Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Battalion 559 in Eastern Qalamoun

I know it might be an outdated subject but my (and our) goal is an accurate map. I have found many pro-opp sources stating that rebels retreated from the warehouses after looting them and so defending empty warehouses was useless. Pro-opp sources:

http://stepagency-sy.net/%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B9-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-559-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8/

http://eldorar.com/node/48440

https://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=1bf19643b8e23f7cc01c87d035bfee97

http://justpaste.it/islamicfront559

http://www.syrianarmyfree.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-68912.html

So it might be a bit late but I suggest turning back the empty 559 Battalion back to red. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It has always struck me as completely irrational that the rebels would have maintained a presence at these bases as they are basically worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So we need marked this base again under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic front members are using this base as a checkpoint, it's empty but obviously not Government held. Either remove it or, but that wouldn't be a smart move as there is a noticeable number of rebels in this desert area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Provide a source that the regime re-took this area please, the days of reverting to red based on outdated sources are over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

After pro opposition sources said that the rebels left the base, so you can provide proof from a reliable sources that now this base still under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. In what part does it say rebels completely withdrew from that area ? I can only read a part saying number of rebels withdrew from the base after heavy artillery, and that was months ago. There would be some source about the Syrian army recapturing the base, not even PetroLucem i co. posted about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

These are warehouses so they can't be used as checkpoints (besides they are exposed in the desert to air attacks). Yes rebels are present in the desert but that doesn't mean they control it (neither does the regime: it's a desert!).

Pro-opp stated they retreated --> THAT MEANS THEY RETREATED (The Islamic Front itself admitted in one of the sources I provided why they retreated).

P.S: The sources provided could easily be translated. And for the person complaining about changing "old/outdated" stuff: it's for the good of the map & the community :) ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz probably you are right and we do not need edit this military base to red! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The retreat occurred months ago that's the point.. It went unreported by regime sources because they didn't even acknowledge the fall of the warehouses in the first place.. I mean it's quite obvious: Raid - take the tanks - retreat without casualties But if you guys view that pro-opp sources reporting pro-opp retreats as unreliable then we have an issue here. I'm neither pro nor anti-regime but some of you are biased. Modifications must be made to match reality not what some of you want. Trying to change something from red to green or vice-versa has become impossible here. Peace. ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting argument in this section : there is no current information that it is occupied by either side, and since the last known occupants were rebels who (at some of which) retreated, it somehow must be designated regime held even without any known regime presence ? ... and that doesn't occur to proponents as a pro-regime bias ?

Maybe we need an explicit means of indicating that a point is not (known to be) controled by either side (other than removing it from the map). Maybe colour grey, or the violet used for truce areas ? Or maybe a "?" icon ? However I would favour leaving it green. André437 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

André437 you have a point here. But I am by no means biased. Here it may seem I'm pro-regime but if you look at other posts I might seem pro-opp. Point is all I want is accuracy nothing more. Cheers ChrissCh94 (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

1. 1 reason for leaving those 2 bases green - they are the only indication on our map that there is any rebel presence to the east of Damascus/in the wilderness around Palmyra. There are still sporadic attacks and asymmetric warfare in that area, and if we remove Battalion 559 and the other base, our map will indicate complete SAA dominance from Damascus clear across the Deir el Zor - which is more inaccurate than leaving the bases as is. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you will have to find a different way to mark “rebel presence to the east of Damascus”. Our map is concerned with cities, towns, bases, etc. We give information about who control these objects, and we don’t want to give misleading information. We are not focused on describing “area control”. There is already a map that does describe “area control”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_civil_war.png. Tradedia^talk 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

East Homs

The Army has recaptured the Hayyan Gas plant as well as Jhar and Moher gas wells see as well as the Syriatell(Zimlat al Maher) as reported by Elija.J.Magnier see who was the first one who reported that the hill fell to IS.Only parts of Shaer gas field in IS hands.Daki122 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Homs Province: The regime army could re-capture Jhar and al- Moher gas wells as well as Hayyan Gas Company in the eastern countryside of Homs, where IS militants took control over Hayyan Gas Company at the end of last October after violent clashes with the regime army and shelling by the regime forces on IS positions in the area.

An IS militant blew up himself yesterday night in a booby- trapped vehicle near a regime’s position near the city of Tadmor.

The warplanes carried out 2 barrel bombs on the city of al- Rastan injuring a child and a woman." - that's the entire post. Where does it say "Hayyan Gas plant as well as Jhar and Moher gas wells" were recaptured? Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't wanna be rude but I would suggest you read the report a few more times.It clearly states('The regime army could re-capture Jhar and al- Moher gas wells as well as Hayyan Gas Company in the eastern countryside of Homs') that the Army took back both fields and the gas plant.

Or better to put it Would-is future tense and Could-Something that some one managed to do :D

Also to note that there was no reliable source(upper post in Tiyas section I asked for a source no one posted one) given for the black ring around T4 and thus I have reverted the change.Also only one that reported the loss of Syriatell was Elija.J.Magnier and one of the pro-gov maps was based on this plus it make sense since the Army recaptured the Jihar gas field right next to it.Daki122 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yea, still not following. The army "could" - not, the army "did", or "has". "Could". The FSA "could" take Damascus. The SAA "could" take Aleppo. The Kurds "could" come out of the conflict with a state. Could. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Regime forces and pro-regime militia retook control of the Jhar and Mahr gas fields, as well as the Hayyan gas company in the east of Homs province," said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. SOURCE: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Nov-05/276565-syria-army-retakes-gas-fields-from-jihadists-activists.ashxHwinsp (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There we go! Factual, past and present tense reporting. Nice and definitive. Didn't realize that we were editing the map based on potentiality before though. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is clear the SAA has recaptured those area's but anyways WHY has Al-Taybah and the towns around Jub Al Jarrah have suddenly turned black without source? I've seen ZERO proof of these towns being in hands of ISIS terrorists. There are more and more of those reverts happening to black without Source given. This map is getting vandalised........... Turn those towns back to red or provide a source!2A02:1810:2808:6100:59AB:FF00:4859:15FE (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear now, yes. There are two sources posted with the al-Taybah edit, so, it's not clear why you are saying it's an unsourced edit.. if you've seen zero proof, it's because you did not look for it. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me dude, i've searched for sources and i really couldn't find anything of it...........SyAAF (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

lol I do not understand. There are two sources permanently affixed to that edit. If you looked at the edit history, you could not have missed them. One is the pro-op anti-IS map https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1cLH-YCMAAI-1E.jpg:large and the pro-gov't Syria24 post https://www.facebook.com/syria24english/posts/757030420999409 Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look close to Syria24 you would read that vehicles and headquarters have been destroyed in those towns, i don't see anywhere in that post they've capured the town at all. I'm not really convinced of the edit at all based one pro opp map.SyAAF (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

