cooperation with NDFand Hezbollah has captured the strategic Al-Mahaadhiyyeh Orchards located near the imperative villages of Sa’sa and Hassnou on the border of the Al-Quneitra and Rif Dimashq Governorates in southwest Syria.here So we have no reason to mark Sasa as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blockeduser2014 Source Al Masdar not said that Sasa under control by rebels or contested. And pro opposition and pro rebels map showed that this city under control by army.here and hereherehereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same situation we had with the city of Ariha when this source Al Masdar said that clashes at the village Ariha but this data was mistake. And later pro opposition source says that city Ariha under control by army. So for now we have many data from pro-opposition sources whuch confirm that Sasa under control by army. And a one message from a source which repeatedly was seen in the publication of conflicting information. So for now we need leave things as they are and search for more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar misspoke. They meant to say that the SAA offensive came from Sa'sa and captured the surrounding area http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-detailed-report-west-ghouta-offensive/ XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sa'sa was SAA held the areas near it was captured now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.15.105 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tirmik Bijan (Kobane)

Source petercliffordonline.com says village (suburb) south next to Kobane Tirmik Bijan is under kurdish control. Article: Update 43 & Update 44 and map. I don´t know, but I think this source is neutral. Rhocagil (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RhocagilSource petercliffordonline.com is not neutral this is biased pro opposition source and we cant use this source to show success by rebels or ISIS in clashes against of army. But I think that we can use data from this source to show sucess a Kurdish forces in clashes against ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wanted to write exactly about this village being under YPG control. There is also a Kurdish (not pro-YPG) source confirming this. http://aranews.org/2015/01/%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9-ypg-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%85/
Therefore, for now we change it at least to contested. Whenever there are further sources available we will change it to yellow. Roboskiye (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another Kurdish source: http://basnews.com/ar/news/2015/01/20/%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D9%83%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%B3/ . Roboskiye (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally here are non-Kurdish sources admitting Tirmik under YPG control: http://eldorar.com/node/68154 http://qasion-news.com/ar/content/node/11449 http://www.kizilbayrak.net/rss/kobanede-cetelere-darbe/ Roboskiye (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truce Areas (Homs incl.)

I have a problem understanding the map. Until few days ago, looking at the map I thought that Ad Dumayr and Ruhayban were government held, with some rebel presence inside the town. Someone said that thats not the case, as these 2 towns are under truce and thats the reason why theres a red-lime-red icon.

Now me, and probably 80% of the people looking at the map will think that those 2 towns are government held because thats what this red-lime-red icon is actually showing (government held - some rebels still present- with government surrounding). So i belive that this is a wrong way to show truce areas.

Just to make it clear. A truce means this "an Agreement where at least 2 sides agree to an casefire until further notice in which one of the side controls a location while the other allows such action under certain conditions". In our case, rebels "control" these towns in the same time they agreed to stop fighting SAA forces in Eastern Qalamun (thats true becaue we have no information about clashes here).

We have the same problem with Homs, it looks like the government captured Al Waer and now controls it with some rebels still inside, while the sources that were used to edit this (DailyStar and SOHR) report the opposite.
I think a good thing would be to use a lime-red (besieged) icon, because that's how it actually looks like in reality. A good view can be seen here.

I really can't find new "clear" sources about Dumayr and Ruhayban so be nice.

Opinions from other editors ? Hanibal911 you don't have to, i have read everything on your talkpage. DuckZz (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

