Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 29

Syrian troops begin contr-offensive in Quneitra province?
SOHR reported about clashes between a Syrian army backed by NDF against Islamic battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra around villages al-Samadania and al-Hamedia in attempt the army to regain control in this area also some reports says about of reinforcements for regime forces in the area.source Hanibal911 (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, they tried the same in Deir al-Abas two weeks ago. Fighting has been raging near Madinat al Baath for weeks. Let's wait and see if this changes the frontlines... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying with absolute certainty that this a counteroffensive I just trying to find data on the situation in this area. I have said many times that it would be better before editing the map try collect more data. Severe clashes occur between the Syrian Army and fighters of Islamic battalions in the town al-Hamedia of al-Qunaitera countryside, along with artillery bombardments target locations of the battalions.Documents.sy Hanibal911 (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-al-samdaniyya-quneitra-rebels-capture-umm-mayaazan-daraa/ Al-Samdaniyya is taken by SAA and Al-Hamidiyya contested. (Note that the source in the same post announces an advance of the rebels)Paolowalter (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Enter Alhaunty, who will now regurgitate his defunct argument about how the editor's stance makes the source "unreliable", yet will ignore SOHR. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:A199:9BF4:AC4E:F46F (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is widely considered reliable by international media, Al-Masdar is not. But hey, I totally agree in changing Al-Samdaniyya and Al-Hamidiyya to contested. Since Quneitra is really small and the distance between those villages in only some dozens meters, changing them to contested is very fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.179.159.112 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The criteria we use is record of accuracy, so I am told. If what the source report actually happens, it is reliable, if not, then unreliable. So far, almost every report by Al-Masdar has proven to be accurate, so they are reliable. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:A199:9BF4:AC4E:F46F (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is unreliable and the reasons were explained,why.Alhanuty (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and your reason is defunct because of SOHR, so Al-Masdar is reliable. See how logic works now? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:6010:12AC:15EE:B912 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to disappoint you but Al Masdar too biased source and clashes in the town al-Hamidiyah source and near or around Samdaniyah SOHR SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And to avoid accusations that the Syrian Documents  the source which I used the pro government source. I give evidence that it is not so, and furthermore, this opposition source. Firstly this source for their articles uses only the rebel video from YouTube.herehere Secondly page of this source in Twitter here or in Facebook here also clearly this source not pro government. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Kanaker
Al Jazeera report saying this town under siege by the Syrian army and rebels are close to lift the siege. Well we know that's not going to happen any soon but the point is, this town is rebel held and surrounded by Hills, which may explain why the Army can't just enter that area. But maybe I'm just WRONG ... discuss .DuckZz (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Source said that city Kanaker which surrounded by hills and military barracks belonging the Syrian troops and now increased the number of army fortifications after armed opposition forces are move close to this town. But source not said that rebels are in this town.Al Jazeera report Also pro opposition map clear show that the city Kanaker under control by army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Kobane
Would be interesting to upgrade the map with a Kobane city map (like the Damascus and Aleppo city maps). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.138.234 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw this earlier by someone who i assume is Pro-ISIS http://i.imgur.com/iQAoa42.jpg

Change Menazê to contested? ANHA reporting YPG attacks ISIL in Menazê village west of Kobane.

Change Kobani to Kurdish control based on the following report: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/17102014 Although Rudaw is Kurdish but it has proved to be reliable and the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Koban%C3%AE has already taken the report as valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.98.26.163 (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly we do not use pro Kurdish sources to display success Kurdish forces. And secondly Al Jazeera reported that ISIS by still hold around a third of the town.Al Jazeera Also another reliable source Reuters confirms that IS still present in the town Kobane.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Rudaw is not a credible source and has been caught lying time and again. http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/isis-takes-over-tal-shaer-and-advances-in-the-city-of-ein-al-arabkobane/ Tall Shair has fallen.Tgoll774 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Repport YPG took Tall Shair back again after heavy bombardment ( video and BBC news, video ) from coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhocagil (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Morek
SOHR reported that the Army has taken wide areas of the town(fighting only in the north of the town) which probably means that the rebels have been pushed out to the outskirts given the experience when SOHR reported on capture of other towns .Daki122 (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More info from http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-morek-syrian-arab-army-fire-control/ Some skirmish still in the outskirt. Also Al-Lataminah is contested.Paolowalter (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposition activits confirm the capture of Mork. https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/525280236011655168. Also Al-lataminah to contested.

morek has just been liberated from islamists Jumada (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regime troops and their militia allies took back total control of Morek in the north of Hama countryside, after fierce battles that have raged" since Wednesday night. The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Latmin taken by SAA according to http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/hama-battle-map-update-syrian-army-captures-tal-itmeen/.Paolowalter (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But before edit it on map us need confirmation from more reliable source because Al Masdar too biased. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are based on their record of reliability, not their bias. So far, Al-Masdar has been right about almost everything it has reported. Still, I am willing to wait for more sources. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Peto Lucem says that SAA captured Latmin. He is pro-Government but has a record of reliability and sometimes reports rebels advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

From pro-opp https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByQl9HGZDeRXYnp3QWpLTFl6Nmc/view Lahaya red and Latmin contested. It matches Peto Lucem's map. Paolowalter (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, notice, that there are three objects on the map named Lahaya: "dot red" at line 858, "abm-red" at line 861, and another "dot red" at line 954. Latter is obviously excessive. 87.117.178.100 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah region
Why change 13 villages northeast of Hasakah to ISIS control without providing any source what so ever? Please provide source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhocagil (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a logical move by ISIS really, if they can take that city they would cut the Kurds into 3 small areas. They probably wouldn't even need to worry about strikes from the US either as there are SAA troops in the city fighting as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Locations should not be changed without providing a supporting article. Ideally, it should be posted to the appropriate table before being posted to the map (as was the initial practice). André437 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This article Almasdar News says YPG retreated from 4 villages, not close to the 13 that has been changed. Change back or provide source!

ISIS has recaptured Tal Brak and its region back in May 2014,but no one changed the villages near it,and here are the sources http://aranews.net/2014/09/islamic-state-militants-attack-syrias-qamishli-casualties-reported/ http://aranews.net/2014/06/we-are-all-forced-into-the-battlefield-to-protect-our-families-ypg-official/

Also,another report confirmed that ISIS was conducting arrests in its Tal Brak controlled area via http://aranews.net/2014/10/kurdish-village-evacuated-amid-attacks-militants-syrias-hasakah/

Also another report confirmed clashes north of Tal Brak Area in Tal Hamidiya and Finally the villages that ISIS has captured,Khirbat Urta and Girke kere,lie way north of the area and on the road between Qamishli and Hasakah,and ISIS was able to seize a village back in July between Hasakah city and Qamishli city via ISW.Alhanuty (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like ISIS is heading towards to the main border town over there http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/ndf-captures-3-villages-near-qamishli-ypg-withdraws-tal-harmouz/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pro opposition source ARA News reported that U.S.-led coalition’s fighter jets bombed IS-held locations in the town of al-Arisha in the southern countryside of Hasakah and IS-held oil wells in the Kabiba area (east of al-Arisha) Meanwhile, the coalition’s warplanes bombed IS-held sites in the town of al-Hol at the border with Iraq, targeting the charity hospital of al-Rahma, which was used by IS militants as a base.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody able to locate the towns cited in the last masdar-article? I could only find Khirbet Awarti and Karaki Kree. Also Kabiba and al-Arisha seem not to be on the map... Yazid1 (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why again all this black dots over Hasakah region without providing source for it!?Rhocagil (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Source were provided check the history.Alhanuty (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014
I think kfar nubrl should be changed from contested to green a simple search on the web and you'll find that kfar nubel was one of the towns where the Syrian coalation handed fake vaccine and several childrens died so it must be rebel held Thank you.

