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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Can anyone reduce the size of the map at the top of the page? It seems overly large to me. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Reduce lol ? I have a standard laptop 15,5 inch monitor and the map is really small, i have to zoom the page to 130% to barely see the villages ... does anyone else think that the map should be zoomed in ? DuckZz ( talk) 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Himrit is under SAA control [1]. Paolowalter ( talk) 07:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Again fighting in Talbisah SOHR. Time to switch it contested. Paolowalter ( talk) 13:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You are not producing any evidence to support your claims. The rule states that if figting are rerported by pro-opp source in a city controlled by opposition (SAA advance) we must mark it on the map. This source openly talks of clashes 'in al- Hlaleyyi and Hosh Hajjo areas in the city of Talbise.' Similar statements were reported several times in the past. Paolowalter ( talk) 16:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Khurus village in kobane close to qara qawzaq should be contested and not isis held.
https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/565257184855220228 -- Creepz55 ( talk) 16:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Pro-Kurdish source from inside Kobane says YPG are not in control of Xerab Eto but that clashes are ongoing, please change to contested:
https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/566616553148661760
He also reports that clashes are going on near Jadah village:
https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/566585598602129408
It would be a YPG advance but would it be acceptable to mark it as besieged from North?
179.33.157.37 ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Zor Mexar and Bayadiya CONTESTED not YPG controlled according to jackshanine quoted by another kurdish activist:
https://twitter.com/ArjDnn/status/566735706987704320
179.33.157.37 ( talk) 23:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this twitter source Masharah is contested here but according to this video it shows rebel attacking Tall Bzaq from the northren outsikrts of Mashrah here, but in the map this town is Regime held ? Lindi29 ( talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
they will say, we need a source, not videos. Alhanuty ( talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Lindi29,
You will achieve nothing. The chief editors here will claim Twitter is no source. However, they will use Twitter themselves if it showes SAA advances. Also, you need at least 3 sources for any rebel advance, whilst adding red semicircles and contested icons for a SAA advance needs only 1. You would do better to make your own map of follow Twitter maps, because we won't achieve any neutrality in southern Syria on this one ... regretfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 10:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha the double standard idiots crying, ooo my god iranians are fighting with SAA and afghans, meanwhile jihadists from 83 countries are fighting in the ranks of the snackbars. They are using NEUTRAL UNBIASED sources like Elijah who got info FROM THE GROUND without any media or activist bias. He knows everything before it reaches the media. It was clear that Deir al adas was taken by SAA cause there were videos from the city. Not biased archivilians and al qaeda supporter markito twitter LOL Totholio (talk | contribs)
Let's see what happens. This source has been pusblished: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsfeatures/564830-the-assad-regimes-daraa-campaign-is-a-desperate-defensive-maneuver and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-noe/the-battle-for-southern-s_b_6668744.html It states that fighting is ongoing around Deir al-Adas, and that the regime has not been able to advance by much. So Kafr Naisj, Tell Antar and Sabsaba should be green since the only real advances of the SAA were around Dayr Makir, Deir al-Adas and near Himrit. Also, we never received neutral sources for Masharah and At-Tayhah. Both are shown as rebel held on multiple maps. Some of you claim those maps are too pro-FSA to use. Well ... they've shown Sabsaba and Himrit under rebel control for months. You editors claimed that was nonsense. And see ... the SAA is attacking right those villages that had been red al along on this map. So those maps were right, PetroLucem was not. I'm predicting: it will be shot down as a source for this map because:
let's see how long it takes before some Al-Masdar, PetroLucem of Elijah Twitter source shows up to make Kafr Shams contested? I say: two days at the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 ( talk) 13:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Map about Daraa from a source I do not know http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/47c9/txl7ypxdoaa23lbzg.jpg. Can it be used? It confirms Himrit under SAA control as reported by Al Masdar. It is the third source mentionng it, is it sufficient? Paolowalter ( talk) 21:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR reported that clashes in the town of Ma’arret Hermeh in the southern countryside of Idlib between al- Nusra Front and gunmen from the town. SOHR and pro opposition source Syrian Rebellion Observatory reported that Abu Hamoud the chief of Free Police in Maarat Harmah, reportedly killed by a Jabhat al-Nusra and said that It's a new wave of killings from the Al Nusra side since few weeks against local forces (including Free Police) in the Idlib province. Syrian Rebellion Observatory I ask to other editors express their views on this issue. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
What was the point of adding all those tiny villages in east Homs. If we added all villages of their size in the rest of syria the map would be overloaded . I am in favour of showing small villages if they are on the front line but if not they are pointless . 31.50.78.246 ( talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I kind of feel the same about the black dots around Saba in Hasakah. Anyway I would like more opinions from others, to maybe get a consensus to remove some of the villages i Homes as they are not in the frontline. Rhocagil ( talk) 14:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The editor who added them obviously wanted to show ISIS control of the area but has got carried away. At least halve of them are not needed. 31.50.78.246 ( talk) 18:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I think the smaller villages you are talking about should be reduced in size on the map, according to satellite and wikimapia of course, to decrease their apparent importance. Not all of them are exactly that size, of course. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:E405:3B3C:3A9A:1531 ( talk) 02:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 .You say you provided source so where is it? I have not seen it on here . 81.156.224.112 ( talk) 18:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
They are
here for Nusra, mixed control, truce areas, etc.
Please leave your feedback in that section on my talk page.
Thanks :)
André437 (
talk) 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The different icons for bases, checkpoints and strategic hilltops make a lit of sense. It would make the situation presented a lot clearer. MesmerMe ( talk) 19:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I like the triangle mountain peak icon, the cross is not good it could be mistaken for a hospital. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally like this File:Test-map-dot-grey-676.svg icon. The mixed control icons may seem good, but in reality there would be such a terrible and hardline discussions about which party has presence inside a town and where. This doesn't make sense. And here is why. For example Al Nusra members are present in 80% areas where rebels are, same vice versa. Every icon would be changed, and that wouldn't make sense if a town has 500 JAN members inside and 10-40 IF members too, but we can't know that....
Not sure why people are posting here rather than his talkpage as he asked, but as we've started, I guess I'll post here as well. I'd prefer a colour that looks less like others such as #009900. As for stable mixed control, how is this different from a truce? I would still like to see stable mixed control used, though, as it makes tracking changes easier, and stops pointless debates over which icon should be in the middle and outside of a stable control.
As for the truce icons, I think the usage of the first one looks identical how we use besieged at the moment, though besieged is generally not a truce. I would use this icon to replace the need to use multiple icons. The second one is beyond me, I really don't get why one colour gets the outside and half the middle, is this saying they control the surrounding area and part of the city?
The hill/checkpoints icons seem interesting. I don't think I'd want them to be used as you intended by and large because as far as I can tell there's little demand for them. I'd personally want one them for small settlements/buildings to avoid giving misleading impressions of population distribution. This would also have the benefit of marking points that are unlikely to receive subsequent media attention if captured, so we can more easily spot them. Banak ( talk) 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is possible just two color ? -- LogFTW ( talk) 12:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Tradedia Totally agree with your critique of the checkpoint (CP) icons. Was just brainstorming, and made a quick mockup using html. The map would need graphic icons, and the .svg icons I make would be much smaller. Maybe "X" would work better for you ? I put an html sample on my talk page. (the icons would be a symmetric X, not a letter.) We could look at that after the other icons are finalized.
As for the yellow icon, indeed it isn't visible. It needs a grey or black border like the other yellow icons. That will be done on the final hill icon as well.
LogFTW What was your comment "just two color" referring to ?
Spenk01 I'll make a grey/lime/black stable icon for you. Note that the icons will lose their "test-" prefix when they are finalized. I'll let you know when that happens.
For the Nusra colour, we have one preference for grey-green, one for grey-blue. If no other input, I'll go for the grey-blue colour.