red-lime-green denotes "mixed control with stable situation", but for some reason we don't have a visual representation of that in the key. If nothing else, I think we should include a representation of it there.
While I'm posting here, I've had some weird stuff happen with Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map. for some reason about 1/4 of the dots and fighting icons moved 1 pixel down for a few days (no idea why) and the background of the oil images changed colour since yesterday. I'm not sure why, any ideas? Not sure why File:Abm-red+icon.png needs a background, but that's a different matter.
Also, are we using File:Abm-red-icon.png or File:Abm-red-icon.png because we're using both here and it's slightly confusing. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the city of Dumayr was noted as under joint control between the army and the rebels also this data confirm biased pro opposition source Cedric Labrouce.here Also pro government source here and another one biased pro opposition source archicivilians showed that in the coties of Dumayr and Ar Ruhaybat now truce.here Hanibal911 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't understand what i want to say. Yes they are under truce, but in the same time either under rebel or government control. The Cheldric labrouse source you posted confirms that "Truces where the regime accept to withdraw and let a rebel government in that area". The last known truce we had in Al Qabun district in Damascus, where SOHR reported exactly the same thing "A truce and withdraw of government forces". Every truce in Syria is the same, in favor for rebels in that area, while we mark it as purple on a town map, we should mark it as lime-red on the normal map..... A truce only means that a place should't be contested. That's why we changed Al Waer, but in a wrong way. DuckZz (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well even truces can be reported in an erroneous way. For example pro-opp sources portray Babbila as rebel held. While regime sources report it as joint held because both parties have established joint checkpoints inside the city. The checkpoints are either manned by local rebels (sometimes under the command of the NDF cf. Madaya) or NDF troops. Not all truces are like that, some are more balanced than others. But in most truces you could find JOINT checkpoints inside the previously contested area. It doesn't make sense that the regime accepts to retreat and honors a truce in an area where it had the upper hand. The rebels were FORCED into those truces (with huge discontent from other rebel areas) thus the conditions governing the truces are not favorable towards the rebels in many areas. Dumair is a counter-example. The SAA/NDF has barely if any presence inside. Waer is the same where gov forces are only stationed in the military hospital there.
Since we cannot make sure what are the conditions concerning every truce, I say we keep the symbol as it is since the favorable ones cancel out the not-so-favorable ones. ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DuckZz All you sources:

cant be used in this situation because it is only just rebel amatuer videos and unreliable for this issue because we cant use their for show success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few ideas here :
1) Maybe we should use a violet circle around a location icon to indicate a truce. I could make that pretty quickly. (Like the violet used on the city maps.)
If there is mixed control, we could indicate that, although usually it is only rebel controlled.
Note that when there are joint checkpoints, they are almost always on the periphery of the truce area, so that in itself doesn't count as mixed control.
2) I've made some pie chart icons for mixed control, not yet imported to wp. Most are 2 colours, although some are 3. They would probably make the mixed control clearer, expecially to casual viewers of our map. As well as being used for any mixed control truce areas that might still exist.
3) Also, there was some discussion a while back about modifying the colour of Nusra icons. The green colour suggested was very close to other greens already used on competing maps. I tested some greenish grey colours (slightly darker than the current grey), which would contrast better with the flat grey border colours. I could import them for feedback, it anyone is interested.
... so what does everyone think ? André437 (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking a little more about this, it would make sense to have one integrated truce icon : lime green with a thick violet ring around it.
For any truce areas that might be partially controlled by the regime, we could have red/lime in the centre. (Since generally we don't have reliable detailed info of the conditions of a truce, we shouldn't try to cover all the variations)
These icons would be very quick and easy to make. André437 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of icon for the cities and villages where truce has long been used and let remains without changes. Previously all agreed used this icon. But about the new color for Al Nusra can try. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also here pro opposition source clearly showed that a city of Al Dumayr under jointly control of Syrian troops and moderate rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We use violet for City truce situations so it would be logical to have plain violet icons for cities and towns .Pyphon (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon[reply]

André437 Here, what do you think about this. It will be better than to add a new color to the map, it's already difficult enough.

And what about Al-Jayrud ? Pro-opposition sources were reporting truce situation a while ago, it is shown on deSyriacue maps for months.

And yes, post the new JAN color so others can see. DuckZz (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jayrud under control by army and also we cant use data from pro opposition source to show rebel advances. Also I agree with icon for the city Al Dumayr but I disagree with new icon for Ruhayban, Al Waer. I think that we need use the same icon as for Al Dumayr.here Because this icon Icon for towns under rebel truce control here on the map will be more similar to the fact that the city is under rebel control. In general, the old mark which we was used for a long time was best solution and I think we need to leave everything as is. On our map and have so many icons so let's not clutter up the map. Because then we have to add the same icon for villages that under joint control of the army and the Kurds, or for those who are under joint control Kurds and rebels or rebels and Al Nursa. So we strongly clogged map. And for now this is not main problem. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 I agree, not a good idea with new icons. Instead of that, we can just change the Al Waer and Ruhayban red-lime-red icon to lime-red or lime-red-lime.---- The source that was used to change Al Waer clearly said that a truce agreement has been made and that rebels will control the district. SOHR said the same thing ... so i don't know where's the problem about that. DuckZz (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its getting to look like a decorated Christmas tree .Pyphon (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)pyphon[reply]

