Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Qamishli Offensive

IS has started a large offensive in Qamishli-region tonight! According to SOHR and other sources 4 villages and several checkpoints already taken, IS is 15 kilometers southeast of the city! Looks like SAA and YPG were totally surprised and thus were overrun 79.233.56.226 (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Where's your source which said about this? I only found data from biased pro opposition source which said that ISIS take control of Abu Qasayib and Tall Ghazal after clashes with Syrian army and kurdish YPG ~20km south of Qamishli.herehere But so far no evidence from reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Markito is certainly not a reliable source. We'll have to look for a more reliable one concering Qamishli ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Daily Star quoting SOHR on IS offensive Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the reliable source reported that clashes between SAA and ISIS in Abu-Qasayeb, Twarij, Mathloutha, al-Ghanamiya, Abu Khazaf, Qbaiyah and Tal Nasr in al-Hasaka. Not YPG vs ISIS.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this [1] report by SOHR the clashes in abu-qasayib area are between YPG and ISIL not Rgime and ISIL and also there are clashes taking place between YPG and NDF. Saeed alaee (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think turning all the villages -even ones controlled by kurds AND islamists- contested between SAA-IS seems rushed, this offensive was started by IS against both YPG and SAA and most of the reports (SOHR, PetoLucem, SANA, Hawarnews, pro-IS twitters) indicate clashes centered in Abu Qasayeb and Tal Gazal with all three parties participating, while the only source that reports clashes bw SAA and IS in all of these villages is EjmAlrai.

Furthermore, according to the edits done as per EjmAlrai clashes between IS and SAA have as gone as far as behind the YPG lines and IS lines, seriously, this offensive was started by IS so how does it make sense to put Ghanamiya as contested when not even official loyalist sources have reported getting close to it? Same goes for Tal Nasr which not a single IS source has reported to be close to.

I suggest changing the villages previously marked as YPG controlled yellow again, leaving Abu Qasayeb black and putting Tal Gazal as contested, which is the only info we have multi-POV confirmation for.

190.65.38.206 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop writing nonsense. Elijah J. Magnier it is a reliable source that publishes reliable information. The data in this source publishes chief international correspondent in the Kuwaiti daily newspaper Al Rai. So that data in this source is a reliable. And this source clear said that clashes between SAA and IS in Abu-Qasayeb, Twarij, Mathloutha, al-Ghanamiya, Abu Khazaf, Qbaiyah and Tal Nasr in al-Hasaka.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed he did, but clashes in al-Ghanamiya would mean a considerable SAA advance which has not been reported anywhere, are you sure there isn't any other village called the same in the province? Using reliable sources shouldn't mean omitting apparent incoherences, specially when only one source reports them, but if that's the rule for the map then ok. 190.67.249.96 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And furthermore Elijah reported clashes were taking place in Abu Qusaib between SAA and ISIL while SOHR reported it was actually between YPG and ISIL. And now it seems SOHR was right. No one is questioning the reliability of Elijah J. Magnier, but sometimes even reliable sources make mistakes. There's even the possibility that Elijah used the word SAA to refer to both YPG and the regime forces for the temporary de facto alliance in their fight against ISIL. I'm just saying. Considering previous reports and the way the map looks, SOHR reports on this matter seem more plausible. Saeed alaee (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Also about situation in the village Abu Qusaib SOHR said that in is YPG retake this village but pro-ISIS source said that the pro Assad forces use chemical attack in Abu Qusayibherehere and after this attack NDF jointly YPG retake this village.hereheresirajal7skawi Also yesterday the pro opposition source reported that ISIS captured Abu Qasayib after clashes with SAA and YPG.here So maybe SOHR forgot to clarify that YPG retake this village with support by NDF. So I'm in this matter more trust this reliable source Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Also according to data from to more reliable and neutral source it is Syrian troops backed NDF retake village Abu Qasayib from ISIS and ISIS advance toward Amara, Wahhabiya and Kharab Asker was stopped.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Kobane

The YPG makes significant gains in NorthEast.here,here.Lindi29 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Khan Tuman

Many pro-opp sources reporting rebel attacks on the regime-held Missile Battalion near Khan Touman. https://www.facebook.com/Syrian.Revolution/posts/10155139834390727 Is it indicated on the map? And what's the status of the 3 Ammo Storages nearby? ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

On Wikimapia, some user indicated that the ammunition storage base that is located right next to Khan Tuman is the Missile Battalio. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.137320&lon=37.089329&z=13&m=b&show=/26299347/Ammunition-Depot

It is already marked as regime held on our map which is correct but how could we make sure that it is in fact the missile battalion? And does anyone have sources/maps indicating the status of the other 2 ammunition storage bases nearby (1 is rebel held and 1 is regime held) ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

All the maps I saw (pro-gov or pro-opp) agree that the status of the military bases in this area is the one we display. I added this military base on the map.192.135.12.144 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm not arguing all I'm asking for is recent sources on the situation in Khan Tuman/Southern Aleppo. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And the missile battalion wasn't added. I think the nearest ammunition storage base near Khan Tuman (location provided earlier in this section ^) is the Missile Battalion. That explains the SAA's presence on the outskirts of the town. So please guys if we agree on this, rename the regime held Ammo Storage Facility (the nearest one near Khan Tuman) to Missile Battalion. And please provide us with recent sources concerning the 2 remaining bases in the area, the regime-held Fuel Storage Base and the rebel-held Ammo Storage Facility ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Could you help us find more info on the situation near Khan Tuman and about the rebel-held Ammo Storage Base? And could you rename the regime held Ammo Storage Base on Khan Tuman's outskirts to Missile Battalion? http://wikimapia.org/26299347/Ammunition-Depot ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Also about Ammunition Depot east from Khan Tuman pro oppositio source deSyracuse clear showed that this base under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And this Munition Storage Army Base under control by rebels this confirmed pro government sourcehere Hanibal911 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay thank you! Just rename the Ammunition Storage base here: http://wikimapia.org/26299347/Ammunition-Depot to Missile Battalion because rebels/gov sources are referring to it as such. And you can see the comment on Wikimapia also names it Missile Battalion. This is to distinguish it from the rebel-held Ammunition Storage Base nearby. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Menagh Air Base in gray

When the Islamic State took over the Menagh Military Airbase? Here in gray

Please see:

The FSA is removed from the base: Al-Monitor. Jabhat al-Nusra eyes Idlib for Islamic emirate

The ISIL is removed from the base, which is under the control of al-Nusra Front: html McClatchy DC. In Syria, ISIS pulls out of Azaz as intra-rebel battle brews. BY MITCHELL Prothero. McClatchy Foreign Staff, February 28, 2014

No meeting news that the ISIS retake the base. Greetings.--Nerêo (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nerêo But it is marked under the control of Al Nusra not ISIS. This icon indicates that the airport is under the control of Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this discussion was coordinated with this map. Greetings.--Nerêo (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tall Hmis

Today SOHR reported that violent clashes took place between IS and YPG in the south and southwest of city Ras al- Ayn and near the town of Tall Hmis.SOHR So maybe there for now is clashes between Kurds and ISIS near the town of Tall Hamis. Who has more information about this issue? Hanibal911 (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

According to deSyracuse it's YPG fighting IS "near" Tal Ghazal and Abu Qasayib with SAA artillery support:

https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/549116579221635072

179.32.121.230 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

According to kurds themselves the clashes near Ras al- Ayn are "cleansing-operations" in the villages of Mebrûka and Aliya here. I think that the clashes around Tall Hamis SOHR refers to is the clashes around Abu Qasayib (it´s only 10 km or so away). Rhocagil (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think clashes are near Tal Hamis area not the town itself ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw any point in keeping Tal Ahmad as besieged by YPG from North? With the frontline now closer to Tal Maruf and Qamishli I doubt YPG is still capable of raiding there.

