Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 45

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 40

←

Archive 43

→

Al Masdar News is biased

I just want to bring this into attention of the editors who keep using Al Masdar website as a source that this website is Pro Regime and its Editor in cheif is this guy (https://twitter.com/LeithAbouFadel) Who is known for Die hard regime supporter and most of his family members are fighting for Assad , So taking his news website as a source not a clever thing to do in my view , what is your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack6780 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is pro-regime, yet it is accurate and reliable, I have yet to read an article on Al Masdar which later turned out to be untrue; something I can't say for pro-rebel sources. My personal opinion is Al Masdar gained its own reputation by not publishing lies or exaggerations and is even used by pro-opposition groups for the latest regime related news, offensives, updates. Recent Articles related to Aleppo, Handarat and the situation prove how accurate Al Masdar is, while rebel sources claimed the entire village was captured and battalion 602 was besieged, Al Masdar reported rebel presence in the south only, then days later when things were clear, it turned out AL Masdar was correct. This pattern can be applied to many other events in Syria: Daraa, Latakia, Deir Ez Zour, Hasakah, Damascus etc Jumada (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This point has been discussed here ad infinium. It is indeed true that the editor is pro-regime, but our criteria for a reliable source is not the stance of its editor, if that were the case, SOHR would have been gone a long time ago. We rate our sources based on reliability, how often do they present good information. In Al-Masdar's case, that is very very frequently. Many of the things they report end up being true. That is why it can be used with a "reportedly" tag to modify pages on the Syrian Civil War unless corroborated by a neutral, reliable source. Editing the map with it, however, is still difficult. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only is Almasdar pro-regime, it only cites regime sources so Almasdar IS a regime source, and not a third party.

WP policy says that a party to the subject of an article must not be used as a source to support views in favour of that party. In our context, we are violating global WP policy to use Almasdar to support regime advances.

Just because SANA often tells the truth does not make it a reliable source for regime advances. We have always had third party and opposed party sources available for that.

As for SOHR, often brought into this discussion, it is a third party interested primarily in human rights. As such, they have criticised violators on all sides. For those even moderately aware of the track record of the regime (since the 1970's), as well as a considerable number of UN reports, understandably SOHR is more critical of the regime. But according to WP policy (as well as logically), that does not disqualify SOHR from being considered an objective observer.

The questions of bias and track record come into play when a source presents subjective evidence that depends on their reliability. There is also the question of sufficient information to justify the proposed change.

Each information, from whatever source, should be examined by all the above factors before being accepted to make changes.

Hopefully all editors will finally understand ... André437 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 I personally thought that since this is 'map related only', whether pro-government or pro-opposition it shouldn't matter as long as the source is trusted and proven reliable [which Al Masdar is], and since we focus on the status of cities, towns and villages rather than causalities or political agendas; using Al Masdar to keep this map up to date has worked fine for now. As far as SOHR goes, if we really want to speak about political alignment then I'd like to point to SOHR's use of the terms 'Assadist' and 'Shabiha' in the early years of the conflict, while the FSA flag on their logo is another indication of their political stance. SOHR is strongly a rebel mouth piece and a rebel source. Also many of the 'activists' who operate for SOHR belong to rebel media groups reporting on behalf of [FSA/IF/Nusra], much like Al Masdars 'sources' being from government media groups operating on behalf of [SAA, NDF, Hezbollah etc]. So I dont know, I think you should either use both or neither since they are practically the same thing. Jumada (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Jumada, but you misunderstand.

1) The map is part of the Syrian civil war article, and even a map alone would be considered an article, so we are obliged to follow WP policy. Violations of that policy can be reverted without limitation by any uninvolved administrator. Luckily none has decided to do so yet, but much of our map could be reverted.

2) If you look carefully at Almasdar posts, you will see that they cite only regime sources (usually say "military"), even for rebel advances. Each citing of a regime source IS a regime source. Thus Almasdar is a regime source. As well, you might also notice that the majority of their posts regarding the south sound as if the moderate FSA does not exist, despite the FSA being the clear majority and in definitely control in rebel areas.

3) SOHR has many sources. Many of their sources in regime areas have been executed by the regime for leaking info. Just because a source is in a rebel area, does not mean the source is a rebel. There is an active informal citizen reporting network in rebel areas, which generally tries to be impartial. There are also many competing rebel groups, often mixed in the same areas. Even if they wanted to, the rebels can't control the message as easily as the regime can. As well, the better sources use multiple reports to verify incidents. SOHR and others have clearly stated using such methodology. As all major news organizations (at least should) do.

4) Anyone who claims that SOHR is biased because of the Syrian independence flag on their site is missing the point. The Syrian independence flag was probably adopted by both the SOHR and the FSA because the last (and only) democratic government in Syria used that flag. They were also the last government to respect human rights. I'm not sure, but I think that the SOHR use of the independence flag predates the revolution, and thus the rebels. The SOHR started in 2006 to protest human rights violations, some 5 years before the revolution.

The Bathist regime that took power in the 1960's coup changed the flag at the time of the merger with Egypt, which did not last long. The 1970's coup by Assad's father only accelerated the descent into tyranny.

5) "Shahiba" is what Syrians generally call the gangs armed by the regime to control the population, who regularly used extortion, and didn't always follow orders. So both for appearances and better control, the regime created the NDF. The NDF is well known to be involved in extortion, even of pro-regime populations. A group favouring respect of human rights, such as SOHR, has a responsibility to not hide such problems.

6) The regime in power is controlled by Bashir Assad, and was initiated by Assad senior in the 1970's coup inside the Bathist dictatorship. It is entirely logical and objective to refer to those supporting the regime as "Assadists". They are also sometimes referred to as "Baathists", after the Baath party that staged the 1960's coup.

BTW, "regime" is the political science term for a "system of government". The term is sometimes abused in democratic countries to refer to the party in power (or its' leader), but in Syria it is entirely appropriate. The Assad regime has long ruled by a reign of terror.

-- Hopefully these explanations help you better understand the situation in Syria.

André437 (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey André! Show me some democratic boys who do not take selfies with "independece" flags then behead civilians while yelling Snakebar! Your democratic freedomfighters won in Libya in 2011. Now, look at the democratic reforms, results in the country! Assad is NOT a vaccum, while if your democratic guys won, the country would be torn apart in 200 pieces by 200 "democratic" movements (de facto ISIS, Al-Nursa). I can say that the majoroty of Syrians support Assad, not because they love him but because he is still better than ISIS, Al-Qeda. If all sunnies (70% of the population) had taken up arms against the Assad-clan, the war would have ended by the end of 2011 and inmidiately a new conflict would have been started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC) you fucking braindead oroszka 50% of the syrian government is sunni including the first lady and the army. And al masdar is a reliable neutral source compared to the nusra fanboys markito vivarevolt and their biggest lover andré

Why don't you feel the irony in my little writing and in my comment about the Al-Masdar website ? You should read more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebels Capture Busra Al-Sham

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-capture-busra-al-sham/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka (talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another pro government source confirmed that ‎this was a tactical retreat by Syrian troops and NDF‬ from the city.Syria 24 Syria 24 and reliable source The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

But later the spokesman for the Southern Front of rebel alliance, Maj. Isam Rayes, told that regime forces were holed up in the historical citadel in Busra al Sham and he denying reports that the town of Busra had been taken.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So I think we need for now noted of this town as contested. Because rebels denied that town fully under of their control. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Hanibal911 The first Dailystar article link claims that the rebels are in full control of Bosra, saying "Syrian government forces were holed up in the citadel in the last hours before they finally withdrew". It was initially posted in late morning, and updated in the evening.

So the second link was an interview before the regime fully withdrew, posted around noon the same day. (The 2 articles had different authors.)

In other words, the rebels are indeed now in full control of Bosra. André437 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib

Hanibal911,André437 Big News Many Reports are saying that Al-Nusra started an offensive around location around Idlib.here,here,here,here,here,here,here,the offical statement from Al-Nusra launching the offensive here.Lindi29 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 All these data from the too biased antigovernment sources! SOHR just said that The Islamic battalions targeted by some shells the regime positions in al- Konsarwa checkpoint and that violent clashes between the regime forces and allied militiamen against the Nusra Front, and other Islamic factions in different points and in the vicinity of the regime checkpoints near the city of Idlib.SOHR Also pro opposition source reported that Al-Fatih army shell over regime forces sites in Al-Ghazal, Al-Inshaat, Al-Sadkob, Al-Zait and Kourneich barriers east of Idlib.Qasion News and that Al-Fatah army seizes over Sadkowp camp eastern Idlib city.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 first Conflict reporter is not a biased souurce,also here we have relibale and neutral source who confirms this dailystar,foxnews,longwarjournal,i24news,todayonline,newser,jpost,from pro-gov sources presstv,PetoLucem.Lindi29 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

