![]() | 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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
What does that mean? Who is in Sarrin now? http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-democratic-forces-begin-a-major-offensive-to-capture-the-tishreen-dam-in-al-raqqa/ Mughira1395 ( talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Also seeing this across social media apparently there has been towns/villages in their control all this time near the Dam. Shows how good this map is totally isis biased and Fake Syrian Army biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.80.201 ( talk) 13:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Source is inaccurate, Sarrin is still controlled by SDF, if they had lost it we would have heard. Also [ [1]] from a week ago. Prohibited Area ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
http://ypgrojava.com/en/2015/12/24/effective-operations-carried-out-hours-after-enduring-qsd-campaign-aimed-at-confronting-daesh-in-southern-kobane/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.233.229.189 ( talk) 17:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Islamic state sources Twitter claim fully control over Sana'a negberhood in Dar'a . keep an eye on verifications whenever possible. Pro-red sources has not confirmed niether denied yet. Helmy1453 ( talk) 20:48, 23 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. |
Recent SDF gains in tishrin dam area http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/8425/2bo992uvac9kwsbzg.jpg Deniz2694 ( talk) 18:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
In AlMasdar it is reported that IS 8and maybe other groups) are leaving South Damascus for other destinations. Presumly SAA will take control of the area. Some change should be in the detailed map but I do not know exactly which ones. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm proposing that the yellow labels on this map and similar ones at Wikipedia be changed from the ethnic designation "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" to the military force and political designation "Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD)". It violates accepted ideas of fairness to label other forces in Syria based on their political position or military identity and to label this single region based on its majority ethnic identity. This sole ethnic designation on the map also plays into the hands of both the Assad regime's divisive policies and to divisive agendas in regional and global powers. It reflects a mentality that people in the region itself have seemingly rejected (see New York Times report at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/a-dream-of-utopia-in-hell.html ), and it does not reflect the Enlightenment values of an encyclopedia. Upon the creation of the national assembly (the MSD) in Syria last week as the political arm of the QSD, a resolution was released mentioning no single ethnic identity (see http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/final-resolution-of-the-democratic-syria-congress-released ), and the current composition of this assembly is indicative of its pluralistic nature (see http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/executive-board-of-democratic-syria-assembly-elected ). Local, canton-level, and national-assembly level political leaders are expounding upon the pluralistic reality of their assembly and its forces in the face of great hardship and intrigue. One dramatic example is at http://www.diclehaber.com/en/news/content/view/487809 . A designation of "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" also does not reflect the complex reality on the ground that elements of the QSD can and do utilize their ethnic composition to meet tactical and strategic goals (see the careful and correct usage of all terms involving Kurds and Arabs in their proper local context at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria-exclusive-idUSKBN0U006Y20151217 ). I haven't been able to find a map yet with the label change that I'm requesting, but I believe this is due to two facts. Insufficient time has passed for the change to sink in to mass media (The QSD is two months old, and the MSD is one week old), and the region is inaccessible to outside reporters but it does have a few local media outlets that (based on the New York Times report above) can be expected to be free and fair. With these problems, it's understandable that the designation "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" was the best choice until now. It's a safe bet that similar editorial conversations are being held elsewhere. There is no reason for Wikipedia to wait until news outlets reflect neutral reality on their maps. 73.149.16.54 ( talk) 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still against this SDF color for rebels in Raqqa province. It doesn't make any sense at all. As most people who are looking at this map consider "yellow" to represent Kurdish forces like the YPG/YPJ, and not rebels at all. I don't want to believe that 10 months of work that we invested by finding sources and sources for Raqqa province, and every village, now just goes straight into the dumbster just because some users wanted "something new". The problem is, that SDF is a coalition of groups, and not a group itself, and even thought rebels have around 15 groups inside, the YPG still makes 90% of the soldiers because they have 60 000 of them, and basically whatever happens, it will be marked as under SDF control. This is basically against the rules because by using that logic, we can remove every grey color from the map, because Al Nusra is part of the Jaish Fatah coalition, of which 80% of the groups are Rebels (IF/FSA), and whatever happens, it should go under lime control, right ? Of course not, that's why we always try to find other sources after Jaish Fateh captured something, we find out which groups did it. We don't do that for the SDF because the idea is quite the opposite.
DuckZz ( talk) 21:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
No ! You're not objective, we all hate Al Nusra but the grey color needs to stay as we need to make a distinction between them and Rebels. The same as wee need to make the distinction between Rebels and Kurdish forces (YPG/YPJ etc). That's why Raqqa province needs to go back as it was. DuckZz ( talk) 16:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No, because being objective in this way means that even thought i don't like someone, i want to write about them and I want to show them, everything according to rules. Being not objective would be if I said "I hate Nusra, and i also think we can remove the grey color". Which isn't the case. But Nusra is just an example of why we should change back Raqqa and keep editing it as it was, with either Kurdish, Rebel or Joint control. DuckZz ( talk) 23:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have changed my opinion on the designation of the yellow icon. Given that most reports on YPG offensives now specify them as the SDF I agree that
should be changed to SDF. However I propose that it also be specified that the majority of the SDF are Kurdish, as the fact that the yellow icon originated from the Kurdish YPG should be retained in the map. Therefore:
Prohibited Area ( talk) 15:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
the city of Darayya has beenn made 3 times bigger than what it actually is sinnce the last Edit, East Ghouta is about half the sizee it currently is on this map and the Area south of Daraya (Big green circle with Red locations captured) is also not the reality of the situation is the Damascus map going to be made accurate, source Darayya: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-at-the-strategic-city-of-darayya-in-rural-damascus/ . Same with the Daraa map totally wrong and outdated the SAA have captured 90% of the city and are right beside the old Border crossing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.235.52 ( talk) 14:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Insurgent presence in Darayya seems is a bit exaggerated probability need a correction
Here is other section about it /info/en/?search=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Seems_Insurgent_.28Green.29_presence_is_too_exaggerated_in_Darayya_.28Damascus_map.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.159.103 ( talk) 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Al-Jazeera article here Moadamiya is surrounded by SAA, therefor areas between Daraya and Moadamiya can´t be under opposition control. According to the article it does neither seems like Moadamiya should be under peace (purple). Rhocagil ( talk) 16:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
[ [3]] Tishrin Dam reportedly captured by SDF per pro-Kurdish source. Does anyone have any reliable or neutral sources on the offensive that we can use to edit the module? Prohibited Area ( talk) 11:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Recently Al Bab city dot was increased, I am not sure of whether it goes along with the stablished city sizes but it's misleading when looking at the map that Manbij, a city with almost double population and size than al Bab, is shown as an smaller town. Same goes for Jarablus which is shown as a town the same size of Manbij despite being actually smaller even than Kobani. Shouldnt there be a change to reflect those facts?
Source: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.463815&lon=37.787476&z=11&m=b&permpoly=1655911
190.67.227.91 ( talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Jarablus has 11'000 inhabitants so it should be size 8 and not 10 as it is now and Al-Bab has 63'000 inhabitants so it should be size 12 and not 14. --
Cavendish21 (
talk)
10:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Sûriyeya Ok thanks for the links! Then it's the Wikipedia page of these two cities which should be updated. Cavendish21 ( talk) 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why are we using mapcarta and arrivedin links who don't provide any reliable sources and even end up as circular sources in the case of arrivedin (all references lead back to wikipedia)? Only reliable data is the 2004 census which is used in this page:
/info/en/?search=List_of_cities_in_Syria
It shows Manbij as a city with almost 100000 inhabitans and al Bab as a city with 60000, which fits the sizes of both cities in satellite photos.
