This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Remember this discussion? I'm not asking for any change I just found something that proves my point back then when I showed pro-opp sources stating rebel withdrawal from the area. I know YouTube videos cannot and should not be used to depict any changes/advances but here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6mcpQHk3ro Just to prove my point that rebels have indeed retreated from the warehouses --> NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ChrissCh94 ( talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
YouTube videos cannot be used as references to make changes to the map. If you have a recent, valid, trustworthy pro-opp source that shows this change, then we can make the change. Please refer to the rules regarding this map, videos are not reliable sources.
I know that.. please read what I wrote then reply.. I did provide before clear pro-opp sources regarding rebel withdrawal from the area yet the editors refused them. I just wanted to prove my point using this video. I AM NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ON THIS MAP BASED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 16:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This map is site based not area base as many others available. Each dot on the map represents the status of the control of a specific site. 'Presence in the area' is not supposed to be represented. Therefore if these two sites are not under rebel control (but also not under SAA control), they must be removed. Paolowalter ( talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It was reported last week by pro gov almasdar that saa were advancing on Ad Dumayr .we have this town as in truce but it might be rebel and could have been base to take the two bases and then withdraw to . Pyphon ( talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Paolowalter is right, this map is supposed to be representative of specific sites, not presence in areas, but, if an accurate depiction of the ground situation is what we are aiming for, we have to indicate rebel activity in Eastern Qalamoun in some fashion. ChrissCh94, thanks to André437, we now have icons that may help us with the whole Eastern Qalamoun dilemma. I would be on board for the following: remove Battalion 559 and Khan Abu Shamat from the map; put directional lime concentrics roughly outlining/bordering the Eastern Qalamoun region - specifically, just to the East of Dumayr Military Airport, to the North of Sayqal Airbase, the East of Jayroud, and the East of Storage Base 555. I know, I know, none of those 4 SAA sites are being attacked/pressured - I'm not trying to propose an arbitrary rebel addition. But, I think that would resolve the Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat discrepancy in a way that correctly shows the status of those bases and still does justice to showing some rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun. If we can work out a consensus along those lines, I'm game. Otherwise, I've gotta stick to my guns about keeping Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat as is, simply in the interest of a semi-true representation of the region. I mean, if we remove them and don't add said lime concentrics, then this map won't show any rebel presence within some 150mi.. which is patently false. Idk. Open to reasonable suggestions. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I can get on board with that suggestion - not sure if the unsourced addition of those green directional circles will fly though. Any other editors have comments/opinions/objections? Boredwhytekid ( talk) 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
https://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=1bf19643b8e23f7cc01c87d035bfee97
http://justpaste.it/islamicfront559
http://www.syrianarmyfree.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-68912.html
Combined with the video shown here the warehouses (or at least the army base nearby) are regime held. And we are not asking for green dots: we are asking for those half circles (THE BESIEGED FROM ONE SIDE) symbols to be put on the SAA sites in the area because the rebellion is kinda active there. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure that Tall Brak and Tall Hamis are controlled by ISIL?
All maps (pro-opp, neutral, and pro-gov), show these two towns under IS control, so it's very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 ( talk) 08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
They are the same Is is a shortend version of ISIL. Pyphon ( talk) 08:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Documents.sy reports about bombardment of isis postions around Hula, in the north of Homs, by Syrian Army. So maybe add a black dot or change it from green to black?
I am new here so i dont know if that is an reliable source in this case. if not sorry. here the link: http://documents.sy/news.php?id=12172&lang=en
Thanks Blockeduser2014 ( talk) 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Welcome Blockebuster there have been reports of isis in many places by single sources but this is not enough evidence to change the map unless more sources say the same thing . Pyphon ( talk) 09:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Here updated map which show situation in Kobane area on 16 November.
here
Hanibal911 (
talk)
09:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
AS to some tiwtter sources, Isis had taken cereal hangars and kobani pass to turkey.
--
Khalil.aifaoui (
talk)
13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The 11th Tank Brigade (which was credited by some users to have taken the Khazzanat camp) DENIES in it's official page that the Khazzanat camp has been captured by the regime. They acknowledged advances towards it but NO CAPTURE. Therefore Khazzanat camp goes to GREEN with a red half circle south of it. https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/749090718504420 Translating it can be tough since he's talking in informal Arabic BUT he clearly denies the capture of the camp whilst confirming advances ChrissCh94 ( talk) 18:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
And according to the SAA FB account they took it. https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary (scroll down a bit) SyAAF ( talk) 18:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
ChrissCh94 I believe it was you who said al masdar and sohr should be used carefully and I agree .SOHRs two posts seem to contradict each other and al masdar said saa took the base then advanced on Khan shiekoun .We now have other sources saying Khan sheikoun is contested so if al masdar got that right ,with carefull consideration I think his post was correct . Pyphon ( talk) 20:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Chrissch94 once again you have shown how unbiased you are .those who accused you of pro gov bias are clearly wrong .Keep up the good work .respect . Pyphon ( talk) 08:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Pro gov sources say saa have taken Nawa-Shakh miskin road including tel al hamad and 112 army base but no pro op source said this yet so we must wait for more sources . Pyphon ( talk) 13:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
خطأ في إنشاء اتصال بقاعدة البيانات
Al Nusra have captured city Rastan in Homs Governorate after clashes with other rebel groups. This confirmed pro opposition source here pro government source here here and some other source. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
If this is true rebel infighting is spreading south but is not in Daraa yet .Until we get reports of this type in Daraa no icons for jan there . Pyphon ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Al Qaeda is in all places when are others insurgents group different than the Kurdish, but in what place they have a total control is unclear -- Pototo1 ( talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been a long time I've not contributed to the map... Can Twitter be considered a relable source now ? I did not read about that anywhere else... 2A01:E34:EF99:8A90:280F:5B5:B138:4865 ( talk) 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Some people here often use DeSyracuse ( http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com and https://twitter.com/deSyracuse) maps as pro-insurgents, therefore using this source to justify government-held town. However, I did not find any evidence that DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent nor pro-government. Although he did some maps with Archicivilians, those maps are quite reflecting reality. So unless anybody has evidence DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent, I would suggest not to classify him as pro-insurgent 188.141.199.13 ( talk) 15:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes DeSyracuse is pro insurgent their maps usually favouring the Insurgents same case with Archicivilians.
Pro Government maps are Peto Lucem's maps but these map are very correct and precise based in my experience following the conflict.