'Conflict reporter is not a biased souurce' LOL. And other sources (dailystar ..) say :according to 'activists' rebels capture some cp s ,but according to army sources say Army units and armed forces BLOCKED TERRORISTS groups trying to infiltrate the city of IdlibHwinsp (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 You probably kidding! Firstly here,Conflict reporter it is on 100% biased pro opposition source and this was confirmed many times. And secondly I'm not saying that the news about offencive rebels and Al Nusra this not a true. I just said that about rebel sources distort data because clashes still going on the outskirts of the city. Also pro gov. source Lucem just said that according to pro-opposition source rebels captured some areas on the eastern+western outskirts of city Idlib.But he not confirmed this data. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Also all these sources dailystar,foxnews,longwarjournal,i24news,todayonline,newser,jpost just said that the rebels alliance had launched attacks on several areas of Idlib including army outposts but had not yet breached the edge of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 OK, if conflict reporter is biased source then we will not used on reports against the regime,PetoLucem source that you provided it's not working it's dead link,look the source i provided from PetoLucem it confirms the offensive and the capture of some palces(checkpoints) from the regime,I didn't say about the inside of the city but on the outskirtis the barriers the checkpoints the factories that are located in the outskirt of the city.Lindi29 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib maps might help, this one RizeOrDie Idlib Map and this one Archicivilianc Idlib Map . Jumada (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well this source is a pro-opp source but according to many reliable news that reported for this issue I think we can use it,Hanibal911 what do you think.Lindi29 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 In the pro-government source PetoLucem which you provide was said that according to pro opposition source Al Nusra+other insurgents captured some areas on the eastern+western outskirts of city Idlib and not more. But he not confirmed these data but just republished and noted that this data from opposition source. Jumada This map showed that clashes on outskirts of city Idlib.here But this map from the biased pro opposition source.archicivilians And this map we cant be used for display success of the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29Here pro opposition News chanel just reported that rebels only captured Sadkowp camp eastern of Idlib.Qasion News and Inshaat military camp to east from city of Idlib.Qasion News So this means that also the pro opposition news-source not confirmed by most part informations about which said the biased pro rebel activist.archicivilians So let's wait for data from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 well I provided many realiable sources ,but the strange thing is that always when the regime advances without confirmation from realiable source always change immediatly without even disscusion,like the villages in north of aleppo,and if we go right with sources now it will be the right desicion to put some semicircle on the checkpoints and factories.Lindi29 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked Leith (editor of al-Masdar) about the situation in Idlib he said they took over a factory https://twitter.com/LeithAbouFadel/status/580435160962875392 , and claims of 'rebels' were exaggerated. I assume he was talking about this factory http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.928763&lon=36.665154&z=16&m=b&search=idlib So here you got pro gov confirmation. i suggest we put a siege on the Idlib for now. Spenk01 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Spenk01 For now we just need add on map and marked as under control by moderate rebels Sadkop Factory and put semicircle near some checkpoints and no more. Hanibal911 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Also pro opposition source reported that Government send reinforcements to city of Idlib to stop rebel progress.here Hanibal911 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Also pro government source said that the source in Idlib said that the fighting has died down. In the city is quiet.here Hanibal911 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The rebel "al-Fatah army" military room 1 2, composed of Ahrar al-Sham (IF), Sham Legion, Nusra and other Idlib groups was formed to coordinate the rebel attack on Idlib city. They have reported taking a number of checkpoints in the outer defense ring around the city. It is too early to report any major changes, as any advances could be quickly reversed. Just as they have been several times before around the city. For example, it is not the first time rebels were present in the electrical distribution centre. The regime put it out of service while repelling rebels from there a year or two ago. We don't want another north-of-Aleppo-city reporting fiasco.

However if we can confirm the checkpoints taken, it would be useful to update them.

André437 (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR said that some Al Nusra and other Islamic factions seized 7 regime checkpoints but the regime forces retake 4 of them back.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR said that violent clashes are still continuing between regime forces and gunmen loyal to her hand, and fighters of the Front victory (al-Qaeda in the Levant) and Jund al-Aqsa and the Ahrar al-Sham and Islamic factions on the other hand, in the vicinity of the barriers at the edge of the city of Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"too early to report anything" yester nusra "activists" reported nusra is already in the city. First defense line is holding. Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham and Al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa seize 17 checkpoints of Syrian troops and their allies in the vicinity of city Idlib and its outskirts.SOHR SOHR confirmed that rebels to supported by Al Nusra and their allies captured 17 checkpoints in the vicinity of city Idlib city and its outskirts. So I in addition of these data I take some data from map with pro opposition source.here here here here here becaue SOHR just said about the checkpoints of al- Mahlaj, al- Kaziyyi and al- Kahrabaa in the vicinity of the city of Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So that I marked as under control by rebels some checkpoints: Mafraq Bab al-Hawa, Binnish, al-Mahlaj Factory, Sadkop Factory, Old Textile Factory, Slaughter House, Electrical sub station, Livestock Feed, Monastery barrier between Idlib and Al Fu'ah, Maqbarat al Halfa, al-Qal’ah, The Conserve Factory, al-Ram, Kazinat, Mathane, Ayn Shib, Al Maslakh. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hirak and Busra al-Harir

Rebels have taken over Bosra al-Sham and nearby towns, and activists are reporting rebel advances around Umm Walad and into Suwayda province. Do we have any sources concerning Hirak and Busra al-Harir? Both towns have been made contested months ago because of some reports of fighting at the outskirts, but we haven't heard anything concrete since then, have we? What should we do with both towns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

For now moderate rebels just captured town of Bosra al Sham but clashes still continued on the western outskirts of the town. Also no one of reliable source not said that rebels advanced in area near the town of Umm Waled or in Suwayda province just clashes near village of Zibin near the town of Bosra. Nevertheless, we now have no reason to mark the towns of Bsra al Harir or Al Hirak as under control by rebels. But dont worry, we monitor the situation and if we get the data from reliable sources that these cities under control by rebels we note them under rebels control. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"moderate rebels" LOL It's al nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.15.105 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, when Nusra is even just tagging along (with no significant role) they publish videos. This time nothing from Nusra. Mostly FSA and some Islamic Front (HASI). André437 (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib offensive

This needs a new section, so i made one.

First thing i want to change. I belive that rebels took control over Al Ram checkpoint north of Idlib. We know that SOHR mentioned 17 barriers & checkpoints, but they did not gave names, but that's a fairly big number.

I only have pro-opposition sources, so of course other editors need to give their opinion. First source (i don't know if he's pro opposition) and the video in Al Ram, which looks legit to me. DuckZz (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

When did SOHR become a neutral source? Why did all the CP's surrounding Idlib turn to green? Lol this is ridiculous. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 DuckZz Ahrar al-Sham and Al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa seize 17 checkpoints of Syrian troops and their allies in the vicinity of city Idlib and its outskirts.SOHR SOHR confirmed that rebels to supported by Al Nusra and their allies captured 17 checkpoints in the vicinity of city Idlib city and its outskirts. So I in addition of these data I take some data from map with pro opposition source.here here here here here becaue SOHR just said about the checkpoints of al- Mahlaj, al- Kaziyyi and al- Kahrabaa in the vicinity of the city of Idlib.SOHR

So that I marked as under control by rebels some checkpoints: Mafraq Bab al-Hawa, Binnish, al-Mahlaj Factory, Sadkop Factory, Old Textile Factory, Slaughter House, Electrical sub station, Livestock Feed, Monastery barrier between Idlib and Al Fu'ah, Maqbarat al Halfa, al-Qal’ah, The Conserve Factory, al-Ram, Kazinat, Mathane, Ayn Shib, Al Maslakh. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Also later pro opposition source reported that Mafraq Bab al-Hawa checkpoints still controlled by Syrian troops but in siege by rebels.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

An alliance of Syrian Islamist rebels including Al Nusra have overrun 17 checkpoints around Idlib in an offensive to take the city from the army and allied militia.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

According to pro opposition source al-Ram checkpoint under control by Al Nusra.here here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

all acording to pro opp. LOL .why dont you guys make idlib full green because nusRAT supporters in twitter says they stormed the city 3 days ago:).Hwinsp (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Since when do we use pro-opp data for pro-opp gains? These edits make no sense whatsoever. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Here source The Daily Star said that an alliance of Syrian Islamist rebels including Al Nusra have overrun 17 checkpoints around Idlib in an offensive to take the city from the army and allied militia. So I use some data from pro opposition sources for addition that be updat map. But if you think that I made mistake you can fix this. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You and I both know that TheDailyStar (despite the fact that I like it) is a pro-opp media source. I'm not denying rebel advances there, even loyalists acknowledged them. But it's a very fluid battle at the moment. It's a tit for tat thing according to both rebels and loyalists. So I think this edit was rushed and since it only used pro-opp data, it is also biased. In my opinion the CP's should be contested until the dust clears: either the rebels enter the city --> CP's are rebel-held. Or the offensive is repelled --> CP's are in regime hands. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Here map from pro government source.here This map also as a SOHR showed that city of Idlib under control by army but rebels captured some area around of city Idlib and that some of areas in the Idlib outskirts for now contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You must have mixed it up with the Daily Beast which IS highly pro-opp biased. The Daily Star is not a pro-opp media source, its a neutral Lebanese newspaper circulated around the Middle East that has been around for more than 60 years and has been neutral in its reporting as much as Reuters or AP. However, in the case of the Daily Beast, yeah, the language of that one screams anti-Assad. EkoGraf (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm Lebanese and I do read TheDailYStar on a daily basis. If you check the editorials and opinionated articles, you'll see how it is a slightly biased newspaper. It shamed the Syrian Elections last year, it blasted Iran's intervention in Yemen while perfectly acknowledging the Saudi intervention, and it frequently cites activists and SOHR as its main sources. Even though I quite like the journal, I'm against using it as a neutral source. ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as fluidity goes, I agree with leaving cp's contested until the situation stabilizes, but don't support the all-or-nothing approach in the event the rebels succeed or not taking the city. There is more than one area where the rebels hold some but not all cp's around an important location at least partially held by the regime. (Daraa city, Aleppo city, Wadi Daif base before captured, Abu al-Duhur air base, ...)

Also please don't rely on unannotated maps. We need explicit statements of control, to be sure that a location on a map wasn't designated by guess work, or is outdated.