212.36.207.3 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is already marked as green and rebel held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra City
Quneitra city is regime held says the official Syrian Revolution page: https://www.facebook.com/Syrian.Revolution/photos/a.10150397575815727.619133.420796315726/10154916785610727/?type=1 The caption is quite clear: Quneitra City to red. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We have stated neutral sources that Quneitra is rebel held. Including an Al-Jazeera video report from the region itself. So, it stays green. This page is a minor source, not as well documented as the SOHR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The page has 900k likes and SOHR states reports from activists such as those running that page. Video reports cannot be taken into consideration especially not from pro-opp sources to portray pro-opp gains. But when a pro-opp source states something related to pro-regime gain we take it into consideration Your argument is invalid. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It would also make perfect sense given the recent failed regime attack on Hamidiyah: they want to lift the siege off Quneitra city ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ChrissCh94, your article says that after 40 shabiha were killed (in 2 villages in the province), the others (it doesn't say how many) fled to a part of the centre of the town of Quneitra. That doesn't mean they control the town; rather it indicates that they are trying to hide in the town.  Probably there were few if any rebel forces in the town since it was behind the front lines.  So the most you could say is that the town of Quneitra has become contested, but I would favour waiting for more info. André437 (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

But in an earlier post the same page said that they had fend off an attack from many directions on Hamidiyah and I doubt that fleeing regime forces penetrated the center of a rebel-held-city such as Quneitra without resistance.. My vote goes to either contested or red it makes perfect sense. Other thoughts? ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are you should go to sleep and stop trying to make dubious and silly changes to a town far behind rebel lines because some NDF put on civilian clothes and went into hiding there. It stays green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove green circles around Yabround and Al-Jebbah
This from august 2014 showing insurgents very far Away from this place https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu6MGKyIEAA46Ji.jpg:large

--Pototo1 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't there a pretty major attack in that area just a few weeks ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please leave one blank line between posts to avoid them running into each other (now fixed) -- also use the preview button, to ensure your post is displayed readably. Thanks André437 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Andre437 I have followed your advice to avoid post running into each other and previewed but when I save they still do it sometimesPyphon (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon


 * I see, somehow many spaces are preceding many of your posts (as well of those of some others). Note that spaces may make it appear that you have left a blank line, rather than a line starting with many spaces.  Try positioning your cursor at the end of the previous post and pushing return twice before starting your post. (this one fixed) André437 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No of green circle near the city Yabroud green circle located near city Ras al Mara. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayn al-Arab”Kobane”
IS fighters have taken over Tal Shaer to the west of city Ein al-Arab”Kobane”, what made it able to besiege the city from 3 sides from the east, south and west.SOHR

Al Jazeera Repport YPG took Tall Shair back again after heavy bombardment ( video and BBC news, video ) from coalition.Rhocagil (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No mention of YPG retaking the hill, and the picture posted to support that assertion is a photoshop. Livefeed shows the Hill still in IS hands.Tgoll774 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Evidently you didn't read the article, which includes these 2 sentences : "The hill to the west of the town was retaken overnight on Thursday with the help of an air attack, said Al Jazeera's Bernard Smith, reporting from the Turkey-Syria border. Smith said the hill had been lost to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group on October 22, but was retaken in clashes overnight".  This was also reported on some twitter posts, with photos.  One report showed a series of photos of a huge bomb exploding on the hill, during Daesh/ISIS occupation.  The sort of bomb regularly dropped by coalition forces.  Note that many reports have shown changing control of this hill during the last few weeks.
 * As far as possible photoshop photos, that is something difficult to detect, but even if so, that is often done by major news medias to compensate a lack of photos of a particular event. André437 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tall Qarah
This town north of the Aleppo map has a red circle around it. Source for this? I've seen nothing to suggest fighting that far north and it seems strange considering the army still hasn't taken the infantry school. Nhauer (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a bug or something. Not even biased sources reported it. SAA launched an offensive in south Aleppo, and they wouldn't go that far before establishing a proper front near Handarat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC) This was a report from SANA of fight near Tal Qarah which is the next major town north of Muslimeyya but it cant be used as Sana is unreliablePyphon (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Oct-24/275222-syrian-government-forces-shell-rebel-areas-kill-9.ashx#axzz3GfyDKRH8Ariskar (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nawa
Any source showing the Syrian army recapturing "brigade 61 base" west of Nawa ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.75.56 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I just found this map https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0zTxQTCEAASn8Q.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Being the noob I am i shall just link the twitter account this stuff is on https://twitter.com/deSyracuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tierbook (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with a neutral source?

There is another important question that should be asked, and it is this: why does Nawa have five military bases north of it? Are there actually five military bases all coincidentally surrounding the north of the town? Did the SAA predict that they would have to face a civil war and that they would soon have to fight in north Nawa? Wow, some really Nostradamus work right there by those military geniuses. Why are regime positions in surrounding areas being listed as military bases? Do you know how many rebel "military bases" we can put on the map based on this precedent? Anyways I'm not really expecting such biases to change, merely pointing them out to the objective reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

West Raqqah
So those towns have been reverted to black without discussion and without source a couple days ago. I'd like to see sources for this revert otherwise we'll have to change it back to green!!, it's not the first time these towns changed without source.SyAAF (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At least two maps (one pro-opp & anti-ISIS and other neutral, I think) show Western Raqqah as ISIS-held.-- HC PUNX  KID 23:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Idlib
Since yesterday, rebels have started a large battle for Idlib-city and the surrounding villages/army checkpoints. Sources:

1. http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/184940/al-qaeda-linked-syrian-islamists-attack-g 2. http://eaworldview.com/2014/10/syria-developing-insurgents-launch-major-attack-idlib-city-northwest/ 3. http://www.trust.org/item/20141027100921-v5sqv/ 4. http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/violent-clashes-continue-4-fighters-from-jabhat-al-nusra-detonate-themselves-in-idlib/

