Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Kurdish presence in aleppo

source https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/561985092890144768

https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560952310776750080

https://twitter.com/sergermed/status/560576534407565312

same account have also mentioned about kurds+fsa rebels in Qazel, Ghara/Yani yaban, Dalhah & Baghirin these villages aren't even marked in this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 February 2015‎

YPG in KOBANE

According to this confirmed source YPG controlls zorava tel aotk korabi and susan are they even marked on the map?

https://twitter.com/ColdKurd/status/561294811094065153 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2015‎

Joum Ali in kobane.

Joum ali in kobane

https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/561974858951950336?lang=sv

It's completelly liberated why does the map show ISIS presence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 2 February 2015‎

Sources for Kobane countryside

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)

Khan Mamid in southern Kobane and Zurzuri east of Kobane are according to these Kurdish sources recaptured by YPG: http://adarpress.net/index.php/2013-07-29-08-54-39/6244-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84-%D8%A2%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8F-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%8F%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%83%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8F-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A

http://welati.info/nuce.php?id=20745&niviskar=743&cure=3 Roboskiye (talk) 22:14, 16 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 advancing south of M4 highway, controlling villages such as Joxur/Showkhur/Joqur, which will be added to the map. In addition to this village of Girik (Kirik Mawla) is under YPG control: http://www.alahednews.com.lb/fastnews/256388/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-5-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%83%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%88-10-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF#.VOSzCvnF870

http://qasion-news.com/ar/content/node/15802#sthash.roTXE8OH.dpbs

http://www.syriaday.net/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%80-ypg-%D9%8A%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%86-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D9%83%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A/

There are more villages mentioned in the sources which will be added after identification and finding their position in order to to clarify the frontline. Roboskiye (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Roboskiye you added a village named Joqur but with its position incorrect, please fix it --8fra0 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why it's incorrect? Roboskiye (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Its position is correct sorry, but however I doubt that YPG is yet controlling that town, is too far south. 8fra0 (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

YPG says they have put the Larafrge cement plant under siege. The village is only 6 km from Lafarge. Roboskiye (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ANHA reports a village named Xatunê/Khatuniyah south of Kobani http://en.hawarnewsagency.com/kobani-10-more-villages-liberated/#prettyPhoto Not sure about its position. Roboskiye (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Newly liberated villages, by Jack Shahine: https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/568360851939454976 8fra0 (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

But where is Khatuniya? South of Sarrin? Not clear. Roboskiye (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Army offensive in Daraa Governorate and Rif Dimashq

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 Starhere 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

The DailyStar is one of the most reliable neutral sources. The article is dated Feb. 16, 2015 (today). I have not seen a report today that says Kfar Shams fighting after the DailyStar article. Enough to turn Kfar Shams and Kfar Nasej to red.Ariskar (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

From reenters-battle/ AlMsdar fighting are ongoing. When those town are taken it would be announced by many sources. They must stay contested. Errors from newpapers are common, thay know much less than us the situation on the ground.Paolowalter (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That almasdar source is older than the Daily Star source. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

Al Nusra engaged in fierce fight against Hezbollah, IRGC and SAA in Tal Antar, Inkhil and Tal Hara in reef Daraa and reef Quneitra.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned about Kfar Nasej and Kfar Shams in that source Hanibal911. Pro government sources: http://www.syrianperspective.com/2015/02/al-qaeda-terrorists-suffering-enormous-losses-in-derah-as-patriotic-onslaught-continues.html mentions the capture of Kafr Naasij, as recognised by FSA document. SANA reports the frontline being further south at Zimreen town: http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=28769

Before reverting a commonly accepted reliable source, at least provide evidence of the opposite stated by it.Ariskar (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what Hanibal was trying to get it is the fact that the front line has now moved farther south. That would not be possible without the SAA' control of those areas [Kafr Shams and Kfar Nasej]. Seeing as a reliable source has already explicitly stated that these two areas are under SAA control and another reliable source has implied it, I will change them to red unless someone has significant evidence to suggest otherwise. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ariskar Syrian perspective it is just a blog which also very often dont work. So it is not the source of which can refute the data from a more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

According to both Leith Fadel and Peto Lucem, Kafr Shams is STILL contested as of 16 February, with the SAA advancing and encircling the city and fights inside it, but no complete control for either side. It should stay contested for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.242.132 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

TheDailyStar is an independent reliable source. A pro-government blog citing FSA alledged document claims SAA captured Kafr Nasej. SANA claims the frontline is further south. Enough data based on 1 reliable source and 2 pro-gov sources.Ariskar (talk) 13:08, 17 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)

It states also deaths and fighting inside ZimrinAriskar (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ariskar Al Masdar not neutral source need confirmation from more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Ariskar (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Rif Aleppo change

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%8646.100.115.120 (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/

Pro oppositio sources reported that Syrian troops take control villages Rityan Hardantain and Bashkuy ArchiciviliansAbdel RahmanhereAbdel Rahman Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also a reliable source reported that Syrian army backed by allied militia has captured several villages north of Aleppo from rebels and blocked a main supply route leading into the northern city amid heavy fighting.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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/

Syrian army backed by allied militia has captured several villages north of Aleppo.The Daily Star and another pro opposition source reported that Syrian troops take control villages Rityan, Hardantain and Bashkuy.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Aleppo city map needs updating .86.132.155.231 (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)pyphon

Here another pro oppositio sources reported that Syrian regular troops advancing in the countryside north of Aleppo, and take control the towns Rityan, Hardantain and Bashkuy.Syria Newsdesk Hanibal911 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed that army captured villages of BashkuySOHRSOHR and RityanSOHR and now clashes in east the village Bayanoon in Hardtnin area. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

The reliable source confirmed that Syrian troops take control villages Rityan, Hardantain and Bashkuy.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also Syrian army and Hezbollah advance from Shihan al-Maamel toward sheikh Maqsud in Aleppo and from Castello to al-Mallah.Elijah J. Magnier Bayanoon still in rebels hands but encircled.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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=b176.41.131.85 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 Erledigt Hanibal911 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I dont know how SOHR confirmed them captured earlier when just now fresh SOHR reported that SAA captured Ritan and clashes are taking places near the town and in the east of Byanon and Hardetnin.here.Lindi29 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Here is later a reliable source reported that Syrian troops take control villages Rityan, Hardantain and Bashkuy.Elijah J. Magnier and besieged Bayanoon.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Original report on Arabic from SOHR confirmed that Bashkuy and Rityan under control by army.hereand here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Hanibal911 i read that source but it is outdated now,SOHR just now reported this news on Ritan,Byanon and Hardetnin status.English-Arabic it doesn't matter it's the same source but it uses this 2 languages for those who can not speak arabic and for those who can not speak english.Lindi29 (talk) 15:07, 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 [1] 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 [2] 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)

EkoGraf here new reports there are fighting in Hardetnin area not in the town.here.Lindi29 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 That does not mean the fighting is not in the town and before that you had SOHR, and multiple other opposition sources, saying the whole day the village was ether contested or captured. EkoGraf (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Pro-gov Masdar [3] says the SAA even captured it. At the very least it should be marked as contested I could argue like you the fighting is around the village, but call on all the previous sources that said it was captured and put a red dot with a lime ring. But I will not do that. Marking it as contested is the proper neutral and compromising way.EkoGraf (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Heavily pro-opp Syria direct even made a claim the rebels recaptured the other two villages but that this one was still SAA-held. [4] So best to leave it contested for now. EkoGraf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This neutral source says Ratyan, Bashkoy and Hardetneed are seized by the SAA. Change it back to red, when even Paradoxy13 says the SAA seized is then we know it for sure it is lol. Yes use a lime circle to the north and east

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 [5] 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

The correspondent Edward Dark which writes for the reliable sources Al Monitor and Middle East Eye reported that regime forces managed to reach besieged towns of Nubol and Zahra.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

There is no uncertainty. The SAA has indeed made massive gains in Aleppo today, only thing left is whether or not the reached Nubl and Zahraa. Our job is to document the situation on the ground right now. Assuming that the SAA will lose its gains today or that they will pull out and acting upon that is a violation of WP: Crystal-ball. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:23, 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)

Pro opposition source Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cedric Labrouse) reported that clashes in the village Rityan still ongoing. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:03, 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 think Rityan and Hardatin and Duwar al Zaytoun are heavily contested while Pashqwi is SAA-held and Muarrasat al Khan is rebel-held. That's a compromise between pro-gov and pro-opp reports. Paolowalter Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 (talk) 08:02, 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)

Paolowalter Here two pro opposition source reported that clashes in Muarrasat al Khan.Local Coordination Committees of Syria and The Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cedric Labrouse) Hanibal911 (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

[6] I just saw the most recent SOHR post. It says rebels regained control over Rityan and Duwar al Zaytoun and advanced in Mallah. So those 3 should be contested but the report does not mention Pashqwi and Hardatin which means both should be SAA-held. Pro-gov sources also cited clashes only in Rityan. So my modified vote goes to:

*Muarrasat al Khan to rebel held (makes sense if Rityan is contested)

*Rityan and Duwar al Zaytoun to contested

*Pashqwi and Hardatin to SAA-held.

Thoughts? Paolowalter Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 (talk) 08:21, 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.

Rebels and pro-rebel channels said yesterday that those villages were recaptured. This morning SOHR said the same. In that case, why should these locations go contested instead of rebel-held ?? That's about it, for the rest i don't know. DuckZz (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well that's because SOHR is a pro-opp source. They had a post yesterday calling all rebel factions to attack the regime and prevent a siege on Aleppo. That's not neutral.

[7] [8] Pro-opp sources only citing rebel takeovers in Rityan and Duwar al Zaytoun. Neutral source confirming Pashqwi is SAA-held [9]ChrissCh94 (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

[10] Pro-gov source saying Rityan is contested.

So I think we should put Riyan and Duwar AL Zaytoun as contested, Pashqwi and Hardatin as SAA-held and as rebel-held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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 [11]. 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)

Alhanuty No need to reinvent the facts SOHR just said about Rityan and Duwar al Zaytoun and nothing more.SOHR So let's be edit only based on facts and not on guesswork. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also pro opposition source reported that clashes in the Khan al-AsalShu'ayb al-Yazdi Hanibal911 (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also today other reliable source confirmed that Rityan still under control by army.L'Expression Hanibal911 (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

[12] Pro-gov saying that SAA controls Hardatin and Pashqwi while Rityan is contested ==> Conclusion: Rityan is contested.

