Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 61

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

→

Eastern Qalamoun.

Reliable source (used here since 2014) says that Nasirijah and the close up village is under Rebel control. I have to remind you of something. The towns of Jajrud, Dumayr and Ruhaybah are under Rebel control since 2013, but Jajrud was shown on our map from May 2015 and under Gov. control because we didn't wanted to use sources like this. So basically we made a mistake which took us 2 years to realize which is embasaring when it to comes to the most reliable map online.

You need more sources ? I ask you, how ? If you ask me, give me sources which confirm that Jajrud is with Rebels, I would have to search sources from 2013. Either we believe him, like we did 100 times already, or not. DuckZz (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is just a guy from Twitter such many others which say that they very good know situation but in fact they just amateur activist which is can't provide any confirmations for they claims. No any data from reliable sources or video confirmations. Only unsubstantiated allegations in Twitter from unknow guys. According to this guy the entier area Khan Abu Shamat is SAA held but this not confirmad other sources and many other claims. He said that Sada Bayer taken FSA but he published map and show this area as under ISIS. So for claims from unknowed activists from Twitter we must ecerytime provide data from more the credible sources. Sûriyeya (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Tradedia^talk Opinion ?

Befor other edtiors said their oppion they must know that this amateur activist from Twitter made many mistakes in his reports and made many claims without any confirmations only his claims and nothing more. I still beliave that Twitter is a not too credible source and we mast use only data from the official pages media sources or well-known reporters. But not from pages of all amateur activists from Twitter, because their data very difficult to verify and there is no other evidence of truthfulness and reliability of the data which they publish. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess we should adopt a double verification system for Twitter users or bloggers who are not established with an official agency: if at least two amateur sources with an acceptable track record (that is not to say flawless) agree on something, we take it unless they're contradicted by another good source. Though, I still remember when everyone on Twitter reported Ein Eissa liberated by YPG when it wasn't. So maybe just two sources aren't enough. As for BosnjoBoy himself, he has been right about Tanaf while everyone else believed ISIS that they retook it, so I'd give him some weight. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This guy Bosno partialy a pro-opp. activist. Also about Al Tanf many other reliable sources confirmed that NSA/FSA take this point and some other along Damascus-Baghdad road. But I agree with you NightShadeAEB that we should adopt a double verification system for Twitter users or bloggers who are not established with an official agency. So if someone want use data from twitter this editor must provide other reliable source which may confirm the reliability and validity of these data. And I agree that we can use data from Bosno but with confirmation of his data from relialbe source not from Twitter or from maps. Sûriyeya (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Things are getting messy in Daraa

Step News reports ISIS affiliated LSY group took over Tasil and Adwan, with sounds of clashes going on and off[1] NightShadeAEB (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed Tafas back to green as it seems the battle is over, couldn't find a well known rebel source but pro-regime journalist Khaled Skeif confirmed the FSA took over pro-ISIS buildings in Tafas though the cleanup is ongoing, so I'm using him as a source[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightShadeAEB (talk • contribs) 13:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that ISIS Liw'a AL-Yrmoyk seize over the town of Tasil.here also opp.sources said that the Liw'a al Yarmouk also captured the town of Adwan.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also opp. source said that the rebels retake from ISIS village of Kharab Al-Shahm near the Jordanian border.here So maybe some new rebel factions goined to ISIS in Darra. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I found two useful maps, one by Mu'ta Agency[3] and one by Enabaladi[4] that shows the areas controlled by LSY and by Harakat al Muthanna. They both suggest Muthanna captured Adwan, not LSY. Does this mean we should change Muthanna held villages like Sheikh Saad and Jalin to black? Note FSA two months ago accused Muthanna of being ISIS and declared war on it[5][6]. I say yes, but I don't want to violate the no-map copying rule. NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Enabbaladi says in an article what its map illustrates, that Muthanna took over Adwan and is coordinating with LSY[7]. It also mentions Sheikh Saad and Jaleen by name. I guess we can use it? NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Mu'ta Agency[8], it's clear they're a pro-ISIS front (my evidence is that they make infographics about "Islamic State operations" and get retweeted by ISIS supporters - if it's not pro-ISIS then it's quite borderline). So both pro-ISIS and pro-rebel sources are confirming Muthanna is helping ISIS capture villages like Adwan, although you can see they give Muthanna more territory than EnabBaladi does[9]. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Al-masdar reported that Tafas is pro-ISIS milita controlled: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-affiliate-captures-important-town-daraa/

Actually that link says Taseel. Yeah it's confirmed Taseel is ISIS controlled. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB According to data from SOHR the Tall al Jumou` hill near the town of Tasil contested between rebels and Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade(allies of ISIS).[10] Sûriyeya (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

According to LCC Muthanna took over the Civil Defense headquarters in Nahj and turned it into its own HQ[11][12] location here[13] NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sûriyeya So should I mark Muthanna villages as black, per LCC and EnabBaladi? NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Opp. sources confirmed that it is allies of ISIS so you can do it. Opp. source clear said that the movement of Muthanna loyal to ISIS. Pro-ISIS "Movement of Muthanna" storm the Syrian Civil Defense headquarters in the town of Nahj and take over it completely.here here here Sûriyeya (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK but I made a new section anyways just in case. NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB But you must remember that we can not use all the maps as a source for editing, only the data of the articles. So if you have a data from opp. sources or rliable sources which villages is under control the movement of Muthanna we can marked these villages as ISIS-held. Sûriyeya (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Herbel

Opp. sources confirmed that the SDF captured the village of Herbel from ISIS.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

But SOHR said that the Herbel still ISIS-held.here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding Harakat al Muthanna and other Daraa ISIS cells to the black category

Like we added Yarmouk Martyrs to ISIS colours, now infighting has begun in Daraa with Muthanna siding with ISIS and the opposition accuse it of secretly pledging to ISIS. The FSA attacked Muthanna months ago[14][15] accusing them of joining ISIS and assassinating FSA figures, and now as LSY takes over Tasil, a pro-opposition website[16] as well as a shady ISIS sympathizing Twitter account with 9,800 followers called "Mu'ta Agency"[17] seem to indicate Muthanna was the one to take over the village of 'Adwan, or at least participated in it. At least one miscellaneous ISIS account is correcting people that Muthanna and not LSY took 'Adwan[18]. The LCC also reports that the Syrian Civil Defense building in the village of Nahj was stormed and taken over by Muthanna, and accuses them of having pledged to ISIS[19][20]. In the mean time the Jaysh al Islam sympathizing Sada al Tawhid[21] has cited reports that Khirbat al Shahm and the military company near Tel Shahab have been purged from Muthanna in a rebel counterattack.

In short we have good evidence that Muthanna is at least siding with ISIS in the infighting that's gripping Daraa. The maps provided by EnabBaladi and Mu'ta Agency both summarize nicely how their territories are now contiguous and moving together. The villages in question then are Jaleen, Nahj, and Sheikh Saad which have been mentioned by name. The probable pro-ISIS map of Mu'ta gives Muthanna more territory, notably the village of Ashaari, but we can wait for confirmation on that.

Agreed for making Muthanna's Jaleen, Nahj, and Sheikh Saad into ISIS held? NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB I agree if we have crediable sources!

Sources:

Adwan - taken pro-ISIS Liw'a AL-Yrmoyk.here here
Nahj - taken Pro-ISIS "Movement of Muthanna"here here here
Jaleen and Sheikh Saad- need sources(expect pro-ISIS and maps) which said that these villages ISIS-held. Sûriyeya (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Opp.source Qasion News said that the Pro-ISIS "Movement of Muthanna" blew the bridge linking between the towns of Muzaireb and Jalin in the western Dara countryside, to prevent any military reinforcement coming to the rebels. Yarmouk brigade and Muthana Islamic movement it is allies of Islamic State.here And this opp.source also reported about clashes between rebels and pro-ISIS fighters inside the town of Muzayrib.here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For Jaleen and Sheikh Saad, pro-opposition EnabBaladi reports it[22] as well as possible pro-ISIS Mu'ta Agency[23]. This means one pro-opp and one pro-ISIS source each confirm them as Muthanna held. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I have changed Jalin and Sheikh Saad to IS controlled. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nusra held towns

Once again I feel we should bring this up. The towns in question are Atmeh, Darat Izza, Atareb, and Khan Sheikhoun. They are major towns or towns with confirmed significant presence of non-Nusra groups. In particular:

Atmeh: Jaysh al Sunna, Ahrar al Sham, and Faylaq al Sham in Atmeh[24][25]. While the vicinity of Jinderes may not be specific enough, the fact that Jaysh al Sunna had a weapons factory in or near the town shows that it's not exclusive Nusra property. Noting that Atmeh was home to Suqur al Islam in 2013[26], and in 2014 one of the groups that formed Faylaq al Sham was called Suqur al Islam. There are two or three groups with that name, but just saying, it's quite a coincidence. Actually, just found Aranews saying Faylaq al Sham snuck into Afrin canton from Atmeh. That should confirm it[27]. From NOW Lebanon:

Erbil-based ARA News, in turn, reported that a “large number” of fighters from the hardline Ahrar al-Sham Movement as well as from the more moderate Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, Faylaq al-Sham and Jaysh al-Sunna had deployed on the outskirts of Cindirese, which lies 10-kilometers north of the rebel-held border town of Atmeh.

Atareb: Nusra never stormed the city, just Regiment 46. Nusra then opened an office inside the city and began meddling in its affairs. But it still doesn't control it. Probably Shamiyya and Zenki do. Nusra only has a tiny presence, same as the situation last year. That explains why they can protest without being harassed[28].

“Although Nusra has a single headquarters on the outskirts of the city, the people are trying to get rid of any pretext the regime could use to bomb them.” A mixture of FSA and Islamist rebel factions control Atareb, with a current population of 55,000. The fear of being targeted for harboring Nusra adds a new dimension to existing bad blood between Atareb residents and the Al-Qaeda affiliate, which maintains a contingent of approximately 35 fighters in the west Aleppo town, a resident told Syria Direct last September.

Darat Izza: This one is tricky. The local council appears to be made of one Ahrar, one Nusra, and one Fajr al Sham rep[29], which makes it two thirds Salafi-jihadi, but the city is also the headquarters of other groups. I'll try to summarize what I found so far: Kataeb Mujahidee Ibn Taymiyya used to be part of the Asala wal Tanmiya group but became independent and later merged two other groups to form Harakat Mujahidee al Islam in Idlib and Aleppo[30]. One of these groups is Bayareq al Islam. Bayareq and Ibn Taymiyya's leaders were both involved in a local prisoner exchange with Nubl at Darat Izza[31], a nice geographic and factional correlation. During the fighting with Hazzm, Hazzm's local branch in Darat Izza left Hazzm and joined the Ibn Taymiyya group[32], a fact I pointed out last year too. One of Ibn Taymiyya's headquarters in the city were targeted by a blast a few months ago[33]. The final conclusion is that the mixture of local actors who are able to conduct prisoner exchanges on their own authority hints at shared control.