179.32.121.230 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nubl and Al-Zahraa

According to Prensa Latina [2] [3] reports is al-Nusra Front militia besieging the towns of Nubl and Al-Zahraa. This site says the same adding that Ansar al Islam coordinating with the Al Nusrah Front, Jaish al Muhajireen wal Ansar in the attack on the two localities. This website also mentions the attack al-Nusra Front. --Nerêo (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Dozens of groups have their members around Al Zahra and Nubl town, coming from Al Nusra, Ansar Al deen, Brigade 16, Faylaq al-Sham, Islamic Front Aleppo, Ansar Islam, Jaish al-Mujahideen etc ... nobody is trying to make a push besides Al Nusra (in the past month), but they failed too. 109.175.54.247 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

New unification of rebels Shamiah Front excludes cooperation with Al Nusra in Aleppo

Five a powerful armed groups which active in Aleppo have announced the latest bid to rebel unity, dubbing their effort the “Shamiah Front,” as fears grow of a regime encirclement of the rebel-held parts of the northern city. The new alliance is comprised of the Islamic Front, the Mujahedeen Army, the Noureddine Zengi movement, the Fastaqim Kama Umirt gathering and the Asala wa Tanmiya Front. But the Shamiah Front excludes cooperation with the al Nusra , which ejected FSA groups from Idlib province.The Daily Star So let's not kid ourselves hoping that moderate rebels will continue to work closely with the Al Nusra. Besides Al Nusra just as and the ISIS are recognized by many countries as a terrorist organization. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not the entire Islamic front, only Al Tawhid brigade (ex FSA). DuckZz (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken DuckZz. Indeed, the Shamiah Front is under the command of the former chief of Islamic Front in Aleppo. And in the declaration, as in many articles, I understood that the whole members of Islamic Front operating in the Aleppo area have joined forces in the Shamiah Front. Besides, I totally agree with Hanibal911. Lot's of people inside the ranks of moderate rebels are critisizing Al Nusra now, and are afraid from Nusra turning to an other Islamic State against them, as they did in Idlib with the Syrian Revolutionaries Front...Oussj (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hanibal911 and Oussj. I think that the US-sponsored training program for rebels which includes IF but excludes al-Nusra has an influence as well, although not as much as the real fear of al-Nusra becoming another Daesh. Which is already in its' early stages. Don't forget that the original massive protests by the population were for democratic reforms, and the vast majority of rebels are Syrians. (Except al-Nusra, of course. And I'm not counting Daesh as rebels.)

Note also that most of the current islamic rebels (like the Islamic Front) were originally associated with the FSA. André437 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Abu Qasayib

According to data from reliable and neutral source it is Syrian troops backed NDF retake village Abu Qasayib from ISIS and ISIS advance toward Amara, Wahhabiya and Kharab Asker was stopped.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agathocle's new map not only confirms Abu Qasayeb being under joint control but reveals there are no clashes in Abu Khazaf and Tal Nasr which are de facto under kurdish control, and Ghanamiyah which is much farther down the frontline and controlled by IS.

It does however put several villages formerly under SAA or YPG control under IS control which is in accordance to what has happened since they are right in the route IS would have had to use to advance north towards Abu Qasayeb and elsewhere.

https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/548767571206746112/photo/1

179.32.121.230 (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this map there are really no clashes in Abu Khazaf and Tal Nasr and that is really logical beacause SSA and YPG are advancing south to Tal-Tamis,and i see that Tibal Tall Ahmed is in Isis controll.Lindi29 (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bud this is just antigovernment source and we cant use him to show advances for all antigovernment forces. And we cant use this map to show ISIS andvances against army if this data not confirm other more reliable sources or governments sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 this map shows the SAA army advances too? I think we should rely on this map beacause the syrian civil war template is edited just like the map from this source.Regard Lindi29 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29Source deSyracuse is not neutral source. So that we need confirmation from more reliable source. So if you cant provide more reliable source which can confirm this data you need revert your edit. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 pro-goverment sources confrim Isis offensive in Al-Qamishli,The Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) has announced an offensive in the Al-Hasakah district of Al-Qamishli. Recently, ISIS has carried out a number of operations in southern Al-Qamishli; specifically, outside of the village of Tal Hamees. Tal Hamees continues to face fierce resistance by NDF and YPG Forces in the area; however, both groups have been unable to enter the village, as ISIS continues to push north. almasdarnews.Lindi29 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29 But why are you giving me the source which showed situation of 2 October. These data are outdated. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Ok then I will revert my edit but i could not find any other sources that these villages belong to SSA or YPG ,if you find any source that confrim them tell me.Regard and RespectLindi29 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29 Dont need! For now we leave everything as is. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that unannotated maps should be taken as a suggestion of the situation, awaiting some detailed description. BTW, I would consider archcivilian and desyracuse maps unbiased, even if not necessarily accurate or up to date. Both do report advances and retreats of all 5 sides. (regime, main rebels, kurds, al-nusra, daesh).