Mastumah hill to green, Idlib and Mastumah to contested. Maybe green rings around checkpoints south and west of Idlib city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Such large cities like Idlib which is the capital of the province, we do not just noted their as contested. More correct to note the disputed portion or create a map as it has done for the city of Deir Ez Zor, Dara and Hasaka. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added Tall Mastumah as rebel held according to SOHR. That's enough for now. The attacks are led by Al Nusra, famous for hit and run tactics. The situation will be much clearer in a day or two.DuckZz (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra in Idlib. Captured one building. Marked as contested until a more detailed map is available http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Oct-27/275482-al-qaeda-linked-syrian-islamists-attack-government-held-idlib.ashx#axzz3HL57x6SNAriskar (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree! Because reliable sources only reported that the rebels had infiltrated to the government-held Idlib and stormed the government building in Idlib but did not say that clashes go throughout the city.ReutersThe Daily Star It could be a separate group, or as it was in the city Hasaka when ISIS captured part of the district in the city and we made a map and pointed out the area under their control. Also this is not the first attempt of rebels to capture the city and they all ended in failure. So either we need to find out which area are fights and mark it as contested or to create a map for this city how for Aleppo or Hasaka. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also now SOHR said that clashes taking place between regime forces backed by NDF against Islamic battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra around regime checkpoints around Idlib and al-Mastuma camp and reports that Islamic fighters take over al-Mastuma hill by.here So no need to hurry edit the map! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

sohr says saa recaptured goverment and police hq.full of idlib city now saa control. here 213.74.235.122 (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but the link which you have provided the broken. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Both sources say it stormed a government building and but there is no saying that they have captured it and both sources say government forces confronted them.This kind of lone attacks are not enough to put a city contested.The attack was hit and run like the one in the Damascus suburb of Midan so Idlib city stays government held as there are no continued clashes in the city on the other hand the real battles are ongoing around Mastumah hill here which is the main battle front for now.To change Idlib city to contested we need a lot more then a source that says they attacked a government building and killed a few soldiers as there are many slipper cells that would attack a checkpoint and the disappear in thin air after the attack.Examples are the suicide attacks in Homs and hit and run attacks in Damascus where they fire a few shots and as soon as the army counters they run away.Daki122 (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * SOHR clear said that violent clashes continue between regime forces backed by allied gunmen against Islamic battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra around regime checkpoints in Idlib province after the first party attacked regime bastions and checkpoint around Idlib and al-Naoura.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also other source said that Syrian army repelled a major attack was carried out by armed rebels on the barriers on the outskirts of the city of Idlib.Al Hadath News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR says saa recaptured government building and police hq .Full of idlib city now under saa control.(Rebels slipper cells only captured government building and police hq yesterday night ) source: http://www.syriahr.com/archives/33812Hwinsp (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Video from state tv inside idlib city shows rebel slipper cells who tried to storm government building: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9MC2Ylk5zoHwinsp (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also Petolucem posted that the SAA/NDF have recaptured Tall Mastume checkpoint https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/526712137264406528 Back to red!SyAAF (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulation agains braindead mods(most of them) edit everything after 2 al qaeda "activist" tweet and some biased report, it is sure nusra will attack Idlib after losing whole Hama, the hill is already retaken, and SAA repulsed the attack on Idlib. Contest my ass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * SOHR said that regime forces re-captured the two buildings of the Governor’s Mansion and police headquarter in the city of Idlib. The violent clashes between the regime forces and the Islamic battalions are still occurring on the outskirts of city Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pro opposition source Archicivilians confirmed that rebels retreated from the city Idlib, claiming that they planned to control some areas around it only (mainly Tall Mastumeh).here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so let's make a list if we follow this logic:

1. Busra al-Harir (Daraa) to green: no sources of fighting for several days 2. Huwajyah and Al-Huwash (Hama, Ghab Plain) to green: no sources of fighting in weeks 3. Tabarat al Khashir (near Abu ad Duhur airbase) to green: same cause

Can I continue? Editing this map is always becoming a game of pro-SAA versus anti-SAA, but we should at least draw one line. I noticed that red contested towns only stay that way for a short time, because if there is no source of continued fighting it reverts to red. Green dots however can stay contested for months (Tasil, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, according to data pro opposition source dated 20 October the villages Huwajyah and Al-Huwash (Hama, Ghab Plain) still contested.here Likewise, the city Busra al-Harir (Daraa)here But  in the situation with the city of Tabarat al Khashir maybe you're right. And the issue about contested cities have long been worried the many editors but we can not simply edit based on our assumptions. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. This is due to the nature of the way the rebels fight. The rebels are insurgents. It is very common for then to launch hit and run attacks. So, when we hear of an attack but with no follow up, we assume it was a hit and run and change the town back to red. The Syrian Army is not an insurgent force, so when they attack a town, they are there in earnest. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:50D2:46CF:1649:D16B (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons the rebels often do hit-and-run attacks is to get their share of heavy arms and munitions supplied (to the regime) by Iran and Russia. That is where the majority of their heavy arms come from. Despite being nowhere near as well armed, the rebels have been able to hold many areas despite concerted regime attempts to take them. (e.g., Douma, the largest city in proximity to Damascus.) In my view, it is a mistake to assume that the rebels leave without some confirmation. Usually it is provided by sources such as archcivilians cited above, usually called pro-rebel here, but generally accurately reflecting the situation on the ground. (According to other sources.) An archcivilian post said that most of the military vehicles and tanks used in the attacks around Idlib came from Tall Mastumeh. André437 (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell Mastuma
Pro opposition source said that according to pro Rebels news agency, Syrian troops retook Tall Mastumeh.here I'm not going to rush edit Tell Mastuma on the map because I want search for more data. So if someone has more information on the situation in this area please provide them. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

video from syria state tv today shows tell mastuma is under saa control : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBKEvB8YCP8&feature=youtu.be212.252.198.94 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kobane Villages
Who and why did delete the 9 villages near kobane: on the west 5 villages, east 2 villages and south 2 villgaes and the grain silos change it back Lindi29 (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Howsh Al-Fareh
SAA got control of this area in East Ghuta and areas around Tal -Kerdi should be marked as contested area.151.238.164.7 (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.almayadeen.net/Latest/rqy6vXic0UaWcKPSAItybg/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA

http://www.almayadeen.net/Latest/ryaFOLElEkOfQqPSAI,uUQ/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%82-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%B9%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%88%D8%B7%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF SOHR also confirmed that.MZarif (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Syrian army took control over the farmlands of Hosh Farah near the town of Mid’a in the Eastern Ghota.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Link Replacement Request For Damascus Section
Hello Team, keep up the great stuff!

The last link of the section below leads to previous Jan-Jul 2014 timeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Damascus

Can you replace it with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_%28August_2014%E2%80%93present%29 which includes the current and recent atmosphere.

Thanks in advance.

