Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

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)

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)

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)

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)

Talet al-Ghali

An opposition twitter report earlier reported that the Army captured Talet al-Ghali, and now we have this news report [1] 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 [2][3][4][5][6].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 [7].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)

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)

The town Ain al-Tineh is not facing the occupied town of Majdal Shams as quoted in the article. It is in a complete different position several tens of km south http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=32.993691&lon=35.975761&z=13&m=b There was probably a mistake in the article. From some pro-opp sites it should be green, but I cannot have indipendent confirmation. The few villages in thes aread have been recentòy taken by the rebels. Definitely we have no source stating it is red.--Paolowalter (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I found on http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=33.268546&lon=35.782728&z=14&m=b which is the location quoted in the article above facing the occupied town of Majdal Shams. It is called al-Qunaytirah (truly tiny). The article was traslated and there was probably an error. I am adding this location as red and turning the true Ain al-Tineh as contested. Fighting are going on in al-Hajah just few hundreds meter away.--Paolowalter (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

[8] 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)

For Hanibal911: before reverting changes you can look at previous postings and wait for justification. Furthremore you reverted also the correct positioning of some towns (Suysah, Ruwayhinah). The other sources are: https://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/tag/quneitra/ used only when reported something in favour of the government or just stating that some fighting was going on (e.g. " regime forces attempted to break the siege on Touloul AL Homr" implies that "Tell Ahmar" is in SAA hands); another source is http://www.documents.sy/news.php?lang=en going through the archive we learn that kawdenah is in rebel hand (www.documents.sy/news.php?id=9999&lang=en); that Ghadeer al-Bustan is in rebel hands but under attack from SSA and that fighting is raging in Qarqad and Al-Hajah (http://www.documents.sy/newsletter.php?action=download&id=884&lang=en#en11); from http://www.documents.sy/newsletter.php?action=download&id=880&lang=en#en11, we get that Nasiriyah, Al-Hajah, and Ain al-Tinah are in rebel hands but contested. Maybe not all infos have been reported fully correctly but I am working on it (the traslitteration of the arabic names is very different in the various sources). In some case I use logic: SAA is coming from al-Harra (it was written in some pro-opp sources), it controls Masharah and Ain-al basha, and is attacking Al-Hajah from the north, therefore it must control also Naba al-Sakher. If not perfect, it seems a reasonable attempt to update (and fix in some case) the situation in Quneitra. I strongly suggest to revert to the version with my changes and then discuss one-by-one each poit separately if required.--Paolowalter (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We do not use not reliable sources for editing. These sources Syrian Documents Yalla souriyaare not considered reliable for map editing. But if you use them it will be vandalism. And Facebook is also not a reliable source WP:NOTFACEBOOK Hanibal911 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Using pro-opp sources for confirming government gains has always been done. Using SOHR for confirming government gains has always been done, may time. www.documents.sy is a neutral source not worse than all other use, otherwise provide proofs otherwise. In Quneitra is basivally impossible to have neutral source on grounds and is rarely mentioned in main stream media given its little relevance, Therefore the only way is glueing together all the infos from variois sources (without considering those supporting gains for their sides). Finally, we must note that most of the quoted locations in Quneitra are small or minuscuolous villages. We cannot expect that changing hands of those will make the headline of international newspaper, but we have to rely on scant information of the warring sides. --Paolowalter (talk) 08:21, 1 March 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 [9], but Facebook is not a reliable source. However youtubevideo from January 2014 by pro-rebel source depicts intense fighting inside the city[10]. Another pro-rebel site also reported clashes in mid 2013.[11] 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)

And another report from recent pro-rebel source[12] with detailed report on Daraa province confirming clashes in the town. Btw the map Sopher99 linked to is no good. It doesn't even show rebel held areas in western Homs(Al-Zarah and Al-Hosn). :Can someone please put this town as contested, we really have provided overwhelming evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 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)

Inkhil was long marked as rebel held, then marked as contested a while back because of a single report of a clash on the outskirts of the town. Since then there has been nothing but the occasional regime bombing of the town reported. So in all probability it is still uncontested rebel held. Despite being marked as contested. André437 (talk) 10:55, 28 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 [13] 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:[14]

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 [15].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)

Actually, SorenC is correct. The area north of Base 80, which is collored as rebel-held, is actually the farmland between the Jabal Badro district and the village of Tel Ghawli (not seen on the map and government-held). Naqqarin is on the eastern edge of Tel Ghawli, even further off the map. EkoGraf (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian Army is 1km away from Tariq-al-Bab[16] It can be seen clearly where the Army is here is the report [17] so don't tell me that the Army is not in control of those areas.

It said that regime troops were now one kilometer away from the neighborhood of Tariq al-Bab, which has been targeted repeatedly by regime airstrikes and barrel bombs in recent weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The area in which you put the 1km mark on the wikimapia (housing area) is already colored as red (government-held) on the Aleppo battle map. EkoGraf (talk) 13:12, 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) 20:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, the source [18] 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[19]. 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.[20] [21] 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 should indeed be showed as contested. SOHR is the pro-opposition and this shows a pro-Assad move. It is in line with this WP edition rules. Kihtnu (talk) 07:53, 27 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)

Kami888, the user who is always causing trouble here (Sopher99) has added half a dozen of towns without specific sources. Well, he claims that location tools like Wikimapia and the PBS map are his "specific and reliable sources". I reverted but as usual, he revert it again. What can I do? Report him seems to not work, so perhaps I'll have to behave like him and add dozens & dozens of towns without sources. To avoid this, please revert his unsourced vandalism. And about that absurdity of not adding cities where there is no fighting, it seems that terrorist rebel supporters are angry about the increasing number of red dots in the map, get used to it...(Yeah, I know that now someone will accuse me of not being polite and blah, blah, blah. Im not gonna be polite or educated with a vandal, sorry.) If you want to remove useless things, remove that absurd checkpoints (wich no one knows where they are or if they still exist) or the civil infrastructures...--HCPUNXKID 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

تدور اشتباكات بين مقاتلي الكتائب المقاتلة والقوات النظامية في مدينة الشيخ مسكين Clashes between government and opposition in CITY Sheikh Meskin

مسعود.4 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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) 16:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sweida / area where many Druze live in southern Syria

An article on Al Akhbar provides some interesting updates on rebel attempts to penetrate Sweida and the surrounding area. Not sure if this would lead to any changes or updates on the map. I believe it mentions some rebel and gov held towns that are not listed on the map: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syria-history-repeats-itself-sweida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.66.178 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

But this source only said about trying to rebel attack several villages but the army forced them to retreat. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Towns and villages

I added towns and villages with a PBS map (reliable) combined with several geolocater sources (reliable) and now they are being removed under the pretext of "vandalism".

Strangely enough ,User Hanibal did the same, yet I see no attempts to remove the villages he added with the PBS map. [22]

Either remove Hanibal's villages or restore my villages - otherwise it would be confirmed to me that no one cares what sources I use, and they are instead really just out to get me at a personal level.