An anti-IS map in good standing and a heavy history of use on this module is, technically, enough by itself to make the edit. The fact that pro-gov't Syria24 verified IS presence there, is pretty much a seal to that deal. I mean, look at al-Taybah - do you really think more than 1 faction/belligerent side could take up residency/have headquarters there? lol there are only about a dozen buildings. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources are very little convincing. Syria24 is very vague about some fighting: it quotes also Tadmur (Palmyra) that clearly is not under IS control. It is likely remarking fightings in the areas around those cities. The map is strongly pro-opp, therefore anti-SAA, I would be against using it to make changes against SAA.95.249.45.249 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No pro-SAA source reports IS gains, we don't use pro-IS sources to report IS gains, and you don't want to use a pro-(whatever is left of a pseudo-secular)opposition source to report IS gains. That source is as anti-IS as it is anti-SAA. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with Bored until we here more reports . Interesting post in almasdar states ypg in Shakh Maqsood has agreed to let FSA move supplies through its areas to resupply Allepo but not Islamic front or other hardline groups .Pyphon (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Also we cant use to display the advances for all rebel groups, including ISIS because source Archicivilians openly oppose the Syrian government and its data can not be neutral therefore it can distort the data in favor of opponents of the regime and that violates the rules of editing. For now we just know that this map on 100% pro opposition and anti-government but we are not sure that it is map and anti ISIS, So for now we cant use her to show success all opponents of the regime. And pro government source not said that Al-Taybah was captured by ISIS and now we must mark this town again under control by army or contested and at the moment I choose the second option until we find clear confirmation from the reliable or pro government source that the city was captured by ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also the some reliable sources clear confirm that the Syrian troops recaptured two key gas fields and a gas company in central Homs province, less than a week after their seizure by jihadists. Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that Regime forces and pro-regime militia retook control of the Jhar and Mahr gas fields, as well as the Hayyan gas company in the east of Homs province.NaharnetThe Daily StarGlobal Post Hanibal911 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Using Archicivilians for IS gains does not violate anything. The rule is no pro-op source for pro-op gains, NOT no pro-op source for any SAA losses to 3rd parties - and that's an important distinction. As you said, we know that it is 100% a pro-op map - therefore there is no % left to be pro-IS. If a source is considered pro-op, it is by definition anti-every side the opposition is fighting. The same goes for pro-SAA and pro-IS sources. The rule has always been that we don't use a source to make edits for the side that said source supports. That's not the same as not using a source to make edits regarding the conflict(s) between 2 parties both of which it opposes. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but Archicivilians is also anti-SAA thus every time the Syrian government looses ground it will probably be over-exaggerated and propagandized and by that I highly recommend all editors to check for more sources and compare them both pro-SAA and pro-Opp(I will not put pro-ISIS sources here because they will probably lie a lot as propaganda is their main weapon so ISIS advances are in no way going to be displayed by twitter sources who are pro-ISIS) and where there is conflicting reports we put it to contested at best and wait for the situation to clear out before making any changes.Use of only pro-opp sources for ISIS gains in my opinion should not be allowed as many of them are anti-SAA thus making them unreliable as they will always exaggerate the situation on the ground(We saw this in the latest fighting in Homs where some pro-opp sources even claimed that ISIS took parts of Tiyas airbase but they actually never reached the base only took over the gas fields 15km to the north of it.).My opinion has always been to try to find neutral sources to change the map and not to jump into conclusions based on the sources from either side and if there is one side claiming that it gained something but you can not find a reliable(neutral) source than open a topic here on the Talk Page and we will discus the matter before we proceed to any changes that way we will avoid edit wars and miss understandings between editors and also it will be a lot easier to update the map without having to revert changes made by editors based on unreliable sources on both sides.Daki122 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But the Archicivilians very often acts against the Syrian regime and distort information in favor of his opponents. So there there is reason doubt on the reliability his information. Therefore, the use of this source of data for displaying the success of anti-government militants ISIS is not entirely correct since Archicivilians more apposition against the Syrian regime than ISIS. He's opposition to ISIS only in those cases when they are fighting against Free Syrian army and its allies or Kurds. So need a confirmation from a more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hence no edit was made exclusively based on Archicivilians. It was only when pro-gov't Syria24 corroborated IS presence in Al-Taybah that the information on Archicivilians was acted on. No way the SAA is bombarded al-Taybah if they too have a presence there - the town is too small. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro government source only said that headquarters and vehicles belong to armed men in Jbab Hamad, al-Tadmuria, Talbisah and al-taybah have been destroyed.here But not said that Syrian airforce target the town Al-Taybah. He could be destroyed during combat or with the help of artillery so that it is not proof that the city under the control of ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bala Al Jidida eastern ghouta

Syria24 and Peto Lucem posted that saa took farm land and village of bala al jidida but we must have pro op source to confirm change to map.Pyphon (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

where is this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.227 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Located here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.498174&lon=36.422596&z=13&m=b&show=/29686259/Bala-al-Jadida No mention of it yet on SOHR but they are reporting many surface-to-surface missile strikes on Zebdeen, which is directly south of it. Appears Zebdeen is being encircled/bombarded in preparation for storming. Nhauer (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Also per almasdar.81.156.225.146 (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Add a JAN Color?

Who thinks we should add a new JAN color to represent the new dynamic of JAN going fully independent of FSA's Umbrella and conquering Land in its own right? 24.12.202.163 (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait. Even though they are fighting the FSA , they have not made a change in thier policy of fighting the regime. IF they do announce that they intend to carve out their own nation rather than fight the regime[like ISIS], then they should get their own color. For now, however, the fighting seems confined to northern Syria (No problems in Darr'a). Until it becomes more severe or until JAN renounces its part in the revolution, we should hold off on a color change. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Might as well have JAN with it's own color code since more reports of fighting b/w them and other rebel groups in Idlib, JAN are closing in on Sarmada via AP 99.160.184.97 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree if there is a reconciliation we can easily change backPyphon (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

JAN announced the creation of an Emirate in July; A color change should be implemented. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/12/233152_al-qaida-affiliate-declares-emirate.html?rh=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.9.59 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reports that the FSA/SFR will withdraw from Syria if no help comes to help fight JAN .Pyphon (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)PYPHON

I still don't support this idea, it would ruin the map. At least 50% of the news about JAN/opposition clashes are propaganda. Hazm never gave their weapons to Al Nusra, nor their members plaged alliance. If you think SRF/Jan clashes are reason enough to change colors.. then I don't know. It's not a full scale war, you have dozens of casefire agreements between dozen opposition groups and JAN. You can find some copies on SOHR. That's all I can say, and Pyphon, I belive you are on crack.DuckZz (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Personnel attacks are not permitted on here I could site you but I can see you are upset by the current situation . Pyphon (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Pro opposition news agency reports that confrontations between a FSA Brigades and a Jabhad Al Nusra are heating up in Aleppo countryside.Aleppo Media Center Hanibal911 (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys how do you react to fact that as temporary measure we use for the cities and villages which under the control of the Frente Al Nusra this icon But when will created new icon medium grey we just replace temporary icon on him. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal Andre437 is making grey icons not sure how far he has got maybe contact him see if he thinks its a good idea Pyphon (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

100% for adding the Nusra-held towns with the temporary icon - this map is obnoxiously outdated as regards recent events in Idlib. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but you guys should consider that in the Qalamoun region and southern Syria, and some other places, JAN and the other rebels are still cooperating and not fighting each other. The SRF and IF were also fighting each other at one point, but have since stopped and begun cooperating. Therefore I hope that if something similar happens between JAN and the SRF, you guys won't be too personally invested in this new color to change it back ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian conflict is taking yet another dramatic turn as the militant jihadists of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate, rout rebels from their strongholds in Idlib, threatening to eliminate entirely any presence by moderate rebels in northern Syria, as the Islamic State has already done in the east.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for designating a separate color for JAN, I hope that whevever they are present their dots change to that color. Is anyone going to change any of the green dots to the grey JAN color in the Aleppo area? On the main page there are cities with assigned JAN flags like Tel Rafa'at etc. but no color has changed yet?

