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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I know it might be an outdated subject but my (and our) goal is an accurate map. I have found many pro-opp sources stating that rebels retreated from the warehouses after looting them and so defending empty warehouses was useless. Pro-opp sources:
https://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=1bf19643b8e23f7cc01c87d035bfee97
http://justpaste.it/islamicfront559
http://www.syrianarmyfree.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-68912.html
So it might be a bit late but I suggest turning back the empty 559 Battalion back to red. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 22:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It has always struck me as completely irrational that the rebels would have maintained a presence at these bases as they are basically worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 ( talk) 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamic front members are using this base as a checkpoint, it's empty but obviously not Government held. Either remove it or, but that wouldn't be a smart move as there is a noticeable number of rebels in this desert area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Provide a source that the regime re-took this area please, the days of reverting to red based on outdated sources are over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 ( talk) 09:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it. In what part does it say rebels completely withdrew from that area ? I can only read a part saying number of rebels withdrew from the base after heavy artillery, and that was months ago. There would be some source about the Syrian army recapturing the base, not even PetroLucem i co. posted about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
These are warehouses so they can't be used as checkpoints (besides they are exposed in the desert to air attacks). Yes rebels are present in the desert but that doesn't mean they control it (neither does the regime: it's a desert!).
Pro-opp stated they retreated --> THAT MEANS THEY RETREATED (The Islamic Front itself admitted in one of the sources I provided why they retreated).
P.S: The sources provided could easily be translated. And for the person complaining about changing "old/outdated" stuff: it's for the good of the map & the community :) ChrissCh94 ( talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The retreat occurred months ago that's the point.. It went unreported by regime sources because they didn't even acknowledge the fall of the warehouses in the first place.. I mean it's quite obvious: Raid - take the tanks - retreat without casualties But if you guys view that pro-opp sources reporting pro-opp retreats as unreliable then we have an issue here. I'm neither pro nor anti-regime but some of you are biased. Modifications must be made to match reality not what some of you want. Trying to change something from red to green or vice-versa has become impossible here. Peace. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 16:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The Army has recaptured the Hayyan Gas plant as well as Jhar and Moher gas wells see as well as the Syriatell(Zimlat al Maher) as reported by Elija.J.Magnier see who was the first one who reported that the hill fell to IS.Only parts of Shaer gas field in IS hands. Daki122 ( talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"Homs Province: The regime army could re-capture Jhar and al- Moher gas wells as well as Hayyan Gas Company in the eastern countryside of Homs, where IS militants took control over Hayyan Gas Company at the end of last October after violent clashes with the regime army and shelling by the regime forces on IS positions in the area.
An IS militant blew up himself yesterday night in a booby- trapped vehicle near a regime’s position near the city of Tadmor.
The warplanes carried out 2 barrel bombs on the city of al- Rastan injuring a child and a woman." - that's the entire post. Where does it say "Hayyan Gas plant as well as Jhar and Moher gas wells" were recaptured? Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't wanna be rude but I would suggest you read the report a few more times.It clearly states('The regime army could re-capture Jhar and al- Moher gas wells as well as Hayyan Gas Company in the eastern countryside of Homs') that the Army took back both fields and the gas plant.
Or better to put it Would-is future tense and Could-Something that some one managed to do :D
Also to note that there was no reliable source(upper post in Tiyas section I asked for a source no one posted one) given for the black ring around T4 and thus I have reverted the change.Also only one that reported the loss of Syriatell was Elija.J.Magnier and one of the pro-gov maps was based on this plus it make sense since the Army recaptured the Jihar gas field right next to it. Daki122 ( talk) 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"Regime forces and pro-regime militia retook control of the Jhar and Mahr gas fields, as well as the Hayyan gas company in the east of Homs province," said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. SOURCE: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Nov-05/276565-syria-army-retakes-gas-fields-from-jihadists-activists.ashx Hwinsp ( talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is clear the SAA has recaptured those area's but anyways WHY has Al-Taybah and the towns around Jub Al Jarrah have suddenly turned black without source? I've seen ZERO proof of these towns being in hands of ISIS terrorists. There are more and more of those reverts happening to black without Source given. This map is getting vandalised........... Turn those towns back to red or provide a source! 2A02:1810:2808:6100:59AB:FF00:4859:15FE ( talk) 20:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
lol I do not understand. There are two sources permanently affixed to that edit. If you looked at the edit history, you could not have missed them. One is the pro-op anti-IS map https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1cLH-YCMAAI-1E.jpg:large and the pro-gov't Syria24 post https://www.facebook.com/syria24english/posts/757030420999409 Boredwhytekid ( talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
An anti-IS map in good standing and a heavy history of use on this module is, technically, enough by itself to make the edit. The fact that pro-gov't Syria24 verified IS presence there, is pretty much a seal to that deal. I mean, look at al-Taybah - do you really think more than 1 faction/belligerent side could take up residency/have headquarters there? lol there are only about a dozen buildings. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 20:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No pro-SAA source reports IS gains, we don't use pro-IS sources to report IS gains, and you don't want to use a pro-(whatever is left of a pseudo-secular)opposition source to report IS gains. That source is as anti-IS as it is anti-SAA. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Have to agree with Bored until we here more reports . Interesting post in almasdar states ypg in Shakh Maqsood has agreed to let FSA move supplies through its areas to resupply Allepo but not Islamic front or other hardline groups . Pyphon ( talk) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Using Archicivilians for IS gains does not violate anything. The rule is no pro-op source for pro-op gains, NOT no pro-op source for any SAA losses to 3rd parties - and that's an important distinction. As you said, we know that it is 100% a pro-op map - therefore there is no % left to be pro-IS. If a source is considered pro-op, it is by definition anti-every side the opposition is fighting. The same goes for pro-SAA and pro-IS sources. The rule has always been that we don't use a source to make edits for the side that said source supports. That's not the same as not using a source to make edits regarding the conflict(s) between 2 parties both of which it opposes. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 15:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but Archicivilians is also anti-SAA thus every time the Syrian government looses ground it will probably be over-exaggerated and propagandized and by that I highly recommend all editors to check for more sources and compare them both pro-SAA and pro-Opp(I will not put pro-ISIS sources here because they will probably lie a lot as propaganda is their main weapon so ISIS advances are in no way going to be displayed by twitter sources who are pro-ISIS) and where there is conflicting reports we put it to contested at best and wait for the situation to clear out before making any changes.Use of only pro-opp sources for ISIS gains in my opinion should not be allowed as many of them are anti-SAA thus making them unreliable as they will always exaggerate the situation on the ground(We saw this in the latest fighting in Homs where some pro-opp sources even claimed that ISIS took parts of Tiyas airbase but they actually never reached the base only took over the gas fields 15km to the north of it.).My opinion has always been to try to find neutral sources to change the map and not to jump into conclusions based on the sources from either side and if there is one side claiming that it gained something but you can not find a reliable(neutral) source than open a topic here on the Talk Page and we will discus the matter before we proceed to any changes that way we will avoid edit wars and miss understandings between editors and also it will be a lot easier to update the map without having to revert changes made by editors based on unreliable sources on both sides. Daki122 ( talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hence no edit was made exclusively based on Archicivilians. It was only when pro-gov't Syria24 corroborated IS presence in Al-Taybah that the information on Archicivilians was acted on. No way the SAA is bombarded al-Taybah if they too have a presence there - the town is too small. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Syria24 and Peto Lucem posted that saa took farm land and village of bala al jidida but we must have pro op source to confirm change to map. Pyphon ( talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
where is this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.227 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Also per almasdar. 81.156.225.146 ( talk) 11:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Who thinks we should add a new JAN color to represent the new dynamic of JAN going fully independent of FSA's Umbrella and conquering Land in its own right? 24.12.202.163 ( talk) 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree ChrissCh94 ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Might as well have JAN with it's own color code since more reports of fighting b/w them and other rebel groups in Idlib, JAN are closing in on Sarmada via AP 99.160.184.97 ( talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree if there is a reconciliation we can easily change back Pyphon ( talk) 08:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
JAN announced the creation of an Emirate in July; A color change should be implemented. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/12/233152_al-qaida-affiliate-declares-emirate.html?rh=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.9.59 ( talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Reports that the FSA/SFR will withdraw from Syria if no help comes to help fight JAN . Pyphon ( talk) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)PYPHON
I still don't support this idea, it would ruin the map. At least 50% of the news about JAN/opposition clashes are propaganda. Hazm never gave their weapons to Al Nusra, nor their members plaged alliance. If you think SRF/Jan clashes are reason enough to change colors.. then I don't know. It's not a full scale war, you have dozens of casefire agreements between dozen opposition groups and JAN. You can find some copies on SOHR. That's all I can say, and Pyphon, I belive you are on crack. DuckZz ( talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Personnel attacks are not permitted on here I could site you but I can see you are upset by the current situation . Pyphon ( talk) 08:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Hanibal Andre437 is making grey icons not sure how far he has got maybe contact him see if he thinks its a good idea Pyphon ( talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
100% for adding the Nusra-held towns with the temporary icon - this map is obnoxiously outdated as regards recent events in Idlib. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 18:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but you guys should consider that in the Qalamoun region and southern Syria, and some other places, JAN and the other rebels are still cooperating and not fighting each other. The SRF and IF were also fighting each other at one point, but have since stopped and begun cooperating. Therefore I hope that if something similar happens between JAN and the SRF, you guys won't be too personally invested in this new color to change it back ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 ( talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for designating a separate color for JAN, I hope that whevever they are present their dots change to that color. Is anyone going to change any of the green dots to the grey JAN color in the Aleppo area? On the main page there are cities with assigned JAN flags like Tel Rafa'at etc. but no color has changed yet?
