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 10:38, 18 March 2015 (→Current situation in Azaz, Aleppo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Kurdish presence in aleppo

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

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

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

same account have also mentioned about kurds+fsa rebels in Qazel, Ghara/Yani yaban, Dalhah & Baghirin these villages aren't even marked in this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 February 2015‎

YPG in KOBANE

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

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

Joum Ali in kobane.

Joum ali in kobane

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

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

Some rebel groups joint to NDF

Syrian Rebellion Observatory confiremed that the Al-Anfal Brigade which was previously part of the Syria Revolutionaries Front defected from rebels and joint to Assad forces(NDF).hereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysh al-Ummah(+1,500 fighters) and al-Anfal Brigade change loyalty from Jaish al-Islam to Syrian army. Today they are fighting at Ghouta front against "old buddies".Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Syria Revolutionaries Front released a statement denying their ties with Al-Anfal Brigade.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Practically, how do we need to percieve this change of loyalty? Does that mean that there will be certain villages en bases that will change to regime held? Any information about that?Raspoetin89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.220.222 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Raspoetin89 These groups now located in Rif Dimashq in area East Ghouta as local militia as part of the National Defense Force(NDF) and they fight against "old buddies"(rebels) Hanibal911 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that this change was a result of IF + Nusra aggression against them as potential competitors to their influence. As noted by one comment in response to the link above. BTW, the 1500 fighters was their supposed full strength before being attacked by IF and Nusra. Some had already joined the IF or other groups. At least 2 reports I've seen said only 60 defected. (One was SOHR) Another said they are being transferred to the shia shrine (south of Damascus), and yet another to their home towns. In either case, to regime held territory. Sorry, I haven't been keeping track of the references. André437 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
André437 SOHR said about al-Anfal Brigade but not about Jaysh al-Ummah Also SOHR just said that 60 fighters from Al Anfal surrendered. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another source said 20 fighters from Jaysh al-Ummah.
Surrendered/defected, what is the difference ? Considering SOHR's often approximate translations to english (such as "could" instead of "did"), probably none.
In any case, the Jaysh al-Islam and Nusra aggressions against moderate rebels has removed some thousands of fighters from rebel ranks. Whatever the actual number of defections, they are probably relatively minor, despite their symbolic importance. André437 (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
André437SOHR dont mention about Jaysh al-Ummah he said about Al Anfal Brigade. Also another pro opposition source also reported that 60 fighters from Al-Anfal Brigade surrendered themselves and their weapons, in addition to the leaders of the brigade, in order to settle their status, and then joined the National Defense militias.
The Syrian Observer Hanibal911 (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rebel brigade “Liwaa Hateen” surrendered their weapons at an NDF checkpoint in southern Damascus.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pro opposition source said that Walid Agha, a civilian activist and member of the grassroots news campaign “Revolution Spring” told Syria Direct that Several dozen rebel Free Syrian Army based in southern Damascus defected and joined to pro-regime National Defense Forces in Thursday morning.