Also in the south, JAN attacked more than once the boarder strip w Israel, no dots changed at all!

Hasakah Kurds and ISIL

I see more towns turned black every day. Towns north of Hasakah city, north of Tell Brak and towards Ras al-Ayn crossing. No discussion, nu sources given. A major offensive of ISIL like that would raise media attention, and airstrikes. So, why are they black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the villages around Hasakah (Khabur) are still in YPG hands, YPG withdrew only from some checkpoints. https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/526632524370673664 Moreover, after 4 days there are no IS claims about any Hasakah offensive, so I would suggest to revert any editing waiting for more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And the towns near Mardakah? Suddenly, ISIL seems to have taken six or seven villages there, without any source mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is this twitter (kurdish) source: https://twitter.com/SeniorB/status/525614456496070657 Usually it is reliable, but after 4 days it's strange that there are no more sources/media attention. I suggest to revert that editing also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, about the villages north of Tall Brak there is this source that confirms that IS seized two kurdish villages: http://aranews.net/2014/10/isis-extremists-control-villages-near-syrias-qamishli/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Change those towns back to yellow, no sources have been given to all these reverts! I'd say this is a nice ISIS map.SyAAF (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Can´t find villages: Khirbet Orta and Girke Kere on the map which the article http://aranews.net/2014/10/isis-extremists-control-villages-near-syrias-qamishli/ refers to. Also miss sources for the other ISIS hold cities north of Tall Brak.Rhocagil (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

They are already in Wiki map, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map , named "Girke Kere" and "Khirbat 'Urti". The villages between Tall Brak And Khirbet Orta is quite logical that are fallen also in IS hands, even with missing sources. I've reverted the editing for the villages west of Serekaniye and west of Hasakah. 8fra0 (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (Thanks for info!Rhocagil (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

According to Firatnews the village of Aliya east of Tall tamr has been captured by YPG. Here is the cordinates for that village. Al-AliyahMouradiyan (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

On Map for Al-Nusra Front need new color?

Al Nusra Front fights against other rebel groups. Perhaps in the near future we will need to noted the towns and villages which monitors Al Nusra Front in another color in contrast to those towns and villages which are under the control of FSA and its allies. Because SOHR reported that after clashes today and yesterday between al- Nusra Front and Jund al- Aqsa Organization from one side and the Syria Revolutionaries Front in the town, Al- Nusra Front seized 7 towns and villages in Idlib (Balyon, Kensafrah, Eblin, Abdita, Mshoun, Mgharah, Shnan) The clashes also resulted in death of some fighters from both sides.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be a good idea but let's wait until something bigger happens. These clashes may be just between few smaller groups and not the entire Al Nusra front vs SRF. As as I know there are no clashes between Free Syrian Army members and Al Nusra, that would also mean you have to create a color for the SRF, too much for this map. The're probably some disagreements in Idlib about who has the authority to control a village/town. As you can see they have no problem in Daara, Aleppo etc.DuckZz (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also in late July some sources repoted that Al-Nusra Front decided to act independently and began fighting against the FSA and in the wake behind ISIS wants create your caliphate.hereherehere Sources said that Al Nusra Front have seized three strategic towns on the border with Turkey in a major blow to US-backed moderate rebels. Nusra’s seizure of Azmarin, Salqin and Harem in Syria’s Idlib province came only four days after the group seized Darkoush, another border town, from the Syrian Revolutionary Front, a moderate group that is part of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army. Rami Abdurrahman, the head of the SOHR, said he believed the capture of the four towns was Nusra’s effort to build a geographically contiguous area that would be declared its Islamic state. Also there have been several indication that of Front Al-Nusra intention to distance itself from other rebel groups.hereherehere SOHR confirmed in late july that Al Nusra continued clashes against other rebel groups.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea. Rhocagil (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is, we wait for something bigger, Al Nusra still cooperates with rebels in Idlib, not to mention other parts of Syria. If you really want to put some towns under their control, use a dark green color with the name "rebels", light green should stay "opposition".DuckZz (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just at the moment the situation is very similar to the situation with the Islamic State. Then also there were those who did not believe that the Islamic State can secede from the main body of the rebels, and will fight against them. And they were totally against what would mark cities and villages which was under control by ISIS to other color. And were wrong. Just as you can have noticed the Air Force of International coalition not bombed positions FSA in unlike positions ISIS and Front Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

——— The regime forces took controlled over the farmlands of Hosh Farah near the town of Mid’a in the Eastern Ghota after violent clashes with al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions. Source: SOHR Edit Map please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.17.8 (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also today SOHR reported that about violent clashes between Front al- Nusra and Jund al- Aqsa Organization from one side and the Syria Revolutionaries Front in the town al- Barah where the clashes have expanded to reach to Ma’arret al- Nu’man area.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely I think we should be prepared for another colour for al-nusra and allied jihadists. From the reports I've seen, during the last few weeks in Idlib, they have attacked a number of smaller elements of the FSA-associated SRF coalition. Much of al-nusra retreating from Deir ez-Zor went to Idlib. The SRF doesn't want to divert its' resources to wage a full-scale war with al-Nusra, but it could still come to that. At the moment I don't see much risk of al-Nusra / FSA conflict elsewhere. André437 (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this will be a correct thing to do because jbaht alnusra most of them are considered from syrian opposition more than AQ and fight with rebels everywhere, changing it to another color will be ok if they will be a separated group fighting rebels like isis, not like now they are fighting one group only. al-nusra has many allies from rebels like ahrar alsham, jund aqsa, fsa groups in qalamon and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.142.181 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR was informed that Jabhat al-Nusra fighters have taken over the Syrian Revolutionaries Front checkpoints in Ma’ra al-Nu’man. Clashes took place between the two sides in al-Naour checkpoint which is a bastion for the SRF north of the city, the clashes ended with taking over the checkpoint by Jabhat al-Nusra.here I think that for now we not have more doubt that Front Al Nusra fights against one of the main rebel groups in the province of Idlib. And now it will not correct and further mark the towns and villages which are under the control of Front Al Nusra well as the as now we mark the cities or villages which now under control by Syrian Revolution Front. We need a new color for the Front Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal, forget about that because since jabht nusra considered as rebel ally, otherwise the map will be very crowded and it will include many mistakes because jabht nusra also sharing control of parts of many villages in syria with other rebels, so this will show for some viewers as nusra is only presence in idlib. Also they fight the saa and isis with rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.142.181 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Hanibal911 at this point. Ma'ra al-Nu'man is a key rebel area in Idlib, since 2012. Effectively al-Nusra has declared war against the FSA in Idlib (of which the SRF is an important part).

