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 18:34, 31 August 2016 (→Sajur Dam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions


Please don't use Twitter posts as a source

A lot of users here keep using Twitter posts of individuals as a source. Please note that Twitter posts of individuals cannot be regarded as reliable sources for information about third-parties as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA no matter what it claims. Newsboy39 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most tweets are not usable, however, WP:SPS do mention an exception about self-published expert sources. To be used as an RS, the tweet needs to be from an expert (f.ex. a war correspondent) whose work has previously been published by a news organization (or from the news organizations official twitter account). As an example, since this article in The Daily Telegraph use tweets from Chuck Pfarrer, so can we(, but with caution). Erlbaeko (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Erlbaeko, but some of the tweets being used are not from experts published by news sources. And even when they are experts, they do nlt say the users claim they do. For example many users have used this post saying it claims that Amaq News Agency says Hamar Labidah village has been captured by SDF. However neither it mentions Amaq nor does it say anywhere Hamar Labidah has been captured by SDF. It only talks about a suicide bombing in the village. And a suicide bombing does not automatically mean the opposite faction controls the village, such a bombing can even be carried out during a battle. Users should be more careful. Newsboy39 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your words here, I can assume that you are unfamiliar with Amaq News Agency. It is the major pro-ISIS 'news' group that exists. Since it can easily be taken down by authorities, it relies upon social media platforms like Twitter to spreads its propaganda. It uses a distinct format to disseminate it's message which you can easily see based on the style of the announcement. Note that "Islamic State" appears in the top right corner, and it refers to ISIS soldiers with friendly terms. This is a reliable source when it gives to reporting ISIS losses. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already pledged not to use Twitter in the past, but I think now that we should do it a bit different and create a list of reliable Twitter accounts. A similiar thing was done for the Yemeni Civil War map template. In the past I saw for example, that someone used Julian Roepcke as a source. This Twitter account is incredible biased and can absolutely not used as a source. One other thing, expecially to you, Newsboy39: If a biased source admits a defeat of the own side, it can be used.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of reliable sources that I will edit as needed:

  • Chuck Pfarrer
  • AL-Masdar News (when other reliable sources don't contradict)
  • SOHR (same as above)

Will add more as needed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ermanarich Have you even read the source? The source is not from Amaq News Agency, nor does it mention it and is not admitting defeat. I've repeated this multiple times. Here's the tweet itself:

#SYRIA

  1. IslamicState Claims Suicide Attack On #YPG Fighters In Haymar Labidah Village,S #Manbij City. #TerrorMonit…

It NEVER ADMITTED DEFEAT. Neither Amaq is mentioned. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, no need to get emotional. DaeshDaily cites Amaq there too, it's saying exactly the same words: http://www.daeshdaily.com/august-18-2016/ And regarding the masses of defeats the Islamic State is currently facing, Amaq would absolutely never miss to mention a victory over its enemies.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ermanarich Well looks like it is from Amaq. The content however nowhere admits any defeat, it's only mentioning a suicide bombing. Why do people keep claiming it admitted defeat in Haymar Labidah when it never did? Newsboy39 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the image in the tweet? That do say Amaq News Agency, and also that a "martyrdom operation" hit a group of YPG fighters in the village of Haymar Labidah. So, it's not unlikely that is under SDF control, but I agree that we need a better source to say it for sure. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erlbaeko A suicide attack can also be carried out at a place during a battle. ISIS has regularly used it during battles. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just dit not understand why you said that Amaq wasn't mentioned. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newsboy, do you have any sources that day there is ongoing fighting in Hamir Labidah town? Because if you don't, it is safer to say it is under YPG control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I've researched a little bit. Media outside from Twitter didn't report about this village yet. Twitter has some posts about it: (https://twitter.com/search?q=Labidah&src=typd&lang=de) and one we should be able to use, since he is one of the Twitter accounts which helped Chuck Pfarrer to create the Manbij Tacmap: https://twitter.com/calimike1/status/766028517880455168 Also, there were reports from two hours ago, that another suicide attack happened, which means that it's either held by the SDF or contested. As long as the situation remains that unclear, I'd put Hamir Labidah as contested.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also this report from Al Jazeera. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as we're at unclear situations already: I've heard about reports, that the Rebels in al-Rai claim to have repelled the ISIL-attack...--Ermanarich (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand Arabic. The Google Translation of source by Erlbaeko says "The agency said that another car bomb attack Thursday targeted a gathering of the Kurdish units in the village Himr in situ south Manbej Brive Aleppo east during the progress of those troops toward state regulation sites under US air cover." Is it confirmation of a battle or victory? I can't understand the broken translation. Is anybody a native Arabic speaker here? Newsboy39 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ermanarich ISIS has recaptured al-Rai after losing it for just a day: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-recaptures-key-town-northern-aleppo/


A good source says Hamir Labidah is under SDF control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a good source User:Pbfreespace3, the author is an expert according to his credentials. Good job on finding a reliable source that does indeed talk about Haymar Labidah's capture. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is expert? The author is syrian living in US whose upside is that he is fluent in arabic and reads a lot of social media pages of activists or group that mostly publish in arabic. By what claim is he an "expert"? Does he has credential as correspondent? Does he fulfill the creteria of notability? Reliability? You cannot just go around and just call expert anyone you see, even though this is an internet where every shmuck is a PhD. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm yes I guess you're right. His credentials said he was a history major and was an analyser of the Middle Eastern civil wars. Based on that I thought he was a scholar covering the Syrian civil war. Though this is not the case. Does not seem to be an expert as I don't see any newspaper using him as a source oremplying him. Newsboy39 (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since few seem to be able to pick out objective and authorized sources on Twitter, I think twitter sources should be banned all together. 9/10 twitter sources are private accounts. Mozad655 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Rifaat and Marea in northern Aleppo province

Ahmedo Semsurî Re [1]. According to this RT-article, Tal Rifaat and Marea is controlled by YPG. Do you have a source that indicates that this "Must be a mistake" or do I need to take your word for it? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Mare' 5 days ago [2]. Under "extremist" control. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Mare' was captured by SDF, it should be very easy to find Kurdish sources verifying it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article do not say Marea is under "extremist" control. It says it's rebel-held. Anyway, that is old news. Yesterday it was reported by this Reuters-article, that Ahrar al-Sham are now "aiming to regain control of the strategic towns of Tal Rifaat and Marea in the northern Aleppo countryside, currently in the hands of the YPG." So, both RT and Reuters says it's YPG controlled. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And so do this Al Arabiya article. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can change it to SDF then. But I would still wait for Kurdish sources - Marea is not some random village, but a FSA stronghold as Azaz. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I have done my revert today. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mare is not under YPG control. YPG doesn't even control Shaykh Issa; that town is controlled by Jaish Thuwwar (which is part of SDF). Ahrar wants Mare because Mare has only other rebels in it (largely Turkmen and FSA). The Reuters article claiming YPG controls Mare is just wrong. That al-Arabiya article is just a copy of Reuters. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We all know Mare' was green. If Royter just says it is yellow out from nothing that is bogas. I need a link stating that yellow/SFD/YPG controoled Mare' . You know that cont just happen majically . no MAre' will stay Green untill a source states that it changed status and how did that happen Helmy1453 (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to SDF since we should use reliable sources, and multiple RS do say Marea is under YPG control. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable source that says this is Reuters (Al-Arabiya copied Reuters, they admitted as much), and I would argue they are not reliable in this case. This was a little Freudian slip. They meant to say that Shaykh Issa was under SDF control, but they misspoke. Every other source that exists says it's under rebel control. Every other source!
Here's one that accurately predicted the Jarabulus offensive. Guess what she says? It's under rebel control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about what you think Reuters meant to say. If you like to prove them wrong, you need a stronger source than a self-published tweet. But if "every other source" say so, it should be easy for you to find a good one. Be sure to post it here first. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mare' is under rebel controll since July. Comfirmed by several sources. YPG never captured Mare'. Beshogur (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC) [1][2][3][4][reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-advance-rapidly-amid-full-scale-isis-retreat-northern-aleppo-map-update/
  2. ^ http://qasioun.net/en/news/show/28405/Opposition_break_the_siege_by_ISIS_on_Mare%E2%80%99a
  3. ^ http://www.syriahr.com/2016/06/08/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84-%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B0-%D9%87%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9/
  4. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-northwest-idUSKCN0YU0PT

Qibab al Saghir, As Sakhanah, Arudah Kabirah, Khafsah Saghirah and Kaklijah

Coneleir Re [3] and [4]. You may be right that they are IS controlled, but you need a reliable source to add them to the map. None of your souces is a WP:RS, and the rules for editing the map above says that "Copying from maps is strictly prohibited". Erlbaeko (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why maps were banned as a source is because they were mostly amateur maps by people with an agenda. For example, a lot of pro-government people would just put Nusra maps all over the rebel held area. Hanibal911 would mass change towns to Nusra. This was part of the reason. The more and more we see the maps like the one Coneleir used, and then we see these towns he marked as ISIS-controlled be captured by the Kurds, the more and more we see he is a reliable source, especially for towns held by ISIS. These towns are very important, have a decent population, and are about to be captured by SDF. One reason why I added them is so I don't have to find them later when they are captured. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop doing that. It's against the policy, and for all we know IS have never even been to all those places. Note that the policy on verifiability says "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." See the Further reading section. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you just break that rule then? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. As that diff shows, I removed info. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You used this map to justify an edit on the Syrian civil war map. You directly contradicted the rules. Please don't criticize me if you make the same mistakes you claim I make. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Umm al-Saraj Mountain, Qur'a Saghira and Aqra mountains, and said in my edit summary that: "Better source needed.". The map is not even needed to do that. So, no I did not made the same mistakes you claim you made. And btw, I said Coneleir made that mistake. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then you should've been clearer in addressing who you were talking to, Erlbaeko. The addition of these villages is justified because ISIS controls them, according to every source on the internet right now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually support adding villages which aren't directly at the frontline, especially in areas which are likely to be conquered by another side soon. It's another thing if you do it at not very well media-covered conflicts like the one in Yemen or Afghanistan, but in Syria, we have the frontlines really exact, village for village. If another faction would hold territory behind the frontlines, it would be reported immediately.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care whether you support it or not. If you don't have a source, it fails WP:V. It says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Erlbaeko (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but the problem here is, that the map won't be more accurate because of this but rather much more inaccurate, since the frontlines will contain much less villages then. I know this is somehow problematic to Wikipedia editing rules, but since the map editing follows special rules, is there no way to discuss this? I mean, this rule makes sense in a normal article, but here can't be a misinterpretation.--Ermanarich (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is it to discuss? Rule no. 1 for editing the map, says "A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided." Rule no. 2 says "Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.", and rule no. 3 says "WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated." Erlbaeko (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this rules were obviously made before we had that many marks and informations about the Syrian as well as the Iraqi Civil War. I will not break the rules as long as we have them, but I think that it would be good to rediscuss this point.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with the above sentiment. We really need to discuss the rules of this map, because they are far too restrictive for us to actually show what's going on. There are so many sources we cannot use due to rule 59 chapter 5 paragraph c. Now that I see how difficult it is to actually make any changes on the module without being reverted by other users who throw the rulebook at everyone, I realize that we need more lax rules so we can edit instead of being bound by red tape. It is similar to crossing the street when there is not a light telling you you can do so, and a police officer instantly arresting you and giving you a big fine because you jaywalked. How would you ever drive or cross the street? We need to streamline and simplify the rules to ease editing, not make it harder for people to contribute. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish involvement

Turkey is now directly fighting in the civil war; e.g. Katlejah was captured by Turkey and the FSA https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/4zbxpd/katlejah_west_of_jarablus_captured_by_turkey_fsa/</ref>
As a result, I think Turkey should be added to the module key, which currently shows the five factions Government, Opposition, SDF, JFS, and IS. And the villages near Jarabulus which are currently displayed as solid Opposition control should be shown as being under joint Turkey-Opposition control.
I didn't want to add this, seeing as it's such a major change and I've never edited a module before, but does anyone else think Turkey should be added and/or feel like adding them?
Another question is, which color should be used for Turkey? It needs to be something distinctive. A shade of blue, orange, pink, or purple might work? Of those options, I prefer purple; however, if purple is used, then the existing purple used for government-opposition truces would need to be changed (perhaps to orange). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've worked out how to add Turkey to the module (a dark green color is the default for Turkey). As I doubt there will be any objections to this, I'll change villages near Jarabulus to Turkey-Opposition shared control. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. There is no color for Russia . There is no seperate color for US/UK?Frensh forces fighting with SFD ? Why is Turkey different . I say NO NEW COLOR FOR TURKEY Helmy1453 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but I think the difference is that the intervention of the US has been limited to airstrikes / training. Same with Russia. On the other hand, Turkey is leading this operation on the ground; Turkish tanks are present in Syria. It's not really accurate to say that the villages near Jarabulus are solely under opposition control; joint opposition and Turkish control is a more accurate description. So I think a new color for Turkey is appropriate, although it would be good to get some more opinions on this matter. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong starts lead to wrong conclusion. We all saw the American and british troops on the ground fighting in Minbij. some of them even KIA . and we remember the photos of russian sodgers storming Salma and Palemero. of course no mentioning Iranian Army which most propably have more sodgers in Syria than in Iran LOL. Helmy1453 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding US and British troops - there is no dominant role for those (if any) so far on the ground. Russian troops are present in limited numbers across Syria and personally i support adding a distinct color for Russian bases. Regarding Iran - no official Iranian forces fight in Syria, but rather mercenary militias and military advisors, so it is not the same case as Turkish Army fighting openly in Jarabulus.GreyShark (dibra) 15:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(dibra) Ur comment is another level of Ignorence. the Iranian army presence as fighting groups (full units) is official and anounced by official state both iranian and Syrian . Same as russian . US support is also official but what is the definintion of dominent? can SFD advance for 1 miter or even hold ground without US support? Helmy1453 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the colour of Turkey must be changed. It is easily whirled with grey. When the colours green and dark green are in one circle, it can be thought as that area is controlled by FSA and Jihadist group. So maybe the colour of Turkey can be changed from dark green to blue or dark blue. Beşiktaşlı aşık (talk) 18:44

Editors jumping to conclusions and making colors on thier own . That is not acceptable. HUGE changes like adding color for Turkey is NOT OK unless agreed upon it in the talk page, and If done all red dots should be switched to stable mix control Govermnet -Iran_Hizbollah-Iraqi-Iarn which would make this page a joke. keep reasanbale. Helmy1453 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible idea. Color for Turkey should absolutely NOT be added. Turkey offers support in the shape of initial tanks and shelling. Actual controle remains under syrian rebels. If color is added for Turkey, then color must be added for Iran because they have thousands of confirmed troops and advisers offering support to SAA. Color should be added for UK and US because they have special forces on the ground in armoured vehicles through out northeast Syria. Not to mention color for all parties involved in offering air support across Syria which is arguably much more important than any other kind of ground support. In other words color marking is for who is in controle, not who offered support in capturing that area. There is no clear objective way to tell current level of turkish support from support offered by other foreign forces. Only if Turkey stations large numbers permanently in the area which is not the case. We are talking about a dozen tanks and some special forces. Not much more than US/UK special force involvement. Mozad655 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Turks are the ones in control of the area surrounding Jarabalus, not the rebels. The rebels there are Turkish auxiliary forces, trained and maintained by turkey. The Turkish government has been pouring more troops into the area, and has stated it will eventually build up its forces up to 15,000. [[5]]XavierGreen (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian are the ones in control of the area in Aleppo . Helmy1453 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that turks are in controle of Jarablus or surrounding area. Turks offer support to rebels who are in controle. Rebels are officially syrian rebels from FSA. There is no evidence that they are "Turkish auxilliary forces" or any other conspiracy. Whether they are trained and maintained by Turkey makes no difference. They are still syrian rebels. Whether or not they will increase turkish forces to 15.000 is to be seen. Changes should not be made based on something that has yet to happen. Your source states there are up to 15.000 syrian rebels in the offensive and 450 turkish millitary involved on the first day, far outweighed by the much larger numbers of Iranian, Russian and Hezbollah troops on the ground in Syria. Bottom line is that support does not equal controle. Syrian rebels are in controle. Otherwise color has to be added for all foreign troops, which has not been done. Special rules do not apply for turkish troops. Mozad655 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BBC reports that Turkish ground forces assisted in the taking of Jar. bbc.com/news/word-europe-37184848
There is no mention of actual control. Control, on this map, has to do with who exercises jurisdiction over a town or area. The article I linked states Turkish forces are preparing to intervene, and ensure the SDF does not push West of the Euphrates. This implioes Turkey has a presence in the area around Jar., currently marked as under opposition control. Marking the area as under opposition-Turkish control only makes sense. Marking them as under opposition control ignores the fact that Turkey sent tanks, APC's, and other ground units to take the area. Was it taken for the opposition? Yes. Is it under opposition control? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precense does nost mean controle. Russians, Hezbollah, Iranians and western countries have presence throughout Syria. Are they in controle? Markining it as OPP controle does not ignore the fact that Turkey offered support anymore than marking government held areas as government only, or SDF areas as kurdish only. Was it taken for oppositon? Yes. Is it under opposition controle? Yes. What your saying are all opinions. Not facts. As you said controle has to do with who exercises jurisdisction over an area. Turkey has not claimed any jurisdiction in any of the new areas. Mozad655 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Turkey gets its own color, for the sake of objectivity, please also add new colors for Hezbolah/IRGC, Russian airbases and US positions in Kurdish territory. Turkish military should not be treated any different than the other involved foreign military powers. Schluppo (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure adding colors for US, Russian, or Iranian positions would be justified. Iran has no units (officially) involved in the fighting, instead keeping to advisory positions. Russian airbases or ports are not Russian territory, they are Syrian, and Russia has a stated goal of supporting the Syrian regime, and not controlling territory. The US is in the same position as Russia, but supporting the Kurds and rebels. Turkey is a little different; Turkey is invading, and yes, they are supporting opposition fighters, but exercise territorial control within Syria, and are not doing so expressly for the opposition, instead, they're pursuing their own interests in making sure the SDF does not link Kobani with Afrin Canton. They're in this for themselves. DaJesuZ (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just put Turkey as the same colour as the rebels? (Green). They're on the same side, and it's simple. PaulPGwiki (PaulPGwiki) 11:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian units, both advisery and fighting forces have been confirmed for a long time, regardless of official admission by Iran. Like Russia, Turkey has not stated a goal to controle territory either. They want syrian rebels to controle the area just like Russia and regime. Furthermore western countries have ground special forces through out Syria. The notion that Turkey is "invading" with the intention of controling territory on their own, is an oppinion not a fact. All captured territory is officially controled by FSA. Whether they support FSA "expressly for the opposition" or because they have own interests makes no difference what so ever. All foreign forces are pursuing own interests in Syria and Turkey is no exception. People who want a color for Turkey are clearly biased against Turkey since they perceive this as an invasion rather than a support similar to that of other foreign forces. As there is a high level of disagreement color should not be added. Mozad655 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah officially has thousands of troops in Syria fighting on regime side. Should we add Hezbollah color? Exact same situation as Turkish role. Mozad655 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Russian source (Anti-Turkey, Anti-YPG) Following heavy bombardment of Jarabulus (a total of 63 targets were fired at 224 times in the first hours) and a series of air strikes involving aircraft from the U.S.-led international coalition, Syrian Free Army (FSA) troops were able to enter the city and take it under control in a matter of hours. Turkey insists that what is happening cannot be considered to be a ground operation: The task is to open a corridor for the armed forces of the moderate Syrian opposition for cleansing Jarabulus from terrorists. http://rbth.com/international/2016/08/26/turkey-has-gone-further-than-promised-in-syria-says-moscow_624453</ref> Vissar2g (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely against this. Turkey's role is no different from the roles played by Hezbollah, Russia, the US and Iran. They are supporting one side, not taking territory for themselves. They're only intervening to put the FSA and related groups in control so the Kurds don't seize the whole border. After that is accomplished, they'll likely leave. The fact that the rebels are Turkish-trained doesn't make one bit of difference. All sides in this war have received training from an outside power. Syrian government troops have been trained by Russia, China and Iran, rebels have been trained by the US, Britain, Jordan, and already by Turkey before (there are reasons why the region where the rebels are strongest by far is along the Turkish border). Who trains them doesn't make any difference. The only thing that's new here is the presence of Turkish troops on Syrian soil. But their actual role hasn't changed. Their objective is to support the rebels, not to control territory themselves. Kawada Kira (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - some user edited the map on the basis of fictional consensus "reached at the talk page", but... there is no consensus:
5 support separate color for Turkey:
Two users support dark green for Turkey Chessrat, GreyShark
One user proposed blue for Turkey Beşiktaşlı aşık
Two users support any separate color for Turkey XavierGreen, DaJesuZ
5 users oppose separate color for Turkey
four users oppose any color for Turkey Kawada Kira, Mozad655, Helmy1453, Vissar2g
One user proposed using lime color for Turkey (same as rebels) PaulPGwiki
Neutral / conditional (one)
One - add Turkey under condition that Russia, Iran, US and Hezbollah are added Schluppo
So far for now.GreyShark (dibra) 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7 users oppose. At least wait for majority of editors to support your viewpoint before changing status quo.


Can we stop this nonsense of adding new colors! Everyone knows that there are four sides of this war, we use Red for Regime, Hizbullah, Iranian Quds force and Iraqi militias, Black for ISIL, Yellow For all SDF factions and Assyrian militias, but when it comes to rebel we use Green and Grey, and now we are adding dark green for Turkish troops supporting rebels although we didn't add any color for collation special forces supporting SDF! as for the Dark green we should remove it because it makes no sense to add it for special forces. as for the grey for JFS we should remove it because JFS is present in many other areas marked as green. and almost all areas marked with grey have presence of other rebel factions. almost 95% of map makers use only 4 colors so why should Wikipedia be different? 3bdulelah (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Grey stays, basically Al Nusra (Jabhat Sham) has a tottaly different ideology than FSA, Ahrar, etc, they reject any political solution, fight against other Rebel groups, etc etc. Many problems. While yes the person who added the Turkish color should be banned emidately. Iran and Iraq supported accounts braging about how they have 20k soldiers in Syria, while Turkey entered Syria with 5 tanks and suddenly they control 50% of the nearly taken teritories around Jarabulus, lolx2. DuckZz (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)''

Also, it's unlikely that the other colors will be added as we had that discussion before. So the opinion could also be 5/8, depending on one's interpretation.

Vissar2g (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the oppose color when it comes to showing Turkey on the map. The lime green is just simpler. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey has not entered a war through its incursion into northern Syria and has no intention of becoming a permanent power there, broadcaster NTV cited Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus as saying on Monday.

"Turkey is not an occupying country. Turkey is not entering a war," NTV cited Kurtulmus as telling reporters in Istanbul.[1] Vissar2g (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Al-Shadad

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-continues-advance-key-city-southern-hasakah/ mentions that IS a positioned south of Al-Shaddadi and some villages have been taken by IS on the way without spelling their names. We should probably turn black anything south of Al-Shaddadi.Paolowalter (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup in Jarablus area

Alot of bias and propganda in edits concerning newly captured Jarablus area. Specifically pro-SDF edits. High use of personal twitter accounts. They should not be allowed even if the person being quoted is "on the other side" and "admitting" a loss. Surely only official, non-partisan and english-speaking news outlets should be allowed. SDF did not capture 20-40km of heavily guarded land all of a sudden in south of Jarablus. Turkey would not clear ISIS without syrian rebels filling in and leaving area clear for SDF. Lets think for a moment before spreading propganda. Reality is truth and there is no reason lying about it when its not real. It doesn't change the situation on the ground for whoever a person might side with in this conflict. Mozad655 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source reporting on the situation: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/turkish-backed-rebels-fight-us-backed-rebels-aleppo/ Schluppo (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reliable source as its not neutral. Its a syrian regime propganda news outlet. Here's another tweet from them https://twitter.com/TheArabSource/status/768486265402503168?lang=da deeming the turkish involvement "illegal". On their facebook you can see they are affiliated with official syrian regime news outlets. They side with the regime and have a direct interest in supporting PKK's position in Jarablus. 87.60.188.96 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AlMasdar is of course not neutral but it was decided again and again that alMasdar is a reliable source for this map and can be (carefully) used to edit this map, when articles mention names of locations. Schluppo (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I woudn't consider a non-neutral source reliable. A source that is not neutral is naturally biased. The decision that it is "reliable" must be among proponents only. Might aswell quote official syrian state television. Mozad655 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you would and what you wouldnt consider RS is not the topic here. Al Masdar has been extensively used throughout the whole Syrian civil war pages per consensus with no issue raised at board. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is and isn't reliable source is precisely the subject here. I see an issue when it is used to back pro-regime gains. Rule 1 for editing this map clearly says "b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).". Al-Masdar is not a neutral by your own admission yet is used for all kinds of edits. Its a big problem regardless of whether noone has questioned this before or not. Mozad655 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daraya

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/daraya-handed-syrian-army-following-agreement/ states that Daraya surrended to the army. Some rebels will be relocated and then the city will be in full government control. I think we can turn it red.Paolowalter (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almas is not a reliable source. Its affiliated with the syrian regime. We have to wait for confirmation from neutral or opposition media and even then wait more until the actual hand-over has taken place. 87.60.188.96 (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A similar situation happened with the Waer neighborhood in Homs. They had agreed to evacuate it, but a year later it is still rebel held. We should wait, as Daraya has hundreds of rebel fighters. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot just ignore it, situation changed completely. As Waer neighborhood in Homs should be turned at least violet (truce).Paolowalter (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No change is needed. al-Masdar cannot be used to back Syrian regime gains. This should be noted and looked into, but with no one else reporting on it, it shouldn't be treated as serious. Marking is as under truce isn't justifiable either. No mention of a truce has been made by anyone.

EDIT: BBC reporting deal struck to evacuate the city of civilians and rebels fighters. http://www.bbc.com/news/37191087 I don't know if make a massive dot purple, and placing it where the city is, should be done, since many of these truces seem to break down, or never amount to much, but that's not my decision. Other people's input would be appreciated.DaJesuZ (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC) The very pro rebel British news outlet,The Guardian, is also talking about the surrender of the rebels.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/25/rebels-to-surrender-syrian-town-of-darayya-to-assads-forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GERALD710 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a truce city like Waer, where the rebels stayed but gave up the fight. The rebels are completely withdrawing from the area, and the city will be 100% government-held. Therefore it should be made red on the map. Also, it's already been decided here that Al-Masdar is a reliable source, so I don't know why some people are trying to dredge that argument up again.Kawada Kira (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it should be red until all rebels are confirmed to have left. Waer was actually incorrectly marked red for months because of a similar agreement. For all we know, some rebels may choose to stay behind and continue fighting. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pb, for typing when I did, so my long ass coment was deleted. Appeciate dat bruh. ;P
Anyway, agreed. There have been agreements like this in the past, such as with al-Waer and Kafraya, places that were supposed to be evacuated before fighting started up a short time later. DaJesuZ (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Waer was always marked purple; I don't remember it being red at any point. It was purple every time I looked at it (until within the last couple weeks or so when it was suddenly changed to green again), and i've looked at this map almost every day for months and months so i'm quite familiar with it. Waer has a different arrangement than the one in Darayya. If you look at some of the latest articles from Al-Masdar, they have actual photos of the rebels leaving Darayya to go to Idlib. I agree that it shouldn't be made red until all the rebels are gone, but it won't be long before that happens, maybe a day or two, if that. Incidentally, according to another new article from Al-Masdar, the rebels in Moadmiya (the town just west of Darayya, which is purple on this map), which have a Waer-style truce agreement with the Syrian government, are now requesting a Darayya-style arrangement that will allow them to leave the area altogether and go to Idlib.Kawada Kira (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama Roundabout and Abu Waleed Farm

IS launched a offensive on several points in Deir ez-Zor pocket incluiding the military airport, Panorama area and Jafra 2 weeks ago and the Panorama Roundabout and Abu Waleed Farm have been contested since then, but according to this article it was repelled 2-3 days after and IS retreated back to initial positions and these 2 sites are still contested, should they be gov. held? I know there is a big deal whit Al-Masdar but as far as I know it was only whit government gains not in this case I think, correct if I am wrong Valewonca (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

Can we stop this nonsense of adding new colors! Everyone knows that there are four sides of this war, we use Red for Regime, Hizbullah, Iranian Quds force and Iraqi militias, Black for ISIL, Yellow For all SDF factions and Assyrian militias, but when it comes to rebel we use Green and Grey, and now we are adding dark green for Turkish troops supporting rebels although we didn't add any color for collation special forces supporting SDF! as for the Dark green we should remove it because it makes no sense to add it for special forces. as for the grey for JFS we should remove it because JFS is present in many other areas marked as green. and almost all areas marked with grey have presence of other rebel factions. almost 95% of map makers use only 4 colors so why should Wikipedia be different? 3bdulelah (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grey stays, basically Al Nusra (Jabhat Sham) has a tottaly different ideology than FSA, Ahrar, etc, they reject any political solution, fight against other Rebel groups, etc etc. Many problems. While yes the person who added the Turkish color should be banned emidately. Iran and Iraq supported accounts braging about how they have 20k soldiers in Syria, while Turkey entered Syria with 5 tanks and suddenly they control 50% of the nearly taken teritories around Jarabulus, lolx2. DuckZz (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in Ideology doesn't mean they should be given different colors, like the case with regime and allies, u can find Shia groups like Hezbollah and Baathist groups who doesn't share the same Ideology. Why only the rebel side is being divided like this? Yes Nusra clashed with some FSA group but this happened b/w other groups like Ghouta clashes where Nusra (with FSA's Faylaq al-Rahman) was fighting Jaysh al-Islam, so are u going to invent a new color for each rebel group 3bdulelah (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus was accomplished in the above [Turkish involvement] section with no pro-new color replies in the last 24 hours. Unless someone offers a significant pro-new color argument, I will start reporting anyone who breaks 1RR. Tally of votes: Pro: Chessrat, Greyshark, Bes.., Xavier Anti: Helmy, Mozad, DaJesusZ, Schluppo, PaulPG, Vissar2g, Kawada, 3bddulelah, DuckZz Pro:4 Anti: 9 Vissar2g (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not grouping me in with the, "pro," group would be appreciated. I do not care whether a new colour is added, and simply stated it is justified to do so, as Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran, though being separate entities from the Syrian regime, are either capturing, or aiding in the capturing of, territory for the government. Turkey, on the other hand, has expressed a desire to invade Syria for the past few years, usually with the premise of countering a possible threat from the Kurds, or to set up an area where Turkey would be able to set up refugee camps in Syria, to relieve the pressure and stress it feels from taking in what it already has. The recent invasion is NOT explicitly in support of the Syrian opposition, but could also be Turkey going through with its plans from years past. While I agree it is lending a great deal of support to rebel groups it backs, aiding them in taking territory, the Turkish military does hold at least some ground, and exercises control over it. Russia doesn't. Russian bases and ports are still Syrian territory, leased to them by the Syrian government, and still fall under Syrian jurisdiction (extraterritoriality), and Iran is restricting its activities to advisory roles. By the way, adding a new color wouldn't violate 1RR, but I do agree consensus needs to be reached to make the change.

TL;DR I don't care if a new color is added, but it is justified. Can't report people for making edits you don't like. DaJesuZ (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result was 5 supporting and 5 opposing separate color for Turkey. Pretty much no consensus.GreyShark (dibra) 21:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant if someone breaks 1RR if trying to add the new color while the consensus is against them and reverting other users in the process. Sorry for misinterpreting your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vissar2g (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to break the stalemate by offering a solution that I think most would be supportive of.
I'm using a phone to type this, and have a crappy signal, so I'm not going to link the page, but there is a separate map, here on Wikipedia, where groups holding territory in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria are shown. Groups holding territory on this mapp include the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese governments, IS, the Kurds, both Iraqi and Syrian, the Syrian opposition, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly the al-Nusra Front), and Hezbollah. Because there is no consensus on adding a new colour for adding a new colour for Turkey, I suggest we make a compromise.
I suggest we add a colour for Hezbollah on this map. Dark blue has always been used to show non-affiliated group's holdings, so, why not use orange, or light blue? Orange would be close enough to red to show hat the two groups are working towards the same goal, but light blue would distinguish the two as, though allied, separate entities in the conflict. Russia, not controlling any land in Syria (bases and ports don't count, as the land is leased, and is a form of extraterritoriality), would not get its own colour, neither would the US, as it does not control any territory (bar that one airbase in the north, in Kurdiah-held land, but since they have the SDF's approval to have a base there, I guess it's a form of quasi-extraterritoriality). Turkey, on the other hand, would get a separate colour (dark green), because it's easily distinguishable from all other colours, and is close enough to lime to show which side Turkey supports. Turkey already controls territory in the country's north, and Hezbollah controls a good chunk of land along the Lebanese-Syrian border.
I see no reason why this would be opposed, as both sides get what they want. DaJesuZ (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this. We simply do not know which towns Hezbollah 'controls', as there is basically an information blackout in government-held areas. Additionally, Hezbollah does not 'govern' any towns in Syria at all, unlike al-Nusra for example. Also, it would complicate the map even further. Finally, Hezbollah is not a major frontline actor, as the last major frontline they played a primary role in securing was Zabadani a year ago. For all of those reasons, I think it shouldn't be shown. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly opposing the new colors because neither Turkey nor rebels..Hezbollah nor regime are fighting each other. Additionally, neither Turkey nor Hezbollah seem to have any intention of annexing territory. In some cases, financial/diplomatic/training on foreign ground/air support is more meaningful than that of allied troops in your territory. Vissar2g (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But on the other hand Nusra does want to annex territory for its new caliphate so the colours white and grey should be retained for it. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarabulus Tahtani and Jarabulus Island

I added those two places, but can anyone fix the coordinates?

Sure. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

al-Nusra/Fatah al-Sham/Army of Conquest

Hello editors,

Currently, there is a discussion at Talk:Syrian civil war#al-Nusra Front on map, how to show Islamist rebels on the map in future. The reason for the discussion is the renaming of the al-Nusra Front to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham some weeks ago. On the map's description (but not here at the Template), Jabhat Fatah al-Sham is still called al-Nusra. In the discussion, another position became subject of discussion: The White colour could be changed to represent the Army of Conquest instead of Fatah al-Sham. With this, the map would be able to show the range of Islamist factions in Syria even more exact, since the Army of Conquest is a quite homogeneous alliance.

Since many of the editors know the situation in the Syrian Civil War quite well and may even be called experts, I'd invite you to take part at the discussion over there.

Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it looks like the "Army of Conquest" option is winning. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prompting more people to express their opinions on this. We are considering making the change listed above, but I want more of a consensus before we do. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Pleas stop this nonsense, JFS and JaF is present in many other areas marked as green. and almost all areas marked with grey have presence of other rebel factions. almost 95% of map makers use only 4 colors so why should Wikipedia be different? difference in Ideology doesn't mean they should be given different colors, with regime u can find Shia groups like Hezbollah and Baathist groups. Why only the rebel side is being divided like this? 3bdulelah (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Army of Conquest =/= Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. The groups are not one in the same, but JAF does make up the largest group that makes up the coalition. Groups holding a defined territory should be named accordingly, or we're going to need to expand the white area, and place all areas under any group part of the Army of Conquest in that area. 3bdulelah, if you honestly think the former al-Nusra front and the Free Syrian Army should be grouped in together, you must not know much about either group. Jabhat Fatah wants an Islamic emirate, and wants to control the country, and openly fights with the FSA, as well as other opposition groups. This has gone on for a while. This has been interpreted as them pursuing their own ambitions, regardless of them sharing common enemies in the Syrian regime, Hezbollah, or Islamic State. DaJesuZ (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before challenging my knowledge on this issue u need to know that I'm following this war since the very beginning, You need to know that in every town where JFS is present there are FSA factions too, internal conflict happened b/w other groups too not only Nusra Vs FSA. 3bdulelah (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right but Nusra actually control the grey towns while the FSA are merely guests. There are towns under FSA control but Nusra is hosted there and vice versa. This map is about the control of various factions, not the mere presence of them. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jund al-Aqsa gains in northern Hama governorate

There are news from today that the al-Qaeda branch Jund al-Aqsa conquered several towns and villages in northern Hama governorate today. These gains were already shown on the map by other users. Only - why exactly are they green? They are not part of any moderate alliance, at least if their Wiki-article is true. Of course, there are not part of al-Nusra anymore, but they are by far closer to them than to any other moderate rebel group. Since they criticised al-Nusra's fight against the Islamic State, they are even more radical than al-Nusra, so: Mark them grey!--Ermanarich (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[posted shortly later without knowledge of my (Ermanarich) post:]

Wasn't Jund al-Aqsa marked as grey on the map? Cause if it is, the towns captured today, incluiding Halfaya, should be grey-green. Valewonca (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to alMasdar [6], the offensive was executed by "jihadist rebels of Jund Al-Aqsa (Al-Qaeda franchise) and their allies from the Free Syrian Army (FSA)", so the villages should probably be half green, half gray. Schluppo (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in Northen Hama

Info mainly from Twitter sources, not reliable!

Pro-rebel sources report about a VBIED detonation (most likely in a military checkpoint) and clashes at the outskirts of Taybat al-Imam (here, here and here)

Pro-gov sources, incluiding Al-Masdar report that SAA recaptured Al-Buwaydah, wich doesn't necessarily denies previous pro-rebel claims (here, here and here)

Should wait for more reliable sources to confirm, I suggest puting enemy pressure in both towns until then. Valewonca (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bateesh, Nasiriyah, Khattab and Khirbet al Hujamah reported by Pro-Gov source alMasdar to be taken by rebels: here and here. Schluppo (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Khattab village supposedly retaken by SAA here; clashes ongoing at the northern outskirts of Khattab village. Schluppo (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suran reportedly taken by rebels, SAA reportedly pulling back to Mount Zayn al-Abdeen that lies between Souran and Hama. We need to wait for a reliable source to report on this. Schluppo (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rebel attack on Souran reportedly was pushed back: here Schluppo (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish invasion

It looks like all news agency agree´s, and the Turkish government too, but there are one "small irreducible village of Gaul´s" in this all cyberspace and reality that disagree´s...that village is called Wikipedia!!! Because of that I make only one question, if you disagree with that, why you have made an article with that called Operation Euphrates Shield or Jarabulus offensive (2016)? It´s simple if you backup a state version that nothing is happening and that the Free Syrian Army are the only in that offensive...why other article said exactly the opposite and backup that version? You know...it is interesting to see how many editors sell themselves to the interests of the "invaders" and loose all the neutrality that they announce but not practice!!! Geosapiens (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you complaining about? Mozad655 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awn Al Dadat still under SDF control

Awn Al Dadat is south of Sajur river and under SDF control and until now FSA did not crossed the Sajur river, the FSA just took the villages north of Sajur river there is no source or contrary claims by FSA that claims that they crossed Sajur and took over Awn Al Dadat, its still under SDF.

http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2016/30-august-a-truce-was-agreed-between-fsa-and-ypg-in-the-west

http://tr.hawarnews.com/cerablus-askeri-meclisi-guclerini-sacurun-guneyine-cekti/

http://viettimes.vn/quoc-phong/ngay-thu-6-linh-tho-tien-vao-syria-giao-tranh-dam-mau-va-hon-loan-74119.html --Alan Genco (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New front in Jarablus by lake Sajur?

According to some maps (see below) the villages of Arab Azah and Fursan are under FSA controle. Can anyone confirm this? Mozad655 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/f827/ktkg8e0g8kedlgbzg.jpg

http://i0.wp.com/newsmap.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Northern-Aleppo-military-situation-August-30-2016.png?fit=2338%2C1653 https://www.omrandirasat.org/images/M.C.E.UN.P/Territorial%20Control%20Map%20-%20Aleppo%20-%20%20Active%20Fronts%20-%20August%2029%20-%202016.pdf

Sajur Dam

Sajur Dam (Directly south to Fursan village on our map) should be added on the map since it seems that the Sajur lake is one of the main objectives of the FSA/Turkish Special Forces right now on the Jarabulus front. Link to the dam location on Wikimapia: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=es&lat=36.697466&lon=37.725849&z=13&m=b&show=/30502607/Sajur-Dam Valewonca (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Hama

The rebel offensive in northern Hama is under way, and this map is not accurate anymore:

Maybe it's also reasonable to put a half-green circle north of Khattab, since rebels are very close to that town after taking Al-Nasiriyah. There have been reports of fighting at the edges of the town.

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-turkey-dypm-idUSKCN114196
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=737093079"