Khan Shikhoun: Nusra established a courthouse in the city which is responsible for most of north Hama due to the administrative vacuum there[34]. But Tajamuu al Izza leaders seem to spend a lot of time in Khan Shikhoun, having survived an assassination attempt here[35] but getting assassinated here[36] at least three months apart. And Faylaq al Sham, which got in a dispute with villagers in nearby Kafr Sajna, had to call reinforcements from Khan Shikhoun which suggests a presence in the city[37]. There was of course Division 13 as well until recently when they withdrew. There are also tensions in the city between Nusra and local imams it accuses of Sufism[38]. Residents of the city say Nusra is terrible at administering it.

Conclusion

I would put Atmeh, Darat Izza and Khan Shikhoun as half grey, half lime, while Atareb should be fully lime since only 35 individuals doesn't warrant control.

There are also other issues I have in mind, namely the villages in Jabal al Zawiyya, and some towns near Idlib, but for now I want input on this and my sources/interpretations before I make the change. NightShadeAEB (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB About Atared you provide biased opp. source but other source said Atareb Nusra-held they captured this town last year.here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB About the town of Atmeh you are right. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB According opp. sources said about conflict between Al Nusra allies Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al-Aqs in th town Sarmin so this mean that Sarmin can't be under control of FSA/allies.here this tomn must be a half grey and half lime. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree Sarmin was one of the towns I had in mind. Sarmin is a stronghold of Jund al Aqsa. It used to be a stronghold of Liwa Dawoud, which joined ISIS and helped ISIS during the 2014 fighting. But its positions got taken over by Suqur al Sham, which joined Ahrar al Sham. Half lime, half grey.

Atareb was never captured by Nusra, only Regiment 46, even your own article only says this:

"Sunday’s demonstration in Atareb comes a year after Nusra launched an assault against US-backed FSA affiliate the Hazzm Brigades in the town. By 1 March 2015, the Syrian wing of Al-Qaeda had routed Hazzm’s fighters from their Brigade 46 base in the town, which lies 25 kilometers west of Aleppo."

Hazzm fighters were in the city but they weren't defeated, only outside the city. They disbanded and joined Shamiyya, so Shamiyya is in control over Atareb now. Biased or not, Syria Direct is a reliable source and expanded on the topic of protests mentioned in your article.

Your article also mentions the evacuation of Nusra from Sarmada, it explains why in Sarmada's protests I didn't see a single Nusra flag[39]. But we'll deal with Idlib and smaller towns later, now I want to focus on the four towns I had. Any objections on Khan Shikhoun and Darat Izza? And what about Atareb? NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Here is a data from a oficeal page of the reporter Jenan Moussa from Arabic Al Aan TV(Based in Dubai): Protests in Atarib (only FSA flags). Protests in Saraqib (both FSA &black flags).here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Also here data from Jenan Moussa about situation in Maarat Al Numan.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Also according to the reporter Jenan Moussa from Arabic Al Aan TV(Based in Dubai) the city of Idlid and Jisr Shoghur under control of Al Nusrahere but the town of Taftanaz most likely is under jointly control of rebels and Nusra.here also Al Nusra has set up checkpoints at entrances to many villages in Idleb province to intimidate FSA &stop pro-FSA people from protesting.here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB SOHR about Maarat Al Numan and Khan Sheikhoun. Al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa raided on houses of fighters Division 13 in the city of Maaret al-Numan and they deployment of barriers in the vicinity of the city.here Also Jabhat Al-Nusra have raided the homes of the fighters of the Division 13 in Khan Shaykhun and arrested a fighter and took him to unknown destination.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

But that's not accurate because Idlib city has other groups like Ahrar, its Suqur subfaction, Faylaq al Sham, and the other three small Jaysh al Fatah groups, not just Nusra and Jund. Same goes for every major city, even Jisr which has massive foreign jihadist presence. I'm more inclined to support Jisr and Khan Shikhoun remaining fully grey because the evidence for non-Nusra presence is weak, but I don't think absence of evidence is itself evidence. We know Ahrar and Faylaq are powerful groups, and we know these are major cities liberated by large coalitions of groups. For example Raqqa before 2014 would be considered half-black half-green just because of the Ahrar presence, although it's admittedly a bigger town.

I think since there are AQ flags in Taftanaz, it's indeed likely Nusra has a strong presence in there, although I thought it was an Ahrar stronghold. I suggest making Binnish half-grey as well then since it was Nusra's first stronghold from back in 2012. In early March this year there was a pro-Nusra rally with AQ flags where they protested excluding Nusra from the ceasefire[40]. However, I think we should make Ram Hamdan fully green, because it's the location of "Headquarter Zero" of Ahrar al Sham, where its leaders were assassinated. I doubt they would hold secret meetings in a village co-shared with Nusra. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Ahrar al Sham it is allies of Al Nusra. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Jubb Hasan Agha SDF Manbij frontline

There are numerous sources about saying that the SDF captured this town on 14 January 2016, why is it still shown IS held?

I know some sources are not reliable but how haven't we found out if its really IS held?

here Here Here Here

Someone know more about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.22.83.175 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources said that SDF claim that the captured village Jubb Hasan Agha. Sûriyeya (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Rebel villages in Deir Ezzor

Are Muqman and Abu Kashab really controlled by rebels? There is no rebel presence nearby. They could only possibly be controlled by IS or SDF-affiliated forces.

I cannot find the source for their change. If no-one can do so quickly, we should change them back to what they were the last time I checked - IS-held, or, if it was reported that a 'rebel' force captured them from IS, assume SDF, as it is technically a rebel group. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 11:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

al-Nukhba Forces (FSA from Aleppo city) arrived in SDF territory & are fighting IS in Northern Deir Ez Zor. Despite the fact they participate in SDF operations they don't seem to be diretly affiliated with the YPG/rebel/tribal coalition.--Nerêo (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

So as I said it is a very big problem with using data from twitter. Two day ago SOHR said that the village Muqman contested between SDF and ISIS.here But for now the activist Bosno(from Twitter) said that the Al Nukhbat brigade(FSA) and small tribal rebel batalions take villages Mihbash, Abu Kashab, Bir Sahbu and the someother two points.here here But we not have any other confirmations from crediable sources not from a twitter. But pro-opp. and pro-Kurdish sources(from Twitter) at the begining this months reporteed that a village of Abu Kashab taken SDF/YPG.here here here So as I said before in other discussions above, using data from Twitter we have to provide confirmation from a reliable source(not from twitter) that it is a true data. I thinl that we can use without additional confirmation all data from Twitter which taken only from the official pages of world media and their reporters. It is just my oppion but I ask of the support from other editors of my proposal. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

SDF either never captured these villages or ISIS recaptured them (which is most likely). It's pretty stupid to post 3 sources which are uknown to this page at all, maps can't be copied, even if, not if they have like 50-200 followers, very reliable.

This video shows the same group and they said on the video that they captured Abu Kashab definately.

This is their official channel on facebook, and they have a statement where they say the same thing about Abu Kasheb. This is pretty clear to me. Rebels want Deir Ezzor and SDF will let them, and it only makes sense that Rebels continue to advance alone as they said it for themselfs. DuckZz (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

DuckZzFirst I did not offend you! And I not said that it is a crediable sourcshere here here I clearly indicated that it is just a data from Twitter. Also it is a video from pro-opp. media(Qasioun News)here and this video from rebelshere Sûriyeya (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I know what you said and I know what I said, dunno why you repeat it. The point is, we have enough evidence until proven otherwise because SDF and pro-SDF sources did not reported anything about these villages, which means the reports are probably true. Mukman village was contested on our map, so probably ISIS captured it, or Rebels were there in the first place. But I have no reason to believe that those statements are fake, I mean if they were we will find it out very quickly on SDF, ISIS, Rebel or any other sources sooner or later. DuckZz (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Rebels not have presence in Deir Ezzor. Muqman and other villages are controlled by YPG/SDF. These viiages was reported on YPG offensive. Please put them as YPG/SDF control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedej (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bosno just a amateur pro-opp. activist from Twitter and he is not a provide any confirmations of his claims. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Inkhil

Wery strange! SOHR said about clashes between al-Hamza Division which to belong to ISIS against rebels inside the city of Inkhil in Dara province.here here Maybe someone has a more data about the situation in the city. Or this city contested between rebels and ISIS allies? Sûriyeya (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that the clashes between al-Hamza Division(allies of ISIS) against rebels still continue inside the city of Inkhil.here Sûriyeya (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I changed it to contested.[41] Arabic Twitter says ISIS sleepers are in the city shooting and assassinating people. This looks serious, like the Tal Abyad attacks. Correction though, Hamza are the enemies of ISIS not the allies. Can't find a name for ISIS allies other than "Malik al Faisal's group". Maybe a local troublemaker. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I found the name of the group. It's Jaysh Ansar al Aqsa جيش أنصار الأقصى led by Malik al Faisal aka Abu Faisal. I know it doesn't affect our map but just putting it for reference, they're accused of joining Liwa Shuhada al Yarmouk. They killed Bashar al Doukhi the head of Inkhil city council and several FSA members, apparently from al Hamza Division. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposition group said that they regained their HQ and killed the leader of the ISIS affiliated group. It looks like it's over. Nobody will probably ever write about this, so I guess we can use these sources as the same sources said before that ISIS took control of these areas. DuckZz (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DuckZz Sorry man but it is a opp. source which we can't use in this situation. But believe me if this a true then others sources confirm this soom. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DuckZz But if tomorrow we dont have of any data about clashes inside this city we can edit him as rebels held. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

DuckZzSo probably clashes inside city is ended so if there are no other data or objections, we can change the status of the city. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

AMN reports of an isolated ISIS presence in Inkhil city, with no fighting currently happening. Shouldn't a smaller black dot be added within Inkhil, then? Esn (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Saham al-Jawlan and Hayt

News about Saham al-Jawlan fallen to LSY and Hayt now contested: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency Mughira1395 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I made Saham black, gonna wait for a better source on Hayt to avoid relying on a map for details

Also I made Tafas green, not sure why it was made contested again, it was just a local clash and it ended before the Tasil battle even begun NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR also said Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade captured the town of Saham al-Jawlan.here Sûriyeya (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Scale

It would be very useful that this map had a scale in kilometers and miles. Many news says that a force is to x kilometers from a city. Thank you.Nerêo (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Add more desert roads?