André437 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems they controlled partiality the industrial zone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.254.244 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like the editors to consider the fact that the situation in Idlib is volatile right now, so please do not do things like change the entire city to contested based off of things like photos and videos and reserve such a major change to reliable neutral sources explicitly stating clashes inside the city. Thank you. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree for now. But when the situation becomes more stable, since the city isn't very large (for a city), we will probably want to put it all contested if not all rebel or regime controlled. For all volatile situations like this, we should have a little patience. Things can very rapidly change in a short time.

BTW, our best evidence is geolocated photos or videos, followed by "reliable sources". However for a city like Idlib, it takes a lot of such evidence to show control of the whole city. As well as careful analysis of the presented evidence.

André437 (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed that clashes are occuring inside the city,thus contested,ask ChrissCh94 for the translation and he will give you the same translation.Alhanuty (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No question from photo and video evidence that that rebels are in several parts of the city, but I would say better to wait a day or so to see if they can maintain their presence in the city itself. If not, then they are besieging the city from at least the east and west, maybe north as well. From what I've seen, it looks like it will be at least contested, but it won't hurt to wait a few more hours. André437 (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alhanuty André437 SOHR just said that violent clashes between Syrian troops and their allies against Al-Nusra Front Jund al- Aqsa, Ahrar al- Sham Movement and other Islamic factions in the vicinity of the army barriers in surroundings city of Idlib and within the walls of city Idlib.SOHR But SOHR not said that for now clashes in many areas inside city. So I addressed to editor which made map for Dara, Deir ez Zor, Hasakah and some other maps. And asked him to do the same map for the city of Idlib! Because it will not be a good solution simply to note the entire city as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Also many photos confirm this SOHR post, unfortunetly, terrorists have taken almost all of the industrial zone(which is already part of the city of Idlib, so the city should be marked as contested) and have taken areas on the imediate outskirts to the north and to the west, such as the Youth Housing and the University, currently fighting near the municipal stadium. I believe is safe to wait for more sources, but either making a map to the city and it's outskirts or changing it to contested is the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.181.95.29 (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

But SOHR not confirmed that rebels captured something inside Idlib. So that a map as for Damascus, Aleppo and Hasaka on the basis of more reliable data will be the best solution. Because for now we have many data from a sources which support moderate rebels or Al Nusra and too small from neutral sources. Hanibal911 (talk)

Also here map from another a pro opposition source which indicated that the Industrial area in the city of Idlib still controlled by Syrian troops.Conflict Reporter Hanibal911 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Syrian troops and their allies launch counterattack against al Nusra and moderate rebels on the outskirts of city Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your link is in arab. The translation to english says "neighbourhoods in the outskirts", in french it says "neighbourhoods in the periphery", which means inside the city. Both say that regime forces have reentered these neighbourhoods, implying that the rebels are still there. Which corresponds with much of the images being posted, showing rebels in the city.

Maybe ChrissCh94 can tell us exactly what it says.

André437 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Which reminds me. ChrissCh94 maybe the TheDailyStar is a "slightly biased newspaper" (at least in its' editorials) since it is not an organ of the Hezbolla ? Although I would say that anyone that sees the recent (first) "presidential election" in Syria as anything but a sham is either wearing blinders or biased. Assad got more votes than there were eligible voters available, among many other failings. And Iranian intervention in support of the Houtis in Yemen is opposed by most of the population, and apparently Saudi intervention appreciated. And it makes a lot of sense to cite neutral sources like the SOHR. Don't forget the WP guideline : just because a third party source would prefer a certain outcome or situation, doesn't mean it is biased. It notes that in many cases all useful sources are likely to have a preference. If a source couldn't care less what happens in Syria, why would they bother reporting ?

André437 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Andree you have been fooled again by pics and video propaganda from your moderate rebel /al qeada friends that's why we do not use this type of propaganda as evidence to change our map.81.156.225.146 (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

wtf are you talking about andré saudi salafist.iranian intervention? where are the proof of iranian weapons in houthi hands!?!?!? who battalions defected to them. why are you crying here all day? Go to your friends markito vivarevolt and the other snackbars,neutral source as SOHR who cheats with deaths and 0 reports about nusra deaths by the hundreds? neutral my @ss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand, better to keep silent than shout to the world your ignorance. André437 (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Qalamoon

Rebel captured Sees mountains from IS (not in our map!) here

https://plus.google.com/+algomhuriaachrsorg/posts/DrcqNyiovmt 3bdulelah (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

3bdulelah This just data from the pro-opposition source which we cant use for displayed of success of rebels. Need data from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So we cant use this source for map editing. Since his data do not support reliable sources. Also earlier another more prominent pro opposition source revealed that this area under full control of the army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to say we need a known reliable source.

But also note that an unannotated map is not a reliable source either. (It is also 2 weeks old.)

André437 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

IDLIB offensive 2

New section, keep it calm. The main issue is, should Idlib be changed to contested ? My opinion is "No", even though i agree that rebels are inside the city from 2-3 sides, but the city is fairly big, so we should wait for some more deep advances to the center. DuckZz (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed clashes inside the city via http://www.syriahr.com/2015/03/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%83-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%86%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B9-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%AF%D9%84%D8%A8-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7/.Alhanuty (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable or complete enough to change entire city to contested. SOHR has a long and illustrious history with mistranslating, poor communication, and exaggeration. If rebels did enter the city, it would be hard hitting news that would be reported by reliable neutral sources like EJM. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR said that the clashes in the streets but not said that al Nusra and rebels captured some areas in the city. Maybe they just only now entered to some streets near entrance to the city, or in an industrial part of town. Let's make a map as for city Aleppo and it will be the best solution of all contentious issues related to this city. I have already asked of editor which is earlier make map for Hasakah and Dara make such a map for city Idlib. Let's wait a little bit. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR reported that Al Nusra and Islamic factions withdrawal inside the city.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also the pro opposition source just claimed that rebels captured some area inside the northeast part of city Idlib. But according to those data Syrian troops still controlled more 80 percent territory the city of Idlib.here Also later SOHR reported that Al Nusra and Islamic factions withdrawal inside the city.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 According to that map based on geolocation, the rebels control at least 20% of the city. But it could be much more. You understand that the Conflict Reporter map is based on the conservative Archicivilians map, adjusted for points where geolocation (in ORANGE) indicates control by a particular side. So Conflict Reporter shows that most of the ring road is rebel controlled, whereas Archicivilians had it almost all regime controlled.

Even if it were only 20% of the city, that is easily enough to show it as contested for the moment. Until there is a stable situation, an inset map like Aleppo/Damascus/Daraa would be meaningless, as control shifts between neighbourhoods. (Like Aleppo in 2012) It would always be out of date.

So the only reasonable option at this point is contested for the whole city, which isn't very big compared to Aleppo/Homs/Damascus. As well, unlike Daraa city, there are no big military bases in the city. (2 days ago I was saying wait a day or so.)

"conservative archicivilian" he is of the most biased nusra lovers on twitter. you ignorats, out of your mind. gtfo of here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.15.105 (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebels took over neighborhoods in the city, here is confirmation from sohr http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/jabhat-al-nusra-and-islamic-battalions-advance-in-idlib/ so put the the city as contested ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.133.142 (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Opp. sources (SOHR): #SAA and #NDF launched a counteroffensive in #Idlib and retook recently lost areas on the outskirts of the city. #Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.39 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar News confirms fighting inside the city: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/zero-hour-has-arrived-in-idlib-battle-reaches-critical-stages/. Rebels controle some areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. The town should definately be contested as dozens of map shows that rebels control half of the town, we should consider them as pro-opposition sources, so lets say the control 30%, which is enough. DuckZz (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SAA source confirmed.SAA retreat from the idlib city. https://www.facebook.com/dimashq.now/posts/696578307134451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwinsp (talk • contribs) 12:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) OMG!!! assad is gone!!! SAA cant regain any village in syria.... 5 years of fight he can not capture zabadani... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.39 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also 5 years of fighting and rebels still can't capture Nubl and Zahraa, which has been under siege for almost 3 years. Grow up please and stop acting like an 8 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.173.153 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC) oh i forgot that idlib is 10x smaler then these two villages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.39 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure that Idlib should be green-marked, not grey ? It has been captured by Al-qaeda, not by André's democratic freedomfighters. Oroszka (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Oroska. Idlib should be marked under joint rebels—Jabhat-al-Nusra control. Or it could be marked like Kobanî is now, grey with green dot in the middle. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:6D3D:35ED:5E57:AEBA (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a hard anti Zionist but It's a terrible major defeat yes the insurgents cant take Nubl and Zahraa after years but in Idlib the Secular Syrian state lost a major city in just days abandoning a lot civilians there controlled now by Al Qaeda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.254.244 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The biggest group in the rebel military room to take Idlib is Ahrar al-Sham, the biggest member of IF and one of the more moderate. (Their colour on our map is lime green.) The military room itself is committed to a democratic Syria with protection of minorities. There are also FSA groups involved. So Nusra is very much a minority member.

So we should put Idlib as lime on our map, according to the military room responsible for the victory.

André437 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources reported the Al Nusra with moderate rebels captured city of Idlib. So that I marked him as under control of Al Nusra and rebels.The Washington Times The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

many civilians have supposedly fled to south. Idlib and surrounding area is the most backward and religious part of syria. its also surrounded and hard to defend. the people of syria need peace and end to all this fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.26.252 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Checkpoints around Idlib City

I propose that some of the minor checkpoints around Idlib City should be removed now that the city has fallen, as it is just clutter and makes things look awful. They are not really necessary given that most of them were merely barriers set up by the regime.Jafar Saeed (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think it makes the map look very cluttered and too complicated. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:6D3D:35ED:5E57:AEBA (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well, it doesn't look good and I doubt the rebels will man all of those checkpoints, most likely only the most important ones in the road to Mastumah and to Fuah.

