Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

Qamishli Fighting - be prepared for updates

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-pro-government-fighters-kurdish-militia-clash-northeastern-syria/

These skirmishes have been happening more recently as the threat of IS in Hasakah province recedes and the SAA strengthens; be prepared to update the detailed map and surrounding areas of Qamishli if/when territorial changes happen. We should closely moditor the media situation for reports of these, because they do seem to be a real possibility now. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

PutItOnAMap In Qamishli it just a tantion between NDF and Assayeh gorces(allies of YPG) as it is not first conflict beween both sides. Also we earlier can see several reports about tensions between these sides but it is not a major conflict just small skirmishes on the contact line between SAA areas and YPG areas inside city of Qamishli. These forces now jointly control the city Qamishli. SOHR said that the situation in city Qamishli is still tense, following the clashes taking place in the city between the Kurdish forcesand the NDF.here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this time, it is different. The clashes have been lasting longer and are more significant than often before. A prolonged clash and possible escalation are likely for a number of reasons:

(1) The SAA was too weak to do much in Hasakah province in the past. With the Russian intervention, it has been able to strengthen and consolidate its forces, and now can afford to devote human resources to military operations in that place. Consequently, it may work to expand its territory in the province due to political disagreements with the SDF (and there are lots of these. Assad's father renamed Kobani 'Ayn al-Arab' and there was a lot of anti-Kurdish racism in various tiers of government prior to the beginning in the civil war).

(2) IS is no longer a threat in Hasakah province. Having been driven back from Shaddaddi, they are only at the southern edge of the province as a military force, so there's little risk for the SAA or the SDF of launching an offensive against the other faction in Qamishli and then IS launching an assault to take advantage of this and seize territory.

(3) The SDF has grown in strength over the past year, becoming a more significant challenger to the SAA due to growing in strength, number of militias, economic resources at their disposal and territory held. The alarm this might have caused amongst various military tiers could have provoked SAA-aligned forces to instigate clashes to crush the SDF before they get any more powerful. Alternatively, a more powerful SDF might have felt more confident about attacking the SAA and its allies in Qamishli when previously it did not because it was weaker. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/assyrian-forces-attack-kurdish-police-qamishli/ Our first reports of factions claiming significant territories have changed hands are coming in. Whilst they may not be true, they're important because it means the fighting is full-scale. Stand by for more news on this. PutItOnAMap (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/temporary-truce-falls-apart-qamishli-kurdish-government-forces-clash/ This is the last update I will make here, but I think the case has been made to watch this and the media surrounding it closely, now. PutItOnAMap (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR and Al Masdar said that Asayish(allies YPG) take Allaya prison and some other points insid Qamishli from NDF and arrested 50 from NDF.herehere Later Al Masdar said that Asayish forces (Kurdish police) have turned their attention to Qamishli Airport that is controlled SAA. But at this time NDF and Sootooro and Hamiya Al-Jazeerah(pro-government) forces launched a counter-attack inside city and have captured Al-Shabab City,Al-Zhour Roundabout,Al-Ba’ath Bakery,some checkpoints(Al-‘Awijah,Al-Wahda, Abu Raghab,Kurayrish),Hadaya Hotel,Al-Salaam Hospital and Municipal Stadium inside city.herehere SOHR later also said that SAA/allies retake some of points inside Qamishli.here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
SOHR also said that was heard a few shots in southern section of the city of Hasaka, But there was no information about the reasons for the launch fire and circumstances.here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
But while SAA/allies and Kurdish forces fighting each other ISIS probably prepare to a huge countteroffensice in Hasakah province. Kurdish reporter said that according to many local reports a large ISIS military convoy started moving from city Mayadin in Deir ez Zor heading up north towards the city Al-Shaddadi in Hasakah.here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The government and YPG have agreed to open-ended truce that will end the violence inside the city of Qamishli. As part of the open-ended truce, both sides will have to release the prisoners taken and withdraw from the new areas captured during this brief conflict.herehere Sûriyeya (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Kurdish source Hawar News also reported that a truce was declared in Qamishli.here Sûriyeya (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Special source said that YPG forces had accepted ceasefire and withdrawing from all the locations they had conquered during the latest clashes except for Allaya Prison to the east of the city Qamishli.here So after clashes and under agreement with government, YPG withdraw from all the locations they had seized during the latest clashes. Except the Allaya prison east of Qamishli which will remain under control of YPG. Sûriyeya (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

According to reuters and Vice News it appears the Kurdish forces are keeping the territory they took. Looks like some map edits may be needed herehere I know we can't use social media but according to some twitter feeds, Kurdish forces took Wusta neighborhood from the previous three days of clashes.herehereherehere The Wladimir reporter/twitter was on the ground based upon photo evidence here I believe Wusta neighborhood was jointly administered between the Baath government and Kurdish administration before the three days of fighting. I just want to make clear I'm not suggesting we make changes based upon social media, the twitter links I posted are more suggestive. Conflictnews (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The situation has not changed fundamentally present some minor changes inside city. Spme sources show on their the maps how looks a current situation the city Qamishli.herehereherehere So maybe some one can update. According to our reles we can't use maps as a source for edit Syrian Civil War detailed map but maybe we can use them for edit this map.Battle of Qamishli Sûriyeya (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebels advance against SDF

Between Azaz and Tal Rifat: Ayn Daqnah and Tal al-Baylounah (which I couldn't find on the map) now contested between green and yellow: http://www.syriahr.com/?p=167809 Mughira1395 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ayn Daqnah is on the map north of Tak Rifar . Tal al-Baylounah is not on the map. Twitter calims that Ayn Daqnah is green even pro-Assad accounts . I can edit to green if any reliable source provided . Helmy1453 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ayn Daqnah and Tal al-Baylounah taken by rebels, fightings in/near Kafr Shashir. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-rebels-launch-huge-attack-kurdish-positions-northern-aleppo/ Mughira1395 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done though you no in my openion that is not gonna last and it will go yelow back soon. lets see it is green for now. Helmy1453 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebel capture of Ain Danaq was never confirmed. In fact the YPG have repelled the attack [1] [2]82.153.117.172 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, apparently there was no progress in the attack: http://stepagency-sy.net/archives/85253 Mughira1395 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ISIS advances in N Aleppo

[3] [4] [5]82.153.117.172 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw: the town of al-Fayrouziyeh mentioned in the articles is al-Faydiyah on the map. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-captures-5-villages-northern-aleppo/ http://www.syriahr.com/?p=167777 and http://www.syriahr.com/?p=167794 Mughira1395 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
According to Jazeerah (on tv), some of the sites were retaken by rebels about one hour ago, without mentioning more details. On Social media Dudiyan is mentioned to have been recaptured by FSA Mughira1395 (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think Dudiyan is recpatured [6]82.153.117.172 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if we can take this source. But interestingly StepNews reports by the way, that rebels took again all the towns they lost today. It seems not really credible. http://stepagency-sy.net/archives/85253 Mughira1395 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ain Daqna

Islamist rebels taking control of the town of Ain Daqna.http://aranews.net/2016/04/us-backed-sdf-forces-clash-islamist-rebels-northern-syria/ Լրագրող (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Why At Tanf is black!!!?????

When terrorists of Islamic State taking back Al Tanf near border????Լրագրող (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tall Battal (turkish border)

Tall Battal Allegedly retaken by rebels: http://www.syriahr.com/?p=167932 Mughira1395 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And now also Qasajek (south to Tal Battal) taken by rebels: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency Mughira1395 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tal Shaer south of Qasajek now apparently also taken by rebels: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency Mughira1395 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ash-Shabaniya? (turkish border)

Any sources why ash-Shabaniyah is green since half a day? Mughira1395 (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Masdar confirmed it along with three other villages: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-recapture-4-villages-isis-northern-aleppo/ Mughira1395 (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating the Deir ez Zor City Map

Could the map editors update the Deir ez Zor map. The last update was after the ISIS offensive in January. According to Al MasdarHere and Here Al Sinah District is now fully under SAA control and as of yesterday The Industrial District(Given the ever swinging situation, this may change of course) however, I believe this should be updated on the map, the same way the maps of the other cities like Damascus and Aleppo are constantly updated.GERALD710 (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Northern Aleppo (Dudiyan area)

Confusing reports about fightings between ISIS and rebels. Today rebels took Sandarah/Sandurah (southeast of Dudiyan), Tal Ahmar, Shabaniyah and Raghabiyah (between Dudiyan and al-Ra'i) from ISIS: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-recapture-4-villages-isis-northern-aleppo/ Then reports of ISIS taking Dudiyan, Ikdah/Aykadah and Tal Shaer (which they lost two days ago). Then rebels took back Ikdah/Aykadah (which apparently was taken by ISIS on Sunday): https://twitter.com/Step_Agency and fighting is still going on. Mughira1395 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

We can summarize the day, with Dudiyan and Tal Shair taken by ISIS and Shabaniyah taken by the rebels: http://stepagency-sy.net/archives/86357 . That Dudiyan is still with ISIS, can be seen as confirmed, as an repelled ISIS-SVIED attacking Kurah-Mazra'a (directly north of Dudiyan) was coming from this town: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency . So please change the two aforementioned towns (Dudiyan and Tal Shaer) to black. Mughira1395 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Who changed Ikadah/Aykadah to black, maybe taking the news from this morning and neglecting what happened since? Please show adequate and actual source that the town is again with ISIS or change it back to green. Thanks. Mughira1395 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

