Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

Tal Khalakh

This interesting LA times article talks about Tal Khalakh. It looks like this town on the map should be made into a "reconciliation" town with the red green red dot. http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-reconciliation-20140309,0,468108.story?page=2#axzz2vTz5KASW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.217.217 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In Tal Khalakh militants surrendered their weapons and swore allegiance to the government. But that would not repeat the fate of the city Al Quseir renounced the revolutionary struggle and went over to the government side. Carefully read the source even opposition activist confirms that the city captured by the army:"What happened in Tal Khalakh is not a truce, it's a military occupation," said Aboud Dandachi, an exiled antigovernment activist who comes from a prominent family in the town.Los Angeles Times Hanibal911 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Many reliable sources confirmed that the city Tal Kalakh came under the control of the army at the end of June 2013.The IndependentNews 24ReutersChicago TribuneThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In Tal Kalakh at the end od June 2013 the rebels surrendered to the government without even fighting,and some of them changed their mind and passed to the government side so there's no need to change the dot http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/tal-kalakh-syrias-rebel-town-that-forged-its-own-peace-deal-8673695.html FS1991 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It started out as an agreement, similar to the ones that are being facilitated today. Difference is in the end the Army has taken complete control. EkoGraf (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Knowing personnaly people from there, I understoud last summer from them that the rebels and activists, after the defeat of Qussayr surrended completely and gave their weapons and themselves to the government army. So it's not a truce as what is happening in Damascus countryside like it is said by the activist in the article an "occupation".Oussj (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The current situation in Telkelakh is not a truce. If you check the deaths in Talkalkah at the time the army occupied the town (June 22 2013 to June 25 2013) at http://www.vdc-sy.info/index.php/ar/martyrs/1/c29ydGJ5PWEua2lsbGVkX2RhdGV8c29ydGRpcj1ERVNDfGFwcHJvdmVkPXZpc2libGV8ZXh0cmFkaXNwbGF5PTB8Mz0lRDglQUElRDklODQlRDklODMlRDklODQlRDglQUV8 you will see that from the high number of both civilians and combatant deaths, that the Syrian army went in with guns blazing. A truce is only a truce if both sides are allowed to keep their weapons. In Talkalakh, the remaining rebels surrendered, but were not heard from again after surrendering to the regime, they went into imprisonment and disappeared. Therefore the current situation in the down falls under the definition of a military occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AboudDandachi (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Kasab village contested

They said heavy clashes continued around Kasab crossing and a nearby village of the same name - both about 5 miles from the coast - a day after rebels launched their assault

http://news.yahoo.com/rebels-battle-syria-border-post-near-mediterranean-145446383.html Sopher99 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But Sopher your source clearly says that Assad's forces were still in control of Kasab village.Yahoo News Hanibal911 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

back Nawa to red! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.45.12 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Kasab is under the control of NDF and SAA. Kasab crossing is under siege by Nusra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.230.122 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting news from a third party (Kasab inhabitants are Armenians): [1] [2] [3] Maybe Kesab shoulb be given a green ring around while waiting further news? Paolowalter (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But these sources do not say that the village is surrounded by rebels and also not says that the clashes around the village your sources just said that clashes near the village Kesab. This is also confirm to Reuters.her Hanibal911 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

here is video from kessab, rebels are definittely inside village, you can put contested or not, i dont care :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB_0HyPI-i4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.195.10 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Youtube Videos are never used as sources on Wikipedia [Other than those posted by reliable sources in certain circumstances]. Too much information that can be falsified. Thanks Dr Marmilade (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Rebels seize border village kesab, here is source http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-24/251180-rebels-seize-border-village-as-regime-warplanes-bomb-frontier.ashx#axzz2wsFrC3Z9 please put it in green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.76.252.178 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a map from a pro-government source on the kesab border[4]. Can some add the small villages to the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR

It has been used and keeps being used as source for rebels advances. Is it allowed Yes or No? We need to discuss as I see some people want to make an exception with it, which I would disagree unless we agree with a pro governement web for SAA advances.--Andres arg (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is a source who openly oppose the Syrian government and therefore can not be neutral so it can not be used to display the achievements of the rebels as well as SANA, Press TV and Fars News can not be used to display the progress of the army and this should be the rule for all. If we will not adhere to such a principle then any editor can use any source of opposition to display success rebels but also any of the editors can be to use pro government source to display the progress of the army and map turn into a rubbish. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But I think that we can use data from SOHR and many other sources except data from blogs, facebook and YouTube to display the clashes the Kurds (YPG) vs ISIS or the rebel fighters vs ISIS. I think many editors would agree with me. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they oppose or support this party or another, because wikipedia allows all RELIABLE sources to be put per WP:NPOV. Hence, the question is whether it is reliable, and not whether it is POV (there is no such a thing a "neutral" source, since all sources are POV in this way or another).GreyShark (dibra) 19:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I still do not agree. The "rebellion" is not one united corpse. It's not like the govenment side where mostly everything is decided by the same decisional chain of command. SOHR is surely opposed to government but is also apposed with many rebel groups committing exactions. They are a human rights organization and like all these kind of NGOs SOHR do not "support" armed rebels on the ground. We here, on this map, are working on the progression of armed groups... it's not exactly the same thing. Beeing opposed to the government in Syria committing exactions is a position shared by more than the half of countries around the world. Should we stop using Le Monde or The New York Times too ?? Moreover, SOHR is still used by many very serious and professional medias. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-14/250272-al-qaeda-splinter-group-in-syria-leaves-two-provinces-activists.ashx#axzz2woghhWJq http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-02/248966-al-qaeda-splinter-group-denies-killing-islamist-rival-in-syria.ashx#axzz2woghhWJq Eventually, SOHR has quiet never be wrong on anything except for very very rare exceptions (Aleppo Prison which they said they have maid a mistake a few hours after), and has quiet always given us facts. You know, you should hear syrian opposants speaking about Rami Abdul-Rahman and SOHR... Sometimes, when he give realistic numbers based on his own network and not rumors peddled by twitter and facebook, they insult him nearly as much as they insult Assad himself. Oussj (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably do not understand what I mean. I'm not against the use of data SOHR but if their confirmed any reliable source but we should not use data directly from site SOHR because many reliable sources are also used data from the agency SANA or Lebanese channel Al Mayadeen but we do not use their data is not directly from the site SANA or channel Al Mayadeen. here is an example: The Wall Street Journal uses data from SANA or Reuters uses data from SANAAl Jazeera uses data from SANA I just suggest not to use the data directly from site SOHR or SANA. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors stop using data from sites pro opposition sources to display rebel advances. Because this information is not confirmed in the neutral sources. This also creates a situation in which other editors will use pro government sources to display the army advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The question should be the neutrality and reliability of the reporting of the source.
Does SOHR report the facts without bias, or does it report propaganda ? Its' reports are always objective in tone, and are accurate with very few exceptions. From time to time they have made errors, which they quickly correct. Sometimes perceived errors are just a lack of detail, a problem common to all sources.
  • Comparing SOHR to SANA, it is obvious that SANA, as well as being an organ of a party to the conflict (which disqualifies it from neutrality), regularly reports propaganda which is either strictly false, or a distortion of the facts.
  • Just because a source may prefer one side over another in a conflict does not make its' reporting biased. This principle is clearly stated in WP guidelines. (What normal human being with respect for human rights would not prefer that the Assad regime loose power ? Let's not forget that the SOHR is first and foremost a human rights organization focused on Syria.)
  • Another source that is often called into question here is the Arab Chronicle. Again, their reporting has been accurate with few exceptions (always quickly corrected), and presented in a neutral and unbiased fashion. As well its' reports often arrive much sooner than other sources, making it a useful source. Any editorials by this source are presented as such. Again, any problems from this source are due to the occasional lack of details, which can leave ambiguity. Note that this source is a researcher who specializes in the region.
  • So in sum, I think that we should consider the reliability of the source, as well as the neutrality of the reporting, including whether the source is a party to the conflict.
This of course disqualifies SANA as a neutral source, but not SOHR, and in my mind not AC either.
  • Let's not forget our map guidelines for updating our tables and the map :
  1. Neutral reliable sources can be used for any update.
  2. Biased pro-rebel sources can be used to update regime advances.
  3. Biased pro-regime sources can be used to update rebel advances.
  • Note that in addition to considering neutrality and reliability, we should also consider if the particular report has sufficient detail to support the conclusions we apply to our map. This criteria should be applied to all reports, whether from a neutral reliable source or not.
  • Note also that the question of facebook/youtube/twitter is a red herring. WP guidelines says that MOST sources on those particular socially-oriented media are just opinions not necessarily based on facts, and such sources cannot be considered reliable. However MOST is not all. The evident implication of using MOST is that SOME sources on those media CAN be considered reliable. Evidently both SOHR and Arab Chronicle fall in the domain of sources that can be considered reliable.
However the factor of sufficient detail (as mentioned above) still applies. With twitter we also have the factor of stability. Some change accurately reported on twitter at this moment may no longer be true tomorrow, or even in 30 minutes. (The situation in Raqqa city in January, where briefly the ISIS was loosing against the rebels, is a case in point.)
André437 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
As usual, trying to make partisan sources look like neutral, something very similar (if not the same) as POV-pushing. If Arab Chronicle is neutral, Syrian Perspective is also neutral (Of course, neither of them are). AC has been pointed as a very inaccurate source by several sources, both pro-government, anti-government and neutral ones (for example, by real experts on the issue, not amateurish activist students like the AC owner). And calling it "neutral and unbiased" (LOL) is very, very laughable, even a blind would see the clear POV-pushing of Cedric Labrousse (calling ISIS fighters "occupyers", loyalists "thugs", if that's neutrality...), sometimes nearly touching the sectarianism (calling almost any pro-government unit "alawites", when tens of thousands of sunnis are fighting for the government). Your behaviour is simply showing a clear partisan double standard, you aint fooling no one...--HCPUNXKID 17:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Funny how everyone else is POV pushing, yet you can never discuss anything objectively. It is like you grew up in a boxing ring. Or maybe you were an only child.
It is true that AC favours democracy and freedom, and he criticizes regime and rebel forces alike when they cross that barrier. He also criticizes all sides for human rights violations. However, as I stated above, his reporting of events is entirely objective, and that is what counts according to WP guidelines. As well, in much of the country he is able to give much better details of events much sooner, because of his contacts on the ground. This is more detailed and sooner than even the SOHR. Interestingly, the SOHR has started reporting details about rebel organizations, something AC has done from the beginning of his coverage of Syria.
Note that until recently he published only in french, making his reports less accessible to much western media.
You mention a few points :
  1. Calling ISIS "occupiers". Indeed, he started doing this recently in his twitter posts when the ISIS started evicting entire villages (arabs and kurds alike) to take possession of their houses. Entirely reasonable.
  2. He has sometimes referred to people as thugs when they murder others for their possessions. This has included both pro-regime shabiha and ISIS, as well as from other groups.
  3. He doesn't call regime fighters "alaouites", but rather "loyalists", as is usual in academic circles. He sometimes refers to the religion of residents of towns, particularly if asked. Unlike SOHR, which frequently mentions these facts.
Nothing in his reports suggests biased reporting on his part. If you have an example, please present it. André437 (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There's no worst blind than the one who dont want to see. You dont recognize your fails never (remember your infamous and embarrasing Liveleak episode), and always try to distort facts or hide the parts that dont fit with your biased narrative. Keep selling that AC is neutral, as you could see below no one buys you that, (irony on) better luck next time! (irony off).--HCPUNXKID 00:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself! If you say that the SANA supports government and this source is not neutral in this I agree with you but SOHR opposes the Syrian government this means that their messages cant be absolutely neutrals. But Arab Chronicle source which you are trying to present as neutral although most of the data in this source published on based the amateur video clips made by the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I am saying that SANA is the government, a party to the conflict. SOHR is an observer, which has shown itself to be neutral in its' reporting. Note that WP guidelines say that even though a source may prefer a certain point of view, it can still be an objective reporter of events. This is very much the case for SOHR.
As for Arab Chronicle, it has contacts on the ground very much as SOHR. Being a researcher focusing on the arab world and the middle east, he has a somewhat different, more academic approach than the SOHR. As well as initially publishing only in french, which is less accessible to most western media. André437 (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the Arab Chronicle which is biaised (maybe less than SANA but I don't believe this the right standard to use...) and let's focus about SOHR. I believe that putting SANA and SOHR in one basket is not serious. SANA BELONGS to the Syrian Government... SOHR do not belong to anyone. You just cannot compare SOHR reliability with SANA's... But what you are saying about the use of their information is interesting, and I believe should be applied on SANA, but not for SOHR.Oussj (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to state my opinion. SOHR, although a pro-opposition activist group, has shown to be fairly un-biased in the conflict by reporting both government and rebel massacres, losses and advances. This has earned them not just the rage of government supporters but rebel supporters as well. Their high reliability is seen in that reliable news media like AFP, AP, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, etc have all stated SOHR is the authoritative source on this conflict. Not to mention 90 percent of what SOHR reports turns out to be true within a day. So, comparing SOHR to SANA (heavily pro-government) or Arab Chronicle (heavily pro-opposition) is not even possible. And we SHOULD use SOHR as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you EkoGraf.Oussj (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Badrousieh, Latakia

May I request this town on the coast of Latakia be added also but under Government control. Source Location.--Homan 056k (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

