![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Reliable source (used here since 2014) says that Nasirijah and the close up village is under Rebel control. I have to remind you of something. The towns of Jajrud, Dumayr and Ruhaybah are under Rebel control since 2013, but Jajrud was shown on our map from May 2015 and under Gov. control because we didn't wanted to use sources like this. So basically we made a mistake which took us 2 years to realize which is embasaring when it to comes to the most reliable map online.
NightShadeAEB Tradedia talk Opinion ?
Step News reports ISIS affiliated LSY group took over Tasil and Adwan, with sounds of clashes going on and off [1] NightShadeAEB ( talk) 08:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Al-masdar reported that Tafas is pro-ISIS milita controlled: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-affiliate-captures-important-town-daraa/
Opp. sources confirmed that the SDF captured the village of Herbel from ISIS. here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 20:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Like we added Yarmouk Martyrs to ISIS colours, now infighting has begun in Daraa with Muthanna siding with ISIS and the opposition accuse it of secretly pledging to ISIS. The FSA attacked Muthanna months ago [14] [15] accusing them of joining ISIS and assassinating FSA figures, and now as LSY takes over Tasil, a pro-opposition website [16] as well as a shady ISIS sympathizing Twitter account with 9,800 followers called "Mu'ta Agency" [17] seem to indicate Muthanna was the one to take over the village of 'Adwan, or at least participated in it. At least one miscellaneous ISIS account is correcting people that Muthanna and not LSY took 'Adwan [18]. The LCC also reports that the Syrian Civil Defense building in the village of Nahj was stormed and taken over by Muthanna, and accuses them of having pledged to ISIS [19] [20]. In the mean time the Jaysh al Islam sympathizing Sada al Tawhid [21] has cited reports that Khirbat al Shahm and the military company near Tel Shahab have been purged from Muthanna in a rebel counterattack.
In short we have good evidence that Muthanna is at least siding with ISIS in the infighting that's gripping Daraa. The maps provided by EnabBaladi and Mu'ta Agency both summarize nicely how their territories are now contiguous and moving together. The villages in question then are Jaleen, Nahj, and Sheikh Saad which have been mentioned by name. The probable pro-ISIS map of Mu'ta gives Muthanna more territory, notably the village of Ashaari, but we can wait for confirmation on that.
Agreed for making Muthanna's Jaleen, Nahj, and Sheikh Saad into ISIS held? NightShadeAEB ( talk) 22:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I have changed Jalin and Sheikh Saad to IS controlled. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again I feel we should bring this up. The towns in question are Atmeh, Darat Izza, Atareb, and Khan Sheikhoun. They are major towns or towns with confirmed significant presence of non-Nusra groups. In particular:
Atmeh: Jaysh al Sunna, Ahrar al Sham, and Faylaq al Sham in Atmeh
[24]
[25]. While the vicinity of Jinderes may not be specific enough, the fact that Jaysh al Sunna had a weapons factory in or near the town shows that it's not exclusive Nusra property. Noting that Atmeh was home to Suqur al Islam in 2013
[26], and in 2014 one of the groups that formed Faylaq al Sham was called Suqur al Islam. There are two or three groups with that name, but just saying, it's quite a coincidence. Actually, just found Aranews saying Faylaq al Sham snuck into Afrin canton from Atmeh. That should confirm it
[27]. From NOW Lebanon:
Erbil-based ARA News, in turn, reported that a “large number” of fighters from the hardline Ahrar al-Sham Movement as well as from the more moderate Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, Faylaq al-Sham and Jaysh al-Sunna had deployed on the outskirts of Cindirese, which lies 10-kilometers north of the rebel-held border town of Atmeh.
Atareb: Nusra never stormed the city, just Regiment 46. Nusra then opened an office inside the city and began meddling in its affairs. But it still doesn't control it. Probably Shamiyya and Zenki do. Nusra only has a tiny presence, same as the situation last year. That explains why they can protest without being harassed
[28].
“Although Nusra has a single headquarters on the outskirts of the city, the people are trying to get rid of any pretext the regime could use to bomb them.” A mixture of FSA and Islamist rebel factions control Atareb, with a current population of 55,000. The fear of being targeted for harboring Nusra adds a new dimension to existing bad blood between Atareb residents and the Al-Qaeda affiliate, which maintains a contingent of approximately 35 fighters in the west Aleppo town, a resident told Syria Direct last September.
Darat Izza: This one is tricky. The local council appears to be made of one Ahrar, one Nusra, and one Fajr al Sham rep
[29], which makes it two thirds Salafi-jihadi, but the city is also the headquarters of other groups. I'll try to summarize what I found so far: Kataeb Mujahidee Ibn Taymiyya used to be part of the Asala wal Tanmiya group but became independent and later merged two other groups to form Harakat Mujahidee al Islam in Idlib and Aleppo
[30]. One of these groups is Bayareq al Islam. Bayareq and Ibn Taymiyya's leaders were both involved in a local prisoner exchange with Nubl at Darat Izza
[31], a nice geographic and factional correlation. During the fighting with Hazzm, Hazzm's local branch in Darat Izza left Hazzm and joined the Ibn Taymiyya group
[32], a fact I pointed out last year too. One of Ibn Taymiyya's headquarters in the city were targeted by a blast a few months ago
[33]. The final conclusion is that the mixture of local actors who are able to conduct prisoner exchanges on their own authority hints at shared control.
Khan Shikhoun: Nusra established a courthouse in the city which is responsible for most of north Hama due to the administrative vacuum there
[34]. But Tajamuu al Izza leaders seem to spend a lot of time in Khan Shikhoun, having survived an assassination attempt here
[35] but getting assassinated here
[36] at least three months apart. And Faylaq al Sham, which got in a dispute with villagers in nearby Kafr Sajna, had to call reinforcements from Khan Shikhoun which suggests a presence in the city
[37]. There was of course Division 13 as well until recently when they withdrew. There are also tensions in the city between Nusra and local imams it accuses of Sufism
[38]. Residents of the city say Nusra is terrible at administering it.
Conclusion
I would put Atmeh, Darat Izza and Khan Shikhoun as half grey, half lime, while Atareb should be fully lime since only 35 individuals doesn't warrant control.
There are also other issues I have in mind, namely the villages in Jabal al Zawiyya, and some towns near Idlib, but for now I want input on this and my sources/interpretations before I make the change. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 21:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous sources about saying that the SDF captured this town on 14 January 2016, why is it still shown IS held?
I know some sources are not reliable but how haven't we found out if its really IS held?
Someone know more about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.22.83.175 ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Are Muqman and Abu Kashab really controlled by rebels? There is no rebel presence nearby. They could only possibly be controlled by IS or SDF-affiliated forces.
I cannot find the source for their change. If no-one can do so quickly, we should change them back to what they were the last time I checked - IS-held, or, if it was reported that a 'rebel' force captured them from IS, assume SDF, as it is technically a rebel group. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 11:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
SDF either never captured these villages or ISIS recaptured them (which is most likely). It's pretty stupid to post 3 sources which are uknown to this page at all, maps can't be copied, even if, not if they have like 50-200 followers, very reliable.