[13] SOHR said rebels captured Duwwar Al Zaytoun and Rityan and destroyed a tank in Pashqwi and did not mention Hardatin. ==> Conclusion: SAA still holds Hardatin and Pashqwi while Rityan and Douwar al Zaytoun are contested.

We can also conclude that Muarrasat al Khan is rebel-held since it is slightly behind the frontline. THEREFORE: Pashqwi and Hardatin are SAA-Held while Duwwar al zaytoun and Rityan are contested and Muarrasat is rebel held. Hanibal911 Paolowalter ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Here are just only now pro opposition source said that the rebels captured village Douwar al Zaytoun.here So it is indirectly confirms the fallacy of SOHR report and confirms that the village is still contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wtf, change Rityan back to red or at least to contested!! Mind you there's alot of takfiri propaganda going on right now (including SOHR), remember releasing some pictures on twitter about dead bodies doesn't say anything regardless some worthless claims like Markito0171, Archicivilians and others doSyAAF (talk) 12:40, 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)

Honestly SOHR is getting more and more biased and its reporting is getting worse with the day while Al-Masdar is getting more and more reliable with the day, at this point SOHR is just a bloody pro-opposition source in my eyes. Rityan is contested which the majority of the sources say so, i have seen no Video's or Images (and no dead bodies don't say anything) by anyone on twitter to back up their claims that Rityan has been recapturedSyAAF (talk) 13:21, 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)

LogFTW according to this sources Rebels captured Rityan but they dont hold any news for Hardtnin.SOHR,Reuters.Lindi29 (talk) 16:14, 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/89553677717574682.222.100.149 (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)

New data confirmed that Hardatin and Bashkoy still under control by army.Al Akhbar and Rityan still contestedAl AkhbarDocuments.sy Hanibal911 (talk) 17:26, 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)

Last Peto Lucem map, SAA control from the Aleppo City map until the template wider map of Hardatimto the north and Riftian to the East. Aproaching Al-Zara & Nulb.
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/no-sleep-aleppo-tonight-battle-intensifies-inside-city/#prettyPhoto/0/
200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Jordanian source Aramram Web TV reported that Duwayr Al-Zaytun not was recaptured by rebels and Hardatin still under conrol by army.Aramram Web TV Hanibal911 (talk) 18:04, 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)

Another new report from reliable source said that rebels have taken the Rityan Town.SOHR.Lindi29 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In this report SOHR just said that Islamic and rebel factions could capture 15 members of the regime forces during the clashes in the farmlands of Retyan in the north of Aleppo, where the Islamic and rebel battalions could retake the town yesterday night after violent clashes with the regime forces.SOHR So SOHR just says about the events that took place yesterday but not today. But this source that today clashes still continued.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR has lost any shade of credibility in this occasion. It has reported Rityan taken by rebels yesterday,

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)

SOHR's highly questionable post about how the rebels should fight to keep Aleppo free and the storm of rebel propaganda should call in to question ANY information SOHR publishes. So far, no other reliable source has confirmed many of these so called gains claimed by SOHR. Until the issue clears up, I propose a 3 day moratorium on SOHR for Aleppo editing and use only reliable sources such as EJM, Al-monitor, and Edward Dark. Paolowalter, could you change Rityan to contested, I believe I have used up my edit for the day. Thanks XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:27, 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)

That is precisely the problem. The situation is TOO fluid for an update. There is too much propaganda in the air coming from many sources, including our "reliable" SOHR [Riytan was recaptured twice, interesting...]. No reliable, neutral sources such as EJM or Al-Monitor have reported such success for the rebels. What we know is that the rebels have launched a counter offensive, what we do not know is how successful they were. I would give the situation maybe two days before their offensive goes out and we can accurately judge. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the amount of misinformation floating around and it is best to wait and see what happens. Regarding Reytan though, I believe it best to leave it as contested for now; pro-gov al-Masdar reporting 80% of Reytan has been captured by rebels/Nusra and NDF is still holding on to the NW part of the village. HarrySy (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

According to data from reliable source Elijah J. MagnierElijah J. MagnierSOHR and pro oppsition source Syrian Rebellion Observatory (Cedric Labrouse) rebels recaptured Rityan but Hardatin and Baskuy still controlled of army also clashes near the village of Hardatin. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The SAA has indeed retreated from Rityan but maintains control over Hardatin and Pahsqoy while Duwar al Zaytoun is contested and Muarrasat is rebel-held. [14]. This has been a Pyrrhic victory for the SAA. About 70 killed and 30 captured for 2 villages. The rebels also suffered slightly higher casualties despite being defenders. ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:48, 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)

Rebels recaptured village Hardatin and now clahses near the village Rityan.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So Hardatin to contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:27, 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

But later SOHR reported that the village of Hardatin still controlled by army but clashes still around this village and also helicopters dropped ammo and supplies for regime forces in village Herdatin.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

It is possible that the first report was erroneous. So no need to be ironic. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Original report from SOHR reported that clashes in Hardatin still continued and helicopters dropped ammo and supplies for regime forces in village.SOHR Also previously reliable source reported that rebels recaptured most part of Hardatin village. But group of regime forces are still besieged inside the village and clashes are still ongoing.The Daily Star So it is clear means that earlier today the rebels not fully captured Hardatin and clashes still continued. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Also according to data from the rebel leader villages of Dweir al Zaytun and al-Mallah still contested between Syrian troops and rebels and village of Bashkuy under control by army.Archicivilians It also confirms that SOHR yesterday hastened when reported that village Dweir al Zaytun was captured a rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The correspondent Edward Dark which writes for the reliable sources Al Monitor and Middle East Eye reported that said that village Rityan is on front line now and that a towns which were previously captured army still under regime control, supply line from Turkey to rebel-held east Aleppo still cut.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

Pro opposition source about which you said later published new map on which showed that Bashkuy under control by army and Hardathin and Duwayr al Zaytun still contested.here and pro opposition source Archicivilians also reported that Duwayr al Zaytun still contested.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Be patient it can be very long like Mork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Here new map from the pro government source Al Masdar Hanibal911 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

More precisley, Al Masdar states that "recapturing almost all of Ratyan" (Rytan contested or red half ring on east), Bashkawi and Hardatineen unde SAA/NDF control, not contested but with Gray ring around West and NW respectively, Duwayr al Zaytun and Khan Thouma unde SAA control (with gree-gray ring on the north). That makes sense and is not contraddicted by other sources. There is, as usual, some difference between pro-opp and pro-gov about a village being contested or simply on the frontline (ring). I guess we should adopt this situaton and wait further news..Paolowalter (talk) 07:20, 20 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)

Paolowalter Hanibal911 [15] TheDailyStar (pro-opp) saying regime controls Pashqwi and Hardatin, but it is besieged in the latter. ChrissCh94 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And the source The Daily Star at the bottom of article provide a link to the pro-opposition sources where source was take those data.The Syrian Network Hanibal911 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also as I mentioned earlier! The reliable source Edward Dark said that village Rityan is on front line now but other towns which army early gained still under regime control, supply line from Turkey to rebel-held east Aleppo still cut. And rebels aslo reported that Dweir al Zaytun still contested and Bashkut under control by army and not besieged.Archicivilians and pro government source also showed that Bashkuy and Hardatin under control by army and that Bashukuy not besieged and Hardatin not totally besieged.here Only pro oppostion source said that Hardatin totally besieged. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

- 20 February 2015.

• The beheaders claimed they controlled Al Mallah http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/rebel-and-islamic-fighters-take-a-full-control-on-al-mallah-and-kill-23-soldiers-from-regime-forces/

• New recent source according Lucem Fighting continued in Al Mallah and Army controlled Hardatin https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/568807707479834624 --LogFTW (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

LogFTW Peto Lucem is a pro-regime source and in this case we cant use this source to show advances for the regime.Lindi29 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR just said that rebels captured the Al Mallah farms and that clashes continue between Syrian army and their allies against rebels and Al Nusra in the vicinity of the villages of Herdatin, Bashkuy and Handarat.SOHRSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well SOHR reported clashes in Hardatin while pro-gov sources denied this and said clashes are on the outskirts of Rityan and Hardatin with Pashqoi Hardatin Handarat and Sifat fully controlled while in Mallah they lost about 2 farms out of 48. Rebels meanwhile claim to reach the outskirts of Handarat after fully capturing al Mallah farms (for the 10th time maybe).

So my recap on the situation: rebels hold Rityan and captured some farms in Mallah while regime forces maintain control over Pashqoi and Hardatin. Regime casualties are about 80 dead and 30 captured and it's about 90 dead for the rebels and 40 captured (SOHR claim). Pyrrhic victory for the regime, slight morale boost as well but the rebels have successfully regrouped, counter attacked and halted the regime offensive. 2 things surprise me: first how the rebels, being defendants, suffered so many casualties in friendly territory and second, how the regime also suffered substantial casualties in what seems to be the first "not-carefully-planned" regime offensive in Aleppo. Both sides know that this battle is the most important one yet. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 A small clarification SOHR just said that clashes in the vicinity of the villages of Herdatin but not said that clashes inside village of Hardatin.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also Zaher Saket the brigadier general of the chief of military council in Aleppo just said that town Raytan in Aleppo northern countryside under control by rebels. And nothing more.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also reporter from Aleppo Khaled Iskef states that al Mallah farms are still in control of Syrian army and rebels only take 2 out of 48 farms.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know but those are only pro-gov sources. As for SOHR they said clashes are around Hardatin and they never announced a rebel takeover so revert Hardatin to SAA-held but mark part of Mallah as contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here new maps from the pro government source Petro Lucem and from the pro opposition source Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Albasha Rida the reporter from the Al Mayadeen reported that Syrian troops and NDF withdrew from the village Hardatin after rebels cut the supply line to the village.Rida Albasha also pro opposition source said that earlier today Al Nusra took all of Mallaah and the Farms from regime, who had 50% and now regime retook some part of Farms.here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR also confirmed that clashes in Al Mallah still continued.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

Rhocagil Albasha Rida the reporter from the Al Mayadeen(pro gov) reported that Syrian troops and NDF withdrew from the village Hardatin after rebels cut the supply line to the village.Rida Albasha and also pro opposition source also said that Hardatin under control by rebels.Archiciviliansmarkito0171 Hanibal911 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here another pro opposition source also reported that Syrian troops held a counter-attack and recaptured a part of the al Mallah farms.here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source said that not all Al Mallah was taken by rebels and Al Nusra because Syrinarmy still in Mazare' Mallah.Elijah J. Magnier And source also said that Army still preparing to push more force and back into the battle filed and that would reconquer the lost territory.Elijah J. Magnier Also pro opposition source confirmed that Bashkuy still under control by army Duwayr Al Zaytun contested and army still controlled some areas in Al Mallah and clashes still continuedhereSyrian Rebellion Observatory Hanibal911 (talk) 10:50, 21 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 =

• The beheaders retake and controlled Rityan and Hardatnin
• The beheaders retake the major part from Al Mallah (Basically all of it area captured by the Army in 2014)
• Army captured Army captured Bashakuy

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)

Bashmara in Afrin

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)

Ignoring the fact that green doesn't mean islamist (although the caption of that map favours that designation), this shows the folly of using an unannotated map to show changes of control.

