Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

Palmyra Being attacked from Northern side; http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-al-qadri-farms-in-west-palmyra/ Syrian Government forces have taken three villages around Palmyra and are attacking Palmyra now. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a request. The source was already quoted before and people are following the situation. SAA is not yey attacking the city but it is positioned just on the outskirts. If you have new info from sources, post them.Paolowalter (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently SAA have moved their frontlines to Abu Al-Farawis on the outskirts of Palmyra, where they have begun to bombard the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham’s positions from the western flank of the city; this will likely be their entry point if they do decide to besiege Palmyra. Meanwhile, southwest of Palmyra, the Syrian Armed Forces and ISIS are deadlocked in a fierce battle for control of the town of Khanayfees and the nearby Phosphate Mines. ISIS has imposed control over most of Khanayfees; however, with the help of the Syrian Arab Air Force (SAAF), the Syrian Armed Forces have been able maintain control over the northwestern sector of the town. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-al-dawat-near-palmyra/ Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said government troops were now some five kilometers (three miles) west of the city and engaged in fierce clashes with forces from the extremist group. "Regime forces could enter the city at any moment, they are not far away and the area between them and the city is desert," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-09/305917-syria-army-battles-isis-outside-palmyra-activists.ashx Saphyr66 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA towards of Fakhr-al-Din al-Ma'ani Castle, other side of castle is Palmyra.https://twitter.com/2Rook14/status/619224794823847937 Saphyr66 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 and Saphyr66 we can't make edits sole off of twitter. It violates the rules on sources. Such sources must be investigated first. Tgoll774 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Tgoll774, I was using the words of the editor-in-chief of Al Rai Media Group! Regardless of whether he reports something on television, his agency, or his news account on Twitter, it has been established that he is a reliable source, therefore he can be used. Besides, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights corroborates his claims: http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/clashes-erupt-in-the-northern-countryside-of-homs-and-shelling-targets-the-city-of-palmyra/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbfreespace3 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Then use the news media, not twitter posts. Accuracy is important and twitter reports are often people reposting what others post. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But buddy I gave only reliable sources. And it does not violate the rules. Saphyr66 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Syria army advances on ISIS in Palmyra. https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-10/305995-syria-army-advances-on-isis-in-palmyra.ashx http://www.pressreader.com/lebanon/the-daily-star-lebanon/20150710/281749858026431/TextView Syrian army said on Thursday it was closing in on Islamic State militants in control of Palmyra, in a major offensive to recapture the city of Roman ruins from the jihadists.A newsflash on state television quoted a Syrian army source as saying its forces were in the vicinity of the city. Footage showed tank and artillery shelling of distant targets in the largely desert terrain. "The units of the army had delivered concentrated hits to the terrorists' hideouts and killed many of them," an army statement said.In the last few days the army has intensified its aerial bombardment of the central Syrian city, also known as Tadmur, in the heaviest such raids since it was seized by the Sunni Islamist group last May. The army said in the last 24 hours it had taken Nuzl Hayal and the Tel al Marmala on the outskirts of the city and hilltops about 10 km (six miles) from the center. http://www.businessinsider.com/r-syrian-army-says-its-closing-in-on-islamic-state-in-palmyra-2015-7 SOHR said government troops were now some five kilometers (three miles) west of the city and engaged in fierce clashes with forces from the extremist group."Regime forces could enter the city at any moment, they are not far away and the area between them and the city is desert," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said.http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-09/305917-syria-army-battles-isis-outside-palmyra-activists.ashx Over the last four days, the Syrian Arab Army’s 67th Brigade of the 18th Tank Division – in coordination with Qawat Al-Nimr (Tiger Forces), Liwaa Suqour Al-Sahra (Desert Hawks Brigade), and the National Defense Forces (NDF) – have made remarkable progress in the western countryside of the ancient city of Palmyra, capturing a number of sites under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS).

Syrian Armed Forces continued their advance to ancient city, attacking the ISIS militants at the Palmyra Driving School, where they were able to impose full control over this site near the Al-Qadri Farms in southwest Palmyra.According to a military source in Jabal Al-Sha’ar, the Syrian Armed Forces killed as many as 30 enemy combatants from the terrorist group and wounded another 35 militants in the process of their advance to the outskirts of Palmyra. In addition to their capture of the Palmyra Driving School, the Syrian Armed Forces captured the strategic hills of Al-Dawat and Taloul Al-Hikmat after fierce clashes with the terrorist group – both of these hills are located in the northwestern outskirts of Palmyra. With their recent advancement in western Palmyra, the Syrian Armed Forces are now 5 kilometers (km) away from the ancient city, as they continue to push east towards the Qassoun Mountains overlooking the ancient city. Not to be outdone, another brigade from the Tiger Forces is also pushing its way to the ancient city; however, it is not from the western flank. The Tiger Forces brigade – led by Captain Lu’ayy Sleitan – has advanced as far as 7km away from the village of Al-‘Amariyah in northern Palmyra; if they can capture the rest of the road leading from Palmyra to the Jazal Mountains, they may arrive before their comrades at the western flank. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-marches-toward-palmyra-5km-from-the-ancient-city/ On Wednesday, the Syrian armed forces launched an offensive with the goal of liberating the ISIL-Occupied historic city, recapturing an area some 3.5 miles from Palmyra. According to the channel, the army has taken control of a school in the area, where the ISIL had its local headquarters.During the liberation of the school, several ISIL' military vehicles and 10 militants were killed. http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150710/1024433491.html Saphyr66 (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army is 3.5km from Palmyra. SAA/Tiger Forces sit less than 5 kilometers from the Qassoun Mountains of Palmyra; meanwhile, to the south, the 67th Brigade sits less than 3.5 km from the last army checkpoint that leads into Palmyra. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-is-3-5km-from-palmyra-how-did-they-do-it/ Saphyr66 (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think now no ISIS forces near Air Base, T4 Station & Tiyas crossroads all ISIS fighters go to Palmyra. Saphyr66 (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Regime troops advance near Palmyra. Syrian troops inched closer to the ISIS-held city of Palmyra. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-11/306160-isis-attack-on-hassakeh-stalls-regime-troops-advance-near-palmyra.ashx Saphyr66 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

At least 30 militants with the Islamic State were killed during ongoing battles with the Syrian army forces in the surrounding of the ancient city of Palmyra. The battles in the vicinity of this millennia-old oasis city have been gaining momentum in recent days, as the Syrian forces were said to be waging a counter-offensive to recapture Palmyra from the IS hands. A total of 12 government forces were also killed during recent battles in Palmyra, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the Syrian war. al-Mayadeen TV said the Syrian forces had launched an offensive to expel the IS group from the ancient city of Palmyra in the eastern countryside of Homs province. The army forces have been only few kilometers from the western entrance of Palmyra, after the troops managed to retake around 15 kilometers west of the city amid the withdrawal of many IS militants toward the eastern and central parts of the city. The military operation will continue until the recapture of Palmyra, the TV said, adding that the government forces are attacking from three directions. https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/30-militants-killed-fighting-near-syrias-palmyra-100639293.html Saphyr66 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hundreds of ISIL have started retreating from Palmyra towards the Reqqa province as the army regained control of the surrounding areas of the city and Syrian forces are now only one kilometer away from the city. Syrian army was about a mile away from the city. "The Syrian troops are only 1,500 meters away from Palmyra and the city is within the reach of the army," a Syrian military source told. The source noted that the Syrian forces have taken control of al-Siyaqeh school in the suburbs of Palmyra after killing tens of ISIL and destroying a many of their military equipment. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940420001390 http://web.shafaqna.com/EN/IR/453676 http://en.ghatreh.com/view/19951/ISIL-Starts-Withdrawal-from-Palmyra-City [video] SAA operations in the surroundings of Palmyra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVjgpjfcRkg Saphyr66 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think part of ISIS strategy in Palmira consisted in a fast sweep, seizing the city destroying valuable art heritage and executing prisioners. Maybe they cant afford using his men to defend it, so withdraw its an option for ISIS. Palmyra its not a important objective for ISIS (Its too far and in the middle of th desert), Deyr Eir zor and Hassaka are important from them. Defending Raqqa (from YPG) and Mosul (from ISF) are their main strategic priority.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Gen. Ayub inspects army units operating on the direction of Palmyra.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKMA1kdAHfw The Syrian Arab Army’s “Tiger Forces” – in coordination with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sahra (Desert Hawks Brigade) – have advanced from the Abu Al-Fawaris Farms in the northwestern countryside of Palmyra to the ancient Quarries on the northern outskirts of the city after fierce clashes with the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) on Sunday morning.

As a result of their advance to the ancient Quarries in the northwestern countryside, the SAA’s Tiger Forces and Desert Hawks Brigade have positioned themselves 1.5 kilometers away from the Qassoun Checkpoint that leads into the Qassoun Mountains, which overlooks the city of Palmyra from the western flank.https://twitter.com/Karybdamoid/status/620432031076323328 https://twitter.com/skyjack_tr/status/620253431471697920 http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-armed-forces-advance-to-the-palmyra-quarries-1-5km-from-the-city/ SAA “Tiger Forces” – in coordination with Liwaa Suqour Al-Sahra (Desert Hawks Brigade) – captured the Ancient Quarries in the northwestern countryside of Palmyra after fierce clashes this morning with the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS). According to a military source in east Homs, the Tiger Forces are officially less than 2 kilometers away from the Qassoun Checkpoint that leads to the Qassoun Mountains of Palmyra. However, it should be noted: the SAA appear to be maneuvering around the ancient city in order to position themselves outside of the village of Al-‘Amariyah to the north and the Palmyra farms to the south; this will allow for the Syrian Armed Forces to flank the terrorist group inside the city’s parameters. Fierce clashes are currently taking place between the Syrian Arab Army’s 63rd Brigade of the 18th Tank Division and ISIS in the southwestern countryside of Palmyra – the majority of these firefights have been reported southeast of the Palmyra Driving School, which is a site that the Syrian Armed Forces captured three days ago.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-tiger-forces-capture-the-palmyra-quarries/ violent clashes are still taking place between the regime forces and the militiamen loyal to them against IS in the vicinity of Palmyra’s west area. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/clashes-continue-in-the-vicinity-of-palmyra-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-homs/ Saphyr66 (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA have done a 180 on the Palmyra front, as they have gone from being on the defensive, to reversing many of ISIS gains along the vast desert territory encompassing the Palmyra-Homs Highway.Much of the SAA success in Palmyra has been due in large part to the SAA’s Central Command’s brigade reshuffling on this front; this was an imperative decision that saw the mobilization of Tiger Forces from the Idlib Governorate to the Jazal & Al-Sha’ar Mountains. Not long after their arrival, Tiger Forces watched ISIS’ defensive frontlines crumble in the northern countryside of Palmyra; thus, allowing for Tiger Forces to sweep the Jazal and Al-Sha’ar Mountains en route to the strategic groves of Al-Bayarat, then to farms of Abu Al-Fawaris, and finally to the Ancient Quarries.Meanwhile, to the south, the SAA’s 67th Brigade of 18th Tank Division found their own level of success along the Palmyra-Homs Highway, where they were able to capture a number of sites over the last two weeks, including the Al-Qadri Farms and the Palmyra Driving School recently. With the Tiger Forces advancing towards the village of Al-‘Amariyah, the Desert Hawks Brigade – that have fought along their side this whole time – will likely break away to the west of the Qassoun Mountains and attack from this flank. The Desert Hawks are likely to link up with the SAA’s 67th Brigade, who is also pushing towards the western flank of Palmyra; however, there is always the possibility of the 67th Brigade swooping to the Palmyra Farms at the southern flank – still too early to tell. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-armed-forces-advancing-in-two-different-directions-at-palmyra/ Saphyr66 (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA backed by Commando reg.retake hills of Maqala'e NW Palmyra| Video: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=974089649292020 https://twitter.com/sy_newscenter/status/620700765158551552 Saphyr66 (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA & NDF taken over Qasr al Heir region.http://www.syriahr.com/2015/07/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%B5-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%8A/ SAA full-control over the town of Al-Meshtal in the western countryside of Palmyra. Qasr Al-Hayr and Al-Meshtal are both located in southwestern Palmyra http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-captures-al-meshtal-in-west-palmyra/ Saphyr66 (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert warring in central Homs

It would seem that at least two users are constantly using their 1RR privileges to show and erase a large push the Islamic State was shown, on this map, to have made within the last few days towards the city of Tiyas. I am not as well informed as many other people when it comes to this conflict, so I have absolutely no idea what's going on there. The Syrian military was making a push for Palmyra, but that seems to have stalled, somewhat. The bulge I'm talking about is to the West of Palmyra.

I don't know, or care,, who, or why, this is being done, but it's annoying, and should be stopped represented as closely as possible, not fought over on a page that is meant to show what's actually going on.DaJesuZ (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please name them, just to keep an eye on them. Cheers.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A whole bunch of villages there have gone from red to black. I have read nothing yet about an ISIS offensive there. Could someone please show me a source or revert all these villages back to red. Seriously, one would think that such a major edit would be discussed here first.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

XJ-0461 v2 here is SOHR that reported the offensive on the T4 Air Base SOHR,SOHR,SOHR,also today report that the village is captured Here,Mr.User200 I think DaJesuZ was talking about this user diff where he made a controversial edit.46.99.6.77 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This anti SAA source.http://syrian-mirror.net/en/cat/syria-mirror/isis-captures-tayyas-village-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-homs/ but today SOHR reported SAA advance in vicinity of Palmyra http://www.syriahr.com/2015/07/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%B7-%D9%85%D9%86-2/ Tiyas under SAA https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/620595218149195777 https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/620607646207475712 http://s2.img7.ir/ggbZ8.jpg Saphyr66 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR only said ISIS targeted by rockets T4 airbase area east of Homs. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/rockets-target-al-t4-airbase-area-while-clashes-erupt-in-al-hasakah/ Islamic battalions targeted with shells regime forces in al-Taifor military airport, no reports of losses yet. Clashes continue between IS and regime forces around Tadmur city amid reinforcements for the regime in the area, no casualties reported. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/clashes-between-is-and-regime-forces-in-tadmur-countryside-and-hasakah-city/ Clashes are taking place between the regime forces and the militiamen loyal to them against IS in the vicinity of al-Tifur airbase in the eastern countryside of Homs. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/the-clashes-renew-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-homs-2/ SOHR not said that ISIS advance or take villge Tiyas. Credible source said Reports that #IS/#ISIS members are 4km from Tiyas (T4) airbase are not true https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/620607646207475712 & They're still clashing with Government (#SAA) forces on the main road north of T4 station and the desert roads S. of Tiyas airbase https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/620608151147163648 & Tiyas village is still under gov. control. https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/620595218149195777 Saphyr66 (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Pro SAA source: SAA have done a 180 on the Palmyra front, as they have gone from being on the defensive, to reversing many of ISIS’s gains along the vast desert territory encompassing the Palmyra-Homs Highway. SAA’s 67th Brigade of the 18th Tank Division found their own level of success along the Palmyra-Homs Highway, where they were able to capture a number of sites over the last two weeks, including the Al-Qadri Farms and the Palmyra Driving School recently. With the Tiger Forces advancing towards the village of Al-‘Amariyah, the Desert Hawks Brigade – that have fought along their side this whole time – will likely break away to the west of the Qassoun Mountains and attack from this flank.The Desert Hawks are likely to link up with the SAA’s 67th Brigade, who is also pushing towards the western flank of Palmyra; however, there is always the possibility of the 67th Brigade swooping to the Palmyra Farms at the southern flank – still too early to tell. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-armed-forces-advancing-in-two-different-directions-at-palmyra/ Saphyr66 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA backed by Commando reg.retake hills of Maqala'e NW Palmyra https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=974089649292020 Saphyr66 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Saphyr66 we do not need you to report the content of the sources on this talk page, we can read them ourselves. Please do not change the map based on non autorative facebook page or twitter. Unless the author is reliable, they should not be used.Paolowalter (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA taken over Qasr al Heir region.http://www.syriahr.com/2015/07/%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AA%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%B5-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%8A/ SAA full-control over the town of Al-Meshtal in the western countryside of Palmyra. Qasr Al-Hayr and Al-Meshtal are both located in southwestern Palmyra. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-captures-al-meshtal-in-west-palmyra/ Saphyr66 (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015

The villages east of Hasakah:

• Tell Marshudi
• Emerus
• Tell Al Shayr
• Abu Jurnayn
• Abu Kashat
• Judaymah
• Hadima
• Alabakth
• Bir Hulu
• Abu Azalah
• Tell Umm Alurz
• Kharab an-Nawaf
• Tall Muhammad Ali
• Al Sabat

are again under kurdish conrtol and not longer under ISIS control.

See it also on http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.607260&lon=41.128693&z=12&m=b&show=/28436621/Tell-Marshudi&search=Hassakah

Close to Ayn Isa/M4-road:

• Mushirfah
• Fatisah
• Brigade 93
• Abwah
• Surab Sharqiya

are also again under kurdisch/FSA control, while Suluk isn't under attack by ISIL anymore.

Near Sarrin:

• 'huwayjat at alawi' (now marked as under kurd-control, is switching sides between ISIS, kurds.

But is probably not under full control of kurds.

Is it possible to update the map or give me the access to do so. Kind regards

Niele (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I found maps & they shows Al Sabat, Kubaybat, Al Buwab, Kuzat al Faras under SAA, villages S-E Hasakaj under YPG and villages S-W Al Hasakah under ISIS. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJazZCWWoAgxClK.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJVs-2NWUAATXby.png:large https://ton.twitter.com/i/ton/data/dm/620140700999516163/620140701045641216/tFuOMqkq.png Saphyr66 (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - As per the documentation, we are unable to accept other maps as sources to make these changes - the information supporting the control of territory change needs to be linked to a reliable source. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Some observations to the map

Hello first I want to thank to the wikiusers who create and maintain this map.

Second I wish to make some observations to the map and the evolution of it:

I admit that it´s difficult to chance and maintain this, but some of the last evolutions let me think that some of the fonts that you use have some illogical origin!!!

For example the city´s of Suluk and Al-Salihiyah or Aliya villages you put them has contested in the last week, what grounds are your base to that "contested" status? What logical reason maintain that status untouchable? They are deep inside the Kurdish territory and that "contested" status is not supported with any independent font only give moral to the ISIS wikiusers that visit this wikipedia map!!!

Other example is the Brigade 93 status that is in this map under the control of ISIS, I don't see any source confirming that claim, for the contrary!!! And that claim contradicts all logical, if that facilities is under ISIS control its impossible for the YPG and is allies maintain the city of Ain Issa and Alyan village!!! The Brigade 93 is an elevation and because of that is strategical. To attribute the control to the ISIS is so incredible that is by common sense impossible to believe!!! If you don't have nothing to prove the contrary maintain this with no changes against all logical only make this source unreliable!!!

For the last, at least one of the villages near the Al-Hasakah (Hesîçe) city are not in accord with your primary source in the battleground and defies again all logical of a sustain front of battle. Some in this forum have give me the idea that this map as a reliable source: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/da/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#13/36.6068/41.0442 I have observed the last notices and I believe that to, and because of that I don't understand how can you give "control" to ISIS of the Abu Azalah village if you see the map that I have cited that this village is for several weeks under the control of the YPG and his allies. That goes against all the logical and is not based in any independent support font!!!

If we except this minor errors I think that the map is good. And my wish is to this map have some credibility and not be use by ISIS members to give them a morale that they don't have!!!

Best regards,

Geosapiens (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You should better review the article's history before blabbering nonsense as you did. Suluk had been put as contested based on a Kurdish source, and I did it again with another Kurdish source (ARA news). I dont have any problem in changing icons wich have been contested for months, but be serious and did it with a source, or at least avoid double standards and do it with all contested icons (for example, al-Shulah has been contested in the map for several months, logically, we all know that's not the case). And please, dont try to talk about reliable sources when you are trying to use a pro-YPG source-map for YPG advances/gains, in a clear breach of WP's Syrian civil war detailed map rules. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 14:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Well HCPUNXKID first that pro-YPG source-map that you are talk, is not change in the last week, because of that is a very non reliable pro-YPG source-map don't you think? Second and about the city of al-Hazakah it´s interesting to confirm with other fonts in this case Reuters (trough here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds-idUSKCN0PU1MZ20150720 ) that the governmet forces don't control any place in the city!!! Regrads, Geosapiens (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

1-North Eastern Sweida Governorate: NDF and Syrian Druze capture Tal Mu’az : http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/sweidas-druze-advance-in-the-northeastern-countryside-tal-muaz-captured/

2- Syrian Army capture number of towns, hils and villages North western Latakia: "Wasting no time, the Republican Guard and the National Defense Forces (NDF) captured the towns of Tal Wassit, Khirbat Al-Niqouss, and Al-Mansoura in the northeastern countryside of the Al-Ghaab Plains; this was coupled with intense airstrikes from the Syrian Arab Air Force.

The Islamist rebels were able to recapture Al-Mansoura after the Syrian Armed Forces withdrew from the town to Tal Wassit; however, the Jabhat Al-Nusra militants made the mistake of pushing too far, thus allowing for the SAA to beat back the enemy forces and reenter Al-Mansoura.

Meanwhile, on the northeastern Latakia front, the Syrian Arab Army’s Special Forces are pressing Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Free Syrian Army’s “Coastal Brigades” at the strategic cities of Ramleh and Salma." Source:http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-armed-forces-are-on-the-move-in-northern-latakia-and-hama/ SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar is a pro-government source, and I don't believe it can be used for the edits you are asking for. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Source indicates Tiyas Airbase no longer surrounded by ISIS, Syrian forces capture stratigic hills in the surrounding area and push ISIS back. "Adding to ISIS’ woes in east Homs, the Syrian Armed Forces’ continued their counter-assault in the southern countryside of the Tiyas Airbase, capturing more territory around the Al-Hayl Mountians."

Source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-air-force-pounds-isis-at-palmyra-over-90-airstrikes-reported-in-east-homs/

Also to the page admin could you please send me another mediation request as I failed to accept the last two, sorry and thank you in advance. SyrianObserver2015 SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar is a pro-government source, and cannot be used for this edit. I will remove the siege icon if Palmyra is captured by SAA, however, as there would be no way for ISIS to continue supplying its fighters at the base. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015

Dara'a Governorate report suggests Syrian Army capture Northern part of Kafr Shams, and continuing to drive on Northwest of the town essentially bypassing the town and gaining ground as they move. The town is still under siege by the SAA. Source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-launches-surprise-attack-at-kafr-shamis-in-northwest-daraa/

2- Last Fall, ‪#‎SAA‬ the Syrian Arab Army’s 5th Armored Division – in cooperation with the 9th Armored Division, ‪#‎Hezbollah‬ and the National Defense Forces (‪#‎NDF‬) – launched a large-scale offensive in the northwestern countryside of the ‪#‎Daraa‬ Governorate, attacking numerous villages and hills near the border of the Al-‪#‎Quneitra‬ Governorate.

The offensive was relatively successful for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they captured the strategic towns of Deir Al-‘Adas, Al-‪#‎Habbariyah‬ and Al-‪#‎Sultaniyah‬, along with their surrounding hills after fierce clashes with the Free Syrian Army’s “Southern Front Brigades” and the Syrian Al-‪#‎Qaeda‬ group Jabhat Al-‪#‎Nusra‬ that lasted just over two weeks.

However, following almost one month of non-stop fighting, the Syrian Armed Forces were forestalled by the rebel contingents at the imperative towns of ‪#‎Kafr_Shamis‬, ‪#‎Kafr_Nissaj‬ and ‪#‎Zimreen‬; this ended the offensive and resulted in the Syrian Armed Forces not achieving their primary objective, which was the capture of Al-Harra.

Fast forward to last Saturday, the Syrian Arab Army’s 15th Brigade of the 5th Division conducted a surprise assault at the eastern perimeter of Kafr Shamis, resulting in their infiltration and capture of the northeastern entrance to the town.

Despite the lack of progress achieved by the 15th Brigade’s surprise attack; this offered some insight into the Syrian Armed Forces’ future military endeavors.

The Syrian Armed Forces are finishing up their integral battle in the resort-city of Al-Zabadani and soon, they will focus their attention to a new front, which is likely to be the Mount ‪#‎Hermon‬ front and the Dara’a triangle.

This will not be an easy task for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they will be facing off against one of the largest and well-armed rebel forces in Syria: the Free Syrian Army’s Southern Front Brigades.

The Syrian Armed Forces will not be alone; all signs point to the Al-Quneitra Governorate as Hezbollah’s next destination in Syria and they will be greatly needed, especially in the mountains of the ‪#‎Golan‬. ‪#‎Syria24‬

M.D.

https://www.facebook.com/syria24english?fref=nf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.81.61 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC) SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, we cannot use this source. We use Masdar for rebel and ISIS gains, and we use SOHR for government and ISIS gains. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2015

{{tlp|db|reason}} Multiple false sources based on tweets from SOHR/SAHR, who is based in a council flat in england on welfare. Known to be an unreliable biased source, Who continually reports the Government forces is using chemicals against its own citizins which the UN found to be false : "The chemical weapon attack in Ghouta on August 21 would, therefore, credibly point to Ziyaad Tariq Ahmed as among the perpetrators of that attack, particularly as the Assad government had no motive to use chemical weapons, especially with the UN inspectors already on the ground in Syria, and as the Syrian government was in a strong position militarily in its struggle with the opposition." Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139 83.71.81.61 (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No wikied speedy deletion out, due to incorrect information not being a reason for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is for non-controversial deletions, this would not be one, so even if it did meet the criteria, admins would likely not speedy delete it. If you insist on trying to delete this article, you'd have to go through AfD. Banak (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Use the proper channels rather than submitting an edit request here. The purpose of edit requests is to change something on the map. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Golan heights map http://warsonline.info/images/stories/news/15/07jul/syria/umm-batna2.jpg

Map is from a pro-government source and cannot be used to show government gains. Also, we aren't allowed to use maps. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Suluk, pro-Kurdish bias & double standards

I put Suluk as contested based on a Kurdish source (ARA News) from today (19 July 2015) wich claims clashes between YPG & ISIS in Suluk town. So, according to WP rules, my edit is correct. But it seems that for other editors their ideology is stronger than the rules, so they use subterfuges & personal POV's like "they're sporadic clashes", "Source says there were clashes, not ongoing battle" to revert my edit. Funny thing hearing them about maintaining contested icons, when places like al-Shulah had been contested on the map for months, when anyone who follows the Syrian civil war knows that there havent been continued clashes in al-Shulah since months ago. So unless real arguments instead of personal POV's are shown for the revert, I will revert to my correct edition ASAP.--HCPUNXKID 15:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I hear you and it was I that reverted your edit and I reverted it with cited argument. And according to my knowledge we don´t put cities contested if there are only sporadic clashes witch it was this time. The clashes were already over when the article was published, so there for it should not go contested. As for your comments about "al-Shulah" I have no idea and have not been involved in any editing or discussion about it. Rhocagil (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't mark towns or cities that are experiencing sporadic clashes as contested? Where ere you when Kobani was marked as contested a couple weeks ago, when there was absolutely no chance of the Islamic State taking the city over, and only, relatively speaking, small clashes were going on in the city? Reports of clashes are enough to mark a town or city as contested, so long as they can be corroborated. DaJesuZ (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Clashes in Kobane were over several days and involved up to 100 ISIS tardheads (still I don´t think we should have put it contested). Clashes in Suluk was with a handful of deashbags and were over after some hours. If you guys want to debate other towns marked contested, that probably are not contested. Please feel free to do so and start a topic about that.Rhocagil (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID your quote "Source aint from days ago, but from today. Also, in the map there are several icons marked as contested from months ago, althought there's no clashes", what a kind of argument is that? I don´t care if the source is from tomorrow when the source itself says "Osman added that at least six IS insurgents were killed during the clashes, “while the rest of militants escaped on Saturday evening”." SATURDAY = were clashes = no more! Try to follow your own source that´s the least you can do, other would be ridiculous. And again if you want to debate other "contested" places, please do so but don´t use it as an argument for this edit.Rhocagil (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Who decided that the clashes were "sporadic" (not the article itself, as its the second one in few weeks talking about clashes in Suluk. Theres no articles bout clashes in al-Shulah in several months. Double standards again), you? Who decided which is a significative number of ISIS fighters (20, 30, 50, 100, 200???), you?. Let's be serious, in this map a town has been always put as contested if a proper source states that there are clashes in there, no matter the number of fighters. According to your words, it would be nearly impossible to put a town as contested, but I'm sure that would be easier if the town was earlier black or red, instead of yellow, am I wrong?. And your words about Kobani are astonishing, you must the only person in the world who denied that the town was contested between YPG & ISIS. I would recommend you to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, and not a political forum, so better leave your bias out of here and try to edit properly.--HCPUNXKID 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Another source, 20 July 2015: http://www.bulletinleader.com/pm-britain-is-committed-to-destroying-islamic-state/1689/ "The attack resulted in the outbreak of fierce clashes between our fighters and terrorists of Daesh (IS) in Suluk downtown" --HCPUNXKID 15:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong and I don´t know if you can´t read properly or if you simply refuse to read your own source. And stop involve me in your stupid Al-Shulah-argument. Your new source is a citation of your old source so it´s the same. And about Kobane, I did not I deny clashes, but that just another proof that you just read what you want to read and see what you want to see. Pbfreespace3 please help me out here. Rhocagil (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID, you make the claim that "no matter the number of fighters", a town should be marked as contested if clashes are reported. To justify my edit, let me recall the purpose of this map: to show territorial control of cities and towns in the Syrian Civil War. In complex situations such as Aleppo and Hasakah, image maps have been used, but for other towns, such as Kobani, Zabadani, and on the Iraq map Sinjar, Baiji, and Garma, a contested icon is used. What is the purpose of the contested icon? Its purpose is to show that the town in question is controlled partly by one party, and partly by another. This is the case with Zabadani for example, where the government controls the outer neighborhoods, while the rebels hold the city center.

The problem is this: In Suluk, you used one source to change this major town's status to contested. If you read the source, you find out that what occurred was essentially a small firefight. ISIS sleeper cells infiltrated the town and shot at some Kurds, and the Kurds shot back and killed some of them. The source even reports the rest of the ISIS fighters as having fled the battlefield! It could not be more clear that this was a one-off, hit-and-run suicide attack, not a serious attempt to grab and hold parts of the town. If it were, then I and all of the other editors would completely support a contested icon, as it would be totally warranted, but in this case this is just a simple hit-and-run attack.

If we used your standard to mark towns as contested, then we could easily mark Mayadin as contested between ISIS and moderate rebels based on many separate reports from SOHR of rebel ambushes on ISIS checkpoints (although a question of bias could be raised), but the truth is that these are ambushes on checkpoints, not a seizure of territory inside of the town. The truth is that no matter how you want to spin it, ISIS does not control any part of Suluk, which is why a contested icon is unwarranted.

On another note, I personally think that Shulah should be marked as ISIS-held. If I recall correctly SAA briefly took the town, but ISIS retook it and holds it, according to this pro-government Masdar News map: http://www.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/sy1r.jpg I guess you could say it is held by ISIS since there have been no reports of clashes for months, and I doubt anyone would care to revert it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Army of Conquest in Idlib

The rebels have, reportedly, started an assault on the Shia town of al-Fuah, in NW Idlib province, so I think we should mark it as contested. The same reports state that they're also moving on on Kafraya (looks like they're showing that they're there in Idlib to stay).

As a side note, does anyone have any links to anything showing up-to-date maps on what's going on in Aleppo? It's been several days, and some Twitter feeds I look at show that rebels are making at least small advances, still, but I haven't found any maps that are less than a week old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

On Idlib, you must produce sources not generic statements ("reportedly" by whom?). Those towns ar ejust under attack but nobody, including rebels' sources, claims that the fighting ar einside the towns. If any, http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/civilians-in-al-fouaa-and-kafraya-fight-back-against-jaysh-al-fateh/ claims that the government forces inside the city are striking back. As to Aleppo, the last change of a couple of weeks ago was half of the military research center. Since situation stabilized again.192.84.142.182 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I, generally speaking, don't rely on news from the government, SOHR, or Kurdish news outlets, and instead rely on reports from the people who go through what's going on in the country via social media, since the government, Kurds, and rebels aren't always relaible, and, from time to time, blatantly lie about what's going on, and where it's going on (I'll cite the claimed Aleppo prison seige, that never occured, as claimed by SOHR, or the claimed supply route, via land, to Dier ez-Zoir that, again, never existed. The Kurds tend to be more accurate in their claims, albeit with a few exceptions, such as with the recent Islamic State assault on Ay Issa and Brigade 93.), and social media, as was established some time ago, can't be used as sources, which I think is absolutely fucking ridiculous.DaJesuZ (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If the sources that the most well-informed people consider to be the most reliable are considered unusable by Wikipedia, this does not bode well for the Wikipedia project. In time, such a situation may cause the Wikipedia map to become as irrelevant as the mainstream media maps that nobody close to the conflict takes seriously. Esn (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You want a source? Fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EENqLNtQpGg

Rebels have started shelling Nubl and al-Zahraa. I trust you want ignore the people.DaJesuZ (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

DaJesuZ you should know by now shelling a town does not make it contested .Its marked contested when fighting is inside

Months ago, and at this point, it may be years ago, when it came to al-Fuah and Kafraya, the rebels did manage to gain some ground within the towns, but their advances stalled, and the front around them/in them has remained totally stagnant. There are rebels in the town, but not very far into it. The shelling marks the start of a new offensive against the towns, so they should be marked as contested.DaJesuZ (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

When the time comes that we hear of street clashes inside you can make them contested but we do not change them on what you think might be happening and please refrain from using bad / childish language in future it is not accepted by the administrators

No logical overview

I want to raise this question. Why do we add so much villages in areas where we don't need them. Let me explain this problem. When random users look at "our" map, they need to understand how the Syrian geography approximately actually looks like only by looking at the dots and location on the map. Which means, he should think that for ex. Hama province has a large population with many big town and villages, while Raqqa province is a desert, with not so many towns and small villages.

• This becomes a problem because many users are just adding as many locations on this map as possible. I don't understand why because it looks stupid and cluttered like a chess board.
• For instance, take a look at Raqqa province, there're just too many villages added, and most of them are there just because users did copy them from other pro-Kurdish/Opposition maps (which is actually against rules), and those maps need to have every location the same as on google map because their maps are different than this wikipedia page.

A good thing would be to make a revision for every province on this map, and to remove or even add some location that should or shouldn't be here. DuckZz (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Someone find or make a map which shows population density, and use that as the background. Banak (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don´t se it as a problem that many villages are added, but I do se a problem in that the most a those villages probably are put out in to big "dot-size". The solution could be to adjust the size of many villages down.Rhocagil (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The village density is a result of conflict in those areas at some point during the war, villages have been added to display a more accurate image of the map, although I agree now that fighting has ceased in these areas that a process should be taken to remove these villages bar a few exceptions. However it is necessary to keep concentrations of villages along the frontline, notably in Raqqa where there is a high potential for future clashes between ISIS and Euphrates Volcano.Prohibited Area (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think that the map looks cluttered at all; if we start removing dozens of towns just "to make it look better", then we risk giving an inaccurate representation of control. Remember, this is not a map to show the front lines, this is a map of cities and towns during the war. That includes ones that are rarely fought over. I agree that some areas are cluttered; however the solution to this is not to blanket-delete entire areas. Rather, the towns should be decreased in size. Please look at my edits south and east of Hasakah for example. Many of those villages were only 20 houses, and I decreased their size. What if every village on this map was exactly proportionate to its actual size? That would solve the entire problem. Also, there are so many towns that haven't even been marked yet, for example the ones I added near Maskanah. That's a pretty populous area ISIS holds, and it needs to be shown. In addition, the area south of Deir Hafir needs to be added to the map; it is held by ISIS. With regards to a population map, here it is: http://acaps.org/img/documents/m-snap-estimated-areas-of-control-syria-31-may-2015.pdf Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

YPG Advances

Can someone update the Hasakah map. Cizire Canton recently updated the situation in Hasakah Governorate showing the city as totally surrounded by YPG with regime forces in the centre and ISIS confined to the city outskirts. Also the YPG have apparently captured most of Sarrin, however there are still a few outlying towns under ISIS control according to our map. Does anyone have a source that shows these villages as under YPG control as I doubt that they are still under ISIL control. On the 'Battle of Sarrin' wikipedia page it also reports that YPG have reversed ISIL gains during a brief offensive.Prohibited Area (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I do think as you that villages north of Sarrin except for Khirbat al-Burj and the grain silos are YPG-held. The problem is that there so far has not been any conformation about that other then by pro kurdish sources. This one for example.Rhocagil (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Hasakah, someone needs to update the map. The feeds I like to follow on Twitter have reports of Hasakah being totally surrounded by the Kurds, with the regime and Islamic State trapped in the city itself.

When it comes to Sarrin, I'm not sure what's going on. The same feeds that suggested that Hasakah was totally surrounded by the YPG also state that the Kurds are storming Sarrin, but they didn't give, really, any details when it came to progress.

http://i.imgur.com/6hYk89G.png Cizire's latest map. http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/nl/map/cizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_48163#13/36.5728/38.3555 latest interactive one which clearly shows Sarrin not contested. Tgoll774 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That map was published before Sarrin was stormed, and whoa! I thought we weren't allowed to use maps! Anyway, Jack Shahine, a reliable field source, has confirmed these claims. The situation inside of Sarrin is still unclear, but with such a bold claim as "most of the streets have been taken by kurds", I suspect that the town is probably contested. Also, ISIS has not issued any statements to the contrary. Also, Jack Shahine has reported that ISIS (or possibly someone else) has blown up the Sarrin Grain Silos: https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/625297627219927040

Jack Shahine is not a reliable source and has been wrong numerous times before. Quite a few occassions I posted information showing his unreliability. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable does not mean infallible, especially in a difficult background like the Syrian war. Here are pictures of Sarrin silos being blown up. https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/625411460697616384 --8fra0 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait before removing the icon. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Done.Alhanuty (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Editors,what happened with the Tal Brak countryside,someone changed it.Alhanuty (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources to indicate YPG-ISIL clashes in Tall Al-Sim'an are still ongoing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarrin (and neighbour villages) status and other small observations

Hello,

First I want to thank to the evolution of the administration of this map, is more professional and have more reality in the development status of the cities and towns, that was made for sure with the help of hall of the wikiusers. :) Is because of that, that I make this observations, to help the evolution of the map.

Yesterday the Sarrin village (south of Kobane) was taken by YPG/YPJ/FSA (in the "join military operations front/room" that they denominates has "Euphrates Volcano") the source of this claim is Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/27/us-mideast-crisis-kurds-town-idUSKCN0Q10UB20150727 . Near Sarrin you have some daesh/ISIL control villages that were taken to (includin Khirbat-al-burj that is 5 kilometres north), the only doubt that you can put has contested, is the "grain silos" at north, because that are not any independent font that give that facilities has a secure taken and control by YPG/YPJ/FSA to daesh/ISIL.

I have made other observations to the map and they were considerate, that I thank, the exception was the Abu Azalah (or if you prefer Abu `Azalah) village, well since February that this city, that is in the surrounded area of Tell Brak (just a few kilometres south and at the north of the M4 highway, that is the actual front line) is in the hands of the YPG/YPJ/al-Sanadid militias. The sources are a lot New York Times: "Redur Xelil, a spokesman for the People’s Protection Units, said, “The operation was over at 5 a.m. and the armed groups and mercenaries that were there were expelled. “The town is completely controlled by the People’s Protection Units,” he told Reuters by phone, adding that nearby villages were also under the group’s control." in http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0 ; JerusalemOnline "In the ongoing fight between opposition groups in northern Syria, Kurdish militants were reported today to have expelled Islamist fighters from the town of Tell Brak as well as a number of the surrounding villages." in http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/the-arab-world/kurdish-fighters-capture-towns-in-northern-syria-3861 . And son on... Well if all this said that is the "nearby" and the "surrounding" villages, Abu Azalah is a "nearby" and "surrounding" village of Tell Brak. And is a key village to have access to the M4 front line, because of that I insist that this village (at least) is since February in the hands of this YPG/YPJ/al-Sanadid militias.

If we except this minor errors I think that the map, in the north front-line (I don't pay much attention to the other fronts) is good. And my wish, like I have said, is to this map have some credibility and not be use by ISIS members to give them a morale that they don't have!!!

Best regards,

Geosapiens (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/Redur/posts/1006669132701006 IS re-entered and Turkey is self-imposing its No Fly Zone its just not for YPG, no bombs yet but just a matter of time. Erdogan's rhetoric indicates he is going after the YPG. Tgoll774 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Army of Fateh conquered 4 strategic hills in the countryside of Idlib and Hama

Army of Fateh expelled SAA from Tal Ilyas and Avar (East of Jisr Al Shugur, Idlib) and Tal Vasit and Tal Bakir (near Sahl Gaba region, NW of Hama). Source: http://www.aa.com.tr/tr/manset/563563--suriyeli-muhalifler-4-stratejik-tepeyi-ele-gecirdi Stunchy (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems the Idlib salliant is falling quickly into Jaysh al-Fatah hands. Sources reporting Frikka and the surrounding villages already under rebel control:

1. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/big-rebel-attack-in-syria/2012644.html
2. https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-28/308618-large-rebel-attack-in-syria-targets-area-vital-to-assad.ashx
3. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/rapid-collapses-take-place-for-the-regime-forces-fortifications-in-the-countryside-of-idlib-and-sahl-al-ghab/
4. https://twitter.com/IUCAnalysts/status/625961491599130624

The following changes must be made to the map:

To rebel control:

• Zayzoun Power Plant
• Tell Hakami
• Tell Sheikh Khattab
• Marj al-Zohour and the hill next to the town
• al-Mseirfah
• Tell Awar
• Tell Wasat
• Tell al-Sheikh Ilyas
• Frikah

To contested:

• al-Ziyara village

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2015‎

Pro-Assad media now also confirming total loss of the Idlib pocket north of Qarqur village: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jaysh-al-fateh-captures-remaining-hills-near-jisr-al-shughour/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2015‎

Another Pro-Assad twitter source confrims this losses here.Atele112 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to rush in edits, step by step, 2 locations in 1 edit, in this way users don't have to revert 20 edits at once just because 1 location should not be changed. DuckZz (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz I think we can change Frikka,Tal Wasit,Zeyzoun,and Az Zirayah to.Atele112 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR does not mention them. Try to find some neutral or government reporters talking about it. We should wait until tomorrow, rebels will probably start clashes in other locations, which will indicate that the areas behind them are under their control. DuckZz (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DuckZzSOHR reported the capture of Frikka,Marj al- Zohour, al- Msheirfah in the countryside of Jeser al- Shogour after they seized Tal Waset, Tal A’war and Tal al- Sheik Ilyas yesterday,Ziraya to contested.Atele112 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

1) We don't use SOHR English reports 2) You are obviously deliberately ignoring new SOHR reports, which say that Gov.forces counterattacked rebels in Al-Ghab and south Jisr Shurug which is under clashes. DuckZz (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources clearly mention rebel takeovers of Idlib villages and hills. Even the lines in the articles that are about SAA couterattacks are all taking about "positions in Sahl al-Ghab". Frikka and the surrounding villages are not in Sahl al-Ghab plain. So, we should make them green. Also, why is al-Ziyara contested solely between SAA and Nusra? Nusra is only part of Jaysh al-Fatah, and all position takes over by JaF are green and grey mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015‎

According to SOHR, the areas captured by Syrian Opposition are: 1. Zayzoun station and part of the town of al- Ziyara in Sahl al- Ghab; 2. Tal Hakami, Khattab Hill, al- Sohour Hill, Marj al- Zohour and village of al- Msheirfah in the countryside of Jeser al- Shogour; 3. Tal Waset, Tal A’war, Tal al- Sheik Ilyas 4.al-Frikah and its vicinity. Stunchy (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR updates that SAA re-captured al-Zyara and Tal Waset. Hence, the last two should stay red whereas all other should be green.Stunchy (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@DuckZz: could you explain why we haven't used SOHR? In my admittedly limited research, they seem to be pretty more neutral and reliable than most other sources. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre You did not understood me, we use Arabic SOHR instead of the English version because sometimes the English translators make mistakes during translation, in most cases only small details but important for this map. DuckZz (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR - The regime forces advance in Sahl al- Ghab, and captured town al- Mansoura [1] [2] Tal Waset [3] Khirbat al-Naqus [4] pro regime source: SAA captured Grain Silos outskirts of Mansoura and preparing to attack Al-Qahira / Al ghab plain [5] SAA captured Khirbat al Naqus- Mansoura - Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos [6] [7] Anti regime source [8] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army Captures Zayzoun in the Al-Ghaab Plains.Syrian Armed Forces launched a counter-offensive to recapture their lost territory, while also pushing south towards the town of Qahira.[9][10][11] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA have entered Frikka and Jaish_Fateh defences have fractured.[12] Syrian Arab Army imposes control over Zeyzoun Power Plant.[13][14][15] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: Regime forces advanced in Sahl al-Ghab and taking control over the town of al-Ziyadiyyeh(Zayzoun) and Zeyzoun Power Plant, Khirbat al Naqus, Mansoura, Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos. [16] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian army and allied militias have regained control over several northwestern villages from insurgents on a Sahl al-Ghab plain. SOHR said, government forces had retaken several villages and areas located inside the plain. These included Khirbat al-Naqus and Mansoura as well as surrounding areas, it said. The army had also won back Ziyadia village and Zezoun power station, one of the country's major thermal power plants, which Nusra Front said it had captured earlier in the week. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Aug-01/309259-syrian-army-advances-on-plain-after-rebel-offensive-activists.ashx http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/224857/syrian-army-advance SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mansoura grain silos.[17] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebel source: Rebels withdraws from Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[18] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: Regime was able to re-gain control on Zezon dam and its electricity station.[19] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

rebel source said Rebels retreated from the Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[20] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

pro FSA - Syrian Army gains control over Marj al-Zohoor area in Idlib countryside amid continuous violent clashes with al-Fateh army’s fighters in the surroundings of the area. [21][22] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army forces make major gains into Hama/Idlib govs after overstretch by the Jaysh al Fatah coalition. Map:[23] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Regime forces captured Tell A'war and conflicting information about who control Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[24] Tell A'war - under regime, Tell Hamakah - contested. SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Opp. source(Eldorar) SAA controls Tell Awar and Frikka after Jaish_Fateh retreat from the area.[25] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Azaz

What's the situation in Azaz ? It was marked green/grey fight mix, and now it's grey. Any scorces or evidence ?Oroszka (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The source that was provided is against the rules. The editors says one thing, the source a completely different story. When you look at the source, and the previous situation in Azaz town, you clearly see that the Editor made the mistake on purpose, which deserves a block DuckZz (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There was only one incursion, nusra raided the 30th US trained "division" HQ, kidnapped, deaths on both sides. 30th retreated from the HQ and nusra took it, but not whole Azaz I guess.Totholio (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the case. The editor wanted us to believe that Azaz was controled by an single rebel group (which actually first apeared 1 month ago) called "30th Division" which is not true. The town is controled both by Ahrar Sham and some other rebel groups, which can be confirmed by various sources which were already provided on this talk page and that's the reason the town was green all the time, then changed to shared controls because "US airstrikes on Nusra HQ inside the town", that's it. DuckZz (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID you used this source to change Azaz from lime to grey. The source only says that Division 30 (with less than 60 fighters, half of them dead or captured) left site. How does this state that Nusra is in full control of the town?Rhocagil (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Azaz should be under mixed control. We have clearly seen that Nusra has a much stronger presence in the north Aleppo region than we previously thought, as they have fought ISIS on the frontline there. Nusra probably has a significant presence inside this town, especially as they now have a headquarters there. Someone actually used the wrong grey icon, too. -pbfreespace3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.193.191 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Assad forces advance in Hama/Idlib

SOHR - The regime forces advance in Sahl al- Ghab, and captured town al- Mansoura [26] [27] Tal Waset [28] Khirbat al-Naqus [29] pro regime source: SAA captured Grain Silos outskirts of Mansoura and preparing to attack Al-Qahira / Al ghab plain [30] SAA captured Khirbat al Naqus- Mansoura - Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos [31] [32] Anti regime source [33]

Syrian Army Captures Zayzoun in the Al-Ghaab Plains.Syrian Armed Forces launched a counter-offensive to recapture their lost territory, while also pushing south towards the town of Qahira.[34][35][36]

SAA have entered Frikka and Jaish_Fateh defences have fractured.[37] Syrian Arab Army imposes control over Zeyzoun Power Plant.[38][39][40]

SOHR: Regime forces advanced in Sahl al-Ghab and taking control over the town of al-Ziyadiyyeh(Zayzoun) and Zeyzoun Power Plant, Khirbat al Naqus, Mansoura, Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos. [41]

The Syrian army and allied militias have regained control over several northwestern villages from insurgents on a Sahl al-Ghab plain. SOHR said, government forces had retaken several villages and areas located inside the plain. These included Khirbat al-Naqus and Mansoura as well as surrounding areas, it said. The army had also won back Ziyadia village and Zezoun power station, one of the country's major thermal power plants, which Nusra Front said it had captured earlier in the week. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Aug-01/309259-syrian-army-advances-on-plain-after-rebel-offensive-activists.ashx http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/224857/syrian-army-advance

Mansoura grain silos.[42]

Rebel source: Rebels withdraws from Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[43]

SOHR: Regime was able to re-gain control on Zezon dam and its electricity station.[44]

rebel source said Rebels retreated from the Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[45]

pro FSA - Syrian Army gains control over Marj al-Zohoor area in Idlib countryside amid continuous violent clashes with al-Fateh army’s fighters in the surroundings of the area. [46][47]

Syrian Army forces make major gains into Hama/Idlib govs after overstretch by the Jaysh al Fatah coalition. Map:[48]

Regime forces captured Tell A'war and conflicting information about who control Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[49] Tell A'war - under regime, Tell Hamakah - contested.

Opp. source(Eldorar) SAA controls Tell Awar and Frikka after Jaish_Fateh retreat from the area.[50] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebels source: Regime captured Frikka - Marj al-Zuhour - Tell A'war and advancing to Tell Hamakah.[51] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: Regime forces/Hezbollah to regain control of the town Furaykah.[52] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SAA sources claim they do not control Frikka nor did they enter it, but insurgents fled the village and returned hours later 86.26.230.122 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SAA sources confirmed Frikka under SAA.[53][54][55] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SAA captured Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[56] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Opp.source: Syrian army retake Tell Hamakah in Idlib western countryside, amid severe clashes with al-Fateh Army.[57][58] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

English version of SOHR states that rebels retook Tel Awar and that Mansoura silos are contested [59]. Pro-Government Al-Masdar states that SAA never entered Frikka [60] and that Fawru is contested [61]. Summary: Frikka is not contested (yet); Fawru is contested.109.47.3.224 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

your sohr report is old .Acc to sohr arabic (today report) tel awar in under saa control also clashes still ongoing around fawru http://www.syriahr.com/2015/08/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84-3/Hwinsp (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah Map Needs Uppdate

YPG holds the football stadium and the area located to west and south of the stadium. ISIS hold only Zohur district. Here is visual evidence from pro-YPG Ronahi showing the stadium [62] at 1:11 and this tower [63] at 2:05.

Here is another video (in Kurdish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLLYhTxJKy0 Roboskiye (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah officially liberated by SAA & YPG/J via Cizire Canton: https://twitter.com/CizireCanton/status/627413277862199296Prohibited Area (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently no one cares about removal of Daesh from Hasakah by YPG. I have not the time to edit the map. I have (at least temporarily) another solution: To replace the Hasakah map with a yellow dot that also includes a little red dot for showing the remaining pro-Bashar soldiers who control Ghuweyran district and parts of city center. Regards. Roboskiye (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that Hasakah map should remain despite not being up to date. I would edit it myself however I do not know which software etc is used or how to do it. However along as the city is under control of multiple parties the map should remain to represent the divisions of control in the city.Prohibited Area (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no multiple parties. MFS is part of YPG, hence yellow. Similar to Hezbollah, Pasdaran etc who go automatically red. Roboskiye (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Ghab area clashes

Here you can discuss the situation in Al-Ghab plain area as both rebels and gov. forces are advancing here and there. Before any edit, i would ask you to post a source here so other users don't have to revert edits and then get blocked. DuckZz (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/IUCAnalysts/status/628960521023307776 Neutral Map shows a Jaish al-Fatah counter attack has been successful in overrunning numerous SAA villages, however as a map cannot be used a source for editing.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not an neutral map, this twitter account is made up from 10 different Pro-rebel twitter users like arcivilians, thomas van linge etc. That was their statement when they made this few weeks ago. DuckZz (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I use a SOHR article to edit Furayka to being under rebel control? Is SOHR deemed a reliable enough source. Prohibited Area (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory of Human Rights is a pro-rebel source

DuckZz and all, I think that most people here agree that the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights is a pro-rebel source. Is this somehow not the case? I am now being reported for reverting an edit which changed a town from contested to rebel control based on a SOHR post. How am I violating the rules? Is there something I am unaware of? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the map in favor of the rebels cannoy be made with pro-government verification of whatever edit you made happening. Perhaps that's why you were reported.

DaJesuZ, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I reverted a pro-rebel edit because SOHR was the source. Why would someone threaten to report me? What rules did I break? I need to know so that I do not make the same mistakes in the future. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 You registered 2 months ago on wikipedia and tell other people what should and shouldn't be donne because apparently it's not the way we used to do it.

Since I'm looking at this article, and that's more than 2,5 years, we always used SOHR as a source for every kind of edits. There was some time users didn't like it, and they or we, had discussions about that, but we did always agree to keep on using SOHR and again and again, and it's working perfectly. You are a) Breaking 2 rules at the same time b) Telling other people that they are wrong. Period, please don't do this ever again. DuckZz (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed half a dozen times over the years and each time it was agreed that, regardless of them being pro-opposition, SOHR are neutral in their reporting of territorial gains by both sides and war crimes by both sides. As a credit to this, reliable sources such as Reuters, AFP, BBC etc have called it an authoritative source on Syria and have used it in their reporting on a regular basis. Thus, it has been established policy among editors for the last four years to use SOHR on a regular basis as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you EkoGraf,i needed this clarification to the other new editors.Alhanuty (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Am losing patience with this user Pbfreespace3 he is reverting every edit unless his pal Leith or Almasdar confirms it he is not willing to accept SAA losses , Specially in the case of qaryatayn he is your sources but still the town is SAA held??

https://twitter.com/ZeinakhodrAljaz/status/629238725873168384 https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/629234690512171008

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/the-islamic-state-take-full-control-of-the-entire-strategic-city-of-al-qaryatayn/

http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20150806-syrie-al-qaryatayn-controle-combat-ei-etat-islamique-osdh-rahmane?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&aef_campaign_date=2015-08-06&dlvrit=1448817

Hasakha map

I have no idea who removed the Hasaka detailed map from the map and why whom ever did it, did so without discussion. Meantime whenever or not there going to be a discussion I will put out loyalist village Al-Dhiyabah (just north of Hasakha) on the big map. I anybody feel unsure about that please have a look at the old detailed Hasakah map.Rhocagil (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

[64], [Discussion of need for an update]. Banak (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The rules of editing

From the header:

Rules for Editing the Map

1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided. a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits. b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes). c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR. WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.

This raises a few questions:

1. Where did we get rules 1C and 2 from? I know the creator of these module added them, but where did they get consensus from?
2. Do we wish to keep them? 1C stops us from using sources like we used to in a 1B faction. Rule 2 stops us from updating even updated towns and villagers, and assumes all maps are untrustworthy, and also stops us from editing like we would for a normal 1A/1B source, even when towns/villages are explicitly labelled.
3. Is it worth considering asking for an exception to the 1RR for this module and other war modules? As far as I can tell, the 1RR seems to get in the way more than help, and has caused lots of editors to get blocked or banned (23 [sanctions] since 5 October 2014 plus one for a near miss, that's about 1 every 2 weeks). This would probably require a RFC to change. Banak (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I think you are missing the general context we are in. The rules were established as an ultimate effort to avoid the map being deleted by influential administrators who think that it does not belong on Wikipedia. For a sample of such opinion, take a look at the comment of Drmies from this week’s Articles for deletion. By the way, Drmies is an administrator ranked among the top 100 most active Wikipedians: “This is pushing it. Sure, the war and its events are notable--but not all events are. Organizing this by locality is an invitation to be all-inclusive and recentist, and we're not the news… As for "the best template map", I clicked on the article two minutes ago. It just loaded, having crashed Firefox once. It looks awful, being about four times as wide as my screen, and scrolling is well-nigh impossible. The legend is overcomplicated, there are blinking gifs, I can't figure out what's what. There seems to be some sort of floating image in the center of the map; I don't know what it is. How is this map good? And that's not even taking into account the matter of sourcing, which is not up to snuff with WP:RS.”
2. We have been editing the map under the new rules for many weeks now and it is going OK. Rules 1C and 2 just prevents us from making big mistakes like that related to Khan al-Shih & ISW map (see Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#Souq Wadi Barada, Barahliya, and Kafr al-Awamid).
3. There is zero chance an exception for the 1RR would be granted for war modules. If 1RR seems to be getting in the way, then let me know and I will revert all the bad edits. Tradedia^talk 03:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"The legend is overcomplicated" I can help with this a bit. I want to remove some icons because we have never used them before, probably never will, don't know why they even exist.

• Icons for 3 shared controls (Kurd/Jan/Rebels, Gov/Rebel/JAN etc..), i mean this is just ridiculous because the only locations where this might be possible are bigger towns, and we have special maps for that, not icons.
• "Gov + rebels in a truce are icon". What's the difference between this icon and the icon for 2 shared controls (Gov/Rebels). Again the same problem as with 3 shared control. The only location where we have 2 shared control and in some times no clashes are bigger towns. This means, a village, or a town (for what we don't have a map) is either

a) Gov.held

b) Rebel held

c) Under clashes

d) Rebel held but under truce

e) Shared control, but this means there's a truce, which also means one of the 2 icons should be removed because it has the same meaning.

• JAN+Kurd shared icons. We never had this situation, and probably never will, why is it there only to confuse users like Drmies ? Hipotheticaly, if this situation ever happens, we will just readd the icon.

I also have some other issues but lets just clear these ones. I need some support for this edit, because i don't want to get blocked ... DuckZz (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all your suggestions. However, I think that the legend needs to be drastically restructured and simplified beyond just removing a few icons. The legend needs to look more encyclopedic. It has to be structured along 2 dimensions:

1. beligerant colors
2. symbols in “generic black & white”

All the different color combinations icons would have to be moved to the Module documentation (Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map/doc) where editors can look them up to use them. The legend on the other hand would be designed only for viewers.

The “Rebel held but under truce” icon is useless because viewers (who are not editors) cannot distinguish the purple ring from a red ring (and it is not used now). Concerning the “Gov + rebels in a truce” (or Gov/Rebels shared control), it should be a purple dot because it is now represented as a purple area on the “large city maps” and we have to be consistent with that. We can’t have “Gov + rebels in a truce” represented one way on “large city maps” and a different way for towns.

Allow me to do this revision and it will become more clear what I mean when you see it done. Tradedia^talk 19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done (and the full set of usable icons moved to module documentation) Tradedia^talk 08:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we review the rules on editing. I'm not sure how this would be done and who would authorise rule changes, however the current rules appear very restrictive and inhibit the map from representing an accurate display of the situation in the war. This is because many sources that could be used, include maps however these are prohibited. Although I agree they can be unreliable there are some accurate and detailed maps that should be considered accurate enough to be used as sources, plus if they are found inaccurate these edits can easily be reverted. Also a source should be based on its reliability as oppose to whether it originates from a pro-rebel or pro-govt source. The current system whereby an edit can only be made if a source, for example, a pro-rebel source, details a rebel loss, is flawed as many rebel sources wouldn't report their losses on the basis that it would be demoralizing/ not in their interest. Where as multiple independent rebel sources describing a rebel victory cannot be used despite a wide consensus. For example, many sources have described Qaryatayn being taken over by ISIS just yesterday however no pro-regime source has yet confirmed this, despite it being most likely true, and therefore making the map inaccurate.

May I propose that we make the rules more lenient to maps, in regards to detailed and well renowned maps and map-makers, and also allow edits on the basis of a biased source, detailing an accurate development, as long as there are several other independent biased sources to back up the claim. As I said previously I don't know how this would be authorized, but would encourage others to share their opinion.Prohibited Area (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Qamishli Map

Icons for Qamishli airport and military bases do not correspond with the Qamishli Map, can someone edit these. Prohibited Area (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

qaryatayn capture by ISIL

https://twitter.com/ZeinakhodrAljaz/status/629238725873168384

https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/629234690512171008

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/the-islamic-state-take-full-control-of-the-entire-strategic-city-of-al-qaryatayn/

http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20150806-syrie-al-qaryatayn-controle-combat-ei-etat-islamique-osdh-rahmane?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&aef_campaign_date=2015-08-06&dlvrit=1448817 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack6780 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Unbiased Sources

Regarding Rule 1A: Which sources can we use which we regard as unbiased sources? I would have said that SOHR is a reliable source, despite the occasional inaccuracy, however have seen edits reverted on the basis it is a pro-rebel source being used for rebel advances. So do we have a unwritten list of reliable sources that we can use? Or is Rule 1A basically invalid?Prohibited Area (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my personal opinion about sources: I think SOHR is pro-rebel/'terrorist' and al-Masdar is pro-government/'regime'. I think either can be used to confirm their own losses, but neither can be used to show their own gains. Elijah J. Magnier is a good neutral source, but he doesn't talk about territorial changes as much as I would like. Jack Shahine is pro-Kurdish, but a proven reliable source from the Kobani and Gire Sipi battles.

There's nothing that I can do to stop everyone else without violating 1RR, so I'm plainly going to just give up on the SOHR issue. In case anyone Prohibited Area ( thinks I'm biased for or against any party in this war, here is my personal opinion on the war and who is right. I think all Arab Sunni areas should be controlled by FSA/other moderate rebels, all Shia areas should be owned by a Shia group such as the Assad regime, and all Kurdish areas held by YPG. I don't like ISIS, and think they should go away. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean my only problem is that their are a lack of biased sources reporting their own losses and therefore the rules inhibit us, as the editors, to reflect an accurate depiction of the situation in Syria. I don't mind your opinion on the war as long as it doesn't result in you sabotaging the map, which I'm sure you wouldn't do intentionally, personally I am biased towards the Kurds and don't really mind about what happens in the rest of Syria outside Rojava, however ideally would support a outcome similar to yours, although I don't think the regime can win but rather minimalise their losses.Prohibited Area (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Lighter purple for "truce" areas?

Hi, I was wondering if somewhat lighter purple dots could be used for "truce" areas, as on my monitor (which is a bit dark) it looks a bit too close to the black ISIS colour. Esn (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Lighter or darker purple is the same to me, but purple is the color. It makes sense since the detailed Damascus map also includes this color for truce-areas. So WHY!!? did someone change the color to orange now?? Makes no sense.Rhocagil (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kafraya-Fuah

Suwwaghiyah should be removed from the map as i believe that rebels captured this spot. SOHR reports that rebels advanced after clashes, but it also says that clashes are only in the vicinity, which means that Rebels did not advanced inside those 2 towns, but in the vicinity, and that's Suwwahgiyah. On the other hand, rebel accounts are saying that they captured this area, here here1 and here2 etc ..DuckZz (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Are there any sources that actually show Suwwaghiyah, Baba al-Hawa Checkpoint and Deir al-Zahgb as under SAA control? As my understanding was that it was only Kafraya and Fu'ah under SAA control.Prohibited Area (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Government Gains in Aleppo, Aleppo map error.

The town of Handarat in Northern Aleppo is shown in rebels control however this town has been in the control of the Syrian Army for over 5 months with no announcement from SOHR once again, it seems he is only interested in announcing gains and not losses, and primarily reporting on Idlib ; http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advancing-towards-the-water-plant-in-aleppo-city/

Captured: March 13 2015 ; http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-of-aleppo-syrian-army-captures-handarat-village/

Aleppo East, Kuweras Military Airbase and surrounding area secured by the Syrian Army check point to south captured for first time in 8 months from ISIS: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-crushing-defeat-at-kuweires-airbase-over-60-militants-killed-and-3-tanks-destroyed/ Once again I have searched for information from SOHR to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is a reliable source and therefore can be used for government advances, however I do not know how to edit the Aleppo map. Regarding Kweirs Airbase, since 10 August there have been reported developments with IS advances in the area so I would wait until official confirmation for pro-Govt or pro-IS edits in this area.Prohibited Area (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Bashing SOHR for being pro-rebel, when most rebel groups denounce them as pro-government, really makes you look like an idiot". Wow, sometimes you can read really dumb sentences in WP, sometimes its funny, others desesperating...--HCPUNXKID 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reports Turkey is Invading Syria

A rebel spokesman: http://tr.sputniknews.com/columnists/20150810/1017050567.html along with multiple pro-kurdish activists, have claimed that 600 (or more) Turkish soldiers/fighters called the "Sultan Murad Brigade" have crossed the border into Syria and occupied Azaz and other villages near there. So far, no other major media outlets are reporting this. I have pressed André437 to make icons for Turkish control, but this user has not responded. If we need an icon, I propose . Please everyone watch the news and media closely to see if any further developments occur. I don't think I will mark Turkish presence yet, but that might change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there's no other sources reporting this, I guess that "claim" is false. Unless if there's other sources reporting this then maybe it can be changed. Besides, if Turkey really did invade Syria, then other sources would be in a frenzy about it. --Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 22:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I hoppe you are joking. Sultan Murad brigade is active in Aleppo town and countryside since 2012 and can easily cross the Turkish border together with any other rebel group, specially if they're from Turkmen origin. It's true that they entered with a lots of cars this time, but we saw what happened when the "real" Turkish army entered Qarah Qawzak, they had over 40 tanks. The number 600 is probably not true, at least not all at once, maybe 600 men during the last month, but that's not worth to mention because people need to be shocked, and 600 is the way to go. DuckZz (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea if this source is reliable, I found it on a pro-rebel news feed on Twitter. http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/the-first-step-of-the-occupation-plan-turkey-enters-syria Can anyone verify?DaJesuZ (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a pro-government source reporting this: https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/630811396339445760 Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 I did answer your request for icons, saying that (1) I can create them quickly, and (2) The green colour you propose is not appropriate, being too close (almost identical) to the rebel colour. There must be a significant contrast to avoid confusion. As soon as we have an appropriate colour, I will make the icons.

(everyone) Any reference saying "Turkman" means Syrians of Turkish origin. They (or their families) generally would have been in what is now Syria since the time of the Ottoman empire. The brigades mentioned in the initial post are well-known FSA rebels.

Note that the "pro-government" source just above refers to JN retreating from proximity of front lines with the ISIS, and rebels (moderate or islamic) taking their place. There are many recent sources for that.

So in sum, the few recent reports of Turkish invasion are exaggerated. But I wouldn't be surprised if the rebels there are now much more heavily armed. André437 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Tall Al-Sim'an

Can we agree that clashes in this village have most certainly ended by now as two weeks without any reports of developments in this area suggest they have ended and even question whether or not SOHR was accurate in reporting them in the first place. May I change the village back to under IS control?Prohibited Area (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area, Clashes were reported in that general area. You can put the town under IS control, but you must put a YPG siege icon on the north side of the town, to indicate that YPG fighters are right there. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3, how would YPG be active/ present in that area when they have no territorial control unless some of the IS-designated villages south of Ain Issa are actually under YPG control? The map just looks inaccurate.Prohibited Area (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area I'm actually betting that some of them are controlled by YPG, but have not been reported on. There are a lot of towns and villages on that corridor, and I think that YPG has probably advanced, at least on the western side, but it hasn't been reported. I will now look for sources on that area, and due to the fact that it is very underreported, I might use a map to make and edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Quneitra

Syrian Army captured Al Hamidiyah and Tal Qubba on July 2nd 2015- not changed for over a month. SOHR has not reported because his source was killed in the town, so there will be no announcement from him on this, because his sources are very limitedd in Syria, covering less than 12% of the country (Rebel/Al Quieda held Area). Article will be nominated for deletion if these are not changed.

2-http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-tal-qabaa-near-the-israeli-bordder/

1-http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/southern-front-conducts-another-large-assault-on-the-golan-heights-and-daraa-city/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any pro-rebel sources that can confirm this? I agree and would edit these however it would violate the map rules which I interpret as unnecessarily strict and inhibit the map from portraying a realistic representation of the current situation in the war. Prohibited Area (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again there are no pro opposition members left in this town, the town has been in army control for over a month, the pro opposition obviously has no sources here, once again map changes are made for opposition gains instantly with pro opposition sources (SOHR) which has sources in less than 15% of the country, how can you base a map of a war on such a limited and biased source which has made many false claims in the past? Once again make the change or this article will be nominated for delition, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I cannot make the edit without a pro-rebel source or a neutral source. I have listed some proposals above regarding the rules of editing which you are welcome to comment on to express your opinion on. For the time being we will have to be patient.Prohibited Area (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats BS heres a video of the location with Druze and SAA in control ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcAPPxkaljg. Guess I will nominate it again to point out the flaws and complete bias of this page, and its editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I will make the edit on the basis that Al-Masdar is a reliable source.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Will someone, anyone at all, please explain to me how making an edit in favor of the government, without confirmation of anti-government or neutral sources, makes any sense, and would you, kindly, explain to me how it shows bias in favor of the rebels, SyrianObserver2015, when we do not make edits in favor of the rebels without government or neutral sources confirming whatever assertions are made?DaJesuZ (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well things have changed and if you want your map kept I suggest you keep it up to date, you can update rebels with pro rebel source, but can't update Government area for over a month, as far as I am concerned the info below the map is mostly false and out of date. The editors of this map are a joke. So you can start to change or you can see your map nominated for deletion every week untill it is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.58.48 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No bias is being shown, and I realize that me continuing this is going a it far, and personally, I don't care. This map is meant to be as close to what's going on in reality as possible, based on confirmation of opossing sides' advances, confirmed by those who oppose those who made those advances. Rebel gains can't be documented here without confirmation from neutral of government sources, and opposition advances can't be documented without government or neutral sources. No bias is being shown here. We are placing the same citeria for documentation of advances for BOTH sides, talk. DaJesuZ (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

lots of Bias is being shown here, the town of Al Hamidiyah in Quineitra has been captured by government forces for over a month, there is one official opposition mouthpiece, SOHR a man living in a london council house, yet there are half a dozen independent english news agencies in Syria that are unbiased to either side. The town of Al-Hamidiyah was never announced by SOHR, Why? To Keep rebels moarals high in the south as they have sufffered a string of defeats. There are other areas of the map also in government control marked green and grey (South), I will be looking for these to change soon, remember that this map is on the verge of being deleted because of the lack of credable sources, more specifically this pages over relience on a biased media source that has made many false claims and continues to do so. You keep saying we all agreed in the past and the map kept getting nominated in the past because SOHR is the one and only fucking source this page seems to use.

If there are any inaccuracies on the map either edit them yourselves or post on the talk page of the necessary edits to be made along with an adequate sources for these edits. SOHR and Al-Masdar can be used for both rebel and govt gains and losses. Otherwise the source needs to be a pro-govt source detailing a govt loss or a pro-rebel source detailing a rebel loss.Prohibited Area (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceasefires declared

BBC is reporting ceasefires in Kàfraya, al-Fuah, and al-Zub-howers-it's-spelt. I don't k ow how to make edits, but because this is reported on a huge news source, I think someone should make the appropriate edits, at least for the next couple days, or should they be left alone, because the ceasefires are only for the next two days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 04:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have edited Zabadani Prohibited Area (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a truce, revert your edit so i don't have to do it. Pro-government and pro-rebel sources said that there will be a 48houre casefire, and that's not a truce, and it will pass today anyway. DuckZz (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a truce, both sides have declared to end hostilities for a certain period of time, that's practically the dictionary definition of a truce. After 48 hrs I will revert back to contested or if the deal breaks and hostilities resume I will also revert.Prohibited Area (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AFP states that the ceasefire in Zabadani has been extended by another 24 hours, into Saturday. https://twitter.com/GebeilyM/status/631480843786190848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Kweirs airport

According to Ivan Sidorenko, ISIS is present on Tell Riman, which is right here. So i think the Aleppo map needs to be updated, because this area is close to Al Safira, and now look at the map again, there's a space between Safira icon and the actuall map, and i believe the hill is right there, so that means the entire red spot NE of Safira should go black. DuckZz (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a legit source. I think he's pro-government, right? Someone can make the edit if they want. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

He is definitely pro-Government. But his reports are generally accurate, and he has a lot of SAA/NDF sources.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

It appears that the opposition has captured the village of Jubb al Amar, which is on this map. [65] Jubb al Ahmar should be green. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) 50.187.216.93 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Firstly, the source is somewhat biased against the regime, as IUCA has a lot of pro-rebel editors in it (archicivilians, Thomas Van Linge, etc). Second, we cannot use maps generally for edits on this map, especially when this is a very fluid frontline with many other reliable sources reporting on it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll try to find another source. It's a fairly recent development anyway. Also, this is the Jubb al-Ahmar to the west of Basah not south. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. OK. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there are two of them within a few miles of eachother. Weird.

Also, the IUCA claim that "Syrian Army forces have fallen back to a line of houses/highway E of Joureen" Corresponds to other reports that they have fallen back around Joureen [66], it makes sense. I think its reliable. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a pro-SAA source confirming Jubb al Ahmar was captured. It shows places SAA has withdrawn from too. [67] 50.187.216.93 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a source. This is an amateur map. And it is wrong. If you read the comments to the map, you will see that Leith Fadel (editor of Al-Masdar) and another user are telling the map maker that Jubb Al Ahmar is gov-held. If "Jubb al Ahmar was captured", there would be a news report (somewhere, anywhere) mentioning it.

On another note, I call for anyone to investigate the issue of 2 Jubb Al Ahmar close to each others. This is how it is in Wikimapia. However, I suspect an error on the part of Wikimapia users. Maybe one user marked it in one place, and another user didn’t see it and marked it in a different place. The interesting thing is that both Jubb Al Ahmar were put on Wikimapia 3 months ago. If someone could check these locations on a map service other than Wikimapia, it would be great… Tradedia^talk 04:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the same on this map too, جب الأحمر DuckZz (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at the map from 8/9, you linked to the one from 8/3. The one from 8/11 also shows Jubb al Ahmar taken. [68] 50.187.216.93 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll look in arabic media. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fu'ah and Kafraya

[69] Al Masdar reports Jaish al Fatah have breached SAA fortifications in Fu'ah and Kafraya. Should we change both towns to contested, the source suggests clashes are ongoing. Also can we remove or change Suwwagiyah, Deir al-Zahgb and Bab al-Hawa checkpoint to rebel control as I havent found any sources which claim they are still under SAA control, most sources claim that Fu'ah and Kafraya are the only regime-held towns in Idlib Governorate now, suggesting that they no longer control these positions.Prohibited Area (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll know when the rebels breach the regime lines and actually enter the cities: it will be reported all over the online media. Think Zabadani: everyone will be talking about it. Zabadani was surrounded for months, but it was only stormed a few weeks ago. Reading that report, it doesn't really sound like the towns have been breached, unlike the reports from Zabadani, which were pretty clear. I would wait; we'll know when the rebels breach the government lines. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

[70] I'm not sure if these villages are on the map, but the breaking of the supply route from Latakia to Hama is certainly notable. 50.187.216.93 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a big part of the opposition campaign right now there should probably be a submap of it, like with Deir el Zor [71] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.216.93 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The second Jubb al-ahmar on this map is called "Jeb Red", a literalish translation of Jubb al-ahmar (al-ahmar means red). It seems kind of weird to not call them both "Jubb al-Ahmar" 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That was supposed to go in the section below. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Villages

Can we remove multiple untitled villages north of Raqqa? Updating the map in future would be made difficult as we wouldn't know which source corresponds with which village. Can we either remove them or can someone find a source in which we can edit their names.Prohibited Area (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason for deleting sourced content, as in this case. Furthermore, I will add more towns north of Raqqa wich were deleted with no reason or discussion (Addrobiah, for example). Its funny to see people (I dont point to Prohibited Area, Im talking in general) wich want to remove ISIS-held or SAA-held towns, but at the same time add every single tiny village controlled by the YPG, ah the partisan biased editors, growing in numbers in WP everyday...--HCPUNXKID 16:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID My problem isn't that they're IS held, my problem is that they are not named. I have previously suggested removing villages from areas under YPG control as there is no longer clashes there and therefore no longer a necessity for the density of the villages within the controlled area, however have received no responses or consensus from the rest of the editors.Prohibited Area (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is no use in showing tiny villages on the map if they are not on the frontline or for some reason very strategic. The "dot"-size of many small villages are also problematic. I´ve seen villages with less then ten houses marked whit "fsize" five/six, should be marked size one/two, if marked at all (Do we have guidelines for this?).Rhocagil (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a visual guideline which I have used, which goes something like this: 3 houses: size 2. 10 houses: size 3. 30 houses: size 4. 50 houses: size 5. 80 houses: size 6. 170 houses: size 7. 300 houses: size 8. etc.

That said, I don't think any of these villages behind the frontlines of any group should be removed at all, ever. The goal of the map is to show territorial control of cities and towns in the Syrian Civil War, and we don't accomplish that by striking actual towns from the map. However, I'm all for removing non-existent villages from the map, and making ones that have 10 houses size 3: I have done this to hundreds of villages that don't exist or are too small. But by removing villages that actually exist just because "Well they're behind the frontline now" is bad for 2 reasons: it makes it harder to find them if a counteroffensive occurs, and it understates the territorial control of groups. For example, removing kurdish villages behind the frontline might make some people think "oh well they don't actually have that many towns", even when they have A LOT. Same with ISIS, regime, etc.

So no removing villages just because. That's not how it works. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Removed unnamed towns from the map, added again sourced towns removed without reason or discussion.--HCPUNXKID 14:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Heisa near Raqqa

So there are two neighbouring villages called "Al-Heisa" on the map (between Ain Issa and Raqqa). One is yellow and one is black, so I think it needs clarification? --Ahmetyal (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On wikimapia, they both have a similar name. It won't matter when coalition advances past that point towards Raqqa. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Map improvement

Thank you very much for your fine and detailed work on this map. There is only one thing missing that is of crucial importance in any conflict map , main roads and highways ! Is there any possibility of including them in this so detailed map ?

Thanks in advance and best regards

2A02:582:C92:AB00:9111:BCDE:D06A:BDF6 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Thanos

Good point! Rhocagil (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You are completely correct. Roads and highways would be a far better thing to show on this map than province boundaries. Someone needs to contact the maker of the location map and tell them to make a special version for this template with major roads on it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The first time there was a section on this talk page asking for roads was back in 24 April 2013! Unfortunately no one has done it. Instead, the guy who edits the location map the most has added small rivers! Rivers don't add much value or explain war (river above Rastan doesn't even show up). All they do is interfere with labels which are also blue. They clutter the map. If you guys bug this guy enough, he might be willing to replace his rivers with roads… Tradedia^talk 02:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think rivers are equally important as roads so both should be added, in my opinion. Prohibited Area (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Most rivers in Syria (besides the Euphrates) are not navigable, although the other rivers could act as defensive barriers. So roads would be much more important to add. I don't have the info or skills to do that myself. André437 (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Serghaya

Why Serghaya became under rebel control ? I have not seen any news about it. Lessi94 (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Its not, its the editors of this map are mostly supporters of isis/fsa/al nusrat/opposition:

Latest reports: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/07/21/421200/Syria-Idlib-ISIL-Nusra

Not one mention of its capture anywhere, all I see was a Kuwaiti news report stating it was being attacked, which could be highly inaccurate due to the fact it is from Kuwait. No sign of it even being still under attack either.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This bothers me to. I can´t find when the edit was made, by whom and what source was used.Rhocagil (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone put the town as governement-held ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lessi94 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lessi94 You need a better source. If you think the town was wrongly marked, then you should indicate in which edit you believe it was wrongly changed. Otherwise, you must provide a non-biased or anti-government source (NOT presstv, and preferably not al-Masdar), such as Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, or a different outlet, to show that the government controls this town.

Also, to clarify, I am not a supporter of ISIS, FSA, or al Nusra. I know some editors have their leanings, but personally, I have noticed that a lot of them are supporters of the government. Best wishes. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit was made because of Eliah Magnier, the most reliable source person we have, who said that 50+ rebels were evacuated from Zabadani to Serghaya which is under their control and so far stable. DuckZz (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please show me that tweet, because I can´t find it. Rhocagil (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me that we should resume posting info to the tables, for all changes to the map. Preferable BEFORE changing the map.

That way it would be very easy to confirm the validity of any changes. The current practice doesn't leave a readily verifiable audit trail. Which is partly why many admins are hostile to our map.

As for Magnier as a source, a few times he has made important false reports that he could have (but didn't) verify beforehand. (Like when he announced the UN-supervised withdrawal in progress of rebels from Homs city, about a week before it happened.)

So I would be more comfortable with a confirming source for somewhat surprising info like this. André437 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Eliah Magnier is not a source that can be used to make map edits, Tweets are not sources unless they come from one of the two sources that are used for maps edits: SOHR, Al Masdar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.235.92 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Latakia map error? ~ Hasakah ~ Dier ez Zoir

I couldn't helep but notice the city/town in Latakia that has a green, partially besieged icon to the West of it. Because of the rebel push into Latakia coming from the East of the country, I'm wondering how that's possible, and if there is anything to back it up.

On another note, I've looked at a ton of maps on Twitter recently, especially those concerning al-Hasakah, and almost all of them have the Islamic State pocket within the city being completely eliminated by the Kurds. I haven't kept up with the situation there, at least not since the IS push into the city was cut off, and the government was restricted to the city centre. Is there any new news as to what's going on? I think the Hasakah map needs to be updated.

Next, what's become of the Islamic State pushes around the Palmyra area, especially to the North and West, such as around al-Qaratayn? I remember hearing about the SAA and NDF massing for the defense of Mahin, but I haven't heard much since then. Is there any news regarding the IS attempt to turn the Palmyra push by the governmrnt into a salient? Last time I checked, the government was almost entirely cut off around there.

Regarding the central Homs area, I've read several articles, primarily on Twitter, about IS reinforcements being sent to Dier ez Zoir. I suspect they intend to capture the city, relieve the troops they have trapped there, and repurposed many fighters (this is entirely speculation on my part), and I want to know if there is any news regarding that city.

This is a small inquiry that I've been wondering about for a while; months ago, I noticed that there were several villages to the East of the IS controlled area to the southeast of Damascus, and sometime during the last couple months, they were deleted. The towns were named, and under SAA control. What happened to them? Going back through the downloadable version of the map, you can see the towns in the picture.

Lastly, this is just about the general appearance of the map, and the messiness of the front lines: While I understand the front lines depicted in the downloadable file are approximate, and therefore not exact, they're still messy, very messy. Looking st the map for the Islamic State's Wikipedia page, the map is much more clean. Could someone do something about this? DaJesuZ (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an issue with the placement of the rebel siege icon. Someone meant to put "NE", but instead put "SW". IT happens to me sometimes. It will be fixed soon, but I am busy working on something else. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. The SW icon was put there deliberately, because SOHR said that rebels advanced here and there, when searching for those locations, you see their positions are NW of Majdal and Namlik, not hills but some positions build by gov.forces, 3 of them, so NW icon is enough to show rebel presence in that spot, if you want to find out how much, you can see the lates color map. DuckZz (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Hasakah, I have come across no pro-IS or pro-Kurd sources that detail the YPG capture of areas south of Tell Brak and Tell Hamis. Although occasionally IS clashes or infiltrates YPG lines and attacks villages suggesting they are still active their. However the majority of maps show that IS no longer control a lot of the villages labelled as under their control south of Tell Brak. Recently pro-Kurdish sources claimed that the YPG were pushing towards Al-Hawl and there were clashes within the vicinity of the town however again these sources lacked detail as to which towns were taken or contested. Additionally these pro-Kurdish sources will not be adequate to use because of potential bias.Prohibited Area (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Hasakah was taken by the Kurds weeks ago, around the same time they took Sarrin, so I'm not sure why this map still shows ISIS in control of large sections of it. Ryn78 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qahira

According to yahoo news there's significant clashing in the village of Al-Qahira. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for changing it!! 50.187.216.93 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

More SAA Gains

The government appears to have made some significant gains. Here's a reliable source (if you consider russian state news reliable, I'd say it's more reliable than unreliable) [72] and here's a much more in depth but not-so-reliable source (a religious shia twelver site) [73]. I'm curious to know what the "16 villages" are from the Sputnik article. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Most sources so far just restate gains of al-Mansoura, Khirbet al-Naqous, Tal Waset, al-Ziyarah. Which are already red because no one changed them to green. So I'm not sure if there are any other changes. This pro-government source says Msheik was captured. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I don't there's any news then. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Northern Dara'a Provencé

The towns of Sha' Rah and At Taff in Northern Dara'a have been changed to green recently, they are still Syrian Arab Army held, anyone a legitimate source for doing this? The towns were not even contested. Seems this map is being manipulated by user Duckss and he seems butthurt by the truth, calm down young boy, don't behead me virtually lol.

SAA took al-tabbah village in this area suggesting they are on the attack not the defence. [74] A pro SAA source and probably won't find a neutral/Pro rebel source on this territory change however. Tabbah does not seem to be on this map either, situated just south of al-masmiyah according to wikimapia. Alastairjc (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently rebels recaptured al-tabbah village [75] yesterday. Might be a good idea to put this location on the map because it will better reflect the front line in northwestern Quneitra province. I would do it myself but I don't know how to. More details around this area are scarce at the moment. Alastairjc (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a tweet not a source these towns were changed 5 days ago, tyhey were not contested they have lots of Syrian Army soldiers in there STILL, so how did they just suddenly become rebel held the entire area is under SAA control?????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally haven't changed anything on the map. I think you have made a fair point about the sudden changes and I have also seen no evidence for this edit. I just try to provide any information on the current situation to help out the editors. I know this was a tweet and I don't expect changes to be made on the map with tweets and biased sources, that's why I have put this information up here for discussion. Any additional info on the current situation would be ideal I know but it seems for clashes that happen in areas that see infrequent fighting, details and news is always shady and scarce. Alastairjc (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army Capture Two towns North Aleppo.

Tal Rayman and Al-Salihiyah have been captured by the SAA in North Aleppo, also Handarat in Aleppo city has been under SAA control since April, I posted the sources and someone deleted my topic and reverted the edit based on his support for his foreign invaders. I am very close to nominating this map again. Dara'a also needs to be fixed SAA have made gains here all summer long in the city, in the provence two towns were just turned to green with no source and no contest between the two warring factions, once again the rebels could not take these two towns as they are completely surrounded and have hundreds of SAA in them. AT Taff and Sha' arah as they are spelled here on the map!!!!!!! So these were changed 5 days ago no source they just walked in even though they have suffered heavely all over Dara'a I smell BULLSHIT.

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-two-towns-from-isis-in-east-aleppo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Handarat city and camp is not the same thing, the city was never captured. And yes the 2 villages got captured in the beginning of savins Kweiris airbase.Thotholio (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You're just a little too pro,-government. Your language damages your credibility here. Editors read your request and don't want to answer because of your biased language. If you want to argue that some villages were incorrectly marked, I ask that you find the edit in the edit history, cite it in your request, and we will see if it was sources or not.

Threatening to submit the map for deletion isn't helping your cause either. It makes you come off as an angry troll that will report the map to an admin if pro-government edits aren't made immediately. If you want the towns to be changed, do not essentially threaten to use force if your goals are not met. That might work in the middle-east, but it doesn't fly well around here.

The al-Masdar news source seems OK, but if you found a different source that it not as pro-regime as Masdar, the edit would be made immediately. We want to help make the map as accurate as possible, but when you essentially slander the editors by saying they are pro-rebel, that isn't constructive and doesn't help anyone. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)