This is their official channel on facebook, and they have a statement where they say the same thing about Abu Kasheb. This is pretty clear to me. Rebels want Deir Ezzor and SDF will let them, and it only makes sense that Rebels continue to advance alone as they said it for themselfs. DuckZz ( talk) 16:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I know what you said and I know what I said, dunno why you repeat it. The point is, we have enough evidence until proven otherwise because SDF and pro-SDF sources did not reported anything about these villages, which means the reports are probably true. Mukman village was contested on our map, so probably ISIS captured it, or Rebels were there in the first place. But I have no reason to believe that those statements are fake, I mean if they were we will find it out very quickly on SDF, ISIS, Rebel or any other sources sooner or later. DuckZz ( talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Wery strange! SOHR said about clashes between al-Hamza Division which to belong to ISIS against rebels inside the city of Inkhil in Dara province. here here Maybe someone has a more data about the situation in the city. Or this city contested between rebels and ISIS allies? Sûriyeya ( talk) 06:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition group said that they regained their HQ and killed the leader of the ISIS affiliated group. It looks like it's over. Nobody will probably ever write about this, so I guess we can use these sources as the same sources said before that ISIS took control of these areas. DuckZz ( talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
News about Saham al-Jawlan fallen to LSY and Hayt now contested: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be very useful that this map had a scale in kilometers and miles. Many news says that a force is to x kilometers from a city. Thank you. Nerêo ( talk) 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a more accurate picture of desert roads can be added to the map, by using the information from this map? For example, it shows a road coming up from Jordan to the Tanf border crossing (which would explain how the FSA was able to seize it recently) Another much more detailed map is [42]. Esn ( talk) 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post and Sky News reported that the SAA have entered in the city of Palmyra. here here also Hoda Abdel-Hamid the reporter of Al Jazeera(officially proved page in twitter) also said SAA entered in the Palmyra. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a further note, it seems the SAA is moving towards Brigade 550. Should we therefore divide Hajjana and Brigade 550 since the brigade lies south of Mount Marbat al Hasan and SE og Abar al Umi, and Hajjano between the mountain and Mount al Mazar, further to the North. A Half circle should than also be put SE of the Brigade as per source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/field-report-palmyra-battle-heats-syrian-army-makes-fresh-gains-map-update/ MesmerMe ( talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Semiramis Hotel is in Army hands ? why it still in black ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.232.140 ( talk) 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Airbase is captured; https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-palmyra-airbase-blitz-offensive-has-isis-collapsing/ MesmerMe ( talk) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Warszawiak22 Sûriyeya Please stop making Arak and other far desert localities red. The direction of retreat from Tadmur has no bearing on the ISIS units still in control over such locales. We've been through this with another user before about such manipulation of sources to stretch areas of advance. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 11:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ DuckZz: I notice you added File:Map-truce-lime.svg to the map in Special:Diff/707262347. I don't see anything that looks like this in the legend. What does it mean, and is there any image in the legend that means the same thing? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 23:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It means the town is mostly with Rebels but under truce with Gov. DuckZz ( talk) 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Tradedia
I think you are wrong. The definition of the purple icon is "Stable mixed control" which is not correct in this case bec. the town is with Rebels but they have a truce with the Gov. which have bases and positions around it. The icon is no longer in use bec. we didn't used it before.
DuckZz (
talk)
15:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Tradedia Well yes that's the point. I don't see currently the difference between Fuah/Kafraya and any other town on the frontline, because there's a complete casefire in Syria. You may say a truce is different, but in reality it's the same. I don't see much of a usage for the purple icon, either the area is with Gov. or Rebels, there's not a single area where they both have control. DuckZz ( talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Jackmcbarn: Concerning
Module:Middle East insurgencies map marks and the map edits related to it, you seem to have confused “Dam” icons (File:BSicon STR…) with “Enemy pressure from one side” semi-circles (File:Map-arc…). In the legend to the map, it shows
Dam (
File:Arch dam 12x12 w.svg). However, the 9 dams on the map were represented by:
Notice that the shape, size, thickness, curvature and positioning of the “File:BSicon STR” icons are different from those of the “File:Map-arc” icons. Tradedia talk 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Many maps from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) have frequently shown the Nusra Front of holding territory in northern Idlib province bordering Turkey. The cities and towns which would be affected by this would be Harem, al-Tulul and al-Alani. Here is the map, dated February 2016. This is another one dated around late May 2015 which appears fairly precise to the first and more recent one. al-Nusra is often shown as controlling these parts of Northern Idlib. -- Donenne ( talk) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Several days ago when ISIS lost Palmyra thaey withdraw main part their forces to to towns of Al-Sukhnah, Al-Taybah, Al Kawm and to Sukhna and Hail oil/gas field. here Then in area of the city remained only a small groups which continued fights against SAA to north-east of Palmyra but now SOHR in new report said that ISIS withdraw all their forces from eastern coutreside of Palmyra on distane of 70 km towards Sukhna area. here So probably we can't still hold as ISIS-held a village Arak his Gas field, Arak Pumping station, Mustadira Gas Field, Hajjar Oil field and several hills east of Palmyra. But I can't do these important changes single-handedly so I want to hear your opinions. Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
SOHR reports that SAA is ready to attack al-Sukhna. They are likely closer to the city than we think, Paolowalter ( talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Earlier a request to edit the dot size of Manbij was rejected on the basis its population is marked as 99.800 in wikipedia, leaving it 200 people away of the 100.000 people mark for the next tier in city sizes.
Said data, however, is from 2004, and several sources indicate the town has grown well over that number since then, for example, this January 2014 article claims it has a population of 200.000 not counting refuuges:
http://syrianobserver.com/EN/Features/26544
While this other indicates the pre-war population was 100.000:
Any thoughts on the matter? Satellite imagery clearly shows Manbij as a city closer to ones like Tartus and Raqqa than to Bab, Idlib and Rasulain/Serekaniye.
186.170.110.38 ( talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I recommend editors to check for the coordinates of every village in the area,because something doesn't look right. Alhanuty ( talk) 22:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
SAA Advanced 7km into IS held territory in Eastern Homs, which is quite significant. However, I have absolutely noe idea where i can find Tal Tabarah Al-Deibah or Tal Hikmat. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-7-km-deeper-isis-heartland. This map (I know, we cant use it), indicates some location, but I just cant seem to figure it out further than that it is in this general area: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.100249&lon=37.306995&z=13&m=b&search=Tal%20Hikmat. MesmerMe ( talk) 16:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the situation concerning the 5 red towns in Lajat area, Daraa was not handled correctly. The background of this is in: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Mseikeh & NE Daraa, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Regime offensive in Busr Al Harir and Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Supply lines to Lajat reopened. What happened is that the gov took the 5 villages in the Lajat area therefore isolating a rebel pocket.
Later, on April 21, 2015, the following 2 things happened:
It seems that the editors at that time followed the first source and discarded the second source, so the villages stayed red. I think that what happened was that the editors mistook the As-Safir source for “Al-monitor” source which they considered a reliable source. On the other hand, they considered Sky News Arabic as a pro-rebel source. The assessment was flawed. You have to realize that Al-monitor sometimes translates articles from the As-Safir newspaper. This is the case of the above article. You can see in the “Summary box” the following sentence: “In this article from As-Safir, Tarek al-Abed provides detailed updates on the field developments in Syria and the status and spreading of armed groups.” Here is a link that gives additional information on how Al-Monitor works (I don’t recommend you read it as it is long and boring).
As-Safir newspaper leans towards the Syrian gov and is therefore not more neutral or less biased than Sky News Arabic. Moreover, we use on the map SOHR as a reliable source, which gives credibility to an interview of its head on a TV show. Also, it could be argued that a TV show on April 21, 2015 talks about the events of that specific day, whereas a newspaper article would be more about the previous day given the delay in printing the newspaper.
Therefore, the first source (As-Safir) should not have dominated the second source (SOHR head on Sky News Arabic). The conclusion should have been that the information is not clear and the 5 villages should not have stayed red. Today, even pro-gov PetoLucem map does not have them red. Given all the above, there is serious doubt about the present status of these 5 villages. Therefore, these 5 villages should be commented out until fresh information about them becomes available. Tradedia talk 04:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Long after this section was archived, there was a partial resolution to the issue at hand. I therefore want to exceptionally add a post-scriptum for the record. At 02:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC) there was an that made Miskiya al-Sharqiya, Miskiya al-Sharqiya & Rassum Al-Khawaabi rebel-held based on the source: https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/772937600650870784 Tradedia talk 03:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I will clean the area of North Latakia and remove villages which aren't visible to be honest because the area is really to much clutered DuckZz ( talk) 19:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Who made Qaryatayn besieged from 360 degrees and based on what source? PetoLucem, a very biased pro-Assad map maker is depicting ISIS as still in control over the Barida mountains [43]. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 02:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I know how to read the rules. But you didn't answer the question, what source are you using to justify keeping al Qaryatayn encircled? NightShadeAEB ( talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an icon of FSA-presence in Jordan. This icon was put there supposing to show how FSA used some dessertroad from Jordan into Syria to conquer the Al-Tanf bordercrossing with Iraq. In my humble opinion it misses this objective but more important is this would be a prescedent and one might aswell put presence-icons of all colours in all of Syrias neighbouring country's.
I can only imagen this area of Jordan is controlled by the Jordanian army/border guard, even if FSA has a local camp there or travelled throught that area into Syria. So I would like to suggest the removal of this icon. And thank you past and present editors, I check this map daily for some years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.124.251 ( talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Reporting the user "Niele~enwiki", who broke 2 rules in 1 day.
