Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

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[1] (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 [2] 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 [3] 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)

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)

Let’s do it guys. I will wait a few days then add the Damascus map in. After that, we can focus on making it great, and keeping it up to date.Tradedia^talk 15:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this in principle, but you haven't really addressed the question of the giant red lines and arrows all over the Rif Damashq offensive map, which are not appropriate and clumsy looking on the general map, since it's not intended to track historical progression. Neither the Aleppo nor Daraa or Deir Ez Zor map have as much of a problem with this, although they do include some arrows as well. Would it perhaps be a good idea to make a duplicate of this map, leaving only the up to date information and upload it separately? Then there are also some concerns about the accuracy of the map, but those can be addressed later. As an example, I don't really understand why a lot of the territory around Damascus is completely uncolored as if it was unpopulated or sparsely populated, while in fact there are lots of settlements and giant military bases there, particularly so in the south west (Khan al-Shih isn't on it at all). This isn't the Deir Ez Zor area, this is one of the most densely populated parts of Syria. Another thing I don't like about it is how it currently treats the truce/ceasefire areas. I don't understand the meaning of the blue "inactive" frontline when we have reliable information of both rebels and government troops being jointly present in parts of the district? Just like it was on the general map, I think truce/ joint control areas need their own color or representation, and not an arbitrary blue line. Kami888 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I rather keep it the old way for rif dimashq,because it will be impossible to update the map,also,it would be better to make a map for Damascus city only ,not adding the rif area to it,as what was done in Aleppo.Alhanuty (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We can't have a map like Alepo as the government controls all of Damascus but we also can't have a map this old and outdated it does not show the truces in the area and it needs a bit of work.A few tips for the map it should be put as a stable front no offensive by the 2 sides for now the area of Al-Zayabeyah near Zeynab should be red and Yarmuk should also be red as Al-Nusra pulled out and the area is now controlled by PFLP-GC fighters and the green part in Otayba should also be removed as the rebel offensive in December failed to take any part of the town and instead it should be put back to the previous front lines.Daki122 (talk) 14:14, 24

The inset map is a huge improvement, is relatively recent and can be improved.

As for Yarmuk, al-Nusra pulled out, but the (more numerous) pro-rebel palestinians remain in a truce with the (less numerous) pro-regime palestinian forces. (Palestinian meaning essentially syrians of palestinian descent.) Note that the various truce agreements seem to require non-FSA rebels to leave.

Any other objections can be dealt with by subsequent edits to the inset map. Besides making the main map more easily displayed, it also considerably reduces the problem of edit warring, which all objective editors should appreciate. André437 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to making a copy of this map that doesn't include the red lines, arrows, and other non-up to date information? Also changing truce/joint control areas to their own representation, following the pattern that exists on the general map? Kami888 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am FOR Kami888's proposal, because I have strong objections to the current form of the map. And despite your assertions Andre437 in the edit summary, objections by other editors have NOT been addressed. I count, including myself, four editors who have issues about the map, which you seemed to have missed. So, again, please discuss the issues that multiple editors have instead of reverting without talk. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait a couple of days to make sure, if no objections I'll upload the up-to-date only version. Kami888 (talk) 23:51, 25 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)

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)

EDIT: Tel Barak was taken by Kurdish #YPG forces via YPG Spokesman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.240.253.222 (talk) 07:28, 22 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)

Wow, it seems we have a dictator apprentice here, so you suggest that only two users well-known for their pro-"rebel" bias made the edits? HA, HA & HA, NICE JOKE. And you should avoid talking about whose more veteran, apart from showing your arrogance, I could use that point to say that Im more veteran than Sopher, Hannibal, Daki or you, but Im not that arrogant.--HCPUNXKID 19:09, 16 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)

I could agree with you, but lets get things clear: I have some locations (towns, military bases, etc...) that I could add to the "rebel" side, but seeing the POV-pushing, the manipulation of sources, the breach of WP rules and guidelines, the vandalism and bad faith of a group of users here I have decided not to add a single one of them. I though months ago: "Well, if I see a change in their behaviour I could start adding them", but of course that didnt happen, and as you can see last thing is that a user is adding towns without any type of source. Sorry to say this, but I will made a last effort to get things right, and If that not works, I will have to behave the same, sadly, as it seems that lately vandalism and POV-pushing are not punished in WP. As far as I know there aint VIP editors in WP that could do what they want, so...--HCPUNXKID 19:18, 16 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 [4].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)

That is a quote of an iranian news agency post citing Assad military sources, presenting as well a highly biased and inaccurate history of the conflict, using derogatory language for the rebels. You ought to be ashamed to present such nonsense. André437 (talk) 01:00, 17 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)

I don't understand what you want to mean. Saying that Aljazeera English version is more correct than the Arabian one doesn't make sens. Is SANA in French or English is better than the Arabian version ?. It is just translations.................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.23.55 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just read the reports in Arabic is like rebels detroyed 10 tanks killed 100 soldiers and this and that that is why I personaly don't consider that version as reliable on english on the other hand they give a full report on an advance not just stupid propaganda.Daki122 (talk) 20:30, 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.

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Najjar

SOHR has reported that the Army has captured large parts of Sheikh Najjar village, with fighting continuing in the northern outskirts. Source here [5]. Please someone add the village on the map, mark it red and put a lime ring around it. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf,it says clearly that government forces have regained parts of maan,meaning that should be contested,not government surrounded,I could read Arabic too.Alhanuty (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's just note it as contested. Before the advent of new information. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Regime troops seized village of Sheikh Najjar. Confirmation of the information from a reliable source.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Villages in Hama

These villages must be deleted.

You can't add villages without specified sources, according to HCPUNX. Then these must be deleted

The names of the villages are not mentioned at all in those sources, just the fact Rif Maysaf is controlled by the regime

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594565249&oldid=594553337

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594364987&oldid=594364103

Sopher99 (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99 you are the biggest complex on earth those villages in Homs had sources but you removed them.On top of that you changed Hama(reverted by Lothar) to contested, the whole city based on a video that says that rebels fire grad missiles.Pathetic dude pathetic and sad.Daki122 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with lothar,but I extremely disagree with EkoGrak putting maan as gov-controlled the source says contested,they captured part of the town.Alhanuty (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ....I gave you the diff that showed those villages were either not sourced or sourced by youtube and twitter 00:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The source about Maan says the fighting has now moved to the town's outskirts. Its a proper compromise to put a lime ring around the red town now. And I agree with Lothar about the Hama claim. The source says the rebels lobed a few rockets at the city's airport which is not even within the city itself but outside it. The video report makes no claims of fighting for the city itself. The source doesn't even say they are trying to capture the base, only that they shell it from time to time. EkoGraf (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I clearly read the source and it says parts.Alhanuty (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EkoGraf. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's just remember that the war is not happening here, on our wiki map...Oussj (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian troops regain control of the village Maan.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's one from Dailystarlb confirming the seizure via SANA.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Hanibal. EkoGraf (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian troops recaptured the village Maan.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99

He again violated the 1 Revert Rule. Reverted all these in minutes: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594260126&oldid=594233591 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594642856&oldid=594580088 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594646538&oldid=594642856 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594658448&oldid=594649722 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594362268&oldid=594360075 I have reported him in the past, not sure if I should do it again, in case someone believe it is not enough.--Andres arg (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Weve been through this before. The 1 revert rule is for reverting more than 1 time, granted you have been interrupted by another user. Sopher99 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

" A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Sopher99 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You should stop using months old sources, intentionally misunderstanding sources to to remove red dots from the map, like you have just done marking Hama as contested.

I don't find any difference between you and deonis. I don't understand how your account is still working on Wikipedia.--Andres arg (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher99 !!!!!!!!!

What is he doing!!! some body sould stop him. He reverted 5 times with no source. You guys really made him crazy when you refused to give him those villages in Der-Alzor (for FSA against ISIS). Please give him Mars and tell him to leave the page. Opposition has no control in alawite and christian villages in Masyaf and west of Homs and Hama. and no control al all in Tartus. I gave him a map from opposition itself. It is very well known fact and he knows it very well, but as you refused to give him those villages in est of Syria, he will delete Damascus itself !!!

I know I am new, and I was not giving sources to every thing, but Hanibal and another user did tell me that and they guided me and checked my edits, and I am contacting them to understand how to make things in the right ways. But this guy Sopher99 is really amazing !!! He is a country himself and nobody can ever tell him what to do. Barcaxx1980

Based on rules we don't add things without a source,also,there is no benefit of adding new towns in an area we definitely now is Assad controlled,not adding the cities doesn't mean the area is Assad controlled,if you want to show territorial control there is another map for it, sopher99 reverts are understandable.Alhanuty (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone posting here, please leave a space line between your comment and others. Otherwise comments tend to get mixed up (as happened here), and sometimes posted in duplicate. Thanks. André437 (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Brigade 113 in Deir ez-Zor

who added this brigade on the map? the brigade 113 has been seized by rebels since the last year and you can check all the sources.Amensnober91 (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I though it was a February 2014 source, not a February 2013. Sorry for the error, you can revert it.--HCPUNXKID 17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done--HCPUNXKID 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Points

Could you also please take this into account? Talbiseh as contested [6] and [7] from the SMC website itself and Yalla Souriya a Pro-Opp Blog. Al-Ghawali, East of Aleppo under loyalist control [8] from pro-opp Twitter. I dont don't know where it is. Wikimapia may help. Akhtarin contested between FSA and ISIS [9] Markadah under ISIS control [10], also from pro-opp Twitter. Thank you. Kihtnu (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not use messages in Twitter for editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I know some sources are from Twitter, but pro-opp accounts showing opposition retreats. So we can't use it even for showing Loyalist advances if the Twitter account is pro-opp, or vice-versa? That's not what I saw in the edition rules of this page, which are very good by the way. Kihtnu (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Feb-17/247617-syria-army-rebels-agree-new-damascus-area-truce-afp.ashx#axzz2tNqD7URi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.60.26 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Truce in Babbila but some rebels remained Babbila because the they took advantage of the amnesty NOW NewsThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Truce doesn't mean surrender. Of course rebels stay (with their weapons). And if the regime breaks a truce, expect the rebels to respond. Note that each truce in the Damascus area is negociated separately, with its' own terms. Most (if not all) of the truces have joint checkpoints on the perimeter. André437 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Talet al-Ghali

An opposition twitter report earlier reported that the Army captured Talet al-Ghali, and now we have this news report [11] confirming same story. Please add red dot. Per Wikimapia the town is located between the eastern outskirts/entrance of Aleppo and the western edge of Naqqarin. EkoGraf (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's al-Manar; we need a neutral source.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think these photos will be proof enough [12][13][14][15][16].Daki122 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You need pictures that have structures that you can identify on wikimapia & google maps to find Tel Ghawli for example: The Unfinished Mosque: Location, the Unfinished Mosque & Warehouse (with two triangle rooftops): Location & a Manufacturing Plant: Location. All those buildings are along the road which links Naqqarin & Aleppo but between those two is Tel Ghawli but take as reference.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos, Videos, etc are neither proofs, nor sources. To change something you need a relieable, professional and as neutral as it is possible in a conflict like this. (Al Manar does not respond to these standards.)Oussj (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Xinhua (3rd Paragraph) mentions the town captured via SANA but not sure if this counts as legit source.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

here are some more photos from the same place [17].Daki122 (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian troops recaptured the towns of Sheikh Najjar and al-Ghalli.Global Times Hanibal911 (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

regime news claims the SAA has "maintained control" of the towns of Talet ali ghali and sheikh najjar. Talet ali ghali overlooks the highway and the area near the regime held prison. Obviously this needs to be confirmed by oppposition or other sources. see at 5minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbd6GpyqWaI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.65.252 (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Сompromise solution

I ask everyone to treat with understanding to my decision: We reached compromise with the editor Sopher. I will return back on map the villages which Sopher been earlier added. But we all in future not should add on the map villages or citys without specifying the source. This compromise must end the war of editors. I hope for your support and understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To prevent editor war - you decided to accept edit from user who regulary broke rules!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

you are naive.... sopher99 will do it agian. what i saw from his post... he is sick pro rebel member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. I do not support and will revert it ASAP. First, an accord between you and Sopher is not a compromise solution, as the rest of editors have something to say about that (as the previous reactions of other editors show), no VIP editors here, we are all equal & rules are for all. Secondly, you cannot say, "Well, what you did was bad, but let's maintain the damage done and try not to do it again from now". As other editor upwards said, that is very innocent & naive, apart from an approval of WP rules breaching. If you want to surrender in defending WP rules is up to you, but other editors have something to say about that.--HCPUNXKID 15:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all I didn't break the rules, I used wikimapia and matched it to a BBC map. Second of all I see none of you complaining about Barcaxx's edits and removing villages he added directly without a source. Sopher99 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Some the changes in the province of Deir ez-Zor confirmed this source. Source confirms that Jabhat al-Nusra controls the road which links the city Deir ez-Zor with city Markadah in the province Hasakah. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And before this, we had a source claiming full withdrawal of ISIS from Deir Ez Zor province and fighting in Mardakah, so putting those towns as lime I think was justified. Your latest edits are not, HCPUNXKID. 98.224.32.154 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

They were as justified as Sopher99 one's, no more, no less. He based his unsourced changes on a country map with no specific towns, so do I. I've tried to dialogue, but you cant discuss with someone who dont want to. He even tried to blackmail me, saying that he would remove his unsourced edits if I removed other editor unsourced edits, when he could do it by himself. What Im not going to do is to swallow this, shut up and simply leave it. If he wants it that way and other editors here dont act against his clear breaches of WP rules, its their problem, dont blame me, blame him, as he was who started this...--HCPUNXKID 00:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. There are many reliable sources confirming ISIL withdrawal from Der Ez Zor province. [18] [19] [20] etc. You are basing your one-sided edits on a single map which is 1. outdated. 2. clearly meant to be abstract rather than accurate. Would you like me to put Deraa city as lime because your PBS maps shows it as such? There is no equivalence, you are vandalizing. You have to stop. Kami888 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The PBS map was published 6 days ago, so later than your sources. If you call that outdated, how do you call Sopher previous unsourced edits based on a AUGUST 2013 BBC map?. I have repeated it several times, remove his unsourced edits and the problem is over, but he refuse all the time, seemingly with the tacit approval of some here. What is not acceptable is approving that Sopher could add towns to the map basing on a general map without specific towns (apart from a few provincial capitals) from 7 months ago, but when other user do the same is reverted. In my country we call that double standard.--HCPUNXKID 11:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd also certainly condemn the use of august 2013 maps unless they are backed up by more recent and reliable sources. The towns in Deir Ez Zor are not based on any 2013 map, we have recent sources I mentioned to judge from. Given that I think we have enough information to say that these towns are indeed held by nusra and ahrar al sham, which would be lime on the map. Kami888 (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the Deir Ezzor Eufrates towns, but of these 15 towns added without a single specific source, wich I had tried several times to remove, while that user refuses all the times, with the excuse that a newcomer user do the same earlier, as if two wrongs make one right, even trying to blackmail me as exposed above. I only started to behave like him when I saw that instead of reverting that vandalism, he seems to have the tacit approval of some editors here (or thats what the inaction of other users looks like). As I said until exhaustion, the solution is very simple: the revert of his unsourced edits and any other edit not backed by an specific source. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 16:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, do you even pay attention to what you're reverting? Out of 18 towns you've reverted, 10 are located in Deir Ez Zor. Stop revering them at least, then we can look at the others. Trust me I'm no more a fan than you are of Sopher adding towns based on some old map he found somewhere. Kami888 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that its you who dont pay attention, as you are mixing two different things. All the towns I reverted were added WITHOUT SOURCE, wether they were on Deir Ezzor or other governorate. The fact that ISIS withdraw from Deir Ezzor doesnt have anything to do with adding towns in that governorate WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC SOURCE.--HCPUNXKID 22:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Like mentioned before, there are definitely sources for the towns in Deir Ez Zor, but it's pretty clear by now that you won't admit that and keep arguing for eternity if you must, because you're really no better than Sopher in the end, except that while he can't stand seeing red on the map, you can't stand seeing lime. And that's despite the fact that you know just as well as anyone else that all those towns you're arguing about are most certainly rebel held in real life. Kami888 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree here with Kami888. The bad record of Sopher99 is known, he wasn't suspended for no reason. But by decreasing to a standard you yourself acknowledge as below credible is unacceptable. You have to remember what the purpose of Wikipedia is. The purpose is to inform people and share information, not to start a virtual Syrian civil war. For such things you two can better play a game of Risk. Fortunately for you two, there are even green and red armies in that board game. Heisenberg99 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again I am fine with both my additions and Barcaxx's additions being undone. Emphasis on both. At this moment I don't see anyone making an attempt to remove Barcaxx's unsourced villages - which I assume that means people are fine with minimally or no sourced villages, and are instead in just a wild goose chase to get at me. Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no goose chase, there is only some annoyance that you use dubious sources one sided. Take a notice to your last edits for example. You used a map for rebel gains, which actually also shows government "gains". Besides the fact that this map is not accurate and showing a lot of differences with other (multiple) sources, you decided to still use this map to add only rebel gains. A true wikipedia editor, which wants to show true developments, would or add all gains, both government and rebel, or show neither since the source is not credible. But you in contrary use sources one way and have a bad habit in that. I know there are more "editors" which have that same behavior, but for me as interested in true events, it's annoying to see someone nearly going that far to use the Donald Duck as a source as long as it shows advances of a party which you support. This besides the point that people who are known as clear supporters of a party in this conflict, should wonder if they should even edit this page since they are not unbiased and apparently professional enough. Heisenberg99 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Jazaa countryside

I am about to add town seized by the ypg in its campaign in the region help is appreciated.Alhanuty (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

YPG seized town of JazaaARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, towns and villages, I found only three out of eleven of them.Alhanuty (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now they are five villages I found. Alhanuty (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

NO BODY SHOULD EDIT THE MAP NOW,I AM UPLOADING THE CITIES THAT THE YPG CAPTURED IN JAZAA.Alhanuty (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now you can edit. Alhanuty (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Time Lapse

Is there any way that we can get a .gif or a clip of the changing geopolitics of the war. Seeing gains/loses of each faction from the beginning of the war? Malik Danno (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That is Avery good idea. Alhanuty (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Villages in hama

I don't know what people's deal is, not removing these villages Barcaxx added but removing the 20 I added with wikimapia. If these villages are not removed, I will just keep adding more villages, this time with the PBS map and a geolocation database. (both reliable). Sopher99 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594362268&oldid=594360075

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594658448&oldid=594649722

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594642856&oldid=594580088

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594646538&oldid=594642856

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594260126&oldid=594233591

Each diff shows Barcaxx adding without sources (or with youtube). Sopher99 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok sopher99 first of these villages are government held and you can not deny it second of adding villages in opposition areas is a bit complicated as we do not know which groups controls it(ISIS or other rebels) unlike the government once which are under control of the Army(NDF and other militias are all under the command of the Army) that is the difference between rebel held and government held because in the rebel held parts of Syria there are other groups affiliated with ISIS who control villages and not only rebels.Daki122 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway can anyone update the Syrian Army equipment to consist the BM-30 300mm MLRS as there is now a strong proof that it has been used in Hama province here are the sources[21][22].Daki122 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Sopher is trying to POV-push if not something worse. The last link he added (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594260126&oldid=594233591) was specifically sourced, with a documentary from the Lebanese TV OTV (Lebanon), something he tried to hide with the mention of YouTube. As I stated before, I dont have any problem with the use of YouTube if the videos are professional documentaries or news reports from journalistic sources (If we accept journalistic written sources, why not accepting journalistic audiovisual sources? It would be a total non-sense), wether is from Al-Jazeera, CNN, Press TV, Al-Arabiya, RT, BBC, Euronews, Telesur, France 24...or any other international news channel. While the editorial line of this channels could be partisan, images are not, as images dont lie. Not to mention that, for example, videos of Al-Jazeera or Al-Gad TV has been used as source with no problem till now (see the Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war article). But what some didnt want to understand is that it cant be equated that type of source with a partisan or activist non-journalistic source, or with an un-edited, amateur & non-proffesional crappy, lousy video recorded by who knows whom and who knows when & where.

By the way, Sopher is right when he asks for the removal of the towns wich were added without an specific source (as I always maintained), but he looses much of the reason he has on that when he tried to blackmail me (I will remove my unsourced edits if you remove the other user edits, that's what he propose me. Naturally, I told him that he could revert that by himself.), or when he assumed that if a newcomer user do that, he could do it too.--HCPUNXKID 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sopher is right when he asks for the removal of the towns wich were added without an specific source", you have an agreement then, great. Kami888 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to get philosophical here, images tell neither lies nor the truth; in and of themselves, they're neutral. It's what they are claimed to be by whoever films them that's the issue. This is where that pesky "editorial line" comes in. Having a "professional" film crew is in no way a failsafe guarantee of veracity. In fact, a film crew probably has far more resources and knowledge of how to manipulate what they say vs. what they show than some random guy running around with a cheap video recorder, and I'm not even talking about filming on some prefabbed set either. Angles, perspective, time—many variables can cause a disparity between what is shown and what is claimed. At any rate, there are actually many ways to verify even non-professional footage. For instance, if whoever is filming happens to show a few landmarks, you just need a good spatial sense and Google Earth to figure out where it was shot. Welcome to the 21st century [23]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Zabadani, Rif Dimashq

Claims are circulating on twitter about a already truce in Zabadani, anybody else have any solid source?- Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I read something that all opposition fighters handed their weapons and raised the national flag. Let me find my source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.163.54 (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can twitter ever be used to make changes? @TahrirSy reported: "#Syria: 1 week after the #truce between #FSA and #SAA in #Zabadani and no violations has been reported yet." What are acceptable sources to edit the map? Snowdrifts (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, twitter, facebook or amateur videos are not sufficient to make changes on the map. Oussj (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How about a non-English source that mentions the truce in Zabadani: http://www.badische-zeitung.de/ausland-1/rebellen-geben-waffen-ab--80927519.html Snowdrifts (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Requesting change; here is another source in English this time: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syria-local-rebels-willing-compromise-are-ready-all-scenarios

the ceasefire includes Bloudan, its been on for awhile Snowdrifts (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Iraq Map

I realize this might be a stretch to suggest as you all have your arms full with Syria map. BUT Is it at all possible to have the same map (with up-to-date) changes in Iraq. We know there are many factions involved in Iraq (central gov. ISIL, peshmerga, awakening council etc.). It would be amazing if we are able to extend this map to its neighbour Iraq and see how issues in Syria influence those in Iraq.

What do you guys think? Malik Danno (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know... since their is no evolution on the ground there...Oussj (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is constant evolution, but I admit not as much as we see in Syria because in Iraq it is not a full scale civil war. Malik Danno (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Though I think most contributors here aren't following that conflict too closely, it's definitely possible. Just start with this base map and use the same coding as the map here, there; User:Tradedia, as original architect of the Syria map, might be able to provide help with that. If you could find interested contributors, it would be no trouble at all really—and honestly, if you build it, they will come. This map used to be fairly quiet back in the day, now it's attracted a lot of attention and a good number of regular editors. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

If someone start the map I will help in editing the map for sure as I also keep track of the conflict in Iraq tough not as close as the one in Syria.Daki122 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think a good idea. And I'm also willing to help in editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello guys, thank you for the interest! I have started it late last night and I was running through a lot of problems. I am very new at wikipedia programming and was having difficulty. The main thing is the coordinates of the cities. I have used the longitudes and latitudes of the cities but they have always been too far off from where they are suppose to be, so then i manipulated them and in the preview they seemed alright, but when I saved the map they were out of place again. I don't know what I was doing wrong, any advice/help will be greatly appreciated. Here is the link (don't laugh!) Template:Iraq_war_detailed_map Malik Danno (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you attach this map Template:Iraq_war_detailed_map to this article Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) Hanibal911 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

done and done! I attached a link in the same location under the Iraq map on the template of the Iraqi Insurgency page. If you guys want, we can continue this discussion on the Template:Iraq_war_detailed_map talk page so that we do not conflict with Syrian Civil War page. I also am still having issues with the longitudes and latitudes. Thanks again! Malik Danno (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cities and Villages of Tartus, Latakia and West of Homs and Hama (A mixture of Alawites, Christians and Sunnis)

tens of maps and websites says the known fact that these villages are 100% controlled by the Syrian army. such as : (Feb 2014) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/map-syrias-shifting-battle-lines/ (March 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/13/world/middleeast/a-snapshot-of-the-dispute-in-syria.html?ref=middleeast&_r=0

Of course there is few news in Media about these villages because they were never under conflict or congestion. They were under government control before and after with no change. So, we should also add them to the map as we add the territories of ISIS and FSA.

--Barcaxx1980 (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion three sections above. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't.. what happened? I thought there was an agreement not to use the pbs map as the sole source of things. Not only is it obvious that the PBS map is grossly inaccurate and somewhat outdated, but what is even the point of having this wikipedia map in the first place if it's just going to blindly copy the pbs map? Hanibal911, why did you do this? Kami888 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit wars were getting out of control again so I've reverted back to version before it started. Please do NOT use the PBS map, or any other map, as a sole source for your edits in the future. If you're not a total idiot you should be able to tell why it's an awful idea just by looking at the last 10 edits or so before my revert. It doesn't enhance this map, it just leads to endless edit wars. Kami888 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well Lothar that is not a rely good solution.What we need is a mutual agreement between all editors so these stupid edit war would stop.I know that many of the editors are frustrated about this as we can not keep track of the edits as easy as we were keeping track before.Lets just remember the solutions of Zabadani and E.Ghouta which were done on the talk page that is a far better way to solve problems than directly editing and prompting reactions from other users which leads to chaos.Barcaxx1980 has a point about the villages they are all under control of the government and that is a fact that some users don't want to accept.The map like this with out those villages is a little bit miss leading as it shows that the government and the rebels have 50%-50% control over the cites and towns when in fact 70%(again a fact) of the population so by adding these villages and towns the map will present the situation better but again I do not want this to turn into a conflict and turn the map into a joke so I suggest a solution on these talk page were all the editors can be a part of and we can get an agreement between all of us which will be respected by all.

And a reminder to Sopher99 on the Alepo map the area north of Base 80 is called Naqqarin and should be red just take a look at a map from wikimapia so I suggest you self-revert as you are again putting your own imagination ahead of reality.Daki122 (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

who changed three town from red to contested without any source.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's of no use to add villages in places firmly controlled by any of the main actors of the conflict (Government, Rebels, Isis, Kurds) since it will only decrease the clarity of the map and these places you are talking about are controlled by loyalist troops since the very beginning... It's already pretty complex to read for a normal user.Oussj (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

YPG vs ISIS, in Tall Hamis and Tall Brak

YPG started a new operation against ISIS in Tall Brak and Tall Hamis. So those two cities should be colored yellow-black.

Source: YPG Official spokesman Redur Xelil (https://twitter.com/Rojekazad) and Rodi Khalil (https://twitter.com/Rodi_Khalil)

Reliable source(now only in Kurdish, soon English and Turkish): http://ku.firatajans.com/news/cihan/til-berek-hat-rizgarkirin.htm

84.196.156.86 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is not considered a WP:RS. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is reports that they captured Tal Barak,just awaiting reliable sources for it.Alhanuty (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hawarnews will mention it in the next coming hours.Alhanuty (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tel Brak has been captured by YPG and MFS (Syriac Military Council) https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse Malik Danno (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This article is not Semi-Protected, so you can edit the article yourself, provided you ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source for the capture of Tal Brak by YPG forces. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?&_r=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.107.182 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Regime controlled Nawa and Izra in Daraa

There is the source from August 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/15/us-syria-crisis-arms-idUSBRE97E0QH20130815 Sanameen, Nawa, Izra and Deraa city itself, which remain firmly in army control.

This map ending 2013 showing Nawa and Izra under regime control. http://oi61.tinypic.com/f51xmh.jpg

No signals the Rebels captured it — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 05:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is still reports of clashes in Nawa based on the last reports,but for izra I agree there is no reports of it being contested,return nawa back contested.Alhanuty (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Qamayra, homs

according to Al Jazeera and many pro opposite sources rebels have entered this village next to al-zarah.

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/241717ea-c245-4d3d-ac12-57bcece95400

it should be contested like al-zarah.Amensnober91 (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Why say it should be contested? you've just edited as contested using al-Jazeera as a "reliable source"--Homan 056k (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

no one edited the page, so I done that myself, and yes, Aljazeera is a reliable source (like it or not).Amensnober91 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually; the islamist rebels lost 18 fighters trying to infiltrate al-Qamayra, here's a SOHR report from that infiltration attempt, take it as reference.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

casualties doesn't mean they didn't enter this village.Amensnober91 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

True, but do you have a source that they took the town or fighting taking place in it? without using the aljazeera source........-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Aljazeera is reliable source.Amensnober91 (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

al-Jazeera should be placed in the same slot as "unreliable sources" such as al-Manar or Presstv.--Homan 056k (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course Amensnober91, and it is a reliable source since 2011 no ?. Please, don't make us laughing about reliable sources from AlJazeera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.23.55 (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

where is your proof that the Aljazeera is unreliable source? and what reliable source says the village is under saa control?Amensnober91 (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And where is your proof that al-Jazeera is reliable? it's an arabic which the majority of contributers here do not speak nore read; but I aint implying that it's unreliable because of it's language but if you use google translator it's sketchy.--Homan 056k (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

my proof??!! Aljazeera is a global network, that's my proof for you. and about the language, I can translate it for you if you want.Amensnober91 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No need, it's been done. :) --Homan 056k (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Quneitra

AP reports via Syrian TV that the army captured Rasm al-Hour and Rasm al-Sad in southern Quneitra, anybody know where these towns are at? -Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Could not locate them on the map. However the small city Ain al-Tineh in the southeastern part of the Quinetra province is under loyalist control. Can someone change the green dot to red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.202.239 (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

[24] this is another source that says army is advancing in the Golan.Daki122 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reports "Quneitra province: 2 air strikes on the town of Ghader Al-Bustan, accompanied by shelling by regime forces on areas in the town. violent clashes between regime forces and Islamic battalions in the southern countryside of QUneitra" Ghader Al-Bustan is located http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=32.920952&lon=35.913277&z=14&m=b&permpoly=66978 just west of Al-Mu'allaqah (green on the map). It should be added on the map as contested. I have seen in the last days several sources (mostly partisan) like https://www.facebook.com/pages/Islamic-Invitation-Turkey/344851995600272 about the taking of "Bariqeh, Koudneh and Rasm Al-Shouli" corresponding to first to Baqiqa, the second to Kawdenah (not reported on the map it is in http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=33.012118&lon=35.887012&z=14&m=b&permpoly=66978, between Bariqah and Al-Rafid, to be added as red). Previously https://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/page/22/ Beer Ajam was reported by pro-opp source as under attack. Putting together this evidence it seems that SAA moved from north to south along the demilitarized zone seewping the vilages there down to Ghader Al-Bustan or at least to Al-Rafid (see also from Yallsouria "Alqunaitirah | Arrafeed | Regime artillery shelling on the township injuring many civilians"). The villages north of Al-Rafid should become red, the other contested. Furthermore Suysah is located a bit farther north just below al-Dwayah. Just easy of al-Dwayah there is al-Hajah, that is contested (or under attack at least) as result from many reports from SOHR e.g. Pleae add it.

paolowalter (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A report fromyallasouriya (strongly pro-rebel) recognize that

Bier Ajam and Mumtannah were contested three days ago https://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/tag/quneitra/. 

They should go or contested or red.Paolowalter (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yabroud

Please put Yabroud lime but under pressure from the army because the city itself is still firmly controlled by rebels and the army is for the moment trying to take its surroundings (Rima farms, Al Sahel...). Thanks.--Amedjay (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Map disappeared

The template map has disappeared.Alhanuty (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What's going on ?Oussj (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone has to find a solution.Alhanuty (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What the hell hapend to the map?Daki122 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently that's a size issue; there are so many templates included in the map that it's no longer displayed correctly. I have reverted to the last correctly-displayed version, but adding another {{location map~}} template will likely break it again. To be blunt, to me this map appears like one massive WP:NOTNEWS violation and the waste of a lot of well-meaning effort. There's nothing of greater encyclopedic significance to the situation of February 23 than of, say, January 23, or December 23, or November 23. Why continuously update the map instead of producing multiple versions showing the frontlines at various stages of the conflict, say before and after specific offensives and operations? The latter way would allow us to produce maps based on images alone instead of templates, resolving the size issue too. Huon (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Just return,it it is edited by reliable sources.Alhanuty (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain the purpose of this map, and how it does not violate WP:NOTNEWS? Huon (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

From section 1 of WP:NOTNEWS : "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."

The map is intended to be updated in conjunction with the associated tables detailing the progression of the civil war, which is a topic of historical significance.

Originally they were on the same page, but the map became too big. There is a proposal to have an inset map for the Damascus area, which will replace many locations, thus reducing the size of the main map.

Note that it is much more difficult to produce a map reflecting a particular date, since the information about a particular location can arrive many weeks (and often months) after a change, while for other locations the information on changes are available almost right away. André437 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We can reduce the size quite a bit by turning all labels as links to text only. (The associated icon already has a link, and label links interfere with many icons.)

We could also reduce the size by using a shortcut for links to the tables page, but some admins broke WP rules to cancel that.

Another solution could be to write an alternative more compact template function for the places on the map. That would be more work. (Note that there is a bug in the positioning of icons : an icon is placed just above the point, instead of being centered.) André437 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014

وأحكمت وحدات من الجيش السوري السيطرة على التلال المحيطة بقرية المريعية وأجزاء كبيرة من حويجة المريعية في دير الزور بعد اشتباكات عنيفة مع المسلحين. مسعود.4 (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for the changes you request, such as a newspaper article confirming that the Syrian Army took control of that area. Huon (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The map has disappeared.Alhanuty (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a newly updated map of the eastern offensive in Aleppo corresponding well with the wiki-map. However I noticiced that the map of the city aleppo does not seem completely syncronised with the eastern outskirts we have added(Hence why Brigade 80 area has been disputed by Sopher99 and others). Maybe eastern parts of the Aleppo city map need to be coloured olive(eastern bits of Ard-Al Hamra and Jabal Badro)? http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2014/Feb/23/LiveLeak-dot-com-328_1393188984-1924701_639109759458143_1865645213_n_1393192177.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bade954f45dbd7ea15&ec_rate=230 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.202.239 (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Khan SHAYKHUN is contested? why? source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Tall Hamis is captured by Kurds. Mlease, make change of the map.Michal Pawinski (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Tall Hamis is captured by Kurds. Please, make the change of the map.

Tall Abyed

In this source they mention some new YPG controlled villages west of the city Tall Abyed. Koperlik, Abdikoy, Kitkaniya and Fayonta, this are villages where YPG and ISIS have clashed. Also Birkino should be changed to kurdheld according to this source. http://aranews.org/en/home/kurdish-region/1077-clashes-resume-between-syria-kurds-and-islamists.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.253.244 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

what happened to damascus?

this new damascus map has ruined the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.40.211 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It works fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Damascus map was really good, who convert back to previous version? This kind 2D-map works fine in Deir-El Zour and Daraa, why not in Damascus? If some area is contested we use the neutral(contested) colour. It is almost impossible to analyze Damascus properly with all these dots next to each other. The city map draws a more realistic version of what is happening. Don't you guys agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.202.239 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

not quite. I mean how we are supposed to know if the towns are contested or not. there are clashes now in the town of adra but this map doesn't show that. can someone add the contested towns in the map just like the town of khan al-sheh?Amensnober91 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if clicking on the map brought a full-sized image. As it is, it only brings you to the rather outdated towns and cities page - which doesn't even directly link to the present map. The same applies for the other city blow up maps. 76.118.73.122 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The new map is defenetly fine. The only problem is the quick update and the show of the clashes areas... --Guidoriccio11 (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Al-Shaykh Maskin

I wonder why this town is green. It used to be contested and I have never seen reports about its capture. Even today SOHR reports: "On the other hand, one man was killed in the town of Shekh Meskin under the torture in the government jails, while Warplanes carried out raids." that proves a goverment presence in the town. 24-02-2014 22:34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please link to the SOHR page that has this, and the town will be changed. Kami888 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he found it on their facebookpage [25], but Facebook is not a reliable source. However youtubevideo from January 2014 by pro-rebel source depicts intense fighting inside the city[26]. Another pro-rebel site also reported clashes in mid 2013.[27] The town should be contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.202.239 (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. Second of all I think they mean one man from sheikh maskin. Sopher99 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree Facebook is no good and SOHR's credibility is not that good. However the youtube video should be convincing. Can you find a source claiming that the town is a rebel stronghold without any skirmishes? If not I think it should be contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 02:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. Also here is a map from pbs, showing it under rebel control. Its from February 2014, alot newer. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/map-syrias-shifting-battle-lines/ Sopher99 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The map does not mention sheikh maskin explicitly and it is rather generic. If any sheikh maskin is in the area controlled by the government. SOHR have been used extensively to present proofs at disadvantage of the rebels. In any event, the discussion is pointless, nobody has ever presented any evidence in favour of sheikh maskin green, therefore it must be reversed. By the way, SOHR page says "in the town of Shekh Meskin" not "from", we should read what is written and not think what we wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. However it seems odd that there hasn't been any reports of rebels capturing the town. Usually when towns that large are captured entirely it is proclaimed loud and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Why was it changed from contested to lime in the first place though? Kami888 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I really think it should be contested. Unless someone can find a source confirming the specific town to be captured by rebels. Who ever changed it from contested to green in the first place did so clearly did so without any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody changing sheikh maskin to contested, plaese? I am not allowed paolowalter — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Another reference to clash in sheikh maskin-- https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/493991887375821?stream_ref=10 --Paolowalter (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Inkhil

source says regime bombs rebel held territories, immediately after that it says it bombed Inkhil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25402873 Sopher99 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You've been editing this page for how long now, at least a year right? Why in hell do you still need people to remind you that unless a specific reference is made to a village being rebel held, it does not count because the bombing may be directed to a part of the village that is rebel held? Seriously. Kami888 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to wate your time with Sopher.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the problem is that there is very few reliable medias that are specialised enough to give informations on this kind of small cities on frontline... Oussj (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Damascus map not working out of date and hard to update

Ok guys the map is not working it has passed days now and still the map has not been updated here is another report that suggest that the Army has pushed back militants out of Abadeh and the front line is now near the raiway east of Nashabiyah while the map still shows rebels in control of the Abadeh region.The wiki map [28] show only one railway in the region and it runs through Balaliyah Qasamiyah and Bahariyah and it is only 2.4km east of Nashabiyah which means the front line is near the three villages and not near the town of Abadeh which seems to have been taken back from the Army(lets remember that this town was never confirmed to be captured by rebels in there last offensive in the region) which makes the map even more unreliable than ever before.

Source:[29]

The text: Two women and 10 children were among the dead in government air raids on the town of Neshabia, in the eastern outskirts of Damascus, near a railway marking the front line between Islamist fighters and Assad’s forces backed by Hezbollah, and in the province of Homs to the north.

This is a reliable source which should be taken into account and not ignored the town of Abadeh should be marked as Army held and we should also mark the towns on the railway as contested.Daki122 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Because that railway is just north of deir salman - not abbadeh

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.492305&lon=36.498170&z=15&m=b&search=Damascus Sopher99 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher 99 look at the Railway where does it pass [30].Everything to the west(left) is rebel held but everything to the east(right) is government held and as i can clearly see east of that are the villages of Jarba and Qasamiyah(which also might be in government hands especialy Jarba) while Abadeh is even further away to the east.The railway passes also on the southern entrences of Bilaliyah and Bahariyah.Don't play stupid with me you can clearly see that as well as everyone else the map needs update as Abadeh is clearly back in government hands.It also passes north of Deir salman but north of the town is also the area Marj-As Sultan and its base and they are besieged by the government with SOHR reports of fighting in the area all the time.Daki122 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated in my above comments, I have no problem with a map being introduced, but it must be an up-to-date map! Not the one Tradedia introduced and Andre437 blindly reintroduced without discussion with almost half a dozen editors who have issues with the current map. EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this map is much better than the previous one. Note that in the citymap we can display truces as well. 2D version with roads gives a better chance to analyze it than scattered dots. If anyone has any trouble with the map being outdated then please go to the citymap and revert it. We should update it regularly like we do with the Aleppomap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude the Alepo map is also outdated I mean the Army has sized parts of the Industrial city and may be day away from besieging the city's eastern parts and yet the map shows the area north of base 80(Naqqarin which is gov held area and Sheik yousf hill also gov-held) as rebel held also I have pointed out all the mistakes on the Damascus map but who would update it the creator of the map is not even on this talk page that is why the map system won't work.Daki122 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The things you mention are updated. Sheikh Najjar and Al-Naqqarin are not on citymap but on the eastern outskirts, so they are not updated on citymap. Keep an eye on government advances (include sources) towards Hanono or Jabal Badro, maybe soon we colour the outskirts olive. Why is it a problem that the creator of the map is not present? Anyone can update it. We just need to go on the talk page and discuss changes on the Damascusmap before editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok you have the sources for the change of the map go and update it and also I suggest you take a look on wikimapia Naqqarin is part of the Alepo map the one colored olive north of the base.Daki122 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Khan Tuman

The city Khan Tuman, south west of Aleppo, is apparently contested https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/494002260708117?stream_ref=10 --Paolowalter (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, the source [31] is from facebook, which we do not usually allow. However it is the official SOHR site and we won't get much better information on these small cities/suburbs than this. The source states that there were clashes on the perimeter of Khan Tuman, which is confirmed by another pro-rebel source from late 2013[32]. I suggest the town should be lime with red circle around it. Same SOHR source article also confirms Kafarnaya(Kafa Naha) to be in rebel hands after an ISIS infiltration and Manbij to be contested between ISIS and FSA. It also mentioned clashes in al-Sheikh Saeed area which needs to be added to the Aleppo city map. I recommend olive although SOHR says the government secured Zanoubia compound(if anyone can find this on the map, we can point to where exactly the frontline is). Also clashes at Base 80 area is mentioned, with SAA secured some checkpoints. I recommend top part of 80th division being changed from red to olive to reflect recent rebel activity here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No we are not using facebook, rebel, or regime sources. And we are not using perimeters and arounds. Thats not the same thing as surrounded or besieged. I can get dozens of sources saying "fighting around Hama city" or "fighting in the perimeter of damascus city" - do you want me to make those contested too? Sopher99 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is a pro-opposition organization, and this move shows a pro-Assad move so it should be taken into account (Vice-versa would be true too). It is in line with this WP edition rules. Kihtnu (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two neutral sources confirming recent battles in al-Sheikh Saeed district just hours ago.[33] [34] Most definitely this area should be contested with southern part (from Zanoubia compound) in goverment hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Khan Tuman

The city Khan Tuman, south west of Aleppo, is apparently contested https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/494002260708117?stream_ref=10 --Paolowalter (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is a pro-opposition organization, and this move shows a pro-Assad move so it should be taken into account (Vice-versa would be true too).Kihtnu (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

PBS map

The double standards here are very, very huge. So, when I used the PBS map only in response to the indiscriminate (and permitted by some here) add of towns without specific sources by Sopher99, other editors reverted my edits and criticized me, but now hes using the same map to add towns without specific sources with no problem or response. Of course, Im gonna revert it, as far as I know WP havent VIP users, and rules are for all...--HCPUNXKID 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If you catch anyone using PBS map as the only source, please do revert it ASAP. But make sure to check the talk page first, sometimes there may be additional sources provided on the talk page. Kami888 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I still believe adding cities on places where there is no fightings is useless and decrease the clarity of the map.Oussj (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I say lets remove both government and rebel held towns, and only add areas of conflict, to give everyone a better idea of where it is actually taking place. Sopher99 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not agree, that will not show the real situation in Syria and the position of the fighting groups all over the country. Keep the map as it is.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)