I adjusted the truce icons, using a purple ring instead of violet, for better contrast. Take a look.
keep your feedback coming :)
André437 (
talk) 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Some sources said that Al Nusra stormed 'moderate rebels' FSA (7th Brigade) HQ's and captured a large cache of weapons and supplies in Idlib countryside. here here here and also reported that Al Nusra captured village Ayn al-Arus. here But I'm not sure of the reliability of these sources. So it may be someone has more data on this issue. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR reported that clashes in Al Waer so that maybe If these reports are repeated soon we need mark Al Waer as contested. SOHR Probably in there has long been not truce. So I ask that would be other editors express their opinions about this situaton. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Waer was always contested. Never stopped being contested. The SAA always controlled parts of it. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The new icons have their final names :
see, to the right. (The temporary names will be removed.)
Spenk01 This includes your new icon.
The map caption will be soon updated. ...
André437 (
talk) 03:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources reported that Syrian troops and Hezbollah fighters retook the villages of Kfar Nasej and Kfar Shams which lie roughly midway between Damascus and Deraa. The Daily Star here Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure this report is correct it seems to suggest Kfar Shams was taken in the first attack but we know the SAA are still attacking it and Khar Nasej has only been part taken we need to wait for another source before we change anything . 81.156.224.112 ( talk) 14:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I know its a reliable but no pro SAA SOURCE HAS EVEN MENTIONED IT .You could have waited a bit longer ,whats the rush . 81.156.224.112 ( talk) 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
This is a very reliable source and the reason we haven't heard anything from pro-gov sources could be because of the ordered media blackout around the offensive. MesmerMe ( talk) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If needed http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/update-syrian-armys-southern-front-offensive/ states again that Kafr Nasej and Kafr Shams are contested. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest to stop editing the map using as a source the maps provided by these twitter users: https://twitter.com/MarkMonmonier and https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer because they are proved to be not reliable at all, they keep showing an exaggerated YPG advance which is denied on a daily basis even by the YPG official media. For istance, the grain silos near Sarrin and surrounding villages are yet IS held but the are edited to YPG controlled on a daily basis using those biased twitter users as a source. -- 8fra0 ( talk) 01:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, let's stick to ANHA/official YPG daily village recount for captured villages and jackshanine's reports for contested/besieged, or at the very least open up a thread every time you want to use one of these maps so their veracity can be contrasted with additional sources.
179.33.157.37 ( talk) 05:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
According to agreed upon as reliable jackshanine YPG in control of villages Bexdix, Kultib and Aqbash east of Kobane, the former two are already marked as YPG controlled in this map, also they're besieging Eydanee.
https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/567452962646409216
190.67.159.64 ( talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
YPG and rebel forces captured 19 villages in Raqqa province. Their forces are now located in 25 kilometers (15 miles) from Tall Abyad which now under control by ISIS. The Daily Star Al Joumhouria Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Time to change villages west of 25km from Tall Abyad to yellow. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Why were so many villages added in the ISIS controlled area of E-Homs? It looks like spam to be fair. Adding villages in those areas is important to show that it is not just a barren wasteland but still that's too much. I suggest removing SOME of those villages (especially the ones in the middle, because they add no front-line information. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 17:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
ChrissCh94 .Look at section (Added villages in Homs ,why). Pyphon ( talk) 17:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
As you can see many editors have the same opinion apart from Lindi29 . Pyphon ( talk) 17:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
It's irrelevant but just saying I draw severals villages in and Al Qaeda fanboys removed it if these villages are not removed ill I can draw + 500 red towns in Homs, As Sweida, Latakia, Tartus, Damascus and Hama who are not in map now. -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It's the same situation with all the black dots in Shaddadeh area in Hasakah province. Unnecessary villages added while red dots were removed from Hasakah/Qamishli countryside over the past couple of weeks. HarrySy ( talk) 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It´s seems there is a consensus to remove or to revert the edit of black dot fly shits in eastern Homes. I think that edit was made 12 February. And I think we should agree to ad new villages in the area only when they are or newly have been contested. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 you must be confused ,here you say "I added them" but you said "I did not add them" on section (added vilages in homs ,why) . Pyphon ( talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Lindi29 the source does not matter! There is no one arguing against that those villages/places are there and under ISIS control. The argument is that the number of dots does not represent the number of actual population, it looks like the area is more heavily populated then the suburbs of Damascus populated and it´s not. It´s a mountain area with low population spread over many tiny villages. There for i suggest that you revert your edit from 12 february and after that only ad places that are reported contested or newly taken by either side. And yes I feel the same about the areas south of Qamishli, south of Hasakah and even small villages in Kobane could be removed. Rhocagil ( talk) 23:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The villages in Hasakah/Qamishli should stay because it is an active front line, in recent weeks there have been several offensives from SAA/YPG as well as some by ISIS. Especially now that SAA/YPG is advancing towards Tal Hamis, we should keep those villages on the map to provide an accurate presentation of the front line. HarrySy ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR reported that clashes took place in the town of Ma'arrat Hurmah on south of Idlib between Al Nusra and local militiamen from the town. SOHR Also SOHR said that the village of Ayn al-Arus which was earlier taken Al Nusra was the last stronghold for rebels in in the Zawiya mountain(Jabal al-Zawiya). SOHR SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Here in report from SOHR said that clashes in the town of Qarfa and other places in the northwest of Daraa. SOHR But in original report on Arabic SOHR just said that clashes took place near town Qarfa and other places in the northwest of Daraa. SOHR So sometimes some reports from SOHR on english may contain mistakes. Hanibal911 ( talk) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Not proposing any change at all here. I am watching this map for a long time now... it seems to me, that in northern Homs, where the rebels seem to have quite a presence some smaller dots changed from green to red over the last months... am I mistaken? I wonder because I have not heard of any major battles in that area. Thanks in advance for your information. -- Andylee Sato ( talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Too many disinformation, bias are becoming apparent in the site. Also the information displayed its incomplete and comes out there 2 to 3 days after the events took place. We should avoid using SOHR as a Source in all cases, even is doubtful to use it to report SAA advances. Another point , the main logo of the site its the FSA flag. What other proof is needed to show its bias??. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 12:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The original rationale for using SOHR was that, even though it is biased, it still reliably reported both sides' losses and gains. However, as the rebels have lost more and more in the war, the less reliable and more biased SOHR has become, to the point of unreliability. The numerous and conflicting posts it has placed out about the Aleppo situation prove this. SOHR even called on the rebels to fight to stop the "Iranian siege of Aleppo", another example that SOHR is less concerned with truth and more concerned with keeping up morale and propaganda. You do not see Al-Masdar calling on the SAA in its articles to "beat the foreign terrorists" do you? As per the latest SOHR discussion, SOHR is to be used with a corroborating source rather than on its own. This is the best solution. XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 16:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree pro op source for saa gain pro gov source for rebel gain . Pyphon ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I said many times the SOHR is a terror machine propaganda for Al Qaeda and states who support Al Qaeda in Syria (Israel, Turkey) many things who they wrote are bullshits however fews of their reports are true -- LogFTW ( talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR credibility has sunk verylow in this offensive. It reported false info many times. I agree with XJ-0461 v2, it is pro-opp like others. Paolowalter ( talk) 18:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop,this non-sense discussion,SOHR is an authentic source,we have been using it before all of you editors popped up on wikipedia,end of discussion,and there were several discussions,wehre all editors agree that it is authentic. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Lets have a vote on the status of sohr because many editors don't like the situation. Pyphon ( talk) 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Reverse is true for Al Masdar. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Al-Masdar is UNRELIABLE,it is similiar to SANA,EJM is inaccurate in his claims. Alhanuty ( talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
XJ-0461 v2 It does not matter if you had one vote more against SOHR in the previous discussion because that does not constitute a consensus and nether is Wikipedia a democracy. Per Wikipedia policy a consensus is established when there is a BROAD agreement over an issue. A majority of only ONE person is not a consensus in any way per Wikipedia's standards. Thus the previous discussion ended in no consensus per Wikipedia. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Consensus. As for user 200.48.214.19 comments, Archicicilians is in no way less biased than SOHR. If anything, Archicicilians is one of the most biased sources we have who on a regular bases makes inflamatory statements against the Syrian and Iranian governments, as well as against Hezbollah. The reliability of SOHR over Archi can be seen in the fact that Archi claimed on the first day of the SAA offensive that the rebels recaptured all three villages and insisted on it. While SOHR only reported the recapture of one village 24 hours later and three days later that the other two were still being contested. In regards to Al-Masdar, it does hold mostly a pro-government stance, however, it has proven to be less biased than SANA (biased as much as Archi) in its reporting of events. Still, for Masdar the same rule should apply as for Archi that we have been following. Same rule also goes for DeSyracuse. Based on its language in its twitter posts, its obviously also slightly pro-opposition. EkoGraf ( talk) 00:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
EkoGraf there is a broad consensus that SOHR has changed and become more unreliable and bias .When a source openly calls for one army to attack another and constantly make mistakes it brings into question is status as a reliable source for showing rebel gains . Pyphon ( talk) 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Its not a broad consensus if an almost equal number of editors are of the opposite opinion. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok .Then it is up to editors who do not like the situation as it stands to get a wide consensus that SHORs status should change .Taking into regard that there may be a minority of editors who want to keep the status qou evidence must be shown why it should no longer be used as a single source for rebel gains .Also many editors who took part in the consensus on sohr in the past have moved on and we have many new editors who have joined since and there opinions are just as important as editors who have been here from the start .Good luck . Pyphon ( talk) 14:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/568482271898034176 illajaq/ilicax village liberated
https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/568732444985139201 eb Faraj, Qasmiye, Jideyde and Eto (Kurdish one) villages liberated by YPG.