Now for other editors who will say "Well, I can't be sure if we can use him etc etc". Yes of course we can. Why ? Well if you say we can't use him as a source for this edit, you are basically pushing your own POV for this map, because we added and changed 10 locations in Eastern Qalamoun and used only him a source. But you can't change 2 villages in another province because you don't like it ? That's POV and against the rules. Either change the entire Qalamoun back as it was, or don't revert my edits, very simple. And in both cases, it was only him reporting about that, there were no other sources. END. DuckZz ( talk) 00:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The first source is unknown to this map, we never used him as a source. The second sources says "Near Minbash", and when u look at geo. maps, there are many unnamed villages near Minbash. For example, source BosnjoSinj talks about a village called "Bukman" but it's not located on any map, cuz it's probably too small. Now either you are ignoring it, or u forgot that I posted a source from the official page from this Rebel groups, and they posted a video statement where they're talking about Abu Kashab village, and they also posted a video showing their advances. Now when you look at the pictures posted by "Bosnjosinj", you can't find them on the official page from the Rebel group, which means this isn't just c/p things, and he also reported this before they posted informations on their page, which also means this can't be invented.
These areas are really unhabitat. Adding to many location can distract the viewer. You can add this village but don't waste your time in finding other he mentioned, no need. DuckZz ( talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
What user DuckZz says is completely bogus and I find it quite aggressive/regrettable/non-constructive form of framing/attacking an other wikipedia user:
Please note that the SDF actually already advanced even further today on this front: - https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/715619286849568768 - https://twitter.com/Roj4r/status/715660469290332162 - https://twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/715619928209035265 - https://twitter.com/nbbrk/status/715577456070168576 - https://twitter.com/nbbrk/status/715577456070168576 - https://twitter.com/sternschmerzen/status/715557576964968448 - https://twitter.com/EmmanuelGMay/status/715546044973641728 - https://twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/715508488466731008 - ... Also note that if we gonna start allowing using unofficial twitter-accounts like DuckZz 'BosnjoBoy' all the twitter acounts above place the villages under SDF control.
User DuckZz is not above the rules. So the green coloring of villages in NW Deir Ezzor, an basis of the unreliable twitteraccount 'BosnjoBoy' should be reverted. There is no reliable source given for this major edit. -- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 23:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Good job. You wrote 200 sentences only proving my point, you speared a lot of time for me. Abu Kashab district west of Ruwashid under SDF control since last week, Abu Kashab village south of Muqman under Nukbat control since 2 weeks. DuckZz ( talk) 13:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there really clashes just north of Jirah airbase, deep within ISIS territory? What's going on there? When I mouse over the location, I don't get a town name. Esn ( talk) 07:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I've posted to the reliable sources noticeboard about Leith Fadel and Al-Masdar News, which strike me as potentially unreliable.
NeatGrey ( talk) 00:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The questions are, "Is al-Masdar reliable," and, "Is Leith Fadel reliable." I'm saying no, to both. Leith's own Twitter feed shows his massive bias. Leith is an editor for al-Masdar, so that bias DOES bleed into the articles he writes. There have been instances where this bias has been called out, and in times of contradiction, even with nothing backing either side, except non-sources like Twitter posts, al-Masdar has been used to make edits, leading to pro-gov bias, in regard to map editing that has been called out. DaJesuZ ( talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
NightShadeAEB DaJesuZ The decision was previously accepted here so that let us not start again unnecessary debate. We use the Al Masdar as a crediable source but with some restrictions(only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account. Also, we cannot use Al-Masdar to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc.) here So guys if you do not like the source Al Masdar it does not make it unreliable. Sûriyeya ( talk) 06:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya, I NEVER stated that SOHR wasn't biased, nor did I say that only one side of the argument should be represented. This is Wikipedia. We are not a propaganda source, nor are we to inject bias into the articles that are made, hence why people call out al-Masdar, as well as SOHR. I have NEVER stated that ONLY SOHR should be used. Do NOT misrepresent what I, or others, have objected to when it comes to al-Masdar. Masdar is a state-run news organization, under the control of one of the most authoritarian and totalitarian regimes on the planet. Disregarding criticism of it is irresponsible of you. I've been here, attempting to help along for longer than you have, bud. Lecturing me on what decisions have and have not been made regarding what is and is not a reliable source is NOT a good idea. Do NOT presume to inform me about how this group of people gets shit done. I have, again, NEVER been supportive of only presenting one side of the argument. I raise questions and launch inquires in regard to the quality of the material presented. Before I joined to help out here, I still followed this stuff, and looked at many sides of this story, the one unfolding in Syria, so, for example, when SOHR claimed to have Aleppo prison under siege, I started looking into it, and found out it was bullshit. I haven't EVER stated SOHR wasn't biased. We've known they were FOR YEARS.
"(only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account." I understand this, however, several users, in the past, have referred to Leith's Twitter for edits that they felt should be made (I don't know how to post links to posts on here, or link to pages). Leith is an editor for al-Masdar. Whether or not we are using his private Twitter feed is IRRELEVANT. We are using articles written by someone, and, in fact, many others, who are staunchly pro-government. THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. We need a revamp of the sources we use. Almost every article or source presented is biased as all hell, which is why when I link to things that occur, it's generally only to sites like BBC, as they are renowned for their objective reporting of shit like this (other articles, particularly on women, are often horrendously biased, and I avoid them, because of it, same with article regarding hate speech, people's races, and, "violence," in the direction of people who aren't white guys, because this SJW horse shit is in full swing), however, language does change, at least somewhat, whenever an new government comes to power in the UK, so I'm not saying the BBC has not, before, used wording which implies bias.
Again, Leith, and al-Masdar are far too biased to use, and yes, if you're using an al-Masdar article, written by that pro-regime fuckhead, you're using his work, not the work of a news agency. Again, before someone else straw man's me, I am NOT in support of solely using SOHR as the source for all changes, nor am I saying I even want them used as a source, at all, as their network on the ground used to report events is very, very disorganized, and is not present in enough places to give a clear depiction of what the fuck's going on on the ground. DaJesuZ ( talk) 07:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya, that was the most short, incorrect representation I think I've ever seen of anyone's argument. You, literally, just said, "What you say is in contradiction to what I believe you are." Just shut up. Anything you have to say, beyond this point, is horse shit, and shouldn't even be acknowledged.
Esn, I was thinking SANA. My mistake. I think my point still stands; SOHR and al-Masdar are massively biased, and do have a history of either misrepresenting or exaggerating victories and losses, by all three (IS, opposition, and regime) sides in the war, and example of Masdar exaggerating a government victory was when they claimed the military took back the missile battalion in/near Dier ez-Zoir. Non-biased, objective reporting is what I believe we should go by. Neither al-Masdar or SOHR provide this. DaJesuZ ( talk) 18:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
One can't seriously compare SOHR to Al Masdar. SOHR ranks on the "moderate" wing of opposition claims; they are frequently criticized for confirming opposition losses and human rights abuses. By contrast Al Masdar is the extreme wing of pro-regime claims, always highlighting the maximalist regime position for as long as possible. I am personally in favour of banning it as a source from this module, and from Wikipedia in general, except as a secondary or tertiary source to confirm other multi-sourced items.
NightShadeAEB (
talk)
12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Nightshade supports ISIS no one cares what he thinks he supports head chopping neanderthal Saudi/Turkish terrorists.
No, Sûriyeya, it is not one person's problem if al-Masdar is being criticized, it is everyone's problem. Do NOT simply disregard criticism you do not feel is legitimate. You are immature and irresponsible for throwing out legitimate accusations that do not jive with your beliefs. There have been calls to ban, or at least disregard, certain editors on this page, recently, and if you keep this up, I'm adding your name to that list. The question isn't, "Is al-Masdar a reliable source?" it's, "Is al-Masdar reliable?" Again, I'm saying no, it isn't. DaJesuZ ( talk) 17:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
So, the kid with the Arab name has reported my comment, so, I'll retype it, as best I remember it, as I do not believe what I put here, in any way was a violation of the rules Wikipedia puts in place, as my language clearly showed I hates what said user said, and did not attack him as a person:
Again, Sûriyeya, I called your ideas and beliefs, "horse shit." This was not an attack directed at you, as a person, but directed at what you belief, and the ideas you espouse. Do NOT report what I put here because it doesn't jive with your bias. Do NOT report what I type here because it doesn't jive with what you think of me, as you've already stated you believe I'm biased, despite me stating, several times, that I do not believe either side's mainstream media outlets are objective in their reporting, and to avoid being labeled a supporter of either side, and intentionally left out who I support in this conflict, to avoid the exact thing you just did. Do NOT invoke experience with editing. You'd be more appropriate as an editor for Syrian Perspective, not a page that is supposed to be objective in its reporting of the situation in the ground. Your experience is an irrelevancy. Whether or not I am experienced doesn't matter; if I have concerns about how this page operates, and the reliability and/or quality of the material presented, the should be addressed, not ignored.