Also in the south, JAN attacked more than once the boarder strip w Israel, no dots changed at all!
I see more towns turned black every day. Towns north of Hasakah city, north of Tell Brak and towards Ras al-Ayn crossing. No discussion, nu sources given. A major offensive of ISIL like that would raise media attention, and airstrikes. So, why are they black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 ( talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, apparently the villages around Hasakah (Khabur) are still in YPG hands, YPG withdrew only from some checkpoints. https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/526632524370673664 Moreover, after 4 days there are no IS claims about any Hasakah offensive, so I would suggest to revert any editing waiting for more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
And the towns near Mardakah? Suddenly, ISIL seems to have taken six or seven villages there, without any source mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There is this twitter (kurdish) source: https://twitter.com/SeniorB/status/525614456496070657 Usually it is reliable, but after 4 days it's strange that there are no more sources/media attention. I suggest to revert that editing also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, about the villages north of Tall Brak there is this source that confirms that IS seized two kurdish villages: http://aranews.net/2014/10/isis-extremists-control-villages-near-syrias-qamishli/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Change those towns back to yellow, no sources have been given to all these reverts! I'd say this is a nice ISIS map. SyAAF ( talk) 13:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Can´t find villages: Khirbet Orta and Girke Kere on the map which the article http://aranews.net/2014/10/isis-extremists-control-villages-near-syrias-qamishli/ refers to. Also miss sources for the other ISIS hold cities north of Tall Brak. Rhocagil ( talk) 10:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
They are already in Wiki map, /info/en/?search=Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map , named "Girke Kere" and "Khirbat 'Urti". The villages between Tall Brak And Khirbet Orta is quite logical that are fallen also in IS hands, even with missing sources. I've reverted the editing for the villages west of Serekaniye and west of Hasakah. 8fra0 ( talk) 10:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (Thanks for info! Rhocagil ( talk) 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
According to Firatnews the village of Aliya east of Tall tamr has been captured by YPG. Here is the cordinates for that village. Al-Aliyah Mouradiyan ( talk) 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Al Nusra Front fights against other rebel groups. Perhaps in the near future we will need to noted the towns and villages which monitors Al Nusra Front in another color in contrast to those towns and villages which are under the control of FSA and its allies. Because SOHR reported that after clashes today and yesterday between al- Nusra Front and Jund al- Aqsa Organization from one side and the Syria Revolutionaries Front in the town, Al- Nusra Front seized 7 towns and villages in Idlib (Balyon, Kensafrah, Eblin, Abdita, Mshoun, Mgharah, Shnan) The clashes also resulted in death of some fighters from both sides. SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Would be a good idea but let's wait until something bigger happens. These clashes may be just between few smaller groups and not the entire Al Nusra front vs SRF. As as I know there are no clashes between Free Syrian Army members and Al Nusra, that would also mean you have to create a color for the SRF, too much for this map. The're probably some disagreements in Idlib about who has the authority to control a village/town. As you can see they have no problem in Daara, Aleppo etc. DuckZz ( talk) 08:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting idea. Rhocagil ( talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion is, we wait for something bigger, Al Nusra still cooperates with rebels in Idlib, not to mention other parts of Syria. If you really want to put some towns under their control, use a dark green color with the name "rebels", light green should stay "opposition". DuckZz ( talk) 11:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
——— The regime forces took controlled over the farmlands of Hosh Farah near the town of Mid’a in the Eastern Ghota after violent clashes with al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions. Source: SOHR Edit Map please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.17.8 ( talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely I think we should be prepared for another colour for al-nusra and allied jihadists. From the reports I've seen, during the last few weeks in Idlib, they have attacked a number of smaller elements of the FSA-associated SRF coalition. Much of al-nusra retreating from Deir ez-Zor went to Idlib. The SRF doesn't want to divert its' resources to wage a full-scale war with al-Nusra, but it could still come to that. At the moment I don't see much risk of al-Nusra / FSA conflict elsewhere. André437 ( talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this will be a correct thing to do because jbaht alnusra most of them are considered from syrian opposition more than AQ and fight with rebels everywhere, changing it to another color will be ok if they will be a separated group fighting rebels like isis, not like now they are fighting one group only. al-nusra has many allies from rebels like ahrar alsham, jund aqsa, fsa groups in qalamon and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.142.181 ( talk) 17:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hanibal, forget about that because since jabht nusra considered as rebel ally, otherwise the map will be very crowded and it will include many mistakes because jabht nusra also sharing control of parts of many villages in syria with other rebels, so this will show for some viewers as nusra is only presence in idlib. Also they fight the saa and isis with rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.142.181 ( talk) 20:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Clashes have taken place only for the last two days. If they keep it up for the next week than we discuss a color for Nusra only. Lets wait for now to see if the clashes will expand or die down. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is to wait and see if the infighting escalates or dies down if the fighting escalates we should with out a doubt give Al-Nusra a new color but for now I think we should wait and see what happens next and will other groups join in the fighting on the sides of one of the two warring parties.If clashes wind down and stop my opinion is that we should just make an article about the clashes and nothing more. Daki122 ( talk) 13:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
anyway to separate the territory held by the two warring sides . Paolowalter ( talk) 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep track - here - of what exactly Nusra holds, as opposed to the FSA/SRF SOHR ISW So that when/if the time comes, we know what to mark as distinctly Nusra-held. Daily Beast "...the al-Qaeda affiliated al Nusrah Front, which has opened up a third fighting front against the FSA..." daily beast yahoo ISW Boredwhytekid ( talk) 15:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it´s getting more and more clear that the cooperation between FSA and Al Nusrah is coming to an end; Syria 'moderate' rebels lose ground to Qaeda (News from Al Jazeera) Rhocagil ( talk) 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Change Nusra's color please. The purple color is currently used on the Damascus map to indicate truce areas. We don't want truce areas and Nusra areas to look the same. Thanks.