also i khorkhori village is behind ypg positions im sure its YPG held also-- Creepz55 ( talk) 19:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Jack Shahine https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/569130673266696192, all the western front of Kobane is YPG/FSA controlled except Shuyukh Fawqani. I think that it is logical to switch to YPG controlled the villages south of Shuyukh Tahtani on the eastern bank of the Euphrates (those village wolud be besieged, without any possible way to leave for IS), while I wolud wait for more sources for the villages north of Shuyukh Fawqani. -- 8fra0 ( talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
the news confirmed that SAA get control of three villages in north of Aleppo
Ratilan and Bashkouy and Haratin villages http://www.almayadeen.net/latestnews/2015/2/17/97207/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7--%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86--%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%AF%D8%AE%D9%84-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86 46.100.115.120 ( talk) 08:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be considered that the Handarat Camp should be contested and Al Burij is under th control of SAA by this source http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-aleppo-syrian-army-attacks-number-areas-inside-city/
SOHR also confirmed these advances for SAA http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/regime-forces-advance-in-aleppo-countryside-clashes-continue-on-many-fronts-in-the-city/
Aleppo city map needs updating . 86.132.155.231 ( talk) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
If Bayanoon or Maher are taken the siege of Nubol/al Zarah will be over . 86.132.155.231 ( talk) 13:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
pro opp says ' Fierce clashes between Shamieh Front and Iranian and Iraqi members affiliated with regime forces in Ma'arasta village' https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/photos/a.221856221174855.74557.217848338242310/1093782447315557/?type=1&theater location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.377621&lon=37.077227&z=15&m=b 176.41.131.85 ( talk) 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That last SOHR report is correct ,rebels are fighting around bayanoon and hardetin because the got kicked out of hardatin and are under siege in bayanoon . 86.132.155.231 ( talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
From SOHR also Dwer Zaytoun is contested. Paolowalter ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Who put Hardetin as rebel held ? Revert please. Pyphon ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR's last report about Hardetin was that it was still contested and just now a military source [2] confirmed they captured two villages (most likely Ratilan and Bashkouy) and were fighting for a third (most likely Hardetin). So best to leave it as contested for now. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Here [3] SOHR once again confirmed continued fighting east of Byanon and in the Hardetnin area. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
All reports are from pro Insurgents sources or twitters rumors nothing officially confirmed by official Syrian Authorities at the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.100.117 ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
They did confirm. In the source I cited above. A military official said they captured two villages and were fighting for a third. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-army-recaptures-aleppo-villages-rebel-group-slams-biased%E2%80%9D-un-envoy SyAAF ( talk) 17:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is Al Manar http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=196029&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1 it's anti Insurgent source but most times is 100% right -- LogFTW ( talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This pro-opp map [6] shows a situation mostly similar to what is depicted on the map (in most of the cases it means that the reality s more favourable to the government). In particular it confirms that Dwer Zaytoun is contested. I'll change it. Paolowalter ( talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You changed TAL JABIN ,Dwer Zaytoun is south in Aleppo map. Pyphon ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon Report, that SAA infantry reached Zahraa EjmAlrai location ( 83.26.171.205 ( talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC))
Sana news said advance has reach Kfra Nouya (no good for making changes)it could be there going for Tal Rifat . Pyphon ( talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
With all the uncertainty, we shouldn't be showing regime gains until the situation stabilizes. The various references above indicate that it is not clear that the regime will make any net gains. Meanwhile, it would make sense to make the villages contested.
A source remarks that it is strange that the regime attacked with infantry and not tanks as they usually do, and some regime forces reached Zahra. That suggests that the main current regime goal was to reinforce Zahra/Nubl. This would make sense if the regime defenses in Zahra/Nubl were sufficiently weakened that they were afraid of loosing the enclave. Closing the main supply line to Turkey wouldn't be fatal for the rebels; they also have a less convenient supply line via the Bab al-Hawa crossing.
André437 (
talk) 00:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Still unclear how much the Army gain here are the firsts TV images https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnWcYygIp2k we need to wait to the clashed ended for know how many grounds the terrorists lost, the terrorists claimed they are able to recaptured some areas -- LogFTW ( talk) 04:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
the regime offensive looks to be a complete failure http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/the-opposition-factions-re-seizes-the-town-of-retyan-and-village-of-dwer-al-zaytoun/. Alhanuty ( talk) 06:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We must report only evidence of change on the ground not comment how things will evolve or not or if the offensive is succesful or not: these comments are Off Topic and must be removed. The source http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/the-opposition-factions-re-seizes-the-town-of-retyan-and-village-of-dwer-al-zaytoun/ seems highly unreliable, nobody else (even pro-opp) support it. Furthermore it reports the capture of Dwer al- Zaytoun wthout ever mentonng before it was taken by SAA. The latter village is now shown on hte Aleppo map on the front line (correct), while Retyan is at most contested given the presence of contraddictory reports. Paolowalter ( talk) 07:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree except for Muarrasat al Khan. We have no source to change its status. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite understand it. Are there any pro-government or neutral sources from today saying "Rytian and Duwar Zaytun" are contested/SAA held ? So far no.
