Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Roads

Shouldn't this map show at least the major roads and railways? After all, maneuver is critical in warfare, and that would explain more why this or that city or village is strategic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.182.120 (talk)

Absolutely. Someone please create a version of the base Syria location map with those features drawn. Alternatively, we need a picture file that has syria roads on it and nothing else. I can then use the "overlay_image =" parameter in the "Template:Location map+" to overlay that "road file" on top of our map. For an example of the result of this parameter, see a "Location map+" where a picture file with arrows was overlayed on top of it. Unfortunately, i don't know how to create picture files. If anyone can create such a file (same size as our map; with a transparent background) and put it in commons, then i can overlay it on top of our map. Tradedia^talk I brought this back from archives as this is still an ongoing issue. And while we are at this, it would be good to also draw Lake Jabbūl Tradedia^talk 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that adding some of the most important highways to the map would make it more useful. It would have to be done delicately, because it could quickly make the map very cluttered. Looking at road maps of Syria, I would suggest something showing a few major highways, along the lines of this [1] (scroll down slightly), rather than something more like this [2], which would overwhelm the map. Hulahoop122 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Between those 2 examples, the difference seems more how the roads are drawn (thin red lines vs. wide light brown lines), than the number of roads. In some areas, there seems to be more roads on the first map with the roads in red.

Note that our map is bigger, so we could probably place more roads (if appropriate) without problem. In some areas there are many alternative roads allowing easy passage around the main routes, so it might be a good idea to indicate that.

With a good source map with the roads already on it (and not too many complicated things in the same colour), I could produce the road overlay. The colour of the roads could be changed to whatever you like.

There is a map on my computer that might be good, with many roads, except it could be as much as 20 years old. (The latest date on the map is a 1994 border treaty.) It is better to have something not long before the civil war started.

According to my map, most of lake Jabbul is dry much of the year. (All except the north-west corner.) It also has rivers and railways, which might be interesting to show. (the roads, water, and railways could be put on separate layers so as to be easier to maintain, if necessary. Not hard since they are all different colours.) André437 (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have the skills to put that map layer together, that would be great. You could post it on a test page, just as you did with all of the conflict icons you created, and see how the community reacts. Hulahoop122 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, as I have time. It could take a while, since I will have to use google maps or equivalent to fill in the few places where a small window overlay covers roads, etc in some areas, and also clean up any stray marks I find. (There are a lot of annotations, but mostly outside Syria.)

I'll also have to adjust the scale and align it, which will be the most difficult part.

I'll put the roads/water/railways in separate layers initially as well. Easy to do since they are separate colours. That way it will be really quick to modify (or remove) one without affecting the others.

That icon project helped remind me of a few tricks with the software I use. (gimp)

BTW, I have an unrelated idea for locations contested from one side only : using a semicircle open on the opposite side. And for truces, using a broken outside circle, instead of a continuous one. Just mentioning it as something to think about.

I'll keep you posted :) André437 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Jaffra (Deir ez-Zor Province)

Village Jafra under control Syrian troops this confirms pro government Syrian TV and pro opposition SOHR sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine and all but if you click onto the deir ezzor map itself you will see jafra already there. Sopher99 (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

But then need remove and village Hatla because this village also present on Deir ez-Zor map. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you compare Deir ez-Zor map to wikimapia, you can see that village Hatla is outside of the map (only about 5% of it is on the map). So the “Hatla” label is misplaced and therefore should be removed from the map. Tradedia^talk 02:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Kafr zita

Kafr Zita change the color of kafr zita from black to green. since january 4 Kafr Zita has been under rebel control (mostly SRF, IF and JAN, various reliable sources like Cedric Labrousse and Aymenn al-Tamimi have confirmed this. videos from after january 4 clearly show an FSA banner group in the town https://twitter.com/ced_lab/status/419875011696926721 https://twitter.com/saleelalmajd1/status/419874040996962304/photo/1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzX-Ek2J1Ro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=270vVIHvjGc

Arabthomness (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Though it's most likely true it would be nice to have a better source than twitter and youtube still. Kami888 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We should accept it, since our initial evaluations were based on sketchy info and when the all-out war started between the rebels and the ISIS, many units were in the process of quitting the ISIS. Also note that this town in northern Hama is quite far from the nearest ISIS controled area. (No closer than northern Idlib at best). As well, here is a recent annotated map from the Arab Chronicle showing the town in rebel hands. Note that our map no longer shows Morek as contested (it did a few months ago), whereas this map shows that the rebels control most of the town. As well, Suran was taken by the rebels (and reported here) quite a while back, but it still shows as contested on our map. Since there are dated notes on this map beside the last 2 towns, these should be taken as reliable evidence of their current status.

Note that sometimes the status of locations on our map has been changed (to regime held) because there were "no recent reports" of conflicts. But ongoing conflicts aren't news, so why would we necessarily expect recent reports ? There were no recent reports of conflicts in Babila and Beit Sham (adjacent areas), but the truce shows us that the rebels were still there. André437 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done based on a reliable source. Tradedia^talk 02:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Getting mixed messages

Arab chronicle is being used to add pro-regime villages, yet we were just lectured above on why we should only be using it for the opposition-isis fight. Sopher99 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK it is simple we use pro-opp maps to add government held areas and pro-government maps to add rebel areas I do not see anything confusing here.Also if the maps contradict each other(the same place is mapped as rebel held on a pro-opp map and government held on a pro-gov map) then we come to the talk page and discuss the status of the town before adding it.Simple as that.Same goes to ISIS-rebel fighting but as the ISIS don't have any maps we cant use the opposition maps.Daki122 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User Hanibal911 seems to believe that using unverified sources is unacceptable even to add areas to the other side. I guess let's see if he follows up on that and reverts the latest changes. Kami888 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We should classify sources as reliable based on the reliability and objective nature of their reporting. By those measures, the SOHR and the Arab Chronicle are two of the most reliable sources. And SANA is not for several reasons : (1) it is the news agency of a party to the conflict. (2) it uses inflamatory language in its' reporting, and (3) it has a terrible track record, frequently lying about places where it supposedly has taken total control. Daraya is one of the most notable examples.
Of course there are many other sources, both pro-regime and pro-rebel.
We shouldn't assume that all western media are reliable, since they contain many opinion articles that are only loosely based on facts. Which are no more reliable than a typical facebook article. Similarly, we shouldn't assume that all that appears on facebook is not reliable. It is not the media that is the question, it is the nature of the article, and the source.
Is the article an opinion piece, some sort of advocacy, or is it a objective presentation of the facts ? Does it contain enough detail to be clear ? Was it posted after reflection, or on impulse ? Most of these factors would *tend* to eliminate twitter posts (which are too short), as well as facebook (a common media for opinions not necessarily related to facts).
We should not forget : it is the nature of the article that counts, and the reliability of the source, and not the media in which it appears. André437 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Arab Chronicle is a reliable source. Two reasons: First, the "Arab chronicle" is really just one French guy from facebook who had made himself a tiny website to express his opinions, nothing more, he is not an authoritative or mainstream source by any means. He could therefore say absolutely anything without any consequence, there is no pressure on him to be accurate or reliable. Second, he has a history of making verifiably false claims. His maps of Aleppo area tend to be very bad and show the rebels in control of up to 90% of the city proper including areas known to be under government control, and his reporting on the Qusayr situation in May 2013 was so inaccurate that even the rebel bloggers are now weary of him. So I suggest that we be weary too. As for SOHR, it is a source of a directly involved party, is it not? Most of the mainstream media refers to it as the rebel's media arm basically. Whether you think SOHR's information may be accurate or not, I still suggest avoiding it just like we avoid SANA and for the same reason. Kami888 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Arab Chronicle is more that just one person. In depends on numerous sources on the ground, which are verified before publishing, at least in the articles on the site, and on facebook. There are others who help with translation (into english).

The important factor is that he has an excellent track record. His Aleppo city maps have never shown more than about 60% rebel controled, which is the current situation mostly confirmed by maps from other sites. (Including WP in the Alep area, although WP is understandably a little slow to show changes.) Overall, he has tended to show rebel gains (and losses) a little more quickly than other sources.

BTW, using one 9-word comment on twitter about his twitter messages in January 2014 as evidence of his reporting on Qusayr in May 2013 (when he didn't yet have a twitter account) is at most an indication of your bias, not his. As well, it was in a thread on Raqqa at the beginning of January, during a time the rebels had the upper hand there. Before the ISIS brought in reinforcements (from Iraq). No-one is proposing that twitter messages be used, partly because as well as being very short, twitter messages are focused on situations at the moment, which can quickly change, as was the case in Raqqa.

2) SOHR is an independant observer, not a party to the conflict like SANA. The rebels have several media sites. YallaSouriya that you quoted above is an informal pro-rebel site. The SOHR has a strong reputation for impartial and accurate reporting as well, and is used by many mainstream western media. It has condemned misdeeds of both sides. Since the regime is considerably worse (according to UN investigators), there has been understandably more against regime misdeeds.

3) SANA cannot be used as it is a primary source, being the news organ of a party to the conflict. As well it is noted for false claims of regime advances, and frequently omitting to mention aspects of events unfavourable to the regime. For instance, false claims of the surrender of rebels in Barzeh, despite photos available showing jointly manned regime-rebel checkpoints at entries to the neighbourhood and the rebel flag still flying. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

André437 - I disagree with your assessment of AC and SOHR for many reasons, but I don't want to have a drawn out argument here, it's not a political forum (WP:FORUM). Would you like if we put this matter to a vote? I'm fairly confident that most people here would vote against AC and SOHR being considered reliable. That would settle the matter once and for all. Kami888 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

SOHR and Arab Chronicle reliable what the bloody hell did I just read.They never report government advances(unless they have to) and are pro-opp sources much like SANA and Presstv which should not be used(unless they are claiming that the other side advanced).And if we are talking about reliability then what is wrong with Presstv report on Barzeh they have video evidence and I can not see anything better than a video evidence to confirm a rebel/government gain.Daki122 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that SOHR and Arab Chronicle never report government advances unless they happen. Which shouldn't be surprising for impartial sources. (Unlike SANA.)

Reports showing citizens returning to Barzeh are to be expected, since that is part of the detailed agreement posted by the Arab Chronicle. Even SANA reported much of the agreement, a little later.

Glad to see that you accept video evidence. The Arab Chronicle report of the rebels taking the last regime point in Jasim (the region hospital), with considerable video and photo evidence and detailed description was rejected in discussion here (as "unreliable"), only to be accepted 2 weeks later due to a western media source, which had no one on the ground in Syria. So I presume that the next time such a question arises, true to your word, you will accept the Arab Chronicle report. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kami888 Hanibal911 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Soo.. I see people are continuing to use AC maps to draw in more red on the map. Shouldn't we be reverting that? Kami888 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but if an AC map is annotated with places and dates of events, I would find that acceptable. And if it clearly shows places controled by the regime (without dates), I would find it acceptable as well.

Particularly I'm thinking of AC maps, which are generally well annotated in both english and french, but any map from a reliable source that meets those criteria would be acceptable to me.

As far as reliable source, I think the track record is what counts. By this standard, SOHR and Arab Chronicle are among the (many) reliable sources. Although the SOHR often doesn't mention control, but rather conflicts and death tolls, which can make control somewhat difficult to determine.