ISIS militants occupied Dudiyan, Tall Sha’ir, Qasajk, al-Shabiniyah, Tall Battal, Mazrat at-Shaheen Aykadah[7][8][9]--Լրագրող (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WARNING to admin of this page

Recently, several users are playing stupid & are making crazy edits which doesn't make sense, and they're trying to ruin this map and make it wanish. Look at north Aleppo for example, it seems like Rebels are besieged in 2 different areas by ISIS, this is because users are using sources from FSA groups, then from ISIS channels at the same time. This is only 1 example. Why is nobody banning them ? Is this map completely gonne out of control ? DuckZz (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Since about 10 days nearly nobody here. But your critics are maybe not appropriate: Speeking about Aleppo, you can take this source (which is of course not really pro FSA or ISIS) ;-) : https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-fights-back-northern-aleppo-captures-7-villages-rebels/ But I could not understand (see above), how this changes could be done 2 days before a source mentioned some of the changes. So if there were sources, they had to be posted. Mughira1395 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still here. The north Aleppo situation is changing constantly and we don't always get updates (that are correct) from smaller villages, which means things don't always make sense. Consequently, if there are small 'rebel islands' or 'IS islands' that are not reported on for a few days, in the past (e.g. Murayghil) we have changed them to the surroudning colour because it's probably changed hands without widespread reporting.

That is what I will do with the small rebel enclave now, as it has not been reported on for days. The large one has been reported on, so we'll leave it be for the time being, as it got its last report yesterday. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

The only thing that matters is the 2004 census, because it is used for the dot size of all towns. We cannot use the figure from any other year because it would be unfair to the other towns. Also we label towns according to WP:COMMONAME. We do not add a more obscure name or a non-English name. This is English Wikipedia. Tradediatalk 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem with definition of "source"

When I see, that Masdar (or other sites, like SOHR) is taking 1:1 news from Amaq or from ISIS, which is widely refused here, what do we do? Or is it, that Masdar is "confirming" the pro-ISIS source, and that's why we accept it? (That is, what seems logic to me). It is the case with ISIS taking al-Shaer gas field and taking Karah Kubri from opposition near the turkish border: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-captures-another-village-northern-aleppo/ and https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-confirms-control-main-building-al-shaar-gas-fields/ Mughira1395 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bardah (east of Quaryatain)

According to this, Bardeh must be with the government? https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-captures-last-two-checkpoints-near-syrian-army-controlled-village/ Mughira1395 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mughira1395 acctually it's wrong beacause Isis captured the Baridah Area which are hills,mountains and farms that are located there after losing from the SAA you can see the siege mark on Jabal Baridah on the map that was added on.Lists129 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
What is wrong? What Masdar says or what I understood from Masdar? Mughira1395 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Source said village Bardeh under government controll and ISIS claim that they seize 2 checkpoint near this village which is under control army. Maybe data on map outdated and government troops take village Bardah and Jabal Baridah but this not was noted on map. What is the problem? SvEcHpInXID (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Mughira1395 what Masdar said about the village being SAA held.

SvEcHpInXIDSAA only captured hills and mountains that are located in Baridah area after the captured of Quaryatain not the village and it they say they captured Baridah area than they already have paved the way for Quaryatain and the Baridah village is beasieged by all sides.Lists129 (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Jabal al-Shaer - al-Shaer gas-field

I think, there is a little mistake or false/ambiguous in certain names, when I look at Wikimapia: If we consider that Jabal al-Shaer is on the right place on the map, then the al-Shaer gas-field must be at the same position, isn't it? And the "Ebla gas plant" must be renamed "Ash-Shaer GGS" and where now, on our map, is located "Sha'er gas field", there is nothing. And now to the news: Masdar reports that Jabal al-Shaer and the Al-Shaer gas-field (which are effectively on one place), are contested between black and red, after ISIS attacked them today: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-isis-captures-al-shaar-gas-fields/ Mughira1395 (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The mountain is vast and so marking it on a point may lead to an incorrect location. I'll have a look on wikimapia to see where it should be and edit it accordingly. Thanks for notifying me. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course the mountain is not a point, but either is the gas-field ;-) But what I saw is, that they are on the same area. Mughira1395 (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
And why is the Loshar oil-field black now? Mughira1395 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It is non-existent oil field and must be deleted. Non-existent oil field has been added on the basis of fantasies the Rakal. This best source for this edit.Oil field his capture by the Syrian army not ssoobschalos that confirms the control IS And pfovide blank space on the map http://wikimapia.org/m/#lat=34.8502456&lon=37.8860898&z=14&l=1&m=b Nice work!Լրագրող (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an edit on the map that shows a misunderstanding of the rules. The rules say: "A source, reliable for that specific edit, should be provided." This applies to ALL edits, including ADDITIONS OF NEW OBJECTS ON THE MAP. Therefore, the edit adding "Loshar oil field" should be reverted. Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. We cannot verify that "Loshar oil field" is ISIS-held, so it should not be added on the map. We do not use "judgement" or "common sense" to add objects, because that would constitute "original research". Wikipedia:No original research is allowed. Tradediatalk 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Syrian troops retake some parts of Shaer Gas Fields.here SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Al-Masdar that Isis has taken full controll of Shaer Oil/Gas Fields which are situated in Jabal Shair Jabal/Oil Fields Shair fix it also fix Jabal Abu-Dhuhur which is not under SAA control beacause Isis launched the offensive West of this area after capturing Huwaysis and it's area here.Lists129 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

BBC mentions the capture of Shaer fields, not mentioning them being taken back by the regime. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36214290DaJesuZ (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Khan Touman village

Though Khan touman village is bigger than Alkhaldiah and alqarassi but both are on the map even alqarasi farm but not Khan touman. the army depot in Khan Touman is in the map. now looks like big clashes are going on in Khan touman. I ask permission to add the town and make it contesested for now any one objecting ? Helmy1453 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like several villages were captured in addition to Khan Tuman in south Aleppo. hereherehere here Conflictnews(talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


per 1 2 and 3 I am changing Kahn touman and elkhaldieyah to green Helmy1453 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like edit rights have been taken frm me what the hell. I never broken a rule on this page. never made an edit that anyone on this page complained about. always discussed my edits on the talk page befor editting and for being neutral and compling with the rules I am removed from the editting capable perople on this page. thank you wiki people this is not the only map about the syrian civil war there are dozens more. and I dont care any more about all pro-Assad russian bull shit on this page. Helmy1453 (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC) No one except admins can edit until may 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vissar2g (talk • contribs) 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 May 2016

IS takes Qara Koubri / Kubri - pls re-label to 'black' from 'green'

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-captures-another-village-northern-aleppo/ | Al-Masdar News

Also, pls return the map to semi-protected

ViewObjective (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Villages taken by Daesh: Khirbat Tel Sha‘īr, Khalfatli, Baghidin, Qarah Mazr'ah, Qarah Kubri, Dalhah and Al-Mazra'ah as-Suda.[10] Source is pro-rebels. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It is changing daily: Reports, that Dudiyan retaken by rebels: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/728256865780572160 Mughira1395 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Now also reports that Kurah Kubri retaken by rebels: https://twitter.com/motabea113/status/728297305762312192 Mughira1395 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Question: do we have consensus for any particular change at this time? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Dudiyan again taken by ISIS: https://twitter.com/LccSy/status/728873404451962880 Mughira1395 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Dudiyan taken by ISIS confirmed + rebels "take back" Dahla and Hawar Killis from ISIS : http://qasioun.net/ar/news/show/25301/المعارضة_تستعيد_قريتين_شمال_حلب_وتقتل_عشرين_عنصراً_للتنظيم Mughira1395 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

I didn't realize I'd been redirected before; the page I'm referring to here is actually the module at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Sorry for any confusion. --slakr\ talk / 03:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring is occurring, in part, I would guess, due to issues related to sourcing. This will likely continue until variables or comments are added for the explicit purpose of containing reference links for data points. These variables don't need to actually have any part in the final rendered output, but expecting fellow editors to dive through the page's edit history just to find the reference behind an edit is probably asking a bit too much, and one of our most important policies is verifiability. On top of that, one of our most important guidelines pertains to reliable sources. Please become familiar with both. When disagreements arise, please seek consensus on this talk page instead of revert warring. Thanks. --slakr\ talk / 04:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make it mandatory that new edits add reference points to each entry and then collectively appeal to admin to unlock page after we demonstrate consensus? Or maybe attach names of users who made edits of specific places to those places so it's easier to seek consensus. Vissar2g (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Vissar2g: Because it'd otherwise be a huge pain for non-regex-adept people, I've copied and reformatted the data objects into indented blocks over at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map/sandbox and added mark_citation to anything with a mark to encourage people adding references. It currently does nothing as far as rendering goes, so it's mainly for editor reference and avoiding confusion while still meeting WP:V. You can verify the output (should remain the same) over at {{Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map/sandbox}}. I'd recommend using the new field for external links, updating the documentation of the template to reflect that as an expectation. Since I'm otherwise just an outside observer here and have no real topic-specific knowledge, I'll leave the rest up to you guys, but I think this is a reasonable start to avoid problems. I can also add a page notice to help prevent people using sources that fail the reliable sources guideline (e.g.,the obvious bad one people seem to be using in edit summaries is Twitter; Twitter is self-published and is usually not a reliable source by our standards when it comes to covering events/news that isn't directly about the person tweeting the event/news). You guys will need to talk among yourselves and gain consensus as to what topic-specific sources may be (un)reliable, while the reliable sources noticeboard can help as a general whole. Finally, you can always start an RFC for more experienced, outside observers to weigh in. --slakr\ talk / 03:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


slakr\ talk / I really don't understand you. Why are you making this map complicated ? Some Users are breaking the rules deliberately because they know that nobody cares and they won't be sanctioned or removed from this page. Instead of explaining 10 times the same things to "us", you can spend 10 seconds of your time and just remove them from this page, I just don't get it. I hoppe you aren't trying to explain things to them, because obviously they are not even acting stupid, but are forcing you to protect this page from our edits, and you fell in their trap :( ....DuckZz (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@duckzz report them to the admins then. Vissar2g (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@DuckZz: I usually try to assume good faith (a general guideline for this site). This is a fact-driven module, and where the fact is sourced from is important when it comes to complying with our policies, including verifiability. A large part of that mechanism is determining who is changing what and what their justification is for doing so. Being able to take action against anyone causing disruption relies on diffs and the current and past states of the page from a given user's perspective. Forcing someone to dive through pages upon pages of page history just to find the source behind an update is, at least in my opinion, unreasonable when it comes to resolving content disputes. Furthermore, edit summaries are limited in total length, and providing multiple urls to back up an assertion is therefore difficult or impossible to do. Hence, I provided an alternative above simply because most people don't have the technical knowledge to do so without being programmers. There's no requirement at all to adopt it, but doing so would make administrative intervention easier and therefore more likely when people are causing problems; otherwise, people like me will assume that the "real problem" might possibly be that the page history is in a state of abject chaos due to confusion, not necessarily malice. --slakr\ talk / 03:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Slakr: I suggest warning/banning editors who engage in edit wars instead of protecting the whole page since making the map outdated makes the map incorrect and a less helpful resource and there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for your idea. I don't usually edit, but I like to follow edits to the page as a news source. Maybe at least warn us before protecting the page next time. Vissar2g (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Black/Yellow small flashing icon near Tishrin

Does this stand for anything? I don't have admin privileges to remove it, so if it's not supposed to be there, can someone who does remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelMaglor (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Done --Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Jabal Sha'er?

What is this big red dot over there? Mughira1395 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Great Source on Daesh activities

Hello,

while researching for the situation in some villages northeast of Mossul in the Iraqi civil war I discovered a great page on Daesh/ISIL activities:

http://www.daeshdaily.com/2016/04/

The page actually focuses on Iraq, but it also mentions Daesh activities in Syria or even Libya and the Maghreb countries.

It lists all clashes involving Daesh of one day and links to other articles where these informations are written, which makes it very useful to get a good overview. The updates are made on a daily basis (except Sunday) and are very detailed.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

HERE WE GO AGAIN

Tradediatalk slakr\ talk /

After only 10 hour, after admins removed the protection level from the page. The user "Bigles" is trying to ruin the map, and is deliberately breaking the rules in order to change the protection level AGAIN. He changed 10 locations using the most PRO-Rebel outlet there is. DuckZz (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Tradediatalk slakr\ talk /

And AGAIN. The user "Pakal" is going crazy. He is talking with himself and changing 3 areas which were edited 4 months ago here1 and here2 DuckZz (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Tradediatalk slakr\ talk / I'm a newbie here but I agree with DuckZz user "Pakal" and user "Bigles" it is the crazy vandals and they need stop.--Լրագրող (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It might help to post on admin/violator talk pages, on administrator reporting page, and rfc request page, if you haven't already done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vissar2g (talk • contribs) 19:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 May 2016

Tal Baluni

As we know the attack of armed groups part of Marea, Hawar Killis, or Jaish al-Fatah operation rooms on Ayn Daqnah and Tal Baluni failed miserably. But the small hamlet of Tal Baluni on the road between Ayn Daqnah and Arpad/Tel Rifaat is still colored green. If it was permanently captured it, this would be widespread propagated to limit the visibility of the failure of the offensive. But all reports state that the offensive was fully repelled and complete failure. So it should be returned yellow under SDF control.

Jubb Hasan Agha and Jaba Du Jada

Jubb Hasan Agha-village and Jaba Du Jada-mountain where taken by SDF from Daesh already taken moths ago. We're the only showing it as still under Daesh control.

Recent report on coalition arstrikes and Daesh activity in the area all state that both are still under SDF control

Niele~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Terra ❤ 20:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The page appears locked for editing to me. Vissar2g (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Done: The page lock has ended now. Also implemented the request from 6 May 2016 above this one.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Niele~enwiki this are all twitter map sources and many of them are pro-kurdish an pro-goverment sources that you provided this is against the rules of editing.Lists129 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
These are false claims:
(1) These sources are of all possible sides: pro-nonSDF-opposition, pro-government, pro-SDF, pro-islamist and neutral European sources).
(2) These are text sources. It is not that a text source state something written and in addition also ads picture illustrating the statements in text, that this text is suddenly not present any more. Please stop claiming I ever made a update based on a map-source. I did not.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Jabhat al Nusra in Bidama, Idlib?

We know Idlib is a stronghold for al Nusra. Now I see STEP News Agency/al Masdar News video showing al Nusra is present in Bidama town (here called Bdama), Idlib with many dozens of fighter. Should we mark this town jointly held by rebels and Nusra? 24.131.58.63 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why no changes on the map in northern Aleppo?

According to the requests of 5th of May, I would say that Khalfati, Baghaydin and Mazra'ah as-Suda should be with ISIS, in addition to this, I can't imagine, that there are those rebel strongholds southeast of Dudiyan. On the other hand Qarah Kubri should be with the rebels. That's what I read from the requests above.Mughira1395 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason for not making the changes on the map? Mughira1395 (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Abandonned tank Bn. / T4

News about ISIS taking the abandonned tank battalion and going direction T4-airport: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/729923636711297024 and https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/729931237192773632 But I doubt that it is the airport, which is been attacked, because we would then hear, that the road Homs-Tadmor was cut. Maybe ISIS is only targeting the AA Bn. south of the aforementioned Bn. Mughira1395 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

ISIS only take (abandonned) the former tank battalion base 10 km north west of Tiyas Air Base and no any news that this Air Base is under ISIS attack.herehere ISIS take this base the month ago but retreat under heavy strikes.here Also Al Mahr Oil Field is under contol SAA and SAA repelled attack of ISIS on this Oil Field. ISIS only take the small Tall-Mahr hill west of the al-Mahr oil field.here--Լրագրող (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

T3 airport & pumping station

Could someone correct the position of these two according to satellite picture? Thanks.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=34.518014&lon=38.747921&z=14&m=b&show=/25118243/T3-Airport&search=aleppo

Oberschlesien1990 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

al-Mahl oil and gas fields under control SAA

Government troops recaptured the al-Mahl hill and thus fully secured the al-Mahl oil and gas fields and now they will look to recapture the Al-Sha’ar oil field which was captured by ISIS last week.source Լրագրող (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Aazawi (Hasaka-Province)

According to this source ISIS took the town. That means, that they must have control over other town either south of it, or to the east or west. The map is not up-to-date. https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/730022461929050112 Mughira1395 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Here the next indication, that the map is not really up-to-date: Report that Qashqash now taken by the Kurdish forces. On the map whole region is yellow since long time: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/730484603887058944 Mughira1395 (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dudiyan green?

Why is Dudiyan green now? The town and the whole area east of it should be black. Mughira1395 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

Some editor changed the Tanf Crossing and everything north of it to IS-held. Also, several villages near Mardakah in Hasakah have been changed to IS-held. Previously, those towns were yellow. Where are the sources? I can't find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Tanf Crossing-Jabal al Tanaf-Al Tanaf change on based not the crediable sources--Լրագրող (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Again northern Aleppo

Rebels taking Yahmoul from ISIS: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/730445206588407808 Whoever changes this town to green: Don't forget to do also the other changes mentioned above, which are: "According to the requests of 5th of May, I would say that Khalfati, Baghaydin and Mazra'ah as-Suda should be with ISIS, in addition to this, I can't imagine, that there are those rebel strongholds southeast of Dudiyan. On the other hand Qarah Kubri should be with the rebels."Mughira1395 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Step-Agency opp-source--Լրագրող (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course. Then we should only change all mentioned towns to black? Be it because the advances of the opposition must be confirmed by neutral or enemy source, or because the losses of the opposition was confirmed by their own sides. Mughira1395 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Rebel groups recaptured Yahmoul and Jariz after clashing with ISIS.source--Լրագրող (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yahmoul retaken by ISIS: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/730849159595610112 Let us see how long it takes to change it to black... ;-) Mughira1395 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham(ISIS) recapture two villages Jariz and Yahmoul.[ https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-recaptures-two-villages-northern-aleppo-2/ source]--Լրագրող (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Islamic factions recapture two villages Jariz and Yahmoul from Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham(ISIS)source--Լրագրող (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

IS Advances in Deir Ezzor

IS is said to be making rapid gains in Deir Ezzor with the Regime Defenses collapsing rapidly. Right now only the al-Assad Hospital is confirmed captured. https://www.yahoo.com/news/attacks-syrian-hospital-killing-20-pro-regime-forces-003057156.html?ref=gs I have not made any edits, and I recommend no edits be done at this moment and we wait 24 hours at least before making edits. This gives time for the situation to clear up. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Map Size transclusion error?

Is the lede map supposed to be so huge, or is this some kind of template error? It is currently several screens wide and several screens deep. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

GenQuest It's meant to be, it's been this size for a couple of years at least. I'm not actually aware of anyone coming to this page other than to look at the map in detail. Banak (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
OK. @Banak: Thanks. BTW: I came by way of DABSolver. Apparently there is actually an article in there somewhere, with six terms needing to be disambiguated. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The existence of the article is something that rarely comes up, to the point at which it seems stupid to have the link from this talkpage to be to the article rather than the module. It's really pretty weird, and feels like it's done just as a workaround to justify this module being in mainspace. Banak (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

al-Tanf-crossing

What does this mean? I translate: "Fightings began between ISIS and the New Syrian Army (NSA) near the al-Tanf-crossing [... reports about some casualties...] and the fightings began when the NSA was attempting to advance to the crossing". So, who is sitting at the border now? http://www.syriahr.com/2016/05/15/مقتل-25-عنصراً-على-الأقل-من-تنظيم-الدولة Mughira1395 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The official NSA channel says they raided the Al Walid crossing, and that's in Iraq, so we should ignore it I guess. DuckZz (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think so, but it is strange that Syrians are attacking the iraqi side. Usually this would be a news-headline in the common battle against ISIS. Mughira1395 (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
For my opinion NSA is still in the outskirts of the border making hit and run attacks here.Lists129 (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Huwaysas (north to Tiyas)

Who is in Huwaysas? Same as Tanf-crossing: ISIS is trying to attack Huwaysas: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-recaptures-2-hilltops-near-palmyra/ Mughira1395 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mughira1395 not Huwaysas but Jabal al-Mazar here.Lists129 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
First: I am speaking about something different - according to the article. The news about Huwaysas was not related to the topic of the article, but was mentioned too. Second: Masdar is ridiculous. They take off the article! But you can still see it in the cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:X3xQThnyyEMJ:https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-recaptures-2-hilltops-near-palmyra/+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=at there they write: "In addition to their assault at Jabal Mohammad, ISIS also attacked the village of Huwaysis in the east Homs countryside; this battle is still ongoing. Local sources at the T-4 Military Airport stated that ISIS attempted a suicide attack with a BMP; however, it was destroyed before it could reach its intended destination in Huwaysis." I hope you see now what I mean. Mughira1395 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

But Lists129 you source biased anti Syrian army source. Also ISIS retreats north amid Syrian Army counteroffensive.source and Syrian army retake Tal Karbala, Tal Taha, Talat Majd, and Tal Karar hills near Al-Sha’ar Gas Fields and cut off ISIL supply route from Al-Raqqa to Al-Sha’ar Gas Fields.source--Լրագրող (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Լրագրող This is not about SAA offensive on Jabal Shair ,I was talking about a different article about Isis capturing 2 hills near Palmyra northwest of it which is Jabal Mazar, the article was talking about Isis capturing 2 hills near Huwaysas which is wrong and now this article has been deleted by the editor obviously from the mistakes he made about the location.So i urge all editors not to hurry and change places without reading the entire source and knowing what the source says if you dont know where those places are then take it here to the talk page and disscus it first.Lists129 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me (I already answered above), I see, that you have also seen the article. Yes, they realized that they did some mistakes and take the article off. Mughira1395 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lists129 anti Syrian army source said ISIS recapture 2 hills In the vicinity of Al Mazar Mount.--Լրագրող (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We can not do any change on based information from ISIS and anti Army sources.--Լրագրող (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Լրագրող acctually it was al-masdar who said that but the olny mistake they made is the location that's why they deleted the article in other words the source is right.Lists129 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this map have a scale on it?

I was thinking it might be a good idea for someone to put some sort of scale on the map. That way, people looking at the map can get an accurate idea of the distances involved and how big Syria actually is. Would this be possible?

81.154.178.16 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Finding villages

Can someone help me find these 2 villages Mazrateen and Nimrudiyah.Lists129 (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Qamishli

Allaya prison in Qamishli is marked as government held, even though the Kurdish forces captured this from the government in April. I haven't heard anything about it being given back. Shouldn't it be marked as Kurdish held?

https://news.vice.com/article/syrian-kurds-will-keep-the-territory-they-seized-from-pro-assad-forces-under-qamishli-ceasefire

178.105.125.50 (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Shaykh Isa

Please show Shaykh Isa as half split yellow-green. Both forces are inside the city evacuating people from Mare. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.35.34 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

New Syrian Army in Iraq

Please add a south of Al-Walid, since the New Syrian Army has a rural presence in that part of Iraq. Thank you. 2601:646:9901:AAE0:F55D:77B:81DB:B505 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Deirezzour and Manbej Updates

IS have captured the Thayyem Oil Field and Jabal Turdah, please change to IS-held. [11]. SDF are fighting IS and the Manbej Grain Silos, please change to contested. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Dirkhabiyah

SAA recaptured this village a week ago as confirmed by pro-rebel twitter account [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Til Alyan and Sheikh Rih

Pro Rebel source [20] 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)

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 [21] please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.102.106 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)
No objections? OK. I'm going to correct the northern FSA pocket. Roboskiye (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

T3 Pumping Station

Taken syrian troops according SOHR http://www.syriahr.com/2016/06/11/%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%B5-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9/ 91.124.223.221 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
If these 'Arabs' - whatever this means - would wanted to be green, they would be on the 'green side'. But they are on the 'yellow side'. Everything else is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.39.83 (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be corrected

SOHR provide that Jubb al Jarrah under control SAA and that clashes in area of village Mas'udiyah not inside.source 2 source 3

  • Source said that the Syrian Army repelled an ISIS attack on al-Mabouja and Akareb villages.source 1 So why was add semicircle - it is incorrect and storming and clashes inside it is a same. So why was put black circle near them.

Some editors use a twitter but not good sources! Why? 185.65.206.246 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked these a sources and think we are can use them.Mehmedsons (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Exchange of gains between Islamist rebels and ISIS and ISIS

Islamist rebels take Tall Battal ash Shamali and the neighbouring village of Ahmadiya but ISIS has recaptured the villages of Ghazal, Dudiyan and Yani Yaban.linkMehmedsons (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Al-Rasafeh - Al-Safiyeh misregard

The crossroad (and oil-field with the same name) in ar-Rakka, that was achieved by SAA, isn't al-Rasafeh. Al-Rasafeh crossroad lays further, on the road that connects Mansura and Deir-ez-Zor.
The crossroad achieved by SAA is located near al-Safiyeh oil-field, so, I think, it should be named in the same manner. Please rename the crossroad and the oil-field.
P.S.: what's for sources - look at wikimapia, for example.

Yes it is a wrong name. Need rename Rasafeh crossroad - to - Tabqah crossroad and Rasafeh Oil Field - to - Sfaiyeh Oil Field.link on map Mehmedsons (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Mabujah - Salba road

The Syrian Arab Army backed by the National Defense Forces liberated the entire roadway that leads to the nearby village of Salba.link Mehmedsons (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Dudyan, Ghazal and Yeni Yaban

These villages are under ISIS control: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-isis-trade-blows-territory-northern-aleppo/ Roboskiye (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamist rebels gains in Latakia

Islamist rebels restore control of the villages Shahroura and Burj al-HayatlinkMehmedsons (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic State gains

Feel fre to go ahead and edit these locations yourself if you want. Are you unfamiliar with the script? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I will edit soon but yet I'm not ready. Mehmedsons (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jubb al Jarrah

According opposition source SOHR the village are under SAA control: linkMehmedsons (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could read Arabic. I'm not sure that's what the report says. However, this English SOHR report from 3 days ago seems to say that Jubb al-Jarrah is held by regime forces, so I will mark it as such. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
According opposition source SOHR the villages Jubb al Jarrah, Maksar al-Hesan are under SAA control and several days not have any attacks of ISIS against these villages only shelling them.link and no any data about clashes in Mas'udiya. Most likely ISIS retreated but still shelling villages from a long distance. Mehmedsons (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Arak

No one crediable report not confirmed that SAA whidhraw from Akak Oil field or same village only said SAA whidhraw from T3 Station/Airport.link Mehmedsons (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thawra oil field

SAA qonqured the Thawrah Oil Field south of Tabqa Air Base.link Mehmedsons (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

BREAKING: ISIS take back Thawrah oilfield after SAA withdraws link and SAA launched a new assault to liberate him and clashes are still ongoing at the southern outskirts of the Thawrah Oil Fields. link Mehmedsons (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe ISIS loses a some of their object's? According opposition source SOHR: SAA managed to advance toward al-Tabaqa airbase, and get to less than 7 km distance from the airbase, following the arrival of military reinforcements into the area.link Mehmedsons (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
IMPORTENT!!!! To prevent the controversial edits I publish these data! Opposition source SOHR said SAA and militants loyal on a distance of about 20 kilometers from the Tabqa military airport after ISIS take back Sfaiyeh Oil Field and Tabqa crossroad.linklinklink Mehmedsons (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
BREAKING NEWS!!!! ISIS forced SAA whidhraw to entrance of a Raqqa Gov. about 40km from Tabqa Air Base base.link Mehmedsons (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Manbij city

Why is Manbij being marked as contested? ISIS still controls 95% of the city. When the rebels stormed Idlib city, editors kept adding a ridiculous amount of checkpoints on the outskirts of the city until fighting reached the center. As nobody claims there is any fighting in the center of Manbij, it should be marked as black within a yellow circle, and advanced points in the city should be marked as yellow. NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You have a point. I will turn the city back to black and add a "contested" icon to represent the "west side of the city" that is contested. This will be more informative to our viewers. We have done this before for large cities. After the fights become more widespread in the city (& SDF controls a larger part of the city), we can remove the "west side of the city" icon and turn the whole city back to contested. Tradediatalk 09:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Cities and towns during the War in Donbass

Good afternoon. Could you create a similar map for the article War in Donbass. Refer to the Ukrainians, they poslnostyu you will promote and assist in the development of the card. Thank you--Dzianis Niadbajla (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe there is already such a map for War in Donbass, however, I don't have a link. Maybe someone else can provide a link... On a second thought, this might be the link but I am not sure if this is the correct page or there is something more up to date: Template:Donbass War detailed map Tradediatalk 09:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Arima

Arima city is linked to a bad page (borough of Trinidad and Tobago) The page Arima, Syria doesn't exist in english , but in french : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arima_(Syrie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.163.29.152 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the label since there is no valid link for the icon. Tradediatalk 11:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Asrieh nam is wrong

Asrieh name is wrong and irritating as it should be "TH" instead of the "S" in the midle as it is "اثريه " rather than "اسريه " in arabic. an alternative spellinmg would be Athrieh or Ithrieh or Ithria all would do Helmy1453 (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Helmy1453: If the town in question has an article on Wikipedia, then we use the name of that article. As you can see, the Wikipedia article on this town is called: Asrieh. So we use this name. Now you have broken the link associated with the town because there is no article with the name "Ithria". So I ask you to self revert in order to restore the link to the town's Wikipedia article. Tradediatalk 14:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Even better changed the name overthere :) Helmy1453 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The name Asrieh is really misleading, especially because almost every source (for example SOHR) calls the town Ithriya or similiar. But it still would be better to change the articles' title over there.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


ISIL is now back in control of Huwaysas and Tal Sawwan close to Shaer gas field 3bdulelah (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the roads?

I can't see the roads any more for some reason. I could see them yesterday. Esn (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see the roads very clearly on the Syrian Civil War Detailed Map, as well as the Syrian-Iraqi map. The problem is most likely on your end. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact there was a problem with the roads last week, they weren't on any of the maps, but it was only for one day or less I think. Mughira1395 (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

T4-Palmyra front

There is a strange article: ISIS took Huwaisis and Tal Sawwan, but Masdar mentioned also that they are only 9 km (!) away from the T4 airport, without mentioning any other losses to the SAA (neither did I read any other articles about this): https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-threatens-syrian-armys-supply-route-palmyra/ Mughira1395 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

Sig for archive bot --º the Bench º (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

Sig for archive bot --º the Bench º (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

Sig for archive bot --º the Bench º (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Sig for archive bot --º the Bench º (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

SAA gains in Homs

According to multiple sources SAA take back Thaniyat Rushayd near Qaryatayn from ISIS.linklinklink and Tall Sawwan near Shar Gas Field.link Mehmedsons (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Norhtern Latakia

Since october 2015 an pro-red team on this map have been adding uncountable points for every cm the red team advenced, that was good then, but now that area of the map is so busy and unclear that you cant see nothinh. for example I heard news about clashes in Hakourah today . tried to identify where is that town but I cant because the place is just full of minuite red dots on top of each other. I sugest we clean this are by removing some of the small insignificant loactions and keep the importnat ones only . what do y'all think ? Helmy1453 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Mughira

ISIS took Mughira (the town - not me), west of Ain Issa, north of Raqqah: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/747583343580033025 Mughira1395 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To correct on the map: Sawwanah / Tal Sawwanah / Jabal Sawwanat

I think the small town of Sawwanah, which is located west of Huwaysas, must be added on the map. In some news "Tal Sawwanah" is mentioned - like in the last advance of ISIS. It is obvious that Sawwanah (west of Hwaysas) was meant (which is not on the map) and not "Jabal Sawwanat" (as labeled in Wikimapia) which is east of Hwaysas and which is wrongly put as "Tal Sawwan" on our map. So: 1. "Tal Sawwan" to be changed to "Jabal Sawwanat" (which is logic, because "Tal" means hill and "Jabal" means mountain - check a map to see the locations). 2. "Tal Sawwanah" or simply "Sawwanah" to be added on the map, west of Huwaysas. Mughira1395 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday SAA take back the Tall Sawwan.linklink And if you are right then need do these cnangings. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

detailed map for Turkey

Maybe in Wikipedia have a such map for Turkey? Or if not then need create. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I already made one. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Its a good map! Mehmedsons (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Use dot-green-0d0.svg as rebel marks ()

I would like to use this because it looks better and it does have borders (like ). However, it is okay to change this? I wanted this sometimes but i'm fearful, because i think i will vandalize the map. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 07:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

ِalso we need to stop this non sense and remove the so called Nusra controlled areas because most syria mappers don't use it. TBH almost all gray dots areas has rebel presence other that Nusra and most green dots areas has rebel presence 3bdulelah (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no rule that because most (which doesn't mean all) Syria mappers don't use it we don't use it. This was agreed around a year ago to mark territory controlled by Nusra and distinguish it from other rebel forces due to their constant on-again off-again conflict with a whole range of different rebel factions. Every dot has been properly sourced in the edit summaries. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
To the original topic: I support the use of the new green dots. They are already used at the Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map and they make the dots much better visible.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tradedia SMB99thx XD Ermanarich (talk) There's a problem here. If you want to put darker border on the color then you need to leave the actuall color and not make it darker too which again doesn't make sense. You then, in the end, just changed the entire color which is almost the same as the border, and here is the prove. These are the current inside colors of Gov. and Opp circles. Someone should adjust this as we want to add a darker border and not change the entire color for which then we don't need the border. DuckZz (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Tradedia SMB99thx XD Ermanarich (talk) Again, why don't you answer this ? There was no discussion to change the entire color, but only add a border, which means I can change it back because you all ignore this ? DuckZz (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't answer so far, because I didn't find the time to do so. Actually, I don't really see your problem. I mean, it wouldn't be a problem, if it would have stayed the same colour with simply adding borders. But such a file doesn't exist yet as far I know. And I think that it looks quite good how it looks now. The borders however are in my view important.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

As I already several some times, I'm quite unhappy with Twitter as a source. Anyone can write there anything and there isn't a guarantee that it's true. Furthermore, most of the accounts which are used as a source here are clearly biased and in favour of one side in this conflict. And we actually had very many false informations on this page just because the excessive use of all kinds of Twitter accounts as a source.

But to be honest, I don't think that I can stop all you Users from using Twitter as a source.

Well then, I think that we should make a compromise that gives clear norms, which Twitter sources can be used/used partially and which not. I'd recommend to create a list here which names the Twitter accounts and maybe a comment about there political attitude in this conflict, if they can be used only in case they confirm a defeat of their preferred side. Any Twitter account, which is not on this list (if you agree with my idea) can not be used as long as its reliability is discussed in this section. Do you agree here? If so, we should start creating that list.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability

WP:V says that "readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up". How do we check that a given village is under control of a party? F.ex. the "Hamir Labidah" or the "Qurah Kabirah"-village south of Manbij? What RS is the black IS color based on, and how am I as a reader able to check it? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Typically, the sources we use to indicate ground control are from either field reporters (such as Jack Shahine), people connected to field reporters (This guy and Abdel Rahman), or local news agencies (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, al-Masdar, Hawar News). Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That's ok, but as a reader I do like to be able to check what source a given dot color is based on. I don't believe the readers are able to check the sources if they are provided in the "Edit summary" somewhere in the revision history of the Module page. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
class=notpageimage|
.
Ideally, information on towns (description of control & sources) can be found by clicking on the town dot on the map. Notice the caption of the map which says: "Hold cursor over location to display name; click to go to sources &/or status description (if available, the cursor will show as ; if not, it will show as )."
Notice the “link=” parameter in the map code. This is supposed to link to the part in the Wikipedia article that contains the source and talks about the events in the town. So for example, if you click on the dot of the town "Inkhil" on the map, it will take you to the part of the Wikipedia article on the town "Inkhil" that has the description of war events (& sources): link = "Inkhil#civilwar" Here the first part before the # is the name of the article (Inkhil). the second part after the # is the name of the section (civilwar).
For this to work, there needs to be a section by this same name in the article or you need to put a wikilink anchor: {{anchor|section}} that will act as a section header (in this case {{anchor|civilwar}}). By the way, sources &/or status description can also be found in "battle/offensive/etc..." articles and not just in towns' articles... A quick look at the map's code will tell you where each town dot will link. Obviously, there are many links that still need to be created... Tradediatalk 20:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree that it is somehow verifiable if the dot is linked to an article that says it is currently under control of a party, and that part is sourced by a citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Twited map as the RS?

