Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Quneitra towns

Found this article from the Times of Israel today: http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-will-attack-syrian-druze-town-if-troops-threatened/ and http://rt.com/news/212319-israel-helps-syrian-militants/

The article in the Times of Israel claims that "all of Quneitra is in rebel hands, except Hader and Khan Arnabah. I personaly think Brigade 90 and surroundings are under loyalist control, considering the alledged Israeli airstrike yesterday. However, what about the towns of Turnajah, As-Samdaniyah, Beit Jinn and Ma'dinat al-Baath? Last is loyalist I think, but the rest might be rebel held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly city town of Beit Jinn located in Rif Dimashq and now contested. Secondly Israeli outdated source (deted 3 November)Times of Israel or Russian RT not said that Turnajah, As-Samdaniyah, Beit Jinn and Ma'dinat al-Baath under control by rebels. And pro opposition source clear show that Ma'dinat al-Baath under control by army but As-Samdaniyah contested.here and we cant use in this issue Israeli source because Israel opposed to Syrian regime. And this situation has been discussed previously. So you can read this hereHanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Here is another report: http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/syrias-southern-rebels-draw-up-new-game-plan#page2 You are using a Twitter map for your opinion, but I give you three neutral sources. Each of them say that Hader, Baath and Arnabah are the last regime held areas in Quneitra province. That means that Turanjah, As-Samdaniyah and possibly Jabah should go to green. Neutral sources always win from pro-rebel or pro-regime sources, certainly if you start using Twitter sources and say "Israel is opposed to the Syrian regime". Israel is neutral in this case.

No need to invent! Firstly, after an air strike by Israel on territory under the control of the army Israel can not be a neutral party so that stop talking nonsense. And secondly your source The National did not say that towns of Turanjah, As-Samdaniyah and Jabah should go under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also biased pro opposition source on 21 November showed that town of Jabah still controlled by regime.here But maybe you are right about a situation with the town of Samdaniyah. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the neutrality of Israel, we should also consider the purpose of their attacks. If it is apparently against the Hizbolla (such as destroying arms destined for them), it is not overtly anti-Assad (despite the Hizbolla being an Assad ally), and should not be considered as such. Israeli attacks are too infrequent and selective to greatly impact the regime. Even though Israel would probably prefer Assad gone, if Israel were to overtly oppose Assad, it would backfire with increased support for Assad from arab countries, thus be counter-productive. André437 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The IS Presence in no exit.

The IS is not there I'm 99,99% the only information about IS presence in As-Suwayda come from Al Arabiya in Arabic only who most probability is a fake rumor.

The most usually Anti Assad source SOHR NEVER Report IS Presence in As-Suwayda --Pototo1 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no 100% reliable Source in this war, even SOHR looked ridiculous with the Aleppo Prison breach by AL Nusra. Witch resulted in a fiasco.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just be careful look for more sources, edit outright and keep an eye on past edits, info tends to change in content and numbers in time.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of sources discussed here. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Lots of sources" NO just one a single Al Arabiya link only in Arabic very vague.

Show me a Single SOHR the Link the "Official" Anti Assad source talking about IS Presence in As-Suwayda

Show me a single video a single photo?

Common the most recent ISW (Anti Assad source) no showing the IS there http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=a3b60f0c-7f1c-4666-b671-5753603361d6&c=a494ff50-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76&ch=a499ba40-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76

Just be realist the IS it's not in As-Suwayda --Pototo1 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

lol there are sources in that section from al Arabiya, archicivilians, lahitha news net, Robert ford, al mayadeen, france 24 and al alam - that's "lots of sources" Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Boredwhytekid many source confirmed the fact that ISIS present in this area and controlled some villages. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Pototo your blood pressure is to high.DuckZz (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 :) ... It is not a life-or-death issue for us as editors. We are just doing our best to create an accurate map André437 (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest from ISW acknowledges IS presence in the Bir al-Qassab area Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

^ There the Pro Israeli ISW Anti Assad club only talking abut Damascus province no about As-Suwayda --Pototo1 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

new icons

Just to make everything more complicated ;) , there are now new icons intended to show a presence in rural areas. (That is, outside cities and towns.)
Up to now, we have been using the besieged-one-side semicircles for that, but that has led to evident confusion and controversy. Thanks to Hanibal911 for ideas to work around this problem.
In the caption under the "control" icons there are now "rural presence" icons.
Originally the idea was a 4x4 grid of dots, but 3x3 seems to show the different colours better, since the dots are so small. I put both shapes there. When we have a consensus, I'll remove the unwanted ones. Enjoy :) André437 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

More complicated ,more conjested and more arguments this map was designed to show who controls cities and towns .If you really want to show presents in barren areas you should have made shaded areas like most other peoples maps do or extend the city maps all over Syria .Good luck with it .Pyphon (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

There has already been a consensus to show rebel presence in the Damascus province area using semicircles. This resulted from a recognition that such rebel presence had a significant impact on the situation. André437 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to and have never removed any icon from this map this so called consensus is made up of about 4 editors and I for one will give my opinion and if you ANDRE don't like it well its to bad .Also you stated that this was created to show rebel presence in Damascus , are you saying its only Damascus or for everywhere and all combatant groups? Pyphon (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Pyphon, what is your objection to the "presence" icons? Is it truly just that this map was originally intended just to show the situation in populated places and you think that's how it should remain? I don't get that. If we're all here out of some sort of interest in the Syrian war, then we have an interest in showing the reality of active combat zones anywhere in the country. We can use these icons to update Qalamoun (personal crusade lol) as we can use them to show the SAA presence along the highway to Deir el-Zor - those two applications alone make me on board with using them widely. Idk. Any way we can show a more accurate depiction of the conflict as a whole is an asset in my book. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bored .Thanks for your polite comment (unlike andres threats and bullying )First as you know I have always been unbiased in that I like clear confirmation before any changes be them saa or rebel are made to our map and this will present a challenge trying to get reliable info on areas such as barrens ,wastelands and other such areas .Its difficult to get editors to agree on cities and towns let alone these unpopulated areas .Second every time fighting is reported anywhere outside a city ,town or village editors will be asking for new icons which they have every right to do and the net result will be more and more icons and arguments about removing them .Third recently rebels tried to enter Rankous but were pushed back .That's as much as we know ,how far back ,where is the icon going to go .I know you want a accurate depiction and understand why you believe this is needed along with other editors so as I said (before being accused of vandalism} I do not think its helpful but I wish you good luck buddy ;)Pyphon (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

WOW ! that's a big bad ass icon lol .A few dozen of them and its going to get funky baby .Pyphon (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Haha smart aleck. To point - I think the dearth of reliable information is precisely why we need these icons. We know the rebels are in both Eastern and Western Qalamoun but don't have sources. Same for the SAA running supplies to Deir el-Zor. And for the IS in that blank stretch on our map between Raqqa province and their holdings in eastern Homs province. Place one of these big bad ass babies right smack in the middle of those zones and issue resolved until definitive sources come. You're right about the arguing, but, I've come to realize that's a mainstay of this talk page no matter what lol. Look, in one fell swoop all argument about Ras al-Maara, Jebbah, Flitah is POOF! Gone baby. Seriously though I hope your objection to the use of the icons will not keep you from lending your two sense as to where/when they are appropriate. Boredwhytekid (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok lets see how it works out. Pyphon (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Sorry Pyphon, for the negative comments. I had confused you with another editor. (A side effect of doing things instead of sleeping.) I commented out the negative parts. Hopefully you can accept my apology.

BTW, even though I made the icons, it wasn't initially my idea. I mentioned Damascus since using some icon to represent presence was discussed for areas in the Damascus governorates, but of course it could be applied anywhere that is appropriate. André437 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Andre437 Ok we all make mistakes you do a great job with the icons .Pyphon (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Thank you for the 'Rural 'presence' Icons, almost every map regarding Syria these days is based on this map we have here. Please assign one more icon to the corner where Aleppo, Idlib, and Hamah Provinces meet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.127.203 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Desyracuse, take 5.

Here, desyracuse has edited his map, showing SAA presence in Raqqa province, based on "On November 17, pro-govt Ba'ath Brigades announced having entered Raqqah governate". - so, he's editing his map based (in this case) exclusively off of what a pro-gov't outlet said. And, we.. then used desyracuse to make the same edit on our map, here. So, in summary, we took the Ba'ath Brigades at their word and made a pro-gov't edit based on their unconfirmed announcement. Explain to me again how desyracuse is pro-op? We're changing villages around Duhur airbase, and we're adding more villages based off his map, when he's just taking pro-gov't media at its word.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This source pro opposition because it is basically repeats the data from other pro opposition sources. Simply, he is more accurate than some other pro opposition sources. Also I remove red mark in the province of Raqqa. Because you are right and also the source @de Syracuse clear said that about the army advance in Raqqa in the province reported only government source but I did not pay attention on this notice. But on about the achievements of army in area the Abu al- Duhur air base also reported the some of reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

He clearly takes ANY source at it's word - if he's marking gov't gains based exclusively on Ba'ath Brigade announcements, how in the world can we consider his map pro-op biased? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And also area where I add those villages adding more villages under control by army and this also confirmed on another more biased pro opposition map.here Also this source previously changed the territory controlled by the Army on the ISIS controlled on the basis of preconceived opposition source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Also this map said that city Sawran to north Aleppo now under control by rebels but we only have data from opposition sources that now this city under control by rebels and ISIS tried storm him.here Also as we have previously recognized that the source @deSyracuse pro oppositionbut it is less biased and more accurate showed situation unlike other heavily biased opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If desyracuse is the only source, no edit should be made. It's that simple - he'll use any source to update his map... we should try to be better than that. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So, for the changing villages around Duhur airbase - any other sources? For all we know desyracuse got his info about this area straight from the Ba'ath Brigades... Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Also a reliable source said that control of Khaz'zanat helped regime forces inside Abu Al-Duhur military airport to advance into nearby villages Tal Selmo and Mustariha.Elijah J. Magnier Also earlier pro opposition source said that Assad-forces try to storm Haymat ad Dayir north of Abu ad-Duhur - Military Airbase here so maybe army captured this village.And here other source said that army controls the towns of Humaimat and Mustrihah in the vicinity "Abu Aldhor" airport in the southern countryside of Idlib.Kalam AkhbarCyber AmanLebanese Info[]El Marada Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's more like it. Objection retracted. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see some recent NDF reports in Raqqah but nothing official at the moment (I'm not very active now) --Pototo1 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view I think Desyracuse is moderately pro-opp just cause he/she works with Archicivillians, a very well known pro-opp and anti-regime activist. But DeSyracuse's work is quite honest and to be fair it's more or less neutral. Cedric Labrousse (a huge pro-opp activist) reported NDF activity from Ithriya towards Raqqa. You may check his tweets anytime. I'm not with changing all our map based on DeSyracuse's maps but when we lack sources I think he's a reliable one. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tradedia's insights here further cement me in the opinion that these amateur maps should be relegated to secondary source status for our map, only to be used when supported by reliable/usable primary sources OR community consensus on specific situations. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with ChrissCh94 the Desyracuse is moderately pro-opp source. So that in the some situations if we not have clear data we can use it. And about situation with some villages near Abu Al Duhur Air Base i provide some reliable sources which confirm my editings.Kalam AkhbarCyber AmanLebanese InfoEl MaradaAl-Fayhaa TVAl-QabasAl Ghadeer TV also here confirmation from pro government sources Al VefaghSyria unbreakableShaam TimesAl AlamHosein mortadaSlab NewsBuratha newsAl Baath MediaMiddle East PanoramaAlahed News And not one of the reliable and pro-government sources no said that the army later some time retreated from those villages. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And also here source @deSyracuse showed on map where most active frontlines on 8 December. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But all except 1 of those sources (not including the pro-gov't ones), are dated from the 27th or earlier - which still leaves Tradedia's point valid, that desyracuse's map is inaccurate in this case. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Fayhaa TV(independent Arabic television channel 29 November) Cyber Aman(28 Nowember) Hanibal911 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Correctly me if I'm wrong, but doesn't al Fayhaa refer to the rebels generally as "terrorists"? If so that doesn't really indicate a neutral stance.. Seeing as how any outlet that says "regime" instead if "government" is classified as pro-op.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid In Wikipedia says that Al-Fayhaa TV (Iraq) is an independent Arabic television channel which broadcasting from Suleymaniyah, Iraq which launched on 20 July 2004, and was among the first channels that emerged after the 2003 Iraq war, began its work in the United Arab Emirates.herehere Also source said that these villages were under the control of Al Nusra or allies which also and in US are called terrorists. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid Al Nuara has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United NationsAl Jazeera AustraliaABC News Turkey, Canada, New Zealand, Hurriyet Daily Newshere Saudi Arabia and United KingdomFox News the United StatesAl Jazeera United Arab EmiratesReuters Hanibal911 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki also says Al-Fayhaa TV (Iraq) leans toward Shia-Islam, and the Shia channels have been, for obvious reasons, overwhelmingly pro-Syrian gov't, the same way Sunni channels and state medias are pro-rebels - which is why we don't use most Saudi or Qatari outlets to show alleged rebel gains. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Fayhaa isn't the point though. It's the use of desyracuse as a SOLE source - and I think there have been plenty of proofs that his/her source screening does not meet the standards of this map (no pro-op for pro-op gains, vice versa). And it doesn't really seem appropriate to back up desyracuse's (Ba'ath Brigade announcement) edit with a Shia leaning outlet. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Al-Fayhaa TV article uses the expression: “ارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا” which translates into “the terrorists of the Syria Revolutionaries Front” Any source that calls Syria Revolutionaries Front terrorists is clearly pro-gov. Tradedia^talk 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also here confirmation from Qatari source that those villages was captured by army.here from another Iaraqi sourcehere Lebanese sourcehere and from some other sources.JP NewsChaled News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply, we can use the source @deSyracuse if its data are supported by other sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hanibal911, we SHOULD of course use DeSyracuse with other sources but we COULD also use his/her maps when we lack reliable sources. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• As long as desyracuse's source is not clearly the Ba'ath Brigades reporting their own battlefield successes, or any similar scenario regarding ANY of the groups/sides/belligerents. Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

1- None of your sources is reliable. You list 12 sources that you call “reliable”. First, I will remove Al-Qabas & Al Ghadeer TV because they talk about a completely different topic. Second, I will remove Lebanese Info, El Marada & Kalam Akhbar because they are dated 27 nov, so they are outdated. This leaves us with:

- Cyber Aman: This is not a source. It is a website that works following the model of Wikipedia. Anonymous users submit news! This one line news was submitted by an anonymous user called “Rabie Mahdy”!

- Al-Fayhaa TV: The article uses the expression: “ارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا” which translates into “the terrorists of the Syria Revolutionaries Front” Any source that calls Syria Revolutionaries Front terrorists is clearly pro-gov.…

- masdark: this is not a source but simply a website that collects articles from other sources… It doesn’t even say where they got the article from…

- iraqnacl.com: Look at it! It’s just a vBulletin message by an anonymous user called “Prince Adhamiya”!

- afwajamal.com: this is the mouthpiece of the shia Lebanese militia “Amal” (see Lebanese civil war for more info about it)

- JP News: they copied the article that uses the expression: “ارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا” which translates into “the terrorists of the Syria Revolutionaries Front” Any source that calls Syria Revolutionaries Front terrorists is clearly pro-gov

- Chaled News: is not reliable but pro-gov.

2- Now, lets look at the content of your sources (which are all unreliable as I showed in item 1- above). I skip those that are dated 27 nov, since they are outdated. All the articles are general articles about the events in the whole of Syria during the day. The events at Abu Duhur are covered in only one sentence. This makes these articles very superficial. We cannot conclude much from them. You say: “they didn’t say the army left the villages”. I say: “they didn’t say the army stayed in the villages!” In reality, in one sentence, you are not going to be able to say much. So these are not good sources. You need a source that describe the events in detail.

Conclusion: Not one of the “sources” you present is useful. On the other hand, we have a reliable (by your own words) source saying the troops returned to the airport and a pro-gov source detailing the whole operation and saying they returned back to the airport. See a translation of the details of the operation in Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Abu al-duhur airbase. Tradedia^talk 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice try but Fron victory (جبهة النصرة لأهل الشام‎ ) it is Al Nusra but not Syria Revolutionaries Front( جبهة ثوار سوريا) and sources which i provide here said that army retake villages from the Front victory but not SRF. And as I said above Al Nusra recognized by leading Western countries as terrorists. And Cyber AmanMas Dark and Al Fayhait is sreliable news sources which said about Al Nusra. Also reliable source Elijah J. Magnier just said that SAA returned to air base but not said that they all returned on base and just left villages which they captured. This message here was dated 27 November but also not said that army just left villages without protection and Al Nusra retake them and also more recent reports have confirmed that these villages under the control of the army. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Look at the article carefully. It calls both Al Nusra and Syria Revolutionaries Front "terrorists" when it mentions that they are fighting in Idlib (not at Abu Duhur). Look at Al-Fayhaa TV At word 34 from the bottom, it starts a sentence that says:

“تجددت المواجهات بين ارهابيي النصرة وارهابيي جبهة ثوار سوريا”

This translates into:

تجددت المواجهات بين = Clashes broke out between

ارهابيي النصرة = terrorists victory (Al Nusra)

ارهابيي = & terrorists

جبهة ثوار سوريا = Syria Revolutionaries Front

It is the same for JP News.

Concerning Elijah J. Magnier & the detailed pro-gov source, it should be understood that “they all returned on base and just left villages which they captured” (see my response @Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Abu al-duhur airbase for more details about this argument). Again, all other “sources” are unreliable & uninformative (one sentence) as I showed above. Tradedia^talk 10:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Here reliable source clear said that Syrian army took control of the towns and Humaimat Almstrihh in the vicinity of Abu military airport Aldhor Brive Idlib, while the number of people killed after clashes between the army and the victory of free front in the same area.Mas Dark Or do you even think that the Qatari source also government source. This also confirmed another not government source.Ceber Aman Also about source Afwajamal this source said that Syrian army took control of the towns and Humaimat Almstrihh in the vicinity of Abu military airport Aldhor Brive Idlib, while the number of people killed after clashes between the army and the victory of free front in the same area. And not said that rebels from SRF it is terrorists. Also we agree use for editing the opposition source SOHR but which many a reliable sources called of anti-government source but we in as a compromise, decided to use it because it has more data from the ground in Syria, though SOHR and opposed to Syrian regime. However personally I not opposed use data from SOHR because they have many activists in areas where going clashes. And all the data which I provided now confirmed in many sources and dont need blame me that all source which I provide pro-government. Also we use to display the success of rebels a news sources from Saudi Arabia and Qatari although these countries strongly support the Syrian opposition and rebel groups who are fighting against the Syrian regime. So that you need understand if the army left these villages and they are once again under rebel control, we need more data which clear says that those again under control by rebels. So me it was nice to talk about this issue but more I will not try to convince you. Since I gave you all the possible facts from reliable and pro-government sources which said that troops captured those villages and not one of these sources not said that the army had just stepped back and villages again under control by moderate rebels. Cheers! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that every time we have a source article, we should analyse it as Tradedia suggests above.

For deSyracuse maps, I consider them accurate for the time in question, but agree that by the time they are published specific locations are often outdated. He doesn't have the resources to update his maps on a daily or hourly basis. Meaning we need to confirm that specific locations are still up to date. As we should for all sources.

Even the best sources make mistakes, and are often quickly outdated. André437 (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

masdark is not Qatari. On its “contact us page” you can see that its address is “مصر - القليوبية - بنها - كفر الجزار - 13111” the first word is “مصر” which is translated into Egypt. Their phone number is 201125285640, which starts with 20. 20 is Egypt country code. As I indicated above, masdark is not a source. It is simply a website that collects articles from other sources. It did not even say where they got the article from, which is highly unprofessional. They state on their “about page” that:

مصدرك هو خدمة تجميع وتصنيف للأخبار، ويتحمل كل مصدر من المصادر مسئولية الأخبار الصادرة عنه وكل ما يقوم به مصدرك" هو إعادة نشر الخبر والاشارة لمصدر المحتوى مع رابط مباشر للمصدر بالاضافة لمساحة اعلانية للمصدر.”

which google translates into:

“masdark is a compilation and classification of the news service, and each of the sources responsible for the news of him and all what masdark is the re-deployment of news and reference to the source of the content with a direct link to the source in addition to the area of advertising to the source.” (my emphasis added)

So it is clearly not a source. I went ahead and did a google search on the title of the article “الجيش يستعيد بلدتين بادلب، واهالي نُبُّل والزهراء يصدون هجمات”. I discocered that it is in reality an article from Iranian Alalam.

Cyber Aman is not a source either. It is a website that works following the model of Wikipedia. Anonymous users submit news! This one line news was submitted by an anonymous user called “Rabie Mahdy”! The “about page” says:

“س: ما هو هدفكم من هذا الموقع ؟

هل سمعت بـ ويكيبديا من قبل ؟,و كيف أغنت البشرية بمحتواها الحر ؟ نحن نقدم شبكة إجتماعية إخبارية تنشر الخبر كما يرسله الأشخاص العاديون دون مقص للرقابة و دون الأخذ بعين الاعتبار وجهة نظر سياسية محددة, سايبر أمان تجربة إخبارية فريدة تجعل أي فرد في أي بلد يطّلع على أخبار بلد آخر بحرية تامة , خاصة للمغتربين و المهتمين بامور بلدان أخرى , الشباب في عصرنا الحالي تتوق لمثل هذه التجربة و أصبحت تمل من أخبار على شاكلة "إستقبل و ودع" و صحافة القص و اللصق.”

which google translates into:

“Q: What is the aim of this site?

Have you ever heard of Wikipedia before?, And how enriched the human heat its contents? We provide news Social Network publishes news as sends ordinary people without scissors controlled and without taking into account the political point of view specific, Cyber Aman unique news experience make any individual in any country seen the news another country freely, especially for expatriates and interested to matters other countries , young people in the present era yearns for such an experience and become bored of news along the lines of "received and let" and press the sternum and pasting.”

So they are clearly not a source. Just like Wikipedia is not a source.

Concerning afwajamal.com, I never said they “said that rebels from SRF it is terrorists”. Those that called SRF rebels terrorists are Al-Fayhaa TV & JP News. afwajamal.com is the mouthpiece of the shia Lebanese Amal Movement. Their article is titled: “الجيش يستعيد بلدتين بادلب، واهالي نُبُّل والزهراء يصدون هجمات”. Rings a bell? Yes, this is the same article that was copied from Iranian Alalam!

The problem is not just that all the “sources” you have linked are unreliable. The problem is that they are uninformative. They are general articles that give a summary of all events in Syria during that day. They just mention the events at abu duhur in one sentence. On the other hand, we have 2 sources (one of them reliable) that talk about the events at abu duhur in detail. It is obvious that all the “sources” you have linked have just copy/pasted the pro-gov “summary of the day” on their website. There was no journalistic work involved, no investigation, no critical thinking. These are websites that have a very general focus. In “one sentence”, you are not able to say much. So the argument that they didn’t say this or that means that this or that didn’t happen does not hold. It is usual for biased sources to mention the advance of their favorite party, but then “forget” to mention their retreat.

On the other hand, we have an expert on the matter (Elijah J. Magnier) who is following the events closely, give details & explanations on what happened. Also, we have a source that is based in Idlib (Assad Idlib News Network) & specializes in military events in the governorate and has close ties with the army describe the events in detail in about a dozen lines. They are pro-gov, so they have no reason to understate the achievements of the army. They clearly say: “troops returned to airport”. They then carry on in saying: “the results were successful where they killed and wounded dozens of terrorists and destroy their vehicles and their hideouts and captured a number of them also were confiscated light weapons and ammunition in addition to the herd of sheep was in one of the dens of terrorists in the vicinity of Humaimat Waldeyer.” which makes it clear that the objective of the army mission was to hit the “terrorists” and not control towns. Elijah J. Magnier also makes it clear when he says: “SAA won't spread in an exposed area when the airport represents a better shelter and defense line”. We have to realize that these are troops that have been under siege for a long time in a very hostile environment with rebels all around them… The fortified airport was the only reason they were able to withstand the siege. If they stay any length of time in a town outside the fortifications of the airport, they become very vulnerable to rebel attacks. Tradedia^talk 01:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Khan Touma army depot

The Khan Tuman army depot seem to be under SAA control. It is here. It is not marked on the Aleppo map. It should go red. Furthermore the Ammunition storage base is green, but it is located in a area marked red on the mapPaolowalter (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

Also pro opposition activists also said that rebels try to regain Khan Tuman army depots on the south western outskirts of Aleppo.here Nevertheless, we need data from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional confirmation from pro-opp source http://www.petercliffordonline.com/syria-iraq-news-4/192.135.12.144 (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS presence in damascus Suburbs, yeah Suburbs.

Check this, dont know if the Source is considered Reliable but found this some minutes ago. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/12/recent-developments-on-ground-syria-december-2014.html 200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In some areas in East Ghouta and to south of Damascus in city Al-Hajar al-Aswad but not inside city of Damascus.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition source said that pro-regime military forces imposed their control on the town of Darayya in the western Ghouta of Damascus countryside. One of the FSA’s fighters was reported dead Tuesday afternoon, during clashes with pro-regime forces in Darayya. Speaking in Damascus, civil rights activist Ahmed Sabbagh said that clashes broke out between FSA-linked faction of the Islamic Union of Ajnad al-Sham and members of the pro-regime forces in the Kornish Qadima area eastern the city, while the pro-regime forces blew up a tunnel in the region, killing at least one fighter from Ajnad al-Sham.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHAH,it is the opposite Hanibal,the rebels are advancing in Darayya. http://syriahr.com/en/2014/12/3-fighters-at-least-killed-in-rif-dimashq-while-violent-clashes-erupts-in-ayn-al-dinar-region-in-homs/.Alhanuty (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeahhh, no they are not. You have a pro-opp source that just said that the rebels lost the area. A report from the increasingly defunct SOHR will not change that. Also, the ARA news article is a day newer than your article. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is way more reliable than the defunct Aranews and the pro-regime Al-Masdar.Alhanuty (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not Al-Masdar that speaks. Why did you mention it? It is the PRO-OPP [You side remember] ARA News that is reporting this, so they can be used as a source. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

it is pro-kurd,not pro-opposition.Alhanuty (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. Let me rephrase what I said. It is Anti-Assad. Throughout the article, it continuously refers to the SAA as "pro-regime forces/militias". The site also hosts many articles about the SAA supposedly using Chlorine gas as well as numerous rebel accounts of battle. Since it is anti-regime, it can be used to back up regime advances. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty no need inventing this source to 100% pro-opposition. It has long been recognized so that enough deny it. This source is one of those sources are openly opposed to the Syrian government and clears support moderate rebels and Syrian opposition. Also, you should know that many Kurds in the ranks of the Syrian opposition so it is possible that the Kurds which supported opposition and engaged in financing and leadership of this source. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The suburbs when IS are is in East Goutha with others armed groups since a lot time ago that's nothing news

Same case with the Insurgent presence in Darayya - Nothing news --Pototo1 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo

Syrian Army forces advance inside Aleppo source:[1].Daki122 (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Where are those areas mentioned? I've looked on Wikimapia, Google Earth and Google Maps. None of them even mentioned those areas in central Aleppo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanano district is in east Aleppo near Sakhur district the other two I could not find.Daki122 (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Hirak

Apparently according to SOHR the city is contested.Paolowalter (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So SOHR clear said that violent clashes are taking place between the regime forces supported by NDF against the rebel and Islamic battalions in the town of al-Hirak. So that we can mark his as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Serghaya

Why Serghaya (qalamoun) is marked under goverment control while it's marked under control of insurgents in the most of pro-gov maps ? ex: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/499490650812080129/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That map is dated August 2014. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is because those maps are wrong. If you look back many months ago you will see Al Akhbar on the ground report explains how government forces were in Serghaya.

I also remember reading an Al Arabyya (pro-opp) article about how car bombs used to evade Serghaya while entering Lebanon because it is gov-controlled. If you want I'll look it up for you in case you aren't convinced. ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But reliable source on 8 September reported that city Serghaya under control by army and army from this city sent reinforcements for troops which fighting in Zabadani.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you guys are right, because the map he linked is dated for August 13, 2014 XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro-gov source mentioning Serghaya as regime controlled:http://assafir.com/Article/1/376663/MostRead

Pro-opp source mentioning Serghaya as regime controlled: http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2014/02/19/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B1-%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF-.html

Pro-opp spokesman saying SAA has added another checkpoint INSIDE Serghaya 2km away from another checkpoint inside the town. https://www.facebook.com/madaya.mumete/posts/554743354669166 ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah area

According to sohr , saa advancing in western hasakah and saa captured 3 villages. http://www.syriahr.com/2014/12/%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88-15-%D8%B4%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%8C-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7/Hwinsp (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also this article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/al-hasakah-syrian-army-captures-7-villages-east/Rhocagil (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition source said that Syrian troops took control of villages of Masoom, Hanash, Uwaina, Hajj Hasan, Tappa, Marouf, and Nasrat (south of Hasakah city) and installed several checkpoints in the area.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Miskin

https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/542937451095150592

Elijah J Magnier claims Nusra/FSA(he didn't say FSA but they are taking part of the operation according to videos and Peto Lucem maps) are in control of Sheikh Miskin. Since no infighting in the South, I believe to change it to Green or to shared control(Gray+Green). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.183.251.245 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha moderate rebels, and who used a UNDOF apc as suicide bombing opening the way to the military housing? guess it was moderate rebels also right? 10% of the daraa snackbar army is MAYBE fsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done I marked Shaykh Miskin to green color because moderate rebels more in this area and also put red ring to east from city because reliable source also showed that army still controlled Base Brigade 82Elijah J. Magnier and also army still present near with city from east and north.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree most strongly. That is a major change not reported by anybody else. The same day Petolucem (see below) gives a completely different picture. Even reliable source sometimes do mistakes. Other sources are needed. Paolowalter (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 10 map showing the army still controlling a minor part of the town https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/542773482388746240 --Pototo1 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that to change large and strategically important cities need more data. Also yet there is no other evidence from other reliable sources. Even SOHR still silent about this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this still be marked as being contested? Why is Sheikh Miskin repeatedly marked as rebel held, when this not agreed upon? Have any (non-twitter) neutral or regime outlets said it is? Here is the so-far for the most part accurate though pro-regime site that says its still being battled over: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-update-sheikh-miskeen-al-jazeera-correspondent-killed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.24.47 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Another reliable source said that in south is currently scene of one of the fiercest battles between the government and its armed opponents in and around the town of Sheikh Miskeen. So it is likely city Sheik Maskin need to remain marked as contested.Christian DailyReutersVoice of AmericaYahoo NewsMaktoob NewsLibya News Today Hanibal911 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also SOHR totay reported that Islamic fighter killed during clashes against regime forces in Shekh Meskin.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Deir El Zoor

Just a confirmation in an Al Arabyya (pro-opp) article that regime forces have taken back Jafra and the Jabal (mountain) near the Deir l Zoor airbase: http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2014/12/11/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B3-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A4%D9%88%D8%B3.html ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have edited the map. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

More detailed info from AlMasdar. Jafra is almost completely under SAA control while Al-Mari’iyyah is partially under ISIS control. The detailed map should be corrected and Al-Mari’iyyah should be contested.Paolowalter (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Post from EJM confirmed SAA is now in control of Jafra: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/543465540883603457 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJ-0461 v2 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Contested areas

I just wanted to create a section so we can discuss places that show no source for being contested for a longer period of time. The first problem for me is Marat Um Hawsh, north of Aleppo. Is it really contested or rebel held ? DuckZz (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is rebel held, we should look for more sources but I think we should add a black half circle to its east. ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Reconciliation agreement

Reliable source reported that today 325 rebels with their weapons surrendered to the Syrian army in the provinces of Damascus, Homs and Hama as a result of "reconciliation agreement".Elijah J. Magnier So maybe that is not ruled out a political solution to the conflict. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

May be some rebel groups but not hardline islamists like ISIL or JAN .There has been talk of Russia/Turkish peace plan to form new government with Assad staying for 5 years then elections so lets wait and see .Pyphon (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

This is the same source that reported the start of rebel withdrawal from Homs city about a month before it happened. Even before the agreement. Wouldn't be surprised if he is jumping the gun again. André437 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the volcano(burkan) rocket use, he knew about it months before anyone else. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

To avert all this bloodshed, they should have a done a "zimbabwe type" agreement at the start bringing opposition into top position with assad maintaining position- then they could have had open monitored elections.Both sides were too intent on total domination. now country is wrecked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.26.207 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't notice the conciliatory attitude of the regime in response to similar proposals from some rebel leaders. Where have I been the last 45 months ?

Seriously, do you think Assad would have voluntarily dismantled his system of torture chambers ? A less severe regime in Zimbabwe has continues its' abuses. Why would anyone expect Assad to be any different ? André437 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying- the government was not conciliatory. But also, neither were the rebels and they in no way offered that type of proposal- only recently a few of the most savvy from both sides have talked about this. If your calculus is from the perspective of saving lives and stopping the country's most ancient heritage from being turned to dust- then you have to break free of the one sided analysis. Both fighting sides have significant parts of the population behind them and powerful financial backers. I;m surprised more people here on wiki don't try to think about a peaceful way out of this mess we keep documenting.

Why are no grey dots or circles within dots allowed in the south to show Nusra?

Has this topic been discussed here? This recent article on the BBC says that Nusra controls towns in the south: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30374581 "Christians in the town of Izraa have expressed fear for their lives because of the presence of the al-Qaeda affiliated group the Nusra Front, which recently gained control over two nearby towns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.27.234 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Because there is no conflict between Al-Nusra and the Southern Command (FSA and IF) in southern Syria. Jabhat al-Nusra has a relatevelt small presence in the south. Estimates range from 3000-5000 Al-Nusra fighters and 15,000-20,000 more moderate rebels (of which some 12,000 seem to be FSA). Nusra works together with those brigades, like in Nawa and Sheikh Maskin. There is no conflict like in Idlib, that seemed to be a localized war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. The journalist (Theo Padnos) talks about how he saw first hand how closely FSA and Nusra work together in the South. US & Jordanian policymakers must feel really proud of all the money they have sunk into the "southern campaign". Interview with Theo Padnos: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/magazine/theo-padnos-american-journalist-on-being-kidnapped-tortured-and-released-in-syria.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.24.47 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

that's not true. Since Nusra moved out of Deir Azzor the south is their stronghold. They de facto control quneitra, nawa, sheikh miskin and are leading ALL the offensives that take place in the south. South is Nusra land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.182.134 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

IS Presence Icon

Pototo1 , please explain this edit. That icon is there to show the IS presence in a transit route, a low populated area - an area that on both the source you presented and our conjoining Template: Iraqi insurgency detailed map lies directly between the source-supported IS presence in Al-Qa'im, Iraq, and Jabal al-Ghurab and the T2 Pumping Station sites in Syria.

Also, thank you for once again removing an icon arbitrarily instead of joining the appropriate talk page discussion. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a desert inhabited area area

The Islamic State Insurgents are in Eufrates River no in the middle of the desert.

Pro Insurgent map 1 http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/desyracuse-syria-civil-war-8-december-2014_23532#7/35.639/39.117 Pro Insurgent map 2 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CFTUDGQDmj4/VIHJiy3sMhI/AAAAAAAACRc/6tIkwX23UE0/s1600/ISIS%2BMap%2BDEC%2B5.png --Pototo1 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What route do you presume they transit to/from the Jabal al-Ghurab and al-Halbah area? There isn't a road open to them. I thought there was an equilibrium here - I used the same icon in red to mark two SAA-used highways/transit routes. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In this place are not routes or towns only a lot sand here is another map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Syria_Ethno-religious_composition..jpg --Pototo1 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we better stick to only using the new icons when we are sure there is a presence in the area or else we get to many arguments .Pyphon (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Look, if you're going to be silly then I'll just self-revert and take the red ones down too. Remember, there are no sources for ANY of the 2 black or red "presence" icons. Two of each were added to indicate major thoroughfares used by each side respectively. I added them in the common sense locations where the belligerents HAVE to transit to get to their front line positions. The only possible way for the IS to get to its front line positions at Jabal al-Ghurab and al-Halbah is through the desert/wastelands, since the highway is SAA-ontrolled. AND that area links IS holdings in Syria and Iraq. So, either all 4 red and black "presence" icons stay up, or I'll just take the remaining 2 red and 1 black icon down - since they all indicate supply routes and none of them have sources. Your choice. André437, Hanibal911, you are the other two editors mainly involved in respectively creating and implementing these icons: Preference? Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

BoredwhytekidI'm for whatever be black icon was returned to place where it previously was installed. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is possible for 4x4 vehicles to travel across deserts they do not need tarmac and it is logical .Pyphon (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Boredwhytekid, Hanibal911 I agree on keeping the presence icons. They don't indicate control like the other icons. And we know they must regularly pass through the areas in question. André437 (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And please, let's everyone discuss things on this page before changing the map. Like was done when these presence icons were added. André437 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to say on this topic? Or have all those interested spoken? Consensus seems to be to put the black icon back up. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done here Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This area is only a inhabited desert stop to do that. --Pototo1 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand Pototo removed it again André437, Hanibal911, Pyphon. I'm fresh out of reverts, any of you wanna throw that icon back up? Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I got it. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

He succeeded in getting himself banned. So we are protected for 3 months at least. André437 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Good riddance that Pototo1 is blocked. Can't stand his obnoxious edits. New we can have a safer and clean page from vandals like him. --Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The IS Presence in As-Suwayda should be removed soon or latter.

The IS it's not in this area you found nothing graphic evidences from IS there, continue keeping these towns in this way is just trolling the map and play to the disinformation --Pototo1 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Pic109.175.42.118 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

^ It's not a town. The allegations from IS Tonws in As Suwayda are just false but a lot anti Assad users want keep it --Pototo1 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Zones when insurgents are stronger or weak

That's just a tip to know in what areas they are stronger or weak

• Israeli border = Probability their most stronger position they are backed by Israeli Army, Israel usually shelling the SAA Position and shot down the Syrian Warplanes / Drones here the Insurgents have artillery guns, a lot ATGM, extensive manpower coming from Israeli held Golan and Jordan, in this area they are able to get important ground, the Israeli border and the high Insurgence there backed by Israel is the main problem for the Syrian Army

• East Goutha = That's the Insurgent most important position but seems the insurgents are weak in this area they used a black market network for get supplies since a lot time they are not able to doing effective attacks, if the situation no change they all East Goutha can fall in Army hands.

• Rural Homs = The non IS insurgents are just very weak there but seems the ISIS can do important damage there they killed a lot people in Shaer Field gas two times and the army the two time failed in repelled the IS attack.

• Al Qalamoun = The insurgents lost a lot fighters trying to defending this area and basically they lose everything there now they are in low scale insurgency, the Lebanese Army are fighting them too in the other side.

• Aleppo province = The Insurgents got a huge manpower there and many weapons from Turkey but they get defeated many times in this area and since September 2013 they advanced nothing and lost a lot ground, but the Insurgents still having a lot territories in Aleppo and seems army cant take that at the moment.

• Idlib Province = The Insurgents in this area got huge manpower a lot weapons from Turkey plus good organization but get Defeated in Mork and Again in a failed raid on Idlib City, after these two fails they star the infighting.

• Raqqah Province = Main IS Base in Syria with only small sector with Kurdish insurgent resistance.

• Deir ez Zor Province = the IS Insurgents controlled all the Euphrates river at the moment the Army success defending the Deir Ez Zor City, the Army won ground in Deir Ez Zor City Since ending 2013 Year still today, but ISIS proved several times ago can inflicted terrible defeats to the Army (Tabqa air base in Raqqah)

• Hasakah Province = The Kurdish insurgents no let the IS Insurgents gain grounds but is a zone when the IS is stronger because they dominated all Raqqah and major part from Deir ez Zor

• As-Suwayda province = The Insurgents no have presence in this place

• Tartous province = The Insurgents no have presence in this place

• Latakia province = Small but strong insurgent presence in north backed by Turkey they can attack Kessab again but Turkey need backed them again on it if they want do that.

• Hama province = Small IS Presence in East and Non IS insurgent on North but After the Mork defeat they are no able to doing important actions in this province.

Excluding Daraa The Insurgents (All of them) seems they can't captured any big city only rural areas.

This is just informative --Pototo1 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A nice pro-regime summary. You do realize that "insurgent" implies that the government is legitimate. An opinion not shared by a majority of UN members, according to a UN General Assembly vote.

Note that according to well established UN criteria, Syria has never held a real election since the Bathists came to power. The last "election" was the first not called a referendum by the regime, and was an evident farce. Not surprisingly, the total votes reported exceeded the number of qualified electors having access to voting.

As well, given that the rebels are trying to change the system of government, "regime" is the most appropriate term. (At least in political science terminology.)

BTW, just because the rebels aren't clearly winning doesn't mean that the regime will end up defeating the rebels.

A lot of the above statements highly questionable. For example, it is an interesting that less than a dozen targeted interventions by Israel, most far from the border area, is expected to have a significant impact on rebel fortunes near the border. And I wasn't under the impression that half of Aleppo, and the cities/towns of Ma'arat al-Numan, Khan Shaykhun, al-Weir, Douma, and Daraya were rural areas. Not counting the many rebel held towns in Daraa, where the only real city, the capital, is only partially held by the regime. André437 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You would like to denie there are JIHADIST BEHEADERS from 83!!!! countries are in in Syria fighting against the syrian government meanwhile the MAYBE 10% remaining syrian anti government fighters are leaving by the hundreds getting amnesty and national reconcialiation? you fucking jihadist supporter

He's summary is actually based on the main Wikipedia map which itself is based 90 percent on the opposition group SOHR. Guess that makes SOHR pro-regime now by your logic. Regardless of your personal opinions, "regime" is non-neutral wording and Wikipedia is based on a policy of neutrality, thus "government" is the proper term and not just because its neutral but also because its the legally proper term. Legally in the sense its still the legitimately recognised government of Syria per the United Nations, because, contrary to your assertion, there was never a UN General Assembly vote expressing the opinion on the legitimacy of the Syrian government. They voted on sanctions against the government AND certain rebel groups (for the government resolutions never passed), they voted on condemning both the government AND the rebels, they voted to call on both the government AND the rebels to halt the fighting. However, they never voted on the legitimacy of the government. As for who will win or not, at this point, considering the rebels only hold parts of Daraa and Quneitra in the south and parts of Idlib and Aleppo provinces in the north, with everything else being held by ether the government or ISIS (and a few scattered and surrounded rebel-held pockets) it is certainly evident that there is a strong chance that the rebels are no longer one of the two top contenders in this war. They have fallen through to third place. A strong indicator of the rebels being weak compared to the government and ISIS is that after 3 years they still don't control any provincial capitals (the ghost-city Quneitra doesn't really count) while ISIS holds Raqqah, three capitals (Aleppo, Daraa and Deir ez-Zoar) are divided 50-50 and everything else (9 provincial capitals) are government-held. Some could even say the YPG, which is the fourth top contender, actually has more legitimacy or chance to get some kind of win of independence or autonomy from this war than the rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

the Opposition in Daraa and Quneitra is holds a chance to change the military balance,if they can take the garrison city of Izra,then they will have the ability to alter the entire military Balance in Syria,and then go easily for Sanamayn and then reaching Rif Dimashq,making the prospect of a political solution to remove Assad possible,but lets wait and see what is going to happen,for Assad,he will never be able to retake Northern and Eastern Syria again,all the advances in Hasakah by Assad are because of the YPG approval of them,if YPG decides to stop its support,then these advances are lost,all eyes are on the southern front.ISIS will lose its strength in two years,and they will weaken.Alhanuty (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The southern rebels being a game-changer that will force Assad to step down is at this point too little too late or wishful-thinking. Assad has no need to retake northern Syria from the rebels or the east from ISIS. The overall stalemate that has been going on for a long time (including in the south for the last month) mostly benefits Assad who is content to hold most of the central (and most populated) part of Syria and wait out both the rebels and ISIS. And the effects of the waiting are already showing with the US cutting off funding for most rebel forces in the north just last week. There is little chance the YPG will cut its alliance with Assad in Hasakah because it benefits them both. As for a possible ISIS decline in two years, yes I agree, they will possibly decline in two years, but two years is a very long time, many things could happen during that time, and besides, most ISIS territory borders Assad or YPG territory and not rebel territory. But nevermind, we shouldn't continue since Wikipedia has a policy on these discussions turning into forums. Nice talk! EkoGraf (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I Agree,but the southern rebels advance is still very possible,the rebels broke in early November a defense line that held them by the Jordan border for nearly a year and a half,so a repeat of the libyan rebel advance from Nafusa mountain to the coast happening in Syria is possible,and also alot of analyst are indicating that an end for the conflict might be soon,and i agree,end of talk.Alhanuty (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't expect an end any time soon (the same analysts have been saying the same thing for years). The war will probably last another 2-3 years. And Syria isn't really comparable to Libya and viceversa. In Libya Gaddafi's Army was only 10 percent of what Assad even now has at his disposal, not to mention the Gaddafi loyalists were under constant threat of air-strikes and had much poorer equipment. Plus less motivation. P.S. Congress just rejected Obama's request to send 300 million dollars to the rebels [2]. The US abandoning the northern rebels in a somewhat last-ditch attempt to prop-up the southern ones isn't really good strategy. EkoGraf (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The southern rebels are the last real moderate front. There has been a lot going on there. A political program, better arms, a defense agreement. Nawa, Tasil, Harrah and Quneitra have fallen within four months. The rebels have the upper hand in Sheikh Maskin and are close to Izra and Sanamayn. If those two towns fall, it will end the Assad army in Daraa. Then the fighting will move to southern Damascus. This is almost inevitable, as the regime does not have the manpower to hold large swaths of land in north and south. IS is advancing in Homs and Palmyra. The regime is weaker then we think it is overall, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all true, but you do realize the government recently relocated some of its best generals and crack units to the south- also they are intensifying air bombardment and reports of close Nusra-FSA cooperation in area do not bode well. Just watch the videos of the attaches in the area, lots of nutty extremists. Read this interview too: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/magazine/theo-padnos-american-journalist-on-being-kidnapped-tortured-and-released-in-syria.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.93 (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

They are not a political opposition they are armed insurgency too many factions and irregular armed group lacking of organization in Israeli border they are stronger because the Israeli military are backing them LOL --Pototo1 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC) .

Villages in Hama

THere are two willages with the same name Jubb Khessara ,can somebody correct that please the name of the village is Mintar al-Hijanah and correct some others villages positon to here. Lindi29 (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing the Kurdish factions' color on map

The current yellow color of the YPG(Kurdish faction) is not easily visible, specially in cases of sieges. I just put an NN siege of Tall Ahmad(I provided source) and nothing happened, I increased the size of the siege by 2 and it is still hard to detect. I remember that the Kurdish factions' color, both that of Rojava and that of KRG, were very good until a few weeks ago; but now the yellow color is just unjustifiable. I think that the color should be changed to solve this problem. Regards. Saeed alaee (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Saeed alaee which source you provided ?Lindi29 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29 look it up in the "edit history". I provided the source, which was a report by SOHR, as part of explanation for the edit. Masive regard ;) Saeed alaee (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Regime forces advances in Aleppo

Who has the information about this issue. Because reliable source reported that army secured a fresh advance, taking the area of Breij northeast of the city Aleppo.Daily MailThe Daily Star and also another a reliable source later said that army advance around Handarat and managed to control al-Breij, al-Hajal, al-Majbal in Aleppo overlooking to Hanano, Haidariyah and Duwayr al-jandul.Elijah J. Magnier. Also some a pro-opposition sources reported that regime advance in Al Brej and is dangerously close to laying siege city of Aleppo.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From Al masdar [3] gains

in al-Brej-Hanano area and in the north Malaah Farms (Mazra’a Al-Malaah) (I guess here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=36.284827&lon=37.122974&z=14&m=b&permpoly=216297). It gives similar info.Paolowalter (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

eaworldview also confirms that the SAA is pushing in Bureij - doesn't say who controls it though but it's clear the SAA is the side trying to advance Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also petolucem confirms fighting in the area.Paolowalter (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But yesterday reliable source said that troops advance around Handarat and managed to control al-Breij, al-Hajal, al-Majbal.Elijah J. Magnier So maybe still continued sporadic clashes in this area. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Government forces had captured all of the al-Malah area as well areas south and west of Handarat town in the countryside.Hot News OnlineReuters Also Syrian army recaptures hill overlooking resupply road from Turkey to Aleppo in fierce fighting.Joshua Landis Hanibal911 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hotnews and Reuters are both quoting Syrian State television concerning al-Malah. Both quote " Syria's state news agency said the army was tightening its "grip on terrorists in Aleppo after new advances. It said pro-government forces had captured all of the al-Malah area.." Daily Star quotes SOHR and confirms at least part of al-Malah fell to the SAA. Doesn't really matter one way or another though - the tide of this battle has been evident for months, and if the SAA hasn't taken all of al-Malah yet, they soon will. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Then quote yourself boredkid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMZn__nakxA and watch videos on Liveleak and in fcking youtube after reading JAN/fsa twitter fanboys right? Aleppo is under siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian forces have taken control over AL-Mallah we have multiple sources as well as video evidence [4] and on top of that even SOHR [5] said the Army has taken control of the area.Map should be updated as soon as possible.Daki122 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

SAA captures Ard al-Mallah, NorthWest Aleppo

Dailystar reported the SAA capture of the Ard al-Mallah village, next to Haritan, after their recent capture of Mazra'a Halabi farms http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0JS0M220141215 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariskar (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.286452&lon=37.115577&z=14&m=b&search=ard%20al-mallah Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Dec-15/281073-syria-fighting-heats-up-in-aleppo-idlib.ashx Also reported by pro-gov source: http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=185645&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariskar (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Ariskar (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree Aleppo map needs changing .81.156.225.119 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Al-Shaykh Miskin

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/12/13-corpses-for-civilians-from-one-family-were-found-in-shekh-meskin/

SOHR mentions Al-Shaykh Miskin is taken over by Al-Nusra and Islamic Battalions(FSA+IF, most likely). Elijah J. Magnier confirmed Shaykh Miskin to be under control of them a few days ago. It seems that the bulk of the city is under insurgents hands, while the SAA/NDF/Hezbollah where beaten back to the city outskirts, maybe holding a few buildings around the city. They also hold the Brigade 82 north of the city. So I believe changing the city to green with Siege rings to the north and to the east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.14.221 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed fighting is northern and eastern shaykh miskin .81.156.225.119 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)