all of you editors stop inventing reasons to put doubts on SOHR,SOHR is authentic and it clearly states the Rityan and Deir Zaytun has been recaptured,which means only Bashakuy is the only one to remain contested and the rest to be put as rebel-held. Alhanuty ( talk) 08:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC) also the SOHR source is the newest of them all. Alhanuty ( talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR has become ineffective and slow in reporting in the last months. For places in the countryside it often simply reports rebels statemenent without additional conframtion. Here it is a pro-opp source still newer [12]. It reports Rityan SAA held, Deir Zaytun contested. Hardatin contested, Muarrasat and Khan rebels held. It reports that the statement that Rityan is taken by rebels is due to themselfes (Nusra), that is of no value. We can go for Paolowalter solution for the moment. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The insurgents just are showing death people the propaganda who supported them (SORH) said they are losing grounds. According to Al Manar Army controlled Hredtin village, Bashkwe and Retyan contested. http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=196106&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1 -- LogFTW ( talk) 12:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
according to sohr clashes still ongoing between SAA and jihadists in Hardtnin source: http://www.syriahr.com/2015/02/%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88-10-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/ 82.222.100.149 ( talk) 14:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Map according to the Insurgents claims Hardtnin controlled by Army Rityan controlled major part by insurgents but still contested https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-IhyenIUAAbLCA.jpg:large -- LogFTW ( talk) 14:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
according to pro opp documentsy clashes still ongoing between saa and jihadists in rityan village source: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/895536777175746 82.222.100.149 ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Lucem map February 18 showing the Army controlled Part from Rityan https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-I6iDCCQAAO8Lg.jpg:large -- LogFTW ( talk) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like some more changes to the map are required: Neutral source Al-Monitor describes what appears to have been a large coordinated government offensive around Aleppo. It says regime forces through control of Saifat launched an offensive and captured Hardetneen and Bashkoy, and that ongoing contested fight for Ratyan is taking place: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/blow-ankara-syrian-army-makes-advances-aleppo-offensive. On the western side of Aleppo, Al-Monitor reports that government forces made advances in al-Maamel and "able to control a number of farms in the west near Haritan and get close to the Castello crossroads, Aleppo’s northwestern entrance which is connected to the international road". It adds "Air Force intelligence forces stationed in the area to advance and control seven urban blocks in the vicinity of the Air Force Intelligence building and al-Rasoul al-Azam Mosque." and that regime army forces "was also able to advance in al-Rashidin al-Rabia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.26.49 ( talk) 16:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Al Akhbar story covers only events up until around midnight last night. Although the facebook opposition post does confirm more fighting in Rityan. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Just informative the Insurgents are showing a lot people killed who they claim are soldiers but pro insurgents source (SORH) claim more than 100+ Rebels were killed and only 89 Army troops (Allied Militias included) the day 17/2/15 http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/221-killed-yesterday-14022015-75-of-them-killed-in-aleppo/ -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
while today and even now many pro-rebel sources has reported of fighting in the town. Even now twtter reports of fighting in the town. Al Masdar and Petolucme reports that half of the town is under SAA control. The lack of consistenty even between pro-rebel sources make impossible to use them, therefore Rityan stays contested till further news clarify the issue. Paolowalter ( talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The battle map for Rif Aleppo needs to be updated to reflect the situation. Even though the situation is fluid in Raytan and Hardatinin, the map doesn't encompass most of those areas and therefore should be updated. HarrySy ( talk) 00:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Elijah J. Magnier is just reporting a pro-opp map. I'd not take it as a reliable statement. Paolowalter ( talk) 10:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Editor that reverted the Aleppo map should be band for gross vandalism . Pyphon ( talk) 15:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
SOHR today said Hardetin completely under rebel control and helicopters drop ammo to saa inside Hardetin HAHA . Pyphon ( talk) 16:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Pro rat map here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-MNvFlIIAAc752.jpg:large could be true seems Al Qaeda got fresh terrorists from Turkey and were able to recapture part from lost grounds be patient and wait the new lucem Map their maps always are 99,99% right -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Be patient it can be very long like Mork /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Mork officially the Syrian authorities and official Sources said nothing abut the situation they will be talk if they gain something and are 100% sure of that -- LogFTW ( talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
From SOHR SAA is still located on the outskirt of Ratyan "Retyan Farmlands" as stated by Al Masdar. Maybe still contested? Paolowalter ( talk) 07:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- 20 February 2015.
Aleppo city map needs to reflect saa advance northward . Pyphon ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Read new Edward Dark article it says this government offensive was hastily prepared. They had no artillery or airport and only a few tanks- It was almost all infantry for a surprise attach. My guess is probably because satellites and drones etc feeding backing intelligence to rebels (through turks,us,etc) would not expect an offensive without artillery,etc. So the infantry were somewhat successful but only partially. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/new-aleppo-offensive-assad-afraid-french-and-turkish-retribution-1528131
Then why now Herdatin is marked green and not contested??! I can´t even find a pro-rebell source that says so. Rhocagil ( talk) 22:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
-21/2/15- Lucem updated https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-YhIakIUAAYLf1.jpg:large
As I know according to the information able as now =
Is very clear the beheaders got news terrorist from Turkey (As is usual when they are in troubles) - the zone is very important for them and is defended by the best beheaders Chechen and Uzbek mostly http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=667_1424459492
If it's finish the attempt to finish the beheaders in Aleppo zone failed at the moment, too many causalities and lost grounds
Troops poorly equipped, lacking of Tanks / APCs / IFVs
It can continue but at the moment that look as a total shit for the Army -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
There is this report [17] stating that Hardatin is under SAA control. I changed it accordingly. Paolowalter ( talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
From Al-Masdar some more info. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Syria24 says different .saa release 48 prisoners from rityan and break siege of hardetin . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Who changed Um Sharshouh red? It is on the front line but nont under SAA control AFAK, see e.g. SANA. I guess contested is correct. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Al-Masdar report the SAA just secured the Khalkhalah Airport and captured 2 villages Tal-Asfar and Tal-Delfa from Isis and Al-Nusra members. almasdar,in this case de-Syracuse reports were right, de-Syracuse. Lindi29 ( talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I revert changes in Al Haqf and put Tall Asfar contested based on SOHR infos. I have no strong opnion on this point. If there are different opinion, please edit accordngly. Paolowalter ( talk) 15:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The village of Bashmara was as late as 2015-01-29 still in YPG hands, when people celebrated liberation of Kobane from ISIS. It was yesterday changed to green providing a vague map. When Bashmara came into islamists' hands and no one knew about it? This Kurdish village is still in YPG control. Roboskiye ( talk) 09:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
FSA Are in the practice Al Qaeda terrorists and YPG is secular but sectarian and want created de facto Kurdish State in Syria this made them de facto Against the Syrian state that's because the Kurdish separatists and FSA (AL Qaeda) are allied in severals areas of the country, in other zones FSA - YPG Killed each others in the practice all are illegal armed gangs who used the bad situation in Syria since 2012 for their own benefits -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Cedric Labrousse's map actually ommits any presence of YPG forces even north of Bashmara and in Aleppo city which indicates he's just marking everything yellow as green, as he is known to be a supporter of the idea of YPG joining up with the Opposition and all.
I would vote for putting Bashmara again in yellow color at the very least until there are more sources than just maps for whose purpose the rebel-kurdish distribution of land is irrelevant, specially as there is less than one month ago proof of the village being under PYD administration.
186.119.56.230 ( talk) 04:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this guy with close links to jabhat al akrad he claims that Jabhat al akrad kurds controll tatmarash which is rebel held in this map. Also Deir jemal city is joint jabhat al akrad/YPG held but they let rebels use the countryside of deir jamal to target assad.
https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560578422511259648 -- Creepz55 ( talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
From Al-Masdar: Tal Fatima is red, Zimreen with red ring or contested (it is already), the rest confirm what is on tha map. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Need a neutral source or pro op . Pyphon ( talk) 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Zimreen can be put with a red ring, because the same Al Masdar report as surrounded and pro-opp reports fighting around it. Paolowalter ( talk) 10:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
In [19] I remarked that Himrit was reported under SAA control as reported by Al Mansar and [ https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/566407330636787714 IvanSidorenko]. It was not considered sufficient but it was turned contested based on SOR report (I guess). No fighting has nee reported there since a week ago. Is it OK to turn it red now? Paolowalter ( talk) 13:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is some fresh news from pro gov almasdar, pro rebel wasn't publish any concrete news in last few days ( 83.26.144.144 ( talk) 13:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC))
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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Can anyone reduce the size of the map at the top of the page? It seems overly large to me. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Reduce lol ? I have a standard laptop 15,5 inch monitor and the map is really small, i have to zoom the page to 130% to barely see the villages ... does anyone else think that the map should be zoomed in ? DuckZz ( talk) 21:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Himrit is under SAA control [1]. Paolowalter ( talk) 07:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Again fighting in Talbisah SOHR. Time to switch it contested. Paolowalter ( talk) 13:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You are not producing any evidence to support your claims. The rule states that if figting are rerported by pro-opp source in a city controlled by opposition (SAA advance) we must mark it on the map. This source openly talks of clashes 'in al- Hlaleyyi and Hosh Hajjo areas in the city of Talbise.' Similar statements were reported several times in the past. Paolowalter ( talk) 16:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Khurus village in kobane close to qara qawzaq should be contested and not isis held.
https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/565257184855220228 -- Creepz55 ( talk) 16:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Pro-Kurdish source from inside Kobane says YPG are not in control of Xerab Eto but that clashes are ongoing, please change to contested:
https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/566616553148661760
He also reports that clashes are going on near Jadah village:
https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/566585598602129408
It would be a YPG advance but would it be acceptable to mark it as besieged from North?