Pbfreespace3 Re [22]. Do you mean that this map confirms that IS has control of those villages? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3, please do not re-add those villages without a reliable source that says the specific location is under control of a party. "Copying from maps is strictly prohibited" according to the "Rules for Editing the Map" described above. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, copying from maps is prohibited. But on the other hand, it is allowed to add new marks which are inside the area held by one faction without sources. Important: This doesn't count for changing a colour of course.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Does it have to be widely reported?

Niele~enwiki. Re: [23] What "faulty tweet" are you talking about? I provided a link to the Wikipedia article that contains the source and talks about the events in the village. The source, dated 22 June 2016, clearly states that "The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces have seized the village of Arima." Do you have any source saying that IS are still in control of the village? Erlbaeko (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Erlbaeko SouthFront articles are based on varios pro-side twitter sources.Lists129 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Do you have any source saying that IS are in control of the village? Erlbaeko (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Abdel Rahman is another one who says ISIS controls Arima. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Abdel Rahman

‎Beshogur Re [24]. Who is this Abdel Rahman, and does that tweet counts as a reliable source? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Bir Mahrutha or Sadd al-Matuta (Syrian-Jordanian border)

Any idea where Bir Mahrutha or Sadd al-Matutua are located? They must be rebel controlled, maybe they are close to each other. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-backed-fighters-suffer-another-setback-syria/ and http://blog.amin.org/sky2018/2016/07/04/مقتل-10-من-المعارضة-السورية Mughira1395 (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

al-Aslaha

al-Aslaha in Suwayda is rebel-held

3bdulelah (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

We're not able to change the status of this town since both archicivilians and Step News Agency are noted pro-rebel sources. I tried to look for other sources, but I can't find any. Until we can find some better sources, the town won't change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Al Aslihah taken the SAA.link Mehmedsons (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

US Military Map of ISIS

We have a prohibition on maps: 2- 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.

This prohibition was put in place last year because of amateur maps on Twitter and other online venues that are generally not regarded as reliable and accurate sources of information. Now I would like to draw to your attention to this map. This map is produced by the United States Department of Defense, who opposes ISIL. Although the map is admittedly inaccurate in certain frontline areas, it shows a variety of locations held by ISIL which are not marked by our map. Such areas include sites along the Iraq/Syria border, and areas between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. I ask the community: should we be able to use this map, which is anti-ISIL and from an official military source, to make constructive edits on the Syrian and Iraqi maps? I think we should be able to use it for some locations. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This map is very outdated as it appears that it shows the situation in April 2016, not in July 2016. Regards,131.188.48.178 (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of age, it is their most recent map, and it shows critical ISIS locations near al-Qai'm in the desert. Is that not worth displaying? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
al-Qai'm is in Iraq and not in Syria, right? The IS positions in Syria that are near al-Qai'm are - according to the Department of Defense map - all at the Euphrates river (such as al-Bukamal etc.). But these locations are already IS held according to our map. The US map also shows al-Tanf border crossing to be under IS control, but it has been taken by "New Syrian Army" recently. So I don't think we should add any locations based on the Department of Defense map. 131.188.48.178 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Rusheidah a border-crossing or al-Masdar reliability?

I know it's not the right place for it, but I am frustrated when I see a rubish of an article (one must say bullshit), on a page which is taken as serious source (ok, tendentious, but serious)... Since yesterday there is an article from Masdar about a fuel convoy belonging to ISIS, which was destroyed by Syrian Air Force: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-fuel-convoy-destroyed-syrian-air-force-near-iraqi-border Allegedly the second one in a few days. Even they put a map to show the location, it seems they take their readers for fools. The incredibility of nearly every detail in this small artice would let me loose my trust in Masdar or at least in Leith Fadel, the author of the article. When the author writes that Rusheidah, which is - as mentioned in the article! - in the Swaydah-province and that it is a "imperative border crossing" to Anbar in Iraq, one must ask himself, if the author has ever take a look at map: Not only Swaydah has no border to Iraq (in fact is the border-crossing to Jordan!), but one must first travel out of the province, then through Damas-province, then Homs-province to arrive to the nearest border-crossing to Iraq. One must also ask, what a ISIS-fuel-convoy is doing near Rusheidah (which is government held)... In the whole area there is no ISIS (exept of this new little town al-Shi'ab on our map...). There is simply no possiblity to arrive to this region for any ISIS-convoy and there is also no need for ISIS to supply they little presence there with a convoy... I mean: From where did this convoy come? From Jordan? From rebel-held Tanf?? Or from government-held towns? And in any case, the the article would loose its sense. The article seems so be nothing than an attempt to boost moral of pro-government readers (as is of course Masdar as a whole), and without generalizing, but this article is really beneath any level of credibility... Mughira1395 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Al-Habsawi west to Ayn Issa

According to this: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/751435748075864064, SDF retook control over Al-Habsawi west to Ayn Issa.Mughira1395 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The Damascus map

The Damascus map is a bit odd. Unlike the rest of the map, most of the Damascus map doesn't show anything when you hold your cursor over the dots (so you don't always know which town/contested area is which). Also, only the East Ghouta area is being updated regularly. The West Ghouta pocket (just south of Mezzeh airport) is very out of date. That unnamed purple dot is Moadamiya, which is rebel-controlled but under truce, but Darayya just to the right of it is an important contested city where heavy fighting is going on right now and has been going on sporadically for months, and yet there's no dot to indicate that the city even exists, let alone that it's currently an active battlefield. Moreover, the Moadamiya/Darayya area is presented as one contiguous rebel territory, but in reality the two cities have been cut off from each other for months (since somewhere around January/February 2016; every new map since then shows them as two separate areas with government-controlled territory between them). There is no contiguous rebel territory there anymore, just two cities with the government controlling the outskirts, so the green oval background surrounding them should be completely removed, leaving just a purple dot for Moadamiya and a contested green/red dot for Darayya. This would make it accurate to the maps routinely shown by al-Masdar and other media sources. This is a great map overall, and it should strive to be as complete, up-to-date and accurate as possible.

Here are two maps from al-Masdar of the Darayya area, the first from April 2016 and the second from June 2016: https://media.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1234.jpg

https://media.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Darayya-map.jpg Kawada Kira (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree this area is being poorly managed, as of today the area has been halved again meaning the current representation on this map is around 3-4 times bigger than the terrorists currently hold, also the area south of this with a big green patch with government held buildings in this massive patc?? what is this area w3hy is it green when Govenrnment have captured a lot of buildings and defences here: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-seizes-half-darayya-rebel-defenses-fall-apart/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.84.76 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Need a new map only for Aleppo & skirts

Don't you think its time to create a new template map only for Aleppo? The actual big map can not schow detailes information abou Aleppo. Who can make a good solutiuon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.75.52.4 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but we actually have a big version of the Aleppo map here, [25], which is actually shows detailed informations about the situation in Aleppo.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Aqra mountains 10 km south of Manbij

@Beshogur: Please do not add (or re-add) unreferenced or poorly referenced information to articles or any other page on Wikipedia as you did here. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced? Those villages, or mountain hills were before sourced. Beshogur (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Where is that source? Erlbaeko (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Erlbaeko, I think you're looking for the pro-Kurdish and reliable source Chuck Pfarrer. He was in the Navy SEALs (elite American combat unit) for quite some time, and he's very knowledgeable on military strategy. He shows those areas as under ISIS control (he hated ISIS and thinks they should be eliminated). I think the view of Beshogur is correct in this case, and my view (which is that area should be shown as ISIS-held) is correct because it is based on a pro-Kurdish but also reliable source. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but we can't use the map as the only source and the "Aqra mountains" are not mentioned in that tweet, nor is the Qur'a village. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Removed Qur'a Saghira, Qur'a and Aqra mountains. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That tweet says that "IS has fallen back to Jubb al Katshil". I can't find that village on the map, but if you can, feel free to add that. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

He is probably talking about the village Jubb al Qatashli located 2-3 km northeast of Hamir Labidah. That is 4 km southeast of the "Aqra mountains". Erlbaeko (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Erlbaeko actually they were perfectly sourcedcheck diff but it seems you just "dont want to find the source",this is not the first time you are removing places without a reason,next time if you cant find the source in the module then take the issue that you have here to the talk page instead of removing.Lists129 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I remove villages close to the frontline, if I can't find any source. Note that the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability if you restore material. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
No it is not, if you remove villages or want to change the map you will need to provide a new source verifying you're change.

It is not other persons responsibility to find new sources for correctly made changes in the past.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No I don't. I can remove whatever village I like, (if it is not linked to a sourced article) and you need to provide a source if you restore it. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Northern Latakia

Hello folks,

I'm currently creating a SVG-map of the Syrian civil war. Since I try to add all of the villages (and other marks of course) on the map, I've got some problems to add these tons of icons in northern Latakia, which aren't really distinguishable anymore. They are rather like a big red area. Could maybe one of you remove some expendable marks of this area?

Thank you, Ermanarich (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix that area. I assume you're going for something like this? That will be the best option. Best of luck to you: I know that must be a massive undertaking. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"Jawalik" in Homs

Qasioun News (admittedly pro-rebel) says it is held by the rebels, as does video evidence recorded by rebel activists. A pro-government map (by Islamic World News) also shows is as under rebel control, to back up these sources. The founder of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, said Jawalik was hit by a Russian warplane last year, along with the Local Coordination Committees of Syria. Along with all of that, we have the fact (admitted by Al Masdar News) that the rebels attacked Khirbet al-Sawda, in which most reasonable people would agree that the rebels attacked from the northeast axis. I think that is enough evidence to mark the town as rebel-held. I cannot revert more than once on the Syria Map, so I'm not going to revert Tradedia's edit today. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What do the dots mean?

on the map, what do the diffrent coloured dots mean, is it the cities? and if the dots are larger does it mean a higher population? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoss555 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheBoss555. The round dots are towns and villages. The size of the dot corresponds to the size of the village and the population of that village. Markers that are triangle-shaped are hills or mountains controlled by a certain group. Does this help you understand? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

yeah it does thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoss555 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dudiyan

While on our map Dudiyan has been put green since a month or so, it seems that the town has only been taken by rebels today: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency/status/755802739297357824 So what about the little towns (Yeni Yaban and Khamaliyah) south of Dudiyan? Let them green till one day they are also taken by rebels? Mughira1395 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Making the change now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Al-Nusra (JaN) splitting and color

Reports assures that Al-Nusra (JaN) will change its name and break ties with Al-Qaeda prestty soon (within hours or days). That puts a question on whar are we going to do with its color on this map ? specialyy that the group may combine with other Islamic groups like Ahrar Al-Sham. Or it may face fractures and breakes down to multiple factions . Any sugessions ? Helmy1453 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd wait with any change there at least until it really happens. But there's nothing wrong in discussing now what to do then. I actually think that even if it "breaks" its ties with al-Qaeda, it will most probably stay one organization and almost definitely follow the same ideology and have the same practices as before. Furthermore, a break with al-Qaeda doesn't make a faction more moderate, as ISIL proves. I actually extremely dislike the green colour, since it's a clear euphemism of radical Islamist factions like Ahrar al-Sham or Jaish al-Islam. For an uninformed eye it makes big parts of the map look like being in the hand of pro-democratic rebels while it's in fact controlled by hardcore-Sharia supporters. Still, in case it breaks into different smaller factions, we would have to mark it as green... But I believe that such a splitting is very unlikely.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
To be organized we have to ask the quetion that I always had before. why is Al-Nusra gray instead of green ? If we can answer this question correctly we can deside what to do when they change name. Is Al-Nusra grey because USA clasiffy it as terrorist org? or becasue it is UN calssify it ? or just becasue some editors don't like Al-Nusra and want to give it separate color ? I think it all started when Al-Nusra clashed with Hazm movement and some editors anticipated that it would break fire and situation will escilate like what hapened with Islamic State in 2014 so they put new grey color . But actually what happened since then Al-Nusra got more and more integrated with the rest of the green and they grey color stayed in this map. By the way this is the only map that separates a color for Al-Nusra and is very ununderstandable. Helmy1453 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I actually don't know the exact reason, but the simple fact that the aims compared to the FSA (JaN: Sharia, Califate/FSA: Democracy) are completely different, which makes clear that they only work only together as long as Assad remains a danger for them, is already enough to give them different colours. It is debatable to give the hardcore Islamist factions beyond IS the in the media quite positive reflected term "opposition", which is still mostly connected with democratic forces. But factions like al-Nusra and many other factions which are currently marked as green like Ahrar al-Sham are extremely antidemocratic. Wikipedia has the mission to be neutral and this makes in my opinion a partition between Islamists and Democrats necessary.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It is now actual question and not hypothetical washingtonpost. Regarding agenda this is so biased. The red group has totally different agenda from Iran To Hizbullah to Russia to Alwaits milittia, yet they are all red. and to put a distinction between "Islamists" and "Democrats" is the definition of POV, this is like saying I have the right to makeup news becasue I like to make up news. Helmy1453 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, Hezbollah etc. have a different Agenda compared to the Assad regime. But your comparision is faulty, because these forces are only supporting the Assad regime ignoring their ideological differences and they will not attack Assad in case the rebels are beaten, while the Islamist and Democratic rebels in Syria are instable allies which will definitely fight against each other in case of the defeat of the Assad regime. This is not POV but rather very neutral.
Apart from that, I don't think that we will get a compromise here. Maybe we should wait for another voice.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

you should keep both colours because it al nusra isn't in any truce, that's why they got their own dots in the northwest, because they went away from more moderate rebels who negociated with the russians, i think that it shows a divide in the map and as kurds are a different group though they have some goals in common with assad, al nusra should stays different from the rebels even though it has shared goals for the clarity of the lines and of the map. Aq was in grey in the yemen map, had it's own colour when it broke from central command in iraq and became isis, it makes sense to have a different colour than the rebels because it's an organisation of its own, beside the fact that the separation with aq is purely nominal and doesn't change any actual tie, it's only to avoid bombings.78.192.17.51 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC) I'm happy with al-Nusra having its own color. I would rather have it be grey than some green. There's barely enough information to document which towns have Nusra presence and not, so I might oppose a labeling of "non-Nusra jihadi", although I think kept would shed light on the situation. I do think that adding colors would make the map too complicated, but removing the Nusra color would remove vital information that people could use to become more informed about the conflict (i.e. al-Qaeda actually controls a chunk of Syria). Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"you should keep both colours because it al nusra isn't in any truce, that's why they got their own dots in the northwest" YOu are a small lier, Do you think I am stupid or new to this new page? I've been on this page before you namless (talk) . Al Nusra is being converted to green way back before any truce.

and for you Pbfreespace3 at least lets change the name infront of grey color, I know there is no way to reason or logic with this page admins being mostly pro russian propaganda , but at least try to act as if you were neutral . Helmy1453 (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Shamer village east of Aleppo

Hello folks,

we have a small problem here. The detailed map for Aleppo shows the village Shamer/Shamir east of Aleppo as IS held, but here, the mark is red. Does anyone know which faction controlls this village now? The only source I can find is an Farsnews article of November 2016, which states that it's IS-held: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940901001371 --Ermanarich (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

November 2016? God, have the Iranians been building a time machine instead of nuclear bombs this whole time?
But no, Shamer is indeed ISIS-held, according to many pro-government sources (Petolucem, Souria4Syrians). It's been like that for quite some time, as the SAA has prioritized the rebel front instead of the ISIS front, and vice-versa. However, with the rebels now besieged at Aleppo and an imminent SDF offensive towards Qabasin, expect the SAA to shore up its kind at East Aleppo and put itself in a position to retake Al-Bab and Deir Hafir. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Whoops! I meant 2015, of course.
Ok, I'll change that on the Rif Aleppo detailed map, as soon as I find the time. Thanks for the information.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
ISIS has withdrawal from the village of Shamer in favor of SAA.link Mehmedsons (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Mehmedsons, who is abunusra79? I don't know him. His he a reliable source? Why should I trust his word over the maps of multiple loyalists? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Al-Khataf village just east of Manbij

Al-Khataf village was liberated by SDF/ypg on 26th of june 2016. Daesh staged at max temporarily successful at Al-Khataf,Tall Yasti, Hudhud, counterattack on 2 July 2016. By 7-8 July reports came in that SDF reppelled new attacks on the villages Tall Yasti and Hudhud. Indicating they where in SDF hands. (recaptured or where never fully captured by Daesh). But for a month there is not any news, not even a tweet about the village of Al-Khataf. Now reports and evidence comes in SDF has liberated the eastern parts of Manbij around Manbij Eastern Silos.

If Al-Khataf would be the only village in Manbij outskirts that remained in Daesh hands, there would be some news or evidence or indirect indications about Daesh still holding this village. But there aren't any. In the mean time, no other maps still shows Al-Khataf in Daesh hands. And all sources are saying Daesh is pinpoint in the center of Manbij with outskirts liberated. And it seems extremely unlikely that SDF would have a major supply route towards it's fighters inside Manbij blocked without reacting to this.

It seems Al-Khataf was re-liberated silently or never was fully captured by the Daesh in the first place. As a result of lack of sources, evidence and indirect indications or consequences of Daesh still holding one village outside Manbij, it probably begins to become time to conclude Daesh is most likely not in control of this village, if it ever was and change the colour of the dot.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment and will make the change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Aleppo Artilary Faculity !!!!

ALL pro-green sources claim green control 100% of Aleppo artilary facuility while ALL pro-red sources claim red copntrol 100% of Aleppo artilary faculity !!! I have no idea how that happens . I see even both sides already celebrating the great victory and conting the other side dead bodies. Niether side posting any meaningfull pics or videos ? what the hell ? Helmy1453 (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just put it contested and we will see tomorrow what's happened.82.233.227.191 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do specially I saw on twitter alot of videos from both sides inside of the base/faculity/college walls. looks like it is really contested and both sides hopes to secure all buildings in it. If any for example this is a video by Jabhat Fateh al-Sham from inside. Helmy1453 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
In the video you can see rebels entering the base from the southwest (from the direction of the "active artillery battalion"), eventually reaching this building here (at 2:36 in the video), indicating that the rebels have been deep inside the base at some time this afternoon. From what I can extract from social media, rebels probably retreated afterwards, possibly due to heavy Russian/Syrian bombing. Pro-opposition claims are that the "military arming college" that forms the southern part of the artillery base has been captured and remains under control of rebels and that SAA-soldiers have been taken hostage there. Pro-SAA claims are that the base is calm and 100% under SAA control which seems to be somewhat unlikely, given the content of the video. As always, we cannot use videos and social media; we have to wait for the situation to settle and for reliable sources to report on the situation. 87.158.141.120 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
According to SOHR, "rebel and Islamic Factions, Fath al-Sham Front, the Islamic Turkestan Party and other factions" control "parts" of the Artillery Battalion. 87.158.141.120 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems like there is some kind of effective break of siege, even if it is just a siezure of part of the road. I will wait for new sources before making a judgement. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

SAA advance in Homs

The Syrian Army seized control of Al-Musherfy, Rajem Sawwan, and Um Suhreej which lie to the south of Jub Al-Jarrah village from ISIS.[26]Someone, please update the map. I cannot see these villages on the map at all. Can the map also show the Aliyat Hill seized by ISIS from the SAA in Northern Suweida[27]GERALD710 (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure, obvious Deonis/Hannibal sockpuppet. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We need to talk about truce icons

What exactly is the purpose of the truce icon? Is it to show that a town is held by 2 parties that are not actively fighting each other and have agreed to a truce? Or can it also indicate that a certain faction which controls a town is not engaging in any hostile action towards any other party near the town? I ask the community this because I believe the truce icon is now being abused beyond its original purpose. I believe its original purpose was to show that a town is held by 2 parties that have agreed to a truce, and not anything else. Let me put it this way: Kafraya and Fu'ah are held by the Syrian government, and likewise Da'el and Ibtaa are held by the rebels. And yet we use the same icon for both of these towns simply because the faction that control them has agreed not to fight nearby enemies. If this is what the truce icon is for, should we not mark most towns along the SAA/rebel frontline as being under truce? Take a look at the recent ceasefire agreement. In many places, like the Ghab plains for example, non-jihadi groups have refrained from fighting SAA for over a year now, and neither side is attempting to gain ground. Should all of these be marked purple as well?

I don't think that they should. As a bold edit, I am removing all truce icons for towns we know are held firmly by 1 group, just so people can see what that looks like. I think the situation in Kafraya/Fu'ah will be a lot clearer, for example. I believe the truce icon should only be used for towns that are actually held by more than 1 party. What do people think about this? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 I have no objection on you changing color from truce to red or green . but it is obvious that Madaia, Fuah and Kufria hae to be completely incircled with enemy color stating it is besieged completely . Helmy1453 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Fu'ah/Kafraya is an interesting situation because the rebels don't have a presence between the 2 towns themselves, only on the outside of it. If we added a siege icon to both towns, it might give some viewers the impression that the regime pocket is split into 2 parts, when it isn't. I can put up siege icons if you want; this was done before and is a better way of depicting the situation. However, it is already obvious that the 2 towns are encircled, and there has been no actual shelling, car-bombing, etc. for many months now due to the truce agreement. Therefore, I think the siege icons would also be misleading, as there is no active military pressure or fighting, only static trenched and checkpoints. This paradigm also applies to Madaya, as there is no active fighting. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you about Fua and kufria, maybe half circules twords the enemy. but Madaya is besieged from all directions and has no contace with any friendly are so this one is an easy fix just put red circle and everyone is happy. Helmy1453 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

You can take a look at: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 61#Map-truce-lime.svg. I copy below the relevant part:

"The purple icon should be for towns where the party in question has lost a significant amount of sovereignty, such as giving up heavy weapons, allowing regular enemy patrols inside of it, etc… If all that the “truce” means is that there is no fighting or shooting from both parties, then there is no need for a purple icon. The purple icon means loss of sovereignty, not lack of fighting. So I think that the Fuah/Kafraya pocket does not need to be purple. The gov in Fuah/Kafraya pocket did not relinquish any sovereignty on the pocket (kept all the weapons & fighters and not allowed rebel patrols inside, etc…) Also other towns in the same situation (no loss of sovereignty), equally do not need to be purple." Tradediatalk 03:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Amarinah Tahtaniyah and Qirq Maghar

Pbfreespace3: Re[28] and [29]. The first tweet only says "clashes between SDF and ISIS at Qiratah and Awshariyah", and the secound tweet says "Yesterday evening daesh counter-offensive around Awshariyah and Qiratah repelled by SDF." Nothing about Amarinah Tahtaniyah and Qirq Maghar as you changed to IS. You may or may not be correct that "Because of the locations of these villages, ISIS logically must control the villages north of here.", but that is WP:OR. As I said here, I believe we need a better source to change Amarinah Tahtaniyah and Qirq Maghar from SDF to IS. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. You are free to make the change of those 2 villages back to SDF control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done Erlbaeko (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to the editors

Well, first of all, thanks to all the editors here, which keep the map actualised. You do a really great work right here!

I have a small request to you, which would make it much easier for me to update the Syrian Civil War map.svg, a new and very exact map of the Syrian Civil War. Right now, I have to search every frontline for changed marks. That's very time intense and may also lead to missed changes.

  • My Request: Please write in your edit summaries, where the mark you changed actually is (nearby town or city, governorate, frontline or things like that).

Thanks, Ermanarich (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Albulah (Al Judaydah)

Pbfreespace3, Here you removed Albulah at 36°18′50″N 38°08′53″E / 36.314°N 38.148°E / 36.314; 38.148, which was souced to be under SDF control by this article. You also added Al Judaydah (another name of the same village) at 36°18′40″N 38°09′00″E / 36.311°N 38.150°E / 36.311; 38.150, to be under IS control without giving any source. Please, always add a source. Do you have any source that says Al Judaydah is under IS control? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, can you read Arabic? Tell me what part of that article even mentions Judaydah. It doesn't. All it mentions is "Albulahh". Even so, it doesn't even matter if it did say so. Who is this source? How do we know it is reliable? It says it is from Dubai. No one knows who this source is! How do we know if it has a bias towards one group or not? We know that ISIS controlled the entire west bank of the Euphrates since before the Manbij offensive, but now the SDF has pushed across, we can't be sure. Until then, we should assume ISIS control of frontline villages that don't have reliable sources for. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Pbfreespace3, can you read English? I said Albulah was sourced to be under SDF control by that article, and I believe Al Aan TV are more reliable than most of the tweets you normally use as a source. We should not "assume ISIS control" of frontline villages that we don't have reliable sources for. We should remove frontline villages that we don't have reliable sources for. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, please avoid making personal attacks. There are 3 questions here, all of which still haven't been answered.
  • Where is albulah village? Wikimapia, Google Maps, and Bing Maps all don't show the village we are talking about as being near where it was before on this map. So where is it? I tried to look for it by searching, but I couldn't find it. If we could determine where it is, that would fix this entire dispute.
  • Does SDF control Albulah village? Based on your source, I am unsure that SDF controls it. This raises another question:
  • Is Al Aan TV a reliable source? I have serious doubts about this.
From their Wikipedia page: 'Al Aan' (Arabic: قناة الآن‎‎) is a pan-Arab infotainment satellite television station based in Dubai Media City, United Arab Emirates. The channel focuses on news content and entertainment programs and targets Arab families with a slight tilt towards young female audience in the Arab world.
This causes me to have serious doubts about this source. Should we really trust an Arab infotainment website to determine the control of a village in Northern Syria? However, if we do not know where Albulah village even is, then this question is irrelevant.
Allow me to clarify my comment about frontline control. I meant to say that we know ISIS controlled all of the villages west of the Euphrates before the SDF offensive on Tishrin. If we establish this, then after the SDF offensive began, we should have only changed to SDF control villages we have a good source for. Clearly, whatever "Judaydah" is isn't one of those villages, unless we can show through a reliable source that what Wikimapia calls "Judaydah" is actually Albulah. Until we reach that point, it would be dishonest to show this village as SDF-controlled until we know for sure. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I had to ask since you clearly don't bother to read what I am writing. I included a link to the village on Wikimapia in my first post. If you read it again, you may notice it. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Pro-Kurdish, anti-ISIS war reporter, source Abdel Rahman, reports this town is under the control of ISIS. The control must have changed since the report from your June 1st article, which is more than 2 months old. That settles it. Someone please re-add this town under ISIS control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, it is not my article. The article was used as a source to add Albulah to the map on 2 June, ref diff. Secondly, that tweet is not from a war reporter. It's a questionable self-published source. Does it count as an RS to change the village from SDF to IS? I don't know, but if you do, the least you can do is to include it as a reference. Anyway, we can not expect to find an RS for every village with 10 houses, so if you keep adding a lot of small places to IS, the map will be misleading simply because no real RS reports from the area with that level of precision. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dudiyan

Why is Dudiyan now black again? Mughira1395 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it was changed to IS on 14 August 2016 at 19:59 UTC by Pbfreespace3, ref. diff. It was first changed to IS by EllsworthSK at 11:14 UTC, ref. diff, then to the opposition by Mehmedsons at 17:56, ref. diff, and then back to IS by Pbfreespace3 at 19:59 UTC. The source for the IS claim is this article. That article claims that ISIS fighters recaptured Dudiyan around noon on Friday 29 July. The source for the opposition claim is this article that says the opposition regained control of the village on Friday evening. Pbfreespace3 reason for changing it back to IS was that "Aranews is anti-ISIS more than it is anti-rebel. Since both sources are from the same day, it is safer to believe ISIS controls the town." Erlbaeko (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Three villages recaptured by SDF west of Manbij

The villages of Îlan, Khira el-Sekhîra and Khira el-Kebîra were recaptured by SDF today.[30] The source doesn't show where they are located but this map does:[31]. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war/Archive_62&oldid=1236451236"