In most areas, al-Nusra is a minor force among the rebels, their propaganda exaggerating their importance. So at least initially we would only have to be concerned about Idlib, and maybe the Qalamoun and Aleppo. Just areas where they are in conflict with the mainstream moderate and islamic rebels. (In Daraa & Quneitra they are a very minor force, despite their hype.)

So we have to decide the colour. I tend to favour a medium grey, to contrast with Daesh/ISIS black. Calling it "al-Nusra" or maybe "jihadist". How does that sound ? André437 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's SOHR reports about clashes Front Al Nusra against the other rebel groups in the province of Aleppo.here That confirms my assertion that need new color for mark on the map cities or villages which under control the Front Al Nusra. So it is not correct that the towns or villages which is now under the control of Front Al Nusra marked by green dots. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Clashes have taken place only for the last two days. If they keep it up for the next week than we discuss a color for Nusra only. Lets wait for now to see if the clashes will expand or die down. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is to wait and see if the infighting escalates or dies down if the fighting escalates we should with out a doubt give Al-Nusra a new color but for now I think we should wait and see what happens next and will other groups join in the fighting on the sides of one of the two warring parties.If clashes wind down and stop my opinion is that we should just make an article about the clashes and nothing more.Daki122 (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree! Hanibal911 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is too early, change will be needed only if the clashes esclates to a full war. It would be difficult

anyway to separate the territory held by the two warring sides .Paolowalter (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Paolowalter, too soon to add Nusra as a different player, let's wait and see how situation evolves...--HCPUNXKID 23:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep track - here - of what exactly Nusra holds, as opposed to the FSA/SRF SOHR ISW So that when/if the time comes, we know what to mark as distinctly Nusra-held. Daily Beast "...the al-Qaeda affiliated al Nusrah Front, which has opened up a third fighting front against the FSA..." daily beast yahoo ISW Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it´s getting more and more clear that the cooperation between FSA and Al Nusrah is coming to an end; Syria 'moderate' rebels lose ground to Qaeda (News from Al Jazeera) Rhocagil (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Change Nusra's color please. The purple color is currently used on the Damascus map to indicate truce areas. We don't want truce areas and Nusra areas to look the same. Thanks. Kami888 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Although, grey appears to blend in with the provincial and state boundaries a little too much, and in general doesn't look very distinctive. Perhaps another color? Kami888 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

al-Nusra agree withdraw from the Qalamoun region

Pro opposition source said that to according to Lebanese official sources, the Shiite militia of Hezbollah reached an agreement with militants of al-Nusra Front in Qalamoun in southern Syria. Both parties reportedly agreed Wednesday that al-Nusra militants (affiliated with al-Qaeda) would withdraw from the Qalamoun region and retreat to its bases in northern Syria. A source in the Lebanese government told ARA News, under the condition of anonymity, that Hezbohhal guaranteed the safety of al-Nusra militants while leaving Qalamoun and heading to northern Syria, reassuring them that the Syrian regime is also part of the agreement. “This agreement took place after al-Nusra lost several consecutive battles in Qalamoun, and when the Front’s insurgents leave that area and return to its bases in the north the Assad regime will be more secure from the militants’ attacks in Damascus,” the source said. “Thus Hezbollah’s proposed agreement is mainly aimed to serve the Assad regime in Damascus.”Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I really doubt,it Hannibal,Nusra and IS are in a strong position in the mountains of the Qalamoun,why would they leave.Alhanuty (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

They are in the worst possible position in qalamoun, winter is coming, with 0 supplied, right side SAA left side LAF and Hezbollah. LOL. If it is true we are talking about 3000 nusra/IS members it is a long way to Idlib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that Al Nusra never were real revolutionaries. They are simply fighting for their interests how ISIS. And now Western coalition to bomb them as ISIS. And at the moment they decided to create in northern Syria that something similar as ISIS create Islamic caliphate on the territory the provinces of Raqqa, Deir Ez Zor and Hasaka and some areas of Iraq. Probably they want to strengthen their position in the provinces of Idlib and Aleppo. And just conclude agreement with the forces of the regime whereby Syrian army would allow them to freely without a fight to leave the Qalamoun area. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra withdrawal from Qalamoun this would make sense with coming winter. with coming winter. Would be very difficult to handle in mountains.Neil Hauer Hanibal911 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, funny to see myself cited here. It would make sense, but at any rate will require more confirmation given Golani's speech this week stating that Nusra will attack Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nhauer (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely a tactical retreat if true, much like the ISIS has done in the past. As well as helping al-Nusra pass the winter, to consolidate their positions in Idlib, which risk to be reversed if the FSA associated groups unite against them. It wouldn't be hard to reinfiltrate in the spring if they decide to. André437 (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This is tactically correct conclude truce and withdraw fighters from the highlands in Qalamoun area to well-fortified positions which located on northern Syria because will be extremely difficult winter is located in a mountainous area. Also I agree with André437 that now Al Nusra wants to strengthen its position in the Idlib province. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Government offensive at Sakr Island in Deir Ezzor

According to http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-devastating-losses-eastern-syria-week/ "104th Brigade controls 90 percent of Sakr Island and all 3 bridges leading to the island." If this is accurate, then the map of Deir Ezzor should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.1.105 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This article also speaks of the situation in Al-Hasakah province that the SAA and YPG are besieging Tall Hamis from the south and the west. Can this be confirmed from another source?Rhocagil (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Beyt Teema and Bayt Saabr

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-jazeera-journalist-wounded-sheikh-miskeen-heavy-fighting-reported-city/

Al-Masdar reported the army to have retreated from those 2 villages. I looked for them, and found out they we're from Rif Damashq not Quneitra, but I localised them at last. Beyt Teema on this map is called Beytima and is localised west of brigade 68, north Kafr Hawar. Bayt Saabr is not located here, but I localised it on Wikimapia. So guys, a pro-regime source said it, so change those towns please: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.328233&lon=36.000824&z=12&m=b&show=/9992654/Bait-Saber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody know why Beit Jinn is being made contested from green? I've seen no reports here of fighting in the town ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here sources about Beit Jinn Associated PressDaily ProgressABC NewsBelot Daily NewsWBOC16 TV Hanibal911 (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

But to according data from the pro opposition source the village Baytima contested.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Red dots in Jordan?

Why are there two red dots in Jordan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.69.126 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally mixed up the coordinates. Already corrected! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dael town contested

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/al-nusra-front-and-the-islamic-battalions-advance-in-the-town-of-dael-in-daraa/

This news from SOHR states that Nusra and Islamic battalions advanced against regime forces IN the town and that clashes continue near it. So there's still regime presence in the town. Also, Nusra seized the villages of Sfohen, al- Fterah and Hzarin in the southern countryside, and the village of Flayfel in Shahshabo Mountain, SOHR as well. And Deyr Sunbul here is still marked as green, when it was widely reported that Nusra seized that area from the SRF last week, as that was the SRF stronghold in Idlib. And yes, Nusra is advancing at many places :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.97.165.226 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR said that the violent clashes between the regime forces against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions are still erupting in the town of Da’el Town, and information reported an advancement from al- Nusra and the battalions where they seized the al- Zaffeh Bridge checkpoint in the town.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Da'el has been put as contested. Situation in Sheick Maxim is confused with many contradictory reports.

The most reliable report I found is http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-jazeera-journalist-wounded-sheikh-miskeen-heavy-fighting-reported-city/, that states that the city is contested. By the way Da'el has been green for a long time, without being true.Paolowalter (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is because of the pro-opp editors who scream that because it is so far into dar'aa, it HAS to be rebel-held. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually Dael WAS rebel held. Peto Lucem said himself that the regime actually attacked the town to reduce the pressure in Sheikh Miskin, and seized most of it. Them the rebels counter-attacked fast, and only the counter-attack was reported by SOHR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. There was a lot of video and other evidence that the rebels did fully control the town in the past. I suspect that the regime presence wasn't much more than the many attacks on Inkhil further north. That is attacks on the outskirts without really controlling any of the town itself. Similarly, the rebels have more than once penetrated to the centre of Idlib city without really controlling anything.

Also note that in the past, SOHR has been slow to note rebel advances in Daraa. Such as the initial rebel advances in Daraa, not noticed until a regime deputy complained in parliament, some months later. André437 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Maskin

Any information about the situation in the town ? SOHR wont write anything in detail except "Army or rebels advanced". All I have is this Pro-opposition map showing the air defense base way behind rebel lines, and amateur videos ... What others think ?DuckZz (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

i agree with you,done.Alhanuty (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Not agree! We can not use the pro opposition sources to display the success of the rebels. And other opposition source shows that this area contested.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And no longer need to provide as a source to display success rebels only rebel amatuer video from YouTube or data of the pro opposition activist Archicivilians which even SOHR blames in not the veracity of data. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to portrai Al-Nusra Emirate as a fifth colour

I suggest to portrai Al-Nusra Emirate as a fifth colour - like grey instead of as now green, which is wrong since they in northern, middle part fight FSA~(green) . Grey is best since they are close to ISIS in islamistic ideology but also at war with them. Tomas22wiki (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(Shortened title, since repeated in comment)

Grey icons already made, ready for use. See section above. André437 (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

More territories have fallen to al-Nursa

Idlib Province: Reliable sources reported to SOHR that al- Nusra Front supported by Jund al- Aqsa seized the villages of Sfohen, al- Fterah and Hzarin in the southern countryside, and initial information also reported that they controlled the village of Flayfel in Shahshabo Mountain and that they have arrested a commander of a rebel battalion and some of fighters in one of these villages. see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use [...] or [... comment] for external references. André437 (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nawa

https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/531416791764201472

Charles Lister, a widely reliable and neutral source, along with many pro-rebel sources claim the rebels to have seized Tell Umm Hawran and Nawa city. Many pics and videos emerging from the city. Claims that the regime simply withdrawn as they didn't have enough man to hold the town.

let's keep it polite and civilized Nawa was under siege by SAA,not held by the syrian army, they withdrew to defend the road to Damascus until ghouta and other areas are cleared .

Just to support the claim, as Charles Lister is already reliable enough, a few pro-rebel sources:

https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/531349130887454720 https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/531392480064061440 https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/531411039041363968

Also, about Brigade 61, remains in regime hands as of now, until the situation is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Charles Lister said that al-Nusra claims capture of Tel Um Hauran as part offensive that would capture the town of Nawa.here Also if such a large city as Nava was captured about this would be reported from many reliable sources and not just opposition activists in Twitter. Also, we do not use pro opposition sources for displaying the successes of rebels. And also pro opposition map clear show that Brigade 61 under control the regime troops.here So need confirmation from the reliable sources that city Nawa under control by rebel. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Also SOHR only said that Islamic battalions took control on al-Hesh northern and southern hills, shooting field, al-Rahba, al-Konkors battalion, the medical, Hawi checkpoint and al-Hejajia tanks battalion after violent clashes against regime forces.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by many sources. C'mon guys he IS a reliable source. And there are MANY videos from rebels around the town. He is actually the MOST reliable source I seen. And he is neutral(never seen him talking good about FSA or bad about SAA).

he talks in the TV WHOLE DAY about hezbollah, Russia, Iran and Syria being the demon, meanwhile he is a zion slave. Reliable my a$$

You guys can't use the videos to change, but you can use it to support a claim. Anyway, wait a few hours if it suits you guys, because FSA has taken the city confirmed already by reliable sources such as Lister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop inventing because Charli Lister just published of statement from Al Nusra in which they state that they capture of Tel Um Hauran as part of wider FSA offensive that to capture Nawa.here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR said that Nawa has been taken over by rebels see suggestion is to put Nawa green with red circle around as there is Army presence on nearby hills and bases.Daki122 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree! So we waited for confirmation from a reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is there a red circle around Nawa following its takeover today as confirmed by SOHR today? This gives off the impression that regime is besieging or launching an offensive on Nawa right now which is obviously not the case, the regime is on the defensive/withdrawal. You have to remember that there are other people besides the editors on this page that view this map, and they are going to be very confused with what looks like a regime siege of Nawa. I propose that we remove the red circle (for the sake of clarity, and factual accuracy) and keep the regime bases around Nawa that have not been confimed to have fallen, red. That way it accurately reflects the military situation on the ground and demonstrates that the regime is now consigned to its bases.Jafar Saeed (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

But army still located near the city of Nawa. Reliable source said that Syrian rebels and Nusra Front fighters, seized the southern town of Nawa. Troops were redeploying and reorganizing in the Nawa area in order to prepare for upcoming fighting.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

They are defending the road to Damascus meanwhile ghouta is getting cleaned. This is another fsa/nusra spam on wiki just like the 3 day south Aleppo "offensive" LOL It is interesting how are the rebel identity is changing. It was FSA for 2 years, IF/ ahrar al sham last year, and al nusra are the rebels in Daraa(they "captured) Nawa not fsa. and the jihadi fanboys are screaming here for Al nusra a terror organization.(by the UN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR just said thar army withdrawn from sity Nawa here but army not withdrawn from all Nawa area. Army conducts regrouping in area of the town Nawa.RapplerThe Daily Star3 News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright guys, in case you haven't noticed, Charles Lister, that IS a reliable source you liking or not confirmed Nusra to have taken Tell Umm Hawran so change it either to Nusra color or to Rebel color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.192.139 (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the Nawa area, the neutral sources claim the following:

While not openly admitting that the army had withdrawn, state news agency SANA said troops were "redeploying and reorganizing in the Nawa area... in order to prepare for upcoming fighting."

So, the only source given for the redeployment theory is SANA itself, which is not reliable at all. Tell Um Hawran is still red. And based on the facts on the map, Brigade 61 and Khirbet Bajjah should be with a green ring since there is no direct connection with other SAA held areas. Twitter source in the meantime have posted numorous vidios showing rebels in the army bases. It seems the Nawa front had completetly collapsed. I've not yet found a neutral source, but I personaly think the entire area will become green in several days, since most SAA troops have withdrawn to Izra and Sanamayn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Later SOHR said that at least 2 combatants from the Islamic battalions died in clashes with the regime forces in the city of Nawa.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I belive the Air Defense base south of Sheik Miskin is obviously deep behind rebel lines. Pro-opposition post saying the town is still contested, but not the base on the south but the north. Yes this is all pro-opposition, but don't worry, I'm waiting for other editors to make changes, like you for example.DuckZz (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Reuters and Al Jazeera rebels have captured Nawa and the surrounding areas like Tell Hawran, Brigade 61, South of Sheik Miskin Army defense base etc.DuckZz (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Although Charles Lister tends to accurately report rebel advances, I've noticed that he often attributes such advances to al-Nusra and IF, ignoring the (often much greater) presence of FSA-associated forces, particularly in the south. It is as though he lets himself be influenced by propaganda of those 2 groups, since the FSA is much more restrained in self-promotion on line.

