![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
User:LightandDark2000 Al Arisha was not taken, the YPG offensive came from east and west of Shidadi, they bypassed the northern countryside and created an ISIS pocket. Your edit and source [1] [2] do not match, "last bastion in Hasaka" is highly ambiguous and could just mean that Shidadi is the last important city they had, it doesn't mean Arisha itself was liberated. I know we don't copy from maps, but when other map makers [3] [4] including pro-YPG ones are saying Arisha is encircled, I suggest we give them some credibility. So we should revert all villages that are not specifically confirmed to be liberated, unless it's a small village surrounded by liberated villages, etc. But Arisha is a massive pocket.
That said, Twitter sources are all reporting a massive ISIS counter attack at Shidadi while pro-YPG sources are mum. SOHR itself says there are conflicting reports on whether Daesh regained territory inside or near Shidadi or not, so let's not rule out a reversal. [5] NightShadeAEB ( talk) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Editing according to the result of this conversation. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Are the villages between Arishah-Shadaddi actually held by IS as indicated on the map or have they just not been updated? If so please update them because it makes the map look very inaccurate, also as far as I know, these villages have been captured by IS and IS now only has control south of Fadhgami. 82.153.113.72 ( talk) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
What has happened is that SDF gains have probably been overestimated and we have left IS areas stranded amongst SDF areas that were not actually retaken. We're fixing it now. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The recent prevalence of Jund al-Aqsa, an al-Qaeda group not part of Nusra itself, and the Khorasan group, means that we have put up grey markers where Al-Nusra aren't present. I propose we change the labelling on our map for the grey colour to 'Al Qaeda (includes Al Nusra, Jund al-Aqsa, and the Khorasan gruop)' or 'Al Qaeda (predominantly Al Nusra)'. What do you all think of this? PutItOnAMap ( talk) 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I know many of these groups have ties to AQ, but Jund al-Aqsa and al Nusra are directly linked - i.e. they are part of AQ. Therefore, shouldn't Jund al-Aqsa be represented in the same colour as al-Nusra? Point taken about Khorasan. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought Jund al Aqsa was official AQ. It only left al-Nusra, but it remained a part of the Al-Qaeda network, so it is part of Al-Qaeda, even if it is not its official Syrian affiliate. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The reality is that in this war there is hundreds of jihadi-rebel groups, and they can all be linked between them or not depending to the moments and situations in the ground. So it's impossible to say who is AQ or not, but I think that the situation will quickly clarify with the recent agreement of truce, we will be able to put grey those who refuse (AQ & co), and green those who accept it (other rebels). 82.233.227.191 ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I know there are a lot of Salafist and extremist groups around, but the only two that are directly part of AQ itself are Jund al-Aqsa and al-Nusra, even if others have sympathies with AQ, yes? As for AQ launching offensives through green areas, their fighters may have freedom of movement in some rebel-held areas to launch offensives without actually having control in those places. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 10:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the SOHR source, but I'm pretty sure rebels recaptured this village. What do you think ?
If they're not pro-opp sources (or if they are reliable pro-opp sources), we can use them to indicate recapture. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
PutItOnAMap The best would be to just put it as contested. DuckZz ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The best would be to find a non-pro-opp source for a pro-opp advance, in my opinion. I do recall someone mentioning a SOHR source; finding the URL will be enough. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Posting this here for archival purposes since it was deleted. And I still have one thing to add.
Do you speak Arabic? Because my article clearly mentions all those villages, and many more I couldn't locate. [19]
[20] NightShadeAEB ( talk) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Because we, as people, despise IS (and I hope we have a plurality here when it comes to that...), we often are slightly too quick or optimistic to 'edit them out of the picture', as it were. Accuracy comes first, and although I think that our mapping of this recent offensive (which has been both rapid and confusing for editors such as ourselves) was handled magnificently by you guys, we ought to be a bit more careful in future with our edits. We have to make clear, neutral judgements, even if IS is utterly repulsive, when it comes to working out who controls what. Always double-check yourselves. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to make edits according to the discussion here. A pro-SDF source saying Shaddadi is contested means that we must mark it as contested. Plus, Al-Arishah district is the area around the town (countryside with possible checkpoints) not the town itself, and the pro-Assad militias could have attacked SDF forces in it. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
User:PutItOnAMap, the pro-SDF source (Rudaw) does not say the town is contested. The Arabic Rudaw source says ISIS denies they lost the town, and that the SDF denies ISIS is in the town. It does not confirm in its own capacity the town is contested. That the town is reportedly booby trapped, which is slowing down SDF clearing operations does not make the town contested if there is no ISIS in the town (and making that kind of conclusion is OR). PLUS, we have had SOHR (one of the most reliable sources) who confirmed Shaddadi was captured by the SDF and at no point did SOHR state ISIS re-entered the town. Plus both Masdar and ARA news state the ISIS counter-attack was repelled. So, Masdar, ARA news and SDF state attack repelled, SOHR does not say town contested, ISIS claims they in the town. 4 vs 1. I think this makes it reasonable enough to put Shaddadi as SDF-held, but for compromise's sake add a partial black ring to the south (since SDF confirmed ISIS conducted a counter-attack towards the town). However, this is just my suggestion (I won't make any edits myself), so if someone doesn't disagree that's cool, no need for an argument. EkoGraf ( talk) 02:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the counterattack over? If so, we don't even need to put a black ring there. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 10:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
User:PutItOnAMap Yes it seems the counter-attack is over. Personally I think the black ring as well is not needed. But I only suggested it as a compromise if someone was still going to insist the town is contested. EkoGraf ( talk) 12:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we're all agreed it's no longer contested, although it was earlier. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 14:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
ISIS seems to be coordinating with Jund Al-Aqsa, mainly represented with lime icon in the last Khanaser - Aleppo offensive, having jointly captured Rasm Al Nafal. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-rebels-attack-the-syrian-army-together-in-southeast-aleppo/
Jund Al Aqsa operates in Jaish Al-Fataeh, but this is not a rebel group in itself. Jund Al Aqsa left Al Nusra over its disputes with IS, but it never left al-Qaeda. It is an al-Qaeda linked group and so should be marked in grey. In fact, we should update the colour code on our map: we should not write 'Al Nusra' in grey but 'Al Qaeda' as there are non-Nusra, but Qaeda-linked groups in Syria. E.g. Jund Al Aqsa and the Khorasan group. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 22:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote elsewhere: "I know there are a lot of Salafist and extremist groups around, but the only two that are directly part of AQ itself are Jund al-Aqsa and al-Nusra, even if others have sympathies with AQ, yes? As for AQ launching offensives through green areas, their fighters may have freedom of movement in some rebel-held areas to launch offensives without actually having control in those places." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PutItOnAMap ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
http://www.voanews.com/content/syria-islamic-state-homs/3206752.html
States Mahin as IS control. Any other sources on that? Tgoll774 ( talk) 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Fah (east of Aleppo, north of Tal Aran) was retaken by ISIS according to http://www.syriahr.com/?p=158101 Why is Khanasir contested between red and green? It should be red and black. Mughira1395 ( talk) 12:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have changed it to red and black. Will update with the SOHR source now. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 14:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
http://aranews.net/2016/02/islamic-state-militants-take-over-syrian-military-base-in-aleppo/
A pro-Kurd source. I don't see a base here, and first I heard of this base. Tgoll774 ( talk) 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
According to this independent source [31] the SAA captured Shaykh Aqil this morning (northwest of Aleppo), but the rebels claimed to had recaptured it a few hours later. Appropriate course of action would be to mark it as contested. Please find the appropriate location on the map and add the dot. Thank you! EkoGraf ( talk) 15:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
AlMasdar reports that Al-Hassou, Koujan, and Rasm Seifou were taken by SAA close to Al-Siin. Where are they? Maybe Al-Hassou is here? Paolowalter ( talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the Saraqib coordinates this map shows for this town. This is off! Saraqib is located here
This must be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 19:07, 26 February 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. |
{ lat = "36.400", long = "37.144", mark = "Dot yellow ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = " Ihras", link = "Ihras", label_size = "0", position = "top" }, Tristat ( talk) 10:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
SOHR said that ISIS captured larg parts of a town Suluk, village of Hamam Al-Turkman and village and village near Ayn Issa, clashes still in the city of Tall Abayd and in the town of Ain al-Arous. here here here Kurdish sources said about clashes inside a city of Ayn Issa. here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Today starts the official truce/casefire in Syria, which means the frontlines won't be active. Airstrikes will continue on ISIS and Nusra, but that doesn't matter. What I want to discuss is the following : Can we now remove the purple icons from the map, at least those who aren't part of a map (Damascus). Because they don't make any sense now. This action will only lower the pressure on our map, and simplify it.