Kami888 (
talk)
05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Pro opposition source said that to according to Lebanese official sources, the Shiite militia of Hezbollah reached an agreement with militants of al-Nusra Front in Qalamoun in southern Syria. Both parties reportedly agreed Wednesday that al-Nusra militants (affiliated with al-Qaeda) would withdraw from the Qalamoun region and retreat to its bases in northern Syria. A source in the Lebanese government told ARA News, under the condition of anonymity, that Hezbohhal guaranteed the safety of al-Nusra militants while leaving Qalamoun and heading to northern Syria, reassuring them that the Syrian regime is also part of the agreement. “This agreement took place after al-Nusra lost several consecutive battles in Qalamoun, and when the Front’s insurgents leave that area and return to its bases in the north the Assad regime will be more secure from the militants’ attacks in Damascus,” the source said. “Thus Hezbollah’s proposed agreement is mainly aimed to serve the Assad regime in Damascus.” Ara News Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I really doubt,it Hannibal,Nusra and IS are in a strong position in the mountains of the Qalamoun,why would they leave. Alhanuty ( talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
They are in the worst possible position in qalamoun, winter is coming, with 0 supplied, right side SAA left side LAF and Hezbollah. LOL. If it is true we are talking about 3000 nusra/IS members it is a long way to Idlib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 ( talk) 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
According to http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-devastating-losses-eastern-syria-week/ "104th Brigade controls 90 percent of Sakr Island and all 3 bridges leading to the island." If this is accurate, then the map of Deir Ezzor should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.1.105 ( talk) 01:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This article also speaks of the situation in Al-Hasakah province that the SAA and YPG are besieging Tall Hamis from the south and the west. Can this be confirmed from another source? Rhocagil ( talk) 15:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Al-Masdar reported the army to have retreated from those 2 villages. I looked for them, and found out they we're from Rif Damashq not Quneitra, but I localised them at last. Beyt Teema on this map is called Beytima and is localised west of brigade 68, north Kafr Hawar. Bayt Saabr is not located here, but I localised it on Wikimapia. So guys, a pro-regime source said it, so change those towns please: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.328233&lon=36.000824&z=12&m=b&show=/9992654/Bait-Saber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 10:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anybody know why Beit Jinn is being made contested from green? I've seen no reports here of fighting in the town ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 12:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are there two red dots in Jordan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.69.126 ( talk) 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This news from SOHR states that Nusra and Islamic battalions advanced against regime forces IN the town and that clashes continue near it. So there's still regime presence in the town. Also, Nusra seized the villages of Sfohen, al- Fterah and Hzarin in the southern countryside, and the village of Flayfel in Shahshabo Mountain, SOHR as well. And Deyr Sunbul here is still marked as green, when it was widely reported that Nusra seized that area from the SRF last week, as that was the SRF stronghold in Idlib. And yes, Nusra is advancing at many places :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.97.165.226 ( talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The most reliable report I found is http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-jazeera-journalist-wounded-sheikh-miskeen-heavy-fighting-reported-city/, that states that the city is contested. By the way Da'el has been green for a long time, without being true. Paolowalter ( talk) 18:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually Dael WAS rebel held. Peto Lucem said himself that the regime actually attacked the town to reduce the pressure in Sheikh Miskin, and seized most of it. Them the rebels counter-attacked fast, and only the counter-attack was reported by SOHR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Any information about the situation in the town ? SOHR wont write anything in detail except "Army or rebels advanced". All I have is this Pro-opposition map showing the air defense base way behind rebel lines, and amateur videos ... What others think ? DuckZz ( talk) 00:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
i agree with you,done. Alhanuty ( talk) 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to portrai Al-Nusra Emirate as a fifth colour - like grey instead of as now green, which is wrong since they in northern, middle part fight FSA~(green) . Grey is best since they are close to ISIS in islamistic ideology but also at war with them. Tomas22wiki ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Idlib Province: Reliable sources reported to SOHR that al- Nusra Front supported by Jund al- Aqsa seized the villages of Sfohen, al- Fterah and Hzarin in the southern countryside, and initial information also reported that they controlled the village of Flayfel in Shahshabo Mountain and that they have arrested a commander of a rebel battalion and some of fighters in one of these villages. see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/531416791764201472
Charles Lister, a widely reliable and neutral source, along with many pro-rebel sources claim the rebels to have seized Tell Umm Hawran and Nawa city. Many pics and videos emerging from the city. Claims that the regime simply withdrawn as they didn't have enough man to hold the town.
let's keep it polite and civilized Nawa was under siege by SAA,not held by the syrian army, they withdrew to defend the road to Damascus until ghouta and other areas are cleared .
Just to support the claim, as Charles Lister is already reliable enough, a few pro-rebel sources:
https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/531349130887454720 https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/531392480064061440 https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/531411039041363968
Also, about Brigade 61, remains in regime hands as of now, until the situation is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed by many sources. C'mon guys he IS a reliable source. And there are MANY videos from rebels around the town. He is actually the MOST reliable source I seen. And he is neutral(never seen him talking good about FSA or bad about SAA).
he talks in the TV WHOLE DAY about hezbollah, Russia, Iran and Syria being the demon, meanwhile he is a zion slave. Reliable my a$$
You guys can't use the videos to change, but you can use it to support a claim. Anyway, wait a few hours if it suits you guys, because FSA has taken the city confirmed already by reliable sources such as Lister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
SOHR said that Nawa has been taken over by rebels see suggestion is to put Nawa green with red circle around as there is Army presence on nearby hills and bases. Daki122 ( talk) 13:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a red circle around Nawa following its takeover today as confirmed by SOHR today? This gives off the impression that regime is besieging or launching an offensive on Nawa right now which is obviously not the case, the regime is on the defensive/withdrawal. You have to remember that there are other people besides the editors on this page that view this map, and they are going to be very confused with what looks like a regime siege of Nawa. I propose that we remove the red circle (for the sake of clarity, and factual accuracy) and keep the regime bases around Nawa that have not been confimed to have fallen, red. That way it accurately reflects the military situation on the ground and demonstrates that the regime is now consigned to its bases. Jafar Saeed ( talk) 15:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
They are defending the road to Damascus meanwhile ghouta is getting cleaned. This is another fsa/nusra spam on wiki just like the 3 day south Aleppo "offensive" LOL It is interesting how are the rebel identity is changing. It was FSA for 2 years, IF/ ahrar al sham last year, and al nusra are the rebels in Daraa(they "captured) Nawa not fsa. and the jihadi fanboys are screaming here for Al nusra a terror organization.(by the UN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 ( talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright guys, in case you haven't noticed, Charles Lister, that IS a reliable source you liking or not confirmed Nusra to have taken Tell Umm Hawran so change it either to Nusra color or to Rebel color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.192.139 ( talk) 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the Nawa area, the neutral sources claim the following:
While not openly admitting that the army had withdrawn, state news agency SANA said troops were "redeploying and reorganizing in the Nawa area... in order to prepare for upcoming fighting."
So, the only source given for the redeployment theory is SANA itself, which is not reliable at all. Tell Um Hawran is still red. And based on the facts on the map, Brigade 61 and Khirbet Bajjah should be with a green ring since there is no direct connection with other SAA held areas. Twitter source in the meantime have posted numorous vidios showing rebels in the army bases. It seems the Nawa front had completetly collapsed. I've not yet found a neutral source, but I personaly think the entire area will become green in several days, since most SAA troops have withdrawn to Izra and Sanamayn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I belive the Air Defense base south of Sheik Miskin is obviously deep behind rebel lines. Pro-opposition post saying the town is still contested, but not the base on the south but the north. Yes this is all pro-opposition, but don't worry, I'm waiting for other editors to make changes, like you for example. DuckZz ( talk) 21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Reuters and Al Jazeera rebels have captured Nawa and the surrounding areas like Tell Hawran, Brigade 61, South of Sheik Miskin Army defense base etc. DuckZz ( talk) 22:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The Kurdish popular defense forces retake control over 100 villages after a series of fierce clashes with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorist group in the Northeastern parts of Syria. The ISIL militants were pushed back by the Kurdish forces from 100 villages in Hasaka province, leaving a large number of dead and wounded members behind. Islamic Invitation Turkey Shia Post Global Terror Watch But still need more sources that can confirm these data. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
More and more villages in Hasaka are turning black with no sources given both kurd and saa who is doing it ! 81.156.225.146 ( talk) 19:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
I don't know what to do with this one there are no given names for the villages captured and on top of that this may be a moral booster story for the kurds 100 villages is not easy to take especially when you have ISIS as your enemy. Daki122 ( talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies to Hanibal911 and others for taking so long. (distracted by real life.)
Medium grey, as discussed, following the same naming convention as before.
Location_dot_grey.svg = control
map-circle-grey.svg = besieged
map-arcNN-grey.svg = partiel siege/front line to north,
with in place of NN for the other directions : NE, EE, SE, SS, SW, WW, and NW.
I haven't done the conflict icons yet, as I noticed that the squares with rounded corners got replaced with circles. Was this discussed ? (If so, I missed it.)
I also notice that the names have mistakenly "green" instead of "lime" for light green. "Green" should be used only for medium green. Lime green is almost universally used for pure light green or a colour very close, and on Wikipedia it seems "lime" is always pure light green. Since the icons are open to use by other pages, we should follow WP practices.
So before adding the conflict icons for JaN, I see 3 options :
1) Just correct the colour names in the newer icons, or
2) Revert to the older conflict icons which I made, or
3) Make newer higher resolution icons of squares with rounded corners, which will look a little nicer for larger sizes. (For smaller sizes, the display will be identical to my original or the newer conflict icons.)
Any option I could do inside a day or so.
Note that I chose squares with rounded corners since I anticipated (eventually) making filled pie circles for shared control instead of nested rings, which you can see on competing maps looks a lot nicer. That I could do in the next few days as well.
