Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

I don't know why Ahmedo Semsurî revert all edits

I don't know why? He said that 'Almasdar' news is pro government, but it has nothing to do with Almasdar, because it's the official statement of the Syrian Armed Forces. Meanwhile Ahmedo Semsurî says: We can't use x source for x edits.., why? You're using unreliable sources such as Anha, ANF for SDF edits, we didn't said anything.. Beshogur (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the "Rules for Editing the Map", the question is not if the source is pro-government or pro-FSA or pro-whatever, it is their "reputation for neutral territorial control coverages" that matters. See also: Bias in sources and Biased or opinionated sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Pro PYD/PKK users ignored main rules. Mehmedsons (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral zone" in northern Aleppo

Niele~enwiki, what are your sources about the "neutral zone"? A Kurdish guy said this group is ally of SAA and NDF but "in heart" SDF. This doesn't matter, if they're ally of SAA/NDF they're ally of SAA/NDF. Your edits doesn't prove anything. Beshogur (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Local sources: SAA controlled the Kafr Qaris, Tall Susayn, Kafr Saghir, Fafin, Babinnis,Mahatah,Muslamiyah Cement Factory and Aleppo Infantry College.LinkLink Mehmedsons (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes only SAA controlled this area in north Aleppo no YPG / PKK there change that in full red again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.133.27 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pro SDF and other sources make mention that the neutral forces are part of Pro-SAA forces(border guard forces)and not a part of SDF.LinkLinkLinkLinklink Mehmedsons (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The source you cited here says the "area will be controlled by a newly formed local neutral Kurdish militia". The talk about "NDF on paper but SDF by heart" is about the "Tel Aran martyrs brigade" which is another group. (Tel Eran is located 3 km northwest of As-Safira ( at 36°07′16″N 37°20′13″E / 36.121°N 37.337°E / 36.121; 37.337)). According to this source the "Infantry School & Cement Plant are under SAA control, Kurdish villages will be managed by local Kurds (NDF) like in Tel Aran, Tel Hasel". I believe we should mark the Infantry School & the Cement Plant as gov, and the Kurdish villages as "stable_gov_SDF". That is except for Fafin, witch according to this source should be marked as SDF. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Local Kurds in the NDF means red. They're allied with the government. Hamza Hemze is not a reliable source. What the hell is "SDF by heart" If they're neutral, we should mark them as blue, not red nor yellow. Beshogur (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
So we should mark as SAA controlled the Infantry School, Cement Plant and SAA/Kurds controlled the Kafr Qaris, Tall Susayn, Kafr Saghir, Fafin, Babinnis and Maaratat al Muslimiyah. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, except for Fafin. Another source. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Also note that the "Cement plant" taken by Government forces is located at 36°18′19″N 37°10′36″E / 36.3051655°N 37.1767044°E / 36.3051655; 37.1767044, ref. this source. The "Aleppo Cement Plant" 2 km west of Fafin at 36°20′32″N 37°12′47″E / 36.3422311°N 37.212925°E / 36.3422311; 37.212925 was taken by SDF on 29 October according to this source. That source also says "Tel Sussin, Kafr Qaris, Maaratat al-Musalmiyah" was captured by SDF on 29 October... Erlbaeko (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Notice! SAA controlled the Muslimiyah Cement Factory 2 km west of Fafin at 36°20′32″N 37°12′47″E / 36.3422311°N 37.212925°E / 36.3422311; 37.212925 and the villages Kafr Qaris, Tall Susayn, Kafr Saghir, Fafin, Babinnis, Mahatah, and Aleppo Infantry College. Per reliable local sources:LinkLink Mehmedsons (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am not a fan of self-published tweets as sources anyway. I am ok with using that Al-Masdar News article. It says "On Saturday evening, the SAA imposed full control over the villages of Fafin, Tall Sha'ir, Mahatah, Tall Susin, Kafr Qaris, and the town of Babinnis. Furthermore, Syrian government forces also captured the Muslamiyah Cement Factory and Aleppo Infantry College. The attack was supported by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who attacked ISIS' northern flank, causing Islamic State militants to retreat from the area entirely." Unless anyone have another WP:RS saying something different, that is what we should report. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral Kurdish militia" meme

Please stop with it! You can't find any local source about that, let sources. It's just a Twitter talk, not anything. Beshogur (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Aleppo label location

Hello all

I do not know how to change the Aleppo label location to be away from the area of Kurdish-Turkish-Daish clashes. Right now it obstructs the view of this area. Can anyone please fix? Coneleir (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

JFS/JaN and exaggeration of its presence

I am concerned that pro-government media sources are being used to indicate JaN presence in rebel-held towns. Whilst JaN are undoubtedly in lots of places, sites like farsnews have a vested interest in exaggerating their presence, and we don't use them as reliable sources for determining territory (so we shouldn't use them for determining whether something is purely rebel-held, or whether there is a JaN element in it). Even Al-Masdar does this, and in the past, we stuck to the convention of ignoring these sites when it came to determining a JaN presence unless: 

- We were adding a new point to the map, in which case less referencing is required
- The JaN presence was claimed to be present by pro-opposition sources
- The JaN presence was claimed to be present by relatively unbiased international sources, such as the BBC and the Guardian

Shouldn't we stick to this convention now? PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

JaN is present in literally every single rebel-held settlement in Syria. The real problem is not whether they are present in the areas, it's whether they control them. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

AlexanderM1 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: No change made. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 19:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

AlexanderM1 (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request. st170etalk 18:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Xeber 24 report about Nayrabiyah

Dear Pbfreespace3, you should not use Google translate. I don't know if you speak small Arabic like me, but the article is talking about the road on Nayrabiyah, thus SDF made gain on the road, not captured the village. Beshogur (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Then who controls the village? Would the Kurds, who are closer to the regime in this situation, be advancing on a regime-held town? This would be highly unusual and makes no sense. But all the pro-regime Twitter sources are saying they control the village! So who is lying here? The Kurdish news agencies, or biased pro-regime Twitter sources? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
"Then who controls the village?" As I said, the government. "Would the Kurds, who are closer to the regime in this situation, be advancing on a regime-held town?" No, it's about the situation before. It's possible that SDF handed it to government. "This would be highly unusual and makes no sense." Same thing happened by Aleppo offensive of SAA. SAA handed 2 villages to YPG. "But all the pro-regime Twitter sources are saying they control the village! So who is lying here? The Kurdish news agencies, or biased pro-regime Twitter sources?" I'm not pro-regime, not pro-rebel. I want just show the reality. If you tried to look at my link, there are pro-SAA militias controlling the villages there with Syrian flag. Did you saw Hezbollah media with Syrian flags in the village in a SDF-held village? Beshogur (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
We can see Syrian flag at the village Nayrabiayh but not SDF or YPG.linklink And we never seen Syrian flags at villages which is controlled SDF or YPG. So this fact prove that at least Nayrabiyah under mixed control. Mehmedsons (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Not mixed control, it's under Kurdish NDF control, therefore some people thinks the area is under "joint control" between SAA and SDF but the local group is aligned to NDF not SDF. Beshogur (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
"Kurdish NDF" is a lie. You cannot produce one unbiased source that says NDF, ever, at all. This is a militia called Liwa Shuhada Kafr Saghir, which was formed by SDF as a border protection force against Syrian Army. It is not government-controlled. Syrian Army is not giving these soldiers their marching orders, and they are not loyal to Bashar al-Assad. Therefore they should NOT be marked red. You need to stop pushing the Turkish propaganda idea that Syrian government and Kurds are allies. Is this clear? Coneleir (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Military bases near deir-ezzor-airport

I am concerned about 3 related edits. One is by User:PutItOnAMap; the second and third by User:Pbfreespace3. The edits used the source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-routes-isis-deir-ezzor-airport/ with the edit summary: “IS could not be attacking the soothern perimeter without control of these areas.” Basically, the source does not say that these military bases are ISIS-held. The editors made the indirect inference that they must be ISIS-held because ISIS is attacking the airport to the north of them. However, I am not certain that ISIS could not attack the airport while bypassing them. Also, one of the bases is the “137th Brigade Headquarters”, which is a big deal. If its control changes, then someone must have talked about it… Therefore, I am asking all the regulars here (User:Mehmedsons, etc…) and others to give their opinion about these edits. Can you find recent sources that help us establish who controls these military bases? How are our competitors (other map makers) representing these military bases control status? Thank you for any help. Tradediatalk 16:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have only recently returned here. Clashes around the 137th and other areas have been recorded by SOHR in recent times, and Al-Masdar has been referencing conflict at the Al-Jafrah farms. If you look at the points I changed on wikimapia, you can see quite clearly that they lie directly south the of airport perimeter, and that it simply wouldn't be possible to attack the airport without going through those areas. Also, one of these bases has actually been left abandoned by SAA troops in the past, so reports of their takeover might not hit headlines. We should not rule out the possibility that, the last time we changed the 137th and associated areas to government-held, we did so wrongly (there might have been conflicting reports, as there often are). Consequently, I don't think it's too much of a leap of logic to deduce from recent events that IS controls (at least, for now) those areas. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Now Al Masdar is referring to IS positions in Al Mari'iyah and Al Jafra farms (which are the farms that were changed to IS control). I think this, on balance, was executed correctly. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-targets-isis-positions-deir-ezzor/ PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Mehmedsons has just changed back “137th Brigade HQ” to gov-held with the edit summary: “At last report mentions that SAA controlled 137th Brigade HQ and ISIS positions at the southern outskirts of this base per reliable source: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-strikes-back-isis-southwest-deir-ezzor/ ” This implies that the reasoning by User:PutItOnAMap might not have been correct.
In fact, a previous source reports that “the Syrian Arab Army quickly repelled the assault at the Al-Jafra Farms” Also, another source reports that “SAA carried out several attacks against ISIS at the Al-Jafra and Al-Muri'iyah farms.” and "the ISIS offensive capabilities have been limited forcing them to carry out hit-and-run attacks". If you look at wikimapia, you can see that these positions are to the south-east of the airport. So the ISIS hit-and-run attack could have come from the south-east and hit the southern gates of the airport without going thru all the bases in question (but went around some of them).
Given all this uncertainty, the bases that were put to ISIS-held by a questionable reasoning should be commented out until we get fresh information about their status. Tradediatalk 03:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Azraq

Azraq village was still rebel-held, and I said this several times, while Pbfreespace3 reverted my edits without any source. Hassan Ridha is very reliable source and he said Azraq village is not under SDF or SAA control but FSA. I hope someone can understand me. Beshogur (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we ban "CivilWarMap" as a source from this template?

Can we ban Syrian Civil War Map as a source from this template? This guy who does maps Tweet anything about northern Aleppo and most users here use this account as a source. This source should be banned. Beshogur (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the reason that we shouldn't use Syrian Civil War Map. Beshogur (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you joking. CivilWarMap is proven to be the most reliable and precise source on the internet. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
No I don't. His sources are based on his self-reports. I never saw he' was sharing the sources when he changed a village. Beshogur (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Evacuation of Khan ash-Shih, etc

On the Damascus map, in the bottom left, Khan ash-Shih, Zaqqiyah and in fact all the areas still rebel green have been surrendered to the SAAF and the rebels bussed to Idlib. Some areas in the top, south of Al-Tall, in purple, seem to be SAAF controlled. On the other hand I have one source that says Kiswah (village to the east of Zaqiyah) is still rebel held. Either way it needs an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.53.239 (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Zabadani

According to this article Hezbollah/SAA is not targeting rebels inside Zabadani anymore due to a new ceasefire agreement, so it should be back to truce or rebel held, but not contested. Valewonca (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated Aleppo map

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/militants-surrender-east-aleppo-map/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.138.233 (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Aleppo

Aleppo now is under the Syrian Government. It was recaptured in 12/12/2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quananhsystem (talk • contribs) 05:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, according to pro-SAA source: [2]. Schluppo (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

When this job will be definitly done, please remove the Template map and put a big red point, it's better for the map, too much problems with this map since they have been cuted specially on smartphone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.162.72.180 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


Same source hours latter reported 100% is under army control https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/militants-surrender-east-aleppo-map/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.138.233 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And again, the fighting is still ongoing: [3] Schluppo (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

turkish Army

The turkish army has invaded (thats the right word?) syria, but in the map it is not published. can this be fixed? --2A02:8109:9A40:1778:F0B1:8723:C8E4:3454 (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that they are backing rebels in northern Aleppo and they do not have independant positions or base so it's not easy to report this presence on the map, maybe we should change the name of the rebel pocket north of Aleppo as "turkish backed rebels" and change the color like a light green 82.233.227.191 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This may be a solution.
Also i have read about the rebells in eastern aleppo, there ar al-zinki (the beheaders of abdullah issa), al-nusra, ahrar al-scham, not only "moderate" rebells. And people in black with the is-banner ar also seen on photos with "white helmets" in aleppo. --2A02:8109:9A40:1778:F0B1:8723:C8E4:3454 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I always thought it was a mistake to differentiate Al Qaeda from other rebel groups, given the evolution of the situation this distinction will become less and less relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.65.251 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the aleppo map

I think it will be better to remove the aleppo map on the map and replace it with a big red point in order to lighten it, because this map is responsable of many problems, we can keep it in the page Wikipedia of the battle of aleppo, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.162.111.169 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the International Airport, Ramouseh Military Complex and Sheikh Najjar Industrial District as government held and Sheikh Maqsud District as YPG held should be separate dots. Valewonca (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thats right.the situation should be approximately same as it is in Homs and its countryside .P.rafati (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sloppy graphics

This map has gotten very sloppy in the past 2 weeks. The dots representing towns are in many cases no longer circular, and I now see some villages in northern Raqqa demarcated as '?' and 'clashes near [other village's name].' This really isn't an acceptable standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.124.119 (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, we have to remove the Aleppo map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.166.61.218 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Correction of the Syrian Desert map

We should add many locations in the Syrian desert close to the Jordanian borders, these may help:

also al_Shi'ab is under IS control (not Regime) 3bdulelah (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wadi Barada Valley

I don't even know why the entire area is government held in the first place, sure, there was an agreement but rebels never left the Valley, and now that the ceasefire is broken the villages should be back to rebel held, whit the exception of Basimah, Ain al-Fijah and Ayn al Khadra, wiche were captured by SAA this week. Valewonca (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, i'm wondering why Bassima was removed. It wasn't on the map for the whole time the Syrian army and terrorists were fighting over it, it was briefly added to the map after the Syrian army captured it, then it was removed from the map again. That seems to happen a lot with towns in the Damascus area. I've seen it many times with East Ghouta. It can make it hard to find out what's happening where. I keep having to go to Google to find the location of towns that don't exist on this map, where important battles are happening. Seems to defeat the purpose of the map. Kawada Kira (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2 on 22 January 2017

Add

{ lat = 35.886, long = 36.4415, mark = m.stable_opp_JaN, marksize = 5, label = "Aqrabat", link = "Aqrabat", label_size = 0 },

Here is the source for this change which says America struck a Jabhat Fatah al-Sham convoy (indicates strong presence) at Aqrabat.

Here is the location of the strike, the photos confirm it. TheNavigatrr (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Vavinê / Fafin

  • Vavinê / Fafin was captured by SDF on 29 October 2016

and had since then always been in hands of SDF.

  • Several well-known SDF-commanders are pictuered inside Vavinê / Fafin.
  • Video of SDF inside Vavinê / Fafin
  • Pictures of SDF in front of Vavinê / Fafin-village-plate
  • Sources from pro-opp, pro-Russian/SAA, pro-Turkish, pro-opp and pro-Turk newsoutlets,..

Yet still it is faulty marked for a month as exclusively SAA controlled...

Sources:

  1. https://twitter.com/SPQR_XXI/status/794228457475571716 (SDF+Jaish Thuwar=SDF+picture evidence | States any reports of SAA precense is a Lie)
  2. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/kurdish-forces-capture-several-villages-turkish-backed-rebels-northern-aleppo/ (SDF-control)
  3. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/kurdish-led-forces-advance-northern-aleppo/ (SDF control)
  4. http://www.milligazete.com.tr/daes_gitti_pyd_geldi/432830 (Turkish news outlet | YPG=SDF control)
  5. https://twitter.com/DrPartizan_/status/792776724232728576 (SDF control)
  6. https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/793438406630137856 (SDF control | Pro-opp source)
  7. https://twitter.com/RaSundsbak/status/793329480160993281 (Akrad=SDF control | pictures of SDF commanders inside Fafin)
  8. https://twitter.com/RaSundsbak/status/793328537595940864 (SDF control)
  9. https://twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/793218212674404352 (SDF control)
  10. https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/793248627867004928 (SDF control)
  11. https://twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/793218212674404352 (SDF control)
  12. https://twitter.com/etdbrief_ro_1/status/793213272170213377 (SDF control)
  13. https://twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/793140687776559104 (SDF control)
  14. https://twitter.com/todayinsyria/status/793105262399848448 (SDF control)
  15. https://twitter.com/EdmapsCom/status/793097682873114624 (SDF control)
  16. https://twitter.com/etdbrief_ro_1/status/793094231187333121 (SDF control)
  17. https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/793088327830212608 (SDF control)
  18. https://twitter.com/KurdisCat/status/792851385322799104 (SDF control)
  19. https://twitter.com/SPQR_XXI/status/792787862815113218 (SDF control)
  20. https://twitter.com/Dr_Partizan/status/792776724232728576 (Thuwwar=SDF control +video-evidence)
  21. https://twitter.com/MerdKurd/status/792722869629382657 (SDF control)
  22. https://twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/792657189852807168 (SDF control)
  23. https://twitter.com/wesservic/status/792607391074422784 (SDF control | Russian, pro-SAA source)
  24. https://twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/792482575059066881 (SDF control)
  25. https://twitter.com/senIrdumn/status/793022346181443584 (Jaish al Thuwar=SDF)
  26. https://twitter.com/hrriyetylmaz/status/793515759993495553 (YPG=SDF control | Pro-Turk source)
  27. https://twitter.com/ValkryV/status/792350777247424512 (YPG=SDF control | Pro-Turk source)

-> Vavinê / Fafin is by certainty and a abundance of sourcing under SDF control.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sha'alê area update/correction based on sources + SNR

With sources reporting the last SAA left Sha'alê village it is time to adjust the situation in this area to the reality and sources. Sources for this: twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/824924874271498241, twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/824926459806498817, twitter.com/GeromanAT/status/824936237765128192, twitter.com/SariZagros/status/824926365216567296, twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/824918327105462272, twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/824944766185975808, twitter.com/Infos_MENA/status/824948309919936512 (SAA left, SDF entered), isis.liveuamap.com/en/2017/27-january-shaale-village-west-of-albab-reportedly-under, twitter.com/DersimKerkuk/status/825056721236324352, twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/825037818158206976


The map in this was subject to NPOV pushing by 2 Turkish users that falsly represented the neutral SNR as part of SAA and hide formal SDF-groups (YPG/Akrad) presence in these villages. This with the objective to limit SDF presence/succes on the map, in the vicinity of Al-Bab and Turkish Euphrate Shield main strategic and symbolic objective.

Some pro-SAA media outlets stated the capture of villages by SDF+SNR together with other villages captured by SAA+SNR as a whole a succes/victory SAA+allies. Those pro-SAA media outlets SDF and SNR refering to as allies, so they could inflate SAA succes by presenting it maximal as SAA succes without strictly lying.

In a violation to the rule -3- WP:POV 'intentional misinterpretation of sources' they changed all these villages from mixed SDF-SAA to SAA. intentional misinterpretating the source as if all villages where under exlusifly SAA control, and deliberate ignoring all masive/reliable sourcing about SDF precense in these villages.

Second in violation to the rule -3- WP:POV 'intentional misinterpretation of sources' they claimed/represented the Syrian National Resistance as part of SAA while it is a officially independent neutral politicial coalition allied with both the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian Ba'athist government The SNR having declared beeing "a key player in improving regional relations between the SAA and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)".[3] Nevertheless, the Syrian National Resistance denies a direct affiliation to either faction.[4] Rezan Hedo has stated that he counts on the support of both loyalists as well as opponents to the Ba'athist government. And turning all villages SNR is active to exlusifly SAA ignoring SDF presence. See sourcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Resistance

In a effort to push this throuh they personnally attacked all users that reverted them. Getting valuable user pbfreespace3 banned from wikipedia bc of breaking an old 1/week revert rule he had from the past. As a result the map is no longer correct and villages with no SAA presence inside them like Xirbat Dîwar/Sêsan/Khirbat Duwayr or Vavinê/Fafin it is ridiculous to falsly represent as SAA controlled on this map.

To bring this map again to a reliable and sourced state I summ up all sources for these villages getting things straight.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sha'alê

Liberated by SDF(+SNR?) on 27 november 2016 with indirect support of SAA. Under mixed control of mainly the Syrian Democratic Forces(SDF), Syrian Resistance Forces (SNR). The last SAA presence left the village around 26-27 January 2017, leaving it only to SDF and SNR.

Sources: (1) twitter.com/etdbrief_ro_1/status/816974661481218048 (No ES presence) (2) twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/816965482284609536 (No ES presence) (3) twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/802891734648700928 (SDF control) (4) twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/824924874271498241 (SDF control) (5) twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/824926459806498817 (SDF control) (6) twitter.com/GeromanAT/status/824936237765128192 (SDF control) (7) twitter.com/SariZagros/status/824926365216567296 (SDF control) (8) twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/824918327105462272 (SDF control) (9) twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/824944766185975808 (SDF control) (10) twitter.com/Infos_MENA/status/824948309919936512 (SAA left, SDF entered) (11) isis.liveuamap.com/en/2017/27-january-shaale-village-west-of-albab-reportedly-under (SDF control) (12) twitter.com/DersimKerkuk/status/825056721236324352 (SDF control) (13) twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/825037818158206976 (SDF control) (14) twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/802846596505313281 (SAA+neutral Kurds/SNR control-old)

All present day sources claim 'SDF' control -> SDF control--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the last source not from Twitter, SAA take back Sha'ale.link Mehmedsons (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I provided 14 sources (inlcuding a non-twitter site) all stating that on 27 January 2016 the SAA units left shaalah village left it; leaving it to SDF control.
You provided one blogpost stating SAA regained control of Sha'ale village on 24 January 2016. So if you're source correct SAA entered Sha'ale village on frontline/nomandsland/loose SNR/SDF control and left it to SDF 3 days later. You'are providing chronologically outdated info.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
You source not make mention that SAA retreated from Shaale, only that village reportedly SDF controlled but these data on based pro Kurdish source.link Mehmedsons (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sha'alê Radar base

13 dec 2012 Taken by Tawheed-Brigade. Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKsa5TQwJO4

Taken by Daesh in 2014

27 nov 2016: SDF reached edge of Radar base. Sources: twitter.com/valeriobrl/status/802954385114431488, twitter.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/802932520975269892

5 januari 2017: Daesh still controlles radar base. Source: twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/816965482284609536

SAA captured base from Daesh and maintains control: (15) twitter.com/CivilWarMap/status/824015543791403010 (SAA-control) (16) twitter.com/EmmanuelGMay/status/825088120706199553 (SAA-control) (17) twitter.com/xer6xes/status/824966848127066112 (SAA-control)

--> SAA control--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


Nêrebiyê/Nayrabiyah

Captured by SDF on 23 november 2016. Under mixed control of mainly the Syrian Democratic forces (SDF) and possibly some Syrian Resistance Forces (Kafr Saguir Martyr's Brigade neutral force) Part of cooperation with SAA.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources: (18) twitter.com/vivarevolt/status/801544324982984707 (SDF control) (19) twitter.com/Pyrmha108/status/801640212929662977 (SDF control) (20) twitter.com/agitpapa/status/802424655596421121 (SDF control) (21) twitter.com/EmmanuelGMay/status/801562029794459648 (SDF/YPG control) (22) twitter.com/SemirHemzaa/status/801495755366236168 (Al Akrad=SDF control) (23) twitter.com/KurdishYPJYPG/status/801524598156181504 (Al Akrad=SDF control) (24) twitter.com/gdk9933/status/812304093599371264 (YPG=SDF control) (25) twitter.com/archicivilians/status/802898450161405953 (SDF+SAA cooperation) (26) twitter.com/AkEl_Saruman/status/802836175249674242 (pro-Turk source: PKK is propaganda-talk for YPG/SDF control) (27) twitter.com/melisaraimmo/status/802160509097308160 (SDF control) (28) twitter.com/AndreaDePoliAS/status/802149882190512129 (SDF control) (29) twitter.com/VivaRevolt/status/801911186862247938 ('only' SDF control) (30) twitter.com/SemirHemzaa/status/801849608477507585 (neutral SNR-control) (31) twitter.com/FatihMertTokgoz/status/801844014697840641 (YPG=SDF control) (32) twitter.com/Russ_Warrior/status/801835640262377472 (SDF+SAA cooperation) (33) twitter.com/Syria_Hezb_Iran/status/801794315559305216 (SDF+SNR+SAA cooperation) (34) twitter.com/Gjoene/status/801783387887456256 (SDF control) (35) twitter.com/Iteration23/status/801731329603805185 (geolocating confirmation of SDF) (36) twitter.com/ibrahim_gezici/status/801648737395286016 (SDF control) (37) twitter.com/ritchiepage2001/status/801603960436047874 (SDF/Rojava control) (38) twitter.com/EdmapsCom/status/801584157063266306 (SDF control) (39) twitter.com/bzdt5/status/801570848817680384 (SDF control) (40) twitter.com/Gjoene/status/801558705418502144 (SDF control) (41) twitter.com/daancrz/status/801551996742488075 (SDF control) (42) twitter.com/agit021/status/801549795458502657 (SDF/YPG control) (43) twitter.com/CivilWarMap/status/801548129166381061 (SDF control) (44) twitter.com/JiKurdistan/status/801547950996459520 (SDF control) (45) twitter.com/melisaraimmo/status/801545706808995840 (SDF control) (46) twitter.com/Mexlumy/status/801544753120743424 (SDF control) (47) twitter.com/VivaRevolt/status/801544803137810432 (SOHR: SDF control)

--> All sources specific to this village, including Turkish, claim SDF control, including 'Rojava, Akrad=SDF, YPG=SDF, 'PKK',...) --> SDF control --Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

link(SAA/YPG),link(SAA/SDF),link(SAA/SDF),link(SAA/SDF),link(SAA/SDF),link(SAA/YPG). Mehmedsons (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Visual confirmation that SAA inside Nayrabiyah.video Mehmedsons (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Xirbat Dîwar/Sêsan/Khirbat Duwayr

Liberated by SDF(+SNR?) on 26-27 november 2016 with indirect support of SAA. Under mixed control of mainly the Syrian Democratic forces (SDF) and possibly some Syrian Resistance Forces (Kafr Saguir Martyr's Brigade neutral force) Part of cooperation with SAA.

Sources: (48) twitter.com/CivilWarMap/status/802495094570053632 (SNR control) (49) twitter.com/KurdisCat/status/802849111795990528 (SDF control) (50) twitter.com/DuhokDersim/status/802499139019763712 (SDF control) (60) twitter.com/yadobrindar/status/802496954060181504 (SDF control) (61) twitter.com/EndiZentarmi/status/802729059285340160 (SDF control) (62) twitter.com/Syria_Rebel_Obs/status/812302238420992000 (YPG=SDF control + SNR=neutral) (63) twitter.com/Donmkenya/status/812326510770143232 (YPG=SDF control + SNR=neutral)

--> SDF control--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Kurdish source earlier claimed the Syrian pro Government militia of "Kafr Saghir" with SAA and SDF advance east of Aleppo capturing Khirbat Duwayr, Taltinah, Shaalah & Tal Al-Khashkhasat.linklink Later SDF left Al-Khashkhasat.link Mehmedsons (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
SNR-Kafr Saghir is explicitly and formally NEUTRAL and INDEPENDEND. NOT part of SAA. Stop NPOV pushing as if SNR is part of SAA. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Resistance
10 sources of last 2 days stating last SAA left Shaale village leaving it to SAA.
You're own one source states itself that YPG/SDF is controlling Khirbat Duwayr and Nêrebiyê. But you simply ignoring that and dozens other sources and yet color it red. This is deliberate misinterpretation of sources and violation of rule 3. NPOV psuhing -intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated.- --Niele~enwiki (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Al Khashkhāshāt

Liberated by SDF(+SNR?) on 26 november 2016 with indirect support of SAA. Under mixed control of neutral Syrian Resistance Forces (Kafr Saguir Martyr's Brigade), Syrian Democratic forces with Part of cooperation with SAA with possible presence.

Sources: (64) twitter.com/SPQR_XXI/status/802487867842973696 (SDF control, no SAA) (65) twitter.com/yadobrindar/status/802496954060181504 (SDF control) (66) twitter.com/CivilWarMap/status/802495094570053632 (SNR+SDF/Kurdish forces control) (67) twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/802452293836804096 (SDF control) (68) twitter.com/Syria_Rebel_Obs/status/812302238420992000 (SNR+SAA control) (69) twitter.com/Hurro_Mitanni/status/824894478888493058 (SDF control) (70) twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/802452293836804096 (SDF control)

->Mixed SDF-SAA control (bc of SRO claiming of SAA presence and several sources+2sources SNR)--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly a pro-SDF/PYD sources. According pro-SDF(SRO) source no more SDF in Cobe/Juba and Kashkeshshat. Only pro-regime militias. Most SDF left the mixed area north of Aleppo and the last YPG, Shahba Women a present are in Xirbet Diwar, Narbiyah and Ta'anah.linklinklinklinklink No the neutral militias more at this area and YPG just a have positions at three villages all other areas SAA controlled.linklink Mehmedsons (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Outdated misinterpration of one source against 70 others of all participating parties.
+Video evidence of SDF inside villages +picture evidence of SDF inside villages + pictures of known SDF-commanders presence inside villages
This week SNR activitys/participation is sourced and reported. So stop ridiculous/false claims they don't exist.
SAA inside neutral/mixed zone having a stationing location in Cobe/Juba does not whipe large SDF presence stationing in many other locations. Does not remove/wipe out SDF control over other villages.
SRO is talking about SDF left Babinnis, Military college and Tal Shair. This is 16km from Sha'ale area. It also confirms Babinnis area where neutral before and there was SDF+SNR present untill that moment proving you pushed the Babinnis as eclusivly SAA before.
10 previous day (most recent) sources state directly that SAA left Sha'ale village and left it to only the SDF in this village.

Stop NPOV pushing. You're NPOV claims are simply ridiculous and this has to stop, this is damaging the reliability of this map and making a joke of it. 

--Niele~enwiki (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
We do not need many sources, we need just the several crediable sources. Most of your pro-SDF sources just replicates each other and claimed SDF take back several villages at November 2016 but they was recaptured from ISIS just at the end of January 2017. Mehmedsons (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of Twitter

I thought Twitter CANNOT be used to edit this map, so why is Neile-enwiki using twitter sources to claim that the SAA is at war with SDF in Aleppo??No News site has stated such an event is happening!! --GERALD710)(talk)

(1)Everyone uses reliable proven twittersources on this map, and I use 70 sources some twitter some not twitter.
(2)Why are you Lying? I map stable SAA-SDF-SNF joint control and SAA giving peacefully a Kurdish village to full SDF. The Kafr Kashir neutral zone was well sourced here with non-twitter sources in the past. I say peacefull cooperation, Medhesons falsly claimed no so coorperation and you falsly blame me instead of Medhesons of saying war between SAA and SDF?--Niele~enwiki (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Mehmedsons is biased and supports the government. He [[4]] Southfront for government gains! This is not a reliable source and this should not be allowed! Joint control is the best option here. TheNavigatrr (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree Joint control is the best option here for the villages inside the Kafr Kashir neutral zone area. With the exception of:

  • Babbinis and infantry school: SDF+SNR retreated and left it to full SAA control. But this news was falsly inflated to whole area wich is not true.
  • Vavinê / Fafin: SDF control is very hard proven with large amount of sources, video of SDF, pictures of SDF and known SDF commanders on photograph inside village. SAA never had any control of this village.
  • Sha'ale base: exclusively SAA
  • Front-line villages against ES. Sha'le village+Khirbat Duwayr+Nêrebiyê: SAA left these fully to SDF.

All other villages should be joint control. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well known Pro-SDF/anti-SAA source meke mentiom: ;No more SDF in Cobe and Kashkeshshat. Only pro-regime militias. Last YPG, Shahba Women are in Xirbet Diwar, Narbiyah and Ta'anah. Only few YPG and Shahba Women fighters are still sharing some villages with these regime militias. Most SDF already left the area.linklink Also, most of SDF withdrew from positions shared around Military College and regime gaining control over in fact. Now, on the ground, regime controlling alone all the area including Babinnis, Military college and Tal Shair. No more neutral area.link Pro-SDF provide SDF left these areas and last YPG, Shahba Women are in Xirbet Diwar, Narbiyah and Ta'anah. What else are you need?! Mehmedsons (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. You are placing interpretations of one twitter-source @Syria_Rebel_Obs in December above a huge amount of/all other sources, many more recent. This is also just only one person sitting behind a computer, trying to present itself more reliable then other twitteraccounts by linking to a non-existent website. His interpretations of the situations are not more viable then other proven sources viability. You overruled all sources provided for more then 10 villages with the interpretation of just one source. This is not serious.
  2. That one source you are also deliberately misinterpretating. That source said that the neutral situation is no longer present in Babinnis and Alleppo Infantry academy. This could be true, but you inflate that subjection to more than 10 other villages and area's 15km away from Babinnis. Offcource SNR still exists, their participation is still reported in many villages and advancements a month after @Syria_Rebel_Obs tweets that Babinnis area is no longer neutral.
  3. The second time you deliberate misintrepretating the view of this one source is when he said some SDF elements retreaded. You misused it to sepresent that SDF retreated from more the 10 villages. That's not serious. Offcourse SOME are not all. And there are many reasons why a rumor can start. Replacement of some units reshifting of units can easily become a rumor that some units left. A rumor you then again inflate to all SDF retreated. This kind of gossip-infration based on one twitter-accounts tweets is NOT the way to source in this complex situations. We use multiple sources and ratio. The SDF nor SNR does not leave like that more then 10 villages on the pinpoint of their strategic objectives. And gossip-style inflating of info getting enlarged every time it is passed is not the way to document here. Certainly not a valid way to set aside more then 100 other sources stating SDF and SNR is present in this area that in time where provided on wikipedia about SDF and SNR presense in this area. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of your sources is it pro PYD/SDF sources at Twitter. And is it you made the misintrepretating of some sources:
  • You noted SDF contolled Nayrabiyah per this sourcelink but source make mention "Syrian Army and YPG took control of Nayrabiyah".
"j-c vergès ‏@melisaraimmo wrote on 23 nov. 2016:
 "#breaking :#SDF has liberated Al Nayrabiyah from #IS West of #AlBab source:SOHR"  <-- It's quite clear. Syrian Army is other tweet about SAA-SDF cooperation Jubah& SheikhKeif.
  • You noted SDF contolled Nayrabiyah per this sourcelink but source make mention "Government troops and the SDF free the village of Nayrabiyah north of Aleppo.".--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Again 'Jubah' and 'Sheikh Kheif' has SAA-stationed in it. Source is NOT talking specifically about Nayrabiyah as you frame.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You noted SDF contolled Nayrabiyah per this source link but source not make any mentions that SDF controlled Nayrabiyah.
They are talking about SDF Afrin advancements. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And if we research all your sources I think we will find more misintrepretating. But I realy do not want the war of changes, so let's close this topic! Mehmedsons (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not see any reason to argue with you, because you are ignored my sources. Mehmedsons (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Twitter sources are not considered valid on this page as anyone can post what they want on Twitter. One can use Pro SDF soures when reporting on the likes of ISIS advancing and the SAA, the same way we use Al Masdar when reporting on ISIS and the rebels advances and SOHR on the SAA advances as well as ISIS ones. Credible news sites like Reuters can be used as well, but not Twitter Sources.Same applies to maps. You used a Twitter source to modify the map to show that the SAA and SDF were clashing at Al Khashkhāshāt. This was later rectified but such edits are what damage the credibility of a map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GERALD710 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sha'alê area

At 29/01/2017 SAA take back the three villages that formely was SDF controlled at the Shalee area. They also demanded to SDF handed control of the Shaallee silos to SAA.link Mehmedsons (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't let me laugh.
If there was fighting between SAA and SDF we would heard it from all reliable news source and it would be big news. Just Stop you're ridiculous NPOV pushing.
10 sources saying SAA left Sha'ale village to SDF:

(1) twitter.com/etdbrief_ro_1/status/816974661481218048 (No ES presence) (2) twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/816965482284609536 (No ES presence) (3) twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/802891734648700928 (SDF control) (4) twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/824924874271498241 (SDF control) (5) twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/824926459806498817 (SDF control) (6) twitter.com/GeromanAT/status/824936237765128192 (SDF control) (7) twitter.com/SariZagros/status/824926365216567296 (SDF control) (8) twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/824918327105462272 (SDF control) (9) twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/824944766185975808 (SDF control) (10) twitter.com/Infos_MENA/status/824948309919936512 (SAA left, SDF entered) (11) isis.liveuamap.com/en/2017/27-january-shaale-village-west-of-albab-reportedly-under (SDF control) (12) twitter.com/DersimKerkuk/status/825056721236324352 (SDF control) (13) twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/825037818158206976 (SDF control) (14) twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/802846596505313281 (SAA+neutral Kurds/SNR control-old)

Several sources at 24-25/01/2017 make mention SAA controlled Sha'ale.linklink
  1. link at 5 January - outdated
  2. link at 5 January - outdated
  3. link at 27 Novmber 2016- outdated!
  4. linkat 27 Novmber 2016- outdated!
  5. linkat 27 January pro SDF source claimed SDF libirated Sha'le, but the same source claimed two months ago that SDF/SAA libirated this village and not make mention SAA left village or SDF take back Sha'le from SAA.
  6. linklinklinklink several sources at 27/01/2017 just duplicate the exact same data based at this pro SDF sourcelink
  7. linklink at 27 January - unknowed pro SDF sources!

You do not understand the main! We do not a lot sources, we need one source but a reliable. No one of your sources not make mention that SAA left Sha'le. But I provide source at 29/01/2017 not from Twitter: SAA take back 3 villages that formely was SDF controlled at Shalee area.link We can put village Sha'le as mixed SAA/SDF and close the topic. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed that many pro-side and many unreliable sources are being used by some editors recently and many misinterpation of them and so breaking the rules of editing intentionally.

Mehmedsons some of the sources you use to edit are pro-SAA sources and instead providing news on english langagua,sources like SOHR,Al-Masdar you provided them in arabic language and intentionally misinterpretate them and so breaking the rules of editing. Example on 15 januaryyou used pro-SAA sources and map sources to change Jihar Crossroad from Isis held to SAA ,that same day i reverted you on reason i mention above, but then you provided and misinterpretated a differnt, source in arabic which didn't confrimed that what you edited which is changing Jihar crossroad from Isis held to SAA intentionally,today news from Al-Masdar Confirms the capture of Jihar crossroad for the first time Al-Masdar.Lists129 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about Jihar crossroads, because then source make the mention that SAA reaches the Jihar crossroad. But I use Arabic version of SOHR because at English version of SOHR have a lot of mistakes and not accuracies. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mehmedsons so you intentionally are breaking the rules of editing!?,also you again used pro-SAA source to change Rasm Sirhan to SAA held and Hayan gas company to contested misinterpretating the source.Lists129 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I use for SAA gains just a credialbe or anti-SAA sources. And revert changes other guys if they use pro-SAA sources:
  1. link I revert link
  2. link I revert link Mehmedsons (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Al Masdar a relaible local source! And this local source confirmed SAA take back Rasm al Sirnah.link Al lot changes for SDF gainst at Raqqa gov. on based pro-PYD/SDF sources and no any reaction. Many gains for rebels and SDF against ISIS on based pro-opp. and pro-SDF sources at Twitter but you say I violated the rules of editing! I said all that wanted and I have nothing more to say. Mehmedsons (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Lists129 I thank you that you noticed my mistake! Source only make mention that SAA entered at Hayyan Gas Fields. I promise that at future I will more accurate and attentive. Mehmedsons (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mehmedsons No problem,fixing unintentionally mistakes are virtue,just dont rush to edit.Feel free to ask me for help,I will gladly help you. As for other editors,Yes, I did revert Niele~enwiki for using Pro-biased source (SDF-kurdish) but he rv me on reasons that these sources are "reliable".Lists129 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Lists129 Thank's for your understanding! Mehmedsons (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Color for Turkish forces

Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but shouldn't we have a color for Turkish forces? Syriancivilwarmap.com does it and I think it's helpful. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed here before and it was decided not to do it, for the same reason there's no color for the Russian forces in Syria. The Turks, like the Russians, do not hold territory on their own but are supporting local forces. The territory the Turks are active in is held officially by the FSA and myriad other rebel groups. The Turks are there in a strictly supporting capacity. Kawada Kira (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I support showing the area with the Turkish forces as own colour. Turkey does hold territory and is even building a military base north of Aktharin. Also, there are many other signs suggesting that Turkey's working on breaking out the Shehba plain from Syria as an autonomous Turkmen region. Therefore, Euphrates Shield should get its own colours.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's already been decided by majority vote here. Besides which, just because they have a base doesn't mean they hold territory. Russia has a few military bases too, notably the Khmeimim air base. It's still Syrian government territory, not Russian territory. Likewise, the territory the Turks are operating in is Syrian rebel territory, not Turkish territory. Even if the rebels are Turkish puppets, the Turks still do not govern the area; they only have a military presence in it, supporting those who do govern the area. Therefore they should not have their own color. If we add a color for the Turks then we would have to add colors for the Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah and Americans as well, all of which have forces active in Syria in support of one or another local governing force. Kawada Kira (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Tal Rifaat

The claim that YPG handed the town of Tell Rifaat and nearby villages to SAA have been reverted, re-added and reverted again... The claim is based on this report, but the claim was denied in this report (translation here). I believe the area still is under SDF controll. Do we have more reliable info? Erlbaeko (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

According the Local source an agreement probably was thwarted!link Mehmedsons (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Tadef/al-Bab roundabout

Euphrates Shield DOES NOT control Tadef/al-Bab roundabout, ISIS pushed them back to the Sheikh Aqil and the hospital so there is no way they control it, it's ISIS held. Valewonca (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Color for Liwa Aqsa?

Community opinion on this? Should Liwa Aqsa have its own colour or not? TheNavigatrr (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes definitely...Many reports are saying that Jund al Aqsa has been rebranded to Liwa al Aqsa and pledged allegiance to Isis after some defection to HTS and are already fighting HTS source.Liwa al Aqsa held places cant stay gray.Lists129 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Since they're ISIS-friendly, changing them to black might be the best choice. 79.246.30.2 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Al-Bab

Do we have an RS that confirms that Turkish forces are in control of Al-Bab? Reuters are saying Turkish state media and rebels said they "have seized the center of al-Bab town".[5] Al Masdar News are saying Turkish state media reported minutes ago that "Turkish Armed Forces and their rebel allies have imposed full control over" Al-Bab, but do not confirm it. They say "If these reports prove true...".[6] Aljazeera says that "other reports say street battles still ongoing." SOHR said that "more than half of Al Bab was still under ISIL control, and that battles continued".[7] I believe we need a better source before we change it from contested. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like IS have withdrawn.[8]. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sukariyah Kabirah and Saghirah

ISIS retreated but SAA and TAF/Rebels not enter yet to both these villages. According local source Sukariyah Kabirah and Sukariyah Saghirah in are largely disputed and both remain empty from SAA and TAF/Rebels.link Mehmedsons (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for link. I don't think we have a colour for empty villages. Shall we remove them? It's pretty small villages. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I against to remove them! Because the Sukariyah Kabirah and Sukariyah Saghirah is not a tiny villages. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Al Qarah

TheNavigatrr, i believe the village you changed here is the wrong Qarah. Iwan123Iwan, changed the correct Qarah here. Please, fix. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fikhah Saghirah

I have only seen pro opp sources claiming Fikhah Saghirah and Fikhah Kabirah (10 km east of Al-Bab) has been captured by ES. Do we have a neutral source? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Erlbaeko here.Lists129 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have seen that, but it does not name the villages ES forces expelled IS fighters from, and on the map in that article Fikhah Saghirah is actually under SAA control. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Which SAA news agency claimed that village? However it's confirmed by all official FSA accounts and Hawar Kilis Operations Room. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Beshogur, you changed Fikhah Saghirah from gov to opp here. You need an RS to do that, and your pro opp source does not qualify. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko
I wasn't refering to the map but to the article about the 5 villages being captured
VivaRevolt is not an RS. As Mehmedsons said on your talk page, "We cant use anti-SAA/pro-opp source against SAA for rebels gains." Erlbaeko (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko I explained that to you in my talk page too,and look with what source is this village changed from Isis to SAA-held with a unreliable pro-SAA [9] which not only is pro-SAA but cites other unreliable sources.Lists129 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
No, you didn't, but I do agree that it was changed to SAA-held without an RS. You may revert it back to IS then, or remove it from the map since the situation is unclear. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Fikhah Saghirah is rebel held, confirmed with picture.[1] Beshogur (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]

Jabhat Fateh al-Sham needs to be replaced with Tahrir al-Sham.

The map has a blueish-grey color for Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which no longer exists and is now part of the much larger Tahrir al-Sham. As a result, many of the currently-green towns in Idlib and Hama should now be changed to blue to reflect that the groups that controlled them have joined Tahrir al-Sham.
But I don't know how one would find out which of those green towns are now controlled by Tahrir al-Sham. What possible solutions are there to this problem? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 14:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You could do some research into this. Any town or village that is predominantly or exclusively run by any of Tahrir al-Sham's affiliates would qualify it being changed from green to grey. Since this new al-Qaeda merger is still relatively young, its exact territorial expansion is still somewhat unknown; however, a think-tank group (like Stratfor) might publish a new report detailing Tahrir al-Sham's areas of dominance/control, which would greatly help. Until such a report is released, however, we have to rely on media reports and articles from news outlets to delineate which villages or towns have been taken over by HTS, or are currently occupied by HTS. By the way, I've updated the name change in the map legend. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

SDF to hand over villages near Manbij to Syrian army

Manbij Military Council(MMC)/SDF announces agreement with Russia to hand over villages near(west) of Manbij at frontline between SDF and TAF/Rebelst to the Syrian army.linklinklinklinklinklinklink Mehmedsons (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So according to the agreement btween MMC/SDF and Russia the Syrian troops have control the all villages west of Manbij.link Mehmedsons (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Not so fast. According to your source, "The map above is an initial estimate of the area which will be handed over to pro-government forces and not official." It's an estimate and they say it will be handed over, not that it is handed over. I think we should wait for confirmation. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko Agrement signed and area handed to SAA! The MMC statement:To defense of Manbij we have transferred, after reaching a new alliance with Russia, the defence of the line to the west of Manbij – the villages between us and the FSA/Turkish army – to Syrian state forces.link The Manbij Military Council statement: we have handed over the defense of the line – where villages between the positions of our forces in western Manbij and Turkish-affiliated groups - to Syrian state forces as part of the alliance we have made with Russian officials.lonk Mehmedsons (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, another map here, but that's a big change. I believe we need a real WP:RS to do that change. Something like a Reuters article or a BBC article. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko We have Local and pro-SDF sources and many others. And we also have confirmation of these agrement from Sky News Arabia link and Reuters link. Mehmedsons (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the Reuters link. That's an RS, and they are saying "A U.S.-allied militia in northern Syria said on Thursday it had agreed to hand over villages on the front line with Turkey-backed rebels to Syrian government control under an agreement with Russia." So, is this milita authorized to speek on behaf of the Syrian Democratic Forces? Is an agreement "to hand over" the same as have handed over? Look, I am not saying there is no agreement, I am just saying we need to wait a bit to the situation is clear before we change all those villages to government controlled. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
...and btw, ANF News says (link) that "Manbij Military Council has announced that they have made an alliance with Russia for the protection of the western villages of Manbij". Erlbaeko (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Erlbaeko (talk) we need to wait to see which villages are ceded to SNR/SAA or government entity and to see if they are mixed control. I've seen it confirmed that there is an agreement in place but it does not list which villages "yet." Militaryconflict (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Erlbaeko Pro SDF ssource ANF News and Local source Al Masdar publish statement of the Manbij Military Council(MMC): we have handed over the defense of the line – where villages between the positions of our forces in western Manbij and Turkish-affiliated groups - to Syrian state forces as part of the alliance we have made with Russian officials.linklink They not protect villages with Russia, only signed agreement that Manbij Military Council(MMC)/SDF to hand over villages neat of Manbij at frontline between SDF and TAF/Rebelst to the Syrian army. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Militaryconflict According agreement with Russia, MMC/SDF to hand over villages near Manbij to the Syrian army without any SNR or other local forces at this area. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
More confirmation SDF to hand over villages west of Manbij to SAA.linklinklinklinklinklink Mehmedsons (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Mehmedsons I agree that there is an agreement in place and that its likely to happen. But as the sources you provided such as jenan Moussa and Syrican Civil War Maps show a complete disparity in what villages will be under SAA control. The Syrian Civil War Map even states that its an "estimated buffer zone." Jenan Moussa's map shows the areas ceded to the SAA pretty much all the way up to Manbij whereas the Syrian Civil War Map shows the villages between Arima and Manbij as still under the control of the Manbij Military Council. All I'm suggesting is waiting for clarity until we know what villages are ceded to SAA.Militaryconflict (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
According to MMC they to hand over villages west of Manbij at frontline with TAF/Rebelst. Probably this arealink Is it a huge area and no one source cant be noted entier list of these villages. Mehmedsons (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is another article from Reuters, saying "villages controlled by the Manbij Military Council will be handed to the Syrian government in the coming days". I believe they still are under SDF-controll. Let's wait a few days. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko I agree. From today, MMC and Euphrates Shield clash at Qarah and Tal Turin link linklink. So it looks like border with Euphrates Shield Forces still under MMC control, for now at least. Militaryconflict (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Again exaggeration of extend of cooperation agreements as we watched happening by some sources in the Halisah-area.
(1) We already know that some sources tend do this and this caused for incorrect mapping on the map.
(2) Let's map reality control, not misinterpretations based on interpretation-statements instead of real-control observations.
(3) Statements by MMC+SAA want to confuse Turkey. The deal was brokered by Russia and Russian tactics love 'masquerade' as strategy. It is not uncommon to just act like it villages where handed over on paper and communication, but not in reality.
(4) Probably they will just mix their forces only at some places on the frontline with SE, so that ES would have to attack always both SAA and SDF (+Russia and US). But this will not change public administrative control of most of the villages to an other party.
(5) The statment only taks about the ES-frontline near Al-Bab. The ES-fronline near AlBab is only a very short part south of Arima, Boxas mountain and the Manbij-AlBab highway. This is only a max. 8km frontline stretching from Abu Hayj south to Mil Wiran,... Villages to the north of that like Gir Hiyok or Sheikh Nasir are offcourse not situated on the frontline facing AlBab. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko Russian Chief of Staff says: Syrian and Russian forces will enter to villages west of Manbij today amid agreement with MMC.linklink Mehmedsons (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The villages in western Manbij countryside will be handed over to the Syrian Government.link Mehmedsons (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
So far still under SDF control. From Syria Today twitter "SDF repelled attacks towards al-Hutah village and recaptured Jubb al-Hamir" linklink Militaryconflict(talk) 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sources make mention Syrian and Russian forces will entered today to villages wst of Manbij. I'm not saying that it had to be done today. So tomorrow we can change status of the villages to west of Manbij. These villages are located along the line of contact with the Turkish backed rebels "Euphrates Shield forces"link Mehmedsons (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "will enter" or "are to take over" is good enough. We need an RS that says they have taken control, and it have to specify where. Another question is if SAA-forces in fact are taking over the villages or if they just strengthen the SDF defense lines. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
According to Sergei Rudskoi, the head of Main Operational Department of the Russian General Staff, they have entered. "The Syrian army has entered the area in the South-west of Manbij which is controlled by the Kurdish self-defence militia. Today the Russian centre for reconciliation of opposing sides has sent to Manbij the first humanitarian aid convoy which contains medicines, food and some living essentials for the citizens. According to the agreements reached by the commandment of the Russian troops in Syria from March 3 Syrian forces will be delivered to the territory controlled by the Kurdish self-defence militia. Syrian government conducts measures to resume the work of government authorities in Manbij and the surrounding territories." Ref. Ruptly TV (full report with english subtitles here). So, Syrian Army forces have entered, but the territory is still controlled by SDF. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Updated Erlbaeko (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No Mehmedsons you can't. We are not going to let you push a second time a situation not matching ground-reality based on non-village specific statements like you and Beshogur did in the Halisah area that remained under SDF control in contradiction to inflated statements: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5_6T6-XMAE58GR.jpg
(1) If evidence or reliable one-village specific appeares that Russian or SAA move in to a SDF village it can be changed to co-control.
(2) To change from SDF-SAA co-control to only SAA control there has to be evidence that ALL (not some) SDF-related militants left the village AND (!not OR) all forms of public administration councils linked to SDF are fully dismantled or all cooperative ties of a local village council are cut with the MMC and FRNS. IF not, it should be mapped with SAA-SDF co-control/cooperation.
The objective is to map as close to ground-reality as possible here, not push as many villages from one color to a other. Nor to map communication-strategy to represent villages as SAA-Russia held in an inflated way with the objective to deter ES from advancing.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has watched this front for over half a year at this point, I would say wait until further details from reliable sources. Given the various reports circulating out there right now, the villages that the SDF allowed SAA forces to enter are only the ones that border the frontline with Turkish-backed rebel forces, as far as we know, and it's still possible that not every single village at the frontline has come under some form of SAA control (esp. in the north, where US forces are present). It's also likely that it's a form of joint SAA-SDF control, rather than a complete SDF handover. At best, the most we can do right now with the current sources would be to change all of the villages bordering the frontline with rebel forces to "mixed SAA-SDF control," but I strongly advise against this. Until we have more reliable sources detail exactly which villages will have an SAA presence (and to what extent), we should leave the frontline villages as they are right now. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

From a BBC source that I've recently read, the agreement likely includes 8 villages along the Al-Bab front that have recently witnessed violent clashes and shelling. I can probably take a guess at which villages those are, but since they aren't actually named in the source, it would only be an educated guess that could probably be wrong. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
All maps including the military have the some mistakes so not need fully rely on them. At the Russian military map not marked areas that controlled the local forces(SNR) which loyal to SAA and SDF. I not will do any actions without our common consent! Also we have confirmation from Kurdish, Government and reliable sources: MMC to hand over villages are located along the line of contact with the Turkish backed rebels "Euphrates Shield forces" to Syrian state forces. And no any words at agreement about joint controll. Mehmedsons (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it just a guess!!! According to opp./anti-SAA source SAA receive whole a border line betwen TAF/Rebels and SDF west of Manbij.linklink Also is it was noted and at another source that SAA will control the border line west of Manbij.linklink Mehmedsons (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it a new source so I do not know a reliable he or not!link And according to a tribal source from Manbij the city of Manbij will also be handed to regime soon. And government offices will open too.linklinklink Mehmedsons (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Aid convoy under guard by Russian troops entered to the Kurdish-held city of Manbij and Kurdish fighters have been spotted raising the Russian flag in the city, while Humvees with US flags have also patrolling the city.linklink Mehmedsons (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Fighting still ongoing on the line of contact still only between SDF and ES - Tel Turin and Jubb al Hamir. link link link graphic - linklink Militaryconflict (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
From spokesman of Operation Inherent Resolve regarding increased U.S. troop patrols in Manbij "increased force presence in, around Manbij to deter hostile acts, enhance governance & ensure there's no persistent YPG presence" link Militaryconflict (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Buffer zone" between Euphrates Shield and SDF

Russian/Syrian armed forces will create a "buffer zone" between the Turkish-led Euphrates Shield operation and SDF. This comes after an agreement between Russia and MMC, to hand over some villages to Syrian government.link Mehmedsons (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Pro-opposition source claimed that Syrian army received permission of YPG/SDF to enter Manbij and Arimah.link Mehmedsons (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like for the establishment of bases along the point of contact (borderline) in the Arimah region, one source mentions the SAA will act strictly as border guards, but civil administration will remain under the control of MMC or Al Bab MC. From the Manbij Military Council spox Shervan Derwish "A situation of withdrawing from the villages we [MMC] liberated isn't possible." If the situation becomes further clear maybe we can put government controlled checkpoints along the point of contact if there is a consensus on that being a good idea. Just a suggestion. Right now its still unclear but becoming more clear, I think.link link link link link link Militaryconflict (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Militaryconflict List of the villages which will be handed over to Governement Forces according the source which we use many times: Mil Wiran, Al Hutah, Jubb Al Hamir,Qarah,Tall Turin,Abu Hayj,Ulashli,Al Bughaz,Arima,Qawukli,Kur Huyuk,Sab Wiran,Qurt Wiran,Sayadah,Dandaniyah,Jamus Wiran,Al Farat,Khirbat Nafakh,Zunqul,Arab Hasan Kabir.linklink According to original text of agrement and the MMC statement SAA will be entered to the some villages west of Manbij and these data confirmed at Russian MOD. Probably SAA will enter at these villages but civil administration will be controlled by MMC. And they will be marked as SAA/SDF. For now we have many hoaxes and the some false screenshots which alleged showed the text of agreement. We needed the correct text of this agreement or the data from well-known a reliable sources. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Manbij Military Council (MMC) denied handing over areas to the Syrian government after increased tensions between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Sinjar. The General Command of MMC say that the agreement between Russia and MMC, only comprises of border line of the Arima region and Euphrates Shield forces.link So at mostly the source of Syrian Civil War Map was right. But with the several tiny corrections. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to establish Military base icons next to the villages along the line of contact, but I defer to the community on this decision. That would be my suggestion. I guess the only issue would be if there was a constant shift of control between ES and MMC. Evidence of Russian and Syrian troops along line of contact. Syrian troops referred to as "border guards." link link Militaryconflict (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the known/proven fake-news from the map:

  1. SCW-maps admitted he was wrong.
  2. ARA-news said it was fake/distored news: http://aranews.net/2017/03/manbij-military-council-denies-handing-areas-assad/
  3. Manbij Military Council Command-statement saying it was fake news: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6Lzp65WAAEFAA0.jpg
  4. Pictures of US-military (not SAA or Russia) inside Yalānlī village: twitter.com/arisroussinos/status/838524845025558528

--Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Niele~enwikiI almost agree with you! Only one a tiny clarification. All the same, MMC say at last statement that they handed the border line between them and TAF/Rebels to SAA. So some villages controlled SAA or under mixed control. And SCW-maps admitted he was at partialy wrong. It said according some sources 6 villages will be handed over to SAA.link Mehmedsons (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Niele~enwiki-Militaryconflict The handover of the villages to SAA has taken place! Sharfan Darwish, the spokesman for the Manbij Military Council told Reuters: around five villages were included in the deal.link Mehmedsons (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I got a source for the "buffer zone" to be made between Turkish-backed rebel forces and SDF forces. It will consist of about 20 villages, which are named in this source: Kurdish forces hand over 20 villages to the Syrian Army in rural Aleppo. I think that we should change those villages to joint SAA-SDF held, until there is confirmation that the SDF completely withdraws from those villages, at which point those villages can be changed to SAA-held (if that happens). LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is a rough estimate of what the buffer zone might be like. Please do not copy it; only change the 20 villages explicitly mentioned in the source above if any of you are going to make these changes. The map is only provided to give a visual approximation of where the buffer zone is, and what it may look like. And also remember that those villages are technically jointly SAA-SDF held, until we can have confirmation that the SDF has completely pulled out from all of those towns/villages (if/when that happens). LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
LightandDark2000 SAA have only taken control of six of the 20 aforementioned villages between Al-Bab and Manbij while the rest will be controlled SDF in the days to come.linkAnd the spoksman for MMC say thay handover five villages to SAA has taken place, which were included in the deal.linkAnd on condition of anonymity, a senior MMC official told that six villages located 22 kilometers to the west from Manbij were placed under control of SAA. And they are now under control of SAA.link Mehmedsons (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
We need more sources confirming the complete withdrawal of the SDF from those 20 villages, epecially from the Kurdish side. I know that the SAA is currently in 6 of them. However, as far as I know, the SAA is still in the process of entering the other 14 villages. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Affected villages should be changed to red. They are no longer under SDF. Various reports of confirmed hand-over even by SDF. At least make villages that we know for sure have been handed-over. Map is highly deceiving atm. Mozad655 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no handover. The SAA forces are not in the villages as occupation forces but as peacekeepers. The SDF are still there so it should be shared control or orange. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor abcdef What are you mean? Syrian army cant be as occupation forces at Syrian villages, is it a complete nonsense! And the spoksman for MMC say they handover five villages to SAA has taken place.link And of senior MMC official told that six villages located 22 kilometers to the west from Manbij were placed under control of SAA. And they are now under control of SAA.link Mehmedsons (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreement Between Russia and Manbij Military Council: Border Guards(SAA/Russian troops) at Kur Huyuk, Kurt Wayran, Al-Bughaz, Abu Hayj, and Jubb Al-Hamra. Also Syrian soldiers еntered Al Arima.linklinklinklink Mehmedsons (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheikh Kif/Şêx Kêf

Kurdish village of Şêx Kêf Arabic: Sheikh Kif.

The village was captured by SDF around 25-26 November from Daesh with only indirect help of SAA that where directly participating simultaniously in the liberation of Tel Shair 5,7km to the SW.

Daesh attacked SDF positions inside Sheikh Kif from outside of the village with mortars on 12 November 2016.

Sources:

  1. https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2016/24-november-according-to-sohrsdf-has-captured-halisahsheikh (SDF only, pro-SAA sources SDF-SAA coop)
  2. https://twitter.com/VivaRevolt/status/801859315896385536 (SDF only, pro-SAA sources SDF-SAA coop)
  3. https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/802404926261489664 (SDF only, SAA did not go north of North of Tall Sheir)
  4. https://twitter.com/arbetarsolidare/status/793581248010739713 (SDF control)
  5. https://twitter.com/RaSundsbak/status/793328757943726080 (JayshThuwwar+JabhaAkrad (SDF) attacking Daesh)
  6. https://twitter.com/entooneyavin/status/793302162369503233
  7. https://twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/793224977688387584 (JayshThuwwar+JabhaAkrad =SDF attacking Daesh)
  8. https://twitter.com/TimInHonolulu/status/793140783087955968 (JayshThuwwar+JabhaAkrad =SDF attacking Daesh)
  9. https://twitter.com/etdbrief_ro_1/status/793111412495093760 (JayshThuwwar+JabhaAkrad =SDF attacking Daesh)
  10. https://twitter.com/rofoca_lucifuge/status/801893531505692672 (SDF only, pro-SAA sources SDF-SAA coop)
  11. https://twitter.com/etdbrief_ro_1/status/801863514188984320 (SDF only, pro-SAA sources SDF-SAA coop)
  12. https://twitter.com/SimNasr/status/801809478144393216 (YPG+SAA, French source)
  13. https://twitter.com/Russ_Warrior/status/801835640262377472 (YPG+SAA, Pro-Russian source)
  14. https://twitter.com/A7_Mirza/status/801833584633987072 (SAA+YPG/Kurds control)
  15. https://twitter.com/Syria_Hezb_Iran/status/801794315559305216 (SAA+YPG/Kurds control, pro-Iran/pro-Regime source)
  16. https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEyes/status/801779314320703489 (SAA+ PKK=propagandanaming for YPG/SDF, pro-opp source)
  17. https://twitter.com/KurdishQuestion/status/793160142703452160 (Jaysh al-Thuwar/SDF control)
  18. https://twitter.com/melisaraimmo/status/793151937516564488 (Jaysh al-Thuwar/SDF control)
  19. https://twitter.com/islamicworldupd/status/793144543122251776 (SDF control)
  20. https://twitter.com/QSD00963/status/793136239755001856 (Jaysh al-Thuwar=SDF control)
  21. https://twitter.com/CivilWarMap/status/793119750670917632 (Jaysh al-Thuwar=SDF control)
  22. https://twitter.com/warcoresponted/status/793373378056970240 (Jaysh al-Thuwar=SDF control)
  23. https://twitter.com/ibrahim_gezici/status/793142886867107840 (Jaysh al-Thuwar=SDF control)
  24. https://twitter.com/bzdt5/status/793131536665182209 (Jaysh al-Thuwar=SDF control)
  25. https://twitter.com/WestKurdistan/status/793122763816992768 (Jaysh al-Thuwar=SDF control)
  26. https://twitter.com/Pyrmha108/status/794035189311766528 (SDF control)
  27. https://twitter.com/aleviwarrior/status/793157653438537732 (SDF control)
  28. https://www.omrandirasat.org (pictured SDF in control )
  29. http://www.hooshyar.co/hawal/tag/racetoalbab (Kurds/YPG + SAA control)
  30. http://en.news-original.ru/reports-of-the-war-in-syria-november-25-caa-came-in-eastern-aleppo-the-kurds-cut-off-the-opposition-in-the-north.html (SDF control with help of SAA teams, pro-Rus source)
  31. http://kurdiscat.blogspot.be/2016/11/combats-entre-les-sdf-i-les-forces-pro.html (SDF control)
  32. http://therussiantimes.com/news/130441.html (only SDF control, Russian news outlet source)

Daesh sources/statements indicating SDF/YPG in this village:

  1. http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/new-isis-islamic-state-amaq-news-aleppo-syrian-arab-army-pkk-peshmerga-kurds-battle-sheikh-kif-photo-report/ PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, Daesh statement)
  2. https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEyes/status/797481016193646592 (PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, pro-Daesh/Daesh statement)
  3. https://twitter.com/TRACterrorism/status/798134712225189888 (PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, pro-DaeshDaesh statement)
  4. https://justpaste. it/10b46 (PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, pro-DaeshDaesh statement)
  5. https://justpaste. it/10bqy (PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, pro-DaeshDaesh statement)
  6. https://justpaste. it/10b2u (PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, pro-DaeshDaesh statement)
  7. http://lyoth.yoo7.com/t1780-topic (PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, pro-DaeshDaesh statement)
  8. https://www.trackingterrorism.org/chatter/islamic-state-photo-report-targeting-locations-pkk-apostates-sheikh-kif-village-near-industr (PKK control= propagandananaming for YPG/SDF, pro-DaeshDaesh statement)

--> Şêx Kêf/Sheikh Kif is the stationing place of SDF inside mixed control area. But cooperation with SAA here is that large + reasonable amount of SDF-SAA mixed control sources validade mixed SDF-SAA control for this village.

Syrian Civil War Map‏s twitter account

I believe @CivilWarMap is a well known source, whose work has been published by reliable sources, but I am not sure if it "has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage" or not. Can we use it? (I used it here, but was reverted here, which btw was reverted here.) Erlbaeko (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be okay to use. A lot of other users utilize it for edit changes. The issue I guess is it has to be listed in the description because I believe there is some rule where you can't make changes based upon a map illustration. Militaryconflict (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@CivilWarMap it's ok I think, pretty good in most of the areas; I am still kinda skeptical because of that time he made the entire northeastern part of Aleppo City YPG held and kept it like that even tho everyone told him it was wrong, even blocking people in Twitter. Use of that site it's ok by me. Valewonca (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
We can use if a source indicates in it description all changes at the ground. As according our rules copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so since this tweet states that the "Syrian Democratic Forces recaptured Jubb al Ḩamīr again", we can use it to change Jubb al Ḩamir to SDF. However, we can not use the map in the tweet to mark any place as government held, even if it also states that the "Syrian Arab Army captured 6 villages from ISIS". Thanks, Erlbaeko (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
No according to the rules of editing map sources are prohibited,also this map source in unreliable who citates other pro-sides and other unreliable sources and made wrong statements on many places which led to many editors editing with this source and making the map very innaccurate many times.Lists129 (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Lists129At almost all claims from the source "Syrian Civil War Map‏s" almost all time have the confirmation of local sources as the Al Masdar and SOHR. So probably we can trust him. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Not at all... all his tweets are based on various pro-sides sources and unreliable ones which caused the map to go inaccurate many times and had to revert beacause of this,and the map is still inaccurate even now.Lists129 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Mehmedsons why are you still editing with this map source???Lists129 (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Lists129, we can use sources that creates maps. It's copying from maps that is prohibited. And it's consensus to use it. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko read the rules!.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,this "source" is a map source with no credibility and it's very unreliable who's tweetts are based on other various unreliable twitter sources.Examplehere.Lists129 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Lists129, nobody is arguing for using the map, and the source does not violate WP:CIRCULAR. If you think it violate WP:RS, you can ask at WP:RSN. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Lists129 I am never use any data just fro the map! I use data which are indicated in the description. And I agree with our rule that use data from the map itself is prohibited if they are not specified in the description. If the source not have the detaled description just a map, this source we cant use for changes. Mehmedsons (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
They actually are fairly reliable as a source, despite their mistakes, so I am fine with using them as a source. However, this does not mean copying point-for-point everything on their map, nor does it mean we should use map only (no text) posts for edits. If they make a claim concerning a major development when no one else has done so, I would advise you to wait for other sources in those instances. But using their posts under most circumstances should be okay. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's finally time to mark Raqqa as contested!

SDF now officially reached city limits! :-)

https://twitter.com/MHJournalist/status/843582617043767300

https://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2017/19-march-eastren-entrance-in-al-raqqa-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.190.211 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

They still haven't entered the city proper (which is the prerequisite for marking the city as "contested"), so no, we can't do that yet. The SDF doesn't even plan to storm Raqqa city at least until April (they need to finish besieging the city first), and when they do eventually, a bunch of news outlets will be reporting on it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see the response above before writing my reply, so i will post it anyway. Raqqa is a province capital, so we need more to make it contested. Just because there is enemy at gates does not mean it is contested. Does any source claim that it is contested or that enemy is making progress in it? No. We turn a town contested based on WIDESPREAD clashes reports. Contested means we cannot say one specific side controls it. In this case, we can say ISIS controls it. The source you provided did not show evidence that enemy was INSIDE the town, which is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for making a town contested. Tradediatalk 06:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Qarah Baba

Somewhere deep within each of Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map, Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map and Template:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies detailed map there is a link to Qarah Baba - which redirects to a DAB page on which all the places mentioned are in Iran. Could someone who knows their way around these templates and this topic help fix this problem? Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done The problem was in Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map which is the 'engine" for Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map, Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map and Template:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies detailed map. Tradediatalk 06:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dayr Hafir

According to this Al Masdar News article, Dayr Hafir was taken by SAA on 24 March 2017, but Yusha Yuseef‏, a reporter for Al Masdar News said later that the media report wasn't true,ref and on the map in this Al Masdar News article from today, the town is still marked as IS held. Do we have other sources and should we mark it as IS held or SAA held? Erlbaeko (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

See also this Al Masdar News article from 25 March: "Despite reports to the contrary, large parts of Deir Hafer (Dyr Hafer) remains off limits to the SAA due to booby traps and mines littering the former ISIS stronghold.". Erlbaeko (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it can be marked as SAA-controlled. Daesh doesn't have any personnel in the city anymore; they've withdrawn from the area. Syrian army engineer teams are most likely active in Deir Hafer removing the mines and such. The city isn't secure and under full control yet but the Syrian army is definitely in command of the general area. Daesh certainly isn't. Therefore I think it's safe to mark it as red. Kawada Kira (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sweida

Pro rebels editors based on little evidence if not twitter from pro-rebls guys or vague statements about rebels advances tuned all east Sweida green contradicting previous edit supported by al Masdar. I already reverted some changes but I cannot do more than one. Other revertings are necessary. Most edits are based on https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/846352394808180738 who does not mention any location.Paolowalter (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is pro-regime and unreliable,and is copying and pasting statements from SANA and Damascus now in this case.Alhanuty (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Paolowalter stop editwarring,or i will report you to an admin.Alhanuty (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Go ahead, please. Your unsupported edits needs to be reported to the admin.Paolowalter (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional info on Sweida (I do not if reliable or not, but there are some pictures) https://twitter.com/MmaGreen/status/846376066256158720.Paolowalter (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It's already long since been decided that Al-Masdar is reliable and can be used here. Stop making trouble, Alhanuty. Kawada Kira (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Suwayda

Both of local sources Al Masdar and SOHR say SAA and FSA take some points at east Suwayda after ISIS fleed toward Raqqa or Deir ez Zor.linklinklinklink But why we put all gains to one side(FSA) on based a biased anti-SAA sources at Twitter.linklink Both sides made gains and this confirm a crediable source SOHR. But why we ignored this? Mehmedsons (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I trust that FSA made big gains at Syrian desert at Suwayda and East Qalamoun but I also trust that SAA also made some gains at Suwayda. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

reliable source,Bosno Sinjic said that regime didn't make a single advance in the area.Alhanuty (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

SOHR a more creadiable source and his data are used of many the world news agencies. And why some guy at Twitter more crediable of it? Some pro-SAA sources at Twitter also provide a visual confirmations of some SAA gains at east Suwayda such as Tall Sa'ed, Tal Chilwan, Khirbet Sa'ed and some others. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What we know at 100% is it both sides made gains as this confimred SOHR. And we just must marked of them on based a crediable sources. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

only those,but the rest aren't regime controlled.Alhanuty (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC) http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=63587,new SOHR reports says that they lost it to rebels only.Alhanuty (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Rebel claims are supported by visual confirmation, al-Masdar is just copying Regime offical claims. 3bdulelah (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
At original report SOHR say FSA and SAA taken the ground after ISIS fleed.link Is it a incorrect report as in name of it writen about of ISIS advance.link And we have visual confirmation for some of SAA gains at east Suwayda.linklinklinklink Mehmedsons (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

they all agree that only Tal Saad was taken,but the rest were taken by FSA and proof,Bosno's tweet,so please revert Iwan123Iwan's editAlhanuty (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Opp. source claimed: FSA factions confirmed their full control of al-Qasr in NE of Suwayda, as well as all villages to the north.link and that Regime forces claimed they have taken control of Tulul Salman, Tulul Fadyan, Tall Saad, Ushayhib, and secured Damascus-Suwayda road. link Mehmedsons (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Only Tal Saad is the only one confirmed by video,the others aren't,so i suggest that Tal Saad stays under regime control and the rest under rebel control.Alhanuty (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Alhanuty I know according our rules prohibited use maps as a source. But opp.source said SAA controlled of Tulul Salman, Tulul Fadyan, Tall Saad, Ushayhib, and secured Damascus-Suwayda road.link and put them as SAA controlled at the map.link So probably is it a true?! Mehmedsons (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
According to last report of SOHR: ISIS whithdraw from some villages and hills at east Qalamoun and east Suwayda. And the rebels and Regime forces take some of these points. link So we cant put all these villages and hills only as the SAA controlled or Rebels controlled. And we cant use Bosno as a main source for chnanges as the several reports from SOHR deny claims of Bosno that SAA not made any gains at east Suwayda. Mehmedsons (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

SAA's only gain was tal saad via multiple sources,but for the rest Tulul Salman, Tulul Fadyan, Ushayhib,there is no loyalist visual or claim to it.Alhanuty (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Local source Al Masdar confirmed US-backed FSA factions took control of the Nashwan, Beir Al-Awda, Alqaneyat, Rajm Aldawala and Al-Asfar areas in northern Suwayda. And that SAA along with NDF also recaptured a large chunk of the northen Suwayda territory from ISIS.link And seems of his data simmilar to data at this pro-opp. source.link Mehmedsons (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Rabia

A similar problem to the solved one (TY, Tradedia!) on Qarah Baba, just above. The same three templates all link to the DAB page Rabia. The intended link is presumably either to Rabia, Iraq or to Rabia, Syria. Narky Blert (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Tradediatalk 22:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Links from templates to DAB pages

The problem is worse than I thought:

  1. Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map links to 51 different DAB pages.
  2. Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map links to 38 different DAB pages.
  3. Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map links to 3 different DAB pages.

Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done The problems were in Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map which are "engines" for the above templates. Tradediatalk 22:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tabqa Editing Mistake

LightandDark2000 made this change using this source (a pro-Kurd Twitter account, very reliable I'm sure). However he even went farther than the source did. The source said SDF were trying to advance to Abu Asi town and Emad village, not that they had already entered the towns and were engaged in firefights with Daish members. So why did he change them to contested when they should be marked as Daish-held, even according to Kurdish sources? This should be changed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.93.220 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I also used other sources to supplement the changes. Posts that derive their information from non-English sources (as in the case of the one I used) are not exactly perfect, which means that it is always directly word-by-word. Similar cases have happened in the past in articles from some local Middle East-based sources, where similar language was employed when an assault was underway on the targets mentioned. Besides this, the other 2 sources did confirmed clashes within the locations. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

An Iranian Source Says That the Town Anadan Is Now Contested Between Government and Rebels

See this link. --霎起林野间 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Fars News is not a reliable source. Also, for a location so significant, we need confirmation from multiple reliable sources before we can actually change the status of that town. LightandDark2000 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

Add the ability to when you click on towns to see the gps coordinates GesturG (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The majority of the cities do present the GPS coordinates within their articles. — IVORK Discuss 14:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sakhr

Sakhr is a DAB page. It is linked from Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War, Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map, Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map and Template:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies detailed map. I don't know what the link should be (except, that it shouldn't be to the DAB page). Narky Blert (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done The problem was in Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map which is one of "engines" for the above templates. There is no article about Sakhr town, so the link was removed. Tradediatalk 14:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Al-Thawrah (Tabqa) in Raqqa province is now contested

I know what ussers here think of Al Masdar but I just want to name a quick source, you can search in several other sources from different factions about SDF entering the city.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-big-trouble-kurdish-troops-seize-entire-neighborhood-tabqa-city/

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-kurdish-forces-storm-isis-bastion-western-raqqa/

Please, Tabqa should be contested now between IS and SDF. Valewonca (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Chart of Governorates and sites

At the end of last year I noted that a lot of data on the chart of Governorates and sites of Syria that is under the main map is outdated; the reponse from one of the ussers here was that that entire section was gona be removed from the page and there was no point in updating it, but, obviously, nothing has been done about this. What is the deal whit the chart? I would like to update it but I don't want to do anything whitout approval of the rest of the ussers here. Please even if we are still going to delete that part make sure to tell me if you can. Thank you. Valewonca (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Valewonca: I want to confirm that indeed the "tables of data" are in the process of being merged into other articles. It is happening now slowly but surely. Also the dots in map are being re-linked to these up to date articles. Therefore, the "tables of data" should no longer be updated. Instead, the updates should be put in these up to date articles. A few examples of these articles are as follows: Al-Thawrah#Syrian Civil War; Ariha, Syria#Syrian civil war; Al-Zabadani#Syrian civil war; Jisr al-Shughur#Syrian Civil War; Kobanî#Syrian civil war; Quneitra#Syrian Civil War; Ras al-Ayn, al-Hasakah Governorate#Syrian Civil War; Latakia#civilwar; Palmyra#Syrian Civil War; Al-Hasakah#Syrian Civil War; Manbij#Syrian Civil War; Al-Bab#Syrian civil war; Jarabulus#civilwar; Abu Kamal#Civil war; Al-Mayadin#Syrian Civil War; Deir Jamal#civilwar; Amuda#civilwar; Ras al-Ayn, al-Hasakah Governorate#Syrian Civil War; etc... A complete list of these articles can be found in the “link=” parameter in the code of the module (for example: link = "Sirmaniyah#civilwar"). You can also read Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map/doc#"link=" parameter: linking towns to sources that explains fully the "link=" parameter. Tradediatalk 20:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mahr gasfield ,sorounding hills and villages

According to Al masdar correspondent and many frontline reporters the army captured AL mahr Gasfield , jihar , Tall sawanah and all sorounding hills , they are marked as IS controled , they should be red

Here are some different sources :

Russian released map :https://twitter.com/SyriaWar2/status/857315875233431553

Syrian frontline reporter Watanisy : https://twitter.com/watanisy/status/857314492698505216

NDF repoter : https://twitter.com/NatDefFor/status/857295736576364545

and the recent offensive on northeast homs : https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/858621252495441921

Syrian Army with NDF liberate tadmuryia , jbab Hamad , Ragem Al-Quser , Ragem Dergam , Tal Al-Ealam , Tal Trix villages E Homs CS

 Done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

SAA desert offensive in damascus/homs

First i would like to thank LightandDark2000 for taking those edits into consideration and making the map more accurate . Syrian army started the offensive east of al Seen airbase and captured large territory ,the problem is that there are not "red points" on map on that area , and they should be added to make the territory red . At the moment the most accurate map of advance can be found in http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2017/8-may-saa-captured-jabal-sabihiat-and-other-hills-in-qalamoun

Sources confirmind this advance : NDF repoter : https://twitter.com/NatDefFor/status/861528664294514688

Batama area captured , https://twitter.com/NatDefFor/status/861291352205791232 This also includes Khan al Manqura quarries , wich are located there and are on map as IS controlled. Syrian army captured Jabal Sabihiat and other hills in #Qalamoun region

https://twitter.com/NatDefFor/status/861496295005057024

And here are Rebel sources confirming the advance https://twitter.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/861525315872542720

Update and extra source : https://twitter.com/C_Military1/status/861918249893670912 Hezbollah media wing Map

  1. SAA advancing in Badiya area and captured Rajm al-Hamadat and Rajm Abu Qabr after control Al Seba Biyar

https://twitter.com/SyriaWar2/status/861920756711784450 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderM1 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Hope it gets done and the map becomes more usefull — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderM1 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Habr Al-Gharbiyah

According to this article posted today by Al-Masdar Habr Al-Gharbiyah in East Homs province north of the Tiyas Airbase is still under ISIL control, not government like in our map. Valewonca (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Tabqa Liberated

Multiple media reports now confirming that Tabqa is under full SDF control. Can the contested symbol now please be removed?91.84.77.203 (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Done.Paolowalter (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dei ezzor offensive / Southeast syria offensive

Syrian army captured Al talila and Talila reserve on map Sources Yusha Yussef and NDF

https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/862947563980378112

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_nbXe8V0AAbttK.jpg map

https://twitter.com/NatDefFor/status/862952337354235904

On Badia front , syrian army captured the mountainst of Sobihiyah and Rujm al Ma'mur on template map https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/862994785098924032 Yusha confirming that the mountain fallen .

Make red those dots :D

Talila is red now.Paolowalter (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add second Idlib border crossing

According to this investigative report (at 4:00), there is a second border crossing between Idlib and Turkey at Khirbat al-Jawz (near Latakia). Can someone please add it to the map? Esn (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is Sanamayn under Truce???

Sanamayn has never been controlled by the rebels.Why is it purple???Please change it back!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GERALD710 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. In December there was reconciliation agreement when rebel sleepercells handed their weapons to the government. City is open for citizens of government areas and state institutions are working. Sleeper cells or deal with islamist? Various map have various things about As-Sanamayn, same as clearly government-held Ghabaghib, Kanakir, Baytima. City is government, rebel-held or truce. Sorry, I'm Polish and my English is less. Warszawiak22 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Read http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/reconciliations-case-al-sanamayn-north-deraa/. We can set it red (gov control) or purple (truce). I guess that red is more appropriate. It is one of the areas where come kind of compromise has been established, so that most likely we will see no more fighting in the future.Paolowalter (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So Sanamayn have to be changed into red, please someone can do that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.227.191 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

South Eastern offensive

From zaza checkpoint to palmyra all is red

https://twitter.com/watanisy/status/867795333790781440

So Tulul al sawt mountain chain and jabal abdah and two black hills , all should be red

Hezbollah also confirmed this with a released map https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAsiGQNXcAA0ZfP.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderM1 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC) more precisly

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.943360&lon=37.927551&z=9&m=b&gz=0;369518280;335310924;0;1081117;1229094;955342;2224731;577907;4339598;497824;6475067;858139;10025023;1143998;12215423;0;12874602;17171;13547514;303307;13691711;1041099;12682342;1783974;11906432;3917580;13465118;6307255;13829040;6704879;16706085;9131987;15950775;11015504;15246963;11354423;14910507;11464542;14045332;11633927;13540648;11495598;13499449;11433484;13231657;11055052;13046263;10970304;12702941;11139791;12545013;11422189;11975096;12330863;11460112;12607217;10883330;12612857;10375213;13030030;10423278;13548383;9867095;13908784;9324645;13835590;8246612;13266710;7793425;12748180;7621765;12364707;7305908;12009273;6832121;11738363;6097412;11422189;5925749;11399601;5225372;11405249;4106140;11405249;3186035;11371365;2931975;11591584;2804945;11848432;2887344;12079809;2839279;12361888;2945708;12488791;3158569;12567744;3512191;12649509;3742218;12801739;3869247;13106113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderM1 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Some objects

  • Bilas oil field (ISIS) → 34.879478, 37.539040
  • Strategic hill «Al Mar'en» → 34.922132, 38.135727
  • Mount Zumlat al-Khanzir → 34.861444, 38.107955

--Dzianis Niadbajla (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2017

Ariskar (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request

--Dzianis Niadbajla (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 10:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
IVORK, see above, as well as other facilities in the provinces of Aleppo and Homs.--Dzianis Niadbajla (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Al halbah , Badia offensive

Syrian army and allies captured al halbah area , this is confirmed by official page of NSA rebels . Make it Red , and put a new map in front page ,because the area of ulainia , and and halbah , kufaynis , sawanah saba, biyar , zaza cp ,till the saligm crossroads the are black and green , it gives confusion .


Here is the source : https://twitter.com/PalmyraRev1/status/869309084536893445 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderM1 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Mansurah (Raqqa)

Why is Mansurah SDF controlled in our map? This change was made several days ago and I haven't seen a single source saying that SDF even entered Mansurah; there is actually several reports of coalition airstrikes still happening inside the town on IS posts and there are pictures of the Mansurah water tanks being detonated whit explosives by IS. SDF seems to be trying to encircle Mansurah but they haven't entered the town yet. Please change Mansurah to ISIS held for now. Valewonca (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Mansurah has not yet been captured by SDF: this is a major strategic town what capture would have been widely reported by various news outlets. What seems more likely is that the SDF is engaging in a pincer offensive, cutting off the town before capturing it. Since the information here is very spotty, we should wait until we're sure to change town control status. TheNavigatrr (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Khunayfis

@Paolowalter in revision 782514682 of Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, I think you meant to change the control of the Khunayfis southwest of Palmyra (lat = 34.229, long = 37.791), not the one southeast of Hama (lat = 34.951, long = 36.999). I'd fix this myself, but I'm not extended-autoconfirmed. --Cirrus87 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would have also fixed this myself, but I am also not extended auto confirmed. TheNavigatrr (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Arak Gas Field (Homs)

Recent reports (Like this one and this one) are saying that SAA is 6km away from the town of Arak. Notably, the Arak Gas Field is marked as government held on our map, but as you can see here in this map the gas field is only 2km north of the town, 4km less of distance than what pro-SAA sources are saying that government troops are from the town. Yes, it was reported that the gas field was under SAA control a few days ago but they most likely retreated and SAA sources didn't report on that like they sometimes do. So I suggest we change the Arak Gas Field to IS held back for now. Valewonca (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

Change "Khunayfis" town back to SDF control. No substantial evidence that the Popular Mobilization Units of Iraq have captured this town has been presented. Only one user, Beshogur, made this change. He did so using a source whose link is broken. No other news outlets have reported on the PMU entering Syria through the Sinjar region, and Iraq attacking the Syrian Kurds would be widely reported if it does happen. TheNavigatrr (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but where is this "Khunafis" town/village? I'm only familiar with the one southwest of Palmyra. If you can point this out to me, I'll gladly make the change for you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Map update

The map on the front is totally wrong , it confuses people , saba biyar, zaza cp , ulainia , al halba , til Salighm crossroads are goverment controlled, but on map they are all green , please make new map , to make this site more accurate and stop the confusion

The map in the Syrian Civil War infobox is naturally going to be slower than this map module by an order of days or even weeks. Unfortunately, I currently do not have svg editing capabilities, otherwise I would have uploaded an updated version for that map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war/Archive_64&oldid=1146513760"