A ceasefire is a combatent agreement to holt hostile action it is not the same as a truce and no sides are calling it a truce .As for Nusra it is still unclear where they have left and where they are going to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.157.233 ( talk) 12:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the city to pure lime colour. Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi visited the city last year and reported that the Northern Storm FSA of al Jabha al Shamiyya was in control over the town despite a minor Nusra presence. [32] That is even before the withdrawal of Nusra this summer, it was not sufficient to add a grey half to Azaz. In fact I lobbied these forums to make Marea half-grey based on reports that Nusra was arresting the FSA there, but I was ignored. It was not profitable to exaggerate Nusra control in Aleppo it seemed, except for in Idlib to give Nusra bad press. Now that YPG is attacking Azaz, I notice Azaz is suddenly half grey. What gives, guys?
All the Twitter sources about Nusra still being in the Azaz "area" do not specify the city nor any other location, and many of those sources, like https://twitter.com/AbuSaeedHalabi, said that Nusra's reinforcements were only for the Nubl & Zahra fighting, not within the YPG front lines. I am keeping this lime because Nusra only had half control in Marea and Tel Rifaat, until they withdrew in August and released some detainees. There was never any source that reported Azaz under Nusra control except for hysterical YPG fanboys trying to legitimize their assault. Their accusations are not considered reliable as per the rules of this template last I checked. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 18:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Nightshade your source is a tweet, for all we know this is you tweeting this random information, tweets are not sources get that through your whabbi dead brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.111 ( talk) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
These two users for a long time are intentionally breaking the rules of editing with unreliable sources from facebook also misinterpreting them, by doing this they are directly and intentionally vandalising the map despite the rules that are in effect. 1. AlAboud83 using unreliable facebook sources which he himself doesn't know what are this sources credibility: 1. diff 2. diff
2. LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpreting sources: 1. diff. 2. diff. 3. diff. Lists129 ( talk) 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
These are reliable Anti-ISIS,Anti-YPG activist that are reliable,that journalist. Alhanuty ( talk) 19:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcPeXZSXIAQSlDn.jpg:large https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/703650467495211008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.200.98.127 ( talk) 10:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is in reference to my revert of the following edit. The section authorizing the use of Al-Masdar as a reliable source explicitly says: "we cannot use Al-Masdar to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc." This also applies even more to pro-gov sources. Tradedia talk 21:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The scheduled ceasefire at midnight has taken effect. I think towns marked as contested between government and rebels, especially near Homs between government and rebels should be changed to mixed/stable control to indicate this. If there are reports of more fighting, then we can change them back. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 23:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Biased, much? 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Truth too much to handle, the goat riding spawn of Saten (ISIS, Al Nusrat, FSA) propaganda is not working, you better make a few more dead children videos but make sure they are not acting this time, some one may believe you.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.232.239 ( talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please note I am not saying they need to be changed I am just asking why
These towns are under FSA control on the Wikipedia map but are SDF held on the Wikimapia map, do you guys have any sources who is actually controlling these towns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriyanMahmoudKurdi ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
In this edit, You changed Shaykh Isa to yelloow (YPG/SDF held). I can't find anything about it in the source You provided. Could You please check it and explain what it was about? -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition source said that ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra reached truce in Yarmuk camp and Tadamun and Hajar Aswad in addition to a cessation of hostility, removed all the barriers and checkpoints and releasing free all the detainees from both sides. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 12:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
SOHR said that the YPG fighters regained control the town of Hammam al-Turkmen and the entire areas that they have lost or attacked by the ISIS in the northern and northeastern countryside of Al-Raqqah, while clashes are still taking place between both parties on the international highway between Mabrouka and al-Qantri. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Al-Masdar has now twice reported on a tribal uprising against ISIS in Al-Bukamal near the Iraqi border:
Feb. 11: [...] local tribal fighters also carried out several attacks around the ‘Aisha Hospital’s large neighborhoods, while Russian fighter jets provided the necessary back-up to crush ISIS’ resistance against the Deir Ezzor popular committees inside the city of Albukamal.[...]
March. 2: Another issue plaguing ISIS in Deir Ezzor is the tribal uprising in the large city of Abukamaal; this has forced the terrorist group to concentrate several contingents to this front.
Are there any other sources corroborating this? Should the area be marked contested between "red" and "black"? Esn ( talk) 06:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I am skeptical. The most recent Masdar article about the tribal uprising only said that IS had to deploy forces to Al Bukamal because of the uprising, not because there were still clashes (I presume it was to stop clashes breaking out again). The Armenian article said IS fighters died in al-Bukamal due to Syrian troops, but it would have been very hard for even covert Syrian troops to get that far into IS territory. Again, the Armenian article did not mention loss of territory on IS's part, only deaths. They might even have been referring to the SAAF, although this is unlikely. I think there would be more coverage of this if there were major clashes rather than just civil and occasionally violent unrest. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 10:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys what do you think about it? Opp. source(Al-Souria Net) said that the SAA have begun to assemble in villages north of the town of Qabtan al-Jabal, specifically in Bashamar, after Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) handed over the area without a fight. here So opposition source claim that YPG handed over without a fight the some villages including Bashamar to SAA. But maybe we need more data about this. Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Can you please turn to some color that places controlled by those who submitted to (U.S - Russian) negotiated stop of killing agreement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.98.76.41 ( talk) 03:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There are new of a major reconciliation agreement in Hama brokered by russian officials AlMasdar. But the list of villages and town is not available. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The map needs major updating in the area between Markada and al-Qattah, as there is a major offensive going on by SDF to take the whole area. Please unblock in order to be able update. Roboskiye ( talk) 10:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem was, anyway. There didn't seem to be any edit war going on at the current time when the map was blocked. And, given that this civil war moves very quickly compared to the others and that the standard of reporting means we can update even the smaller villages properly, a block will really hit the quality of this map hard. So much is going to happen in the next 4 days, I expect, and we will not be able to represent any changes that happen during that time. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Including articles like this https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-deir-ezzor-airport-intensifies-isis-storms-gates/ which focus on issues that could potentially change the course of the entire war. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please post the changes here so we can keep track of conflict anyway and change map quickly when unblocked. Getting Kordestani to apologize or be blocked might also help to get this page unblocked. Vissar2g ( talk) 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a more accurate picture of desert roads can be added to the map, by using the information from this map? For example, it shows a road coming up from Jordan to the Tanf border crossing (which would explain how the FSA was able to seize it recently) Another much more detailed map is [38]. Esn ( talk) 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why this happened ? DuckZz ( talk) 15:24, 6 March 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. |
Please change Zakiya to red/black contested (11px-80x80-red-black-anim.gif), per [39]. Esn ( talk) 06:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Esn ( talk) 06:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Put red half-circle across bottom per [40]. Esn ( talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Also SAA seizing the hilltop of Tal Halawa near the Ancient Palmyra Quarries and almost the entire village of Al Dawa west of Palmyra after a violent battle with ISIS. And they close to the Qassoun Mountains that are situated to the west of the city; this mountaintop is the last site before entering city Palmyra. here SvEcHpInXID ( talk) 15:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/706851762234368000
Rebels captured Tell Rishah/Tall Sad Rishe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beshogur ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Syrian officials reported that local civilians rose up against the ISIS rule inside the city Raqqa and captured of 5 neighborhoods. The local civilians reportedly seized the neighborhoods of Al-Dar’ayah, Al-Rameelah, Al-Fardouss, Al-‘Ajayli, and Al-Bakri and that the people raised the Syrian flag in over these districts; however, there is no footage to validate these claims. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 06:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Raqqa contested ? 86.178.96.236 ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Battle reports claiming territorial control for locals. Credible? https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/civilian-uprising-isis-raqqa-continues-5-neighborhoods-liberated/ Ariskar ( talk) 07:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Isis in Raqqa: Reports of uprising are false, Syrian activists say http://www.raqqa-sl.co/en/?p=1707 129.252.33.77 ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The SDF have taken over new areas in northern Raqqah and western Hasakah provinces, including Shamandur and Bir Hebda. Those towns are in the area south of the M5 highway near Al-Qatani, here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.378726&lon=39.551125&z=12&m=b&search=Shaddadi Official source confirming the SDF captured those villages: http://aranews.net/2016/03/18763/ And also Al Masdar: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-democratic-forces-capture-2-villages-northern-raqqa/
There are also Twitter sources claiming that the SDF took the Maliha Oil Field in Deir ez-Zor province. That's here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.197742&lon=40.520325&z=10&m=b&search=Shaddadi Normaly I know Twitter sources aren't good enough, but this report caught my eye: https://twitter.com/Janx53/status/705736581710290944 It shows sattelite images of the oilfield burning, and you can clearly see from the shape of the oilfield that it is indeed Maliha. Add it on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 09:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Al Nusra approached Al Eis [41] and took two hills (Tal SyriaTel and Tal Qinsarin) that lie between Banes and Al Eis, according to al-Masdar: [42]. Twitter messages claim that Al Nusra later took complete control of Al Eis and that fighting is ongoing on the road to Al-Hader. Let's wait for reliable sources to further report on the situation. 84.138.87.219 ( talk) 21:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
SDF advance in southern Hasakah and recaptured the villages of Al-Hamid, Al-Jada’an, Al-Jadawa’, Al-Badr, Al-Siraad, Al-Dayan Matli after a violent clashes with ISIS in Jabal ‘Abdel-‘Aziz Mountains. SDF now control almost all of Jabal ‘Abdel-‘Aziz, leaving ISIS on the fringes of this mountain. here Also earlier SDF captured the town of Al-Wasalah in the Al-Hasakah Governorate which is located between ‘Abdel-‘Aziz Mountains and the city of Al-Shadadi. here and the village of Al-Mukmin in the Hasakah southern countryside near the border of Deir Ez Zor province. source Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
SAA launched a finel assault of Palmyra and capturd the Ancient Palmyra Quarries and were able to reach Jabal Qassoun in western Palmyra.And now SAA fight with ISIS that are entrenched at the Palmyra Castle, which is located atop of Jabal Qassoun which is less than 1.5 km away from the Palmyra National Hospital. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 12:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This is to follow up on User:Niele~enwiki's input on the previous discussion, [43] I wish they tagged me so I could have known to respond. To quote:
To answer, first of all, we had many discussions as to whether Nusra should require at least a 40% presence in the city before changing it to half grey. Most of our arguments that referred to Idlib were inconclusive. However, I have not heard of Nusra exerting its power in Azaz, with the exception of the Division 30 incident, although it certainly has done so in Tel Rifaat and Marea before withdrawing. I've seen tweets about Nusra releasing some Marea prisoners back in September 2015, around the time the withdrawal was taking place. Division 30 was also apprehended by Shamiyya, and since they numbered just a few dozen individuals, they were hardly a projection of Nusra power, in contrast to long standing locally rooted armed groups in Marea that Nusra chased down.
Here Al Araby al Jadeed quotes SOHR saying Division 30 were based in Malikiya near Afrin, and were in a meeting inside Azaz city; when they left the city to go back to Malikiya, a Nusra checkpoint at Saju junction arrested them [44]. US air strikes targeting Nusra didn't hit Azaz, but according to most sources were "near Azaz", which indicates Nusra had some off-town strongholds. I24 News here quotes SOHR that the air strikes happened "near Azaz" [45]. Al Araby TV says air strikes hit "Reef Azaz" which means rural Azaz or outside of Azaz city [46]. This shows Nusra did not control much of the city center. I remember Division 30 were not held inside Azaz city but in a nearby village, but I can't remember now.
Having an "Islamic Front" preacher as a sharia judge doesn't mean Nusra is influential. The grey colour is for Nusra or other Salafi-jihadis only, not for all Islamists, not even for Ahrar al Sham. And even Ahrar has weak influence in Azaz. The dominant group is al Jabha al Shamiyya, which is composed of former Liwa al Tawhid groups. The Northern Storm of course joined Liwa al Tawhid shortly after Azaz was liberated in 2014. They are still active today, and use their original flag with the Shamiyya logo.
Using Reuters here is problematic for two reasons. First, Reuters is from before the withdrawal; nobody denies Nusra was there capturing Division 30, though we can argue whether that constitutes control or not. And second, Reuters and other reliable sources themselves usually quote specialist sources, including Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi whom I based my edit for Azaz on. And he said it clearly: in January 2015, Northern Storm was in control over not only Azaz, but also Sawran before Daesh occupied it, and even had a presence in Handarat. He said Nusra has no governing capacity. And he himself said in a Tweet that Nusra withdrew from the area. Since he is a reliable source to mainstream media as well as the British parliament, I would take his tweet mentioning something in passing as if it were common knowledge quite seriously.
There's also no way to know which village is Nusra and which isn't. But even if Azaz were Nusra, that doesn't make all villages around it at half Nusra. I'm open to believing a village here and there may be half Nusra, but there's no evidence for that. Relying on memory, Nusra withdraw from one of its village outposts and handed it over to someone, I think it was Zenki. I'll have to look back into this, but the Aymenn Jawad article is more than enough to seal the question of Azaz. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 12:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
According to various sources, the US is building a second airbase in Syria. The second one is located southeast of Kobanî [47], with some reports saying that the planned airbase will be located near the LeFarge Cement Plant [48] (7th March 2016 entry). I know that the coordinates haven't been released yet, but when they are, the airbase should be added, due to its strategic significance. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
As above Zakiyah is in Southern Raqqa near the crossroads, it is not in southern Aleppo province... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.179 ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Now this is a problem we have - certain sources disagree on province boundaries. If I recall correctly, Masdar had Khanasir down as in Hama when it is in Aleppo on our map. So long as we have the coordinates of Zakiyah in the right place (and we do) compared to other villages, we ought not to worry about province boundaries. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 00:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The map co-ordinates are off then because it is in the wrong place, same as Kelz in North Latakia it has been 'moved' several times East around 15 km and that was also the ""correct co-ordinates"" TOO.
It is obvious the map to Co-ordinate system is wrong for a long time the scale of the map and distances between towns is totally wrong also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.179 ( talk) 14:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, we make mistakes when it comes to coordinates, but often it is news organisations like Masdar who make mistakes. Another point is that some locations we have to deliberately change a bit so that they can be readable - some villages are so close that they would cover each other if we didn't report their location slightly inaccurately. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
User:LightandDark2000 You have got to stop making such edits [49] based on very loosely phrased articles. Here is the relevant passage in your article:
The problem with this is that you are assuming the author of the article even knows about Sheikh Eissa. Marea is a landmark known to casual journalists, Sheikh Eissa is not. You always do this when you can't find any other evidence to support your views. Please stop. The sources I provided for Russian air strikes on the town trump this unless you have highly specific sources. Don't repeat your mistake with the Arisha enclave. Ambiguous passages are NOT a reliable source, especially not when they conflict detailed sources. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 04:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The Syrian Armed forces have reportedly reimposed siege of al-Waer neighbourhood of Homs against the terrorists organisation of al Nusrat [56] 82.153.107.40 ( talk) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is to change the Morek and Kafr Nabudah towns in north Hama. First town was captured by Al Nusr and Jund Aqsa only, not even pro-rebel sources are denying this. While Kafr Nabudah has no Nusra presence and never had, it's under FSA and little Ahrar Sham presence control. Therefore, I suggest to put Morek to grey, and Kafrnabudah to lime. Opinions ? DuckZz ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya No they didn't and there's not a single source for that. DuckZz ( talk) 00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Ain Hawr in Qalamoun is controlled by the rebels and under truce, it is not controlled by the regime.
http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Qalamoun-Madaya-12-Jan-2016.jpg
It was just an illustration. Someone changed the control of this locality arbitrarly while it was rebel held. http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/archives/637 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
We should add two rural presence of rebels near the jordanian border in Rif Dimashq and Homs governorates. The rebels have also seized Saba Bayar (Homs governorate) in the Syrian Desert and we must also add more localities in the Syrian Desert.
https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_3499.png https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/706855332803420160
But i think that the hills are uninhabited and not strategic, so it is better if we removed them (we can not add them all anyway, there are too much hills). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Saba Bayar was captured by IS (not previously added on the map) :
http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/archives/527
And now probably under rebel control, but you are right, we have to wait confirmation. However, we really have to add more localities in the Syrian Desert.
The same source shows now Saba Bayar still IS held... strange : https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/709786201516056576 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Change from black to green per [58]. Esn ( talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't. It's like it doesn't exist on this map, at least I can't find it as a code. DuckZz ( talk) 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Correction. They were ready to be part of SDF, but it never happened, and their plans to join Raqqa groups failed. Now they focused on Jordan area only. DuckZz ( talk) 23:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
They are reported as part of Southern Front of FSA. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya The NSA now officialy said that they recaptured Tanf from ISIS after they lost it yesterday. The best is to make it contested because the reporter BosnjoBoy said that Rebels captured 20 locations aswell, we will mark those locations so it will make sense. DuckZz ( talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
What about this SOHR report, dated March 6? I know that the Free Syrian Army has a significant presence near the Al-Tanf area, and the border crossing is possibly even contested (again) right now, but the SOHR report shouldn't be dismissed. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone find location? http://en.deirezzor24.net/jaysh-assud-sharqiya-a-fsa-faction-expels-isis-from-siriyat-al-waar-a-military-base-north-tanaf-border-crossing/ Vissar2g ( talk) 04:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
They are embedded with Qalamoun and Daraa FSA so they stay green, just as any faction embedded with SDF stays yellow, even if it is not part of the SDF like Thuwwar al Raqqa. The NSF did not really join the SDF, and they're composed of long-standing independent FSA groups, unlike the SDF FSA which have been hiding in YPG territory since 2014. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 04:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
According to these reliable sources [60] and [61], and this Anti-Opposition source, the Free Syrian Army is in control of the Syrian side of the border crossing. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 08:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Any news about Tanf-Crossing and Tanf? I wrote my opinion about some "sources" in the topic above. Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose Dudiyan can be changed to black now: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency or at least to contested, as I thinks that the Rebels would try to get it back Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we use too many sources from twitter and we mast stop do this. I think we can use only official pages of (reliable) media sources and not more than that. Twitter is very difficult to call a reliable source and in connection with this we need to either completely prohibit the use of data from Twitter (as the sole source without providing additional source) or authorization to use only official pages. Here is an example: here here here or this here here Twitter has confirmed that it is a real page of international reporter, politician and analyst. Or use some sources from twitter which we earlier used only as addition for data from other crediable sources not from twitter.
I, IP, vote yes on Suriyeya's proposal, even though it doesn't count. I think reliable credible sources should be used, as the rules say. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 20:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The village of Kafr Khashir (S-SE of Azaz) should be yellow. http://edmaps.com/html/syrian_civil_war_in_maps.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.228.235 ( talk) 16:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Opp.sources reported that the Al Nusra Front and their allies from Jund al-Aaqsa amid heavy gunfire storms the town of Hish south of Maarrat al‑Nu'man and arrest the commander of Imam Bukhari Brigade, affiliated t Division 13(FSA) and also Nusra/Jund al-Aaqsa now mobilize their forces for storm the headquarters of Division 13(FSA). here here here Also opposition sources said about clashes between FSA and Al Nusra in Maarrat al‑Nu'man and Khan Shaykhun. here here here here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Incidents involving user conduct are determined on ANI, not talk pages of articles. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps. If this doesn't work, I'll ask admin to block him, but I would prefer ban on editing military maps. I'm sick and tired of telling him "if You do this one more time, I will...". And I'm sick and tired of finding articles, reading them from first to last letter, finding no useful information, only to see him using the same source to backup completely unrelated change. And then I have to carefully read entire article like idiot, making sure I'm not blind and I was right in the first place. He is playing stupid and manipulating sources big time. And he is doing it on purpose. Enough is enough. Not long ago, he changed used this source to change Shaykh Isa to yelloow (YPG/SDF held). When I complained about it, he didn't even try to prove I was wrong about the source, but he gave me *another* source that merely hints that YPG/SDF is on the outskirts of Mare so Shaykh Isa "must have" been under their control. So, he obviously used bogus source, and that's not his first time. Not even close to first. I replied to him on his talk page:
But, off course, he "cleansed" his talk page it in his next edit, like he does every time someone complains about him. Today, I saw this edit. He changed Khunayz, Thulth Khunayz and Tall Al-Sim'an ( here) to yellow/contested based on vague sentence on YPG-related site saying "The armed groups making up the Syrian Democratic Forces are now at the gates of the IS headquarters in Raqqa.". Nowhere in the article is said anything about Khunayz, Thulth Khunayz and Tall Al-Sim'an. Nowhere! And even if IS has headquotrers in Tall Al-Sim'an, vague sentence about YPG being "at the gates" of it, without any mention of distance, is not nearly enough even for siege icons, let alone contested. Many of You have tried to reason with this guy, and You all know it's not working. So, I propose that we agree on banning him from Syria war and Iraq war maps and present that to admins. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 07:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Hogg 22 ( talk) 07:09, 16 March 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.
You, 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E, are a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3 [70]. Socking is strictly against Wikipedia policy, and as such, I strongly advise you to stop before your IP Range gets blocked. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 09:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
User:LightandDark2000 I'll reference our recent exchanges: here I disagreed with you about interpreting ambiguous sources that never mentioned the Arisha villages in question by name to claim they were under SDF control since December despite evidence to the contrary, and the fact that six different map makers all marked them as ISIS held. [71] Then I provided you with an up to date source about villages held by ISIS, which you just reverted claiming they were not in my article (which is the same thing I had said about your articles, ironically) [72]. I showed up on your talk page, quoted in clear Arabic what you just dismissed, and you replied saying it was pointless to add more villages and clutter them up. But I was not asking you to add new villages, I was asking you to revert your edit of preexisting villages. Then you just erased our discussion because you did not, quote, "deem it necessary" yet. [73] I had not even read your reply yet. So I copied the conversation here [74] in order to continue it, and quoted our previous discussion about al Arisha as well. By this point, your revert of my edits had bought you enough time and the SDF had already recaptured most of the villages that you claimed my Zaman al Wassl article did not mention. I still asked you to revert your own revert on Arisha and Khirbat al Samm based on the same article, and you flatly ignored that request. Despite being quick to erase discussions, you are not at all in the mood to correct your own mistakes. I also pointed out your claim that they controlled Sheikh Eissa based on an ambiguous article talking about "the outskirts of Marea" here [75]. These are just recent incidents, the complaints of users date back to well within last year [76]. Your reliance on ambiguous sources, sometimes by sources that do not have requisite detail in their knowledge about Syria, is one of the top contentious issues here. The other one is your lack of cooperation when talked to about your edits. The combination of both factors makes discussing anything with you a very daunting experience. I hope you actually consider why there are complaints. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 07:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
Al Bardah & Jabal Bardah are SAA held. I edited but it was reverted. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-launches-counter-offensive-bardah-southeast-homs/ MesmerMe ( talk) 15:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Recently, User:LightandDark2000 made this edit, changing a major town, Tell al Siman, to contested between SDF and ISIS. The link does not work. Additionally, it is obviously a pro-Kurdish source (YPG News). I asked LightandDark2000 to provide another source for his edit. Until then, this edit should be reverted due to lack of a reliable source. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Tell al Siman is the headquarters of IS north of Raqqah. The recent SDF advances have been to the northeast in Raqqah, in the desert region bordering Deir ez-Zor. We should add Malihah Oil Field in Deir ez-Zor (it's SDF held), it's not visible on this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 ( talk) 11:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Opp.sources reported about the clashes between a rebels and fighters loyal to ISIS(battalion "Hamza Asadullah") inside the city of Tafas here here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources SOHR and Al Masdar said that the SAA retake the village of Kafr Saghir.[syriahr.com/?p=162580 here] here this also confirmed anti-SAA source. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:25, 21 March 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 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
User:LightandDark2000 Al Arisha was not taken, the YPG offensive came from east and west of Shidadi, they bypassed the northern countryside and created an ISIS pocket. Your edit and source [1] [2] do not match, "last bastion in Hasaka" is highly ambiguous and could just mean that Shidadi is the last important city they had, it doesn't mean Arisha itself was liberated. I know we don't copy from maps, but when other map makers [3] [4] including pro-YPG ones are saying Arisha is encircled, I suggest we give them some credibility. So we should revert all villages that are not specifically confirmed to be liberated, unless it's a small village surrounded by liberated villages, etc. But Arisha is a massive pocket.
That said, Twitter sources are all reporting a massive ISIS counter attack at Shidadi while pro-YPG sources are mum. SOHR itself says there are conflicting reports on whether Daesh regained territory inside or near Shidadi or not, so let's not rule out a reversal. [5] NightShadeAEB ( talk) 00:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Editing according to the result of this conversation. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Are the villages between Arishah-Shadaddi actually held by IS as indicated on the map or have they just not been updated? If so please update them because it makes the map look very inaccurate, also as far as I know, these villages have been captured by IS and IS now only has control south of Fadhgami. 82.153.113.72 ( talk) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
What has happened is that SDF gains have probably been overestimated and we have left IS areas stranded amongst SDF areas that were not actually retaken. We're fixing it now. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The recent prevalence of Jund al-Aqsa, an al-Qaeda group not part of Nusra itself, and the Khorasan group, means that we have put up grey markers where Al-Nusra aren't present. I propose we change the labelling on our map for the grey colour to 'Al Qaeda (includes Al Nusra, Jund al-Aqsa, and the Khorasan gruop)' or 'Al Qaeda (predominantly Al Nusra)'. What do you all think of this? PutItOnAMap ( talk) 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I know many of these groups have ties to AQ, but Jund al-Aqsa and al Nusra are directly linked - i.e. they are part of AQ. Therefore, shouldn't Jund al-Aqsa be represented in the same colour as al-Nusra? Point taken about Khorasan. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought Jund al Aqsa was official AQ. It only left al-Nusra, but it remained a part of the Al-Qaeda network, so it is part of Al-Qaeda, even if it is not its official Syrian affiliate. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The reality is that in this war there is hundreds of jihadi-rebel groups, and they can all be linked between them or not depending to the moments and situations in the ground. So it's impossible to say who is AQ or not, but I think that the situation will quickly clarify with the recent agreement of truce, we will be able to put grey those who refuse (AQ & co), and green those who accept it (other rebels). 82.233.227.191 ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I know there are a lot of Salafist and extremist groups around, but the only two that are directly part of AQ itself are Jund al-Aqsa and al-Nusra, even if others have sympathies with AQ, yes? As for AQ launching offensives through green areas, their fighters may have freedom of movement in some rebel-held areas to launch offensives without actually having control in those places. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 10:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the SOHR source, but I'm pretty sure rebels recaptured this village. What do you think ?
If they're not pro-opp sources (or if they are reliable pro-opp sources), we can use them to indicate recapture. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
PutItOnAMap The best would be to just put it as contested. DuckZz ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The best would be to find a non-pro-opp source for a pro-opp advance, in my opinion. I do recall someone mentioning a SOHR source; finding the URL will be enough. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Posting this here for archival purposes since it was deleted. And I still have one thing to add.
Do you speak Arabic? Because my article clearly mentions all those villages, and many more I couldn't locate. [19]
[20] NightShadeAEB ( talk) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Because we, as people, despise IS (and I hope we have a plurality here when it comes to that...), we often are slightly too quick or optimistic to 'edit them out of the picture', as it were. Accuracy comes first, and although I think that our mapping of this recent offensive (which has been both rapid and confusing for editors such as ourselves) was handled magnificently by you guys, we ought to be a bit more careful in future with our edits. We have to make clear, neutral judgements, even if IS is utterly repulsive, when it comes to working out who controls what. Always double-check yourselves. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to make edits according to the discussion here. A pro-SDF source saying Shaddadi is contested means that we must mark it as contested. Plus, Al-Arishah district is the area around the town (countryside with possible checkpoints) not the town itself, and the pro-Assad militias could have attacked SDF forces in it. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
User:PutItOnAMap, the pro-SDF source (Rudaw) does not say the town is contested. The Arabic Rudaw source says ISIS denies they lost the town, and that the SDF denies ISIS is in the town. It does not confirm in its own capacity the town is contested. That the town is reportedly booby trapped, which is slowing down SDF clearing operations does not make the town contested if there is no ISIS in the town (and making that kind of conclusion is OR). PLUS, we have had SOHR (one of the most reliable sources) who confirmed Shaddadi was captured by the SDF and at no point did SOHR state ISIS re-entered the town. Plus both Masdar and ARA news state the ISIS counter-attack was repelled. So, Masdar, ARA news and SDF state attack repelled, SOHR does not say town contested, ISIS claims they in the town. 4 vs 1. I think this makes it reasonable enough to put Shaddadi as SDF-held, but for compromise's sake add a partial black ring to the south (since SDF confirmed ISIS conducted a counter-attack towards the town). However, this is just my suggestion (I won't make any edits myself), so if someone doesn't disagree that's cool, no need for an argument. EkoGraf ( talk) 02:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the counterattack over? If so, we don't even need to put a black ring there. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 10:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
User:PutItOnAMap Yes it seems the counter-attack is over. Personally I think the black ring as well is not needed. But I only suggested it as a compromise if someone was still going to insist the town is contested. EkoGraf ( talk) 12:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we're all agreed it's no longer contested, although it was earlier. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 14:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
ISIS seems to be coordinating with Jund Al-Aqsa, mainly represented with lime icon in the last Khanaser - Aleppo offensive, having jointly captured Rasm Al Nafal. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-rebels-attack-the-syrian-army-together-in-southeast-aleppo/
Jund Al Aqsa operates in Jaish Al-Fataeh, but this is not a rebel group in itself. Jund Al Aqsa left Al Nusra over its disputes with IS, but it never left al-Qaeda. It is an al-Qaeda linked group and so should be marked in grey. In fact, we should update the colour code on our map: we should not write 'Al Nusra' in grey but 'Al Qaeda' as there are non-Nusra, but Qaeda-linked groups in Syria. E.g. Jund Al Aqsa and the Khorasan group. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 22:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote elsewhere: "I know there are a lot of Salafist and extremist groups around, but the only two that are directly part of AQ itself are Jund al-Aqsa and al-Nusra, even if others have sympathies with AQ, yes? As for AQ launching offensives through green areas, their fighters may have freedom of movement in some rebel-held areas to launch offensives without actually having control in those places." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PutItOnAMap ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
http://www.voanews.com/content/syria-islamic-state-homs/3206752.html
States Mahin as IS control. Any other sources on that? Tgoll774 ( talk) 02:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Fah (east of Aleppo, north of Tal Aran) was retaken by ISIS according to http://www.syriahr.com/?p=158101 Why is Khanasir contested between red and green? It should be red and black. Mughira1395 ( talk) 12:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have changed it to red and black. Will update with the SOHR source now. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 14:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
http://aranews.net/2016/02/islamic-state-militants-take-over-syrian-military-base-in-aleppo/
A pro-Kurd source. I don't see a base here, and first I heard of this base. Tgoll774 ( talk) 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
According to this independent source [31] the SAA captured Shaykh Aqil this morning (northwest of Aleppo), but the rebels claimed to had recaptured it a few hours later. Appropriate course of action would be to mark it as contested. Please find the appropriate location on the map and add the dot. Thank you! EkoGraf ( talk) 15:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
AlMasdar reports that Al-Hassou, Koujan, and Rasm Seifou were taken by SAA close to Al-Siin. Where are they? Maybe Al-Hassou is here? Paolowalter ( talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the Saraqib coordinates this map shows for this town. This is off! Saraqib is located here
This must be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 19:07, 26 February 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. |
{ lat = "36.400", long = "37.144", mark = "Dot yellow ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = " Ihras", link = "Ihras", label_size = "0", position = "top" }, Tristat ( talk) 10:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
SOHR said that ISIS captured larg parts of a town Suluk, village of Hamam Al-Turkman and village and village near Ayn Issa, clashes still in the city of Tall Abayd and in the town of Ain al-Arous. here here here Kurdish sources said about clashes inside a city of Ayn Issa. here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Today starts the official truce/casefire in Syria, which means the frontlines won't be active. Airstrikes will continue on ISIS and Nusra, but that doesn't matter. What I want to discuss is the following : Can we now remove the purple icons from the map, at least those who aren't part of a map (Damascus). Because they don't make any sense now. This action will only lower the pressure on our map, and simplify it.
A ceasefire is a combatent agreement to holt hostile action it is not the same as a truce and no sides are calling it a truce .As for Nusra it is still unclear where they have left and where they are going to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.157.233 ( talk) 12:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the city to pure lime colour. Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi visited the city last year and reported that the Northern Storm FSA of al Jabha al Shamiyya was in control over the town despite a minor Nusra presence. [32] That is even before the withdrawal of Nusra this summer, it was not sufficient to add a grey half to Azaz. In fact I lobbied these forums to make Marea half-grey based on reports that Nusra was arresting the FSA there, but I was ignored. It was not profitable to exaggerate Nusra control in Aleppo it seemed, except for in Idlib to give Nusra bad press. Now that YPG is attacking Azaz, I notice Azaz is suddenly half grey. What gives, guys?
All the Twitter sources about Nusra still being in the Azaz "area" do not specify the city nor any other location, and many of those sources, like https://twitter.com/AbuSaeedHalabi, said that Nusra's reinforcements were only for the Nubl & Zahra fighting, not within the YPG front lines. I am keeping this lime because Nusra only had half control in Marea and Tel Rifaat, until they withdrew in August and released some detainees. There was never any source that reported Azaz under Nusra control except for hysterical YPG fanboys trying to legitimize their assault. Their accusations are not considered reliable as per the rules of this template last I checked. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 18:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Nightshade your source is a tweet, for all we know this is you tweeting this random information, tweets are not sources get that through your whabbi dead brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.111 ( talk) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
These two users for a long time are intentionally breaking the rules of editing with unreliable sources from facebook also misinterpreting them, by doing this they are directly and intentionally vandalising the map despite the rules that are in effect. 1. AlAboud83 using unreliable facebook sources which he himself doesn't know what are this sources credibility: 1. diff 2. diff
2. LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpreting sources: 1. diff. 2. diff. 3. diff. Lists129 ( talk) 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
These are reliable Anti-ISIS,Anti-YPG activist that are reliable,that journalist. Alhanuty ( talk) 19:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcPeXZSXIAQSlDn.jpg:large https://twitter.com/miladvisor/status/703650467495211008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.200.98.127 ( talk) 10:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is in reference to my revert of the following edit. The section authorizing the use of Al-Masdar as a reliable source explicitly says: "we cannot use Al-Masdar to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc." This also applies even more to pro-gov sources. Tradedia talk 21:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The scheduled ceasefire at midnight has taken effect. I think towns marked as contested between government and rebels, especially near Homs between government and rebels should be changed to mixed/stable control to indicate this. If there are reports of more fighting, then we can change them back. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 23:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Biased, much? 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Truth too much to handle, the goat riding spawn of Saten (ISIS, Al Nusrat, FSA) propaganda is not working, you better make a few more dead children videos but make sure they are not acting this time, some one may believe you.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.232.239 ( talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Please note I am not saying they need to be changed I am just asking why
These towns are under FSA control on the Wikipedia map but are SDF held on the Wikimapia map, do you guys have any sources who is actually controlling these towns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriyanMahmoudKurdi ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
In this edit, You changed Shaykh Isa to yelloow (YPG/SDF held). I can't find anything about it in the source You provided. Could You please check it and explain what it was about? -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 10:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition source said that ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra reached truce in Yarmuk camp and Tadamun and Hajar Aswad in addition to a cessation of hostility, removed all the barriers and checkpoints and releasing free all the detainees from both sides. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 12:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
SOHR said that the YPG fighters regained control the town of Hammam al-Turkmen and the entire areas that they have lost or attacked by the ISIS in the northern and northeastern countryside of Al-Raqqah, while clashes are still taking place between both parties on the international highway between Mabrouka and al-Qantri. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Al-Masdar has now twice reported on a tribal uprising against ISIS in Al-Bukamal near the Iraqi border:
Feb. 11: [...] local tribal fighters also carried out several attacks around the ‘Aisha Hospital’s large neighborhoods, while Russian fighter jets provided the necessary back-up to crush ISIS’ resistance against the Deir Ezzor popular committees inside the city of Albukamal.[...]
March. 2: Another issue plaguing ISIS in Deir Ezzor is the tribal uprising in the large city of Abukamaal; this has forced the terrorist group to concentrate several contingents to this front.
Are there any other sources corroborating this? Should the area be marked contested between "red" and "black"? Esn ( talk) 06:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I am skeptical. The most recent Masdar article about the tribal uprising only said that IS had to deploy forces to Al Bukamal because of the uprising, not because there were still clashes (I presume it was to stop clashes breaking out again). The Armenian article said IS fighters died in al-Bukamal due to Syrian troops, but it would have been very hard for even covert Syrian troops to get that far into IS territory. Again, the Armenian article did not mention loss of territory on IS's part, only deaths. They might even have been referring to the SAAF, although this is unlikely. I think there would be more coverage of this if there were major clashes rather than just civil and occasionally violent unrest. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 10:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys what do you think about it? Opp. source(Al-Souria Net) said that the SAA have begun to assemble in villages north of the town of Qabtan al-Jabal, specifically in Bashamar, after Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) handed over the area without a fight. here So opposition source claim that YPG handed over without a fight the some villages including Bashamar to SAA. But maybe we need more data about this. Sûriyeya ( talk) 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Can you please turn to some color that places controlled by those who submitted to (U.S - Russian) negotiated stop of killing agreement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.98.76.41 ( talk) 03:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There are new of a major reconciliation agreement in Hama brokered by russian officials AlMasdar. But the list of villages and town is not available. Paolowalter ( talk) 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The map needs major updating in the area between Markada and al-Qattah, as there is a major offensive going on by SDF to take the whole area. Please unblock in order to be able update. Roboskiye ( talk) 10:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem was, anyway. There didn't seem to be any edit war going on at the current time when the map was blocked. And, given that this civil war moves very quickly compared to the others and that the standard of reporting means we can update even the smaller villages properly, a block will really hit the quality of this map hard. So much is going to happen in the next 4 days, I expect, and we will not be able to represent any changes that happen during that time. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Including articles like this https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-deir-ezzor-airport-intensifies-isis-storms-gates/ which focus on issues that could potentially change the course of the entire war. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 11:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Please post the changes here so we can keep track of conflict anyway and change map quickly when unblocked. Getting Kordestani to apologize or be blocked might also help to get this page unblocked. Vissar2g ( talk) 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a more accurate picture of desert roads can be added to the map, by using the information from this map? For example, it shows a road coming up from Jordan to the Tanf border crossing (which would explain how the FSA was able to seize it recently) Another much more detailed map is [38]. Esn ( talk) 21:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why this happened ? DuckZz ( talk) 15:24, 6 March 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. |
Please change Zakiya to red/black contested (11px-80x80-red-black-anim.gif), per [39]. Esn ( talk) 06:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Esn ( talk) 06:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Put red half-circle across bottom per [40]. Esn ( talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Also SAA seizing the hilltop of Tal Halawa near the Ancient Palmyra Quarries and almost the entire village of Al Dawa west of Palmyra after a violent battle with ISIS. And they close to the Qassoun Mountains that are situated to the west of the city; this mountaintop is the last site before entering city Palmyra. here SvEcHpInXID ( talk) 15:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/706851762234368000
Rebels captured Tell Rishah/Tall Sad Rishe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beshogur ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Syrian officials reported that local civilians rose up against the ISIS rule inside the city Raqqa and captured of 5 neighborhoods. The local civilians reportedly seized the neighborhoods of Al-Dar’ayah, Al-Rameelah, Al-Fardouss, Al-‘Ajayli, and Al-Bakri and that the people raised the Syrian flag in over these districts; however, there is no footage to validate these claims. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 06:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Raqqa contested ? 86.178.96.236 ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Battle reports claiming territorial control for locals. Credible? https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/civilian-uprising-isis-raqqa-continues-5-neighborhoods-liberated/ Ariskar ( talk) 07:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Isis in Raqqa: Reports of uprising are false, Syrian activists say http://www.raqqa-sl.co/en/?p=1707 129.252.33.77 ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The SDF have taken over new areas in northern Raqqah and western Hasakah provinces, including Shamandur and Bir Hebda. Those towns are in the area south of the M5 highway near Al-Qatani, here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.378726&lon=39.551125&z=12&m=b&search=Shaddadi Official source confirming the SDF captured those villages: http://aranews.net/2016/03/18763/ And also Al Masdar: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-democratic-forces-capture-2-villages-northern-raqqa/
There are also Twitter sources claiming that the SDF took the Maliha Oil Field in Deir ez-Zor province. That's here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.197742&lon=40.520325&z=10&m=b&search=Shaddadi Normaly I know Twitter sources aren't good enough, but this report caught my eye: https://twitter.com/Janx53/status/705736581710290944 It shows sattelite images of the oilfield burning, and you can clearly see from the shape of the oilfield that it is indeed Maliha. Add it on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 ( talk) 09:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Al Nusra approached Al Eis [41] and took two hills (Tal SyriaTel and Tal Qinsarin) that lie between Banes and Al Eis, according to al-Masdar: [42]. Twitter messages claim that Al Nusra later took complete control of Al Eis and that fighting is ongoing on the road to Al-Hader. Let's wait for reliable sources to further report on the situation. 84.138.87.219 ( talk) 21:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
SDF advance in southern Hasakah and recaptured the villages of Al-Hamid, Al-Jada’an, Al-Jadawa’, Al-Badr, Al-Siraad, Al-Dayan Matli after a violent clashes with ISIS in Jabal ‘Abdel-‘Aziz Mountains. SDF now control almost all of Jabal ‘Abdel-‘Aziz, leaving ISIS on the fringes of this mountain. here Also earlier SDF captured the town of Al-Wasalah in the Al-Hasakah Governorate which is located between ‘Abdel-‘Aziz Mountains and the city of Al-Shadadi. here and the village of Al-Mukmin in the Hasakah southern countryside near the border of Deir Ez Zor province. source Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
SAA launched a finel assault of Palmyra and capturd the Ancient Palmyra Quarries and were able to reach Jabal Qassoun in western Palmyra.And now SAA fight with ISIS that are entrenched at the Palmyra Castle, which is located atop of Jabal Qassoun which is less than 1.5 km away from the Palmyra National Hospital. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 12:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This is to follow up on User:Niele~enwiki's input on the previous discussion, [43] I wish they tagged me so I could have known to respond. To quote:
To answer, first of all, we had many discussions as to whether Nusra should require at least a 40% presence in the city before changing it to half grey. Most of our arguments that referred to Idlib were inconclusive. However, I have not heard of Nusra exerting its power in Azaz, with the exception of the Division 30 incident, although it certainly has done so in Tel Rifaat and Marea before withdrawing. I've seen tweets about Nusra releasing some Marea prisoners back in September 2015, around the time the withdrawal was taking place. Division 30 was also apprehended by Shamiyya, and since they numbered just a few dozen individuals, they were hardly a projection of Nusra power, in contrast to long standing locally rooted armed groups in Marea that Nusra chased down.
Here Al Araby al Jadeed quotes SOHR saying Division 30 were based in Malikiya near Afrin, and were in a meeting inside Azaz city; when they left the city to go back to Malikiya, a Nusra checkpoint at Saju junction arrested them [44]. US air strikes targeting Nusra didn't hit Azaz, but according to most sources were "near Azaz", which indicates Nusra had some off-town strongholds. I24 News here quotes SOHR that the air strikes happened "near Azaz" [45]. Al Araby TV says air strikes hit "Reef Azaz" which means rural Azaz or outside of Azaz city [46]. This shows Nusra did not control much of the city center. I remember Division 30 were not held inside Azaz city but in a nearby village, but I can't remember now.
Having an "Islamic Front" preacher as a sharia judge doesn't mean Nusra is influential. The grey colour is for Nusra or other Salafi-jihadis only, not for all Islamists, not even for Ahrar al Sham. And even Ahrar has weak influence in Azaz. The dominant group is al Jabha al Shamiyya, which is composed of former Liwa al Tawhid groups. The Northern Storm of course joined Liwa al Tawhid shortly after Azaz was liberated in 2014. They are still active today, and use their original flag with the Shamiyya logo.
Using Reuters here is problematic for two reasons. First, Reuters is from before the withdrawal; nobody denies Nusra was there capturing Division 30, though we can argue whether that constitutes control or not. And second, Reuters and other reliable sources themselves usually quote specialist sources, including Aymenn Jawad al Tamimi whom I based my edit for Azaz on. And he said it clearly: in January 2015, Northern Storm was in control over not only Azaz, but also Sawran before Daesh occupied it, and even had a presence in Handarat. He said Nusra has no governing capacity. And he himself said in a Tweet that Nusra withdrew from the area. Since he is a reliable source to mainstream media as well as the British parliament, I would take his tweet mentioning something in passing as if it were common knowledge quite seriously.
There's also no way to know which village is Nusra and which isn't. But even if Azaz were Nusra, that doesn't make all villages around it at half Nusra. I'm open to believing a village here and there may be half Nusra, but there's no evidence for that. Relying on memory, Nusra withdraw from one of its village outposts and handed it over to someone, I think it was Zenki. I'll have to look back into this, but the Aymenn Jawad article is more than enough to seal the question of Azaz. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 12:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
According to various sources, the US is building a second airbase in Syria. The second one is located southeast of Kobanî [47], with some reports saying that the planned airbase will be located near the LeFarge Cement Plant [48] (7th March 2016 entry). I know that the coordinates haven't been released yet, but when they are, the airbase should be added, due to its strategic significance. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
As above Zakiyah is in Southern Raqqa near the crossroads, it is not in southern Aleppo province... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.179 ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Now this is a problem we have - certain sources disagree on province boundaries. If I recall correctly, Masdar had Khanasir down as in Hama when it is in Aleppo on our map. So long as we have the coordinates of Zakiyah in the right place (and we do) compared to other villages, we ought not to worry about province boundaries. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 00:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The map co-ordinates are off then because it is in the wrong place, same as Kelz in North Latakia it has been 'moved' several times East around 15 km and that was also the ""correct co-ordinates"" TOO.
It is obvious the map to Co-ordinate system is wrong for a long time the scale of the map and distances between towns is totally wrong also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.238.179 ( talk) 14:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, we make mistakes when it comes to coordinates, but often it is news organisations like Masdar who make mistakes. Another point is that some locations we have to deliberately change a bit so that they can be readable - some villages are so close that they would cover each other if we didn't report their location slightly inaccurately. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
User:LightandDark2000 You have got to stop making such edits [49] based on very loosely phrased articles. Here is the relevant passage in your article:
The problem with this is that you are assuming the author of the article even knows about Sheikh Eissa. Marea is a landmark known to casual journalists, Sheikh Eissa is not. You always do this when you can't find any other evidence to support your views. Please stop. The sources I provided for Russian air strikes on the town trump this unless you have highly specific sources. Don't repeat your mistake with the Arisha enclave. Ambiguous passages are NOT a reliable source, especially not when they conflict detailed sources. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 04:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The Syrian Armed forces have reportedly reimposed siege of al-Waer neighbourhood of Homs against the terrorists organisation of al Nusrat [56] 82.153.107.40 ( talk) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is to change the Morek and Kafr Nabudah towns in north Hama. First town was captured by Al Nusr and Jund Aqsa only, not even pro-rebel sources are denying this. While Kafr Nabudah has no Nusra presence and never had, it's under FSA and little Ahrar Sham presence control. Therefore, I suggest to put Morek to grey, and Kafrnabudah to lime. Opinions ? DuckZz ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya No they didn't and there's not a single source for that. DuckZz ( talk) 00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Ain Hawr in Qalamoun is controlled by the rebels and under truce, it is not controlled by the regime.
http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Qalamoun-Madaya-12-Jan-2016.jpg
It was just an illustration. Someone changed the control of this locality arbitrarly while it was rebel held. http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/archives/637 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
We should add two rural presence of rebels near the jordanian border in Rif Dimashq and Homs governorates. The rebels have also seized Saba Bayar (Homs governorate) in the Syrian Desert and we must also add more localities in the Syrian Desert.
https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_3499.png https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/706855332803420160
But i think that the hills are uninhabited and not strategic, so it is better if we removed them (we can not add them all anyway, there are too much hills). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Saba Bayar was captured by IS (not previously added on the map) :
http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/archives/527
And now probably under rebel control, but you are right, we have to wait confirmation. However, we really have to add more localities in the Syrian Desert.
The same source shows now Saba Bayar still IS held... strange : https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/709786201516056576 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsupilami128 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Change from black to green per [58]. Esn ( talk) 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't. It's like it doesn't exist on this map, at least I can't find it as a code. DuckZz ( talk) 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Correction. They were ready to be part of SDF, but it never happened, and their plans to join Raqqa groups failed. Now they focused on Jordan area only. DuckZz ( talk) 23:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
They are reported as part of Southern Front of FSA. PutItOnAMap ( talk) 00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sûriyeya The NSA now officialy said that they recaptured Tanf from ISIS after they lost it yesterday. The best is to make it contested because the reporter BosnjoBoy said that Rebels captured 20 locations aswell, we will mark those locations so it will make sense. DuckZz ( talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
What about this SOHR report, dated March 6? I know that the Free Syrian Army has a significant presence near the Al-Tanf area, and the border crossing is possibly even contested (again) right now, but the SOHR report shouldn't be dismissed. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone find location? http://en.deirezzor24.net/jaysh-assud-sharqiya-a-fsa-faction-expels-isis-from-siriyat-al-waar-a-military-base-north-tanaf-border-crossing/ Vissar2g ( talk) 04:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
They are embedded with Qalamoun and Daraa FSA so they stay green, just as any faction embedded with SDF stays yellow, even if it is not part of the SDF like Thuwwar al Raqqa. The NSF did not really join the SDF, and they're composed of long-standing independent FSA groups, unlike the SDF FSA which have been hiding in YPG territory since 2014. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 04:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
According to these reliable sources [60] and [61], and this Anti-Opposition source, the Free Syrian Army is in control of the Syrian side of the border crossing. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 08:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Any news about Tanf-Crossing and Tanf? I wrote my opinion about some "sources" in the topic above. Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose Dudiyan can be changed to black now: https://twitter.com/Step_Agency or at least to contested, as I thinks that the Rebels would try to get it back Mughira1395 ( talk) 23:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think we use too many sources from twitter and we mast stop do this. I think we can use only official pages of (reliable) media sources and not more than that. Twitter is very difficult to call a reliable source and in connection with this we need to either completely prohibit the use of data from Twitter (as the sole source without providing additional source) or authorization to use only official pages. Here is an example: here here here or this here here Twitter has confirmed that it is a real page of international reporter, politician and analyst. Or use some sources from twitter which we earlier used only as addition for data from other crediable sources not from twitter.
I, IP, vote yes on Suriyeya's proposal, even though it doesn't count. I think reliable credible sources should be used, as the rules say. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 20:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The village of Kafr Khashir (S-SE of Azaz) should be yellow. http://edmaps.com/html/syrian_civil_war_in_maps.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.228.235 ( talk) 16:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Opp.sources reported that the Al Nusra Front and their allies from Jund al-Aaqsa amid heavy gunfire storms the town of Hish south of Maarrat al‑Nu'man and arrest the commander of Imam Bukhari Brigade, affiliated t Division 13(FSA) and also Nusra/Jund al-Aaqsa now mobilize their forces for storm the headquarters of Division 13(FSA). here here here Also opposition sources said about clashes between FSA and Al Nusra in Maarrat al‑Nu'man and Khan Shaykhun. here here here here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 21:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Incidents involving user conduct are determined on ANI, not talk pages of articles. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps. If this doesn't work, I'll ask admin to block him, but I would prefer ban on editing military maps. I'm sick and tired of telling him "if You do this one more time, I will...". And I'm sick and tired of finding articles, reading them from first to last letter, finding no useful information, only to see him using the same source to backup completely unrelated change. And then I have to carefully read entire article like idiot, making sure I'm not blind and I was right in the first place. He is playing stupid and manipulating sources big time. And he is doing it on purpose. Enough is enough. Not long ago, he changed used this source to change Shaykh Isa to yelloow (YPG/SDF held). When I complained about it, he didn't even try to prove I was wrong about the source, but he gave me *another* source that merely hints that YPG/SDF is on the outskirts of Mare so Shaykh Isa "must have" been under their control. So, he obviously used bogus source, and that's not his first time. Not even close to first. I replied to him on his talk page:
But, off course, he "cleansed" his talk page it in his next edit, like he does every time someone complains about him. Today, I saw this edit. He changed Khunayz, Thulth Khunayz and Tall Al-Sim'an ( here) to yellow/contested based on vague sentence on YPG-related site saying "The armed groups making up the Syrian Democratic Forces are now at the gates of the IS headquarters in Raqqa.". Nowhere in the article is said anything about Khunayz, Thulth Khunayz and Tall Al-Sim'an. Nowhere! And even if IS has headquotrers in Tall Al-Sim'an, vague sentence about YPG being "at the gates" of it, without any mention of distance, is not nearly enough even for siege icons, let alone contested. Many of You have tried to reason with this guy, and You all know it's not working. So, I propose that we agree on banning him from Syria war and Iraq war maps and present that to admins. -- Hogg 22 ( talk) 07:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-- Hogg 22 ( talk) 07:09, 16 March 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.
You, 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E, are a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3 [70]. Socking is strictly against Wikipedia policy, and as such, I strongly advise you to stop before your IP Range gets blocked. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 09:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
User:LightandDark2000 I'll reference our recent exchanges: here I disagreed with you about interpreting ambiguous sources that never mentioned the Arisha villages in question by name to claim they were under SDF control since December despite evidence to the contrary, and the fact that six different map makers all marked them as ISIS held. [71] Then I provided you with an up to date source about villages held by ISIS, which you just reverted claiming they were not in my article (which is the same thing I had said about your articles, ironically) [72]. I showed up on your talk page, quoted in clear Arabic what you just dismissed, and you replied saying it was pointless to add more villages and clutter them up. But I was not asking you to add new villages, I was asking you to revert your edit of preexisting villages. Then you just erased our discussion because you did not, quote, "deem it necessary" yet. [73] I had not even read your reply yet. So I copied the conversation here [74] in order to continue it, and quoted our previous discussion about al Arisha as well. By this point, your revert of my edits had bought you enough time and the SDF had already recaptured most of the villages that you claimed my Zaman al Wassl article did not mention. I still asked you to revert your own revert on Arisha and Khirbat al Samm based on the same article, and you flatly ignored that request. Despite being quick to erase discussions, you are not at all in the mood to correct your own mistakes. I also pointed out your claim that they controlled Sheikh Eissa based on an ambiguous article talking about "the outskirts of Marea" here [75]. These are just recent incidents, the complaints of users date back to well within last year [76]. Your reliance on ambiguous sources, sometimes by sources that do not have requisite detail in their knowledge about Syria, is one of the top contentious issues here. The other one is your lack of cooperation when talked to about your edits. The combination of both factors makes discussing anything with you a very daunting experience. I hope you actually consider why there are complaints. NightShadeAEB ( talk) 07:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
Al Bardah & Jabal Bardah are SAA held. I edited but it was reverted. Source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-launches-counter-offensive-bardah-southeast-homs/ MesmerMe ( talk) 15:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Recently, User:LightandDark2000 made this edit, changing a major town, Tell al Siman, to contested between SDF and ISIS. The link does not work. Additionally, it is obviously a pro-Kurdish source (YPG News). I asked LightandDark2000 to provide another source for his edit. Until then, this edit should be reverted due to lack of a reliable source. 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E ( talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Tell al Siman is the headquarters of IS north of Raqqah. The recent SDF advances have been to the northeast in Raqqah, in the desert region bordering Deir ez-Zor. We should add Malihah Oil Field in Deir ez-Zor (it's SDF held), it's not visible on this map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 ( talk) 11:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Opp.sources reported about the clashes between a rebels and fighters loyal to ISIS(battalion "Hamza Asadullah") inside the city of Tafas here here here Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources SOHR and Al Masdar said that the SAA retake the village of Kafr Saghir.[syriahr.com/?p=162580 here] here this also confirmed anti-SAA source. here Sûriyeya ( talk) 17:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)