78.170.183.172 (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't quite find the link you're referring to. What does the text of the current link say? When you reply, please change this question to unanswered (see box to the right on how to do this). Stickee (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Latakia villages and Al-Masdar
i just want to inform the editors that editor Paolowalter used the Pro-government Source Al-Masdar to change some villages in Latakia to government control,and according to the consensus established we don't use government sources to show government advance,so i proposed to return the status of those as they where before they were changed using Al-Masdar. Alhanuty (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We did NOT establish a consensus. Do not lie to the editors. I already told you about Al-Masdar and its credibility. I propose that if you continue to lie to try and get your way that you be banned. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pro opposition map confirmed that regime forces on 1 October captured the village Ghunaymiyah and area near this village here and some areas near the city Salma. But as long as we do not have independent confirmation that the army captured the village Al Hawr. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So if we not have a confirmation from a reliable source that army captured the village of Al Hawr we will have to put this village again to under rebel control. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors need to agree on a pro-gov source that can be agreed upon as reliable to balance the pro-op source of sohr. This needs to take into account that sometimes they get it wrong as does sohr but they must show rebel gains as well as saa gains .Pyphon (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)pyhponhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&action=edit&section=51#


 * Pyphon, please don't start a line with a space. Doing so suppresses formatting, causing the whole paragraph to be on one line, so (in this case) most of your paragraph was not visible. (fixed now) ...  To indent, use ":", multiple times for more indenting.  It would be a good idea to use the "preview" button to see how your post will look.  (I always do that, and I have written documentation on Mediawiki formatting.)
 * Note that the editors here agreed a long time ago that SOHR was a neutral source, not pro-opposition in its' reporting. This is admittedly rare for a source which obviously would prefer Assad gone, but the focus of SOHR is against human rights abuses, which are criticized whoever does them.  Evidently the regime does a lot more abuses, as is noted by the UN.
 * Just yesterday (thursday 16 oct) the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon declared that "Syrian civilians are in imminent threat from the regime of Bashar al-Assad". More details here.

Really? then suck your NEUTRAL SOHR http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/the-regime-army-could-seize-a-village-and-a-cement-plant-in-aleppo/       "Saa took control of Jbayleh and the cement plant in north of the Central Prison of Aleppo"  neutral idiot sohr is the biggest opposition bias cutting off snackbar deaths by counting them as civilians and blaming Assad for civilians dying in government controlled ares by shelling of the beheaders  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As for sources favouring the Assad regime that are reliable, it is doubtful that any group favouring a regime with Assad's track record of horrific human rights abuses would be reliable. That would be like trusting pro-Daesh/ISIS sources, which haven't (at least yet) come close to matching Assad's abuses. André437 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, your pro-rebel bias blinds you. Your statement of the Syrian government committed more atrocities than ISIS is not supported by your linked source. Ban said that Assad was also a risk, not more so than ISIS. This "As for sources favouring the Assad regime that are reliable, it is doubtful that any group favouring a regime with Assad's track record of horrific human rights abuses would be reliable. That would be like trusting pro-Daesh/ISIS sources, which haven't (at least yet) come close to matching Assad's abuses." is nothing more than Original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Good job, you are 0 for 3 now in violating Wikipedia policy 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

this map is about who controls cities and towns not about human rights or inflated casualty figures so if a source weather it be pro-op or pro-gov show both gains and loss it should be regarded as reliablePyphon (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)python

Andre sohr was not agreed as NEUTRAL but as reliable because he posted saa gains as well as rebel he is about as neutral as you arePyphon (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)pyhpon

Al Masdar is a very reliable source...


 * @Pyphon : could you kindly explain how "neutral" in the context of reporting differs from "reliable because he posted saa gains as well as rebel" ? I'm sure we would all like to understand your logic.
 * Some sources still show bias in reporting despite sometimes showing opposition gains or sometimes showing regime gains. SOHR has consistently showed gains/losses from both sides.  Note that since rebel gains tend to be under-reported (for various reasons), other unbiased sources (in reporting) are often called pro-rebel. André437 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @IP6 (you really should get an account) : again you are confused about the concept of "original research", and where it applies. My statement comparing daesh/ISIS and Assad regime atrocities is based on a well known fact of the very high number of regime atrocities (you do remember the unanimous UN security council vote censoring the Assad regime for that ?), as well as the relatively small - but dramatic - number of daesh atrocities.  That was only mentioned in the context of discussing the reliability of sources.  You are also very confused about when sources are needed.
 * BTW, although any normal human being relatively aware of the facts would prefer that the Assad regime looses power, that does not in itself make me biased in my analysis of the situation. Any more than the UN, which confirms the massive Assad regime atrocities.  Having successfully alienated the vast majority of the Syrian population with its' atrocities (since 1971), it shouldn't be surprising that rebel opposition is a significant threat to the regime, despite massive foreign support for the regime.  Your pro-regime bias is evident, whether intended or not. André437 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Andre if a source is openly pro op or pro gov it can not be neutral but if it shows both sides gains it is a reliable source for editing this map you can not disregard a source because of its support for either side or as you stated for moral or other issues not related to the purpose of this map which is to show who controls which citys and towns . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Mayda,a eastern Ghouta
Al masda posted SAA have taken Mayda.a but we have to wait for other sources as many regard him as to biased Pyphon (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon

No regime news outlet (not even their official paper/TV) mentioned it. Stays rebel held for now. ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by Peto Lucem's map https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/527178074522406912. And http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/updated-battle-map-east-ghouta-saa-enters-new-frontier/. Paolowalter (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

-Peto Lucem's maps are made by the same guy (@KeepingTheLeith) who writes al-Masdar. While his maps are good, he's pro-regime and can't be used as a source. No SOHR or other corroboration of SAA taking Maydaa yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhauer (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is written by @KeepingTheLeith, but he is not Peto Lucem, who in fact makes the maps.

can we put madaya as red? or we should wait confirmation from sana? jobar is falling soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.227 (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No change until we get a pro- op sourcePyphon (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon


 * Agreed ... (reminder : don't start a line with a space - fixed) André437 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree! We need confirmation of this data from reliable source or in extreme case from pro opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hama north
Apparently from https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/603847926390216 al- Arba’in is rebel controlled (or contested) and al-Zakat as well from https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/604107693030906.Paolowalter (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I noted the village Al Arbaeen as contested because SOHR not said that this village under control by rebels also earlier the pro opposition source show that area where this village located contested. And add on the map the village Az Zakah and merked her under control by rebels because this village located in area which controled by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Qadam truce, Damascus
According to SOHR, the entire 2 neighbourhoods of Al-Qadam are in a casefire.