Perhaps a more accurate picture of desert roads can be added to the map, by using the information from this map? For example, it shows a road coming up from Jordan to the Tanf border crossing (which would explain how the FSA was able to seize it recently) Another much more detailed map is [42]. Esn (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So this is a good idea, and I sat down to try to do this, especially with the activation of fighting in the desert of late. Thank you to Esn for finding those links! However, there is a major snag, it turns out. No two maps agree regarding roads in the desert when you start to go into details, beyond the set of roads that are already there. The first map looks like a good overview (e.g. that Jordan road, the importance of as Zalaf in the south, etc), but it's getting old and disagrees with other maps in the details (scanned from a 2002 atlas, I think, and the data that goes into an atlas is not often very fresh either). The second map has great detail, but too much in fact - we can't put all those minor roads in. It also disagrees in road placement with with Google and/or osm regarding the position of various roads, including some major ones. So I don't know what to trust. I tried to compare the presence and importance of existing roads between those maps, as well as Google maps and openstreetmap. What is on the map at present is largely based on openstreetmap with cross-checking the presence of roads on Google maps. OSM has the advantage that it should be relatively up-to-date as the data has been mostly drawn from aerial images in the last couple of years. Anyway, my conclusion from all that comparing is that the more minor roads beyond what is already being shown are dubious in terms of placement, importance, trafficability.

The thing to do would be to look at an actual syrian road map from the last 5 or even 10 years, as local-made maps tend to be much much more accurate, as their local reputation actually depends on it, in comparison with western-drawn maps.

Anybody have one? Deuar (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Palmyra

Washington Post and Sky News reported that the SAA have entered in the city of Palmyra.here here also Hoda Abdel-Hamid the reporter of Al Jazeera(officially proved page in twitter) also said SAA entered in the Palmyra.here Sûriyeya (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly the video has been removed and SOHR is deniying the News about SAA entering Palmyra: http://www.syriahr.com/?p=162895 , http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=45379 Mughira1395 (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I just saw the video footage of the syrian TV on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs7Yc3LQGAY It shows only the entering to the Qatari Villa, which is south-west of the city. Mughira1395 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

And the article of Masdar, just put online, says, that ISIS is still in the city and SAA outside: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-requests-civilians-leave-palmyra-due-syrian-army-advances/ Mughira1395 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said SAA on distance about two kilometrs west of the entrance to city Palmyra and on distance in to a few hundred meters southwest of the entrance to city Palmyra.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ans other sources confirmed that SAA regain of the Semiramis Hotel southwest of Palmyra.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

SAA regain from ISIS Semiramis Hotel, Mount Muntar(Jabal Muntar),Tombs Valley,Al-Zira'ah roundabout and Mouza Palace.here Sûriyeya (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that SAA regain from ISIS Semiramis Hotel and entered for the first homes in the southwest of the city Palmyra.here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a further note, it seems the SAA is moving towards Brigade 550. Should we therefore divide Hajjana and Brigade 550 since the brigade lies south of Mount Marbat al Hasan and SE og Abar al Umi, and Hajjano between the mountain and Mount al Mazar, further to the North. A Half circle should than also be put SE of the Brigade as per source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/field-report-palmyra-battle-heats-syrian-army-makes-fresh-gains-map-update/ MesmerMe (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

SAA advance and captured Tall SyriaTel,Jabal al Mazar, Jabal Mastouda’at and (Brigade 550/Warehouses).here here here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Semiramis Hotel is in Army hands ? why it still in black ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.232.140 (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Semiramis Hotel on map marked as SAA-held as ISIS-held still marked the castle near Palmyra. Sûriyeya (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

SAA retake Palmyra Castle from ISIS.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

SAA broke ISIS defenses and reentered in the city Palmyra through its southern gates after seizing much of the Palmyra Orchards from ISIS they have now reached the Palmyra Prison that is located in the southeastern sector of the city.here Sûriyeya (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that the SAA and allies managed to enter the city of Palmyra.here Sûriyeya (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

SAA/allies also retake the Army Base of Brigade 550 from ISIS and now poised to capture the Al-Amariyah.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Airbase is captured; https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-palmyra-airbase-blitz-offensive-has-isis-collapsing/ MesmerMe (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently that was a mistake. The airbase is still not captured. Esn (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that the SAA captured Ameriya from ISIS.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

ISIS defense collapsed in city of Palmyra as SAA manage advance and control about 1/3 area of the city, amid the withdrawal of the elements of ISIS towards Sokhna area and east of Palmyra.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

SAA retake entier city of Palmyra.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that the SAA and allies regained control of the entire city of Palmyrahere Sûriyeya (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said ISIS do mass retreated aftr they lose Palmyra they left position and retreated to the towns of Al-Sukhnah, Al-Taybah, Al Kawm and to Sukhna/Hail oil/gas fields. here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Opp. source also as well as SOHR confirmed that ISIS withdrawal to the town of Al-Sukhnah after regime forces seize over the city Palmyra.here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Warszawiak22 Sûriyeya Please stop making Arak and other far desert localities red. The direction of retreat from Tadmur has no bearing on the ISIS units still in control over such locales. We've been through this with another user before about such manipulation of sources to stretch areas of advance. NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. However, the Palmyra Gasfield and Biyarat Muhammad Butman should likely be put as SAA held, since they're both within Palmyra, which is widely reported as captured. MesmerMe (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Map-truce-lime.svg

@DuckZz: I notice you added File:Map-truce-lime.svg to the map in Special:Diff/707262347. I don't see anything that looks like this in the legend. What does it mean, and is there any image in the legend that means the same thing? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It means the town is mostly with Rebels but under truce with Gov. DuckZz (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn:@DuckZz: Actually, File:Map-truce-lime.svg is no longer in use. It should be replaced by File:LACMTA Circle Purple Line.svg. Tradedia^talk 00:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tradedia: Thanks. I replaced it with that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tradedia I think you are wrong. The definition of the purple icon is "Stable mixed control" which is not correct in this case bec. the town is with Rebels but they have a truce with the Gov. which have bases and positions around it. The icon is no longer in use bec. we didn't used it before. DuckZz (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@DuckZz: The reason it is not is use is because we need to keep the map caption simple and because the icon was not well designed to begin with. To most viewers, the purple ring is not distinguishable from a red ring. So this icon looks to most people exactly like a green dot with a red ring. If you think that “the town is with Rebels but they have a truce with the Gov. which have bases and positions around it.” then you can make it green dot with a red ring because it is visually undistinguishable from the present icon (green dot with a purple ring). But in this case, you would have to make Fuah & Kafraya also red dot with a green ring because the rebels don’t control the town you mention more than the gov controls Fuah & Kafraya. Tradedia^talk 02:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tradedia Well yes that's the point. I don't see currently the difference between Fuah/Kafraya and any other town on the frontline, because there's a complete casefire in Syria. You may say a truce is different, but in reality it's the same. I don't see much of a usage for the purple icon, either the area is with Gov. or Rebels, there's not a single area where they both have control. DuckZz (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@DuckZz: The purple icon should be for towns where the party in question has lost a significant amount of sovereignty, such as giving up heavy weapons, allowing regular enemy patrols inside of it, etc… If all that the “truce” means is that there is no fighting or shooting from both parties, then there is no need for a purple icon. The purple icon means loss of sovereignty, not lack of fighting. So I think that the Fuah/Kafraya pocket does not need to be purple. The gov in Fuah/Kafraya pocket did not relinquish any sovereignty on the pocket (kept all the weapons & fighters and not allowed rebel patrols inside, etc…) Also other towns in the same situation (no loss of sovereignty), equally do not need to be purple. Tradedia^talk 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Concerning Module:Middle East insurgencies map marks and the map edits related to it, you seem to have confused “Dam” icons (File:BSicon STR…) with “Enemy pressure from one side” semi-circles (File:Map-arc…). In the legend to the map, it shows Dam (File:Arch dam 12x12 w.svg). However, the 9 dams on the map were represented by:

BSicon STRlg yellow.svg
BSicon STRrf red.svg
BSicon STRrf red.svg
BSicon STRrf yellow.svg
BSicon STRlf yellow.svg
BSicon STRrf red.svg
BSicon STRrf red.svg
BSicon STRrf black.svg
BSicon STRlg black.svg

Notice that the shape, size, thickness, curvature and positioning of the “File:BSicon STR” icons are different from those of the “File:Map-arc” icons. Tradedia^talk 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tradedia: Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. By the way, why does the legend use the "Arch dam" images if the "BSicon STR" images are the ones used in the map? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: No good reason. Tradedia^talk 01:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front territory in Northern Idlib

Many maps from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) have frequently shown the Nusra Front of holding territory in northern Idlib province bordering Turkey. The cities and towns which would be affected by this would be Harem, al-Tulul and al-Alani. Here is the map, dated February 2016. This is another one dated around late May 2015 which appears fairly precise to the first and more recent one. al-Nusra is often shown as controlling these parts of Northern Idlib. --Donenne (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Donenne Thank's you for your efforts but we can not use any maps as a sources for editing. Rule #2-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.rules of edit Sûriyeya (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Another thing you should know: If you were monitoring the events in that area carefully, you would realize that al-Nusra Front abandoned that area to Ahrar ash-Sham, following clashes between the 2 organizations in January 2016, and an al-Nusra withdrawal from Sarmada in February 2016. The clash in January was the one in which al-Nusra Front lost the town of Harem to Ahrar ash-Sham, as well as that corner of the Turkish border region. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ISIS withdraw to Al Sukhnah

Several days ago when ISIS lost Palmyra thaey withdraw main part their forces to to towns of Al-Sukhnah, Al-Taybah, Al Kawm and to Sukhna and Hail oil/gas field.here Then in area of the city remained only a small groups which continued fights against SAA to north-east of Palmyra but now SOHR in new report said that ISIS withdraw all their forces from eastern coutreside of Palmyra on distane of 70 km towards Sukhna area.here So probably we can't still hold as ISIS-held a village Arak his Gas field, Arak Pumping station, Mustadira Gas Field, Hajjar Oil field and several hills east of Palmyra. But I can't do these important changes single-handedly so I want to hear your opinions. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The SAA doesn't seem to be that far ahead along the road to Deir Ezzor. While I do believe you're right on ISIS retreating their main force towards Suknah, the roads are littered with IEDS. Masdar, here: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/palmyra-victory-syrian-army-set-break-isis-siege-deir-ezzor-map-update/, mentions that they've reached 4km East of the city, which puts them in control of the silos, here (could somebody add that as SAA held). While some source menton a 10km push, there really isn't anything there to change colour. THerefore, Arak is likely still ISIS held, espcicially since the SAA capturing with be significant news and would be published on Masdar. MesmerMe (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR reports that SAA is ready to attack al-Sukhna. They are likely closer to the city than we think,Paolowalter (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Manbij dot size

Earlier a request to edit the dot size of Manbij was rejected on the basis its population is marked as 99.800 in wikipedia, leaving it 200 people away of the 100.000 people mark for the next tier in city sizes.