559 base in qalamoun

There are sources saying that the rebels have captured the 559 storage base in qalamoun

http://eaworldview.com/2014/03/syria-daily-regime-discussions-assads-future/#qalamoun Alhanuty (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But this is just the statement the pro opposition source and no more us need confirmation from the more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The article say Qalamoun, then refers to a road between Damascus and the middle of the desert in eastern Homs. It would help to localize this base, closer than a few hundred km. As far as capturing some storage base, that is evident in the accompanying videos. There have been some reports that it is in proximity of Dumayr city. André437 (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's HERE, although I highly doubt they would take the base and hold most likely a "Raid & Take" type of mission in order to get supplies.--Homan 056k (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding labels to military infrastructure

I dont know who add that info to the map, but I think that it must be discussed here after adding it. I dont support it, as the map would look more overloaded than it is now. And of course, if the labels are finally added, they must be added to all military sites, not a few. What do you think?--HCPUNXKID 16:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Tal Abyad

I read that the Syrian National Coalition (the main opposition organization) had condemned an Isis offensive on Tal Abyad and Kobane. Is the map outdated ?Oussj (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The attack on "Kobane" is on the larger area around it. I don't think the ISIS is actually at the outskirts of that town. Our map shows the ISIS in control of Tal Abyad, but twitter messages I've seen indicate that there is still at least a YPG presence there, if not in total control. André437 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's clearly for the best, but the rules on the map are sometimes quiet too much complicated... Oussj (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Khabour River

There are new reports (just on twitter so far) about the advancement of ISIS against rebel forces along Khabour River. reports that all villages north of Suwar were captured, as well as Al-Busayrah on the Euphrates. If anyone has reliable sources on this offensive then maybe we can change those towns. Malik Danno (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ISIS militants seized the town of Al-Busayrah in the Deir ez-Zor province.Hawar News Hanibal911 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Samra

Please add Al-Samra in Latakia province as government-held (red dot) please. Source here [5]. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Add all the cities visible here[6]. I think there will happen a lot in nothern Latakia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it funny how overwhelmingly pro-Assad the editors on this map are. Adding new red dots for hamlets and ditches the SAA happens to take cover in while retreating - it's genius. And using a military base icon to represent Hill 45 - oh man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.26 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding new red dots for hamlets and ditches the SAA happens to take cover in while retreating - it's genius. As far as I've seen recently in western Homs and Qalamoun it has been the rebels who are taking cover in ditches mostly while retreating, but in any case, article talk pages are not forums for these kinds of discussions per Wikipedia policy. EkoGraf (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the following [7] stating that both al-Samra and Kasab are contested. Maybe we should update the map correspondingly. Paolowalter (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I know these are not 2nd source, but just to inform you, Rebels reached the coast at Turkish border: https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/448480788275675136 https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/448437577558011904

By the way broadcast tower is captured at: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.845195&lon=35.972800&z=16&m=b https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0rL-br4zfM&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly we do not use sources of opposition to show success the rebels and secondly the village of Samra already noted the under rebel control but on the basis of a more reliable source.Washington Post Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I found [8] and turned kessab red but then I found also [9] that says the opposite. Remember that Kesab is inhabited by Armenian. I am puzzled. What about going for contested? Paolowalter (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I also found [10] stating that Kesab is contested. Paolowalter (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The syrian perspective has own admitted that the rebels have captured Karadouran beach on the Mediterranean Sea.Alhanuty (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better to have Kesab as contested, as it is in a state of flux. None of the last 3 references (from Paolowalter) is enough to be sure of the status. The last essentially says the whole area (except the border post) is contested, which is probably all those not there really know. Although it is clear from videos that at least one church is (or at least was) occupied by the rebels.
Note that the Samra beach (Karadouran) area has only 1 or 2 houses (by google map). The Samra village is inland, 5 km away. There are a few videos showing the rebels on the beach, if we want to add that to the map.
BTW Samra and Nab'ain were too far north on our map, according to google maps. I just fixed their positioning. Could everyone adding locations on the map please first verify positioning with google maps (or similar tool) ? Samra had been put right on the border (it is over a km away), and Nab'ain had been put almost where Samra is. André437 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more sources on Latakia:

http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/110758271 http://www.newsuk24.com/news/syrian-rebels-and-army-clash-over-coastal-town/related

I think we should make Kassab town green with a red circle, since there are loyalist troops near the town and shelling is ongoing. Qastal Maaf should be added as contested. Maybe we should add Hill Observatory 45 as rebel held. It was a major governement checkpoint in the area. Since I see a lott of red checkpoints (brick factories etc.) I argue that major rebel checkpoints are also added. It seems a little bit unfair this way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right, putting only SAA checkpoints in the map is so unfair, as it gives the impression that its the only side who uses them, while all the rest (FSA, Islamic Front, ISIS, YPG, etc..) use them. But, sadly, it seems that the only answer to that here is: Add them by yourself...--HCPUNXKID 23:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

kessab is seized by rebels and clashes is ongoin in qastal maaf,so please put kessab in green and qastal maaf as contested, here is source http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-26/251321-syrian-rebels-and-army-clash-over-coastal-town.ashx#axzz2x4EjX5Gm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.76.252.178 (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now the villages Nabaan and Qastal Maafpod full control of the army and Syrian army and the NDF moving from villages Nabaan and Qastal Maaf in sideways the city Kassab.The Washington TimesChanel 9ABC 7 Hanibal911 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

New information: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/27/activists-syrian-warplanes-bomb-rebels-in-latakia/

Al-Nab'in is rebel held and shelled by the governement. Fighting is still ungoing around Qastal Maaf. I also suggest making Duzaghaj contested. Some source claim it is rebel held, and this seems to be the case because rebel fighters are attacking Qustal Maaf from the Duzaghaj direction (Observatory 45 is near there). Arab Chronicle says it is, but I agree that is a little pro-rebel. So contested untill we find some clear source?

Read this article to the end there is clearly stated that the army and the National Defense Forces are moving toward Kassab from Nabaan and Qastal Maaf.[11]WF TV9ABC 7WLOX 10ABC NEWS 10FOX NEWS Hanibal911 (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

here is source from today 28/03/2014 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-28/251522-regime-fights-back-against-rebel-gains-in-latakia.ashx#axzz2x9LYKF17 "Fierce clashes were ongoing as the army tried to wrestle back Kasab and nearby village of Nabaain, both seized by the rebels." so stop make shits and put both villages in green

Not need to distort the meaning of the data because your source just says that there are fights and the army is trying to discourage these villages previously captured by the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

Falitah taken by SAA http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-27/251435-syrian-army-hezbollah-advance-on-flita.ashx#axzz2xAVOoPuA 152.74.13.43 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a robot, but obviously it/you did not understand the request, which was quite clear. Please don't watch this page for such requests, we are quite able to handle them. André437 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but your link only says "The Syrian Army and Hezbollah are advancing on the village of Flita". So wait til you have some information. BTW, it isn't even on the map.
Also, you only need to post your info here, which is what this page is for. No need for that silly "edit semi-protected" template. André437 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

falitah is contested, not in syrian army hands.