If that is the case I will use the LCC as a source - regardless of whether or not SANA is also used. The LCC is a widely used figure by many reliable sources. I can do a lot more improvements to this map with the LCC then anyone can do with SANA. Sopher99 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This kid tries to intimidate modest, smart and rightful editors. Don't let him do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.163.67 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

With all respect, but if you are vandalizing and POV pushing that much, it may indeed possible sometimes a good reference may be undone. That would indeed be unfortunate, though on the other hand, it should maybe make you start wondering why this can happen. That PBS map is of course not reliable and if you believe so, it's a shame that you bring in a source and purposely use that source to add rebel gains and purposely ignore government gains with the provided source. The idea behind this wiki is to make a reliable map of real life events, not purposely hiding valuable information and purposely manipulating the map, like it appears to be a bad habit of you. I'm sorry if you feel offended by my comment, but after over 1 years of following this map, edits and editors, I can honestly say that you are indeed not the only POV pusher around, but certainly the most extreme of all. Please change your behavior, please stop using information one sided and please try to behave professional. During the last year seeing an edit of you, I knew 2 things. 1) It's a pro rebel change and 2) High chance of unreliable source. Sorry to say it such blunt, but if unjust have come upon you, it may be because of your own unjustified actions and not because of an attempt to get to you at a personal level. Heisenberg99 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok Sopher I will for one not let you blackmail other editors.How many times do I have to repeat to you that there are two groups in the north ISIS and Islamists which are not presented on the map you use so stop threatening editors that you will use that or this and you now what here is a video for you to enjoy seeing your precious rebels get blown to bits [23][24] I hope you don't cry.Daki122 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

1 - The map does reperesent ISIS (with black) and other rebels (with green)

2 - I have seen enough children blown to bits by the Syrian army that whether I like it or not I have stopped crying when seeing adults blown to bits. Sopher99 (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo map

I looked at the map of easter Aleppo from Arab Chronicle that is a mostly extreme rebel site: https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/438805532686561280/photo/1 That is more favourable to government forces that the existing Aleppo map. Lookin at wikimapia you can see that the area above Base 80 should be red. Sheik Najar should be at the up right corner, I have the impression that some of the editors are strongly biased (Sopher99 and Amedjay) being very reluctanct to record changes in favor of SAA. The last change was to turn green part of Marjeh and contested the part of Marjeh closer to the airport called Baloura, that was taken by SAA some time ago and that nobody ahs since reported as retaken by rebels. Honestly marking rebel progress today in Aleppo is ridicoulos. Also progres of SAA in Sheikh Saeed are not reported. Could the map be update? By the way is naybody willing to estimate how to change it? --Paolowalter (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We are kind of in the dark about what is happening in Aleppo. One guy brings a source from the rebels and one brings a government source and in the end everything is blurry. All we know is that the SAA is winning Generally in Aleppo. What in specific, we do not know for certain, as you can see by looking at the history of edits in the Aleppo map, with users generally going back and forth. People do change it, but it always gets changed back to the vision a specific user has.--Dr Marmilade — Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Same source (strongly pro-rebel)[25] says Ard-Al Harma in SAA hands. Confirmed by pro-Assad source[26], who says the frontline has been moved to Hanano.[27] Also note that al-Sheikh Saeed district is at least contested if not under regime control, which is confirmed by two neutral sources[28] [29] The map is really getting outdated, who is going to add this to the city map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 03:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Good news are coming, the Syrian Army is approaching towards the Aleppo Central Prison and the fights now are around the Hanano district.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

SorenC, the Aleppo map has the southern portion of Sheikh Saeed marked as contested. I was personally for the whole district to be marked as contested but Sopher was reverting that edit constantly so a compromise was found to mark as contested only the southern part of it. I think now, the southern part needs to be marked as red while the middle part as contested. As for Ard al-Hamra, although twitter is not acceptable by Wikipedia as a source, I am of the opinion since we have both a government and an opposition source confirming the Army has captured it that it should be marked as government-held. This change has already been implemented. The southern Ard al-Hamra and Tel Barakat districts are already marked as red on the map so no changes there needed. However, the upper part of the northern Ard Al-Hamra district in the northeastern part of the map should at least be marked as contested if not marked as government-held since we have confirmed opposition reports of an Army advance from Sheikh Najjar village towards the northern Ard al-Hamra district. EkoGraf (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The area between the industrial zone and Hanano is called Breij al-Reeh. Ard al Hamara is at the south, to the east of the airport highway.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Check both the opposition twitter map and wikimapia, you got TWO Ard al Hamara districts. The one in the south at the airport highway (which the Army captured) and the one in the north situated just below Breij al-Reeh (towards which the Army is advancing). It was confusing to me also at first. EkoGraf (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems that Google earth has covered the so-called rebel-held areas with clouds!!!!--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

> It would be nice to make the Aleppo map wider, in order to include Aleppo prison and the new areas (naqqarin, Tel Tannah) held by SAA or the Sheikh najjar industrial area and the northwestern area that is being constested. The map could be similar to the new Damascus map, which I find very clear and easy to understand (not sure if it is easy to have correctly updated). --Archinovista 11:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.14.113.239 (talk)

The Aleppo map finally has been updated and is more up to date than the previous one. Neverthless the area on the right above Base 80 up to the upper rihgt corner (where Sheick Najar is) should be red. To do that properly the patch stretching from the urban area outside to the border of the map should be divided in two parts, one on the inner and the other on the outer: e.g. Jabal Badro, Hanano, Ard al-Hamra. The outer should go red or at most olive, the inner is still green. Furthemore SOHR recognized that Khaldiya should be red ([30]). Also Sheikh-Sahed should have the lower part red followed by an olive section. Furthermore Bustan al-Qasr is contested, I read dozens of times everywhere that fighting are going on there. Paolowalter (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Damascus map overhaul

Due to the demand for Damascus map overhaul expressed here and here I will try to improve the Damascus map as promised. If you disagree with any specific edit, please download and edit the map to your liking rather than reverting all changes at once.

First step - uploaded a separate version of the map in order to divorce it from the "Third Rif Damashq Offensive" article and make it specific to needs of this article/map. I have thus removed all the out of date information intended to show historical progression and left only that which shows the latest situation. Kami888 (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Second step - expanded shaded territory to include areas with settlements and military bases. This isn't Deir Ez Zor, this is Damascus countryside - one of the most densely populated areas of Syria. Included Khan Al Shih. Kami888 (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In the third step I'll be trying to increase the accuracy of the map, change the representation of the "truce areas", and generally trying to bring the map in line with the information on the general map as it was on February 24, before the Damascus map was uploaded. As you may have noticed, there are currently significant differences between the two. I'll post more information on the specific changes as I go along. Kami888 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Here's the list of changes:

-scaled down the contested area in Jobar. The westernmost part of the district (Abbasyeen Square, hospital, civil defense, etc) was never actually contested, it is certainly not contested now. The northernmost part (Qaboun industrial area) was contested, however the government troops seized it in mid July last year [31]

-scaled down Barzeh/Qaboun contested area and changed to purple (truce). Only the Barzeh al Balad and part of Tishreen area were contested before truce was arranged. This map from a pro-rebel source confirms this.

-changed Harasta to purple to conform with the general map

-changed Abbadeh to contested to conform with the general map

-changed Darayya to contested to conform with the general map. We don't know exactly how much each side holds in Darayya except that the government definitely holds the north-western part of it.

-changed Moadamiya to purple to conform with the general map. Also the Moadamiyah and Darayya pockets are not linked together. We know this because recently the government lifted its blockade of Moadamiyah, but the blockade of Darayya is still going on.

-changed Yarmouk camp area to purple. Excluded nearby Palestine camp until a source confirms that the truce applies to it as well.

-changed Yalda, Babbila, and Beit Sahem to purple to conform with the general map. Excluded the Andalus area in Babbila (near highway) which is under control of an Iraqi Shia militia and is not subject to the truce.

-removed green areas in the northern part of Sbeineh and Hejira to conform with the general map. On the general map these areas were shown as red.

-changed the Adra jail complex area (north-east of Douma) from green to red. Sources to confirm: [32] [33]

-moved the front away from Otayabah city to conform with the general map. On the general map Otayabah has been red for quite some time and no clashes reported within there for a while. (The recent government ambush happened near the lake north-east of the city)

That's it for now. Tell me what you think.

