Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

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)}

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)

SAA took back Ad Darah near Thalah air base sometime yesterday seen here [2] and here [3]. Roepcke is a pro rebel journalist but would still wait for other statements on this territory change. Alastairjc (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

talk 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)

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)

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/ Deserttanker (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-strategic-gas-field-in-east-homs/

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)

Keep the grey and it actually should be expanded. Many more of the green areas should be half grey/half green. The grey does not just represent the head choppers of JN but also the other extremist religious groups that fall under their umbrella. The green is important because this represents the more "moderate" rebels with direct nato backing, who sadly have constantly worked with the head choppers. I think proposal to reintegrate grey with green is part of the constant POV pushing of pro-islamist posters on this page. So as to reflect the actual on the ground dynamics, it is important to keep and even expand the illustration of where JN and its umbrella of head choppers are present. They just massacred many Druze families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the word, but your viewpoint is just shit. Grey does not mean Islamist, but Jabhat al-Nusra. Groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al-Aqsa have been fighting with and against Free Syrian Army brigades, but FSA brigades have also clashed with each other. The line between moderate, Islamist, nationalist and Jihadist in Syria is often thin. From your talking, I assume you are against any kind of revolution in Syria. Thus, your opinion seems to be biased from the start. I think a separate colour for Jaysh al-Fatah also wouldn't work, since we should then also mark alliances like Jaysh al-Thuwar, Burkan al-Furat and the Southern Front in different colors. It's precisely because the Jaysh al-Fatah operations room in Idlib that we should consider deleting the separate Nusra colours, because the formation is now actively and closely working with other groups (and, for your information, with Free Syrian Army brigades like the 11th Division and Liwa Fursan al-Haqq). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Agree with elimination of Nusra color. It is very confusing on the map. It makes it seem like exclusive control exists, when the reality on the ground is more complicated than that. It just seems like too much effort for not enough return. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nusra color should stay. They are a special case in that they are Al-Qaeda's official branch in Syria and beside coming into conflict with those two FSA groups that they destroyed, on occasion, they also come into conflict with other moderates. EkoGraf (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nusra color shows clear political and unbalanced view. There is no basis what soever to justify such destinction between Al-Nusra while they work in the same group. Forexample Jaish Il islam in Eastern Ghouta is more seperate and confliction with other green groups than Al-Nusra. Why is Hizbullah not geting seperate color !this will end up messy and meaningless. and one more thing the yellow line is confusin as some of the kyrd groups are ant-Assad and others are under Assad forces umbrella . that needs a differnt color not Nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

unlike other rebels, the JAN head choppers have been bombed by coalition forces. Also JAN & their partners have attacked other rebel groups. They obviously should be split up and editors have gone to a great deal of work to show where they have presence and infect the rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Nusra have been bombed by coalition forces this is true, but irrelevent. why would the map colors be dependant on whom the Coalition bombs ? this is total nonsense. Different colors should be for diferrent sides fighting againist each other. Nusra had no clashes with difereent rebbels than any group of rebels have with each others. even Alawits groups had clashes with each other in Homs last months and had been verified and reported , Hizbullah had calshes with alawit units. The seperate color for Al-Nusra is simply wrong and distructive effort — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

for people who value the revolution as a non-jihadist non-AQ effort, it is not destructive. It separates the moderate rebels from the extremists. The clashes inside the regime, have not been anything like the JAN take over of large moderate areas when they backstabbed the revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of Encyclopedia in general is to provide facts not openions. who is moderate and who is extremist is a pure openion (is ahrar alasham moderate or extreme for example ?) . who backsteped whom is an openion not fact. who is fighting in what side and who controls the land are the facts delivered by this map. and imposing openins on viewrs is not a good thing. one question might arouse is what harm in making differnt color. two problems 1- it is confusing to those who are not deep in what is going on in Syria to see 5colors. 2- it affects acuracy where most of the edits on control of Nusra vs green zones are impossible to verify as no clashes happens and peacfull shif of control and mixed control happens all the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

To the person who made the links, please do not use SOHR English reports, only Arabic reports, since there have been many mistakes on the SOHR English.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 15:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Daesh collapses in northern al-Raqqah

Several sources confirm that Daesh retreats from both Tal Abyad and Ayn Isa. See for example: http://www.alaraby.co.uk/politics/2015/6/13/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A

Furthermore YPG has surrounded the strategic village of Qantari, south of Suluk. Roboskiye (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

From AlMasdar the city Tal Abyad is still under ISIS control but is being surrounded.Paolowalter (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This pro-Kurdish source reports YPG entered Ayn Isa (Bozani), and clashed with Daesh: http://xeber24.org/nuce/71284.html Roboskiye (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Turkish media say that YPG and allies have captured the town. [4] --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Smartnews reports Tal Abyad is taken by YPG: https://smartnews-agency.com/index.php/ar/breaking/view?id=1108

Furthermore, according to ANHA most of villages south of Tal Abyad are taken by YPG. Roboskiye (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-accuse-kurds-ethnic-cleansing-kurds-deny-092444213.html Kurds have not yet taken Tall Abyad yet, according to their official spokesman. http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/06/15/syria-rebels-accuse-kurds-of-ethnic-cleansing-kurds-deny-it Another source saying the same thing as well as mentioning Kurdish Ethnic Cleansing. And Source for Ayn Isha's fall. Seriously, lets source things here before editing. Did no one read the memo upward? Tgoll774 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources about Ayn Issa in YPG-FSA hands? In the report about the capture of Tal Abyad, SOHR states IS fighters left the border city going to Issa...so, it appears the latter is still contolled by IS...Fab8405 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Qalamoon

Hello everybody. I noticed that somebody deleted the rebel control over several desert army bases in Easter Qalamoun. Only the cities of Jayrud, Dumayr and An-Nasibiyah are now shown as truce areas with the SAA. However, we all know that Jaysh al-Islam, the Nusra Front and some smaller groups have a presence in Eastern Qalamoun. They are clashing with IS in the deserts south of Palmyra and Quryatayn. Can we show the presence of rebels there, for example through some known hilltops and supply lines in the region? As of now, it looks on this map as though there isn't any rebel fighting force present in the eastern desert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a icon with Rebel/Nusra presence between Batallion 559 and Jayroud. MesmerMe (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Hasakah Province

No source is posted justifying a change of Tel Heyder, Qobur Fazil, Rajm Tufayhi, Tal al-Salman, Judaymah, Hadima, Nejmah, al-Shukur, Abu Azalah, Kaka Said, al-Sabat, and Kubayat. All last I checked Cizre Canton sources were under IS control especially IS just posted a photo set from operations there.

And I see no source for Suluk's fall either. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the source used to justify Suluk falling to YPG. 'IS has completely withdrawn from Suluk' http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-kurds-close-in-on-is-held-syria-border-town-2015-6?IR=T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That explains Suluk, but the others are not, and if I don't see a source, I'm reverting the edit by tonight. Tgoll774 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this will help. SOHR says that YPG is 5km away from Tall Abyad, which confirms YPG and pro-opposition reports and maps. DuckZz (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

from the east.Alhanuty (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't explain Eastern Hasakah with the Villages I listed off. After we just had a total thread warning to post sources before editing lets post them before we edit so we avoid edit wars. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Tell Abyad region is not the problem. We know that the YPG and FSA are fighting near Tell Abyad. Here is a list of sources:

1. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/14/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-idUKKBN0OU0LM20150614 (shows Tell Abyad should be contested, fighting around the town)
2. http://aranews.net/2015/06/isis-capital-in-syria-under-kurdish-fire/ (proof that YPG/FSA advanced from east and west towards Tell Abyad and Soluk)
3. http://www.albawaba.com/news/syrian-kurds-advance-towards-raqqa-fight-against-daesh-707240 (proof that IS lost control of Suluk town)

The only region I'm not sure of is the Tell Hamis and Tell Brak area, were the map shows the YPG advancing. However, I haven't seen any sources or twitter records of another YPG offensive in that region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, who edited that area? What were thir sources since the last source and a Pro-Kurdish one showed that area under IS control. Otherwise I'm reverting the change at 10:00PM my time after checking for a source for Tell Hamis and Tell Brak. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When for a few months ago YPG cleared the area between Tel Hemis and Tel Brak, a certain editor got angry and added dozens of black dots to imply that ISIS still has a presence at that region. Since, as usual, there were no sources to mention all that petite villages have been fallen to YPG, much of those dots remained black giving the impression that ISIS is still controlling those villages. This also affected many of those maps on internet who take Wikipedia as one of their sources! In reality Pro-ISIS sources regularly claim are involved in hit and run attacks against unbelievers (i.e YPG) at villages south of Tel Brak, such as Rajm Tufayhi, Qobur Fazil, Tel Heyder, Um el-Rus etc. I really has it hard to believe there are any ISIS presence at least north of the river. Roboskiye (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify a revert of the corrective edit I did as pro-Kurd sources themselves that I posted showed the areas I corrected last night as IS held when that area was last edited prior to last nights changes with no justifying source. No source has again been posted so I'm reverting back to black what I corrected last night in east Hasakah.

Hello, Tgoll774, I reverted your edit because you did not provide a source in the desription of your edit. Had you given a link to your source, I would've let the edit stand. Where are these pro-kurd sources you speak of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbfreespace3 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It was on here till someone deleted it and threw this under Eastern Qalamoun instead of astern Hasakah. Plus I reverted a sourceless edit which has since expanded with no source again and to which I gave time for whoever edited it to post their source. SO the burden is on them to post their sources or I'm taking it to the admins. That said this is the latest information from the Pro-Kurdish Source we have http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#9/36.5747/40.7401 If Cizire Canton had liberated those areas he would have known. Nor do we have anything from ANHA or other pro-Kurdish outlets. I'm reverting back to what it was Tgoll774 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Vandalism was fixed except for Tall Muhammad Ali which I missed but should go black. That said, whoever vandalized the map needs to post his sources as asked or stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgoll774 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/610485669840949248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.70.96 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Idlib countryside

acc. to SOHR, SAA retook all the areas lost yesterday in idlib countryside (mushayrifah, tell sheikh khattab and jannat al qura) http://www.syriahr.com/2015/06/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1/Hwinsp (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait with that. SOHR has been wrong before, were Idlib is concerned. We will see sources soon enough if Jaysh al-Fatah takes the last Idlib villages around Frikka, or if the SAA start the large-scale counteroffensive which they have hinted at from the Ghab plain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is rarely wrong. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is a source which only makes mistakes in details, for example which group captured something, but an article like this is never wrong. Pro-government soures also report the same, which means this is confirmed. DuckZz (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: SOHR rarely wrong? Come on, remember when they claimed that they beloved "rebels" had taken control of Aleppo's central prison, wich was confirmed as false by other sources shortly after. I know that SOHR is one of the few sources we can use for this, but dont try to make it as a 100% reliable source, wich clearly aint (apart from their clearly pro-Sunni "rebels" bias, but that's another question...).--HCPUNXKID 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Status of south Palmyra desert

Some time ago Hanibal911 added Syrian Arab Army presence near the Walks border crossing and south of Palmyra. This map by Thomas Van Linge http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2015/06/12/2000px-syria-29.png shows a latent army presence, but also a huge rebel presence. Another map by Karybdis does not show any army presence there, and it even shows an ISIS supply line to Suwayda. My first question is obviously: who controls this area? My second question: is Karybdis anti-ISIS? If so he can be used to edit this region to ISIS control. I personally doubt there is SAA presence there. There must be consensus before we edit this. Who controls this area? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Van Linge is not a good source for rebels advancements, as he usually overstates their advances and territorial control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.242.132 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Van Linge, but I've looked around, and a lot of people bash him for inaccuracies. As for Karbdis, I'm pretty sure he's pro-rebel/anti-Assad.

As for the area in question, Eastern Homs, Eastern Rif Dimashq, and North-Eastern Suwayda, I've wondered if the Islamic State had a supply line linking their fighters from the areas in those areas, but I haven't found anything stating they did or did not. It makes sense that they would, though. Assad wants to keep the majority of the population under his control, and a lot of them are in the South-West of the country, meaning if the Islamic State had fighters in that area, South-East of Damascus, they would be under massive pressure from government troops. Their enduring their somewhat suggests some kind of link between Homs and that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 June 2015‎ (UTC)

In any case, I don't think there is enough information for us to make any edits to this part of the map. I wish it wasn't listed as under regime control however: its a desert with hills. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone

Specially to those who are breaking the rules of editing.

- POV edits

- Rebel tweets for rebel advances

- Rebel/Opposition maps for Rebel/Kurdish advances

- Kurdish maps for Kurdish advances

etc...

Should not be tolerated and the admin is informed. This is a wikipedia map, and not your own personal blog or twitter account. DuckZz (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You do realize we can, theoretically, use anything as a source, correct? What's needed is verification of whatever's being used as a source, for example: Rebel Tweet from unreliable source states Aleppo is under rebel control. It being an unreliable source doesn't immediately mean it cannot be used, it simply means that further verification of that statement is needed before any edits are made to any of the maps. Sources that can be used to verify it are more reliable sources. Again, what's used as a source is somewhat irrelevant, so long as it can be verified through other and more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Old maps being used for SCW page updates

A certain user constantly uses older maps, which are, for the most part, outdated, and uses them for updates to the savable .png file for the Syrian Civil War. This is extremely annoying, because it shows that user's inaneness. The current version of the map ignores certain advances made in/around Rif Dimashq, by both the SAA and IS. It also ignores advances made by Jabhat al-Nusra, as many other area in Idlib should be under joint control. My point is that further edits to the maps should be based on the last reliable map given, and so far, there aren't many users doing so, and Banak is one of the few who does so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with above user. In fact, I myself have actually had to save my own versions of the png file and update them myself to show what's actually happening on the ground becuase of the inaccuracies in the map. Someone fix this please. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 DaJesuZ Are you talking to me ? I update the color map every week. If you have some issues then write them here and i will fix them in the next update, because obviously i can't see everything. DuckZz (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this may be down to the fact that some people appear to update the map by only updating one area of the map at a time, which means less active fronts can be repeatedly missed, and remain outdated. From looking at other past version of the map while investigating this, I also noticed that shading around the Al-Walid crossing looks very artificial, which might also be what they mean? Banak (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. That is what we are talking about. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Qunaitra

Report: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565443-syria-rebels-launch-quneitra-campaign A very detailed report about a large battle launched today by rebels calling themselves Jaysh al-Hermon in Qunaitra province. Some Southern Front and local Islamist units took control of Tuloul al-Hamar area and are fighting near Hader. We should add Tuloul al-Hamar and make Hadar half-besieged. Also, we have this Syrian Rebellion OBS map: https://twitter.com/Syria_Rebel_Obs/status/610803085418622976 It shows Turanjah clear under rebel control. Anybody any thoughts about the region? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above user. These maps are not biased. These areas are under rebel control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is pro rebel source. How pro rebels surce can show rebel advance? Another time rebel anounce start big offensive. First they must show some evidence 217.99.132.128 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

Pro government source says terrorists have been repelled at jabaa and tall krum, i suggest removing the half siege at umm batinah https://twitter.com/ResistanceER/status/611091273588604928 and indeed you can't justify terrorist advance using pro terrorist source. Spenk01 (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just like we can't use your pro-Assad twitter source to edit this map :) same story, sorry. Reports today that rebels took Tall Brizaq, we should wait for some official news outlet or claim.

Kurds vs regime in Qamishli

According to Now Lebanon there have been clashes going on between Kurdish forces and regime forces in the city of Qamishli. [5] 76.99.189.128 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR Confirms: http://www.syriahr.com/2015/06/%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A/ I believe the clashes were only temporary and have subsided since a reported prison exchange and hence, I propose setting the city back to mixed, stable control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reports about "Unwritten truce in Qamishli." [6] Stharkov (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS presence near Hisyah is wrong

They are away this place according these maps (Are very precise) http://s2.img7.ir/M5dTa.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHpSIzJVAAA3tX3.jpg:large

They lost substantial ground In fact most are inside Lebanon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.39.24 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we tend to partisan sources very skeptically, and this is one of those. Could you please provide more information on what is wrong with our current map? Also please provide a link to a pro-opposition source, a neutral source, or a pro-Assad source which has consistently proven to provide unbiased information. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no substantial evidences about ISIS near Hisyah at the moment and maps got good credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.39.24 (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Errors and fixes

So much of this map is either outdated or incorrect. Here are some suggestions:
In Quneitra province, the following places are held by opposition: Turnajah (surprisingly listed as govt held), Ufaniya, Tell Ahmar, Al-Huriyah, Al-Hamidiyah, At Tayhah
In Damasucs countryside, the following places are held by opposition: Mughr al-Mir (located between Sa'sa' and Beit Jinn, and is currently listed as "contested")
In Daraa province, the following places no longer exist and should be deleted: the three military checkpoints that are north and west of Judayyah (in northwestern Daraa province.) Also, there are five red dots located between Busra al-Harir and Asim which correspond to the following villages: [7] and should be named properly rather than be left blank, and by the way they're controlled by the opposition.
In Idlib province, the following places are held by opposition: Jannat al-Qura (west of Ariha), and Mafraq Bab Hawa Checkpoint (northeast of Idlib city)
I hope these suggestions clear up the map and make it more up-to-date. Moester101 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources? Jannat al-Qura is under SAA control [8] Stharkov (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice sources. Totholio (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I will change these gov.held locations according to your sources...so no. DuckZz (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)