A final note : I see that the semicircles have been dropped from the caption of the map. Are they still being used ?
So I'll do whatever is the consensus. Time for your feedback, everyone :) André437 ( talk) 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Option 1 seems fine or which ever option is easy to change back if JAN and SRF get back together. 81.156.225.146 ( talk) 11:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
What about towns controlled by Nusra and other rebel groups? ChrissCh94 ( talk) 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When I added the new contested icons, I noticed that very dark grey dots are being used for al-Nusra control, in place of the medium grey I made. The problem, besides being a little darker than the dark grey of the national borders and thus almost indistinguishable, it that they are too close to the black of Daesh/ISIS. On my monitor (average resolution and size), I can't easily distinguish between the two, particularly for the smaller dots. I'm sure that it is only Daesh in the villages of the desert of eastern Hama, but they look the same as the very dark grey of al-Nusra in Idlib.
The medium grey is very easily distinguishable from all other dots, only close to the colour of the thin provincial boundary lines. For clarity, could editors please use the medium grey dot ? Thanks.
André437 (
talk)
07:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'm officialy done with this map. I'm going to say it right up front: this map has been abused WAY TO LONG. Black dots are added at random in Hasakah province, nobody cries out. Red dots appear out of nowhere in the Syrian desert, nodoby cries out. Rebels take Nawa and the surrounding areas, and it's a battle of three days to get things changed. The reason? "no reliable sources". There have been NO sources for desert towns in Syria, NO sources for turning some towns contested near Bosra al-Sham, NO sources for fighting west of Ras al-Ayn in specific towns. But that doesn't matter, does it? The only reason some of you are so admandant on sources for rebel gains is because you don't want to see the simple FACT that the rebels in Daraa and Quneitra are advancing, and quickly so. So please for the SAKE OF MANKIND or something ... stop editing biased. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheerleaders? This is about this map, not about Ukraine. I see that many towns are made contested once rebels attack, but reverted to red if nothing happens for a few days. Green towns attacked? Takes months and several sources to revert them back to green. That's just fact.
A fact is that on one side you have insurgent forces who prefer hit and run attacks rather than staying in the same town or trying to take it against an Armed force that mainly uses siege tactics to crush towns and take them. Daki122 ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
These locations do not tessellate with the map of Hasakah City. At least in the case of Sab Shakur, I think it is extremely unlikely that the regime are under siege in that particular village (the map shows IS in control of the surrounding area). How do we resolve this inconsistency without a reliable source? Jafar Saeed ( talk) 12:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
A great story which can be very useful to as as it states that the Army has advanced 20(around 25km) miles south of Qumishli putting the town out of ISIS artillery reach.It also states that the Army has control over quite a lot of villages south of Qumishli.This article is also intresting as it claims that the Syrian Army has been making advances around Qumishli unlike other sources which claim that Kurdish militia has been the one doing the fighting. The story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-syria-the-story-of-the-martyred-soldiers-who-fought-to-the-last-bullet-to-avoid-the-fate-of-captured-comrades-beheaded-by-militants-9854693.html Daki122 ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Why SAA positions south oh Hasaka had been remouve ???
Why "main"? It looks they are minority against rebeles like IS. "Other" rebels would be more appropriate description. -- 94.199.40.135 ( talk) 12:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Main Rebels/FSA/Green Rebels/Moderate Rebels this is a series of cliches, they should be called former Rebels, sinces all other groups are made of ex-Moderate rebels that migrated to JAN,Al sham, ISIS. all this speak is nonsense, all this conflict will become a copy of the Chinese Warlords of the 1900s. With the Regime Being the stronger force, followed by ISIS and in the very end the insignificant FSA. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
So why has South Hasakah suddenly turned all black? More and more on the map is getting black without being sourced SyAAF ( talk) 11:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyAAF ( talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You must provide credible sources, not a dark section in arabic, we need credible sources as SOHR, so give a link to the article or put them red, it's the rule. Lessi94 ( talk) 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This source is not reliable enough, we must find an article of SOHR, it's strange that the sources of daesh did not claim such an advanced. 82.233.227.191 ( talk) 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This Al Monitor article has a quote saying that Khan Shaykhun is a Nusra stronghold. Esn ( talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Nusra also control Deir Sanbul, the former SRF stronghold. It was widely reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.192.139 ( talk) 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Any source showing this village contested ? It has been since I don't know.
Ayn Suda and Dyar Gharbi also in Idlib? 109.154.87.146 ( talk) 10:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Any source showing regime presence in brigade 61 and the village north of it ? I thought they retread from Nawa area to the east, it just doesn't make any sense. DuckZz ( talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It has been said (Al Jazeera, Reuters, pro-opposition sources) they withdrew from Nawa town and surrouinding areas to the east. There was not a list of captures areas. It's just not logical that they retreated to brigade 61 located only 800 meters west from Nawa and besieged, not possible .... 37.203.117.88 ( talk) 23:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The Nawa area refers to the city itself and the military bases surrounding it. We had concensus three days ago that if no reports of continued fighting would show up in "a few days" all of Nawa would be made green. So, let's do this. It's painfully obvious that there's no SAA anymore near Nawa. They fled.
Another Pro-opposition source showing rebels on Tell Harfouch (without weapons, means the Syrian army is too far away). It's pro-opposition, so I can't make any changes, waiting for someone else to agree. DuckZz ( talk) 10:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sheikh Miskin may stay contested. But the bases and that village near Nawa are clearly rebel held.
I propose that a default rule should be introduced: if, after a month has passed, there is no source on a settlement that has been marked as contested within a month of it being marked as contested; that settlement should be reverted to its original owner. I also propose that objections can be made, in a particular town, on the talk page if there is a valid explanation why this settlement should not be reverted back to its original color. The talk page will then decide. The reasons for this are: 1) clarity in the viewing of the map; 2) Accuracy in demonstrating the nature of this war, i.e. hit and run attacks on part of rebels, raids on part of regime. Many towns are placed as contested primarily based on information from SOHR. Whilst SOHR is reliable and accurate, it very rarely gives information on the ending of clashes in a certain area, so we are left with the predicament of being stuck with contested locations, which is obviously undesirable. What does everybody think? Jafar Saeed ( talk) 13:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. There really are not that many contested towns on this map, at all, relative to the total number of towns. When the front line substantially moves (past a contested town and without said town being specifically mentioned), yes, I am on board with your suggestion. But, in the majority of cases, this would only cause more convolution. For instance: Latakia Province, Rabia and Kabir - no recent news, but they are the front line villages, so fighting is surely still ongoing in the immediate vicinity. Same for Eastern Hama, Zanuba and Qleib al-Thour. And Daraa, Bosra area towns. It would be silly if at the front lines (of any specific front) we just have red dots next to lime dots.. as though the implication is that the situation is stable. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm always on board with discussing specific cases, reviewing new information, and considering common sense arguments pertaining to towns' contested status. Lol your biggest obstacle will be that everyone will have different parameters on what qualifies as a "persuasive argument" though. Any proposed reversion of a town's status (without a definitive source) should be posted here on the talk page and taken from there.. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to harp on this a bit more - I think our representation of JAN's possessions in Idlib is vastly understated. BBC "the group (JAN) that took control of all the towns of Jabal al-Zawiya region in Idlib"..."The Nusra Front, with help from smaller jihadist groups, has managed to seize the majority of the towns and villages south, west and east of the city of Idlib, while the city itself is still under the control of the regime." Haaretz "For a week now, Nusra Front has put the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya under siege (as if) they were the 'Noseiry' regime, " Maarouf said in the video, using a derogatory term for Assad's Alawite sect, which is an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. "I (want to) clarify why we pulled out of the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya. (It is) so that we preserve civilian blood because this group does not hesitate to kill civilians."
