Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 8 July 2015

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:Syrian Civil War detailed map redirects here.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Important message from creator of map: Please read

Misplaced Pages administration is obviously not happy about the way the map is being managed (refer to the indefinite block of Hanibal911 for violation of Misplaced Pages rules on the map). We need to conform more strictly with Misplaced Pages rules. I have been in contact with administrators with respect to the situation and am in charge of putting back the map in strict conformity with Misplaced Pages rules & standards. You have to realize that many admins do not like the map and consider it un-encyclopedic and in violation with WP:NOTNEWS. They are waiting for an opportunity to harm it and lead to its deletion. Those of you who have been around about a year ago know that the map has been nominated for deletion and survived the procedure. You also have to know that the first version of the article “Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War” was deleted after an “Articles for deletion” (AfD) procedure and I had to fight back and create a new modified version. In any case, I will do whatever it takes to protect us. I count on your cooperation and discipline. Please avoid getting in contact with admins and be very nice if they are around and let me handle them. We need to conform strictly with the following Misplaced Pages rules:

1-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from reliable outlets are approximate and therefore unreliable for any use. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Misplaced Pages for any use. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
I cite the WP:RS rule verbatim: “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: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
I cite the WP:CIRCULAR rule verbatim: “Do not use websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content or publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources.” At least one map maker has admitted to using the Misplaced Pages map as a source. There is strong suspicion others do the same.

2-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will no longer be tolerated. If you are not sure what the source is saying, post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. Tradedia 09:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia I really didn't know that tweets can't be used as a source. I mean, i understand the term that anybody can make a tweet, but we have a "list" of pro-government and pro-opposition users that are active for several years, i believe that 50% of our edits are based on their tweets, and it's somehow working, no complains about that ... but ok. Something else, can we use this talk page as a source, i mean if we aren't sure about something, we disquss it here, and if everyone agrees about something, we make an edit based on the talk page, is that ok ? DuckZz (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits are not made based on total consensus, DuckZz, they are made based on general consensus involving everyone who participates in editing the page.

Tweets are fine to use as sources, so long as they can be backed up by other, more reliable, sources, should they come from smaller, lesser known, and possibly less reliable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So Elijah Magnier can no longer be used as a source,but SOHR is the only source that can be used, SOHR has been an agreed condition between the editors and admins three years ago, and so the main source will be news outlets,what about ISW.Alhanuty (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With such rules no Pro ISIS sources can be used. How is that neutral ? (All pro ISIS sources are tweets) !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to twitter was more in the context of copying from maps. The problem with maps is that we don’t know when they are guessing and when they are not. Twitter is not a source. Twitter is a media tool. The person writing the tweet is the source. Since Elijah Magnier is a well-known journalist, he is a valid source. So it all depends on the credibility of the person writing the tweet. Anyone can open a twitter account and start relaying rumors. It is important to also not use a source automatically, but assess the credibility of the writer and see what other sources are saying about the same town/situation. Some people who tweet are known to have information about the situation in Syria. So they can be used as a source, while taking into account their bias (no pro-gov/opp/kurd/ISIS sources for gov/opp/kurd/ISIS gains). For example, we can use the tweets of Leith Abu Fadel as a pro-gov source because we know he has information (similarly to other prominent pro-opp/kurd/ISIS internet activists). However, we cannot use the tweets of PinkFuzzy444 because we don’t know who the heck it is. So we need to be careful and weight the news by the credibility of the writer. Again, we have to look at what other writers are saying as well. For example, it might be prudent to make a town contested based on one source and then wait a little for other sources to change the color completely. We are trying to avoid mistakes, but at the same time be reactive to changes on the ground, so it is all common-sense. All previous and new sources should be looked at before making a map change decision. There is a balance to be found between jumping the gun too early and being unreactive and have something become outdated. Concerning the question about the “talk page as a source”, the answer is yes. Tradedia 18:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 .Because of the unfair way Hanibal911 has been treated I will no longer donate to Misplaced Pages and will advise others to do the same .Also I say goodbye to all of you on this talk page .thankyou .86.135.154.220 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise it, but we lost Lindi29 to a sockpuppetry indeff on the first, and the tools that were used to find the top editors are down (as of the day Hanibal911 was blocked). Lindi was quite active too (about 5% of edits to this module). Banak (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia Users LightandDark2000 and 佐倉千代 are using twitter Hashtags as a source, pro-opposition tweets for Rebel advances etc.. breaking the rules and even making edits according to "their own opinion"... please respond, i can't revert them all because they make more than 10 changes during their edits so i need to do it manually. DuckZz (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Frustration with how this project was being managed drove me from this map 6 months ago. Glad to see some order is being restored. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick clarification please, Tradedia; pro-gov't al Masdar and (for the purposes of this map) pro-op Institute for the Study of War are two of the more vigorous outlets reporting on the Syrian Civil War. Their reporting/information often comes in the form of maps, some more detailed than others. 100% unusuable? Not trying to equivocate, and will abide by your response for all future editing. Thank you. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also would appreciate clarification on archicivilians, which I see is still in use as a source Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid: Interesting that you mention the Institute for the Study of War. Just now, I had to revert an edit (based on their map) on https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Rif_Damashq.svg (see File talk:Rif Damashq.svg#Khan al-Shih). ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. So in this case, our Rif Damashq map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from ISW map!

Concerning al Masdar, he usually hosts maps by pro-gov PetoLucem (or another Persian map maker). There is a major difference between our map and their maps. Our map marks towns (or bases, etc.) that we have information for. On the other hand, their maps color the whole territory assigning a control status to every area. Do they really have enough information to assign every area to a specific party? Do they have information to be able to draw the frontlines? Our map has started by marking all the towns for which we had information/sources. We did not have the aim to cover the whole Syrian territory. We prefer not to guess. If we don’t have reliable sources/information about an area, we should just leave it empty.