DuckZz I partialy agree with you in situation with Al Waer (lime-red-lime) because many reliable sources say that it is a last stronghold of the rebels in the area. But not one from a reliable sources not said that Al Ruhaybah controlled by rebels in this city now truce and he under jointly control by Syrian troops and moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid the confusion concerning every truce, I agree with André437 on replacing the old truce symbol with the purple color used in the Damascus mini-map. We can't know for sure if the regime has CP's inside or not. This however should be applied to all the truce areas we have in order to avoid bias. If not, they we keep it how it was. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The situation as it is, is clear enough. I do not see any advantage in adding new color or new congigurations. Truce deal can widely change and we often do not the details. In any case, we must remind that a truce is a conditional surrender of the rebels, who stop figthin the government in exchange of some guarantees.Paolowalter (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling truces conditional surrenders doesn't accord well with the fact that almost every truce has been broken at some time, but the rebels have maintained control. Usually but not always a renewed truce has been arranged. Central Homs is the only area that I'm aware of that a truce ended with a sort of surrender. But even there the rebels had safe passage to other rebel controlled areas, supervised by UN observers. On the other hand, the regime has made advances in many areas where no truce was involved. Suggesting that truces are arranged only where the regime is unable to advance.
That aside, I'll import the icons I've already made + the new ones suggested to my talk page for review by everyone. (Coincidentally one of the icons suggested is a mirror image of one already made.)
On my talk page it will be easier to avoid mixing icon decisions with control on the map. I'll post back here when it is ready :) André437 (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Paolowalter Hanibal911 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But also as I partialy agree with ChrissCh94 that sometimes could be used purple color but it can be confusing because we have on the map of the city and the village where a truce between the army and the rebels but also a truce between the army and the Kurds, and there is also in some cases a truce between the Kurds and the rebels and between rebels and Al Nursa. So it can be confused situation on map so it is best to leave it unchanged. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah Hanibal911 here does have an important point. Let's just leave it unchanged for now. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For info, my idea was to put a strong violet circle around control colours, united in a single icon. So initially violet around lime, or violet around red-lime, but other colours could very easily be added. The new stable mixed control icons (already made but not yet imported) will have a cleaner less ambiguous appearance, as well as using a single icon for easier editing. Delayed by a problem with my computer, but coming soon on my talk page. :) André437 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidiyah near Abou l Duhur airbase

[2] Rebels saying they ambushed and killed 10 SAA units in Hamidiyah near the airbase. So I guess Hamidiyah should be added and marked as contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Hanibal911 (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ChrissCh94 Reliable source said that Al Nusra managed to control al-Hamidiyeh village on East side of Ad-Duhur military airport but pull out to outskirt later. So that according to data from reliable source Elijah J. Magnier and pro opposition source here Al Nusra captured this village but later retreat on outskirt. So we need add this village and mark as under army control but put grey semi-circle or circle near. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Your pro-opposition source said that "Free Rebels ambushed Assad army entering in Hamidiyah and killed and wounded 10 of them". It doesn't say that rebels withdrew from there, neither that JAN did this. I'm not sure if we can use tweets for editing like this because we don't know what sources did Elijah Magnier use. He is neutral but uses both rebels and government sources. Here SOHR said that SAF bombed at least 24 times areas around the airport, including Hamidiyah and Tall Salmo villages . DuckZz (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EJM is more reliable than SOHR and is a 100% reliable source. Since he said JAN withdrew, that is what we will go with. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DuckZz Elijah J. Magnier it is a reliable source it is tweet of the chief International correspondent of a Kuwaiti daily newspaper Al Rai. And it is more neutral a source than SOHR which partially supports the Syrian opposition. And this source said that Al Nusra pull out to the outskirts. And SOHR reported that air force bombed this village so maybe when Al Nusra invaded the village but later retreated after the bombing. But if you find the information from a reliable source which clearly says that the village is not under the control of the army then I fix it. And pro opposition source clearly said that rebels ambushed and killed 10 SAA units in the village Hamidiyah near the airbase.here About this earlier said editor ChrissCh94 who a good knows Arabic. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also SOHR reported about clashes between al- Nusra and the Islamic battalions against the regime forces near the Abu al-Duhur airbase.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
XJ-0461 v2 Your 100% reliable EJM is the same source that said that the rebels were en route from central Homs toward the north 2 weeks before it happened, even before there was a final agreement. That is the most striking error (since it would have been VERY easy to verify since UN observers were involved), but there have been others. I suspect that EJM is holed up in Kuwait, and jumps the gun on various rumours often without verifying. Probably for a "scoop". He may not be biased, but he isn't necessarily reliable either.
The other article (published by Nusra) says (according to google translate) that more than 10 elements of the Assad gangs were killed or wounded in an ambush by Nusra, in the village of Hamedya. That means that the regime forces were moving, and surprised by Nusra. In other words, since Hamedya is a village (and thus small), the regime probably had no presence in the village. And that Nusra was in place (possibly temporarily) when the regime forces arrived.
Note also that Nusra published images showing them digging trenches, presumably in or around the village in question.
These 2 articles suggest that the village is not regime controlled, and that there is (or was at the time) at least a rebel presence in proximity. André437 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015

change

"{ lat = "36.871", long = "38.347", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Tirmik Bijan", link = "Tirmik Bijan", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

to

"{ lat = "36.871", long = "38.347", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Tirmik Bijan", link = "Tirmik Bijan", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

and

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

to

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Map-arcNN-yellow.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", }, { lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

Sources: http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-iraq-news-4/ https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/558683892782481408

Tirmik Bijan has been taken by the YPG, and Qarah Halinj is being shelled from Mishtenur hill. Please change from black to yellow, and add a siege icon.2601:0:B200:F7D9:34FA:6BF0:637A:7BB8 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I don't think your sources will pass WP:RS. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are pro-opposition sources, but I think we can use them to show a Kurdish advance against ISIS. People have edited without discussion with less reliable sources.2601:0:B200:F7D9:34FA:6BF0:637A:7BB8 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC) 2601:0:B200:F7D9:4CE2:5F37:2591:5F10 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I can't find better sources, but I will let you know when I do. Can you put a semicircle icon instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B200:F7D9:34FA:6BF0:637A:7BB8 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kobane

Here new map from opposition source deSyracuse which showed that ISIS mostly lost their position inside city of Kobane.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Kobane is coming to a end soon. The battle South of the city is already shifted from urban to rural fighting, with YPG/FSA trying to advance to the villages south and west of the city. The only battle that remains is on the Eastern Front, where YPG recaptured the Islamic/Sharia school. There is now only 2 major targets for YPG to reclaim the city, Tishrin school and Tell Arabpinar. Maybe in 1/2 weeks the city will be under full YPG control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.157.18.100 (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think to put a lime icon along Kobani, maybe without a name but just for the sake of ? I know for sure that 2 FSA linked groups are fighting there since the beginning, Kataib Shamal and Liwa Raqqa. They are regularly posting news, videos and photos of their figters there. The last information was that Liwa Raqqa fighters have captured the hospital in the south-west of the city. Before I start posting sources, i want to know what others think. DuckZz (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here pro opposition source deSyracuse also showed that hospital in west part city controlled some moderate rebels. Perhaps we need make map as for cities Hasakah, Aleppo, Deir ez Zor and Damascus and on this map we can mark data about which says editor DuckZz Hanibal911 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea. Kobane is almost libarated, the entire map would be yellow so i don't see a sense in that because according to that we can also make maps for Hama and Idlib city which are all red.

  • The best thing would be to wait until Kobane city gets fully out of ISIS hands, then we can add a lime icon right next to it (with no name/title) but just to indicate Rebel presence. I already have enough sources from photos and videos posted in 2015 from these 2 groups that i follow. DuckZz (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have to find a way to indicate rebel presence in the city 3bdulelah (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Kurd Twitter account Peshmerge Kobane has been fully liberated. Rhocagil (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 This is what i have.