Note that the WP guidelines say that it is not the preferences of the source, but rather the objectiveness of the reporting that counts. Please keep this in mind.

As well as a reliable source, we also need unambiguous information. It is not enough to say one party advanced to decide that they took full control. Recent reports on Adra demonstrate this point. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I did. I also think we should stop to use SOHR directly from the homepage, just what the mainstream media sees as reliable. While SOHR is way more reliable than other sources, and what they report is mostly true, its still just one guy in London, getting his information from "activists" in Syria. For example, they reported multiple times the capture of Wadi Daif encampment, and in the end of the day, nothing happened but some minor clashes. OberschIesien90 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I like this "just one guy in London" phrase. Besides the fact that mainstream source reporters are "just one guy" (or woman), that is not what counts. What counts is the track record of the observer.

The ultimate sources are either connected with the regime, connected with the rebels, or "activists" who are generally more sympathetic to the rebels than the regime. Not surprising considering the massive anti-regime protests. There is also the occasional exception of a foreign reporter given a guided tour by one side.

I'd be really interested in seeing references to SOHR claims of rebels taking Wadi Daif. Besides the fact that SOHR rarely claims control (except more recently), I've followed SOHR since long before this WP page, and have never noticed such a claim.

However some sources have said that the rebels intended to take the base, and evidently they didn't succeed. They have made similar declarations of intent for Damascus and Alep, which were only partly successful.

But that contrasts sharply with a number of regime declarations that they had already taken a place, which later turned out to be false. (e.g. Daraya) André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had proposed that (using only SOHR reports when they are published by mainstream media) several months ago, but some users replied then "if mainstream media uses sometimes SOHR reports that means that all SOHR reports an always credible and reliable, so no need to use a mainstream media source, but SOHR sources intead (even from their Facebook page)". Of course, when I pointed "mainstream media sometimes also publishes SANA reports" they rapidly replied "no, no, SANA cannot be used a source, even if they are quoted by mainstream media". A clear example of partisan sectarianism and double standards. Good luck in trying to convince that people...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is any double standard, it is trusting an undocumented article by a reporter from "mainstream media" sources over a documented report by other sources, or over a report from source with a considerable track record of accuracy, like the SOHR and Arab Chronicle. The irony of all this is that in terms of control, the most reliable media to date has been the Arab Chronicle, only better than the SOHR because the SOHR doesn't focus on control.

Think : if claim A depends entirely on claim B, then considering claim A adequate for changing the map means that claim B must be adequate as well. And if claim B is not adequate, then claim A can't be either.

Simple logic. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your view of logic is twisted, for not saying something worse. So you say that a partisan activist report is more reliable and credible than a neutral journalist report?. OK, enough said. That portraits your POV and attitude in WP very, very clear. And you still claim that Arab Chronicle is not a reliable source, but the most reliable media!!! (an amateur blog from a French student with a record of lies, false claims, etc..., yes, it sounds much more reliable than any worldwide mainstream media). Keep trying to made the rest of users using activist blogs, Facebook and tweets as reliable sources while trying to block real journalistic sources, you are trying to break several WP rules, so I dont think you are going to reach anyway with that...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

1) I have never claimed the Arab Chronicle is not a reliable source. Rather, it is one of the most reliable sources available.

2) You obviously misunderstand the meaning of media.

3) Denigrating a post-graduate student in arab and middle east history with hundreds of local contacts misses the point of reliable source. Some of the best sources are researchers who specialise in methodic gathering and confirming of information.

4) It would be interesting if you could enumerate any "lies, false claims, etc" from the Arab Chronicle. The worst I have seen is being a day or two late to recognize certain changes on the ground (regime or rebel gains). Other times he is 2 or 3 months ahead of other media, as he has been more than once in Daraa. "Mainstream" western media is often weeks after the fact.

5) Maybe you are challenged by the fact that the Arab Chronicle is initially french-language. English (as well as arabic) is a second language. Similar to SOHR being initially in arabic. Both have help translating their english posts. (For following the Arab Chronicle, I do have the advantage of being fluent in french.) André437 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

List of unreliable sources

As some users are trying to use non-journalistic activist partisan sources while denying the use of journalistic sources, I would list some websites wich clearly cannot be used as source for the (decreasing) credibility of Wikipedia:

•  Peter Clifford Online[3] (Note the "rebel" flag on the top of the page, the personification of the Syrian gov. with Assad, the cartoons trying to mock "evil butcher" Assad, etc...). Clearly an unreliable partisan activist unreliable as a source.
•  Arab Chronicle [4] Amateur (the author is a French student!) partisan activist (just take a look at his Twitter account messages. If that's neutrality, Im a bishop. Not to mention his support to ISIS-Assad collusion conspiracy theories :-D, or as other user had stated earlier, that he had been exposed making false claims several times), clearly unreliable as a source.
•  EA World View [5] Another activist trying to look like journalists site, filled with agit-prop pieces (like this one, signed by a, quote:"observer and supporter of the Syrian Revolution", seems very neutral, huh?), conspiracy theories and short, crappy & blurry YouTube videos posted as purpoted evidences. Oh, not to mention that the Syrian Support Group lobby is one of EA's main advertisers, a guarantee of objectivity, I suppose...Another not reliable one.

The list can & sadly perhaps should go on, but I had more things to do now (I have a life), but perhaps I will continue with it tomorrow...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on this is ridiculous. Are we going to discard possibly the best source of info on the Syrian conflict, and by extension a wealth of valuable material; due to the concerns of (unconfimed) bias? (Both) SOHR (& Arab Chronicle)are (both) incredibly useful source(s). SOHR, although sometimes displaying elements of partisanship, certainly refrains from bias reporting. I think it is worth noting that SOHR is committed to reporting events from a Human Rights perspective and therefore posts abuses committed by both parties. The fact that SOHR espouses pro-rebel sentiment, certainly does not mean that it engages in bias reporting: there is a notable difference between the two. I think it is also worth noting that the reason behind SOHR's supposed support of the rebels originally stemmed from the oppressive practices of the regime towards Syrians, therefore SOHR approaches the conflict from a humanitarian perspective (hence its condemning of human rights abuses by other groups). I think, and I am sure you would agree, that a humanitarian perspective is a reliable perspective to use for the editing of this page. Do you really think that it is likely that an organization which places so much value in, and derives its perspective from, the well being of its countrymen; will engage in false reporting? If you want to refute SOHR as a source, then bring some evidence of it's false reporting in favor of the rebels. Again, and as Andre has mentioned, it doesn't matter if SOHR takes a particular side; all that matters is whether the information that SOHR provides is accurate and real. If you fail to produce a single episode of false reporting from SOHR then we can assume that it's information is accurate, and if it is accurate then it should be used as a source on this page. I hope you can hear the sincerity in which I bring this argument, and appreciate why SOHR should be considered an accurate source.Jafar Saeed (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

By looking at this section and the couple above it, I think it is fair to say that there is an emerging consensus that the perceived bias or the lack thereof is not relevant to whether the source is reliable or not. So your approach here is somewhat flawed. The right approach is as follows: The source is not appropriate under one of the following three conditions:

• if it is an entry from a private blog, facebook, twitter, or some such network. The people making these entries are absolutely unaccountable no matter who they happen to be. If what they say is valid and true, let us wait until a more authoritative sources quotes them first or confirms what they say.

OR

• if it is directly related to one or more of the participants of the conflict, for instance a website made by an opposition activist or a government supporter. This rules out SANA, SOHR, al-Manar, and probably Press TV.

OR

• if it has proven itself to be unreliable by frequently reporting information contradicted by the more authoritative sources. This may include absolutely any source if you can show us that it has a history of false reporting. I think it includes the Arab Chronicle/Cedric Labrouse and I can cite a few examples where he was wrong, but I'm not sure about the other sources you've mentioned.

Anyway just to reiterate, if a source just seems biased or uses inflammatory language, it's probably not a good idea to rule it out just for that. Kami888 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, if a source is unreliable for any of the above reasons, it is NOT okay to use it to confirm gains by the other side either. I wasn't the one who came up with this rule but I'm okay with it. So please avoid doing that as well. Kami888 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kami888, Peter Clifford Online & Arab Chronicle fall clearly in the first two conditions you mentioned, so they shouldnt be used. Both are private blogs or personal pages, and both are opposition supporters. And about EA Worldview, I suppose that being paid for advertising by a Syrian opposition lobby is not precisely a guarantee of objectiveness...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right about Peter Clifford - it seems to be a personal website and thus falls under category 1 and should be avoided. With regards to EA Worldview, I'm willing to give them a chance no matter who funds them. I mean we use Al Jazeera and they're owned by Qatari government. Kami888 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One could add http://www.syrianperspective.com/ from the Assad side. But what's wrong with using pro-rebel sources for SAA gains and pro-SAA sources for rebel gains, & making changes when both sides agree on something? This is a war after all, and it's well-known that "the first casualty of war is truth". Especially in a war like this in which pretty much all of the major world powers have taken a side, so all of the normally respectable news organizations are to some degree compromised. Consider historical precedent: "In the early days of the Iraq War, media analyst Andrew Tyndall examined 414 news stories aired by ABC, CBS, and NBC about the build up to the war, finding that 380 of them, a staggering 92%, sourced back to one of three U.S. government agencies: the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon. A further study found that of 574 stories aired between Bush’s speech to the UN in September 2002 and the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, only 12 stories, just 2%, dealt with the possible aftermath of the invasion." Not very much is different now. All of the most respectable newspapers & news organizations are from countries which have taken a specific position on this war, and they tend to cover things that are close to the "official line" whether they are state-owned or not, because by doing that they are rewarded with better relations to important officials. It works the same in democratic & capitalist countries. Keep in mind Glenn Greenwald's comment about how most mainstream journalists are "courtiers to power". For most subjects on Wikipedia, sticking to reliable sources is enough. For a topic like this, that's not enough: you have to look at motivation. Esn (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah syrian perspective should not be used either, I think, no matter how fancy its maps are. From my understanding it's also a private initiative of a pro-government activist, basically Arab Chronicle from the other side haha. But I can be wrong. Anyway, regarding "what's wrong with using pro-rebel sources for SAA gains and pro-SAA sources for rebel gains" - I'm guessing the logic is that two wrongs don't make a right, as in if two bad sources from the opposite sides agreed on something it doesn't yet mean it's the truth. I am not the one who made the rule and i'm kind of ambivalent on it.

Finally, yes I'm fully aware that most of the mainstream media ultimately get their information from very shaky sources and are thus fallible, but at least they more to lose than a private blogger for being plain wrong on something. Anyway, that's what english wikipedia ultimately is - a reflection of the mainstream media and mainstream view. Kami888 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There IS no single mainstream view on this. The mainstream view in, let's say, Russia or Iran is fundamentally different from the mainstream view in France or Qatar. For example, the recently-released paper by American researchers from MIT about the August chemical attacks didn't get much press in the US mainstream papers - one had to go to RT to read about it. Anyway, I'd say that there are precious few consequences for many mainstream journalists when they get something wrong (or are sloppy) about a place as far away as Syria. There are also consequences for smaller, partisan press because they're closer to the conflict so people actually rely on them and they lose credibility among their own partisan "side" when they're consistently wrong (like here). Of course they also like to exaggerate successes and downplay losses, but it makes logical sense that if the biased media from both sides agree on something that it's probably true. As close to true as we're likely to get in a war situation. Esn (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"There IS no single mainstream view on this." there is a mainstream view in the English speaking world at least, and this is English language wikipedia. Kami888 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not the job of the English Wikipedia to present the mainstream Anglosphere view on things, particularly when the topic is not itself Anglospheric. Else this template would not exist. Esn (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that HCPUNXKID qualifies himself only as a bishop. He gives the impression that he thinks he is the pope.

Seriously :

1. Having a list of "unreliable sources" as criteria is simplistic at best. Particularly the reasons given. (a) Shows a rebel flag. And if the red flag were shown, it could be taken as pro-regime. (b) anti-regime attitude. The question should be objectivity of reporting. Virtually all sources not pro-regime have an anti-regime attitude. (c) Blurry videos. Of course, Disney cartoons would be clearer, but not necessarily more useful.

2. The founder of the page set out certain principles, which he restated in the last few weeks. They seem a reasonable starting point :

. a. Reliable non-biased sources should be accepted.

. b. Biased pro-regime sources should be accepted if they show rebel gains.

. c. Biased pro-rebel sources should be accepted if they show regime gains.

3) Note that (english) WP guidelines say that we should consider bias in terms of the reporting, and not in terms of a preference that the source may have. This means that a source that has a preference (e.g. SOHR or Arab Chronicle) is not necessarily to be considered biased. Since both of these sites (among many others) have a record of accuracy, they should be considered reliable. Other sites with a record of inaccuracy, even if from "mainstream media", should evidently be considered unreliable.

BTW, it would be interesting if anyone can document supposed inaccuracies of either of these 2 sites, with references. I have followed both, and haven't noticed anything worse than not noticing a few events right away, and even in that respect they seem better than most sources. Arab Chronicle considerably better. Anyone claiming twitter messages of rapidly changing situations as proof should think again. As well, both have published editorials which have succeeded in displeasing both sides.

4. Articles with evident bias in the language of events reported should be considered unreliable. This includes any articles calling the rebels "terrorists", for example.

5. In addition to the question of reliability, there is also the question of sufficiant detail to support a proposed change to the map. Generalities are not necessarily useful, as the recent sources in the Adra section demonstrate.

6. Another question is the nature of the article. Is it an opinion piece, as is often published on facebook or twitter, and even mainstream articles ? Or is it reporting specific facts rather than general impressions, which enable us to decide control ? Just because it appears as a news item in a mainstream source does not mean that we should skip this question.

7. WP:facebook has been considerably abused on this page. I suggest that anyone unclear on the meaning read/reread the guideline, along with the adjacent sections. To summarise, they say that primary sources on blogs, facebook, twitter or other social media should be usually avoided. A primary source is the creator of the information, or a party to the conflict.

SOHR and Arab Chronical are conveying facts from their various contacts, and are thus secondary sources. (Because they are observers of the events, rather than participants.) Except for their evident editorials, where they would be tiertiary sources.

WP guidelines say that for the reporting of facts (which is what we are looking for), secondary sources are to be preferred over tiertiery sources, and primary sources avoided.

8. There are probably more factors to consider. However these are close to the rules followed, more or less, up to a few months ago. Before SOHR started being considered pro-rebel. Arab Chronicle had been mostly ignored, as it only recently started to publish in english. André437 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely, I dont know if you cant understand irony or you simply look always for confrontation. I will not loose more time with someone who cant understand the difference between a journalist and an activist, concepts like neutrality or objectivity applied to media (if someone pays you -EA Worldview case-, you dont bite the hand that feeds you, even a 5 year-old kid could understand that), someone who called a YouTube-like platform as LiveLeak, quote: "a pro-regime propaganda site". Enough absurdities. Of course, Im open to debate with the rest of editors.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

André437 - "The founder of the page set out certain principles, which he restated in the last few weeks." - where did he do that? This contradicts the principles agreed on in the previous section. Kami888 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Articles with evident bias in the language of events", that's a lot more common than you'd think. Friendly countries have "governments", unfriendly countries have "regimes". Friendly rebels are "freedom fighters", unfriendly rebels are "terrorists". It's everywhere in mainstream papers, but maybe a lot of readers don't notice it. Biased language should not automatically disqualify a source, but it can certainly tell us what sort of information we might trust from it. If an article talks about how "the murderous Assad regime" is making some progress, probably Assad's forces are actually making those gains. Likewise if you read "terrorists have taken over a town" - probably rebels have done just that. Esn (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Kami888, I realise that you are new here, so you wouldn't be aware of this point which has been restated many times.

BTW, before HCPUNXKID arrived here a few months back, we didn't have a lot of controversy here. One of HCPUNXKID's early acts was to proclaim that he would reverse all changes using a source published on facebook media, despite the fact that Tradedia himself often updated the map based on SOHR posts on facebook. SOHR was considered a neutral source. HCPUNXKID has been cited for vandalism several times on other WP pages.

Here is the post of Tradedia User_talk:Tradedia, the founder of this page. (You can verify in the history of this talk page here) :

---

Methodology

I have nothing to say for now about Al Dumayr, Daraya, etc... However, i wanted to make some clarification points about methodology:

   1- If an event is covered by a neutral source, then we use this source and ignore all non-neutral sources.
   2- If an event is not covered by a neutral source, then we can use a non-neutral source only in two cases:

       a) pro-gov source talking about rebel success
       b) pro-rebel source talking about gov success

The reason we do not use non-neutral sources is because they tend to overstate their own successes & understate those of their enemy. However, in some cases, these non-neutral sources are forced to admit their enemy’s success because it might be too obvious, and therefore not admitting it would further diminish their already weak credibility. These cases will be rare, however, we should exploit them whenever possible. Tradediatalk 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

---

André437 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(Irony on) Yes of course, before I arrived here, there werent any controversies, the 9 archived talk pages are mostly blessings and love messages between users, I'm guilty, until I arrived here this was a peace haven. And yes, I'm guilty again, as committed the crime of not accepting the breaking of WP rules, because as everybody knows if the "founder" of an article break of ignore WP rules (knowing it or not) nothing happens, its a prerogative that he/her have... I pledge for pardon!!!(Irony off) -The pharenthesis are needed, as some users here dont understand irony, among maaaany other things :-D-.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting him, André437. Indeed I have not been following this page since the beginning of time so I'm relatively new. Here's a couple of points though: firstly, my sources tell me that the original creator of the MAP was Lothar, not Tradedia, also Tradedia has not been contributing to the map for a long time now it seems. And second of all, I disagree with the way he phrased the requirements. There's no way there's ever going to be an agreement on which sources are neutral regarding a subject like this. And haven't you yourself been saying not too long ago that it doesn't matter if a source has a clear preference (i.e. lacks neutrality), what matters is the accuracy of the facts they report? I think the plan I suggested is easier to follow, but you be the judge. If you insist on this methodology, we'll just have to put each source to a vote and see how many people think it's neutral and go with the majority opinion. Kami888 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only been following this page for about a year, so I know what it is like to be new here. Lothar, who works closely with Tradedia, called me to order once or twice.

Tradedia created the SCW page, and you inform me that Lothar created the map. Which explains why Tradedia often referred me to Lothar when I suggested improvements to the structure of the map. But answered suggested improvements to the page directly himself. As far as contributing to the map, about the time Tradedia made the post I quoted about a month ago, Tradedia made several updates to the map. He tends to come and go. Otherwise, it is often Lothar who does the updates. But in the last few weeks neither seems to be present, and there has been a lot of chaos. Not that there weren't disagreements before, but they were certainly more civilized. Certain users didn't feel so free to make controversial updates.

As for a more detailed view on my take on things :

Source means the party that creates the article or map, and not the media on which it is published.

A source that creates the information, or is a party directly involved (as a side in a civil war) is a primary source.

A source that reports a fact or is an observer of an event (such a a battle), is a secondary source.

A source that makes an analysis of an information or series of events (such as what is happening overall in a war, or likely to happen next) is a tertiery source.

WP guidelines say that a secondary sources are preferred as reliable sources for facts, which is what we are looking for in order to update the map and the tables in the associated page of cities and towns.

WP guidelines say the language used is an important indicator of the bias of information from the source. They also say that a source can have a preferred point of view, and still be free of bias in the information provided.

In the context of the syrian civil war, very few would prefer that the Assad regime have a total victory, since it has long been widely criticized for its' massive violation of human rights, even before the civil war started. So the fact that almost all observers who are not partisan of the regime are against the regime to some degree is not the question. It is rather, are the reports from such sources unbiased. Most observers internationally say that the SOHR, which was established to criticize human rights violations by the Assad regime in 2006, is one of the most reliable and objective sources. Despite its' preferred outcome. Similarly, I would say that the Arab Chronicle is reliable. It has been accepted at least once in an update by Tradedia, despite the article being entirely in french. Many here are hesitant to accept it since until recently it published almost exclusively in french, just as the SOHR started in arabic. Some oppose the Arab Chronicle because it is centered around a history student (focusing on the arab world and the middle east). But like the SOHR, he depends on a network of local contacts (from all sides), and in a number of cases has reported rebel advances long before other media, including the SOHR. All of which subsequently have been universally recognized, even by SANA. And he has always readily acknowledged regime advances as well.

So you see that my definition of reliability is essentially a neutral tone and a consistant track record.

We also have to look at each article (or map) in question. A neutral tone is very useful, as the source is not necessarily coherent. But also is the detail present in the report adequate to be confident of the change proposed ? Recently there were 2 reports in the subsection *Adra*. The first was from a reporter outside the country, who started with a quote anti-rebel from a resident of Damascus, and made a series of general statements about various places around Syria. One such statement said that the rebels had been "pushed back" in Adra. Which led some here to say that the regime had taken complete control of the town. A subsequent report a few days later, from a reporter in place (behind govt lines), said that the rebels controled most of the town, but the regime had retaken part. The reporter arrived via an improvised road the govt forces made to access the edge of the town. Evidently, although the rebels had indeed been "pushed back", an on-site report showed that they still controled most of the town.

As far as neutral tone, please note that "regime" is a neutral term. The rebels are trying to change the regime, or system of government, for a democratic system, so it is totally appropriate in the context of the civil war. However "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" are evidently biased terms for the neutral term rebel.

So yes, we have to examine each article or map instead of blindly automatically accepting the source. Or blindly refusing a source because of the media on which it is published.

One thing that would help considerably is if all changes to the map were made subsequent to a corresponding entry in the cities and towns tables. (A positive suggestion by HCPUNXKID, among others.) This seems to have been the original practice, up to mid 2012, a bit before I arrived here. (There are very few entries after that point.)

This way, besides being easier to confirm, we create a history which was the original purpose of this page and map. As it is now, there is no easy way to confirm most points on the map.

Hopefully this isn't too long ... André437 (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"like the SOHR, he depends on a network of local contacts (from all sides)" - I am not aware of SOHR having any contacts among the regime personnel, likewise I highly doubt that anyone from the pro-government side would share any information with SOHR given its reputation - which is that of being an opposition mouthpiece. Because of this and other factors already mentioned I'd caution against considering it to be reliable. Again, would you mind if this matter was put to a vote? Kami888 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In case anybody's still reading this, there's a good article over here which provides an overview of the most prominent pro-Assad "Alternative Media" news sites. SyrianPerspective is mentioned, as is VerifiedNews and Syrian Girl Partisan. Esn (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Adra (township) & Adra Industrial City

Acc to Russia Today video report uploaded just a few mins ago both adras are bisieged by Syrian forces.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

We not use RT because it is not reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

RT is generally considered to be a reliable, although biased, news source. Russia Today is biased toward the Syrian government. (Just as Voice of America, is reliable, but biased toward US allies.) Therefore, under the long-standing principle that biased sources can be used to document the opposing side's gains, then this should be used. Hulahoop122 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

At one point in late 2013 RT ran a short report claiming Rastan and Talbsieh are government held. So much for their reliability. Kami888 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Adra is an industrial city and a source says about city of Adra. But industrial area which is located east of city is now under control Syrian army.The Independent Hanibal911 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal, The Independent [6]has published a more recent and much more detailed article about the situation in Adra, and the article states that the town is under siege,; "I asked several officers why they did not counter-attack and retake Adra. They answered that there were thousands of civilians there whom the rebels were using as “human shields” and they denied an alternative explanation that they were short of soldiers. Even so, it was striking how few Syrian Army troops there were yesterday, either at the cement plant or in the front line, where there had been fighting around a bridge earlier in the week." The article does not however talk specially about the industrial area specifically. In the RT video the reporter explains that she was told that the soldiers do not attack, and just besiege, because they are afraid of harming civilians being held hostage, just as is described in The Independent article. Hulahoop122 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope the whole video talks about the residential area nothing mentioned about industrial area.And frankly the residential area is contested(not besieged because they split the two residential areas and are now fighting inside it)so I do not see anything to be changed on the map they are the same(As you can see on the video the are using roads around the factories to get to the residential area).Daki122 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Daki122 did you see video? look at 1:10, both adra city and adra ymalia (industrial area) are besieged, but under rebels control Hanibal911 if you believe independents words about adra, why dont you believe about malula? why dont you put malula in green? independents told that: "For instance, Jabhat al-Nusra has retaken the historic Christian town of Maloula"

what's wrong people with you? you believe  some words from "independents" and dont believe youre eyes ...
you are destroing all credibillity of this map ...

The video very clearly says that both Adra and Adra Industrial city are being besieged by government forces. They even provide a nicely detailed map at 1:17 listing their names in both English and Arabic; Adra (Adra al Belyad) and Adra Industrial City (Adra Aumaliye) to explain this situation very specifically. They explain that they hold a slim the territory in between these two localities, and are trying to stop the forces in Adra and Adra Industrial City from linking up. She even conducts a tour of the front line. Hulahoop122 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well as I said every day rebels said that they killed government forces in Maalula so stop crying about that.Second Adra Ymalia is part of the city of Adra not the Industrial zone.And third the border crossing in Qusayr is still contested even tough there is no evidence about that but do yo see me coming here and saying change that no you need credible evidence to support your claims which you have none.Daki122 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

you are laier! look subtitres at 1:17 adra industriel city and adra aymaliye is same place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellsurvivor (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That's pro opposition and pro government sources for 21 December show that rebels were able to break through only to the city of Adra. While the industrial area was completely under the control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that those two maps from December show the industrial area controlled by the army. So either those maps were wrong (fog of war, rebels hidings, etc.), or the situation has changed during the last 40 days. Hulahoop122 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

While all these pro-Assad who can't believe that the rebels could win anywhere are bickering here, the Arab Chronicle is going to produce a detailed professional quality map that will be kept up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by André437 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from expressing your POV here (per Wikipedia policy) André437, this is not a forum. Your statement was borderline inflammatory. As for the Arab Chronicle, if the change of territory on their map matches changes on pro-government maps than it will be accepted as a source of rebel gains, otherwise it will not be accepted because it is plainly obvious to anyone it is a highly biased pro-opposition source. EkoGraf (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hulahoop122, the two Independent articles factually state the following. One, that the Army pushed out the rebels out of the industrial area. And two, that the most recent fighting has been concentrated in the residential area (which is independent from the industrial one). EkoGraf (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf, yes what you point out is technically true, but I wonder if that one line in the first very broad Independent article is referring to a different industrial area, as there is more than one surrounding Adra (and apparently confusion about where the Industrial City is), or it just got it wrong. No matter what you think of Russia Today (reliable or biased), the RT on the ground video news report is dedicated just to the Adra conflict, and it is hard to argue that it would be so inaccurate about that. Regardless of the situation in Adra Industrial City, if no new fighting is reported in Adra, it should probably be listed as under siege rather than contested. Mixed control is another option, but I think under siege (from both the Independent and RT reports) is more accurate. Hulahoop122 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Fierce clashes between the Syrian troops and the Free Syrian Army in cities of Darayya and Adra.Ara News. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you look closely you will see that in city Adra also there is an Adra Industrial area. Perhaps it is about him mentioned in reportage on channel RT. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful, as the relative size and position of Adra and Adra Industrial City is the same on the RT map (at 1:17) as they are in the opposition and government maps you posted above. Nevertheless, if you and EkoGraf believe that this does not merit a change on the map, I am ok with moving on. Hulahoop122 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there is still confusion where is the actual position of Adra, I advise to navigate to the Adra region in Google maps, where I think its easier to see that the city is not fucking directly attached to Duma. OberschIesien90 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OberschIesien90, on my talk page where we discussed this issue you indicated that you were willing to switch back the Adra/Adra Industrial City locations. Can you do that? Thanks, Hulahoop122 (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Nevermind. I was editing something else on the map, and just made that change. Cheers, Hulahoop122 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually did it, and then you messed it up again with your last edit. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You cannot deny geography, read a map. See also my comment above. OberschIesien90 (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Oberschlesien90, we seem to somehow be speaking past each other. Maybe it would work better if we discuss what the map coordinates of Adra and the Adra Industrial City are. According to Wikimapia Adra is here [7] at latitude=33.604 and longitude 36.515. Do you agree with that? According to Wikimapia (and the other pro-opposition [8], and pro-government [9] maps Hanibal911 posted above), the Adra Industrial City is here [10] with latitude=33.615 and longitude 36.576. Do you agree with that? If you disagree, can you share your sources and coordinates? We can ask the other members to vote which coordinates they think are accurate. Thanks, Hulahoop122 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I updated the position of Adra and the Adra Industrial City with those coordinates, which are a bit different from the coordinates that were previously used. If you have any issues with that, please discuss here. Hulahoop122 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No problems with your edits. The issue was that you and others tried to move Adra to the west, to the eastern edge of Duma, where it is just not located. In this area between Duma, Adra prison, and Adra, there are some industrial areas, so we put an icon there called Adra industrial area to cover that region, because we assumed clashes there back in 2013. And then, to the east of Adra, we have the industrial city of Adra with the coordinates you submitted above. You get it? Two different icons called Adra industrial area, to the west and east of Adra. OberschIesien90 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

On template, Damascus map

Why isn't there a Damascus map, like there is Aleppo, its obviously very cluttered. —SPESH531Other 18:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Because someone with the skills and time would have to maintain it. Which is much harder than maintaining the individual points. The Aleppo map is not necessarily as up to date as Damascus. And we already have considerable difficulty updating the Damascus area. André437 (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This one was last updated on Jan. 30 - is that what you're looking for? I gather the main problem is that more people know how to update the combined map than the dedicated image. Esn (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. It would also decrease the page size (albeit a little), because this template takes WAY to long to load. But just dots on top of each other, it's hard to tell who really is in control. —SPESH531Other 18:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The time to load is not related to the display size, but to the number of points on the map and the fact that most labels shown are links, as well as the link associated with the icon.

As far as who is really in control, that depends on the accuracy of the sources. As well, much of the country isn't really controled by any side. If the tables were updated before the map, that would give a better idea of actual control ...

We have sources available to update the map, so why not? The map (since a week ago) has been pretty much up to date with credible sources. Why not add the map? Like I said previously, it would be easier to see who has control of what. The edit is in the history, all that has to be done is revert (with updated status on other cities/towns), and it's done. I'm willing to do it if the big deal is just to have somebody do it. And people can update the map, it's not a bad thing to do it, so why not add it? —SPESH531Other 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Spesh531. For a mostly urban area like Damascus, an area control picture (like that for Aleppo) would be better than what we have now. It is now very cluttered and the rebel pockets are not really visible. The southern area is especially a mess. I am the one who did the fine tuning of position of dots in Damascus area, and I did my best. However, it is still not satisfactory as the neighborhoods/towns have geographic shapes that are not always circles or squares. I had to distort some positions and put icons on top of others to make them fit… The reason we have the Damascus area as a collection of points is because the Damascus map picture did not exist. It would not have occurred to us to represent Aleppo city neighborhoods as a collection of points!

I notice that the Damascus map picture was updated as of Feb 4, so quite recently. I am sure that if the Damascus map was put in the detailed map, there will be more pressure on the Damascus map to be regularly updated. I have always been satisfied with the Aleppo map and found it to be up to date. With all the attention on the Damascus map, it will certainly become more and more fine-tuned and high quality. For example, the colors could be made more bright (like those of Aleppo map) to make the rebel pockets more visible. More and more editors are learning to edit pictures, so I am sure updates will be frequent enough… Tradedia^talk 04:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Also, I forgot to mention that unlike the “collection of dots”, the Damascus map has roads on it. This is important because the roads determine the different rebel pockets when the army controls these roads. For example, the “Darayya pocket” is separated from the “Hajar al-Aswad pocket” by the Damascus-Daraa highway. Also, the “Hajar al-Aswad pocket” is separated from the “Eastern Ghouta pocket” by the airport road. All this is nicely shown on the Damascus map. On the other hand, none of this is visible in the “collection of dots”. Tradedia^talk 02:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I added it, I figured it would be good, and if somebody reverted it, then it's cause for discussion (I'm thinking it would match the Aleppo situation, it would be good.) In any case, I'm in favor of adding it.—SPESH531Other 04:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that adding an area map for Damascus might be a good idea, but I have a couple of small concerns. First, the Aleppo area map is attached to the ongoing "Battle of Aleppo" page, which chronicles the shifting fronts in Aleppo. The map gets frequent updates because of the updates to the accompanying article. The Damascus map that was posted by Spesh531 is attached to a page documenting the 5th Rif Dimashq Offensive, which ended in November of 2013. The page is not typically updated. (There really should be a page dedicated to the current fighting in and around Damascus.) Also, you will note that the Damascus map has red battle lines that are meant to show changes in the frontlines since September 2013. That is appropriate, in relation to the page 5th Rif Dimashq offensive, but not for the Syrian Civil War Map posted here. Finally, I would really like to know how many (and who) of the frequent editors on this page have the technical skills to edit that map. I (an infrequent editor) don't know how to do that. As you may have noticed from a cursory review of the talk page, many editors have their biases, and it would be good to know if the editors with those skills would balance each other out. Hulahoop122 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The page documenting the 5th Rif Dimashq Offensive, officially ends in November of 2013. However, at the end of the page, there is an “Aftermath” section which gives the updated events that happened after November of 2013 and up to today. That section will keep growing until it becomes very big and someone spins it off into a separate article called something like “6th Rif Dimashq offensive (December 2013–present)”. As you can see, the “Aftermath” section talks about the Adra massacre which happened in December. The map also includes the “Aftermath events” (for example, the Adra offensive). So, the map is up-to-date to today and not just up to November of 2013.

I suspect that the same editors who edit the Aleppo map (and the other maps) will also edit the Damascus map. The Aleppo map has always been up-to-date. And those that claimed at some point in time, that it was not up-to-date, were mistaken because they wanted unreliable sources to be included, which were not, and rightfully so. For a long time, the situation in Aleppo city was a stalemate, which explains why the map was not updated for a while. Similarly, the Damascus map is now up-to-date, and I can’t imagine it will not stay that way in the future. Fortunately, our top map makers/updaters (MrPenguin20, Spesh531, etc) are unbiased. In terms of the others, many are unbiased, and there is an equal number of pro-gov and pro-rebels. The Aleppo map has been remarkably correct and is less prone to the impulse edit warring than the Syria detailed map. Tradedia^talk 06:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone has other opinions, comments, concerns? I think that implementing this proposal will improve our map… Tradedia^talk 08:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Manjib

Kurdish factions are advancing on the areas of manjib and al bab against ISIS, according to the arab chronicle. https://twitter.com/ced_lab

keep an eye out forces sources confirming. Sopher99 (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Twitter not reliable. EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither is ced_lab, which is unfortunate because that guy has potential. Kami888 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the Arab Chronicle is reliable (he specialises in arab/middle east history), but his twitter posts are often on transiant situations, so we should wait to see a trend over time. As well, we will need the names of the specific locations involved. (This is typical of the most reliable posts on twitter.)

BTW, it is kurdish (al-Akrad) and FSA-associated forces together according to his posts. He says that the YPG is supplying arms to al-Akrad (but not the FSA), but the YPG is not participating directly.

(FWIW, my view is that the YPG/PYD is trying to respect the "canton" boundaries they set up, in the hope of future accommodation with moderate rebels.) André437 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Susik

According to this source ISIS has withdraw from the village Susik and YPG is there now. So the state of the village should be changed to Kurd-held. http://aranews.org/en/home/kurdish-region/994-kurdish-militants-kill-qaeda-leader-in-northern-syria.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.253.244 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Al Tall

The city is rebel controlled per http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/world/middleeast/in-syria-motorists-press-on-yielding-for-war.html?_r=0

Why was it reverted. and also qudsaya.Alhanuty (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Al Tall and Qudsaya under control Syrian troops. This is shown on map in this source.The Wall Street Journal Hanibal911 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You may want to repost it from a different address or something, says page no longer available. Sopher99 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another link to the same source.The Wall Street Journal Hanibal911 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a pay-to-view link, so not verifiable. Try another source. 174.93.178.123 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you cant view this source The Wall Street Journal here are a map from this source. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nawa

Article used for the change is from September 2013 and it says that rebels lunched an offensive in Daraa it has been five months since then neither pro-opp nor government sources have said the town is rebel held.Second the town borders the 61 brigade and its housing is in the town and it has never been captured revert it to contested.Daki122 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

From the Now lebanon source "The Syrian regime besieged Daraa’s Nawa and shelled it non-stop, which prompted a number of other battalions to intervene in order to free the city and open a supply line from Nawa to the Al-Yarmouk Valley,” he added." Sopher99 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the date September 13, 2013 of the article what you are trying to play here.Daki122 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Then adawan ans Sheikh saed get removed. Sopher99 (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Omg i cant belive you just added government held towns in order to put Nawa as rebel held I mean come on man.But fankly I am not as stubborn as you and know of compromise so yea just undo all changes from the article as it is out of date.Daki122 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't add no government towns. Sopher99 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need to undo all changes that have been made using this source. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind who did what just undo all the changes from the article.Daki122 (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Some users here seem to be mentally retarded, there's no other way to explain their non-sense changes. For that ones with a very, very low IQ, try to read and understand this if you can: I added a September 2013 source stating that Adwan & Al-Shaykh Saad towns were in Syrian Army control. Then, the notorious vandal & POV-pusher that everyone knows here, angried & frustrated with the rise of red dots, use the same source to put Nawa in lime, when there are newer sources on the contested status of that town (for example, this, from a month later). Understand that a source from October 2013, superseds an older one (September 2013), or I had to explain it too?. So, as there are not newer sources stating a change in the status of Adwan & Al-Shaykh Saad (as there is in the Nawa case), they will be added again in red. If you have a newer reliable source with a change in their status is OK, if not leave them as they are, period. Sorry for being so rude, but I cant stand no more with this stupidities and POV-pushing hypocrisies.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is people posting to the map without first posting to the tables, so references are not readily available.

Adding to that, many reliable sources are refused for ideological reasons (WP calls it POV pushing), in favour of distant sources which depend largely on other sources with contacts on the ground.

Until we straighten out our methods, or Tradedia and Lothar are again more present, maintaining the map is bound to be chaotic.

BTW, the rebels have held most (but not all) of Nawa since mid 2013. Similar to Jasim, which they recently took full control of.

As it is, towns like Morek (northern Hama) were not recognized on our map as contested until the rebels took full control, despite being largely rebel controled for some months. But we were very quick to recognize regime control of Suran (further south), which we had as contested despite being fully rebel controled until the last few days. (The regime having a much greater offensive capacity than the rebels, can take control of an area more quickly.)

Note that our symbols don't always reflect the reality. We mark towns as besieged (circle around), even if in a large pocket of control, with the threat coming from only one side. e.g. Morek = now threatened from the north, eastern Ghouta only from the perimetre. (It would be easy to define 4 (n,s,e,w) or 8 (adding ne, nw, se, sw) arcs to use in such cases.)

- andre437 174.93.178.123 (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Shaddadeh

I think city Shaddadeh cant be marked under control ISIS because in city also has representatives Jabhat al-Nusra.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally visited Shaddadeh 2 months ago and I confirm this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.163.223 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally visited Shaddeh 2 days ago. I couldn't confirm that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.58.237.203 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This also fits the other reports of there being an agreement between Nusra and ISIS for Hasakah province. Should we perhaps make all Hasakah rebel towns mixed control black and green? Kami888 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it (correct me if I'm mistaken), Shaddadeh is partly ISIS controled, partly al-Nusra, with no conflict between the two, and neither side dominant. Maybe we should have split dots for these cases. What does everyone think ? - André437 174.93.178.123 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Morek

why is morek green???? put back to red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.126 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Morek was captured by Jabhat al-Nusra.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. Al-Nusra was only a small part, mostly FSA-associated rebels and the Islamic Front. They took the last regime checkpoints north of the town. (I don't have access to my computer for references at the moment.)

Your source says that "rebel forces, including the Al-Nusra Front, had seized the town in fierce fighting overnight, cutting a strategic supply line for the regime that runs from Hama city north to two military bases in neighbouring Idlib province: Wadi Deif and Hamidiyeh". It claims SOHR as their source.

However their conclusion that this cuts the regime supply line is false, since the rebels already controled the road south of Morek. It does however reinforce rebel control. It is a little south of Hamidiyeh. - André437 174.93.178.123 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Soran

Soran in Northern Hama seized by Government troops per SOHR. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/484623178312692?stream_ref=10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.163.223 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In other news, visual evidence that another one of Ced_Lab's maps is wrong:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Besh-OYCYAIRcUH.png:large

Assad's troops in Muadamiya Feb 4,2014:

https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/p180x540/1013846_629838897051896_1200233034_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/p180x540/1601055_629838367051949_1689833171_n.jpg

Tread carefully. Kami888 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To those trying to discredit Cedric Labrousse's maps, his map was made simply BEFORE the fall of Souran and at the time he made the map, Morek wasn't fully under rebel control yet. --Amedjay (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Who's trying to discredit his maps o.O? The only person discrediting CedLab's maps is CedLab himself by making gross one-sided errors in half his maps. It's obvious by now that he's a pretty crappy source of information on the subject. Kami888 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you had been following Arab Chronicle posts, you would have noticed the following :

1) It has reported the loss of Soran by the rebels, a day or so after taking Morek to the north. His latest map showing control of Soran, of at least a week before, showed only partial control of Morek. Evidently a regime counter attack had taken Soren, much like an adjacent rebel held town had been taken some time before. Changes which Arab Chronicle tends to report before other sources. Note that at the time of the last Arab Chronicle map of the area, the WP map had incorrectly shown Morek in uncontested control of the regime, and Soren as contested.

2) It is not evident where the photos you posted were taken. Please note :

2a) The truces reported by the Arab Chronicle gives the right of unarmed personel (including soldiers) to freely enter truce areas controled by the other side. As you can see in the diagram of truce areas, some are at least partially under control of the regime.

As well, the Arab Chronicle said that preliminary reports of the first truce agreement in the Damascus area, with Mouadamiyah, said that the regime flag would fly.

Tell me, do you see any armed regime soldiers in your photos ? If this is Mouadamiyah, note that it would be next to Daraya, largely held by the rebels.

3) Most observers realise that the war is not static. Just as the WP map will change according to the changing control, Arab Chronicle maps represent control at one point in time. The changes in the Morek-Soren area are an excellent example. As was the few months that the rebels held the town of Khanasir, later celebrated by the regime as an important regime advance when retaken. Another example is control of Raqqa city and surrounding area, which escaped ISIS control at the beginning of January, later retaken by the ISIS, a control now seriously compromised by rebel guerilla attacks causing important losses on ISIS forces there now. (Which shows how difficult it is for well armed forces to control an area against the will of the population.)

4) Most western sources miss many details of the war. Unlike sources with considerable local contacts, such as SOHR and Arab Chronicle. (It also helps to be able to communicate in arabic.)

- André437 174.93.178.123 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As expected, tons of imaginary excuses for what is a pretty obvious mistake on the part of ced_lab. :) Within the past few weeks we have seen no reports of the situation in Mouadamiyah changing radically, which means what he painted was simply incorrect. It's just like his other maps I've already shown previously, such as this [11], clearly screaming of professional quality, keen attention to detail, and lack of obvious errors. In fact in almost any map he's made I can point to factual errors, some more obvious than others. But while everyone makes mistakes, his mistakes are often rather gross and very one-sided. Basically, the maps and statements made by him on Arab Chronicle are to be considered insufficient evidence to show rebel gains or presence. It is already the policy followed as of now, and it shall continue to be followed as well until/unless he works on improving his map quality. If you disagree with it, you are welcome to put it to a vote. Kami888 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please just prove us he made an actual mistake rather than just saying he doesn't know how to make maps without proofs.--Amedjay (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Kami888, you present something that is obviously a sketch giving the general situation without details, and includes the comment "possible ...". Besides the fact that it was a fair presentation of the approximate situation at the time, your comments are a totally unreasonable criticism of the reliability of Arab Chronicle reports.

As I have already very clearly pointed out, in considering the utility of a report, one should consider the reliability of the source (in general), and if the detail of the report is enough to support what we are claiming that it represents.

And as I have also pointed out, a map alone is not enough unless it is accompanied by textual information explaining the situation. Which, by the way, almost all Arab Chronicle maps contain either on or with the map when published. (In your example, the key word was "possible" on the sketch map.)

That requires analysis case by case.

Suspending analysis because it comes from a particular source is folly, whether it comes from one of the most reliable sources (e.g. SOHR or Arab Chronicle), or a usually reliable mainstream news source, or some other sometimes reliable news source.

Noting also that any claims by a party to the conflict (that is, the government or a rebel group) should automatically be suspect.

Many reports presented here as from a mainstream news source are just quoting the Assad regime (military or SANA) (e.g. most reports from China News, Iranian news agency, frequently Russia Today.) Nobody here should attempt to present such reports, unless they support a rebel advance or position held.

In claiming errors on the part of the Arab Chronicle, you seem to forget that control changes over time, sometimes rapidly. It is easy to go back to March 2011 and claim that the Assad regime controls all of Syria, or advance to March 2016 and say that the new democratic regime controls the entire country.

By the way, this shouldn't be decided by a popularity contest, but on the merits of the particular report. By consensus, and not "vote". If the accuracy of the WP map is the concern. Sometimes I get the feeling that in response to reasoned arguments, all I get in return is "nyaa nyaa" André437 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mayda'a (town on edge of Eastern Ghouta)

Can someone add the rebel held town of Mayda'a which is on the eastern edge of the rebel held Eastern Ghouta pocket? This would really help to define the size and parameters of this pocket. Most recent maps of Eastern Ghouta, such as the one on the Wikipedia Damascus Conflict page [12], this map which Hanibal911 posted a while ago [13], and this very interesting map posted on the Reddit Syrian Civil War page [14], identify it as rebel held and on the eastern front line. It should be posted as being under government siege, but I'm unsure of what size exactly the circle should be. This Wikimapia page [15] shows where it exactly is. Coordinates are lat=33.561 and long=36.525. Thanks, Hulahoop122 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

latest updates in Aleppo

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/485391231569220?stream_ref=10

Put back kuwayris as bisieged .Alhanuty (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest waiting for a neutral source. SORH also said today that Aleppo Central Prison has fallen, and just a few hrs later it corrected that news. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.115 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. And we do not use pro opposition sources to display of rebel advances. Here is sources NOW NewsInter AksyonRelief WebGulf Todayconfirms that rebels seized most of territory prison, but army took the initiative and retake part of seized territory. This is confirmed and SOHR. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

NONSENSE!!! SOHR reported,that 80% of the prison were taken and that later in the evening the rebels partially retreated because of heavy airstrikes and artillery-strikes! SOHR did NOT report the FULL capture of the prison. And there are also heavy fights inside Kuwaires-airport, the villages in the environment are clearly in rebel-hands.the village Judaydah near the airport MUST be under rebel-control,please change it to green or black!!!

Syrian troops repel rebels' attack on Aleppo's central prison. That confirmation from pro opposition source.All Voices and other sources HaberlerXinhuaDaily News And also carefully read your source. Regime forces have taken back parts of the prison with Nusra and Ahrar forces retreating from areas surrounding the prison after intense bombardment on gathering areas.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian opposition groups fail to capture Aleppo prison.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also rebels in Aleppo only declared the beginning of the operation to try seize Aleppo central prison and the Kweiris military air base.7 News Hanibal911 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously ill and I advise you to contact a psychologist. It will do you good. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Users Like 2.186 should be permanently banned from writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.115 (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reprot:"clashes continued between Jabhat Al-Nusra and Ahrar Al-Sham against regime forces around the central prison of Aleppo, regime forces regained control on wide parts of the prison, the clashes led to death of 20 regular forces and 17 fighters at least from Jabhat Al-Nusra most of them are non-Syrian fighters ( including the leader of this battle " Saif Allah Al-Sheshani " ), 4 Syrian fighters from Jabhat Al-Nusra were killed, and 5 prisoners killed by shrapnel inside the prison". So I guess the rebels did very good in the offensive(sarcasm).The rebels never reached the prison at first all there videos showed rebels attacking an nearby detention center but never actualy entered the citadel all the videos show that from the start of the attack till the end the rebels only were around the prison(100-200m) guess the rebels are so good in storming they cant take a place which is a year under siege my suggestion to the troops in the prison is to execute every rebel in it so even if the prison falls the rebels will only find there own fighters dead in it.Daki122 (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Advocating war crimes by the regime ? They do more than enough already André437 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian troops retook most of Aleppo's prison, lost to rebels a day earlier.Aid NewsNaharnetZ NewsThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Daki122 before bringing your 2 cents sarcasm here read this : https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/485769931531350 and just to tell you; if it wasn't for assad's warplanes, the prison, Al Kindi, Menagh, Hamidiyah and Wadi Daif would have fallen a LONG LONG time ago. You think that it's the soldiers inside the base who repelled heroically the attack but it in fact they've been beaten and they called help for the planes to come shelling the prison. As rebels risked too many losses, they pulled back. Remember the planes are the only thing keeping this prison and other besieged positions in assad's hands... --Amedjay (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok Amedjay the Syrian Army from now on will fight with no air support as yea the air force is too much for the rebels.The Syrian Army will drop there weapons and fight with rocks so it could be fair for the rebels you know as they are so strong and organized and the Army is just mean to them and they can't prove them self's.The Syrian Air force should get the new planes from Russia which they bought(36 YaK 130 and at least 24 Mig 29M/M2 MRCA) but wait that wont be fair for the rebels(I do belive the planes will be delivered as the Russians delivered the upgraded Su-24MK2 which are now running the show) well let me tell you this:"All is fair in love and war" so if they can't handle one little structure because of the air force god help them when they even try to attack on government front lines.And to all other users if you can't handle the truth don't bitch about it here and post offensive statements because that is only making you more pathetic then you actualy are.Daki122 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not tell you that the army should fight without airforce I just answered because you said the offensive is a disaster actually the offensive was NOT a disaster as it proved that rebels are capable to take the prison (with heavy losses though due to airforce). I'm trying to make you understand that if rebels did not keep the prison, it was because of assad's airforce that's all. War is not fair but you look like you're trying to convince yourself the soldiers in the prison heroically resisted and repelled the assauld. Anyways, nevermind, prison should stay red but besieged. --Amedjay (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude i'm just saying the rebels knew what they are going to fight with and if the latest reports in the media are true that Russia will step up its military support to the Syrian Army it is going to get even worse for the rebels I mean the Su-24 can carry 8 tons of ammo or to be precise it can carry enough bombs to level a small village a group of those can destroy a neighborhood with ease so it is a rely grim situation(even tough until this time of the war they haven't used large scale high altitude bombing attacks with groups of aircraft but that those not mean there won't be any) for the rebels as long as these planes keep flying and I personaly think that they will keep on flying as Russia is commited to support the Syrian government as it has much more interest there then the US(just not so long ago Russia paid 90 million dollars for oil research in the Syrian shore) so don't think this will end with Geneve II my bet it is going to get more serious with rebel groups dividing each other into smaller groups I mean look at the FSA it is non existent now it is either a small group of fighters , Islamic front or Al-Nusra so that is very grim as the opposition delegation in Geneva does not control these groups so even if a peace agreement is reached it will not be implemented on the ground.My opinion on Syria is a wide government from opposition "FSA" and the regime with the leading role going to the Army(Bashar can stay or go I don't care)as the Army is the only force powerful and organized enough to combat Islamists and thrust me Islamic front, Al-Nusra and ISIS are the same snake with tree heads they all want Sharia law which the minorities and some Sunnis(the middle class are very much pro-government and that is the only reason why the Army still has majority Sunni and has not defected as this is not a secterian conflict it never was)don't want to see in place.And one last thing is that I still can't belive that the US is supporting the same terrorists that did 9/11 they are betraying those who died in that terror attack and that is just sad to watch. Daki122 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Daki122, you claim that you can't tell the difference between the ISIS (almost as bad as the regime), al-Nusra, and the Islamic Front ? Since much of the info has already been presented here, and is readily available elsewhere, it looks like willful ignorance. For instance, insisting the the Islamic Front proposes the sharia, when they have formally proposed the rule of law. And considering the ISIS aberration of "sharia" as equivalent of that of al-Nusra, considering their respective behaviors, simply defies reason. In contrast, Assad's support of terrorists to attack other countries (at least Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia), as well as slaughtering innocent civilians, doesn't seem to bother you. Apparently the word al-Qaïda leaves you incapable of looking at the facts.

2) Many relatively moderate groups (such as the Islamic Front) cite the sharia as a guide to ensuring morality in future laws. Which is in no way the same as rule by the sharia. Not surprising, after 4 decades of Assad dictatorship. Others propose the sharia as an interim system of justice, until the Assad regime is toppled. Maybe you just don't understand "sharia" and "rule of law" ?

3) You claim that the US is supporting terrorism, but it is Russian and Iran that are supporting the biggest terrorist group, the Assad regime. All of the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been fighting al-Qaïda for decades (before 911), and at least the first 2 have only supported moderate rebels in Syria, who present little risk of terrorism.

4) BTW, I think that almost everyone in Syria, except the Assad clan, would appreciate a few weeks moratorium on air strikes in Syria. Particularly the civilians targeted by barrel bombs. André437 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Andre, it's not really useful to try to make them understand... They will just keep saying "no more moderate FSA just Al Qaeda baboons" which of course is false. It's just the pro-assad rhetoric... --Amedjay (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, more pro-terrorist cheerleading blabbering again...--HCPUNXKID 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

military bases under rebel control

i noticed that the map doesnt show any military bases and checkpoints under rebel control and we all know that the rebels managed to capture a lot of bases and checkpoints over the last few years

Yea but the rebels don't stay in these bases they are not garrisoning unlike the army which keeps tanks artillery pieces and other stuff in them and I don't blame the air force will not wait a second they will bomb them to bits so no point for rebels to hold a base.Daki122 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think the infantry school north of Aleppo is a base of the Tawhid Brigade/Islamic Front. Base 46 west of the city used to be under ISIS until it was captured last month. Kami888 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Musbin, Idlib

location: http://wikimapia.org/27873703/Musbin Does anybody have information in regards to this town? which is east of Ariha, so far ive read from Pro-Government tweets and @TahrirSy from twitter which claim that the Syrian army has taken the town and showing a picture of a soldier with syrian flag & video from syrian tv, please regard this as reference only. More information would be appreciated.-- Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ma'an, hama

the rebels has seized control of the village of Ma'an in the north of hamah. the source: http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/syria-hama-rebels-control-maan/

and three videos confirms the rebels victory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnoLjumoso8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQoRHR7jmss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHaTl-KGoKQ

it should be turned to green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amensnober91 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This only pro opposition sources but they not are reliable sources. Need confirmation from more reliable sources. Also we dont use pro opposition sources for opposition advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

what about the clips, they are very clear that the rebels are in the village. it should be at least contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amensnober91 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua landis has confirmed the capture.Alhanuty (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We not use pro opposition sources to display the rebel advances. And we cant use message Joshua landis in twitter because he is support syrian opposition. We need confirmation from more reliable source than a message in Twitter. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I say contested as 3 videos that amount around 2 minutes of video does not prove much and at the last video lots of gunfire so my suggestion contested.Daki122 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Acc to my sources the town has been taken but since no new videos have been posted with the exception of them only showing "dominance" over the town and no official media reports, it should be under contested.--Rob214 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, Youtube is forbidden as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua landis is a very reliable source to use, he is a. Scholar who studied about Syria and is married to an alawite ,so he is a reliable source,a neutral source that can be used, i still remember when you people wanted to keep the eastern ghouta cities red,even after sources indicated that rebels captured jarba,baharia and madayaa and other cities,and you editors like EkoGrak and hannibal and Daki insisted to confuse the reader and spread your point of view with the excuse that source is unreliable, until pro-government source at last admitted it.Alhanuty (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Feb-09/246853-islamist-fighters-seize-alawite-village-in-central-syria.ashx#axzz2sk38sDRI confirmation someone should just make the changes.Daki122 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Landis is a blogger seen him a million times always criticizes the government and that is why we dont use him as a source so if I can stick to the rules and dont use sources then you can stick to it as well.Daki122 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Landis isn't a "blogger", and the fact that a faceless and disposable Wikipedia editor like you would call him such shows that you either have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about, or that you simply will try to reject anything and anyone who remotely clashes with your views—or both. Landis—who has spent 14 years living in the region and is married to a Syrian Alawi woman from a military (i.e., SAA, in case you didn't understand) family—is a well-established scholar on Syrian affairs with three degrees to his name and around 25 years' worth of professorial experience at five universities. Does he make statements critical of the regime? Sure—but "NPOV" doesn't mean that we ignore reliable sources simply because they take stances on issues, it means that we represent and give due weight to all major viewpoints. For the record, rebel fanboys hate him too, and I think that you wouldn't even take issue with him if his views coincided better with the POV you want to push here. Not wanting to use twitter is one thing, but making up stupid and false rationales for rejecting real scholars is another. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the admins here just don't like rebels victory, don't they? its still red not even contested!! the dailystar is reliable source so you should change it to green.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/02/09/world/middleeast/09reuters-syria-crisis-hama.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.51.55 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Guys calm down everything will be edited when there is a reliable source just don't clutter the page I was at work so I did not have the time to edit it that is why I posted the source only.You need to calm down and everything will be done just have to be a little patient.Daki122 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the criminal rebels did massacre many of the peaceful famailies in the Alawite village of Ma'an.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

^Are these types of comments even legal on wikipedia? O.o Kami888 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No and that is why it has been removed from the talk page from now on this kind of anti-semetic comments will not be allowed on this page especialy when a massacre on religious bases has happened.Daki122 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

oky, but what about the another comment why they didn't delete it? calling the rebels criminals? and talking about the alawite families which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAP. is this site is pro regime?Amensnober91 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know when you talk about evidence-based facts that it is pro-regime behavior. EkoGraf (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

he's calling the rebels criminals. is that a fact? no. its pro regime. if I call the saa criminals or dogs you people will deleate my comment, right? which makes this site a pro regime.Amensnober91 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure rebels are criminals. In any country. lol Kami888 (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

so every rebels in the world are criminals? this world you live in is MADE by rebels and revolutions. just read history.Amensnober91 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes and the regime massacring civilians in Banyas, Nabek or Halfaya is just heroism right? Anyways, that's how it seems to some editors here... --Amedjay (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just not let this discussion became political. I'm sure we all have very different point of view, especially on this very sensitive subject... We are here to present to the users an objective and factual map discribing what's going on on the syrian field today. 85.170.166.86 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)a

You're right, i'm sorry about that but the pro-regime posts here are starting to become unbearable... Sure there are also pro-rebel editors but they never go as far the pro-regime ones who openly call rebels "terrorists" --Amedjay (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, poor "freedom fighters", they are clearly the victims, fighting for liberty and democrazy sharia-style, but shut up, or chief Lothar will get angry and block you...--HCPUNXKID 23:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to block anyone, sweetie. And the fact that I find manipulative fanboys like you to be highly distasteful doesn't mean that I have any sympathy for a bunch of craven Salafi bandits. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Im sorry but please suggest another name for the Al-Qaeda linked "rebels" in Syria because I do not see any mentions even on opposition sites for the so called FSA because the FSA has been wiped out of the game they either get a truce with the government or they get wiped out by jihdaists.And about the massacares I think everyone should remember Houla, Latakia, Adra, Khan al Asal, the Kurdish massacare,Darayya,Judeit Artuz,Maalula,Mahin and the latest Maan all secterian based killings so any anti-semetic comments must be reserved you can call someone a criminal a terrorists but no discrimination comments based on religion.Calling someone criminal and offending someone on religious bases is not the same.Daki122 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just what I said, pro assad comments "No FSA just Al Qaeda". If you knew more about Syria, you would know that if they indeed are not as present as before in Northern Syria, they are still very powerful in the south. As Islamic Front they are pretty far from Al Qaeda. The simple fact of saying that rebels in Syria are from Al Qaeda show how ignorant you are. Please stop posting such comments full of pure and simple ignorance. --Amedjay (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Islamic front is a proxy Army for Saudi Arabia how can anyone even call them moderate they are the same thing as Al-Nusra they want sharia law and want to kill off or displace the minorities out of the country and install another regime so that is not a FSA style army that is an Al-Qaeda group under another name.I mean look at the videos they are always saying they will slaughter every one that is not like them what the hell should you call that.These rebels are nothing more then a proxy army which has one goal alone that is to put the Syrian people under another even worse rule and do the bidding of the gulf monarchies and the west only a blind person will think this is a fight for freedom this is a battle for Syria which the Syrian army needs to win or else my prayers go to all those people who are not supporting the rebel wahabi and salafi ideology as they will be slaughtered by this "rebels"(Christians,Druze and Alawite minorities make up around 25-30% of the population)or will be forced out of the country.Daki122 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Listen,here you bunch of outsiders who have no connection to Syria anyway,alot of experts warned at the time of the Houla and qubeir and taremessa massacres back in 2012,that Assad's henchmen committed these autrocious massacres,so that he can destroy the bond of coexistence between the syrian people,so that alawites have no way other than support them,and this setted a high level of hatred between Sunni Syrians and alawites,which led to the radicalization of the FSA brigades,from call a democracy to call for an Islamic state based on shura (democracy),and led the Sunni wants revenge from the alawites,secondly,there is no hatred towards Christians or Druze,Assad tried to spread hatred between them,but he failed to do so,I don't expect at all a grim future for any of syrian sect,except alawites for this generation,and actually most Christians are neutral,and most Druze are on positive neutrality,ALL HERE HAVE TO realize,no matter who much the conflict goes on,it will end with Assad losing The war,the syrian army has became a marginal player in this war,who are actually fighting is Hezbollah,Abu fadel al Abbas and the houthis and Shia fanatics from around the war,and the Iranian revolutionary guards,and the national defense forces (another volksturm army) and the syrian resistance,for the opposition side,we are witnessing the decline of jihadist forces in Syria,ISIL will most likely be eleminated from Syria by March,and all who would be left fighting on the ground will be Syrians,and don't expect the US and allies, European,Saudis,qataris,Turks watch Assad gaining momentum and seeing him rejecting the basis of Geneva 1 of a transition ruling council,and be silent and allow him go on,they will most likely arm the opposition and allow them to besiege Damascus,so that Assad and his high command is forced out of power via negotiations,and IF GENEVA 2 is failed by Assad,EXPECT full Armenia of the opposition with alots of stingers missiles and anti-aircraft missile and the government planes will fall in enormous rates that will eliminate the syrian airforce out of the war,if that occurs expect a libyan ending scenario in Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And you, as a Kurd, write all of this from USA, while your Kurds are slaughtered by jihadi salafists in Syria. Kurds die everyday in Syria and yet you dont care. Everyone knows Kurds help SAA. It seems you don't have connection with your brain or Syria. You don't have connection with reality, mainsteam media in USA did damage to your brain. --Bozocv (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing. Me as a Christian dont buy all that BS that you wrote. Why on the earth terrorists would attack Ma'loula‎ if they did not have anything against Christians? Why did they set whole place on fire? Also this.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozocv (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Aside from some Arabised jash like Omar Ossi, the vast majority of Kurds do not see themselves as "helping" the SAA. At best, they view Assad as a minor threat in comparison to the bearded psychopaths actively attacking Rojava, and maintain unofficial truces in several areas (while actively undermining the administrative centrality of the state). But nobody has forgotten 2004 or the decades of the Ba'athist government's Arab-chauvinist policies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty just to remind you that Russia has sold Syria 36 Yak-130(they are in Russia and a if the US steps up military support so will Russia) and more than 34 MiG-29M/M2 MRCA(Some were delivered others will be delivered in mid 2014) which can't be brought down with stingers also stingers are overrated I mean they can't shot down anything faster than 1500 km/h or anything over 4000 meters in altitude they will only make the situation worse because then the Army will go into carpet bombing from high altitude which will only result in escalation of the conflict not ending it(Stinger and any type of that kind of a missile can fire at 3km hight and 5km range at max an Su-24 can drop 8 tons of bombs from altitudes beyond 10km so they won't do a very good job) second of your so called rebels are only here because of outside intervention Qatar spent 3 billion dollars for the rebels in the past year Saudi Arabia spent also over 10 billion dollars on the rebels and they still can't get any results and don't tell me about outside forces because the rebels are an outside force,people from 83 countries are fighting on the rebel side so if that is not a outside intervention I don't know what is.Daki122 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jarabulus

I think we need change the city Jarabulus on contested. Because that this source Hawar News confirms that now in the Carablus clashes between FSA vs ISIS. And for those who dont know Carablus it is kurdish name for city Jarabulus.source Hanibal911 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I already did that but your buddy EkoGrak reversed it.Alhanuty (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Secondly the clashes include jabhat al Akrad,which means if ISIL loses the city,there will two yellow rings with one green ring.for jarabulus.Alhanuty (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Secondly the clashes include jabhat al Akrad,which means if ISIL loses the city,there will two yellow rings with one green ring.for jarabulus.Alhanuty (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

And about the city Jarabulus I absolutely agree with you. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo Map pt Deux

Alepo map needs update the army has closed in on the eastern parts and has just taken Karm Al Tarb[16][17] this is pretty reliable evidence it cant get better than this.Daki122 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I can pinpoint some of the locations of those pics; indeed they are in Karam al-Tarab.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor Governorate

Activist say ISIL has almost completely withdrawn its fighters from eastern province of Deir al-Zor.ISIL forces have pulled back to the eastern provinces of Raqqa and Hassaka, according to activists.Al JazeeraReutersThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tall Brak and Tall Hamis

Two towns of Tal Hamis and Tal Barak under the control of militant group so-called Islamic Front.Al Alam Although maybe someone else has other information. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the info warrants enough for the towns to be colored lime whit a black ring. EkoGraf (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

al-Yarmouk

Gunmen linked to the Jabhat al-Nusra group began pulling out of al-Yarmouk refugee camp in southern Damascus. The Palestinian brigades commanders and representatives of the Palestinian Popular Front earlier reached a deal to make the camp safe. The deal calls for the withdrawal of Jabhat al-Nusra from the camp after surrendering their headquarters to the Palestinian fighters.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we mark it as red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.115 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Better is to remove it from map, because camp position is over city circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No sources needed?

The situation here is reaching incredible levels, now I discovered that some users (well, its the same user wich is always causing troubles here) dont need sources to add towns to the map. Im talking about this & this. If so, I would be glad to add the towns i'd like without giving any source, as that user does. Oh, and someone with patience should try to explain him & others similar to him (good luck) the difference between journalistic sources and activist sources, something very difficult to understand for them...--HCPUNXKID 16:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

PBS frontline

They have up what looks to be a good map here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/map-syrias-shifting-battle-lines/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.64.46 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Map in this source is highly dubious do not think that we can use this map. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Two unsourced cities in deir ez zor western country side

Why where two unsourced cities added as government controlled where added.Alhanuty (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They lay on the Highway to Deir-ez-Zor from Tadmur which is under control of the Army even tough i am against putting up towns with no sources.My point is no town should be added without a source.Daki122 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that we all made ​​mistakes and will most reasonable way to stop use of messages in Twitter and videos from You Tube. And we will not use the pro government sources to display the army successes but we also should not use the pro opposition sources to display the rebels successes. If all agree with me then in the future we will not have problems with editing on the map. Otherwise, the map will not show the real situation and turn into a rubbish . I think we all should agree that it would be more correct. Or at least we might spend a vote on the matter. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

We use blogger accounts for the fighting between rebels and ISIL,for the fight with Assad,they are unreliable,EXCEPT TWITTER ACCOUNTS OF SCHOLARS,LIKE JOSHUA LANDIS AND THE STAFF OF THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE AND ISW.Alhanuty (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

STOP THE POV-PUSHING DOUBLE STANDARD EFFORTS, TWITTER CANNOT BE USED, WP GUIDELINE IS VERY CLEAR, NO MATTER WHOSE USER ACCOUNT IS. AND STOP ADDING TOWNS WITHOUT ANY F*CK*NG SOURCE, VANDAL SOPHER99 (MORE THAN 10 TOWNS ADDED WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF SOURCE, IF THAT'S NOT VANDALISM...)!!!--HCPUNXKID 15:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT YOUR FREAKIN VANDALISM YOU AND HANNIBAL AND DAKI ADDING TOWNS WITHOUT SOURCES AND USING UNNEUTRAL SOURCES.Alhanuty (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of vandalism first you need look at changes which you have made on basis of messages in Twitter or data from blogs. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I said Many times that Joshua landis is a scholar ,not a blogger and this considered a reliable source,ands no problem we can use his website instead of his twitter account.Alhanuty (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont give a f*ck what Landis is, Twitter cannot be used, period. If WP has rules, lets follow them, or simply anyone will do anything he/she wants and the decreasing credibility of WP will reach zero. And if that vandal Sopher99 insist in including towns in the map without giving a single source, there are only two options: reporting him and pray for a definitive and perpetual block (that would be soooo good, a day of celebration in WP) or simply act like him and adding what we want, without giving any source of proof of it. You decide.--HCPUNXKID 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcaxx added around 40 villages in Hama under the assumption that the government controls them, including the use of twitter. For example, he used the argument "since masyaf and its surroundings are controlled by the syrian army, I am adding these villages."

And guess what - no one complained - but me. Now I am not complaining, and simply begun using the same technique he used. And the only one complaining about that is you. Sopher99 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK very nice, you are justifying your vandalism by alleging that a new user who dont know how WP and this template works added also towns without sources. So you compare yourself with a newcomer who dont know a sh*t about how this works. That portraits you very well. Also, you are a liar, as Hanibal911 reverted one of Barcaxx edits, and both him and me told him in his talk page that he couldnt add towns without giving sources, so your claims are total bullsh*t, as usual. Expect a report on you ASAP.--HCPUNXKID 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You are the one mistaken. I said because no one complained I assumed well it was fine. And even now you are the only one complaining. Also check his talkpage again. Hanibal only instructed him not to use Mayadeen. Sopher99 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's really sad to see the map getting hijacked by POV edits. People need to keep in mind that the aim of this map is to represent a realistic situation on the ground. If people make edits with the aim to push their POV, you not only damage the reputation of the map, but you also decrease the credibility. If people are not able to cut their emotions and their POV during edits, it may be advisable to only allow more experienced users to edit. Heisenberg99 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Me and sopher99 are veterans editors, sopher joined 2009 and I join early 2012, but hannibal joined late 2013 and Daki mid-2013 and you can check the contributions to check,I have realized that there is an increasing amount of pro-government editors who began contributing here, I suggest that editors lothar Von righthofen and I make the edits in the map.Alhanuty (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty if I am a pro-gov editor how come I never used an unreliable source to change anything unlike you and sopher you guys are the biggest rebel supporters on this page and as soon as something says that the rebels advanced even if that is a biased source you use it.So don't lecture me and others about pro-gov or anything else as I have never used a source that is not confirmed from the mainstream media instead go take a look at sopher's edits because if you,him and lothar edit this map the rebels would have won the war in 2012 of course only on the map because reality is one thing and fiction is another.And a reminder to sopher not long ago you added villages in Raqqa based on one source only saying Raqqa a majority rebel province so don't lecture anyone else about that and on top of that the user that added the villages in Hama and Homs is right there is no rebels in that part of Syria as the majority of the population is Christian and supports the government.Daki122 (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear editor Alhanuty if you look at the history of my changes then you will see that I also many times display a progress the rebels. When I started editing, I always tried to be neutral and objective but you and some other have convinced me that the neutrality and objectivity nothing not means for some editors. If you remember tense situation in area Eastern Ghouta I suggested a compromise solution of situation and there are many such examples. So that you do not fair accuse me of bias and not objectivity. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion for this is that only reliable sources to be used from now on so there will be no more stupid edits based on unreliable media as they are only cluttering the history and you can not simply undo an edit from there because some users make 10 changes a day so please don't make any changes with no source or biased sources.And from now on if there is some town that you think should be redo or green or black and you don't have reliable sources but have evidence that it should be like videos and photos(Zabadani area compromise see in the talk page history) then you come on the talk page to discuss it first(I have done this many times and if I can do it so can you).Everyone can express there own opinion on the talk page but when it comes to editing the map please have restrains and use only reliable sources and be as much as objective as you can.SO every editor on this map must follow rules and not use biased sources and if we can follow this simple rule that will be much more effective in presenting the reality on the ground instead of our imaginary situation mislead by sources and activists on twiter and facbook. Daki122 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As interested follower of this Wikipage, I noticed that some of the editors here solely add or green dots or red dots (or yellow or black). Though I'm impressed with all those sources editors read and the dedication editors have, it looks a bit strange to me that if you read so many sources and make so many edits to this map, you can only find sources for or rebel advances or government advances. This creates and image of being biased and on itself decreases the reliability and trustworthy of some of the editors (and their sources). In that light I've more respect to those editors who add both rebel and government advances since they appear to be the most interested in representing the truth. Though looking back and playing the blame card is not helping here. No one is a saint and no one can "win" this civil war. Neither should it be an aim either. Even if you are supporting one of the sides in this conflict, it should be in your own interest and of everyone else to create a map which is as accurate as possible. Why? Because it gives information about the front lines and helps other users (and viewers like me) to have an idea what is going on on the ground. Information which can be valuable in regards to new and ignored developments. Heisenberg99 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Qalamoun Offensive 2014

Seeing on the map that town of Jarajir is already under Syrian army control here's a SOURCE from Dailystar to confirm it.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported 20 air strikes on Yabroud keep an eye on that as the Army can move in any time in the city videos that have came out from Yabroud today include Hind gunships and fighter jets attacking rebels in the town I think an offensive has began in the Qulamoun here is a good source provider for the offensive [18].Daki122 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

the town of al-Sehl was taken? there's no confirmation by both sides on this.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

SOurce posted is Daily Star you can visit the history.Daki122 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind in posting the source? I am not sure how to find the source in the history. I would appreciate it.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the source & thank you for pointing me in where to find it.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also this: NOW, although I have no clue where Al-Neaymat and Al-Abboudieh could be situated... Maybe West of Bureij? Kihtnu (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That article is from January 30.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And? Better late than never :) Maybe, it was a preparation before the current offensive. I hope Wikimapia can help Kihtnu (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The locations that is mentioned in your source are not listed in wikimapia & google-maps just to let you know. cheers.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add the town of Muaddamiyat al-Qalamoun to the map (under the control of the Syrian Army). It is located between al-Qutayfah and al-Ruhaybah. It is a quite large town with a population of around 17,000. Here is a pro-opposition link confirms that the town is under the control of the government forces fsa-dam (in Arabic).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-army-defeating-rebels-us-has-boosted-its-support-to-al-qaeda-terrorists/5369018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.60.26 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link

I discovered that the town Nasiriyah, close to the air base in the north-east of Damascus, is linked here: to the Iraqi town. Should you delete the link or change it? Guidoriccio11 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

City of Al-Nasiriah and An Nasiriya - Military Airbase in Rif Dimashq. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I know. But still on the map there is a wrong link, because is linking the Iraqi town... Guidoriccio11 (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Batbo, Hazano

Hazano and Batbo in Rebel (non-Isis) control. Im not in the mood to add them, so please.

Source: http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article124636132/Dort-ist-al-Qaida-Die-schneiden-Ihnen-den-Kopf-ab.html OberschIesien90 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Al-boida, hama

according to Aljazeera and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights the rebels have seized this village in the north of hama.

http://www.aljazeera.net/mob/f6451603-4dff-4ca1-9c10-122741d17432/9f4cb1f1-f910-49ed-ba1b-2e1bf053b33a

the Aljazeera is a reliable source I think, but there is no english version for this report.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In this article, no mention of the village Al-boida. Could you specify exactly where in this article says that the rebels captured to particular this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it mentions buwaidah.Alhanuty (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I will make the change.Alhanuty (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Aljazeera nor OSDH are reliable sources. My previous comment were deleted. Surely because it is quit embarrassing ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.23.55 (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Aljazeera english is good but the arabic site is just awful with the reports it is like reading SANA or Press TV from the government side.Daki122 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Daki! English version is more correct. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2014

sheikh zayyat is under government control according to SOHR. The dot should be changed to red. Also the sheikh najjar industrial area is currently experiencing a major battle according to SOHR, so the dot should be changed to a red-green flashing box in order to indicate a contested area.

The town of Ma'an in northern Hama is currently experiencing a major battle according to SOHR today. It should be changed to a red-green flashing box.

In the town of zarzour in Idlib, there is a fight between ISIS and rebels according to SOHR. It should be changed to a black-green flashing box 98.226.245.208 (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please precise your sources. In fact, the points above come from SyriaHROE a pro-opposition FB.

Could you also please take this into account? Talbiseh as contested [19] and [20] from the SMC website itself. Al-Ghawali, East of Aleppo under loyalist control [21] from pro-opp Twitter. I dont don't know where it is. Wikimapia may help. Akhtarin contested between FSA and ISIS [22] Markadah under ISIS control [23], also from pro-opp Twitter. Thank you. Kihtnu (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)