179.33.157.37 ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Zor Mexar and Bayadiya CONTESTED not YPG controlled according to jackshanine quoted by another kurdish activist:
https://twitter.com/ArjDnn/status/566735706987704320
179.33.157.37 ( talk) 23:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this twitter source Masharah is contested here but according to this video it shows rebel attacking Tall Bzaq from the northren outsikrts of Mashrah here, but in the map this town is Regime held ? Lindi29 ( talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
they will say, we need a source, not videos. Alhanuty ( talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Lindi29,
You will achieve nothing. The chief editors here will claim Twitter is no source. However, they will use Twitter themselves if it showes SAA advances. Also, you need at least 3 sources for any rebel advance, whilst adding red semicircles and contested icons for a SAA advance needs only 1. You would do better to make your own map of follow Twitter maps, because we won't achieve any neutrality in southern Syria on this one ... regretfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 10:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha the double standard idiots crying, ooo my god iranians are fighting with SAA and afghans, meanwhile jihadists from 83 countries are fighting in the ranks of the snackbars. They are using NEUTRAL UNBIASED sources like Elijah who got info FROM THE GROUND without any media or activist bias. He knows everything before it reaches the media. It was clear that Deir al adas was taken by SAA cause there were videos from the city. Not biased archivilians and al qaeda supporter markito twitter LOL Totholio (talk | contribs)
Let's see what happens. This source has been pusblished: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsfeatures/564830-the-assad-regimes-daraa-campaign-is-a-desperate-defensive-maneuver and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-noe/the-battle-for-southern-s_b_6668744.html It states that fighting is ongoing around Deir al-Adas, and that the regime has not been able to advance by much. So Kafr Naisj, Tell Antar and Sabsaba should be green since the only real advances of the SAA were around Dayr Makir, Deir al-Adas and near Himrit. Also, we never received neutral sources for Masharah and At-Tayhah. Both are shown as rebel held on multiple maps. Some of you claim those maps are too pro-FSA to use. Well ... they've shown Sabsaba and Himrit under rebel control for months. You editors claimed that was nonsense. And see ... the SAA is attacking right those villages that had been red al along on this map. So those maps were right, PetroLucem was not. I'm predicting: it will be shot down as a source for this map because:
let's see how long it takes before some Al-Masdar, PetroLucem of Elijah Twitter source shows up to make Kafr Shams contested? I say: two days at the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 ( talk) 13:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Map about Daraa from a source I do not know http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/47c9/txl7ypxdoaa23lbzg.jpg. Can it be used? It confirms Himrit under SAA control as reported by Al Masdar. It is the third source mentionng it, is it sufficient? Paolowalter ( talk) 21:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR reported that clashes in the town of Ma’arret Hermeh in the southern countryside of Idlib between al- Nusra Front and gunmen from the town. SOHR and pro opposition source Syrian Rebellion Observatory reported that Abu Hamoud the chief of Free Police in Maarat Harmah, reportedly killed by a Jabhat al-Nusra and said that It's a new wave of killings from the Al Nusra side since few weeks against local forces (including Free Police) in the Idlib province. Syrian Rebellion Observatory I ask to other editors express their views on this issue. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
What was the point of adding all those tiny villages in east Homs. If we added all villages of their size in the rest of syria the map would be overloaded . I am in favour of showing small villages if they are on the front line but if not they are pointless . 31.50.78.246 ( talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I kind of feel the same about the black dots around Saba in Hasakah. Anyway I would like more opinions from others, to maybe get a consensus to remove some of the villages i Homes as they are not in the frontline. Rhocagil ( talk) 14:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The editor who added them obviously wanted to show ISIS control of the area but has got carried away. At least halve of them are not needed. 31.50.78.246 ( talk) 18:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I think the smaller villages you are talking about should be reduced in size on the map, according to satellite and wikimapia of course, to decrease their apparent importance. Not all of them are exactly that size, of course. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:E405:3B3C:3A9A:1531 ( talk) 02:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 .You say you provided source so where is it? I have not seen it on here . 81.156.224.112 ( talk) 18:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
They are
here for Nusra, mixed control, truce areas, etc.
Please leave your feedback in that section on my talk page.
Thanks :)
André437 (
talk) 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The different icons for bases, checkpoints and strategic hilltops make a lit of sense. It would make the situation presented a lot clearer. MesmerMe ( talk) 19:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I like the triangle mountain peak icon, the cross is not good it could be mistaken for a hospital. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally like this File:Test-map-dot-grey-676.svg icon. The mixed control icons may seem good, but in reality there would be such a terrible and hardline discussions about which party has presence inside a town and where. This doesn't make sense. And here is why. For example Al Nusra members are present in 80% areas where rebels are, same vice versa. Every icon would be changed, and that wouldn't make sense if a town has 500 JAN members inside and 10-40 IF members too, but we can't know that....
Not sure why people are posting here rather than his talkpage as he asked, but as we've started, I guess I'll post here as well. I'd prefer a colour that looks less like others such as #009900. As for stable mixed control, how is this different from a truce? I would still like to see stable mixed control used, though, as it makes tracking changes easier, and stops pointless debates over which icon should be in the middle and outside of a stable control.
As for the truce icons, I think the usage of the first one looks identical how we use besieged at the moment, though besieged is generally not a truce. I would use this icon to replace the need to use multiple icons. The second one is beyond me, I really don't get why one colour gets the outside and half the middle, is this saying they control the surrounding area and part of the city?
The hill/checkpoints icons seem interesting. I don't think I'd want them to be used as you intended by and large because as far as I can tell there's little demand for them. I'd personally want one them for small settlements/buildings to avoid giving misleading impressions of population distribution. This would also have the benefit of marking points that are unlikely to receive subsequent media attention if captured, so we can more easily spot them. Banak ( talk) 01:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is possible just two color ? -- LogFTW ( talk) 12:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Tradedia Totally agree with your critique of the checkpoint (CP) icons. Was just brainstorming, and made a quick mockup using html. The map would need graphic icons, and the .svg icons I make would be much smaller. Maybe "X" would work better for you ? I put an html sample on my talk page. (the icons would be a symmetric X, not a letter.) We could look at that after the other icons are finalized.
As for the yellow icon, indeed it isn't visible. It needs a grey or black border like the other yellow icons. That will be done on the final hill icon as well.
LogFTW What was your comment "just two color" referring to ?
Spenk01 I'll make a grey/lime/black stable icon for you. Note that the icons will lose their "test-" prefix when they are finalized. I'll let you know when that happens.
For the Nusra colour, we have one preference for grey-green, one for grey-blue. If no other input, I'll go for the grey-blue colour.