Labrousse maps was the most precise pro Insurgents maps but he stopped to made maps time ago. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Hanibal here, Peto Lucem is more or less pro-regime despite stating rebel gains sometimes. DeSyracuse is moderate pro-opp but with very reliable/accurate maps. Archicivillians is way too pro-opp ChrissCh94 ( talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The map in East Damascus showing the East Road in Jobar in conflict. http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010802646190.jpg
This is the Lucem map and showing this road http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010809625795.jpg
Same case with this another favouring the insurgents http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010813695846.jpg
The insurgent in Jobar are totally besiege ?
Not at all they using the tunnels to East Ghouta as resupply system, put the surface is controlled by the Army this oncluding the road -- Pototo1 ( talk) 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Fix that in East Damascus map
/info/en/?search=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer/File:Rif_Damashq.svg --
Pototo1 (
talk)
20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The infiltration no count as disputed control all pro insurgent maps put this road under army control -- Pototo1 ( talk) 12:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to al-Zaahra and Nubl that there is heavy fighting going on there right now with shelling, carbombing etc.
Savalito ( talk) 17:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source said that was only one suicide attack which carried by Al Nusra Abu Hasna Jazrawi against city Al Zahraa (not two) and he didn't reach the gate of Al-Jood complex. Elijah J. Magnier And source said that cities of Al Zahraa and Nubol are still holding despite repetitive attack. SAF is dropping supply to surrounded cities. Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 ( talk) 12:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Its been 4 days since Almasdar and other pro gov sources said saa advanced and cut the road from jandoul roundabout to hanano also advancing in owieja and hanano districts but not one pro op source has said anything about this .Its a major event as it puts rebel held Allepo in siege cutting the last supply line .Any thoughts? Pyphon ( talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
SOHR latest post on Aleppo JAN is fighting SAA near Aleppo prison and at the airport .They must be advancing against the army pro gov sources must be lies or SOHR ? Pyphon ( talk) 09:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Syria direct pro op new map shows saa advance near jandoul roundabout ,owieja ,hanano . Pyphon ( talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Yes, I believe it is that one. Thanks. XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes not a good map to many flags on roads but its first pro op source to say saa advance to make almasdar map look correct . Pyphon ( talk) 12:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
SOHR is now quoting al nusra and its allies on his posts for Aleppo and Idlib which are unreliable his moderate sources have gone . Pyphon ( talk) 16:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Jabhat al-Nusra executed 13 Syrian rebel in village Kawkaba to south part of Idlib province after JAN taken this village. An-Nahar Elijah J. Magnier SOHR Also reliable source reported that JAN stormed the town of Kafr_Nabudah SRF and FSA handed over all their weapons. Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Acording to SOHR al-nusra captured the Aghoub Hill in al- Brej area here Lindi29 ( talk) 23:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody find and add these villages in the map 2 are captured by SAA and 3 are captured by al-nusra i think 1 of the villages is contested in south idlib between al-nusra and the free syrian army Kafr Sajneh or it is only Sinja here Lindi29 ( talk) 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
al tanf crosing border caotured by is İDHaberTakip ( talk) 07:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday well-known source Elijah J Magnier was talking about this on Twitter...he specified there was images of the attack and partial takeover by IS only about the Iraqi side of the border, not the Syrian one( there is a long distance, in a desert area, between the Iraqi and Syrian side). Fab8405 ( talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
While looking at the map, I noticed an inconstancy in the style of the icons on the map. While the controlled cities for all of the other factions are represented by a single, monotone color, the ones controlled by the Kurds appear to a) have a gray outline, and b) have a white spot in the middle. For the sake of consistency, wouldn't it be better for them to be a solid yellow? ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I noted this shit too. The new color is f****** terrible to watch. "The sake of consistency" does not matter (I never even noticed it). This is not a piece of art it´s a bureaucratic map. Revert and get rid of the epileptic-yellow fly-shit-dots already please!! Rhocagil ( talk) 13:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Our bellicose visitor has a point.. the current yellow is semi-blinding Boredwhytekid ( talk) 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Please revert to the old yellow, or change the background color of the map 8fra0 ( talk) 15:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if the majority of people really find it worse... I guess we should change it back. It would be better for everyone though if we just made it a darker, still monotone icon (if that reasonably doable) or if we just changed the background map color to a darker shade, like 8fra0 suggested (of course then we would probably have people complaining about how they liked the old background color instead) :) ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I think I have an easy solution. I found the current file for the yellow dot and created a darker version () and reuploaded it to wikipedia so it can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Dot_Yellow_Darker.svg. So, what do you guys think? ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the old ones were/are much better. If you should change any dots, change the red, green and grey ones to the same as the "old" yellow ones. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Like you said, this is a "bureaucratic map" and it should be as simplistic as possible to allow for viewers to quickly get a sense of the situation. The monotone colors help accomplish this by standing out against background (at least if the yellow icon is darkened) an effect which is diminished in the old yellow ones by the neutral gray border. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yellow dots on a yellow-isch background requires some kind of borderline. You can solve the problem by making the background grey, but then you will have the same problem with the grey dots. So why bother at all. I say revert and don´t bother. Rhocagil ( talk) 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Solution: Brown Background. Also, I think that the darker yellow ones will be easily discernible against the current background. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, change back yellow until you get your "brown" background. Rhocagil ( talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please revert to the old colour. The new colour is really hard to see. Readability is far more important than consistency. Esn ( talk) 09:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The middle one or the old one. Rhocagil ( talk) 13:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The kurdish held towns are still very hard to see, I strongly suggest to revert to the old icons, at least until the background color of the map has been changed 8fra0 ( talk) 17:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes still very hard. Rhocagil ( talk) 23:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please revert to the old icons. Yes, these ones are better than the previous ones, but they're still hard to see. Esn ( talk) 00:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not just have a solid colored icon with a light gray border that's the same shade as the original icon? Wouldn't that be both visible and match the other icons? ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but I have to stop editing the maps (especially the Iraqi map where there are plenty of yellow dots and icons) because I can't see what I'm doing, especially adding places/checking if towns are already on the map has become almost impossible. Please revert to the old icons. 8fra0 ( talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the rebel offensive has stalled/has been reversed. Many loy. sources stating that rebels never actually captured 3 villages but 1 that was later recaptured. I'm sure that we would have read in international news agencies that the regime has been besieged in Aleppo if that's what happened. I mean cutting the regime's only supply line to Aleppo has to be something important and heard of don't you guys agree? I'm not immediately suggesting we change them from contested to something else I'm just asking for more sources on the matter either they are pro-rebel or pro-regime. Just a clarification on who controls them. Small villages such as those can't be contested they're too small. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
sources say saa repelled nusra attacks and this villages under saa control. 1- http://arabic.rt.com/features/765443-%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8/ 2- http://www.alahednews.com.lb/fastnews/240232/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%87%D8%AF-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9#.VHThoousWQl Hwinsp ( talk) 20:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
So far the only sources you have are pro-regime (RT and Ahed) talking about pro-regime gains. So not "till now we should turn them to red". Please try to be unbiased when you are working on this map.