190.67.227.91 ( talk) 17:32, 29 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. |
Mahin is under Syrian control
88.119.205.90 ( talk) 14:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok... has just been changed! :-) Mughira1395 ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
New report from SOHR said that the SAA advance near the town Mahin and restoring of control over village of Hadath. SOHR SOHR Sûriyeya ( talk) 08:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
ISIS takes control over 5 towns on turkish border, but only 3 are named: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-captures-3-villages-from-the-turkish-backed-islamists-in-northern-aleppo/ and http://www.syriahr.com/?p=148572 Mughira1395 ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA Captured Mahin
http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20151230-syrie-feroces-combats-autour-cheikh-meskin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.4.228.84 ( talk) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Whoever changed the towns on the turkish border to black: Harjala has also to be changed (see postings above). Mughira1395 ( talk) 21:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The town Toros and Bayt Ablaq are marked red since a long time but all maps (pro-government and pro-opp) reports them as rebels' hands. The front line appears to be a little more west. I propose to change them to green. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA captured the city just now. Sources: https://twitter.com/Ald_Aba/status/682175914965336065 https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/682173746682171392 https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/682175213186973697 We probably need to waith for a non-Twitter source, but it seems to be fairly confirmed. MesmerMe ( talk) 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The anti syrian observatory for beheaders rights must confirmed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.159.103 ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not 100% SAA held, western part of the town is fsa/nusra. Totholio ( talk) 18:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
What were the biggest changes during this year? What were the suprises ? What do you predict for the next year? Another indescisive one or some kind of political solution can be reached ? Oroszka ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Russian Intervention and Rebel takeover of Idlib,ISIS seizure of Palmyra,Major YPG gains. Alhanuty ( talk) 23:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Opp. and kurdish sources confirm that the ISIS launched the massive counter-offensive in Raqqa and retake Ayn Issa, Brigade 93, Fatisa, Shergirat and some other points. source source source source source source Later, the Kurdish forces regain Shergirat from ISIS. source Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
According to pro-gov and SOHRMansura is rebel held not contested. Lists129 ( talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm proposing that the green labels on this map and similar ones at Wikipedia be changed from the overly broad and ambiguous designation "Opposition" to the specific and factually correct designation "Riyadh Opposition". UN Security Council resolution 2254 endorsed a road map for a peace process in Syria between the government and opposition members with no further specification of which groups were or were not to be included in the opposition (See http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12171.doc.htm ). The UN Secretary-General's welcome and the statements of John Kerry, Secretary of State of the US, both described the Riyadh conference as containing a broad spectrum/cross-section of opposition groups without describing the Riyadh Opposition as "the opposition." Sergey Lavrov of the Russian Federation explicitly negated the idea that the Riyadh Opposition was the opposition when he pointed out that "The Vienna format was the only one that brought together all influential players to find a sustainable and fair settlement through talks with the government and the 'whole span' of the opposition." Basah Ja'afari of Syria pointed out the importance of not "repeating failed assumptions that had caused destruction in more than one country." The 'whole span' of the opposition referred to by Lavrov would include the opposition that met in Derik to form the Syrian Democratic Council (MSD) as the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD). As noted by ARA News at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7AwRYHp1m8 , "Both conferences [Riyadh and Derik] aimed at unifying the ranks of the dispersed Syrian opposition." In addition to this proposal, a neutral map would require the correct designation of areas affiliated with both oppositions. Therefore, I am withdrawing my previous proposal (which was not accepted) to replaced the yellow label "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" by "Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD)." This label would have been apt from December 10 (the date of the formation of the MSD) to December 18 (the date of the passage of the UN Resolution). Instead, I am proposing that yellow areas be labeled "Derik Opposition." These yellow "Derik Opposition" labels and green "Riyadh Opposition" labels would provide proper and neutral contrast to the international reader between land held by opposition groups associated with the Derik and Riyadh conferences until their possible consolidation into a single opposition or some other possible outcome in preparation for peace talks currently planned for January 25, 2016 in Geneva. Additional material that may assist editors with this decision is at http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/12/analysis-kurdish-led-peace-conference-is-best-hope-for-syria/ , http://www.madaniya.info/2015/12/21/haytham-manna-la-resolution-de-l-onu-etape-essentielle-pour-une-solution-politique/ , and http://aranews.org/2015/12/%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA/ . 73.149.16.54 ( talk) 07:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA advance in E Hama. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
SOHR states than Qubbat al Kurdi is being shelld by SAA. It is likely controlled by rebels. Paolowalter ( talk) 19:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe its better to exclude kweires airbase from the Aleppo detail map and handle it in the main map 85.15.42.246 ( talk) 06:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
If the detailed map blocks edits of this map, it should be reduced, of course - it is ofted delayed and approximate. However, I'd propose to put the color points over the detailed map as well - it would be the better solution, as all the detailed maps include areas outside the respective large cities, and cover small settlements that should be specified on this map, in my opinion, no matter if they are over a detailed map or not. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Paolowalter why are you keep making an unsjtified edit and childish reverting??? Stop this,there are no reliable sources which can confirm this contradictory edit of your's. Lists129 ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I reread all the sources above based on which the detailed map was updated. They show clearly that the front line runs at the SYSACCO plant. The conquer of SYSACCO plant was stated clearly (followed by statements about clashing 'at' the plant). This information leads to the conclusion taht SAA control west of the airport till SYSACCO plant along th eroad to Aleppo and the black points hould go red (as theay has been in the detailed map since a while). The plant is likely red but it is on the front line, a black semicircle is fine. Bottom line: we should simply reproduce the status that used to be on the map before the removal without modification. Paolowalter ( talk) 13:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Sûriyeya: Al-Jaberiyah, Kuweires Gharbi and Production Facility were always Isis held all that area was Isis held until Kweris Offensive no source said that they were captured if these villages were captured then AL-Masdar 100% would confrim it. Lists129 ( talk) 18:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
YMB has renounced ties to ISIL [ [14]] hence should we not change the areas held by the group to green? Prohibited Area ( talk) 13:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing should be changed. Reliable reporter Aymen Tamimi already showed in various articles how ISIS propaganda works. This same group said that they don't see any difference between them and ISIS and that they wont fight against them. They see that ISIS is the true ideology in Syria, according to their facebook articles. Basically if they don't fight against ISIS (even say they wouldn't), but fight against Nusra, FSA, IF and every other rebel groups, then we can assume that their only using the "Im not ISIS" propaganda because of the civilians that live under their control. DuckZz ( talk) 18:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright then, Sûriyeya, would you oppose the joining of Jaysh al-Fatah with the Islamic State? What about Jabhat al-Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, or Ahrar ash-Sham? All of these groups share, entirely, the SAME ideology as IS. My point is that there are MANY Islamist organizations in this war that we group in with the (green) mainstream opposition, and until about a year ago, Jabhat al-Nusra was grouped in with them as well. You have two options: Go by a double standard, and list them as being part of them Islamic State, or follow the rules of the page, and quit saying that you believe they are a part of IS. They aren't, and until you provide something that actually states they are, which you have not done, and only provided something saying that they believed they were a group devoted to IS (this is their POV, which edits cannot be based on). I'm going to change their colour to lime in the next few hours, whenever our ISP fixes our connection. If you change them back, Sûriyeya, you're being reported for going by a double standard, and POV editing. DaJesuZ ( talk) 18:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Your repetitiveness isn't going to be entertained. I'm changing the icons. Also, provide something other than Wikipedia source to back up something on Wikipedia. Nice circular logic, bro. DaJesuZ ( talk) 20:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think YMB should be labeled black. However we maybe should add an explanation into the legend, that all factons colors include their close allies as well. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
AlMasdar reported that SAA took Ruweisat Al-Qubayb; it is clearly identified as close to Qassab. On [15] this location is identified as Hill Kabit. Does it correspond to Khbatlis? It makes sense but I cannot be sure. Any opinion? Paolowalter ( talk) 21:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
From BosnjoBoy there is a suggestion that Mahajah is under truce. That has been a long standing question, any suggestion it might be true? Paolowalter ( talk) 22:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I really have no idea what does "truce" even mean ? If a village/town is not contested, it doesn't mean its under a truce, but only that there are no clashes inside or outside. By your logic, we can remove every green/red dot from the map and replace it with purple, because in those areas there haven't been any clashes reported for lets say 7 months. A truce means when there's really a signed truce on papper where both sides clearly say that, like in Al-Waer or districts in Damascus. Mahajah is not contested obviously because rebels can cut the main supply road, and not because there's a truce. DuckZz ( talk) 18:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
According to this Syrian army reporter, our map doesn't make any sense and rebels control various areas. He says that rebels control it since 2013 so i really have no idea how to find sources to back this up ? If I find any source saying "Gov. is shelling rebels on location x and y" I will source this section to justife the edit, since we usually don't change location just because Gov. shelled an area (as we know it might happen cuz of accident). DuckZz ( talk) 14:58, 2 January 2016 (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.” So
DuckZz we can't use any maps as a reliable source.
Sûriyeya (
talk)
15:44, 2 January 2016 (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.” So that all maps it is not the reliable sources, and use of any maps as a source for editing "strictly prohibited". Guys we dont need spoil our map on the basis of data from unreliable amateur maps. So that all edits on based data from maps will be reverted.
Sûriyeya (
talk)
18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I was reading about Taqsis a week ago, it was "contested" for months with nusra/fsa infiltrating at night and SAA regaining it in the day. That's why different sources put it green/red. There was reports from pro SAA today that it is stormed right now so... They can flank now from the north. Totholio ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Some sources earlier reported about conflict between YPG and of Raqqa revolution brigade. here And that the Raqqa Revolutionaries' brigades HQ in the TalAbyad is totally surrounded by YPG. here And the later I also saw the report from opp. source that the YPG gave to the members from the Raqqa revolution brigade 48 hours that be leave city or they all will be arested the YPG. Guys maybe you have more data about the situation in this city. Because opp. source said that the Kurdish forces arrested the some people in the town of Tal Abyad without any of reasons. here and Kurdish source said that the Turkish air force units targeted Syrian-Kurdish sites in this area near the Syrian-Turkish border crossing in northern Syria. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't, because we have "new rules". Fix it by getting back the joint control icon, problems fixed. If not, i will have to change a lot of areas in north Raqqa according to our rules. DuckZz ( talk) 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
mixed control won't be accurate,Liwa Thuwar Al-Raqqa and their affiliated Clan army are independent and are senior,unlike the others who are junior partners,i think marking liwa Thuwar Al-Raqqa areas green will make it good. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And as we cant use all maps as a source: Rule#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.”
So we can marked as rebels-held only the villages of Zanbaq, Khirbat ar Ruzz, Damishliyah, Ali Bajliyah about which source said
here
here and plus rebels lost the Ayn Issa,Brigade 93,Fatisah, Shar Karak & Shuweyhan,Abdo and Ayn Issa Grain Silos but Kurdish forces retake from ISIS.
Sûriyeya (
talk)
07:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Another source confirms Bosno maps and gives accurate discription of the rebel held zone http://www.shahbapress.com/news/2499/%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9_%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A9_%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%A9_%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AF.html Alhanuty ( talk) 12:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Alhanuty Sûriyeya Roboskiye DuckZz Helmy1453 Liwa al Raqqa has apparently disbanded after an alleged YPG blockade of the Arab-held territories in Tell Abyad (this may explain why the area collapsed so easily in last week's Ein Issa offensive). In any regard should we now change the remaining towns back to SDF? http://syriadirect.org/news/tribes%E2%80%99-army-disbands-in-north-amidst-accusations-of-ypg-blockade/ Prohibited Area ( talk) 18:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Roboskiye
Sûriyeya
Prohibited Area
I didn't wanted to do this, but now you see why we should change back things as they were before. With this i mean the thing how we describe the SDF-rebel relations in Raqqa province. Instead of using the joint control icon, and describing whether a place is captured by both rebels and Kurds, or Kurds alone etc, we now have this problem, where we have rebels as being part of SDF and other groups going solo.
5* This source is only talking about Kurdish related things, and may support that Ayn Isa should go under joint control, as other sources said that FSA withdrew from the village, but before that saying they never where there, so it only means they dont want to talk about them, but only when something negative happens.
Sûriyeya That wasn't my main question. If i agree with you, could you then agree with me about changing, or to say it better, bringing back the old way (in my opinion better) of editing the Raqqa province, where the SDF represents a coalition, and not a color itself. Read again what i wrote. DuckZz ( talk) 20:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Roboskiye No you did not understand me. SDF coalition is basically the same as former Burkan Firat, which means YPG/YPJ + Rebels (in Raqqa province). When a town/village was being captured, we marked it as according to which groups did it, worked fine, Soluk was captured by YPG, Tall Abyad by both rebels and Kurds, Sarrin by Kurds, Ayn Issa by both etc etc. Worked fine. This is how it should like look. I need some support, because basically editors either don't care or show small support to change this back. DuckZz ( talk) 21:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm on 100 percent support Kurds and their armed forces but why we made so much of edits without the sources. We should adhere to the basic rules and do not do unreasonable changes on map. Source just said that a land mine from Daesh remnants was exploded in village of Sai Kol. But on based this report we put to the SDF-held some the villages and some mountains to the west of village Tishrin. Guys we must stop to make edits without the sources which can provid these edits. So this all unjustified changes. here here Guys this violation the rules #3"POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated(If you are not sure about what the source is saying post it on the talk page first so that it would base discussed)". Sûriyeya– ( talk) 15:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
While many people do not understand or read Arabic, Arabic sources are the best ones we have to report the situation on the ground. Now, we do have translators, which helps out, but we CANNOT use English sources, unless they can be confirmed via reliable Arabic or Syrian ones, as there is great room for error, translation mistakes, POV pushing, etc. We're not using English sources. DaJesuZ ( talk) 05:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA Captured Al Bayarat
/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January%E2%80%93April_2016)
Pro-government source SANA said that the SAA advance and captured the al-Daghdaghan farm and Rweiset Abu Ghannam, Rweiset al-Sheikh Salman, village al-Sarraf, Jabal al-Hara, Bait Fares Mount and a number of strategic hills in the northern countryside of Lattakia. here And SOHR also said that the SAA and Hezbollah advance and take control of the Ruwayssat Abu Ghannam and the al-Daghdaghan, several hills and the new points in Jabal Turkmen(Turkmen Mountains) SOHR Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Basically a continuation of the last [ [16]] as a concise decision was not obviously made on whether to change yellow to SDF. Basically I propose:
Does anyone oppose this change? Prohibited Area ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
DaJesuZ Prohibited Area Please read what I wrote to Tradedia admin here. We have a big problem. Now look at this report from a reliable reporter that we use for several years so far. He says that Rebels are mostly part of the SDF while there're some areas which aren't under SDF but completely under Rebel control (Jaish Ashair, who don't want to join SDF). This can be confirmed by pro-rebel sources from the same group and their statements, protests against YPG in those areas (1 civilian got recently killed), large convoys driving after new members finnished weekly training etc. Now again read what I wrote to Tradedia. The SDF is a coalition, and not a group, and can't change the meaning of the map. The same as Jaish Fatah is a coalition, which Nusra is part off, and that doesn't mean we can remove grey dots from the entire map just because Nusra contains only 30% of members.
Prohibited Area I´m not opposing your idea, but as DuckZz mentions there can be a problems. As of what I´ve hear and according to this source (sep-2015) Thuwar al-Raqqa is in administrative power in Ayn Issa. Thou they are members of Burkan Al-Furat I´ve reed many conflicting tweets and articles that they are not members of SDF. I´m not sure of any of this, but I think it´s worth mentioning. Should it be true, Ayn Issa should go green. Rhocagil ( talk) 00:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
As I told already. Yellow should not be marked as Kurds. Kurds is a population not a party. They should be labelled YPG in the past.Now YPG operates with other groups under the SDF banner and therefore yellow <-> SDF. All other details are too subtle or questionable to be incorporated in the map. Once for ever yellow and green are completely different: green is fighting to overthrow the government, yellow not,is fighting against IS and often other islamist group. Paolowalter ( talk) 09:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Basically all my proposal consists of is a rewording of the current designation of the yellow icon. Issues raised here seem to not concern the proposal but the earlier edit made which changed all areas as Green-Yellow to yellow assuming that they were all part of SDF, such issues I am happy to continue to discuss. However solely in regards to my proposal can I make the edit so that:
Prohibited Area ( talk) 16:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I cannot follow all these detailed discussion and I am not sure I want. The proposal should be:
SDF is the only a umbrella organization. Majority of them are Kurds. World knows this war is as between Kurds, Rebels, ISIS and Syria. Bruskom ( talk) 01:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
'
=
SDF (Majority
YPG) '.
Absolutely to avoid using ethnic labels like 'Kurds'. We have to represent military and political groups not ethnical ones.
Paolowalter (
talk)
13:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
How exactly is the issue settled? it ignored the essence of the wiki page!
The kurds (whether a political party or a militant group) CONTROLLED large land and many yellow dots PRIOR to the formation of the SDF. Everyone here knows this, they flew ONE flag, and it is a kurdish flag. Those areas shold remain yellow as they have been for several years. Obviously, for instance Hasakah city is controlled by three parties: Kurds, SAA, and Assyrians (NOT SDF). And the Ifrin canton has only ONE FLAG so far the kurdish flag (NOT SDF). The distinction is clear, we all know this for years and the designation was - and should still be - clear.
The new allied SDF force (with kurds being part, or majority of it) has liberated a different set of dots than the Yellow dots prior to the creation of the SDF. We will lose the essence of who controls what (which is what the map is Exactly about) if we combine the Pre-SDF yellow dots with the newly liberated from ISIS dots.
The situation is clear, the original yellow dots (Pre-SDF) are not enemies of the Syrian Government (They do not oppose ASSAD being a president, they just want certain future autonomy of some sort, and they fight along the SAA in Al-Hasakh Governate), people in Qamishly or Hasakah are not fighting each other, there is no need for truce there either because they are not Opposing one another; the original yellow dots are Power-Vaccum Control due to the SAA leaving the area for other business elsewhere. SDF is not that, and all SDF control dots should have their own color.
What SDF control is DIFFERENT and Mutually Exclusive from what the YPG controls. Designate them differently.
GreyShark, thank you for adding further to the discussion.
This map can not use double standards; it has been amazingly accurate and rational. Look at the city of Idlib as an example; it is ran by the army of conquest (which includes multiple forces just as the SDF includes multiple forces) but is designated by a two-color dot. Why aren't all other dots in Idlib being designated the same way? Simple, because although they fight along each other, JAN, FSA, IF, etc. control other territories already each on its own - besides the territories they control together under one army.
The same standard should be applied here to the newly established yellow dots!
Rojava is a specific geographical region, Tal Abyad is not part of the Rojava region, and it is controlled by SDF (which include a Rovaja power in it 'the YPG'), it is not controlled by the YPG alone. Again, on the other hand, Qameshly, is not controlled by SDF, and neither is Hasakah, the yellow areas in these cities are Controlled ONLY by YGP. The kurds did not cede all which they control to the power of the established SDF (this is the entire point of discussion)! Yes the kurds make up 80% of the SDF and that is simply because they do not need to protect the Rojava anymore (the front lines are far from the areas that are under their control only, but no; SDF does not control all which the kurds control. Again, let's not use a fallacy for this; Mainly, because there are vast areas controlled ONLY by the YPG and not the SDF, YGP control and SDF control are not the same.
Look, i know that tall abyad is controlled by YPG (FOR NOW) but that doesn't make it Rojava (which is a certain geographical place). Okay, Tishreen Dam is controlled by SDF, is it also now considered Rojava? There are Stricktly arab towns in Raqqa gov. and the YPG took control over them soon after Kubani (they were near Tal Abyad too, does that make them part of Rojava? NO.
Also, your sources do not specify anything regarding my point. The source mentioned above does not explain anything about Rojava's supposed 4 areas!
Again: This map can not use double standards; it has been accurate and rational until it made all the dots into yellow. Not all YPG is All SDF, there are places that YPG controls ALONE. AGAIN: Look at the city of Idlib as an example; it is ran by the army of conquest (which includes multiple forces just as the SDF includes multiple forces) but is designated by a two-color dot. Why aren't all other dots in Idlib gov. being designated the same way? Simple, because although they fight along each other, JAN, FSA, IF, etc. control other territories already each on its own - besides the territories they control together under one army.
Please use critical thinking. You need to distinguish between ROJAVA, YPG, and SDF. There terms are not interchangeble.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Najjarah is Aleppo is contested according to SOHR, not SAA-held. [17] PutItOnAMap ( talk) 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there still a ISIS presence in this area? Haven't heard anything in a while.
No there is not, was cleared by Hezbollah months ago but it is just kept here to please the ISIS supporters who edit this map, which is many.
To reinforce what Paolowalter said, there is still fighting Qalamoun. [18] SAA probably haven't put as much effort into clearing it yet because they have other more strategic areas to focus on. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If they have positions actually in the town according to the source I linked above, shouldn't we at least mark Qara as contested? PutItOnAMap ( talk) 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I know there is a rule against the use of other maps to edit this, but maybe sometimes they pose questions that deserve at least to be discussed...specifically, this https://twitter.com/CizireCanton/status/684841781335330817 6th January map by Kurdish source Cizire Canton shows IS still has a presence SE Tishrin Dam near the border with Raqqa province, and here we have to the opposite all coloured in yellow( also in the Raqqa province territory in continuity with that, heading to Issa, we have some yellow dots that according to Kurdish source should be black); then, Deir ez-Zor city: does this al-Masdar map show IS in control on all of Saqr Island and al Jafra? We show them under SAA... https://twitter.com/TheArabSource/status/684961574541344768 ...but I have to say I am not sure how to read the map; Palmyra countryside: we show SAA at the gates of the city, but SOHR and al-Masdar talk about clashes in al-Dawwa and al-Bayarat( the latter only in these days captured by Syrian Army according to Masdar, here is red by a month or more), that are near Tadmur but not at its entrances... Fab8405 ( talk) 15:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
According to Al Masdar news SAA have taken Kadin and hills north of it and are bombarding Salma . 86.135.155.225 ( talk) 12:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Since LightandDark2000 ( talk · contribs) regularly deletes all my questions on his talk page, I will ask him here (now and in the future), so it can stay visible:
Also, I would like that the same user explain this edit. I don't see any proof that YPG took Aldbshih. It is somewhere between YPG held Khirbat Hadlah (Khirbet Hadla) and Tishrin Dam but dam could have been reached from north, not necessarily from the east.
This user was already blocked for a month for breaking the rules and I won't hesitate to call an admin again. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 18:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources for any change must be cited. You can't simply say, "I saw something, somewhere, saying (x)." Doing this means that anyone can just say, "I saw something staying that (insert town name here) was taken by (insert group user supports here)." This doesn't work. Also, I'm calling you a hypocrite, LightDark. You caution someone against threatening you, then mentioning that this person has committed a bannable offense. DaJesuZ ( talk) 10:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/Raqqa.Sl/posts/1118451118166138 https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/posts/1286663958027404 those two sources,the first source reports helicopter landing in Sykol,the other one reports a land mine from Daesh remnants was exploded in #SyKol village. notice it clearly states a landmine from Daesh remnent 3 martyrs were reported,if ISIS was in the village it would have reported Landmine exploded and killed ISIS fighter,the key is remnent,Remnent is only used in the case the ruling power isn't in the area,which clearly proves that the village is controlled by the other side (SDF-YPG),and it is impossible that the SDF rules such an isolated village without securing the surrounding villages,plus Hawarnews confirms that YPG has launched an assault to clear villages west of Ayn Issa. Alhanuty ( talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are the villages, one by one:
P.S. I found two villages names Sykol: Siyahah (Saykul) and Saykul / Ma'rufah.
I just found news on Twitter that SDF liberated 5 villages. The biggest one is Qadiriyah, the one from the title of our conversation. Here is the map that shows exactly where these 5 villages are. The map is wikimapia printscreen with frontline visible. The frontline is obviously made based on our map. You can see that villages that are taken by SDF today are looooooong way from "our" frontline which proves that "our" frontline has nothing to do with reality. So, please, let's stop painting everything to yellow without good source. I recommend to paint black everything south of Qadiriyah. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/Raqqa.Sl/posts/1122835967727653 villages between Qadiriyah and Sykol under YPG control via https://www.facebook.com/Raqqa.Sl/posts/1122835967727653 for locations west of Sykol,you can change them to black,but the area exactly between Sykol and Qadiriyah to stay yellow,plus this government map proves that Sykol is in the way south at the border with Raqqa http://aleppo.moh.gov.sy/img_areas/reef/3enal3arab/3enal3arab.jpg . Alhanuty ( talk) 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I will, for now, leave Sykol yellow, as well as villages between Sykol and Qadiriyah, but I will put back to black villages west of it. If You someone wants to change them to yellow, please use a valid source, and, in case source doesn't explicitly say "village x is under SDF control", write a short explanation here. Thanks for understanding. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 08:48, 7 January 2016 (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. |
Acording to the online news agency Al-Masdar News the city of Salma in Latakia has been taken by the Syrian government along with some other areas around it, please rectify the map, by updating the colors of the areas. 2001:8A0:FB80:4301:8098:9C3E:73FF:FBD2 ( talk) 13:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Also Jarjisah near ar-Rastan [21] - 84.223.133.151 ( talk) 14:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
A lot of recent modifications were done relying on private, unknown or biased facebook or twitter sources that cannot be accepted. I strongly invite to self-revert. I have already reported to the page manager to take some action. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I remember every editor here that use of social media (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc...) as a reliable source is strictly FORBIDDEN by Wikipedia rules. It can be only accepted if the source origin is a worldwide-recognized expert on the issue, and only if its agreed by consensus by the rest of editors. Some users seems to not know that or worse, to know but ignore it, so I've started some weeks ago to delete every content based on social media on any page related to the Syrian civil war. So you're warned. Regards,--
HC
PUNXKID
23:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a report here that the SAA won control of the "Ithriyah Oil Pumping Station and the Ithriyah Electrical Station near the formerly contested town of Ithriyah" which are "only a few kilometers away from the nearby Al-Raqqa Governorate". None of these seems to be on the map. Perhaps they can be added in? Esn ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2016 (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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
What does that mean? Who is in Sarrin now? http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-democratic-forces-begin-a-major-offensive-to-capture-the-tishreen-dam-in-al-raqqa/ Mughira1395 ( talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Also seeing this across social media apparently there has been towns/villages in their control all this time near the Dam. Shows how good this map is totally isis biased and Fake Syrian Army biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.80.201 ( talk) 13:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Source is inaccurate, Sarrin is still controlled by SDF, if they had lost it we would have heard. Also [ [1]] from a week ago. Prohibited Area ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
http://ypgrojava.com/en/2015/12/24/effective-operations-carried-out-hours-after-enduring-qsd-campaign-aimed-at-confronting-daesh-in-southern-kobane/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.233.229.189 ( talk) 17:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Islamic state sources Twitter claim fully control over Sana'a negberhood in Dar'a . keep an eye on verifications whenever possible. Pro-red sources has not confirmed niether denied yet. Helmy1453 ( talk) 20:48, 23 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. |
Recent SDF gains in tishrin dam area http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/8425/2bo992uvac9kwsbzg.jpg Deniz2694 ( talk) 18:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
In AlMasdar it is reported that IS 8and maybe other groups) are leaving South Damascus for other destinations. Presumly SAA will take control of the area. Some change should be in the detailed map but I do not know exactly which ones. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm proposing that the yellow labels on this map and similar ones at Wikipedia be changed from the ethnic designation "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" to the military force and political designation "Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD)". It violates accepted ideas of fairness to label other forces in Syria based on their political position or military identity and to label this single region based on its majority ethnic identity. This sole ethnic designation on the map also plays into the hands of both the Assad regime's divisive policies and to divisive agendas in regional and global powers. It reflects a mentality that people in the region itself have seemingly rejected (see New York Times report at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/a-dream-of-utopia-in-hell.html ), and it does not reflect the Enlightenment values of an encyclopedia. Upon the creation of the national assembly (the MSD) in Syria last week as the political arm of the QSD, a resolution was released mentioning no single ethnic identity (see http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/final-resolution-of-the-democratic-syria-congress-released ), and the current composition of this assembly is indicative of its pluralistic nature (see http://anfenglish.com/kurdistan/executive-board-of-democratic-syria-assembly-elected ). Local, canton-level, and national-assembly level political leaders are expounding upon the pluralistic reality of their assembly and its forces in the face of great hardship and intrigue. One dramatic example is at http://www.diclehaber.com/en/news/content/view/487809 . A designation of "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" also does not reflect the complex reality on the ground that elements of the QSD can and do utilize their ethnic composition to meet tactical and strategic goals (see the careful and correct usage of all terms involving Kurds and Arabs in their proper local context at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria-exclusive-idUSKBN0U006Y20151217 ). I haven't been able to find a map yet with the label change that I'm requesting, but I believe this is due to two facts. Insufficient time has passed for the change to sink in to mass media (The QSD is two months old, and the MSD is one week old), and the region is inaccessible to outside reporters but it does have a few local media outlets that (based on the New York Times report above) can be expected to be free and fair. With these problems, it's understandable that the designation "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" was the best choice until now. It's a safe bet that similar editorial conversations are being held elsewhere. There is no reason for Wikipedia to wait until news outlets reflect neutral reality on their maps. 73.149.16.54 ( talk) 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm still against this SDF color for rebels in Raqqa province. It doesn't make any sense at all. As most people who are looking at this map consider "yellow" to represent Kurdish forces like the YPG/YPJ, and not rebels at all. I don't want to believe that 10 months of work that we invested by finding sources and sources for Raqqa province, and every village, now just goes straight into the dumbster just because some users wanted "something new". The problem is, that SDF is a coalition of groups, and not a group itself, and even thought rebels have around 15 groups inside, the YPG still makes 90% of the soldiers because they have 60 000 of them, and basically whatever happens, it will be marked as under SDF control. This is basically against the rules because by using that logic, we can remove every grey color from the map, because Al Nusra is part of the Jaish Fatah coalition, of which 80% of the groups are Rebels (IF/FSA), and whatever happens, it should go under lime control, right ? Of course not, that's why we always try to find other sources after Jaish Fateh captured something, we find out which groups did it. We don't do that for the SDF because the idea is quite the opposite.
DuckZz ( talk) 21:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
No ! You're not objective, we all hate Al Nusra but the grey color needs to stay as we need to make a distinction between them and Rebels. The same as wee need to make the distinction between Rebels and Kurdish forces (YPG/YPJ etc). That's why Raqqa province needs to go back as it was. DuckZz ( talk) 16:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
No, because being objective in this way means that even thought i don't like someone, i want to write about them and I want to show them, everything according to rules. Being not objective would be if I said "I hate Nusra, and i also think we can remove the grey color". Which isn't the case. But Nusra is just an example of why we should change back Raqqa and keep editing it as it was, with either Kurdish, Rebel or Joint control. DuckZz ( talk) 23:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have changed my opinion on the designation of the yellow icon. Given that most reports on YPG offensives now specify them as the SDF I agree that
should be changed to SDF. However I propose that it also be specified that the majority of the SDF are Kurdish, as the fact that the yellow icon originated from the Kurdish YPG should be retained in the map. Therefore:
Prohibited Area ( talk) 15:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
the city of Darayya has beenn made 3 times bigger than what it actually is sinnce the last Edit, East Ghouta is about half the sizee it currently is on this map and the Area south of Daraya (Big green circle with Red locations captured) is also not the reality of the situation is the Damascus map going to be made accurate, source Darayya: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advances-at-the-strategic-city-of-darayya-in-rural-damascus/ . Same with the Daraa map totally wrong and outdated the SAA have captured 90% of the city and are right beside the old Border crossing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.235.52 ( talk) 14:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Insurgent presence in Darayya seems is a bit exaggerated probability need a correction
Here is other section about it /info/en/?search=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Seems_Insurgent_.28Green.29_presence_is_too_exaggerated_in_Darayya_.28Damascus_map.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.159.103 ( talk) 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Al-Jazeera article here Moadamiya is surrounded by SAA, therefor areas between Daraya and Moadamiya can´t be under opposition control. According to the article it does neither seems like Moadamiya should be under peace (purple). Rhocagil ( talk) 16:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
[ [3]] Tishrin Dam reportedly captured by SDF per pro-Kurdish source. Does anyone have any reliable or neutral sources on the offensive that we can use to edit the module? Prohibited Area ( talk) 11:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Recently Al Bab city dot was increased, I am not sure of whether it goes along with the stablished city sizes but it's misleading when looking at the map that Manbij, a city with almost double population and size than al Bab, is shown as an smaller town. Same goes for Jarablus which is shown as a town the same size of Manbij despite being actually smaller even than Kobani. Shouldnt there be a change to reflect those facts?
Source: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.463815&lon=37.787476&z=11&m=b&permpoly=1655911
190.67.227.91 ( talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Jarablus has 11'000 inhabitants so it should be size 8 and not 10 as it is now and Al-Bab has 63'000 inhabitants so it should be size 12 and not 14. --
Cavendish21 (
talk)
10:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Sûriyeya Ok thanks for the links! Then it's the Wikipedia page of these two cities which should be updated. Cavendish21 ( talk) 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why are we using mapcarta and arrivedin links who don't provide any reliable sources and even end up as circular sources in the case of arrivedin (all references lead back to wikipedia)? Only reliable data is the 2004 census which is used in this page:
/info/en/?search=List_of_cities_in_Syria
It shows Manbij as a city with almost 100000 inhabitans and al Bab as a city with 60000, which fits the sizes of both cities in satellite photos.
190.67.227.91 ( talk) 17:32, 29 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. |
Mahin is under Syrian control
88.119.205.90 ( talk) 14:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok... has just been changed! :-) Mughira1395 ( talk) 01:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
New report from SOHR said that the SAA advance near the town Mahin and restoring of control over village of Hadath. SOHR SOHR Sûriyeya ( talk) 08:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
ISIS takes control over 5 towns on turkish border, but only 3 are named: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-captures-3-villages-from-the-turkish-backed-islamists-in-northern-aleppo/ and http://www.syriahr.com/?p=148572 Mughira1395 ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA Captured Mahin
http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20151230-syrie-feroces-combats-autour-cheikh-meskin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.4.228.84 ( talk) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Whoever changed the towns on the turkish border to black: Harjala has also to be changed (see postings above). Mughira1395 ( talk) 21:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The town Toros and Bayt Ablaq are marked red since a long time but all maps (pro-government and pro-opp) reports them as rebels' hands. The front line appears to be a little more west. I propose to change them to green. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA captured the city just now. Sources: https://twitter.com/Ald_Aba/status/682175914965336065 https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/682173746682171392 https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/682175213186973697 We probably need to waith for a non-Twitter source, but it seems to be fairly confirmed. MesmerMe ( talk) 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The anti syrian observatory for beheaders rights must confirmed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.159.103 ( talk) 13:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not 100% SAA held, western part of the town is fsa/nusra. Totholio ( talk) 18:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
What were the biggest changes during this year? What were the suprises ? What do you predict for the next year? Another indescisive one or some kind of political solution can be reached ? Oroszka ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Russian Intervention and Rebel takeover of Idlib,ISIS seizure of Palmyra,Major YPG gains. Alhanuty ( talk) 23:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Opp. and kurdish sources confirm that the ISIS launched the massive counter-offensive in Raqqa and retake Ayn Issa, Brigade 93, Fatisa, Shergirat and some other points. source source source source source source Later, the Kurdish forces regain Shergirat from ISIS. source Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
According to pro-gov and SOHRMansura is rebel held not contested. Lists129 ( talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm proposing that the green labels on this map and similar ones at Wikipedia be changed from the overly broad and ambiguous designation "Opposition" to the specific and factually correct designation "Riyadh Opposition". UN Security Council resolution 2254 endorsed a road map for a peace process in Syria between the government and opposition members with no further specification of which groups were or were not to be included in the opposition (See http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12171.doc.htm ). The UN Secretary-General's welcome and the statements of John Kerry, Secretary of State of the US, both described the Riyadh conference as containing a broad spectrum/cross-section of opposition groups without describing the Riyadh Opposition as "the opposition." Sergey Lavrov of the Russian Federation explicitly negated the idea that the Riyadh Opposition was the opposition when he pointed out that "The Vienna format was the only one that brought together all influential players to find a sustainable and fair settlement through talks with the government and the 'whole span' of the opposition." Basah Ja'afari of Syria pointed out the importance of not "repeating failed assumptions that had caused destruction in more than one country." The 'whole span' of the opposition referred to by Lavrov would include the opposition that met in Derik to form the Syrian Democratic Council (MSD) as the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD). As noted by ARA News at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7AwRYHp1m8 , "Both conferences [Riyadh and Derik] aimed at unifying the ranks of the dispersed Syrian opposition." In addition to this proposal, a neutral map would require the correct designation of areas affiliated with both oppositions. Therefore, I am withdrawing my previous proposal (which was not accepted) to replaced the yellow label "Kurds (Including Affiliates)" by "Syrian Democratic Forces (QSD)." This label would have been apt from December 10 (the date of the formation of the MSD) to December 18 (the date of the passage of the UN Resolution). Instead, I am proposing that yellow areas be labeled "Derik Opposition." These yellow "Derik Opposition" labels and green "Riyadh Opposition" labels would provide proper and neutral contrast to the international reader between land held by opposition groups associated with the Derik and Riyadh conferences until their possible consolidation into a single opposition or some other possible outcome in preparation for peace talks currently planned for January 25, 2016 in Geneva. Additional material that may assist editors with this decision is at http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/12/analysis-kurdish-led-peace-conference-is-best-hope-for-syria/ , http://www.madaniya.info/2015/12/21/haytham-manna-la-resolution-de-l-onu-etape-essentielle-pour-une-solution-politique/ , and http://aranews.org/2015/12/%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A6%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA/ . 73.149.16.54 ( talk) 07:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA advance in E Hama. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
SOHR states than Qubbat al Kurdi is being shelld by SAA. It is likely controlled by rebels. Paolowalter ( talk) 19:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe its better to exclude kweires airbase from the Aleppo detail map and handle it in the main map 85.15.42.246 ( talk) 06:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
If the detailed map blocks edits of this map, it should be reduced, of course - it is ofted delayed and approximate. However, I'd propose to put the color points over the detailed map as well - it would be the better solution, as all the detailed maps include areas outside the respective large cities, and cover small settlements that should be specified on this map, in my opinion, no matter if they are over a detailed map or not. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Paolowalter why are you keep making an unsjtified edit and childish reverting??? Stop this,there are no reliable sources which can confirm this contradictory edit of your's. Lists129 ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I reread all the sources above based on which the detailed map was updated. They show clearly that the front line runs at the SYSACCO plant. The conquer of SYSACCO plant was stated clearly (followed by statements about clashing 'at' the plant). This information leads to the conclusion taht SAA control west of the airport till SYSACCO plant along th eroad to Aleppo and the black points hould go red (as theay has been in the detailed map since a while). The plant is likely red but it is on the front line, a black semicircle is fine. Bottom line: we should simply reproduce the status that used to be on the map before the removal without modification. Paolowalter ( talk) 13:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Sûriyeya: Al-Jaberiyah, Kuweires Gharbi and Production Facility were always Isis held all that area was Isis held until Kweris Offensive no source said that they were captured if these villages were captured then AL-Masdar 100% would confrim it. Lists129 ( talk) 18:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
YMB has renounced ties to ISIL [ [14]] hence should we not change the areas held by the group to green? Prohibited Area ( talk) 13:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing should be changed. Reliable reporter Aymen Tamimi already showed in various articles how ISIS propaganda works. This same group said that they don't see any difference between them and ISIS and that they wont fight against them. They see that ISIS is the true ideology in Syria, according to their facebook articles. Basically if they don't fight against ISIS (even say they wouldn't), but fight against Nusra, FSA, IF and every other rebel groups, then we can assume that their only using the "Im not ISIS" propaganda because of the civilians that live under their control. DuckZz ( talk) 18:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright then, Sûriyeya, would you oppose the joining of Jaysh al-Fatah with the Islamic State? What about Jabhat al-Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, or Ahrar ash-Sham? All of these groups share, entirely, the SAME ideology as IS. My point is that there are MANY Islamist organizations in this war that we group in with the (green) mainstream opposition, and until about a year ago, Jabhat al-Nusra was grouped in with them as well. You have two options: Go by a double standard, and list them as being part of them Islamic State, or follow the rules of the page, and quit saying that you believe they are a part of IS. They aren't, and until you provide something that actually states they are, which you have not done, and only provided something saying that they believed they were a group devoted to IS (this is their POV, which edits cannot be based on). I'm going to change their colour to lime in the next few hours, whenever our ISP fixes our connection. If you change them back, Sûriyeya, you're being reported for going by a double standard, and POV editing. DaJesuZ ( talk) 18:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Your repetitiveness isn't going to be entertained. I'm changing the icons. Also, provide something other than Wikipedia source to back up something on Wikipedia. Nice circular logic, bro. DaJesuZ ( talk) 20:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think YMB should be labeled black. However we maybe should add an explanation into the legend, that all factons colors include their close allies as well. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
AlMasdar reported that SAA took Ruweisat Al-Qubayb; it is clearly identified as close to Qassab. On [15] this location is identified as Hill Kabit. Does it correspond to Khbatlis? It makes sense but I cannot be sure. Any opinion? Paolowalter ( talk) 21:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
From BosnjoBoy there is a suggestion that Mahajah is under truce. That has been a long standing question, any suggestion it might be true? Paolowalter ( talk) 22:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I really have no idea what does "truce" even mean ? If a village/town is not contested, it doesn't mean its under a truce, but only that there are no clashes inside or outside. By your logic, we can remove every green/red dot from the map and replace it with purple, because in those areas there haven't been any clashes reported for lets say 7 months. A truce means when there's really a signed truce on papper where both sides clearly say that, like in Al-Waer or districts in Damascus. Mahajah is not contested obviously because rebels can cut the main supply road, and not because there's a truce. DuckZz ( talk) 18:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
According to this Syrian army reporter, our map doesn't make any sense and rebels control various areas. He says that rebels control it since 2013 so i really have no idea how to find sources to back this up ? If I find any source saying "Gov. is shelling rebels on location x and y" I will source this section to justife the edit, since we usually don't change location just because Gov. shelled an area (as we know it might happen cuz of accident). DuckZz ( talk) 14:58, 2 January 2016 (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.” So
DuckZz we can't use any maps as a reliable source.
Sûriyeya (
talk)
15:44, 2 January 2016 (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.” So that all maps it is not the reliable sources, and use of any maps as a source for editing "strictly prohibited". Guys we dont need spoil our map on the basis of data from unreliable amateur maps. So that all edits on based data from maps will be reverted.
Sûriyeya (
talk)
18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I was reading about Taqsis a week ago, it was "contested" for months with nusra/fsa infiltrating at night and SAA regaining it in the day. That's why different sources put it green/red. There was reports from pro SAA today that it is stormed right now so... They can flank now from the north. Totholio ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Some sources earlier reported about conflict between YPG and of Raqqa revolution brigade. here And that the Raqqa Revolutionaries' brigades HQ in the TalAbyad is totally surrounded by YPG. here And the later I also saw the report from opp. source that the YPG gave to the members from the Raqqa revolution brigade 48 hours that be leave city or they all will be arested the YPG. Guys maybe you have more data about the situation in this city. Because opp. source said that the Kurdish forces arrested the some people in the town of Tal Abyad without any of reasons. here and Kurdish source said that the Turkish air force units targeted Syrian-Kurdish sites in this area near the Syrian-Turkish border crossing in northern Syria. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't, because we have "new rules". Fix it by getting back the joint control icon, problems fixed. If not, i will have to change a lot of areas in north Raqqa according to our rules. DuckZz ( talk) 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
mixed control won't be accurate,Liwa Thuwar Al-Raqqa and their affiliated Clan army are independent and are senior,unlike the others who are junior partners,i think marking liwa Thuwar Al-Raqqa areas green will make it good. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And as we cant use all maps as a source: Rule#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.”
So we can marked as rebels-held only the villages of Zanbaq, Khirbat ar Ruzz, Damishliyah, Ali Bajliyah about which source said
here
here and plus rebels lost the Ayn Issa,Brigade 93,Fatisah, Shar Karak & Shuweyhan,Abdo and Ayn Issa Grain Silos but Kurdish forces retake from ISIS.
Sûriyeya (
talk)
07:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Another source confirms Bosno maps and gives accurate discription of the rebel held zone http://www.shahbapress.com/news/2499/%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9_%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A9_%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%A9_%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AF.html Alhanuty ( talk) 12:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Alhanuty Sûriyeya Roboskiye DuckZz Helmy1453 Liwa al Raqqa has apparently disbanded after an alleged YPG blockade of the Arab-held territories in Tell Abyad (this may explain why the area collapsed so easily in last week's Ein Issa offensive). In any regard should we now change the remaining towns back to SDF? http://syriadirect.org/news/tribes%E2%80%99-army-disbands-in-north-amidst-accusations-of-ypg-blockade/ Prohibited Area ( talk) 18:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Roboskiye
Sûriyeya
Prohibited Area
I didn't wanted to do this, but now you see why we should change back things as they were before. With this i mean the thing how we describe the SDF-rebel relations in Raqqa province. Instead of using the joint control icon, and describing whether a place is captured by both rebels and Kurds, or Kurds alone etc, we now have this problem, where we have rebels as being part of SDF and other groups going solo.
5* This source is only talking about Kurdish related things, and may support that Ayn Isa should go under joint control, as other sources said that FSA withdrew from the village, but before that saying they never where there, so it only means they dont want to talk about them, but only when something negative happens.
Sûriyeya That wasn't my main question. If i agree with you, could you then agree with me about changing, or to say it better, bringing back the old way (in my opinion better) of editing the Raqqa province, where the SDF represents a coalition, and not a color itself. Read again what i wrote. DuckZz ( talk) 20:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Roboskiye No you did not understand me. SDF coalition is basically the same as former Burkan Firat, which means YPG/YPJ + Rebels (in Raqqa province). When a town/village was being captured, we marked it as according to which groups did it, worked fine, Soluk was captured by YPG, Tall Abyad by both rebels and Kurds, Sarrin by Kurds, Ayn Issa by both etc etc. Worked fine. This is how it should like look. I need some support, because basically editors either don't care or show small support to change this back. DuckZz ( talk) 21:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm on 100 percent support Kurds and their armed forces but why we made so much of edits without the sources. We should adhere to the basic rules and do not do unreasonable changes on map. Source just said that a land mine from Daesh remnants was exploded in village of Sai Kol. But on based this report we put to the SDF-held some the villages and some mountains to the west of village Tishrin. Guys we must stop to make edits without the sources which can provid these edits. So this all unjustified changes. here here Guys this violation the rules #3"POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated(If you are not sure about what the source is saying post it on the talk page first so that it would base discussed)". Sûriyeya– ( talk) 15:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
While many people do not understand or read Arabic, Arabic sources are the best ones we have to report the situation on the ground. Now, we do have translators, which helps out, but we CANNOT use English sources, unless they can be confirmed via reliable Arabic or Syrian ones, as there is great room for error, translation mistakes, POV pushing, etc. We're not using English sources. DaJesuZ ( talk) 05:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
SAA Captured Al Bayarat
/info/en/?search=Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January%E2%80%93April_2016)
Pro-government source SANA said that the SAA advance and captured the al-Daghdaghan farm and Rweiset Abu Ghannam, Rweiset al-Sheikh Salman, village al-Sarraf, Jabal al-Hara, Bait Fares Mount and a number of strategic hills in the northern countryside of Lattakia. here And SOHR also said that the SAA and Hezbollah advance and take control of the Ruwayssat Abu Ghannam and the al-Daghdaghan, several hills and the new points in Jabal Turkmen(Turkmen Mountains) SOHR Sûriyeya ( talk) 16:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Basically a continuation of the last [ [16]] as a concise decision was not obviously made on whether to change yellow to SDF. Basically I propose:
Does anyone oppose this change? Prohibited Area ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
DaJesuZ Prohibited Area Please read what I wrote to Tradedia admin here. We have a big problem. Now look at this report from a reliable reporter that we use for several years so far. He says that Rebels are mostly part of the SDF while there're some areas which aren't under SDF but completely under Rebel control (Jaish Ashair, who don't want to join SDF). This can be confirmed by pro-rebel sources from the same group and their statements, protests against YPG in those areas (1 civilian got recently killed), large convoys driving after new members finnished weekly training etc. Now again read what I wrote to Tradedia. The SDF is a coalition, and not a group, and can't change the meaning of the map. The same as Jaish Fatah is a coalition, which Nusra is part off, and that doesn't mean we can remove grey dots from the entire map just because Nusra contains only 30% of members.
Prohibited Area I´m not opposing your idea, but as DuckZz mentions there can be a problems. As of what I´ve hear and according to this source (sep-2015) Thuwar al-Raqqa is in administrative power in Ayn Issa. Thou they are members of Burkan Al-Furat I´ve reed many conflicting tweets and articles that they are not members of SDF. I´m not sure of any of this, but I think it´s worth mentioning. Should it be true, Ayn Issa should go green. Rhocagil ( talk) 00:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
As I told already. Yellow should not be marked as Kurds. Kurds is a population not a party. They should be labelled YPG in the past.Now YPG operates with other groups under the SDF banner and therefore yellow <-> SDF. All other details are too subtle or questionable to be incorporated in the map. Once for ever yellow and green are completely different: green is fighting to overthrow the government, yellow not,is fighting against IS and often other islamist group. Paolowalter ( talk) 09:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Basically all my proposal consists of is a rewording of the current designation of the yellow icon. Issues raised here seem to not concern the proposal but the earlier edit made which changed all areas as Green-Yellow to yellow assuming that they were all part of SDF, such issues I am happy to continue to discuss. However solely in regards to my proposal can I make the edit so that:
Prohibited Area ( talk) 16:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I cannot follow all these detailed discussion and I am not sure I want. The proposal should be:
SDF is the only a umbrella organization. Majority of them are Kurds. World knows this war is as between Kurds, Rebels, ISIS and Syria. Bruskom ( talk) 01:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
'
=
SDF (Majority
YPG) '.
Absolutely to avoid using ethnic labels like 'Kurds'. We have to represent military and political groups not ethnical ones.
Paolowalter (
talk)
13:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
How exactly is the issue settled? it ignored the essence of the wiki page!
The kurds (whether a political party or a militant group) CONTROLLED large land and many yellow dots PRIOR to the formation of the SDF. Everyone here knows this, they flew ONE flag, and it is a kurdish flag. Those areas shold remain yellow as they have been for several years. Obviously, for instance Hasakah city is controlled by three parties: Kurds, SAA, and Assyrians (NOT SDF). And the Ifrin canton has only ONE FLAG so far the kurdish flag (NOT SDF). The distinction is clear, we all know this for years and the designation was - and should still be - clear.
The new allied SDF force (with kurds being part, or majority of it) has liberated a different set of dots than the Yellow dots prior to the creation of the SDF. We will lose the essence of who controls what (which is what the map is Exactly about) if we combine the Pre-SDF yellow dots with the newly liberated from ISIS dots.
The situation is clear, the original yellow dots (Pre-SDF) are not enemies of the Syrian Government (They do not oppose ASSAD being a president, they just want certain future autonomy of some sort, and they fight along the SAA in Al-Hasakh Governate), people in Qamishly or Hasakah are not fighting each other, there is no need for truce there either because they are not Opposing one another; the original yellow dots are Power-Vaccum Control due to the SAA leaving the area for other business elsewhere. SDF is not that, and all SDF control dots should have their own color.
What SDF control is DIFFERENT and Mutually Exclusive from what the YPG controls. Designate them differently.
GreyShark, thank you for adding further to the discussion.
This map can not use double standards; it has been amazingly accurate and rational. Look at the city of Idlib as an example; it is ran by the army of conquest (which includes multiple forces just as the SDF includes multiple forces) but is designated by a two-color dot. Why aren't all other dots in Idlib being designated the same way? Simple, because although they fight along each other, JAN, FSA, IF, etc. control other territories already each on its own - besides the territories they control together under one army.
The same standard should be applied here to the newly established yellow dots!
Rojava is a specific geographical region, Tal Abyad is not part of the Rojava region, and it is controlled by SDF (which include a Rovaja power in it 'the YPG'), it is not controlled by the YPG alone. Again, on the other hand, Qameshly, is not controlled by SDF, and neither is Hasakah, the yellow areas in these cities are Controlled ONLY by YGP. The kurds did not cede all which they control to the power of the established SDF (this is the entire point of discussion)! Yes the kurds make up 80% of the SDF and that is simply because they do not need to protect the Rojava anymore (the front lines are far from the areas that are under their control only, but no; SDF does not control all which the kurds control. Again, let's not use a fallacy for this; Mainly, because there are vast areas controlled ONLY by the YPG and not the SDF, YGP control and SDF control are not the same.
Look, i know that tall abyad is controlled by YPG (FOR NOW) but that doesn't make it Rojava (which is a certain geographical place). Okay, Tishreen Dam is controlled by SDF, is it also now considered Rojava? There are Stricktly arab towns in Raqqa gov. and the YPG took control over them soon after Kubani (they were near Tal Abyad too, does that make them part of Rojava? NO.
Also, your sources do not specify anything regarding my point. The source mentioned above does not explain anything about Rojava's supposed 4 areas!
Again: This map can not use double standards; it has been accurate and rational until it made all the dots into yellow. Not all YPG is All SDF, there are places that YPG controls ALONE. AGAIN: Look at the city of Idlib as an example; it is ran by the army of conquest (which includes multiple forces just as the SDF includes multiple forces) but is designated by a two-color dot. Why aren't all other dots in Idlib gov. being designated the same way? Simple, because although they fight along each other, JAN, FSA, IF, etc. control other territories already each on its own - besides the territories they control together under one army.
Please use critical thinking. You need to distinguish between ROJAVA, YPG, and SDF. There terms are not interchangeble.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Najjarah is Aleppo is contested according to SOHR, not SAA-held. [17] PutItOnAMap ( talk) 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there still a ISIS presence in this area? Haven't heard anything in a while.
No there is not, was cleared by Hezbollah months ago but it is just kept here to please the ISIS supporters who edit this map, which is many.
To reinforce what Paolowalter said, there is still fighting Qalamoun. [18] SAA probably haven't put as much effort into clearing it yet because they have other more strategic areas to focus on. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If they have positions actually in the town according to the source I linked above, shouldn't we at least mark Qara as contested? PutItOnAMap ( talk) 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I know there is a rule against the use of other maps to edit this, but maybe sometimes they pose questions that deserve at least to be discussed...specifically, this https://twitter.com/CizireCanton/status/684841781335330817 6th January map by Kurdish source Cizire Canton shows IS still has a presence SE Tishrin Dam near the border with Raqqa province, and here we have to the opposite all coloured in yellow( also in the Raqqa province territory in continuity with that, heading to Issa, we have some yellow dots that according to Kurdish source should be black); then, Deir ez-Zor city: does this al-Masdar map show IS in control on all of Saqr Island and al Jafra? We show them under SAA... https://twitter.com/TheArabSource/status/684961574541344768 ...but I have to say I am not sure how to read the map; Palmyra countryside: we show SAA at the gates of the city, but SOHR and al-Masdar talk about clashes in al-Dawwa and al-Bayarat( the latter only in these days captured by Syrian Army according to Masdar, here is red by a month or more), that are near Tadmur but not at its entrances... Fab8405 ( talk) 15:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
According to Al Masdar news SAA have taken Kadin and hills north of it and are bombarding Salma . 86.135.155.225 ( talk) 12:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Since LightandDark2000 ( talk · contribs) regularly deletes all my questions on his talk page, I will ask him here (now and in the future), so it can stay visible:
Also, I would like that the same user explain this edit. I don't see any proof that YPG took Aldbshih. It is somewhere between YPG held Khirbat Hadlah (Khirbet Hadla) and Tishrin Dam but dam could have been reached from north, not necessarily from the east.
This user was already blocked for a month for breaking the rules and I won't hesitate to call an admin again. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 18:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Sources for any change must be cited. You can't simply say, "I saw something, somewhere, saying (x)." Doing this means that anyone can just say, "I saw something staying that (insert town name here) was taken by (insert group user supports here)." This doesn't work. Also, I'm calling you a hypocrite, LightDark. You caution someone against threatening you, then mentioning that this person has committed a bannable offense. DaJesuZ ( talk) 10:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/Raqqa.Sl/posts/1118451118166138 https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/posts/1286663958027404 those two sources,the first source reports helicopter landing in Sykol,the other one reports a land mine from Daesh remnants was exploded in #SyKol village. notice it clearly states a landmine from Daesh remnent 3 martyrs were reported,if ISIS was in the village it would have reported Landmine exploded and killed ISIS fighter,the key is remnent,Remnent is only used in the case the ruling power isn't in the area,which clearly proves that the village is controlled by the other side (SDF-YPG),and it is impossible that the SDF rules such an isolated village without securing the surrounding villages,plus Hawarnews confirms that YPG has launched an assault to clear villages west of Ayn Issa. Alhanuty ( talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Here are the villages, one by one:
P.S. I found two villages names Sykol: Siyahah (Saykul) and Saykul / Ma'rufah.
I just found news on Twitter that SDF liberated 5 villages. The biggest one is Qadiriyah, the one from the title of our conversation. Here is the map that shows exactly where these 5 villages are. The map is wikimapia printscreen with frontline visible. The frontline is obviously made based on our map. You can see that villages that are taken by SDF today are looooooong way from "our" frontline which proves that "our" frontline has nothing to do with reality. So, please, let's stop painting everything to yellow without good source. I recommend to paint black everything south of Qadiriyah. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 17:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/Raqqa.Sl/posts/1122835967727653 villages between Qadiriyah and Sykol under YPG control via https://www.facebook.com/Raqqa.Sl/posts/1122835967727653 for locations west of Sykol,you can change them to black,but the area exactly between Sykol and Qadiriyah to stay yellow,plus this government map proves that Sykol is in the way south at the border with Raqqa http://aleppo.moh.gov.sy/img_areas/reef/3enal3arab/3enal3arab.jpg . Alhanuty ( talk) 18:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I will, for now, leave Sykol yellow, as well as villages between Sykol and Qadiriyah, but I will put back to black villages west of it. If You someone wants to change them to yellow, please use a valid source, and, in case source doesn't explicitly say "village x is under SDF control", write a short explanation here. Thanks for understanding. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 08:48, 7 January 2016 (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. |
Acording to the online news agency Al-Masdar News the city of Salma in Latakia has been taken by the Syrian government along with some other areas around it, please rectify the map, by updating the colors of the areas. 2001:8A0:FB80:4301:8098:9C3E:73FF:FBD2 ( talk) 13:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Also Jarjisah near ar-Rastan [21] - 84.223.133.151 ( talk) 14:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
A lot of recent modifications were done relying on private, unknown or biased facebook or twitter sources that cannot be accepted. I strongly invite to self-revert. I have already reported to the page manager to take some action. Paolowalter ( talk) 22:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I remember every editor here that use of social media (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc...) as a reliable source is strictly FORBIDDEN by Wikipedia rules. It can be only accepted if the source origin is a worldwide-recognized expert on the issue, and only if its agreed by consensus by the rest of editors. Some users seems to not know that or worse, to know but ignore it, so I've started some weeks ago to delete every content based on social media on any page related to the Syrian civil war. So you're warned. Regards,--
HC
PUNXKID
23:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a report here that the SAA won control of the "Ithriyah Oil Pumping Station and the Ithriyah Electrical Station near the formerly contested town of Ithriyah" which are "only a few kilometers away from the nearby Al-Raqqa Governorate". None of these seems to be on the map. Perhaps they can be added in? Esn ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)