Sooo, the entire Jabal al-Zawiya area - labeled on wikimapia as Mount al-Zawiya, should be dark grey, no? Every town within the Jabal al-Zawiya - the borders of which are roughly from Maarat al-Numan (NE), Bassamos (NW), Sharanaz (SW), just north of Khan Sheikhoun (SE). Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My last edit here didn't work so well - does Abm-darkslategray-icon.png work to mark checkpoints/bases JAN-held? Maybe I just screwed up the code. Someone please review/advise Boredwhytekid ( talk) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No objection here. I think your grey icons are spot on and will use them hereafter for any JAN edits. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I know it might be an outdated subject but my (and our) goal is an accurate map. I have found many pro-opp sources stating that rebels retreated from the warehouses after looting them and so defending empty warehouses was useless. Pro-opp sources:
https://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=1bf19643b8e23f7cc01c87d035bfee97
http://justpaste.it/islamicfront559
http://www.syrianarmyfree.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-68912.html
So it might be a bit late but I suggest turning back the empty 559 Battalion back to red. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 22:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It has always struck me as completely irrational that the rebels would have maintained a presence at these bases as they are basically worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 ( talk) 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamic front members are using this base as a checkpoint, it's empty but obviously not Government held. Either remove it or, but that wouldn't be a smart move as there is a noticeable number of rebels in this desert area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Provide a source that the regime re-took this area please, the days of reverting to red based on outdated sources are over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 ( talk) 09:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it. In what part does it say rebels completely withdrew from that area ? I can only read a part saying number of rebels withdrew from the base after heavy artillery, and that was months ago. There would be some source about the Syrian army recapturing the base, not even PetroLucem i co. posted about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
These are warehouses so they can't be used as checkpoints (besides they are exposed in the desert to air attacks). Yes rebels are present in the desert but that doesn't mean they control it (neither does the regime: it's a desert!).
Pro-opp stated they retreated --> THAT MEANS THEY RETREATED (The Islamic Front itself admitted in one of the sources I provided why they retreated).
P.S: The sources provided could easily be translated. And for the person complaining about changing "old/outdated" stuff: it's for the good of the map & the community :) ChrissCh94 ( talk) 12:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The retreat occurred months ago that's the point.. It went unreported by regime sources because they didn't even acknowledge the fall of the warehouses in the first place.. I mean it's quite obvious: Raid - take the tanks - retreat without casualties But if you guys view that pro-opp sources reporting pro-opp retreats as unreliable then we have an issue here. I'm neither pro nor anti-regime but some of you are biased. Modifications must be made to match reality not what some of you want. Trying to change something from red to green or vice-versa has become impossible here. Peace. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 16:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The Army has recaptured the Hayyan Gas plant as well as Jhar and Moher gas wells see as well as the Syriatell(Zimlat al Maher) as reported by Elija.J.Magnier see who was the first one who reported that the hill fell to IS.Only parts of Shaer gas field in IS hands. Daki122 ( talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"Homs Province: The regime army could re-capture Jhar and al- Moher gas wells as well as Hayyan Gas Company in the eastern countryside of Homs, where IS militants took control over Hayyan Gas Company at the end of last October after violent clashes with the regime army and shelling by the regime forces on IS positions in the area.
An IS militant blew up himself yesterday night in a booby- trapped vehicle near a regime’s position near the city of Tadmor.
The warplanes carried out 2 barrel bombs on the city of al- Rastan injuring a child and a woman." - that's the entire post. Where does it say "Hayyan Gas plant as well as Jhar and Moher gas wells" were recaptured? Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't wanna be rude but I would suggest you read the report a few more times.It clearly states('The regime army could re-capture Jhar and al- Moher gas wells as well as Hayyan Gas Company in the eastern countryside of Homs') that the Army took back both fields and the gas plant.
Or better to put it Would-is future tense and Could-Something that some one managed to do :D
Also to note that there was no reliable source(upper post in Tiyas section I asked for a source no one posted one) given for the black ring around T4 and thus I have reverted the change.Also only one that reported the loss of Syriatell was Elija.J.Magnier and one of the pro-gov maps was based on this plus it make sense since the Army recaptured the Jihar gas field right next to it. Daki122 ( talk) 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"Regime forces and pro-regime militia retook control of the Jhar and Mahr gas fields, as well as the Hayyan gas company in the east of Homs province," said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. SOURCE: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Nov-05/276565-syria-army-retakes-gas-fields-from-jihadists-activists.ashx Hwinsp ( talk) 19:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is clear the SAA has recaptured those area's but anyways WHY has Al-Taybah and the towns around Jub Al Jarrah have suddenly turned black without source? I've seen ZERO proof of these towns being in hands of ISIS terrorists. There are more and more of those reverts happening to black without Source given. This map is getting vandalised........... Turn those towns back to red or provide a source! 2A02:1810:2808:6100:59AB:FF00:4859:15FE ( talk) 20:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
lol I do not understand. There are two sources permanently affixed to that edit. If you looked at the edit history, you could not have missed them. One is the pro-op anti-IS map https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1cLH-YCMAAI-1E.jpg:large and the pro-gov't Syria24 post https://www.facebook.com/syria24english/posts/757030420999409 Boredwhytekid ( talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
An anti-IS map in good standing and a heavy history of use on this module is, technically, enough by itself to make the edit. The fact that pro-gov't Syria24 verified IS presence there, is pretty much a seal to that deal. I mean, look at al-Taybah - do you really think more than 1 faction/belligerent side could take up residency/have headquarters there? lol there are only about a dozen buildings. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 20:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No pro-SAA source reports IS gains, we don't use pro-IS sources to report IS gains, and you don't want to use a pro-(whatever is left of a pseudo-secular)opposition source to report IS gains. That source is as anti-IS as it is anti-SAA. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Have to agree with Bored until we here more reports . Interesting post in almasdar states ypg in Shakh Maqsood has agreed to let FSA move supplies through its areas to resupply Allepo but not Islamic front or other hardline groups . Pyphon ( talk) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Using Archicivilians for IS gains does not violate anything. The rule is no pro-op source for pro-op gains, NOT no pro-op source for any SAA losses to 3rd parties - and that's an important distinction. As you said, we know that it is 100% a pro-op map - therefore there is no % left to be pro-IS. If a source is considered pro-op, it is by definition anti-every side the opposition is fighting. The same goes for pro-SAA and pro-IS sources. The rule has always been that we don't use a source to make edits for the side that said source supports. That's not the same as not using a source to make edits regarding the conflict(s) between 2 parties both of which it opposes. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 15:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but Archicivilians is also anti-SAA thus every time the Syrian government looses ground it will probably be over-exaggerated and propagandized and by that I highly recommend all editors to check for more sources and compare them both pro-SAA and pro-Opp(I will not put pro-ISIS sources here because they will probably lie a lot as propaganda is their main weapon so ISIS advances are in no way going to be displayed by twitter sources who are pro-ISIS) and where there is conflicting reports we put it to contested at best and wait for the situation to clear out before making any changes.Use of only pro-opp sources for ISIS gains in my opinion should not be allowed as many of them are anti-SAA thus making them unreliable as they will always exaggerate the situation on the ground(We saw this in the latest fighting in Homs where some pro-opp sources even claimed that ISIS took parts of Tiyas airbase but they actually never reached the base only took over the gas fields 15km to the north of it.).My opinion has always been to try to find neutral sources to change the map and not to jump into conclusions based on the sources from either side and if there is one side claiming that it gained something but you can not find a reliable(neutral) source than open a topic here on the Talk Page and we will discus the matter before we proceed to any changes that way we will avoid edit wars and miss understandings between editors and also it will be a lot easier to update the map without having to revert changes made by editors based on unreliable sources on both sides. Daki122 ( talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hence no edit was made exclusively based on Archicivilians. It was only when pro-gov't Syria24 corroborated IS presence in Al-Taybah that the information on Archicivilians was acted on. No way the SAA is bombarded al-Taybah if they too have a presence there - the town is too small. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Syria24 and Peto Lucem posted that saa took farm land and village of bala al jidida but we must have pro op source to confirm change to map. Pyphon ( talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
where is this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.227 ( talk) 14:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Also per almasdar. 81.156.225.146 ( talk) 11:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Who thinks we should add a new JAN color to represent the new dynamic of JAN going fully independent of FSA's Umbrella and conquering Land in its own right? 24.12.202.163 ( talk) 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree ChrissCh94 ( talk) 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Might as well have JAN with it's own color code since more reports of fighting b/w them and other rebel groups in Idlib, JAN are closing in on Sarmada via AP 99.160.184.97 ( talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree if there is a reconciliation we can easily change back Pyphon ( talk) 08:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
JAN announced the creation of an Emirate in July; A color change should be implemented. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/12/233152_al-qaida-affiliate-declares-emirate.html?rh=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.9.59 ( talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Reports that the FSA/SFR will withdraw from Syria if no help comes to help fight JAN . Pyphon ( talk) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)PYPHON
I still don't support this idea, it would ruin the map. At least 50% of the news about JAN/opposition clashes are propaganda. Hazm never gave their weapons to Al Nusra, nor their members plaged alliance. If you think SRF/Jan clashes are reason enough to change colors.. then I don't know. It's not a full scale war, you have dozens of casefire agreements between dozen opposition groups and JAN. You can find some copies on SOHR. That's all I can say, and Pyphon, I belive you are on crack. DuckZz ( talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Personnel attacks are not permitted on here I could site you but I can see you are upset by the current situation . Pyphon ( talk) 08:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Hanibal Andre437 is making grey icons not sure how far he has got maybe contact him see if he thinks its a good idea Pyphon ( talk) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
100% for adding the Nusra-held towns with the temporary icon - this map is obnoxiously outdated as regards recent events in Idlib. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 18:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, but you guys should consider that in the Qalamoun region and southern Syria, and some other places, JAN and the other rebels are still cooperating and not fighting each other. The SRF and IF were also fighting each other at one point, but have since stopped and begun cooperating. Therefore I hope that if something similar happens between JAN and the SRF, you guys won't be too personally invested in this new color to change it back ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.86.39 ( talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for designating a separate color for JAN, I hope that whevever they are present their dots change to that color. Is anyone going to change any of the green dots to the grey JAN color in the Aleppo area? On the main page there are cities with assigned JAN flags like Tel Rafa'at etc. but no color has changed yet?