2- Withdrawal of the regime army from the neighborhood of al- Qadam completely. 3- Redeploying the regime army’s checkpoints only on the entrances of the neighborhood of al- Qadam. 4- Cleaning the streets as a prelude to be ready for the civilians. 5- Releasing the prisoners of the neighborhoods of al- Qadam and al- Esali, first and foremost the women and children. Some of prisoners were released as a goodwill gesture. 6- Re-serving the two neighborhoods and repairing the infrastructure as a prelude to the return of civilians. 7- Allowing the people to come back after re-serving the neighborhoods. 8- Opening the main roads and establishing checkpoints on the main street. 9- The Free Syrian Army is the responsible for running the region completely and without handing over the weapons. 10- Providing treatment for the wounded and entering mobile clinics and keeping them inside. 11- Reconciling the status of some men in the two neighborhoods

That means, the map should be edited. These are the borders for the truce agreement.DuckZz (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Duckzz why do you think it and other areas in Damascus are marked as purple and have been for along time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Hama
Article here with updates on E.Hama http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/isis-threatens-ismaili-capital-syria "The towns of Saan, Saboura, and Akareb located to the northeast of al-Silmiya constitute [the government's] defense line against smaller nomadic towns under ISIS control." It lists many other towns in this area and talks about who controls what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.1.105 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hama countryside source
al bawaba Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Mount Ash Shumariya (East of Homs)
I have found several recent pro-regime sources saying that rebels in the Mount Ash Shumariya area are targeting nearby villages with rockets/mortars:

Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.623038&lon=37.056885&z=10&m=b&show=/27308411/ar/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9#lang=en&lat=34.623038&lon=37.056885&z=10&m=b&show=/27308411/Mount-Ash-Shumariya

Pro-regime souces: http://www.elnashra.com/news/show/792995/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%81-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%85-%D9%88%D8%A3%D9%85

https://www.facebook.com/ajilinewsassd/posts/648308648615979

http://slabnews.com/article/119897/%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%81-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%B1%D9%85-%D9%88%D8%A3%D9%85-%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%B5-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D9%81%D8%AC%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85

Any way we could signal the rebel presence there? ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All your sources dated on 25 September but pro opposition map which dated on 20 October clear show that this area under control the army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Shaer gas field
According to SOHR Shaer gas field and other 2 fields in the same area are now under IS control...http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/isis-gain-control-on-3-gas-fields-in-shaer-area/   Need to change them to black, or at least Shaer( the other 2 are not mentioned and I don't know if they are located on this map).Fab8405 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

read carefully, sohr says isis captured 3 gas field in shaer AREA. Shaer is a mountain north of palmyra.Sohr doesnt talk about shaer gas field. Shaer gas field is still under saa control.Hwinsp (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Gov and pro-opp sources saying IS captured the 101 102 and 103 oil wells east of Shaer (the same ones NDF captured last week). IS is now mounting an offensive against the main Shaer gas field which is still under SAA Control: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/527133136417996801 https://www.facebook.com/Tarek.s.Ali1916/posts/863034517040679 ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrissCh94 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * SOHR not said that IS taken the Sha'er gas field. SOHR said that IS took control on 3 gas fields in Sha’er area after violent clashes against regime forces.here But in this area there are many gas fields and we need more data before we editing their on map. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also no one source not said about Oil wells. Pro government source said that IS(Daash) regain control of the gas wells 101, 102 and 103. And pro opposition said that IS control Shaeer well 101, 102 and 103 and and probably he also said about gas wells 101, 102 and 103.here And today SOHR said that IS took control on 3 gas fields in Sha’er area after violent clashes against regime forces.here And we are left to figure out where they are located in the area. And for those who did not know that in this situation the gas fields and gas wells it is almost the same. But as I early said in Shaer area too many gas fields but Sha'er gas field is the largest in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse my mistake between Oil wells/gas fields. But as far as I know many neutral and pro-regime sources (mentioned above) did say that the 101 102 and 103 gas fields have fallen to ISIS. They are located east to the main and biggest field which is Shaer gas field. So my vote would be 3 black dots east of Shaer gas field and a partial siege of the latter. ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just put a black circle around Shaer oilfield.Alhanuty (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Alhanuty! Maybe you have had to mean Shaer gas field. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

http://justpaste.it/gzwshr1 Shaer is now under full control of IS. Fighting is now being reported around Tiyas and T4 Pump Station. 173.209.212.207 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR "ISIS gain control in Shaer gas field"... " the IS took control on wide areas in Shaer Gas field in the eastern countryside of Homs, after violent clashes against regime forces, what forces the second party to pull back from the area, clashes continue between the two sides in the outskirts of the field in an attempt by regime forces to gain control in the area." Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Zita
Pro opposition source said that civilians in the city KafrZita said that they will sign truce agreement with regime because rebels are fighting against the regime troops instead of what would protect them.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather "fighting against each other" instead of fighting the regime ;)
 * They haven't signed a truce yet. It seems an attempt to stop the infighting and keep more troops on the front to protect them against regime advances ... André437 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort by JAN to take control of rebel held towns in Ibleb similar to ISIL before the break from main rebels. If JAN is carving out its own state we may need show which towns they controlPyphon (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon


 * Agreed. We should decide a colour for the new icons, so we can quickly do this when we decide to go ahead.  I favour medium grey, in contrast with Daesh/ISIS black.
 * (BTW, please use to make an empty line. Any leading spaces causes the line to be unformatted, displaying only on one line, with the end of longer lines invisible - this case fixed) André437 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Do any editors think its possible JAN has given up on FSA and gone over to ISIL ? last month there were reports of car bombs out side FSA offices in Daraa and now Idlib and Hama there seems to be a pattern herePyphon (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon


 * I'm posting all sources that indicate such a development, and all sources that detail JAN's holdings at the above JAN-color section - so that when/if the JAN/FSA break is confirmed, we'll be ready to edit appropriately. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Bored good work wish you well with it. Pyphon (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon


 * Please do help! lol. You're right, JAN is on the precipice of either reconciling with IS or becoming an independent actor, hostile to the FSA/SRF - so let's piece together the puzzle of exactly where they are ahead of time. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Idlib city raid- ISIS
These article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2810598/Up-70-Syrian-army-chiefs-beheaded-Isis-jihadis-make-advance-second-city-Idlib-held-Assad-s-forces-year.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-attack-on-idlib-assads-army-leaders-slaughtered-as-jihadists-storm-syrias-second-city-9822023.html and http://www.thedailystar.net/isis-launches-assault-on-idlib-47882 all claim a very different story from what we know from SOHR and other pro-opp sources such as eaworldview and archicivilian about the latest Idlib raid. These articles [Same article reprinted multiple times] claim it was ISIS that initiated the raid. They also claim that this raid was no raid, but an all out offensive the nearly expelled the SAA from Idlib. They place the death toll at 70+ SAA dead, compared with SOHR's 20 and Archicivillians 30. One major problem I see with these articles is that ISIS is more than 150km from Idlib according to all maps of this war, so how is it possible that they launched this attack? Also, this attack ended within hours, so how is it possible for the city to almost have fallen? I propose that we ignore these articles as editorial error. What are your thoughts? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:50D2:46CF:1649:D16B (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a English tabloid newspaper that has no credible sources in Syria. They have either picked up this story direct from the Independent or were given it by the same source. Either way they are not remotely credible. As for the Independent, it is a serious newspaper and Robert Fisk was once a fine journalist but now he largely trades on his past reputation and furthermore he has always been opposed to the Syrian government. Had this story been written by the Independent's Patrick Cockburn I would have been inclined to believe it. From Fisk I am much less certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if Robert Fisk was a credible journalist and the Daily mail were reliable, the story simply makes no sense. How did ISIS get from Raqqah to Idlib and launch this massive attack? 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:50D2:46CF:1649:D16B (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of ISIS in the title was a simple mistake by The Independent, then copied by the Daily Mail. Fisk's article makes it clear that it wasn't ISIS carrying out the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I see it now, but that does not explain the obvious exaggeration in the article. According to SOHR and other pro-opp sources [eaworldview; Archicivilians], this attack was merely a raid to strategically position the rebels for a future attack, yet this article makes it sound as though it were an all out assault that nearly captured Idlib. Even Al-Nursa itself does not claim 70+ dead SAA and such success, only 12 captured and SOHR says a total of only 20 died. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:50D2:46CF:1649:D16B (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view, Fisk is a flake who will write anything for publicity, and to sell more books. Totally unreliable, even if some/much of what he writes does correspond with reality. As for this case, I think SOHR and archcivilians accurately reflect what happened. It was reported that they took military vehicles and tanks from Tal Mastuma, which would help fill an important need in the rebel arsenal, and supports the idea that it was essentially just a raid. André437 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Further thought, many members of al-Nusra could be former ISIS members, since at the split in January 2014, al-Nusra tried to recruit as many ISIS members as possible. with at least some success. Don't forget that the SRF was the main group that expelled the ISIS from Idlib, with the help of western arms.  So this conflict could be at least partly related. André437 (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

- As far as I know, we arent here to judge that sources that are widely used in WP as reliable sources cant be used in this concrete case because they seem not to fit in the narrative of some users. If ISIS involvement is an error, logically the newspapers will correct that info. The argument about ISIS not having presence in Idlib because its too far from Raqqah is simply bullshit. First, ISIS nearest forces are in the outskirts of Aleppo, not Raqqah (big difference, half of the distance). Second, the same story was told by some users here about ISIS presence in northern Homs/southern Hama months ago (that's not possible, its too far from their strongholds, etc...), and look now the black dots in the map. And finally, its not only two different, neutral, reliable sources who stated it (and not amateur pro-opposition activist not journalistic sources like eaworldview, archicivilians, etc...), but also an opposition source: The (Syria Revolutionaries Front, SRF) official said ISIS fighters were reinforcing the Nusra Front in the assault.. So unless you have facts of proofs to deny ISIS involvement in the attack instead on personal POV's or claims, I will restore IS on the Idlib raid article.-- HC PUNX  KID 23:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, only one source [Independent] wrote this. The others simply copied, so only one source. "The argument about ISIS not having presence in Idlib because its too far from Raqqah is simply bullshit", your statement here does not follow logically. Yes they are in Aleppo, but they are still 150+ km away. Plus, they would have to go through Aleppo City to get to Idlib city from there. Also, NO SOURCE [not even ISIS] acknowledges an ISIS presence in Idlib. Also, the source you link has a direct contradiction to your own claim. In it, the SOHR states the the SRF is confusing ISIS with Junud-al -Aqsa, another hardline group. I do not know why you are trying to bring POV into this. Regardless which side you are on, the attack on Idlib failed. As set by previous precedent, editors are allowed to use common sense and logic when a claim by ANY source contradicts multiple other sources or is outright illogical, such as this one, which is illogical [like it or not, ISIS is too far away] and contradicts Jabhat Al Nusra's own claim about what happened [who would be more pro-opp than JAN?]. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * HCPUNXKID, your comments don't make much sense.
 * 1) Every article should be examined for reasonableness, whatever the source. Certainly the source is a major factor in considering reliability, but even the best sources make mistakes.
 * 2) Indeed, eastern Aleppo is somewhat closer to Idlib as the crow flies, but Raqqa is accessible across an essentially unoccupied desert, instead of going through large numbers of enemy fighters. So in practical terms, distant ISIS occupied Raqqa is much closer than areas they occupy in Aleppo.
 * 3) As far as proof that the ISIS wasn't involved, we only need to look at the evidence of numerous articles from other sources that deny ISIS involvement. (Including the reference you provided !?)
 * 4) Again, in pushing your POV, you claim everyone else is guilty. And threaten to vandalize the page.  You really expect to be taken seriously ? André437 (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of you guys reach ridiculousness by trying to impose your personal POV's, really, you only see what u want and ignore the facts u dont like. First, I really dont know that a source, apart from being considered reliable, has to be examined individually. Please tell me where in WP guidelines says that. First, I would like to know who has the authority on the issue to judge that a journalistic source is reliable or not. You? Who gave u that power? Saying that a single source (Robert Fisk) stated that ISIS was involved, or even that "NO SOURCE [not even ISIS] acknowledges an ISIS presence in Idlib" (so make your mind yet, it was a single source or no source?) is simply FALSE. One source was Fisk, but another source was Sam Webb (Daily Mail) and yet another different source was a SRF official, so dont lie, please. Another issue, saying that even if ISIS are near Aleppo (of course they are, just take a look to the map) are still 150 km. away is another LIE. Just use Google maps and you'll see that the distance is between 70-90 km, not 150, so again, stop lying. Oh, and stating that SRF confused Jund al-Aqsa with ISIS is really hilarious, seems that u gave the one-man organization SOHR 101% credibility (while SOHR had a history of lies and misinterpretations, remember the alleged fall of Aleppo's prison, when their pro-opp. fanatic stance made them ignore reality), while treat SRF as a bunch of iliterate thugs. So, the "ISIS strongholds are too far" is not an argument, I repeat, remember the Southern Hama/Northern Homs case, when many users here denied ISIS presence, and look the map now, how finally they had to admit it.