Said data, however, is from 2004, and several sources indicate the town has grown well over that number since then, for example, this January 2014 article claims it has a population of 200.000 not counting refuuges:

http://syrianobserver.com/EN/Features/26544

While this other indicates the pre-war population was 100.000:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/633601/Islamic-State-Syrian-town-Manbij-ISIS-European-capital-dozens-Britons

Any thoughts on the matter? Satellite imagery clearly shows Manbij as a city closer to ones like Tartus and Raqqa than to Bab, Idlib and Rasulain/Serekaniye.

186.170.110.38 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I also believe this city's dot on the map should be made bigger. It is a major strategic city, and its size on this map doesn't even reach the actual size of the city on the map. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that matter is the 2004 census, because it is used for the dot size of all towns. We cannot use the figure from any other year because it would be unfair to the other towns. In the 2004 census, Manbij had a population of 99,497. For a dot size to be 14, the population needs to be 100,000. If no one objects, I will make an exception and change the dot size of Manbij to 14. Tradedia^talk 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No objections regarding the exception here, thanks for the explanation regarding the 2004 census criterium. 186.112.108.85 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Markadah

I recommend editors to check for the coordinates of every village in the area,because something doesn't look right.Alhanuty (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tal Tabarah

SAA Advanced 7km into IS held territory in Eastern Homs, which is quite significant. However, I have absolutely noe idea where i can find Tal Tabarah Al-Deibah or Tal Hikmat. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-7-km-deeper-isis-heartland. This map (I know, we cant use it), indicates some location, but I just cant seem to figure it out further than that it is in this general area: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.100249&lon=37.306995&z=13&m=b&search=Tal%20Hikmat.MesmerMe (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

the SAA-IS conflict in eastern Hama needs to be updated. Source: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950114000946 Furthermore, Qulab al Thour is also captured and their should be a red half-cirlce on Abu Hanaya. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-approaches-isils-stronghold-east-hama-11km-go/ MesmerMe (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The 5 red towns in Lajat area, Daraa

I believe that the situation concerning the 5 red towns in Lajat area, Daraa was not handled correctly. The background of this is in: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Mseikeh & NE Daraa, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Regime offensive in Busr Al Harir and Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Supply lines to Lajat reopened. What happened is that the gov took the 5 villages in the Lajat area therefore isolating a rebel pocket.

Later, on April 21, 2015, the following 2 things happened:

As-Safir newspaper reported that the gov took the 5 villages in the Lajat area therefore isolating a rebel pocket.
On Sky News Arabic TV there was an interview of Rami Abdel Rahman (head of SOHR) who said that the gov troops were forced out of all the villages that they took yesterday in Lajat area, and that the rebel’s road was reopened.

It seems that the editors at that time followed the first source and discarded the second source, so the villages stayed red. I think that what happened was that the editors mistook the As-Safir source for “Al-monitor” source which they considered a reliable source. On the other hand, they considered Sky News Arabic as a pro-rebel source. The assessment was flawed. You have to realize that Al-monitor sometimes translates articles from the As-Safir newspaper. This is the case of the above article. You can see in the “Summary box” the following sentence: “In this article from As-Safir, Tarek al-Abed provides detailed updates on the field developments in Syria and the status and spreading of armed groups.” Here is a link that gives additional information on how Al-Monitor works (I don’t recommend you read it as it is long and boring).

As-Safir newspaper leans towards the Syrian gov and is therefore not more neutral or less biased than Sky News Arabic. Moreover, we use on the map SOHR as a reliable source, which gives credibility to an interview of its head on a TV show. Also, it could be argued that a TV show on April 21, 2015 talks about the events of that specific day, whereas a newspaper article would be more about the previous day given the delay in printing the newspaper.

Therefore, the first source (As-Safir) should not have dominated the second source (SOHR head on Sky News Arabic). The conclusion should have been that the information is not clear and the 5 villages should not have stayed red. Today, even pro-gov PetoLucem map does not have them red. Given all the above, there is serious doubt about the present status of these 5 villages. Therefore, these 5 villages should be commented out until fresh information about them becomes available. Tradedia^talk 04:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tradedia So probably we can remove them (Miskiya al-Sharqiya,Miskiya al-Sharqiya,Rassum Al-Khawaabi,Ishnaan and Al-Dalasat) from the map before as we not have a new data about which of side hold them. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

But isn't it clear then that they are rebel held if even pro-regime activists are marking them as green? It means there is no dispute anymore since the fog of war cleared long ago. NightShadeAEB (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB We do not use preconceived labels. We not call the pro-government sources as regime sources or pro-regime activists and not call of the pro-opp. sources as terrorists sources or pro-militants sources/activists. We only can call as a terrorists (ISIS or some groups which is a filial of Al Qaida as Al Nusra) which have been recognized by the UN as a terrorist organization. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say pro-gov activist "marked them as green." I said pro-gov activist "does not have them red" ;) The pro-gov activist has them "contested". Tradedia^talk 16:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Long after this section was archived, there was a partial resolution to the issue at hand. I therefore want to exceptionally add a post-scriptum for the record. At 02:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC) there was an edit that made Miskiya al-Sharqiya, Miskiya al-Sharqiya & Rassum Al-Khawaabi rebel-held based on the source: https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/772937600650870784 Tradedia^talk 03:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

North Latakia province.

I will clean the area of North Latakia and remove villages which aren't visible to be honest because the area is really to much clutered DuckZz (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

SAA resumption of advance in a north Latakia counterside and regain control of all areas which they lost yesterday.here Sûriyeya (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Qaryatayn

Who made Qaryatayn besieged from 360 degrees and based on what source? PetoLucem, a very biased pro-Assad map maker is depicting ISIS as still in control over the Barida mountains[43]. NightShadeAEB (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

We do this on based data from reliable sources. But Peto just amatur guy from Twitter. And according to: Rule#2 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.” Sûriyeya (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said SAA still advance in the vicinity of city Qaryatayn and captured several hills.here Sûriyeya (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a new Map The siege is not arround the city at the Moment --An-d (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

An-d You probably have not noticed but according to the rules of editing, use maps for edit prohobited. But probably we can remove red circle and put red semicircles from west,north and south of the ciiy. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks - that was just a info, i will not make an edit. --An-d (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I know how to read the rules. But you didn't answer the question, what source are you using to justify keeping al Qaryatayn encircled? NightShadeAEB (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And now you're making it SAA held based on pro-SAA sources? [44] NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Stop biased statements. Al Masdar it is a relaible source. Also anti-SAA source Qasioun News also said that the SAA captured Qaryatayn.here here also this confirmed reliable source Al Raihere and many other sourceshere here here here here Sûriyeya (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR also said that ISIS withdraw from the city Qaryatayn toward a nearby villages which they still hold(Busayri, Khunayfis, Ulayyaniyah, Sawanah)here Sûriyeya (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How is it biased? You always ask us not to use pro-opposition sources for opposition advances, but now you use Elijah and al Masdar to justify changing Qaryatayn to red? Yes it is now confirmed but that was not necessarily true when you made the edit. This is a clear double standard on your part, you hound us for our edits but then you make yours with impunity. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

FSA presence-icon in Jordan.

There is an icon of FSA-presence in Jordan. This icon was put there supposing to show how FSA used some dessertroad from Jordan into Syria to conquer the Al-Tanf bordercrossing with Iraq. In my humble opinion it misses this objective but more important is this would be a prescedent and one might aswell put presence-icons of all colours in all of Syrias neighbouring country's.

I can only imagen this area of Jordan is controlled by the Jordanian army/border guard, even if FSA has a local camp there or travelled throught that area into Syria. So I would like to suggest the removal of this icon. And thank you past and present editors, I check this map daily for some years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.124.251 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this, the FSA, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc all have cross-border presence. It's best to keep the edits to within the borders of Syria. Move the icon to inside the Syrian desert, it would be better. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

NW Deir Ezzor.

Reporting the user "Niele~enwiki", who broke 2 rules in 1 day.

2 I added 2 Rebel held villages in NW Deir Ezzor according to a reliable source used for more than 2 years on this map.
2 Edit was reverted.
3 I reverted it because no source was provided to contradict my claims.
4 The user reverts my edit and post a SDF source, which means he is using Kurdish (not pro-Kurdish, but basically Kurdish) sources to justify that.
5 Then, after he did that, he added the village of "Abu Kashab" on the map without providing a source. So basically this is enough for a ban, he is basically playing dumb by saying "I will not use your source" then he uses it, but in a wrong way, reverting me, but doing the same thing in his OPINION.

Now for other editors who will say "Well, I can't be sure if we can use him etc etc". Yes of course we can. Why ? Well if you say we can't use him as a source for this edit, you are basically pushing your own POV for this map, because we added and changed 10 locations in Eastern Qalamoun and used only him a source. But you can't change 2 villages in another province because you don't like it ? That's POV and against the rules. Either change the entire Qalamoun back as it was, or don't revert my edits, very simple. And in both cases, it was only him reporting about that, there were no other sources. END. DuckZz (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DuckZz You source said the rebels(Al Nukhbat brigade) captured 5 locations in Deir ez Zor province(Al Bukman,Mihbash,Abu Kashab,Bir Sahbu and another one village about which source not said.here here But no one from reliable sources not from the Twitter not support this data but I also think that "Niele~enwiki" was broke a rules as thy use biased pro-SDF/YPG source from Twitter but according to our rules this prohibated(we can't use biased sources for edit). I realy think these villages libirated from ISIS but still not clear who do this rebels or SDF. But we not can't just ignored these data we only need searching other confirmations. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

But some activist from Twitter(I not indicated that it is a crediable sources) including pro-opp. reported about clashes between SDF and ISIS near village Mihbash(village which was taken rebels according Bosno) but other sources only said about clashes between SDF/YPG and ISIS in this area.here here So we just need more a crediable data. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The first source is unknown to this map, we never used him as a source. The second sources says "Near Minbash", and when u look at geo. maps, there are many unnamed villages near Minbash. For example, source BosnjoSinj talks about a village called "Bukman" but it's not located on any map, cuz it's probably too small. Now either you are ignoring it, or u forgot that I posted a source from the official page from this Rebel groups, and they posted a video statement where they're talking about Abu Kashab village, and they also posted a video showing their advances. Now when you look at the pictures posted by "Bosnjosinj", you can't find them on the official page from the Rebel group, which means this isn't just c/p things, and he also reported this before they posted informations on their page, which also means this can't be invented.

Now, if you still say "Well, still, I think it's not good make the edit only because of him", well then you need to follow the rules and revert all the areas in E.Qalamoun, total of 15 locations (except Tanf) which we edited just because of his reports, and there were no other reports, not from SOHR or other Rebel pages. I think this is more than clear. I will change Abu Kashab back as it was, but I will let's say put the Mishab village to joint control, this is I think the best option. DuckZz (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DuckZz Ok in this issue I agree with you. Do it! Sûriyeya (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

DuckZz If we agree with data about some points in northen countreside which taken Al Nukhbat brigade(FSA)here maybe we also need add village Mihbashphere which is located between Muqman and Abu Khashab. What are you think?Sûriyeya (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

These areas are really unhabitat. Adding to many location can distract the viewer. You can add this village but don't waste your time in finding other he mentioned, no need. DuckZz (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What user DuckZz says is completely bogus and I find it quite aggressive/regrettable/non-constructive form of framing/attacking an other wikipedia user:

I reverted Ducks edit because HE broke rules by making a not correct edit by only providing an unprecize, unofficial, and unreliable twitter source.
I in contrary I did provided a reliable 'official' source, an official SDF statement that stated SDF captured the villages for the second edit, adding the place as conquered by the SDF.
user DuckZz attribute the second revert of his unreliable sourced edit to me, blames me for it, while it was done by an other user and not by me.
There are many small and large former FSA-groups working as a member and with different forms of cooperating with the SDF and YPG to enlarge SDF's control. This does not change the fact that it is territory under SDF control.

User DuckZz is not above the rules. So the green coloring of villages in NW Deir Ezzor, an basis of the unreliable twitteraccount 'BosnjoBoy' should be reverted. There is no reliable source given for this major edit. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Again these villages where added as green while there is still not any allowed source provided.

This is in clear voilation against the rules that forbids to use some a random personal twitteraccount as a source.

Etraordinary claims need also extraordinary evidence. Multiple users reverted this edit, because it was unsourced, in violation of the rules. ::Not only me. Yet again the villages are placed in green on the map, while there is still NO source provided yet for changing these villages to green.

If such a major/impactfull change can be done on basis of an questionable interpretation of an unreliable/contested tweet of twitteraccount 'BosnjoBoy', everyone here should be allowed to make changes on basis of random tweets.

Please note that a large amount of other twitter users reported statements that contradict thise interpretation that was used to make this questionable edit.

Not only this edit was done without any allowed source, it was done in violation of a previous decision on this talk page, and with disreagard to this decision on in this section.

Multiple users pointed this out while reverting this edit, yet they are ignored. And we are still waiting for a reliable source to backup this edit.

Please revert via this link the latest adding of these villages in Green in NW Deir Ezzor via this link --Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Real news outlets/sources, contradict edit made on basis of the personal interpretation of events of pro nonSDF-opposition/rebel twitter-user BosnjoBoy.

ARA news report: The western-backed SDF forces have seized the Rweshid oil field after expelling ISIS from the Abu Khashab district west of the town of Margada in Syria’s northeastern Hasakah province. Source: http://aranews.net/2016/04/isis-uses-christians-human-shields-raqqa/

AINA (press release): The western-backed SDF forces have seized the Rweshid oil field after expelling ISIS from the Abu Khashab district west of the town of Margada in Syria's northeastern Hasakah province - Source: http://www.aina.org/news/20160401140603.htm --Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet an other neutral source contradicting pro-rebel twitter user BosnjoBoy interpretation:

peterclifford: In the eastern part of Rojava, south of Shaddadi, the SDF Kurdish/Arabic/Christian alliance have expelled IS from the Abu Khashab district west of Margada in Hasakah province and captured the railway station at Rweshid and the nearby oil field of the same name.

SDF forces have passed Al-Maliha village towards Ma’dan and are now just 48 kilometres from Deir Ez Zour, hoping to cut that city off from the IS “capital” in Syria at Raqqah. - http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-and-iraq-news/ --Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Good job. You wrote 200 sentences only proving my point, you speared a lot of time for me. Abu Kashab district west of Ruwashid under SDF control since last week, Abu Kashab village south of Muqman under Nukbat control since 2 weeks. DuckZz (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No you did prove that you don't know what you're speaking of.

You say : Abu Kashab district west of Ruwashid under SDF control since last week"

And you say: Abu Kashab village south of Muqman under Nukbat control since 2 weeks

But if you would look at a map you see that Abu Kashab village and Abu Kashab district are obvously adressing the same area that is situated south of Muqman and west of Ruwashid.

And now you are saying that the same area is under control of both SDF and Nukbat fighters.

But offcourse the SDF is the controlling party and Nukbat fighters are just some fighters participating in an offensive but no part of any holding of villages or places on it's own.

You're clearly don't want to understand and trying to find excuses. Abu Kashab district is just a manner of saying 'the village and surrounding area' because there are a lot of farms spread out over the Abu Kashab area outside the village center. Nukbat is no entity having control over any area or village on it's own. It not that some fighters inside an SDF-controlled area calling themselfes Nukbat and participated in an SDF-offensive, that SDF will allow that some fighters on it's own create some kind of autonomous Nukbat-governed minipocked inside SDF controlled area.

But that even doesn't matter. You still did not provide any reliable source claiming the the existence of you're non-SDF pocked inside SDF-territory. And violated WP:twitter and the rules by using a pro-rebel-tweet to make a mayor change contradicting all other sources. As I said earlier 'extraordinary claims, need extraordinary evidence'. You provided non such, but you did you're edit anyway. And by now you're unsourced edit is contradicted by multiple neutral sources, news outlets, pro christian newsoutlets and pro-SAA sources. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Altough I completly disagree with it. As show of good faith/compromise to user:DuckZz I placed a Nukbat Brigade presense icon. But offcourse one pro-rebel twitter activist for a pro-rebel edit, can't be a source for village control placed above multiple proffesional news outlets and tweets from all conflict sides and neutral Pulitzer-class awarded journalists like Peter Clifford. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

SAA/ISIS battle north of Jirah airbase?

Are there really clashes just north of Jirah airbase, deep within ISIS territory? What's going on there? When I mouse over the location, I don't get a town name. Esn (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliability check for Leith Fadel and Al-Masdar News

I've posted to the reliable sources noticeboard about Leith Fadel and Al-Masdar News, which strike me as potentially unreliable.

Discussion

NeatGrey (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

NeatGrey We agree use partialy pro-opp. SOHR(many sources said that SOHR anti-government source) and partialy pro-gov. Al Masdar as a rliable source for edit so you must stop accuse this source. So on the basis of mutual agreement, it was decided to use it as a reliable source of not only great exception (do not use it in the conflict between rebels and Al-Nusra and ISIS). Sûriyeya (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Here desision authorizing use Al Masdar as a reliable source such a SOHR with only small restrictions.here So stop insinuations! Sûriyeya (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The questions are, "Is al-Masdar reliable," and, "Is Leith Fadel reliable." I'm saying no, to both. Leith's own Twitter feed shows his massive bias. Leith is an editor for al-Masdar, so that bias DOES bleed into the articles he writes. There have been instances where this bias has been called out, and in times of contradiction, even with nothing backing either side, except non-sources like Twitter posts, al-Masdar has been used to make edits, leading to pro-gov bias, in regard to map editing that has been called out.DaJesuZ (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you can't compare Leith Fadel and Al Masdar to any opposition source. They're a propaganda outlet, nothing more nothing less. In 2013 his page Syrian Perspective posted a map where they claimed Anadan and Kafr Hamra were captured by the SAA. I saved the map and uploaded it to Twitter[45]. Leith also denied to me that Jisr al Shughour had fallen even while rebels posted photos of themselves next to the city clocktower, telling me that it was "on the outskirts" rather than the center. And his friend PetoLucem made a map about Fua and Kafraya before the fall of Idlib city, claimed the rebels' attack failed, when I asked him about Deir al Zughb (the small farm next to Fua, which was the target of the rebel attack), he did not even know what it was.

Their bunch is either a professional disinformation clique, or a poor quality agitprop gang. NightShadeAEB (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We agree use Al Masdar as and SOHR as a relialbe. SOHR as reliable pro-opp. source and Al Masdar as reliable pro-gov source. And let's not raise this issue again. Sûriyeya (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR also partialy bised source but we use him as a reliable although SOHR uses Syrian rebel flag on his website. So either we use both these sites as a reliable or not one of them. And also SOHR unlike many reliable sources it did not admit the fact that the rebels captured the border crossing with Iraq. All sources maid mistakes! Sûriyeya (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB DaJesuZ The decision was previously acceptedhere so that let us not start again unnecessary debate. We use the Al Masdar as a crediable source but with some restrictions(only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account. Also, we cannot use Al-Masdar to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc.)here So guys if you do not like the source Al Masdar it does not make it unreliable. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sûriyeya, I NEVER stated that SOHR wasn't biased, nor did I say that only one side of the argument should be represented. This is Wikipedia. We are not a propaganda source, nor are we to inject bias into the articles that are made, hence why people call out al-Masdar, as well as SOHR. I have NEVER stated that ONLY SOHR should be used. Do NOT misrepresent what I, or others, have objected to when it comes to al-Masdar. Masdar is a state-run news organization, under the control of one of the most authoritarian and totalitarian regimes on the planet. Disregarding criticism of it is irresponsible of you. I've been here, attempting to help along for longer than you have, bud. Lecturing me on what decisions have and have not been made regarding what is and is not a reliable source is NOT a good idea. Do NOT presume to inform me about how this group of people gets shit done. I have, again, NEVER been supportive of only presenting one side of the argument. I raise questions and launch inquires in regard to the quality of the material presented. Before I joined to help out here, I still followed this stuff, and looked at many sides of this story, the one unfolding in Syria, so, for example, when SOHR claimed to have Aleppo prison under siege, I started looking into it, and found out it was bullshit. I haven't EVER stated SOHR wasn't biased. We've known they were FOR YEARS.

"(only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account." I understand this, however, several users, in the past, have referred to Leith's Twitter for edits that they felt should be made (I don't know how to post links to posts on here, or link to pages). Leith is an editor for al-Masdar. Whether or not we are using his private Twitter feed is IRRELEVANT. We are using articles written by someone, and, in fact, many others, who are staunchly pro-government. THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. We need a revamp of the sources we use. Almost every article or source presented is biased as all hell, which is why when I link to things that occur, it's generally only to sites like BBC, as they are renowned for their objective reporting of shit like this (other articles, particularly on women, are often horrendously biased, and I avoid them, because of it, same with article regarding hate speech, people's races, and, "violence," in the direction of people who aren't white guys, because this SJW horse shit is in full swing), however, language does change, at least somewhat, whenever an new government comes to power in the UK, so I'm not saying the BBC has not, before, used wording which implies bias.

Again, Leith, and al-Masdar are far too biased to use, and yes, if you're using an al-Masdar article, written by that pro-regime fuckhead, you're using his work, not the work of a news agency. Again, before someone else straw man's me, I am NOT in support of solely using SOHR as the source for all changes, nor am I saying I even want them used as a source, at all, as their network on the ground used to report events is very, very disorganized, and is not present in enough places to give a clear depiction of what the fuck's going on on the ground. DaJesuZ (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

DaJesuZ So now clear for me You are just biased anti-SAA editor so your opinion a too biased. All editors which do editings on map must be neutral and not biased. Sûriyeya (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Record over time is what matters. Both SOHR and AMN have a history of reporting both victories and losses for the "sides" they back. AMN often qualifies info it's unsure about (for example, it has a number of times expressed doubt about news reports from SANA). Leith Fadel is indeed "biased", but he takes an effort to keep the language and information at AMN beyond such accusations. Syrian Perspective (which does have very one-sided language and reporting) is not Leith Fadel's site, but his father's. Esn (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, Al-Masdar is not a state-run news organization (you might be thinking of SANA), while the BBC you're talking about is (and is, moreover, controlled by a country which is very definitely backing one side in this civil war). Esn (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sûriyeya, that was the most short, incorrect representation I think I've ever seen of anyone's argument. You, literally, just said, "What you say is in contradiction to what I believe you are." Just shut up. Anything you have to say, beyond this point, is horse shit, and shouldn't even be acknowledged.

Esn, I was thinking SANA. My mistake. I think my point still stands; SOHR and al-Masdar are massively biased, and do have a history of either misrepresenting or exaggerating victories and losses, by all three (IS, opposition, and regime) sides in the war, and example of Masdar exaggerating a government victory was when they claimed the military took back the missile battalion in/near Dier ez-Zoir. Non-biased, objective reporting is what I believe we should go by. Neither al-Masdar or SOHR provide this. DaJesuZ (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

One can't seriously compare SOHR to Al Masdar. SOHR ranks on the "moderate" wing of opposition claims; they are frequently criticized for confirming opposition losses and human rights abuses. By contrast Al Masdar is the extreme wing of pro-regime claims, always highlighting the maximalist regime position for as long as possible. I am personally in favour of banning it as a source from this module, and from Wikipedia in general, except as a secondary or tertiary source to confirm other multi-sourced items. NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Nightshade supports ISIS no one cares what he thinks he supports head chopping neanderthal Saudi/Turkish terrorists.

NightShadeAEB If you dont like Al Masdar it is your problem! But sources SOHR and Al Masdar were recognized as reliable. here So stop insinuations! Sûriyeya (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Sûriyeya, it is not one person's problem if al-Masdar is being criticized, it is everyone's problem. Do NOT simply disregard criticism you do not feel is legitimate. You are immature and irresponsible for throwing out legitimate accusations that do not jive with your beliefs. There have been calls to ban, or at least disregard, certain editors on this page, recently, and if you keep this up, I'm adding your name to that list. The question isn't, "Is al-Masdar a reliable source?" it's, "Is al-Masdar reliable?" Again, I'm saying no, it isn't. DaJesuZ (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

DaJesuZ Unlike you I am a good and experienced editor. But you only can insult and do biased statements. I dont want speaked with you because your can't engage a constructive debate. Al Masdar is a crediable local source which publishes many reliable data. You don't like the source and you try in any way to compromise it reputation as the crediable source. Sûriyeya (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sûriyeya Someone is asking us for our opinions and I'm giving it so you tell me it's "your problem"? How is this civil discourse? Why are you so defensive over Al Masdar? Yes I know Al Masdar is recognized as a source. I'm simply stating why I believe it should not be. I did not realize editors voicing their opinions is a "problem" now. And please don't use personal attacks against DaJesuZ. It doesn't matter how new or senior he is, discuss ideas not persons. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB I'm sorry if offended you! But why you notice my words which I said to DaJesuZ and accused me in personal attack against him. But Ignored his wards to me(Sûriyeya, that was the most short, incorrect representation I think I've ever seen of anyone's argument. You, literally, just said, "What you say is in contradiction to what I believe you are." Just shut up. Anything you have to say, beyond this point, is horse shit, and shouldn't even be acknowledged) Sûriyeya (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So, the kid with the Arab name has reported my comment, so, I'll retype it, as best I remember it, as I do not believe what I put here, in any way was a violation of the rules Wikipedia puts in place, as my language clearly showed I hates what said user said, and did not attack him as a person:

Again, Sûriyeya, I called your ideas and beliefs, "horse shit." This was not an attack directed at you, as a person, but directed at what you belief, and the ideas you espouse. Do NOT report what I put here because it doesn't jive with your bias. Do NOT report what I type here because it doesn't jive with what you think of me, as you've already stated you believe I'm biased, despite me stating, several times, that I do not believe either side's mainstream media outlets are objective in their reporting, and to avoid being labeled a supporter of either side, and intentionally left out who I support in this conflict, to avoid the exact thing you just did. Do NOT invoke experience with editing. You'd be more appropriate as an editor for Syrian Perspective, not a page that is supposed to be objective in its reporting of the situation in the ground. Your experience is an irrelevancy. Whether or not I am experienced doesn't matter; if I have concerns about how this page operates, and the reliability and/or quality of the material presented, the should be addressed, not ignored.

(This post will be copied, as im sure the kid will report it, again.) DaJesuZ (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sûriyeya, you sound like Assad, calling anything that does not jive with your position absolute garbage. Whether or not I am a, "good and experienced editor," is an irrelevancy, what matters is that I, and many others, have concerns about the quality and reliability of the material presented. Because of that, again, it is immature and irresponsible of you to simply dismis arguments that conflict with what you believe, or feel how this page should be run.

The visceral dislike of Al-Masdar and accusations of extreme bias kind of mystify me. Just a few days ago, for example, on Apr. 2, it reported the rebels' capture of Al-Eis from the SAA in southern Aleppo, based on a report from Jabhat al-Nusra. The next day, it reported the confirmation of the capture by the SAA. As for SOHR (at least the English site), it seems to have not reported the capture at all (at least I can't find it), and only reported that SAA warplanes had carried out airstrikes there without mentioning the reason. If Al-Masdar was truly as biased as is suggested and "always [highlights] the maximalist regime position for as long as possible" as NightShadeAEB says, wouldn't it have denied the capture as long as possible, rather than being one of the first out the gate to report it? Esn (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Esn, al-Masdar often over exaggerates the gains of what we would deem terrorist groups. That is covered by early reporting, or outright exaggerations on ground gains in a fight, as shown here.

EDIT: Where exactly does it say that al-Nusra took the town, in the SOHR post, by the way? I can't find it. This seems to back up the actuation that al-Masdar exaggerates gains by terrorist groups. DaJesuZ (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

DaJesuZ They jointly take this town and its hill and you can see this in report from Reuters.here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

DaJesuZ Also here is the origenal report from SOHR where he clear said that Al Nusra and rebels captured the town of Al Eis and its hill from SAA.here So I ask you stop accuse a source of Al Masdar. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, but Reuters isn't a reliable source, according to the rules for editing.

EDIT: You told me, basically, to shut up, and get over the fact that AMN is used as a reliable source for editing many things in regards to this map. How about YOU shut up and go by the biased, authoritarian's mouthpiece?

DaJesuZ (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Truce in Da'el?

I saw in a Syrian Gov. source, specifically Al-Masdar [46], that the town of Da'el is currently under a truce between the Syrian Government and Opposition forces. Is this true? If so, it should be reflected on this module. Although the truce is quite likely, since Abtaa (north of Da'el) sits on the same highway and is located next to it, I haven't really seen that many sources report on the status of this area. There actually aren't that many sources out there that report whether or not a town or city is under a truce, unless that area has garnered international attention (such as Al-Zabadani). LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 Source Al Masdar not said in report that the city of Da'el is under truce in the arcticle. But if this showed on map we can't use this because Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Sûriyeya (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about coping from maps. I only want to know whether or not Da'el is under a truce, because it is very strategically important to the region. I'm having difficulties finding other sources (like articles) to corroborate the claims of a truce. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know too. I've seen the city included in the truce in a number of maps at Al-Masdar, but never once have they described its status within the body of the article accompanying those maps, so that cannot be used as a source. Esn (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This Al-Masdar article [47] is biased, but given the content, I assume that this is the Syrian Government's way of calling it a truce. Al-Masdar is normally a reliable source, so I think that we might be able to use this article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That article is from before the rebel militants inside the town arrested the civilians who had agreed to the truce. I don't think that article can be used to get any idea of the current situation. Esn (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semicirclses

I propose remove all the semicircles in areas where no active fights. Also I think we need put semicircles only when sources clear said that the one of side stormed some points which is a held other side and not add semicircle when SOHR or any other sources said that clashes "near" or "in vicinity". Because sometimes it is wrong and in fact clashes on most distance from points about which said report. Here is a good example: SOHR said that the clashes between SAA and ISIS in the vicinity of city Sukhna in an attempt by regime forces to regain control of the city after.here here But in fact SAA still not retake all areas betwen a city Palmyra and town of Al-Sukhnah. So as I said up we need put the semicircles when sources clear said that the one of side stormed some points which is a held other side or when some of points tottaly or partialy in siege. Sûriyeya (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded; using the semicircles is unnecessarily confusing & makes it look like there's conflict where there's not. I've always been sort of confused by why a lot of the SDF areas show a mix of yellow and green. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Al-Elis, Aleppo southern countryside

According to pro-gov. sources, the Army, led by Iranian Special Forces, has retaken the town over a night raid. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/strategic-town-al-eis-recaptured-night-raid-led-iranian-troops-map-update/

And according to basically everyone else, Gov. forces never came even near the town. We will see soon what happened but I share the opinion of others to bann Al Masdar from this map. This is really getting ridiculus. Here, 10 hours Al Masdar (Leith) basically wrote an article about Qalamoun how the Gov. "destroyed" ISIS etc etc, while SOHR and everyone else wrote how ISIS captured 10 locations and is still in control of them, picture and video evidence was provided. DuckZz (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

DuckZz SOHR said that SAA advance but still not retake the town of Al Eis.here Al Masdar just hastened to declare about take this town. But SOHR said that rebels regain points in the town of Al Zerbah which they lost yesterday when SAA advance and takre part of him.here So maybe there was just a mistake in data . Sûriyeya (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

DuckZz Plus opp. source Step News also reported that the SAA captured Tall Al-Eis. here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Al Masdar later in new article apologize for publishing mistake regarding Tal Al-‘Eis. And when reporters of Al Masdar tried to clarify the information on the ground the IRGC denied reports that SAA/allies imposed full control over Tal Al-‘Eiss. Also source on the ground added that SAA/allies not stormed the area, despite early reports from pro-government social media accounts that asserted Tal Al-‘Eiss was under SAA control. Source said that rebels retreated from Tal Al-‘Eiss earlier after heavy shelling however, they came back and still hold town of Al-‘Eis and its hill.here Sûriyeya (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This rabidity to ban Al-Masdar is getting ridiculous. I mean seriously, Al-Masdar was hardly alone in its mistake and even recanted hours later. If you want al-masdar banned, provide multiple concrete examples of how al-masdar is ruining the map instead of sticking with tired, old generalities [Ex.It's Pro-GOV!]. We have a system that already works and keeps the map accurate. Al-Masdar provides us with valuable info. about government activity, especially against ISIS. If al-masdar happens to be wrong, SOHR fixes. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

