Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Damascus map not working out of date and hard to update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 [1] 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:[2]
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 [3].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[4] It can be seen clearly where the Army is here is the report [5] 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [6] 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[7]. 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.[8] [9] 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
اشتباكات بين الجيش والمعارضة في بلدة الحراك [10]
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
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. [11]
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 [12][13] 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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 [14]
-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: [15] [16]
-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)
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)
Presence of Kurds (Jabhat al-Akrad) in Azaz
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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... Tradediatalk 03:44, 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
اشتباكات بين الجيش والمعارضة في بلدة الحراك
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
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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: [17] [18]
videos of fighting in Nawa: [19] [20]
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)
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)
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)[21] says Ard-Al Harma in SAA hands. Confirmed by pro-Assad source[22], who says the frontline has been moved to Hanano.[23] Also note that al-Sheikh Saeed district is at least contested if not under regime control, which is confirmed by two neutral sources[24] [25] 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)
- 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)
- 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 ([26]). 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)
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.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://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)
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)
Army advance in Hasakah
The Sabah Al-Khair silos and the village of Sab'a near Shaddadeh were captured yesterday by the Army [27]. 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)
Oh, yes its a baathist-jihadist-communist-salafist-socialist conspiracy against the "democratic" "Syrian revolution" (LOL). That conspiracy theories are so, so pathetic and are sustained only by the POV of pro-Fake Syrian Army cheerleaders, not a single proof of that, while there is many evidences of the all types of support (direct or indirect) by the West to all the opposition factions, including the jihadist ones... By the way, as other user says above, and I had pointed weeks ago, WP is not a forum, so left you personal POV to your friends.--HCPUNXKID 17:17, 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)
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)
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)
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 [1] 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:
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.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)
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)
- 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)
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)