BTW, like most sources considered reliable, he depends a lot on videos published on line. Any source that ignores them is ignoring an important source of information. Since like any war, there are very few objective observers on the ground. It is a matter of piecing together info from both sides to determine reality. André437 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Kurds regain control of tens of Villages in Hasaka

The Kurdish popular defense forces retake control over 100 villages after a series of fierce clashes with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorist group in the Northeastern parts of Syria. The ISIL militants were pushed back by the Kurdish forces from 100 villages in Hasaka province, leaving a large number of dead and wounded members behind.Islamic Invitation TurkeyShia PostGlobal Terror Watch But still need more sources that can confirm these data. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

More and more villages in Hasaka are turning black with no sources given both kurd and saa who is doing it !81.156.225.146 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Unsourced or unreliable edits must be reverted ASAP, but the sources given 'bout Kurds retaking towns in Hasaka dont mention any town name, also dont think they're so reliable in this issue.--HCPUNXKID 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with this one there are no given names for the villages captured and on top of that this may be a moral booster story for the kurds 100 villages is not easy to take especially when you have ISIS as your enemy.Daki122 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Icons for al-Nusra

My apologies to Hanibal911 and others for taking so long. (distracted by real life.)
Medium grey, as discussed, following the same naming convention as before.

Location_dot_grey.svg = control
map-circle-grey.svg = besieged
map-arcNN-grey.svg = partiel siege/front line to north,
  with in place of NN for the other directions : NE, EE, SE, SS, SW, WW, and NW.

I haven't done the conflict icons yet, as I noticed that the squares with rounded corners got replaced with circles. Was this discussed ? (If so, I missed it.)
I also notice that the names have mistakenly "green" instead of "lime" for light green. "Green" should be used only for medium green. Lime green is almost universally used for pure light green or a colour very close, and on Wikipedia it seems "lime" is always pure light green. Since the icons are open to use by other pages, we should follow WP practices.

So before adding the conflict icons for JaN, I see 3 options :
1) Just correct the colour names in the newer icons, or
2) Revert to the older conflict icons which I made, or
3) Make newer higher resolution icons of squares with rounded corners, which will look a little nicer for larger sizes. (For smaller sizes, the display will be identical to my original or the newer conflict icons.)

Any option I could do inside a day or so.

Note that I chose squares with rounded corners since I anticipated (eventually) making filled pie circles for shared control instead of nested rings, which you can see on competing maps looks a lot nicer. That I could do in the next few days as well.

A final note : I see that the semicircles have been dropped from the caption of the map. Are they still being used ?

So I'll do whatever is the consensus. Time for your feedback, everyone :) André437 (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Option 1 seems fine or which ever option is easy to change back if JAN and SRF get back together.81.156.225.146 (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

André437The third option will be the perfect solution. And thank you for your work. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did option 3. It went pretty quickly. Strangely, even though the shape of my icons is more complex than that of the circles, my icons have less than half the file size.

The names have changed, to the form   80x80-colour1-colour2-anim.gif ,

for example   80x80-red-lime-anim.gif   = regime vs. main rebels.

The multi-way conflict icon is now named   80x80-red-lime-yellow-anim.gif   in case anyone wants to use it.

I chose ending with -anim.gif since they are, after all, animated gif icons, and anim is used much more than animated and animation combined in WP images, as well as being easier to type.

Note that the 3-way conflict icon uses the same colours (although that could be changed), so that if we decide to drop grey for JaN, we only have to stop using the icons with grey.

I'll update the captions tomorrow, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Which reminds me. I notice that the semicircles are no longer in the map caption. Does that mean they are no longer being used ?

BTW, it is really nice to be able to contribute in a non-controversial way :) André437 (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What about towns controlled by Nusra and other rebel groups? ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

When I added the new contested icons, I noticed that very dark grey dots are being used for al-Nusra control, in place of the medium grey I made. The problem, besides being a little darker than the dark grey of the national borders and thus almost indistinguishable, it that they are too close to the black of Daesh/ISIS. On my monitor (average resolution and size), I can't easily distinguish between the two, particularly for the smaller dots. I'm sure that it is only Daesh in the villages of the desert of eastern Hama, but they look the same as the very dark grey of al-Nusra in Idlib.
The medium grey is very easily distinguishable from all other dots, only close to the colour of the thin provincial boundary lines. For clarity, could editors please use the medium grey dot ? Thanks. André437 (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, part of the reason for this problem is that black displays as very dark grey. (Common on most monitors, since lighter colours tend to bleed into darker colours.) André437 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Daraa map abuses

Alright, I'm officialy done with this map. I'm going to say it right up front: this map has been abused WAY TO LONG. Black dots are added at random in Hasakah province, nobody cries out. Red dots appear out of nowhere in the Syrian desert, nodoby cries out. Rebels take Nawa and the surrounding areas, and it's a battle of three days to get things changed. The reason? "no reliable sources". There have been NO sources for desert towns in Syria, NO sources for turning some towns contested near Bosra al-Sham, NO sources for fighting west of Ras al-Ayn in specific towns. But that doesn't matter, does it? The only reason some of you are so admandant on sources for rebel gains is because you don't want to see the simple FACT that the rebels in Daraa and Quneitra are advancing, and quickly so. So please for the SAKE OF MANKIND or something ... stop editing biased. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No more cheerleaders needed, thank you! If you want to see biased articles, I would suggest you to take a look at ukrainian-related articles, Goebbels would be proud of some pro-ukrainian regime editors...--HCPUNXKID 16:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheerleaders? This is about this map, not about Ukraine. I see that many towns are made contested once rebels attack, but reverted to red if nothing happens for a few days. Green towns attacked? Takes months and several sources to revert them back to green. That's just fact.

A fact is that on one side you have insurgent forces who prefer hit and run attacks rather than staying in the same town or trying to take it against an Armed force that mainly uses siege tactics to crush towns and take them.Daki122 (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Both sides use hit and run attacks (also called raids), the various rebel groups somewhat more, in order to capture weapons and munitions. That is where most of their heavy weapons come from.

Also, both sides use siege tactics. I would say the rebels much more. (Look at Daraa city, and the many regime bases they captured, as well as many checkpoints. And the many bases now besieged.)

