Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

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:CIRCULAR.
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:CIRCULAR 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)

Didn't realise it, but we lost Lindi29 to a sockpuppetry indeff on the first, and the tools that were used to find the top editors are down (as of the day Hanibal911 was blocked). Lindi was quite active too (about 5% of edits to this module). Banak (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia Users LightandDark2000 and 佐倉千代 are using twitter Hashtags as a source, pro-opposition tweets for Rebel advances etc.. breaking the rules and even making edits according to "their own opinion"... please respond, i can't revert them all because they make more than 10 changes during their edits so i need to do it manually. DuckZz (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Frustration with how this project was being managed drove me from this map 6 months ago. Glad to see some order is being restored. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick clarification please, Tradedia; pro-gov't al Masdar and (for the purposes of this map) pro-op Institute for the Study of War are two of the more vigorous outlets reporting on the Syrian Civil War. Their reporting/information often comes in the form of maps, some more detailed than others. 100% unusuable? Not trying to equivocate, and will abide by your response for all future editing. Thank you. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also would appreciate clarification on archicivilians, which I see is still in use as a source Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid: Interesting that you mention the Institute for the Study of War. Just now, I had to revert an edit (based on their map) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Damashq.svg (see File talk:Rif Damashq.svg#Khan al-Shih). ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. So in this case, our Rif Damashq map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from ISW map!

Concerning al Masdar, he usually hosts maps by pro-gov PetoLucem (or another Persian map maker). There is a major difference between our map and their maps. Our map marks towns (or bases, etc.) that we have information for. On the other hand, their maps color the whole territory assigning a control status to every area. Do they really have enough information to assign every area to a specific party? Do they have information to be able to draw the frontlines? Our map has started by marking all the towns for which we had information/sources. We did not have the aim to cover the whole Syrian territory. We prefer not to guess. If we don’t have reliable sources/information about an area, we should just leave it empty.

Just because an amateur map is classified as pro-gov, it doesn’t mean that map is always correct for the towns that it marks as under rebel control (and vice versa for pro-rebel maps). We need to be examining all sources, instead of blindly copying someone else's map. For example, just because Peto Lucem is classified as pro-gov, does not mean all the rebel areas on his maps are correct. Many months ago, he had the area around Al-Tulaysiyah marked as rebel held (you can read all about it in the archives of this talk page). However, I was able to find a source that showed that in reality it was gov held. We informed Peto Lucem of his mistake and he corrected it.

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

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

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

Also, see here an honest dialogue with DeSyracuse, where I confront him with the fact that his maps are not up to Wikipedia standards.

We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse (same story for archicivilians)… We need a source that talks specifically about a location so that we know it is not guessing. So the source has to say: “location xyz is under this control or that status…” The news could be right or wrong, but we need a news, not a guess. Amateur maps have been wrong too many times and made our map wrong too many times. They are not sources. They are our competitors. Tradedia^talk 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Do not archive this yet. Tradedia^talk 01:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the points raised by Tradedia in this section. Also, frustration with the blind application of "sources" by Hanibal911 was part of the reason I stopped contributing to this page a while back. (I was also busy with other priorities.)

I'm glad to see the reorientation of this page, as I think that it makes a very valuable contribution to Wikipedia as well as informing about the situation in Syria.

-- my 2 cents André437 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Suluk, pro-Kurdish bias & double standards

I put Suluk as contested based on a Kurdish source (ARA News) from today (19 July 2015) wich claims clashes between YPG & ISIS in Suluk town. So, according to WP rules, my edit is correct. But it seems that for other editors their ideology is stronger than the rules, so they use subterfuges & personal POV's like "they're sporadic clashes", "Source says there were clashes, not ongoing battle" to revert my edit. Funny thing hearing them about maintaining contested icons, when places like al-Shulah had been contested on the map for months, when anyone who follows the Syrian civil war knows that there havent been continued clashes in al-Shulah since months ago. So unless real arguments instead of personal POV's are shown for the revert, I will revert to my correct edition ASAP.--HCPUNXKID 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I hear you and it was I that reverted your edit and I reverted it with cited argument. And according to my knowledge we don´t put cities contested if there are only sporadic clashes witch it was this time. The clashes were already over when the article was published, so there for it should not go contested. As for your comments about "al-Shulah" I have no idea and have not been involved in any editing or discussion about it. Rhocagil (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't mark towns or cities that are experiencing sporadic clashes as contested? Where ere you when Kobani was marked as contested a couple weeks ago, when there was absolutely no chance of the Islamic State taking the city over, and only, relatively speaking, small clashes were going on in the city? Reports of clashes are enough to mark a town or city as contested, so long as they can be corroborated. DaJesuZ (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Clashes in Kobane were over several days and involved up to 100 ISIS tardheads (still I don´t think we should have put it contested). Clashes in Suluk was with a handful of deashbags and were over after some hours. If you guys want to debate other towns marked contested, that probably are not contested. Please feel free to do so and start a topic about that.Rhocagil (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID your quote "Source aint from days ago, but from today. Also, in the map there are several icons marked as contested from months ago, althought there's no clashes", what a kind of argument is that? I don´t care if the source is from tomorrow when the source itself says "Osman added that at least six IS insurgents were killed during the clashes, “while the rest of militants escaped on Saturday evening”." SATURDAY = were clashes = no more! Try to follow your own source that´s the least you can do, other would be ridiculous. And again if you want to debate other "contested" places, please do so but don´t use it as an argument for this edit.Rhocagil (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Who decided that the clashes were "sporadic" (not the article itself, as its the second one in few weeks talking about clashes in Suluk. Theres no articles bout clashes in al-Shulah in several months. Double standards again), you? Who decided which is a significative number of ISIS fighters (20, 30, 50, 100, 200???), you?. Let's be serious, in this map a town has been always put as contested if a proper source states that there are clashes in there, no matter the number of fighters. According to your words, it would be nearly impossible to put a town as contested, but I'm sure that would be easier if the town was earlier black or red, instead of yellow, am I wrong?. And your words about Kobani are astonishing, you must the only person in the world who denied that the town was contested between YPG & ISIS. I would recommend you to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, and not a political forum, so better leave your bias out of here and try to edit properly.--HCPUNXKID 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Another source, 20 July 2015: http://www.bulletinleader.com/pm-britain-is-committed-to-destroying-islamic-state/1689/ "The attack resulted in the outbreak of fierce clashes between our fighters and terrorists of Daesh (IS) in Suluk downtown" --HCPUNXKID 15:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong and I don´t know if you can´t read properly or if you simply refuse to read your own source. And stop involve me in your stupid Al-Shulah-argument. Your new source is a citation of your old source so it´s the same. And about Kobane, I did not I deny clashes, but that just another proof that you just read what you want to read and see what you want to see. Pbfreespace3 please help me out here. Rhocagil (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID, you make the claim that "no matter the number of fighters", a town should be marked as contested if clashes are reported. To justify my edit, let me recall the purpose of this map: to show territorial control of cities and towns in the Syrian Civil War. In complex situations such as Aleppo and Hasakah, image maps have been used, but for other towns, such as Kobani, Zabadani, and on the Iraq map Sinjar, Baiji, and Garma, a contested icon is used. What is the purpose of the contested icon? Its purpose is to show that the town in question is controlled partly by one party, and partly by another. This is the case with Zabadani for example, where the government controls the outer neighborhoods, while the rebels hold the city center.

The problem is this: In Suluk, you used one source to change this major town's status to contested. If you read the source, you find out that what occurred was essentially a small firefight. ISIS sleeper cells infiltrated the town and shot at some Kurds, and the Kurds shot back and killed some of them. The source even reports the rest of the ISIS fighters as having fled the battlefield! It could not be more clear that this was a one-off, hit-and-run suicide attack, not a serious attempt to grab and hold parts of the town. If it were, then I and all of the other editors would completely support a contested icon, as it would be totally warranted, but in this case this is just a simple hit-and-run attack.

If we used your standard to mark towns as contested, then we could easily mark Mayadin as contested between ISIS and moderate rebels based on many separate reports from SOHR of rebel ambushes on ISIS checkpoints (although a question of bias could be raised), but the truth is that these are ambushes on checkpoints, not a seizure of territory inside of the town. The truth is that no matter how you want to spin it, ISIS does not control any part of Suluk, which is why a contested icon is unwarranted.

On another note, I personally think that Shulah should be marked as ISIS-held. If I recall correctly SAA briefly took the town, but ISIS retook it and holds it, according to this pro-government Masdar News map: http://www.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/sy1r.jpg I guess you could say it is held by ISIS since there have been no reports of clashes for months, and I doubt anyone would care to revert it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

1-North Eastern Sweida Governorate: NDF and Syrian Druze capture Tal Mu’az : http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/sweidas-druze-advance-in-the-northeastern-countryside-tal-muaz-captured/

2- Syrian Army capture number of towns, hils and villages North western Latakia: "Wasting no time, the Republican Guard and the National Defense Forces (NDF) captured the towns of Tal Wassit, Khirbat Al-Niqouss, and Al-Mansoura in the northeastern countryside of the Al-Ghaab Plains; this was coupled with intense airstrikes from the Syrian Arab Air Force.

The Islamist rebels were able to recapture Al-Mansoura after the Syrian Armed Forces withdrew from the town to Tal Wassit; however, the Jabhat Al-Nusra militants made the mistake of pushing too far, thus allowing for the SAA to beat back the enemy forces and reenter Al-Mansoura.

Meanwhile, on the northeastern Latakia front, the Syrian Arab Army’s Special Forces are pressing Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army’s “Coastal Brigades” at the strategic cities of Ramleh and Salma." Source:http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-armed-forces-are-on-the-move-in-northern-latakia-and-hama/ SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar is a pro-government source, and I don't believe it can be used for the edits you are asking for. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Source indicates Tiyas Airbase no longer surrounded by ISIS, Syrian forces capture stratigic hills in the surrounding area and push ISIS back. "Adding to ISIS’ woes in east Homs, the Syrian Armed Forces’ continued their counter-assault in the southern countryside of the Tiyas Airbase, capturing more territory around the Al-Hayl Mountians."

Source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-pounds-isis-at-palmyra-over-90-airstrikes-reported-in-east-homs/

Also to the page admin could you please send me another mediation request as I failed to accept the last two, sorry and thank you in advance. SyrianObserver2015 SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar is a pro-government source, and cannot be used for this edit. I will remove the siege icon if Palmyra is captured by SAA, however, as there would be no way for ISIS to continue supplying its fighters at the base. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Dara'a Governorate report suggests Syrian Army capture Northern part of Kafr Shams, and continuing to drive on Northwest of the town essentially bypassing the town and gaining ground as they move. The town is still under siege by the SAA. Source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-launches-surprise-attack-at-kafr-shamis-in-northwest-daraa/

2- Last Fall, ‪#‎SAA‬ the Syrian Arab Army’s 5th Armored Division – in cooperation with the 9th Armored Division, ‪#‎Hezbollah‬ and the National Defense Forces (‪#‎NDF‬) – launched a large-scale offensive in the northwestern countryside of the ‪#‎Daraa‬ Governorate, attacking numerous villages and hills near the border of the Al-‪#‎Quneitra‬ Governorate.

The offensive was relatively successful for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they captured the strategic towns of Deir Al-‘Adas, Al-‪#‎Habbariyah‬ and Al-‪#‎Sultaniyah‬, along with their surrounding hills after fierce clashes with the Free Syrian Army’s “Southern Front Brigades” and the Syrian Al-‪#‎Qaeda‬ group Jabhat Al-‪#‎Nusra‬ that lasted just over two weeks.

However, following almost one month of non-stop fighting, the Syrian Armed Forces were forestalled by the rebel contingents at the imperative towns of ‪#‎Kafr_Shamis‬, ‪#‎Kafr_Nissaj‬ and ‪#‎Zimreen‬; this ended the offensive and resulted in the Syrian Armed Forces not achieving their primary objective, which was the capture of Al-Harra.

Fast forward to last Saturday, the Syrian Arab Army’s 15th Brigade of the 5th Division conducted a surprise assault at the eastern perimeter of Kafr Shamis, resulting in their infiltration and capture of the northeastern entrance to the town.

Despite the lack of progress achieved by the 15th Brigade’s surprise attack; this offered some insight into the Syrian Armed Forces’ future military endeavors.

The Syrian Armed Forces are finishing up their integral battle in the resort-city of Al-Zabadani and soon, they will focus their attention to a new front, which is likely to be the Mount ‪#‎Hermon‬ front and the Dara’a triangle.

This will not be an easy task for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they will be facing off against one of the largest and well-armed rebel forces in Syria: the Free Syrian Army’s Southern Front Brigades.

The Syrian Armed Forces will not be alone; all signs point to the Al-Quneitra Governorate as Hezbollah’s next destination in Syria and they will be greatly needed, especially in the mountains of the ‪#‎Golan‬. ‪#‎Syria24‬

M.D.

https://www.facebook.com/syria24english?fref=nf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.61 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC) SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, we cannot use this source. We use Masdar for rebel and ISIS gains, and we use SOHR for government and ISIS gains. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

{{tlp|db|reason}} Multiple false sources based on tweets from SOHR/SAHR, who is based in a council flat in england on welfare. Known to be an unreliable biased source, Who continually reports the Government forces is using chemicals against its own citizins which the UN found to be false : "The chemical weapon attack in Ghouta on August 21 would, therefore, credibly point to Ziyaad Tariq Ahmed as among the perpetrators of that attack, particularly as the Assad government had no motive to use chemical weapons, especially with the UN inspectors already on the ground in Syria, and as the Syrian government was in a strong position militarily in its struggle with the opposition." Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139 83.71.81.61 (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No wikied speedy deletion out, due to incorrect information not being a reason for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for non-controversial deletions, this would not be one, so even if it did meet the criteria, admins would likely not speedy delete it. If you insist on trying to delete this article, you'd have to go through AfD. Banak (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Use the proper channels rather than submitting an edit request here. The purpose of edit requests is to change something on the map. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Golan heights map http://warsonline.info/images/stories/news/15/07jul/syria/umm-batna2.jpg

Map is from a pro-government source and cannot be used to show government gains. Also, we aren't allowed to use maps. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Army of Conquest in Idlib

The rebels have, reportedly, started an assault on the Shia town of al-Fuah, in NW Idlib province, so I think we should mark it as contested. The same reports state that they're also moving on on Kafraya (looks like they're showing that they're there in Idlib to stay).

As a side note, does anyone have any links to anything showing up-to-date maps on what's going on in Aleppo? It's been several days, and some Twitter feeds I look at show that rebels are making at least small advances, still, but I haven't found any maps that are less than a week old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On Idlib, you must produce sources not generic statements ("reportedly" by whom?). Those towns ar ejust under attack but nobody, including rebels' sources, claims that the fighting ar einside the towns. If any, http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/civilians-in-al-fouaa-and-kafraya-fight-back-against-jaysh-al-fateh/ claims that the government forces inside the city are striking back. As to Aleppo, the last change of a couple of weeks ago was half of the military research center. Since situation stabilized again.192.84.142.182 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I, generally speaking, don't rely on news from the government, SOHR, or Kurdish news outlets, and instead rely on reports from the people who go through what's going on in the country via social media, since the government, Kurds, and rebels aren't always relaible, and, from time to time, blatantly lie about what's going on, and where it's going on (I'll cite the claimed Aleppo prison seige, that never occured, as claimed by SOHR, or the claimed supply route, via land, to Dier ez-Zoir that, again, never existed. The Kurds tend to be more accurate in their claims, albeit with a few exceptions, such as with the recent Islamic State assault on Ay Issa and Brigade 93.), and social media, as was established some time ago, can't be used as sources, which I think is absolutely fucking ridiculous.DaJesuZ (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If the sources that the most well-informed people consider to be the most reliable are considered unusable by Wikipedia, this does not bode well for the Wikipedia project. In time, such a situation may cause the Wikipedia map to become as irrelevant as the mainstream media maps that nobody close to the conflict takes seriously. Esn (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You want a source? Fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EENqLNtQpGg

Rebels have started shelling Nubl and al-Zahraa. I trust you want ignore the people.DaJesuZ (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

DaJesuZ you should know by now shelling a town does not make it contested .Its marked contested when fighting is inside

Months ago, and at this point, it may be years ago, when it came to al-Fuah and Kafraya, the rebels did manage to gain some ground within the towns, but their advances stalled, and the front around them/in them has remained totally stagnant. There are rebels in the town, but not very far into it. The shelling marks the start of a new offensive against the towns, so they should be marked as contested.DaJesuZ (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

When the time comes that we hear of street clashes inside you can make them contested but we do not change them on what you think might be happening and please refrain from using bad / childish language in future it is not accepted by the administrators

YPG Advances

Can someone update the Hasakah map. Cizire Canton recently updated the situation in Hasakah Governorate showing the city as totally surrounded by YPG with regime forces in the centre and ISIS confined to the city outskirts. Also the YPG have apparently captured most of Sarrin, however there are still a few outlying towns under ISIS control according to our map. Does anyone have a source that shows these villages as under YPG control as I doubt that they are still under ISIL control. On the 'Battle of Sarrin' wikipedia page it also reports that YPG have reversed ISIL gains during a brief offensive.Prohibited Area (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I do think as you that villages north of Sarrin except for Khirbat al-Burj and the grain silos are YPG-held. The problem is that there so far has not been any conformation about that other then by pro kurdish sources. This one for example.Rhocagil (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Hasakah, someone needs to update the map. The feeds I like to follow on Twitter have reports of Hasakah being totally surrounded by the Kurds, with the regime and Islamic State trapped in the city itself.

When it comes to Sarrin, I'm not sure what's going on. The same feeds that suggested that Hasakah was totally surrounded by the YPG also state that the Kurds are storming Sarrin, but they didn't give, really, any details when it came to progress.

http://i.imgur.com/6hYk89G.png Cizire's latest map. http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/nl/map/cizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_48163#13/36.5728/38.3555 latest interactive one which clearly shows Sarrin not contested. Tgoll774 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That map was published before Sarrin was stormed, and whoa! I thought we weren't allowed to use maps! Anyway, Jack Shahine, a reliable field source, has confirmed these claims. The situation inside of Sarrin is still unclear, but with such a bold claim as "most of the streets have been taken by kurds", I suspect that the town is probably contested. Also, ISIS has not issued any statements to the contrary. Also, Jack Shahine has reported that ISIS (or possibly someone else) has blown up the Sarrin Grain Silos: https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/625297627219927040

Jack Shahine is not a reliable source and has been wrong numerous times before. Quite a few occassions I posted information showing his unreliability. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable does not mean infallible, especially in a difficult background like the Syrian war. Here are pictures of Sarrin silos being blown up. https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/625411460697616384 --8fra0 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait before removing the icon. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Done.Alhanuty (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Editors,what happened with the Tal Brak countryside,someone changed it.Alhanuty (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarrin (and neighbour villages) status and other small observations

Hello,

First I want to thank to the evolution of the administration of this map, is more professional and have more reality in the development status of the cities and towns, that was made for sure with the help of hall of the wikiusers. :) Is because of that, that I make this observations, to help the evolution of the map.

Yesterday the Sarrin village (south of Kobane) was taken by YPG/YPJ/FSA (in the "join military operations front/room" that they denominates has "Euphrates Volcano") the source of this claim is Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/27/us-mideast-crisis-kurds-town-idUSKCN0Q10UB20150727 . Near Sarrin you have some daesh/ISIL control villages that were taken to (includin Khirbat-al-burj that is 5 kilometres north), the only doubt that you can put has contested, is the "grain silos" at north, because that are not any independent font that give that facilities has a secure taken and control by YPG/YPJ/FSA to daesh/ISIL.

I have made other observations to the map and they were considerate, that I thank, the exception was the Abu Azalah (or if you prefer Abu `Azalah) village, well since February that this city, that is in the surrounded area of Tell Brak (just a few kilometres south and at the north of the M4 highway, that is the actual front line) is in the hands of the YPG/YPJ/al-Sanadid militias. The sources are a lot New York Times: "Redur Xelil, a spokesman for the People’s Protection Units, said, “The operation was over at 5 a.m. and the armed groups and mercenaries that were there were expelled. “The town is completely controlled by the People’s Protection Units,” he told Reuters by phone, adding that nearby villages were also under the group’s control." in http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0 ; JerusalemOnline "In the ongoing fight between opposition groups in northern Syria, Kurdish militants were reported today to have expelled Islamist fighters from the town of Tell Brak as well as a number of the surrounding villages." in http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/the-arab-world/kurdish-fighters-capture-towns-in-northern-syria-3861 . And son on... Well if all this said that is the "nearby" and the "surrounding" villages, Abu Azalah is a "nearby" and "surrounding" village of Tell Brak. And is a key village to have access to the M4 front line, because of that I insist that this village (at least) is since February in the hands of this YPG/YPJ/al-Sanadid militias.

If we except this minor errors I think that the map, in the north front-line (I don't pay much attention to the other fronts) is good. And my wish, like I have said, is to this map have some credibility and not be use by ISIS members to give them a morale that they don't have!!!

Best regards,

Geosapiens (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No logical overview

I want to raise this question. Why do we add so much villages in areas where we don't need them. Let me explain this problem. When random users look at "our" map, they need to understand how the Syrian geography approximately actually looks like only by looking at the dots and location on the map. Which means, he should think that for ex. Hama province has a large population with many big town and villages, while Raqqa province is a desert, with not so many towns and small villages.

• This becomes a problem because many users are just adding as many locations on this map as possible. I don't understand why because it looks stupid and cluttered like a chess board.
• For instance, take a look at Raqqa province, there're just too many villages added, and most of them are there just because users did copy them from other pro-Kurdish/Opposition maps (which is actually against rules), and those maps need to have every location the same as on google map because their maps are different than this wikipedia page.

A good thing would be to make a revision for every province on this map, and to remove or even add some location that should or shouldn't be here. DuckZz (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Someone find or make a map which shows population density, and use that as the background. Banak (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don´t se it as a problem that many villages are added, but I do se a problem in that the most a those villages probably are put out in to big "dot-size". The solution could be to adjust the size of many villages down.Rhocagil (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The village density is a result of conflict in those areas at some point during the war, villages have been added to display a more accurate image of the map, although I agree now that fighting has ceased in these areas that a process should be taken to remove these villages bar a few exceptions. However it is necessary to keep concentrations of villages along the frontline, notably in Raqqa where there is a high potential for future clashes between ISIS and Euphrates Volcano.Prohibited Area (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah Map Needs Uppdate

YPG holds the football stadium and the area located to west and south of the stadium. ISIS hold only Zohur district. Here is visual evidence from pro-YPG Ronahi showing the stadium [1] at 1:11 and this tower [2] at 2:05.

Here is another video (in Kurdish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLLYhTxJKy0 Roboskiye (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Army of Fateh conquered 4 strategic hills in the countryside of Idlib and Hama

Army of Fateh expelled SAA from Tal Ilyas and Avar (East of Jisr Al Shugur, Idlib) and Tal Vasit and Tal Bakir (near Sahl Gaba region, NW of Hama). Source: http://www.aa.com.tr/tr/manset/563563--suriyeli-muhalifler-4-stratejik-tepeyi-ele-gecirdi Stunchy (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems the Idlib salliant is falling quickly into Jaysh al-Fatah hands. Sources reporting Frikka and the surrounding villages already under rebel control:

1. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/big-rebel-attack-in-syria/2012644.html
2. https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-28/308618-large-rebel-attack-in-syria-targets-area-vital-to-assad.ashx
3. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/rapid-collapses-take-place-for-the-regime-forces-fortifications-in-the-countryside-of-idlib-and-sahl-al-ghab/
4. https://twitter.com/IUCAnalysts/status/625961491599130624

The following changes must be made to the map:

To rebel control:

• Zayzoun Power Plant
• Tell Hakami
• Tell Sheikh Khattab
• Marj al-Zohour and the hill next to the town
• al-Mseirfah
• Tell Awar
• Tell Wasat
• Tell al-Sheikh Ilyas
• Frikah

To contested:

• al-Ziyara village

Pro-Assad media now also confirming total loss of the Idlib pocket north of Qarqur village: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jaysh-al-fateh-captures-remaining-hills-near-jisr-al-shughour/