Four groups of FSA fighters defected to the Syrian Army and National Defense Forces Wednesday night and Thursday morning in groups of 10 to 30 fighters, reported the pro-regime Yarmouk News Agency media. A video showing defected FSA fighters joining the National Defense Forces along with a pro-regime media personality confirming their defection was posted on the agency’s official Facebook page. On Wednesday, 20 members of the Hatin Brigade, another FSA unit operating in southern Damascus, defected to the pro-regime National Defense Forces, reported the pro-regime Lebanese Al-Hadath News. Last week, 60 FSA fighters from the Al-Anfal brigades based in southern Damascus defected to the Syrian army after withdrawing from their positions. The defections come amidst renewed clashes between FSA units and al-Nusra in the south Damascus town of Beit Saham, reported the pro-opposition Al-Hal al-Souri news outlet.Syria direct Hanibal911 (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Jaish al-Islam has finally succeeded in removing FSA competition in Damascus. Although I'm not sure that this is how they wanted it to happen. It will be interesting to see what the defected rebels do when the FSA Southern Front enters Damascus. Defect again ? (Maybe a third time)
If the regime finally agrees to transfer power (or it splinters to the same effect), it could be the FSA and ex-regime forces against Jaish al-Islam and Nusra. With the Iranian intervention propping up the regime, it is getting messier all the time. André437 (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your Analysis is again far from reality the FSA entering Damascus, wow! thats Imagination. I only see massive losses in the Quneitra Front for the Rebels and more Hezbollah commitment, so in Other words, this defecting groups are looking for their mere existence in the World rather than being oportunistic.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
André437 Your assumptions about plan of the entry of rebels in the city of Damascus and capture him are far from reality. Because if you study the situation, you can see that: firstly they are not enough strong for this and secondly, now on the southern front are increasingly manifest differences between various rebel groups and, ultimately, it pushes some rebel groups to join of the army or to Al Nusra or ISIS. Moderate rebel groups now is not as strong as two years ago. When in 2013 moderate rebels tried to capture Damascus they were united in an effort to overthrow the government but they failed. And thirdly the transfer of power from government to the opposition will not happen because after four years of conflict, it's just not really make a peaceful way. Also currently before of the moderate rebels (FSA and IF) two more important tasks::
  • to get rid of ISIS.
  • prevent the strengthening of Al Nusra due to the transition some rebel groups from moderate rebels to Front Al Nusra.
although they still continue to fight against the Syrian army but Western leaders and rebel leaders for now begin understand that win military means is not possible and have already some of west leaders and inside Syrian opposition started about this to talk openly. We have already seen a similar situation in the some provinces. in Idlib where Al Nusra captured most part towns and villages from moderate rebels or Deir Ez Zor wnere ISIS captured all rebels position and pushes all rebels from this province or the Raqqa province where rebels captured city of Raqqa and many villages but later ISIS pushed them from this province to Aleppo province and later captured some parts of Aleppo countryside which previously was under control by moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

change { lat = "36.630", long = "38.463", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Sal", link = "Sal, Syria", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

to { lat = "36.630", long = "38.463", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Sal", link = "Sal, Syria", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

and { lat = "36.601", long = "38.466", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Jayl (Cilik)", link = "Jayl", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

to { lat = "36.601", long = "38.466", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Jayl (Cilik)", link = "Jayl", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

source: https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/media/grid?idx=4&tid=574935680209584129

(Pro-Kurdish source)

If someone with knowledge could also change to black the village to the south of Jil that is unmarked, it is shown as IS-controlled also. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:C0F8:A7E8:AC86:839E (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you need a reliable source, not some barely annotated map on a smartphone with no supporting text.
Also, in the future could you just give the coordinates/place names and logical change (such as kurd to ISIS) instead of copying the code. It will be much easier to read. André437 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map Size

If it just for me that this map is hopelessly large, stretching for three screen widths making reading impossible? If this normal and is it correctable? Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the size, but wish it were more easily resizeable. I'm going to try to make a smaller in my sandbox that will update with this. It comes down to the width parameter, I think, but I'm not 100% on what effect that would have, and it would make it very hard for me to update the map if you changed it in the code. This would also mean the dots would need to be rescaled I think as well, actually, so probably not a good idea. Anyone got a better way? Banak (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recomend not to change anything, since many different editors update the map time to time. Also if you make it smaller some small(geographically) towns that are strategically important will not be noticed.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you guys talking about. The current size of the map is too small for my monitor 1600x900. The dots look very very small so i have to zoom the map to 140% in my browser to make it barely visible ... DuckZz (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "guys", only EoRdE6 said it was too small. I occasionally want to change the zoom to see what colour's which (not so bad now we have greyish-blue). I think I can make a larger version without too much effort (markers staying the same size), but a smaller version would probably be difficult for someone with as little coding experience as me because of marker size. A larger version as in making a separate module that depends on this one, I will not change the size of the module, because that would actually screw up my ability to update the .png map. Banak (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely failed, for some reason it's not working in my sandbox... perhaps too many marks for the code? Module:Sandbox/banak Banak (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Banak There are some WP enhancements coming that will reduce the amount of code required for the map. (Now we have 2 links per dot for every visible label, to display properly with some browsers. Maybe mac ? The enhancement will allow removing the 2nd link.)
The best way to just change the display size is to zoom it in your browser. I just tried it my (mozilla) browser, and it works fine, even though a little slow. As well as being too small to distinguish most towns.
@ DuckZz Your screen must have a very high density, since the map is more than 2400 pixels wide. If you zoom it to twice the size, you won't have distortion, and it should zoom a little faster.
André437 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Khanzir

ISIS has taken Tal Khanzir via https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/564956-syria-kurds-under-fire.Alhanuty (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So for now village of Tal Khanzir under control by ISIS. And in original report SOHR just said that clashes renewed between YPG and ISIS in the vicinity al-Manajir and Tal Khanzir SOHR And also we cant use the pro-Kurdish source for display success of YPG. So for now we dont have confirmation from neutral sources that the clashes still continued in village of Tal Khanzir and that this village still contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also video from the pro Kurdish source showed that clashes still continue on outskirts of the village of Tal Khanzir where Kurdish forces still trying to enter to this village.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pro opposition source reported that ISIS captured the As-Safih, Tall Sinan and Tall Barqah and crossed the Khabur River.here Hanibal911 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda in Al Harra

According the "Official" pro Insurgents source. Warplanes raided al-Harra hill which is taken over by Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions.

http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/clashes-and-bombardment-continue-in-the-triangle-of-dara-quneitra-reef-diamshq/ --LogFTW (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Log.... More info for the Map.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Official pro insurgents source" ? ... There are numerous official pro-rebel sources, but SOHR certainly isn't among them. So you are trying to say that you are the "official Assad regime representative" ? André437 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

André ffs SOHR is one of the most biased pro opp institute. They not even mentioned the SYAF air strike on nusra leaders, or any of the 2-3 bigger ambushes leaving dozens of nusra dead, they claim missiles hit "civilians" meanwhile there's the video militants in uniforms got hit. They claim 50 killed on BOTH sides in Latakia Durin, meanwhile 40 nusra killed with 10 on the other side. They claimed Handarat village was taken cause the "sources on ground" are fucking al nusra jihadists trying to boost their morale, meanwhile they took 5 buildings in the outskirts.

1) Totholo, you forgot to sign your post
2) Not reporting something on which one has no direct info is NOT a sign of bias. Reporting avances and retreats of all parties to the conflict, generally in a neutral tone, is a sign of impartiality. Try reading the WP guidelines.
3) When I went to school, 40 + 10 = 50. So what is wrong with SOHR claiming 50 on both sides ? You don't understand the difference between both and each ? In passing, note that SOHR tends to be conservative in reporting casualties, and all sides tend to hide their losses. So the losses could have been much greater.
4) As for Handarat, there is considerable evidence, including geolocation, that the rebels occupy at least most of the town. A little more than 5 buildings in the outskirts.
Try being objective, if you want to be taken seriously ... André437 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR is pro insurgent and they just repeat who the insurgents claims. --LogFTW (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LogFTW That evidently applies to Almasdar, so often cited as references here, since they almost always cite the regime as their source, even for advances by the rebels. Their posts indicate almost no moderate rebels, even in the south where the moderates are the large majority.
However there is no similar evidence to that effect of SOHR. Note that most neutral sources operate in rebel areas, including the few foreign media on the ground. If you choose to call SOHR biased, I would suggest that it is a reflection of your own bias, or willingness to accept regime propaganda. Don't forget that the regime (Assad included) denies doing the chemical weapon attack around Damascus, and the usage of barrel bombs against civilians. Both well documented by neutral sources. André437 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

change Tal Nasri, Golan, and Abu Hajar Shamiyah to ISIS. Also change the red Government pocket to black. per Desyracuse:

https://mobile.twitter.com/desyracuse

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B__LSM3WcAAgZf7.png

216.130.144.24 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deSyracuse it is a anti government source which we cant use in this issue. And other more neutral source confirm that Syrian troops still control several villages in this area.hereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just the Kurdish villages then? 216.130.144.24 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are neutral sources valid when they are based on our map? Because at least Mark has based many iterations of his work on this one including the area northwest of Tal Maruf and the Tal Tamer government pocket.

Also, from where did we get the Khuraitah pocket info in the first place? I would swear it was one of deSyracuse's maps.

186.119.51.112 (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here the maps from the more reliable sources unlike deSyracuse:here and here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also village of Bab al Khayr in army pocket near Tall Tamer earlier was marked as under control by Syrian troops according to data from SOHR. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hanibal, here official govt media SANA reports clashes now in the Bab al Khayr in the southern countryside of Hasakah (not western where the pocket is), taking into account how many villages in Syria have the same name could it be that we confused them? https://www.facebook.com/SyrianArabNewsAgencySana/posts/895244570498071 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.119.51.112 (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SANA said about village of Bab Al Khayr which located to south from city Hasaka but in Hasakah province located many villages with name Bab Al Khayr. But in January SOHR reported that Syriant troops captured village of Bab al Khayr to west from the city of Hasakah. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911 Interesting that you consider Desyracuse biased but unknown kurdish sources neutral in a kurdish area which cooperates with arab tribes often armed by the regime (to fight against Daesh).
So the kurdish source could well call the arab tribes as regime, since they aren't a formal kurdish ally (like the asyrians), and a (neutral) desyracuse recognise the cooperation with the kurds and show them as kurdish controlled. (Since desyracuse doesn't indicate tribal control, and apparently not the unknown kurdish source.)
BTW, if desyracuse is pro-opposition instead of neutral, why is he willing to cooperate with other map makers, including those pro-regime ? He has even offered to cooperate with our map.
A further point : we shouldn't be taking a map as a verified source, but only a suggestion, to be supported by a description with dates and place names, or other detailed info. Anyone can draw a map. What is wanted is reliable evidence. André437 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@André437: I completely agree. Anyone can draw a map with a little practice, a below average pc and a decent free editing program. But it is incredibly easy to make mistakes using them even if all your sources are correct. Believe me. You also have to judge the map maker's information collecting against Wikipedians', while the Wikipedians try to do the exact same thing in compiling reliable sources, and how accurate they are being when they draw the map, and in particular maps showing "front lines", which can be incredibly misleading, indeed this is one of my greatest misgivings about the png maps. How you all judge all this and keep this map (relatively) accurate without killing each other over each detail is a beyond me. I guess I'll stick to the easy part. Banak (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact regarding Mark Mommonier's map many areas are exact copies of this one which constitutes a circular reference and makes it a much less reliable source than deSyracuse for purposes of editing this map. Cetin does make more work of his own but when it comes to the Khabur govt villages his map has consistently been based on this one. 186.119.51.112 (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
André437 He just talk about neutrality or willingness to cooperate but in fact his maps is largely based on pro opposition sources. So dont need call deSyracuse as a neutral source. When the army launched an offensive in the south of Rif Dimashq and in the northern part of Darra province and even when reliable sources confirmed that the army seized some towns but deSyracuse noted them as controversial because the capture these towns was denied in pro opposition sources. So this source not neutral. He just a moderate opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911 Several times recently you propose unannotated maps alone from unknown sources for changes, something which is not reliable to me. Anyone can draw a map.
I'm saying that maps alone are not enough for changes, period.
However maps can be a guide, and other info with the maps or from elsewhere can be a basis for changes. In this sense, desyracuse can be used as a source, as he often documents situations indicated on his maps.
As for using "rebel sources", don't forget that local activists (or amateur reporters) exist in most rebel areas, and they can be a reliable source of info. So just because the reports come from rebel held areas doesn't mean the source is the rebels. Reports from regime held areas generally come from the regime itself, which is very controlling of information. There are so many different rebel groups in any given area, mixed in together, that it would be much more difficult for rebels to control the message, assuming they wanted to.
As far as desyracuse being somewhat slow in reacting to supposed changes of control, that is a good sign. It is much better to be conservative in this respect, than to have the fiasco maps where we were claiming major regime advances north of Aleppo city, which never materialized. In fact ending with significant losses of territory and manpower by the regime. Just because (pro-)regime sources indicate regime advances doesn't make it so. André437 (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have already agreed not use data from pro opposition sources and pro opp. activists to show success of rebels as well as not to use data from the pro-government sources and from pro gov. activists to display the progress of the army. But you saying that some pro-opposition sources we can used as a reliable but all pro government sources distort the data in favor of the army. But this is not so because in both sources(pro gov. or pro opp.) there is truth and also distortions of data in favor one of the parties to the conflict. But we earlier all agreed not use pro gov. sources to show success of army and not use pro opp. sources to show success of rebels. And let's stick to this rule. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing Finding: DeSyracuse admits that his main source… is our map!

I was looking at DeSyracuse’s Liveleak channel: http://www.liveleak.com/c/deSyracuse In the description it says: “This map is a work done by @DeSyracuse. It is based on comparison analysis and compilation of one main source wikipedia Syrian civil war map; and several secondary sources” Huh? “one main source wikipedia Syrian civil war map”?! This is OUR map. So we are his main source! And then we go ahead and use him as a source?! So he copies from our map and then we go and copy from his map! Tradediatalk 23:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description is outdated. I do not use Wikipedia map itself as a source since June 2014. However, I may use sometimes some sources that were sourced by some wikipedia authors, when I found them reliable. You can easily check that for Kobane maps for example (1st phase of IS attacks September - October 2014), my sources had nothing to do with Wikipedia. So I do not understand your problem.DeSyracuse (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He just invited you to correct your description on that page ;)
WP policy requires publishing sources used. (Which we started out following, but are not really at the moment, but hopefully that will improve).
So that means that using your map itself as a source is questionable (according to WP policy), but if you provide sources or well detailed info, we could use that, just as you can use our sources. Ideally we need a permanent link for reference.
So it is somewhat more complicated for WP articles.
In passing, I really appreciate your maps. André437 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP policy also, quite understandably, prohibits circular references. André437 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafria/Kafrya

Accroding to this report clashes are taking places around this town and i think we should put a semicircle in the north side.here.Lindi29 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. There have been numerous other reports to that effect, recently on twitter, and from various sources for quite a long time. The rebels have tried (and failed) to take the 2 small towns a number of times in the past. They have alawite majorities, with regime militias defending the towns. André437 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current situation in Azaz, Aleppo

According to Al Monitor Azaz was liberated by Jabhat al-Akrad, the Northern Storm Brigade and Liwa al-Tawhid in early 2014. Does anyone know the current status? If Jabhat al-Akrad didn't leave, then we should change its colour from green to green/yellow. My source is [1] from March 2014. --Ahmetyal (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a later source [2] from August 2014, saying " Opposition groups, first and foremost the Jabhat Al Akrad (Kurdish Front), say they cannot afford to lose control of the town [Azaz]." --Ahmetyal (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Storm is based there, most of their members come from the surrounding areas. The kurds are the majority just to the west, and generally relations between kurds and arabs in northern aleppo province is good. So I would leave the town green.
Except where al Akrad is a clear majority over arab groups, I would favour leaving towns green since their cooperation with arab groups in their areas tend to be excellent. Don't forget that al Akrad was formally part of the FSA until expelled during a period of anti-kurd sentiment, which has mostly passed.
As I understand it, in the Aleppo city neighbourhood of Sheikh Massoud, it is al-Akrad in unshared control (in the residential areas), so I would leave that yellow.
My 2 cents André437 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Akrad published their new logo this year (far most on the right), it clearly shows 2 FSA flags on it. DuckZz (talk 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The independence flag. A good sign for future cooperation between moderate kurdish and arab rebels André437 (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These guys also claim kurdish front active in azaz

https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/573555959265693696 https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/569827200301707264

+

You have this interview it says (ANF/AZAZ) https://rojavareport.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/interview-with-jabhat-al-akrad-commander/

http://aranews.net/2014/02/rebel-group-of-jabhat-al-akrad-regains-control-over-areas-near-aleppo/


Hisso pointed out that the Brigade considered the areas between villages of Deir Jamal, Meryamin, Azaz and Tel Rifaat cities as conflict zones, warning civilians to evacuate the area in order to avoid casualties. --Creepz55 (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

al-Shoula /Deir ez Zor

according to sohr clashes taking place in al-Shoula areas south of Der-Ezzor between regime forces and IS ,al shoula should contested SOURCE: http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/clashes-between-is-and-regime-forces-in-al-shoula-area/ LOCATION: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=35.180263&lon=39.843979&z=12&m=bHwinsp (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hwinsp I was 2 minutes late lol! ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:) Hwinsp (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Shoula - Deir Ez Zoor

SAA trying to establish a land route to the city by attacking Al Shoula area via SOHR [3]. Contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says clashes in al Shoula area,which area does he speak north west east south? Confusing.Lindi29 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-opp source saying SAA took control of the EBLA warehouses in Shoula.[4] ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pro gov source confirm this [5] 217.99.90.189 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pro opposition source reported that Regime forces seized today afternoon over Al-Shoola area over Palmyra road near the fuel field in Deir Ezzor, where regime forces shelled it with heavy artillery and rocket launchers from battalion 137.Qasion News So we can mark of Al-Shoola as under control by Syrian tropps. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
XJ-0461 v2, it should be changed to contested, since Hanibal911's source says it is contested. It is a poorly worded translation. The only way to make it coherent is to change the one word "seized" to "attacked", as everything else, including the headline, suggests an ongoing conflict. Read it to confirm. André437 (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with André437 here. Main source in Arabic says it is contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today pro government source reported that Syrian troops with allied tribal forces captured a village of Al Shoula in Deir Ez Zoor province.Syria 24 also yesterday pro opposition source reported that Syrian troops launched offencive in some areas against ISIS. Syrian troops advancing on ISIS sect in desert from Deir ez Zor and from Palmyra and in Al Suwayda province.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Days ago, tribes and NDF took over some few areas from ISIS remnants in north-east of Suwayda governorate.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Also FSA launched offencive in some areas against ISIS. From Qalamoun to Bir Qassab.here Without new strategy ISIS will lose the all south part of Syrian desert to the rebels and regime.Syrian Rebellion Observatory In same time, ISIS about to lose ash-Shulah to Assad regime.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911 this is today source from SOHR which confrims that al-shoula area is not captured be the regime.SOHR,I have to agree with André437 to go contested or besegied.Lindi29 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lindi29 At least as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911  Done.Lindi29 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lindi29 Pro opposition source confirmed that the village of Al Shulah was captured by Syrian troops from ISIS.here But source said that later Syrian troops withdraw from the village but we cant use this data from the source which clear opposes Syrian troops and use their for display success of ISIS. But Druze source reported that village still controlled by troops and that Syrian troops with the village of Al Shulah has taken Al Maleha's farms which located 20km in the south from Deir ez Zor.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanibal911 Yes,in this case we cant use both sources so contested is the right desicion.Lindi29 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This same news by LeithAbouFadel but name Salt Farms. I can not find this location. 217.99.151.188 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrat & Hanash - Hasakah

Are there any sources on why these two towns were changed from SAA held here to IS held? MesmerMe (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MesmerMe Source:here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think he wanted a real source, not a rather vague unannotated map ... André437 (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same unnanotated map was used to expand govt holdings in the Khabur area from three into eight villages and to remove the shared YPG-SAA control from many areas in south Qamishli so in case we are going to revert these changes (which is a legit idea, Cetin never cites his sources) we should also revert govt control in the river to only Bab-al-Khayr and the other two close-by villages and restore most of the shared villages SE of Qamishli. 186.119.51.112 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is good neutral source that not biased to favor one side in this conflict.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015

change

{ lat = "35.239", long = "39.864", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Al-Shulah", link = "Al-Shulah", label_size = "70", position = "left" },

to

{ lat = "35.239", long = "39.864", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Al-Shulah", link = "Al-Shulah", label_size = "70", position = "left" },

source:

http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/clashes-between-is-and-regime-forces-in-al-shoula-area/

We can use a pro-rebel source to show government gains. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:BDB4:91B8:A34F:A6B3 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later pro opposition source reported that Al Shulal under control by Syrian troops.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Hanibal911, your source says it is contested. At least the english version you referenced. Although it is a very awkwardly worded, apparently translated from arabic.
So the edit request for contested should be accepted. André437 (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, qasion-news is an interesting pro-rebel news source. They could use a better translator, though ... André437 (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/577171700669915136 states that the cty is taken by SAA.Paolowalter (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo countryside

Pro opposition source reported that Al-Shamya front(rebels) fighters seized over village of Al-Qarmal and Ghernata farms in Fafin area in Aleppo northern countryside.Qasion News Maybe who have confirmation of this data from the neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The areas around this village are already marked as green, best solution is to change Wardiyah village (already present) and rename it to Qaramil as this village is bigger than the first one, and they are almost on the same spot. DuckZz (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This pro-rebel source is lamenting that IS has regained control Tell Qaramel and claims that Ghernata farms is empty of both rebels and IS. http://syrian-reporter.net/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%8C-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%83%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8/

Location of Tell Qaramel: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.373958&lon=37.273436&z=14&m=b&show=/26649091/Tell-Qaramel Dulldul (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dulldul did you mean Qaramel town or Tell Qaramel hill beacause it's not the same,I cant understand that source beacause it is not in enlgish also the direction's that you provided on the map show's the town but the name is Tell Qaramel the hill,So please can you clarify which one you ment.Lindi29 (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the hill (Tell Qaramel), not the town (Qaramel) which it overlooks. The hill is adjacent to the eastern entrance of the town, as is shown by wikimapia. The Syrian-Reporter source doesn't say anything about the town. Dulldul (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Hama map

New pro-rebel map released. Could someone locate those 2 checkpoints north of Qalat Madeeq, left from Tall Uthman, I can't find them. DuckZz (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL near Khalkhala military airport

I think the ISIL control map in southern Syria haven't been updated properly ISIL control more areas not just four villages Just seen a picture of ISIL fighters besieging Khalkhala military airport but in this map it shows they were no where near that airport

Source

https://twitter.com/journoindepende/status/577707381808717824 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack6780 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just antigovernment source publishes photo from pro ISIS source which said that ISIS besieged Khalkhala military airport but this unreliable data which we cant use for displayed success of ISIS. Also other pro opposition source reported that Syrian troops recaptured many areas which was under control of ISIS in Suwayda province.Syrian Rebellion ObservatorySyrian Rebellion Observatory And some other pro opposition source clear showed that ISIS forces located very far from Khalkhalah military airport.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL Gains in Homs desert

According to Masarpress ISIL defeated SAA in As-Sukhnah and El-Brive villages in Homs desert .. I apologise for any mistake my arabic isnt that good

Source


https://twitter.com/MasarPressNet/status/577828324967321600

https://twitter.com/MasarPressNet/status/577756614578606080 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack6780 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly it is pro ISIS source. Also here pro opposition source reported that ISIS just attack checkpoints to east from town of As Sukhnah and opposition activist said it is not violent clashes just low frequency clashes in surroundings of As Sukhnah.Syria Newsdesk So that town of As Sukhnah still under control of Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also SOHR just said that warplanes carried several raids on areas in the vicinity town of Sukhna in the eastern Homs countryside where was clashes between ISIS and syrian troops.SOHR So SOHR clear said that clashes was in surroundings town of As Sukhan which accompanied air strikes by Syrian Air Force. And that town of As Sukhan still under control of Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also another one pro opposition source said that clashes was between regime forces and ISIS to east from the town of As Sukhna on road of Palmyra - Deir ez Zor.arabthomness Hanibal911 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=651909687"