However the regime uses massive attacks with heavy weapons including aviation, something the rebels don't have the arms for. André437 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Village of Sab Shakur & Tall Tunaynir - South of Hasakah

These locations do not tessellate with the map of Hasakah City. At least in the case of Sab Shakur, I think it is extremely unlikely that the regime are under siege in that particular village (the map shows IS in control of the surrounding area). How do we resolve this inconsistency without a reliable source?Jafar Saeed (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasaka

A great story which can be very useful to as as it states that the Army has advanced 20(around 25km) miles south of Qumishli putting the town out of ISIS artillery reach.It also states that the Army has control over quite a lot of villages south of Qumishli.This article is also intresting as it claims that the Syrian Army has been making advances around Qumishli unlike other sources which claim that Kurdish militia has been the one doing the fighting. The story:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-syria-the-story-of-the-martyred-soldiers-who-fought-to-the-last-bullet-to-avoid-the-fate-of-captured-comrades-beheaded-by-militants-9854693.html Daki122 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why SAA positions south oh Hasaka had been remouve ???

main rebels

Why "main"? It looks they are minority against rebeles like IS. "Other" rebels would be more appropriate description. --94.199.40.135 (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, IS aren't generally considered rebels, since they are trying to create their own country out of parts of Iraq and parts of Syria.

Secondly, the "main rebels" includes the FSA-associated groups which quite likely are the most numerous (much more than the IS), even though they are on average the least well armed, as well as the islamic groups like the Islamic Front.

In most of the country, al-Nusra is grouped with the main rebels. They are much better armed and funded, and their fighters are better paid, largely from ransom money from kidnappings. But they are not very numerous.

The kurds are counted separately as they are the largest non-arab speaking ethnic group. They only count for about 10% of the Syrian population.

What gives you the idea that the IS would have larger numbers than either the FSA or islamic groups ? Their overt terrorism ? They are just trying to outdo the Assad regime.

BTW, it is predominantly FSA that is thrashing the regime forces in the south - Daraa and Quneitra. André437 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Main Rebels/FSA/Green Rebels/Moderate Rebels this is a series of cliches, they should be called former Rebels, sinces all other groups are made of ex-Moderate rebels that migrated to JAN,Al sham, ISIS. all this speak is nonsense, all this conflict will become a copy of the Chinese Warlords of the 1900s. With the Regime Being the stronger force, followed by ISIS and in the very end the insignificant FSA.200.48.214.19 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to stick to facts, instead of wild speculation based on preconceived notions. For example, the Iraq-based ISIS is mostly foreigners, and much less numerous than both FSA and islamic factions. Similarly, JaN and other radical groups are few in number, although better armed than the main rebels and very good at propaganda videos to exaggerate their importance.

Maybe you should watch fewer of these propaganda videos ?

BTW, main rebels includes FSA and islamic groups, and to now also al-Nusra in most of the country. André437 (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

South Hasakah

So why has South Hasakah suddenly turned all black? More and more on the map is getting black without being sourcedSyAAF (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyAAF (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure, but if no one comes forward with an authoritative source, then I will change them back. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I provided the source a while back. Scroll down on edits until you come to one with my name (I don't edit that regularly) and you will see the source. It is in Arabic.Jafar Saeed (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You must provide credible sources, not a dark section in arabic, we need credible sources as SOHR, so give a link to the article or put them red, it's the rule. Lessi94 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You want a link? Find it. Its not too far down the list of edits, mabye 3 or 4 days old. I am not doing your work for you because you can't be bothered to scroll down.Jafar Saeed (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I found it and just as I suspected, NOT AUTHORITATIVE. You cannot just find any source from the internet and change things. It has to be credible. Now it is time for you to do the work you should have done before, and find a reliable source. If not, then I am changing them back. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This source is not reliable enough, we must find an article of SOHR, it's strange that the sources of daesh did not claim such an advanced. 82.233.227.191 (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That is because there was no advance for ISIS, just another attempt to increase the amount of black dots on the map. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Khan Shaykhun belongs to al-Nusra?

This Al Monitor article has a quote saying that Khan Shaykhun is a Nusra stronghold. Esn (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It quotes comments from various regime and pro-regime sources. It is well known that the regime prefers to paint all rebels as extremists, and since they can't claim that Daesh/ISIS is in the area, they claim that the next most radical group (besides the regime, of course) is controlling Khan Shaykhun.

However several FSA groups, as well as islamic groups, played the major role in taking Khan Shaykhun from the regime. Although al-Nusra presence could have increased there, it is the second biggest city in Idlib, not a tiny village. André437 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source said that the army advanced toward Khan Shaykhoun, the main stronghold of Jabhat al-Nusra they took control of it after they fled from the city Murek.Al MinitorHorizon Weekly Hanibal911 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "reliable source" is one al-Monitor article and a copy on another site, quoting the speculation of a retired SAA officer about regime strategy, evidently pro-regime, who claims that Khan Shaykhan is an al-Nusra stronghold. Other sources (presumably al-Monitor reporters with rebel forces) cited in the same article say that "opposition forces — namely the Hazm Movement and Jabhat al-Nusra" were forced to retreat from Morek, toward Khan Shaykhan. Last I heard Hazm was a moderate FSA group. Note also that al-Nusra is listed after, indicating that it is NOT the predominant group among the rebels that fled.

Also numerous recent reports indicate that there was an important islamic rebel presence in Morek, who could well have been overlooked in mentioning the rebel groups that retreated from Morek.

In sum, this article (the same as cited in the top of this section) says little to support the claim that the city of Khan Shaykhun is controlled by al-Nusra. (forgot to sign) André437 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nusra also control Deir Sanbul, the former SRF stronghold. It was widely reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.192.139 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911, would you kindly revert your edit making Khan Shaykhan al-Nusra controlled ?

You base it on one inconclusive article (cited at the top of this section and further down by you with an exact copy). Reread the article and you will see that statement is quoting speculation about the regime strategy made by a retired regime officer. The article does NOT claim al-Nusra control to be a fact. The beginning of the article suggests that there would be Hazm movement forces moving to Khan Shaykhan, as well as al-Nusra. Which in itself suggests that al-Nusra does NOT control Khan Shaykhan. As well, there was known to be considerable FSA and islamic groups in the city, the largest in the south of the province. André437 (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andre437. Saying a city is a stronghold of a particular group doesn't mean no other groups exist there. It was quite clear from the Conquest of Khan Shaykhun earlier this year, that multiple groups were involved. There has been nothing to suggest that other groups have moved out of the city (from what I am aware). We should leave it as rebel-held because the purpose of the Nusra icons are to point out where Nusra is solidifying its control at the expense of the SRF and other groups. Khan Shaykun is not one of those locations.Jafar Saeed (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

André437Jafar Saeed May be just need noted that the city Khan Shaykhoun as under joint control of Al Nusra and other rebel groups. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But if we accept that then we have a problem in that Nusra has joint control over many areas in Daraa, E. Ghouta etc with other rebel groups.Jafar Saeed (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the stated purpose of the al-Nusra icons was to indicate where al-Nusra has control to the exclusion of other groups, it is most appropriate to revert Khan ShayKhun to main_rebel held.

Also note that there is a rebel campaign to retake Morek, which would be based in Khan ShayKhun (as the nearest city), led by FSA officers, but including islamic groups and al-Nusra. here and here

If al-Nusra had more than a minor presence in the area, why would they agree to fight under the direction of the FSA ? André437 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back to lime/main_rebel control. I didn't revert per se since I don't know what else might have been changed at the same time. André437 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Ghafer

Any source showing this village contested ? It has been since I don't know.