We cant remove just like that any of the checkpoints beacause we dont know if the rebel it self will fight against al-nusra for this position or regime will start a counter-offensive,but I agree two remove the 2 barriers in northeren side of Idlib.Lindi29 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We should leave those few facing north and south in place, and remove all the others.

The checkpoints around the city would be useless in the event of a conflict between rebels and Nusra inside the city. (Such a conflict in the near future also seems unlikely, considering that the rebel military room was committed to a democratic Syria respecting minority rights, to which Nusra freely adhered.)

Only those to north and south would be useful in the event of a regime counter-offensive.

André437 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 some of them are factories and one is a electric substation,I suggest to remove those 2 barriers and those 2 military checkpoints who dont have a name.Lindi29 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 I totally agree with you! Some of them for now lost their strategic importance and no longer needed on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Good points. I was thinking of only the actual checkpoints. Of course the electric substation should be kept, and agree about the factories (at least for now).

André437 (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hasaka-Southern Tal Barak

"استعاد الجيبش السوري 33 قرية وبلدة على طريق الحسكة تل براك الجنوبي حيث باشر الأهالي العودة الى منازلهم مؤكدين أنه لا مكان للإرهاب بينهم والحياة تعود إلى سابق عهدها وإلى الأمان والطمأنينة. " Here

SAA took 33 villages on the Hasaka- Southern Tal Barak road, so no way Al-sakman is still contested when it's 800m far from the road, and no way Al-Shukhur is with ISIS as well, also the villages of kharita and matalit should be changed to red.

Note: The report says that civilians are back to those villages, and Syrian government reopened 74 schools there, so it's not a danger area.

This is the road, it's different from the other road north it. Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardomoha (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that reopening of schools doesn't necessarily mean that all the villages are controlled by the syrian government since it's not uncommon for them to keep funding institutions and paying salaries in kurdish controlled areas (even in Afrin). In fact one of the first reports on the reopening of schools specifically included the town center of Tal Brak and we know for a fact it's under YPG control. I think for now we should geolocate the village shown in the video until we get a more reliable source that explicily states the whole road is under govt control.

Also remember that this is a pro-govt source so we can't use it alone to report progress either.

186.113.144.178 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is just data from the pro government source and we cant be used their if this data not confirm reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Here other source reported that the Syrian troops recaptured 33 villages on the road between Al-Hasakah and Tell Brak.Balad Online But I still doubt that it is a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

YPG-IS clashes in the southern bank of Khabur river - Tal Tamr area

I will copy my messages from the previous discussion re. Tal Tamr which is kind of dead by now:

"According to a local pro-govt source, clashes are happening in Tal Shamiran, Tal Nasr and Ghabsnah villages: https://www.facebook.com/HASAKAHNEWS/posts/718946824893160 "

"Pro-oppo Qasion News reports clashes in Tal Baaz, Tal Hormizd and Tal Fayda:http://qasion-news.com/en/content/isis-deaths-among-clashes-tal-tamr#sthash.FUh61gOS.03fPRtiQ.dpbs "

In addition to these two sources, now kurdish media also claims clashes are happening in roughly the same villages, with the extra mention of Tal Heyfan:

http://en.hawarnews.com/12-isis-gang-members-killed-in-villages-of-til-temir/

I think that's enough material to mark the following villages:

-Tal Baaz -Tal Hormizd -Tal Fayda -Tal Shamiran -Tal Nasr -Ghabsnah -Tal Heyfan

As contested, or at the very least besieged from north.

What do the other editors think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.116.19.229 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that although these reports all come from anti-Daesh sides, that since it comes from both pro-regime and pro-rebel/kurd sources, plus the fact that we will unlikely ever have confirmation from Daesh, that it would be fair to show these locations as contested. Note that the reports use relatively neutral language, which suggests that they aren't propaganda. André437 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Could anyone make said changes then? Unless someone else disagrees but as you say with sources from three sides it would be a fair idea. Regards André. 186.116.19.229 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This all are pro-opp,pro-gov,and pro-kurd sources which in this case we cant use them until a reliable source confirms that.Lindi29 (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we waiting for a pro ISIS source announcing its own losses in Tal Tamer? Frankly this is ridiculous, many times the map has been edited with far less reliable sources than these. Also SOHR confirms that there are clashes near Tal Nasr and Ghabsnah. http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/the-regime-warplanes-strike-an-is-quarry-in-deir-ezzor-and-the-clashes-renew-around-tal-tamer/ So Lindi29 you have to self revert your editing, or please André437 or someone else should edit the map again as I don't want to break the 1RR rule. --8fra0 (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

8fra0 So you want to edit with pro-side sources ? We waited for reliable source to confrim not pro-side sources like you edited,also there are clashes near this villages not like you who edited the villages contested,clashes are taking place between Ghabsnah and Tal Tamer somewhere here here,aslo near Tall Nasr somewhere here here.I tried to explain to you that there is no clashes in those villages but you still didn't get it and keep on reverting.Lindi29 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also this source, used many times before and even today to edit the villages near Kobane for istance for here, highlights the kurdish advance in Tel Tamer and places Ghabsnah and Tall Nasr as contested. https://twitter.com/MarkMonmonier/status/582279991737638912 . Also the villages SW of Tel Tamer on the left bank of the Khabur river should be edited to YPG held. --8fra0 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

8fra0 Yes it was used but not without reliable source which confirmed it first,In this case the villages are not contested beacause a reliable source confirmed mutual bombardment by the 2 sides in the vincity of the town of Tal Tamer.Lindi29 (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Tel Nasr and the other villages are in the "vicinity of Tel Tamer" (less than 1 km, see here), so SOHR is not absolutely in contrast with those villages being contested. --8fra0 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Attention pro ISIS made faked page of Elijah J. Magnier!!!!!!

Be wary because pro-ISIS guys made of copy on the reliable source Elijah J. Magnier. Here is the warning that pro-ISIS guys made copy.here They have created an exact copy where they may publish not a reliable (pro ISIS) data so beware. Here is real page of Elijah J. Magnier but here forgery Elijah J. Magnier (pro-ISIS copy) Hanibal911 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. We should be more carful of all pro-ISIS messages put out or quoted from EJM until the fake account is banned. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Put Bosra controlled at least half by Al Qaeda (Nusra)

They included members of al-Qaida's branch in Syria, the Nusra Front. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/syria-rebels-bosra_n_6938442.html

Don't come again they are a "Minority" this is irrelevant they share the location with Al Qaeda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.254.244 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes i will come again with that. Why ? Well because who knows, those are the rules. SOHR mentioned only rebels and islamic batalions. Every pro-rebel page was reporting that only Rebel groups captured the town, with some small IF help. Not a single video/picture was published by Al Nusra, or their followers or their channels for Daraa province, while there are 50 videos showing rebels, I could have not seen any JAN flag. And we already marked 2 villages south and north of this town under joint control, i have no idea why, but lets leave it like that. DuckZz (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Source from 29/3 The success of Jabhat al-Nusra and other Islamic factions in overrunning the city of Bosra al-Sham in Daraa's Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2015/03/syria-jabhat-nusra-bosra-tikrit-fronts-fighting-offensives.html#ixzz3VokeAtIU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.254.244 (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

From the same link " Another interesting aspect of the battle for Bosra al-Sham was the fact that the vast majority of combatants came from the FSA, and more specifically, al-Omari Brigades, the Islamic Muthanna Movement and convoys sent by Jabhat al-Nusra". Doesn't sound like joint control for me. DuckZz (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Many reliable sources confirmed that this town captured moderate rebel groups but Al Nusra fighters just little helped them. Because unlike in Idlib province in Daraa province among those who are fighting against Bashar al-Assad is dominated by a group of rebels who are loyal to moderate Free Syrian army. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Smal Inconsistencies

I'm simply asking for clarification since there seem to be some small changes are in order. I could be wrong and I am happy to be proven otherwise, but I haven't seen reports to back these changes in points of control.

- Al Zaytuni Poultry Farm. Why is this contensted? The only report I have seen is by Leith on Masdar and that is about a different poultry farm, located here.

- Al Zarqa/al Mihassah. Are these controlled by rebels or are they simply in the area? Have there been ANY reports on Rebel movement south of Palmyra?

- Shouldn't the Zabadani pocket be shown as surrounded. There have been more than enough reports that state this. Also, aren't these towns controlled by IS/JaN, not the other rebels?

- Lahitah. I simply cannot find any reports that they've been attacked by Rebels from Daraa.

- Isn't there a truce in Kanaker? If so, why doesn't it show the correct icon.

- Has there been an attack on Tiyas base?

I cannot find recent discussions on these changes and am therefore sceptical to a certain degree.MesmerMe (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

MesmerMe SOHR on last week several times reported about clashes near Air Defence batallion in area of Tiyas air base so I put black semicircle near this Air Defence batallion. Also the town of Kanaker under control by Syrian troops it is just pro opposition sources reported that in this city truce between troops and rebels but we not have confirmation of this data from neutral source. But according to data from the reliable source town of Kanaker under control by Syrian troops and it is a place where located a military base of Brigade 121(Syrian troops).here Also SOHR on last week several times reported about clashes near village of Lahithah between army and rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is SOHR used for rebel gains? I though the entire point was to use the opposite biased news sources for changes on the map. And since SOHR is extremely pro rebel this change shouldn't have been made. If not, we should change the Broadcast tower/Radio Hill to SAA held since pro government Masdar reported on its capture months ago.MesmerMe (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Put Idlib controlled at least half by Al Qaeda (Nusra)

DW in Spanish said "Al Qaeda capture Idlib " http://www.dw.de/al-qaeda-toma-estrat%C3%A9gica-ciudad-siria-de-idlib/a-18347075 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.254.244 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

AQ capture Idlib http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/syria-al-qaeda-idlib_n_6960870.html http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/jabhat-al-nusra-and-islamic-battalions-advance-in-idlib/

This sources said that Al Nusra captured most part of city Idlib. But not all city. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the inflamatary headlines, this last article says that Nusra claimed during rebel advances that they controlled half of the city. (It is unclear if "they" referred to only Nusra or all involved.) It was written before the city fell.

Coming back to reality, the biggest group in the rebel military room that took the city is Ahrar al-Sham, the biggest member of IF, and the military room is committed to a democratic Syria that respects minority rights. Note also that important FSA groups were also involved.

So Nusra is only a minority part of the rebel victory, and in my view unlikely to have any independent control, at least in the short term.

André437 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

((Deleted personal attack)) THE PRO INSURGENT SORH SAID NUSRA (AL QAEDA CAPTURE IDLIB) Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions advance in Idlib http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/jabhat-al-nusra-and-islamic-battalions-advance-in-idlib/ AFP Qaeda seizes 'majority' of Syria's Idlib: http://news.yahoo.com/qaeda-seizes-majority-syrias-idlib-monitor-093344757.html Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front, seized control of large parts of the northwestern city of Idlib http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/28/al-qaida-in-syria-seizes-large-parts-of-northern-c/ Al Qaeda’s Syria wing battles to enter regime-held Idlib http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/03/25/Qaeda-s-Syria-wing-battles-to-enter-regime-held-Idlib-.html Seriously Put that in Grey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.254.244 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Someone is DELETING our posts written here, too many trools on the page. In the latest article, SOHR clearly names the main groups that captured the city, and not just Al Nusra and let's say 1 single group like (Ahrar Sham). Rebels have more groups, just like IF, while Ahrar Sham is 1 group of course. It's pretty clear. I'm not a pro-rebel fan but it's pretty obvious that such a big city can't go under joint control because 8 groups were involved, 7 of which are not Al Nusra DuckZz (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideology of Ahrar ash-Sham: Salafist jihadism, Sunni Islamism

Almost all rebel factions in the north are part of Al Qaeda as Nursa front has already defeated FSA forces in the governate. The city of Idlib is going to be the capital of Nursa's emirate as far as I think. STOP DELETING COMMENTS! Wikipedia is a democratic forum! Oroszka (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Readded the 3 preceding deleted comments minus personal attack, none were deleted with their creators consent or appear to have broken any rules beyond the personal attack. Banak (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I will delete every spamm and abusive, insulting comment. This is a not a page for 10 year old Call of Duty kids, you have twitter for that. DuckZz (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

According to André Ahrar ash-Sham is part of moderates. On it's Wiki page, you can see it's ideology: Salafist jihadism & Sunni Islamism. The city was taken by Army of Conquest which does not include FSA or SFR units. Last year, Nursa attacked moderates in the governate and FSA/SFR/Hazzm rebels simply defected or fled, maybe killed. I suggest Idlib should be marked in Nursa's colour: dark grey if it turns out that Al-Qauda took the city. However, we also should wait for news both from pro-gov and pro-rebel scources before deciding what to do with Idlib.Oroszka (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Nusra and its allies seized the city of Idlib. After five days of fighting, "Al-Nusra Front and its allies have captured all of Idlib.Naharnet The Daily Star Deutsche Welle Daily Mail 24 News Al Arabiya The Independent France 24 Gulf Times Al Joumhouria Ynet News Hanibal911 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib should stay under Islamic Front lime color control.

First link uses SOHR as a source. And SOHR wrote something else 2 hours ago
Second link the same
Third link doesn't work
Fourth link the same as first two
Fift again the same

Actually all the rest links the same. Every link wrote the same, and every link used the same source. They used SOHR, a source from the early morning, and you can read what SOHR wrote 3 hours ago. Pretty clear to me. DuckZz (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Nusra did not make any statement from inside the town, they are retweeting the statements from Islamic front groups, and in those statements they clearly say "Jaish Islam etc etc took control etc etc supported by Al Nusra & Faylaq Sham". Here latest SOHR source clearly marks JAN as last group. And rebels & islamic batalions have more groups. You see my point ? If there were only JAN & Ahrar Sham, i would put the town under joint control right away. DuckZz (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC) And you have dozens of statements from inside the town, everyone says the same "Islamic front groups liberated the town, we thank Al Nusra and Faylaq Sham (FSA)". There were no statements by JAN, while they're retweeting those videos from IF, clearly OK with that DuckZz (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here pro opposition source confirm that Al Nusra and their allies from Jund al Aqsa jointly with a moderate rebels (Sham Legion, Islamic Front) jointly captured city of Idlib.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Head SOHR reported that the Islamic factions and Al Nusra take over control of the city Idlib.SOHR Ahrar al-Sham, Al Nusra, Jund al-Aqsa and other Islamist factions captured almost the entire city Idlib.SOHR SOHR showed photos from inside the city of Idlib which is under control by Sham Islamic movement, Jund al-Aqsa and Al-Nusra and several Islamist factions.SOHR Also Jund al-Aqsa it is a allies of Al Nusra. They jointly fight with Al Nusra and defeated of moderate rebels earlier in this year.al-Nusra Front–SRF/Hazzm Movement conflict Hanibal911 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

1) Map shows the entire city under government control. Not the situation inside the city
2) I see 9 groups vs 4 flags ? Joint control means 50/50 or at least 60/40 but not 70/30 or 80/20
3) Jund Al Aqsa is an independent group, working with Al Nusra the same as Islamic front, both are cooperating, they don't fight each other, the same as Islamic Front. But they aren't a subb group for JAN, like for ex. Ahrar Sham is in the Islamic Front.
4)JAN published that 2000 of their fighters were involved. Islamic front published a number of 3000 for their number. Add another 1000 for other rebel groups like Faylaq Sham, FSA, Jund Al Aqsa and you get the number for 70/30, 80/20 control

5) The Same user of the map, archivilian, said that it's stupid to say that JAN took control of the town. DuckZz (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) For the video, skip to 2:19, and you will see what SOHR said when the girl asks about the Free Syrian army movement, and how SOHR responds. DuckZz (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) I made solid arguments, but i will not change the town because i want someone else to do it, and i hoppe that someone agrees with me. DuckZz (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here only facts:

Ahrar al-Sham, Jund al-Aqsa and Al Nusra groups had taken the city of Idlib.BBC
Islamist groups including Al Nusra Front have seized the city of Idlib.Reuters
Al Nusra seized control of large parts city of Idlib from government forces.The Washington Times Deutsche Welle The Huffington Post
The "Fattah Army" coalition - including the al-Nusra Front, Jund al-Aqsa, Jaish al-Sunna, Liwa al-Haqq, Ajnad al-Sham, and Faynad al-Sham seized city of Idlib.Al Jazeera
pro opposition source confirm that Al Nusra and their allies from Jund al Aqsa jointly with a moderate rebels (Sham Legion, Islamic Front) jointly captured city of Idlib.Archicivilians
Head of SOHR reported that the Islamic factions and Al Nusra take over control of the city Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The city of Idlib has fallen to Islamist groups led by Nusra Front.The Guardina
Islamist groups, including Al-Nusra Front took the city of Idlib the first time since the beginning of the conflict.Nezavisne Novine
Islamist fighters around the Al Nusra conquered the city of Idlib after clashes against Syrian troops.Wiener Zeitung Hanibal911 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You are violating the rules of the map. Every link that you posted, and every link that you posted above those links, are basicaly copy/paste texts, and EVERY link is using various SOHR reports from today as a source. And the same SOHR said this in the latest source. And the same pro-opposition sources said the same thing in their reports, and the same arcivilians said the same in his reports that IF took the majority of the town. And the same Al Nusra is retweeting statements by IF, and the same IF posted 3 statements about the situation in the town.

Why do i say that you are violating the rules ? Very simple, a town goes under joint control if theres 50/50 or 60/40 percentage ratio. but not 70/30 or even 80/20, those are the rules, and this percentage ratio is confirmed by SOHR in the latest reports, the same source used by your 20 links from above. Do you agree now lol ? DuckZz (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is new report from SOHR in which indicated that Ahrar al-Sham, Al Nusra (al-Qaeda in the Levant) and several Islamist factions captured city of Idlib.SOHR So we cant mark this town only under control by moderate rebels. Also as we all know that in the Idlib province Al Nusra has more power than the moderate rebels after defeated the moderate rebels in clashes against Al Nusra in January this year. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also in report which you provide SOHR said that Ahrar al-Sham, Jund al-Aqsa, Islamic battalions, rebels, and Jabhat al-Nusra have taken control city of Idlib.here But we all know that Jund al-Aqsa allies Al Nusra they earlier in this year helped of Al Nusra in their battle against of moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm since when are Islamic Front or other groups (which are not under JAN or FSA banner) considered a "moderate force" ? I hoppe you don't think that i want to make the town under "moderate FSA" control, of course not. And what have clashes from last year to do with Idlib town today ? Your source talks about an execution, and they mention the Idlib event just for the info, but we have the official SOHR statement 2 hours ago, and the video statement 1 hour ago, basically talking about the same thing. You remember when i said that making the grey color can only lead to problems ? Here we have the problem, as JAN has 2000 soldiers inside the city, which is huge, but they still don't cross the 40% gap as given for joint control rule, not even mentioning the 50%/50% DuckZz (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are the rules, i know it sounds stupid because of that amount of soldiers. Jund Aqsa is an independent group, just like dozens of others in Idlib/Aleppo. They fought FSA rebels yes, so what ? It's not like the IF doesn't exist, and i want to mark the town under "FSA" control. Grey is for Al Nusra only, they don't have brigades, subgroups, like the IF/"FSA", so any other independent group is a rebel group, that's a rule too. Do you agree now ? Common, you could do better than that. DuckZz (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that be the Al Nursa and Islamic Front control exactly of 50/50 the territory of city for that would mark his as under joint control. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also this is what the said Gen. Salim Idriss about the role of Al Nusra in this conflict against Syrian troops "I made a mistake criticizing Al Nusra's role in Syria they're now they only party that represent aspirations of Syrians."here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes i know, that's why I said that 60-40 is enough for Joint control, but as i said above, its still not like that, even though 2000 JAN soldiers. Read it again, i will not copy/paste it again.

About Gen. Salim Idriss, please tell me that you are joking ? His account is fake, we already knew that since he left his General status last year, but here is source1, source2, source3 DuckZz (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Shaykh al-Muhaysini (head of Jaysh al-Fath operation room, in which JAN is also part of) said that JAN will not dominate the city but will move on and liberate the entire Idlib province, towards Ariha and Hama. DuckZz (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Has southern Idlib even fallen? According to pro-gov sources the southern part of Idlib is still contested. Citing all the pro-opp and corporate media citing SOHR, still only provides perspective from anti-gov sources. I thought to make big changes in map we need to have verification from one side that they have lost territory. If whole city falls it seems like this will be verified more clearly in next day or two. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/zero-hour-has-arrived-in-idlib-battle-reaches-critical-stages/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.26.252 (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That article is relatively old. Newer sources [hours newer] confirm fall of Idlib. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DuckZz that Idlib city should be lime green.

1) Only Nusra has a separate colour, because as well as being the only rebel group declaring association with al-Qaeda, of their frequent attacks on moderate and islamic rebels, usually much smaller units. SRF was an exception in size, but Nusra had numerous allies who joined with Nusra for a share of the spoils. It also helped Nusra that SRF hadn't prepared for potential attacks from supposed rebels. When the remaining FSA groups in Idlib regrouped into (at least 2) larger groups, they became much less vulnerable to Nusra attacks.

2) The al Futah operation room (led by Ahrar al-Sham, IF) that organized the offensive made a statement in favour of a democratic Syria which respects minority rights. Which evidently precludes a caliphate. Nusra joined the Islamic Front and FSA rebels involved anyway, and all their videos of the offensive carried the al-Futah logo, as well as their own. They were much lower key than usual.

3) In Ma'arat al-Numan, the second biggest city in Idlib province (about 2/3 the size of Idlib city), and designated on our map as Nusra controlled, there have been reports of the arrest of some Nusra members by the FSA. So evidently we have overstated Nusra control there.

4) The low-key nature of Nusra involvement in this offensive could be part of a public relations campaign in the province. The strong pro FSA sentiment in the population has caused Nusra problems in a number of towns. Showing that they are willing to cooperate with other rebels could help resolve those problems.

5) I don't know how accurate the numbers presented are, but others have indicated that Nusra contributed only 1/3 of the numbers, which could also be another explanation of Nusra's low-key approach. I find that a fairly high ratio, but offering twice the salary of other rebel groups would help recruitment.

6) BTW, I called Ahrar al-Sham as moderate among islamic rebels, not rebels in general. Particularly compared with Jaish al-Islam, which in the past rejected an IF statement in favour of democracy.

André437 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 You changed the status of Idlib 18 minutes before you presented arguments for discussion here. That is a violation of the rules. All major changes are supposed to be presented on the talk page first. In subsequent discussions, there were strong arguments for a different change.

You should correct your edit of Idlib city, to lime green. (Which means controlled by rebels, which can include Nusra.) For instance, Aziz is controlled by Northern Storm (LF), even though Nusra is present there also.

Lime-grey means Nusra controls (a significant) part in exclusion of other rebels. It means much more than a Nusra presence. Nusra doesn't have enough numbers to control all the area allocated to them on our map, since civilians often object to their presence, especially in Idlib.

Please correct your edit.

André437 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Not so. While it is preferable to present changes here first, there is no rule stating that it must be done. Now, to throw in my opinion. Numerous sources have stated that Al-qaida affiliates have taken over the city and that the coalition is led by JAN. JAN is the dominant group in Idlib, period. Any attempt to change Idlib city to green and pretend that they have little to no influence is ridiculous. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 My edits about situation in city of Idlib was correct and I provide many sources. But your argument is based on a different interpretation of the data so this is not an argument. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source showed of Al Nusra fighters in city center of Idlib.Documents.Sy Documents.Sy Hanibal911 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 All your links saying al_Qaeda were discredited by other links, presented mostly by DuckZz. These 2 links above just say that rebels are in the centre of Idlib city, which is not in question.

BTW, there is no point in presenting multiple copies of exactly the same article, posted by different. It does not enhance your argument, except to those who don't bother checking your references, which all serious contributors should do.

You must admit that the only evidence coming from Nusra itself presents themselves as part of the al-Fateh operations room, and not an independent entity. So Nusra itself is not even claiming separate control. (Which is uncharacteristic of Nusra.)

Note that the purpose of the grey colour for Nusra was to cover situations where they acted against other rebels, instead of in cooperation. That is clearly not the case here. Most of your own links clearly indicate that Nusra acted in cooperation with other rebels. Also not as the main force, either.

Besides talk pages existing for the purpose of discussing major changes, this article has had a policy of discussing all major changes to the map here before doing them, so other editors can examine the evidence and changes be done by consensus.

In changing the map 18 minutes before presenting your arguments, you clearly violated this principle.

Revisiting the evident you presented, it was largely various media around the world simply copying other posts out of context and without analysis. That is the worst possible sort of evidence, whatever the media it was published it. (I realize that you may be having a problem with english, but even more reason why you should discuss with other editors before posting.)

So again, you have an obligation to correct your change, according to the evidence that was presented. (It would be better than requiring others to make the correction.)

André437 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 With Idlib's capture, Al-Nusra and its allies control most of the northwestern province, though regime forces maintain a presence in two additional cities, as well as the Abu Duhur military airport and several military bases in the region. And Last November, Al-Nusra and allied forces ousted a series of Western-backed rebel groups from Idlib after announcing plans to establish an Islamic "emirate" that analysts say is intended to rival ISIS' "caliphate."The Daily Star Islamic fighters led by Al Nusra seized almost full control of the northwestern city of Idlib. The Al Nusra is leading a group of ultra-conservative rebels in a major offensive that began earlier this week to take Idlib. They include the hardline Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al-Aqsa groups and a few smaller groups loosely affiliated with the Free Syrian Army.ABC News Hanibal911 (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

XJ-0461 v2 Let me examine your points one by one.

1) You are new here, so you are not aware of the rule to discuss major changes here first. Before you arrived, it was common for changes not discussed to be reverted, but there has been less vigilance lately.

2) You say "Numerous sources have stated that Al-qaida affiliates have taken over the city".

If fact, most of these "numerous sources" just said that al-Qaeda (or Nusra) was part of the rebels that took over the city. As well, generally they were one paragraph without any details, often exact copies of other posts. Not any more valuable than a twitter post by an unknown source. Note that "al-Qaeda" makes a much more exciting headline, something most media appreciate.

3) You go on to say "that the coalition is led by JAN." Strangely enough, all JAN posts just claim to be part of the al-Futeh operations room, not acting independently. They do NOT claim a leading role. In fact, the operations room is led by Ahrar al-Sham (the largest member of the Islamic Front), in cooperation with at least 7 other rebel groups, in addition to Nusra.

4) You say "JAN is the dominant group in Idlib, period." Dominant ? Your opinion. However Ahrar al-Sham is larger, and there are at least 2 fairly large FSA regroupings that Nusra has chosen not to attack. One based around Ma'arat al-Numan (central Idlib), another in southern Idlib. There was a recent report that FSA arrested a Nusra member in Ma'arat al-Numan, so evidently, despite our map, Nusra is not dominant in the second largest city of Idlib province.

5) You add "Any attempt to change Idlib city to green and pretend that they have little to no influence is ridiculous."

Here you entirely miss the point. The question is not whether they have influence or not, but whether they have control to the exclusion of other rebels, instead of in cooperation.

Following the purpose of the grey colour, I'm sure you will now agree that Idlib city should be lime green.

André437 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Qaeda (Nusra) in Syria seizes large parts of northern city of Idlib from government forces.Fox News McClatchyDC Hanibal911 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 Hanibal911 And again, your first link is using SOHR old report as a source.

The second link says this: "The Nusra-led final push into Idlib began on Tuesday, when its forces combined with four other groups – Ahrar al Sham, Jund al Aqsa, Jaish al Sunnah and Failaq al Sham – to form a 6,000 man force they called the Fateh Army. "

1)They forgot to mention 2 more groups, Liwa Haqq and Ajnad Sham
2)Exactly the same thing that SOHR said in their new reports, and the same thing that Islamic front and Nusra channels said about the number of their soldiers, JAN 2000, rest 4000, and thats an ratio of 70/30 (not enough for joint control, as we need at least 60-40 max) because 60% of 6000 is still 2500 and not 2000 ....

André437 Do you agree with me ? Those are the rules. DuckZz (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We cant said that al Nusra captured 40 percent in the city of Idlib only based the data that Al Nusra used 2000 fighters but other rebels used 6000 and this indicate that they control 60 percent of city Idlib. Here is crucial quality rather than quantity. In the battle for Mosul one of the largest cities of Iraq ISIS has involved only a few thousand fighters although they opposed the Iraqi soldiers a total number which was more 30,000 soldiers and they won.Fall of Mosul So that in similar battles the number of fighters is not decisive factor. Plays a crucial role their professionalism but not a their number. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What you say makes no sense. You are comparing ISIS and Iraqi Army (two opposing groups), with Al Nusra and 8 Rebel groups (islamist or not), which are allies. We are talking about rules, and not how 2 eggs can make good quality to meat when combined and mixed together lol ... I think it's up to Andrea or someone else to decide. And again you are spining my words, i have not said that JAN controls 40% of the city, because if that is the case, i would put joint control (as 60-40 is enough), but 2000 of 6000 is 33%, and that's not enough. And we already have a statement from Jaish Fateh that "JAN moves on to liberate rest of Idlib". DuckZz (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

And here is the statement from the Syrian opposition, in what they said that they will move their HQ to Idlib town. This confirms what Jaish Fateh lider said. Al Nusra is moving on. DuckZz (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This statement from the Syrian opposition cant be used in this situation because it just statement from Syrian opposition which not once opposed of Al Nusra. And also your personal assumptions. But all credible sources say that Al Qaeda in Syria(Al Nusra) seized most of the city of Idlib. So at the moment the city should remain marked as subject to joint control. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also here pro opposition source said that for now inside city of Idlib present just 5000 rebels from ( Free Syrian army, Islamic front & Al Nusra)here And no mention who from their control most of the city. So at the moment the city should remain marked as subject to joint control. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also here Joshua Lendis confirmed that the crucial role in capture the city of Idlib played jihadists from al- Nusra and of the large Islamist faction known as Ahrar al-Sham.Syrian Comment 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

Hanibal911 You keep grasping at straws, not wanting to admit that you are wrong.

1) I agree with everything that DuckZz has posted, discrediting most of your posts. :2) Unfortunately, despite your seemingly good intentions, you seem to lack in critical thinking. Just because a so-called reliable source says something, doesn't mean it must be accepted totally without questioning. And posting numerous links to the same article appearing on different media doesn't help your argument, and is a very bad habit.

3) Many of your posts lump Nusra and the Islamic Front together, without differentiation. Yet IF is always lime green on our map, like most other rebels. Only Nusra is sometimes but not always grey. (More explanation further down.)

4) It is obvious that the word "al-Qaeda" makes an exciting headline. So many media sources can't resist making an exaggerated emphasis on that. So you have picked numerous media reports doing exactly that, with no analysis. That is meaningless.

5) In addition to what DuckZz has said, I've reminded you of the purpose of the grey colour for Nusra. Nusra has had the habit of attacking smaller units, justifying it by largely falsified charges. This has been mostly (but not entirely) FSA, since the FSA is a coalition which has been largely composed of many small units. Because of that, in areas where this happens, we decided that Nusra should have their own colour. If you remember, I was the one who made the grey icons, based on these discussions.

6) However, the al-Fatah operations room (or coalition) is different. The largest member is Ahrar al-Sham, also the largest member of the Islamic front. The head of al-Fatah is from that group. On formation, they declared in favour of a democratic Syria and protection of minority rights. On the first point, Nusra has been opposed, as well as frequently violating the second point. Yet Nusra chose join such a coalition, and all their posts contain the logo of this new group. The first time that this has happened. So in this group, which contains members of the FSA and numerous small groups, Nusra is actively cooperating with and respecting other rebels. So in this case, as I already pointed out, the grey colour is not justified, even if they had contributed more important numbers.

7) Note that estimate of rebels involved vary widely, from 5000 to 10000, with Nusra claiming to have contributed 2000. The total probably depends on whether one counts those involved in Idlib city itself, or including outlying areas. Attacks along the long narrow supply line probably contributed to the victory.

8) You also might note that I was saying from the outset that the rebels had a good chance of victory, while many others, I think yourself included, were denying such a likelihood. Many were also accepting regime propaganda of supposed counter attacks.

9) In sum, it is clear that Nusra is not about to exercise independent control of Idlib, or even part of Idlib, separate from the other rebels. As well, they are a clear minority of the rebels involved. Thus lime green for rebel control.

I can do the change is you prefer. André437 (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly the gray icons for the Al Nusra should be left because Al Nusra not a part of FSA and moderate rebels. And secondly only pro opposition sources said that 5,000 to 10,000 rebels insyde city of Idlib. And Jishua Landis clera said that the Al Nusra Front it is the strongest group which fights against Syrian troops in the Idlib province. Also here Joshua Lendis confirmed that the crucial role in capture the city of Idlib played jihadists from al- Nusra and of the large Islamist faction known as Ahrar al-Sham.Syrian Comment I also see that you just would want mark the entire city of Idlib under control of moderate rebels even if it is contrary to reality. So I no longer see the point in our discussion. Do what you want. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The last thing I wanted to say you about this situation it is that according to data from the opposition source the the total number of fighters including al Nusra Front who captured Idlib is a 5,000 fighters.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I respect your work, but i need to agree with Andrea, as he has more experience than me. And i don't think we should remove the JAN color, as long as they don't publish something big in what they say that "they are rebels too, no longer Al Qaida linked etcc...", but that won't happen any soon. Also, interesting thing, this only confirms that the Syirian exile government will have their HQ in this town indeed. André437 You can try to edit the town if Hanibal won't revert it, i think he's a bit angry. Also "if" you do that, and make things right, you can change the "Mat'hane Checkpoint & Youth Housing" to grey color, as we don't have sources that rebels captured it. DuckZz (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Hanibal911 beacasue I saw a twitter that reported that Al-Nusra attacked mostly the Northwesteren side.And for sure Nusra is a big faction so I think to put it the city on joint controll is trhe right thing.Lindi29 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a no-brainer. It was a Nusra-led offensive which captured the city. More than half of the attacking force was Nusra and the other was made up of other radical rebels. In any case, we have a special mark for Nusra, so mark this city as jointly controlled by both Nusra and other rebel elements (example Khan Sheykun). If in the coming months Nusra assimilates the other rebels in the city or pushes them out and officially declares the capital of its Emirat we will mark it as fully-controlled by Nusra. EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an Arabic document circulating in Twitter ^[1] that says Idlib city consisted of 21 battles, of which Ahrar took part in 18 of them (13 outside, 5 inside) and Nusra took part in 6 of them (5 outside, 1 inside). While this can hardly be considered a reliable source, it's worth investigating given that different armed factions make it clear which positions did they take. The same can be done for other major groups in the battle, such as Faylaq al Sham, a group that spearheaded the previous assaults on Fua and Kafraya in preparation for this battle, and is no doubt the third main player in the city after Ahrar and Nusra. You're gonna have to define what is meant by Nusra led; if it means Nusra as the second most powerful faction, then by all means make it black. Just remember to apply the same treatment to the rest of the map. NightShadeAEB (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This source here Sham quake too biased pro opposition source and he is totally support moderate rebels (including Anhar al Sham and some other) and thus its data can not be considered as neutrals. Perhaps you are right that other rebel groups have done more than Al Nusra for capture the city Idlib but we need confirmation from the more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR also today reported that warplanes raided areas in city of Idlib which is under control by Islamic battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is not if the city is controlled by moderate rebels, but rather is it controlled by rebels (which can include Nusra), or does Nusra have a separate control which excludes other rebels. ?

Because that is exactly what the grey colour was introduced for : Where Nusra establishes a separate control against other rebels. Which has happened in some other parts of Idlib, and a few other areas.

In this case, Nusra is a minority part of a coalition which includes FSA and other moderate groups, as well as members of the Islamic Front. The biggest group involved is a member of the Islamic Front. This coalition declared in favour of a democratic Syria. Thus no emirate or caliphate, a goal previously declared by Nusra. All this Nusra accepted in forming part of this coalition. As well, all their posted videos contained the logo of the coalition as well as their own, the first time another logo appears in their videos. What we are seeing is Nusra as a rebel group. And the rebel colour is lime green.

André437 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 I have no idea what to say more, because everything what i could and had to say is been written here. You can make the edit ? I don't know, hanibal doesn't agree with that so ... 109.175.65.171 (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Done André437 (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 I am very sorry that I had to re-mark the city of Idlib under joint control of moderate rebelss and Al Nusra. While I agree with your argument that Al Nusra controls a smaller part of the city than the moderate rebels. Maybe you just need to create for similar situations newicon that will display that rebels and Al Nusra together control the city but all the same a large part of the city control the moderate rebel groups. Or as in the case with the city of Kobáne which is under full control of the Kurds but they recaptured it with the support of moderate rebels and we marked that rebels located inside city. So maybe we can mark the city of Idlib just as we have earlier noted the city of Kobane. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911, you just ignored what the grey icon means. It is Jaish al-Fatah which controls the city, even according to claims of Nusra. The fact that Nusra is part of Jaish al-Fatah is irrelevent, unless Nusra starts acting independently. So far, neither you nor anyone else has produced any evidence that Nusra is acting independently of the alliance which took Idlib. Nusra's own reports, all in the name of Jaish al-Fatah, suggest the contrary.

Most of your references contain obvious misstatements of fact, such as claiming that Jaish al-Fatah is led by Nusra (or al-Qaeda). It is just al-Qaeda paranoia, without substance.

I don't know why you keep saying lime green means moderate rebels, since the largest component of Jaish al-Fatah, and most other components, are members of the Islamic Front, and are usually classified as between the moderates (including FSA) and the jidahists like Nusra. And the colour for all members of the Islamic Front, whatever their orientation, is lime green.

The cameo reference that you used in supporting your change is not enough to support your change to the map. It in no way specifies separate control, and doesn't even mention the group (Jaish al-Fatah) which took the city. If that sort of reference is why you add grey on the map, it explains why grey is grossly over-represented. And maybe why Ma'arat al_Numan, with a considerable FSA presence and control, is all grey.

Sorry, but your change is not valid. André437 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 Hanibal911

Just to add something more. Idlib government council will have 15 seats, 4 of which will go to JAN, 11 to Islamic Front/Jund Aqsa/FSA(Faylaq Sham) DuckZz (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

According to this source it is legit to put Idlib on joint controll.Why beacause Jund al-Aqsa is part of the Muhajirin wa-Ansar Alliance,Ahrar ash-Sham is part of Islamic Front but note that Islamic Front is already being defunct Ahrar ash-Sham absorbd 3 faction of IF and It is becoming a bigger faction,and the Syrian Revolutionary Command Council,Sham Legion is part of Syrian Revolutionary Command Council,also note that IF and Nusra belong to Ahrar ash-Sham so there are no FSA brigades that took part of the battle of Idlib so all are Islamists and dont represent FSA all are Salafi units and it is not strange to put the city grey,but we dont have a color for the Islamist so the best desicion is to put it joint controll.Lindi29 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I already said my piece. I agree with both Hanibal911 and Lindi29. Marked as joint control between Nusra and other rebels is best solution here. EkoGraf (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@ everyone : DuckZz has presented proof positive for my view : Idlib city is under control of a rebel group in which Nursa has no separate control, thus we use only the rebel colour, which is lime green.

The source article (in arabic) is here.

To give more details, this is a Jaish al-Fatah military council of 15, according to its' military contribution, to administer the entire city. Representatives are 4 for Nusra, 9 for Ahrar al-Sham (IF), 1 for the main FSA group involved, and 1 for Jund Aqsa (despite it's minor contribution). Several smaller moderate groups involved were left out of the council.

The corollary to having a lime-grey icon in Idlib is that since armed members of Nursa are present almost everywhere controlled by the rebels, we should put a lime-grey icon almost everywhere. I'm sure that most of you would agree that that would be ridiculous.

BTW, while we are considering control, note that Ma'arat al-Numan has a considerable FSA presence, and there is no joint control there (ie, different groups have separate control), so it should not be all grey for Nusra.

André437 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Lindi29 1) The IF colour is lime green. You might note that except Jaish al-Islam in the Damascus area, there have been few conflicts between IF and more moderate rebels, and considerable cooperation.

2) There is one FSA seat on the new military council controlling Idlib city. (The smaller FSA factions involved were left out.)

3) Again, grey is for where Nusra has separate control. Which is clearly NOT the case here.

4) The initial Jaish al-Fatah statement supported a democratic Syria (which is IF policy), and the leader of the dominant Ahrar al-Sham group stated after taking the city that there will be no emirate or caliphate in Idlib. So there is a clear difference between the attitudes of Nusra and that of both Jaish al-Fatah and Ahrar al-Sham. The fact that Jund Aqsa was given a token seat doesn't change the balance in Idlib.

5) You stated "IF and Nusra belong to Ahrar ash-Sham", but that is obviously false. Maybe you meant "Ahrar al-Sham and Nusra belong to Jaish al-Fatah". But with its' distinct minority of votes, Nusra is not going to be the tail that wags the dog. FSA and IF have more in common than Nusra and IF. (e.g., commitment to democracy.)

6) BTW, islamist is not necessarily incompatible with democracy, of which Morocco is a good example. (We could argue that it is not fully democratic because of islamic constraints, but it is much closer to open democracy (as in Europe and Tunisia) than theocratic systems such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

7) So logically Idlib should be lime green. Unless, of course, you think Nusra presence without control is sufficient, and thus want to change most rebel areas to lime-grey.

André437 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarrin.

Ongoing fighting reported in Sarrin, between Kurds and ISIS. [See here http://aranews.net/2015/03/kurds-combat-isis-in-serrin-town-north-syria/] Should we consider it contested or sieged by one side??Mr.User200 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This source had previously said about fighting inside town of Sarrin but its data not was confirmed also this just pro opposition source and he is supports rebels so we cant used him in this situation because the Kurds and moderate rebels fighting together against the ISIS in the area. Need confirmation from a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest map show YPG still some miles north of the town. So not contested. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The allied kurdish and FSA forces have been in the Sarrin area, for more than a week. This is among many reports that suggest that Daesh/ISIS seems to have succeeded in slowing but not stopping their advance. Previously linked reports suggested that allied forces made at least some incursions into the town, but no indication that they stayed.

If besieged-one-side, I expect that would be to the north-west.

BTW, maps should only be used as a guide of what to look for. Annotations or comments with the maps could be used for changes.

André437 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 Here is map dated 29 March with annotations and this map displays the situation in area near of the town of Sarrin. Maybe this map will useful for you. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hanibal911, but you forgot to include a link to the map ;o) André437 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 Sorry forgot! here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks Hanibal911. Who made this map ? If the source is reliable, the info in the caption could be used. Probably better to confirm, but at least we have specific info to look for. André437 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

André437 This map from this source.Mark Monmonier Hanibal911 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Al Zabadani countryside

Pro opposition source reported that the Syrian troops takes over many hills in al-Zabadani western mountains.Documents.Sy Documents.Sy Hanibal911 (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Also pro government source reported that the Syrian troops in coordination with NDF capturing a hills Sher Talqa, Sher Al-Joubat, Sher Al-Qarnah, Sher Al-Hawa, Sha’yab Al-Alad, Qasr Al-Nimroud, Bayr Kaas, Al-Sheikh Mansour, Ras Al-Quran, and Shaqeef Al-Ahmad located west of Al-Zabadani after clashes against Al-Nusra and Liwaa Suqour Al-Zabadani.here here To the north of Al-Zabadani Hezbollah took control of Tal Al-Hinkel located just north of Faleeta after clashes against Al-Nusra.here Also pro opposition source confirmed that Syrian troops and Hezbollah captured Tall Hankal to north of Flitah.Documents.Sy Documents.Sy Hanibal911 (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 A "objective" source said that SAA captured Shir Jub hill near Zabadani. I can't find the location. DuckZz (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Difficult question. The whole Zabadani district, which covers everything between the Damascus suburbs to the Lebanese border, is in the mountains. There are hills everywhere, and references like google maps don't help at all. André437 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Maybe your (pro-opposition) source indicate on this hill.Jabal Shir Hanibal911 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably. I don't think he is pro-opposition, as he always say (Syrian army, government forces), never regime or something like that, and he never insults Assad or the government. I think we can use him to show government gains, as he's objective in my opinion. DuckZz (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz This source mainly publishes data from opposition sources. He's just a more moderate and not named Syrian troops as the regime troops but this not said that he neutral source. SOHR also named the Syrian troops as the regime troops but we use SOHR as the neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Acording pro gov source: SAA fully captured of the western mountains of Zabadani [1] and confirmed army advance by SOHR 83.7.2.210 (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Acording pro gov source leithfadel: The Syrian Arab Army's 1st Division has captured Point 1715 in Al-Zabadani and Syrian Army's 1st Division captures Tal Sakhar, Al-Joraf Al-Sakhriyah, and Al-Sa'at west Al-Zabadani 83.7.2.210 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos SAA source after take control of hill 1715 - western outskirts of zabadani [2] [3]. It is mean that next target will be Zabadani city. 83.7.2.210 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source also reported that Syrian troops take control over the Sheab al-Ald and hill 1715 in Zabadani amid continuing clashes against of Islamic battalions.Documents.Sy Hanibal911 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source reported that Syrian troops takes full control over the western series of al-‪‎Zabadani‬ mountains after securing Sheer al-Nsour and Dahret al-Zaiton areas.Documents.Sy Hanibal911 (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Something ironic about the battle for Zabadani. At the start of the revolution, it was base used by Iran to support the Hezbolla, by transfer of arms, etc. There were reportedly 8'000 iranian forces in Syria at the time. But somehow the rebels (army defectors) succeeded in taking this area, and the regime has yet to succeed retaking it. Being forced to use alternate routes to Lebanon. André437 (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Syrian troops and Hezbollah completed the control of the Zabadani mountains.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In additon to data from the pro opposition sources I provided map which showed situation in area city of Zabadani.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I marked city of Zabadani under control by rebels because all pro government and neutral sources cinfirmed that rebels control him but Syrian troops and their allies captured area around this city and for now besieged him and prepare for retake him. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yarmouk camp

News from Yarmouk camp reported that Isis captured 70% of the camp and clashes are still ongoing.SOHR,SOHR,NBCNEWS,BBC,Dailystar.Lindi29 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The spokesman of Jaish al-Islam says that Jabhat al-Nusra fighters defected to side ISIS in the Yarmouk camp.Charles Lister And SOHR reported that Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS were able to take control 90% of the Yarmouk camp after violent clashes against Aktaf Bait al-Maqdis and Islamic battalions.SOHR SOHR So this confirms the fact that the Al Nusra collaborating with ISIS in this area. And fights with ISIS against some rebel groups which cooperated with Free Syrian Army and with moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

^ https://twitter.com/mujahed_dira/status/582269843430187008

[1] ttps://twitter.com/mujahed_dira/status/582269843430187008

[1]