(This post will be copied, as im sure the kid will report it, again.) DaJesuZ ( talk) 09:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The visceral dislike of Al-Masdar and accusations of extreme bias kind of mystify me. Just a few days ago, for example,
on Apr. 2, it reported the rebels' capture of Al-Eis from the SAA in southern Aleppo, based on a report from Jabhat al-Nusra. The next day, it reported the
confirmation of the capture by the SAA. As for SOHR (at least the English site), it seems to have not reported the capture at all (at least I can't find it), and only
reported that SAA warplanes had carried out airstrikes there without mentioning the reason. If Al-Masdar was truly as biased as is suggested and "always [highlights] the maximalist regime position for as long as possible" as
NightShadeAEB says, wouldn't it have denied the capture as long as possible, rather than being one of the first out the gate to report it?
Esn (
talk)
06:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Esn, al-Masdar often over exaggerates the gains of what we would deem terrorist groups. That is covered by early reporting, or outright exaggerations on ground gains in a fight, as shown here.
EDIT: Where exactly does it say that al-Nusra took the town, in the SOHR post, by the way? I can't find it. This seems to back up the actuation that al-Masdar exaggerates gains by terrorist groups. DaJesuZ ( talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, but Reuters isn't a reliable source, according to the rules for editing.
EDIT: You told me, basically, to shut up, and get over the fact that AMN is used as a reliable source for editing many things in regards to this map. How about YOU shut up and go by the biased, authoritarian's mouthpiece?
DaJesuZ ( talk) 09:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I saw in a Syrian Gov. source, specifically Al-Masdar [46], that the town of Da'el is currently under a truce between the Syrian Government and Opposition forces. Is this true? If so, it should be reflected on this module. Although the truce is quite likely, since Abtaa (north of Da'el) sits on the same highway and is located next to it, I haven't really seen that many sources report on the status of this area. There actually aren't that many sources out there that report whether or not a town or city is under a truce, unless that area has garnered international attention (such as Al-Zabadani). LightandDark2000 ( talk) 07:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose remove all the semicircles in areas where no active fights. Also I think we need put semicircles only when sources clear said that the one of side stormed some points which is a held other side and not add semicircle when SOHR or any other sources said that clashes "near" or "in vicinity". Because sometimes it is wrong and in fact clashes on most distance from points about which said report. Here is a good example: SOHR said that the clashes between SAA and ISIS in the vicinity of city Sukhna in an attempt by regime forces to regain control of the city after. here here But in fact SAA still not retake all areas betwen a city Palmyra and town of Al-Sukhnah. So as I said up we need put the semicircles when sources clear said that the one of side stormed some points which is a held other side or when some of points tottaly or partialy in siege. Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
According to pro-gov. sources, the Army, led by Iranian Special Forces, has retaken the town over a night raid. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/strategic-town-al-eis-recaptured-night-raid-led-iranian-troops-map-update/
And according to basically everyone else, Gov. forces never came even near the town. We will see soon what happened but I share the opinion of others to bann Al Masdar from this map. This is really getting ridiculus. Here, 10 hours Al Masdar (Leith) basically wrote an article about Qalamoun how the Gov. "destroyed" ISIS etc etc, while SOHR and everyone else wrote how ISIS captured 10 locations and is still in control of them, picture and video evidence was provided. DuckZz ( talk) 10:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree but i still think we should not use single source edits .Editors should provide at least 2 good sources to improve accuracy . 86.135.155.150 ( talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Opp. source said that ISIS launched offensice agains rebels near Turkish border and take the villages of Kızılmezra (Ghazal),Jarez,Ash Shaykh Rih,Tilal al Husayn,Yahmul,Baraghidah and Tlel Hosn. here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 08:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
FSA groups from the SDF coalition created the "Manbej military room" to capture Manbej town and it's surounding villages, Kurdish groups (YPG/YPJ.....) not included. Hipotheticaly, when they capture Manbej and villages, we can maybe put some other color, maybe yellow-lime or just lime. I know they're still part of the SDF but I think this is different. DuckZz ( talk) 15:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Who cares what Turkey thinks, they are dogs.
Tgoll774 is just Erdagons mouth piece and should be ignored and please remember the majority or Turks do not support Erdagons Party 86.178.97.31 ( talk) 11:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
AKP won 46% not 50 thats no majority Erdagons little sock puppet 86.135.154.20 ( talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Pro opp twitter [48] claims ISIS has unpicked the rebels' recent advances in N Aleppo. 91.84.97.83 ( talk) 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is Hawar Kilis black? Mughira1395 ( talk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No matter what were the disagreements about Hawar Kilis. Now it seems that ISIS not only took this town, but also Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan, Kafr Shush and Ikidah. According to social medias (relaying on Amaq). Al-Jazeera and opposition are confirming that ISIS took control of towns on the turkish border. SOHR spokes about ISIS taking control of the "area" of Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan and Jarez (to the west), without naming specific towns taken by ISIS Mughira1395 ( talk) 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Now, Al Masdar says Hawar Killis is under IS control, but I wonder whether they are using old information and today's SOHR article is more up to date. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-flee-across-turkish-border-isis-snatches-villages-map-update/ What do you guys think of this? Is it more likely to be IS controlled or opposition controlled, based on the evidence? PutItOnAMap ( talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There are unconfirmed reports IS cut the Khanasser Road again. I have not made any edits, as its just twitter rumors right now. But we need to keep an eye out here for more information as it comes in. Tgoll774 ( talk) 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please, please, admins, will You finally block
user: LightandDark2000. He just keeps doing crazy edits. Take
this edit. He used news about SAA taking a hill 20 km E of Qaryatan in order to prove that
al-Mihassah, which is 17 km east south(!!!) od Qaryatan must have been takne by SAA. To visual how crazy this edit was, please check
this wikimapia map. I don't think it makes any sense to try to talk to this guy, so I will go talk to admins. --
Hogg 22 (
talk)
09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
There is more!!! In
this edit, he used
this article to change the village of Al-Qasr to "mixed control" and also to change 2 other unrelated locations (al-Buthaynah Training Grounds and Tall Sa'd) to SAA-held. The article is very small, let me copy it here, with all village/hills names (it's just 1!) bolded:
The 3 locations can be seen here.
@ Hogg 22: - if you want action you need to post diffs to the AN thread.
It seems that north of Palmyra there must be some changes. Either to black or to contested: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-threatens-liberated-palmyra/ Mughira1395 ( talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
<3 how al-Masdar was used to change Brigade 550 to SAA held based on its 3.25.2016 article, and then made no mention of it being retaken by IS or that the original claim was erroneous, but reported its actual fall to the SAA 4.20.2016. <3 it. Quality stuff. Really adds to the accuracy of this template. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This happens with all sources but once again the anti Al Masdar editors are at it again .How erroneous its becoming 109.152.121.116 ( talk) 06:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a significant amount of fighting going on in in this area and I am pretty sure some parts of the map are either incomplete or simply wrong. Batallion 559 and the junction chechepoint are already put as IS held. But, because of troop movement in the area I am sincerely doubting that Rebels are holding the following places: Khirbat Butaymat, Saba Bayer, Rujm Mamur, and possibly Sad Rishe. If anybody has sources that they're actually Rebel and not IS held I'll retract my statement.
Furthermore, Khan Abu al Shamat and possibly the Badia Cement plant should be put on the map, and should be monitored the next fews days because some minor social media stuff has shown IS attacks. I believe it is SAA held, but there are reports of IS capturing the area, but they're all based on preliminairy Twitter stuff. Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.704349&lon=37.009163&z=12&m=b Sources: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-emir-damascus-killed-failed-eastern-qalamoun-offensive/, https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-repels-isis-attack-qalamoun-kills-top-emir/,
Based on the almasdar map, ( https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-east-al-qariyatein/), points in between al-Bardah and Tiyas Airbase should be red. There are two points north, Tulul al Khaddariyah and Qasr al Heir, that seem to have switched sides long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.137.18 ( talk) 17:40, 23 April 2016 (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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Reliable source (used here since 2014) says that Nasirijah and the close up village is under Rebel control. I have to remind you of something. The towns of Jajrud, Dumayr and Ruhaybah are under Rebel control since 2013, but Jajrud was shown on our map from May 2015 and under Gov. control because we didn't wanted to use sources like this. So basically we made a mistake which took us 2 years to realize which is embasaring when it to comes to the most reliable map online.