Ayn Suda and Dyar Gharbi also in Idlib?109.154.87.146 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Nawa

Any source showing regime presence in brigade 61 and the village north of it ? I thought they retread from Nawa area to the east, it just doesn't make any sense.DuckZz (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Any source (reliable of course) showing rebel presence? Reliable source declared that the army retreated from Nawa and the surrounding areas. Brigade 61 was NOT listed as being one of those areas. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been said (Al Jazeera, Reuters, pro-opposition sources) they withdrew from Nawa town and surrouinding areas to the east. There was not a list of captures areas. It's just not logical that they retreated to brigade 61 located only 800 meters west from Nawa and besieged, not possible ....37.203.117.88 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Nawa area refers to the city itself and the military bases surrounding it. We had concensus three days ago that if no reports of continued fighting would show up in "a few days" all of Nawa would be made green. So, let's do this. It's painfully obvious that there's no SAA anymore near Nawa. They fled.

Another Pro-opposition source showing rebels on Tell Harfouch (without weapons, means the Syrian army is too far away). It's pro-opposition, so I can't make any changes, waiting for someone else to agree.DuckZz (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Section "Sheikh Meskin" above contains at bottom a consensus to change the status of the red locations around Nawa to green if no information of their hold-out status is forthcoming in the next few days. It has been 1 day. My voice will be with you in 36hrs.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Miskin may stay contested. But the bases and that village near Nawa are clearly rebel held.

Introducing a new rule with regard to contested towns

I propose that a default rule should be introduced: if, after a month has passed, there is no source on a settlement that has been marked as contested within a month of it being marked as contested; that settlement should be reverted to its original owner. I also propose that objections can be made, in a particular town, on the talk page if there is a valid explanation why this settlement should not be reverted back to its original color. The talk page will then decide. The reasons for this are: 1) clarity in the viewing of the map; 2) Accuracy in demonstrating the nature of this war, i.e. hit and run attacks on part of rebels, raids on part of regime. Many towns are placed as contested primarily based on information from SOHR. Whilst SOHR is reliable and accurate, it very rarely gives information on the ending of clashes in a certain area, so we are left with the predicament of being stuck with contested locations, which is obviously undesirable. What does everybody think?Jafar Saeed (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that an objection to this rule can be made if the objector feels that the contested location should be changed to the opposite color. This would arise in cases where the conquest of an area hasn't been reported whilst the clashes occurring during the process of that conquest have been reported.Jafar Saeed (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this change. A similar one was made to the Battle of Aleppo map a couple of months ago, where it was agreed to recolour most of the olive-coloured contested frontlines in the city, and as a result the map is now more accurate and visually appealing. The paucity of info on the vast majority of tiny Syrian towns means that the current system of waiting to hear a specific town mentioned as under one side's control can take months, during which time it's inaccurately marked as contested, so this change would help the map.Nhauer (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. There really are not that many contested towns on this map, at all, relative to the total number of towns. When the front line substantially moves (past a contested town and without said town being specifically mentioned), yes, I am on board with your suggestion. But, in the majority of cases, this would only cause more convolution. For instance: Latakia Province, Rabia and Kabir - no recent news, but they are the front line villages, so fighting is surely still ongoing in the immediate vicinity. Same for Eastern Hama, Zanuba and Qleib al-Thour. And Daraa, Bosra area towns. It would be silly if at the front lines (of any specific front) we just have red dots next to lime dots.. as though the implication is that the situation is stable. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But the purpose of the 'contested' icons isn't to show the front line. It is to show that the town/village is under split control between the two sides, or that there are clashes currently taking place in that village. This is very unlikely in the vast majority of cases (e.g. Ayn Suda in Jisr al Shughur, Tabarat al Kashhir to the North east of Abu al-Duhur). The reversion rule would accurately reflect this purpose. In order to prevent truly contested towns from being reverted, we have the talk page to fall back on. I propose that we relax the burden of proof, to show that a town is STILL contested, to include any persuasive argument to that end (including the use of video footage, facebook, biased sources) rather than the strict requirement in place currently to make an edit on the map. This covers all our bases and is likely to lead to the greatest accuracy.Jafar Saeed (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm always on board with discussing specific cases, reviewing new information, and considering common sense arguments pertaining to towns' contested status. Lol your biggest obstacle will be that everyone will have different parameters on what qualifies as a "persuasive argument" though. Any proposed reversion of a town's status (without a definitive source) should be posted here on the talk page and taken from there.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I absolutley agree with Boredwhytekid. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

JAN - Idlib

Just to harp on this a bit more - I think our representation of JAN's possessions in Idlib is vastly understated. BBC "the group (JAN) that took control of all the towns of Jabal al-Zawiya region in Idlib"..."The Nusra Front, with help from smaller jihadist groups, has managed to seize the majority of the towns and villages south, west and east of the city of Idlib, while the city itself is still under the control of the regime." Haaretz "For a week now, Nusra Front has put the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya under siege (as if) they were the 'Noseiry' regime, " Maarouf said in the video, using a derogatory term for Assad's Alawite sect, which is an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. "I (want to) clarify why we pulled out of the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya. (It is) so that we preserve civilian blood because this group does not hesitate to kill civilians."

Sooo, the entire Jabal al-Zawiya area - labeled on wikimapia as Mount al-Zawiya, should be dark grey, no? Every town within the Jabal al-Zawiya - the borders of which are roughly from Maarat al-Numan (NE), Bassamos (NW), Sharanaz (SW), just north of Khan Sheikhoun (SE). Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, the following towns: Kursaa, Sahriyah, Kafr Nabl, Hass, Ma'arrat Hurmah, Ma'arr Zaytah, Kafr Sajnah, Naqayyar, Madayah, al-Bara, Ad Dana Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, we need to fix the map because according to many reliable sources Al Nusra captured the most part territory in the Idlib province which previously under control by SRF and some other rebel groups which allies with the FSA. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

My last edit here didn't work so well - does Abm-darkslategray-icon.png work to mark checkpoints/bases JAN-held? Maybe I just screwed up the code. Someone please review/advise Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no such icon. Only for red for the regime, yellow for the kurds, and black for daesh/isis. Not even lime for the main rebels. I'll have to make an abm icon for al-Nusra.

Please note that "darkslategray" shows as a slightly green dark grey, and that black shows as dark grey around the edges when surrounded by white, which is the case for our map.

This results in little visual difference between smaller "darkslategray" and "black" icons. This on my average resolution and size monitor. The resulting display is confusing. Don't forget that our colours are for users who don't necessarily view the map every day. So "darkslategray" does not work.

I don't know why anyone had objection to the medium grey icons I made, since they distinguish very well with all other icons.

If a darker colour is wanted for whatever reason, I could make medium dark grey icons, halfway between medium and dark grey, which would still distinguish well with the other colours. Or whatever other colour that clearly distinguishes from other the colours used.

So time for more feedback on the al-Nusra colour. If we are to have a readily readable map. André437 (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No objection here. I think your grey icons are spot on and will use them hereafter for any JAN edits. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2014

92.30.32.19 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)