XJ-0461 v2 Agree! SOHR and Al Masdar complement each other! Because SOHR sometimes reported that one of sides advance and seized some point or villages but not indicate which points, villages or hills was taken in this situation Al Masdar can help. And SOHR and many others reliable sources also sometimes make mistakes in reports. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree but i still think we should not use single source edits .Editors should provide at least 2 good sources to improve accuracy .86.135.155.150 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebels are claiming new advances in South Aleppo area and have stated Khaliyda, Khan Tuman, Zaytan, and some others I don't see on the map as taken. I have made no edits as its too early to without more concrete information than twitter reports from Rebel Accounts. We should keep an eye out for additional information. Tgoll774 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Firstly reliable source SOHR and Al Masdar only confirmed that the rebels captured Khaliyda and asvance toward SAA-held villages of Zaytan and Birnah. And not one sources not said that Khan Touman contested or taken. So before we do any edits we need provide a data from reliable sources. For now on based SOHR and Al Masdar I marksed as rebels-held a viilage of Khaliyda. But any outhers rebels claims still not confirmed. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable. Its why I made no edits yet. Its often we hear a change and a counter-attack undoes it. Tgoll774 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Later SOHR said that the rebels captured the olive gardens(Tal al-Zaytoun, Tal al-Rabie) near the villages of Zaytan and Birnah and large parts of the village Qal`ajiyah.here Still not confirmations for rebels claims that they captured villages of Zayton or Birnah. Al Masdar also reported that they rebels still trying to advance at Birnah and Zaytun.here So I put a semicircles near Zaytoun and Birnah and put as rebels held a village of Qal`ajiyah. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Later report from opp. source Qasioun News said that the rebels withdrawal from the village Khalidiyah in southern countryside of Aleppo after violent clashes with Syrian regime forces and Shiite militias backed it.here here here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source Al Masdar also said that SAA retake a village of Khalidiyah and and repelled rebels attcks against the villages of Zaytan and Birnah.here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR also said that the SAA again advance in southern Aleppo and retake all points which they lost later.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ISIS Offensive against rebels in northen Aleppo

Opp. source said that ISIS launched offensice agains rebels near Turkish border and take the villages of Kızılmezra (Ghazal),Jarez,Ash Shaykh Rih,Tilal al Husayn,Yahmul,Baraghidah and Tlel Hosn.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Later opp. sources said that the rebels re-seize over the villages of Jarez, Yahmul and Baraghidah in northen countryside of Aleppo.here here and SOHR said that rebels managed to get control of sites was controlled by ISIS.here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Also opp. source said that the intertnational coalition do 5 air-strikes on village of Ghazal north of Aleppo.here Sûriyeya (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Later SOHR said that villages of Ghazal and Baraghidah still under control of ISIS and that they take another two viillages after clashes with rebels.here Sûriyeya (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Manbej offensive

FSA groups from the SDF coalition created the "Manbej military room" to capture Manbej town and it's surounding villages, Kurdish groups (YPG/YPJ.....) not included. Hipotheticaly, when they capture Manbej and villages, we can maybe put some other color, maybe yellow-lime or just lime. I know they're still part of the SDF but I think this is different. DuckZz (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly pushing and showing you're non-SDF opposition bias now. So you're objectives why you are trying to place green dots in SDF controlled territory without source are becoming very clear: You are trying to do NPOV pushing with the objective to minimize the visability of SDF succes/control in contrast to non-SDF-opposition.

In all press releases it clearly states that "Manbij Military Council is formed WITHIN #SDF".

SDF exist of many groups, Christian, Arab, Kurdish, tribal,... In all operations that SDF did not all SDF groups could participate.

Obviously that didn't change anything about it being an SDF operation, putting territory under SDF rule.

Not that it makes a difference, but nowhere it is written that YPG wouldn't participate in taking manbij. The official military council (will to please Erdogan/AKP) not have an YPG representative in it. But that's something completly different from not participating in the campaign as a militairy force. Offcourse YPG will participate in the campaign, it will 'officially' only not have a seat at the table of the military command council. But everybody knows that unofficially they will even have a mayor role in command, and this is only a way to make it seem that :AKP's/Erdogans demands are met, so making it more difficult for him to intervene.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Turkey is not allowing SDF a designated Terrorist Organization by Turkey and FSA to advance on Manbij and has moved artillery to bombard any attempt by them to take the city before FSA's Faylaq al-Sham does. Hence why YPG leader Sahlih Muslim has announced a Raqqah Offensive now. Turkey doesn't care if he takes it, it just weakens his forces further while FSA destroys the Afrin Canton and builds up to take over SDF territory and kick those terrorists out of Syria.Tgoll774 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Who cares what Turkey thinks, they are dogs.

Tgoll774 SDF is not a terrorists they are US-backed democratic forces. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

SDF is part of the KGK Umbrella and its senior military leadership are PKK terrorists. It is a terrorist organization and always was. Arms given to it by the US were smuggled into Turkey and handed to the PKK/YPS/whatever name they choose to use, which was then used to kill Turkish Civilians. The recent suicide attacks in Ankarra were carried out by YPJ fighters who crossed into Turkey from Syria. Tgoll774 (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 is just Erdagons mouth piece and should be ignored and please remember the majority or Turks do not support Erdagons Party 86.178.97.31 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AKP won 50% of the vote and Erdogan 54% of the Vote. AKP's victories would not be possible if the Kurdish Minority didn't support him overwhelmingly over the HDP whose Party Leaders will soon be stripped of immunity and prosecuted for gunrunning for the PKK. Tgoll774 (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

AKP won 46% not 50 thats no majority Erdagons little sock puppet 86.135.154.20 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

ISIS retakes al-Rai

Pro opp twitter [48] claims ISIS has unpicked the rebels' recent advances in N Aleppo.91.84.97.83 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR also said that ISIS retake Al Rai here and villages of Tal Shair,Qanitrah,Qarah Kuz,Kasajik,Tathumus here and opposition sources said that ISIS retake town Al Rai and villages of Tathumus,Qanitrah,Qarah Kuz,Mazra'at Shahin,Kasajik,Tal Shair here here also reliable source Al Masdar said that the ISIS reverses all rebel gains and more in northern Aleppo.here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

So I realy think that after rebels lose Al Rai and some other importent villages to west of this town they also lost a several small villages(Haddabat,Buzlijah, Molla Yakup) to east of Al Rai. And also for now unknow fate of three small villages (Al-Raghbiyah, Tal Ahmar, Shabaniyah) and village of Waqf which now located between ISIS-held a village Kiebe and a town Al Rai. What your think guys? Sûriyeya (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pro-opp. activist from Twitter reported that ISIS retake all area between Al Rain and Tathumus where located a villages of (Al-Raghbiyah, Tal Ahmar, Shabaniyah) and also take village Tal Battal in addition to twelve villages which they seized earlier.here here also source said that all rebel forces retreated on their positions from which thaey started ofensive to take Al Rai.here And these data confirm that rebels lose all villages east of Al Rai(Haddabat,Buzlijah, Molla Yakup) and all villages between ISIS-held Tal Battal and Al Rai including village of Waqf south of Al Rai. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Another opp. source Aleppo24 also said that ISIS captured Al Rai and the surrounding villages including Tal Battal here here but also said that later local factions managed to regain control of the village of Tal Battal.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source Al Masdar also said that the over the past 48 hours, ISIS has launched an astonishing counter-offensive in northern Aleppo and recapturing all villages(Tathumus, Qanitrah, Molla Yaqup, Hadabat, Wuquf, Mazra’at Shahin, Kasajik, Tall Shair, Tall al-Ahmar, Tall Sufayr, Kassajiq and the border-town of Al-Rai itself) lost to rebels in the past week. and that the latest skirmishes are reportedly taking place on the outskirts of Dudiyan and Mare’ as rebel troops are doing all they can to prevent further ISIS gains.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Other opp. activist said ISIS also captured village Kadrish.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposition source Step News said ISIS retake more than 10 villages north of Aleppo.here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Opp. source said that the rebels retake villages Kasajek,Mazrat Shahin,Tal Shair, Khamaliyah,Al Ahmadiyah, Khalfatli and Tal Battal. here here and SOHR also rported that the rebels retake many villages from ISIS.here Sûriyeya (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Who made Hawer Killis IS held? FSA still holds it. The only one claiming IS holds it is Jack Shahine who is spreading nonsense about a massacre there, while castigating Lister on Twitter. Tgoll774 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Opp. source LCCSy said that ISIS take village Hawr Killis‬ in Azaz District.here and this also confirmed other source.here Sûriyeya (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cf7_vE0WsAAIpxg.jpg Amaq, only claims a car bomb attack on Hawar Killis. If they held it, Amaq would be trumpeting it. And FSA tweets would be mentioning it. Tgoll774 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Opp. activist in Twitter said that after regaining control over the village of Hawr Killis near Azaz ISIS executed seven captured Opposition fighters.here But I edit this village as ISIS-held on based data from opposition source and other source which is said that ISIS captured this village. If this not true and we have confirmations from crediable source I do self revert and again put this village to under control of rebels. You can give me link on ISIS source which said abiut bomb attack in vilage Hawar Killis. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/sam_samson24/status/720325970125688832 Okay here is the Wiyalet Halab announcement of 7 FSA fighters captured, but not from Hawar Killis, video has been deleted by the servers. https://twitter.com/elaaide2/status/720296491978461184 A translated Amaq release from today again mentions just a SVBIED attack. These are all from Amaq which disseminates its message through social media. All FSA sources deny Hawar Killis fell and there is no IS source saying it fell. So far it looks like Jack Shahine created the rumor and others picked it up. But Amaq and IS are not claiming to hold it nor are their usual twitter bugs. SOHR has not mentioned it, nor did its director on his personal Twitter account. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Also here original report about Martyrdom operation in the village of Hawar Kilis from Amaq.here And yes this a very strange that a pro-ISIS sources not claime that ISIS take this village. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 And I looked on a page of Jack Shahine here and he is not a primary source of these data. He take these data from this source Fraternity Foundation here This a source which I used together with the opposition source for edit Hawar Killis. Sûriyeya (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet all other sources including IS deny. If IS is denying the claim, I think we should revert, especially as Wiyalet Halab isn't claiming it. Tgoll774 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Opposition source Qasioun News said that the ISIS captured villages of Hawar Killis and Baraghidah and Kafr Ghan.here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR also said that ISIS captured villages Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan and Jarez.here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

According to opp. source and other source Ikidah(Zayzafun) and Kafr Shush taken ISIS.here here But unclear situation with Hawr Killis.here Opp. sources and ISIS sources yesterday and today said that ISIS take this villagehere here here here here but later opp. source said thay they retake Hawar Killis.here Maybe in someone have a more data? Sûriyeya (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that rebels retake 3 villages (Hawar Killis, Jarez and Yahmul) but 3 villages still ISIS-held.here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hawar Kilis?