NightShadeAEB Tradedia talk Opinion ?
Step News reports ISIS affiliated LSY group took over Tasil and Adwan, with sounds of clashes going on and off [1] NightShadeAEB ( talk) 08:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Al-masdar reported that Tafas is pro-ISIS milita controlled: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-affiliate-captures-important-town-daraa/
Opp. sources confirmed that the SDF captured the village of Herbel from ISIS. here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 20:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Like we added Yarmouk Martyrs to ISIS colours, now infighting has begun in Daraa with Muthanna siding with ISIS and the opposition accuse it of secretly pledging to ISIS. The FSA attacked Muthanna months ago [14] [15] accusing them of joining ISIS and assassinating FSA figures, and now as LSY takes over Tasil, a pro-opposition website [16] as well as a shady ISIS sympathizing Twitter account with 9,800 followers called "Mu'ta Agency" [17] seem to indicate Muthanna was the one to take over the village of 'Adwan, or at least participated in it. At least one miscellaneous ISIS account is correcting people that Muthanna and not LSY took 'Adwan [18]. The LCC also reports that the Syrian Civil Defense building in the village of Nahj was stormed and taken over by Muthanna, and accuses them of having pledged to ISIS [19] [20]. In the mean time the Jaysh al Islam sympathizing Sada al Tawhid [21] has cited reports that Khirbat al Shahm and the military company near Tel Shahab have been purged from Muthanna in a rebel counterattack.
In short we have good evidence that Muthanna is at least siding with ISIS in the infighting that's gripping Daraa. The maps provided by EnabBaladi and Mu'ta Agency both summarize nicely how their territories are now contiguous and moving together. The villages in question then are Jaleen, Nahj, and Sheikh Saad which have been mentioned by name. The probable pro-ISIS map of Mu'ta gives Muthanna more territory, notably the village of Ashaari, but we can wait for confirmation on that.
Agreed for making Muthanna's Jaleen, Nahj, and Sheikh Saad into ISIS held? NightShadeAEB ( talk) 22:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I have changed Jalin and Sheikh Saad to IS controlled. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again I feel we should bring this up. The towns in question are Atmeh, Darat Izza, Atareb, and Khan Sheikhoun. They are major towns or towns with confirmed significant presence of non-Nusra groups. In particular:
Atmeh: Jaysh al Sunna, Ahrar al Sham, and Faylaq al Sham in Atmeh
[24]
[25]. While the vicinity of Jinderes may not be specific enough, the fact that Jaysh al Sunna had a weapons factory in or near the town shows that it's not exclusive Nusra property. Noting that Atmeh was home to Suqur al Islam in 2013
[26], and in 2014 one of the groups that formed Faylaq al Sham was called Suqur al Islam. There are two or three groups with that name, but just saying, it's quite a coincidence. Actually, just found Aranews saying Faylaq al Sham snuck into Afrin canton from Atmeh. That should confirm it
[27]. From NOW Lebanon:
Erbil-based ARA News, in turn, reported that a “large number” of fighters from the hardline Ahrar al-Sham Movement as well as from the more moderate Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, Faylaq al-Sham and Jaysh al-Sunna had deployed on the outskirts of Cindirese, which lies 10-kilometers north of the rebel-held border town of Atmeh.
Atareb: Nusra never stormed the city, just Regiment 46. Nusra then opened an office inside the city and began meddling in its affairs. But it still doesn't control it. Probably Shamiyya and Zenki do. Nusra only has a tiny presence, same as the situation last year. That explains why they can protest without being harassed
[28].
“Although Nusra has a single headquarters on the outskirts of the city, the people are trying to get rid of any pretext the regime could use to bomb them.” A mixture of FSA and Islamist rebel factions control Atareb, with a current population of 55,000. The fear of being targeted for harboring Nusra adds a new dimension to existing bad blood between Atareb residents and the Al-Qaeda affiliate, which maintains a contingent of approximately 35 fighters in the west Aleppo town, a resident told Syria Direct last September.
Darat Izza: This one is tricky. The local council appears to be made of one Ahrar, one Nusra, and one Fajr al Sham rep
[29], which makes it two thirds Salafi-jihadi, but the city is also the headquarters of other groups. I'll try to summarize what I found so far: Kataeb Mujahidee Ibn Taymiyya used to be part of the Asala wal Tanmiya group but became independent and later merged two other groups to form Harakat Mujahidee al Islam in Idlib and Aleppo
[30]. One of these groups is Bayareq al Islam. Bayareq and Ibn Taymiyya's leaders were both involved in a local prisoner exchange with Nubl at Darat Izza
[31], a nice geographic and factional correlation. During the fighting with Hazzm, Hazzm's local branch in Darat Izza left Hazzm and joined the Ibn Taymiyya group
[32], a fact I pointed out last year too. One of Ibn Taymiyya's headquarters in the city were targeted by a blast a few months ago
[33]. The final conclusion is that the mixture of local actors who are able to conduct prisoner exchanges on their own authority hints at shared control.
Khan Shikhoun: Nusra established a courthouse in the city which is responsible for most of north Hama due to the administrative vacuum there
[34]. But Tajamuu al Izza leaders seem to spend a lot of time in Khan Shikhoun, having survived an assassination attempt here
[35] but getting assassinated here
[36] at least three months apart. And Faylaq al Sham, which got in a dispute with villagers in nearby Kafr Sajna, had to call reinforcements from Khan Shikhoun which suggests a presence in the city
[37]. There was of course Division 13 as well until recently when they withdrew. There are also tensions in the city between Nusra and local imams it accuses of Sufism
[38]. Residents of the city say Nusra is terrible at administering it.
Conclusion
I would put Atmeh, Darat Izza and Khan Shikhoun as half grey, half lime, while Atareb should be fully lime since only 35 individuals doesn't warrant control.
There are also other issues I have in mind, namely the villages in Jabal al Zawiyya, and some towns near Idlib, but for now I want input on this and my sources/interpretations before I make the change. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 21:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous sources about saying that the SDF captured this town on 14 January 2016, why is it still shown IS held?
I know some sources are not reliable but how haven't we found out if its really IS held?
Someone know more about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.22.83.175 ( talk) 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Are Muqman and Abu Kashab really controlled by rebels? There is no rebel presence nearby. They could only possibly be controlled by IS or SDF-affiliated forces.
I cannot find the source for their change. If no-one can do so quickly, we should change them back to what they were the last time I checked - IS-held, or, if it was reported that a 'rebel' force captured them from IS, assume SDF, as it is technically a rebel group. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 11:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
SDF either never captured these villages or ISIS recaptured them (which is most likely). It's pretty stupid to post 3 sources which are uknown to this page at all, maps can't be copied, even if, not if they have like 50-200 followers, very reliable.
This is their official channel on facebook, and they have a statement where they say the same thing about Abu Kasheb. This is pretty clear to me. Rebels want Deir Ezzor and SDF will let them, and it only makes sense that Rebels continue to advance alone as they said it for themselfs. DuckZz ( talk) 16:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I know what you said and I know what I said, dunno why you repeat it. The point is, we have enough evidence until proven otherwise because SDF and pro-SDF sources did not reported anything about these villages, which means the reports are probably true. Mukman village was contested on our map, so probably ISIS captured it, or Rebels were there in the first place. But I have no reason to believe that those statements are fake, I mean if they were we will find it out very quickly on SDF, ISIS, Rebel or any other sources sooner or later. DuckZz ( talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Wery strange! SOHR said about clashes between al-Hamza Division which to belong to ISIS against rebels inside the city of Inkhil in Dara province. here here Maybe someone has a more data about the situation in the city. Or this city contested between rebels and ISIS allies? Sûriyeya ( talk) 06:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition group said that they regained their HQ and killed the leader of the ISIS affiliated group. It looks like it's over. Nobody will probably ever write about this, so I guess we can use these sources as the same sources said before that ISIS took control of these areas. DuckZz ( talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
News about Saham al-Jawlan fallen to LSY and Hayt now contested: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be very useful that this map had a scale in kilometers and miles. Many news says that a force is to x kilometers from a city. Thank you. Nerêo ( talk) 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a more accurate picture of desert roads can be added to the map, by using the information from this map? For example, it shows a road coming up from Jordan to the Tanf border crossing (which would explain how the FSA was able to seize it recently) Another much more detailed map is [42]. Esn ( talk) 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Washington Post and Sky News reported that the SAA have entered in the city of Palmyra. here here also Hoda Abdel-Hamid the reporter of Al Jazeera(officially proved page in twitter) also said SAA entered in the Palmyra. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a further note, it seems the SAA is moving towards Brigade 550. Should we therefore divide Hajjana and Brigade 550 since the brigade lies south of Mount Marbat al Hasan and SE og Abar al Umi, and Hajjano between the mountain and Mount al Mazar, further to the North. A Half circle should than also be put SE of the Brigade as per source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/field-report-palmyra-battle-heats-syrian-army-makes-fresh-gains-map-update/ MesmerMe ( talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Semiramis Hotel is in Army hands ? why it still in black ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.232.140 ( talk) 08:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Airbase is captured; https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-palmyra-airbase-blitz-offensive-has-isis-collapsing/ MesmerMe ( talk) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Warszawiak22 Sûriyeya Please stop making Arak and other far desert localities red. The direction of retreat from Tadmur has no bearing on the ISIS units still in control over such locales. We've been through this with another user before about such manipulation of sources to stretch areas of advance. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 11:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ DuckZz: I notice you added File:Map-truce-lime.svg to the map in Special:Diff/707262347. I don't see anything that looks like this in the legend. What does it mean, and is there any image in the legend that means the same thing? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 23:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It means the town is mostly with Rebels but under truce with Gov. DuckZz ( talk) 00:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Tradedia
I think you are wrong. The definition of the purple icon is "Stable mixed control" which is not correct in this case bec. the town is with Rebels but they have a truce with the Gov. which have bases and positions around it. The icon is no longer in use bec. we didn't used it before.
DuckZz (
talk)
15:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Tradedia Well yes that's the point. I don't see currently the difference between Fuah/Kafraya and any other town on the frontline, because there's a complete casefire in Syria. You may say a truce is different, but in reality it's the same. I don't see much of a usage for the purple icon, either the area is with Gov. or Rebels, there's not a single area where they both have control. DuckZz ( talk) 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Jackmcbarn: Concerning
Module:Middle East insurgencies map marks and the map edits related to it, you seem to have confused “Dam” icons (File:BSicon STR…) with “Enemy pressure from one side” semi-circles (File:Map-arc…). In the legend to the map, it shows
Dam (
File:Arch dam 12x12 w.svg). However, the 9 dams on the map were represented by:
Notice that the shape, size, thickness, curvature and positioning of the “File:BSicon STR” icons are different from those of the “File:Map-arc” icons. Tradedia talk 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Many maps from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) have frequently shown the Nusra Front of holding territory in northern Idlib province bordering Turkey. The cities and towns which would be affected by this would be Harem, al-Tulul and al-Alani. Here is the map, dated February 2016. This is another one dated around late May 2015 which appears fairly precise to the first and more recent one. al-Nusra is often shown as controlling these parts of Northern Idlib. -- Donenne ( talk) 14:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Several days ago when ISIS lost Palmyra thaey withdraw main part their forces to to towns of Al-Sukhnah, Al-Taybah, Al Kawm and to Sukhna and Hail oil/gas field. here Then in area of the city remained only a small groups which continued fights against SAA to north-east of Palmyra but now SOHR in new report said that ISIS withdraw all their forces from eastern coutreside of Palmyra on distane of 70 km towards Sukhna area. here So probably we can't still hold as ISIS-held a village Arak his Gas field, Arak Pumping station, Mustadira Gas Field, Hajjar Oil field and several hills east of Palmyra. But I can't do these important changes single-handedly so I want to hear your opinions. Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
SOHR reports that SAA is ready to attack al-Sukhna. They are likely closer to the city than we think, Paolowalter ( talk) 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Earlier a request to edit the dot size of Manbij was rejected on the basis its population is marked as 99.800 in wikipedia, leaving it 200 people away of the 100.000 people mark for the next tier in city sizes.
Said data, however, is from 2004, and several sources indicate the town has grown well over that number since then, for example, this January 2014 article claims it has a population of 200.000 not counting refuuges:
http://syrianobserver.com/EN/Features/26544
While this other indicates the pre-war population was 100.000:
Any thoughts on the matter? Satellite imagery clearly shows Manbij as a city closer to ones like Tartus and Raqqa than to Bab, Idlib and Rasulain/Serekaniye.
186.170.110.38 ( talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I recommend editors to check for the coordinates of every village in the area,because something doesn't look right. Alhanuty ( talk) 22:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
SAA Advanced 7km into IS held territory in Eastern Homs, which is quite significant. However, I have absolutely noe idea where i can find Tal Tabarah Al-Deibah or Tal Hikmat. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-7-km-deeper-isis-heartland. This map (I know, we cant use it), indicates some location, but I just cant seem to figure it out further than that it is in this general area: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.100249&lon=37.306995&z=13&m=b&search=Tal%20Hikmat. MesmerMe ( talk) 16:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the situation concerning the 5 red towns in Lajat area, Daraa was not handled correctly. The background of this is in: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Mseikeh & NE Daraa, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Regime offensive in Busr Al Harir and Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Supply lines to Lajat reopened. What happened is that the gov took the 5 villages in the Lajat area therefore isolating a rebel pocket.
Later, on April 21, 2015, the following 2 things happened:
It seems that the editors at that time followed the first source and discarded the second source, so the villages stayed red. I think that what happened was that the editors mistook the As-Safir source for “Al-monitor” source which they considered a reliable source. On the other hand, they considered Sky News Arabic as a pro-rebel source. The assessment was flawed. You have to realize that Al-monitor sometimes translates articles from the As-Safir newspaper. This is the case of the above article. You can see in the “Summary box” the following sentence: “In this article from As-Safir, Tarek al-Abed provides detailed updates on the field developments in Syria and the status and spreading of armed groups.” Here is a link that gives additional information on how Al-Monitor works (I don’t recommend you read it as it is long and boring).
As-Safir newspaper leans towards the Syrian gov and is therefore not more neutral or less biased than Sky News Arabic. Moreover, we use on the map SOHR as a reliable source, which gives credibility to an interview of its head on a TV show. Also, it could be argued that a TV show on April 21, 2015 talks about the events of that specific day, whereas a newspaper article would be more about the previous day given the delay in printing the newspaper.
Therefore, the first source (As-Safir) should not have dominated the second source (SOHR head on Sky News Arabic). The conclusion should have been that the information is not clear and the 5 villages should not have stayed red. Today, even pro-gov PetoLucem map does not have them red. Given all the above, there is serious doubt about the present status of these 5 villages. Therefore, these 5 villages should be commented out until fresh information about them becomes available. Tradedia talk 04:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Long after this section was archived, there was a partial resolution to the issue at hand. I therefore want to exceptionally add a post-scriptum for the record. At 02:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC) there was an that made Miskiya al-Sharqiya, Miskiya al-Sharqiya & Rassum Al-Khawaabi rebel-held based on the source: https://twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/772937600650870784 Tradedia talk 03:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I will clean the area of North Latakia and remove villages which aren't visible to be honest because the area is really to much clutered DuckZz ( talk) 19:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Who made Qaryatayn besieged from 360 degrees and based on what source? PetoLucem, a very biased pro-Assad map maker is depicting ISIS as still in control over the Barida mountains [43]. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 02:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I know how to read the rules. But you didn't answer the question, what source are you using to justify keeping al Qaryatayn encircled? NightShadeAEB ( talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an icon of FSA-presence in Jordan. This icon was put there supposing to show how FSA used some dessertroad from Jordan into Syria to conquer the Al-Tanf bordercrossing with Iraq. In my humble opinion it misses this objective but more important is this would be a prescedent and one might aswell put presence-icons of all colours in all of Syrias neighbouring country's.
I can only imagen this area of Jordan is controlled by the Jordanian army/border guard, even if FSA has a local camp there or travelled throught that area into Syria. So I would like to suggest the removal of this icon. And thank you past and present editors, I check this map daily for some years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.124.251 ( talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Reporting the user "Niele~enwiki", who broke 2 rules in 1 day.
Now for other editors who will say "Well, I can't be sure if we can use him etc etc". Yes of course we can. Why ? Well if you say we can't use him as a source for this edit, you are basically pushing your own POV for this map, because we added and changed 10 locations in Eastern Qalamoun and used only him a source. But you can't change 2 villages in another province because you don't like it ? That's POV and against the rules. Either change the entire Qalamoun back as it was, or don't revert my edits, very simple. And in both cases, it was only him reporting about that, there were no other sources. END. DuckZz ( talk) 00:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The first source is unknown to this map, we never used him as a source. The second sources says "Near Minbash", and when u look at geo. maps, there are many unnamed villages near Minbash. For example, source BosnjoSinj talks about a village called "Bukman" but it's not located on any map, cuz it's probably too small. Now either you are ignoring it, or u forgot that I posted a source from the official page from this Rebel groups, and they posted a video statement where they're talking about Abu Kashab village, and they also posted a video showing their advances. Now when you look at the pictures posted by "Bosnjosinj", you can't find them on the official page from the Rebel group, which means this isn't just c/p things, and he also reported this before they posted informations on their page, which also means this can't be invented.
These areas are really unhabitat. Adding to many location can distract the viewer. You can add this village but don't waste your time in finding other he mentioned, no need. DuckZz ( talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
What user DuckZz says is completely bogus and I find it quite aggressive/regrettable/non-constructive form of framing/attacking an other wikipedia user:
Please note that the SDF actually already advanced even further today on this front: - https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/715619286849568768 - https://twitter.com/Roj4r/status/715660469290332162 - https://twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/715619928209035265 - https://twitter.com/nbbrk/status/715577456070168576 - https://twitter.com/nbbrk/status/715577456070168576 - https://twitter.com/sternschmerzen/status/715557576964968448 - https://twitter.com/EmmanuelGMay/status/715546044973641728 - https://twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/715508488466731008 - ... Also note that if we gonna start allowing using unofficial twitter-accounts like DuckZz 'BosnjoBoy' all the twitter acounts above place the villages under SDF control.
User DuckZz is not above the rules. So the green coloring of villages in NW Deir Ezzor, an basis of the unreliable twitteraccount 'BosnjoBoy' should be reverted. There is no reliable source given for this major edit. -- Niele~enwiki ( talk) 23:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Good job. You wrote 200 sentences only proving my point, you speared a lot of time for me. Abu Kashab district west of Ruwashid under SDF control since last week, Abu Kashab village south of Muqman under Nukbat control since 2 weeks. DuckZz ( talk) 13:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there really clashes just north of Jirah airbase, deep within ISIS territory? What's going on there? When I mouse over the location, I don't get a town name. Esn ( talk) 07:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I've posted to the reliable sources noticeboard about Leith Fadel and Al-Masdar News, which strike me as potentially unreliable.
NeatGrey ( talk) 00:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The questions are, "Is al-Masdar reliable," and, "Is Leith Fadel reliable." I'm saying no, to both. Leith's own Twitter feed shows his massive bias. Leith is an editor for al-Masdar, so that bias DOES bleed into the articles he writes. There have been instances where this bias has been called out, and in times of contradiction, even with nothing backing either side, except non-sources like Twitter posts, al-Masdar has been used to make edits, leading to pro-gov bias, in regard to map editing that has been called out. DaJesuZ ( talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
NightShadeAEB DaJesuZ The decision was previously accepted here so that let us not start again unnecessary debate. We use the Al Masdar as a crediable source but with some restrictions(only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account. Also, we cannot use Al-Masdar to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc.) here So guys if you do not like the source Al Masdar it does not make it unreliable. Sûriyeya ( talk) 06:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya, I NEVER stated that SOHR wasn't biased, nor did I say that only one side of the argument should be represented. This is Wikipedia. We are not a propaganda source, nor are we to inject bias into the articles that are made, hence why people call out al-Masdar, as well as SOHR. I have NEVER stated that ONLY SOHR should be used. Do NOT misrepresent what I, or others, have objected to when it comes to al-Masdar. Masdar is a state-run news organization, under the control of one of the most authoritarian and totalitarian regimes on the planet. Disregarding criticism of it is irresponsible of you. I've been here, attempting to help along for longer than you have, bud. Lecturing me on what decisions have and have not been made regarding what is and is not a reliable source is NOT a good idea. Do NOT presume to inform me about how this group of people gets shit done. I have, again, NEVER been supportive of only presenting one side of the argument. I raise questions and launch inquires in regard to the quality of the material presented. Before I joined to help out here, I still followed this stuff, and looked at many sides of this story, the one unfolding in Syria, so, for example, when SOHR claimed to have Aleppo prison under siege, I started looking into it, and found out it was bullshit. I haven't EVER stated SOHR wasn't biased. We've known they were FOR YEARS.
"(only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account." I understand this, however, several users, in the past, have referred to Leith's Twitter for edits that they felt should be made (I don't know how to post links to posts on here, or link to pages). Leith is an editor for al-Masdar. Whether or not we are using his private Twitter feed is IRRELEVANT. We are using articles written by someone, and, in fact, many others, who are staunchly pro-government. THIS. DOESN'T. WORK. We need a revamp of the sources we use. Almost every article or source presented is biased as all hell, which is why when I link to things that occur, it's generally only to sites like BBC, as they are renowned for their objective reporting of shit like this (other articles, particularly on women, are often horrendously biased, and I avoid them, because of it, same with article regarding hate speech, people's races, and, "violence," in the direction of people who aren't white guys, because this SJW horse shit is in full swing), however, language does change, at least somewhat, whenever an new government comes to power in the UK, so I'm not saying the BBC has not, before, used wording which implies bias.
Again, Leith, and al-Masdar are far too biased to use, and yes, if you're using an al-Masdar article, written by that pro-regime fuckhead, you're using his work, not the work of a news agency. Again, before someone else straw man's me, I am NOT in support of solely using SOHR as the source for all changes, nor am I saying I even want them used as a source, at all, as their network on the ground used to report events is very, very disorganized, and is not present in enough places to give a clear depiction of what the fuck's going on on the ground. DaJesuZ ( talk) 07:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya, that was the most short, incorrect representation I think I've ever seen of anyone's argument. You, literally, just said, "What you say is in contradiction to what I believe you are." Just shut up. Anything you have to say, beyond this point, is horse shit, and shouldn't even be acknowledged.
Esn, I was thinking SANA. My mistake. I think my point still stands; SOHR and al-Masdar are massively biased, and do have a history of either misrepresenting or exaggerating victories and losses, by all three (IS, opposition, and regime) sides in the war, and example of Masdar exaggerating a government victory was when they claimed the military took back the missile battalion in/near Dier ez-Zoir. Non-biased, objective reporting is what I believe we should go by. Neither al-Masdar or SOHR provide this. DaJesuZ ( talk) 18:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
One can't seriously compare SOHR to Al Masdar. SOHR ranks on the "moderate" wing of opposition claims; they are frequently criticized for confirming opposition losses and human rights abuses. By contrast Al Masdar is the extreme wing of pro-regime claims, always highlighting the maximalist regime position for as long as possible. I am personally in favour of banning it as a source from this module, and from Wikipedia in general, except as a secondary or tertiary source to confirm other multi-sourced items.
NightShadeAEB (
talk)
12:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Nightshade supports ISIS no one cares what he thinks he supports head chopping neanderthal Saudi/Turkish terrorists.
No, Sûriyeya, it is not one person's problem if al-Masdar is being criticized, it is everyone's problem. Do NOT simply disregard criticism you do not feel is legitimate. You are immature and irresponsible for throwing out legitimate accusations that do not jive with your beliefs. There have been calls to ban, or at least disregard, certain editors on this page, recently, and if you keep this up, I'm adding your name to that list. The question isn't, "Is al-Masdar a reliable source?" it's, "Is al-Masdar reliable?" Again, I'm saying no, it isn't. DaJesuZ ( talk) 17:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
So, the kid with the Arab name has reported my comment, so, I'll retype it, as best I remember it, as I do not believe what I put here, in any way was a violation of the rules Wikipedia puts in place, as my language clearly showed I hates what said user said, and did not attack him as a person:
Again, Sûriyeya, I called your ideas and beliefs, "horse shit." This was not an attack directed at you, as a person, but directed at what you belief, and the ideas you espouse. Do NOT report what I put here because it doesn't jive with your bias. Do NOT report what I type here because it doesn't jive with what you think of me, as you've already stated you believe I'm biased, despite me stating, several times, that I do not believe either side's mainstream media outlets are objective in their reporting, and to avoid being labeled a supporter of either side, and intentionally left out who I support in this conflict, to avoid the exact thing you just did. Do NOT invoke experience with editing. You'd be more appropriate as an editor for Syrian Perspective, not a page that is supposed to be objective in its reporting of the situation in the ground. Your experience is an irrelevancy. Whether or not I am experienced doesn't matter; if I have concerns about how this page operates, and the reliability and/or quality of the material presented, the should be addressed, not ignored.
(This post will be copied, as im sure the kid will report it, again.) DaJesuZ ( talk) 09:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The visceral dislike of Al-Masdar and accusations of extreme bias kind of mystify me. Just a few days ago, for example,
on Apr. 2, it reported the rebels' capture of Al-Eis from the SAA in southern Aleppo, based on a report from Jabhat al-Nusra. The next day, it reported the
confirmation of the capture by the SAA. As for SOHR (at least the English site), it seems to have not reported the capture at all (at least I can't find it), and only
reported that SAA warplanes had carried out airstrikes there without mentioning the reason. If Al-Masdar was truly as biased as is suggested and "always [highlights] the maximalist regime position for as long as possible" as
NightShadeAEB says, wouldn't it have denied the capture as long as possible, rather than being one of the first out the gate to report it?
Esn (
talk)
06:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Esn, al-Masdar often over exaggerates the gains of what we would deem terrorist groups. That is covered by early reporting, or outright exaggerations on ground gains in a fight, as shown here.
EDIT: Where exactly does it say that al-Nusra took the town, in the SOHR post, by the way? I can't find it. This seems to back up the actuation that al-Masdar exaggerates gains by terrorist groups. DaJesuZ ( talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, but Reuters isn't a reliable source, according to the rules for editing.
EDIT: You told me, basically, to shut up, and get over the fact that AMN is used as a reliable source for editing many things in regards to this map. How about YOU shut up and go by the biased, authoritarian's mouthpiece?
DaJesuZ ( talk) 09:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I saw in a Syrian Gov. source, specifically Al-Masdar [46], that the town of Da'el is currently under a truce between the Syrian Government and Opposition forces. Is this true? If so, it should be reflected on this module. Although the truce is quite likely, since Abtaa (north of Da'el) sits on the same highway and is located next to it, I haven't really seen that many sources report on the status of this area. There actually aren't that many sources out there that report whether or not a town or city is under a truce, unless that area has garnered international attention (such as Al-Zabadani). LightandDark2000 ( talk) 07:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose remove all the semicircles in areas where no active fights. Also I think we need put semicircles only when sources clear said that the one of side stormed some points which is a held other side and not add semicircle when SOHR or any other sources said that clashes "near" or "in vicinity". Because sometimes it is wrong and in fact clashes on most distance from points about which said report. Here is a good example: SOHR said that the clashes between SAA and ISIS in the vicinity of city Sukhna in an attempt by regime forces to regain control of the city after. here here But in fact SAA still not retake all areas betwen a city Palmyra and town of Al-Sukhnah. So as I said up we need put the semicircles when sources clear said that the one of side stormed some points which is a held other side or when some of points tottaly or partialy in siege. Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
According to pro-gov. sources, the Army, led by Iranian Special Forces, has retaken the town over a night raid. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/strategic-town-al-eis-recaptured-night-raid-led-iranian-troops-map-update/
And according to basically everyone else, Gov. forces never came even near the town. We will see soon what happened but I share the opinion of others to bann Al Masdar from this map. This is really getting ridiculus. Here, 10 hours Al Masdar (Leith) basically wrote an article about Qalamoun how the Gov. "destroyed" ISIS etc etc, while SOHR and everyone else wrote how ISIS captured 10 locations and is still in control of them, picture and video evidence was provided. DuckZz ( talk) 10:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree but i still think we should not use single source edits .Editors should provide at least 2 good sources to improve accuracy . 86.135.155.150 ( talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Opp. source said that ISIS launched offensice agains rebels near Turkish border and take the villages of Kızılmezra (Ghazal),Jarez,Ash Shaykh Rih,Tilal al Husayn,Yahmul,Baraghidah and Tlel Hosn. here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 08:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
FSA groups from the SDF coalition created the "Manbej military room" to capture Manbej town and it's surounding villages, Kurdish groups (YPG/YPJ.....) not included. Hipotheticaly, when they capture Manbej and villages, we can maybe put some other color, maybe yellow-lime or just lime. I know they're still part of the SDF but I think this is different. DuckZz ( talk) 15:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Who cares what Turkey thinks, they are dogs.
Tgoll774 is just Erdagons mouth piece and should be ignored and please remember the majority or Turks do not support Erdagons Party 86.178.97.31 ( talk) 11:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
AKP won 46% not 50 thats no majority Erdagons little sock puppet 86.135.154.20 ( talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Pro opp twitter [48] claims ISIS has unpicked the rebels' recent advances in N Aleppo. 91.84.97.83 ( talk) 07:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is Hawar Kilis black? Mughira1395 ( talk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No matter what were the disagreements about Hawar Kilis. Now it seems that ISIS not only took this town, but also Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan, Kafr Shush and Ikidah. According to social medias (relaying on Amaq). Al-Jazeera and opposition are confirming that ISIS took control of towns on the turkish border. SOHR spokes about ISIS taking control of the "area" of Baraghidah, Kafr Ghan and Jarez (to the west), without naming specific towns taken by ISIS Mughira1395 ( talk) 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Now, Al Masdar says Hawar Killis is under IS control, but I wonder whether they are using old information and today's SOHR article is more up to date. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-flee-across-turkish-border-isis-snatches-villages-map-update/ What do you guys think of this? Is it more likely to be IS controlled or opposition controlled, based on the evidence? PutItOnAMap ( talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There are unconfirmed reports IS cut the Khanasser Road again. I have not made any edits, as its just twitter rumors right now. But we need to keep an eye out here for more information as it comes in. Tgoll774 ( talk) 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please, please, admins, will You finally block
user: LightandDark2000. He just keeps doing crazy edits. Take
this edit. He used news about SAA taking a hill 20 km E of Qaryatan in order to prove that
al-Mihassah, which is 17 km east south(!!!) od Qaryatan must have been takne by SAA. To visual how crazy this edit was, please check
this wikimapia map. I don't think it makes any sense to try to talk to this guy, so I will go talk to admins. --
Hogg 22 (
talk)
09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
There is more!!! In
this edit, he used
this article to change the village of Al-Qasr to "mixed control" and also to change 2 other unrelated locations (al-Buthaynah Training Grounds and Tall Sa'd) to SAA-held. The article is very small, let me copy it here, with all village/hills names (it's just 1!) bolded:
The 3 locations can be seen here.
@ Hogg 22: - if you want action you need to post diffs to the AN thread.
It seems that north of Palmyra there must be some changes. Either to black or to contested: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-threatens-liberated-palmyra/ Mughira1395 ( talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
<3 how al-Masdar was used to change Brigade 550 to SAA held based on its 3.25.2016 article, and then made no mention of it being retaken by IS or that the original claim was erroneous, but reported its actual fall to the SAA 4.20.2016. <3 it. Quality stuff. Really adds to the accuracy of this template. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This happens with all sources but once again the anti Al Masdar editors are at it again .How erroneous its becoming 109.152.121.116 ( talk) 06:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a significant amount of fighting going on in in this area and I am pretty sure some parts of the map are either incomplete or simply wrong. Batallion 559 and the junction chechepoint are already put as IS held. But, because of troop movement in the area I am sincerely doubting that Rebels are holding the following places: Khirbat Butaymat, Saba Bayer, Rujm Mamur, and possibly Sad Rishe. If anybody has sources that they're actually Rebel and not IS held I'll retract my statement.
Furthermore, Khan Abu al Shamat and possibly the Badia Cement plant should be put on the map, and should be monitored the next fews days because some minor social media stuff has shown IS attacks. I believe it is SAA held, but there are reports of IS capturing the area, but they're all based on preliminairy Twitter stuff. Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.704349&lon=37.009163&z=12&m=b Sources: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-emir-damascus-killed-failed-eastern-qalamoun-offensive/, https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-repels-isis-attack-qalamoun-kills-top-emir/,
Based on the almasdar map, ( https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-east-al-qariyatein/), points in between al-Bardah and Tiyas Airbase should be red. There are two points north, Tulul al Khaddariyah and Qasr al Heir, that seem to have switched sides long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.137.18 ( talk) 17:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)