Kami888 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with all changes. EkoGraf (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with all changes. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we change the "contested" color to blue or a light shade of blue? The greenish color right now is kind of hard to see. Sopher99 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, though I'm not sure if that level of contrast is a good idea. Also keep in mind that olive is already used to indicate contested on other maps related to the subject, from Aleppo to battle maps by MrPenguin. Kami888 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I find the current green/olive/purple colours really easy to see. Sopher99, are you colour-blind in some fashion? If it's necessary to have colours that both colour-blind and colour-normal individuals find acceptable, it would be good to have some sort of manual on this subject to turn to... Esn (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Great map well done now this deserves to be on the map good job.Daki122 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

please add back the cities icon over the new map.makes the viewer know what city they are seeing,readd ghouta cities.74.92.86.17 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, actually. It was nice to be able to hover over the dots and see the names of the cities/towns. Esn (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of changing it was to de-clutter the map and reduce the size. Remember there are some issues with size where we couldn't add any more towns, the map stopped loading? I thought this was meant to address that problem. Kami888 (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

اشتباكات بين الجيش والمعارضة في بلدة الحراك

• http://http://www.syriahr.com/index

مسعود.4 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Google translates the Arabic-language request to "Clashes between the army and the opposition in the town of mobility" – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

اشتباكات بين الجيش والمعارضة  في بلدة الحراك
[34]

مسعود.4 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

اشتباكات بين الجيش والمعارضةفی بلده الموحسن مسعود.4 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

قصف واشتباكات على اطراف يبرود http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=15914&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.ZUzbfmdjSt8 مسعود.4 (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Google translation of Arabic edit request: Shelling and clashes on the outskirts of Yabroud. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• See Yabrud. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

اشتباكات عنيفة بين القوات النظامية ومقاتلي الكتائب الاسلامية المقاتلة في محيط بلدة جبورين من جهة الغنطو

http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=15903&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.ZUzdb2djSt8 مسعود.4 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Google translation of Arabic: Violent clashes between the regular troops and fighters of the Brigades of the Islamic Fighting Group in the vicinity of the town of Jpourin hand Aghannto. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Clashes between the army and opposition in Alhirak

http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=15904&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.ZU0Ru2djSt8 مسعود.4 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The semi-protection remains indefinite on the map page, which is likely what this editor is trying to get edited. Please stop responding like this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As the note at the top of this talk page indicates, Template talk:Syrian civil war detailed map redirects here. Per the template's log, it is currently protected: ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite), ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite). The template is currently linked from about a dozen articles and is the subject of a discussion here. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul the Aleppo and Daraa areas?

Is this being planned in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.58.143 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What changes would you like to see? Kami888 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To make them similar to the Damascus map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.58.143 (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Daraa map is already similar, I could try to make a similar version of the Aleppo map I suppose. But the existing Aleppo map has its advantages - it's easier to update. Anyhow, I guess I'll make it and let people decide which version they want. Kami888 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Salma

The city Salma should be marked as contested these data confirmed reliable source.Turkish Weekly Hanibal911 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your source... The journalist says its own source is nothing but SANA, which is not according to our standards a reliable source. Oussj (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

When SANA talks about "qualitative operations" it frequently means just air attacks or artillery strikes. And the source is simply quoting SANA. Kami888 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Salma should stay in rebel hands for now, until other sources are provided or rebels claiming it to be contested. Doesn't seem like much is happening in Lataia, both sides are happy with the current frontline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Clashes between the army and opposition in binnish مسعود.4 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tall Maruf

The village Tall Maruf in Hasaka province has been secured by YPG and there isnt any ISIS in the village, so the village should be changed back to Kurd-held. http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2014/2/syriakurd1075.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.253.244 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

zabadani

Loking at http://orient-news.net/index.php?page=news_show&id=7786 with the help of google translate I realized that the information posted by Sirian Perspective (that I cannot find at the moment) about a truce between government force and rebels is right. I guess that Zabadani and the neighbouting vilages should be marked with the truce labels--Paolowalter (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

But orientnews is a prorebel source ... Does it work for changing contested to truce .78.249.152.169 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Presence of Kurds (Jabhat al-Akrad) in Azaz

Azaz have to be yellow-green, because the Kurdish front Al Akrad cooperated with other FSA units and now they are also present in the town.

Sources: http://jabhetakrad.com/?p=618 http://firatnews.com/news/dunya/isid-azzaz-dan-cekildi.htm

84.196.144.209 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The yellow do not really represents all the kurds but the separatists factions. The Islamic Front, which maybe the main player in the rebel factions, has been cofounded by a kurd faction. So Azaz should stay green.Oussj (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. On the map yellow stands for "Kurd-held" and represents thus all the Kurds, not only YPG. Al Akrad and YPG are both linked with PYD and aren't among FSA. So Azaz have to be changed to yellow-green with 3 nested circles (mixed control with stable situation). I am not able to edit the map by myself, so please make this change. 84.196.144.209 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If Yellow really represented all the kurds faction (and not only the separatists) that would mean that certain parts of Aleppo should be yellow too. But as you certainly know there are many kurds fighters who are currently fighting in the Islamic Front and the FSA. They share the same views and objective which are completely different from those of PYD. There is one of this kurds forces fighting from the beginning with FSA : https://www.facebook.com/pages/%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B8%D9%85%D8%A9/401484919933497?ref=ts&fref=ts. Oussj (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The separatist argument isn't valid since PYD had mad it clear in there constitution that they are a part of the Syrian state. Kurd-Held can only mean that the group that controls the object is a Kurdish group. Kurdish groups wants better rights for the Kurdish people. It dosent matter if they are Al-Akrad, Kurdish islamic front or YPG. They all have this goal. You can se for your self that Kurdish islamic front goal is to achieve Kurdish rights via islamic law. http://aranews.org/en/interview/890-spokesman-of-kurdish-islamic-front-syrian-islamic-state-will-guarantee-kurdish-rights.html

So Azaz and som other villages around Al-Bab should be at least yellow/green or only yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.253.244 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Abu Kamal = ISIS city?

This BBC map shows Abu Kamal as being an ISIS stronghold. I was just wondering what sources were used to show otherwise in the current map. Esn (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There were reports at least 1-2 wks ago that ISIS was driven out from both Abu Kamal city and the nearby airbase. By passing...this map on the BBC website....how can they produce such an inaccurate map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.163.67 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We no longer use such maps. They only cause the confusion. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

who changed map again??????? without any source!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.122.120 (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A week or two after that bbc map was made, Al nusra took the entire deir azzor Provence, all the west to Maadan, and all the way north to markadeh. Sopher99 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Khirbet Ghazaleh

This town used to be gov held. Why was it changed as contested? Yalla souria does not report anything since May 2013. I found only "Several positions in Kherbet Ghazaleh village in Daraa countryside have been hit by artillery fire by Syrian Army – no casualties reported" from http://www.documents.sy/newsletter.php?action=download&id=874&lang=en#en2

Nothing on SOHR or other sources. Even Arab Chronicle talks of opposition sources advancing on the town, not that there are figthing inside. See their map: https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/435610472415387649 and makes clear in other posts that clashes are taking place a few km south of the city.

Conclusion: evidcence point to Kherbet Ghazaleh must be red.

By the way, with respect to the attempt of turning NaWA and Inkhil green http://www.documents.sy/newsletter.php?action=download&id=884&lang=en#en2 reports clashes in both cities two days ago--Paolowalter (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

documents.sy is not a reliable source. Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I fully agree with Sopher. This is not reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

documents.sy is a very reliable source from my experience. Your statements are worthless unless you provide evidence that it is not, that is it provides sistematically false information or obscure real facts. --Paolowalter (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No evidence of being contested. One quotation in the last two months of fighting, probably a skirmish. See above for AC map. It goes red.--Paolowalter (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some contested points

Qalamoun: From Yalla Souriya, a Pro-Opposition site: Yabroud, Sahil and Aqabe (Where is Aqabe?) should be contested.

Also, Kafranbouda in Hama Province should be contested.

And, from SOHR, a Pro-Opposition site: Khan Touman south of Aleppo should be contested. 88.182.103.143 (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

First off we don't use pro-opp sites or regime sites whether or not they admit losses or clashes. Nor do we use facebook. second of all it says it "perimeter" of khan tuman ie "near" or "around". We don't change hama city or damascus city to contested just because clashes occur near or in their perimeters. Its not the same thing as besieged.

Lastly here is a source from just yesterday confirming regime has not yet reached yabroud and has also retreated from al sahl. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/reportsfeatures/537320-hezbollah-is-losing-in-yabroud Sopher99 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the reference Sopher, if a rebel says they are losing somewhere, it's not accurate according to you, because it's not a neutral source. But if a rebel says they are winning somewhere it suddenly becomes accurate according to you. The source you gave on itself is reliable but you are using a quote from a rebel as true. This once again is manipulating, purposely lying and violating Wikipedia rules. Heisenberg99(talk) 17:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Heisenberg. The rules are crystal clear (For people of good faith): Pro-Opposition sites are reliable if they show some kind of gains for the Pro-Assad side. And of course, Pro-Assad sites are reliable if they show some kind of gains for the Pro-Opposition side. I thought it was not that difficult to understand those rules. Not within everyone's reach apparently. In the links I wrote above, some places indicated as Opposition-held should turn to be contested instead. And since, the links come from Pro-Opposition sites, this is totally in line with this page edition rules. Cheers. Kihtnu (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

But we have reliable sources stating the opposite. Second of all these are wordpresses and facebook, those are not even media sources. Some random guy can can create a pro-regime wordpress in 10 minutes claiming rebels captured the entirety of Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sopher: I'm afraid you totally miss the point regarding the WP edition rules. And Yalla Souriya and SOHR have been around for long enough to discard the eventuality of being covertly directed by Pro-Assad people, I suppose. Kihtnu (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nawa is under Regime control why some one put it in Rebels Hands?

There is the source from August 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/15/us-syria-crisis-arms-idUSBRE97E0QH20130815 It said 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

No one Single source suggest the Rebels controlled or capture it please stop to trolling the map.

Nawa and inkhil are rebel controlled via http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/02/syria-southern-front-escalation-clashes-damascus.html

This source is neutral and from late February 2014,not August 2013.Alhanuty (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that this reliable source but of information does not indicate clearly that the citys under the control of the opposition. Source only said that: oppositionists said that the Syrian forces tried to make progress toward the towns of Inkhil and Nawa in the western countryside.Al MonitorI suggest to wait for more specific information but if you do not agree with my arguments, I am ready to cancel my change but it can cause confusion in the future when other editors will interpret their data from other sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It clearly says that army is trying to advance to the cities.Alhanuty (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. Source only said that the Syrian forces tried to make progress toward the towns of Inkhil and Nawa. Military is trying to make progress in these cities and not advance to him. But I revert my change although still I think that I am right. I think the other reactors will agree with me. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, "trying to advance towards" could mean many things and IMHO does not mean that the towns are rebel held. For example, in August last year the army was trying to "advance towards Aleppo" because the road was blocked by rebels. I also don't think that SOHR, SNN, and LCC would continue to report clashes in Nawa if they were indeed rebel held. Check this out: [35] [36]

videos of fighting in Nawa: [37] [38]

I think the article was clearly misinterpreted. Kami888 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Town should be contested untill we have confirmed and descisive news, which points to it being captured by either rebels or government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.80.29 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nawa has been mostly rebel controlled for over 6 months. Regime forces hold the western edge due to support of base 61, to the west. Besides various reports on other media, there have been numerous reports on twitter confirming this. (I realise these twitter reports don't count to make changes, but they do serve to confirm the situation.) (Note that the rebels took the western extension of base 61 in the last few days, which is separate from the main part of the base.)

As for Inkhil, as I noted in the Inkhil section, it used to be rebel held on our map (before the rebels entered Nawa), until a single report of clashes with regime forces outside the town, about 6 months back. It was then changed to contested. Subsequently there have only been reports of Inkhil being bombed by the regime.

If everything was recorded in the main tables (or corresponding page for inset maps), then we wouldn't have this ambiguity since the references would be evident for everyone to see. Currently we are using the kamikaze method of updating the map, with the consequent confusion. And lack of accuracy. André437 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the reference given by that anonymous contributor at the top of this section says that Nawa was contested at that time, and NOT regime controlled. The sentence cited is a generalization, clarified 2 paragraphs further down by :

"Even in Nawa, a town of around 80,000 people where a July rebel offensive forced the army to evacuate several checkpoints, Assad's troops are still broadly in control."

"broadly in control" evidently implying a continued rebel presence. Other reports at the time gave a much more significant rebel presence than "several checkpoints". There are many more recent reports of the regime bombing Nawa as well, including some saying the town was besieged by the regime. André437 (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Random videos from Militias / Irregulars groups are NOT credible sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 06:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This map from Syrianperspective (extremely biased towards regime) show Dail, Tafas, Ibta, Bosra and Inkhil as rebel controlled. We said that we could use pro-regime sources to show rebel progresses so please put all of these towns as greenSyrianper's map of Daraa The source may be a bit old but I don't think the situation in Daraa governorate changed a lot since then, exepted for the north-western part and maybe Athman and Khirbet Ghazaleh. Thanks. --Amedjay (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Daraa is one of the governorates where assad is not really doing well, it is Daraa. Rebels seem to have the upper hand there as they're more numerous. --Amedjay (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

But newer source said that the city Bosra under control of the army.Al Akhbar Hanibal911 (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

People who claim Nawa is controlled by Insurgents no link a single source about it videos from Irregulars armed groups are NOT considered as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This talk page has been de-linked from the map

Due to the deletion discussion, somebody has moved the map template to its own article (basically, by simply removing the "Template:" before the name), and in the process created a separate talk page for it.

I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, so I'm just posting this to make sure that everybody is aware of it. Esn (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

See section below. Tradedia^talk 03:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not move the template or be aggressive with admins & bureaucrats

As we go thru the deletion discussion, I ask everyone to be disciplined and avoid any bold move that is not discussed here in the talk page. I know everyone here means well when they act or write to defend the map, however some behaviors have not been helpful. For example, there was never a consensus for the move to an article which created an immediate article deletion nomination. I was able to close that, and moved back to a template. The move was not correct as a map (alone with nothing else) cannot be an article on its own. Please do not make radical moves like this in the future without consulting with other editors on the talk page. Also, please refrain from making comments at the template deletion discussion that are overly aggressive. We don’t want to anger people that might hurt us… Their problem is not really with the content of our map, but rather with its form (template). I have a proposed solution for that, which I detailed in the template deletion discussion... Tradedia^talk 03:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative map for Aleppo

Since someone was asking here, I made a couple of alternative versions for the Aleppo area using the same principle as we have for Daraa, Deir Ez Zor, and Damascus.

One is basically the exact equivalent of the Aleppo map we have right now: [39]

The other is similar, but without the contested olive, so it's more like the Daraa map. [40]

For comparison, this is the existing Aleppo map: [41]

Some of the advantages of the new maps is that they are: -prettier on the eyes -fit the same standard as the one we already have for other cities (Daraa, Damascus, Deir Ez Zor) rather than sticking out -covers a bigger area (this was a frequent complaint on the existing Aleppo map IIRC)

The advantage of the existing Aleppo map is that it is: -probably easier to update -is attached to the "Battle of Aleppo" article where it's presumably kept up to date

Please vote for which version you'd like to see included in the general map. 1 - new map with olive. 2 - new map without olive. 3 - existing map (no changes)

Also if you'd like one of them to be included but with certain changes, please also tell me what changes you'd like to see. Thanks Kami888 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Right now the underlying OSM map is just a png snapshot, but don't worry if it is selected I'll change it to the proper svg export. Kami888 (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Another advantage of the old map is that it has many more place names listed, which makes updating it easier for those unfamiliar with the geography. I really like the new maps, though! The "zooming out" in particular was much-needed. Can you describe how you decide which area is colored olive and which is not? Of your two maps, what do you think is the advantage & disadvantage of each? Esn (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The areas colored as olive are basically the same exact areas that are colored as olive on the map we have right now, I tried not to stray from it too much. As for the map without the contested areas, I made it primarily because I am just not a big fan of olive and prefer clean frontlines with no "contested areas", even if that means I need to make some guesses in approximating them. However, having those areas as contested is probably overall more accurate. Kami888 (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would just make one correction to your map which has not been made to the already existing map that we are using. The Khaldiya neighborhood has been completely taken over by the Army [42], so it should go from partially contested to fully red. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, at the time that i made the map, Khalidiyeh was still marked as contested on the current Aleppo map. I see someone changed it now, so I guess I'll change that on the new map as well. Kami888 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

..actually it seems quite a few changes are necessary all of a sudden. Kami888 (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the one with the contested areas.Oussj (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I like your map more than the one we already have, for 3 reasons:

1- It covers a bigger area which was indeed a frequent complaint on the existing Aleppo map.

2- It has roads on it.

3- Last but not least, is an issue related to my point 1-. Since the map covers a bigger area, we can remove dots/towns just like we did for Damascus. As you know, our map is facing a size problem. When the map hit 221k in size on Feb 23, it crashed and disappeared. On Feb 24, the size was reduced to 204k (by inserting the Damascus map). Last time I checked, the map size was 209k on March 4. This means that the map size increased by 5k in 8 days. This is an average increase of 0.6k per day. If we keep up this same rate, the size limit will be hit again in (221-209)/0.6=20 days. Using your new Aleppo map would allow us to free up about 40-50 dots/towns which could be used for new added dots/towns in the future. Tradedia^talk 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think both maps should be maintained. The actual one, if updated now it is not, provides the fine detail of the position in the city neighbours. The new one provide a better picture of the area surrounding the city. The serious problem of the size could ba handled removing many superfluos points. Lot of tiny yellow points in Hasaka or 50 red dots next to Homs say very little. We know who control this areas. All tiny red and green villages close to Salma (Lattakia northe east) are there for historical reason linked to the rebel offensive last year. Fine details is required only in contested area to mark the frontline and signal recent changes. Once an area is stably assigned the level of details can be scaled. Paolowalter (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the old map will continue to be attached to the "Battle of Aleppo" article either way and will be kept updated there. I have also one more question about the scope of the map - I'm afraid I overdid it and included a little too much area (I've tried to include stuff all the way until Kwers airbase, but I'm not sure if it was necessary). Do you think the new map should be cropped a little, particularly on the eastern side? Or is it fine the way it is now? Kami888 (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer number 2 ,it will give us a better idea of the frontline but number 1 is good too FS1991 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I updated the map with the contested areas. Here's the new version [43]. Do you think this version should replace the existing map? yes or no. Kami888 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I vote for it (YES)

I'll change to the new version then. Kami888 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Deir el Zor

There is reports from SOHR www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/496331453808531?stream_ref=10 and SANA www.facebook.com/SyrianArabNewsAgencySana/posts/10151975503698869?stream_ref=10. We like or not, we won't get other 'neutral' source confirmations. Same report from ooposite sides should suffice. I propose to add it as red.--Paolowalter (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

An opposition and a government source confirming the same thing. It should go as red on the map. Its to the south of Jaffra. EkoGraf (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also http://www.documents.sy/news.php?id=10017&lang=en confirms this, reporting that pro-opp sources confirm it.--Paolowalter (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason behind vandalism of removing such a clealy documented change? I'll restore it red all the times needed.--Paolowalter (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ayyash, Deir ez-Zor

which source says that this town is under army control? and I mean a new source. because four days ago Aljazeera had confirmed this town to be under rebels control. Amensnober91 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.aljazeera.net/mob/f6451603-4dff-4ca1-9c10-122741d17432/f089d901-7c21-4ae1-9ba8-d7e85d5a3983

Your source cites the heavily pro-opposition Sham news network as claiming that the Nusra Front is defending against an Army attack on the village. While a month ago, both SOHR and SANA stated the Army captured the village. At the very least it is contested, but rebel-held no. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

please change the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.60.26 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

al-Sahel, Qalamoun

Syrian army captures village near Yabroud: state TV: Source Meanwhile al-Mayadeennews uploaded a video reporting within the town; VIDEO she is reporting on this intersection--Homan 056k (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

ill edit the map.

There are some sources =

http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-army-captures-village-near-crucial-border-town/

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2014/03/03/311--Syrian-troops-tighten-grip-on-rebel-stronghold-.html

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140303/syrian-army-captures-village-near-yabrud-state-tv

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=204318

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h67hf3y4xl_y7NJgudcDmJZlkZ8Q?docId=60bacb5b-3e67-4916-86eb-94fc29afaf7f

http://www.eluniversal.com/internacional/conflicto-en-siria/140303/ejercito-sirio-retoma-una-localidad-cercana-al-bastion-rebelde-de-yabr

http://spanish.china.org.cn/international/txt/2014-03/04/content_31659068.htm

There are the TV Reports =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADkjqlnmK74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI9dK6oRn10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj8gr5RRxxM

The city ​​Al Sahel under the full control of the army.ReutersAl Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

South of Aleppo

SOHR reports https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/496428277132182?stream_ref=10 that in a few villages south of Aleppo fighting is ongoing. It is a rather neutral statement and seems realistic given the existing situation (one of the villages quoted is already contested). I found the places on wikimapia, I suggest to put them contested.--Paolowalter (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The report actually says the fighting is going on AROUND the villages, not in them. EkoGraf (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

the clashes are inside the villages, or at least two of them.Amensnober91 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/1487cdb8-a34d-4300-b553-8c3abfcec1c3

I don't understand those changes. SOHR is pro-opposition, Al-Jazeera as well (Belonging to Qatar), so why should they be trusted sources to indicate opposition advances? It is in plain contradiction with edition rules. And, moreover, why are they not used to show loyalist advances? For example Khan Touman should be noted as contested. Kihtnu (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aljazeera is a reliable source because its a global network, and its shows the advances of the two sides. and about khan touman, the source you used says that the clashes have took place in the perimeter of khan touman, not INSIDE khan touman.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As usual Kihtnu, administrators are prompt to add "rumours and well known propaganda" from pro-rebels sources but are waiting a long time (to be certain of course)when evidence of loyalist advances occurs. As an example, rima farms are under SAA control as well as aquaba but......wait and see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.30.6 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I repeat once again for all that facebook is not a reliable source and also the source.In the rules of Wikipedia this is clearly stated WP:NOTFACEBOOK And also I think it is not correct to use to display the rebel advances using as source an Arabic version of the Qatari channel Al Jazeera because Qatar directly associated with the Syrian opposition this is the same if we used the Iranian Fars News or channel Al Manar to display the progress of the Syrian army. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind a little square is red, green or contested. We are just there, away from troubles, not much realizing what fights could look like. But, since this map is the best transcription of the situation you can find on Internet, it should be important to keep the changes neutral and in line with the excellent edition rules, once exposed. The changes on South Aleppo are obviously not into it. Al-Jazeera is not more neutral than an Iranian media (Just look any of their coverage involving Muslim Brotherood, in Egypt for example, to be convinced). SOHR is of course not neutral.Kihtnu (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

you just can't compare a global network to a Shiites network! the sources of Aljazeera is reliable, just because its tell the truth that you hate, doesn't mean its unreliable.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

does anyone of you have a new source saying these villages are under army control??? if no, then why are you still putting it as red? Amensnober91 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Stay calm Amensnober. Do you have any neutral source related to these villages? No. Oh, and "Shiites network"? I sense dirty sectarianism here. Once again, Al Jazeera coverage of recent events in Egypt or other places says everything about their "neutrality".Kihtnu (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

