Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:c7:8301:8d74:1db4:bfdc:1999:782e (talk) at 19:07, 26 February 2016 (→‎Saraqib Coordinates Wrong: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Al rai & Qabassin

How come al rai and qabassin have smaller dots than Tal rifat and mare? My hometown kibessine is almost as big as mare yet its showed as a little village. Also the kurdish name of it should be written under kabassin in kurdish we say başhkêy which is the old name. and how come afrin is shown as big as tal rifat? There are hundreds of thousands of kurds and some arabs from aleppo that live in afrin now. it should be as big as azaz.

Kafr Bassil

There is a small village named Kafr Bassil which is just west of Shaykh Miskin. Haven't heard if SAA have taken the village, but I think if we at some point have the sources to put this village as either rebel held or government held, we should do that. Given the current situation, i think every village is worth mapping, since the Daraa region is getting "hotter" atm.

The Syrian army have taken alle the strategic places around Shaykh Miskin, I find i hard to believe that the rebel still control the small village of Kafr Bassil just west of Shaykh Miskin. The village is also being shown as government controlled in maps (i know we can't make changes due to maps or twitter claims)

Mare is still rebel held

https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/699951505630056449 Neutral sources still confirm that Mare' remains under rebel control, the proposed deal to hand over to SDF was sabotaged by Turkey and Saudi who refused to allow the rebels to retreat.82.153.113.72 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that some rebels retreated but not all. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true. However it is now reported that ISIS has begun an offensive to capture the town [1]82.153.113.72 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were true (although we shouldn't make a change per an unverified twitter report) the post says they are trying to storm the town, not that they managed to enter it yet. EkoGraf (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The SDF has already entered Mare'. See Why Turkey is losing hope in Syrian border town of Azaz. Whether or not they have full control (which implies a full rebel withdrawal), remains to be seen. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SDF is NOT in Mare'. Al-Monitor and Taştekin, in particular, are (generally) good sources -- but in this case I would go with CizireCanton. They ARE Kurds/SDF, after all, and they are showing both Mare (Mari') and Kafr Khashir to be rebel-controlled as of February 17, 2016. Please revert both to 'green'. ViewObjective (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SDF has some presence in Mare', per How Arab allies became enemies and then joined the Kurds. Also, the SOHR article on Mare' released at the beginning of this week (Feb. 16) stated that the SDF had a presence on the outskirts; now that it's confirmed that the SDF is in part of Mare', the map should be updated to reflect this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think Middle East Eye could be considered a reliable primary source (read their profile and see if you disagree). I also do not have sufficient information / history to say anything different about the author of the article you cite -- his Wikipedia username could be 'LightandDark2000' for all I know. :)
That said, I have no objective information to say that you are wrong. The information I trust does not dictate changing the map in either direction, so I'll pass. But if someone else decides that s/he has enough to change Mare' back to Rebel control, I think that would be appropriate.ViewObjective (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point on changing Mare's situation on the map. It is 100 percent rebel held. Are you trying to boost the moral of the Kurds by lying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.103.0.90 (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we cut the Aleppo map to half of what it is now?

We should make the Local Map only as it appears on on top of the main map. Anything east beyind the Airport (or east beyond the Industrial City) will no longer need any color changing on the Local Map, only on the Main map. Also, these areas are no longer contested and quite far from where the action is. They are not in the city anyway.

Thank you

Kinsibba Offensive

Could somebody add the villages NE og Kinsibba that were captured. Qastal, Marj al Zawiyah, and Beit Jinarawo. Location. I presume Qastal isn't on Wikimapia. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-commandos-begin-encirclement-of-kinsibba-after-capturing-3-villages-in-northern-latakia/ MesmerMe (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole area is becoming one big red blob .It needs thinning out behind the front lines as its impossible to find anything with cursor .Also i think Kinsibba may have been taken (per tweets not confirmed ) 86.178.97.70 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsibba has been liberated already, even video reports are on the net. All the usual and reliable sources confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.34.108 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see NE Latakia thinned out with only the larger settlements (ghannam, salma, rabiah) shown. 73.199.8.186 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides agree -- e.g., here -- that Wadi Basour has been taken by Government forces along with Ballah and Shillif. Changing map color to 'red' accordingly. ViewObjective (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khabour Wrath Offensive south of Al-Hasakah

The news (News - Breaking: SDF at the gates of the last ISIS stronghold in Al-Hasakah) confirmed by several Tweets (that I know are not an accepted source, but if you put the #KhabourWrath in the Tweeter source you find some news, photos and movies/films that confirmed the advances) tell us that the Syrian Democratic Forces are in the gates of Al-Shadadi and encircled the Town (if not inside the Town already) by North-East and North. I pledge that this map be and have that situation on observation.

Good work and best regards Geosapiens (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadadi is liberated source Rhocagil (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source is clearly pro-YPG and is not accepted as 'relibale' by consensus.Paolowalter (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paolowalte just asking something about Almasdarnews, there were some source that unconfirmed what they advance in 19 of November - morning - or that is only because you dont like them? You know your opinions dont have to be here, they are a news source and if you dont like them, because you think that is a non reliable source you have to be more clear...because your pre-conceived ideias are making this map non reliable...all the international news source backup them in this News agency, why? Because they have reporters on the ground...because of that is better for you dont believe in BBC, Reuters or The Guardian, all them in some point are searching in Almasdarnews the reliable source...or you prefer to have more confidence in the SHOR source that only follows the Twitter sources? Best regards Geosapiens (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

User AlAboud83 is deeming that this unrealiable and unverified facebook source is a pro-Isis source siralal7skawi and made a controversial edit, I reverted his edit beacause he broke the rules of editing but he quickly rv me for being unreasonable,this doesn't end here in my talk page he wrote to me and claimed now that this source is an activist source despite I explained to him about the rule of a source being realible.So this user doesn't know the crediblity of this source and pretend that this source has double standards which are "Pro-Isis" and also is an "Activist source" so this user doesn't know what this source credibility and just use it like that and intentionally manipulates,defames and vandalises the map.Lists129 (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user you mentioned edits often based on unreliable sources. You are right that the source quoted is very weak, a self proclaimed pro-ISIS activist facebook page. This edit must be reverted but now it cannot be done in a single revert.Paolowalter (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azaz

I have changed the city to pure lime colour. Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi visited the city last year and reported that the Northern Storm FSA of al Jabha al Shamiyya was in control over the town despite a minor Nusra presence.[2] That is even before the withdrawal of Nusra this summer, it was not sufficient to add a grey half to Azaz. In fact I lobbied these forums to make Marea half-grey based on reports that Nusra was arresting the FSA there, but I was ignored. It was not profitable to exaggerate Nusra control in Aleppo it seemed, except for in Idlib to give Nusra bad press. Now that YPG is attacking Azaz, I notice Azaz is suddenly half grey. What gives, guys?

All the Twitter sources about Nusra still being in the Azaz "area" do not specify the city nor any other location, and many of those sources, like https://twitter.com/AbuSaeedHalabi, said that Nusra's reinforcements were only for the Nubl & Zahra fighting, not within the YPG front lines. I am keeping this lime because Nusra only had half control in Marea and Tel Rifaat, until they withdrew in August and released some detainees. There was never any source that reported Azaz under Nusra control except for hysterical YPG fanboys trying to legitimize their assault. Their accusations are not considered reliable as per the rules of this template last I checked. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant part: "Situated in the northern countryside of Aleppo province, the town of Azaz–the center of the Azaz district–is the nearest major settlement to the Bab al-Salama border crossing that leads into the southern Turkish city of Kilis. At the present time, Azaz town is controlled by the group Liwa Asifat al-Shamal ("The Northern Storm Brigade"), which is affiliated with the Islamic Front rebel coalition. Also present within Azaz town but lacking any governing authority is Syria's al-Qa'ida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra. To the east of Azaz town lies the smaller settlement of Sawran, beyond which is a frontline, an area of no-man's land of about 800 meters to a kilometer, and then the localities of Doudyan and Dabiq to the northeast and southeast, solely controlled by the Islamic State (IS). Northern Storm also solely controls the town of Sawran." [3] NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As expected not two hours and already someone's POV pushing. User: EkoGraf Aymenn Jawad is not unknown, he's a policy researcher well cited in the media for years, and even testified to British parliament. [4] You are seriously telling me somebody who testified on ISIS before the House of Commons is an unknown and his tweet has the same weight as an unknown Twitter user? WP policy cares about sources, not the mediums of a source. A reliable person is still reliable even if he talks to you via Whatsapp, don't liken him to a Twitter-exclusive source.
I don't understand what you are arguing. Aymenn Jawad visited Azaz himself, and said Nusra doesn't govern, as mentioned above. Furthermore, Nusra has since WITHDRAWN its already small presence into a very minimal one. Yet Azaz was fully green when Nusra had a modest presence, but now that Nusra has a negligible presence you make it half grey, just to coincide with the YPG's assault? Can you explain why Azaz wasn't half grey a year ago, when I tried in vain to bring the question of Nusra control in Marea and Hreytan, but as soon as the YPG attacks I notice that Azaz is half grey? Please revert your own edit as soon as possible. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found the culprit [5], it was here based on a paraphrase of an unknown statement by Fabrice Balanche [6] at Al Monitor, the website with an anti-opposition owner. The author herself is part of "Future of Iran Initiative", seems legit. Anyways, this is either a dishonest paraphrase of what Balanche told them, or Balanche slipped up and fell to the common stereotypes surrounding the opposition. Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi's visit to Azaz strongly refutes it. NightShadeAEB NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NightShadeAEB It doesn't matter who he is. Twitter is simply not permitted per WP policy. Read WP:TWITTER. I have reverted people in the past who made changes to the map based on Twitter, whether they are pro-government or pro-rebel, and will do so in the future. Also, accusing me of POV-pushing from the start instead of trying to discus the issue in a calm manner is not in line with WP policy on assuming good faith from your fellow editors. Nevertheless, I hope you will continue making constructive edits on Wikipedia and improve the quality of its articles. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is NOT what WP says, and your attempts at distorting its meaning are definitely not in good faith. Wikipedia is against using unreliable sources or self-published sources about external topics, whether or not it is social media. Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi is neither; you yourself said that he was an unknown Twitter user, implying that if he wasn't it would be different. You are now moving goal posts, and you talk to me about good faith? If you bothered reading my edit summary, and what I just wrote here, my source is not just a single tweet - it's the article published by Aymenn Jawad last year, which he has reaffirmed in the tweet this week. You did not even read or respond to what I just wrote here - this is typical of POV pushers.
I did my research; I researched who changed it and when, I researched which source was used, and I researched reliable sources on the city of Azaz, and what do you do? You just revert my edit, and I can't stop you because of the 1RR rule. This is extremely frustrating; I may not be active most of the time, but I'm by no means new to this. If you refuse to reason and just do whatever you want, I will call this to the attention of moderators.
Let me quote User:Tradedia who created this map, about the Twitter of well known individuals:
"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)." [7]
As you see, I may not be as active as some of you users, but for the few contributions that I make, I am absolutely dedicated enough to go through pages and pages of archived discussion just to achieve clarity. I don't limit myself to a simple edit summary. When those who disagree do not even bother exerting the effort to explain why they disagree, it is very hard to maintain good faith. To conclude, I ask you one last time, please revert your own edit, or provide a source that contradicts mine and has equal or greater credibility. Thank you. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nightshade your source is a tweet, for all we know this is you tweeting this random information, tweets are not sources get that through your whabbi dead brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.111 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one acting in "good faith". To quote a friend, these people are only interested in broadcasting, they have no intention of exchanging information and achieving consensus. And for all I know, User:83.71.81.111, you could be any other member in this template talking without your account. NightShadeAEB (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zalanah

Zalanah, near the ALeppo Power Plant, has been captured by the SAA. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/tiger-forces-capture-zalanah-village-from-isis-in-east-aleppo/ MesmerMe (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tabqa offensive

Where is it on this map? Actually, I may leave this new section with that question only, because this SAA offensive often gets in alMasdar reports recently, but there is not even a single point which somewhat describes the offensive. Where is that forgotten by all Gods village Zakiyah, which I got tired to look for in Wikimapia? Come on, guys, don't you know SAA is actively approaching it now, there are hard fights going on. Zero reaction on it in this template, that's strange. So, I hope you will draw your attention to this significant offensive.
Best wishes, good luck ^_^ https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-armed-forces-capture-another-point-on-the-road-to-tabaqa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.243.187.158 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azaz city Contested

Acording to this news source (| SDF Continues Advance on Rebel Stronghold Azaz Despite Turkish Shelling) the City of Azaz is contested, and I agree because nothing (any news source) said that the combats stooped since the beginning of February, they only said that the al-Nusra Front & alies (Ahrar ash-Sham, Ansar al-Sharia & Mare' Operations Room) resists to SDF.

Good work and best regards, Geosapiens (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SDF has a presence near the outskirts, but they haven't actually re-entered the city yet, per [8]. If they did, I'm pretty sure that Ankara would be spitting condemnations and possibly pursue a much stronger form of military response. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get it LightandDark2000 (talk), when the Azaz town falls at the hands of the SDF and that was confirmed by a bunch of sources you put that on yellow. OK that´s a practice...not the correct one but ok a practice...can you answer me if you are that scrupulous to others contested situations? Well...I say that...because when the Daesh attacks the SDF someone goes running put that those villages or towns are contested...when you have a news source backing that there are SDF inside the town and that they are close to the centre...we have to be careful...it could be a lie!!! A lit bit dubious that attitude no? Geosapiens (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never changed Azaz to yellow. The source I mentioned doesn't even say that the SDF has actually re-entered the city; as far as I know, the SDF is still only at the outskirts. If the SDF enters the city proper, there will probably be a bunch of new articles popping up detailing such an advance, since Azaz is such a key target. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Al Arisha

User:LightandDark2000 Al Arisha was not taken, the YPG offensive came from east and west of Shidadi, they bypassed the northern countryside and created an ISIS pocket. Your edit and source [9] [10] do not match, "last bastion in Hasaka" is highly ambiguous and could just mean that Shidadi is the last important city they had, it doesn't mean Arisha itself was liberated. I know we don't copy from maps, but when other map makers [11] [12] including pro-YPG ones are saying Arisha is encircled, I suggest we give them some credibility. So we should revert all villages that are not specifically confirmed to be liberated, unless it's a small village surrounded by liberated villages, etc. But Arisha is a massive pocket.

That said, Twitter sources are all reporting a massive ISIS counter attack at Shidadi while pro-YPG sources are mum. SOHR itself says there are conflicting reports on whether Daesh regained territory inside or near Shidadi or not, so let's not rule out a reversal. [13] NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arishah was actually captured back in late December 2015. SDF sources reported that they secured the entire corridor between Al-Hasakah city and Al-Shaddadi on February 20 (See [14], [15], [16]). As for the recent counterattack, it was reported that ISIL was kicked out of Al-Shaddadi (western suburbs) ...again.[17] LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty aware of this counterattack, but ISIL never really recaptured the city or regained any significant ground during the course of their attack, so it isn't really a reversal. There might still be some pockets of ISIL resistance in Al-Shaddadi city (esp. since the SDF hasn't fully combed the city yet), but that doesn't mean that ISIL is actually in control of the city. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read all three articles twice, even the Arabic one, and I cannot find a single reference to the Hasaka-Shidadi corridor you mentioned, let alone a specific reference to Arisha and its surroundings. What do you mean? If these are your only sources then they really are not enough. As for Arisha, not a single source from December 2015 said it was taken, hence why we were expecting the assault on Shidadi to begin with Arisha and the dam, but instead it came from Khabour and Iraq instead. Arisha is really not liberated yet, the SDF are too busy defending Shidadi city at the moment. Even the Wikimapia editor(s) are showing a Khabour pocket. That's three map sources affirming Arisha is under ISIS, in addition to the absence of any valid sources that say Arisha is liberated. [18]
Also how is Markada liberated? It's an important village between Shidadi and Deir ez-Zour. No source has confirmed its fall, especially not while Daesh is counterattacking at present. What sources are you using for all these edits? The ones you posted say nothing about Markada or Arisha. NightShadeAEB (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are sources that Ajaja village in Arisha subdistrict was hit by air strikes on January 28 [19] by Qassioun, and Qana northwest of Arisha was hit on January 30 according to Step [20]. Hasaka Is Being Slaughtered Silently also reported air strikes on Arisha proper on February 14 [21] and confirms Ajaja air strike from January 28 [22]. So it's questionable at best to talk about Arisha being liberated.
Now things get confusing: an Al Aan article says Arisha and surrounding districts were liberated with little resistance on the road to Shidadi. [23] This certainly paints a confusing picture. But at least we know for sure Arisha wasn't liberated in December. NightShadeAEB (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition media such as Orient and Zaman al Wasl report al Arisha is under Daesh but besieged. [24] [25] Incidentally, Zaman also says Daesh is amassing at Markada to counter-attack Shidadi, and that Daesh recaptured Adla and Azawi near Shidadi. I'll change all villages mentioned by name in Zaman al Wasl. NightShadeAEB (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now even Aymenn Jawad says the SDF never really retook the whole of Shidadi. The current mixed control icon (which I didn't put) is thus most accurate. [26] NightShadeAEB (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing according to the result of this conversation. PutItOnAMap (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rasm Al-Nafal

Rasm Al-Nafal is captured by Jund Al-Aksa not ISIS, therefore the dot should be green not black.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/latest-battlefield-update-from-raqqa-aleppo-countryside-map/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.0.135.214 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS, rebels attack the Syrian Army together in southeast Aleppo [[27]] Oroszka (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Jund al Aqsa has defected to Nusra after the group came under heavy scrutiny for pro-ISIS cells. These may be the leftovers giving up on the rebels and trying to join ISIS fully. I wouldn't make it grey just yet, Jund al Aqsa should be grey when working with Nusra/rebels and black when working with ISIS IMO. NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely shouldn't be green though. The grey colour we use for Nusra should be used for all al-Qaeda or Salafi-jihadi groups. Especially Jund al Aqsa. NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Masdar, there is a lot to be changed in this area: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-regains-strategic-point-in-southeast-aleppo/ 5 town black/grey/green... Mughira1395 (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No green unless we can confirm a single rebel group that is not Jund al Aqsa or Nusra is involved. So far only Jund al Aqsa is involved, so grey. NightShadeAEB (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is (according to same source) still Rasm al-Hamid, that must be black instead of red... and Atawaliyah, which I didn't find...Mughira1395 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Government Source [28] confirms that the Free Syrian Army was part of the force that captured Rasm al-Nafal (but only in that village). This recent source confirms that ISIL is not in control of Rasm al-Nafal, but has captured the other villages mentioned. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Al Masdar is not a Syrian government source, and it is not a reliable source either way. They just throw around words like FSA to tar them with the extremist branch. Without confirmation from a reliable source, only Jund al Aqsa's involvement is confirmed. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black - Lime alliance icon

ISIS seems to be coordinating with Jund Al-Aqsa, mainly represented with lime icon in the last Khanaser - Aleppo offensive, having jointly captured Rasm Al Nafal. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-rebels-attack-the-syrian-army-together-in-southeast-aleppo/

Should we create a new Black-Lime icon to represent this new IS - "Moderate Islamists" alliance?Ariskar (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Jund al Aqsa is an al Qaeda group, more radical than Nusra and historically a close friend of ISIS. It is not surprising at all that they are coordinating. Recently Nusra and Ahrar accused Jund al Aqsa of being pro-ISIS, and many of their senior leadership and membership defected to Nusra. So this is just the leftovers coordinating with the only friend they have left, at least it looks like this anyway. Keep it grey for now. NightShadeAEB (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jund al Aqsa is part of the Jaish al-Fateh, represented in Lime-Gray mainly in Idlib. If we reach a consensus JaA are Islamist/Jihadists, we should at least have a gray-black icon to represent their joint military operations with IS.Ariskar (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jund Al Aqsa operates in Jaish Al-Fataeh, but this is not a rebel group in itself. Jund Al Aqsa left Al Nusra over its disputes with IS, but it never left al-Qaeda. It is an al-Qaeda linked group and so should be marked in grey. In fact, we should update the colour code on our map: we should not write 'Al Nusra' in grey but 'Al Qaeda' as there are non-Nusra, but Qaeda-linked groups in Syria. E.g. Jund Al Aqsa and the Khorasan group. PutItOnAMap (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS and Syrian rebels engage in joint offensive vs SAA https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-and-syrian-rebels-halt-hostilities-and-engage-in-joint-offensive-vs-saa/Ariskar (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have lime in the large area between Abu Duhur and Khanasir and then suddenly a massive "grey" offensive eastwards. It makes no sense. If JaA launched a massive offensive to Khanasir, Islamists/Al Qaeda (grey) must hold large part of this south Aleppo/north Hama area, and not rebels (lime). It is increasingly important as they are not part of a ceasefire/truceAriskar (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote elsewhere: "I know there are a lot of Salafist and extremist groups around, but the only two that are directly part of AQ itself are Jund al-Aqsa and al-Nusra, even if others have sympathies with AQ, yes? As for AQ launching offensives through green areas, their fighters may have freedom of movement in some rebel-held areas to launch offensives without actually having control in those places." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PutItOnAMap (talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blouzah village, south Aleppo.

I can't find the SOHR source, but I'm pretty sure rebels recaptured this village. What do you think ?

If they're not pro-opp sources (or if they are reliable pro-opp sources), we can use them to indicate recapture. PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PutItOnAMap The best would be to just put it as contested. DuckZz (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best would be to find a non-pro-opp source for a pro-opp advance, in my opinion. I do recall someone mentioning a SOHR source; finding the URL will be enough. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marea

There are many reports on Twitter saying that the rebels in Marea defected to ISIS and handed the city over to them. https://www.facebook.com/syria24english/photos/a.298390980196691.60683.298382103530912/984368704932245/?type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.228.13 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the "many reports"? Anyhow, even this report does not mention a hand-over of the city. In fact, this report says the opposite... Mughira1395 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unknown pro-ISIS tweep, says it is confirmed and stakes his word that it's true. Either way it says 200 fighters fled to ISIS held areas with their families from Marea, says nothing about handing the city over. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Zaman al Wassl

Posting this here for archival purposes since it was deleted. And I still have one thing to add.

Do you speak Arabic? Because my article clearly mentions all those villages, and many more I couldn't locate. [29]

"مصادر صحفية، قالت لـ"زمان الوصل" إن مؤتمراً صحفياً أعلنت عنه قيادة تحالف "قوات سوريا الديمقراطية"، تأجل بعد أن كان مقرراً عقده اليوم الأحد للإعلان رسمياً عن السيطرة على مدينة "الشدادي" وبلدة "العريشة" والقرى المحيطة بهما، وسط أنباء عن تحصن مقاتلي التنظيم في بعض أحياء مدينة "الشدادي"، وفي بلدة "العريشة" وقرى (عجاجة، الحدادية، تل احمر، ام ركيبة، الرشيدية، الخرايج، خربة السم، الحمدانية، والصالحية)، وجميعها واقعة شمال منطقة "الشدادي" قرب سد الحسكة الجنوبي على نهر الخابور."

[30] NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently SDF wanted to announce liberation of both Arisha and Shidadi (which means Arisha wasn't free yet), but it seems ISIS is still in part of Shidadi, as well as in Arisha, Ajaja, Hadadiya, Tel Ahmar, Um Rukayba, Rashidiya, Kharayij, Khirbat al Sim, Hamdaniya, and Salihiya. This is a translation of the relevant part. NightShadeAEB (talk) NightShadeAEB (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that those villages are all between Al-Arisha and Al-Shaddadi, along the Khabur River (esp. from the sound of the names I read). Since that area has already been marked up, it's pointless to clutter up the map by adding more villages there. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 I am not asking to add new villages, I am asking that you revert your revert of my edit that was the result of you not being able to read my source properly.[31] You found a source for Aazawi, but Adlah and Khirbat al Sim should stay black. (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't mention Aadlah or Khirbat al Samm. And SOHR reported that the SDF captured (or recaptured) 9 villages south of Al-Shaddadi. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just copied and pasted the relevant Arabic part with my own translation for Khirbet al Sim (خربة السم). As for Adlah and Aazawi, the excerpt I provided you with doesn't mention them, but the article itself does. It mentioned every single village I changed, except the one south of Markada which I used my best judgement for. If SOHR says they recaptured Adlah then fine, but it and Aazawi were still black when you reverted them without a source, and my source clearly mentions them in plain Arabic.
Here is the excerpt about Adlah and Aazawi, it's the second paragraph:
"وأفاد مصدر محلي بأن تنظيم "الدولة الإسلامية" استعاد قريتي "عدلة" و"العزاوي" جنوب مدينة "الشدادي"، خلال مواجهات مع تحالف "القوات الديمقراطية" على الضفة الغربية لنهر الخابور، تخللها تفجير التنظيم مفخخات استهدفت تجمعات للتحالف هناك."
Please don't do this again next time. Don't revert unless you understand the original source, and once the source is clarified revert your own revert since we have a 1RR rule and it's a pain to correct mistakes without violating it. Thank you. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't forget to change Khirbet al Sim. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also change al Arisha - your source from December is ambiguous, but I found many sources in January that it is hit by air strikes (outlined in our previous discussion [32], and my Zaman al Wassl article says it is currently under ISIS control too. LightandDark2000 NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Arisha town has also been referred to as "Al-Arisha District" (it was referred to as such in an article about the town while it was still under ISIL control in early December 2015). The SDF couldn't have set up an HQ in the town of Al-Arisha (much less gotten attacked by Pro-Assad militias there) unless they had actually captured it. And if ISIL was still in the town then, ISIL would have attacked the SDF as well, which would have been mentioned in the article. Also, airstrikes don;t necessarily mean that the town is under ISIL control. It very well could have been assaulted; Al-Shaddadi was struck by numerous airstrikes in the past two days, yet ISIL wasn't in control of the city since February 19, they were only trying to re-enter the city. (Oddly enough, you said this source details that Al-Arisha was taken by the SDF. Regardless of the date, since it is in SDF hands, it's pointless to reverse this change.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the new SOHR source I provided, Al-Masdar also reports that the counterattack in question was fully repelled. (The details covered in the ARA and Al-Masdar articles differ slightly, nonetheless, the latter article plainly shows that the 2-pronged ISIL attack from the west and south of Al-Shaddadi was repelled.) All of the recent SOHR sources I viewed in the past day (Arabic) all of the mentioned clashes are happening south of Al-Shaddadi, which means that they no longer control any areas in Al-Shaddadi's western suburbs either. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what I understood is that the SDF attacked from three directions, tried to pass through the Khabour villages but for some reason did not succeed in expelling Daesh from them. That or Al Aan did some faulty original research when they named all those villages. There is not a single source that dates to after the Zaman al Wassl article that says the Khabour villages are liberated, and at least six mappers consider the Khabour pocket to be Daesh [33][34][35][36][37] A seventh activist even edited Wikipedia's faulty map to more accurately reflect it: [38]. We don't copy from other maps, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise common sense. Why are you the only person I see who insists Arisha district was taken?
Daesh was certainly inside the city of Shidadi, and the city was definitely contested until yesterday. When a militant group is holed up inside a city, we usually consider this to be contested. Even reliable sources like Aymenn Jawad have said so [39].
The status of Arisha in December is irrelevant. "Arisha district" could mean anything; it could mean the HQ at the front line closest to Arisha. Who knows? All we know is that Arisha was under multiple air strikes, and being a small town, if it's under air strikes then it was at least momentarily contested. And if it was contested before, what makes you think it couldn't be under Daesh right now? Remember when Daesh withdrew from the Thermal Power Plant pocket, everybody reported it. Why is nobody reporting Daesh withdrawal from the Arisha pocket? We have early sources that say or imply Arisha was SDF, but we have up to date sources that say the opposite, and no source that contradicts them whatsoever.
So until we can find a source that definitely says Daesh withdrew, revert your edit at Arisha and Khirbat al Samm. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because we, as people, despise IS (and I hope we have a plurality here when it comes to that...), we often are slightly too quick or optimistic to 'edit them out of the picture', as it were. Accuracy comes first, and although I think that our mapping of this recent offensive (which has been both rapid and confusing for editors such as ourselves) was handled magnificently by you guys, we ought to be a bit more careful in future with our edits. We have to make clear, neutral judgements, even if IS is utterly repulsive, when it comes to working out who controls what. Always double-check yourselves. PutItOnAMap (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we definitely have to fact check. Even Rudaw is now saying Shidadi city is contested. Arabic article [40].
They say SDF denies ISIS is still in the town and ISIS denies losing the town, there is a media blackout regarding who really controls it. But SDF fighters said they couldn't advance inside the city since it's booby trapped. This means it is contested. Usually when one side insists on victory without definite proof, we wait until neutral sources start confirming it. User:LightandDark2000 NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make edits according to the discussion here. A pro-SDF source saying Shaddadi is contested means that we must mark it as contested. Plus, Al-Arishah district is the area around the town (countryside with possible checkpoints) not the town itself, and the pro-Assad militias could have attacked SDF forces in it. PutItOnAMap (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:PutItOnAMap, the pro-SDF source (Rudaw) does not say the town is contested. The Arabic Rudaw source says ISIS denies they lost the town, and that the SDF denies ISIS is in the town. It does not confirm in its own capacity the town is contested. That the town is reportedly booby trapped, which is slowing down SDF clearing operations does not make the town contested if there is no ISIS in the town (and making that kind of conclusion is OR). PLUS, we have had SOHR (one of the most reliable sources) who confirmed Shaddadi was captured by the SDF and at no point did SOHR state ISIS re-entered the town. Plus both Masdar and ARA news state the ISIS counter-attack was repelled. So, Masdar, ARA news and SDF state attack repelled, SOHR does not say town contested, ISIS claims they in the town. 4 vs 1. I think this makes it reasonable enough to put Shaddadi as SDF-held, but for compromise's sake add a partial black ring to the south (since SDF confirmed ISIS conducted a counter-attack towards the town). However, this is just my suggestion (I won't make any edits myself), so if someone doesn't disagree that's cool, no need for an argument. EkoGraf (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the counterattack over? If so, we don't even need to put a black ring there. PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:PutItOnAMap Yes it seems the counter-attack is over. Personally I think the black ring as well is not needed. But I only suggested it as a compromise if someone was still going to insist the town is contested. EkoGraf (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all agreed it's no longer contested, although it was earlier. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scala / Maßstab

This map needs a scala, to give a sense about distances. -- 212.75.52.4 (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)MapMaker[reply]

Daesh capture Khanaser village

Pro-regime source Al Masdar News says Daesh has captured Khanaser village just now. Please change icon from contested to black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8301:8D74:B959:27E6:5396:A122 (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daesh + Nusra--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The villages on the right side of the road need to be changed to ISIS control because it doesn't make logic, according to now, ISIS atacked the road from Rebel controled area and not from the right side of the road, because those villages are still marked as Gov. held.

Chaging grey from 'Al Nusra' to 'Al Qaeda' on our map

The recent prevalence of Jund al-Aqsa, an al-Qaeda group not part of Nusra itself, and the Khorasan group, means that we have put up grey markers where Al-Nusra aren't present. I propose we change the labelling on our map for the grey colour to 'Al Qaeda (includes Al Nusra, Jund al-Aqsa, and the Khorasan gruop)' or 'Al Qaeda (predominantly Al Nusra)'. What do you all think of this? PutItOnAMap (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should say Al Nusra and other AQ linked groups. The issue is that there are many such groups that are a grey area, such as Harakat al Muthanna in Daraa, and Junud al Sham and Jabhat Ansar al Din in Aleppo and Latakia. Jabhat Ansar al Din contains Harakat al Fajr al Islamiyya, a native Aleppo group, and Sham al Islam, a Moroccan-Chechen jihadist group blacklisted by the US. Junud al Sham's leader Muslim al Shishani is blacklisted by the US. There's also the Turkestan and Imam Bukhari groups, which include Uyghurs and Uzbeks and are understand to be tied to AQ. There are many small groups in Aleppo like Ansar al Khilafa that might be considered AQ linked. Harakat al Muthanna is "neutral" on ISIS and is being attacked by the FSA for being jihadi; they in turn made indirect takfir to some FSA factions last year. Then there's obviously Ahrar al Sham, widely considered to be mainstream rebel but also having ties to AQ type groups especially in Idlib and Latakia. And Ansar al Islam, a junior partner of Ahrar al Sham that also hangs out with Latakia jihadis. Then there's the small groups of Jaysh al Fateh, like Liwa al Haq and Ajnad al Sham, I also don't know if these are jihadi or just Islamist rebels. Jaysh al Sunna, another Jaysh al Fateh group, is former FSA from Homs, but got bombed by the US while it was targeting Nusra. And Khorasan, it's not a real group, just a cell of individuals that could be embedded with any group on the ground.
So assessing who's AQ and who isn't, is a very tough game in Syria. Just say "Nusra and other AQ linked groups", or if you want, "Nusra and other Salafi-jihadi groups", since Salafi-jihadism is the common term used to describe the ideology of groups like AQ and ISIS. A group may be exactly like AQ without being linked to AQ, for instance. It's up to you. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know many of these groups have ties to AQ, but Jund al-Aqsa and al Nusra are directly linked - i.e. they are part of AQ. Therefore, shouldn't Jund al-Aqsa be represented in the same colour as al-Nusra? Point taken about Khorasan. PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jund al Aqsa isn't an official AQ arm though. They are linked only operationally and ideologically. But it's true that Jund al Aqsa appears to be the most extremist opposition faction, even more extreme than Nusra. I would go on a hunch to say it is more AQ than the other small factions but that needs more research. I'm fine with including both Nusra and AQ in grey, which we already do, I'm just raising the question about other groups too. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Jund al Aqsa was official AQ. It only left al-Nusra, but it remained a part of the Al-Qaeda network, so it is part of Al-Qaeda, even if it is not its official Syrian affiliate. PutItOnAMap (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is that in this war there is hundreds of jihadi-rebel groups, and they can all be linked between them or not depending to the moments and situations in the ground. So it's impossible to say who is AQ or not, but I think that the situation will quickly clarify with the recent agreement of truce, we will be able to put grey those who refuse (AQ & co), and green those who accept it (other rebels).82.233.227.191 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS and Syrian rebels engage in joint offensive vs SAA https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-and-syrian-rebels-halt-hostilities-and-engage-in-joint-offensive-vs-saa/ We cannot have lime in the large area between Abu Duhur and Khanasir and then suddenly a massive "grey" offensive eastwards. It makes no sense. If JaA launched a massive offensive to Khanasir, Islamists/Al Qaeda (grey) must hold large part of this south Aleppo/north Hama area, and not rebels (lime). It is increasingly important as they are not part of a ceasefire/truce and may still be in hostilities with SAA and other groups even if the truce holdsAriskar (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are a lot of Salafist and extremist groups around, but the only two that are directly part of AQ itself are Jund al-Aqsa and al-Nusra, even if others have sympathies with AQ, yes? As for AQ launching offensives through green areas, their fighters may have freedom of movement in some rebel-held areas to launch offensives without actually having control in those places. PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasakah Province

Are the villages between Arishah-Shadaddi actually held by IS as indicated on the map or have they just not been updated? If so please update them because it makes the map look very inaccurate, also as far as I know, these villages have been captured by IS and IS now only has control south of Fadhgami.82.153.113.72 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened is that SDF gains have probably been overestimated and we have left IS areas stranded amongst SDF areas that were not actually retaken. We're fixing it now. PutItOnAMap (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fah and Khanasir

Fah (east of Aleppo, north of Tal Aran) was retaken by ISIS according to http://www.syriahr.com/?p=158101 Why is Khanasir contested between red and green? It should be red and black.Mughira1395 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to red and black. Will update with the SOHR source now. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAA retake Khanassir.SOHR Sûriyeya (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://aranews.net/2016/02/islamic-state-militants-take-over-syrian-military-base-in-aleppo/

A pro-Kurd source. I don't see a base here, and first I heard of this base. Tgoll774 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Mahin?

http://www.voanews.com/content/syria-islamic-state-homs/3206752.html

States Mahin as IS control. Any other sources on that? Tgoll774 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This mistake! This data from some the anti-government activist Jassim al-Homsi who is based in Turkey but all sources including SOHR clear said that town Mahin in a long time under control of SAA and we not have any confirmation that this town retaken ISIS. Also he just said towns like Mahin of al-Qaryatayn. So on based such incorrect data we can't marked the strategic town of Mahin as under ISIS. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For now clashes going near the town al-Qaryatayn which SAA still try retake from ISIS. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of December 2015 the city was recaptured by the army and not were no have more reports that this town was recaptured by ISIS.herehereherehere Sûriyeya (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Important changes !

  • 1

Today starts the official truce/casefire in Syria, which means the frontlines won't be active. Airstrikes will continue on ISIS and Nusra, but that doesn't matter. What I want to discuss is the following : Can we now remove the purple icons from the map, at least those who aren't part of a map (Damascus). Because they don't make any sense now. This action will only lower the pressure on our map, and simplify it.

  • 2 SOHR reported that Nusra members are withdrewing from several locations in Idlib province. Opposition sources are now writing that Nusra is withdrewing from several Idlib locations to avoid airstrikes on civilians population. Reliable source says that Nusra left Al Bara town and their HQ. He also says that Nusra is moving away from Zawiya mountain area, but that's a lot of villages. DuckZz (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A ceasefire is a combatent agreement to holt hostile action it is not the same as a truce and no sides are calling it a truce .As for Nusra it is still unclear where they have left and where they are going to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.157.233 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Aqil (northwest Aleppo) contested

According to this independent source [41] the SAA captured Shaykh Aqil this morning (northwest of Aleppo), but the rebels claimed to had recaptured it a few hours later. Appropriate course of action would be to mark it as contested. Please find the appropriate location on the map and add the dot. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hilal-Ithriyah road

AlMasdar reports that Al-Hassou, Koujan, and Rasm Seifou were taken by SAA close to Al-Siin. Where are they? Maybe Al-Hassou is here?Paolowalter (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saraqib Coordinates Wrong

https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B050'34.8%22N+36%C2%B049'04.8%22E/@35.8489739,36.8097868,6526m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

This is the Saraqib coordinates this map shows for this town. This is off! Saraqib is located here

https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B051'46.8%22N+36%C2%B048'21.6%22E/@35.8593421,36.8115072,5485m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

This must be changed

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=707059262"