The map is also from a partisan pro-regime source, thus even if properly annotated (with times for each change of control), it should never be used alone to show regime gains.

This also underlines the weakness of our current free-for-all approach to maintaining the map. Originally changes were made to the tables as the map was updated, so we had documentation of the current map display. According to WP policy, it would be legitimate to revert the map to the latest documentation in the tables. Which for most locations, is sometime in 2012.

When I have more time, I'll propose a modification of our procedures (and the tables) to facilitate a documented and more accurate map. If someone else doesn't beat me to it. André437 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, 99,99% of FSA are hardscore islamists, no matter which ethnicity they belong to. In fact, secular Arabs are with Bashar and secular Kurds with YPG. Back to the topic, there is not a single source for islamists have recently clashed with YPG and captured Bashmara. Roboskiye (talk) 15:23, 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)

Pro opposition and pro government sources confirmed that area wher located village of Bashamrah now controlled by moderate rebels or Al Nusra.Petro Luce and Syrian Rebelion Observatory(Cedric Labrousse) But you can decide how to use these data. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:21, 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)

A common battle scenario - for reflection by editors

This scenario reflects what often happens in real battles between 2 well organized armies.

Army x sends several battalions into territory controlled by army y. The weather is not clear, and army y is caught by surprise, and doesn't notice the incursion right away. Army x takes a few villages.
When army y notices the incursion, they send reinforcements to the area, and in the counter attack army x suffers heavy losses and is forced outside most of the villages they have entered.
Army x sends reinforcements, and manages to reenter most of the villages they entered before, and there are heavy casualties on both sides. Additional reinforcements from army y arrive, and again army x is expelled, this time with much heavier casualties. The battle persists in one or two of the attacked villages. Army y regains total control of most of the battlefields, with dozens of fallen enemy soldiers.
Meanwhile, some forces of army x succeeded passing through enemy lines to attain an area under their control, but besieged by army y. News agency a, which relies on pro-army x media (they never listen to "terrorists"), reports that army x has made tremendous advances, describing the area controlled before army y counter-attacked, adding a little extra territory for good measure.
Map drawer b, relying on news agency a, quickly draws a new map, adding a little more for good measure. He always trusts news agency a, since he never listens to "terrorists" either. News agency c, who tries to be impartial even though he doesn't really like army x, reports the situation after the first counter-attack by army y, which retook most of the villages. News agency d, waits a while, and reports the situation during the second wave of attacks by army x. He doesn't trust "amateur videos", so he ignores the videos produced on the ground by various observers. He reports clashes in most villages, with army x in control of some.
Some observers on the ground later report that army y has regained control of almost all the villages, with clashes ongoing in the rest.

So of the various reporters, who is right ?
We could say they all are, although some exaggerate the situation according to their bias.

1) initially, army x gains a lot of territory, according to a and b

2) army y counter-attacks to expels them from much of the territory, according to c

3) army x sends reinforcements to retake much lost, according to d

4) at the end of the day, army y prevails in almost all the territory, with heavy losses for army x, according to observers on the ground.

This is a typical situation in a real war.

So what is my point ?
This isn't a video game. In real war, fortunes can change quickly, and what is true at one moment can be far from true a few hours later.
Since we are supposed to be indicating the situation for readers who will likely be viewing our map a few hours or days later, we don't have to try to give minute-by-minute results. Our sources aren't that up to date. They often depend on info days or even a week out of date. So we should wait until a situation stabilizes before posting changes. André437 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop the Propaganda Andre, Wp its not a Soapbox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

André437 This should be a math exercise in High School! Too many variables lol. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest RELIABLE source defines situation. Simple as that. Reliable. WP is not a soapbox! Ariskar (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@ 200.48.214.19 Propaganda ? Obviously you didn't understand, as well as not knowing where the soapbox rule should apply. I suggest you reread my post a few times, and maybe consult someone who knows what war is.

@ ChrissCh94 Math gets a lot more complicated after high school. Seriously, all editors should understand the points raised in my post.

@ Ariskar We should be looking at the reliability of the information. The track record of the source is only part of the puzzle.

@ everyone : In a rapidly changing situation open to quick reversals, it is not useful to update the map with uncertain info of the status of a day ago or 6 hours ago, when it likely would have changed. Sometimes the adage patience is a virtue applies in real life.

If you were to apply my post (with variations) to the recent situation north of Aleppo city, you would realize that the regime made minimal gains if not losses (to date) for very high casualties, and even more fighters captured. All those rebel videos of fields strewn with regime fighter bodies means that not only the regime lost many in the battlefield, but the rebels ended up controlling the battlefield. It was a disaster for regime forces.

You should all think about this the next time an unexpected advance occurs. If it were the rebels advancing, most editors here would show a lot more caution. As it should be for both sides. André437 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Jokes aside André437, you do have a point here. But it is us who were caught off guard. Usually SAA operations in Aleppo have been steady forward. There was no back and forth. They usually do not lose ground they gain. Well that was the past. This battle was different for many reasons. Till now it seems it is a Pyhrrhic victory for the SAA but who knows tomorrow what might happen because whoever triumphs in this battle, will probably have his fate sealed in Aleppo. I have to congratulate all editors who stayed up to date with the battle. The map edits were made in accordance with the rules and in fact it's something to be proud of. I don't see the point of having an out of date map. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Andre you are delutional......200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@ ChrissCh94 Indeed, as well as the rebels, the editors here were caught off guard. But it is definitely not the first time that an advance by one group in an area has been quickly reversed. Another more dramatic example is when Daesh took Raqqa. For 3 days near the beginning of january, the rebels (most FSA units that had nominally joined Nusra for protection against Daesh predation) had expelled Daesh from the city, although they remained besieged since Daesh blocked the bridges and other access to the city. During those 3 days, Daesh brought in large numbers of reinforcements, and subsequently captured the city.

In this case, our map was never up to date, since the status on the ground changed before the reports we depended on were even published. And of course, many editors rejected out of hand accurate reports from SOHR and others that showed rebels retaking lost villages. Before the news of the second wave of attacks by the regime, the rebels and observers were already publishing videos of battlefields strewn with bodies of regime fighters - after the second wave was repelled.

Even now, our map shows Hardatnin as contested, not accurate unless you consider the remaining regime fighters holed up in 2 buildings surrounded by rebel forces demanding their surrender as a significant regime presence. (Videos show rebels surrounding regime fighters shouting back and forth, with no gunfire.)

As well, a well disciplined rebel unit advanced to take the hills just south of Handarat village, an important regime loss that could lead to the rebels retaking all the area north of Aleppo city. For that, time will tell. But losing at least 200..300 fighters (dead + captured) is certainly not going to help the regime.

I might add that our goal should not be that of a news agency trying to show the latest "scoop". If someone wants the latest battle news, they are not going to look at our map. They are going to follow media sources like EJM and others, who often get it wrong. We should try to accurately reflect the situation which has been stable for the last few days. As well, we should be creating a history of the evolution of the civil war, by updating the tables as we make changes to the map. Something we have (collectively) been neglecting for the last year or more. Remember the WP guideline : Wikipedia is not a news agency.

@ 200.48.214.19 If recognizing the reality on the ground (after waiting for the information to come in) is "delutional" (delusional), so be it.

... André437 (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What you stated André437 came from rebel sources purely. Even SOHR said regime casualties are in the 100-120 as well as 30 POWs (rebels suffered similar losses, basic SOHR stuff). Regime sources are still insisting that the battles are AROUND Hardatin and Pashqwi. TheDailyStar [16] recently published an article affirming regime control albeit besieged in Hardatin. Depsite those indicators, we still used SOHR as a credible and privileged source and marked Hardatin as contested despite it being a pro-opp source. So in fact we are still marking an area as contested when SOHR mentions rebel advances in it, while when other pro-opp sources mention this we don't change anything. However we cannot use SOHR they way we used to do in the past because its credibility has been damaged quite alot. So we can't mark an area as rebel-held just because SOHR said so. But we will mark it as contested to keep using SOHR as a "superior" and more credible source than other pro-opp ones. However if SOHR continues its descent, I'm afraid it will be used the same way other pro-opp sources are: just to mark regime gains. ChrissCh94 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@ ChrissCh94 You seem to be missing a few points.

1) For the record, I advocated showing the rebel villages as contested when regime forces arrived, only to face a barrage of criticism, other editors insisting that they were regime controlled, mostly based on a pro-regime map, characterized as "reliable". That is like the canard that almasdar is "reliable", despite only uncritically echoing regime reports, according to their own claims.

2) The regime never established control over these villages. Presence does not equal control. This is evidenced by numerous videos (by various sources) showing battlefields strewn with regime bodies. Thus it was entirely inappropriate to ever have shown regime control over these rebel-held villages, even temporarily. Yet remarks on this page indicated that they were shown under regime control. If so, that was an error. (I didn't verify it.)

One commentator on this page had the disingenuous remark that the videos were really showing rebel bodies, despite quite a few close-ups showing regime insignia and/or id, and some even showing iranian id. As well, it was obvious that the rebels were in control of these battlefields.

3) When the few remaining regime forces in Hardatnin were partially or fully besieged, they were in no way a threat to rebel control. So the village was no longer contested.

4) As far as SOHR statements of casualties and prisoners, is it well known that SOHR is conservative in its' estimates (requiring strict confirmation to support its' figures), and thus tends to be somewhat late in reporting figures. You give figures of 100-120 + 30 = 130-150. The few videos and photos I've seen show at least 100 bodies in battlefields + at least60-70 prisoners. Thus at least 160. Since I can't possibly have seen all, and also considering the dead and wounded that remained in regime possession, 200 would be a reasonable estimate of minimum regime losses. I said 200..300, but some (pro-rebel) sources claimed much higher numbers.

5) The article you cite says (in one sentence) that the regime was "besieged" (in 2 of the 3 villages, not 1), but what do they mean by "besieged" ? We used besieged to indicate that the inside party has real control in the area. Not for temporary incursions where the forces are surrounded with no control. (And no heavy weapons, BTW.) As well, we knew it was an unstable rapidly changing situation. How out of date was the article when it was published ?

6) In sum, the 3 villages in question should have been changed to contested and never regime held, and reverted to rebel held as it became apparent that the regime offensive failed. Following WP guidelines, we should use a conservative approach in our changes to the map. That is not what is happening.

You shouldn't be surprised that this is perceived as a pro-regime bias, also evident in the comments of a number of other contributors. André437 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me answer you point by point. André437

1) We used SOHR and TheDailyStar to prove that Hardatin and Pashqoi were regime-held while Rityan was contested. Rebel sources explaining their counter-attack blamed the regime takeover on treason. So yes the regime DID FULLY TAKE OVER those 2 towns.

2) They established a presence there that's why the frontline was moved to an area near Nubl and Zahraa and not inside those villages (at first)

3) Regime forces were besieged in Hardatin yet they broke the siege and returned to Pashqoi, they broke through hostile lines thus they are considered a threat.

4) SOHR always overestimates regime casulaties. Prisoners you saw were partly those detained in Myasat Hill while not all the dead are filmed once. Basic propaganda used by both rebels and regime forces. SOHR even stated 50 rebels are captured by the SAA yet the latter did not film them, does this mean the capture did not take place? I'm surprised you still take video/photo evidence seriously in this conflict.

5) In fact they (SAA troops) were besieged in Hardatin while retaining control over most of it. That's how they managed to retreat without POWs. Unlike Rityan where I was the first to say that it was contested and that's where they were practically besieged in a building. 2 very diff scenarios to compare. Hardatin was besieged yet under SAA control until they safely withdrew .

6) In sum what happened is that the SAA took over Pashqoi (the main obj of the campaign) yet found no resistance and took over Hardatin and reached Rityan. However the rebel counter attack was swift thanks to Jabhat al Nusra and the influx of weapons and manpower from the countryside and from Turkey. They outflanked the SAA in Rityan (which was already contested) and managed to besiege a group of 30 fighters while the rest broke the siege and went to Hardatin/Zahraa (proves my point that besieged troops are perfectly capable of acting cf. Tabaqa airbase.). Then the rebels captured most of al Mallah and besieged Hardatin. The SAA did not have time to fix its positions in Hardatin, thus they retreated with their heavy weaponry to Pashqoi. It can be summed as: Rebels takeover most of Al Mallah farms thus preventing a siege while regime forces capture Pashqoi and get closer to Nubb-Zahraa. Pyrrhic and partial victory for both sides: regime offensive partially (if not mostly) failed with heavy casulaties for only 1 village while rebels, as defendants, also suffered nearly as much casualties and POWs despite their gain. ChrissCh94 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop using SOHR as a RS.

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)

They had a post a few days ago where they called out to rebel factions to unite and counter the "Iranian" siege on Aleppo. We all know for a fact that SOHR is a pro-opp agency. But it, like Al Masdar, reports gains on both sides. We don't use the casualty figures those 2 provide, we use their field data. For example when SOHR says regime advanced, thats 95% true. The same goes for Al Masdar when it says rebels advanced. However when SOHR says rebel advanced, that means area is contested. This ALSO goes for Al Masdar. Both agencies have biased editors-in-chief. But they do report gains on both sides. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR should stop being used as a source for rebel gains. Common sense. Ariskar (talk) 14:00, 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)

Fully agree. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:21, 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 agree with you but SOHR and Al Masdar are slightly different and more accurate than other sources so I suggest that: when SOHR reports rebel advances we should mark the area as contested and when Al Masdar reports SAA advances we also report it as contested. Other (pro-opp and pro-gov) sources should be used only for the opposing side's gains.

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)

SOHR WAS an authentic source. After 2013 when the tide of war started to turn it became the "Child's killer" and "Iranian siege" and "Afghan Warriors" agency. It basically evolved in the opposite way Syrian Perspective (Al-Masdar) did. Frankly reading their reports makes me laugh when it comes to casualties, but still it can be used to mark an area as contested when it mentions rebel advances in this area. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Alhanuty most editors agree SOHR have lost credibility, and its true. Since 2013, especially after the Battle of Yabroud , Sohr become virally biased, a pure propaganda media. Al masdar its giving a lesson they have become more serious , however much more efforts are needed to become a RS. Stop the Propaganda Wp its not a SOAPBOX. Andre Alhanuty200.48.214.19 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually its incorrect that most editors agree SOHR lost credibility. The last discussion we had on the issue of SOHR a month or so ago ended in a virtual stalemate with an equal number of editors being for and against SOHR and we had dozens of discussions before that in the previous years that always ended with most agree, based on reliable sources, that it is one of the most precise sources we have. EkoGraf (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is. The last SOHR discussion ended with a 6-5 majority of editors OPPOSING SOHR as an absolute source. In order to find a solution that addresses the concerns of ALL editors [consensus], rather than remove SOHR from editing, we now use it WITH a corroborating neutral reliable source. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well if it wasn't for SOHR now the map will be like trash beacause the pro-regime editors prefer Al-Masdar who is a pro-regime source and her reports come from loyalists source,Example Rityan case nobody provided sources when this village was recaptured they ignored those sources and tryed with other source who are not that reliable as SOHR but in the end SOHR was showing the real status for this village –also other reliable source like Reuters,BBC etc, confirmed it.So SOHR is a reliable source for this war.Lindi29 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"also other reliable source like Reuters,BBC etc, confirmed it" Evidence please. As for SOHR being the reliable source, look at the mess they are making with Hardatin, first they said rebels in control, then they said rebels in control again, then they said that the SAA is getting airdrops into the twon, so no, it is not THE reliable source. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 20:05, 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

Indeed, SOHR is becoming so confusing at times, often they contradict eachothers articles. SOHR should be just used as a pro-opposition source while we should also change our attitude towards Al-Masdar, they have been posting very reliable last months SyAAF (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Lack of SOHR relaibility has been shown in different circumstances and SOHR supporter have never been able to argue in favour of SOHR. Thay just ignore the facts.

Reverse is true for Al Masdar.Paolowalter (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We cannot take a vote, since Wikipedia is not a Democracy [This is an official policy]. Rather, we must make consensus, and address concerns of most editors and come up with a solution. The majority of editors on the last discussion [6-5] said that SOHR should not be used for rebel gains. We must listen to the majority, but not ignore the minority, so the solution is to use SOHR for changes with a corroborating neutral source such as EJM. That way it is not absolute and is not utterly rejected either. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR its not the only reliable source, Archicicilians its less biased that SOHR, the same for deSyracuse. Most of their maps are updated and are very acurate. But SOHR its 100% propaganda since mid 2013 its reliability have droped to the botton.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:14, 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)

Moderate your temper dont bark hate and disinformation Alhanuty.200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

XJ-0461 v2 here is the evidence for Rityan.Reuters,SyAAF,Paolowalter Al-Masdar reports with pro-regime sources twitter Syrian Agency News,etc,suddenly is now reporting unbiased articles No you just want to edit with pro-regime loyal sources,DeSyrcause uses all sources on his report Neutral,pro-rebel,pro-kurd,pro-regime,Most of Archicivillians reports are based on amateur videos and it bases his reports on these videos sources.Lindi29 (talk) 22:51, 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)

You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of consensus. Consensus "takes into account all of the proper concerns raised" . How can you claim to have a consensus on SOHR when you ignore the majority. Consensus is not an explicit process either, rather it can implied through editing. I tried to find a solution by suggesting that SOHR be used with corroboration. If you do not like that, then fine, but you have no consensus anymore. A new solution must be found because SOHR as an "absolute source" ignores the will of the majority, and thus fails to achieve its stated objective. On a side note, There is one important difference between Al-Masdar and Archicivilians and that is that what Al-Masdar reports actually happens, which is kind of an important difference. Al-Masdar has proven that is just as reliable as SOHR, only real difference between them now is that one is actually LESS biased [You do not see Al-Masdar calling rebels "Afghan mercenaries" do you] and uses better English. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you have trouble understanding the concept of Wikipedia consensus. Let me quote it for you. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. So, previously, before that last discussion, you had a consensus on a wider scale regarding SOHR to use it as a reliable source. Unless you can convince the broader community that your action is right, the status quo remains. Or in other words, previous agreements remain. And I repeat again, a majority of one is not taken into account by Wikipedia under any circumstances because Wikipedia does not work on a system of voting, it is not a Democracy and most importantly one person more certainly does not constitute a broader community. So, that is how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 15:07, 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)

You do not seem to understand, so I will walk you through the idea of Consensus Very Slowly. Consensus is the "primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. ... Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns..." That is exactly your problem here. The current consensus FAILS to incorporate the concerns of the MAJORITY of editors and is NOT accepted by the majority as the best method to achieve our goals. Simply because we did not get a majority that is high enough, does not mean that the old consensus established years ago stands.That would be true in a democratic system, and Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. The "wider consensus" that you speak of NO LONGER EXISTS. That is plain to see. How can you claim to have "wider consensus" when the majority are against you. Theoretically, if you could claim to have "wider consensus" while being in the minority, you could keep SOHR's current status indefinitely. The old days of SOHR are over, a new consensus must be reached that fulfills the statement above. I am trying to get you to suggest one and compromise, but you remain adamant on clinging to the past. It does not work that way. The will of the majority of editors cannot be ignored and the minority heard simply because the majority is not large enough. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

First, your condescending tone is not in line with Wikipedia's policy on civility and assuming good faith. Second, for the 100th time, a majority of one is not an accepted majority by Wikipedia's standards. Per Wikipedia policy you need a broad consensus to change policy, which a majority of one is not. I am not claiming to have a wide consensus, to the contrary, I acknowledge there is no consensus at the moment. What I am pointing out that you are in need of a wide consensus if you want to affect change. Which you do not at the moment. If a consensus can not be achieved, like in this case, than the status quo applies, which is that we continue to use SOHR as before. Its not a matter of me clinging to the past, its simply Wiki policy. EkoGraf (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please can we try to keep this content dispute limited to the policies and the content, and make it into a discussion rather than an argument? It's not going to help solve this issue, nor improve any of our mental states if users patronise others or put words in each others mouths. We're here to work together. If circumstances make that difficult and you can't fix them, consider WP:DR. Banak (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 02:14, 21 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

ISIS in Eastern Homs

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)

I also think they should be removed. We will never know the fate of 95% of those villages because they are too small/insignificant for any source to report on. They will just stay black. I think we should just remove them and only add front line villages in the area.HarrySy (talk) 17:34, 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)

Almost unbelievable how such a groups have supporters. I really think, those people are paid for edits/support of islamist hardline groups. Imagine those ISIS/JAN fanboys life if the Emirate of Al-Baghdaddy or Alnusra,takes place in their European Countries(France & Belgium), they are defending a cruel & tyrant Groups. 200.48.214.19 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 I added them with a source and actually I wanted to show the clear frontline there,at least I managed to show the frontline thanks to the regime advance on this area after many reports but I also added some other places to beacause there is a big vacum on that area,also LogFTW You can add those villages with sources,in many these area that u spoke i think to that we should add more villages,HarrySy if they are not necessary provide source that show the opposite and also for those red dots that removed from Hasakah/Qamishli countryside I am against it to.Lindi29 (talk) 20:13, 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

Pyphon "The point for add those villgaes is beacause in that area there was a big vacum and also it wasn't showing the frontline I didn't add them myself but I provided source, also adding villages(dots) it makes the map more clearly and easier for people to read".Read carefully I didn't add them myself:"I dont want them to be just like I want", that's what i was saying when i said "I didn't add them myself",but I provided source, dont confuse or manipulate thing read carfullfy next time.Lindi29 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding villages to fill the void is one thing, spamming the area (seen here) is another Lindi29

I also think the villages south of Qamishli should be reduced a bit too. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 spamming NO? reducing the sieze of the dot Yes I agree but not removing the villages beacause I provided source for them.Lindi29 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you provided dozens of sources, the presence of the villages serves no purpose on the map. I'm not saying we revert the edit. Just remove some villages and keep the "front-line" ones and some in the center to fill the void. But villages like this in fact make it seem as if it's a densely populated area while in fact those villages are mostly farms in a desert. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

Jointly Kurds and rebels offensive against ISIS in Raqqa

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 StarAl 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)

Seems that SOHR have confirmed it: http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/ypg-and-its-allies-advance-and-take-control-on-more-than-240-villages/. Now is the time to change the areas 25 KM from Tall Abyad from black to yellow.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Noone knows the names of the villages? Many villages east of Bexdik last week were edited to YPG controlled after an article in Aranews told about the YPG advance in the area, but it was proved wrong in the following days. --8fra0 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Mistakes of translate reports from SOHR

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)

Yes I too have witnessed cases like this. It's better to be a bit cautious when using the English reports by SOHR. Saeed alaee (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would use the original Arabic writing since it seems the English versions are a bit off. EkoGraf (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

JAN in Idlib

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).SOHRSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So maybe the town of Hish and the Al-Hamidiyah military camp whichlocated in Jabal al-Zawiya now under control by Al Nusra. But all this is only my guess and I do not claim that these objects are really under the control of Al Nusra. I just want hear the views of other editors about this. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hardatin

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)

Albasha Rida the reporter from the Al Mayadeen reported that Syrian troops and NDF withdrew from the village Hardatin after rebels cut the supply line to the village.Rida Albasha Hanibal911 (talk) 21:40, 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)

Newly liberated villages in Kobane/tel ebyad

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)

Daraa NW

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

Paolowalter pro opposition activist also said that now going clashes to east from village Zimrin and to north from Simlin.here In this area located positions of the Syrian troops.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Tel Fatima was turned gray on the basis of Al Mansar news [18], then the same source reported the reconquer by SAA. It is somewhow backed up by SOHR that reports fighting in the area. Hard to believe we need additional sources when the same source reports a reverse to the previous situation.Paolowalter (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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))

Paolowalter deSyracuse source showed situation on 9 Februaryhere and showed that Himrit under control Syrian army but source al Masdar of 13 February reported that army captured village Himrit.al MAsdar So that this source is newer and confirms that this village until 13 February was as contested. But according to the rules of editing we cant use pro-government sources to display success of army. So need data from pro opposition or neutral source that this village under control by army. Here pro opposition source which showed situation on 11 February showed that Himrit contested Syrian Rebellion Observatory (Cedrik Labrouse) So as I said earlier need confirmation from a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 the biggest problem of this report and these maps is that they were from 9-11 february, today is 22 february and we have not any pro oposition source which say something about situation in NW Darra, only about offensive in Tall Fatima hill. (217.99.151.213 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

Homs

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)

Andylee Sato See the history of editing. There you all see. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely not a very experienced wikipedia user. I tried reading the history before, but I seem to be unable to find the information I am looking for. That's why I bother you with opening this section. --Andylee Sato (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Andylee Sato This is a very big job to collect all the sources that were used for editing in a long time. But believe me that everything editings on this map in the northern part of the Homs province been confirmed by reliable data from the sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I never questioned that! I was just wondering whether there were any changes to that region at all (my impression was, that red was slowly gaining ground). All I asked was whether my impression is true or not. The validity and work of the editors is out of question for me, as I have absolutely no clue on how you do that stuff. --Andylee Sato (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Northern Aleppo YPG - Rebels control line

May be some skilled editor could update the inactive front line between YPG controlled Afrin and rebels, between Turkish border and Nubl, based on my jan 22 map :

The line of control is based on reliable information I got from a rebel fighter who stationed along that border 2 years ago. As there was no fighting between both parties for the lest 2 years, I think it is still OK. I noticed at least 2 names to change to green : Ziyara and Deir Jamal, but there may be others.

DeSyracuse (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you think who control the Minakh airbase ? Rebels or Al Nusra members ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Minakh Air Base taken of Al Nusra after clashes against rebel group Northern Knights Brigades.Al Monitor Also deSyracuse pro opposition and his data may be some times biased in favor the rebels. Still, maybe you're right about the villages Ziyara and Deir Jamal. But for greater certainty I think that we need search more data from neutral sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand the verification process although I deny to be pro-opp, but working on a historian approach of the conflict. In this case, I think the towns we talk about were originally put in yellow based on no reliable information, as well as the (now ISIS controlled) Al Ra'i kurdish pocket. Basically in this area, YPG holds the hights, and other rebels the plains. I just think this info would improve the accuracy of the mapDeSyracuse (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to improve the accuracy of our map? We are your competitor... Tradedia^talk 21:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Any update on the YPG advance in Kobani,especially inside Raqqa province.Alhanuty (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Some, but YPG OPSEC follow 48 hours rule, only after that information is released to public. Other than that does probably not meet Wiki standards. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:55, 21 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)

Alongside Jabhat al-Akrad, there are a a lot of Kurdish Islamic brigades active in northern Aleppo countryside. Roboskiye (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Tradedia Why classify DeSyracuse as a "competitor" ? . Isn't it everyone's interest to convey accurate info of the situation on the ground ?

BTW, unlike many editors here, I firmly believe that DeSyracuse is neutral. He also readily cooperates with other map producers and reporters on the Syrian conflict. We can only gain by cooperation .. my 2¢ .. André437 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I classify him as a “competitor” because I cannot classify him as a “source”. A real source is a professional media organization. We don’t know anything about DeSyracuse other than that he has a twitter account and draws maps of the war. We don’t know his real name, his qualifications or his methods. We don’t know if he is using sources or if he is guessing. He is an amateur map maker just like us. And I have no indication that he is better than us. He has been wrong many times before and we made our correct map wrong because we copied his mistakes. Tradedia^talk 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

you are free to use or not my maps. There is no map with no mistake as nobody, even what you call "professionnal media organization" don't have people on the ground on every front. In addition, I can tell you they very often release completely wrong maps, and when they issue close to reality maps, it's based upon one of the "amateur maps" such as mine or Archicivilians or Petolucem. For example, BBC did several times with my maps. Anyway, you talk about i've been wrong many times. Can you give me precise examples please ?DeSyracuse (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Our map was created to reflect reliable sources. It was not created to copy someone else's work. This is like if you are a student, instead of writing your exam on your own, you start copying from your neighbor’s exam sheet.

There is a major difference between our map and your map. Our map marks towns (or bases, etc.) that we have information for. On the other hand, your map colors the whole Syrian territory assigning a control status to every area. Do you really have enough information to assign every area in the country to a specific party? What about close to empty areas? Do you have information to be able to draw the frontlines in these areas? Our map has started by marking all the towns for which we had information/sources. We did not have the aim to cover the whole Syrian territory. I prefer not to guess. If we don’t have reliable sources/information about an area, we should just leave it empty.

I agree with you about "professional" maps. They are often approximate and this is normal as their readers are usually only interested in getting a general idea about the situation is Syria. The problem is not these professional maps or amateur maps (like yours). The problem is the attitude of some of our wikipedia map editors who think that maps from reliable sources are completely detailed and exact. So they end up copying them 100%, often overriding reliable sources that we already have about some locations. So they end up making our correct map wrong because they copied an approximate map. Also, some editors think that because an amateur map is classified as pro-rebel, it means that map is always correct for the towns that it marks as under gov control (and vice versa for pro-gov maps) However, this does not need to be the case, and we need to be examining all sources, instead of blindly copying someone else's map. For example, just because Peto Lucem is classified as pro-gov, does not mean all the rebel areas on his maps are correct. Many months ago, he had the area around Al-Tulaysiyah marked as rebel held (you can read all about it in the archives of this talk page). However, I was able to find a source that showed that in reality it was gov held. We informed Peto Lucem of his mistake and he corrected it. I don't fault Peto Lucem for making a mistake. I fault our editors for copying his mistake blindly without checking other sources. It is the same with any other internet map including yours.

Yes, i can give you 2 recent examples off the top of my head where your map was wrong and we copied you and made our correct map wrong:

1- See Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 34#Abu al-duhur airbase

2- Your map dated 8-january-2015 shows Kafr Shams gov-held. This was before the large gov offensive (beginning february). So we know it was wrong since one of the gov offensive’s objectives was to capture Kafr Shams.

So to summarize, for me, an internet Syria war map is not a “source” by Wikipedia standards. Tradedia^talk 12:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Suwayda

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)

Al Masdar not said that Syrian army recaptured villages Tal-Asfar and Tal-Delfa. Source just said that army protects these villages from possible atack ISIS and some Al Nusra fighters which joined to ISIS in the surrounding villages east of the besieged area; this includes Tal Asfar and Tal Delfa.Al MasdarSo source clearly said that this villages Tal Asfar and Tal Delfa also located in area which besieged ISIS. But not said that this villages controlled ISIS. And SOHR just said that clashes erupted between the regime forces against the rebel and Islamic battalions around of Tal al- Asfar region.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So Al Masdar and SOHR juse said that ISIS located around of Tal al-Asfar region. Also Tal-Delfa it is not village it is military object which is under control by army this earlier confirmed the pro opposition source.Archicivilians and Tall Asfar not village it is also military object. But only antigovernment sources reported that military object Tall Asfar and the village of Al Haqf under control by ISIS.ArchiciviliansdeSyracuse But we cant use data from this source in this issue. Need data from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:54, 22 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)

Um Sharshouh

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)

Paolowalter Pro opposition source confirmed that village controlled of army.Qasion news Hanibal911 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So what if they have barriers inside the town that doesn't mean they fully control the town. And no pro-regime source ever mentioned a takeover. Revert it back to contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 Erledigt Hanibal911 (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Turkish ground forces intervention

We now have confirmed that Turkish ground forces crossed into Syria through Kobane border crossing and are on the way to Suleiman Shah tomb. According to Turkish source this involved at least 40 armored vehicles (photos showing also several tanks) and helicopter air support.

http://www.sanliurfa.com/mursitpinar-kapisinda-suleyman-sah-hareketliligi/1671429589/

This is unlikely last rotation of TSK in the tomb last year, this is combat intervention. Should we put up a tomb on a map and marked it as under control of Turkish troops / contested currently? EllsworthSK (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

go ahead,i believe so,put turkey as Purplish red,to distinguish from Regime forces.Alhanuty (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But the tomb of Sulayman Shah is turkish territory and not syrian, so imho is a nonsense to put a new icon on the map, we should edit the background map instead (even if it would be a tiny dot) --8fra0 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AlhanutyEllsworthSK Turkish army just send 700 soldiers and 39 tanks for safe transport the of Tomb Salesman Shah from the ISIS territory on the Turkish territory where will be a new location the of Tomb Salesman Shah.Elijah J. MagnierElijah J. Magnier Turkish forces entered into Syria overnight to rescue about 40 soldiers who had been surrounded for months by Islamic State militants while guarding the tomb of a revered Turkish figure. The military said no clashes took place during the operation although one soldier had been killed in an accident.

The 38 soldiers who had been guarding the tomb of Suleyman Shah, grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, were brought safely home. The tomb, which is on a site within Syria that Ankara considers sovereign territory, was relocated.Reuters And here on photos the Turkish soldiers fixing a flag in the new location of tomb Suleiman Shah on the Turkish-Syrian borders.Elijah J. Magnier So that it just the 700 Turkish sokdiers from Special Forces were used in the removing of Tomb Salesman Shah from ISIS territory.Elijah J. Magnier and here new location of the Tomb Suleiman Shah on the Turkish territory.Elijah J. MagnierPanoramio So that we dont need new mark on map. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Another source said that 40 Turkish tanks and armoured vehicles entered to the areas which controlled of Kurds heading towards tomb Suleyman Shah in order to lift siege of ISIS forces in this area here which was besieged of Kurds.Fer Gunay Hanibal911 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Khaled Khoja the president of the Syrian Coalition said that the tomb Sleiman Shah inside Syria has been "safely" relocated to Turkey. Syrian National Coalition & FSA were informed of this plan.Khaled Khoja Hanibal911 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The location of Suleyman Shah's tomb is a sovereign territory of Turkey according to France-Turkey 1921 Agreement. Syria obeyed and still obeys that agreement, and since 1921 every sovereignty symbols (Flags, Soldiers, etc.) of Turkey appeared on that territory. When Syria-Turkey border is drawn in 1921, the border separated some villages into two. The naming of most of these villages currently are like that: the part of the villages in Turkey's side is named in Turkish. The parts of the villages in Syria's side is named as the Arabic of the Turkish name or the original Turkish name was protected but with Arabic spelling. This is valid for the new place of the tomb as well: Turkish Eşme (Esme) is in Turkey's side, Syrian Ashma is in Syrian side. Turkey transferred sovereignity of 10000 m2=0.01 km2 territory together with the tomb in Qaraqozak inside another place within Syria (i.e., Syrian Ashma; 200 m from Turkey-Syria border). The Turkish flag is raised in Ashma (200 m from the Turkey-Syria border). The corpses of Suleyman Shah is temporaly in Turkey. When the grave and tomb in Ashma is finished, the corpse of Suleyman Shah will be transferred to Ashma. Hence, sovereign territory was exclave of Turkey, now it is juxtapositioned to Turkey.
• The current change of Suleyman Shah's tomb is not the first change of the sovereign territory within Syria. Due to several reasons (new dams affecting the tomb etc.), sovereign territory of Turkey within Syria was changed earlier many times: 1. From original place to the Caber Castle. 2. From Caber Castle to Qaraqozak village. 3. From Qaraqozak village to Ashma. In all of these changes, sovereignity of Turkey was protected. i.e. Only Turkish flag, Turkish soldiers can be located in that 0.01 km2 territory.

• In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map#Ashma , there must be a symbol of tomb must be put. And, Ashma must be indicated as Turkey's territory.212.174.38.3 (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hanibal911 says: "...The tomb, which is on a site within Syria that Ankara considers sovereign territory,..."

Ankara Treaty 1921: http://www.hri.org/docs/FT1921/Franco-Turkish_Pact_1921.pdf

Article 9: The tomb of Suleiman Shah, the grandfather of Sultan Osman, founder of the Ottoman dynasty (the tomb known under the name of Turk Mezari), situated at Jaber Kalesi shall remain, with its appurtenances, the property of Turkey, who may appoint guardians for it and may hoist the Turkish flag there.

Hanibal911, since 1921 no Syrians entered the tomb's area without the allowance of Turkey, and cannot enter hereafter as well. You say "...Ankara considers...". It is not only "...Ankara considers..." but also "...accepted and respected by Damascus and the others...". After Syria lost the territory (all the areas and territories around the tomb) to ISIL, ISIL respected the tomb's area as well. Turkish government said any attack on the tomb is a casus belli.212.174.38.3 (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

YPG advance in Qamislo

ANHA (kurdish source) states that YPG has taken 22 villages from ISIS in south Qamislo here: https://twitter.com/dilkocer/status/569402740016877568 . Can anybody confirm this news? --8fra0 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

8fra0 The data in this source Cahida Dêrsim taken from pro Kurdish sources ANHA Hawar News Agencyand ANF News and we cant use this data because according to the rules of editing we cant use pro Kurdish sources to display success of Kurds. Need confirmation from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 that's why I've written here before editing the map, looking for neutral sources. --8fra0 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources are also reporting about a Peshmerga/YPG joint attack to villages near the border in east Hasakah: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/569490519677661184 --8fra0 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by SOHR, so the villages mentioned before can be edited I think. http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/ypg-takes-control-over-20-villages-and-farmlands-in-al-hasakah/ --8fra0 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Another time SOHR inform about progres in this area without name of village. This same situation half month ago, when SOHR inform about SAA advance in this area (217.99.151.213 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC))

8fra0 So for now I understand you just provide initial data from Kurdish source in order to we could look for more information on this subject based on your data! But now we have enough data from reliable sources that would edit the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 yes but I am not able to find those villages, if you know the correct positions you can add them. --8fra0 (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoever edited the map got it wrong, the twenty liberated villages are around Xirbet Cihash not directly south of Qamishli.

186.116.23.131 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

186.116.23.131 I not make this editing on map but if you specify the right coordinates where these villages located I will correct this mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 You can find Taya and Mazluma here, with Tuwayl a bit to the southeast: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.885937&lon=41.513214&z=12&m=b

Cilbarat is here:

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.817256&lon=41.682816&z=12&m=b

186.116.23.131 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to ANHA, YPG liberated three villages southwest of Jaz'ah. The villages are: Xezaa (Khaz'ah), Selîma (Salim), Temîm (Tamim). http://ku.hawarnewsagency.com/li-cezaaye-3-gund-hatin-rizgarkirin/ Roboskiye (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is Khaz'ah on the map. Salim and Tamim are to the right of this village. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.582521&lon=41.666164&z=14&m=b&show=/30379066/Khaza-ah 46.239.121.121 (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

From AlMasdar advances of SAA and YPG toward Tal Hamees. Khaz'ah is claimed to be under control of SAA, maybe is controlled by SAA and YPG.Paolowalter (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ANHA reports more than a dozen of new villages are liberated northeast and southeast of Tal Hamis. http://ku.hawarnewsagency.com/li-til-hemis-u-qamislo-rezecalakiyen-bi-bandor/ http://ar.hawarnewsagency.com/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-14-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%88-%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%84-%D8%AD%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B3/#prettyPhoto

Some of the villages in northeast are:

Damerji: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.827510&lon=41.473764&z=17&m=b Tal Qarsa: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.833251&lon=41.436433&z=18&m=b Shura: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.811668&lon=41.395508&z=17&m=b Safiya: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.845562&lon=41.625862&z=19&m=b Khirbat Bagh: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.834896&lon=41.647671&z=19&m=b

Some of the villages in southeast of Tal Hamis are:

Tamim: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.578437&lon=41.623421&z=16&m=b Wael: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.567874&lon=41.542675&z=16&m=b Taglab: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.564996&lon=41.524887&z=16&m=b Rabia: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.550940&lon=41.475486&z=18&m=b Roboskiye (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is unreliable,and there is not any known presense of SAA there. for the status of the villages to the north of Tal Hamis,what should be done.Alhanuty (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Alhanuty in your world yes, but in real world AlMasdar in this area is more reliable than sohr and isis. From AlMasdar: North of Tal Hamees, the Syrian Arab Army - backed by the National Defense Forces - are gaining on Al-Husiniyyeh. Fierce clashes south of Tal Hamees at Al-Saleema between the #YPG and #ISIS - if the YPG can break-through here, Tal Hamees will be besieged. (217.99.76.209 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

Any source that just echos regime sources without analysis is a regime source. Thus almasdar is a regime source. Saying otherwise is simply nonsense.

SOHR is an independent source, not tied to any party. They may have a preferred outcome, but according to WP guidelines that does not disqualify a source from being reliable. Since SOHR has a record of criticizing human rights abuses by all sides, and reports advances of all parties, it was decided by consensus that SOHR is a neutral source. Almost all criticisms of inaccuracy of SOHR posts have been unfounded. Because of their process of confirmation, some posts have been outdated, but that is true of all sources. The recent failed advances by the regime north of Aleppo city is a good case in point.

BTW, could editors leave a blank line between posts so they don't run into each other ? André437 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source reported that according to data from Kurdish military sources YPG forces were able to control the villages of Ziyada, Himr, Himr Akash, Jel Parat, Jel Parat Saghira, Mirza, Khirbet Baghl, Hurriya, Megrinat, Bizuna, Khirbet Tair, Tawil, Taya, Cheleki, Mezra Abu Hassan Hayahi, Amoudi, Zarij, Fares, and Faresok.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sohr have multiple times shown his bias toward the coverage of the conflict calling an "Iranian Invasion" on Aleppo, or Assad the "child killer" its clearly editorial propaganta against the Syrian Goverment. The Aleppo Prison Breash and capture by the rebels was a MEGA flop. The lack of neutrality of Sohr have caused that many editors use it as a second rate RS. Now its used to corroborate Regime advances only or to add rebels advances but with another most reliable source. Andre remember that Wp its not a SOAPBOX, sohr have lost all its profesionall credibility also look at their main logo a FSA flag. Thats why I Ask again, what else its needed to show its bias???200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@ 200.48.214.19 Maybe a few hard facts, besides what seems to be an error made over a year ago by many other sources as well as SOHR. The fact that SOHR uses the independence flag, and the regime the Bathist flag, is irrelevant. The importance is the accuracy of reporting, which is generally balanced and proves to be accurate.

It is almost universally recognized that there is a considerable involvement of Iranian forces (and regular funerals in Iran of their losses), as well as Iranian training and support of outside militias. So if SOHR happens to mention that from time to time, that is not an indication of bias. Similarly for the killing of children : regime barrel bombs on civilians tends to do that. Your argumentation indicates that you have a strong pro-Assad-regime bias. Not surprising that you find neutral sources biased.

BTW, the "soapbox" guideline refers to articles, not talk pages. André437 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sohr its not a neutral source and its you strong FSA militancy that makes you see SOHR as a Neutral source. Every day you show your bias in most of your edits, this clearly show your hidden allegiance, the usage of the FSA flag its obviosly showing SOHR identification with the FSA and its ideology, way of fighting. etc. just like Syrian Perspective uses the SAA flag, SOHR uses the Green White black flag of the FSA. Hope you manage to understand this fact. There is no way SOHR should be considered a neutral source in terms of information. Since it have shown heavy bias in the way they cover the Ongoign fighting, especially after the Battle of Yabroud/al Qusayr defeat of FSA and JAN. The neutral way sohr reported their entries changed dramatically, their daily casualties report in facebook changed and the propaganda campaign they made for their combatants in the field become viral. Clearly inflamatorial editorial likes, Iranian Siege of Aleppo or the ridicolous Aleppo Prison mega Flop, show the lack of profesionalism and made more than one to think that their are Economically hired by some rebels entitys, or maybe are the same Rebel entity propaganda organ.200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

villages of Tehama ,Takleb ... #YPG advance

https://twitter.com/ColdKurd/status/569532093266587648 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creepz55 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pro-kurdish source can't be used to show YPG advances. DuckZz (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with DuckZz need data from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the location of the three claimed villages:

https://twitter.com/yunus4akca7/status/569568104411480064

According to local pro-govr source clashes are happening in the area between YPG and its al-Karama militia against Islamic State:

https://www.facebook.com/HASAKAHNEWS/photos/a.590294967758347.1073741825.279287895525724/703666416421201/?type=1

Enough for at least putting the villages in the map as contested?

186.116.23.131 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's enough, also reliable source https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/569490519677661184 is confirming the clashes there --8fra0 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iraq-idUSKBN0LQ0RG20150222?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews. Alhanuty (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Here more data from pro opposition source about the Kurdish advances in Hasakah province near Iraqi border.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here reliable source reported that Kurdish forces and Syrian troops attacking ISIS between Jaz'a and Tel Hamid where over 25 villages were retaken from ISIS. And their aim is to reach Tel Hamid.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Note pro-govt almasdar also reported both forces are attacking ISIS but specified that this is not a joint operation, with SAA attacking the northern perimeter from their current positions northwest while the attacks between Jaz'a and Tal Hamis (as shown currently in the map) were carried out by kurdish forces: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-stronghold-tal-hamees-besieged-sides/ 186.116.23.131 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ANHA reports YPG liberated two more villages southwest of Jaz'ah. The villages are called Lesser and greater Qurtuba (Cordoba). Moreover, according to the source, clashes are continued near Ghasan village, some 24 km south of Ta Hamis. http://ar.hawarnewsagency.com/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%88%D9%85%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D8%AB%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF/ Roboskiye (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also pro-ISIS sources confirm further YPG/Pesh advance in the area: https://twitter.com/mrasilh/status/569901576137121792

Some of the villages captured today by YPG in southeast and east of Tal Hamis are: http://ar.hawarnewsagency.com/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-9-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%88/ Zahra: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.583503&lon=41.434121&z=16&m=b Zahran: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.641255&lon=41.579089&z=16&m=b Gassan: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.549100&lon=41.420412&z=19&m=b Homs: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.596341&lon=41.473694&z=18&m=b Hulwa: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.803746&lon=41.588815&z=18&m=b Tal Tahin: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.812514&lon=41.600064&z=17&m=b Roboskiye (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hardatin

From SOHR fighting is still ongoing around Hardatin. Should we mark it with a red half ring?Paolowalter (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right! Hanibal911 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

SAA frontlines are still around Bashkuy and Dweir-AlZeitun..they`re not even close to Hrdatnin.the only change is that SAA recaptured northern part of Al-Malah farms yesterday while Malah village,southern Mallah and Arab-Sulum(between Handarat village and Arad Malah)totally under militants control..that`s the most recent update of frontlines.Rida Albasha (AlMayadeen reporter) is my friend,He informs me everything happens on the field neutrally every few hours via chat.If anyone wants confirmation,his news publishes in ElijahMagnier and many other credible pro/opp sources in twitter some hours later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes92005 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Xerxes92005 We do need confirmation from published sources, but thanks for letting us know what to look for. If you can find published references, could you post them with your comments ? Thanks . André437 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Derik and Rumeilan bases

What is the source for SAA having any sort of base there? Derik never had any actual military unit attached there, nor does any army base appears on sattelite images and Rumeilan has been overrun by YPG in 2012 as you can see here Robert Fisk report from Rumeilan where he sees YPG guarding it or here. There is also another source here [20]. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

EllsworthSK Last year was the source who confirmed that the Rumailan oil field under jointly control by Kurds and army and I noted oil field under control by Kurds and marked the Hajanah battallion near the Oil field under control by army. Here pro opposition source reported that the Rumeilan oil fields in Hasakah province still under jointly control of the Kurdish forces of the Popular Protection Units (YPG) and pro-regime forces in the area.ARA News Also I remember that other editor add to map Armoured Army Base near the town of Al Malikiyah(Derik) because reliable source showed on map that army still present in this area near this town. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)~

The ARAnews link only throws a biased accusation of being pro-regime on YPG. Also the small base in Derik was abandoned more than two years ago by its soldiers who had put off their military dresses and left beyond their military vehicles. YPG showed back then a video inside the base. Roboskiye (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading the link and all I see is this Rumeilan oil fields in Hasakah province still submit to the control of the Kurdish forces of the Popular Protection Units (YPG) an pro-regime forces in the area. First of all, source baisly accuses YPG of being pro-regime, second source never mentions anywhere regime (SAA or NDF) presence in the oil fields. Perhaps someone misread the text and mistook and with an. In Derik what you claim is operational base has been discarded by Syrian military well prior to civil war and now its used as main base for YPG as said here. There is no regime presence in either Rumeilan or Derik. The regime triangle south of Qamishlo is far from being correct, but we'll leave that for later. Supplying sources for that is next to impossible. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

EllsworthSKRoboskiye I'm not add to map military base near the town Al Malikiyah(Derik) so I dont say that it was justified action or that this base was really under control of army. So that in issue about military base near Derik I will not object you. But about the Rumeilan oil fields pro opposition source ARA News clearly said that they still under jointly control. And Roboskiye ARA newe it is a biased antigovernment source and according to the rules of editing we can use him data for display a success of army. So according to data in our discussion we can note a military base near Deril under control by YPG but base near oil field should be left under the control of the army because this confirm source. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hannibal, there is no such claim in that article as But about the Rumeilan oil fields pro opposition source ARA News clearly said that they still under jointly control. You are mistaking and with an. That is all. No such thing is written there, quite on contrary. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem with ARAnews. But it does NOT say pro-regime forces are there. You have misread the text. Read it once again. It says ONLY YPG is there in the oilfield. Roboskiye (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree on removing both, but if not possible at least the base on Derik, as the Syrian Regime doesn't have a base there for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.154.30 (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Roboskiye Source clear said that Rumeilan oil fields in Hasakah province still submit to the control of the Kurdish forces of the Popular Protection Units (YPG) and pro-regime forces in the area. So that source clearly indicated on the fact that Kurds and pro-regime forces in this area still controlled the Rumailan oil fields but not only Kurdish forces. So let's just noted military base near Darik as under control YPG. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the original Arabic article of Aranews as provided by Zaradasht Khalil as of July 16, 2014: http://aranews.org/2014/07/60-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84/ There is no mention of any regime presence in Rumeilan oildfields. Regards. Roboskiye (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Roboskiye Ok I remove the Hajanah Battalion from map. Or we should be noted this military base under the control of the Kurds? Hanibal911 (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Just remove them. No need to change the color to yellow. Roboskiye (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal could you also move the Rimelan oilfield battallion a bit to the left? As it's now it can be hard to notice there's an oilfield being guarded by the base since they both overlap quite a bit. Thanks.

186.116.23.131 (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ISIS advances against Kurds in Tall Tamer countryside

Pro opposition source reported that ISIS captured village of Tall Shamiram after clashes against YPG.Qasion news and that ISIS kill civilians and burn the Ashuryan Church in the town of Tall Tamer.Qasion news SOHR also reported that ISIS captured village of Ghabshah.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to ANHA, YPG is fighting in and around Ghibish and Tal Shamiran villages. The villages are not fully under ISIS jihadi's control and should be changed to contested. http://ar.hawarnewsagency.com/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%B4/ Roboskiye (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Roboskiye According to the rules of editing we cant use pro-Kurdish source in this issue and we cant marked villages of Ghibish and Tal Shamiran as contested we need confirmation from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source reported that YPG now fighting against ISIS in the village of Khabur.Elijah J. Magnier and Syrian air force is also targeting ISIS convoy which heading toward the same area.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Pro-regime source claims NDF controls village of Khaza’at north of Tal Hamees. It also states YPG fighting in villages of Taweel, Al-Zaaqat, and Amnat.

It claims regime forces come from north to liberate Tal Hamees, while ypg coming from south to also liberate Tal Hamees. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-stronghold-tal-hamees-besieged-sides/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.150.148 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also many many reports now online of assyrian militias in the area mobilizing.. and beheaders attacking assyrian civilians,women & children. Not sure if assyrians are working with kurds or damascus government?

Official statement of Syriac Military Council https://twitter.com/kovandire/status/569955779652014080 citing at least two other villages captured by IS today( Tel Hourmiz and Tel Tawil) that should be changed to black on map , but the same source says there are many others ...I think a large number of the Khabour River villages are now in IS hands...and about Tel Tamer itself: is it contested? Many reports of fighting inside the town, though not from a major source... Fab8405 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a reliable source, sure is not pro-IS...this map pretend to show the 10 villages on the Khabour River captured today by IS...if it's accurate, the villages should be Tal Tawil, Tal Shamiran( already edited), Tal Talla, Abu Tina, Tel Quran, Qabr Shamiya, Kharitha, Tal Makhatha, Tal Taal, Tal Hurmiz...here is the map, decide you what use to do of it https://twitter.com/rConflictNews/status/569988674064154624 Fab8405 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fab8405 This map here from the reliable source.le_carabinier Hanibal911 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source reported that Syrin troops to support YPG sent three tanks from Qamishli to Tel Tamer.Hasakah News Hanibal911 (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Pro Kurdish source reported that Syriac Military Council(MFS), Peoples Protection Units(YPG) and the Khabour Guards recaptured village of Agbish to west of Tel Tamer.Syrian International News Agency Hanibal911 (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Here another source confirmed that YPG, Syriac Military Council(MFS) and Assyrian fighters recaptured village Agbish to west of Tall Tame.jack Shahine Hanibal911 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

identify Dabiq

Since the town of Dabiq figures prominently in ISIS myth and destiny your map should reflect its exact location and footnote the religious, political, historical and millennial significance of the town. Your well read visitors will appreciate the attention drawn to this site as an area seen by ISIS as critical to its own future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.116.81 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Erledigt Tradedia^talk 01:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Lafarge Cement plant

There is information that ISIS blew up the Lafarge Cement plant after taking all that can be carried from it.here Also here the pro opposition source reported that ISIS destroyed Lafraj concrete factory.here So maybe we need remove the Lafarge Cement plant from map if he actually was destroyed. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, even if in ruins (but we need a proof for that) I think that the factory can be left on the map: unfortunately many towns, oil wells, factories, military bases and facilites in Syria are destroyed nowadays, but it's not a good reason to erase them from the maps. --8fra0 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

True, this will be specially important if YPG tries to put the plant back into work through international help or by themselves. 190.67.241.1 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a factory or base is in ruins constitutes a very good reason to erase it from the map given that there are already over 1500 icons on the map and it is creating severe computer problems for Wikipedia (not to mention it being misleading to our viewers). Those who have been around for long enough remember the time where we were very close to not being able to add any more icons on the map (before there was a very fortunate technical innovation in the code). Unfortunately, that day will come back again in the future. If the factory or base is put back into work and it is important, then we will hear about it from some source & put it back on the map. Tradedia^talk 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

8fra0 Tradedia I hope you will agree with me that I did the right thing when remove from the map a Lafarge Cement plant. Because pro opposition source reported that ISIS blew up the plant after evacuating its contents and transferring them to the city of Raqqa and the blast led to the destruction of 80% of the plant.ARA News So now it just ruins and there is no reason to keep it on the map as the cement plant. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Daraa NW

Some more info from AlMasdar. Al-Habariya contested and maybe Tel also Qareen.Paolowalter (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter Source not said that the village of Al Habbariyah or hill of Tal Qareen contested. Source said that clashes between Syrian troops and Al Nusra at the Al Habbariyah when army from this village try advance to the hill Tal Qareen. And said that resulting Syrian troops advance to southwest area near of Tal Qareen.Al Masdar Hanibal911 (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Since it is a regime source not introducing any collaborating evidence, it evidently can't be used to show regime advances, any more than SANA. André437 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw a pro-regime twitter post stating that "SAA units carried out concentrated hits on terrorists pos. in AlHebarieh,KaferNasij,AlTeeha,Sabsaba & a# of hills on #Daraa - #Quneitra axis" I saw on the map that Al-Habbariyah and At Tayhah are regime held. Is the content and the source itself sufficient enough to say those two villages are contested? Raspoetin89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.220.222 (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly you dont provide link on your source which said this and secondly more reliable pro government source reported that Syrian troops advanced to the outskirts of Tal Qareen from the town of Al-Habariyah.here and also earlier reliable source Elijah J. Magnier and pro opposition source Syrian Rebellion Observatory confirmed that the village of At Tayhah was captured by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

oops, sorry! Something went wrong probably while editing. This is the source I was talking about: Damascus01 and [21] I'm quite new here, so I have no idea how biased/important this source and Hosein Mortada are. Raspoetin89

Here data from the official government source. Army units carried out intensive operations against terrorist gatherings from several axes in the towns of al-Habbaria, Kafar Nasej, al-Teeha, Sabsaba and a number of hills.SANA so I marked Al-Habbariyah and At Tayhah as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Raspoetin89  Erledigt Hanibal911 (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

YPG/FSA advance towards Tall Abyad

Sources https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/570270448048574465 are suggesting that YPG/FSA have taken this village http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=36.656370&lon=38.781910&z=13&m=b , just 15 km west of Tall Abyad. Let's wait for more confirmations. --8fra0 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ANHA reports Biyadiya west of Kobani is captured: http://ar.hawarnewsagency.com/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%87/ Roboskiye (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, but it is on the western front where the frontline is obvious. On the eastern front, in the other hand, the situation is unclear and YPG has not been releasing updates for weeks now. --8fra0 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Official Kataib Shamal page (FSA) said the same, "Their group captured Judajdah". DuckZz (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also earlier some reliable sources reported that the joint forces (YPG and rebels) captured 19 villages in Raqqa province.The Daily StarAl JoumhouriaSOHRABC.netAl Arabiya Hanibal911 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

South Palmyra

This region together with eastern Qalamun, especially the desert area isn't interesting for neutral sources. Everything here is pro-opposition.

According to Army Usud Shaqijah channels (Authenticity and development front), they captured Al Ulayanija and the areas around after IS withdrew from there. Here are some English pro-opposition sources, from arCivilian, also location explained here. I'm not sure about this guy but he only posts stuff that was published from the original rebel channels on Arabic.

Some videos posted by ADF groups, here allegedly after capturing Ulayanija, and here. I really have no idea but there will be no other sources than this (Ofc. Rebel channels and pro-rebel English channels) .... DuckZz (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz This is only data from the pro-opposition sources. And we cant use in this issue as a source pro rebels amateur video or data from pro-opposition sources. Also archicivilians and IbnNabih it is biased pro opposition activists. So we need confirmation from more reliable or neutral sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I know, that's why i made a section here to discuss about that. I highly highly doubt there will be any more sources other that from pro-opposition channels. Mainly because these areas are deep inside the desert, nobody cares about that. DuckZz (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz I Get It! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Abu Kabira

It's really weird and ridicouls showing this village contested in that area when YPG captured more than 70 villages in Tel-Hamis area also this village is show near Tal Hamis.here,here.Lindi29 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the same for Filistin village. Fix it please --8fra0 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Erledigt.Lindi29 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)