Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Jaysh al-Fatah, Idlib

Since yesterday, rebels of the Jaysh al-Fatah operations room have begun a new offensive in Idlib province. Many towns and checkpoints along the western highway have been taken over. Sources:

1. Masdar map update: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-of-idlib-jaysh-al-fatah-advances-to-mahambal/ 2. PetroLucem map update: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem (poster one hour ago, Idlib front map)

Seems rebels have taken everything east of Mahmbel for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 This rebel map shows Al-Mushayrifah under government control, and it shows Junqarah under rebel control. While I will change Mushayrifah, i'm asking should i change junqarah too ? Because SOHR didn't really made a list of areas that were captured by rebels, they only wrote about "regime colapse, and rebel advances etc..." Apparently, this videos shows FSA 111.division rebels inside Jinqarah after SAA withdrews on the main highway. Opinion ? DuckZz (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz SOHR also said that the Islamic factions shelled regime forces in the village of Al-Mushayrifah.SOHR But I nothing cant say about village Janqarah because other pro opposition sources showed that this village still under control Syrian troops.herehere and here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz But I think we can mark of Al-Mushayrifah under government control and Janqarah as under control the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR also yesterday said that the rebels captured Junqarah.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Defense of Hasakah City

Does this article here SOHR and this on here YPG mean that YPG are helping SAA in the defense of Hasakah City? Rhocagil (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Regime forces recaptured the electrical substation and the old prison, south of the city Hasakah.Thomas van Linge Hanibal911 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS attack on the village of Al-Sekman south of Tell Brak was repelled by Syrian troops, NDF and YPG.hereSama Channel Hanibal911 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the YPG article says "This terrorist strike was launched against strategic points in Neşwa Xerbî (Western Navsha) neighborhood of Hesekê; the extent is located to the east of Mt. Kezwan." Witch is a neighborhood southwest i Hasakah City. SOHR article confirm YPG where involved in heavy clashes with heavy casualties (both sides) in the southwest. This neighborhood is according to our wiki-map under SAA control. So back to the original question.Rhocagil (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But also pro-Kurdish source clear showed that this area still under control by Syrian troops.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR said that clashes continue south of al-Hasakah city between IS and regime forces amid heavy bombardment on the area, and that the regime advanced in the area and that they forces ISIS to pull back towards the southern countryside.SOHRSOHRSama TV SOHR said that the Syrian government forces have pushed Islamic State group fighters back after a bid by the jihadists to enter the city of Hasakeh in northeastern Syria. SOHR said "fierce combat" had allowed government forces to push IS fighters away from the southern edge of Hasakah, the capital of the Hasakah province.Naharnet Hanibal911 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The following source https://twitter.com/CizireCanton/status/607644240798216192 shows kakah under SAA control. Should kaka said be chnaged to red?Paolowalter (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#11/36.4931/40.7620 YPG positions near al-Hawl need to be switched to IS control and IS is closer to Tall Hamis. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the info guys!Rhocagil (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

According pro ypg map CizireCanton SAA retake most area losing in ISIS offensive 217.99.132.128 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

According to Kurdish source the Syrian troops retake most areas which earlier was taken ISIS.Cizire Canton News Hanibal911 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Another source said that the Syrian regime retake the positions that he lost earlier south of Hasakah and pushed back ISIS on 22km from city.Kovan Direj Hanibal911 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan Insurgency map ?

These days we hear lot about Afghanistan insurgency , Taliban taking over few sub districts in nangahar and other states and ofcource ISIS affiliate campaign , Can abybody please make an Afghan insurgency map in lines of Syrian civil war ? {80.2.41.187 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)}

We could make an Afghanistan Insurgency Map, but to be honest, there isn't really much happening in Afghanistan these days with regards to large ground offensives, control changes, and militant groups. There was an ISIS ambush yesterday, however. I'm sure some editors here will consider it, but unless there is a major Taliban or ISIS resurgence (which I don't think there will be), then a map probably won't be made, as our editors are busy enough as it is. If significant demand arises, I would help to make such a map, but I just don't think there is enough fighting going on there to warrant a new map. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response , Yes i think we should wait for more information before launching afghan own map {80.2.41.187 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)}

Syria map problem

I hate when trolls do this. They wait for me, or someone else, to make a new weekly Syria color map, and then they revert the map to the previous version, and then the same user, or someone else, uses my map and uploads it again with their profile DuckZz (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is annoying. They seem to want to have their name on the map, and a product of odd way they attribute stuff. When you revert to a previous version your name is shown as up-loader, so someone acting genuinely would have this result, and it may be more effective to try to target those who do the first revert. Banak (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Haddadin

Why is this town Rebel held, this is by now means backed up by Pro government sources? MesmerMe (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Anybody has any sources that aren't pro rebel? This change should NOT have been made. MesmerMe (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Control of Kobanî Canton villages

When villages of the Kobanî Canton were being retaken by the YPG/FSA coalition, towns captured by both parties were marked under joint control. Towns that were 'recaptured by Kurdish forces' were marked as yellow. However, only a few hundred FSA rebels are present in Kobanî Canton according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kobanî

I doubt FSA is still present in these villages, as their fighters have probably moved on to fight ISIS on the front lines. In fact, I would equate the FSA presence in Kobanî to the Nusra presence in rebel battles: they may not stay in minor villages after they've been captured.

To summarize, I think the villages in the interior of the canton shown under joint control should be switched to yellow since there are no longer FSA troops guarding those villages. What do other editors think of this idea? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense what you say. We mark villages as according to who captured them. We change rebel held villages to JAN according to opposition maps or according to rebel sources. We don't have detailed maps from Kobane/Raqqa showing that information. Why ? Because rebels and Kurds have a joint operation room, and therefore we will not change villages 2-3 months later just because "how do we know if they're still there". We don't, and i don't see a reason why we should, because they fight in the same room. End DuckZz (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The villages are marked for who controls them, not who captured them. The Rojava-FSA coalition was created to expel the Islamic State from ar-Raqqa, as well as the Kurdish area of the country, meaning it is likely that the FSA trainees are being used to take ethnic Kurdish area, and the Kurdish authorities maintain control and a presence in those villages, meaning Pbfreespace3 is likely correct; the FSA no longer has a presence in those villiages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Pbfreespace3 has a point. There is no point showing FSA presence in the interior of the canton. However it´s important to show that there is FSA presence at the frontline and when or if the joint operation room take Tall Abyad/Gire Sipi the FSA surely would like to remain present there (I´ve reed this somewhere but I don´t remember the source).Rhocagil (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I too agree with Pbfreespace3. FSA units have no presence in the villages in interior of the canton, but are present only on the frontline. I've actually mentioned this earlier in the talk page. Roboskiye (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like there's mostly a consensus, so I'll change all of the villages not in Raqqa Province in the Kobani Canton to yellow. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZZ reverted my edit. I understand fully that the Euphrates Volcano coalition exists in the region, I am simply stating that, to put it bluntly, the rebels know who's really in control in the Kobani Canton, and it's the Kurds. DuckZZ, do you think that every village in Kobani Canton should be shown as under joint control to indicate the coalition? Or just the ones marked? Some of those villages only have 10 or 20 houses in them, should those have FSA presence in them?

Here is my argument. The goal of Euphrates Volcano is to expel ISIS Raqqa province per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_Volcano We also know that the Arab rebel groups/FSA's purpose in Kobani Canton is to fight Islamic State, not to govern and police towns. Because of this, I think FSA presence should only be shown on the front lines, not in the towns and villages well behind them. I wonder what Hanibal911 thinks of this? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I still agree with you Pbfreespace3. And DuckZZ where is the rule that say only "We mark villages as according to who captured them"?. According to what information is known we should mark places for whom are in control of them.Rhocagil (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you, Pbfreespace3. Running this by Banak or Hannibal would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I've argued to this effect before, and I agree (I currently shade as such anyway). Hannibal is currently contesting a block, but it's on secret evidence so it's unlikely to be undone. I feel I should also represent the other side, who previously said in response that if they begin taking territory for themselves then people will wonder where the rebels came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Khan Abu Shamat and cement facility

Looks like they are regime held according to this map from Jaysh al Islam. [1] NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Homs

Why Hisyah go to black? I read only pro ISIS fanboy talking about it. A ccording pro gov source SAA take control over al Jazal village - go to contested? 217.99.132.128 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

According pro gov source Syr_Rising SAA retake Jazail oil field 217.99.132.128 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

Some other source also confirmed this data.Cyber AmanAl BinaaSlab Newshere Hanibal911 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro government sources also reported that that Syrian troops recaptured a village of Jazal.hereLeith Abou Fadel Hanibal911 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL906Y6OrlAXgajUHMFVnZ5rHX8zUd6JEC&v=Nj9e-31hZLg and according to this IS just took it back. I say switch it to contested for now as IS twitters say SAA is trying still to take it back, makes sense as they can't afford long term loss of those fields. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Another time why Hisyah go to contested and ISIS present near city? Any evidence, because I do not see any raports. 217.99.132.128 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

ISIS not controlled Hisyah in Rural Homs

As I know the ISIS not controlled Hisyah town I think they only could be near the South West of the area, but not inside the village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.79.203.46 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It could be they are pulling out of Qalamoun (LEBANON) because of Hezbollah offensive .86.135.155.156 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Tha'lah Airport is contested

according to SOHR Tha'lah airport is contested SOHR tha'lar arabic Anti assad sources claim full control anti assad I know that pro Assad sources denies . so what is the rule on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.189.10 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source cleary said BosnjoBoy Government forces (NDF) recaptured parts of the Talah airport, rebels withdrew to Sakak village in the vicinity, clashes ongoing 217.99.132.128 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

Eastren Qalamoon

al-Jazeera repoted that rebel sized Jabal al-Afai (جبل الأفاعي) in eastren Qalamoon from IS. it is east to Al-Naseriyah. I dont know why it's not even in our map. 3bdulelah (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Important message from creator of map: Please read

Wikipedia administration is obviously not happy about the way the map is being managed (refer to the indefinite block of Hanibal911 for violation of Wikipedia rules on the map). We need to conform more strictly with Wikipedia rules. I have been in contact with administrators with respect to the situation and am in charge of putting back the map in strict conformity with Wikipedia rules & standards. You have to realize that many admins do not like the map and consider it un-encyclopedic and in violation with WP:NOTNEWS. They are waiting for an opportunity to harm it and lead to its deletion. Those of you who have been around about a year ago know that the map has been nominated for deletion and survived the procedure. You also have to know that the first version of the article “Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War” was deleted after an “Articles for deletion” (AfD) procedure and I had to fight back and create a new modified version. In any case, I will do whatever it takes to protect us. I count on your cooperation and discipline. Please avoid getting in contact with admins and be very nice if they are around and let me handle them. We need to conform strictly with the following Wikipedia rules:

1-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from reliable outlets are approximate and therefore unreliable for any use. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any use. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRC.
I cite the WP:RS rule verbatim: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
I cite the WP:CIRC rule verbatim: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.” At least one map maker has admitted to using the Wikipedia map as a source. There is strong suspicion others do the same.

2-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will no longer be tolerated. If you are not sure what the source is saying, post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. Tradedia^talk 09:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia I really didn't know that tweets can't be used as a source. I mean, i understand the term that anybody can make a tweet, but we have a "list" of pro-government and pro-opposition users that are active for several years, i believe that 50% of our edits are based on their tweets, and it's somehow working, no complains about that ... but ok. Something else, can we use this talk page as a source, i mean if we aren't sure about something, we disquss it here, and if everyone agrees about something, we make an edit based on the talk page, is that ok ? DuckZz (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits are not made based on total consensus, DuckZz, they are made based on general consensus involving everyone who participates in editing the page. Tweets are fine to use as sources, so long as they can be backed up by other, more reliable, sources, should they come from smaller, lesser known, and possibly less reliable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So Elijah Magnier can no longer be used as a source,but SOHR is the only source that can be used,SOHR has been an agreed condition between the editors and admins three years ago,and so the main source will be news outlets,what about ISW.Alhanuty (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With such rules no Pro ISIS sources can be used. How is that neutral ? (All pro ISIS sources are tweets) !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to twitter was more in the context of copying from maps. The problem with maps is that we don’t know when they are guessing and when they are not. Twitter is not a source. Twitter is a media tool. The person writing the tweet is the source. Since Elijah Magnier is a well-known journalist, he is a valid source. So it all depends on the credibility of the person writing the tweet. Anyone can open a twitter account and start relaying rumors. It is important to also not use a source automatically, but assess the credibility of the writer and see what other sources are saying about the same town/situation. Some people who tweet are known to have information about the situation in Syria. So they can be used as a source, while taking into account their bias (no pro-gov/opp/kurd/ISIS sources for gov/opp/kurd/ISIS gains). For example, we can use the tweets of Leith Abu Fadel as a pro-gov source because we know he has information (similarly to other prominent pro-opp/kurd/ISIS internet activists). However, we cannot use the tweets of PinkFuzzy444 because we don’t know who the heck it is. So we need to be careful and weight the news by the credibility of the writer. Again, we have to look at what other writers are saying as well. For example, it might be prudent to make a town contested based on one source and then wait a little for other sources to change the color completely. We are trying to avoid mistakes, but at the same time be reactive to changes on the ground, so it is all common-sense. All previous and new sources should be looked at before making a map change decision. There is a balance to be found between jumping the gun too early and being unreactive and have something become outdated. Concerning the question about the “talk page as a source”, the answer is yes. Tradedia^talk 18:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 .Because of the unfair way Hanibal911 has been treated I will no longer donate to Wikipedia and will advise others to do the same .Also I say goodbye to all of you on this talk page .thankyou .86.135.154.220 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Jazal Oil Field

http://syriadirect.org/news/syria-direct-news-update-6-10-15/ States Jazal Oil Field is under IS control Tgoll774 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Deserttanker (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)I believe that this happened on Tuesday, the Syrian army recaptured it after pulling out later on Wednesdayhttp://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-strategic-gas-field-in-east-homs/

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

jazal oil field is under SAA control at least according to pro-gov sources. The syriandirect report about ISIS controlling Jazal is based on the ISIS offensive on Tuesday, when ISIS successfully pushed SAA out. However, according to pro-gov sources SAA recaptured Jazal soon after pulling out (which can be verified). Gobullshit (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jazal field and village under SAA control:SOHRCeberAmanAl BinaAl AzmenahAl Akhbar Shafaqna.Paolowalter (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Propsal to Reintegrate Nusra into General 'Rebels'

Throughout the country; Nusra is forming coalitions with other rebel groups (Jaysh al Fath in Idlib, W. Qalamoun, E. Qalamoun; Majlis Shura Mujahideen in Deir Ezzor last year). In other areas, such as Daraa/Quneitra, it has operated in tandem with all of the other rebel groups. When the rebels seized Busra al-Sham, a Nusra shari'i was present at the celebration-meeting in the Roman amphitheatre alongside representatives of all the rebel groups.

The editors' decision to seperate Nusra from rebels has to be seen in its context. That context was the conflict between Nusra and SRF & Hazm. Both of those movements have long been utterly destroyed, thus the dinstinction is outdated. It therefore seems strange and baseless to continue with this distinction; particularly in Idlib where the other rebels and Nusra have effectively united under one banner. My personal opinion is that it is a vestige of the relentless POV pushing that this map has been inundated with since its inception. As part of normalisation, I think it would be prudent to do away with the seperate grey colour for Nusra.Jafar Saeed (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to make this point that the nusra rebels do not take there orders from the central command of the FSA and that the USA/COALITION have bombed them in Idleb several times .So I believe this sets them apart in Idleb however in Darra this is not the case and you may have a point about putting all under the rebel (green) color .86.135.154.220 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Today Alnusra is attacking Anwar al Sham in Al Bara Idlib .86.135.154.220 (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Suluk under siege not contested

According to YPG spokeman in interview to Dailystar.lb they surrounded the town and are not entering yet due to mines and suicide bombers:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jun-13/301956-rebels-push-isis-back-in-northern-syria-activists.ashx

SOHR confirms:

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/06/ypg-backed-by-rebels-and-coalition-airstrikes-advance-and-reach-10-km-away-from-tal-abiad/

So please switch the town to full siege if its possible, thanks!

190.67.237.245 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the article carefully. In the first paragraph it states that Suluk is besieged, with only a small IS presence inside the city. Then, further into the article, the YPG spokesman is saying the YPG and FSA haven't entered the city centre yet. So it seems the town is encircled, the outskirts are under YPG/FSA control, and the city centre is boobytrapped and besieged. Also, the article states that the YPG is now halfway between Suluk and Tell Abyad. How are we marking that on the map? We haven't gotten the names of villages. Maybe make the black villages west of Suluk contested?