Besides misinformation in sources and errors in placing control on a map (e.g. changing the wrong town), drawing maps is time consuming and thus likely outdated. I'm not trying to say we need as strong other info before changing our map, just not to rely only on unannotated maps for a particular change. My 2 cents André437 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wider ME(Syrira +Iraq) map with Iraq & US/Israel Bases,

Heres a Map of the Ongoing Fighting over Syria and Iraq. Also have some interesting features, like US/Israel bases and Gaza. May be usefull in the future. http://www.fps-predators.com/#/middle-east-conflict/4585140400.200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion needed

3 directional concentric icons have been removed without source or discussion. Personally, I think all 3 should be reinstated because they show the front lines. lime presence north of Abu Shafiq checkpoint (where the front line is/where clashes are ongoing), red presence south of Muta'iyah (also a front line position), and lime presence north of the Nassib border crossing (rebels hold the town, the SAA holds the checkpoint and last we heard the rebels had the initiative, hence the lime north of Nassib crossing) Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored these to their original status here pending sources or others' input Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Khazzanat Camp

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=748013041959319 That's an interview with a regime officer describing the SAA's tactical retreat from Wadi-El-Deif/Hamidiyah. In the last part of the interview he says that retreating SAA forces bypassed the Khazzanat Camp to reach the first SAA positions, located north of Morek. We conclude that Khazzanat Camp is rebel-held. Here is another proof, the SAA's 11th Tank Division, the one operating in Idlib & Hama, denying that SAA captured Khazzanat Camp. https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/749090718504420 ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This neutral (moderately pro-regime) source also reports that SAA is PREPARING TO RETAKE Al-Khazzanat Camp and other areas in Southern Idlib. http://www.baladnaonline.net/ar/NewsDetails.aspx?pageid=248027

ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid that we have a neutral and fully reliable source, Elijah J Mangir, that is more recent than your sources from the 11th tank division here https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/538240965614780416. Also, Al Arabia [Saudi state TV, pro-opp] reported fighting in Khan Sheikhoun, which would be impossible without SAA control of khazzanat. Simply because retreating regime forces retreated to Morek, does not mean that Khazzanat is rebel-held. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

1)But 25 November opposition source SOHR reported that violent clashes between the regime forces supported by NDF against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions in the north of Morek town which is held by the regime forces, where al- Nusra and the battalions have attempted to advance towards al- Khazzanat Camp near the city of Khan Sheikhon in the southern countryside of Idlib.SOHR So it is strange why Al Nusra and other rebels fought to advance to the camp if he was under their control.

2)Also 27 November Al Arabiya reported that Syrian troops advanced to the city of Khan Sheikhan and said about clashes inside city.Al Arabiya and other sources Independent Press AgencySawt CairoIrakna News PortalDar Al Akhbar But troops cant be entered in the city if they earlier not take Al Khazanat camp. Because it is located near the road and is strategically important for the attack on the city. But also would not be possible to attack the city leaving the rebel bastion in their rear.

3) Reliable source reported that that control of Khaz'zanat helped regime forces inside Al-Zohour military airport to advance into nearby villages.Elijah J. Magnier And also this source reported that pro FSA activist in Idlib now confirming that Syrian troops and NDF have taking Camp "Khazanat"Elijah J. Magnier

So that this data clear confirmed that this camp the under control by army. Also pro opposition source deSyracuse 17 december just show that this area contested but not show that this area the under control by rebels or Al Nusra.here So this camp may not be as under rebel control. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a direct confirmation of my words! Here 26 November pro government source reported the Syrian Army’s 11th Tank Division has announced the capture of Camp Khazanat (Reservoir Camp) after weeks of heavy firefights with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham (Falcons of the Levant Brigades) north of the city of Morek. According to a military source, Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham suffered heavy casualties during the battle; this forced them to retreat north to the city of Khan Sheikhoun.Al Masdar And the next day Al Arabiya and some other sources confirm this report and also report about clashes in the city Khan Sheikhan.Independent Press AgencySawt CairoIrakna News PortalDar Al Akhbar Hanibal911 (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Elijah quoted a rebel activist and my newspaper quoted another. But the interviewer explicitly said that the Khazzanat Camp is rebel-held. He said WE BYPASSED THE KHAZZANAT CAMP TO REACH THE FIRST FRIENDLY POSITIONS LOCATED NORTH OF MOREK. Nothing is clearer. And the 11th Tank Division page on Facebook is directed by soldiers who came back from fighting in Idlib/Hama/Homs. I provided 3 clear sources, 2 regime and 1 neutral, stating that Al-Khazzanat is rebel-held. Fighting can be reported in Khan SHeykhoun without controlling Al Khazzanat. We saw how the retreating SAA forces passed through hostile territory with minimal casualties. I'm sorry Hanibal911 but you provided a journalist source quoting a rebel activist. All the remaining articles copy that of Al-Arabiya which itself has denied that the regime re-took Al Khazzanat. So it's Elijah and your conclusion vs 3 recent explicit sources. You haven't convinced me. I'm pretty sure other users such as Boredwhytekid agree with me. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained to you guys that the SOHR post (25/11/2014) in English had a typo since the ORIGINAL Arabic version and a recent version here, dated 13/12/2014 http://www.syriahr.com/2014/12/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88/ said that regime forces are trying to advance towards Al-Khazzanat camp, controlled by Al-Nusra and Islamic Battalion. That's the last nail in the coffin --> Khazzanat to green. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree Khazzanat to green Khan Shaykhoun to contested .81.156.224.243 (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree! Because other source clear said that Khazzanat Camp under control by army. And pro rebel source deSyracuse 17 december just show that this area contested but not show that this area the under control by rebels or Al Nusra.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR, 2 PRO-Regime, 1 Neutral sources said it is rebel held and you insist on disagreeing?? Based on 1 map saying it is contested/Elijah quoting an activist? You sir are not being reasonable. ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave you 2 pro-regime sources, 2 fighters who participated in the actual battle saying Khazzanat it rebel held yet you disagree because a Twitter User outside Syria drew a map?? This is Wikipedia man. Be logical. I also provided SOHR and a neutral respected newspaper also saying Khazzanat is rebel-held. But you disagree based on:

• A typo SOHR made on 25/11/2014
• Elijah quoting some FSA activist
• A map saying it is contested

ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you guys compromise some how?81.156.224.243 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Regime 11th Tank Division, whose admins are soldiers fighting in that Division responsible of Hama,Idlib and Homs, denying that SAA re-took Khazzanat https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/749090718504420

Regime fighter who escaped the siege saying that SAA bypassed the Khazzanat Camp in order to reach the nearest/first SAA positions located North of Morek: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=748013041959319

Respectable neutral (moderately pro-regime) newspaper saying SAA is preparing to re-take Khazzanat which is rebel-held. http://www.baladnaonline.net/ar/NewsDetails.aspx?pageid=248027

SOHR recently saying Khazzanat is controlled by Nusra/Islamic Battalions http://www.syriahr.com/2014/12/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88/

I think nothing is more clear, more evident than this. Compromise is done when things are not clear but here, they perfectly are. Khazzanat to green.

ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

1) Report of SOHR dated 25 November.

2) Report from pro government source here dated 27 November. But Al Arabiya and some other sources report about clashes in the city Khan Sheikhan.Independent Press AgencySawt CairoIrakna News PortalDar Al Akhbar But troops cant be entered in the city if they earlier not take Al Khazanat camp. Because it is located near the road and is strategically important for the attack on the city. But also would not be possible to attack the city leaving the rebel bastion in their rear. So it is likely that camp was captured.

3) But 28 November reliable source reported that Al Khazanat camp under control by army.Elijah J. MagnierElijah J. Magnier Also here source published a data from the Syrian Revolution Front page in facebook which confirm that Syrian army was able to control Camp Khazanat because of Al Nusra attacks on rebels.here

4)Also 1 december pro government source said that 11th Tank Division captured Camp Khazanat south of Khan Sheikhoun.here Pro opposition source deSyracuse 8 December and 17 December showed that this area contested. And we no all know arabic so we cant be absolutely sure that in this video report here says that Al Khazanat camp under control by rebels. So that in a compromise, we can put a green mark near to the camp. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also pro rebels source Archicivilians 22 December published map herehere wher clear showed that army still present on south of Idlib province in area wher located this camp and and this also confirmed pro opposition source deSyracusehereand this confirm that not all troops retreated in Hama province. So what I propose as a compromise leave it under the control of the army but with a green semicircle on the north side. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your report of SOHR is a typo and is outdated, mine is more recent and is clear. The pro-regime source you provided is DENYING that SAA retook Khazzanat. So that's 2 irrelevant sources you gave. Then you provided a series of press agencies quoting Al Arabyya that mentioned clashes in Khan Sheikhoun. THEY DID NOT MENTION AL KHAZZANAT! It is your own personal conclusion. Elijah quoted some UNKNOWN Facebook user, without a name, claiming SAA retook Khazzanat. Then you provide me with a pro regime source saying SAA retook KHazzanat. So lets see:

* Your SOHR source here: SOHR is dated 25November while mine is dated 13 December here http://www.syriahr.com/2014/12/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%88/ ==> Your argument is invalid.

* Elijah quoted a NAMELESS Facebook activist Elijah J. MagnierElijah J. Magnier, fine, I'm quoting a pro-regime Facebook page denying that SAA retook Khazzanat. https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/749090718504420 ==> Your argument is invalid.

* You said Al Arabyya Al Arabiya mentioned clashes in Khan Sheikhoun so YOU CONCLUDED SAA retook Khazzanat. Well I provided a neutral newspaper CLEARLY SAYING SAA did NOT RETAKE Khazzanat. http://www.baladnaonline.net/ar/NewsDetails.aspx?pageid=248027 ==> Your argument is invalid.

* You provided us with a DeSyraCuse map saying Khazzanat is contested here 8 December. Well I provided you with an INTERVIEW of a SYRIAN OFFICIER who retreated from Hamidiyah saying Khazzanat is rebel-held. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=748013041959319 ==> DeSyraCuse vs Syrian Officier? ==> Your argument is invalid.

* The archiviliians maps you provided show Khazzanat under rebel control ==> Your argument is invalid.

You say not all of you speak arabic. It is an arabic conflict and you used my help to translate numerous articles. Well I watched the interview and the officer did clearly imply that Khazzanat is rebel-held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

LET THE USERS/EDITORS DECIDE. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94 Ok! Agree. But then let us note it under rebel control but put a red semi-circle on the south side because the pro opposition source clearly shows that the army still controls the territory in this area.archicivilians and deSyracuse Hanibal911 (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright I'm happy you have been logical and reasonable. Yes we keep Khan Shaykhoun contested, we change Khazzanat to green with a red semi-circle to its south. Cheers mate. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

why we don't put all cities in green? you are destroying map. please hanibal react!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.17.25 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This map has been made to reflect the reality on the ground. It isn't made to satisfy your fantasies. I believe Hanibal911 among other users is a respectable, respectful and logical editor who is not biased and listens to reason and logic. I convinced him using up to date proof that the map contained an error, he agreed and that was it. We don't fight each other here, WE HELP EACH OTHER. Cheers ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Belated but - looks like the conclusion reached here accurately reflects the reality on the ground. 95.155.17.25, when there is contention/unclear situations, we dig up as many sources as possible on the topic, post them here, and discuss/argue out the facts best we can to keep the map as accurate as possible. It's a form of cooperation, not conflict. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As it should be. Sometimes it takes a little longer to arrive at a conclusion, but we do end up with a better map. Also, I think having ChrissCh94 on our team is an invaluable asset !

BTW, I think we should have a policy of taking unannotated maps as suggestions, to be confirmed by other info. Note that even desyracuse, who produces generally excellent maps, comments along side his maps that they are not necessarily completely accurate. This town being a good example. André437 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate that! And yes not every map should be deemed reliable. ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Madaya

[4] [5]SOHR and Mojez (pro-opp) saying that Syrian Air force dropped barrel bombs on/in Madaya.

But I am confused since this pro-opp article here [6] explicitly says Madaya is under regime control despite ISIS sleeper cells inside the city.

Interestingly, the arabic Wikipedia article says both parties retreated from the town with the regime keeping checkpoints on the outside [7].

This pro-opp source says FSA forces targeted a regime checkpoint INSIDE the city of Madaya:[8]

Finally this pro-opp article clears things up [9] It says Madaya signed a truce 2 years ago with the regime where the FSA promised not to attack the regime's positions inside and around the town while the regime would not target the town with shelling. They also agreed on the formation of a local militia belonging to the NDF but formed of local people. Kinda like Qadesh etc.

So it's like Jayroud: under truce but informally under regime control. And like Jayroud it is sometimes shelled when nearby rebels/sleeper cells break the truce and attack regime positions. I vote we keep it as it is, regime held, because like Jayroud and Al-Tall, they are under informal regime control and despite the notion of "truce", it is an unequal one. Opinions? ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a semi green circle to the east to show that rebels sometimes carry out raids from Zabadani and break the truce. ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be best. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree! Also Al Tall on one hundred percent under control of the army. This city is under control by army with february.Al Monitor Also 20 October pro opposition source Archicivilians also showed that Al Tall under control by army. Also pro opposition source deSyracuse 8 August8 September8 October20 October8 November8 December and on map which showed evolution of the Damascus frontline clea show that Al Tall under control by army. But also one more pro opposition source clearly shows that the city under the control of the army.1 November15 November1 December15 December So that no truce in the city of Al Tall he under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Before I even start a conversation about a bigger change on the map, is Cheldric Labrouse considered reliable ? DuckZz (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz Sorry buddy but Cedric Labrousse it is opposition activist.here We have previously used it data to display only success by army and the Kurds! Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Hanibal911 those areas are under informal SAA control. But to illustrate that rebels sometimes try to infiltrate/raid those towns and that breaks the truce made with the civilians there, I suggest adding a green semi-circle to the North East of Madaya from Zabadani's side and to the East of Jayroud as well. And DuckZz, Cedric Labrousse is a very well known anti-regime pro-rebel activist. He is anti-ISIS as well. ChrissCh94 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you ChrissCh94 about a green semi-circle to the North East of Madaya from Zabadani's side! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Melabyia (Hasakah)

Al-Melabyia is marked red. Even according to Sana here, there are clashes inside the village. Al-Melabyia should be marked contested. Rhocagil (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Many sources reported in the summer that SAA has reached the entrance of Regiment 121. So the SAA has a presence south of Hasakah but I agree with you, AL Melabya should become contested. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe then we should add a red one side siege icon north of Regiment 121. Anyway it seams logical. Rhocagil (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Rhocagil Maybe you are right! Hanibal911 (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

According to data from pro opp source fierce clashes was between the army and the IS group broke out near the security branch of al-Melabiya not inside al-Melabiya.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Eblas GTP Gas Plant

I added Ebla GTP Gas Plant here as the gas plant referenced by SOHR. Pretty sure it's the right one. Any comments? Also, to indicate the IS presence from whence the vehicle born suicide attack originated, I put a black concentric to the northeast of Murran al Fuwairah here since it is closer to the front line with IS than the actual gas plant, and as such is a clearer indicator of the front line. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just blew up two car bombs but not clashes in this area so dont need put black semicircle. The Daily Star Because we put on map these semicircles in situation when near the village, town or near with the military base or near industrial facility the clashes or semi siege but not after terrorist attacks. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

According to TahriSy, IS is massing troups in Al Taibah. Now he didn't said that IS captured this or that what would indicate that he's trying to convince us in something, but it looks like this area has been under their control for a while. Now I find him very reliable, he uses his own sources. What other think ? DuckZz (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That source is an established pro-opp source and cannot be used for insurgent gains. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

TahrirSy is by no means reliable. Now I'm with adding black semi circles if recent clashes/raids occurred in the area (ex: Shaer) but what about Ebla? Just a car bomb afaik. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

TahriSy is on 100% biased antigovernment source which we cant use in this issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

When a car bomb goes off in central Damascus or Homs or Tartus, it's a terrorist attack. When a car bomb goes off at a site directly parallel to IS positions, it's the opening salvo of an IS attack. Their first strike is always suicide car bombs. Hence I put the black semi-circle - because there are no known SAA positions between the Furqlus area and the IS front line just to the NE. It's essentially a front line, and the car bombing is just another sign of that. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes but Furuqlus sits well deep in gov territory, it is surrounded by army positions and known for its pro-regime stance. Many NDF fighters come from there. Not a front-line thing. Kinda like a car bomb going off in, let's say Safira. To the east we have ISIS and to the west we have rebels but no insurgency/sleeper cells inside of it. It is heavily fortified. The Ebla GTP is even further to the south, safer from conventional attacks. I say keep it as it is and don't add anything. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Karmin

SOHR reported that Al Nusra seized a post of Hazem Movement in Kafar Karmin area in the western countryside of Aleppo.SOHR So we need add this village and mark her as contested between Al Nusra and moderate rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why contested ? No logic, if you put it as contested, it will stay forever like that. SOHR didn't report about clashes, so the town needs to go under JAN control with a semicircle DuckZz (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cancel the Idea of Gray Color

We all know that there were clashes between most rebel groups with each other. even between groups from Islamic front itself or FSA. Most Gray towns in the map have other rebel groups and most green towns in the map have also Nusra presence. this is not the right time to use a unique color for Nusra Front. So let us give accurate information and unite the two colors again. 3bdulelah (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The independent nature of JAN, and it's direct ties to core al Qaeda, make it an anomaly amongst rebel groups. While there are indeed HUGE differences between, say, the Islamic Front and the SRF, they are close enough in the context of the current conflict to show both in lime green. JAN on the other hand is a different animal entirely. It's sole executive control over areas is well documented. Just from this month alone: ISW, al-Monitor, ISW, etc. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Gray color for Al Nusra it was the best solution because in most cases they have long been cooperating with moderate rebel groups. Because Jabhad Al Nursa defeat one of the major moderate rebel groups(Syrian Revolution Front) in Idlib province.Al Monitor and now also fight against some rebel groups in Dara province.Elijah J. MagnierElijah J. MagnierhereSOHRElijah J. Magnier Also reliable source said that Al Nusra kill a senior commander from moderate rebel group accusing him that his faction it is a sleeper agents for ISIL. Mousab Ali Qarfan who also have other name Mousab Zaytouneh, was a leading figure in the powerful Al Yarmouk Brigades. He was killed by the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra in Sahem El Golan, along with three other fighters from his group. The Yarmouk Brigades are part of the moderate rebels alliance, still commonly referred to as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to opposition sources which monitoring Al Nusra, and information published on social media by some activists close to the Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra commanders believed that Zaytouneh was secretly in league with the extremist militant group ISIL.The Nationl

Also Al Nusra captured city Al Rastan which was one of the strategically important rebel towns in the province of Homs.Al QudsMasralarabiaAl JazeeraAl Arabiya Hanibal911 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the Nusra control towns have Islamic Front and Jund Al-Aqsa jihadists, that are considered under the green color. I also agree to remove Nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.152.90 (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see your imagination knows no boundaries. So that dont need make unfounded statements. Also Jund Al-Aqsa is allied of Al Nusra against moderate rebels. And in Idlib Province Al Nusra defeat one of the major moderate rebel groups(Syrian Revolution Front) in Idlib province and expel Jamal Maarouf. And after completing its control over the countryside of Idlib province, from the north to the south, Jabhat al-Nusra will have expanded the limits of the emirate it intends to set up, once it liquidates its opponents.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jund al-Aqsa is closer to JAN than any other group. As for the towns JAN seized from the SRF, the only Islamic Front involvement was Ahrar al-Sham, which, amongst the IF, is the faction closest to JAN. Perhaps more of the sites that fell in the recent Wadi Deif/Hamidiyah offensive do indeed have additional IF presence, so maybe some of those need green dots added, but by and large the JAN exclusive control area is as indicated on this map. The fact of the matter is, in that part of Idlib, no one, civilian or fighter or group, can do anything without JAN's implicit or explicit approval - that's control, that's governance, that's borderline emirate, that deserves a color in and of itself. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Also Jund Al-Aqsa and Ahrar ash-Sham less a month ago helped of Al Nusra win the fight against moderate rebel groups Al-Nusra Front–Syria Revolutionaries Front conflict Hanibal911 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Boredwhytekid and Hanibal911 here. Jabhat Al Nusra went solo in areas where it has popular support and superior numbers (rural Idlib). It fought, executed and stole US-Weapons from the SRF. That has earned it its gray color in areas where it (JAN) rules alone. For example, Nusra has smaller numbers in Daraa and Damascus, therefore it HAS to cooperate with Islamist and moderate rebels. In areas where things are more urgent and despite having important manpower (Aleppo for instance), JAN also HAS to cooperate with other factions. That's why we kept it green in Aleppo, Damascus and Daraa. The problem is in Qalamoun. JAN and ISIS both have the greater numbers and are sucking the life out of the other rebel factions (Islamists and Moderates). But in terms of manpower and logistics ISIS still prevails over Nusra. Recently we have also witnessed fighting and so we can't keep it green there. That's why my suggestion to fellow editors Boredwhytekid and Hanibal911 is to place 3 rural presence icons in Western Qalamoun, one big black ISIS, one medium grey Nusra, and a small green one for rebels/Islamists. I also recommend adding a green rural presence in Eastern Qalamoun since it's the "backbase" of the IF and Zahran Alloush. ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of the additional rural icons, but I'm not sure if we can fit them into Western Qalamoun. Perhaps we should make them straddle the border, half on the Lebanese side. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes but then what about other borders :/ My point is that the rural presence in western Qalamoun is not rebel-represented. It's mostly ISIS and Al Nusra. Could we make one rural presence icon containing 2 colors? Half green half black? I know it sounds complicated/sophisticated but it would reflect a more accurate reality, something we work on. Thoughts? Boredwhytekid Hanibal911 ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Boredwhytekid and ChrissCh94.Lindi29 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid because map already very loaded. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the majority of people who don't like this color is because it reminds them of ISIS on this map. I have never seen JAN using the grey color as their symbol. I don't think we should remove the icon, especially from Idlib, they earn it there, but maybe it's a good idea to change its color ? Besides black (already used here), JAN logo color is blue. A better idea would be to use a dark green color to represent JAN presence, as this would improve the quality of the map, ease of editing, remove excess discuss etc ... Here's a good example of how the map would look like, altought Thomas uses dark green for something else but it's the same concept. What do you think ? Boredwhytekid DuckZz (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Dark green also hints that the relations between JAN and the other rebels hasn't fallen apart to the degree that it did with IS. It shows that they are separate from the main rebels but still cooperate as mainly the same fighting force against Assad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.90.239 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree! Because gray color is closer to black and we all know that the flags which use Al Nusra a black color.Flag of the Al-Nusra Front Also Al Nusra does not use green color on the flags. Also of all the opposition inscriptions or graffiti was painted black paint in the towns and villages which was captured from the moderate rebels in Idlib provincehere So that gray it is the best solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a good point - that dark green is a more appropriate color to depict JAN's (mostly) working relationship with the other rebel organizations/groups than grey. Grey is closer in color to the IS black, and the implication is that we are equating JAN closer to the IS than to any other belligerent party. I agree that right now, yes, a dark green more accurately depicts the current tentative alliances between JAN and the other rebel groups than grey does; but, I still prefer the grey because in the long run, no matter what direction this war in the Levant goes, JAN will never be fighting to hoist the green flag of the revolution. I agree with Hannibal - JAN wants to hoist the black flag, and their color on our map should indicate so. To show them in green would misrepresent their professed ideological platform. Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I know, their color is black but it's already in use. A dark green color would perfectly fit in the map, it would show the jihady presence in Syria, light green would show more moderate rebels, yes that includes Ahrar Sham, because an emirate is not their goal neither they committe crimes like Jund Al Aqsa (JAN) or ISIS. The map would be much clearer and easier to understand. I know they don't use dark green for their flags, but neither grey, it's even more logical to use dark blue because they use that color for their public channels. On some parts in Syria they hate ISIS more than anyone (Quneitra, Darra, Damascus, Deir Ezor). My suggestion is dark green or dark blue (looks like grey) its only my opinion DuckZz (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZzBoredwhytekidOn their flag is a white and black color so gray that it's somewhere between these colors. But I am against green for Al Nusra. If more gray associates them with ISIS but dark green associated Al Nusra with moderate rebels but this in the current situation is absolutely not correct. So we need a neutral color. So I suggest two options:

1) Leave a gray color because it is neutral between white and black colors which present are on the flag of Al Nusra. 2) Or choose a neutral color Crimson Lake Favourite Green Dark Brown Orange Midnight BlueGolden BrownRaw 20Umber Hanibal911 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to voice my opinion. Nusra, like its been stated, is an anomaly among moderate rebel groups since even though they are allies with some of them they come into conflict with others and are the official branch of Al Qaeda. Thus they are notable enough to have their own color on the map. EkoGraf (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Favourite green looks pretty good, its similar to grey but still fits in the map as a different color. Maybe use this one, it has more contrast :) DuckZz (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz They must be of different colors. Because de facto the Al Nusra has long been an opponent of the moderate opposition. So that will look more correct one of these colors:Favourite green, ,Raw Umber Hanibal911 (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Did someone actually made the file circle or ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz If we all decide to use this color, we can turn to the editor who made for us a gray icon. What would he do a new icon. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to DuckZz for notifying me about this discussion.

1) I would suggest a somewhat more greyish version of the Favourite_Green suggested, for the following reasons :

1a) Evidently al-Nusra long-term goals are incompatible with the main rebels, and they are already in sporadic 5armed conflict with some of them, much as Daesh was before. So they need their own colour.

1b) On reflection, the pure medium grey doesn't contrast enough with the borders, so it would be good to change it.

1c) The Islamic Front risks to have somewhat incompatible long-term goals, so I think we should reserve dark green for them. (Although I expect that it probably won't be needed.)

1d) This would leave a medium grey-green as a distinct colour. Note that Favourite_Green is already a bit greyish. Being a variation of green, it suggests the current association with the main rebels.

1...) So does a somewhat more greyish version of Favourite_Green sound good ? (Maybe call it greygreen ?)

2) For stable shared control, I have made some 2-part and 3-part pie charts, yet to be uploaded for approval by the group. This will allow a single icon for all shared control dots.

(Note that I will have to adjust the grey currently used for al-Nusra.)

3) For uncertain control, I have an idea : a question mark with a circle for the dot. It could overlay an existing icon, or be used alone. This means that we would not have to remove icons that might be otherwise useful just because we don't know the current control status.

The colour of the question mark would best be distinct from others used. (Maybe orange ??)

4) Maybe a violet circle around a control dot to indicate truces, since the area under truce is usually only controlled by the main rebels. Sometimes shared with the regime.

So feedback on any or all of these points would be appreciated. André437

André437

1) I support the idea for Al Nusra (favourite green) color. Althought the color is different than grey on paper, it still looks like grey on most monitors, so maybe you can increase the contrast a bit.

2) Islamic front will never have their own color, so dark green is not reserved for them, because they make up at least 55% of rebel groups.

3) Pie charts are not a good idea, would make the map too much complicated as it already is, we barely find sources at this point, not to even mention the details for every place lol. Question marks are not needed, few places are unclear but are marked as contested as they probably are. Truces are only present in biggers towns, which are edited with colors, violet is already present. DuckZz (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

My interest is pretty much only about File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map which is made from this module.

I'd prefer Al-Nursa to be re-included in green, but I doubt that's going to happen. In that case any colour that's not close to existing dot colours, redy-purple, pink, grey, yellowy-orange and greenish-yellow, or cyanish green. Also, not the green-red overlap purple or the yellow-grey overlap yellow (from contested. This pretty much leaves: Dark green, Some oranges, White (which wouldn't for shading). I'd consider it likely that a not dark enough green or a light blue may cause confusion on a map.

But realistically, pretty much anything is better than grey, so even though I might not like a colour we change to, unless you want to reuse a colour, I'd agree with changing to it. Both another editor and I have made mistakes with thinking grey is black, the difference only being obvious when dealing with towns. With helicopters and besieged at one side icons mistakes are harder to spot.

Also, grey is causing problems with the file, because if grey is used in the foreground to shade the map, it is easily confused with black.

Going through above suggested colours my opinion is: Crimson Lake: Not likely to cause confusion Favourite Green: Looks a lot much like Black on map Dark Brown: Looks too much like Black on map Hannible's orange: Looks a lot much like Red on the map Midnight Blue: Looks a lot like Black on the map Golden Brown: Looks a little like Black on the map. Raw Umber: Looks a lot like Black on the map.

Tl;DR: My colour preference from selection above

1. Joins existing green (Probably should get consensus for doing this first, suggest we pick another colour before trying this)
2. 
3. Crimson Lake (from Hannible's link)
4. Orange (from Hannible's link)

Also, not sure if this should be here but can we clear up the template a little, we don't really need to list all possible the 2 way conflicts, do we? Though if we were listing them, we'd need rebel/Kurds and IS/JaN (though those two are unlikely). 3 way is really unlikely to be used, at least I can't see a 3 way fight without IS.

--John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blue color is a terrible idea, the map would look like a rainbow, too much colors. In my opinion, we need to use a dark color because the JAN circles will be around in out Rebel areas, which are marked as light green, JAN need to have a darker color because it would fit right there and of course darker color indicates their jihady ideology. My suggestion :

1. Brunswick green, looks like the favourite green that Hanibal posted but with a bit more contrast. DuckZz (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No it is bad idea! Best solution in this situation when we cant agree which color we want use for marks Al Nusra I propose retain grey color for Al Nusra. Or choose another neutral color which no would belong neither to green and neither to black. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That colour looks too black. The black is 0r0g0b, the green we have is 255 deep Brunswick green is 19r39g,14b. If we aren't going to use any of the colours I said above (I'm really not sure what's wrong with it looking like a rainbow) and want to go with something between green and black, then we should go right in the middle with a colour Wikipedia refers to as Shades_of_green#Islamic_green [colour] It appears to be clear on the map as being a different colour.--John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Some missing military sites

Greetings. I believe it is important to add some missing military sites to add strategic depth and importance to certain areas.

For example this is Brigade 13 near Dimas area (that was bombed by Israel some time ago): http://wikimapia.org/25789288/Army-Terrain

Or this Air Defense Base overlooking Madaya, some say it is the Hosh Checkpoint bombing Zabadani: http://wikimapia.org/25740332/ar/ممكن-حاجز-الحوش؟

Here the regiment/brigade 14 near Nabek http://wikimapia.org/24864101/Army-Base

This air defense base overlooking 2 VITAL highways: http://wikimapia.org/25972814/Air-Defense-Base

This SAA outpost near the border crossing: http://wikimapia.org/31776572/Syrian-Army-outpost

Many many more sites can be found on Wikimapia showing SAA presence in numerous areas that seemingly lack this presence. The desert for example is not as empty as we may have thought. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree! Also all government and opposition source showed that these area where located these objects under control by army. We need to man up map. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I know they sit well inside Gov-territory but they do help the map in a strategic way, they show the border is not defenseless, East/West Qalamoun not totally connected etc...

Feel free to add any other SAA site you think adds strategic depth to our map. ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We need add those military sites. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also maybe we need also add some border posts in Dara province which located near of the Jordanian border to east from Nassib border crossing.hereherehereherehere Because pro government here and pro opposition archiciviliansarchicivilians sources clear showe that this area still under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree because it shows that the Eastern Jordanian border is not open to men/weapons such as the west. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also some hamlets Abu RasAl-Mashafi, Jordanian-Syrian Joint Industrial Free Zone and Sheikh Khader Zubi Farm which located in area near Nassib border crossng which still under control by army. Pro government here and pro opposition archiciviliansarchicivilians sources clear showe that this area still under control by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If we're adding minutia to the map, unsourced minutia, then we need to do it evenly. We need to add under IS control all populated places between Raqqa and their holdings in Homs. We should add every tiny little farm as grey in Eastern Qalamoun. We should add the literally HUNDREDS of villages in Eastern Idlib province that between Abu al-Duhur and the Hama-Aleppo highway that are rebel held. Especially the Idlib towns - Eastern Idlib has HUNDREDS of villages that are way more populated and strategically important than the 2-building red dots you're proposing to add. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You're proposing that we line the entire Jordanian border in red, when we all know it's porous. We can do that, sure, but if we're adding strategically important sites without sources, let's fill in all of our major blanks here, not just the pro-government ones. Idlib is entirely rebel held, essentially, and look at all the villages we're not showing - it's a huge blank spot on our map. If we're marking the entire Jordanian border red without sources, we need to fill this giant gap in as green... going by our map you'd think Sinjar is the only populated place in eastern Idlib. It's a gross misrepresentation. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

BoredwhytekidOk! Now I remove from the map Sheikh Khader Zubi Farm and Abu Ras, Al-Mashafi hamlets but I left on map a border posts which I earlier add and Industial zone. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against Sheikh Khader Zubin Farma nd Abu Ras, al-Mashafi hamlets going on the map - they are SAA held, no doubt about it, and they should be added. I think we should add them, AND sites in Idlib, AND the IS pathway to Hama province. Let's get all 3 done while we're in this consensus spirit of fixing our evident mistakes though without sources.

Not to come off as pro-op, but we're missing so many rebel-held sites in Idlib that it's disgraceful. The whole province is out of SAA hands except the corridor Jish Shugur to Idlib city. There are TONS of towns in east Idlib around Sinjar that we could/should add - because right now our map shows that area as unpopulated/no rebel presence.. though it's heavily populated and all rebel held. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid About the Idlib province, I agree with you. Also reliable source clear said that Front Al Nusra and a number of Islamist militias, along with a small number of FSA groups, now controlled between 70 and 80 percent of Idlib province.The Daily Star But according to the source FSA and moderate rebels have a small presents in Idlib province. So maybe we need add villages to under control of Al Nusra. Also another source said that Al-Nusra to liquidate the Syria Revolutionaries Front and expel Jamal Maarouf from Idlib province in October. Within two months, Jabhat al-Nusra has achieved a level of progress that Maarouf did not achieve during two years of operations against the two camps. This may create a further favorable environment for Jabhat al-Nusra in the region. By completing its control over the countryside of Idlib, from the north to the south, Jabhat al-Nusra will have expanded the limits of the emirate which Al Nusra intends create.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here - I didn't go crazy adding towns, just enough to keep it proportionate with the SAA ones in Daraa. A few green dots to fill in the gaps in Idlib province, and a few black dots to show the IS transit route southwest to Hama and from Raqqah south to the al-Taybah region. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911, I added the Idlib towns in green for the time being, if for no other reason than that so far JAN's stronghold seems to be tighter in Western Idlib than Eastern Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid OK! Hanibal911 (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid I knew you were going to disagree. Not accusing you of being biased but it was expected. I suggested adding those sites because they are not random. They show the Homs-Baghdad road is under regime control (since roads aren't illustrated here), they show that Eastern Qalamoun isn't fully connected to its Western counterpart. And finally it shows that the Eastern Jordanian border isn't as porous as the Western one, where most rebel gains are located. The sites I suggested should be added not to show increased regime strength but to illustrate several points. I am not against adding rebel sites, in fact if you look up in earlier archives I was the one who suggested adding the rebel held bases in western Aleppo especially the Khan Al Assal police academy where hundreds died in the battle there. So Hanibal911 don't add random SAA sites, just add those few 4-5 sites I provided in my first post in this section. And if Boredwhytekid has more suggestions concerning rebel-held bases we are listening ^^ Cheers. ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for adding the bases - I just proposed filling in Idlib a bit when other SAA sites starting going up, like farms and industrial sites. Also not against those either though. Just wanted to fill in Eastern Idlib a little and the same for the IS corridor to Hama. Both also add realism/strategic depth to the map, because they are known areas of control that up til now we have not accurately shown. We still need to sprinkle in a few dots between Abu al-Duhur and the Aleppo road too - still a major blank spot on our map, shown as rebel held on every other map. There are not bases, or even specific sites, but the area is littered with rebel villages and yet by glancing at our map you'd think it's an unoccupied desert. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

According to data from Joshua landis al Nusra controlled 5% territory in Syria and the moderate rebels also now controlled nearby 5% territory in Syria. So that according to those data we need be careful when we add the cities or villages under rebel control of rebels or Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you find a single map that does NOT show that area as rebel held? desyracuse, archicivilians, political geography now, Carter center, wikicommons.. Seriously though, can you find one that shows that area in anything but green? The SAA firmly holds the highway to Aleppo. The countryside to the west of the highway has been rebel held, and shown as such on every map but ours, for 2 years. On our map we show it as an empty desert though. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid OK Agree! But then we also need add some towns and villages in the сentral and south parts the Latakia province because we all know that those areas is completely under control by army and in Tartus province which is fully under control by army. And how I earlier said we need more in details research the situation in the Idlib province where according to data from many reliable sources of Al Nusra controls much of the province after they expelled from province SRF (Syrian Revolution Front). Hanibal911 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we're going 1-for-1-for-1, if anything, or nothing. The unsourced but accurate SAA sites on the Jordanian border and the unsourced but accurate rebel control in Eastern Idlib and the equally unsourced but accurate IS corridor from Raqqah to Hama. All 3 have strategic importance, and by doing all 3 no one can be accused of bias because we'll be bending the rules equally for all sides while not compromising the integrity of the map. Central/southern Latakia and Tartus are #1 irrelevant because we already show both provinces SAA held, and #2 inappropriate because that'd be 2 locations for the SAA and only 1 each for rebels and IS. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94, André437, DuckZz, Alhanuty - Yay or Nay? My opinion is that all 3 unsourced additions - red, lime, and black - improve the map. But I'm only signing up to the idea if we do all 3, if we this one time break the rules evenly for all sides, to improve the map in all 3 cases.Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid OK! It be correct to add some villages in the Aleppo province that would show that this region not empty and there also located villages which controlled by rebels! Hanibal911 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I propose express your opinion about this and some other editors.XJ-0461 v2EkoGrafLindi29PaolowalterDaki122HCPUNXKID Hanibal911 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

But i think that we need remove black mark near Damascus - Baghdad highway,. Because this highway and surroundings still controlled by army.hereherehere But not one source not confirm that ISIS now control area near this highway. Or at least put this icon to the north of the highway. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's just remove that black mark. We have enough red dots to show the SAA controls the highway when it wants, but not too too many so it's clear enough that IS can jump over it to get to Bir Qassab if they really want to Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys i think we need put green semicircle near Menagh Air Base which is under control by Al Nusra but located inside area which is under control by moderate rebels. As you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I added some Idlib towns here. That's it. No more. Just enough to show the area is rebel held. Not trying to add every town or any nonsense like that. Everyone ok with this? It's unsourced so I'm asking for comments here, not trying to arbitrarily add anything. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed but let's not exaggerate, adding army bases in Tartous/Suweida for example is useless. We agree on that. My suggestion was to fill the emptiness/wastelands/deserts with Strategic Bases/holding points. One example is the Khan Abu Shamat cement factory, yes it is one or 2 buildings but it controls the Baghdad Damascus Highway. Another example is Eastern Idlib. It is not a desert like Eastern Hama yet it appears empty. Add for example there the rebel-held Icarda Checkpoint on the M5-Highway [10]. Add the series of rebel-held villages overlooking the highway. But don't exaggerate. And Hanibal911 I insist you add the SAA-sites I mentioned in my first post. They are just 5 sites no big deal. But they do reveal important info. And if Boredwhytekid knows any more important rebel-held army sites, we could add them if they are strategically placed. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Also those millitary objects located in area which under control by moderate rebel groups:

• Military college
• Army Fuelling Base
• Radar Base (Al Sha`allah) Hanibal911 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I add Daraa Central Prison Hanibal911 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on all of those except the radar base, is it ISIS or Rebel-held? And please Hanibal911 rename the SAA Army Base in Nabk Regiment 14, naming it this way gives it the military importance it holds. It is not an ordinary Army Base. And thank you for adding the rebel-held bases as well. I'm sureBoredwhytekid now agrees that the map is more accurate and remains fair. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No objections here ChrissCh94. Please review the sites I added in Eastern Idlib - I'm not really familiar with the area. I tried to select sites spread out across the blank area on our map that they were intended to fill, so as to minimize the number added. If there are larger, more strategically important or appropriate sites that would serve the same purpose (filling that gap), we should identify them and replace the ones that were just chosen geographically. Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly all I found was this Air Defense Base south of Abu l Duhur Airbase: [11]. I presume it is rebel-held.

I also found this [12] west of AL-Safira, I don't know its current status (defunct or active) but I also guess it is rebel-held as well ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I add those millitary objects located in area which under control by Syrian troops:

• Army Base
• Air Defense/Artillery Base Hanibal911 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright Hanibal911 please add those 2 rebel-held sites and that would be enough. [13] [14]. ChrissCh94 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I already added those bases.here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)