Just because an amateur map is classified as pro-gov, it doesn’t mean that map is always correct for the towns that it marks as under rebel control (and vice versa for pro-rebel maps). We need to be examining all sources, instead of blindly copying someone else's map. For example, just because Peto Lucem is classified as pro-gov, does not mean all the rebel areas on his maps are correct. Many months ago, he had the area around Al-Tulaysiyah marked as rebel held (you can read all about it in the archives of this talk page). However, I was able to find a source that showed that in reality it was gov held. We informed Peto Lucem of his mistake and he corrected it.

Also, i can give you 2 recent examples off the top of my head where the map by DeSyracuse was wrong and we copied it and made our correct map wrong:

1- See Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 34#Abu al-duhur airbase

2- His map dated 8-january-2015 shows Kafr Shams gov-held. This was before the large gov offensive (beginning february). So we know it was wrong since one of the gov offensive’s objectives was to capture Kafr Shams.

Also, see here an honest dialogue with DeSyracuse, where I confront him with the fact that his maps are not up to Misplaced Pages standards.

We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse (same story for archicivilians)… We need a source that talks specifically about a location so that we know it is not guessing. So the source has to say: “location xyz is under this control or that status…” The news could be right or wrong, but we need a news, not a guess. Amateur maps have been wrong too many times and made our map wrong too many times. They are not sources. They are our competitors. Tradedia 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Do not archive this yet. Tradedia 01:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the points raised by Tradedia in this section. Also, frustration with the blind application of "sources" by Hanibal911 was part of the reason I stopped contributing to this page a while back. (I was also busy with other priorities.)

I'm glad to see the reorientation of this page, as I think that it makes a very valuable contribution to Misplaced Pages as well as informing about the situation in Syria.

-- my 2 cents André437 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Souq Wadi Barada, Barahliya, and Kafr al-Awamid

ISW map shows all 3 as rebel held. Poking around, SOHR reports the area being barrel bombed on June 21st; SOHR reports the SAA shelling the area June 23rd; same fromJune 3rd; pro-op Syria Direct from the 25th and 23rd also claims the area is rebel held (with links to opposition organization's announcements from Wadi Barada and its environs); another pro-op source cites the same. Thoughts? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think we can use ISW maps. ISW maps show for example that the top left corner of the Damascus map is in truce and that much of the "green" area in the left bottom corner is red. However the "founder" of this map says we cannot use them, so he has reverted it to the old map. However maybe it is okay to use ISW maps if they show rebels gain, just not regime gains. Is that the thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is ISW map of Damascus, which the "founder" of this wiki page does not trust. He erased the accurate new map of Damascus loaded last week. Clear POV with no evidence to back his change up. http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-regimes-offensive-campaign-damascus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't use other maps as SOLE sources - and I'm not advocating that we start. I linked the ISW as a supplemental resource to go with the other sources, to foster conversation on the topic. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the new Al Masdar map shows the Khan al-Shih area as our map is showing it now, and not like ISW map is showing it. You can notice at the top of the Al Masdar map the town of Zakyah (which is right to the east of Khan al-Shih) marked as rebel-held. So now go to the Al Masdar website and tell his editor that he is doing "Clear POV"! Tradedia 13:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You have said yourself that Al Masdar is not to be trusted and just copies our maps. Didn't you ask if a possible lawsuit could be brought against them?!? But now as they don't show the bottom left corner you are citing (to support your argument) Al-masdar's copy of our inaccurate depiction of Damascus. What a joke. Also the Al Masdar map rebel pocket to south-west of Damascus is no where near as big as the pocket as shown on this map. ISW has sources in Pentagon and is one of the most accurate think tanks reporting on Syria. Where is your evidence that the top left corner is not in truce? Where is your evidence that the bottom left corner is as big a rebel pocket as you claim it is? ISW is the only source that has provided an updated trusted map of Damascus and with sources that are anti-regime. The fact you reverted to the old inaccurate Damascus map shows how much your POV discolors this map.

As far as I can judge, ISW are not accurate and should not be used. They were incorrect in the details in the past.

The fact that they have original source in the Pentagon is questionable.

As far as Wadi Barada is concerned, it has been often reported that there is a truce (also by pro rebel source, e.g. 23rd). Nevertheless it is a fragile truce and there are some clashes. On the Damascus page https://en.wikipedia.org/File_talk:Rif_Damashq.svg#Khan_al-Shih we concluded that this are a is on truce.

As to Khan al-Shih maps are somehow contradictory. This map (that seems to be unbiased) https://twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/612116542134730753 show only the city of Khan al-Shih under rebel control. Honestly I have no stron opinion on this point. We can investigate further.Paolowalter (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Another POV. "as far as I can judge" and unsubstantiated claims of "incorrect in the details" is worthless to this map. Everyone makes mistakes, but ISW reports have been some of the most detailed, accurate, and substantiated. Now they show your Damascus map is heavily POV manipulated, and you won't fix it. You really must not know much about how DC think tanks work. ISW is funded by a who's who of the military industry industry in the US. See here: http://www.understandingwar.org/our-supporters

Look at people running the group they are people involved in west point military academy, us army intelligence, national security council, us rangers, etc: http://www.understandingwar.org/who-we-are

These people obviously have good funding and high level contacts, and are publishing some of the most detailed info anywhere on the war, and obviously are in touch with US military establishment. I'm surprised the map has not been fixed. I guess the founders POV trumps everything else. BTW, here are Pentagon brass meeting with graduates of the ISW educational program: http://hertogwarstudies.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.130.24 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Explain to me one thing: How can the gov take back al-Dirkabiya, Zakiyah, al- Mqelabiyya, al-Taybeh in a strategic area near Damascus city and besiege Khan Al-Shih and no one on the internet mentions it? A more likely scenario is that the person who did the map for ISW was told that Khan Al-Shih was rebel held, and didn’t realize that there was a whole pocket around it & not just the town by itself. We are not contesting the prestige of ISW as an institution. However, over time, ISW maps have been found to be full of mistakes (not just only a few, as it should be). We blamed this on “approximations”. The video that you link (http://hertogwarstudies.org) and that shows “Pentagon brass meeting with graduates of the ISW educational program” is interesting. Unfortunately, it is not the “Pentagon brass” that are drawing their maps, but more likely interns or students. Looking at their students in the video, I do not feel they follow or know the situation in Syria as much as we do.