This is the official YPG statement. They said "We liberated Kobani together with and we thank them to Burkan Al Firat (Northern Sun) Kataib Shamal and other Free Syrian Army groups." Now just because this statement by YPG i can put a small lime icon inside Kobane because we can use that source. I want your opinion about the vilage Memit. ? DuckZz (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madaya - Rif Dimashq

I think Madaya should go to either contested or rebel-held based on those 2 reports of regime shelling the town: pro-gov Al Mayadeen [3] and pro-opp SOHR [4]

Other pro-gov sources reporting the strikes ON Madaya [5] [6] ChrissCh94 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For now we not have reports which clearly said that it is completely under control of the rebels so for now would be better mark it as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hanibal911.Lindi29 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright contested makes sense ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade 82 in Sheiyh Miskin now belongs to opposition

Brigade 82 must be green now.88.224.195.133 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out: the rebels seized the Brigade 82 HQ inside the city of Sheikh Miskin. That HQ is not shown in our map, since it is inside the city. The base pointed out as green here is still regime held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.251.231 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to pro opposition sources rebels captured only HQ Brigade 82 inside city and Army radar base (Brigade 82) which refers to the Brigade 82 here Archicivilians But main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here The base that considered as part of Brigade 82, located between NE-Sheikh Maskin and SW-Izzra', still under the Regime control.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral sources for Brigade 82 and Sheikh Maskin:

Neutral sources?! Lol this is too funny. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems the entire Brigade 82 should go to green together with Al-Shayk Miskin. Only the Military Housing remain red, and maybe the BRigade itself contested?

Sources not indicated that rebels was captured main base of brigade 82 but pro opposition sources clear indicated that rebels captured HQ Brigade 82 and Radar base (Brigade 82)here and here Btu pro opposition sources clear said that main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-govt almasdar reports that SAA retreated from the base: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/daraa-al-nusra-front-captures-brigade-82-base/

186.112.217.134 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Masdar some times make mistake and it not said about main base Brigade 82 because Army radar base (Brigade 82) it is also base of Brigade 82. So as I said earlier we need more data. Because pro opposition sources clear said that main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here Archicivilians Also pro opposition only said that the Syrian regime lost the most powerful Air-Defense Bases in Southern Syria Brigade 38 in 2013 and Brigade 82 in 2015. But main base Brigade 82 still under control by Syrian troops Hanibal911 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What our map shows relating to base 82 :
1) The HQ, just north of the town, captured according to several reports, is labeled "brigade 82". It is still red on our map.
2) The radar base part, also captured according to several reports, is labeled "army radar base (brigade 82)". It is now green.
3) The main part of the base, to the north-east, is labeled "air defense base". There is another another icon to the east, of a smaller part of the base, labeled the same. Some reports say that these are now contested, if not still regime held. They are still red on our map.
4) There are 2 icons labeled "military housing" for the base, to the north and the east. They are still red on our map. At least one map I've seen shows a third such housing, to the north of the main base.
5) Interesting that the almasdarnews article claims that Nusra captured the base, without mentioning any others. Considering that besides one early report from Nusra, all reports and video evidence comes from the various FSA groups involved. Typical of almasdarnews (and other pro-regime) reports. André437 (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
André437 Pro opposition clear showed on map tha rebels captured HQ Brigade 82 inside city and Army radar base (Brigade 82) which refers to the Brigade 82 here and biased pro opposition source Archicivilians also clear said that rebels today took Brigade 82 HQ in Sheikh Maskin, while clashes still ongoing around the base between Sheikh Maskin & Izzra'here and also said that the base that considered as part of Brigade 82, located between NE-Sheikh Maskin and SW-Izzra' still under Regime controlhere Also here video where Rebels inside Brigade 82 HQ in thetown of Sheikh Maskin.here But main base brigade 82 this clear showed pro opposition map here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that coincides with what I said. Note that the brigade 82 HQ, shown on our map, is now lime (as it should be) instead of red. Sheikh Maskin town is placed a little too much to the west relative to the other positions. Note that it is debatable whether the HQ is in the town, or just north of it (as I see it).
If you look carefully, there is an icon labeled "air defense base" in the appropriate location relative to Izra. Since brigade 82 is THE air defense base in proximity, this must be the main part of the base. That coincides with the locations of the military housing as well.
From the various unconfirmed reports, I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of base 82 falls quickly, and likely Izra also.
BTW, since archicivilians frequently uses the phrase "unconfirmed reports", I wouldn't call him very biased in his reporting. I've yet to see that sort of qualification from almasdarnews. André437 (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masharah?

Why is the town of Masharah in Quneitra turned to contested? Last time there was any news, it was of rebels shelling Tell BRrizaq near the town. Can somebody provide sources or revert the contested status back to green?

This village was marked as contested only based the pro-government source but this violates the rules of editing. So that I fixed this. So that this village can be noted as contested if this data can confirm a reliable or pro opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al masdar is relaible. More than SOHR. That has been discussed many times.Paolowalter (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both SOHR and Al-Masdar are not reliable. Both can only be used for advances for the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.251.231 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palowalter Al-Masdar is a pro-regime source we have disscus that.Lindi29 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed, and concluded that it is a reliable source that is biased, like SOHR. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No we haven't decided that at all. The status quo remains: SOHR is reliable, al-Masdar news is not.137.73.84.232 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, that is why we had the discussion in the first place. No reason for the status quo to be maintained. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

Change


{ lat = "36.893", long = "38.354", mark = "80x80-yellow-black-anim.gif", marksize = "12", label = "Ayn al-Arab (Kobanê)", link = "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Ayn al-Arab", label_size = "90", position = "top" },


to


{ lat = "36.893", long = "38.354", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "12", label = "Ayn al-Arab (Kobanê)", link = "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Ayn al-Arab", label_size = "90", position = "top" },


Source: https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/559434237993312256

http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kobane-24-Jan-2015-by-@deSyracuse.png


The reason I am asking for this edit so soon is that the battle for the actual city of Kobanî has been mostly resolved. You will remember the report of the Iraqi army taking the south entrance to Tikrit: that doesn't make the city contested. Though there is still fighting in the east, I think the city should be marked under Kurdish control. If you don't agree, then I'll just wait the few hours until the eastern part is completely secured by the YPG, then request again. But for now, I think it should go to yellow.

2601:0:B200:F7D9:A816:54EA:40F1:2784 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Turkish news source (probably not fans of the Kurds), gives these reports:

http://www.imctv.com.tr/2015/01/25/65468/kobanide-4-sokak-sonra-zafer-var

http://www.imctv.com.tr/2015/01/26/65545/kobanide-zafere-son-adimlar

A Russian source (pro-Assad, generally) reports a Peshmerga commander:

http://www.vestikavkaza.ru/news/Kobani-svoboden-na-90.html

SOHR (anti-Assad) reports ISIS has been driven on to "the outskirts of al- Sena’ah area":

http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/ypg-fighters-seize-a-village-in-the-south-of-kobani-for-the-first-time-for-4-months/

Do I need more sources? There has been fighting on the outskirts of many towns: Tikrit, Samarra, Mosul; but we don't mark those contested. As of right now, I really don't think control of Kobanî is contested at this point. I think the Kurds have it. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:1498:3B64:993F:66D2 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shayk Maskin

Hello everybody,

I've been following the events in and around Shayk Maskin for the last two days. I have several questions:

1. Why is Shayk Maskin still contested? Brigade 82 was the last part of the town that was held by the SAA wasn't it? The fighting now seems to be around the Electric Grid Station checkpoint. 2. Does anybody have information about al-Dalli and Suhaliyah north of Shayk Maskin? Twitter sources posted videos and claims that both had fallen to the Southern Front? 3. Maybe add a green circle to the western side of Qarfa? Rebels are close by, that was the reason Rustom Ghazali burned down his own palace there in December 14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This is a summary of events: http://eaworldview.com/2015/01/syria-daily-insurgents-celebrate-victories-across-country/