[12] Falitah and Ras-Marra are taken by the army. 87.5.42.125 (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ras al-Maarra and Flita

The Syrian troops took control the villages of Ras al-Maarra and Flita.The Daily StarAgence France PressMSN News Hanibal911 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Good News! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.163 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


pro rebel user what is going on with you??? why you change again as contested? put back to red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.104.201 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to red even Al-Jazeera confirms it but Sopher99 says that it is government TV so next time he makes an edit about a rebel advance I will revert him and will ask him to go to Syria and make sure they advanced. Daki122 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by SOHR [13], so case closed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be really nice from everyone to stop acting like little childs... Maybe the first source to speak about an advance is always a source attached to the party that made it... But when it's really true and not propaganda, a serious and reliable source confirm it quickly. Oussj (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish villages

YPG said the operation targeted the ISIS bases in the villages of Rawiya El Dehmam, located in west Serêkaniyê, both of which -according to the statement- were liberated from gang groups.Firat News Maybe someone knows the coordinates these villages that we could add them on the map:

Rawiya and El Dehmam.

Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There is already a village "Dehma" on our map as kurd controled in the area indicated. It is close to several ISIS controled villages. I couldn't find Rawiya on the map or via google map search.
I suspect from looking at the article that it should have been translated "Rawiya and Dehmam" and not "Rawiya El Dehmam", as it does explicitly indicate 2 villages. André437 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

dahisha,that wa added by hannibal,is under isil control,and the ypg has no presens in souther hasaka gov.and who ruined the map. Alhanuty (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

For info, the 2 villages referred to are in northern Hasaka province, close to/ west of Serêkaniyê = Ras al-Ayn, which is a city by the Turkish border. André437 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nab’ain, Latakia

According to the following link, Nab'ain should be switched from red to green. http://eaworldview.com/2014/03/syria-daily-insurgents-advance-latakia-offensive/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredwhytekid (talk • contribs) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this source reliable ?Oussj (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

For those who do not know this pro opposition source. Because much of information this source is based on rebel amateur video from YouTube and data from the rebel activists. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In my experience yes. Would welcome editor's take on acceptability of source.Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fifth paragraph from the bottom supports rebel consolidation. http://www.aawsat.net/2014/03/article55330594 Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Samra, Nab'ain and Kesab became contested since yesterday midnight, sources will be provided soon.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a report/video of a Nab'ain consolidated by rebels, today. http://eaworldview.com/2014/03/syria-daily-new-frontlines-settle-latakia-qalamoun/Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

But the village Nab'ayn already marked on the map under rebel control and stop publish data from the pro opposition sources. Because its data we cant use for the editing of this map that would display the rebels advances. I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Touche'. Ok so eaworldview is considered pro opposition for the purposes of this map. I'm new to this forum, but an exhaustive amateur researcher on the civil war.. enlighten me: any recommended sources/cites that adhere to the "source quality standards" of this project? I'd like to participate - and not in the capacity of 'oh hey look that jerk posted another unusable source"... Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Kobane to nested circle status

ARA news is reporting that Kobane is a besieged city. ISIS's ability to cut power/water supplies suggests that Kobane should be marked yellow with black circle. http://www.aranews.org/en/home/kurdish-region/1197-isil-tightens-siege-on-kobane-city,-north-syria.htmlBoredwhytekid (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Militaryly the town isn't sieged,the region is,so we can put black rings on the frontline cities.71.172.145.224 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

QUSTUL MAAF // QASTAL MA'AF

Yahoo reports Qustul Maaf is contested / "surrounded by rebels" - does that correspond with the town Qastal Ma'af on the map? http://news.yahoo.com/more-50-syria-rebels-jihadists-killed-ngo-175512441.htmlBoredwhytekid (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the town, but the fighting is around it, not in it. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nab' al-Murr (Duzaghaj)

Unfortunately, this village which is located just next to the Kesab border checkpoint, is under al-Nusra control. Its Arabic name is Nab' al-Murr.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

source? Amensnober91 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source with a brand new detailed map [14]. Note that the black flag shown is the Al-Nusra flag.

You know that your source is from a pure assad propaganda media right. You don't really expect us to consider Syrian Perspectiv to be a "source".Oussj (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see his source using biased words as "regime" or "terrorist". But the map is fairly in line with the wikipedia one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.80.29 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Even though, "Syrian Perspectiv" is a well known pro regime source. Oussj (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Turkish forces in Syria?

This report seems to say that Turkish forces are either in or about to enter Syria. There's also some background information here. Syrian Perspective is claiming that Turkish tanks have entered Syria.

If this all holds up, a new colour to the map may need to be added. Esn (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

These claims are void. Turkey has Firtina artillery which has 40 kms range (the tomb is 35 kms far from border). Even without air-support Turkey can easily defeat any ISIS attack. Coordinates around tomb is calculated and artillery is positioned to handle any unwanted situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think turkish will ever enter Syria itself... these are probably just government propaganda to explain the recent losses of ground... Let's just wait for reliable sources. Oussj (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian mentions the leaked audio tape in which senior Turkish military officials discuss plans to intervene in Syria, causing Turkey to block access to Youtube today. The Youtube video itself is here, and a purported translation into English is here and here. A Turkish MP is said to have alleged that Syria shot down a Turkish drone plane that flew over Syrian territory recently. Esn (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if you took a look at other nsnbc.me posts, but that is the private site of a rabid conspiracy freak apparently based in the US. He almost makes Syrian perspective look moderate, another radical US-based site. I would take any claims by nsnbc.me with a ton of salt. Note that in the US any nut can publish almost anything, protected by flaws in the US constitution. It is a hate mongers paradise. André437 (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of its history, no. It shows up sometimes when I do Google News searches. In this case, NSNBC was not the source of the news but a Turkish news site called Aydınlık... apparently tied to a local socialist/communist party. I don't know how reliable it is either, but the Wikipedia article, at least, doesn't mention any particular controversies. Esn (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

From SOHR [15] I suggest that al-Nab’ein and Salma and Kasab (and probably smaller places not reported yet on the map) go contested. Any objection? Paolowalter (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure. Salma has been bombarded for 3 years without clashes from regime forces on the ground. It says clashes in the perimeters of the Salma area. The town is surrounded by rebel controled villages, and it is high in the mountains, difficult to access.
It says clashes in the Tshalma mountain area (a small zone), and clashes on the perimeter of various other areas. So I wouldn't use this to change anything to contested except Tshalma, if it is important enough to add to the map. André437 (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following article suggests that the status of the town of Nab’ain should be changed from contested to green. http://eaworldview.com/2014/03/syria-daily-insurgents-advance-latakia-offensive/Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of Youtube