For example, back in August 2013, I had a good impression of ISW and have even proposed its use in a conversation on my talk page (User talk:Tradedia#Mapmaking). I said: “…By the way, have you seen: http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/opposition-advances-damascus? It has a map on it that might be useful as a source…” However, the editor I was talking with, rightfully noted problems when he replied: “…I've seen that ISW report, but I have to say I'm a bit skeptical of it. I have not seen reports of clashes in the districts of central Damascus that it claims are contested, nor are they backed up in the report itself…” If you look around talk archives, you will find many discussions concerning serious problems with ISW maps.

By the way, the Al Masdar map's rebel pocket is not smaller than the one on our map. Only the southern part of the pocket is visible because it is truncated by the frame of the map. However, if you look at their map of the whole of Syria you then can see the whole pocket and notice that it is as big as the one on our map. Also, Desyracuse map from 1-june-2015 shows the rebel-held pocket as our map is showing it. And if you click on the purple information dot to the east end of the green pocket, you can read that the map maker wrote a note saying: “On May 23, rebels captured Tayyibah farms, advancing toward Al Kiswah”. So it seems like the pocket has expanded lately and not shrunk…

In addition, on June 13, 2015, SOHR reported “The regime forces opened fire on areas in the road between the towns of Khan al-Shih, Zakya and al- Mqelabiyya in west of Rif Dimashq and on areas in al- Mqelabiyya town, information about injuring of some people in al- Mqelabiyya town.”

Concerning the map that Paolowalter linked (https://twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/612116542134730753) and that was dated June 20, they now came out with a more up-to-date version (dated June 29) that shows the rebel-held pocket as our map is showing it! So it seems that they had copied the ISW map, but then read our talk page and corrected their mistake!

Concerning "the top left corner", I already indicated (in Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 49#Damascus map? Why was it reverted to old inaccurate map?) that I was OK with it being changed to "purple", but this time based on a real source (news report: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-cut-water-supplies-feeding-damascus/). Tradedia 16:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Lots of assumptions and claims made above without evidence. Al Masdar map just copied the wiki map, and so included that big pocket, and Desylacuse is pro-rebel and often makes many false marks on their map to show rebel positions in places they don't exist. this is widely known. Maybe green in bottom left is bigger then the newer map that was updated (and then taken down) but you present no evidence showing the pocket is as big as it currently is placed on the map. zero evidence. just claims and assumptions. Some months ago regime with allies sent a lot of troops down below this pocket and could have easily shrank this-- we just don't know. My suggestion is to turn part of the green pocket area in south left corner to dark green contested but to keep the towns green where we know rebels are in control. this areas have been cut off from supply for a long time and are not heavily population. Of course the top left corner is never changed to purple, even though Tradeia agrees it should be. And other biased POV posters on this page provide no evidence this area is not in purple. so change that to purple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not the one who is requesting a change on the map. So I do not need to provide any evidence. It is the person who requested the change, that needs to provide evidence. It is that person that needs to present evidence showing the pocket is smaller than the one we had on the map. That person only provided an obviously incorrect map that is contradicted by literally every other source. The gov could have done things, but as you say “we just don't know.” We cannot update the map based on what could have happened, but rather based on what has happened and is documented. If the gov did indeed shrink the pocket, don’t you think at least one pro-gov source would have talked about it? Absolutely no one has talked about it.

Concerning “the top left corner”, you have to realize that changing the “Damascus city map” requires knowledge of graphics software, so there are not a lot of people who can do it & they are usually very busy & overwhelmed with update demands (I don’t know how to edit pictures myself). So it always takes time to update the “city maps”. Tradedia 09:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How does ISW map showing bottom left hand corner "contradict" "literally every" other source? Other than pro-islamist sources, you have no sources justifying this big pocket. You say you do, but when one actually looks at these sources they don't show what you claim. Business Insider map here does not have the same sized massive green pocket: http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-syria-shows-what-isis-is-truly-fighting-for-2015-6 Al Masdar map here has green pocket but not as big as ours, see here: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-syrian-civil-war-july-2015/ Do you have any non-islamist rebel sources that show the pocket as big as the wiki map? And ones that don't just copy from wiki? Again, I suggest making part of left bottom pocket as dark green, until more sources are gathered and top left corner as purple. I realize it takes time to change, so we can wait and allow programmer to fix it. I still don't think you can just trash ISW report so quickly- and as shown above they have very strong linkages with US defense industry and military-intel complex. They reposted the map in another report here : http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-regimes-offensive-campaign-damascus.html The map also I believe has a more accurate outline of Eastern Ghouta suburbs pocket, in comparison to wiki outline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You want to talk about pocket size? OK, lets do this. Lets use as a reference, rebel-held Darayya:

• On the Business Insider map, the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 2 times larger than Darayya.
• On the Al Masdar map, the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 3 times larger than Darayya.
• On the Islamic World News map (the one linked by user Paolowalter), Darayya is not represented, however the Khan al-Shih pocket is similar in size to that of Al Masdar map. So the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 3 times larger than Darayya.

• On our map, the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 5 times larger than Darayya.
• On the ISW map, the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 10 times SMALLER than Darayya.

Do you see a pattern here? The ISW map is an outlier. So it is contradicted by all other maps, including all pro-gov maps (Al Masdar and Islamic World News; can you find any more?). All maps (including ours and excluding ISW) have the same order of magnitude. On the other hand, the ISW map has a different order of magnitude. All maps (including ours) are apples. The ISW map is an orange!

Now, how do we know which size on which map is closer to reality (excluding ISW)? How do we know that the size in some map is based on information and not on guessing, mistake or bias? What we do on our map is that we do not look at other maps, but rather look at real sources (news reports). News reports will tell us which towns are rebel-held, which towns are contested, and which towns are gov-held. This then determines the size of our pocket.

And the best for last: here is the latest ISW map released July 2. Do this look correct to you? Now Khan al-Shih is shown gov-held! And Hadar rebel-held! What a joke… Tradedia 00:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the graphic. However, the kilometers you assign to the business insider map look too much. Also, didn't you say that the Al Masdar map just copies us? Also if you compare these, are not we (the wikipedia map) also an outliner? Our pocket is much , much bigger then all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the business insider map, it is not easy to estimate the pocket size because the map is not as detailed as the others and Darayya is represented by a dot and the Khan al-Shih pocket seems to be represented by 2 (connected) smaller squares for 2 towns…

Concerning our map, it is not an outlier. Let me add the maps by Thomas van Linge, Desyracuse, and Archicivilians:

• On the Thomas van Linge map, the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 6 times larger than Darayya.
• On the Desyracuse map, the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 9 times larger than Darayya.
• On the Archicivilians map, the Khan al-Shih pocket is represented as about 9 times larger than Darayya.

So our map looks like it is in between the pro-gov maps & the pro-opp maps.

Now, how do we know which size on which map is closer to reality? For all these maps, we do not know how the map maker decided on the size & shape of the pocket. Did he base it on reliable information? Or rather on guessing? Or is it bias? Or just a mistake? Or mindless copying of another map? There is no way to know. What we do on our map is that we do not look at other maps, but rather look at real sources (news reports). News reports will tell us which towns are rebel-held, which towns are contested, and which towns are gov-held. This then determines the size & shape of our pocket. Tradedia 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tal Brak is still under YPG control

The source that was used to colour it black has corrected itself . --Ahmetyal (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#14/36.6321/40.9715 Cizire Canton also agrees, however, Kubaybat needs to go to IS control as this Kurdish Map shows it under IS control. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Al Sakman and Abu Azalah are also under Kurdish control, according to that map. If we can find other sources depicting that, we should change that village too. --Ahmetyal (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way Kubaybat is changed to Kurdish-controlled in that map now. --Ahmetyal (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And Qaj'mqam Kebir is under IS control according to the map, but not ours. Seems also Al Sabat and Kaka Said went to YPG control as well. Over further to Hasakah, IS has breached the YPG held portions of the city. Since the US won't help due to a perception of helping Assad, Looks like IS is using SAA as a human shield till Turkey enters if the rumors are true about Erdogan entering to fight YPG soon. Further over it looks like Abyad and Rujm Hanash have fallen to IS. Having seen this guy for months, I think we can consider him reliable enough, he has always posted YPG defeats.Tgoll774 (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

True and I can't remember an incident where he was wrong on his editing. And by the way Turkey want to intervene in Syria, to prevent Afrin to connect with Kobane and Cizire, not to fight YPG. --Ahmetyal (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us put it to a community vote. Does the Community agree that Cizire Canton has proven himself reliable enough to be trusted for map edits. Consider me and Ahmetyal as yes votes. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If a map has done well in the past, I'd support using it for labelled areas on the map. I oppose using unlabelled points from a map, unless we know that they are typically very accurate, or using random maps we know nothing about. Banak (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I do think Cizire Canton is trustworthy and reliable. Still we can´t use map as source. If we are thinking about using his or other maps as sources we should present those maps here on the talk page and put them up for discussion. Then it might be possible for other editors/ users to find sources that confirm the map.Rhocagil (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Here's a list of maps we can put up for discussion. More maps can be added.

- Cizire Canton's map -
- deSyracuse -
- Mark Monmonier -

--Ahmetyal (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well i did not mean that we should discuss them (all) now, only when we want to use them for a specific edit. But I´ll keep my eyes open for sources that back up the Cizire Canton map.Rhocagil (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This pro-YPG source reports that YPG has taken villages southwest of Hasaka, such as Abyad, Khiriat, Suda Abd, Qabr Al-Abd, Abyad Oil Plant etc. http://xeber24.org/nuce/74033.html Roboskiye (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That backs Cizire Canton's map, but I think we have to wait for neutral confirmation. --Ahmetyal (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

According to some sources YPG have advanced in south Tall Brak countryside, taking some villages previously held by SAA and IS. https://twitter.com/sylezjusz/status/616365243770519552 --8fra0 (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this source is usable, but only for the 11 villages shown on his map. --Ahmetyal (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've changed Shukir and Sakman to YPG-controlled, but the other villages he does not mention - only on his map. Isn't adding those based on the map against the rules? --Ahmetyal (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/da/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#13/36.6215/41.0480 Cizire Canton shows SAA has retaken administration of Kubaybat and Al Sabat, plus Abyad. But IS is pushing back deeper up SAA's middle and retook a bend from YPG who in turn retook Habb Ash Shawk. Looks like IS is focusing on thinning out the defenders while it pincers Highway 7 Tgoll774 (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Some changes

According to this map, which we often use.

• Turnajah from red to green (Quneitra province)
• Al Hurija is not shown as contested (Quneitra)
• Al Tayhah to green (near Masharah)
• Tal Antar/Tal Alaqiyah (near Kafr Shams)

These locations are outdated, and pro-rebel accounts are showing it the same as this map, so we can use this map. DuckZz (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We can't use maps. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes absolutely 0 sense. These areas are currently like this because of maps. However, 2 days after that, pro-rebel accounts said that it's back to normal, and we couldn't change it because we don't use pro-rebel reports for those edits. Now a pro-government map confirms that, and we still can't use it. I understand the rules but seriously what do you expect to see as a source ?? These areas are outdated and nobody will ever report about them until those areas are involved in a new rebel or government offensive, and that could be in 3,4,6 months.

Also, the idea that only admins can change the map is pretty useless, most of us come here because we can do something and not just wait for others to do it. If i want to make a minor change, lat/long edit, i don't want to make a request ... DuckZz (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should if they are using more up to date, precise, reliable information. Banak (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We should use this map. It is from Al-Masdar, a well-known and often quoted source for this map. It is slightly pro government, which gives this map even more creditability. So I agree with the changes stated above. It certainly seems reasonable, considering the fact that the northern Daraa front hasn't moved in recent months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I did a google search and found the following:

• For Turnajah (طرنجة), there is a pro-gov source (from June 29) saying “army hit terrorists in Turnajah” (and a similar news from June 28 and a similar news from June 20). Also, a pro-gov video on Ivan Sidorenko Youtube channel (June 17) where army officers are talking about the rebels that are based in Turnajah. They are saying things like: "The rebels said they will celebrate the Ramadan in Hadar, but in fact we will be the ones celebrating it in Turnajah & Jubata al-Khashab!" Then there is pro-gov twitter activist tweeting: “#JN targeting #Hadar from #Turunjah & #Jubata” (June 28). There is also Iranian AlAlam talking about how “rebel attacks come from Turnajah.” And there are many more that I didn’t bother to copy…

• For Al Hurija (الحرية), there is a pro-gov source talking about “disabling a rebel tank in Al Hurija” on June 29. Also, there is a Peto Lucem map from back on Sep 12, 2014 that shows it green.

• For Al Tayhah (الطيحة), SOHR reports “barrel bombing on al-tayhah” on June 22. Then there is pro-gov source from 19/06/2015 talking about “targeting terrorists in Al-Tayhah.” (and a similar article on another website, and a 3rd one). Then there are pro-opp sources talking about “army attempts to infiltrate Al-Tayhah” (radioalkul on June 21, Alaan TV on June 2, radioalkul on June 2, shaam on June 1, Syriansnews on June 3). Then there is pro-opp source talking about “gov barrel bombs on Al-Tayhah” on June 22. Then there is pro-opp Revolutionary Coordination Committee of Al-Tayhah Facebook page that reports today “bombing on the town.” And there are many more sources that I didn’t bother to copy…

• For Tal Antar (تل عنتر), there is a pro-gov source talking about “hitting terrorists on Tal Antar” on June 8 (here another copy of the article on another website, a third website and a 4th one). There are also pro-opp sources reporting “gov bombing on Tal Antar” (Smartnews on June 22, watny on June 14, acrosnews on June 15).

• Tal Alaqiyah (تل العلاقيات), was added to our map as contested (on 16:30, 11 February 2015) based on markito who tweeted: “heavy battle about control of Tell Alaqiyah.” Since that date, the only thing I could find is SANA saying they have it on 2015/04/18 (and a clone). I doubt it is still contested to this day. So since we don’t really know who controls it, we should comment it out until we get further information.

• So in conclusion: Turnajah, Al Hurija, Al Tayhah and Tal Antar to green. Tal Alaqiyah commented out. Tradedia 03:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Tal Abyad

What does this SOHR article mean? http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/06/is-advances-in-tal-abiad-city/ I know SOHR has a bad English translation, but it doesn't let understand if this Mashoq Faqani is an eastern neighborhood inside Tal Abyad city or another town in its outskirts...and so, because I'm not Syrian( and I don't know how Tal Abyad it's done) nor Arabic speaker the answer is: is Tal Abyad itself contested or the battle is, for now, in the outskirts? Fab8405 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Its the village/district east of the town. --Ahmetyal (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the town has been recaptured by YPG. --Ahmetyal (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am a native arabic speaker. and the report in the arabic source you mentioned is talking about the Ilsmic state breatching through into Tal abyad and clashes in it's eastern suburbs (mashhour) in addition to that the same source mentions that Islamic state fighters are spred all over many viliages aroun Tal-Abyad. In conclusion according to the source Mashhour only is contested as it is spereated from Tal-Abyad in this map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like YPG still is in control over Shyookh Fawqani . Anyone against changing it to yellow? --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Shuyukh Fawqani was reported as contested by SOHR some days ago, also some coalition airstrikes were reported there. Most likely it is now in YPG full control again. --8fra0 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am going to edit it back to YPG control, because this seems like a one-off cross-river attack that was pretty much stopped. It's not like ISIS gained a beachhead and fighting is still happening in the town. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Color for Turkey if it invades

There are many reports that Turkey might invade part of Syria along the border to set up a buffer zone. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GIGM_enUS520US520&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=turkey&tbm=nws

If this occurs, we should have a color to use for Turkish-held towns and other objects. I think purple could be a good color: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Location_dot_purple.svg

Teal is another color: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Location_dot_teal.svg

But I think that dark green is the best color, since it reflects Turkey's support for the rebels as well as it's closeness with ISIS: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Location_dot_green.svg

The reason I am posting this is so that this map can be prepared if and when Turkey invades. Thoughts? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Color should be purple, switched to a dot if they station troops in a settlement but leave locals in control. IE they say they control Jarabulus but leave IS in administrative control, being the double dealers they are, and the need to keep Turkish Causalities low.

Ultimately Erdogan's rhetoric indicates he is going after YPG and will in practice make IS immune to US Airstrikes till YPG is no longer a threat then get out, leaving IS to do the dirty work while pretending to be fighting IS. But given the political situation, I don't think this will go anywhere and just result in Turkey simply firing on YPG border patrols and telling FSA to disarm YPG units and take full control of YPG territories or be cut off from aid in favor of JAN and IF, plus tightening down key YPG infiltration results and allowing no more FSA fighters to transit to YPG Areas. I'd be very surprised if Erdogan actually means what he says. Tgoll774 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don´t think they intervene, but if they do "brown" is a good color for fascist actions.Rhocagil (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think dark green would be the best color, and here's why. Firstly, the light green color on this map indicates moderate Sunni rebels, some Islamist. Turkey is mostly Sunni, and the ruling government party is Islamist. Second, Turkey has said it supports these moderate and Islamist rebels, therefore a greenish color makes sense. I think people will be able to tell light and dark green apart on the map. Alternatively, teal could be used, as it is more distinguishable from the light green than the dark green is. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't belive someone actually made a section about this. What's next, a color for France-Portugal invasion on Syria, it was also announced last year, the same as Turkey and America, according to government sources they will enter Syria, and that was 3 years ago, and 2 years ago. Every year we have dozens of these so called "Expert analysis" of what will happen, eventually nothing happens like always. If actually Turkey creates this so called "Buffer zone", nothing should be changed, no color added, we only should make something similiar like in Quneitra province for the Izrael Golan height, someone just should make the same thing in north Syria, end. DuckZz (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DuckZz. tUrkey wont invade, as both USA and Russia are against this. And if tUrkey attacks, some color between black and grey or one of these two would be perfect, as the nature of tUrkeys attack is to maintain its supply routes to ISIS. In other words, tUrkey does not want to be separated from ISIS by a YPG/FSA corridor. Roboskiye (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that is why I though that darker green would be a better color, since it is closer to black, but the teal would work as well. Maybe Turkey won't invade, but with the massing of troops on the border, it is worthwhile for us to have a plan if they do decide to invade. Here are all of the colors together:

There is also this one , but I don't want people to be confused with the Turkish military and ISIS, so I don't think it should be used. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Erdogan really cares about ISIS or YPG (these are both players in only small and low populated areas), the main goal they have is to prop up the islamist rebels attacking the government to unseat Damascus. That is their goal all along- it can pay off with money and expand their political and religious networks. They can use the excuse of defeating ISIS (internationally) and defeating YPG (domestically) to shore up an area supporting the islamist rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Government counter-attack in South

Can this be confirmed by neutral or anti-government sources? Al Masdar is reporting that SAA have taken Saida which is directly east of Daraa. This would mean also expanding the red on the Daraa map some to the east. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-conducts-surprise-attack-in-northeast-daraa/ Also it claims that government & Druze forces are targeting Khirbat and Jabeeb- so these towns should have red half circles put around them (?), if this is confirmed by pro-rebel or neutral source. Here is one other source: http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/World/20150702/2632605.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at this single sentance shows me this is not a large offensive, but more of a raid: At least 50 vehicles fitted with machine guns were also destroyed during the operation, SANA said. 50 vehicles destroyed, right (laughs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rif Aleppo2.svg sooo out of date

This is the seconf time I am postinf this section. last time no one comented. There is a major offensive in Aleppo by the green and definitly the rashdin area which is marked contested is green 1 and the north west district of Zahraa is contested in stead of red. I don't know technicaly how to edit the svg file or I would have done it my self 2. I posted here I posted on the tal of the file ] still no answer what so ever. Does anyone here even care about the accuracy of this map ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC) 23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pro-regime sources only say that western perimeter of scientific research center has fallen, while they claim to have counter-attacked, capturing Bureijj town to north of aleppo and the Al-Salahiddeen District within Aleppo. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/complete-field-report-from-aleppo-city-ansar-al-shariah-on-the-offensive/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Raqqa governorate towns

This map shows a bunch of towns not present in the map between Ayn Issa & Raqqa (east & west of the Balikh River). I know that we cant simply copy from maps, but the towns are not in the frontline, but deep in ISIS-held territory, and came from a source wich is not precisely pro-ISIS.--HCPUNXKID 13:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Qamishli map

Thanks to the quick & nice work of MrPenguin20, now we have a new city map, Qamishli: .

If someone knows how to upload it properly to the map in order to add later the icons: Qamishli aiport, YPG base, Qamishli crossing, etc.. it would be nice. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Serious edits need to be made

Our map has some serious issues, particularly with the Kurdish areas/areas taken by the Euphrates Volcano alliance. Areas to the South of what has been established as the Kobane Canton, by the Kurds, might I add, are still listed as being under the control of the Kurds. This is one of the biggest issues with this map. The situation in the North of the country is entirely reversed from what it was just a few months ago; instead of the Kurds being on the march, supported by FSA units, the FSA is now pushing South, supported by the Kurds, meaning many of the areas, particularly the key town on Ay Issa, are under the control of the FSA, and may have a small Kurdish presence there.

I've argued this a few times, and I'll bring it up again; the Kurdish areas of the map are gorossly incorrect, and need to updated immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us any sources to back up your claims? You say that the FSA is in the lead, but every source writing about Ayn Issa and the Raqqah front writes about the "joint forces" compromising of both the YPG and the FSA. It might be that the growing numbers of the FSA are in the lead in some areas that are mostly Arab, but I've yet to see a creditable news outlet showing a FSA-led offensive near Raqqah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Al-Ghab Plain-Hama

Acc. to pro opp Step.News.Agency , SAA captured Qabr Fiddah - Al Shari`ah - Karim and Ramleh https://www.facebook.com/Step.News.Agency.Sy/posts/638335749635044 location: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.481501&lon=36.330929&z=13&m=b&gz=0;363118743;354299734;144195;0;564765;145455;166511;706053;0;678102;0;261521;159645;9791 Hwinsp (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by pro government source. Changes should be made. MesmerMe (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not have time now, but I can fix it later this week if no one else did. Also this source Ivan Sidorenko Rhocagil (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The original Arabic report from Step.News.Agency says "الأشرفية" = Al-Ashrafiyah not Al Shari`ah. So I don’t know where he translated Al Shari`ah from. Besides here Ivan Sidorenko says it is not confirmed. Also Al Masdar says Al-Ashrafiyah not Al Shari`ah. Qabr Fiddah & Karim were already red on our map. Another mistake (thanks map copying!) So Al Shari`ah should go back to green. Tradedia 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have changed to red or added Al Shari`ah, Huwayz, Qabr Fiddah, Al Kareem. Probably Al Shari`ah was already changed, sorry, following http://www.syriahr.com/2015/07/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84/ http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-and-analysis-of-the-al-ghaab-plains-syrian-army-advances-westward/ and https://twitter.com/Amin_Akh/status/617815282896269313.Paolowalter (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you had read my message above, it would have saved you some work. In addition to what i said, I add that your first 2 sources mention "الأشرفية" = Al-Ashrafiyah not Al Shari`ah. Also, your 3rd source says: "Clashes continue on al_Shari`ah". But we cannot use it because it is pro-gov. So Al Shari`ah should go back to green (with red semi-circle), and the duplicated Qabr Fiddah & Karim that you added should be removed. Tradedia 02:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not read your message before, but Al-Ashrafiyah and Al Shari`ah most likely coincide. I could not see other alternatives.

Furthermore from http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/shelling-leaves-casualties-in-sahl-al-ghab/ also al-Qahera is under SAA control

but I cannot find it. I'll look for duplications.Paolowalter (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you don't read the sources you provide either... The first sentence of the SOHR link you provide talks specifically about al-Shari’aa and al-Ashrafyyeh as 2 distinct towns. So Al Shari`ah should go back to green (with red semi-circle). Tradedia 10:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I did a google search for the town of Latmin (لطمين) and found the following (no evidence of recent clashes in the town):

• There is a pro-gov source (from June 13) saying “the Army Air Force launched intensive strikes on dens of terrorists in … Latmin”
• Then there is the neutral Rai al-Youm (edited by the famous Abdel Bari Atwan) talking about the town as “being on the frontline with gov troops” (July 5).
• There is also SOHR talking about “gov bombing on the town” (13 June).
• Then there is pro-opp Hama Coordination Committee talking about: “barrel bombing on the town” (07-07-2015).
• Therefore, Latmin should be turned from contested to green. Tradedia 03:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Aleppo Research Center

According to pro-gov. Al-Masdar " the assault was repelled once again, as the entrenched soldiers inside the facility withstood the relentless attacks from the Islamist factions and pushed them back to the western corridor." What do independent and pro-opp. sources say ? Oroszka (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

pro opposition sources claim Scientific Research Building is green, but other tahn that the same as the source you mentioned SOHR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The accepted status is that the Eastern perimeter is controlled by SAA while the west is controlled by rebels because of a partial rebel evacuation. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ain Issa is black

SOHR arabic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Helmy1453 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish official sources are denying that the town has fallen in IS hands. https://twitter.com/mutludc/status/618035400318259200 I hope that SOHR has not reported an IS fabricated news (like the false Tal Brak claims last week). --8fra0 (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish confirmatin is not manadtory for Kyrdish losses. as long as anti ISIS sources is reporting it. and SOHR is definitly anti ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Helmy1453 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.aawsat.net/2015/07/article55344258/isis-regains-town-near-syrias-raqqa-after-airstrikes-monitor More Confirmation. And judging by the past, IS will have the bridges back up in less than four weeks and a pontoon placed in a day. Given water levels have dropped, you can actually drive across the river in that part of it. Tgoll774 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources claiming the town is under YPG control --Ahmetyal (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

al-Jaz and BBC both quoting SOHR on this topic. BOTH also say that fighting is allegedly ongoing though. BBC - (YPG) "still resisting the IS assault". al-Jaz - "Kurds said that fighting was still going on at the perimeter of the town and some points inside it" - contested until we get more information? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That would do it. --Ahmetyal (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"BOTH also say that fighting is allegedly ongoing though" that is not true, nethie BBC nor Aljazeera said that you are misquoting. theay said the YPG spokesman claim fighting is ongoing in the city. I don't get it we have SOHR and Almadasdar who re independent stationg clear full IS control on Ain Issa with no clashes inside. and still because the YPG is claiming clashes it is nontested !!!!!! that makes no sence what so ever. SOHR even added extr article explicitlly stating full control woth no clashes here . contested is just wrong Helmy1453 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by pro-gov AlMasdar.Paolowalter (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

More pro Kurds and pro rebel sources stating that Ayn Issa is still held by YPG: https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/618153787555999744 https://twitter.com/sylezjusz/status/618160761093947396 --8fra0 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR and al Masdar show it under IS control, Twitter sources are generally not allowed Tgoll774 (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/is-militants-strip-kurdish-fighters-of-syrian-town-115070600768_1.html More confirmation IS holds Ayn Issa Tgoll774 (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles saying the town is under IS-control use SOHR as source (writing 'monitor group'), so linking to many articles doesn't make your case stronger. We have SOHR against independent activists (or whatever we call them) mostly on Twitter. --Ahmetyal (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Its best if you change the town to contested till more information actually comes out. --Ahmetyal (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mt Abdulaziz

Situation around Mt Abdulaziz seams to be a little different then on our map. At least two hills should maybe be marked black. This is the pro kurdish source I´m referring to. Does anybody else have info/news about this??Rhocagil (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And this oneRhocagil (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone change the link in the Suluk town so it links to the Suluk town in Syria instead of the Tausūg people? Thanks.

But there's no Suluk page, how can it be delinked? --Ahmetyal (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

181.174.104.175 (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Done @Ahmetyal: the correct page is Suluk, Syria. Stickee (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ayn Issa

Ayn Issa has been edited 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times, today! If there is no consensus, and there doesn't seem to be, then why not leave it contested until more news comes out? Obviously some are reading the sources as it's IS held, other as it's Kurdish held. Clearly there's no agreement here. Either way, it's a front line. Magog the Ogre - help relieve edit warring? Boredwhytekid (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Both SOHR and Al-Masdar agree that IS took controk of the city. On the other side, there are a bunch of litte known 'activists' on twitter. There is no disagreement here, the rules of editing this page states clearly that Ayn Issa must go black.Paolowalter (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New SOHR report contradicts yesterday statement, so Ayn Issa seems in Kurdish control, it is not clear if IS was able to enter the city even yesterday. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/ayn-isa-witnsesses-calm-and-violent-clashes-erupt-in-the-western-sections-of-al-hasakah-province-and-the-coalition-bomb-the-area-heavily-and-violently/

"the clashes coincided with coalition airstrikes which had an effective role in preventing IS from advancing further in the area of Ayn Isa and its vicinity", so IS is not anymore even near Ayn Issa. --8fra0 (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR Report doesn't say Ayn Issa is back under YPG control only four villages which are not named in the vicinity of Ayn Issa. SO Ayn Issa is clearly IS control at the moment. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Now SOHR is reporting clashes in Ayn Issa: http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/78-is-militants-killed-in-the-coalitions-airstrikes-and-clashes-with-ypg/ --8fra0 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The situation seems to be unclear, with many different sides claiming different control statuses. In this situation, the only responsible thing to do is to change the town to contested. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete the ISIS "Rural Presence" in South West Homs near Jawsiyah Crossing

There are not the ISIS the ediotor who put this there is just wrong remove that.

Here are very credible map who no showing ISIS precense in this area https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CI59TnUUsAAgkGx.jpg https://twitter.com/TheArabSource/status/613832649665163264/photo/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.211.176.124 (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

First, we can't use maps. Second, that map is from al-Masdar, a biased pro-regime source. Third, that map copies this map. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Really, and I don't suppose you have any proof? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

First, look at the edit history on the module: sources were provided for each edit. Second, that map is definitely from al-Masdar, which is a biased pro-government source that calls any rebels 'terrorists' or 'al-Nusra', even when they are other Islamists. Third, look at the map. Its style and layout clearly mimic and copy from this map, which means it is a circular source. Fourth, ISIS moved on this area after the publication of this map. The map was published on July 1, whereas ISIS was only just moving in near Hisyah when this map was published. The purpose of the rural presence icon was to show that ISIS fighters from East Qalamoun had fled to this area. This will be important to show if ISIS attempts to cut of the government supply line from Damascus to North Syria. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

South Hasakah City and Abyad

Pro-government sources have been admitting that the YPG has taken the area from ISIS,https://twitter.com/syrianews_home/status/618132576990035968,and this goes in agreement with what pro-YPG sources are saying http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#12/36.5007/40.7510,especially with ISIS offensive on Hasakah City.Alhanuty (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Palmyra

SAA advancing around Palmyra and captured 3 area in the vicinity of Palmyra and also SAA captured Abu al Fawaris near Palmyra.https://www.facebook.com/syria.net/posts/865688856819792 https://www.facebook.com/Jaramana.N.N/photos/a.522699704465195.1073741859.144459405622562/840758009326028/?type=1 https://www.facebook.com/radioshamfm/posts/838551862864776 https://www.facebook.com/Division11.Tanks/posts/869292646484226 https://www.facebook.com/Alikhbaria.Sy/photos/a.391781824178176.85065.208881799134847/931229386900081/?type=1 https://www.facebook.com/www.documents.sy/posts/791817537584187 Also SAA captured village of Al-Bayarat is located directly west of the ancient city of Palmyra it is only 10 kilometers away from this aforementioned city.http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-recaptures-strategic-village-near-palmyra/ Saphyr66 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA and Hezbollah advance to the outskirt of Palmyra (Tadmur) recovering 11km into #ISIS land with the aim 2recapture the city. https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/618754112029458432 Saphyr66 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarrin

YPG offensive arround Sarrin makes progress around Mighribtin. See:

1 2 3 4

There is no consensus with Map makers yet, so i suggest collecting reliable sources for the area around Sarrin here and then editing the map. 2.242.80.83 (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Chuck Pfarrer mentions Maghatatyn (seems to be Mighribtin on this map) as taken by YPG 5. Is this a reliable source (since it is mentioned in text not in map)? Chuck Pfarrer also implies on his map that a city called Saharij was taken by YPG which seems to be Tuba on this map. Can somebody confirm this is the same city?2.243.60.132 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJWLpJDWwAAc-Om.png:large From Res Publica at https://twitter.com/_paulo34/status/618554063853101056/photo/1. I don't see anything from IS or YPG on it. IS supporters say there is a media blackout on Sarrin and Ayn Issa though IS has release photos sets showing spoils taken from YPG around Sarrin without specifying where. YPG are denying everything and saying Sarrin will fall soon and say Ayn Issa was never taken, though SOHR, Regime, and now more Western Sources are confirming IS took it and Brigade 93. Right now this isn't enough to change the map and I'll personally revert changes made solely on this map if someone jumps the gun. But we must intensify our efforts to get sources on this spot to see if indeed IS has essentially broken the Sarrin Siege and is on the counter-offensive. Tgoll774 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• List-Class Syria articles
• Low-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles