![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
village al-Aziziyah still not taken of rebels still under control by SAA. source SOHR source source source 37.52.29.85 ( talk) 07:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you please think over the "Yellow" color ? It is indeed very hard to distinguish this color in a background map which ist itself almost yellow ( light Yellowish beige). I think a more forceful color ( yellowish orange) ist much better to see and is not far from this accustomed yellow.to compare:
compare
--
212.75.52.4 (
talk) 08:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Your proposal is much better.
AND: here is a new encahced road map (some more roads) : enhanced1 -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 10:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Rebels give deadline in the 48 hours for YPG in order that they to withdraw from the 7 villages Maryamayn, Inab, Qanbrya, Tatmarash, Shawarighat, Tanab, Al-Kishta'ar in Aleppo countryside. Charles Lister source source pro-opposition source said that the rebels will use force to retake from YPG these villages source source also pro-opposition source said that the YPG is trying to storm FSA-Held village of Malikiyah near Azaz. source source and attacking villages of Ziyarah and Turabiyah source source 37.52.24.241 ( talk) 19:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest news from Al-Masdar SDF fronted by Jaysh Al-Thuwar takes Malikiya. Rhocagil ( talk) 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
http://aranews.org/2015/11/ypg-%D8%AA%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4/ Maryamayn reportedly recaptured by Afrin SDF according to ARA. Can I make edit? Prohibited Area ( talk) 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Breaking: Syrian Army Captures the Strategic Village of Arafat in Northeast Latakia
Syrian Army Captures Jabal Kashkar in Northern #Latakia . --
212.75.52.4 (
talk) 11:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
It will be very interesting to see the locations of russian airbases ( there will be 2 of them soon) and russian marine base. As a symbole, a ' Red Star'( the sigh of Russian Air Force) can be used. -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 09:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Pro-opp. news source Qasioun News said that the ISIS advance against rebels in northern countryside of Aleppo and capture the villages of Kafrah and Jarez. here Also other pro opp. source said that ISIS also capture the village of Al Bel. here SOHR also reported that ISIS capture villag Kafrah and other villages near with the village of Kufrah. SOHR SOHR 46.200.247.232 ( talk) 10:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&type=revision&diff=693329332&oldid=693293217 I must inform that the guy who owns this archicivilians blog is extremely pro-salafi FSA/JaN and this is evident for instance in his twitter account. The village of Anab is under YPG control as stated in this ANHA repport (+with images) where a delegation from Afrin visits Anab and its surrounding Maryamain: http://hawarnews.com/%D9%88%D9%81%D8%AF-%D9%8A%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A8/ Roboskiye ( talk) 08:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Roboskiye
I believe that this town is, and always was, under rebel control since 2011. It was changed once back but i can't remember why. Since that, it is shown as under rebel control on every map published for that region. We can't copy maps. There are no clashes in this town, and that'y why every source is months old, for example on SOHR. Dunno what to say. DuckZz ( talk) 23:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't be in a rush to change something, but there seems to be a (at least agreed) deal for rebels to pull out of this place and be safely moved to other rebel-held places. So the control of this town will eventually change to Syrian government...after the implementation fo the deal http://news.yahoo.com/syria-deal-rebels-leave-last-homs-district-governor-131754086.html Be cautious because the deal is not implemented yet, so currently the control is mostly from rebels(or mixed)...this might change any time soon
It should be put under truce for now and then changed to red when all whatever opposition forces have left. Rhocagil ( talk) 19:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Then all the small isis and Fake Syrian Army villages should be all removed that are not near a frontline, too many SAA held areas are vanishing from the map such as the Eastern Damascus countryside which has several large towns are shown on other maps but ISIS and Fake syrian army supporters remove them from our map here. Stop distorting the fucking maps.
According to this, "Iran is preparing two squadrons of Sukhoi to engage the war in Syria. These will be stationed at the T4 Syrian military airport in Homs, very close to Palmyra (Tadmur), previously known as Tiyas."
Should the name be changed, then? Maybe with the old one kept in brackets? Esn ( talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
T4 is nick name of the airbase because T4 Pumping Station is nearby. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
SOHR said that SAA retake Tell Dadin. SOHR 46.201.223.212 ( talk) 10:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
+ SAA and allies capture Jbel al-Arbin and Tel al-Bakkarah. -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 10:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
All pro SAA maps are way more modest with SAA gains near Kweiris airport compared to this map. I know maps made by pro gov/opp are not reliable source but masdar is saying the same http://s3.img7.ir/00Ab3.jpg Aqulah captured, not even close to Deir Hafer http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/tiger-forces-expand-the-buffer-zone-around-the-kuweires-military-airport-rasm-al-abid-grain-silos-captured/ Totholio ( talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
ISIS "captured" from Islamists town of Baraghedeh, Northern Aleppo. -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 13:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Pro-opp. source (Local Coordination Committees of Syrıa) said that the today reinforcements arrived from the Shaatat tribes(loyal to Assad) for fight along with the SDF against ISIS in Shaddadi to south of city Hasakah. here here 46.201.223.212 ( talk) 21:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I seen that too so how can rebel affiliates (apparently) fight along side Syrian Arab Army soldiers that these tribes men are basically, as they have fought with the republican guard in Hasakah and Deri El Zoir, I think all SDF half green half yellow should just be made yellow it seems its mostly ypg and very little "rebels" if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.232.61 ( talk) 12:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The SDF has al Arab component of some 5000 to 7000 men. Those groups belong either to the Free Syrian Army of to local tribal forces. They are as following:
1. Kobani: Burkan al-Furat operations room 2. Raqqah province: Liwa Thuwar Raqqa (hundreds of fighters) and Burkan al-Furat 3. Hasakah province: some FSA (mainly Liwa Tahrir Souriya) and the local Arab Al-Sanadeed Force (1700 fighters)
I think we should make a new color for the SDF. The only problem is that the Kurds won't be an autonomous entity that way, whilst the YPG is the strongest component of the SDF. So, green-yellow dots should be put into place as long as we don't have a true SDF color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 18:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion was done before, the conclusion is that SDF is represented by yellow. Green-yellow is a lie because the green here has nothing to do with the green of the rest of Syria. YPG (not kurds) fight under the banner of SDF now, so yellow means SDF and only YPG. That simple. Paolowalter ( talk) 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Al Masdar states that Katf Al-Ziyarah was captured by SAA. It is not clear if it means Az Ziyārah or, as suggested on twitter Katf Al-Ziyarah in north Latakia. Any idea? Paolowalter ( talk) 12:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
there are some difficulties showing SDF advances on the map while we have some rebels including ahrar sham fighting other rebels SDF (green vs green).
maybe its the time we make some changes in alliances. I think there are two types of rebels. those who ally JAN and those who are not. we can find some rebels including ahrar sham, jaysh al islam, jund al aghsa, zinki etc. whom often coordinate alnusra fighting kurds and SAA.and they never fought alnusra. maybe they better be grey or a variant of grey.
at the other side we can find moderate rebels (frankly they are a few on the map) including SDF. they could be green or any other color. 85.15.42.246 ( talk) 05:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Question ...Does the SDF fight against the SAA .If not can they be classified as rebels?
Yes they can, since they reject the regime administration and rule their held areas independently from the regime
Well that maybe your interpritaton but they seem to kill more FSA and I.S. than Government Army troops . 86.178.102.85 ( talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't care about that. Rebel groups fight against each other, so what ? Both are still rebels and their tensions should not care us. Our map shows the clashes between Rebels/Gov./Kurds and ISIS, everything else is just too detailed and not for this map, as this map is made to understand the Syrian conflict under normal conditions, for normal people. The current clashes between FSA and FSA under SDF coalition is just politic and nothing else. Ignore it and keep editing the map based on rules. DuckZz ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hardly read something more nonsense. Once former FSA and FSA (if it still exists) fight with each other they are not in the same alliance anymore. Furthermore SDF is not fighting anymore (or as YPG has never fought) the government, the situation changes rapidly. As far as I can judge, government and SDF are de facto allies. They fight th esame enemies: IS, Al-Nusra, FSA (whatever that means), Turkey and Sausi Arabia. They are both supported by Russia. The only difference is that SDF is somehow backed by USA while government is opposed. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We can add this to the description under the map: "
= Kurds (Including
EV &
SDF )" or we can add: "
EV &
SDF ". (ping!
Prohibited Area). And
DuckZz this is one of the most important things that have happened on the ground since the Russian intervention and maybe also a result of it, so this tension care the situation a alot.
Rhocagil (
talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Rhocagil ( talk) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
All FSA are islamits they snackbaring all time and forced women to wearing Vein when they are
Syrian army and Kurds are secular but Kudrs are separatits Kurds just controlled the so called SDF
The yellow dot should also include a notation mentioning the fact there are non-Kurdish fighters embedded in SDF coalition which are classed as yellow. We should decide on which rebels that hold territory should be classed as 'Salafists' [Radical Rebels] and which should be 'moderate' opposition. We should then link the list to the key. Prohibited Area ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Therefore:
Can we also amend Armed Groups in Syrian War to detail Salafist and Syrian Opposition groups and use that as a reference for the key. Prohibited Area ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I say this is a stupid idea. and will be waist of time and effort and unmaintainable. I longtime apposed the seperate color for Al-Nusra and here it is going even worse. And all nusra vs FSA control on our map is wrong. no other map has this distinction . Nusra exists everware in green are and in small groups. no single evidence of them controlling any land with no othergroup presence. the map is perfect as it is. clashes between kurds and rebels is clear no need for more colors if there are some arabs between kurgs so what they are still kurds domilated Helmy1453 ( talk) 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a stupid idea and it will ruin the map. This is wikipedia and not twitter where trolls and underage kids have disqusions about "goatfuckers and the difference between 2 million rebel groups, islamists, bit less, more less, less more, terrorists, extremists, moderate, less moderate". Please spare us this nonsense and keep editing the map as it this. DuckZz ( talk) 23:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It seams that at least there is a consensus of this *
= Kurdish Forces (&
SDF Coalition)
Rhocagil (
talk) 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
All insurgents are except the Kurds are islamists
Al Qaeda (Nusra) have minor or major presence in all areas controlled by the Insurgents the SDF is totally controlled by the Kurds- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.138.186 ( talk) 21:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the template to that
= Kurds (Including
Affiliates. I will await furthermore discussion and overall consensus on whether to expand these edits so that
File:Disc plain green dark.svg = Salafists and
File:Dot lime green.svg = Moderate Rebels.
Prohibited Area (
talk) 15:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Such the good and intresting solution in this issue. Allah bless of Kurds! Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still against this. Rebel factions have clashed in the past, yet we still count them as rebels. Furthermore, the claim that all non-SDF rebels are extremists is incredibly biased, and some of the comments here seem suspiciously opinionated. We cannot let bias or our own personal opinion take precedence over fact. Plus, the Kurd's relationship with the government is mixed at best. The same goes for their relationship with the rebels. I see no reason for the change in color. Anasaitis ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
If we should not add more colors to the map it would be logical to include all of the
Jaish al-Fatah operation room under the color
of Al-Nusra. They are all co-operating and they all are in favor of a sharia-state.
Rhocagil (
talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean MWAA, JAAD, and other groups not presented in SRCC. It will be much more logical if they will be displayed gray as JaN. - 81.177.127.236 ( talk) 20:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course, then remove the green color, replace is with grey because we know Al Qaida makes up 90% of rebels and 9% are other jihady groups, 1% are foreign moderates which we should mark as green in 1 or 2 villages. Now go back to twitter and spit your anger somewere else. DuckZz ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course. Make everything grey, because the entire of northern Syria is in the hands of throat-cutters (sarcasm). No, wait, even better: make everything black and quote Russian sources, because they are bombing Islamic State in Latakia and Idlib! So, back to the real world and objectivity: bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 13:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA captured the al Frolloq forests and Tall Ghazalah Hill in the northern countryside of Latakia. SOHR FoXrEpOrTeR ( talk) 11:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Regime forces with support Hizbullah seize over wide areas in Marej in eastern Ghouta after intense clashes with opposition forces. source 46.201.223.212 ( talk) 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Al Sooda in Latakia is green but is a newly added village of last month and was added green with no source, every map I see pro opp and pro gov this is not shown as rebel held, it is a very small village, why would they bypass this small village on a main supply route to take a bigger town? Plus all the force in that area. Just making the case that it is highly unlikely this is rebel held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.239.182 ( talk) 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Some maps report e.g. Turus and Bayt Ablak rebel controlled. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The coordinate of Al Sooda are lat = "35.803", long = "35.981" that on wikimapia corresponds to [Karabacakli http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=35.803057&lon=35.980997&z=15&m=b&show=/33804611/Karabacakli]. The name is wrong the possession dubious, the village is tiny and of no particular relevance: I support removing it. Paolowalter ( talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Twitter reports of Mughayriyah taken by SAA no confirmation yet . 86.135.154.68 ( talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Peto Lucem had this as rebel held on the 21st November https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUWHh0lWwAArlmz.jpg Conservative Thinker ( talk) 17:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/673934729884901376 reports that SAA pulled out shortly after taking it. Paolowalter ( talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a redundant shade of black in red and yellow icons for oil/gas which gives the wrong impression as if they are under siege by ISIS. Can someone correct this by changing the current icons to the respective monochromatic colors. Roboskiye ( talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Government forces captured villages of Khalasah, Al Hamra, Zaytan, Qal`ajiyah and most part of Birnah. SOHR source source source FoXrEpOrTeR ( talk) 13:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It was taken by rebels last week but not reported on much . 86.135.154.68 ( talk) 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Rebels take full control of Banes [3]. Also there is conflicting information about control of Birnah in two al-Masdar articles from today: 14 hours ago: SAA control 80 percent of village Burnah. [4]. 12 hours ago: Birnah is "islamist-held" [5]. I would propose to go with the latest article, that is, the article stating that Birnah is islamist-held. Schluppo ( talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (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. |
"YPG (and Affiliates" should be changed to "YPG (and Affiliates)" or even better to "YPG and allies" given that SDF is an alliance (as stated on their wikipedia page) and affiliate isn't that clear as to what it means. Formagella ( talk) 22:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
SDF are only a force of 2000 (If that) men mixed in with around 40,000 Kurds, just because someone makes a wiki page doesn't mean its factual. This map would be to complicated if we started adding all the various groups that make up Syrian Armys alliance, which many have forces much larger such as Hezbollah estimated 15000-20000 where is their colour? Or the IRGC 10000 where is their colour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.237.246 ( talk) 23:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Clashes broke out between the Kurdish fighters and al-Nusra militants in the villages of Tanb, Kashatar and al-Malikiya north of Aleppo. Also Al Nusra/Ahrar al-Sham bombing the YPG-held village of Shawargha. source Sûriyeya ( talk) 10:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This is pro-Kurdish source. can't be used as an evidence for kurdish gains. do you have pro-rebel or pro-government source ? Helmy1453 ( talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Al-Masdar, rebels and the Army managed to agree in leaving of rebels the district thus all Homs is under control of the Syrian goverment. The rebels have yet to leave the area, but there are no clashes [6]. Oroszka ( talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
For now it should probably be marked as under truce. Rhocagil ( talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Change to cease fire if we no have more news will be change to contested again the next days -- LogFTW ( talk) 22:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Al-Waer is under truce for sometimes till evacuation is completed. Once evacuation is completed, it goes to red, see e.g. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Dec-02/325534-deal-reached-for-last-holdouts-to-exit-homs.ashx. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the area now is considered reconciled. The rebell parts that didn't agree to were transferred to Idleb. The rebell part that did agree stays and will act as some kind of protector to the peace-agreement. Thera are other areas like this around Damascus. The area should not be marked as contested it should be marked as under peace (purple) or as government (red). Rhocagil ( talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Here SOHR stats SAA bombed the two towns... http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/clashes-in-homs-and-lattakia-countrysides/ ...maybe they really said "around" them and this was a bad translation, or the two towns are back in IS hands? Not clear, need to read the original Arabic... Fab8405 ( talk) 11:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
IS-sources claim that IS took Jabal al-Hazzm (aka Hizam Hills) near Sadad, but we have to wait for reliable sources to report on the situation in this area. Schluppo ( talk) 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
According to our map (and based on previous al-Masdar reports), SAA controls these two villages for several weeks. Of course we cannot use the folowing pro-SAA map as a source, but it shows current pro-government claims: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/675063271653810178. So I think it is appropriate to doubt whether SAA really controls these two villages, and in fact, anything south-east of Aqulah farms. We should look out for reliable information about actual control on these locations. Also I would like to note: al-Masdar is reporting a lot of fishy or at least ambigous information in the recent weeks. Schluppo ( talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Multiple pro-Government sources have these villages as ISIS held. I do consider al-Masdar reliable but they are not perfect (no source is) and the evidence is pretty clear that they have got this wrong. Conservative Thinker ( talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Seams like they should be changed to black for now. Rhocagil ( talk) 18:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Source [7] Mr.User200 ( talk) 13:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Posted 12/9/2015. The map says "This page was last modified on 12 November 2015, at 07:28," whereas that is clearly not true, per JPG and "talk page" discussion. Is there not a better way of dating changes and identifying significant changes that have occurred than digging through the debates on the "talk page?" My suggestion is that the map page should be undated, and that in place of the date near the page bottom there should be a link to a "log page" summarizing significant changes, minimally with dates and description of change. For example, I had to dig deep to understand that the color changes south of Hasakah and in northwest Raqqah province are due, apparently, to a change in definitions, not a change in territorial control. --- Thanks, PNA PaulNalabama ( talk) 23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The situation in Latakia North along the border has been fully controlled by the SAA, lack of updates over the last three weeks means there is now 7-10 strategic hilltops and around 20 towns and villages along this route that are not shown in Syrian Armys control,,Not even on the map, I bet if it were some Al queda FSA group though it would be updated instantly. Al masdar has been active in stating most of these villages over the last 3 weeks, why has latakia not been updated??? just blanks where the SAA have been advancing??? and This map just looks the same for the last year in Latakia area even though in the last 3 weeks over 170 km squared captured here:
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1768499
http://sana.sy/en/?p=63906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.111 ( talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I've made this kmz file. It's useful for both making sure that the cities and towns marked on this map are in the right place and also for identifying cities that we have overlooked. I don't know Arabic so it's hard for me to find sources on these cities but it might be useful for someone else. Some of these cities are really obviously under one groups control because all of the surrounding cities for a very long way are controlled by that group. Anyways, I hope you guys find it useful. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 19:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, also, it updates automatically when the png file is updated. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA captured the villages of Abu Ruwayl, Sa'ibiyah,Murayqis,Dulamah,Qurayhah,Al Sahibiya. source source source source Sûriyeya ( talk) 21:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone changed every joint rebel-YPG icon to yellow color in the entire Raqqa and Hasaka province. This is the biggest edit on this map since its creation and no source was provided. We had no discussion on the talk page about it, only few troll arguments and nothing was agreed about that. 13 rebel groups are part of the SDF in Hasaka province, 5 rebels groups are part of the Burkan Firat coalition in Raqqa province, 2 are working separately.......... The user who made this edid should be lifetime banned. DuckZz ( talk) 14:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Calling trolls all the editors who joined the discussion is extremly offensive and should bring you to lifetime ban. In summary: the few (former rebels) groups that joined YPG to form SDF basically abndoned their original agenda of fighting the government and are dedicated to fight ISIS and sometimes other rebel groups like in northern Aleppo. Paolowalter ( talk) 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The SDF has no presence in Raqqa province. The SDF was created and operates in Hasaka. Liwa Thuwar Raqqa stated that they work independently in Raqqa province and that they have 6 000 members (i don't care if true or not) and Burkan Firat still exists in Raqqa province and they control Ayn Isa, Tell Abyad and Sarrin. Every rebel group from Raqqa said that they are a FSA group but not linked with other rebels in Aleppo. They deserv their own color, they are not Kurds, not Kurdish groups. Joint control is a must in Raqqa province, while i agree for Hasaka that we should not mark every village as under joint control, until we have 100% source. Raqqa should be changed ... i do not believe you actually did this. DuckZz ( talk) 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
DuckZz The edit was agreed by the majority of editors on the basis of the clashes between FSA factions in north Aleppo making it hard to distinguish between the various factions. Therefore we adapted the map so that the yellow icon represented the Kurds including the affiliated Syrian Democratic Forces. Euphrates Volcano is also a part of this SDF therefore the yellow-green icons in Aleppo and Raqqa governorates were also changed to yellow, which indicates either Kurdish or SDF control. Prohibited Area ( talk) 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area You're making a big mistake. 60% of the discussion wasn't about Raqqa at all, you discussed about because no color was changed to dark green or smth like that, other arguments around 20% were about Hasaka, and .. somehow i do agree because the YPG is the main faction there and the color should stay yellow, until we find an Kurdish source where it says that "rebels" alone captured something. But Raqqa wasn't mentioned at all and that's a huge mistake. Rebels gained a lot since Kobane, and Thuwar Raqqa brigade stated and repeated itself that they have at least 6 000 soldiers now and are working seperately, and according to them, they captured Tell Abyad alone (hard to believe but still) also SOHR stated that Rebels captured the 93.brigade near Ayn Issa, and the town was captured by both Rebels and Kurds. Basically Raqqa province is full with various rebel groups, some of them are part of Burkan Firat, others arent, and this province is important for rebels more than Kurds, and it's crazy to mark everthing with yellow where under the description yellow stands for "Kurds" which is crazy. I hear a lot of complainment about this change, from twitter to facebook, from both opposition members and even Kurds. This map can't show the situation like this. JUST LOOK AT THIS, he's a reliable reporter and we use him as a source. What will happen is rebels capture Raqqa, it goes yellow too ? I mean what the hell. Change Raqqa province as it was, and it will be fine, because Hasaka itself is a big edit, and you have my approval because i find it OK, but changing 2 provinces is too big for 1 edit. I edit this map for 2 years now, and believe me i want only the best for this map. DuckZz ( talk) 00:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't this dispute be solved by changing the color to something besides yellow or green. Maybe purple? It seems to me DuckZz's main concern is that yellow has been used on this map to represent the Kurds, so it's confusing to extend it to non-Kurdish groups. A color change would solve that. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 08:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
We should avoid making the map more complicated than necessary. There are so many different revel groups and factions that we could have about 20 different colours but each time one is added things just become more confusing. All we need is
Government + Allies = Red, ISIS = Black, Kurds + Allies = Yellow, Main Rebels = Green
Having a separate colour for Nusra is pointless because they fight alongside numerous other rebel groups on almost every front. Trying to differentiate which towns are controlled solely by Kurds and which are controlled by Kurds and Rebels is an exercise in futility. Keep it simple. Conservative Thinker ( talk) 11:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
DuckZz I didn't realise that there were rebel forces operating in Aleppo and Raqqa not part of Euphrates Volcano. Why rebel groups are these? If you can provide a source for their control of partial control over towns in the respective governorates then I agree they should be changed to to mixed control. Prohibited Area ( talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area No you don't understand. The Raqqa province was edited for more than 11 months now, every village was backed with at least 2 sources (SOHR in most cases) and you can't really expect me now to find again 200 sources for every edit i want to make in Raqqa....SDF was created 1 month ago, and before that, everything in Raqqa is the same as today, you can't change everythinh because now there's 1 new coalition. To make this more understandable, you can now change every black spot to green, why ? Well because ISIS was an allie with rebels in 2014, but now working seperatel. Same logic. Or why don't you change every grey dot with green, because now Nusra is inside the Jaish Fateh coalition, a groups with 80% groups considered as rebels, and not Nusra. Same logic. Green represents rebels, it doesn't matter in what coalition, group or operation room they are, it's not like they changed their identity, i mean for Raqqa alone they said for themselvs that they are the true opposition groups, not like other "FSA" group which are allied with islamists in Idlib and Hama. They lime-yellow color was made just for Raqqa province, to solve that problem, and now you're are ignoring that by creating another problem that doesn't exist, it doesn't exist because it's already solved, by the joint icon, and 11 months of work. Now you're basically reverting 11 months of work with 1 edit. That's crazy and the biggest mistake for this map. Change back Raqqa province as it was, nobody is complaining about that but Hasaka, and i already told you that i don't see a problem with that, and you thought that by changing 1 province, you need to change everything else, which isn't true. DuckZz ( talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area 99 % of the people who look at this map consider yellow to represent only Kurds/YPG. Which makes sense. I mean why don't you remove the grey color I ask you ? Al Nusra is inside Jaish Fatah coalition, together with 6 other groups which are considered as rebels, same logic. Your agrumeents don't make any sense, and you are considering your opinion to represent new standards that doesn't exist and make no sense. I ask you now, when Raqqa town is captured, how it will be marked, as yellow ? Wouldn't that be too funny ? Both Ayn Issa and Tell Abyad town are under local rebel control (Arab) with no YPG presence inside, no FSA presence also. You are actually also breaking the rules, why ? Well because the colors of this map represent only 1 side of the conflict, which means either 1 group is considered as 1 and it can fight against other group. Which means, government forces are always red, it doesn't matter if they fight against rebels, kurds, or if they are under some truce pact. Yellow represents Kurdish forces, not Kurds in general, why, well because you can then mark yellow towns which are under government control, but those soldiers are Kurds, like around Kweirs airport. Kurds are also Jabal Akrad, Jaish Thuwar, Division 16 etc, they are rebels and we mark them green. The SDF is a coalition of 20 groups, and not a group itself, you are breaking the rules if you mark them as a seperate color. If SDF captures something, we need to consider which group exactly did it, if not, mark it yellow. Raqqa province is finnished, with 11 months of work, if a village was captured by rebels, you can't mark it now under SDF yellow control, 4 months after just because you like it. This is not my opinino and it deservs it's own section.
Ugh! I knew it! People are once again letting their personal opinions effect their judgement of facts. That "discussion" as you call it was so full of bias that it makes some of the heated arguements on the ISIL page look perfectly legitimate? And when did this discussion turn into an arguement over the color of Al Nusra on the map? That isn't what this discussion is about! Either someone is easily distracted or they're trying to distract everyone from the main point of this discussion! Can we please get back on track? If the reports of fighting between rebel factions over an alliance with the Kurds was what caused this bias and propaganda filled arguement, then why has no one mentioned the truce that was declared? Sources for this information are on several pages related to the subject. They state that all but one of the rebel groups agreed to abide by the truce. I would get them myself, but it seems that someone needs to watch this page to make sure that it stays true to the facts. As I said before, the "discussion" mentioned in this topic was full of bias. For one thing, the opinions were entirely one-sided, with an inclination towards supporting either Assad's viewpoints or the Kurds. There was even a "God bless the Kurds" comment near the conclusion. Such a comment has nothing to do with the discussion, contributes nothing to the arguement being made, and is a clear indication of the editor's personel view of the Kurds. The rest of the "discussion" was full of similar remarks, like "the government doesn't consider them allies", or some insult aimed at those who disagreed. This new section seems to have the exact same problems. The talk page is for discussing FACTS, not OPINIONS! We don't stray from the topics at hand, and we don't resort to mudslinging and petty insults! Can we please discuss this civilly? I apologize if this comment seems harsh or aggressive, but enough is enough! Now then, I'd like to point out that arguing these rebels shouldn't be green just because they haven't fought the government in Al-Raqqah is ridiculous, there are no governemnt forces anywhere near the joint Kurd-rebel positions in the province for them to fight. The government barely has any presence in Al-Raqqah Governate. As for Russia, we all know very well that Russia is bombing both the rebels and ISIL. That Russian plane that was shot down was nowhere near ISIL controlled territory. The only reason Russia isn't bombing the rebels is because they are with the Kurds, which the Russians seem be somewhat supportive of, though their primary focus is supporting government forces. The Russians will not risk bombing the Kurds just to kill the rebel factions of the coalition. That would be a foolish move that would jeopardize Russia's relationship with the Kurds and worsen the already unstable political situation. You're going to need better evidence than that to support your views. Anasaitis ( talk) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I see Pro-oppositon sources stating control over Masasinah, Mahruqah and Hissa. and Pro-red sources claiming that SAA regained control over all points lost. All my sources are in arabic 1 2 3. but keep and eye on these three villages, if any news come up. Helmy1453 ( talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
After the addition of Jabal al-Nuba it is evident that the road drawn on the map in the Latakia are positioned uncorrectly. [wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.691182&lon=36.075668&z=14&m=b Jabal-al-Nuba] is positioned just east of the Latakia Jisr Shughur, while on our map it is much further east. Furthermore Qasab appears on the east of the road while it is on the west. Is it possible to correct it? Paolowalter ( talk) 08:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that Kafrah (southeast Idlib province) is marked black. By mistake? Mughira1395 ( talk) 14:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Several posting e.g. [8] and [twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/676346089642065920 islamicworld ] point to the base of Marj as Sultan in East Ghouta fully taken by SAA. I have seen some news also SOHR reports SAA advance [www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/violent-clashes-in-marj-al-sultan-airport-in-the-eastern-ghouta-and-casualties-in-the-airstrikes-on-harasta-and-clashes-in-the-northern-countryside-of-latakia/ SOHR]. It is time to turn red the north military airport and enlarge the government controlled area on the detailed map. Opinions? Paolowalter ( talk) 10:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Paolowalter SAA advance in Eastern Ghouta and captured the town of Marj al Sultan and Marj al-Sultan air base in the eastern suburb of Damascus known as Eastern Ghouta, and which was held by rebels for the past three years. source source source source 46.201.162.214 ( talk) 20:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Pro-opposition sources 1 claim rebels regained control over Marj Al-Sultan airport. the problem is they don't specify if they are talking about northen , southern or both the airporst. anyway this is still all pro-opessions sources and SOHR haven't anounced it yet. just tought to post some heads ups. Helmy1453 ( talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Now confirmed with video. source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.98.131.160 ( talk) 20:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the previously version (See Darayya zone) http://s15.postimg.org/pl6negvaj/3234223423.jpg
In fact during November were reported Army progress in this place
Why now the map is showing huge insurgent presence into Darayya ?
In base of what are these changes? -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The Eastern Ghouta map also it is tiny now to what it is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.232.198 ( talk) 01:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I have an issue with the status of some places in this region who are really outdated and not good sourced.I have just compared 2 maps from pro-gov and pro-opp where they show the same situation so I am suggesting to use these map sources to clarify this issue.Opinions?? Lists129 ( talk) 21:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and
WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source:
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”
Sûriyeya (
talk) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Some one changed Al-Wa'ar from truce to red? I don't know whom? i am not verry good in digging in the history page. but no source calim that SAA faorces enterd Al-Wa'ar. It is under truce , this truce closes are not clear, but anyway the SAA is not in there yet and it is still administrated by the rebels under the truce till now. Helmy1453 ( talk) 18:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Syrian government has regained control over country's capital of Homs after more than four years of civil war http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3351550/Life-slow-return-shattered-Syrian-city-Homs.html Shattered city of Homs returns to Assad control as fighters leave last rebel-held area http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-shattered-city-homs-returns-assad-control-fighters-leave-last-rebel-held-area-1532496 Is it enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.87.216.31 ( talk) 00:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Today rebels from the Fatah Halab and Al Nusra resumed shelling of Sheikh Meqsud and clashes resumed between YPG and Fatah Halab and Al Nusra near the village of Bênê in Afrin Canton. source source Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA Captured villages of Al-Qarassi, Al 'Amarah , Khan Tuman and Khan Touman Ammunition Depot and Al-Zarbeh Poultry Farm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.81.207.173 ( talk) 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this report, there was until recently a link between rebel-controlled territory in Western Ghouta and a border-crossing into Lebanon, which doesn't seem to be reflected on this map (as far as I can tell). The report also says that the border crossing is jointly controlled by the Islamist rebels as well as ISIS. Perhaps this border crossing can be added to the map? Esn ( talk) 03:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I am confident we would know if rebels had full control over an east-west axis here. Probably just smuggling/transport paths without actual ground control. 130.132.173.165 ( talk) 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
First: Umm Suhreej has to be black according to this pro-government article: http://alwatan.sy/archives/33325
Second: In the same article Umm at-Tababair is also with IS (as already put on the map, but without source mentioned). But it is a bit curious that IS is practically on the road Homs-Palmyra... (and nobody concerned about this!) So either Umm at-Tababir is somewhere else or the first source which mentioned Umm at-Tababir did a mistake: East of Um Suhreej there is a town "Abu at-Tababir", which would match with the whole news from the area. Maybe there was a confusion between both towns - we have to pay attention to further reports from there. Mughira1395 ( talk) 01:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, You shouldn't leave first Tababir on the map. If I added wrong village, then we have no clue who controls the Umm at-Tababir. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 07:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Khan Touman and Qarassi are captured and the SAA & Allies are on the Aleppo - Idlib Highway. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/hezbollah-syrian-army-cutoff-the-aleppo-damascus-highway-after-seizing-khan-touman-in-southern-aleppo/ and http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-hezbollah-capture-the-strategic-village-of-al-qarassi-in-southern-aleppo/ MesmerMe ( talk) 10:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
No Pro-Gov source has claimed Al Zerbah has been taken . 86.178.103.40 ( talk) 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to apologize, if this question is off-topic here, but don't know where to ask.
I am confused about several maps: 1. /info/en/?search=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War 2. /info/en/?search=Template:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map 3. /info/en/?search=Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map 4. /info/en/?search=Template:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies_detailed_map
First one is "ours" and the one up to date concerning Syria. Second one is about Iraq, but not up to date (and bad resolution). Third one was originally the combination of the first and second. The road-maker kindly has added the roads also for the iraqi part (with better resolution - see Ramadi). This was the map I was looking at for weeks, and I checked it often with the first one: Changes were taken over automaticly. But now I saw, that this was no longer the case (see for instance the changes of Umm Suhreej and at-Tababir and also the new road going from Rakka to Hasaka). Now I found also the forth map, which would be surley interesting for those who are focussing only on Syria for obvious reasons. Interestingly this map is up to date concering the town-changings in Syria, but not for Iraq (but has the resolution of the second map), and it lacks the roads on both sides (+ Lebanon).
So... confusion... and maybe there are even more maps?
I don't know why and when changes are taken over automaticaly, when done on one map. But if for my part I think that the forth map is the most significant - IF roads are put in and changes from Syria map taken over automaticaly. Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE CHANGE "duckZz"s CHANGES IN NORTHERN HOMS AND SOUTHERN HAMA. UNUSEABLE TWITTERPAGES ARE USE`D FOR CHANGES.
duckZz the Propaganda-machine - ONES MORE AND I'LL REGISTRIER HERE AND WILL SEND REPORT TO ADMIN. STAY SERIOUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.115.2 ( talk) 06:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area, DuckZz, Hogg 22, LightandDark2000, Paolowalter, FoXrEpOrTeR, Lists129 Guys according to the rule #3 of the rules of editing we must create discussion when source not said clear who control villages, towns or hills before we make edit and also not use maps as a source:
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.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source:
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”
3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.
I only ask you not use maps, too old sources which clear outdated and not use as a source only map of Wikimapia. And its all. Sûriyeya ( talk) 11:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Jabal al Nuba has been seized by SAA according to Pro-gov source ( Al-Masdar), Pro-opp source ( SOHR) claims that the advances have been made around Jabal al Nuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caret initio et fine ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Jabal al Sayed has been seized by SAA according to Pro-gov twitter source ( Sayed Ridha). Wouldn't post a Twitter as source hadn't SOHR said that advances were being made around the mount twice today. This gives direction towards the north, rather than east to Al-Kawm. But then again this is only Twitter. Caret initio et fine ( talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Al-Sirmaniyah besieged according to Pro-gov source (
Al Masdar)
Caret initio et fine (
talk) 10:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The SDF captured the village of Saharij according to pro-YPG source ( ARA News). The advance south of Sarrin by SDF has been reported by pro-opp source ( SOHR), but not the capturing of this particular village. Caret initio et fine ( talk) 11:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
AlMasdar announced the conquer by SAA of the signal base. That was added on the map in [10], but I cannot see anything there. Either the editor supplies more info or this base must be removed. Paolowalter ( talk) 15:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
This town was reportedly always under rebel control, and under a truce in the same time. Most of SOHR sources are old, of course because not much happened there until now, so it's hard to find something new and not related to rebel or pro-rebel sources. Here a heavy pro-government reporter Leith Fadel basically confirms that rebels are present in this town but doesn't say they have a full control, and says it's under a truce. Bosnjoboy, which is used a reliable reporter, says it's under rebel control. So we need to find something in the middle, which is again a truce (said by Leith). I will put a dot there until someone makes an update. DuckZz ( talk) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Your source is from the beginning of 2014, almost 2013, and it's a neutral source. It doesn't say that Government has fcontrol of Al-Tal, but only that Rebels don't control it, which I don't denie, and that's the reason why Al-Tal is under truce, same said by Leith Fadel. So my source is Leith Fadel, the most active pro-government source we have. His words are only 2 months old, and since that, nothing has been reported which means the situation is the same. This is pretty much clear. DuckZz ( talk) 15:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Kurdish source said that the Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Ahrar Soriya and some other members of Fatah Halab shelling and attacking the villages Basûfan, Cilbirê, Başemrê and Bene around Afrin& Sheikh Meqsud. source source source Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
[ [11]] Apparently the agreement meant that Mariameen is under joint control of JaT and FH rebels. Therefore it was indicated as green. I don't know whether this is accurate as JaT is a affiliate of the Kurds in Afrin, however labelling JaT as yellow in Afrin however not where it operates in other provinces such as greater Aleppo, Idlib is illogical. Prohibited Area ( talk) 17:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
village al-Aziziyah still not taken of rebels still under control by SAA. source SOHR source source source 37.52.29.85 ( talk) 07:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you please think over the "Yellow" color ? It is indeed very hard to distinguish this color in a background map which ist itself almost yellow ( light Yellowish beige). I think a more forceful color ( yellowish orange) ist much better to see and is not far from this accustomed yellow.to compare:
compare
--
212.75.52.4 (
talk) 08:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Your proposal is much better.
AND: here is a new encahced road map (some more roads) : enhanced1 -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 10:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Rebels give deadline in the 48 hours for YPG in order that they to withdraw from the 7 villages Maryamayn, Inab, Qanbrya, Tatmarash, Shawarighat, Tanab, Al-Kishta'ar in Aleppo countryside. Charles Lister source source pro-opposition source said that the rebels will use force to retake from YPG these villages source source also pro-opposition source said that the YPG is trying to storm FSA-Held village of Malikiyah near Azaz. source source and attacking villages of Ziyarah and Turabiyah source source 37.52.24.241 ( talk) 19:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest news from Al-Masdar SDF fronted by Jaysh Al-Thuwar takes Malikiya. Rhocagil ( talk) 00:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
http://aranews.org/2015/11/ypg-%D8%AA%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%B1-%D8%A3%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4/ Maryamayn reportedly recaptured by Afrin SDF according to ARA. Can I make edit? Prohibited Area ( talk) 17:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Breaking: Syrian Army Captures the Strategic Village of Arafat in Northeast Latakia
Syrian Army Captures Jabal Kashkar in Northern #Latakia . --
212.75.52.4 (
talk) 11:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
It will be very interesting to see the locations of russian airbases ( there will be 2 of them soon) and russian marine base. As a symbole, a ' Red Star'( the sigh of Russian Air Force) can be used. -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 09:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Pro-opp. news source Qasioun News said that the ISIS advance against rebels in northern countryside of Aleppo and capture the villages of Kafrah and Jarez. here Also other pro opp. source said that ISIS also capture the village of Al Bel. here SOHR also reported that ISIS capture villag Kafrah and other villages near with the village of Kufrah. SOHR SOHR 46.200.247.232 ( talk) 10:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&type=revision&diff=693329332&oldid=693293217 I must inform that the guy who owns this archicivilians blog is extremely pro-salafi FSA/JaN and this is evident for instance in his twitter account. The village of Anab is under YPG control as stated in this ANHA repport (+with images) where a delegation from Afrin visits Anab and its surrounding Maryamain: http://hawarnews.com/%D9%88%D9%81%D8%AF-%D9%8A%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A8/ Roboskiye ( talk) 08:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Roboskiye
I believe that this town is, and always was, under rebel control since 2011. It was changed once back but i can't remember why. Since that, it is shown as under rebel control on every map published for that region. We can't copy maps. There are no clashes in this town, and that'y why every source is months old, for example on SOHR. Dunno what to say. DuckZz ( talk) 23:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't be in a rush to change something, but there seems to be a (at least agreed) deal for rebels to pull out of this place and be safely moved to other rebel-held places. So the control of this town will eventually change to Syrian government...after the implementation fo the deal http://news.yahoo.com/syria-deal-rebels-leave-last-homs-district-governor-131754086.html Be cautious because the deal is not implemented yet, so currently the control is mostly from rebels(or mixed)...this might change any time soon
It should be put under truce for now and then changed to red when all whatever opposition forces have left. Rhocagil ( talk) 19:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Then all the small isis and Fake Syrian Army villages should be all removed that are not near a frontline, too many SAA held areas are vanishing from the map such as the Eastern Damascus countryside which has several large towns are shown on other maps but ISIS and Fake syrian army supporters remove them from our map here. Stop distorting the fucking maps.
According to this, "Iran is preparing two squadrons of Sukhoi to engage the war in Syria. These will be stationed at the T4 Syrian military airport in Homs, very close to Palmyra (Tadmur), previously known as Tiyas."
Should the name be changed, then? Maybe with the old one kept in brackets? Esn ( talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
T4 is nick name of the airbase because T4 Pumping Station is nearby. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
SOHR said that SAA retake Tell Dadin. SOHR 46.201.223.212 ( talk) 10:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
+ SAA and allies capture Jbel al-Arbin and Tel al-Bakkarah. -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 10:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
All pro SAA maps are way more modest with SAA gains near Kweiris airport compared to this map. I know maps made by pro gov/opp are not reliable source but masdar is saying the same http://s3.img7.ir/00Ab3.jpg Aqulah captured, not even close to Deir Hafer http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/tiger-forces-expand-the-buffer-zone-around-the-kuweires-military-airport-rasm-al-abid-grain-silos-captured/ Totholio ( talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
ISIS "captured" from Islamists town of Baraghedeh, Northern Aleppo. -- 212.75.52.4 ( talk) 13:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)MapMaker
Pro-opp. source (Local Coordination Committees of Syrıa) said that the today reinforcements arrived from the Shaatat tribes(loyal to Assad) for fight along with the SDF against ISIS in Shaddadi to south of city Hasakah. here here 46.201.223.212 ( talk) 21:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I seen that too so how can rebel affiliates (apparently) fight along side Syrian Arab Army soldiers that these tribes men are basically, as they have fought with the republican guard in Hasakah and Deri El Zoir, I think all SDF half green half yellow should just be made yellow it seems its mostly ypg and very little "rebels" if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.232.61 ( talk) 12:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The SDF has al Arab component of some 5000 to 7000 men. Those groups belong either to the Free Syrian Army of to local tribal forces. They are as following:
1. Kobani: Burkan al-Furat operations room 2. Raqqah province: Liwa Thuwar Raqqa (hundreds of fighters) and Burkan al-Furat 3. Hasakah province: some FSA (mainly Liwa Tahrir Souriya) and the local Arab Al-Sanadeed Force (1700 fighters)
I think we should make a new color for the SDF. The only problem is that the Kurds won't be an autonomous entity that way, whilst the YPG is the strongest component of the SDF. So, green-yellow dots should be put into place as long as we don't have a true SDF color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 18:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion was done before, the conclusion is that SDF is represented by yellow. Green-yellow is a lie because the green here has nothing to do with the green of the rest of Syria. YPG (not kurds) fight under the banner of SDF now, so yellow means SDF and only YPG. That simple. Paolowalter ( talk) 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Al Masdar states that Katf Al-Ziyarah was captured by SAA. It is not clear if it means Az Ziyārah or, as suggested on twitter Katf Al-Ziyarah in north Latakia. Any idea? Paolowalter ( talk) 12:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
there are some difficulties showing SDF advances on the map while we have some rebels including ahrar sham fighting other rebels SDF (green vs green).
maybe its the time we make some changes in alliances. I think there are two types of rebels. those who ally JAN and those who are not. we can find some rebels including ahrar sham, jaysh al islam, jund al aghsa, zinki etc. whom often coordinate alnusra fighting kurds and SAA.and they never fought alnusra. maybe they better be grey or a variant of grey.
at the other side we can find moderate rebels (frankly they are a few on the map) including SDF. they could be green or any other color. 85.15.42.246 ( talk) 05:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Question ...Does the SDF fight against the SAA .If not can they be classified as rebels?
Yes they can, since they reject the regime administration and rule their held areas independently from the regime
Well that maybe your interpritaton but they seem to kill more FSA and I.S. than Government Army troops . 86.178.102.85 ( talk) 15:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't care about that. Rebel groups fight against each other, so what ? Both are still rebels and their tensions should not care us. Our map shows the clashes between Rebels/Gov./Kurds and ISIS, everything else is just too detailed and not for this map, as this map is made to understand the Syrian conflict under normal conditions, for normal people. The current clashes between FSA and FSA under SDF coalition is just politic and nothing else. Ignore it and keep editing the map based on rules. DuckZz ( talk) 18:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hardly read something more nonsense. Once former FSA and FSA (if it still exists) fight with each other they are not in the same alliance anymore. Furthermore SDF is not fighting anymore (or as YPG has never fought) the government, the situation changes rapidly. As far as I can judge, government and SDF are de facto allies. They fight th esame enemies: IS, Al-Nusra, FSA (whatever that means), Turkey and Sausi Arabia. They are both supported by Russia. The only difference is that SDF is somehow backed by USA while government is opposed. Paolowalter ( talk) 20:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We can add this to the description under the map: "
= Kurds (Including
EV &
SDF )" or we can add: "
EV &
SDF ". (ping!
Prohibited Area). And
DuckZz this is one of the most important things that have happened on the ground since the Russian intervention and maybe also a result of it, so this tension care the situation a alot.
Rhocagil (
talk) 01:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Rhocagil ( talk) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
All FSA are islamits they snackbaring all time and forced women to wearing Vein when they are
Syrian army and Kurds are secular but Kudrs are separatits Kurds just controlled the so called SDF
The yellow dot should also include a notation mentioning the fact there are non-Kurdish fighters embedded in SDF coalition which are classed as yellow. We should decide on which rebels that hold territory should be classed as 'Salafists' [Radical Rebels] and which should be 'moderate' opposition. We should then link the list to the key. Prohibited Area ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Therefore:
Can we also amend Armed Groups in Syrian War to detail Salafist and Syrian Opposition groups and use that as a reference for the key. Prohibited Area ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I say this is a stupid idea. and will be waist of time and effort and unmaintainable. I longtime apposed the seperate color for Al-Nusra and here it is going even worse. And all nusra vs FSA control on our map is wrong. no other map has this distinction . Nusra exists everware in green are and in small groups. no single evidence of them controlling any land with no othergroup presence. the map is perfect as it is. clashes between kurds and rebels is clear no need for more colors if there are some arabs between kurgs so what they are still kurds domilated Helmy1453 ( talk) 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a stupid idea and it will ruin the map. This is wikipedia and not twitter where trolls and underage kids have disqusions about "goatfuckers and the difference between 2 million rebel groups, islamists, bit less, more less, less more, terrorists, extremists, moderate, less moderate". Please spare us this nonsense and keep editing the map as it this. DuckZz ( talk) 23:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It seams that at least there is a consensus of this *
= Kurdish Forces (&
SDF Coalition)
Rhocagil (
talk) 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
All insurgents are except the Kurds are islamists
Al Qaeda (Nusra) have minor or major presence in all areas controlled by the Insurgents the SDF is totally controlled by the Kurds- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.138.186 ( talk) 21:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the template to that
= Kurds (Including
Affiliates. I will await furthermore discussion and overall consensus on whether to expand these edits so that
File:Disc plain green dark.svg = Salafists and
File:Dot lime green.svg = Moderate Rebels.
Prohibited Area (
talk) 15:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Such the good and intresting solution in this issue. Allah bless of Kurds! Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still against this. Rebel factions have clashed in the past, yet we still count them as rebels. Furthermore, the claim that all non-SDF rebels are extremists is incredibly biased, and some of the comments here seem suspiciously opinionated. We cannot let bias or our own personal opinion take precedence over fact. Plus, the Kurd's relationship with the government is mixed at best. The same goes for their relationship with the rebels. I see no reason for the change in color. Anasaitis ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
If we should not add more colors to the map it would be logical to include all of the
Jaish al-Fatah operation room under the color
of Al-Nusra. They are all co-operating and they all are in favor of a sharia-state.
Rhocagil (
talk) 00:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean MWAA, JAAD, and other groups not presented in SRCC. It will be much more logical if they will be displayed gray as JaN. - 81.177.127.236 ( talk) 20:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course, then remove the green color, replace is with grey because we know Al Qaida makes up 90% of rebels and 9% are other jihady groups, 1% are foreign moderates which we should mark as green in 1 or 2 villages. Now go back to twitter and spit your anger somewere else. DuckZz ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course. Make everything grey, because the entire of northern Syria is in the hands of throat-cutters (sarcasm). No, wait, even better: make everything black and quote Russian sources, because they are bombing Islamic State in Latakia and Idlib! So, back to the real world and objectivity: bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 13:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA captured the al Frolloq forests and Tall Ghazalah Hill in the northern countryside of Latakia. SOHR FoXrEpOrTeR ( talk) 11:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Regime forces with support Hizbullah seize over wide areas in Marej in eastern Ghouta after intense clashes with opposition forces. source 46.201.223.212 ( talk) 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Al Sooda in Latakia is green but is a newly added village of last month and was added green with no source, every map I see pro opp and pro gov this is not shown as rebel held, it is a very small village, why would they bypass this small village on a main supply route to take a bigger town? Plus all the force in that area. Just making the case that it is highly unlikely this is rebel held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.239.182 ( talk) 16:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Some maps report e.g. Turus and Bayt Ablak rebel controlled. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The coordinate of Al Sooda are lat = "35.803", long = "35.981" that on wikimapia corresponds to [Karabacakli http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=35.803057&lon=35.980997&z=15&m=b&show=/33804611/Karabacakli]. The name is wrong the possession dubious, the village is tiny and of no particular relevance: I support removing it. Paolowalter ( talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Twitter reports of Mughayriyah taken by SAA no confirmation yet . 86.135.154.68 ( talk) 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Peto Lucem had this as rebel held on the 21st November https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUWHh0lWwAArlmz.jpg Conservative Thinker ( talk) 17:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/673934729884901376 reports that SAA pulled out shortly after taking it. Paolowalter ( talk) 23:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a redundant shade of black in red and yellow icons for oil/gas which gives the wrong impression as if they are under siege by ISIS. Can someone correct this by changing the current icons to the respective monochromatic colors. Roboskiye ( talk) 16:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Government forces captured villages of Khalasah, Al Hamra, Zaytan, Qal`ajiyah and most part of Birnah. SOHR source source source FoXrEpOrTeR ( talk) 13:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It was taken by rebels last week but not reported on much . 86.135.154.68 ( talk) 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Rebels take full control of Banes [3]. Also there is conflicting information about control of Birnah in two al-Masdar articles from today: 14 hours ago: SAA control 80 percent of village Burnah. [4]. 12 hours ago: Birnah is "islamist-held" [5]. I would propose to go with the latest article, that is, the article stating that Birnah is islamist-held. Schluppo ( talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (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. |
"YPG (and Affiliates" should be changed to "YPG (and Affiliates)" or even better to "YPG and allies" given that SDF is an alliance (as stated on their wikipedia page) and affiliate isn't that clear as to what it means. Formagella ( talk) 22:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
SDF are only a force of 2000 (If that) men mixed in with around 40,000 Kurds, just because someone makes a wiki page doesn't mean its factual. This map would be to complicated if we started adding all the various groups that make up Syrian Armys alliance, which many have forces much larger such as Hezbollah estimated 15000-20000 where is their colour? Or the IRGC 10000 where is their colour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.237.246 ( talk) 23:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Clashes broke out between the Kurdish fighters and al-Nusra militants in the villages of Tanb, Kashatar and al-Malikiya north of Aleppo. Also Al Nusra/Ahrar al-Sham bombing the YPG-held village of Shawargha. source Sûriyeya ( talk) 10:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This is pro-Kurdish source. can't be used as an evidence for kurdish gains. do you have pro-rebel or pro-government source ? Helmy1453 ( talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Al-Masdar, rebels and the Army managed to agree in leaving of rebels the district thus all Homs is under control of the Syrian goverment. The rebels have yet to leave the area, but there are no clashes [6]. Oroszka ( talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
For now it should probably be marked as under truce. Rhocagil ( talk) 18:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Change to cease fire if we no have more news will be change to contested again the next days -- LogFTW ( talk) 22:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Al-Waer is under truce for sometimes till evacuation is completed. Once evacuation is completed, it goes to red, see e.g. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Dec-02/325534-deal-reached-for-last-holdouts-to-exit-homs.ashx. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the area now is considered reconciled. The rebell parts that didn't agree to were transferred to Idleb. The rebell part that did agree stays and will act as some kind of protector to the peace-agreement. Thera are other areas like this around Damascus. The area should not be marked as contested it should be marked as under peace (purple) or as government (red). Rhocagil ( talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Here SOHR stats SAA bombed the two towns... http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/clashes-in-homs-and-lattakia-countrysides/ ...maybe they really said "around" them and this was a bad translation, or the two towns are back in IS hands? Not clear, need to read the original Arabic... Fab8405 ( talk) 11:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
IS-sources claim that IS took Jabal al-Hazzm (aka Hizam Hills) near Sadad, but we have to wait for reliable sources to report on the situation in this area. Schluppo ( talk) 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
According to our map (and based on previous al-Masdar reports), SAA controls these two villages for several weeks. Of course we cannot use the folowing pro-SAA map as a source, but it shows current pro-government claims: https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/675063271653810178. So I think it is appropriate to doubt whether SAA really controls these two villages, and in fact, anything south-east of Aqulah farms. We should look out for reliable information about actual control on these locations. Also I would like to note: al-Masdar is reporting a lot of fishy or at least ambigous information in the recent weeks. Schluppo ( talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Multiple pro-Government sources have these villages as ISIS held. I do consider al-Masdar reliable but they are not perfect (no source is) and the evidence is pretty clear that they have got this wrong. Conservative Thinker ( talk) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Seams like they should be changed to black for now. Rhocagil ( talk) 18:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Source [7] Mr.User200 ( talk) 13:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Posted 12/9/2015. The map says "This page was last modified on 12 November 2015, at 07:28," whereas that is clearly not true, per JPG and "talk page" discussion. Is there not a better way of dating changes and identifying significant changes that have occurred than digging through the debates on the "talk page?" My suggestion is that the map page should be undated, and that in place of the date near the page bottom there should be a link to a "log page" summarizing significant changes, minimally with dates and description of change. For example, I had to dig deep to understand that the color changes south of Hasakah and in northwest Raqqah province are due, apparently, to a change in definitions, not a change in territorial control. --- Thanks, PNA PaulNalabama ( talk) 23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The situation in Latakia North along the border has been fully controlled by the SAA, lack of updates over the last three weeks means there is now 7-10 strategic hilltops and around 20 towns and villages along this route that are not shown in Syrian Armys control,,Not even on the map, I bet if it were some Al queda FSA group though it would be updated instantly. Al masdar has been active in stating most of these villages over the last 3 weeks, why has latakia not been updated??? just blanks where the SAA have been advancing??? and This map just looks the same for the last year in Latakia area even though in the last 3 weeks over 170 km squared captured here:
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1768499
http://sana.sy/en/?p=63906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.111 ( talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I've made this kmz file. It's useful for both making sure that the cities and towns marked on this map are in the right place and also for identifying cities that we have overlooked. I don't know Arabic so it's hard for me to find sources on these cities but it might be useful for someone else. Some of these cities are really obviously under one groups control because all of the surrounding cities for a very long way are controlled by that group. Anyways, I hope you guys find it useful. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 19:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, also, it updates automatically when the png file is updated. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA captured the villages of Abu Ruwayl, Sa'ibiyah,Murayqis,Dulamah,Qurayhah,Al Sahibiya. source source source source Sûriyeya ( talk) 21:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone changed every joint rebel-YPG icon to yellow color in the entire Raqqa and Hasaka province. This is the biggest edit on this map since its creation and no source was provided. We had no discussion on the talk page about it, only few troll arguments and nothing was agreed about that. 13 rebel groups are part of the SDF in Hasaka province, 5 rebels groups are part of the Burkan Firat coalition in Raqqa province, 2 are working separately.......... The user who made this edid should be lifetime banned. DuckZz ( talk) 14:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Calling trolls all the editors who joined the discussion is extremly offensive and should bring you to lifetime ban. In summary: the few (former rebels) groups that joined YPG to form SDF basically abndoned their original agenda of fighting the government and are dedicated to fight ISIS and sometimes other rebel groups like in northern Aleppo. Paolowalter ( talk) 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The SDF has no presence in Raqqa province. The SDF was created and operates in Hasaka. Liwa Thuwar Raqqa stated that they work independently in Raqqa province and that they have 6 000 members (i don't care if true or not) and Burkan Firat still exists in Raqqa province and they control Ayn Isa, Tell Abyad and Sarrin. Every rebel group from Raqqa said that they are a FSA group but not linked with other rebels in Aleppo. They deserv their own color, they are not Kurds, not Kurdish groups. Joint control is a must in Raqqa province, while i agree for Hasaka that we should not mark every village as under joint control, until we have 100% source. Raqqa should be changed ... i do not believe you actually did this. DuckZz ( talk) 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
DuckZz The edit was agreed by the majority of editors on the basis of the clashes between FSA factions in north Aleppo making it hard to distinguish between the various factions. Therefore we adapted the map so that the yellow icon represented the Kurds including the affiliated Syrian Democratic Forces. Euphrates Volcano is also a part of this SDF therefore the yellow-green icons in Aleppo and Raqqa governorates were also changed to yellow, which indicates either Kurdish or SDF control. Prohibited Area ( talk) 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area You're making a big mistake. 60% of the discussion wasn't about Raqqa at all, you discussed about because no color was changed to dark green or smth like that, other arguments around 20% were about Hasaka, and .. somehow i do agree because the YPG is the main faction there and the color should stay yellow, until we find an Kurdish source where it says that "rebels" alone captured something. But Raqqa wasn't mentioned at all and that's a huge mistake. Rebels gained a lot since Kobane, and Thuwar Raqqa brigade stated and repeated itself that they have at least 6 000 soldiers now and are working seperately, and according to them, they captured Tell Abyad alone (hard to believe but still) also SOHR stated that Rebels captured the 93.brigade near Ayn Issa, and the town was captured by both Rebels and Kurds. Basically Raqqa province is full with various rebel groups, some of them are part of Burkan Firat, others arent, and this province is important for rebels more than Kurds, and it's crazy to mark everthing with yellow where under the description yellow stands for "Kurds" which is crazy. I hear a lot of complainment about this change, from twitter to facebook, from both opposition members and even Kurds. This map can't show the situation like this. JUST LOOK AT THIS, he's a reliable reporter and we use him as a source. What will happen is rebels capture Raqqa, it goes yellow too ? I mean what the hell. Change Raqqa province as it was, and it will be fine, because Hasaka itself is a big edit, and you have my approval because i find it OK, but changing 2 provinces is too big for 1 edit. I edit this map for 2 years now, and believe me i want only the best for this map. DuckZz ( talk) 00:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't this dispute be solved by changing the color to something besides yellow or green. Maybe purple? It seems to me DuckZz's main concern is that yellow has been used on this map to represent the Kurds, so it's confusing to extend it to non-Kurdish groups. A color change would solve that. ArchPope Sextus VI ( talk) 08:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
We should avoid making the map more complicated than necessary. There are so many different revel groups and factions that we could have about 20 different colours but each time one is added things just become more confusing. All we need is
Government + Allies = Red, ISIS = Black, Kurds + Allies = Yellow, Main Rebels = Green
Having a separate colour for Nusra is pointless because they fight alongside numerous other rebel groups on almost every front. Trying to differentiate which towns are controlled solely by Kurds and which are controlled by Kurds and Rebels is an exercise in futility. Keep it simple. Conservative Thinker ( talk) 11:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
DuckZz I didn't realise that there were rebel forces operating in Aleppo and Raqqa not part of Euphrates Volcano. Why rebel groups are these? If you can provide a source for their control of partial control over towns in the respective governorates then I agree they should be changed to to mixed control. Prohibited Area ( talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area No you don't understand. The Raqqa province was edited for more than 11 months now, every village was backed with at least 2 sources (SOHR in most cases) and you can't really expect me now to find again 200 sources for every edit i want to make in Raqqa....SDF was created 1 month ago, and before that, everything in Raqqa is the same as today, you can't change everythinh because now there's 1 new coalition. To make this more understandable, you can now change every black spot to green, why ? Well because ISIS was an allie with rebels in 2014, but now working seperatel. Same logic. Or why don't you change every grey dot with green, because now Nusra is inside the Jaish Fateh coalition, a groups with 80% groups considered as rebels, and not Nusra. Same logic. Green represents rebels, it doesn't matter in what coalition, group or operation room they are, it's not like they changed their identity, i mean for Raqqa alone they said for themselvs that they are the true opposition groups, not like other "FSA" group which are allied with islamists in Idlib and Hama. They lime-yellow color was made just for Raqqa province, to solve that problem, and now you're are ignoring that by creating another problem that doesn't exist, it doesn't exist because it's already solved, by the joint icon, and 11 months of work. Now you're basically reverting 11 months of work with 1 edit. That's crazy and the biggest mistake for this map. Change back Raqqa province as it was, nobody is complaining about that but Hasaka, and i already told you that i don't see a problem with that, and you thought that by changing 1 province, you need to change everything else, which isn't true. DuckZz ( talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area 99 % of the people who look at this map consider yellow to represent only Kurds/YPG. Which makes sense. I mean why don't you remove the grey color I ask you ? Al Nusra is inside Jaish Fatah coalition, together with 6 other groups which are considered as rebels, same logic. Your agrumeents don't make any sense, and you are considering your opinion to represent new standards that doesn't exist and make no sense. I ask you now, when Raqqa town is captured, how it will be marked, as yellow ? Wouldn't that be too funny ? Both Ayn Issa and Tell Abyad town are under local rebel control (Arab) with no YPG presence inside, no FSA presence also. You are actually also breaking the rules, why ? Well because the colors of this map represent only 1 side of the conflict, which means either 1 group is considered as 1 and it can fight against other group. Which means, government forces are always red, it doesn't matter if they fight against rebels, kurds, or if they are under some truce pact. Yellow represents Kurdish forces, not Kurds in general, why, well because you can then mark yellow towns which are under government control, but those soldiers are Kurds, like around Kweirs airport. Kurds are also Jabal Akrad, Jaish Thuwar, Division 16 etc, they are rebels and we mark them green. The SDF is a coalition of 20 groups, and not a group itself, you are breaking the rules if you mark them as a seperate color. If SDF captures something, we need to consider which group exactly did it, if not, mark it yellow. Raqqa province is finnished, with 11 months of work, if a village was captured by rebels, you can't mark it now under SDF yellow control, 4 months after just because you like it. This is not my opinino and it deservs it's own section.
Ugh! I knew it! People are once again letting their personal opinions effect their judgement of facts. That "discussion" as you call it was so full of bias that it makes some of the heated arguements on the ISIL page look perfectly legitimate? And when did this discussion turn into an arguement over the color of Al Nusra on the map? That isn't what this discussion is about! Either someone is easily distracted or they're trying to distract everyone from the main point of this discussion! Can we please get back on track? If the reports of fighting between rebel factions over an alliance with the Kurds was what caused this bias and propaganda filled arguement, then why has no one mentioned the truce that was declared? Sources for this information are on several pages related to the subject. They state that all but one of the rebel groups agreed to abide by the truce. I would get them myself, but it seems that someone needs to watch this page to make sure that it stays true to the facts. As I said before, the "discussion" mentioned in this topic was full of bias. For one thing, the opinions were entirely one-sided, with an inclination towards supporting either Assad's viewpoints or the Kurds. There was even a "God bless the Kurds" comment near the conclusion. Such a comment has nothing to do with the discussion, contributes nothing to the arguement being made, and is a clear indication of the editor's personel view of the Kurds. The rest of the "discussion" was full of similar remarks, like "the government doesn't consider them allies", or some insult aimed at those who disagreed. This new section seems to have the exact same problems. The talk page is for discussing FACTS, not OPINIONS! We don't stray from the topics at hand, and we don't resort to mudslinging and petty insults! Can we please discuss this civilly? I apologize if this comment seems harsh or aggressive, but enough is enough! Now then, I'd like to point out that arguing these rebels shouldn't be green just because they haven't fought the government in Al-Raqqah is ridiculous, there are no governemnt forces anywhere near the joint Kurd-rebel positions in the province for them to fight. The government barely has any presence in Al-Raqqah Governate. As for Russia, we all know very well that Russia is bombing both the rebels and ISIL. That Russian plane that was shot down was nowhere near ISIL controlled territory. The only reason Russia isn't bombing the rebels is because they are with the Kurds, which the Russians seem be somewhat supportive of, though their primary focus is supporting government forces. The Russians will not risk bombing the Kurds just to kill the rebel factions of the coalition. That would be a foolish move that would jeopardize Russia's relationship with the Kurds and worsen the already unstable political situation. You're going to need better evidence than that to support your views. Anasaitis ( talk) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I see Pro-oppositon sources stating control over Masasinah, Mahruqah and Hissa. and Pro-red sources claiming that SAA regained control over all points lost. All my sources are in arabic 1 2 3. but keep and eye on these three villages, if any news come up. Helmy1453 ( talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
After the addition of Jabal al-Nuba it is evident that the road drawn on the map in the Latakia are positioned uncorrectly. [wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.691182&lon=36.075668&z=14&m=b Jabal-al-Nuba] is positioned just east of the Latakia Jisr Shughur, while on our map it is much further east. Furthermore Qasab appears on the east of the road while it is on the west. Is it possible to correct it? Paolowalter ( talk) 08:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that Kafrah (southeast Idlib province) is marked black. By mistake? Mughira1395 ( talk) 14:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Several posting e.g. [8] and [twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/676346089642065920 islamicworld ] point to the base of Marj as Sultan in East Ghouta fully taken by SAA. I have seen some news also SOHR reports SAA advance [www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/violent-clashes-in-marj-al-sultan-airport-in-the-eastern-ghouta-and-casualties-in-the-airstrikes-on-harasta-and-clashes-in-the-northern-countryside-of-latakia/ SOHR]. It is time to turn red the north military airport and enlarge the government controlled area on the detailed map. Opinions? Paolowalter ( talk) 10:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Paolowalter SAA advance in Eastern Ghouta and captured the town of Marj al Sultan and Marj al-Sultan air base in the eastern suburb of Damascus known as Eastern Ghouta, and which was held by rebels for the past three years. source source source source 46.201.162.214 ( talk) 20:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Pro-opposition sources 1 claim rebels regained control over Marj Al-Sultan airport. the problem is they don't specify if they are talking about northen , southern or both the airporst. anyway this is still all pro-opessions sources and SOHR haven't anounced it yet. just tought to post some heads ups. Helmy1453 ( talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Now confirmed with video. source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.98.131.160 ( talk) 20:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the previously version (See Darayya zone) http://s15.postimg.org/pl6negvaj/3234223423.jpg
In fact during November were reported Army progress in this place
Why now the map is showing huge insurgent presence into Darayya ?
In base of what are these changes? -- LogFTW ( talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The Eastern Ghouta map also it is tiny now to what it is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.232.198 ( talk) 01:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I have an issue with the status of some places in this region who are really outdated and not good sourced.I have just compared 2 maps from pro-gov and pro-opp where they show the same situation so I am suggesting to use these map sources to clarify this issue.Opinions?? Lists129 ( talk) 21:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and
WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source:
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”
Sûriyeya (
talk) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Some one changed Al-Wa'ar from truce to red? I don't know whom? i am not verry good in digging in the history page. but no source calim that SAA faorces enterd Al-Wa'ar. It is under truce , this truce closes are not clear, but anyway the SAA is not in there yet and it is still administrated by the rebels under the truce till now. Helmy1453 ( talk) 18:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Syrian government has regained control over country's capital of Homs after more than four years of civil war http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3351550/Life-slow-return-shattered-Syrian-city-Homs.html Shattered city of Homs returns to Assad control as fighters leave last rebel-held area http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-shattered-city-homs-returns-assad-control-fighters-leave-last-rebel-held-area-1532496 Is it enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.87.216.31 ( talk) 00:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Today rebels from the Fatah Halab and Al Nusra resumed shelling of Sheikh Meqsud and clashes resumed between YPG and Fatah Halab and Al Nusra near the village of Bênê in Afrin Canton. source source Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA Captured villages of Al-Qarassi, Al 'Amarah , Khan Tuman and Khan Touman Ammunition Depot and Al-Zarbeh Poultry Farm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.81.207.173 ( talk) 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this report, there was until recently a link between rebel-controlled territory in Western Ghouta and a border-crossing into Lebanon, which doesn't seem to be reflected on this map (as far as I can tell). The report also says that the border crossing is jointly controlled by the Islamist rebels as well as ISIS. Perhaps this border crossing can be added to the map? Esn ( talk) 03:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I am confident we would know if rebels had full control over an east-west axis here. Probably just smuggling/transport paths without actual ground control. 130.132.173.165 ( talk) 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
First: Umm Suhreej has to be black according to this pro-government article: http://alwatan.sy/archives/33325
Second: In the same article Umm at-Tababair is also with IS (as already put on the map, but without source mentioned). But it is a bit curious that IS is practically on the road Homs-Palmyra... (and nobody concerned about this!) So either Umm at-Tababir is somewhere else or the first source which mentioned Umm at-Tababir did a mistake: East of Um Suhreej there is a town "Abu at-Tababir", which would match with the whole news from the area. Maybe there was a confusion between both towns - we have to pay attention to further reports from there. Mughira1395 ( talk) 01:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, You shouldn't leave first Tababir on the map. If I added wrong village, then we have no clue who controls the Umm at-Tababir. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 07:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Khan Touman and Qarassi are captured and the SAA & Allies are on the Aleppo - Idlib Highway. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/hezbollah-syrian-army-cutoff-the-aleppo-damascus-highway-after-seizing-khan-touman-in-southern-aleppo/ and http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-hezbollah-capture-the-strategic-village-of-al-qarassi-in-southern-aleppo/ MesmerMe ( talk) 10:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
No Pro-Gov source has claimed Al Zerbah has been taken . 86.178.103.40 ( talk) 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to apologize, if this question is off-topic here, but don't know where to ask.
I am confused about several maps: 1. /info/en/?search=Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War 2. /info/en/?search=Template:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map 3. /info/en/?search=Template:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map 4. /info/en/?search=Template:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies_detailed_map
First one is "ours" and the one up to date concerning Syria. Second one is about Iraq, but not up to date (and bad resolution). Third one was originally the combination of the first and second. The road-maker kindly has added the roads also for the iraqi part (with better resolution - see Ramadi). This was the map I was looking at for weeks, and I checked it often with the first one: Changes were taken over automaticly. But now I saw, that this was no longer the case (see for instance the changes of Umm Suhreej and at-Tababir and also the new road going from Rakka to Hasaka). Now I found also the forth map, which would be surley interesting for those who are focussing only on Syria for obvious reasons. Interestingly this map is up to date concering the town-changings in Syria, but not for Iraq (but has the resolution of the second map), and it lacks the roads on both sides (+ Lebanon).
So... confusion... and maybe there are even more maps?
I don't know why and when changes are taken over automaticaly, when done on one map. But if for my part I think that the forth map is the most significant - IF roads are put in and changes from Syria map taken over automaticaly. Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE CHANGE "duckZz"s CHANGES IN NORTHERN HOMS AND SOUTHERN HAMA. UNUSEABLE TWITTERPAGES ARE USE`D FOR CHANGES.
duckZz the Propaganda-machine - ONES MORE AND I'LL REGISTRIER HERE AND WILL SEND REPORT TO ADMIN. STAY SERIOUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.115.2 ( talk) 06:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Prohibited Area, DuckZz, Hogg 22, LightandDark2000, Paolowalter, FoXrEpOrTeR, Lists129 Guys according to the rule #3 of the rules of editing we must create discussion when source not said clear who control villages, towns or hills before we make edit and also not use maps as a source:
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.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source:
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”
3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.
I only ask you not use maps, too old sources which clear outdated and not use as a source only map of Wikimapia. And its all. Sûriyeya ( talk) 11:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Jabal al Nuba has been seized by SAA according to Pro-gov source ( Al-Masdar), Pro-opp source ( SOHR) claims that the advances have been made around Jabal al Nuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caret initio et fine ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Jabal al Sayed has been seized by SAA according to Pro-gov twitter source ( Sayed Ridha). Wouldn't post a Twitter as source hadn't SOHR said that advances were being made around the mount twice today. This gives direction towards the north, rather than east to Al-Kawm. But then again this is only Twitter. Caret initio et fine ( talk) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Al-Sirmaniyah besieged according to Pro-gov source (
Al Masdar)
Caret initio et fine (
talk) 10:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The SDF captured the village of Saharij according to pro-YPG source ( ARA News). The advance south of Sarrin by SDF has been reported by pro-opp source ( SOHR), but not the capturing of this particular village. Caret initio et fine ( talk) 11:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
AlMasdar announced the conquer by SAA of the signal base. That was added on the map in [10], but I cannot see anything there. Either the editor supplies more info or this base must be removed. Paolowalter ( talk) 15:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
This town was reportedly always under rebel control, and under a truce in the same time. Most of SOHR sources are old, of course because not much happened there until now, so it's hard to find something new and not related to rebel or pro-rebel sources. Here a heavy pro-government reporter Leith Fadel basically confirms that rebels are present in this town but doesn't say they have a full control, and says it's under a truce. Bosnjoboy, which is used a reliable reporter, says it's under rebel control. So we need to find something in the middle, which is again a truce (said by Leith). I will put a dot there until someone makes an update. DuckZz ( talk) 23:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Your source is from the beginning of 2014, almost 2013, and it's a neutral source. It doesn't say that Government has fcontrol of Al-Tal, but only that Rebels don't control it, which I don't denie, and that's the reason why Al-Tal is under truce, same said by Leith Fadel. So my source is Leith Fadel, the most active pro-government source we have. His words are only 2 months old, and since that, nothing has been reported which means the situation is the same. This is pretty much clear. DuckZz ( talk) 15:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Kurdish source said that the Al Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Ahrar Soriya and some other members of Fatah Halab shelling and attacking the villages Basûfan, Cilbirê, Başemrê and Bene around Afrin& Sheikh Meqsud. source source source Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
[ [11]] Apparently the agreement meant that Mariameen is under joint control of JaT and FH rebels. Therefore it was indicated as green. I don't know whether this is accurate as JaT is a affiliate of the Kurds in Afrin, however labelling JaT as yellow in Afrin however not where it operates in other provinces such as greater Aleppo, Idlib is illogical. Prohibited Area ( talk) 17:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)