do I have a neutral source? yes, and its Aljazeera. and by the way you are taking about a different matter. we are talking about the Syrian map and Aljazeera, and your talking about Egypt?! I sense dirty Islamophobia here.Amensnober91 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave the example of Egypt to show you that AlJazeera, although a quality channel, is not neutral. They serve one side, the side of their qatari owners. By the way, I have not called it a "Sunni Network", contrarily to you, Amensnober, who discards medias of Iran, as being "Shiites network". I hope you realize what you were writing there. Kihtnu (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Channel Al Jazeera belongs to the country which supports the Syrian rebels. This means that their information can not be neutral. We do not use Iranian sources to display the achievements of the army because Iran supports the Syrian government and its information sources can also distort information in favor of government. And your source is not pointing the village Diyman. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

what your saying doesn't prove anything. the fact is we don't use Iranian sources because none of them considered to be a reliable source. its true that the country supports the rebels, but nevertheless the network itself is a global and neutral source, and it does mention the advancing of the two sides, so nough said.Amensnober91 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You accused me of Islamophobia although I have never said anything bad about Islam. You did not correctly interpret the facts and I not desire more to communicate with you. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you, the talking was for "Kihtnu".Amensnober91 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand, Al Jazeera quoted SOHR's report, and SOHR's original report said AROUND the villages not in them. So, Al Jazeera didn't translate into their story what SOHR originaly stated. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. al Jazeera didn't mention SOHR. so its should be contested.Amensnober91 (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, where do you think all news agencies get most of their information on Syria? Answer - SOHR. Who else reported the fighting beside SOHR? Nobody. Who repored it first? SOHR. In any case, seems at least one editor has agreed to the compromise solution (read bellow). So while personally I am of the opinion that it should be completely red, a lime ring will be put. I would ask both you and Hanibal to refrain from further edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal has agreed to the compromise (that makes three of us), so please Amensnober91 don't continue to edit war. EkoGraf (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I confirm my agree to the compromise proposal which suggested the editor EkoGraf.Hanibal911 (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Aljazeera once AGAIN confirm the capture of two villages. SOHR and Aljazeera are enough sources to make the change.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/8f02c648-1e2a-4604-a156-a8b0008ce68c

Actually Aljazeera is not the one that confirmed the capture of the villages. They relayed rebel claims, while SOHR has for its part so far only reported fighting around the villages, not IN them. It has already been agreed to in the past that the only reliable opposition source is SOHR (which has not reported the alleged capture), while any other opposition sources are only used if they report on government advances. EkoGraf (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

your thinking is wrong. Aljazeera have their own reporters in Syria and they are the ones that confirm such things, and its not just coping some news from local activists (as you think).Amensnober91 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My thinking and the source are perfectly clear. The reporter cites rebel claims/reports. He did not confirm it himself. The rule on this for the editing of this template map is pretty clear. So please stop with the edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. they check the claims/reports and confirm if it was true then they report it on the channel. SOHR also confirmed the same thing about the villages so why continue in this futile argument. jut accept the truth.14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

they check the claims/reports and confirm if it was true then they report it on the channel Actually no, that is your personal POV which is in violation of Wikipedia's rule on POV pushing/editing. The report does not say anywhere the corespondent confirmed the report, actually the source literally says that according to the corespondent the rebels announced their takeover of the villages. NOWHERE does it say he confirmed it. As for SOHR, they also never confirmed it, they reported fighting AROUND the villages, never in them. Per Wikipedia policy we use the info as it is in the sources, not as we think it is. If you want to edit on Wikipedia you need to follow its rules and they are clear. No edits based on our personal points of view (POV), no edit warring, no insulting language against other editors. All three you violated. As for editing this particular map, the ground rules have been made established long ago by editors of this map. Opposition claims can not be used when reporting opposition advances (your source), government claims can not be used when reporting government advances, opposition claims can be used when reporting government advances, government claims can be used when reporting opposition advances, journalist on-sight claims can be used, youtube videos are also not allowed per Wikipedia policy, SOHR has been declared an exception to the rules and used for all claims of advances. 15:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

For sake of compromise, I have added lime rings around the red villages. However, if no more reports are made of fighting in that area in the next week, I will remove them. EkoGraf (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Good solution, I was going to suggest it myself. Sorry for having started all this mess, I did not realize that the change was pro-opp.

About reliability, SOHR is a biased but not unreasonable source. As to confirm of other sources, admitting government advance and establish where the fightings are taking place is seems reasonable. Different is Al Jazeera that is airing propaganda of the worst kind. In the source above there was a obvious and disguting lie about "chemical attack in Adra". The lie is evident and ridicolous to make the whole article unreliable (and in any case it was mentioning only one village whose name in google translate was not clear). For Hanibal911, stop citing WP:NOTFACEBOOK. It just say that Wikipedia is not a social network, not that facebook sources shild not be used. A source reliability should be established over time comparing it with the facts, not basing on the technical approach of presenting news. It would be valid for provate facebook page but it is not for page run by organization (the realibity of which must be established case by case). Comment about khan touman: in the perimeter means inside (or within) the perimetere, that is inside (I am a mathematician, do not try to teach the meaning of perimeter). In fact khan touman was contested. Now I do not know, because for small villages things changes quickly and may be unstable. Let put it gerrn with a red circle along the perimeter (-: and wait. Comments about Riima farm, even Syria perspective says that "they are almost free", that is fighting is still ongoing and SANA did not mention them to be liberated. Therefore they are still contested. But who vandalize the page making still Sahel contested? Paolowalter (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

On Syria, almost everyone is a little biased but I believe SOHR is one of the more reliable sources. They do a great effort to give facts and I believe this is what really matters. They are against Assad but certainly not with the majors opposition factions and organizations either.Oussj (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, 2 of the villages have been made green. So much for the compromise of Paolowalter... Kihtnu (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From al-Monitor; "The militants attempted to advance toward Assan, Ayn Assan, Rasm al-Shih and the strategic monitoring positions and control these locations. However, the militants of the Islamic Front launched several attacks that failed. Meanwhile, military reinforcements reached these villages to protect them and to ensure a route for the army supplies." from this Article posted on March 5th.--Homan 056k (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Army advance in Hasakah

The Sabah Al-Khair silos and the village of Sab'a near Shaddadeh were captured yesterday by the Army [44]. Please add them to the map. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

as you can see in the topic above, the members here says that SOHR is not enough to make the change.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been done a milion times. SOHR (and even less reliable sorces) are sufficient to establish government gain (and the ooposite). This approach has never proved faulty. Otherwise for most of the country (especially small town and villages) would be impossible to have any information. Do you expect 'Le Monde' or NYT to send reporter to Sab'a? Hopefully this rather ovious rule has not to be repeated again and again. By the way I found Shaddadeh but not Sab'a' or Sabah nearby. Paolowalter (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

well, say that to the other members, not me, because when SOHR mention a rebels gain they just don't accept it as you can see below and above.Amensnober91 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I found it https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.081111,40.656389&q=loc:36.081111,40.656389&hl=en&t=h&z=12

But honestly,I find this very impossible,how does Assad's forces have the manpower to regain these fronts, Assad needs 100,000s of troops to regain the zone,the source say that ISIL withdrew from the region,suspicisons are growing that ISIL is a covert network established by Assad.Alhanuty (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR has proven to be reliable and neutral although its a "pro-oppostion'.end of the story.Amensnober91 (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not so suspicious, they Army has a base and a garrison north of that location at Hasakeh so... In any case, an opposition source says the Army captured it so they captured it. EkoGraf (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But the front is so big,and Assad has no ability to regain the region at all this forces can be cut very easy,the thing is that sohr has reported that ISIL has WITHDREW FROM THE AREA AND THEN ASSAD's TROOPS TOOK IT,this is increasing suspicisons that ISIL is a covert Assad network and alots of reliable news have mentioned the relationship btw Assad and ISIL,no way can Assad hold a massive zone like that to shadadi except if a cover Russian-like intervention scenario has happened in Syria,because no way Assad troops can fighting on a huge front like hassaka for an impossible cause.Alhanuty (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the rebel forces IF and JAN and AAT will regain the lost areas as soon as they defeat ISIL.Alhanuty (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case that's all unsourced speculation and Wikipedia:NOTFORUM 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

But the rebels also not have forces for that would fully capture these areas so let's not rush to edit. And stop give out wishful thinking. 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

Being a pro-opposition media, SOHR sources should be considered reliable when stating loyalist advances. Kihtnu (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

but that is a bottmline.sohr mentions that isil withdrew from it,then asaad forces marched in,possibly the gain might short live. Alhanuty (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Raqqa

From Arab Chronicle the very unusual news: "Concording news about loyalists takeover on #Ayn_Isa, a village just next to Army Base 93, in #Raqqa gov', after #ISIS leave the ground." It is so unusual that must be true. I put it red.--Paolowalter (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Specify a link to your source. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Allow me, here's the link from Arab Chronicle SOURCE & here's one from NDF based in Raqqa; SOURCE. It's up to you guys.--Homan 056k (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source that confirms that Syrian army captured of the city Ayn Isa.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bosra, deraa

Aljazeera and SOHR and many pro-opposite confirms that there are clashes in the south section of this town. and there even many clips showing the clashes there. then, why the hell the town is red after I changed it to contested? which new source says that its under full control of the army? this site is clearly a pro-regime sense the majority of the members here are pro-regime. am i wrong?16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

Understand that we do not use pro opposition sources to display rebel advances and also we do not use pro government sources to display the army advances. We all adhere to these rules and their violation will have serious consequences for you. If you stop your actions I will be forced to notify administrators about your actions and then they will decide what to do with you. 16:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

Aljazeera is not opposition source, neither SOHR. because they mention the two sides advancing and no one can denay that.17:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

Your source (Al Jazeera) reported an FSA claim that they attacked Bosra. You did not provide any other source for the claim, not even SOHR. Opposition claims of advances (except SOHR) have been ruled out as credible sources while editing this map. You need to accept this if you want to edit on Wikipedia. 16:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

about SOHR, it does mention the clashes in the town.17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152301968613115&set=a.10150329947968115.393926.326766683114&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

المرصد السوري‏

محافظة درعا- المرصد السوري لحقوق الانسان::قصفت القوات النظامية مناطق في بلدتي النعيمة و الحراك ولم ترد معلومات عن سقوط ضحايا،في حين تدور اشتباكات عنيفة بين القوات النظامية مدعمة بقوات جيش الدفاع الوطني الموالية لها من جهة ومقاتلي الكتائب الاسلامية المقاتلة و الكتائب المقاتلة من جهة اخرى في الحي الجنوبي لبلدة بصرى الشام وانباء عن خسائر بشرية في صفوف القوات النظامية والمسلحين الموالين لها .

you can find it on their official site too, so its not just the facebook.17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

I think that we should use, like a great part of the occidental press, SOHR and consider it at least as a reliable source, if not a neutral one. There are lots of rebels who hate SOHR... And they don't belong to any group in the opposition.17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Oussj (talk)

That is what I asked from you, nothing more. Thank you for the source on Bosra! 17:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

This source only said that the man from Bosra Al Sham was shot by a sniper but he does not say that he was shot is in city Bosra. We do not use pro opposition sources to display the achievements of the rebels. The reliable source acknowledges that SOHR pro opposition source.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

put bosra back to red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.122.120 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked back at the archive of SOHR as well as of http://www.documents.sy/ and I found only back to 6th January. We know that the front line tunjust west of Bosra, so that occasional skyrmish can take place inside, but that is not sufficient. Furthermore that source you quote is npt even available in english on SOHR page. We just take note that something is happening and watch in the next future, but for the moment remain red. Paolowalter (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source indicates that the city is under the control of the army.Al Akhbar While the source Al Jazeera tells the headquarters was mined and blown up from a distance but does not report about clashes in the city.Al Jazeera This cant be a reason to change the city Bosra to contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported about the clashes in the city on their official site and facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152301968613115&set=a.10150329947968115.393926.326766683114&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

المرصد السوري‏

محافظة درعا- المرصد السوري لحقوق الانسان::قصفت القوات النظامية مناطق في بلدتي النعيمة و الحراك ولم ترد معلومات عن سقوط ضحايا،في حين تدور اشتباكات عنيفة بين القوات النظامية مدعمة بقوات جيش الدفاع الوطني الموالية لها من جهة ومقاتلي الكتائب الاسلامية المقاتلة و الكتائب المقاتلة من جهة اخرى في الحي الجنوبي لبلدة بصرى الشام وانباء عن خسائر بشرية في صفوف القوات النظامية والمسلحين الموالين لها

and Aljazeera too reported about the attack which is inside the town:

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/93c95791-0b15-4d81-b159-915e504bc36c

so this all means the town is contested. SOHR report is sufficient. as for your source, i am the one who have to tell you to read carefully what the source says because your source is outdated. its published in Wednesday, February 19, 2014. and now we are in Mars 6, 2014. you consider this source as a new source? anyway how the hell the rebels would conduct such operation without being inside the town or without having clashes with the army?! its contested.Amensnober91 (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

When I think about it a little bit more, there is a big difference between an insurgent hit-and-run attack and a town being fully contested. Big difference! And this sounds to me to have been more of a hit-and-run attack. EkoGraf (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR CLEARLY MENTION CLASHES in the south of the town.Amensnober91 (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You must understand that SOHR pro opposition source and can not be used to display of the rebels advances. You are violating the rules of map editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

your source is OLD, and actually you are the one who's violating the rules.Amensnober91 (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

read this, please:

This discussion has been done a milion times. SOHR (and even less reliable sorces) are sufficient to establish government gain (and the ooposite). This approach has never proved faulty. Otherwise for most of the country (especially small town and villages) would be impossible to have any information. Do you expect 'Le Monde' or NYT to send reporter to Sab'a? Hopefully this rather ovious rule has not to be repeated again and again. By the way I found Shaddadeh but not Sab'a' or Sabah nearby. Paolowalter (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

But you should also know that Facebook is not a reliable source. You need specify more reliable source than the Facebook. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

how many times I need to say this? its the official site that mentioned the clashes, not just the facebook page. and anyway the facebook page is the same thing because its a follower page of the official site. the report you see on the faceook page you see it also on the official site. just saying. now are we done? Amensnober91 (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You can not use Facebook as a source, it has been forbiden per Wikipedia policy. And if SOHR really did state it on their official site than you need to provide the link to the SOHR report on their site, not just say its the official site that mentioned the clashes, we can not just simply take your word on it. You need to provide proof (non-Facebook proof). And I don't mean just providing the link to the official site, you need to provide the link to the report itself! EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

although you have seen the source now you want the link to it! just unbelievable. alright, here you go:

-1 http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16184&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UxiOB0wUGHU

it says "two rebels were killed one of them by a regime sniper in the town", now you well tell me they are just playing, not clashing.

-2 http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=16118&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UxiQtUwUGHU

it says "four loyalists were killed by rebels in CLASHES IN THE TOWN OF BOSRA".

happy now?Amensnober91 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

back to red. ban for Amensnober 91. this is not reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

its contested. ban for you.Amensnober91 (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

read this:

This discussion has been done a milion times. SOHR (and even less reliable sorces) are sufficient to establish government gain (and the ooposite). This approach has never proved faulty. Otherwise for most of the country (especially small town and villages) would be impossible to have any information. Do you expect 'Le Monde' or NYT to send reporter to Sab'a? Hopefully this rather ovious rule has not to be repeated again and again. By the way I found Shaddadeh but not Sab'a' or Sabah nearby. Paolowalter (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess there is misunderstanding: the point is not if facebook is reliable source as such. It is just a technical tools like others (like printed papers). The point is if the source behind facebook is reliable or not. SOHR is biased but not unreasonable (like Arab Chronicle), but relieas on biased sources on the ground that /naturally) tend to emphasize the situation favourable to rebels and dimiish those pro-gov, even without lying explicitly. We end up overemphaszie terms like 'on the outskirt', 'in the perimeter', or 'around', and similar term. For the sources on ground they are rather synonims, meaning vaguely 'close to the city but not quite inside'. I am covinced that a single quotation (from a reasobable but biased source) is not enough to change to contested. Given the (weak) evidence of rebel activities jsut outise (or just inside) the city, the appropriate choice is red with a green ring around, as it is often done (with reversed colours) for many other locations. Paolowalter (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

agree with paolowalter. red with green ring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Paolowalter. And I am noted the town Bosra under army control but surrounded by rebels because we do not have confirmation from an independent source that now in the city Bosra there are fights between the army and rebels. I ask everyone to treat with understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yarmouk (Damascus MAP)

The truce in Yarmouk was broken this Sunday

http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/856947/syrie-les-violences-reprennent-dans-le-camp-de-yarmouk-treve-rompue.html

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Mar-03/249043-clashes-shatter-week-old-truce-in-syrias-yarmouk.ashx#axzz2vBRVGXpY Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I dont think the changes can't be made on the map since somebody decided to change the "Damascus Map"--Homan 056k (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know how to change the map yourself, direct your requests here File_talk:Rif_Damashq.svg and I'll take a look at them. Regarding Yarmouk, I've heard that it was a one day thing and the clashes stopped right afterwards. Perhaps we should wait a little bit? Kami888 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Manbij

Al-Akrad is in battle with ISIS in Manbij. The city should be changed to "contested: Kurds-ISIS" according to this source. http://hawarnews.com/index.php/2013-02-14-17-53-15/11107-2014-03-05-09-10-14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.253.244 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Akrad has launched an attack on ISIS headquarters in a place called El-Heye that is located 15 km from Manbij city. Since it is a place whit military value it should be put up on the map by some one white the know-how. And then of course its status should be contested. Here is the source. http://en.firatajans.com/news/news/kurdish-al-akrad-front-launches-operation-against-isis.htm

Riima farms

SANA reports the conquer of Riima farms and of the hill overlooking Yabroud.

SOHR confirms the occupation of the hill. No change yet on the map, but let wait for confirmation. --Paolowalter (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're right we should wait for confirmation from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If SOHR said it, I really do believe it's true. I think SOHR here is more than enough.Oussj (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

lets wait for other sources, but when sana announced this, its for sure. i want to tell all of you, when we get confirmation from other source and put rima in red, pro rebel user will made change something on map, every time when assad capture town they without anuy source changing the map. i kindly ask admin to stop this in future. remember what i say today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.51.207 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait for confirmation of this information from more reliable sources and then to edit the map. And anyway, I suggest we all refrain from editing maps using as source data only site SOHR without confirmation from other information sources thus we can avoid war edits. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal, sincerly, have you ever been confronted to an information that SOHR published and was not true ? I personaly have not... If you do I'm truly interested.Oussj (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reported weeks ago the fall of Aleppo's Central Prison, and within' hours it was exposed that it was a lie. Well, they later say that it was "a misunderstanding". Yeah, of course...--HCPUNXKID 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Later they changed their story to say that 80% of the prison had been liberated and over 300 prisoners had been freed. They stuck with that story, though later reporting withdrawal. However, to my knowledge, not a single evidence of either claim had thus far surfaced and everything we know about the attack today points to it being a complete failure. The rebels never held even 1% of the actual prison complex, and they never released a single detainee. Kami888 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You must bring data from a reliable source than Facebook. The Syrian troops captured the Rima orchards in the surrounding areas of Yabroud.Yahoo NewsGlobal TimsFirst Post Hanibal911 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed today that the Rima farms and hills have been taken by the army [http://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/497732623668414 ] FS1991 (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Checkpoints

I noticed that there are some checkpoints like Madajin and Abu Shafiq in northern Hama countryside, that have long ago been captured by rebels, still listed as red. Given the fact that the rebels don't stay in this checkpoints I suggest someone should remove them or any checkpoint that has fallen from the map.FS1991 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You must provide a source that would confirm this information. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

About the Madajin checkpoint I remember an old post of SOHR in February that mentioned specifically this checkpoint and that the rebels took hold of it but i can't find the post at the moment;The Abu Shafiq is in rebel held territory so i would consider it as taken too. FS1991 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: Checkpoints still added in the map should be deleted for several reasons:

• First, only government-held checkpoints are portrayed here, when is well-known that all sides (opposition, kurds, ISIS...) had erected them. A clear example of double standards in this map... If we are going to add checkpoints, we have to add all, not only the ones from one side.
• Second, all the checkpoints in the map where added many months (or even more than a year) ago. Due to the innate mobile nature of the checkpoints (in contrast with other fixed infrastructure, like military bases), its impossible to know if that checkpoints are still in government forces hands, or if they even still exist.
• Third, is inconceivable to add checkpoints when there are still military bases (a much more important infrastructure) not added to the map. Not to mention the non sense of putting checkpoints on a map without roads, its like putting naval bases on a map without sea...

So if no one has serious reasons against it, I would be very glad to remove that unnecessary icons from the map.--HCPUNXKID 17:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with something. You said that checkpoints are mobile... But it's not always the case tight now in Syria. IN fact, there are often permanent checkpoints which are almost barracks... Oussj (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with the checkpoint mobility. All of the checkpoints that are listed on the map are not known to have moved anywhere ever, I don't know where you got that idea from.

Regarding your other points:

If you know of the opposition-run checkpoints, why don't you add them and fix the problem this way? Or post links here and let someone else add them? Adding useful information is always better than removing it.

And third, it is perfectly conceivable to have checkpoints listed when certain military bases are not, because the purpose of the map is not to list every single military object but only those that are important and relevant to the conflict. So those bases that are far away from the front as well as towns in Latakia and Tartus and whatever are normally either overlooked or added last. Kami888 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Tareq Al-Sad Aleppo

SOR quots that Tareq Al-Sad in Aleppo is under government control . Does anybody know where is it? Is it Tareeq Al-Bab? The latter is marked green on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably should be contested. It now is green in a red circle. If so, we should definitely have Busr Sham in Deraa contested as well. (Instead of red in a green circle.)

BTW Sopher99, the source is SOHR (which is neutral), and not facebook. André437 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Az-Zarah gone red, Krak des Chevaliers get ready to become red!--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

AYN ISSA!!

It´s absolutely hairrising,that you mark Ayn Issa as red because of some Assad-propaganda-channels.There is absolutely no basis to believe,that Ayn Issa was seized by the besieged Brigade 93-soldiers! This is ludacris! Absolutely idiotic! Ayn Issa is under rebel/Islamist control and the Brigade 93 is tightly besieged! This map is turning more and more into a pro-Assad-laughing stock,far away from reality! I will leave this map,if nothing changes! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.6.127 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The map is pro-Assad? Is that some sort of joke? The no. 1 POV pusher in here is Sopher99 who has done several hundreds of edits and not one single pro-government one. The citymap of Aleppo is so biased towards the rebels it makes my eyes hurt. If anything the map is pro-rebel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenC (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that the people "moderating" are actually the most biased of all. Sopher99 and others. Why doesn't everyone make changes regardless of the outcome he or she prefers? I know they're not journalists, but could they at least pretend to be?

It´s absolutely hairrising,that you mark Ayn Issa as red because of some Assad-propaganda-channels. Since when is Arab Chronicle [45] an Assad propaganda channel? EkoGraf (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Tharda mountain under Army control

The strategic Tharda mountain, near Deir Ezzor city, was earlier reported to be under attack by the Army [46] and has been now reported as captured by government forces [47]. Please add it to the map. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)