It seems that rebels have made another sweeping advance in Daraa, capturing the Engeneering Brigade in Suhayliyah and al-Dalli, and are currenty (according to twitter) fighting for Al-Furqan village. Some activists are even talking about fighting close to Izzra itself. We should keep an eye on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pro opposition source and we cant use this source to show success of rebels. But more the reliable source said that rebels captured most part city of Sheikh Miskeen. But not said that city now under control by rebels.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there so many edits north of Sheik Miskin, it's not possible to put them all there. What's about this Farun Storage base, does it even mention in some sources ? An under that, there also 2 checkpoints/bases which are covered with this edit. There's another one, third, you can see a fraction of it to the left. What's the point ? The map is overfilled DuckZz (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I believe taking a good look there is important. Official FSA news said they captured Dilli, Burqa, Faqah and al-Suhayliyah and one Battalion 60 base. That can't be used for rebel advances here, but we should really look at the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.251.231 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 the IP has a good point and we have to take a good look on this beacause he provided pro-opp sources but not sources from agencies news but from videos,and i think videos are more reliable like the kurds who were the first that reported the capture of kobane and villages nearby,but first we have to wait and see what happens if there are more reports and videos in the upcoming days.Lindi29 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is the rebels amateur video from YouTube we can not use it for display success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Change

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

to

"{ lat = "36.854", long = "38.379", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qarah Halinj", link = "Qarah Halinj", label_size = "0", position = "top", },"

Sources:

https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/559837529709772801

https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/559846335621656576

http://www.sasnewsagency.com/read/10221

Halinj village is YPG-held. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:6571:56B8:6EF9:5C27 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qarah Halinj

This village was marked as under control by Kurds only based data from a pro Kurdish source here but we cant use data from Kurdish sources to show success of Kurds. So if not have confirmation this data from reliable source we need again mark this village under control by ISIS. Let's not break the rules of editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if you have photographic or video evidences (this is the case) I think that it is not forbidden to use non neutral sources. The pictures shown have been shot exactly here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.855656&lon=38.379579&z=17&m=bs , you can easily recognize the water tower of Helinj. --8fra0 (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8fra0 We can only use the video from neutral sources such as World news agencies but not amateur video. And this photos which provide the Kurdish activist from the village does not confirm that the village under the control of the Kurds in fact the same photos can be done from any city or village which is under the control of ISIS. On one photo we just see that soldier is near the village here and on other photo we see several cars which enter in the village here but how can we be sure that this Kurdish troops or that village under their control. We need more confirmations from a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For sure a single picture can not guarantee that a whole town or city is in full control by anyone, but (imho) a picture showing a YPG flag on the highest building of a village of 20 buildings, with a journalist roaming around, is enough to state that that village is in YPG control. However we have also SOHR confirmation: http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/ypg-takes-control-on-helnej-village-southeast-of-kobane/ --8fra0 (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8fra0 So we received official confirmation so that just was need wait. Good job! Hanibal911 (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to friends if you want to use to edit a link to Arabic source is better to provide a link to it on the talk page. Because when you when you edit put a link to the source your link often displayed as broken and we can not verify data wgich you have provided as a source which confirm your editings. And here examples of this:here or here Because if we cant verify the accuracy of the information which was provide as a source. And this editing will be considered is not justified. I hope for your understanding. Regrds! Hanibal911 (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Villages around Kobane

I couldn't find any reliable source or visual evidence (pictures, videos, and so on) confirming the YPG control of the following villages aorund Kobane: Kurabi and Jiqur (western front); Kulmah (southern front); Shiran and Mazraat Dawud (eastern front). According to this source those villages seem still in IS control, or at least disputed: http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Kobane-27-Jan-2015-by-@deSyracuse.png --8fra0 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but then again nobody can provide us with sources that ISIS controll all of the villages in northern aleppo and hasakah some of the villages that are shown as isis held in many place have probably been recaptured 10 times by rebels/kurds/al nussra front/saa Creepz

Jabhat al akrad in aleppo countryside?

Hello i have been reading about jabhat al akrad lately and i watched tons of videos from them most of the videos are from clashes in northern aleppo but the map only shows the villages rebel held are there no jabhat al akrad in northern aleppo? Im also following people that are close to al akrad and they claim to be activly fighting in northern aleppo against isis together with Dawn of freedom and islamic battalions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=644411824"