I totally agree with thr rule of not using videos from youtube podcasted by activists or armed groups on the ground. But the use of a report of an international TV channel should be accepted even if put in youtube. It's exactly like SOHR facebook posts. The problem of reliability is not with youtube or facebook but with the people using it.Oussj (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Oussj. What is important is the validity of the information, not the way in which it was delivered --Hasan Rizvanbegovic (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the channel Al Jazeera belongs to the country which is one of the main sponsors of the Syrian rebels. So that impartiality his data is questionable. Also I think will be better if we all will use only English version of the Al Jazeera. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced. Al Jazeera, even if it belongs to Qatar, has a certain independance (even though this independance is less important than few years ago) and I believe it cannot be compared with iraki or iranian channels... Al Jazeera reports news from activists but also (when it's credible and not clearly propaganda) from SANA or regime officials. I understand you point and I think that if we have other sources we should use them first. But we shall risk that the map become completely outdated in some areas that don't interest other international medias. Oussj (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-jazeeran and independence?? Come on!!! Are you kidding man? I would vote for al-Mayadin and al-Jadeed Lebanese channels as unbiased.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
To use You-tube (or any other video) to confirm control of an area, it only need to be clear evidence from the images. Otherwise it is useless, no matter what the source. For example, the video on the beach in Latakia, with the rebels is very clear. That beach is distinctive, and those are definitely rebels (Islamic Front) in the picture. So it confirms that the rebels control the beach, as clearly there is no contesting presence in proximity. (The video panned the area.)
It is simplistic to say that a video must be rejected because text claims from the same source may be considered unreliable or biased.
As far as text information goes, the reliability of the source behind the text becomes important. As well as the message needing to clearly support the changes claimed for our tables and the map. André437 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Zyzzzzy : in this book http://www.puf.com/Autres_Collections:Al_Jazeera._Libert%C3%A9_d'expression_et_p%C3%A9tromonarchie, which is unfortunately in french, a researcher explains that the control of aljazeera and it's independance is really much more complicated than lots of people think it is. So yes, I think on the matter of reliability and even neutrality comparing Al Jazeera with a propaganda media like Al Mayadeen is absolutely not serious.Oussj (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Stop trying to link the YouTube use issue with the Facebook use issue, as they are very different and cannot be compared. As far as I know, WP specific guidelines about the use of Facebook exists, something we cant say about YouTube, so its not the same thing. On the other hand, the same user who's wrong on that comparison is right when he says that an amateur partisan activist video cannot be accepted as a source (if so, we had to accept the version of the events by any video that shows a town or place, although the video dont show any flag, or combatants, or was recorded from a moving car, or last 10 seconds, or we dont know when it was recorded, or...), but a professional media video (wether its from Al-Jazeera, Syrian TV, Al-Arabiya, Al-Manar, CNN, Al-Mayadeen, etc...as we give them the benefit of the doubt, as they are supposed to be journalist and not POV-pushing activists).--HCPUNXKID 16:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

It is a good step to add the Rebel's military bases, but you missed the following military bases for the Rebels:

1- (Regiment 46) in the east side of Atarib city, in the west of Aleppo's Gov. 2- (Tower 45) in the north side of Qastal Ma'af, in the north of Latakia's Gov. 3- (Regiment 111), near to Darat Izza, in the west of Aleppo's Gov., and it was the most important military base for the regime in the west of Aleppo's Gov. 4- The Petroleum refineries and Oilfields and Gas stations, such as Homs Petroleum Refinery, Rassafeh Petroleum Refinery (South Raqqah), Omar Oilfield (West Deir Ezzor) and others.

I agree,but there is way more bases,I am with adding them,there was a lot of bases in idlib and Aleppo as I remembered.71.172.145.224 (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck.

37.105.35.58 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Army Advances in Aleppo - Now controls 80% of the city

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/03/28/assads-forces-surround-aleppo-now-control-80-percent-of-syrias-largest-city/

Are there more sources to back any of these claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.58.143 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

SyrianPerspective has also claimed similar advances. SYPER

its very good to be true. i am pro assad, but 85 % is too much. but for rankus i agree for information on ceasefire. also on homs province — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Latakia, general.

It seems a bit silly/inaccurate that a cursory glance at this map would lead one to believe that the situation in Latakia province consists of either consolidated positions or seiges. "Contested" seems to be the only daily verifiable fact (for the last week!)- not sure why that's not reflected, if the intent is accuracy. At this point, indicating anything other than a fluid, seesaw situation borders on disingenuousness.. Where'd Hill 45 go?Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Since it's exactly on the current front line, I don't think it would be really good to put it on the map. Both sides are constantly claiming their control of the hill... It would lead us to an unfinishable editional war... I think we should just wait a few days. The front line will certainly evolve, and one side will eventually secure the hill. We will put it on the map then.Oussj (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "exactly on the current front line" the definition of "contested" though? Without doubt, you're right, the situation there will become clear in time, but in the meantime it just seems like the map is omitting the currently most publicized conflict zone. The map will always be playing catch up if we wait for contested zones to become clearly dominated by one side. Right now Hill 45 is contested, both on the ground and in the media - why not register it as such until clarity is obtained?Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah maybe you're right. But is the goal of the map to be in line with what's is currently "making the buzz". I know this is more or less what is actually going but I'm not convinced on its usefulness for the map's reliability and credibility.Oussj (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a valid point - media hype/focus certainly isn't the path to factual accuracy. I guess I'm just hung up on "why isn't the most hotly contested spot (on the ground and in the media) in the latest offensive marked simply as what it is: contested". But, I am a noob - to this forum and to this map - so I guess all that's left for me to do is to concede to the judgments of actual editors, and stop my redundant contentions! If you don't mind a query: how could reliability/credibility be damaged? (From my perspective the omission seems more detrimental than its prospective inclusion) My train of thought remains as expressed in my first comment of this thread.Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hajar al-Aswad truce?

There are some rumors that a truce was reached in Hajar al-Aswad: https://twitter.com/FiratGunay/status/450303116651810816: https://www.facebook.com/SyrianPerspective2/posts/668427733202895?stream_ref=10: http://inagist.com/all/450301847518322688/ Has anybody more news?--Paolowalter (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Observatory 45

Considering the high strategic significance of this hill and how much it has been in the news and that they have fought over it I think it should be added to the map. EkoGraf (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian army units have full control of Observatory 45 in the north of Latakia province.The News DailyAgence France PressNOW NewsYahoo NewsNTD TV Hanibal911 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reports today that Observatory 45 is still contested. It's an opposition leaning site, yes, but even all of the links posted by Hanibal contain the same gramatically sketchy quote: "but fighting in continuing in the vicinity of the hillside," and all are using Syrian state television as their source. Maybe contested status? Especially in light of yahoo's reporting that Qustul Maaf (south west of observatory 45) is contested / "surrounded by rebels. http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2023&Itemid=2&task=displaynews Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just wait a little.Oussj (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are Kassab and Samra surrounded with red circles if they are not besieged? The map as it is gives the impression that the rebel held villages in northern Latakia are all completely surrounded by regime forces when the fact of the matter is that the front line is divided by Hill 45 with Samra and Kassab completely controlled by the rebels.