Why is Hawar Kilis black? Mughira1395 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mughira1395 Read this discussion.here All it indicated at the bottom of the discussion. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, this was my mistake. I read only the news about the car bomb today, to find, that the town on the map was already with ISIS, what seemed to be strange... Mughira1395 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No matter what were the disagreements about Hawar Kilis. Now it seems that ISIS not only took this town, but also Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan, Kafr Shush and Ikidah. According to social medias (relaying on Amaq). Al-Jazeera and opposition are confirming that ISIS took control of towns on the turkish border. SOHR spokes about ISIS taking control of the "area" of Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan and Jarez (to the west), without naming specific towns taken by ISIS Mughira1395 (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that rebels retake 3 villages (Hawar Killis, Jarez and Yahmul) but 3 villages still ISIS-held.here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, Al Masdar says Hawar Killis is under IS control, but I wonder whether they are using old information and today's SOHR article is more up to date. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-flee-across-turkish-border-isis-snatches-villages-map-update/ What do you guys think of this? Is it more likely to be IS controlled or opposition controlled, based on the evidence? PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Right now IS is not claiming to hold it, so keep it FSA till they say yeah they lost it. But it is a fluid situation at the moment so lets hold off changes for today till we get more concrete information and the offensives peter out. Tgoll774 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Today morning opp. sources said ISIS take Hawar Killis and ISIS source Amaq claimed that they captured Hawar Killis here but later SOHR said that rebels retake Hawar Killis, Jarez and Yahmul.here Sûriyeya (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Even Amaq just confirmed that Hawar Kilis and Ikadah were abandoned by ISIS after they have tooked both towns before. It confirms on the other hand that the towns of Kafr Ghan, Baraghidah, Kafr Shush and - that it new for us - Yeni Yaban (southwest of Dudiyan) were taken and still with ISIS. Mughira1395 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Mughira1395 You can give link on ISIS source which said that ISIS abandoned of the town Ikadah. And SOHR also earlier today said that rebels retakethe three villages but ISIS still hold three villages.here plus opp. activist said that rebels retake Dalhah, Yahmul and Tall Hussayn, Ikdah, Hawar Killis, Harjalah and Jarez but the villages of Kafr Ghan, Baraghidah, Yan Yaban still ISSI-held.here here here Sûriyeya (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course: https://a3maqagency.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/تقدم-جديد-لمقاتلي-الدولة-الإسلامية-قر Mughira1395 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Mughira1395 PutItOnAMap In the beginning of April (2 April) opp. source Qasioun News said that the village Murayghil is ISIS-held.here But later someone put this village to rebels-held without source so that probably we need again marked this village as ISIS-held also village Yani Yaban north of Murayghil still ISIS-held. Also here source said that yesterday ISIS advanced North from village Al Tughali and captured Baraghidah,Kafr Ghan,Hawar Killis,Aykadah, Harjalah,Jariz and Yahmul. But rebels regained control of Aykadah, Hawar Killis, Yahmul and Jariz and Tall Ahmar, a few kilometers from Al Ra’i.here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

PutItOnAMap Reliable source said that villages Aykadah, Hawar Killis, Harjalah, Mazra Shahin and Tall al-Ahmar is rebels-held.here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Khanasser

There are unconfirmed reports IS cut the Khanasser Road again. I have not made any edits, as its just twitter rumors right now. But we need to keep an eye out here for more information as it comes in. Tgoll774 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Tgoll774 It is a fals news. Crediable sources said that SAA counterattacked ratake several villages and push ISIS to east.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah

Please, please, admins, will You finally block user: LightandDark2000. He just keeps doing crazy edits. Take this edit. He used news about SAA taking a hill 20 km E of Qaryatan in order to prove that al-Mihassah, which is 17 km ~~east~~ south(!!!) od Qaryatan must have been takne by SAA. To visual how crazy this edit was, please check this wikimapia map. I don't think it makes any sense to try to talk to this guy, so I will go talk to admins. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hogg 22 Small clarification al-Mihassah located 17km south of city Qaryatayn. But my clarification does not dispute your claim about status of al-Mihassah. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There is more!!! In this edit, he used this article to change the village of Al-Qasr to "mixed control" and also to change 2 other unrelated locations (al-Buthaynah Training Grounds and Tall Sa'd) to SAA-held. The article is very small, let me copy it here, with all village/hills names (it's just 1!) bolded:

Minutes ago in the Al-Sweida Governorate’s northeastern countryside, the Syrian Arab Arab (SAA) carried out a successful ambush along the main road leading to the village of Al-Qasr. This attack resulted in the destruction of 4 armored vehicles and over 20+ terrorists killed from the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) in northeastern Al-Sweida. According to a military source at the 5th Armored Division’s headquarters in Izra’a, the Syrian Arab Army laid the ambush on the ISIS convoy after scouts informed them of the terrorist group’s movements near the village of Al-Qasr. The source added that the Syrian Arab Army was unable to identify any of the ISIS terrorists because none of them possessed proper identification.

The 3 locations can be seen here.

@Hogg 22: - if you want action you need to post diffs to the AN thread.

Brig. 550, north of Palmyra

It seems that north of Palmyra there must be some changes. Either to black or to contested: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-threatens-liberated-palmyra/ Mughira1395 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mughira1395 Source not said that Brigade 550 under control of ISIS or contested. Source just said that ISIS presence in area of this base. We can edit military base only if a source clear indicate which side is controll army base or that this base contested. But source ealy said that the SAA retake a base of Brigade 550 from ISIS.here Source not said that SAA lose Brigade 550 so we can't edit this point on based just assumptions or based own interpretation of the data. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sûriyeya I see what you mean. There is no direct mention, that the base fall to ISIS. But, what means exactly when they say: "ISIS is pushing south of the Brigade 550 Base"? For me that means, if we suppose, that ISIS did not take the base (I agree with you), that they are in fact south of the base and pushing further south, not necessarily through the base, but by bypassing it either from west or east. Do you agree with me at least on that understanding of the sentence? Mughira1395 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mughira1395 It's just a suggestion and their can be very much. The source could simply make a mistake in the report, and in fact ISIS push south to Brigade 550 or near this base. Also source said that Brigade 550 it is the last military installation before the Al-‘Amariyah District in northern Palmyra. So if we make the assumption then in this case the most probable thing is that source just wanted said that ISIS pushes of south toward this base. However, so for now we only have clear data which confirm that SAA retake Brigade 550 from ISIS and nothing more specific. So accoeding to rules we can do edit only if we have data from crediable source which can provide this edit. Source only said about ISIS presence somewhere in area this base and nothing more but this not enoth for edit status of this military base. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention anything about changing colours. I even agreed with you. I was only thinking about the meaning of the sentence. ;-) Mughira1395 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

We can now confirm that IS either retook it or that reports of it losing it are incorrect. This is the second article implying (this time actually stating) that it is under IS control. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-launches-large-scale-campaign-strike/ Also, it is the second to mention Al Bardeh, a significant village that I cannot find on wikimapia or our own map. Could it be an alternative translation of Al-Baydhah, or some other village? In which case, we need to change the mark of that village to black. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

PutItOnAMap Source just said that Syrian Air Force targeted ISIS positions at(near) Brigade 550 near the Al-‘Amariyah District.here When source said "at" this means near or in vicinity. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

When they were referring to Arak and Suknah, they wrote "at" and IS is "in" them; I thought it would be safe to say that therefore, when they say IS is "entrenched at" Brigade 550, they control it. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No! SAF strike ISIS position inside Arak and Sukhah and all area along road from Palmyra to Sukhah and about this also reported SOHR and many oher sources. But source earlier clear without any questions said that SAA retake Brigade 550 from ISIS and we only can change status of this strategic base if source clear said that ISIS retake or SAA retreated from this base. I realy think that we can't edit status of strategic towns, military bases or facilities on based not clear data. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

New confirmation from SOHR, Al Masdar and some other sources said that SAA take Base 550 and Jabal Al Mazar.here here here here here here And anti-governmnet source Step News also showed on his map that SAA take Jabal al Mazar and Base 550 under control of SAA.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Same, Different Day

<3 how al-Masdar was used to change Brigade 550 to SAA held based on its 3.25.2016 article, and then made no mention of it being retaken by IS or that the original claim was erroneous, but reported its actual fall to the SAA 4.20.2016. <3 it. Quality stuff. Really adds to the accuracy of this template. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid SOHR also confirmed that SAA advance it this area and take Jabal Mazar and some other new points. And some other sources including anti-SAA source Step News also confirmed SAA gains in this area. Probably it is we made mistake as in report from 25 March Al Masdar said SAA take HQ of Brigade 550 but now take entier base. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Many sources also said earlier that rebels retake some villages from ISIS north of Aleppo but not said that ISIS later again retake them and only today rebels again retake them but on map these villages all this time was as a rebels-held. Sometimes sources not have a time to handle the data and because of this not report new data in a timely manner. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This happens with all sources but once again the anti Al Masdar editors are at it again .How erroneous its becoming 109.152.121.116 (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Qalamoun

There is a significant amount of fighting going on in in this area and I am pretty sure some parts of the map are either incomplete or simply wrong. Batallion 559 and the junction chechepoint are already put as IS held. But, because of troop movement in the area I am sincerely doubting that Rebels are holding the following places: Khirbat Butaymat, Saba Bayer, Rujm Mamur, and possibly Sad Rishe. If anybody has sources that they're actually Rebel and not IS held I'll retract my statement.

Furthermore, Khan Abu al Shamat and possibly the Badia Cement plant should be put on the map, and should be monitored the next fews days because some minor social media stuff has shown IS attacks. I believe it is SAA held, but there are reports of IS capturing the area, but they're all based on preliminairy Twitter stuff. Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.704349&lon=37.009163&z=12&m=b Sources: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-emir-damascus-killed-failed-eastern-qalamoun-offensive/, https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-repels-isis-attack-qalamoun-kills-top-emir/,

Based on the almasdar map, (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-east-al-qariyatein/), points in between al-Bardah and Tiyas Airbase should be red. There are two points north, Tulul al Khaddariyah and Qasr al Heir, that seem to have switched sides long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.137.18 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)