Also in the south, JAN attacked more than once the boarder strip w Israel, no dots changed at all!
I see more towns turned black every day. Towns north of Hasakah city, north of Tell Brak and towards Ras al-Ayn crossing. No discussion, nu sources given. A major offensive of ISIL like that would raise media attention, and airstrikes. So, why are they black? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 ( talk) 15:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, apparently the villages around Hasakah (Khabur) are still in YPG hands, YPG withdrew only from some checkpoints. https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/526632524370673664 Moreover, after 4 days there are no IS claims about any Hasakah offensive, so I would suggest to revert any editing waiting for more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
And the towns near Mardakah? Suddenly, ISIL seems to have taken six or seven villages there, without any source mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There is this twitter (kurdish) source: https://twitter.com/SeniorB/status/525614456496070657 Usually it is reliable, but after 4 days it's strange that there are no more sources/media attention. I suggest to revert that editing also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, about the villages north of Tall Brak there is this source that confirms that IS seized two kurdish villages: http://aranews.net/2014/10/isis-extremists-control-villages-near-syrias-qamishli/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8fra0 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Change those towns back to yellow, no sources have been given to all these reverts! I'd say this is a nice ISIS map. SyAAF ( talk) 13:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Can´t find villages: Khirbet Orta and Girke Kere on the map which the article http://aranews.net/2014/10/isis-extremists-control-villages-near-syrias-qamishli/ refers to. Also miss sources for the other ISIS hold cities north of Tall Brak. Rhocagil ( talk) 10:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
They are already in Wiki map, /info/en/?search=Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map , named "Girke Kere" and "Khirbat 'Urti". The villages between Tall Brak And Khirbet Orta is quite logical that are fallen also in IS hands, even with missing sources. I've reverted the editing for the villages west of Serekaniye and west of Hasakah. 8fra0 ( talk) 10:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (Thanks for info! Rhocagil ( talk) 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
According to Firatnews the village of Aliya east of Tall tamr has been captured by YPG. Here is the cordinates for that village. Al-Aliyah Mouradiyan ( talk) 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Al Nusra Front fights against other rebel groups. Perhaps in the near future we will need to noted the towns and villages which monitors Al Nusra Front in another color in contrast to those towns and villages which are under the control of FSA and its allies. Because SOHR reported that after clashes today and yesterday between al- Nusra Front and Jund al- Aqsa Organization from one side and the Syria Revolutionaries Front in the town, Al- Nusra Front seized 7 towns and villages in Idlib (Balyon, Kensafrah, Eblin, Abdita, Mshoun, Mgharah, Shnan) The clashes also resulted in death of some fighters from both sides. SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Would be a good idea but let's wait until something bigger happens. These clashes may be just between few smaller groups and not the entire Al Nusra front vs SRF. As as I know there are no clashes between Free Syrian Army members and Al Nusra, that would also mean you have to create a color for the SRF, too much for this map. The're probably some disagreements in Idlib about who has the authority to control a village/town. As you can see they have no problem in Daara, Aleppo etc. DuckZz ( talk) 08:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting idea. Rhocagil ( talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion is, we wait for something bigger, Al Nusra still cooperates with rebels in Idlib, not to mention other parts of Syria. If you really want to put some towns under their control, use a dark green color with the name "rebels", light green should stay "opposition". DuckZz ( talk) 11:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
——— The regime forces took controlled over the farmlands of Hosh Farah near the town of Mid’a in the Eastern Ghota after violent clashes with al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions. Source: SOHR Edit Map please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.17.8 ( talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely I think we should be prepared for another colour for al-nusra and allied jihadists. From the reports I've seen, during the last few weeks in Idlib, they have attacked a number of smaller elements of the FSA-associated SRF coalition. Much of al-nusra retreating from Deir ez-Zor went to Idlib. The SRF doesn't want to divert its' resources to wage a full-scale war with al-Nusra, but it could still come to that. At the moment I don't see much risk of al-Nusra / FSA conflict elsewhere. André437 ( talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this will be a correct thing to do because jbaht alnusra most of them are considered from syrian opposition more than AQ and fight with rebels everywhere, changing it to another color will be ok if they will be a separated group fighting rebels like isis, not like now they are fighting one group only. al-nusra has many allies from rebels like ahrar alsham, jund aqsa, fsa groups in qalamon and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.142.181 ( talk) 17:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hanibal, forget about that because since jabht nusra considered as rebel ally, otherwise the map will be very crowded and it will include many mistakes because jabht nusra also sharing control of parts of many villages in syria with other rebels, so this will show for some viewers as nusra is only presence in idlib. Also they fight the saa and isis with rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.142.181 ( talk) 20:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Clashes have taken place only for the last two days. If they keep it up for the next week than we discuss a color for Nusra only. Lets wait for now to see if the clashes will expand or die down. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is to wait and see if the infighting escalates or dies down if the fighting escalates we should with out a doubt give Al-Nusra a new color but for now I think we should wait and see what happens next and will other groups join in the fighting on the sides of one of the two warring parties.If clashes wind down and stop my opinion is that we should just make an article about the clashes and nothing more. Daki122 ( talk) 13:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
anyway to separate the territory held by the two warring sides . Paolowalter ( talk) 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep track - here - of what exactly Nusra holds, as opposed to the FSA/SRF SOHR ISW So that when/if the time comes, we know what to mark as distinctly Nusra-held. Daily Beast "...the al-Qaeda affiliated al Nusrah Front, which has opened up a third fighting front against the FSA..." daily beast yahoo ISW Boredwhytekid ( talk) 15:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it´s getting more and more clear that the cooperation between FSA and Al Nusrah is coming to an end; Syria 'moderate' rebels lose ground to Qaeda (News from Al Jazeera) Rhocagil ( talk) 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Change Nusra's color please. The purple color is currently used on the Damascus map to indicate truce areas. We don't want truce areas and Nusra areas to look the same. Thanks.
Kami888 (
talk)
05:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Pro opposition source said that to according to Lebanese official sources, the Shiite militia of Hezbollah reached an agreement with militants of al-Nusra Front in Qalamoun in southern Syria. Both parties reportedly agreed Wednesday that al-Nusra militants (affiliated with al-Qaeda) would withdraw from the Qalamoun region and retreat to its bases in northern Syria. A source in the Lebanese government told ARA News, under the condition of anonymity, that Hezbohhal guaranteed the safety of al-Nusra militants while leaving Qalamoun and heading to northern Syria, reassuring them that the Syrian regime is also part of the agreement. “This agreement took place after al-Nusra lost several consecutive battles in Qalamoun, and when the Front’s insurgents leave that area and return to its bases in the north the Assad regime will be more secure from the militants’ attacks in Damascus,” the source said. “Thus Hezbollah’s proposed agreement is mainly aimed to serve the Assad regime in Damascus.” Ara News Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I really doubt,it Hannibal,Nusra and IS are in a strong position in the mountains of the Qalamoun,why would they leave. Alhanuty ( talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
They are in the worst possible position in qalamoun, winter is coming, with 0 supplied, right side SAA left side LAF and Hezbollah. LOL. If it is true we are talking about 3000 nusra/IS members it is a long way to Idlib. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 ( talk) 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
According to http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-devastating-losses-eastern-syria-week/ "104th Brigade controls 90 percent of Sakr Island and all 3 bridges leading to the island." If this is accurate, then the map of Deir Ezzor should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.1.105 ( talk) 01:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This article also speaks of the situation in Al-Hasakah province that the SAA and YPG are besieging Tall Hamis from the south and the west. Can this be confirmed from another source? Rhocagil ( talk) 15:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Al-Masdar reported the army to have retreated from those 2 villages. I looked for them, and found out they we're from Rif Damashq not Quneitra, but I localised them at last. Beyt Teema on this map is called Beytima and is localised west of brigade 68, north Kafr Hawar. Bayt Saabr is not located here, but I localised it on Wikimapia. So guys, a pro-regime source said it, so change those towns please: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.328233&lon=36.000824&z=12&m=b&show=/9992654/Bait-Saber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 10:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anybody know why Beit Jinn is being made contested from green? I've seen no reports here of fighting in the town ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 12:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Why are there two red dots in Jordan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.69.126 ( talk) 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This news from SOHR states that Nusra and Islamic battalions advanced against regime forces IN the town and that clashes continue near it. So there's still regime presence in the town. Also, Nusra seized the villages of Sfohen, al- Fterah and Hzarin in the southern countryside, and the village of Flayfel in Shahshabo Mountain, SOHR as well. And Deyr Sunbul here is still marked as green, when it was widely reported that Nusra seized that area from the SRF last week, as that was the SRF stronghold in Idlib. And yes, Nusra is advancing at many places :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.97.165.226 ( talk) 15:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The most reliable report I found is http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-jazeera-journalist-wounded-sheikh-miskeen-heavy-fighting-reported-city/, that states that the city is contested. By the way Da'el has been green for a long time, without being true. Paolowalter ( talk) 18:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually Dael WAS rebel held. Peto Lucem said himself that the regime actually attacked the town to reduce the pressure in Sheikh Miskin, and seized most of it. Them the rebels counter-attacked fast, and only the counter-attack was reported by SOHR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Any information about the situation in the town ? SOHR wont write anything in detail except "Army or rebels advanced". All I have is this Pro-opposition map showing the air defense base way behind rebel lines, and amateur videos ... What others think ? DuckZz ( talk) 00:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
i agree with you,done. Alhanuty ( talk) 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to portrai Al-Nusra Emirate as a fifth colour - like grey instead of as now green, which is wrong since they in northern, middle part fight FSA~(green) . Grey is best since they are close to ISIS in islamistic ideology but also at war with them. Tomas22wiki ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Idlib Province: Reliable sources reported to SOHR that al- Nusra Front supported by Jund al- Aqsa seized the villages of Sfohen, al- Fterah and Hzarin in the southern countryside, and initial information also reported that they controlled the village of Flayfel in Shahshabo Mountain and that they have arrested a commander of a rebel battalion and some of fighters in one of these villages. see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroszka ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/531416791764201472
Charles Lister, a widely reliable and neutral source, along with many pro-rebel sources claim the rebels to have seized Tell Umm Hawran and Nawa city. Many pics and videos emerging from the city. Claims that the regime simply withdrawn as they didn't have enough man to hold the town.
let's keep it polite and civilized Nawa was under siege by SAA,not held by the syrian army, they withdrew to defend the road to Damascus until ghouta and other areas are cleared .
Just to support the claim, as Charles Lister is already reliable enough, a few pro-rebel sources:
https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/531349130887454720 https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/531392480064061440 https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/531411039041363968
Also, about Brigade 61, remains in regime hands as of now, until the situation is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed by many sources. C'mon guys he IS a reliable source. And there are MANY videos from rebels around the town. He is actually the MOST reliable source I seen. And he is neutral(never seen him talking good about FSA or bad about SAA).
he talks in the TV WHOLE DAY about hezbollah, Russia, Iran and Syria being the demon, meanwhile he is a zion slave. Reliable my a$$
You guys can't use the videos to change, but you can use it to support a claim. Anyway, wait a few hours if it suits you guys, because FSA has taken the city confirmed already by reliable sources such as Lister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.81.115 ( talk) 13:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
SOHR said that Nawa has been taken over by rebels see suggestion is to put Nawa green with red circle around as there is Army presence on nearby hills and bases. Daki122 ( talk) 13:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a red circle around Nawa following its takeover today as confirmed by SOHR today? This gives off the impression that regime is besieging or launching an offensive on Nawa right now which is obviously not the case, the regime is on the defensive/withdrawal. You have to remember that there are other people besides the editors on this page that view this map, and they are going to be very confused with what looks like a regime siege of Nawa. I propose that we remove the red circle (for the sake of clarity, and factual accuracy) and keep the regime bases around Nawa that have not been confimed to have fallen, red. That way it accurately reflects the military situation on the ground and demonstrates that the regime is now consigned to its bases. Jafar Saeed ( talk) 15:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
They are defending the road to Damascus meanwhile ghouta is getting cleaned. This is another fsa/nusra spam on wiki just like the 3 day south Aleppo "offensive" LOL It is interesting how are the rebel identity is changing. It was FSA for 2 years, IF/ ahrar al sham last year, and al nusra are the rebels in Daraa(they "captured) Nawa not fsa. and the jihadi fanboys are screaming here for Al nusra a terror organization.(by the UN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 ( talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright guys, in case you haven't noticed, Charles Lister, that IS a reliable source you liking or not confirmed Nusra to have taken Tell Umm Hawran so change it either to Nusra color or to Rebel color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.192.139 ( talk) 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the Nawa area, the neutral sources claim the following:
While not openly admitting that the army had withdrawn, state news agency SANA said troops were "redeploying and reorganizing in the Nawa area... in order to prepare for upcoming fighting."
So, the only source given for the redeployment theory is SANA itself, which is not reliable at all. Tell Um Hawran is still red. And based on the facts on the map, Brigade 61 and Khirbet Bajjah should be with a green ring since there is no direct connection with other SAA held areas. Twitter source in the meantime have posted numorous vidios showing rebels in the army bases. It seems the Nawa front had completetly collapsed. I've not yet found a neutral source, but I personaly think the entire area will become green in several days, since most SAA troops have withdrawn to Izra and Sanamayn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 21:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I belive the Air Defense base south of Sheik Miskin is obviously deep behind rebel lines. Pro-opposition post saying the town is still contested, but not the base on the south but the north. Yes this is all pro-opposition, but don't worry, I'm waiting for other editors to make changes, like you for example. DuckZz ( talk) 21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Reuters and Al Jazeera rebels have captured Nawa and the surrounding areas like Tell Hawran, Brigade 61, South of Sheik Miskin Army defense base etc. DuckZz ( talk) 22:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The Kurdish popular defense forces retake control over 100 villages after a series of fierce clashes with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorist group in the Northeastern parts of Syria. The ISIL militants were pushed back by the Kurdish forces from 100 villages in Hasaka province, leaving a large number of dead and wounded members behind. Islamic Invitation Turkey Shia Post Global Terror Watch But still need more sources that can confirm these data. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
More and more villages in Hasaka are turning black with no sources given both kurd and saa who is doing it ! 81.156.225.146 ( talk) 19:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
I don't know what to do with this one there are no given names for the villages captured and on top of that this may be a moral booster story for the kurds 100 villages is not easy to take especially when you have ISIS as your enemy. Daki122 ( talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies to Hanibal911 and others for taking so long. (distracted by real life.)
Medium grey, as discussed, following the same naming convention as before.
Location_dot_grey.svg = control
map-circle-grey.svg = besieged
map-arcNN-grey.svg = partiel siege/front line to north,
with in place of NN for the other directions : NE, EE, SE, SS, SW, WW, and NW.
I haven't done the conflict icons yet, as I noticed that the squares with rounded corners got replaced with circles. Was this discussed ? (If so, I missed it.)
I also notice that the names have mistakenly "green" instead of "lime" for light green. "Green" should be used only for medium green. Lime green is almost universally used for pure light green or a colour very close, and on Wikipedia it seems "lime" is always pure light green. Since the icons are open to use by other pages, we should follow WP practices.
So before adding the conflict icons for JaN, I see 3 options :
1) Just correct the colour names in the newer icons, or
2) Revert to the older conflict icons which I made, or
3) Make newer higher resolution icons of squares with rounded corners, which will look a little nicer for larger sizes. (For smaller sizes, the display will be identical to my original or the newer conflict icons.)
Any option I could do inside a day or so.
Note that I chose squares with rounded corners since I anticipated (eventually) making filled pie circles for shared control instead of nested rings, which you can see on competing maps looks a lot nicer. That I could do in the next few days as well.
A final note : I see that the semicircles have been dropped from the caption of the map. Are they still being used ?
So I'll do whatever is the consensus. Time for your feedback, everyone :) André437 ( talk) 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Option 1 seems fine or which ever option is easy to change back if JAN and SRF get back together. 81.156.225.146 ( talk) 11:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
What about towns controlled by Nusra and other rebel groups? ChrissCh94 ( talk) 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
When I added the new contested icons, I noticed that very dark grey dots are being used for al-Nusra control, in place of the medium grey I made. The problem, besides being a little darker than the dark grey of the national borders and thus almost indistinguishable, it that they are too close to the black of Daesh/ISIS. On my monitor (average resolution and size), I can't easily distinguish between the two, particularly for the smaller dots. I'm sure that it is only Daesh in the villages of the desert of eastern Hama, but they look the same as the very dark grey of al-Nusra in Idlib.
The medium grey is very easily distinguishable from all other dots, only close to the colour of the thin provincial boundary lines. For clarity, could editors please use the medium grey dot ? Thanks.
André437 (
talk)
07:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'm officialy done with this map. I'm going to say it right up front: this map has been abused WAY TO LONG. Black dots are added at random in Hasakah province, nobody cries out. Red dots appear out of nowhere in the Syrian desert, nodoby cries out. Rebels take Nawa and the surrounding areas, and it's a battle of three days to get things changed. The reason? "no reliable sources". There have been NO sources for desert towns in Syria, NO sources for turning some towns contested near Bosra al-Sham, NO sources for fighting west of Ras al-Ayn in specific towns. But that doesn't matter, does it? The only reason some of you are so admandant on sources for rebel gains is because you don't want to see the simple FACT that the rebels in Daraa and Quneitra are advancing, and quickly so. So please for the SAKE OF MANKIND or something ... stop editing biased. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheerleaders? This is about this map, not about Ukraine. I see that many towns are made contested once rebels attack, but reverted to red if nothing happens for a few days. Green towns attacked? Takes months and several sources to revert them back to green. That's just fact.
A fact is that on one side you have insurgent forces who prefer hit and run attacks rather than staying in the same town or trying to take it against an Armed force that mainly uses siege tactics to crush towns and take them. Daki122 ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
These locations do not tessellate with the map of Hasakah City. At least in the case of Sab Shakur, I think it is extremely unlikely that the regime are under siege in that particular village (the map shows IS in control of the surrounding area). How do we resolve this inconsistency without a reliable source? Jafar Saeed ( talk) 12:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
A great story which can be very useful to as as it states that the Army has advanced 20(around 25km) miles south of Qumishli putting the town out of ISIS artillery reach.It also states that the Army has control over quite a lot of villages south of Qumishli.This article is also intresting as it claims that the Syrian Army has been making advances around Qumishli unlike other sources which claim that Kurdish militia has been the one doing the fighting. The story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-in-syria-the-story-of-the-martyred-soldiers-who-fought-to-the-last-bullet-to-avoid-the-fate-of-captured-comrades-beheaded-by-militants-9854693.html Daki122 ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Why SAA positions south oh Hasaka had been remouve ???
Why "main"? It looks they are minority against rebeles like IS. "Other" rebels would be more appropriate description. -- 94.199.40.135 ( talk) 12:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Main Rebels/FSA/Green Rebels/Moderate Rebels this is a series of cliches, they should be called former Rebels, sinces all other groups are made of ex-Moderate rebels that migrated to JAN,Al sham, ISIS. all this speak is nonsense, all this conflict will become a copy of the Chinese Warlords of the 1900s. With the Regime Being the stronger force, followed by ISIS and in the very end the insignificant FSA. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
So why has South Hasakah suddenly turned all black? More and more on the map is getting black without being sourced SyAAF ( talk) 11:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyAAF ( talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You must provide credible sources, not a dark section in arabic, we need credible sources as SOHR, so give a link to the article or put them red, it's the rule. Lessi94 ( talk) 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This source is not reliable enough, we must find an article of SOHR, it's strange that the sources of daesh did not claim such an advanced. 82.233.227.191 ( talk) 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This Al Monitor article has a quote saying that Khan Shaykhun is a Nusra stronghold. Esn ( talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Nusra also control Deir Sanbul, the former SRF stronghold. It was widely reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.192.139 ( talk) 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Any source showing this village contested ? It has been since I don't know.
Ayn Suda and Dyar Gharbi also in Idlib? 109.154.87.146 ( talk) 10:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Any source showing regime presence in brigade 61 and the village north of it ? I thought they retread from Nawa area to the east, it just doesn't make any sense. DuckZz ( talk) 22:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It has been said (Al Jazeera, Reuters, pro-opposition sources) they withdrew from Nawa town and surrouinding areas to the east. There was not a list of captures areas. It's just not logical that they retreated to brigade 61 located only 800 meters west from Nawa and besieged, not possible .... 37.203.117.88 ( talk) 23:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The Nawa area refers to the city itself and the military bases surrounding it. We had concensus three days ago that if no reports of continued fighting would show up in "a few days" all of Nawa would be made green. So, let's do this. It's painfully obvious that there's no SAA anymore near Nawa. They fled.
Another Pro-opposition source showing rebels on Tell Harfouch (without weapons, means the Syrian army is too far away). It's pro-opposition, so I can't make any changes, waiting for someone else to agree. DuckZz ( talk) 10:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sheikh Miskin may stay contested. But the bases and that village near Nawa are clearly rebel held.
I propose that a default rule should be introduced: if, after a month has passed, there is no source on a settlement that has been marked as contested within a month of it being marked as contested; that settlement should be reverted to its original owner. I also propose that objections can be made, in a particular town, on the talk page if there is a valid explanation why this settlement should not be reverted back to its original color. The talk page will then decide. The reasons for this are: 1) clarity in the viewing of the map; 2) Accuracy in demonstrating the nature of this war, i.e. hit and run attacks on part of rebels, raids on part of regime. Many towns are placed as contested primarily based on information from SOHR. Whilst SOHR is reliable and accurate, it very rarely gives information on the ending of clashes in a certain area, so we are left with the predicament of being stuck with contested locations, which is obviously undesirable. What does everybody think? Jafar Saeed ( talk) 13:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. There really are not that many contested towns on this map, at all, relative to the total number of towns. When the front line substantially moves (past a contested town and without said town being specifically mentioned), yes, I am on board with your suggestion. But, in the majority of cases, this would only cause more convolution. For instance: Latakia Province, Rabia and Kabir - no recent news, but they are the front line villages, so fighting is surely still ongoing in the immediate vicinity. Same for Eastern Hama, Zanuba and Qleib al-Thour. And Daraa, Bosra area towns. It would be silly if at the front lines (of any specific front) we just have red dots next to lime dots.. as though the implication is that the situation is stable. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm always on board with discussing specific cases, reviewing new information, and considering common sense arguments pertaining to towns' contested status. Lol your biggest obstacle will be that everyone will have different parameters on what qualifies as a "persuasive argument" though. Any proposed reversion of a town's status (without a definitive source) should be posted here on the talk page and taken from there.. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 16:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to harp on this a bit more - I think our representation of JAN's possessions in Idlib is vastly understated. BBC "the group (JAN) that took control of all the towns of Jabal al-Zawiya region in Idlib"..."The Nusra Front, with help from smaller jihadist groups, has managed to seize the majority of the towns and villages south, west and east of the city of Idlib, while the city itself is still under the control of the regime." Haaretz "For a week now, Nusra Front has put the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya under siege (as if) they were the 'Noseiry' regime, " Maarouf said in the video, using a derogatory term for Assad's Alawite sect, which is an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. "I (want to) clarify why we pulled out of the villages of Jabal al-Zawiya. (It is) so that we preserve civilian blood because this group does not hesitate to kill civilians."
Sooo, the entire Jabal al-Zawiya area - labeled on wikimapia as Mount al-Zawiya, should be dark grey, no? Every town within the Jabal al-Zawiya - the borders of which are roughly from Maarat al-Numan (NE), Bassamos (NW), Sharanaz (SW), just north of Khan Sheikhoun (SE). Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
My last edit here didn't work so well - does Abm-darkslategray-icon.png work to mark checkpoints/bases JAN-held? Maybe I just screwed up the code. Someone please review/advise Boredwhytekid ( talk) 16:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No objection here. I think your grey icons are spot on and will use them hereafter for any JAN edits. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |