Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

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

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)

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

Al-Tanf Al-Walid border crossing

Change from black to green per [1]. Esn (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. It's like it doesn't exist on this map, at least I can't find it as a code. DuckZz (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right... I just searched, and I can't find it either. What's going on here? Esn (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the rebels that captured it are the New Syrian Army [2] whom are a part of SDF. Therefore it should logically be changed to yellow.82.153.107.40 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Border crossings between Iraq and Syria are located over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map Susurri (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. They were ready to be part of SDF, but it never happened, and their plans to join Raqqa groups failed. Now they focused on Jordan area only. DuckZz (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are reported as part of Southern Front of FSA. PutItOnAMap (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several hours later ISIS retake Tanef border crossing.here Sûriyeya (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya The NSA now officialy said that they recaptured Tanf from ISIS after they lost it yesterday. The best is to make it contested because the reporter BosnjoBoy said that Rebels captured 20 locations aswell, we will mark those locations so it will make sense. DuckZz (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz I agree with you about border crossing but we can't add to such many places only based on data from only one source from twitter even if it is a reliable because other sources said that rebels from NSA came from Jordan and captured a border crossing. Need more data. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DuckZz Reliable source confirmed that ISIS has lost the al-Tanaf border crossong(taken by rebels) and ISIS for now just hold Al Walid crossing on Iraqi side of border.herehereherehere Sûriyeya (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about this SOHR report, dated March 6? I know that the Free Syrian Army has a significant presence near the Al-Tanf area, and the border crossing is possibly even contested (again) right now, but the SOHR report shouldn't be dismissed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From other reports I've seen (including the ones listed here), it appears that the Free Syrian Army captured all of the ISIL-held territory along the Jordanian border. But the Al-Tanf border crossing itself needs some more recent sources to confirm its status. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This source from today says that an FSA leader denied the ISIL claims, stating that they are still in control of the Syrian side of the border crossing? So who controls it right now? LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone find location? http://en.deirezzor24.net/jaysh-assud-sharqiya-a-fsa-faction-expels-isis-from-siriyat-al-waar-a-military-base-north-tanaf-border-crossing/ Vissar2g (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZzLightandDark2000 Very strange! Some reliable sources said that rebels recaptured Al Tanaf border crossing but SOHR said that the ISIS are still controlled this border crossing.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Vissar2g but this source pro-opp. which we can't use for show all success the rebels. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


They are embedded with Qalamoun and Daraa FSA so they stay green, just as any faction embedded with SDF stays yellow, even if it is not part of the SDF like Thuwwar al Raqqa. The NSF did not really join the SDF, and they're composed of long-standing independent FSA groups, unless the SDF FSA which have been hiding in YPG territory since 2014. NightShadeAEB (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZzLightandDark2000 It is a very strange! SOHR still said that the ISIS are still control Al Tanef border crossing since the 4th of March.here Sûriyeya (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the report is referring to the village of Al-Tanf, not the actual border crossing. From the other sources I've checked out so far, ISIL is apparently still in control of the Al-Tanf border crossing as well (although this is still somewhat contested). However, the Free Syrian Army is very close to the border crossing. They may very well launch another offensive to recapture it in the near future, especially since ISIL's defense lines seem to be collapsing in the area. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 No SOHR said the "Islamic state" continues to dominate the Al Tanf borcer crossing. here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to these reliable sources [3] and [4], and this Anti-Opposition source, the Free Syrian Army is in control of the Syrian side of the border crossing. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Town Zakiyah is in Raqqa Province not Southern Aleppo province.

As above Zakiyah is in Southern Raqqa near the crossroads, it is not in southern Aleppo province... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.179 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a problem we have - certain sources disagree on province boundaries. If I recall correctly, Masdar had Khanasir down as in Hama when it is in Aleppo on our map. So long as we have the coordinates of Zakiyah in the right place (and we do) compared to other villages, we ought not to worry about province boundaries. PutItOnAMap (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map co-ordinates are off then because it is in the wrong place, same as Kelz in North Latakia it has been 'moved' several times East around 15 km and that was also the ""correct co-ordinates"" TOO.

It is obvious the map to Co-ordinate system is wrong for a long time the scale of the map and distances between towns is totally wrong also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.179 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, we make mistakes when it comes to coordinates, but often it is news organisations like Masdar who make mistakes. Another point is that some locations we have to deliberately change a bit so that they can be readable - some villages are so close that they would cover each other if we didn't report their location slightly inaccurately. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second US Airbase in Syria

According to various sources, the US is building a second airbase in Syria. The second one is located southeast of Kobanî [5], with some reports saying that the planned airbase will be located near the LeFarge Cement Plant [6] (7th March 2016 entry). I know that the coordinates haven't been released yet, but when they are, the airbase should be added, due to its strategic significance. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this for the area & more information. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Desert and Saba Bayar

We should add two rural presence of rebels near the jordanian border in Rif Dimashq and Homs governorates. The rebels have also seized Saba Bayar (Homs governorate) in the Syrian Desert and we must also add more localities in the Syrian Desert.

https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_3499.png https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/706855332803420160

But i think that the hills are uninhabited and not strategic, so it is better if we removed them (we can not add them all anyway, there are too much hills). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sada Bayer on map as SAA-held. And we cant use all maps for edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this difrent point. But probably SAA left earlier this point and NSA(rebels) tetake this point from ISIS. Sûriyeya (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marsupilami128 But we only can edit map on based a fata from the reliable sources(add points about which said source) and we can't use all maps for any edits or for add any icons. Sûriyeya (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source said that rebels retake Khanasir Hill Saba Bajar As we have map two points Saba Bayar probably rebels retake this point Saba Bayar here from ISIS near Khanasir Hill. Sûriyeya (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Bayar was captured by IS (not previously added on the map) :

http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/archives/527

And now probably under rebel control, but you are right, we have to wait confirmation. However, we really have to add more localities in the Syrian Desert.

According to the DeSyracuse source listed here and several other sources I've viewed, it seems that the SAA lost the positions along the AL-Qaryatayn-al-Tanf road to ISIL by last month, and the Free Syrian Army ended up capturing the ISIL-held territories between Saba Bayar and Khanasir Hill (see [7]). LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same source shows now Saba Bayar still IS held... strange : https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/709786201516056576 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a map but we can't use all maps for edit. So as I sayd earlier we must stop use twitter for edit because twitter a bad source. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we cannot blindly copy directly from map sources. Yes, we can refer to map sources if they are reliable and published by a reliable reporter/news outlet, but we still cannot copy every single point onto this map module. Maps are prone to errors, and even the best maps out there have a number of mistakes in them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Eissa

User:LightandDark2000 You have got to stop making such edits [8] based on very loosely phrased articles. Here is the relevant passage in your article:

Turkey reacted furiously to the advances and began shelling YPG and Jaysh al-Thuwar troops, which are now on the outskirts of the strategic rebel-held towns of Marea and Aazaz.[9]

The problem with this is that you are assuming the author of the article even knows about Sheikh Eissa. Marea is a landmark known to casual journalists, Sheikh Eissa is not. You always do this when you can't find any other evidence to support your views. Please stop. The sources I provided for Russian air strikes on the town trump this unless you have highly specific sources. Don't repeat your mistake with the Arisha enclave. Ambiguous passages are NOT a reliable source, especially not when they conflict detailed sources. NightShadeAEB (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NightShadeAEB Sheikh Issa is SDF-held [10] This source is dated 23 Feb, the last source I can find which specifies Russian airstrikes on the town is 22 Feb, therefore making the source more up-to-date. Please make the edit. 82.153.107.40 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:82.153.107.40 Thanks for the source, but it seems to be a roundup of recent developments in Syria rather than a news item. Since we can confirm Sheikh Eissa was rebel held on the 22nd, and that article is a nationwide roundup of Syria published the 24th, and we know Sheikh Eissa was reported captured by SDF on the 16th, I wouldn't say this source is enough to confirm the change in control between the 22nd and 24th as no other outlet seems to have reported it. Al Jazeera describes it as the first line of defense for Marea on the 22nd [11]. Of course there is a ceasefire now, so the absence of Russian air strikes and SDF advances isn't conspicuous. Today's SOHR reports clashes between Daesh and "Islamic battalions" on the "Harbal-Sheikh Eissa axis"[12]. SMART and Qassioun go further, with SMART saying the clashes are "at Sheikh Eissa", and Qassioun saying Daesh tried to "sneak into Sheikh Eissa" but was repelled by the opposition. [13][14]. I think that's straightforward enough to warrant keeping it as lime green. NightShadeAEB (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NightShadeAEB A small clarification about the sources (Qassioun News and Smat News) it is pro-opp. But for us is enough the data in report from Al Jazeera.sources. Sûriyeya (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not gonna make up a battle with Daesh regardless of whom they support. It's not even in dispute who controls it, even SDF don't claim it afaik. NightShadeAEB (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Azaz again

This is to follow up on User:Niele~enwiki's input on the previous discussion, [15] I wish they tagged me so I could have known to respond. To quote:

Al Nusra has always had significant presence in Azaz area. It was Al Nusra that attacked US-supported Division 30 in Azaz and Menagh area. And more specific the Muntasar Billah Brigade of Al Nusra has a presence there.
Al-Nusra replaced Jaysh Muhammad in August 2014 when Juysh Muhammad withdrew from the city. Since then Al Nusra has a significant presence in Azaz and surroundings.
Of the mosques, one shows the influence of the Jabhat al-Nusra presence in the town: namely, the Mus'ab ibn Umair mosque, whose preacher is a member of Jabhat al-Nusra. This preacher attacked the status quo with the schools in Azaz, describing their teaching programs as "secularist-kafir." To counter what it sees as this pernicious influence, Jabhat al-Nusra has established a teaching institute for the Koran and Shari'a for children in Azaz, and the preacher called in his sermon for families to remove their children from the schools in Azaz and register them in the mosque. The other mosques in Azaz, such as the important al-Maytam al-Islami mosque in the center, are officially "independent" in affiliation, but the aforementioned mosque shows clear Islamic Front influence. Namely, its preacher is a judge on Azaz's Shari'a Committee. In any case, looking at education and religious life together points to a notable competition between Jabhat al-Nusra and Northern Storm (Islamic Front) for influence in the town, which has implications for a wider assessment of relations between the two groups.
If you want a respectable source for Nusra presence, Reuters as a leading news agency should be more sufficient: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-nusra-idUSKCN0Q50TL20150731.
In contrast there are no reliable sources that back the false claim that Al Nusra fully retreated to Turkey or joined ISIS once the Azaz pocked was clossed of from Idlib province. So the change should be reverted and Azaz and surrounding villages should be back half grey (Al Nusra) and half green (Non-SDF opposition goups). Northern storm as a militant group had only for a very short period full control over the city after Azaz was freed with from ISIS in 2014 with help of the YPJ.

To answer, first of all, we had many discussions as to whether Nusra should require at least a 40% presence in the city before changing it to half grey. Most of our arguments that referred to Idlib were inconclusive. However, I have not heard of Nusra exerting its power in Azaz, with the exception of the Division 30 incident, although it certainly has done so in Tel Rifaat and Marea before withdrawing. I've seen tweets about Nusra releasing some Marea prisoners back in September 2015, around the time the withdrawal was taking place. Division 30 was also apprehended by Shamiyya, and since they numbered just a few dozen individuals, they were hardly a projection of Nusra power, in contrast to long standing locally rooted armed groups in Marea that Nusra chased down.

Here Al Araby al Jadeed quotes SOHR saying Division 30 were based in Malikiya near Afrin, and were in a meeting inside Azaz city; when they left the city to go back to Malikiya, a Nusra checkpoint at Saju junction arrested them[16]. US air strikes targeting Nusra didn't hit Azaz, but according to most sources were "near Azaz", which indicates Nusra had some off-town strongholds. I24 News here quotes SOHR that the air strikes happened "near Azaz" [17]. Al Araby TV says air strikes hit "Reef Azaz" which means rural Azaz or outside of Azaz city [18]. This shows Nusra did not control much of the city center. I remember Division 30 were not held inside Azaz city but in a nearby village, but I can't remember now.

Having an "Islamic Front" preacher as a sharia judge doesn't mean Nusra is influential. The grey colour is for Nusra or other Salafi-jihadis only, not for all Islamists, not even for Ahrar al Sham. And even Ahrar has weak influence in Azaz. The dominant group is al Jabha al Shamiyya, which is composed of former Liwa al Tawhid groups. The Northern Storm of course joined Liwa al Tawhid shortly after Azaz was liberated in 2014. They are still active today, and use their original flag with the Shamiyya logo.

Using Reuters here is problematic for two reasons. First, Reuters is from before the withdrawal; nobody denies Nusra was there capturing Division 30, though we can argue whether that constitutes control or not. And second, Reuters and other reliable sources themselves usually quote specialist sources, including Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi whom I based my edit for Azaz on. And he said it clearly: in January 2015, Northern Storm was in control over not only Azaz, but also Sawran before Daesh occupied it, and even had a presence in Handarat. He said Nusra has no governing capacity. And he himself said in a Tweet that Nusra withdrew from the area. Since he is a reliable source to mainstream media as well as the British parliament, I would take his tweet mentioning something in passing as if it were common knowledge quite seriously.

There's also no way to know which village is Nusra and which isn't. But even if Azaz were Nusra, that doesn't make all villages around it at half Nusra. I'm open to believing a village here and there may be half Nusra, but there's no evidence for that. Relying on memory, Nusra withdraw from one of its village outposts and handed it over to someone, I think it was Zenki. I'll have to look back into this, but the Aymenn Jawad article is more than enough to seal the question of Azaz. NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Hama

My suggestion is to change the Morek and Kafr Nabudah towns in north Hama. First town was captured by Al Nusr and Jund Aqsa only, not even pro-rebel sources are denying this. While Kafr Nabudah has no Nusra presence and never had, it's under FSA and little Ahrar Sham presence control. Therefore, I suggest to put Morek to grey, and Kafrnabudah to lime. Opinions ? DuckZz (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Nabudah, but I thought Jaysh al Nasr participated in the liberation of Morek. It seems Jund al Aqsa is disproportionately in control though. NightShadeAEB (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But yesterday rebels jointly with Al Nusra launched atack from the town Kafr Nabudah the positions of SAA south of this town. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya No they didn't and there's not a single source for that. DuckZz (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between Al Nusra and rebels in Idlid countiside

Opp.sources reported that the Al Nusra Front and their allies from Jund al-Aaqsa amid heavy gunfire storms the town of Hish south of Maarrat al‑Nu'man and arrest the commander of Imam Bukhari Brigade, affiliated t Division 13(FSA) and also Nusra/Jund al-Aaqsa now mobilize their forces for storm the headquarters of Division 13(FSA).hereherehere Also opposition sources said about clashes between FSA and Al Nusra in Maarrat al‑Nu'man and Khan Shaykhun.hereherehereherehere Sûriyeya (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably make Hish grey and Maara contested. For the others, let's wait to see if they change hands or the battles last longer. NightShadeAEB (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source the correspondent Jenan Moussa from Arabic Al Aan TV(Based in Dubai) said about clashes between Nusra and rebels inside the towns of Maraat Nouman, Khan Sheikhun, Al Ghadfa, Jbala.here
Later SOHR said rebels evacuated from the city Khan Shaykhun and from their headquarters in Tal Aas. And said about clashes between rebels and Nusra in the town of al-Ghadfa and that Nusra send reinforsment in the city of Maarat Nouman in attemp to take entiyre city.here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maarrat al‑Nu'man under control of Al Nusra after they captured all bases of the Division 13(FSA) and looted all weapons and equipment in the town of Maarat al-Numan.herehere Sûriyeya (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition source also said Al Nusra captured Hamidiya base near the city of .here and that Al Nusra besieging the headquarters of the Division 13(FSA) in the city of Idlib.here also opp. source said that the Division 13(FSA) withdrawal of a large portion of its units outside the city Maarat al-Numan.here Sûriyeya (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opp. source said that the Al Nusra stormed the headquarters of rebels in Tall Tukan near of the southern Aleppo countriside.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR also said that the town of al-Ghadfa and the city of Maarat Nouman for now Al Nusra-held.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Division 13 is defeated, the conflict is over (for now). Any small villages should be grey, but Maara and Khan Shikhoun stay half-green because of Ahrar al Sham and Faylaq al Sham presence (unless we confirm the balance of power changed somehow). NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please note we had the same discussion a year ago when SRF and Hazzm were defeated and all cities were made grey despite presence of other groups. Division 13 certainly did not singlehandedly control Maara and Khan Shikhoun. The green doesn't just represent Division 13 or SRF, but all groups that are not AQ (Nusra, Jund al Aqsa, etc). NightShadeAEB (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NightShadeAEB Sources clear said that Nusra with support of allies captured Maarat al-Numan and Khan Sheikhun after pushes US support rebels. Also Anhar Al Sham it is allies Al Nusra. I began to edit just a few months ago and so I not familiar with the contents of previous discussions. But it is nonsence as Nusra and allies take both these cities from rebels(which is supported of US) and you said we need again marked them as under their jointly control. Also how said that conflict ended. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR said that for now Al Nusra conducts raids and arrestes in the cities of Maarat al-Numan and Khan Sheikhun all fighters those involve with Division 13(FSA). So that probably these facts indirectly confirms who controls these cities.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We had the same discussion when SRF and Hazzm, and even Fifth Legion FSA were arrested. But it was Ahrar al Sham that liberated Hamidiya, not Nusra (Nusra took Wadi Deif). And Maara had a Suqur presence called Suqur al Maara, and we know Suqur has joined Ahrar so that should make them stronger. Faylaq al Sham should also have a strong presence in south Idlib, at least the Liwa Ibad al Rahman subfaction was based in Maara back in 2014. Dunno if Faylaq is now weaker in Maara or stronger, but we can't discount it. Mind you, Division 13 was de facto defeated by Nusra along with the SRF back in 2014, this was just to finish the job. Division 13 used to be part of the Fifth Legion along with Fursan al Haq, Suqur al Jabal and other groups. Nusra stormed them and took their weapons back then too, after which the Fifth Legion stopped existing as a coalition. NightShadeAEB (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NightShadeAEB I dont know which situation inside city of Maarat al-Numan but SOHR said that Al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa still continued of their raids the homes of fighters from the Division 13 in Khan Sheikhun.here And about Hamidiya base opp.source clear said that for now this base under Nusra control after rebels retreated.here Sûriyeya (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, by "rebels" you only mean Division 13. Ahrar al Sham/Suqur al Sham did not retreat, and Faylaq al Sham did not retreat either. Also Nusra is accusing the leader of Faylaq al Sham in the city Ahmad al Alwan of leading civilian protests of Division 13 families to attack Nusra. Nusra now withdrew from Division 13 buildings, and possibly from the whole city[19]. I dunno if to make the whole city green or just half green cause it's not clear what the Nusra withdrawal means. But it was never fully grey as nobody reported a withdrawal of Ahrar al Sham and Faylaq al Sham, the other two big groups in the city. NightShadeAEB (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article, it says Nusra didn't just vacate Division 13 bases, but its own bases too after popular protests demanded it leaves. So we should make the city fully green. I still think we should keep Khan Sheikhoun half green though.
"وقال مراسلنا إن المتظاهرين أحرقوا مقراتها في المدينة، مطلقين هتافات طالبت بخروجها، حيث انسحبت بداية من مقرات "الفرقة 13" التي استولت عليها منذ يومين،، ثم غادرت مقراتها إلى جهة مجهولة، استجابةً لمطالب أهالي المدينة." NightShadeAEB (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NightShadeAEB Step News it is a pro-opp. source which we can't use for succes of rebels. So or prove reliable(not opp. source) source or revert you edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NightShadeAEB Opp. source confirmed that the al Nusra still inside the city of Maarrat al‑Nu'man. And they trying to disperse the demonstrators who require their withdrawal from the city. So probably a whole city or a part thereof is still under the control of Al-Nusra.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NightShadeAEB Also Faylaq al Sham withdrawal from the coalition Jaysh al-Fatah in Idlib province and focus its efforts on the fight in Aleppo.here And in addition you must know that Ahrar al Sham it is allies of Al Nusra such as a Jund al-Aqsa.here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ain Hawr

Ain Hawr in Qalamoun is controlled by the rebels and under truce, it is not controlled by the regime.

http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Qalamoun-Madaya-12-Jan-2016.jpg

Rule #2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an illustration. Someone changed the control of this locality arbitrarly while it was rebel held. http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/archives/637 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Waer

The Syrian Armed forces have reportedly reimposed siege of al-Waer neighbourhood of Homs against the terrorists organisation of al Nusrat [20]82.153.107.40 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manbij dot size

Earlier a request to edit the dot size of Manbij was rejected on the basis its population is marked as 99.800 in wikipedia, leaving it 200 people away of the 100.000 people mark for the next tier in city sizes.

Said data, however, is from 2004, and several sources indicate the town has grown well over that number since then, for example, this January 2014 article claims it has a population of 200.000 not counting refuuges:

http://syrianobserver.com/EN/Features/26544

While this other indicates the pre-war population was 100.000:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/633601/Islamic-State-Syrian-town-Manbij-ISIS-European-capital-dozens-Britons

Any thoughts on the matter? Satellite imagery clearly shows Manbij as a city closer to ones like Tartus and Raqqa than to Bab, Idlib and Rasulain/Serekaniye.

186.170.110.38 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this city's dot on the map should be made bigger. It is a major strategic city, and its size on this map doesn't even reach the actual size of the city on the map. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crediable sources for edit!

I think we use too many sources from twitter and we mast stop do this. I think we can use only official pages of (reliable) media sources and not more than that. Twitter is very difficult to call a reliable source and in connection with this we need to either completely prohibit the use of data from Twitter (as the sole source without providing additional source) or authorization to use only official pages. Here is an example:hereherehere or this herehere Twitter has confirmed that it is a real page of international reporter, politician and analyst. Or use some sources from twitter which we earlier used only as addition for data from other crediable sources not from twitter.

  • So I ask all editors (except IP editors) to Vote in favor of or against my proposal and on based of consensus we can decide whether to add this rule to the to our rules or not. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Twitter can be used, since there are reliable reporters there. Some of the villages and frontlines aren't regularly reported on in mainstream media, and in such cases, we will probably have to resort to social media sources like Twitter to make up for the loss in coverage. However, only reliable sources on Twitter can be used, and Twitter should not be used if there are other reliable sources out there that can be used in its place. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appeal to all the editors with a proposal to put an end to the questionable edits based on dubious data from Twitter. We made too many edits for last several monts on based of data from twitter and now we must stop do this. We can choose some of neutral reliable sources in Twitter that we can use but all of too important changes need do on basis of reliable sources not on basis of amateur activists from Twitter. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, IP, vote yes on Suriyeya's proposal, even though it doesn't count. I think reliable credible sources should be used, as the rules say. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps

I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps. If this doesn't work, I'll ask admin to block him, but I would prefer ban on editing military maps.

I'm sick and tired of telling him "if You do this one more time, I will...". And I'm sick and tired of finding articles, reading them from first to last letter, finding no useful information, only to see him using the same source to backup completely unrelated change. And then I have to carefully read entire article like idiot, making sure I'm not blind and I was right in the first place.

He is playing stupid and manipulating sources big time. And he is doing it on purpose. Enough is enough. Not long ago, he changed used this source to change Shaykh Isa to yelloow (YPG/SDF held). When I complained about it, he didn't even try to prove I was wrong about the source, but he gave me *another* source that merely hints that YPG/SDF is on the outskirts of Mare so Shaykh Isa "must have" been under their control. So, he obviously used bogus source, and that's not his first time. Not even close to first. I replied to him on his talk page:

Some might find text "on the outskirts of the strategic rebel-held towns of Marea and Aazaz" good enough to assume Shaykh Isa is under YPG, some might not, but that's not the point because You didn't use that source. You used another one, which has no text related to the change You did based on source You provided. Please don't do that, this is not Your first time. --Hogg 22 (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, off course, he "cleansed" his talk page it in his next edit, like he does every time someone complains about him.

Today, I saw this edit. He changed Khunayz, Thulth Khunayz and Tall Al-Sim'an (here) to yellow/contested based on vague sentence on YPG-related site saying "The armed groups making up the Syrian Democratic Forces are now at the gates of the IS headquarters in Raqqa.". Nowhere in the article is said anything about Khunayz, Thulth Khunayz and Tall Al-Sim'an. Nowhere! And even if IS has headquotrers in Tall Al-Sim'an, vague sentence about YPG being "at the gates" of it, without any mention of distance, is not nearly enough even for siege icons, let alone contested.

Many of You have tried to reason with this guy, and You all know it's not working. So, I propose that we agree on banning him from Syria war and Iraq war maps and present that to admins.

--Hogg 22 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is known on some level (including social media) that Tell Al-Sim'an is the last ISIL stronghold between Ayn Issa and Ar-Raqqah city. That's all I have to explain for that change. By the way, it is against Wikipedia policy to request punitive sanctions against other users, especially when they make edits in good faith. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


P.S. Another example of playing stupid: On March 14, he reverted Libya map with comment "We can't copy directly from map sources", and just this morning he edited Syria map using map as a source. You are not making edits in good faith. You are ignoring all complaints and playing like You don't understand. There is no other way to stop You. We tried, we lost our time and nerves, You did it again, tens of times.

--Hogg 22 (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT copy from the map. I merely referenced it, and it was from a known reliable reporter. By the way, I noticed that you add locations from maps like Wikimapia much more often than I did (not that saying that it's bad, though), so you can't say that I'm the only on here who refers to maps during edits every now and then (although they are mainly location-based). Also, please stop with the personal attacks. It's a direct violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. I'm getting sick of all the wild accusations and name-calling; I take it personally as harassment. It is possible to have a reasonable dialogue/discussion without defaming the other party [21][22][23][24]. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are "so sick" of accusations, because there is so many of them. Maybe You should think about why there are so many users complaining about You. And since You obviously don't get it why, I say Your case is hopeless and we should just ban You. --Hogg 22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 Firstly how can provide that this guy Bosno a relaible source because I only see that he just amateur from twitter which is can't prove any data from relaible sources which can support he is data. We can gave any activist from twitter ans said that his crediable source for edit but it is a wrong we must stop use most of sources from twitter. According to rules of Wikipedia twitter not a crdiable source. And in this edit here you are openly broke one of the basic rules:

Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “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
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.” So we can't use all maps!!!!!!!!!!! Sûriyeya (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't aiming to break any rules, nor was that my intent. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 Excuse me but you knew very well that according to the rules we can't use for the editing all maps but today you use map for edit. And now you say that you wasn't aiming to break any rules. How could this happen? Sûriyeya (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 is not following the rules with regards to correct change procedure on this map. This behavior should be stopped by the community. This is not right behavior, using maps to edit tons of villages not even mentioned in the map cited. Regardless of whether LightandDark2000 was aiming to break any rules or not, he broke them. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline

Recently, User:LightandDark2000 made this edit, changing a major town, Tell al Siman, to contested between SDF and ISIS. The link does not work. Additionally, it is obviously a pro-Kurdish source (YPG News). I asked LightandDark2000 to provide another source for his edit. Until then, this edit should be reverted due to lack of a reliable source. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=710410936"