I adjusted the truce icons, using a purple ring instead of violet, for better contrast. Take a look.
keep your feedback coming :)
André437 (
talk) 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Some sources said that Al Nusra stormed 'moderate rebels' FSA (7th Brigade) HQ's and captured a large cache of weapons and supplies in Idlib countryside. here here here and also reported that Al Nusra captured village Ayn al-Arus. here But I'm not sure of the reliability of these sources. So it may be someone has more data on this issue. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR reported that clashes in Al Waer so that maybe If these reports are repeated soon we need mark Al Waer as contested. SOHR Probably in there has long been not truce. So I ask that would be other editors express their opinions about this situaton. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Waer was always contested. Never stopped being contested. The SAA always controlled parts of it. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The new icons have their final names :
see, to the right. (The temporary names will be removed.)
Spenk01 This includes your new icon.
The map caption will be soon updated. ...
André437 (
talk) 03:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources reported that Syrian troops and Hezbollah fighters retook the villages of Kfar Nasej and Kfar Shams which lie roughly midway between Damascus and Deraa. The Daily Star here Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure this report is correct it seems to suggest Kfar Shams was taken in the first attack but we know the SAA are still attacking it and Khar Nasej has only been part taken we need to wait for another source before we change anything . 81.156.224.112 ( talk) 14:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I know its a reliable but no pro SAA SOURCE HAS EVEN MENTIONED IT .You could have waited a bit longer ,whats the rush . 81.156.224.112 ( talk) 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
This is a very reliable source and the reason we haven't heard anything from pro-gov sources could be because of the ordered media blackout around the offensive. MesmerMe ( talk) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If needed http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/update-syrian-armys-southern-front-offensive/ states again that Kafr Nasej and Kafr Shams are contested. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest to stop editing the map using as a source the maps provided by these twitter users: https://twitter.com/MarkMonmonier and https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer because they are proved to be not reliable at all, they keep showing an exaggerated YPG advance which is denied on a daily basis even by the YPG official media. For istance, the grain silos near Sarrin and surrounding villages are yet IS held but the are edited to YPG controlled on a daily basis using those biased twitter users as a source. -- 8fra0 ( talk) 01:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, let's stick to ANHA/official YPG daily village recount for captured villages and jackshanine's reports for contested/besieged, or at the very least open up a thread every time you want to use one of these maps so their veracity can be contrasted with additional sources.
179.33.157.37 ( talk) 05:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
According to agreed upon as reliable jackshanine YPG in control of villages Bexdix, Kultib and Aqbash east of Kobane, the former two are already marked as YPG controlled in this map, also they're besieging Eydanee.
https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/567452962646409216
190.67.159.64 ( talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
YPG and rebel forces captured 19 villages in Raqqa province. Their forces are now located in 25 kilometers (15 miles) from Tall Abyad which now under control by ISIS. The Daily Star Al Joumhouria Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Time to change villages west of 25km from Tall Abyad to yellow. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Why were so many villages added in the ISIS controlled area of E-Homs? It looks like spam to be fair. Adding villages in those areas is important to show that it is not just a barren wasteland but still that's too much. I suggest removing SOME of those villages (especially the ones in the middle, because they add no front-line information. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 17:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
ChrissCh94 .Look at section (Added villages in Homs ,why). Pyphon ( talk) 17:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
As you can see many editors have the same opinion apart from Lindi29 . Pyphon ( talk) 17:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
It's irrelevant but just saying I draw severals villages in and Al Qaeda fanboys removed it if these villages are not removed ill I can draw + 500 red towns in Homs, As Sweida, Latakia, Tartus, Damascus and Hama who are not in map now. -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It's the same situation with all the black dots in Shaddadeh area in Hasakah province. Unnecessary villages added while red dots were removed from Hasakah/Qamishli countryside over the past couple of weeks. HarrySy ( talk) 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It´s seems there is a consensus to remove or to revert the edit of black dot fly shits in eastern Homes. I think that edit was made 12 February. And I think we should agree to ad new villages in the area only when they are or newly have been contested. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 you must be confused ,here you say "I added them" but you said "I did not add them" on section (added vilages in homs ,why) . Pyphon ( talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Lindi29 the source does not matter! There is no one arguing against that those villages/places are there and under ISIS control. The argument is that the number of dots does not represent the number of actual population, it looks like the area is more heavily populated then the suburbs of Damascus populated and it´s not. It´s a mountain area with low population spread over many tiny villages. There for i suggest that you revert your edit from 12 february and after that only ad places that are reported contested or newly taken by either side. And yes I feel the same about the areas south of Qamishli, south of Hasakah and even small villages in Kobane could be removed. Rhocagil ( talk) 23:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The villages in Hasakah/Qamishli should stay because it is an active front line, in recent weeks there have been several offensives from SAA/YPG as well as some by ISIS. Especially now that SAA/YPG is advancing towards Tal Hamis, we should keep those villages on the map to provide an accurate presentation of the front line. HarrySy ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR reported that clashes took place in the town of Ma'arrat Hurmah on south of Idlib between Al Nusra and local militiamen from the town. SOHR Also SOHR said that the village of Ayn al-Arus which was earlier taken Al Nusra was the last stronghold for rebels in in the Zawiya mountain(Jabal al-Zawiya). SOHR SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Here in report from SOHR said that clashes in the town of Qarfa and other places in the northwest of Daraa. SOHR But in original report on Arabic SOHR just said that clashes took place near town Qarfa and other places in the northwest of Daraa. SOHR So sometimes some reports from SOHR on english may contain mistakes. Hanibal911 ( talk) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Not proposing any change at all here. I am watching this map for a long time now... it seems to me, that in northern Homs, where the rebels seem to have quite a presence some smaller dots changed from green to red over the last months... am I mistaken? I wonder because I have not heard of any major battles in that area. Thanks in advance for your information. -- Andylee Sato ( talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Too many disinformation, bias are becoming apparent in the site. Also the information displayed its incomplete and comes out there 2 to 3 days after the events took place. We should avoid using SOHR as a Source in all cases, even is doubtful to use it to report SAA advances. Another point , the main logo of the site its the FSA flag. What other proof is needed to show its bias??. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 12:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The original rationale for using SOHR was that, even though it is biased, it still reliably reported both sides' losses and gains. However, as the rebels have lost more and more in the war, the less reliable and more biased SOHR has become, to the point of unreliability. The numerous and conflicting posts it has placed out about the Aleppo situation prove this. SOHR even called on the rebels to fight to stop the "Iranian siege of Aleppo", another example that SOHR is less concerned with truth and more concerned with keeping up morale and propaganda. You do not see Al-Masdar calling on the SAA in its articles to "beat the foreign terrorists" do you? As per the latest SOHR discussion, SOHR is to be used with a corroborating source rather than on its own. This is the best solution. XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 16:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree pro op source for saa gain pro gov source for rebel gain . Pyphon ( talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
I said many times the SOHR is a terror machine propaganda for Al Qaeda and states who support Al Qaeda in Syria (Israel, Turkey) many things who they wrote are bullshits however fews of their reports are true -- LogFTW ( talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR credibility has sunk verylow in this offensive. It reported false info many times. I agree with XJ-0461 v2, it is pro-opp like others. Paolowalter ( talk) 18:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Stop,this non-sense discussion,SOHR is an authentic source,we have been using it before all of you editors popped up on wikipedia,end of discussion,and there were several discussions,wehre all editors agree that it is authentic. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Lets have a vote on the status of sohr because many editors don't like the situation. Pyphon ( talk) 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Reverse is true for Al Masdar. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Al-Masdar is UNRELIABLE,it is similiar to SANA,EJM is inaccurate in his claims. Alhanuty ( talk) 22:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
XJ-0461 v2 It does not matter if you had one vote more against SOHR in the previous discussion because that does not constitute a consensus and nether is Wikipedia a democracy. Per Wikipedia policy a consensus is established when there is a BROAD agreement over an issue. A majority of only ONE person is not a consensus in any way per Wikipedia's standards. Thus the previous discussion ended in no consensus per Wikipedia. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Consensus. As for user 200.48.214.19 comments, Archicicilians is in no way less biased than SOHR. If anything, Archicicilians is one of the most biased sources we have who on a regular bases makes inflamatory statements against the Syrian and Iranian governments, as well as against Hezbollah. The reliability of SOHR over Archi can be seen in the fact that Archi claimed on the first day of the SAA offensive that the rebels recaptured all three villages and insisted on it. While SOHR only reported the recapture of one village 24 hours later and three days later that the other two were still being contested. In regards to Al-Masdar, it does hold mostly a pro-government stance, however, it has proven to be less biased than SANA (biased as much as Archi) in its reporting of events. Still, for Masdar the same rule should apply as for Archi that we have been following. Same rule also goes for DeSyracuse. Based on its language in its twitter posts, its obviously also slightly pro-opposition. EkoGraf ( talk) 00:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
EkoGraf there is a broad consensus that SOHR has changed and become more unreliable and bias .When a source openly calls for one army to attack another and constantly make mistakes it brings into question is status as a reliable source for showing rebel gains . Pyphon ( talk) 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Its not a broad consensus if an almost equal number of editors are of the opposite opinion. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok .Then it is up to editors who do not like the situation as it stands to get a wide consensus that SHORs status should change .Taking into regard that there may be a minority of editors who want to keep the status qou evidence must be shown why it should no longer be used as a single source for rebel gains .Also many editors who took part in the consensus on sohr in the past have moved on and we have many new editors who have joined since and there opinions are just as important as editors who have been here from the start .Good luck . Pyphon ( talk) 14:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/568482271898034176 illajaq/ilicax village liberated
https://twitter.com/Avashin/status/568732444985139201 eb Faraj, Qasmiye, Jideyde and Eto (Kurdish one) villages liberated by YPG.
also i khorkhori village is behind ypg positions im sure its YPG held also-- Creepz55 ( talk) 19:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Jack Shahine https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/569130673266696192, all the western front of Kobane is YPG/FSA controlled except Shuyukh Fawqani. I think that it is logical to switch to YPG controlled the villages south of Shuyukh Tahtani on the eastern bank of the Euphrates (those village wolud be besieged, without any possible way to leave for IS), while I wolud wait for more sources for the villages north of Shuyukh Fawqani. -- 8fra0 ( talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
the news confirmed that SAA get control of three villages in north of Aleppo
Ratilan and Bashkouy and Haratin villages http://www.almayadeen.net/latestnews/2015/2/17/97207/%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7--%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86--%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%AF%D8%AE%D9%84-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%86 46.100.115.120 ( talk) 08:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be considered that the Handarat Camp should be contested and Al Burij is under th control of SAA by this source http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-aleppo-syrian-army-attacks-number-areas-inside-city/
SOHR also confirmed these advances for SAA http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/regime-forces-advance-in-aleppo-countryside-clashes-continue-on-many-fronts-in-the-city/
Aleppo city map needs updating . 86.132.155.231 ( talk) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
If Bayanoon or Maher are taken the siege of Nubol/al Zarah will be over . 86.132.155.231 ( talk) 13:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
pro opp says ' Fierce clashes between Shamieh Front and Iranian and Iraqi members affiliated with regime forces in Ma'arasta village' https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/photos/a.221856221174855.74557.217848338242310/1093782447315557/?type=1&theater location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.377621&lon=37.077227&z=15&m=b 176.41.131.85 ( talk) 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That last SOHR report is correct ,rebels are fighting around bayanoon and hardetin because the got kicked out of hardatin and are under siege in bayanoon . 86.132.155.231 ( talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
From SOHR also Dwer Zaytoun is contested. Paolowalter ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Who put Hardetin as rebel held ? Revert please. Pyphon ( talk) 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR's last report about Hardetin was that it was still contested and just now a military source [2] confirmed they captured two villages (most likely Ratilan and Bashkouy) and were fighting for a third (most likely Hardetin). So best to leave it as contested for now. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Here [3] SOHR once again confirmed continued fighting east of Byanon and in the Hardetnin area. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
All reports are from pro Insurgents sources or twitters rumors nothing officially confirmed by official Syrian Authorities at the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.100.117 ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
They did confirm. In the source I cited above. A military official said they captured two villages and were fighting for a third. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-army-recaptures-aleppo-villages-rebel-group-slams-biased%E2%80%9D-un-envoy SyAAF ( talk) 17:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is Al Manar http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=196029&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1 it's anti Insurgent source but most times is 100% right -- LogFTW ( talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This pro-opp map [6] shows a situation mostly similar to what is depicted on the map (in most of the cases it means that the reality s more favourable to the government). In particular it confirms that Dwer Zaytoun is contested. I'll change it. Paolowalter ( talk) 19:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You changed TAL JABIN ,Dwer Zaytoun is south in Aleppo map. Pyphon ( talk) 20:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon Report, that SAA infantry reached Zahraa EjmAlrai location ( 83.26.171.205 ( talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC))
Sana news said advance has reach Kfra Nouya (no good for making changes)it could be there going for Tal Rifat . Pyphon ( talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
With all the uncertainty, we shouldn't be showing regime gains until the situation stabilizes. The various references above indicate that it is not clear that the regime will make any net gains. Meanwhile, it would make sense to make the villages contested.
A source remarks that it is strange that the regime attacked with infantry and not tanks as they usually do, and some regime forces reached Zahra. That suggests that the main current regime goal was to reinforce Zahra/Nubl. This would make sense if the regime defenses in Zahra/Nubl were sufficiently weakened that they were afraid of loosing the enclave. Closing the main supply line to Turkey wouldn't be fatal for the rebels; they also have a less convenient supply line via the Bab al-Hawa crossing.
André437 (
talk) 00:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Still unclear how much the Army gain here are the firsts TV images https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnWcYygIp2k we need to wait to the clashed ended for know how many grounds the terrorists lost, the terrorists claimed they are able to recaptured some areas -- LogFTW ( talk) 04:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
the regime offensive looks to be a complete failure http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/the-opposition-factions-re-seizes-the-town-of-retyan-and-village-of-dwer-al-zaytoun/. Alhanuty ( talk) 06:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We must report only evidence of change on the ground not comment how things will evolve or not or if the offensive is succesful or not: these comments are Off Topic and must be removed. The source http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/the-opposition-factions-re-seizes-the-town-of-retyan-and-village-of-dwer-al-zaytoun/ seems highly unreliable, nobody else (even pro-opp) support it. Furthermore it reports the capture of Dwer al- Zaytoun wthout ever mentonng before it was taken by SAA. The latter village is now shown on hte Aleppo map on the front line (correct), while Retyan is at most contested given the presence of contraddictory reports. Paolowalter ( talk) 07:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree except for Muarrasat al Khan. We have no source to change its status. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite understand it. Are there any pro-government or neutral sources from today saying "Rytian and Duwar Zaytun" are contested/SAA held ? So far no.
all of you editors stop inventing reasons to put doubts on SOHR,SOHR is authentic and it clearly states the Rityan and Deir Zaytun has been recaptured,which means only Bashakuy is the only one to remain contested and the rest to be put as rebel-held. Alhanuty ( talk) 08:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC) also the SOHR source is the newest of them all. Alhanuty ( talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
SOHR has become ineffective and slow in reporting in the last months. For places in the countryside it often simply reports rebels statemenent without additional conframtion. Here it is a pro-opp source still newer [12]. It reports Rityan SAA held, Deir Zaytun contested. Hardatin contested, Muarrasat and Khan rebels held. It reports that the statement that Rityan is taken by rebels is due to themselfes (Nusra), that is of no value. We can go for Paolowalter solution for the moment. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The insurgents just are showing death people the propaganda who supported them (SORH) said they are losing grounds. According to Al Manar Army controlled Hredtin village, Bashkwe and Retyan contested. http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=196106&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1 -- LogFTW ( talk) 12:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
according to sohr clashes still ongoing between SAA and jihadists in Hardtnin source: http://www.syriahr.com/2015/02/%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88-10-%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/ 82.222.100.149 ( talk) 14:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Map according to the Insurgents claims Hardtnin controlled by Army Rityan controlled major part by insurgents but still contested https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-IhyenIUAAbLCA.jpg:large -- LogFTW ( talk) 14:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
according to pro opp documentsy clashes still ongoing between saa and jihadists in rityan village source: https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/posts/895536777175746 82.222.100.149 ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Lucem map February 18 showing the Army controlled Part from Rityan https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-I6iDCCQAAO8Lg.jpg:large -- LogFTW ( talk) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like some more changes to the map are required: Neutral source Al-Monitor describes what appears to have been a large coordinated government offensive around Aleppo. It says regime forces through control of Saifat launched an offensive and captured Hardetneen and Bashkoy, and that ongoing contested fight for Ratyan is taking place: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/blow-ankara-syrian-army-makes-advances-aleppo-offensive. On the western side of Aleppo, Al-Monitor reports that government forces made advances in al-Maamel and "able to control a number of farms in the west near Haritan and get close to the Castello crossroads, Aleppo’s northwestern entrance which is connected to the international road". It adds "Air Force intelligence forces stationed in the area to advance and control seven urban blocks in the vicinity of the Air Force Intelligence building and al-Rasoul al-Azam Mosque." and that regime army forces "was also able to advance in al-Rashidin al-Rabia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.26.49 ( talk) 16:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Al Akhbar story covers only events up until around midnight last night. Although the facebook opposition post does confirm more fighting in Rityan. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Just informative the Insurgents are showing a lot people killed who they claim are soldiers but pro insurgents source (SORH) claim more than 100+ Rebels were killed and only 89 Army troops (Allied Militias included) the day 17/2/15 http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/221-killed-yesterday-14022015-75-of-them-killed-in-aleppo/ -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
while today and even now many pro-rebel sources has reported of fighting in the town. Even now twtter reports of fighting in the town. Al Masdar and Petolucme reports that half of the town is under SAA control. The lack of consistenty even between pro-rebel sources make impossible to use them, therefore Rityan stays contested till further news clarify the issue. Paolowalter ( talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The battle map for Rif Aleppo needs to be updated to reflect the situation. Even though the situation is fluid in Raytan and Hardatinin, the map doesn't encompass most of those areas and therefore should be updated. HarrySy ( talk) 00:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Elijah J. Magnier is just reporting a pro-opp map. I'd not take it as a reliable statement. Paolowalter ( talk) 10:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Editor that reverted the Aleppo map should be band for gross vandalism . Pyphon ( talk) 15:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
SOHR today said Hardetin completely under rebel control and helicopters drop ammo to saa inside Hardetin HAHA . Pyphon ( talk) 16:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Pro rat map here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-MNvFlIIAAc752.jpg:large could be true seems Al Qaeda got fresh terrorists from Turkey and were able to recapture part from lost grounds be patient and wait the new lucem Map their maps always are 99,99% right -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Be patient it can be very long like Mork /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Mork officially the Syrian authorities and official Sources said nothing abut the situation they will be talk if they gain something and are 100% sure of that -- LogFTW ( talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
From SOHR SAA is still located on the outskirt of Ratyan "Retyan Farmlands" as stated by Al Masdar. Maybe still contested? Paolowalter ( talk) 07:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- 20 February 2015.
Aleppo city map needs to reflect saa advance northward . Pyphon ( talk) 20:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Read new Edward Dark article it says this government offensive was hastily prepared. They had no artillery or airport and only a few tanks- It was almost all infantry for a surprise attach. My guess is probably because satellites and drones etc feeding backing intelligence to rebels (through turks,us,etc) would not expect an offensive without artillery,etc. So the infantry were somewhat successful but only partially. http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/new-aleppo-offensive-assad-afraid-french-and-turkish-retribution-1528131
Then why now Herdatin is marked green and not contested??! I can´t even find a pro-rebell source that says so. Rhocagil ( talk) 22:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
-21/2/15- Lucem updated https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-YhIakIUAAYLf1.jpg:large
As I know according to the information able as now =
Is very clear the beheaders got news terrorist from Turkey (As is usual when they are in troubles) - the zone is very important for them and is defended by the best beheaders Chechen and Uzbek mostly http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=667_1424459492
If it's finish the attempt to finish the beheaders in Aleppo zone failed at the moment, too many causalities and lost grounds
Troops poorly equipped, lacking of Tanks / APCs / IFVs
It can continue but at the moment that look as a total shit for the Army -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
There is this report [17] stating that Hardatin is under SAA control. I changed it accordingly. Paolowalter ( talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
From Al-Masdar some more info. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Syria24 says different .saa release 48 prisoners from rityan and break siege of hardetin . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyphon ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Who changed Um Sharshouh red? It is on the front line but nont under SAA control AFAK, see e.g. SANA. I guess contested is correct. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Al-Masdar report the SAA just secured the Khalkhalah Airport and captured 2 villages Tal-Asfar and Tal-Delfa from Isis and Al-Nusra members. almasdar,in this case de-Syracuse reports were right, de-Syracuse. Lindi29 ( talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I revert changes in Al Haqf and put Tall Asfar contested based on SOHR infos. I have no strong opnion on this point. If there are different opinion, please edit accordngly. Paolowalter ( talk) 15:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The village of Bashmara was as late as 2015-01-29 still in YPG hands, when people celebrated liberation of Kobane from ISIS. It was yesterday changed to green providing a vague map. When Bashmara came into islamists' hands and no one knew about it? This Kurdish village is still in YPG control. Roboskiye ( talk) 09:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
FSA Are in the practice Al Qaeda terrorists and YPG is secular but sectarian and want created de facto Kurdish State in Syria this made them de facto Against the Syrian state that's because the Kurdish separatists and FSA (AL Qaeda) are allied in severals areas of the country, in other zones FSA - YPG Killed each others in the practice all are illegal armed gangs who used the bad situation in Syria since 2012 for their own benefits -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Cedric Labrousse's map actually ommits any presence of YPG forces even north of Bashmara and in Aleppo city which indicates he's just marking everything yellow as green, as he is known to be a supporter of the idea of YPG joining up with the Opposition and all.
I would vote for putting Bashmara again in yellow color at the very least until there are more sources than just maps for whose purpose the rebel-kurdish distribution of land is irrelevant, specially as there is less than one month ago proof of the village being under PYD administration.
186.119.56.230 ( talk) 04:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this guy with close links to jabhat al akrad he claims that Jabhat al akrad kurds controll tatmarash which is rebel held in this map. Also Deir jemal city is joint jabhat al akrad/YPG held but they let rebels use the countryside of deir jamal to target assad.
https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560578422511259648 -- Creepz55 ( talk) 16:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
From Al-Masdar: Tal Fatima is red, Zimreen with red ring or contested (it is already), the rest confirm what is on tha map. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Need a neutral source or pro op . Pyphon ( talk) 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon
Zimreen can be put with a red ring, because the same Al Masdar report as surrounded and pro-opp reports fighting around it. Paolowalter ( talk) 10:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
In [19] I remarked that Himrit was reported under SAA control as reported by Al Mansar and [ https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/566407330636787714 IvanSidorenko]. It was not considered sufficient but it was turned contested based on SOR report (I guess). No fighting has nee reported there since a week ago. Is it OK to turn it red now? Paolowalter ( talk) 13:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is some fresh news from pro gov almasdar, pro rebel wasn't publish any concrete news in last few days ( 83.26.144.144 ( talk) 13:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC))