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 84.24.43.183 (talk) at 21:31, 10 June 2016 (→Til Alyan and Sheikh Rih). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Map doesn't display properly

It loads very slowly. Often the country borders, lakes are missing. At other times all the towns, villages, borders, lakes -> the whole map collapses into a few lines high heap. Experienced on different computers/OS at totally different locations/services at different times.

Updating the map

The southern pocket of Eastern Ghouta was taken by SAA three days ago. (Today is 2016 May 25) The map still doesn't show that. Rapidly loosing credibility.

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

Mare

Mare should be a yellow-green split dot since the SDF and FSA are working together to protect this city. Thank you. 2601:646:9901:AAE0:AD60:9992:B958:66F7 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SDF doesn't exist in Mare, actually Mare is sieged by SDF from the west and Islamic State from north east and south — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zakiyah and crossroad are in wrong location?

This article says "The village of Al-Zakiyah and its nearby crossroad are located at the Hama-Raqqa border; it will need to be liberated before the Syrian Armed Forces can make any significant advance towards the imperative Tabaqa Military Airport."

Does that mean that the town and crossroad are actually closer together than they're shown to be on the map, and that the SAA hasn't taken the crossroad yet? I seem to remember that their locations were moved a few times in the past on this map; are we sure that the current locations are really the correct ones? Esn (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this map, Zakiyah is west of Abu Al-Allaj, while on our map it is east of it. So again, is everybody sure that the location in this map is accurate? Esn (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namaeya village liberated by SDF forces

The Namaeya village was liberated by SDF forces according to this source: http://en.hawarnews.com/minbic-militiary-assembly-freed-up-another-village/ I would have added it, but I can't find it at geonames.com.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deirezzour and Manbej Updates

IS have captured the Thayyem Oil Field and Jabal Turdah, please change to IS-held. [1]. SDF are fighting IS and the Manbej Grain Silos, please change to contested. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rankous in Qualamon mountains north of Zabadani

This article confirms that the Rankous area that has been contested on the map between IS/Jan is clear of both terrorists for months. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/where-is-hezbollah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.175 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Recently there are plenty of edits that are based on twitter or maps (from twitter). This violates the rules. Please provide proper reliable sources for all your edits. Regards, Schluppo (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schluppo true various pro-biased twitter sources are used from sockpuppets.Lists129 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here. It should be clear that maps are not allowed as a source for the edits here, since there are rules for editing civil war maps (Here I have to admit, that I often heard about this, but where is this page with the rules actually?). Also, twitter is a tenuous source which at least I don't use because of this. One more thing is Al-Masdar News, from which I heard that they are at least not a reliable source for advances of the Houthis in the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Does that count for advances of the SAA, too?--Ermanarich (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Raqqa Oilfields

Can someone please start adding the oil fields located south of the Raqqa Governorate. I think these are important strategical locations and will play a part in the SAA offensive against Raqqa at the moment. The oilfields are Sfaiyeh, Wahhab, Ammala, Deilla, Al-Hussein, Fahdeh, Dubaysan, Wadi Ubayd and Halima, in addition to multiple towns in the Raqqa Governorate (it is best that we add some of these now so that editing is easier later in the offensive). The villages and oil fields can be geolocated on Wikimapia and are clearly labelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources and coordinates for each one of these towns we can ot just stick them in and assume ISIS has presence here, isis are stretched to the max and these places could be abandoned for all anyone knows, sources and coordinates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.175 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates are available on Wikimapia. These oilfields are deep within ISIS territory and if any other group did have a presence here we'd know about it. Furthermore these oil fields are a source of revenue for ISIL and form part of their lucrative oil empire, therefore it is illogical to believe that they would be abandoned. Even if they were, they still fall within ISIL territory and therefore should be shown on the map as such, there are probably dozens of towns that ISIL (and other parties) has no direct military presence in but exercises theoretical and uncontested control over. If we are editing the map based on who exercises direct control over which areas then Suweida and Salamiyyah should not be under SAA control. Suweida is largely controlled by Druze parties (neutral but loyal to the SAA) with minimal govt presence and Salamiyyah is effectively run by armed gangs with the govt again exercising limited control.82.153.102.106 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's hard to say without sources confirming they have a presence there, it can be in their territory as much as possible but does not mean they control it because ISIS are very very low on manpower they are losing around 100 men every day all over Syria if not more, they do not have the man power to even control these zones, unless they start using the children to run the oil fields rather than using them as suicide bombers.

Dirkhabiyah

SAA recaptured this village a week ago as confirmed by pro-rebel twitter account [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try seriousness

Just an example (it happens with other towns, no matter wich side controls it), Arak has been put with the "Enemy pressure from one side" icon since nearly a month ago, well, according to Al-Masdar today (7 June) SAA & allies are 4 km. away from Arak. Or is someone going to claim that being dozens of km. away (as SAA was from Arak until few days ago), with no news of SAA & allies attacks on Arak is enough to add the "enemy pressure" icon?. Please, lets try to forget wich side we like more & try to be serious & objective.--HCPUNXKID 16:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS withdraw from N Aleppo

ISIS have withdrawn from almost the entirety of the Queiq Plain in N Aleppo. FSA have captured the villages of Dudiyan, Yahmul, Jarez, Sawran, Barish, Yeni Yaban, Tal Ilyan, Ghazl, Kafr Ghan and Qara Qubri. They are also clashing at Tall Battal Claims that ISIS have withdrawn from 10+ villages. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manbej town

This is a good suggestion. All sources, especially Kurdish, confirm that most groups and soldiers participating in Manbej offensive are Arabs who still use the fsa flag among the SDF banner. We can put only Manbej town to joint control as a symbolic gesture ? DuckZz (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree these are SDF forces with SDF agenda . I would agree if you give me a single rebel/revolutionary/arabic sunni source that consider the forces attacking Manbej part of thier revolution/Agenda/whatever . Being arab or frensh or American who for God's sake knows who is fighting in there ? the conclusive and important question is not who they are but what is their agenda and what do they represent . They are as yellow as bannanas and should be amrked yellow. Helmy1453 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support the second view. In the Afrin Canton, there are also some Arab groups on the side of the YPG, which also used the FSA flag but which are clashing directly with the FSA (and Islamist) groups in Azaz. The arab groups inside the SDF can't be simply called FSA.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I said but Kurdish and pro-Kurdish sources. They are stating that most soldiers atacking Manbej are from the newly created Manbej operation room which collects former FSA brigades which were from that town, now inside SDF but inside the new Manbej room too. This is the only reason why Turkey allowed USA to back this up, which means YPG stayed in Tishrin. I would be ignorant if I said "let's put it to green" but no, i just said let's put it to joint control, only Manbej town, not 50 villages around it, only to show the simbolic gesture from YPG for allowing former FSA groups to take the leading role, thus the groups use the same flags as 3 years ago, only with the SDF banner included. DuckZz (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, This is pure propaganda . And Turkey can't do thing about the US wishes to support Kurds all what they can do is complain, whch they did, Turkey anounced that US promissed them YPG will be out of the city after the fight is over which means YPG is still the main force. as I said the agenda is the key, if even a small minority of Green groups consider this forces as green then I would say lets paint it green otherwise it is yellow .Helmy1453 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish reporter around Manbej, YPG/SDF not involved in the liberation of Manbej. While this is not true, because Manbej council is part of SDF, but u get his words. 1, 2, 3, Manbej council is part of SDF, but made of FSA groups. We don't even need other sources but only the first one, because he is around Manbej town. DuckZz (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are any non-SDF groups in the offensive neither Manbej nor any other villages should be shown as joint rebel-sdf. This is completely illogical. What you are saying is that even though they are part of the SDF we should still label them as something completely different even though if you asked most rebel groups if they were rebels, they would probably say no and call them Kurdish/SAA collaborators because of the anti-SDF bias in the Syrian Rebel Opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Aleppo

Nicely donne. The admins will shut down this page in 24 hours. 8 edits donne without providing a source. ISIS strongholds like Ehtimlat and Sawran now magicaly under Rebel control on our map. But yes, its' better to avoid everyone to edit the page instead of banning 1 user, but we don't need logic decisions. DuckZz (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Ya Sawran is green ? I never seen any pro green source stating that ? this page is going coco Helmy1453 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see this excessive use of Twitter as a source very critical. There may be some exceptions, where Twitter is a good source. But in the last few days, towns were changed to SDF-held with Twitter sources, which were actually liberated one or two days later (and this according to kurdish sources!). But really ridiculous is the last edit: A recent edit, sourced with Al Masdar was reverted by taking some twitter account (which claimed that Syriahr mentioned that. I doubt that, because I looked there and couldn't find an article which mentioned it) as a source!

Really, what's wrong with using reliable journalistic sources?--Ermanarich (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IS around Azaz

The map is not realistic. IS didn't retreat that much. See this map: https://twitter.com/EmmanuelGMay/status/741155202997334017 --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was as usual an exaggeration by FSA. Here is a pro-FSA map concordant with Emmanuel's map: https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/741003909687300096 So you can go ahead and make the necessary corrections. Roboskiye (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Til Alyan and Sheikh Rih

Pro Rebel source [10] says both aforementioned villages are being bombarded by Turkish artillery, therefoe meaning they are still under IS control. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Aleppo YPG advance

The YPG/SDF of Afrin Canton have taken control of Herbul, Maarat Um-Hawsh and Bir as-Sabah from ISIS fighters. Those towns should be made yellow. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/ypg-captures-3-villages-northern-aleppo-amid-isis-retreat-azaz/

SAA Raqqa Offensive

There appears to have been a confusion with the names of the crossroads in the Raqqa province. The one which the SAA currently controls is called Sfaiyeh (including the adjacent oil field) which the one further up is called Rasafeh [11] please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=724692865"