And about well-known opp. cheerleader Andre437 who accussed me of vandalism, lets answer you quickly (my time is so valuable to loose it with u):
 * 1. Answered upwards.
 * 2. Are you going to take here the conspiracy theory fairytale of ISIS passing through SAA-controlled territory without problems while they cant pass through "rebel-held" territory because they are "enemies" (until they fight the SAA, then magically they stop being enemies, hahaha)?
 * 3. "evidence of numerous articles from other sources that deny ISIS involvement". Mmmm..., I brought here 3 DIFFERENT SOURCES stating ISIS presence in Idlib, apart from the (irony on) undisputable megacredible (irony off) one-man organization SOHR, do you have more sources? Well, show them.
 * 4. As you choose to made personal attacks, you couldnt be taken seriously, if someday u left your evident lack of NPOV and civility, perhaps you could be taken seriously.-- HC PUNX  KID 15:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice diatribe, you REALLY went all out. Now let me respond to your rant. First off, I will reiterate, since you do not seem to understand, that NO SOURCE [Not even ISIS] claims an ISIS presence in Idlib. We are debating the reliability of Fisk's article, so bringing his article up as evidence that there are sources claiming ISIS presence is just plain stupid. Since we are human, we analyze sources logically, we do not just go off the fact that they are reliable if they spout nonsense. Assuming you are right about ISIS being 90km away, they are STILL unable to mount an assault on Idlib. As for you argument about the daily mail, they copied that article from Fisk, so it is still one source. Other sources such as SOHR, EAworldview, Archicivillians, and JAN activists stated that this attack was a raid by JAN, not a full scale assault. You want to tell me that the rebels are UNDERSTATING their success. Another thing, per Wikipedia consensus, the SOHR is more reliable than the SRF media office [You complain about SOHR being pro-opp yet want to follow SRF. Talk about hypocrisy]. In conclusion, the fact that ISIS is to far away IS a valid argument (you failed to prove otherwise). In addition to that, no other source (Pro-gov or Pro-opp) concurs with this story. This story was written by ONE MAN (Fisk) and COPIED by 2 others. Given that the story is TOTALLY illogical and has no corroboration from pro-opp, pro-gov, or even pro-ISIS sources, it should be disregarded. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WOW, its simply incredible how some of you are capable of distorting, manipulate, ignore facts, hide info, etc... in order to fit with your personal POV. First of all, I repeat, common sense dictates that YOU ARE LYING when you says that no source claim ISIS presence in Idlib, as I exposed upwards, with 3 DIFFERENT SOURCES. Claiming WITH NO SINGLE PROOF but your word that both Sam Webb and the SRF official copied Fisk's report is, apart from so illogic (you really think that a SRF commander had nothing better to do that researching for Western journalist reports to copy them? Seriously?) so serious, as you are accusing another journalist (Sam Webb) of copying Fisk's work without mentioning him and signing it as his own work, I would better provide proof of that before making such serious accusations. About analyzing sources logically, of course Im not against it, but with ALL sources, as Im bored of seeing some users here who take pro-FSA ACTIVIST SOURCE SOHR reports as WORD OF GOD, when AT LEAST one time (perhaps more, but this one is indisputable) they were caught giving FALSE REPORTS (they reported the fall of Aleppo's central prison, something that never happened, seems that they put their desires prior to reality). About ISIS "unable to mount an assault on Idlib", again, who judges that? You? With what authority or sources? I repeat again, that same argument was brought here by some when first reports of ISIS presence in northern Homs/southern Hama erupted, they said "ISIS strongholds are too far from Homs" so same as you claim now, and look at the map today. Finally, if you are going to give more credibility to heavily biased pro-opp blogger activist amateur sources like SOHR, EAworldview, Archicivilians, etc... that to professional journalistic outlets like Daily Mirror or The Independent, you should really review Wikipedia guidelines...-- HC PUNX  KID 22:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to add that almasdar and other pro gov sources stated it was JAN with other Islamic forces so who knowsPyphon (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)pyphon

al-Karim
SOHR reports that regime forces took control the village al-Karim on west of Hama.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

jarjanaz iblib
Per almasdar jan take control of jarjanaz in marat al numan district after heavy fighting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No change needed because we don't use different color for JAN and FSA.--Bozocv (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No change asked for just letting editor know incase the time comes when we have toPyphon (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Tiyas gas plant and Shaer
Pictures from inside Tiyas. here, picture, picture, picture, picture, and so on ...

Pictures from inside Shaer. picture pictureDuckZz (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

How much is this stuff relevant. I can't find a Government source, as they dont write anything about this. There are only rebel reports, but not much.DuckZz (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * None of it. Pictures are not reliable sources. You need a reliable source. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We need confirmation of this data from the more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll wait. I have one more thing. According to SOHR, IS militants have cut off the road that links Palmyra with Hama, so that means Jihar is also captured, right here, it's a small area and I highly doubt Syran troops are besieged there. Also Petro Lucem map shows exactly the same. By the way, could someone locate Hayyan Gas plant on the map ?DuckZz (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR says IS cuts off Damascus-Palmyra road too...does it mean Mahin, Al Busayri and the zone between them are now under IS? Fab8405 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Small correction because SOHR said they also could cut off the road that links Damascus with Tadmor and Tadmor with Homs reaching to Hama- al- Raqqa road junction after violent clashes with the regime forces. But not said that they already cut of this road and also source not said that ISIS captured yet some villages. No need themselves to add the data  especially if about they are not says the source. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok who put the Tiyas village and the Tiyas airbase as contested/siege.First of all no credible source has said that there is presence of IS fighters near these places.Only ISIS propaganda twitters said these and it is not suppressing because if I crate a twitter account that says ISIS took Damascus I sure that half of the supporters of ISIS would retweet that.The map that was made by by the pro-gov PetoLucem was actualy based on these sources but the most reliable sources even SOHR and Al-Monitor have said that they only took the Shaaer gas field(with three wells) but did not menage to take junction between Homs and Raqqa which is kilometers away from Tiyas and its airbase.Based on all sources there is no credible evidence that ISIS have reached Tiyas and not to mention  the claim that they have taken over Mahin which is 100km away from any ISIS line.So before you make any changes check your sources as ISIS tend to use propaganda to spread fear and exaggerates even the smallest gain.For now only Shaaer gas is contested as there is still regime presence on the edges of the gas field according to SOHR everything else is back to what it was.Daki122 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say it like this but this is the most credible thing we can find right now. Shaer gas area is not under siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.219.184 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia works. Unreliable sources do not become reliable in the absence of reliable sources. Photos from the ISIS propaganda machine do not prove anything, Shaer is still besieged. 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The pro-opposition source reported that according yet to unconfirmed reports ISIS retreated from Sha'er Gas field & Juhar area in E- Homs after the heavy regime air-force attacks.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Other sources say that the Army has recaptured the gas-field here. Also 24 hours have passed and there is still no evidence that ISIS forces I think that we should put Tiyas village and T4 back to red as there is no evidence of ISIS fighters near by those areas and if anybody has followed this conflict if ISIS made an advance they would hav had video and pictures of it but there is 0 evidence of that.Also to mention that the map you guys are using as pro-gov is actually made  based on ISIS twitter sources which got a little bit overboard with the advance as ISIS never made it past SHaer according to all other credible soures.I'm going to wait for some of your opinions before changing it.Daki122 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree no real evidence so revert backPyphon (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Idlib province
This Al-Mayadeen report clarifies and consolidates the territory distribution in Idlib province between Jabhat Al Nusra, the moderate rebels and the Islamist factions especially after the recent confrontations and territory changes. Interestingly, they specifically say that Darkush is under ISIS control which explains how ISIS had sent reinforcements to Jabhat Al Nusra in the area. Your thoughts? ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.almayadeen.net/ar/news/syria-Xf6Kae99D0O1BKPYAOXBtA/%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A5%D8%AF%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%86 ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Its looking more like JAN and IS are working together so I think the time has come to represent JAN as a faction in its own right on the map most editors seem to prefer a grey dot so lets do it. If later there is a reversal we can easily change back but at this time the map is not representative of the situationPyphon (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Agreed. But what about Darkush? Anyone? ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Kobane
Is there any way to show FSA presence in Ayn Al Arab ? Col.Uqaidi says they have at least 300 fighters in Kobane. Not to mention other smaller groups like Thuwar Al Raqqa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a battle ISIS vs Kurdish fighters but the rebels from the Free Syrian Army in this battle are not a third party and act as reinforcements on the Kurds side also as  the Peshmenga. And this is shown in the article Siege of Kobanê Hanibal911 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * pro-Kurdish sources reported that the villages of Arbus, Manaza, Albalur and Cikur were cleared of ISIL members.Dicle News AgencyKurdish Question Someone of editors has the confirmation of these data from a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Al Shaar field
From http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-backpedalling-al-shaar-gas-fields-saa-offensive/ (note that this source has reported in the last days/weeks several SAA retreat and losses providing a balanced view of what is happening, even if it pro-gov): the Teefour Airbase is correctly red, it was attacked but now there is no operation going on around it. While The Al Shaar must be black with a red ring as it is now.Paolowalter (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit that AlMasdar is becoming more and more reliable but still it should be viewed with caution as it also incorrectly or rapidly reports regime advances prior to their time. IF it stays like this it would be fair enough to use it the same way SOHR is used. ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree but I don't think some editors will they are against any pro gov source being used even though almasdar reports rebel gainsPyphon (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon

A source can have political tendencies yet remain neutral in it's reporting. SOHR is pro-rebels and hugely anti-regime yet it's reporting is more or less neutral. AlMasdar is heading in that direction. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just posting SOHR's latest on this topic Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Question on East of Damascus
Does any evidence exist showing that the khan abu shaman base and battalion 559 remain in rebel hands? These are both shown as green but the rebels have no green towns in these areas. These are directly east of damascus. Any information on this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.67.155 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They are rebel held. If regime had retaking them, at least pro-regime source would had talked about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.47.29 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The rebels no have a a full control from a single town in these areas --Pototo1 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * so no evidence either way- nothing showing they are rebel or gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.3.204 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * These are desert areas north-east of Damascus. The area has many sand dunes and similar rolling terrain, which at least partly explains why the regime has been not retaken them.  They don't have any strategic value except their proximity to Damascus.  And the fact that the rebels at least had a large number of captured tanks there.  There are many tank shelters to hide tanks from aviation.  (This info was well documented when the rebels took the area.)
 * Without any indication that the regime has recaptured the area, it is highly likely still rebel held. André437 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How do they survive out in these dunes? No towns? No sources of food? Totally surrounded?  We never hear of them attacking anyone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.67.155 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1-The Dailystar gives more details about base 559. It says: "After seizing military base 559 in eastern Qalamoun last week, they found themselves under air attack Friday, as the regime sought to neutralize their capture of large quantities of weapons and ammunition. In the end, the rebels claimed they made off with 35 regime tanks – the biggest such haul of the war – while 70 were destroyed by regime aircraft." Notice that it says "they made off". According to online dictionary, "made off" means: "to depart in haste; run away." So this implies that the rebels are no longer at these warehouses. They took the tanks they could, and destroyed what they could not take so that the army could not use it again (not mentioning what was destroyed by the airforce). So at this point, these warehouses are probably destroyed & empty and we do not know if they are occupied by someone, or just abandoned. In any case, they no longer have a strategic importance. Therefore, this icon should be "commented out" of the map until more clear information become available.
 * 2-There is no information about the present status of khan abu shamat. In any case, we know that the warehouses are empty from the chemical weapons. So at this point, we do not know if they are presently occupied by rebels, or army, or just abandoned & empty. In any case, they no longer have a strategic importance. Therefore, this icon should be "commented out" of the map until more clear information become available. Tradedia talk 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are removing icons/locations from the map simply for lack of news and strategic value, then most of Tartus province should go, as should the majority of miniscule, unimportant locations - most of the remote Kurdish towns, the ridiculous density of tiny towns around Qusayr, almost all of Deir el Zor province. If that is really the logic you are imposing, do it across the board, and not just for 2 rebel locations. I'm on board, if it's applied evenly. Til then, nope. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we are not removing icons/locations from the map simply for “lack of news and strategic value”, but rather because a source (Dailystar) said rebels “made off” (= to depart in haste; run away) with the weapons & ammo. This raises “serious doubt” about the present status of these bases. Your examples are not good because there is no doubt that Tartus province is gov-held, Qusayr towns are gov-held, Deir el Zor province is ISIS-held (except in & around city where gov places are well documented). I had done the same for many red bases, a few months ago, for the same reason. Tradedia talk 00:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah
YPG fighters seized the five towns of Thmad, Naddan, Dibeh, Om Azzam and Naqra as well as they seized some farmlands in the southwest of city Ras al-Ayn.SOHR I found only Dibeh maybe someone from the editors know where the located others. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I know some of them.DuckZz (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * YPG forces have taken over 6 towns southwest of Ras al-Ein "Sere Kaneh" since yesterday, in addition to its surrounding villages, after violent clashes against the IS.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * YPG Press Centre in a written statement said that 2 villages and several hamlets in west Serêkaniyê have been liberated from ISIS gangs. In statement said that YPG forces carried out an action targeting the gangs deployed at two separate points between the villages of Arca Şexan and Sutûk in Jazaa late yesterday evening.Hawar News Hanibal911 (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

JAN-held towns/cities
I know, we really need ANOTHER section devoted to this. Sorry. Is the below compilation missing anything?

McClatchy Report Darkoush Izmarin Salqin Harem

SOHR Baylun Kansaffra Iblin/Ablin Mgharah/al-Mugharah Mshoun? Abdita? Shnan?

Naharnet Deir Sunbul

Haaretz Jamaal Maarouf "..we pulled out of the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya.." ; BBC "..took control of all the towns of Jabal al-Zawiya region in Idlib"...Jabal al-Zawiya - the borders are roughly from Maarat al-Numan (NE), Bassamos (NW), Sharanaz (SW), just north of Khan Sheikhoun (SE).

SOHR Kafr Batikh Dadikh Khan al-Sobol/al-Sibel M'sran/Ma'sran M'arshorin/Ma'ar Shourin Kafruma/Kaffar Ruma

Daily Star Sarmada Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks correct given the information we have there might be some debate about Darkoush after almayameen stated ISIL was in control CHRIS asked for editors views about it .Pyphon (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon