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 Caret initio et fine (talk | contribs) at 11:35, 24 December 2015 (→Battle for Deir Ezzor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Marj as sultan

Several posting e.g. [1] and [twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/676346089642065920 islamicworld ] point to the base of Marj as Sultan in East Ghouta fully taken by SAA. I have seen some news also SOHR reports SAA advance [www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/violent-clashes-in-marj-al-sultan-airport-in-the-eastern-ghouta-and-casualties-in-the-airstrikes-on-harasta-and-clashes-in-the-northern-countryside-of-latakia/ SOHR]. It is time to turn red the north military airport and enlarge the government controlled area on the detailed map. Opinions?Paolowalter (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many pro-gov sources also are posting about this.[2].Lists129 (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lists129Paolowalter Opp.source said that the SAA captured over town of Marj Sultan in eastern Ghouta, after fierce clashes against the Syrian rebels.source Sûriyeya (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opp.source confirmed SAA recaptured the town Marj al Sultan.StepAgency SY 46.201.162.214 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR: SAA managed to control the town Marj Sultan and its airport amid unconfirmed reports from most of the fighters withdrew from the town and the airport.SOHRSOHR 46.201.162.214 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AlMasdar contradicts claims that SAA fully took control of whole the town and the northern base. I am a bit puzzled.Paolowalter (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paolowalter SAA advance in Eastern Ghouta and captured the town of Marj al Sultan and Marj al-Sultan air base in the eastern suburb of Damascus known as Eastern Ghouta, and which was held by rebels for the past three years.sourcesourcesourcesource 46.201.162.214 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-opposition sources 1 claim rebels regained control over Marj Al-Sultan airport. the problem is they don't specify if they are talking about northen , southern or both the airporst. anyway this is still all pro-opessions sources and SOHR haven't anounced it yet. just tought to post some heads ups. Helmy1453 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helmy1453 But source within the pro-government militia تولد that the Syrian army and militia had managed to establish a security zone around the airbase.source So for now we wait confirmation from independent sources. Sûriyeya (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453 Pro-Opposition source said that the local activists confirmed that Assad's forces again captured the ‎Marj Sultan‬ military airport which was liberated yesterday by rebels.source Sûriyeya (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453 Reliable source also said that SAA captured the strategic Helicopter Airfields, Helicopter Airbase, the village of Marj Al-Sultan, the main Helicopter Military Base and the P-35 Radar Base that is situated to the north of Marj Al-Sultan. And this led to control of Syrian army on all the Marj Al-Sultan area in the Eastern Ghouta area.source Sûriyeya (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now confirmed with video.source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.98.131.160 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video of the Syrian TV channels.herehere Sûriyeya (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sûriyeya What you mentinoed above is true and i know it but this looks like a boiling area. and this suorce 1 (Which in my openion is verry reliable for ghouta news)claims that rebel regain control over the airport. it looks like both sides are switching control over it every couple of hours. I think putting is as contested makes more sence than puuting it as any of the two colors. What do you think ? Helmy1453 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafrah black?

Hi, I just saw that Kafrah (southeast Idlib province) is marked black. By mistake? Mughira1395 (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mughira1395 It was village Kafrah near the town Sawran to north of city Aleppo I just indicate incorrect coordinates. I have already corrected this mistake. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Wa'ar in Homs

Some one changed Al-Wa'ar from truce to red? I don't know whom? i am not verry good in digging in the history page. but no source calim that SAA faorces enterd Al-Wa'ar. It is under truce , this truce closes are not clear, but anyway the SAA is not in there yet and it is still administrated by the rebels under the truce till now. Helmy1453 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source said that the the rebels leave the last rebel-held area of Homs, the city once known as the "capital of the revolution" will fully return to government control.sourcesourcesourcesource Syrian Rebels Lose Homs After Ceasefire Agreement With Assad.source Sûriyeya (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above sources stating SAA officials or troops entering the neiberhood. all waht they say is the rebels (STARTS) to pull of and life comes back. so no it is under truce not red. Helmy1453 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian government has regained control over country's capital of Homs after more than four years of civil war http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3351550/Life-slow-return-shattered-Syrian-city-Homs.html Shattered city of Homs returns to Assad control as fighters leave last rebel-held area http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-shattered-city-homs-returns-assad-control-fighters-leave-last-rebel-held-area-1532496 Is it enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.87.216.31 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for the replacement of the label "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" by "Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD)"

I'm proposing that the yellow labels on this map and similar ones at Wikipedia be changed from the ethnic designation "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" to the military force and political designation "Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD)". It violates accepted ideas of fairness to label other forces in Syria based on their political position or military identity and to label this single region based on its majority ethnic identity. This sole ethnic designation on the map also plays into the hands of both the Assad regime's divisive policies and to divisive agendas in regional and global powers. It reflects a mentality that people in the region itself have seemingly rejected (see New York Times report at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/a-dream-of-utopia-in-hell.html ), and it does not reflect the Enlightenment values of an encyclopedia. Upon the creation of the national assembly (the MSD) in Syria last week as the political arm of the QSD, a resolution was released mentioning no single ethnic identity (see http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/final-resolution-of-the-democratic-syria-congress-released ), and the current composition of this assembly is indicative of its pluralistic nature (see http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/executive-board-of-democratic-syria-assembly-elected ). Local, canton-level, and national-assembly level political leaders are expounding upon the pluralistic reality of their assembly and its forces in the face of great hardship and intrigue. One dramatic example is at http://www.diclehaber.com/en/news/content/view/487809 . A designation of "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" also does not reflect the complex reality on the ground that elements of the QSD can and do utilize their ethnic composition to meet tactical and strategic goals (see the careful and correct usage of all terms involving Kurds and Arabs in their proper local context at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria-exclusive-idUSKBN0U006Y20151217 ). I haven't been able to find a map yet with the label change that I'm requesting, but I believe this is due to two facts. Insufficient time has passed for the change to sink in to mass media (The QSD is two months old, and the MSD is one week old), and the region is inaccessible to outside reporters but it does have a few local media outlets that (based on the New York Times report above) can be expected to be free and fair. With these problems, it's understandable that the designation "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" was the best choice until now. It's a safe bet that similar editorial conversations are being held elsewhere. There is no reason for Wikipedia to wait until news outlets reflect neutral reality on their maps. 73.149.16.54 (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still against this SDF color for rebels in Raqqa province. It doesn't make any sense at all. As most people who are looking at this map consider "yellow" to represent Kurdish forces like the YPG/YPJ, and not rebels at all. I don't want to believe that 10 months of work that we invested by finding sources and sources for Raqqa province, and every village, now just goes straight into the dumbster just because some users wanted "something new". The problem is, that SDF is a coalition of groups, and not a group itself, and even thought rebels have around 15 groups inside, the YPG still makes 90% of the soldiers because they have 60 000 of them, and basically whatever happens, it will be marked as under SDF control. This is basically against the rules because by using that logic, we can remove every grey color from the map, because Al Nusra is part of the Jaish Fatah coalition, of which 80% of the groups are Rebels (IF/FSA), and whatever happens, it should go under lime control, right ? Of course not, that's why we always try to find other sources after Jaish Fateh captured something, we find out which groups did it. We don't do that for the SDF because the idea is quite the opposite.

While this won't be a problem for Hasaka, where Rebels don't really have much presence, but the Raqqa region is full of various FSA, Arab or any other non Kurd afiliated groups. We spent 10 months to edit that province, for every village a source, somewere even marking it as under solo rebel control. Now everything is changed in 2 minutes, i don't want to believe that.
Basically, Jaish Thuwar Raqqa and Jaish Qujaja (Arab tribes) say that they have over 10 000 members in Raqqa and that they are only participating under SDF banner in Hasaka, and not in Raqqa. This may be true because almost every village around Tell Abyad and Ein Eyes was under joint or rebel control.
My opinion would be
  • 1) Hasaka province can stay the same
  • 2) Raqqa province should be changed as it was, we continue to edit that as we used to do, Rebels and YPG seperated. I mean for example what if Rebels capture Raqqa town alone, will it be marked under yellow SDF control, even if Kurds did not participate ?

DuckZz (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object on changing the name. and I agree on removing the grey color and switching it to green. Helmy1453 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No ! You're not objective, we all hate Al Nusra but the grey color needs to stay as we need to make a distinction between them and Rebels. The same as wee need to make the distinction between Rebels and Kurdish forces (YPG/YPJ etc). That's why Raqqa province needs to go back as it was. DuckZz (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"we all hate Al Nusra " If that is not the definition of Pro openion vandalizm then what is ? You hate AL-Nusra should not guide how you edit this page. you hate Al-Nusra shouldn't make you distinguish them on no basis what so ever. I agree with you the only reason AL-Nusra has a seperate color is that many admins here can't seperate thier political openion about hating a sertain faction from facts driving a control map on the ground. And when it comes to green or gray color control this map is actually childish funny. Helmy1453 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because being objective in this way means that even thought i don't like someone, i want to write about them and I want to show them, everything according to rules. Being not objective would be if I said "I hate Nusra, and i also think we can remove the grey color". Which isn't the case. But Nusra is just an example of why we should change back Raqqa and keep editing it as it was, with either Kurdish, Rebel or Joint control. DuckZz (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the yellow icon should be renamed as 'SDF', because of the fact that in many cases it is solely the YPG conducting operations, and making the yellow icon become SDF suggests that there is a lot more Arab rebel involvement in the Kurdish region, when in reality the region is administrated almost unilaterally by local Kurdish authorities. I am sceptical that rebels would actually hold administrative control over the areas in the designated SDF-held region and therefore think that the designation of them as part of the Kurdish affiliates is justified however appreciate that other editors disagree with this: notably DuckZz.Prohibited Area (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Insurgent (Green) presence is too exaggerated in Darayya (Damascus map)

This is the previously version (See Darayya zone) http://s15.postimg.org/pl6negvaj/3234223423.jpg

In fact during November were reported Army progress in this place

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-imposes-control-over-several-building-blocks-in-the-strategic-city-of-darayya/

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-delivers-hell-from-above-while-the-syrian-army-advances-in-darayya/

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-at-marj-al-sultan-douma-and-darayya-in-rural-damascus/

Why now the map is showing huge insurgent presence into Darayya ?

In base of what are these changes? --LogFTW (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern Ghouta map also it is tiny now to what it is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.232.198 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latakia

I have an issue with the status of some places in this region who are really outdated and not good sourced.I have just compared 2 maps from pro-gov and pro-opp where they show the same situation so I am suggesting to use these map sources to clarify this issue.Opinions??Lists129 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain what locatins exactly you are talking about, your statment is too generic. Helmy1453 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453 Turus,Bayt Ablaq,Mughayriyah,Al-Maran,Bayt Awan,Al-Maliyah,Bayt al Faris,Burj al-Qasab some are shown goverment held and contested but both maps indicates that they are rebel held.Lists129 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453Lists129 I put Mughayriyah as FSA-held according to data from relible source. But we cant use any (pro opp. or pro.gov)maps for edit. It is prohibited by the rules of editing:

Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.” Sûriyeya (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helmy1453 Al-Maran,Al-Maliyah,Bayt al Faris,Burj al-Qasab was put as SAA-held according to data from reliable sources but not based unreliable maps from amateur sources. Using of any maps without confirmation from a reliable source is prohibited the rules. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sûriyeya thats why I brought the issue here to disscus it beacause the places in that area are really outdated,note that this pro-goverment map is used from Al-Masdar to show the situation in Syria.We can ask Tradedia what is his opinion about this matter,beacause we dont have any better sources other than this 2 map sources for this area where they show the same situation.Lists129 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453 Also this map incorrect. On this map here for 16 December Bayt Faris SAA-held but on the nexd day as FSA-held.here But Al Masdar earlier said that SAA capturd Bayt Faris and on map from Al Masdar Bayt Faris showed as SAA-held.[www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-seizes-a-strategic-village-on-the-turkish-border-as-the-islamist-rebel-defenses-collapse/ source]here Also as I said in the rules clear indicated that "Copying from maps is strictly prohibited." Sûriyeya (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel control from Western Ghouta into Lebanon, and ISIS presence?

According to this report, there was until recently a link between rebel-controlled territory in Western Ghouta and a border-crossing into Lebanon, which doesn't seem to be reflected on this map (as far as I can tell). The report also says that the border crossing is jointly controlled by the Islamist rebels as well as ISIS. Perhaps this border crossing can be added to the map? Esn (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source said about illegal border crossing which we can't add we only add official border crossings. Also source not said that rebels controlled this area source said that the Army tries to cut the smuggling supply routes of the ammo from Lebanon. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident we would know if rebels had full control over an east-west axis here. Probably just smuggling/transport paths without actual ground control. 130.132.173.165 (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly can't illegal border crossings be added? They are obviously a major factor in this conflict. Esn (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Suhreej and Umm at-Tababir (East of Homs-Citiy)

First: Umm Suhreej has to be black according to this pro-government article: http://alwatan.sy/archives/33325

Second: In the same article Umm at-Tababair is also with IS (as already put on the map, but without source mentioned). But it is a bit curious that IS is practically on the road Homs-Palmyra... (and nobody concerned about this!) So either Umm at-Tababir is somewhere else or the first source which mentioned Umm at-Tababir did a mistake: East of Um Suhreej there is a town "Abu at-Tababir", which would match with the whole news from the area. Maybe there was a confusion between both towns - we have to pay attention to further reports from there. Mughira1395 (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about 2 Tababir vilages, it's probably the other one. BTW, it wasn't put on the map without source since I put the source and even copied part of the text that refers to it:
at Tababir to IS per regime source: http://sana.sy/en/?p=64292: "ISIS terrorists were killed and their weapons destroyed in Wadi al-Zakara, >>Um al-Dababir<< and al-Tadmurieh, Jbab Hamad, Rahoum villages and on al-Salamieh –Ain al-Nesser road."

Also, You shouldn't leave first Tababir on the map. If I added wrong village, then we have no clue who controls the Umm at-Tababir. --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upps! Excuse, you are right about sources mentioned. Mughira1395 (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Touman

Khan Touman and Qarassi are captured and the SAA & Allies are on the Aleppo - Idlib Highway. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/hezbollah-syrian-army-cutoff-the-aleppo-damascus-highway-after-seizing-khan-touman-in-southern-aleppo/ and http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-hezbollah-capture-the-strategic-village-of-al-qarassi-in-southern-aleppo/ MesmerMe (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR claim that SAA and Hezbollah captured the village of Qarassi.here Pro-opp. source confirmed that Khan Touman Ammunition Depot also taken by SAA.here And later SOHR also claim that SAA captured the strategic town of Khan Touman and several hills and areas in the surroundings.herehere Sûriyeya (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR also claim that SAA captured the village of Al Zerbah.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Pro-Gov source has claimed Al Zerbah has been taken .86.178.103.40 (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR only said that SAA captured Al Zerbah Poultry Farm. I was wrong when translated this report. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truce between YPG & Fatah Halab broken

Today rebels from the Fatah Halab and Al Nusra resumed shelling of Sheikh Meqsud and clashes resumed between YPG and Fatah Halab and Al Nusra near the village of Bênê in Afrin Canton.sourcesource Sûriyeya (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alep

SAA Captured villages of Al-Qarassi, Al 'Amarah , Khan Tuman and Khan Touman Ammunition Depot and Al-Zarbeh Poultry Farm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.81.207.173 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrin

What does that mean? Who is in Sarrin now? http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-democratic-forces-begin-a-major-offensive-to-capture-the-tishreen-dam-in-al-raqqa/ Mughira1395 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also seeing this across social media apparently there has been towns/villages in their control all this time near the Dam. Shows how good this map is totally isis biased and Fake Syrian Army biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.80.201 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source is inaccurate, Sarrin is still controlled by SDF, if they had lost it we would have heard. Also [[3]] from a week ago. Prohibited Area (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source just made mistake how this can do any other source. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source may be wanted to say that before YPG can attack on Tishrin dam they need fully secured the Sarrin countryside. Because many sources said that ISIS still try advance and reentered in the town Sarrin and retake him. Now clashes between YPG and ISIS in the village of Mal'ah and near Bujag to south of Sarrin.sourcesourcesource and ISIS many times try advance toward Sarrin from Najam Castle. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusions about several maps...

I want to apologize, if this question is off-topic here, but don't know where to ask.

I am confused about several maps: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies_detailed_map

First one is "ours" and the one up to date concerning Syria. Second one is about Iraq, but not up to date (and bad resolution). Third one was originally the combination of the first and second. The road-maker kindly has added the roads also for the iraqi part (with better resolution - see Ramadi). This was the map I was looking at for weeks, and I checked it often with the first one: Changes were taken over automaticly. But now I saw, that this was no longer the case (see for instance the changes of Umm Suhreej and at-Tababir and also the new road going from Rakka to Hasaka). Now I found also the forth map, which would be surley interesting for those who are focussing only on Syria for obvious reasons. Interestingly this map is up to date concering the town-changings in Syria, but not for Iraq (but has the resolution of the second map), and it lacks the roads on both sides (+ Lebanon).

So... confusion... and maybe there are even more maps?

I don't know why and when changes are taken over automaticaly, when done on one map. But if for my part I think that the forth map is the most significant - IF roads are put in and changes from Syria map taken over automaticaly. Mughira1395 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE CHANGE "duckZz"s CHANGES IN NORTHERN HOMS AND SOUTHERN HAMA. UNUSEABLE TWITTERPAGES ARE USE`D FOR CHANGES.

duckZz the Propaganda-machine - ONES MORE AND I'LL REGISTRIER HERE AND WILL SEND REPORT TO ADMIN. STAY SERIOUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.115.2 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial edits in accordance with the rules of editing.

Prohibited Area,DuckZz,Hogg 22,LightandDark2000,Paolowalter,FoXrEpOrTeR,Lists129 Guys according to the rule #3 of the rules of editing we must create discussion when source not said clear who control villages, towns or hills before we make edit and also not use maps as a source:

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.

I only ask you not use maps, too old sources which clear outdated and not use as a source only map of Wikimapia. And its all. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal al-Akrad & Al Ghab plain front

Jabal al Nuba has been seized by SAA according to Pro-gov source (Al-Masdar), Pro-opp source (SOHR) claims that the advances have been made around Jabal al Nuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caret initio et fine (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Masdar and SOHR it is a reliable (not pro opp. or pro gov.)sources. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sûriyeya correction Al-Masdar is reliable pro-government and SOHHR is reliable pro-insurgence sources. There is no neutral sources in this conflict all sources are biased. But while SOHR and AL-Masdar are biased we agrred on this page to consider them main sources as they proofed to report more reliable news than other sources. Helmy1453 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal al Sayed has been seized by SAA according to Pro-gov twitter source (Sayed Ridha). Wouldn't post a Twitter as source hadn't SOHR said that advances were being made around the mount twice today. This gives direction towards the north, rather than east to Al-Kawm. But then again this is only Twitter.Caret initio et fine (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro opp. sources also confirmed thaa the SAA retake Jabal al Nuba and advance toward Jabal al Sayed.sourcesource Sûriyeya (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Al-Sirmaniyah besieged according to Pro-gov source (Al Masdar) Caret initio et fine (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darayya got smaller not bigger!!!

the city of Darayya has beenn made 3 times bigger than what it actually is sinnce the last Edit, East Ghouta is about half the sizee it currently is on this map and the Area south of Daraya (Big green circle with Red locations captured) is also not the reality of the situation is the Damascus map going to be made accurate, source Darayya: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-at-the-strategic-city-of-darayya-in-rural-damascus/ . Same with the Daraa map totally wrong and outdated the SAA have captured 90% of the city and are right beside the old Border crossing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.235.52 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Insurgent presence in Darayya seems is a bit exaggerated probability need a correction

Here is other section about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Seems_Insurgent_.28Green.29_presence_is_too_exaggerated_in_Darayya_.28Damascus_map.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.159.103 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sna'a nieberhood in Dar'a

Islamic state sources Twitter claim fully control over Sana'a negberhood in Dar'a . keep an eye on verifications whenever possible. Pro-red sources has not confirmed niether denied yet. Helmy1453 (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helmy1453 It is not in the city of Dara it is in the city of Deir ez Zor. And it is only ISIS claim. Sûriyeya (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453 Islamic State say they took full control of Al-Sinaa (Industrial) neighborhood in Deir Ez zor.here but government source said government forces had been able to push ISIS back.source Sûriyeya (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sûriyeya It's confirmed by reliable source,that this neighborhood is fully captured,and also the map should be updated in that part.Lists129 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453 This not reliable source it is pro-opp. anti-SAA source. He said: "ISIS media outlet reported today that the group gained full control over Al- Sinaa (the Industrial) neighbourhood of the city of Deir Ezzor, following a violent offensive which was preceded by triple VBIED attacks targeting the regime’s positions inside the neighbourhood."here So need confirmation from reliable source. Sûriyeya (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Helmy1453 Reliable source said that After failed assault on the Al-Sina’a, Al-Rusafa, Al-‘Amal, and the Old Airport Districts and heavy casualties(over 40 units) ISIS withdraw to safer areas leaving behind much of their heavy armory and weaponry to the SAA and NDF. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tal, Damascus

This town was reportedly always under rebel control, and under a truce in the same time. Most of SOHR sources are old, of course because not much happened there until now, so it's hard to find something new and not related to rebel or pro-rebel sources. Here a heavy pro-government reporter Leith Fadel basically confirms that rebels are present in this town but doesn't say they have a full control, and says it's under a truce. Bosnjoboy, which is used a reliable reporter, says it's under rebel control. So we need to find something in the middle, which is again a truce (said by Leith). I will put a dot there until someone makes an update. DuckZz (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz Reliable source earlier that since the beginning 2014 the city of Al Tall under control of the army.source So to mark the city as under truce is not enough suggestions from the Twitter. Sûriyeya (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Tisrin dam - Kiliyah plain front

The SDF captured the village of Saharij according to pro-YPG source (ARA News). The advance south of Sarrin by SDF has been reported by pro-opp source (SOHR), but not the capturing of this particular village. Caret initio et fine (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Deir Ezzor

In the city of Deir Ezzor the industrial center district or/and the al Sina'ah district has/have been taken according to ISIS as is reported by non-partisan source (Dailystar) and pro-opp source (SOHR). Note that neither of the two sources mentioned the same area. This move relates to about 3 to 5 streets down in the detailed map from red to black. Caret initio et fine (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=696620474"