I agree with that point of view.Oussj (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Same. The line seems to be at Hill 45 - both sides are still claiming it. http://www.albawaba.com/conflict-syria/syria-latakia-565752 http://eaworldview.com/2014/04/syria-daily-battle-tower-45-latakia-province/ Both *unusuable* sources for this map I believe, but both articles reference the contending claims about Hill 45 coming from the rebel/regime camps.Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

More recent "contested" status support. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Apr-03/252197-fighting-rages-in-syrias-latakia-activists.ashx#axzz2xpgj8CIl Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems they've taken the Observatory plenty of pictures and video of High Ranking military officials conducting inspection. Of course take it as reference but IMO it's under Army control.--Homan 056k (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Observatory 45 is under Syrian Army - NDF control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMCga4Ld1cw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrZLzEdC0M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAQgp1Hdce8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgnHhdt3QFI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhX-UxS-rfI

Indeed. Here's a pro-opposition source reporting regime control of Hill 45. http://eaworldview.com/2014/04/syria-daily-regime-pushes-back-insurgents-latakia-offensive/Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

SOHR has reported that rebels have taken back the Observatory today.Oussj (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

Good Idea to add the Rebel's military bases, but I have some information to be added and edited:

1- Regiment 274 in Shifuniye, Eastern Ghouta, Rif Dimashq. It is the largest regiment around Damascus and the 2nd largest regiment in Syria, and it was one of the most important regime's military bases in Rif Dimashq Gov.

2- Hajana Battalion, in the south side of Daraa City. It was one of the most important military bases that was besieged for months by the Rebels. Hajjana Battalion was the last regime's power to re-gain areas in the south side of Daraa city and after the Rebels took the control of it, the south side of Daraa was protected.

3- The military base in Naima in Daraa City is (99th Armoured Battalion) instead of (Brigade 99).

Another military bases under the control of the Regime:

1- 15th Special Forces Division in As-Suwayda Gov.

2- Regiment 119 (Air Defense), located exactly in the north-west side of Deir Ezzor Airport.

94.98.120.108 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article or template. - Arjayay (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sources:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ff_1353493961

http://arabic.rt.com/news/610608-%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%B9%D9%86_%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1_%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A9_99_%D8%AF%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81_%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7/

http://www.alwatanalarabi.com/article/22431/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A9-99-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9

http://www.syrrevnews.com/archives/54026

http://www.ikhwansyria.com/Portals/Content/?Name=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%20%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%91%D8%B1%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1%2038%20%D9%81%D9%8A%20%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7&info=YVdROU16UTRNamdtYzI5MWNtTmxQVk4xWWxCaFoyVW1kSGx3WlQweEpuaHRiR2xrUFRjNU1Ea20rdQ==.Syr

http://www.alhurra.com/content/fsa-seize-key-base-daraa/220702.html

http://mubasher.aljazeera.net/news/2013/10/201310919223565489.htm

http://ikhwansyria.com/Portals/Content/?Name=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%20%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%20%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89%20%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A9%20%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7&info=YVdROU16ZzBNRGNtYzI5MWNtTmxQWE4xWW5CaFoyVW1kSGx3WlQweEpuaHRiR2xrUFNZPSt1.Syr

Number 2 has already been done, before the inset map was added. It should be on the inset map.
Number 3 is just the name. BTW, it is one of many broken links on the map. We need to teach editors how to create valid links on the map, and how to verify them. As well as the fact that they should lead to the supporting reference. André437 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014

5.222.123.43 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

bakha in qalamon is contested source of rebel for example SOHR Frequently Referred to this topichttp://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=17445&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.e_FSxGdjSt8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.222.113.192 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

37.106.89.109 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone please change Bakha in Qalamoun to red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.72 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

berigade 38 in Daraa Gov. is in Saida City, not Daraa City.

37.106.89.109 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. - Arjayay (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit requests posted to this page are for Template:Syrian civil war detailed map, which is indeed semi-protected. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done : Brigade 38 is now shown just east of the small town of Naima, and about 3 km west of the town of Saida. It is shown about 7 km east of Daraa. From google maps, that seems correct.
If you have any references to show otherwise, please post them here. André437 (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, other editors might like to fix the broken link for Brigade 38. It should lead to a reference for it being taken by the rebels (maybe in with Daraa city, maybe other Daraa governorat), not a non-existant WP page. André437 (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Jabhat al-Nusra Distinction on Map

Should we distinguish the towns and cities under control or partial control of Jabhat al-Nusra on the map with a new color? Particularly important in the Dayr al-Zawr Governorate and a handful of places in the Western Aleppo Countryside.

I don't think so. Jabhat Al Nusra works in close collaboration with the quasi totality of islamists and non islamists rebels in the whole syrian territory. A few days ago, the commander of the Syrian Rebels Front (Free Syrian Army, non islamists) said that "they have no problems with anyone fighting the syrian regime", speaking here about Nosra in particular I think. We changed Isis in black because of the fightings between them and a major alliance of diverse rebels groups against them in early January, including Nosra, among with FSA, Islamic Front, and the Army of Mujahideen. I believe that right now, there is absolutely no reason to change Nosra's colour.Oussj (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Another point is that many small moderate groups joined al-Nusra to avoid being attacked by the ISIS, so there is not necessarily a big ideological gap between al-Nusra fighters and other rebels, despite the apparent ideological differences of their leaderships. André437 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I still think it makes to split Nusra out because it's the official AQ branch in Syria. At the same time, if we split out Nusra, it would probably make sense to identify areas of control for the Islamic Front (IF) and FSA. It's true these groups sometimes work together, but the relationship between is not always so warm. For example, the leader you mention in that interview, Jamal Ma'rouf - the head of the Syrian Revolutionaries' Front (SRF, not usually translated as "Syrian Rebels Front) - was actually extremely evasive in that interview and did not indicate that he actually works with Nusra. The day after that interview (and after the Independent article), he denied working with Nusra and confirmed that he was fighting al-Qaeda, was against the organisation and against "all its forms of extremism." Further, he noted that the factions fighting the Anfal Battle in Latakia did not let one of the SRF member brigades join the joint operations room there. Lastly, the SRF originally formed in response to an Islamic Front attack on FSA warehouses around Bab al-Hawa, and which has created deep suspicion between the two coalitions that has endured. All this indicates a rather cold relationship between the SRF and the Islamists, especially Nusra. So i think the statement that Nusra "works in close collaboration with the quasi totality of islamists and non islamists" is incorrect.
Anyway, I'm interested in getting more granularity in this map if possible, which is my main point. The ideological differences between these groups is actually significant, even if operational relationships and the ideological disposition of their fighters is sometimes not. This is true whether they're fighting ISIS or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.84.135 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you on many points. But I believe we cannot really distinguish Nosra on our map for two reasons. First, even if what you're saying is completely true, it does not mean that people, or activists who are not directly bounded to these groups ARE actually able to go through the whole "green territories" without beeing really bothered by any of these groups (on the contrary back when Isis used to control territories in Idlib, Latakiah and northern Aleppo, moving had become a nightmare for activits). And that they cannot do it in the three others regions of our map. Revolutionary activists or humanitarian NGO who enter Syria from "green checkpoints" cannot go to places controlled by Isis, government or even kurds. And that proves that despite all the ideological problems, and despite the tensions, the "rebels" controled territory are part of some kind of "whole". Secondly, as you said yourself, this would lead us to change the colours of everybody and distinguish everything on the map and this present two major cons. First, nobody who is not really interrested by the conflict will still understand the map. In fact, the common wiki user will not be able to read it and in my opinion, this would betray the purpose of this map. Morover, if we do this for rebels, we will be forced to do it for "red" territories too. There are in fact more than a faction fighting to maintain Assad's government, and they are doing for very different reasons. There is of course the Army, but also syrian milicias (organized and less organized groups, who depends from sometimes distinct chains of command) and libanese and iraqi shiites milicias. And there is often a great deal of tense between them, that sometimes lead them to fightings. And they do control distinguished places. For example, the artillery school of Aleppo is now the HQ of a major shiites iraqi group and is not anymore directly controled by the government Army.

Eventually these territories do evolve constantly. And small positions are not always directly completely controlled by anyone. It would very fast become completely impossible to update the map as we do it now and it would become unreadable by anyone who is not very deeply interested by the conflict. Oussj (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

Left123 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rankous

Syrian troops backed by Hezbollah fighters seize control of the rebel-held town of Rankous near the Lebanese border.Al JazeeraThe Arab ChronicleThe Arab ChronicleNOW NewsThe Daily StarAl ArabiaGulf News Hanibal911 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Abu Kamal contested status (SOHR references)

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-qaeda-loses-ground-jihadist-rivals-iraq-border-100907461.html http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Apr-10/252903-syria-qaeda-loses-ground-to-jihadist-rivals-on-iraq-border.ashx#axzz2yUv7tDKh Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As this ISIS offensive develops - any thoughts on adding the localities here listed? http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2060&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U0a5cU9OWCU Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Zaabadani

Zaabadani currently has a truce between government forces and rebels. [1] Can someone please change the green circle surrounded by the red one to a truce circle please.

Thanks Dr Marmilade (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/town-town-assad-regime-retakes-southwestern-syria-162635951.html Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the map information page. Thanks Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Tip. Use multiples of ":" for indentation. Leading spaces give special coding to the line.
If no indentation wanted, use "<br/>" at the end of the previous line to start a new line. André437 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a green dot just to the north of Bloudan that is partially obscured by the the name al-Zabandi and that cannot be clicked on or identified. It does not seem to represent a town or village. Same goes for Rankus where the name again obscures a green dot to the West of Hawsh' Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.149 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Now both Ayn al-Hawr (N of al-Zabadani) and al-Ma'muran (N of Rankous) are accessible.
BTW, these problems will be a lot less common once labels are no longer coded as links. Hopefully coming soon. André437 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Markada

Please change the City of Markada from ISIL controlled to contested with Opposition forces. Battle is going on for weeks between Nosra front and ISIL. 80.79.80.232 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/06/us-syria-crisis-mortar-idUSBREA350JD20140406 http://breakingnews.sy/en/article/36279.html http://www.manilatimes.net/ngo-more-than-50-syria-rebels-jihadists-killed/86564/

Both the second and third links provided state that ISIL took complete control of Markada.Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The first report refers to April 5th, the second 2 reports to March 30th. The town has changed hands a few times in the last month, so it is not surprising that it would be contested. André437 (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Al-Maliha -Damascus

Al-Maliha is under goverment control-source: FARS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 17:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source... this is an iranian pro regime media...Oussj (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Another pro-government source claims the same. SyrianPerspective

This is an even less reliable source. A US-based hate monger (from his language). Unfortunately, inciting hatred is not a crime in the US. André437 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Kabajeb?

Who makes kabajeb under isil control?source? Everybody knows that the road(palmyra to deir el zor) is under army control.Please fix it and make it red — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of asking take the effort to review the "view history" tab, where the sources for the map changes are shown.--HCPUNXKID 15:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rebel report to substantiate rebel gain

Babulin was changed to green on the base of a SOHR statement. I reverted to contested on the basis of another source and was changed to green again on the basis of a Reuters news that is just reporting rebel statement, actually SOHT itself. Is it correct? I would say no. What is the editor's opinion? --Paolowalter (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

After a long discussion last time with Hanibal, we agreed to use SOHR for rebel advances right Hanibal ? Sohr is still used as reliable source by lots of important medias, like Reuters for example. I think if Reuters journalist has considered SOHR to be reliable on Babulin, it should be enough for us.Oussj (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to add a point, a SOHR report cannot be considered as "a rebel statement". SOHR is a human rights NGO and cannot be considered as the voice of "rebels", simply because it's not. They are independant, and not linked with rebels groups on the ground, or opposition organization like the SNC for example.Oussj (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

in fact -SOHR- is a source of pro opposition because when genocide occured in adra and latakia was silent but ambush army for genocide comite groups in otaibe inhuman acts described!!!

Let's stay calm ok ?Oussj (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You remind me pro rebels when SOHR refused to report alledged reports from rebels activists on a massacre in Bayada. There were then reports on hundreds of victims, and SOHR refused to report them because their network had no proof of such a massacre. Pro rebels activists continue to insult SOHR until now... So whatever has or has not occured in Adra and Latakiah, SOHR will not report it basing only on regime on rebels propaganda.Oussj (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

genocide in adra - latakia - hatleh and ... just regime propaganda?? Im sorry for you! I come from Iran and not agree with assad but I am strong opponent terorist saudi government who is behind all crimes in the middle east for example in iraq - syria - lebenon - afghanistan ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.222.123.43 (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Logic, fail.Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The SOHR is certainly a heavily rebel-biased source, referring to fallen rebels as "martyrs", and from what I know was previously agreed on, may not be used to substantiate rebel gains, the same way SANA cannot be used to substantiate government gains [You do not want to open that door]. The SOHR is actually regarded by many as the voice of the rebels, just as SANA is the voice of the government. Besides, Reuters said that its was claimed by "activists", so they are speaking on behalf of the SOHR. As for statistics, many outlets like BBC and Reuters use both SANA and the SOHR's statistics. Dr Marmilade (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Comparing SANA, which financed by the government, and SOHR, which is an independant Human RIghts NGO is simply not serious.Oussj (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I said it before and I will say it again. SOHR, although a pro-opposition activist group, has shown to be fairly un-biased in the conflict by reporting both government and rebel massacres, losses and advances. This has earned them not just the rage of government supporters but rebel supporters as well. Their high reliability is seen in that reliable news media like AFP, AP, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, etc have all stated SOHR is the authoritative source on this conflict. Not to mention 90 percent of what SOHR reports turns out to be true within a day. So, comparing SOHR to SANA (heavily pro-government) or Arab Chronicle (heavily pro-opposition) is not even possible. And we SHOULD use SOHR as a source, which we already agreed numerous times whenever these discussions come up. P.S. No, SOHR was in fact not silent when rebels massacred people in Adra and Latakia, they constantly reported on it while opposition officials and rebel commanders tried to cover it up. EkoGraf (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

َAnd here are two articles I found in less than a minute, one from a neutral media (I think) and an other from a pro opp website speaking on reports from SOHR on exactions and massacre terrorists have commited in Adra. http://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_articles&id=eadc3f3d8ede6ae99d19f77fdab16d00 http://www.alquds.com/news/article/view/id/478711 This is a proof that SOHR always tries to be the most unbiased as possible, and that they do report massacres from extremists, criminals and terrorists from both side. And I hope that we are all here, regardless to our opinions in this ugly conflict, for liberty of speech and against war crimes and crimes against humanity. Oussj (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been the policy here to not use the SOHR to document rebel gains, why are we trying to change that. Also, the SOHR is not an NGO, as the "O" in NGO means organization, which is "an organized body of people with a particular purpose, esp. a business, society, association, etc." The SOHR is run by one man from a flat in Britain, who receives information from sources on the ground and is funded by himself and anti-government sympathizers. The man who runs the SOHR is a Syrian dissident from before the civil war, so he is not on very good terms with the Syrian regime to begin with. As for the SOHR's accuracy, they have made major errors before, most recently confirmed ones include the Aleppo Central Prison and the regime's progress in Yabroud. Other sources like BBC do use the SOHR, but they report in the SOHR's name, not their own [notice how it always says "activists said" in the reports]. While the SOHR may report atrocities from both sides, that does not make them unbiased. I do not understand why we go insane on editors that use articles that call rebels "terrorists" for government gains, yet demand that we be allowed to use a source that calls rebels "heroic martyrs" for rebel gains. The system that we have had here works, and I see no reason to change it. Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong Dr Marmilade, it has ALWAYS been the policy to use SOHR's official site to document both rebel and Army gains. What HAS been forbidden, contrary to many editors objections (including my own), is the use of SOHR's facebook posts. It has been the policy for a year now that if the SOHR reports are from their own site or via news sites we use them as a source for changes. Actually, 80-90 percent of the changes that have been made to the map since it was made are based on SOHR's reports. So, SOHR has been part of the system of process on this map for a long time, and one could say an integral part. The rule on rebel source for Army gain and Army source for rebel gain applies to all of the other biased sources (SANA, Arab Chronicle, Syrian Perspective, etc.). EkoGraf (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to add one little point. You are saying that SOHR is not an NGO, so why are all these articles referring to SOHR as an NGO ? http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20140202.OBS4726/syrie-au-moins-85-morts-dans-des-raids-du-regime-sur-alep.html http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20140402-selon-une-ong-le-conflit-syrie-fait-plus-150000-morts-el-assad-al-nosra-eiil-asl-civils-morts-onu/ http://www.20minutes.fr/monde/1339549-la-guerre-en-syrie-a-fait-plus-de-150-000-morts Oussj (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

See the definition of the word "Organization", the "O" in NGO, Oussj. I thought the SOHR could not be used for rebel gains, due to the fact that editors say "according to the SOHR" when they do.Dr Marmilade (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitions you might appreciate, "Dr Marmilade", from my English-language dictionary :
  1. Organization = a group of persons united for some end work. ... If you don't accept that those who help with translating and editing, as well as the many contacts, form part of the SOHR group, also:
  2. Group = a number of people or objects considered as a whole, and
  3. One = the first number in counting by units.
Of course, if the SOHR is officially incorporated, it would necessarily be an organisation.
I hope this helps you understand that it is entirely reasonable to refer to the SOHR as an NGO. André437 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure where the definitions of "Group" and "one" came up [please tell me that was not an attempt at sarcasm]. As for the SOHR, it is true that they have translators and contacts on the ground, but "The United Kingdom-based SOHR is run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry by one person, Rami Abdulrahman." He is the voice of the SOHR. It may be true that he gets his information from sources on the ground, but he chooses what to do with that information. When we say "SOHR said" we really mean "What Rami said", so quotes from the SOHR = quotes from Rami. Rami is the only one who runs the Information Office of the SOHR. The translators and editors simply translate and refine his words. So, we can use Andre's convenient definition of "Organization" to say that Rami =/= Persons,therefore Rami =/= Organization, therefore Rami =/= NGO, and finally SOHR =/= NGO. However, none of this matters since the reliability and neutrality of the SOHR that is in question here, not its status. Dr Marmilade (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My post was in response to your opposing SOHR being an NGO. As far as the definitions of group and one, that follows from the definition of organization, if you insist that he is its' only member.
You may have noticed that most organizations have a director responsible for the ultimate decisions; SOHR is not different. And we don't know how many Rami may consult in his organization, only the evident quality of the results. André437 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Say what you want (you can even re-discover the definition of organization), what is evident as it has been stated by several media is that SOHR is a one-man group. And if you call "the evident quality of the results" things like SOHR's fiasco on the alleged takeover of Aleppo's central prison wich never came true, OK...--HCPUNXKID 16:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article in arab of a pro rebel media speaking about how rebels see SOHR. A group of major rebel factions in Damascus COuntryside has declared in a statement last month that SOHR was acting for the best interest of Assad and his government, and that SOHR has no legitimacy to speak on behalf of syrian people. If really SOHR was biaised toward rebels maybe these rebels would not have that much hated Rami Abdul Rahman and his teams, don't you think ? Oussj (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's this McClatchy article wich says, quote: " the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is sympathetic to the rebels, said that ISIS had made significant gains.". So, that's perhaps because McClatchy is an evil media Assadist supporter, or because SOHR is clearly biased (usually they dont lie, but they report far more opposition gains that SAA, YPG or ISIS gains, why? I guess why, and its not because opposition make more gains, not in 2014) towards the "rebels"?.--HCPUNXKID 16:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

al-Mardouda

The ISIS militants seized the village al-Mardouda in western Reef Tal Abiad (Kari Sabi) after violent clashes with an Islamic battalion and the YPG.SOHRSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

Hama Towns of "Hayalin" and "Jalma" are now under rebel control. Fighting goes on in "Tell Malh" and "Taybat El Imam" those two last cities can't be under government control when they are being bombed by planes daily. http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/2145e443-f10c-4ec3-aa02-0ba283b6feb5 94.59.0.49 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sam Sailor Sing 21:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the requester just forgot to fill in the page name. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
IP, would that mean the two cities are now Opposition-held (except ISIL)? Sam Sailor Sing 22:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Change the Hama towns of "Hayalin" and "Jalma" from Government control to opposition control. The request is base on aljazeera that is a strongly biased source pro-rebel. Wait for neutral source. 192.135.12.144 (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Roads

Please add Main roads to the map. AMBond81 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC) It is important to see the main roads and supply roots for the war map to make sense.

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://orient-news.net/index.php?page=news_show&id=7786. Retrieved 8 April 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war/Archive_15&oldid=1136307159"