Well SOHR is a pro-opposition source and we use it to show rebel gains heck we even used SOHR as a source for those villages also when do you think the opposition sources will admit that they were repelled from the area.Also RT has pretty good coverage and I don't know why is it called pro-regime just because it is from Russia it does not mean it is pro-regime.It is like calling all western and gulf media(with some exceptions) pro-opposition as there own states are all funding and supporting the rebels.Also SOHR will never report that the Army repelled the attack as there are no clashes in the area and they only report from where clashes are happening it is like waiting for conformation that will never be reported by any opposition source.The village of Fajdan is an example set by SHOR they reported clashes there a year ago and it is still contested but i'm pretty sure the Army has pushed them out of that village as it sit's near a vital supply road for the Army but SOHR never reports from here as there is no clashes.That is why you need to compare both parties sources and see where they differ.If the government(pro-gov source) took over a village and suddenly SOHR(or other opposition sources) stops reporting from there it means that the first party took the village.This also go for pro-opp media reporting gain and government sources stop reporting on the matter then the opposition advanced and if both parties claim control you put them contested until a there is clear info from the area. Daki122 ( talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this edit. We've got nothing but speculation as to the status of these villages, no confirmed, usuable sources (by the rules of this map) supporting a change. They are the front line villages - no one is suggesting we make further changes in the area, and since both rebels and SAA control villages directly adjacent these in question, regardless of who controls them they are the sites of continuous, probably daily small arms fire. I think this perpetual push to rid the map of contested icons is silly. We're talking about an active front line in a bloody conflict - and you want to (based entirely on speculation) take down the "fighting ongoing" icons? Also, Fajdan, Ja’arah (just north of Bluzah), and Aqrabah don't sit on the main highway supplying the SAA in Aleppo, which runs through al-Bab, East of Fajdan - so changing Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah based on the lack of reporting on that supply line being cut doesn't make sense either. Soo, come again on why exactly we're making this edit? Boredwhytekid ( talk) 17:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Because we have enough evidence(sources) that the rebel offensive in the area has been repulsed.We have several sources claiming that the Army pushed out the rebels and we have the fact that no opposition source is claiming any kind of fights in the area as well as SOHR which has not reported about fighting in the area form more than a week.SO unless you give a viable source that states the rebels are still in the area than we can talk.But the silence of opposition sources and the fact that no opposition source is gonna come out and say that the rebels were defeated and the fact that there were no other sources than SOHR(this is a pro-opp source that works on the data of anti-gov activists) has claimed a presence(more of a hit and run to distract government forces from other fronts they are doing the same against Nubl and Zahraa) of opposition fighters in the area.So to sum it all up we have enough evidence to support the changes that were made Daki122 ( talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The answer to this problem is to not put small villages as contested . Only change them when your sure they have been taken ,there are to many contested villages flashing away for months with no fighting going on . Pyphon ( talk)pyphon
Ok dude read above I explained why RT Arabic should be taken into consideration as a source I will not write it again.Also you have the upper sources stating that the Army pushed back the rebels.I also pointed out the problem with not taking into consideration government sources in the upper section(Opposition sources will never report that they have lost a battle the same thing is done by the government except in extreme cases like government source SANA reported about withdrawal from Nawa or Sohr about let's say the Hama counter offensive).Also your argument about the 1/4 kilometer distance beats it self because how do we know that the government isn't on the outskirts of the rebel held village or the fact that every rebel held village on the front line in E.Ghouta is 1/4 of a kilometer away from Army positions.I don't say that you are wrong and I'm right but what I want to say is that we need to compare sources and use all possible information to follow this war and make this map as accurate as possible.If you think that I am wrong than change it but keep in mind that that does not change the facts on the ground.Me and several editors have given sources and valid reasons for the change and have all agreed to make this changes per sources above. Daki122 ( talk) 16:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think green half circles on these villages would be a good compromise because it will show rebel presence to the west and the villages as Army held which we have In my opinion enough sources to confirm them. Daki122 ( talk) 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with ChrissCh94 seems best option until we get another source . Pyphon ( talk) 12:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Option 2 is by my opinion the best option for this situation. Daki122 ( talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Syrian moderate rebel groups now combined in the Syrian revolution command council (SROC) it seems this to be a final attempt by the Syrian rebels to form a united front against Assad, ISIS, JAN, Hezbollah and others. here here So now the situation is clarified and it becomes clear that an alliance of moderate insurgents and militants of Al Nusra Front officially cease to exist. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hanibal911 what do you think this means for Daraa? Pyphon ( talk) 11:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
I think after the insurgents get defeated in Yabroud -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arEnS1i3S7Y ; they move to attack this army storage base days latter and they claim they captured it -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k88uOBp5z4
But some one change that to red and put that besiege by insurgents
What happens there? -- Pototo1 ( talk) 07:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Pototo1 its very confused .First rebels take base then saaf bomb base then rebels leave then no more news nobody says saa moved in to retake so we think is dead ,ruined . Some editors want it removed from map some want it to show rebels in that area .I think this new icon is compromise of the unknown situation . Pyphon ( talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Following news items from Aranews (pro-opp, but has correctly reported most of SAA advances in the zone) claim IS control of Rafraf & Mafraq al-Saddiq plus the al-Siddiq junction, and Makhrum being contested between the two sides.
http://aranews.net/2014/11/syrian-regime-resumes-anti-isis-attacks-hasakah/ http://aranews.net/2014/12/islamic-state-seizes-villages-near-syrias-hasakah/
Aranews also reported recently that SAA controlled Bab al-Kheir and al-Jimmo:
http://aranews.net/2014/11/hasakah-turmoil-violence-intensifies-pro-assad-forces-isis/
-- 186.119.184.83 ( talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This pro-government source [1] states that Rafraf,Mafrak AlSadeek,Um AlKebar and Tal Tamer are under ISIS control. 192.135.12.144 ( talk) 20:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
now Al-Alam confirmed it http://www.alalam.ir/news/1654439. Alhanuty ( talk) 01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's Pototo arbitrarily removing lime circles. Here is me reverting. Here is him doing the same, again. Here is the conversation. Here, I restored, again, the sites he vandalized/unsourced edited. And finally, here our good friend LogFTW, still on a 6 month ban from this page, has restored Pototo's vandalistic edit. I can't revert or I'll break 1RR, and I feel like I'm opening myself up for charges of edit warring, but this has got to stop. I'm starting to wonder if this is sock puppetry. In any case, the trend is pretty obvious - I mean, LogFTW was willing to violate a 6 month page ban to support Pototo's clearly unsourced and blatantly false pro-gov't edit.
Concerning the Qalamoun region in general - I am for removing all of the lime concentric circles (Assal al Ward, Ras al Maara, etc) as soon as new icons for showing combatant's presence in a general area are ready to be applied to the map. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is here /info/en/?search=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Green_Circles_in_Al-Jebbah_and_Ras_al-Maraa_should_be_removed_if_you_no_have_sources.
You no have sources to make these green circles in these towns
End of Discussion. -- LogFTW ( talk) 15:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
News are saying that isis attacked the border crossing and killed 16 iraqi soliders. here. here. here. hereshould it go contested. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Last map from this area in August 2014 no showing these places no blocked by the insurgent in the west https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu6MGKyIEAA46Ji.jpg they are more away to Lebanese border
Link something as evidence the insurgents are BLOCKED Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa in the West side or these circles should be removed -- Pototo1 ( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be more clarity about what the semi circles mean. There should be no suggestion that they mean besieged or blocked but simply that they allude to a rebel presence near by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 ( talk) 11:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Link something just that!
The army take these place a long time ago /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Qalamoun
If close this area the Insurgents got a presence we must put all the Towns in Homs in Red circles is well know the insurgents in this place are not Stronger because the Lebanese Army fight them too /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Arsal ...
They are now in low scale insurgency no able to blocking these places -- Pototo1 ( talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The whole utility of the semi-circle icons that Andre437 created is that they allow us to show a belligerent's presence to a specific side of a town/city without incorrectly show said town/city as besieged.. That's why the Ras al-Maara, Assal al-Ward, etc only have lime to the west, and not in any other direction. Those towns are definitely not besieged, they are securely SAA held, but there are constant reports of fighting in the Qalamoun wastelands directly to the west. al-Bawaba, Daily Star, pro-gov't al-Manar, pro-gov't Syrianfreepress all reporting clashes in the area mid-November. Hence the necessity of the lime quarter circles to the West.. so that the map actually shows that there is still indeed clashes/rebel presence in the mountains Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sources 1 2 3 4 only talk about Assal al-Ward, i'm not removing the green circle in this place only in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa because the editor Boredwhytekid no showing a single evidence these towns are blocked in the west by the Insurgents.
Conclusion Boredwhytekid no have a single source to draw these green circles in west of Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Pototo1, I am done with you and your persistent vandalism. YOU are proposing a change to the map - YOU have to provide a source, not me. You edited without a source. I reverted because, for the umpteenth time, you have to provide a usable source. You reverted my revert, again trying to instigate an edit war. André437 ChrissCh94 Hanibal911... anyone other than myself give a crap enough to revert this vandalism? Really tired of being accused of being pro-op just because I'm the only one countering Pototo's pro-gov't vandalism... Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You are accusing me of Vandalism?
The only who are doing that here are you! Show me a single link saying Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa are blocked in West Side JUST A SINGLE LINK! ?
YOU NO PROVIDE A SINGLE FROM PUT THESE GREEN CIRCLES THERE!
You are making three greens circles in Places when that no exist with no a single evidence about it Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa it's very simple -- Pototo1 ( talk) 15:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa are not blocked / Besieges in this place the links who Boredwhytekid provide talk only about Assal al-Ward stop to put green circles there--
LogFTW (
talk)
14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
pro-gov't al masdar reports rebels on the outskirts of Rankous / rebuffed attack inside Rankous Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Reports on https://twitter.com/archicivilians of IS offensive around Deir-ez-Zor airport, claiming control of al-Mari'yah and advancing in the Jafrah area. Fab8405 ( talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Most news from archivilians and co. are retweeted from this channel, Syrian Opposition Department, pro-opposition obviously but not really biased, it has around 200k followers. You can scroll and look what they wrote about Deir Ezor and ISIS presence. Here are some SOHR reports from these days, 1, 2 and 3 DuckZz ( talk) 22:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwSN45Ovcgs&feature=youtu.be, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-fighters-capture-village-near-key-syrian-air-base/, http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/middle-east/story/isis-seizes-part-key-air-base-east-syria-monitor-group-20141206, Quite a few changes warranted here. I made one change, but someone else has to edit the inset map of Deir Ezzor to reflect IS changes there.
Some one put a green circle in North of Rankous Link a STRONG evidences it's besiege on North or ill be deleted that.
Stop to putting besiege / Blocked towns alleging just small insurgents "Presence" so we can put all Green Towns in South Idlib, North Of Latakia with red semicircles on South because the Army have a presence there too.
Be mature use the logic. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
True al masdar said JAN tried to enter Rankous but were pushed back . Because Arsaal is in control by Lebonese army they try to get in town its freezing in the mountains now . Pyphon ( talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Ongoing violent clashes in the area, I think it would be correct to put a partial black circle around the Shaer dot, if not a contested one... Fab8405 ( talk) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
https://ia802702.us.archive.org/23/items/m_Gzws/gzws.mp4 IS has retaken the Gas Fields. 184.21.191.36 ( talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Redundant post - This, the situation depicted in Daraa/Nawa is waaay out of date on desyracuse's map - THIS is why these random amateur maps should not be used as SOLE sources. Just felt the need to throw that out there, again. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
some of the town are in isis controll but in the old hasakah map are in SSA controll so we should change them ? here Lindi29 ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
According to this pro-govt source IS withdrew from the village Makhrum southwest of Hasakah after YPG attacked it:
https://www.facebook.com/Somar.Hatem.News/posts/528756497227943
I understand fb sources cannot be used for changes but has someone seen other sources that confirm or deny this information?
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Remember this discussion? I'm not asking for any change I just found something that proves my point back then when I showed pro-opp sources stating rebel withdrawal from the area. I know YouTube videos cannot and should not be used to depict any changes/advances but here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6mcpQHk3ro Just to prove my point that rebels have indeed retreated from the warehouses --> NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ChrissCh94 ( talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
YouTube videos cannot be used as references to make changes to the map. If you have a recent, valid, trustworthy pro-opp source that shows this change, then we can make the change. Please refer to the rules regarding this map, videos are not reliable sources.
I know that.. please read what I wrote then reply.. I did provide before clear pro-opp sources regarding rebel withdrawal from the area yet the editors refused them. I just wanted to prove my point using this video. I AM NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ON THIS MAP BASED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 16:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This map is site based not area base as many others available. Each dot on the map represents the status of the control of a specific site. 'Presence in the area' is not supposed to be represented. Therefore if these two sites are not under rebel control (but also not under SAA control), they must be removed. Paolowalter ( talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It was reported last week by pro gov almasdar that saa were advancing on Ad Dumayr .we have this town as in truce but it might be rebel and could have been base to take the two bases and then withdraw to . Pyphon ( talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Paolowalter is right, this map is supposed to be representative of specific sites, not presence in areas, but, if an accurate depiction of the ground situation is what we are aiming for, we have to indicate rebel activity in Eastern Qalamoun in some fashion. ChrissCh94, thanks to André437, we now have icons that may help us with the whole Eastern Qalamoun dilemma. I would be on board for the following: remove Battalion 559 and Khan Abu Shamat from the map; put directional lime concentrics roughly outlining/bordering the Eastern Qalamoun region - specifically, just to the East of Dumayr Military Airport, to the North of Sayqal Airbase, the East of Jayroud, and the East of Storage Base 555. I know, I know, none of those 4 SAA sites are being attacked/pressured - I'm not trying to propose an arbitrary rebel addition. But, I think that would resolve the Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat discrepancy in a way that correctly shows the status of those bases and still does justice to showing some rebel presence in Eastern Qalamoun. If we can work out a consensus along those lines, I'm game. Otherwise, I've gotta stick to my guns about keeping Battalion 559/Khan Abu Shamat as is, simply in the interest of a semi-true representation of the region. I mean, if we remove them and don't add said lime concentrics, then this map won't show any rebel presence within some 150mi.. which is patently false. Idk. Open to reasonable suggestions. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I can get on board with that suggestion - not sure if the unsourced addition of those green directional circles will fly though. Any other editors have comments/opinions/objections? Boredwhytekid ( talk) 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
https://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=1bf19643b8e23f7cc01c87d035bfee97
http://justpaste.it/islamicfront559
http://www.syrianarmyfree.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-68912.html
Combined with the video shown here the warehouses (or at least the army base nearby) are regime held. And we are not asking for green dots: we are asking for those half circles (THE BESIEGED FROM ONE SIDE) symbols to be put on the SAA sites in the area because the rebellion is kinda active there. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure that Tall Brak and Tall Hamis are controlled by ISIL?
All maps (pro-opp, neutral, and pro-gov), show these two towns under IS control, so it's very likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 ( talk) 08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
They are the same Is is a shortend version of ISIL. Pyphon ( talk) 08:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Documents.sy reports about bombardment of isis postions around Hula, in the north of Homs, by Syrian Army. So maybe add a black dot or change it from green to black?
I am new here so i dont know if that is an reliable source in this case. if not sorry. here the link: http://documents.sy/news.php?id=12172&lang=en
Thanks Blockeduser2014 ( talk) 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Welcome Blockebuster there have been reports of isis in many places by single sources but this is not enough evidence to change the map unless more sources say the same thing . Pyphon ( talk) 09:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Here updated map which show situation in Kobane area on 16 November.
here
Hanibal911 (
talk)
09:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
AS to some tiwtter sources, Isis had taken cereal hangars and kobani pass to turkey.
--
Khalil.aifaoui (
talk)
13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The 11th Tank Brigade (which was credited by some users to have taken the Khazzanat camp) DENIES in it's official page that the Khazzanat camp has been captured by the regime. They acknowledged advances towards it but NO CAPTURE. Therefore Khazzanat camp goes to GREEN with a red half circle south of it. https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/749090718504420 Translating it can be tough since he's talking in informal Arabic BUT he clearly denies the capture of the camp whilst confirming advances ChrissCh94 ( talk) 18:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
And according to the SAA FB account they took it. https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary (scroll down a bit) SyAAF ( talk) 18:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
ChrissCh94 I believe it was you who said al masdar and sohr should be used carefully and I agree .SOHRs two posts seem to contradict each other and al masdar said saa took the base then advanced on Khan shiekoun .We now have other sources saying Khan sheikoun is contested so if al masdar got that right ,with carefull consideration I think his post was correct . Pyphon ( talk) 20:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Chrissch94 once again you have shown how unbiased you are .those who accused you of pro gov bias are clearly wrong .Keep up the good work .respect . Pyphon ( talk) 08:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Pro gov sources say saa have taken Nawa-Shakh miskin road including tel al hamad and 112 army base but no pro op source said this yet so we must wait for more sources . Pyphon ( talk) 13:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
خطأ في إنشاء اتصال بقاعدة البيانات
Al Nusra have captured city Rastan in Homs Governorate after clashes with other rebel groups. This confirmed pro opposition source here pro government source here here and some other source. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
If this is true rebel infighting is spreading south but is not in Daraa yet .Until we get reports of this type in Daraa no icons for jan there . Pyphon ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Al Qaeda is in all places when are others insurgents group different than the Kurdish, but in what place they have a total control is unclear -- Pototo1 ( talk) 16:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been a long time I've not contributed to the map... Can Twitter be considered a relable source now ? I did not read about that anywhere else... 2A01:E34:EF99:8A90:280F:5B5:B138:4865 ( talk) 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Some people here often use DeSyracuse ( http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com and https://twitter.com/deSyracuse) maps as pro-insurgents, therefore using this source to justify government-held town. However, I did not find any evidence that DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent nor pro-government. Although he did some maps with Archicivilians, those maps are quite reflecting reality. So unless anybody has evidence DeSyracuse is pro-insurgent, I would suggest not to classify him as pro-insurgent 188.141.199.13 ( talk) 15:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes DeSyracuse is pro insurgent their maps usually favouring the Insurgents same case with Archicivilians.
Pro Government maps are Peto Lucem's maps but these map are very correct and precise based in my experience following the conflict.
Labrousse maps was the most precise pro Insurgents maps but he stopped to made maps time ago. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 16:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Hanibal here, Peto Lucem is more or less pro-regime despite stating rebel gains sometimes. DeSyracuse is moderate pro-opp but with very reliable/accurate maps. Archicivillians is way too pro-opp ChrissCh94 ( talk) 02:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The map in East Damascus showing the East Road in Jobar in conflict. http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010802646190.jpg
This is the Lucem map and showing this road http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010809625795.jpg
Same case with this another favouring the insurgents http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/11/28/141128010813695846.jpg
The insurgent in Jobar are totally besiege ?
Not at all they using the tunnels to East Ghouta as resupply system, put the surface is controlled by the Army this oncluding the road -- Pototo1 ( talk) 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Fix that in East Damascus map
/info/en/?search=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer/File:Rif_Damashq.svg --
Pototo1 (
talk)
20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The infiltration no count as disputed control all pro insurgent maps put this road under army control -- Pototo1 ( talk) 12:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to al-Zaahra and Nubl that there is heavy fighting going on there right now with shelling, carbombing etc.
Savalito ( talk) 17:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source said that was only one suicide attack which carried by Al Nusra Abu Hasna Jazrawi against city Al Zahraa (not two) and he didn't reach the gate of Al-Jood complex. Elijah J. Magnier And source said that cities of Al Zahraa and Nubol are still holding despite repetitive attack. SAF is dropping supply to surrounded cities. Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 ( talk) 12:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Its been 4 days since Almasdar and other pro gov sources said saa advanced and cut the road from jandoul roundabout to hanano also advancing in owieja and hanano districts but not one pro op source has said anything about this .Its a major event as it puts rebel held Allepo in siege cutting the last supply line .Any thoughts? Pyphon ( talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
SOHR latest post on Aleppo JAN is fighting SAA near Aleppo prison and at the airport .They must be advancing against the army pro gov sources must be lies or SOHR ? Pyphon ( talk) 09:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Syria direct pro op new map shows saa advance near jandoul roundabout ,owieja ,hanano . Pyphon ( talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Yes, I believe it is that one. Thanks. XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes not a good map to many flags on roads but its first pro op source to say saa advance to make almasdar map look correct . Pyphon ( talk) 12:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
SOHR is now quoting al nusra and its allies on his posts for Aleppo and Idlib which are unreliable his moderate sources have gone . Pyphon ( talk) 16:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Jabhat al-Nusra executed 13 Syrian rebel in village Kawkaba to south part of Idlib province after JAN taken this village. An-Nahar Elijah J. Magnier SOHR Also reliable source reported that JAN stormed the town of Kafr_Nabudah SRF and FSA handed over all their weapons. Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Acording to SOHR al-nusra captured the Aghoub Hill in al- Brej area here Lindi29 ( talk) 23:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody find and add these villages in the map 2 are captured by SAA and 3 are captured by al-nusra i think 1 of the villages is contested in south idlib between al-nusra and the free syrian army Kafr Sajneh or it is only Sinja here Lindi29 ( talk) 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
al tanf crosing border caotured by is İDHaberTakip ( talk) 07:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday well-known source Elijah J Magnier was talking about this on Twitter...he specified there was images of the attack and partial takeover by IS only about the Iraqi side of the border, not the Syrian one( there is a long distance, in a desert area, between the Iraqi and Syrian side). Fab8405 ( talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
While looking at the map, I noticed an inconstancy in the style of the icons on the map. While the controlled cities for all of the other factions are represented by a single, monotone color, the ones controlled by the Kurds appear to a) have a gray outline, and b) have a white spot in the middle. For the sake of consistency, wouldn't it be better for them to be a solid yellow? ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I noted this shit too. The new color is f****** terrible to watch. "The sake of consistency" does not matter (I never even noticed it). This is not a piece of art it´s a bureaucratic map. Revert and get rid of the epileptic-yellow fly-shit-dots already please!! Rhocagil ( talk) 13:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Our bellicose visitor has a point.. the current yellow is semi-blinding Boredwhytekid ( talk) 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Please revert to the old yellow, or change the background color of the map 8fra0 ( talk) 15:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if the majority of people really find it worse... I guess we should change it back. It would be better for everyone though if we just made it a darker, still monotone icon (if that reasonably doable) or if we just changed the background map color to a darker shade, like 8fra0 suggested (of course then we would probably have people complaining about how they liked the old background color instead) :) ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so I think I have an easy solution. I found the current file for the yellow dot and created a darker version () and reuploaded it to wikipedia so it can be found here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Dot_Yellow_Darker.svg. So, what do you guys think? ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the old ones were/are much better. If you should change any dots, change the red, green and grey ones to the same as the "old" yellow ones. Rhocagil ( talk) 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Like you said, this is a "bureaucratic map" and it should be as simplistic as possible to allow for viewers to quickly get a sense of the situation. The monotone colors help accomplish this by standing out against background (at least if the yellow icon is darkened) an effect which is diminished in the old yellow ones by the neutral gray border. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yellow dots on a yellow-isch background requires some kind of borderline. You can solve the problem by making the background grey, but then you will have the same problem with the grey dots. So why bother at all. I say revert and don´t bother. Rhocagil ( talk) 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Solution: Brown Background. Also, I think that the darker yellow ones will be easily discernible against the current background. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 23:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, change back yellow until you get your "brown" background. Rhocagil ( talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please revert to the old colour. The new colour is really hard to see. Readability is far more important than consistency. Esn ( talk) 09:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The middle one or the old one. Rhocagil ( talk) 13:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The kurdish held towns are still very hard to see, I strongly suggest to revert to the old icons, at least until the background color of the map has been changed 8fra0 ( talk) 17:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes still very hard. Rhocagil ( talk) 23:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please revert to the old icons. Yes, these ones are better than the previous ones, but they're still hard to see. Esn ( talk) 00:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not just have a solid colored icon with a light gray border that's the same shade as the original icon? Wouldn't that be both visible and match the other icons? ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but I have to stop editing the maps (especially the Iraqi map where there are plenty of yellow dots and icons) because I can't see what I'm doing, especially adding places/checking if towns are already on the map has become almost impossible. Please revert to the old icons. 8fra0 ( talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the rebel offensive has stalled/has been reversed. Many loy. sources stating that rebels never actually captured 3 villages but 1 that was later recaptured. I'm sure that we would have read in international news agencies that the regime has been besieged in Aleppo if that's what happened. I mean cutting the regime's only supply line to Aleppo has to be something important and heard of don't you guys agree? I'm not immediately suggesting we change them from contested to something else I'm just asking for more sources on the matter either they are pro-rebel or pro-regime. Just a clarification on who controls them. Small villages such as those can't be contested they're too small. ChrissCh94 ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
sources say saa repelled nusra attacks and this villages under saa control. 1- http://arabic.rt.com/features/765443-%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8/ 2- http://www.alahednews.com.lb/fastnews/240232/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%87%D8%AF-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B7%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9#.VHThoousWQl Hwinsp ( talk) 20:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
So far the only sources you have are pro-regime (RT and Ahed) talking about pro-regime gains. So not "till now we should turn them to red". Please try to be unbiased when you are working on this map.
Well SOHR is a pro-opposition source and we use it to show rebel gains heck we even used SOHR as a source for those villages also when do you think the opposition sources will admit that they were repelled from the area.Also RT has pretty good coverage and I don't know why is it called pro-regime just because it is from Russia it does not mean it is pro-regime.It is like calling all western and gulf media(with some exceptions) pro-opposition as there own states are all funding and supporting the rebels.Also SOHR will never report that the Army repelled the attack as there are no clashes in the area and they only report from where clashes are happening it is like waiting for conformation that will never be reported by any opposition source.The village of Fajdan is an example set by SHOR they reported clashes there a year ago and it is still contested but i'm pretty sure the Army has pushed them out of that village as it sit's near a vital supply road for the Army but SOHR never reports from here as there is no clashes.That is why you need to compare both parties sources and see where they differ.If the government(pro-gov source) took over a village and suddenly SOHR(or other opposition sources) stops reporting from there it means that the first party took the village.This also go for pro-opp media reporting gain and government sources stop reporting on the matter then the opposition advanced and if both parties claim control you put them contested until a there is clear info from the area. Daki122 ( talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this edit. We've got nothing but speculation as to the status of these villages, no confirmed, usuable sources (by the rules of this map) supporting a change. They are the front line villages - no one is suggesting we make further changes in the area, and since both rebels and SAA control villages directly adjacent these in question, regardless of who controls them they are the sites of continuous, probably daily small arms fire. I think this perpetual push to rid the map of contested icons is silly. We're talking about an active front line in a bloody conflict - and you want to (based entirely on speculation) take down the "fighting ongoing" icons? Also, Fajdan, Ja’arah (just north of Bluzah), and Aqrabah don't sit on the main highway supplying the SAA in Aleppo, which runs through al-Bab, East of Fajdan - so changing Fajdan, Ja'arah, and Aqrabah based on the lack of reporting on that supply line being cut doesn't make sense either. Soo, come again on why exactly we're making this edit? Boredwhytekid ( talk) 17:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Because we have enough evidence(sources) that the rebel offensive in the area has been repulsed.We have several sources claiming that the Army pushed out the rebels and we have the fact that no opposition source is claiming any kind of fights in the area as well as SOHR which has not reported about fighting in the area form more than a week.SO unless you give a viable source that states the rebels are still in the area than we can talk.But the silence of opposition sources and the fact that no opposition source is gonna come out and say that the rebels were defeated and the fact that there were no other sources than SOHR(this is a pro-opp source that works on the data of anti-gov activists) has claimed a presence(more of a hit and run to distract government forces from other fronts they are doing the same against Nubl and Zahraa) of opposition fighters in the area.So to sum it all up we have enough evidence to support the changes that were made Daki122 ( talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The answer to this problem is to not put small villages as contested . Only change them when your sure they have been taken ,there are to many contested villages flashing away for months with no fighting going on . Pyphon ( talk)pyphon
Ok dude read above I explained why RT Arabic should be taken into consideration as a source I will not write it again.Also you have the upper sources stating that the Army pushed back the rebels.I also pointed out the problem with not taking into consideration government sources in the upper section(Opposition sources will never report that they have lost a battle the same thing is done by the government except in extreme cases like government source SANA reported about withdrawal from Nawa or Sohr about let's say the Hama counter offensive).Also your argument about the 1/4 kilometer distance beats it self because how do we know that the government isn't on the outskirts of the rebel held village or the fact that every rebel held village on the front line in E.Ghouta is 1/4 of a kilometer away from Army positions.I don't say that you are wrong and I'm right but what I want to say is that we need to compare sources and use all possible information to follow this war and make this map as accurate as possible.If you think that I am wrong than change it but keep in mind that that does not change the facts on the ground.Me and several editors have given sources and valid reasons for the change and have all agreed to make this changes per sources above. Daki122 ( talk) 16:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think green half circles on these villages would be a good compromise because it will show rebel presence to the west and the villages as Army held which we have In my opinion enough sources to confirm them. Daki122 ( talk) 13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with ChrissCh94 seems best option until we get another source . Pyphon ( talk) 12:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Option 2 is by my opinion the best option for this situation. Daki122 ( talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Syrian moderate rebel groups now combined in the Syrian revolution command council (SROC) it seems this to be a final attempt by the Syrian rebels to form a united front against Assad, ISIS, JAN, Hezbollah and others. here here So now the situation is clarified and it becomes clear that an alliance of moderate insurgents and militants of Al Nusra Front officially cease to exist. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hanibal911 what do you think this means for Daraa? Pyphon ( talk) 11:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
I think after the insurgents get defeated in Yabroud -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arEnS1i3S7Y ; they move to attack this army storage base days latter and they claim they captured it -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k88uOBp5z4
But some one change that to red and put that besiege by insurgents
What happens there? -- Pototo1 ( talk) 07:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Pototo1 its very confused .First rebels take base then saaf bomb base then rebels leave then no more news nobody says saa moved in to retake so we think is dead ,ruined . Some editors want it removed from map some want it to show rebels in that area .I think this new icon is compromise of the unknown situation . Pyphon ( talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Following news items from Aranews (pro-opp, but has correctly reported most of SAA advances in the zone) claim IS control of Rafraf & Mafraq al-Saddiq plus the al-Siddiq junction, and Makhrum being contested between the two sides.
http://aranews.net/2014/11/syrian-regime-resumes-anti-isis-attacks-hasakah/ http://aranews.net/2014/12/islamic-state-seizes-villages-near-syrias-hasakah/
Aranews also reported recently that SAA controlled Bab al-Kheir and al-Jimmo:
http://aranews.net/2014/11/hasakah-turmoil-violence-intensifies-pro-assad-forces-isis/
-- 186.119.184.83 ( talk) 16:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This pro-government source [1] states that Rafraf,Mafrak AlSadeek,Um AlKebar and Tal Tamer are under ISIS control. 192.135.12.144 ( talk) 20:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
now Al-Alam confirmed it http://www.alalam.ir/news/1654439. Alhanuty ( talk) 01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's Pototo arbitrarily removing lime circles. Here is me reverting. Here is him doing the same, again. Here is the conversation. Here, I restored, again, the sites he vandalized/unsourced edited. And finally, here our good friend LogFTW, still on a 6 month ban from this page, has restored Pototo's vandalistic edit. I can't revert or I'll break 1RR, and I feel like I'm opening myself up for charges of edit warring, but this has got to stop. I'm starting to wonder if this is sock puppetry. In any case, the trend is pretty obvious - I mean, LogFTW was willing to violate a 6 month page ban to support Pototo's clearly unsourced and blatantly false pro-gov't edit.
Concerning the Qalamoun region in general - I am for removing all of the lime concentric circles (Assal al Ward, Ras al Maara, etc) as soon as new icons for showing combatant's presence in a general area are ready to be applied to the map. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is here /info/en/?search=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Green_Circles_in_Al-Jebbah_and_Ras_al-Maraa_should_be_removed_if_you_no_have_sources.
You no have sources to make these green circles in these towns
End of Discussion. -- LogFTW ( talk) 15:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
News are saying that isis attacked the border crossing and killed 16 iraqi soliders. here. here. here. hereshould it go contested. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Last map from this area in August 2014 no showing these places no blocked by the insurgent in the west https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu6MGKyIEAA46Ji.jpg they are more away to Lebanese border
Link something as evidence the insurgents are BLOCKED Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa in the West side or these circles should be removed -- Pototo1 ( talk) 18:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
There needs to be more clarity about what the semi circles mean. There should be no suggestion that they mean besieged or blocked but simply that they allude to a rebel presence near by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.181.174 ( talk) 11:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Link something just that!
The army take these place a long time ago /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Qalamoun
If close this area the Insurgents got a presence we must put all the Towns in Homs in Red circles is well know the insurgents in this place are not Stronger because the Lebanese Army fight them too /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Arsal ...
They are now in low scale insurgency no able to blocking these places -- Pototo1 ( talk) 12:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The whole utility of the semi-circle icons that Andre437 created is that they allow us to show a belligerent's presence to a specific side of a town/city without incorrectly show said town/city as besieged.. That's why the Ras al-Maara, Assal al-Ward, etc only have lime to the west, and not in any other direction. Those towns are definitely not besieged, they are securely SAA held, but there are constant reports of fighting in the Qalamoun wastelands directly to the west. al-Bawaba, Daily Star, pro-gov't al-Manar, pro-gov't Syrianfreepress all reporting clashes in the area mid-November. Hence the necessity of the lime quarter circles to the West.. so that the map actually shows that there is still indeed clashes/rebel presence in the mountains Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Sources 1 2 3 4 only talk about Assal al-Ward, i'm not removing the green circle in this place only in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa because the editor Boredwhytekid no showing a single evidence these towns are blocked in the west by the Insurgents.
Conclusion Boredwhytekid no have a single source to draw these green circles in west of Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Pototo1, I am done with you and your persistent vandalism. YOU are proposing a change to the map - YOU have to provide a source, not me. You edited without a source. I reverted because, for the umpteenth time, you have to provide a usable source. You reverted my revert, again trying to instigate an edit war. André437 ChrissCh94 Hanibal911... anyone other than myself give a crap enough to revert this vandalism? Really tired of being accused of being pro-op just because I'm the only one countering Pototo's pro-gov't vandalism... Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You are accusing me of Vandalism?
The only who are doing that here are you! Show me a single link saying Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa are blocked in West Side JUST A SINGLE LINK! ?
YOU NO PROVIDE A SINGLE FROM PUT THESE GREEN CIRCLES THERE!
You are making three greens circles in Places when that no exist with no a single evidence about it Al-Jebbah or Ras al-Maraa it's very simple -- Pototo1 ( talk) 15:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa are not blocked / Besieges in this place the links who Boredwhytekid provide talk only about Assal al-Ward stop to put green circles there--
LogFTW (
talk)
14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
pro-gov't al masdar reports rebels on the outskirts of Rankous / rebuffed attack inside Rankous Boredwhytekid ( talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Reports on https://twitter.com/archicivilians of IS offensive around Deir-ez-Zor airport, claiming control of al-Mari'yah and advancing in the Jafrah area. Fab8405 ( talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Most news from archivilians and co. are retweeted from this channel, Syrian Opposition Department, pro-opposition obviously but not really biased, it has around 200k followers. You can scroll and look what they wrote about Deir Ezor and ISIS presence. Here are some SOHR reports from these days, 1, 2 and 3 DuckZz ( talk) 22:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwSN45Ovcgs&feature=youtu.be, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-fighters-capture-village-near-key-syrian-air-base/, http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/middle-east/story/isis-seizes-part-key-air-base-east-syria-monitor-group-20141206, Quite a few changes warranted here. I made one change, but someone else has to edit the inset map of Deir Ezzor to reflect IS changes there.
Some one put a green circle in North of Rankous Link a STRONG evidences it's besiege on North or ill be deleted that.
Stop to putting besiege / Blocked towns alleging just small insurgents "Presence" so we can put all Green Towns in South Idlib, North Of Latakia with red semicircles on South because the Army have a presence there too.
Be mature use the logic. -- Pototo1 ( talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
True al masdar said JAN tried to enter Rankous but were pushed back . Because Arsaal is in control by Lebonese army they try to get in town its freezing in the mountains now . Pyphon ( talk) 10:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)pyphon
Ongoing violent clashes in the area, I think it would be correct to put a partial black circle around the Shaer dot, if not a contested one... Fab8405 ( talk) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
https://ia802702.us.archive.org/23/items/m_Gzws/gzws.mp4 IS has retaken the Gas Fields. 184.21.191.36 ( talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Redundant post - This, the situation depicted in Daraa/Nawa is waaay out of date on desyracuse's map - THIS is why these random amateur maps should not be used as SOLE sources. Just felt the need to throw that out there, again. Boredwhytekid ( talk) 14:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
some of the town are in isis controll but in the old hasakah map are in SSA controll so we should change them ? here Lindi29 ( talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
According to this pro-govt source IS withdrew from the village Makhrum southwest of Hasakah after YPG attacked it:
https://www.facebook.com/Somar.Hatem.News/posts/528756497227943
I understand fb sources cannot be used for changes but has someone seen other sources that confirm or deny this information?