Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Important message from creator of map: Please read

Wikipedia administration is obviously not happy about the way the map is being managed (refer to the indefinite block of Hanibal911 for violation of Wikipedia rules on the map). We need to conform more strictly with Wikipedia rules. I have been in contact with administrators with respect to the situation and am in charge of putting back the map in strict conformity with Wikipedia rules & standards. You have to realize that many admins do not like the map and consider it un-encyclopedic and in violation with WP:NOTNEWS. They are waiting for an opportunity to harm it and lead to its deletion. Those of you who have been around about a year ago know that the map has been nominated for deletion and survived the procedure. You also have to know that the first version of the article “Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War” was deleted after an “Articles for deletion” (AfD) procedure and I had to fight back and create a new modified version. In any case, I will do whatever it takes to protect us. I count on your cooperation and discipline. Please avoid getting in contact with admins and be very nice if they are around and let me handle them. We need to conform strictly with the following Wikipedia rules:

1-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from reliable outlets are approximate and therefore unreliable for any use. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any use. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
I cite the WP:RS rule verbatim: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
I cite the WP:CIRCULAR rule verbatim: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.” At least one map maker has admitted to using the Wikipedia map as a source. There is strong suspicion others do the same.

2-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will no longer be tolerated. If you are not sure what the source is saying, post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. Tradedia^talk 09:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia I really didn't know that tweets can't be used as a source. I mean, i understand the term that anybody can make a tweet, but we have a "list" of pro-government and pro-opposition users that are active for several years, i believe that 50% of our edits are based on their tweets, and it's somehow working, no complains about that ... but ok. Something else, can we use this talk page as a source, i mean if we aren't sure about something, we disquss it here, and if everyone agrees about something, we make an edit based on the talk page, is that ok ? DuckZz (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits are not made based on total consensus, DuckZz, they are made based on general consensus involving everyone who participates in editing the page.

Tweets are fine to use as sources, so long as they can be backed up by other, more reliable, sources, should they come from smaller, lesser known, and possibly less reliable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So Elijah Magnier can no longer be used as a source,but SOHR is the only source that can be used, SOHR has been an agreed condition between the editors and admins three years ago, and so the main source will be news outlets,what about ISW.Alhanuty (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With such rules no Pro ISIS sources can be used. How is that neutral ? (All pro ISIS sources are tweets) !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to twitter was more in the context of copying from maps. The problem with maps is that we don’t know when they are guessing and when they are not. Twitter is not a source. Twitter is a media tool. The person writing the tweet is the source. Since Elijah Magnier is a well-known journalist, he is a valid source. So it all depends on the credibility of the person writing the tweet. Anyone can open a twitter account and start relaying rumors. It is important to also not use a source automatically, but assess the credibility of the writer and see what other sources are saying about the same town/situation. Some people who tweet are known to have information about the situation in Syria. So they can be used as a source, while taking into account their bias (no pro-gov/opp/kurd/ISIS sources for gov/opp/kurd/ISIS gains). For example, we can use the tweets of Leith Abu Fadel as a pro-gov source because we know he has information (similarly to other prominent pro-opp/kurd/ISIS internet activists). However, we cannot use the tweets of PinkFuzzy444 because we don’t know who the heck it is. So we need to be careful and weight the news by the credibility of the writer. Again, we have to look at what other writers are saying as well. For example, it might be prudent to make a town contested based on one source and then wait a little for other sources to change the color completely. We are trying to avoid mistakes, but at the same time be reactive to changes on the ground, so it is all common-sense. All previous and new sources should be looked at before making a map change decision. There is a balance to be found between jumping the gun too early and being unreactive and have something become outdated. Concerning the question about the “talk page as a source”, the answer is yes. Tradedia^talk 18:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 .Because of the unfair way Hanibal911 has been treated I will no longer donate to Wikipedia and will advise others to do the same .Also I say goodbye to all of you on this talk page .thankyou .86.135.154.220 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise it, but we lost Lindi29 to a sockpuppetry indeff on the first, and the tools that were used to find the top editors are down (as of the day Hanibal911 was blocked). Lindi was quite active too (about 5% of edits to this module). Banak (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia Users LightandDark2000 and 佐倉千代 are using twitter Hashtags as a source, pro-opposition tweets for Rebel advances etc.. breaking the rules and even making edits according to "their own opinion"... please respond, i can't revert them all because they make more than 10 changes during their edits so i need to do it manually. DuckZz (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Frustration with how this project was being managed drove me from this map 6 months ago. Glad to see some order is being restored. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick clarification please, Tradedia; pro-gov't al Masdar and (for the purposes of this map) pro-op Institute for the Study of War are two of the more vigorous outlets reporting on the Syrian Civil War. Their reporting/information often comes in the form of maps, some more detailed than others. 100% unusuable? Not trying to equivocate, and will abide by your response for all future editing. Thank you. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also would appreciate clarification on archicivilians, which I see is still in use as a source Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid: Interesting that you mention the Institute for the Study of War. Just now, I had to revert an edit (based on their map) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Damashq.svg (see File talk:Rif Damashq.svg#Khan al-Shih). ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. So in this case, our Rif Damashq map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from ISW map!

Concerning al Masdar, he usually hosts maps by pro-gov PetoLucem (or another Persian map maker). There is a major difference between our map and their maps. Our map marks towns (or bases, etc.) that we have information for. On the other hand, their maps color the whole territory assigning a control status to every area. Do they really have enough information to assign every area to a specific party? Do they have information to be able to draw the frontlines? Our map has started by marking all the towns for which we had information/sources. We did not have the aim to cover the whole Syrian territory. We prefer not to guess. If we don’t have reliable sources/information about an area, we should just leave it empty.

Just because an amateur map is classified as pro-gov, it doesn’t mean that map is always correct for the towns that it marks as under rebel control (and vice versa for pro-rebel maps). We need to be examining all sources, instead of blindly copying someone else's map. For example, just because Peto Lucem is classified as pro-gov, does not mean all the rebel areas on his maps are correct. Many months ago, he had the area around Al-Tulaysiyah marked as rebel held (you can read all about it in the archives of this talk page). However, I was able to find a source that showed that in reality it was gov held. We informed Peto Lucem of his mistake and he corrected it.

Also, i can give you 2 recent examples off the top of my head where the map by DeSyracuse was wrong and we copied it and made our correct map wrong:

1- See Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 34#Abu al-duhur airbase

2- His map dated 8-january-2015 shows Kafr Shams gov-held. This was before the large gov offensive (beginning february). So we know it was wrong since one of the gov offensive’s objectives was to capture Kafr Shams.

Also, see here an honest dialogue with DeSyracuse, where I confront him with the fact that his maps are not up to Wikipedia standards.

We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse (same story for archicivilians)… We need a source that talks specifically about a location so that we know it is not guessing. So the source has to say: “location xyz is under this control or that status…” The news could be right or wrong, but we need a news, not a guess. Amateur maps have been wrong too many times and made our map wrong too many times. They are not sources. They are our competitors. Tradedia^talk 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Do not archive this yet. Tradedia^talk 01:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the points raised by Tradedia in this section. Also, frustration with the blind application of "sources" by Hanibal911 was part of the reason I stopped contributing to this page a while back. (I was also busy with other priorities.)

I'm glad to see the reorientation of this page, as I think that it makes a very valuable contribution to Wikipedia as well as informing about the situation in Syria.

-- my 2 cents André437 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah Map Needs Uppdate

YPG holds the football stadium and the area located to west and south of the stadium. ISIS hold only Zohur district. Here is visual evidence from pro-YPG Ronahi showing the stadium [1] at 1:11 and this tower [2] at 2:05.

Here is another video (in Kurdish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLLYhTxJKy0 Roboskiye (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah officially liberated by SAA & YPG/J via Cizire Canton: https://twitter.com/CizireCanton/status/627413277862199296Prohibited Area (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently no one cares about removal of Daesh from Hasakah by YPG. I have not the time to edit the map. I have (at least temporarily) another solution: To replace the Hasakah map with a yellow dot that also includes a little red dot for showing the remaining pro-Bashar soldiers who control Ghuweyran district and parts of city center. Regards. Roboskiye (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that Hasakah map should remain despite not being up to date. I would edit it myself however I do not know which software etc is used or how to do it. However along as the city is under control of multiple parties the map should remain to represent the divisions of control in the city.Prohibited Area (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no multiple parties. MFS is part of YPG, hence yellow. Similar to Hezbollah, Pasdaran etc who go automatically red. Roboskiye (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Army of Fateh conquered 4 strategic hills in the countryside of Idlib and Hama

Army of Fateh expelled SAA from Tal Ilyas and Avar (East of Jisr Al Shugur, Idlib) and Tal Vasit and Tal Bakir (near Sahl Gaba region, NW of Hama). Source: http://www.aa.com.tr/tr/manset/563563--suriyeli-muhalifler-4-stratejik-tepeyi-ele-gecirdi Stunchy (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems the Idlib salliant is falling quickly into Jaysh al-Fatah hands. Sources reporting Frikka and the surrounding villages already under rebel control:

1. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/big-rebel-attack-in-syria/2012644.html
2. https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-28/308618-large-rebel-attack-in-syria-targets-area-vital-to-assad.ashx
3. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/07/rapid-collapses-take-place-for-the-regime-forces-fortifications-in-the-countryside-of-idlib-and-sahl-al-ghab/
4. https://twitter.com/IUCAnalysts/status/625961491599130624

The following changes must be made to the map:

To rebel control:

• Zayzoun Power Plant
• Tell Hakami
• Tell Sheikh Khattab
• Marj al-Zohour and the hill next to the town
• al-Mseirfah
• Tell Awar
• Tell Wasat
• Tell al-Sheikh Ilyas
• Frikah

To contested:

• al-Ziyara village

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2015‎

Pro-Assad media now also confirming total loss of the Idlib pocket north of Qarqur village: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jaysh-al-fateh-captures-remaining-hills-near-jisr-al-shughour/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2015‎

Another Pro-Assad twitter source confrims this losses here.Atele112 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to rush in edits, step by step, 2 locations in 1 edit, in this way users don't have to revert 20 edits at once just because 1 location should not be changed. DuckZz (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz I think we can change Frikka,Tal Wasit,Zeyzoun,and Az Zirayah to.Atele112 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR does not mention them. Try to find some neutral or government reporters talking about it. We should wait until tomorrow, rebels will probably start clashes in other locations, which will indicate that the areas behind them are under their control. DuckZz (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DuckZzSOHR reported the capture of Frikka,Marj al- Zohour, al- Msheirfah in the countryside of Jeser al- Shogour after they seized Tal Waset, Tal A’war and Tal al- Sheik Ilyas yesterday,Ziraya to contested.Atele112 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

1) We don't use SOHR English reports 2) You are obviously deliberately ignoring new SOHR reports, which say that Gov.forces counterattacked rebels in Al-Ghab and south Jisr Shurug which is under clashes. DuckZz (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources clearly mention rebel takeovers of Idlib villages and hills. Even the lines in the articles that are about SAA couterattacks are all taking about "positions in Sahl al-Ghab". Frikka and the surrounding villages are not in Sahl al-Ghab plain. So, we should make them green. Also, why is al-Ziyara contested solely between SAA and Nusra? Nusra is only part of Jaysh al-Fatah, and all position takes over by JaF are green and grey mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015‎

According to SOHR, the areas captured by Syrian Opposition are: 1. Zayzoun station and part of the town of al- Ziyara in Sahl al- Ghab; 2. Tal Hakami, Khattab Hill, al- Sohour Hill, Marj al- Zohour and village of al- Msheirfah in the countryside of Jeser al- Shogour; 3. Tal Waset, Tal A’war, Tal al- Sheik Ilyas 4.al-Frikah and its vicinity. Stunchy (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR updates that SAA re-captured al-Zyara and Tal Waset. Hence, the last two should stay red whereas all other should be green.Stunchy (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@DuckZz: could you explain why we haven't used SOHR? In my admittedly limited research, they seem to be pretty more neutral and reliable than most other sources. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre You did not understood me, we use Arabic SOHR instead of the English version because sometimes the English translators make mistakes during translation, in most cases only small details but important for this map. DuckZz (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR - The regime forces advance in Sahl al- Ghab, and captured town al- Mansoura [3] [4] Tal Waset [5] Khirbat al-Naqus [6] pro regime source: SAA captured Grain Silos outskirts of Mansoura and preparing to attack Al-Qahira / Al ghab plain [7] SAA captured Khirbat al Naqus- Mansoura - Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos [8] [9] Anti regime source [10] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army Captures Zayzoun in the Al-Ghaab Plains.Syrian Armed Forces launched a counter-offensive to recapture their lost territory, while also pushing south towards the town of Qahira.[11][12][13] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

SAA have entered Frikka and Jaish_Fateh defences have fractured.[14] Syrian Arab Army imposes control over Zeyzoun Power Plant.[15][16][17] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: Regime forces advanced in Sahl al-Ghab and taking control over the town of al-Ziyadiyyeh(Zayzoun) and Zeyzoun Power Plant, Khirbat al Naqus, Mansoura, Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos. [18] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian army and allied militias have regained control over several northwestern villages from insurgents on a Sahl al-Ghab plain. SOHR said, government forces had retaken several villages and areas located inside the plain. These included Khirbat al-Naqus and Mansoura as well as surrounding areas, it said. The army had also won back Ziyadia village and Zezoun power station, one of the country's major thermal power plants, which Nusra Front said it had captured earlier in the week. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Aug-01/309259-syrian-army-advances-on-plain-after-rebel-offensive-activists.ashx?utm_content=buffer794ae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/224857/syrian-army-advance SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mansoura grain silos.[19] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebel source: Rebels withdraws from Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[20] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: Regime was able to re-gain control on Zezon dam and its electricity station.[21] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

rebel source said Rebels retreated from the Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[22] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

pro FSA - Syrian Army gains control over Marj al-Zohoor area in Idlib countryside amid continuous violent clashes with al-Fateh army’s fighters in the surroundings of the area. [23][24] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army forces make major gains into Hama/Idlib govs after overstretch by the Jaysh al Fatah coalition. Map:[25] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Regime forces captured Tell A'war and conflicting information about who control Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[26] Tell A'war - under regime, Tell Hamakah - contested. SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Opp. source(Eldorar) SAA controls Tell Awar and Frikka after Jaish_Fateh retreat from the area.[27] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The rules of editing

From the header:

Rules for Editing the Map

1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided. a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits. b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes). c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR. WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.

This raises a few questions:

1. Where did we get rules 1C and 2 from? I know the creator of these module added them, but where did they get consensus from?
2. Do we wish to keep them? 1C stops us from using sources like we used to in a 1B faction. Rule 2 stops us from updating even updated towns and villagers, and assumes all maps are untrustworthy, and also stops us from editing like we would for a normal 1A/1B source, even when towns/villages are explicitly labelled.
3. Is it worth considering asking for an exception to the 1RR for this module and other war modules? As far as I can tell, the 1RR seems to get in the way more than help, and has caused lots of editors to get blocked or banned (23 [sanctions] since 5 October 2014 plus one for a near miss, that's about 1 every 2 weeks). This would probably require a RFC to change. Banak (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I think you are missing the general context we are in. The rules were established as an ultimate effort to avoid the map being deleted by influential administrators who think that it does not belong on Wikipedia. For a sample of such opinion, take a look at the comment of Drmies from this week’s Articles for deletion. By the way, Drmies is an administrator ranked among the top 100 most active Wikipedians: “This is pushing it. Sure, the war and its events are notable--but not all events are. Organizing this by locality is an invitation to be all-inclusive and recentist, and we're not the news… As for "the best template map", I clicked on the article two minutes ago. It just loaded, having crashed Firefox once. It looks awful, being about four times as wide as my screen, and scrolling is well-nigh impossible. The legend is overcomplicated, there are blinking gifs, I can't figure out what's what. There seems to be some sort of floating image in the center of the map; I don't know what it is. How is this map good? And that's not even taking into account the matter of sourcing, which is not up to snuff with WP:RS.”
2. We have been editing the map under the new rules for many weeks now and it is going OK. Rules 1C and 2 just prevents us from making big mistakes like that related to Khan al-Shih & ISW map (see Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#Souq Wadi Barada, Barahliya, and Kafr al-Awamid).
3. There is zero chance an exception for the 1RR would be granted for war modules. If 1RR seems to be getting in the way, then let me know and I will revert all the bad edits. Tradedia^talk 03:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"The legend is overcomplicated" I can help with this a bit. I want to remove some icons because we have never used them before, probably never will, don't know why they even exist.

• Icons for 3 shared controls (Kurd/Jan/Rebels, Gov/Rebel/JAN etc..), i mean this is just ridiculous because the only locations where this might be possible are bigger towns, and we have special maps for that, not icons.
• "Gov + rebels in a truce are icon". What's the difference between this icon and the icon for 2 shared controls (Gov/Rebels). Again the same problem as with 3 shared control. The only location where we have 2 shared control and in some times no clashes are bigger towns. This means, a village, or a town (for what we don't have a map) is either

a) Gov.held

b) Rebel held

c) Under clashes

d) Rebel held but under truce

e) Shared control, but this means there's a truce, which also means one of the 2 icons should be removed because it has the same meaning.

• JAN+Kurd shared icons. We never had this situation, and probably never will, why is it there only to confuse users like Drmies ? Hipotheticaly, if this situation ever happens, we will just readd the icon.

I also have some other issues but lets just clear these ones. I need some support for this edit, because i don't want to get blocked ... DuckZz (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all your suggestions. However, I think that the legend needs to be drastically restructured and simplified beyond just removing a few icons. The legend needs to look more encyclopedic. It has to be structured along 2 dimensions:

1. beligerant colors
2. symbols in “generic black & white”

All the different color combinations icons would have to be moved to the Module documentation (Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map/doc) where editors can look them up to use them. The legend on the other hand would be designed only for viewers.

The “Rebel held but under truce” icon is useless because viewers (who are not editors) cannot distinguish the purple ring from a red ring (and it is not used now). Concerning the “Gov + rebels in a truce” (or Gov/Rebels shared control), it should be a purple dot because it is now represented as a purple area on the “large city maps” and we have to be consistent with that. We can’t have “Gov + rebels in a truce” represented one way on “large city maps” and a different way for towns.

Allow me to do this revision and it will become more clear what I mean when you see it done. Tradedia^talk 19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done (and the full set of usable icons moved to module documentation) Tradedia^talk 08:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we review the rules on editing. I'm not sure how this would be done and who would authorise rule changes, however the current rules appear very restrictive and inhibit the map from representing an accurate display of the situation in the war. This is because many sources that could be used, include maps however these are prohibited. Although I agree they can be unreliable there are some accurate and detailed maps that should be considered accurate enough to be used as sources, plus if they are found inaccurate these edits can easily be reverted. Also a source should be based on its reliability as oppose to whether it originates from a pro-rebel or pro-govt source. The current system whereby an edit can only be made if a source, for example, a pro-rebel source, details a rebel loss, is flawed as many rebel sources wouldn't report their losses on the basis that it would be demoralizing/ not in their interest. Where as multiple independent rebel sources describing a rebel victory cannot be used despite a wide consensus. For example, many sources have described Qaryatayn being taken over by ISIS just yesterday however no pro-regime source has yet confirmed this, despite it being most likely true, and therefore making the map inaccurate.

May I propose that we make the rules more lenient to maps, in regards to detailed and well renowned maps and map-makers, and also allow edits on the basis of a biased source, detailing an accurate development, as long as there are several other independent biased sources to back up the claim. As I said previously I don't know how this would be authorized, but would encourage others to share their opinion.Prohibited Area (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Assad forces advance in Hama/Idlib

SOHR - The regime forces advance in Sahl al- Ghab, and captured town al- Mansoura [28] [29] Tal Waset [30] Khirbat al-Naqus [31] pro regime source: SAA captured Grain Silos outskirts of Mansoura and preparing to attack Al-Qahira / Al ghab plain [32] SAA captured Khirbat al Naqus- Mansoura - Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos [33] [34] Anti regime source [35]

Syrian Army Captures Zayzoun in the Al-Ghaab Plains.Syrian Armed Forces launched a counter-offensive to recapture their lost territory, while also pushing south towards the town of Qahira.[36][37][38]

SAA have entered Frikka and Jaish_Fateh defences have fractured.[39] Syrian Arab Army imposes control over Zeyzoun Power Plant.[40][41][42]

SOHR: Regime forces advanced in Sahl al-Ghab and taking control over the town of al-Ziyadiyyeh(Zayzoun) and Zeyzoun Power Plant, Khirbat al Naqus, Mansoura, Tell Wasit and Mansoura grain silos. [43]

The Syrian army and allied militias have regained control over several northwestern villages from insurgents on a Sahl al-Ghab plain. SOHR said, government forces had retaken several villages and areas located inside the plain. These included Khirbat al-Naqus and Mansoura as well as surrounding areas, it said. The army had also won back Ziyadia village and Zezoun power station, one of the country's major thermal power plants, which Nusra Front said it had captured earlier in the week. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Aug-01/309259-syrian-army-advances-on-plain-after-rebel-offensive-activists.ashx?utm_content=buffer794ae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/224857/syrian-army-advance

Mansoura grain silos.[44]

Rebel source: Rebels withdraws from Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[45]

SOHR: Regime was able to re-gain control on Zezon dam and its electricity station.[46]

rebel source said Rebels retreated from the Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[47]

pro FSA - Syrian Army gains control over Marj al-Zohoor area in Idlib countryside amid continuous violent clashes with al-Fateh army’s fighters in the surroundings of the area. [48][49]

Syrian Army forces make major gains into Hama/Idlib govs after overstretch by the Jaysh al Fatah coalition. Map:[50]

Regime forces captured Tell A'war and conflicting information about who control Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[51] Tell A'war - under regime, Tell Hamakah - contested.

Opp. source(Eldorar) SAA controls Tell Awar and Frikka after Jaish_Fateh retreat from the area.[52] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebels source: Regime captured Frikka - Marj al-Zuhour - Tell A'war and advancing to Tell Hamakah.[53] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: Regime forces/Hezbollah to regain control of the town Furaykah.[54] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SAA sources claim they do not control Frikka nor did they enter it, but insurgents fled the village and returned hours later 86.26.230.122 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SAA sources confirmed Frikka under SAA.[55][56][57] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SAA captured Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[58] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Opp.source: Syrian army retake Tell Hamakah in Idlib western countryside, amid severe clashes with al-Fateh Army.[59][60] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

English version of SOHR states that rebels retook Tel Awar and that Mansoura silos are contested [61]. Pro-Government Al-Masdar states that SAA never entered Frikka [62] and that Fawru is contested [63]. Summary: Frikka is not contested (yet); Fawru is contested.109.47.3.224 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

your sohr report is old .Acc to sohr arabic (today report) tel awar in under saa control also clashes still ongoing around fawru http://www.syriahr.com/2015/08/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84-3/Hwinsp (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Azaz

What's the situation in Azaz ? It was marked green/grey fight mix, and now it's grey. Any scorces or evidence ?Oroszka (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The source that was provided is against the rules. The editors says one thing, the source a completely different story. When you look at the source, and the previous situation in Azaz town, you clearly see that the Editor made the mistake on purpose, which deserves a block DuckZz (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There was only one incursion, nusra raided the 30th US trained "division" HQ, kidnapped, deaths on both sides. 30th retreated from the HQ and nusra took it, but not whole Azaz I guess.Totholio (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the case. The editor wanted us to believe that Azaz was controled by an single rebel group (which actually first apeared 1 month ago) called "30th Division" which is not true. The town is controled both by Ahrar Sham and some other rebel groups, which can be confirmed by various sources which were already provided on this talk page and that's the reason the town was green all the time, then changed to shared controls because "US airstrikes on Nusra HQ inside the town", that's it. DuckZz (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID you used this source to change Azaz from lime to grey. The source only says that Division 30 (with less than 60 fighters, half of them dead or captured) left site. How does this state that Nusra is in full control of the town?Rhocagil (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Azaz should be under mixed control. We have clearly seen that Nusra has a much stronger presence in the north Aleppo region than we previously thought, as they have fought ISIS on the frontline there. Nusra probably has a significant presence inside this town, especially as they now have a headquarters there. Someone actually used the wrong grey icon, too. -pbfreespace3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.193.191 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Ghab area clashes

Here you can discuss the situation in Al-Ghab plain area as both rebels and gov. forces are advancing here and there. Before any edit, i would ask you to post a source here so other users don't have to revert edits and then get blocked. DuckZz (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/IUCAnalysts/status/628960521023307776 Neutral Map shows a Jaish al-Fatah counter attack has been successful in overrunning numerous SAA villages, however as a map cannot be used a source for editing.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not an neutral map, this twitter account is made up from 10 different Pro-rebel twitter users like arcivilians, thomas van linge etc. That was their statement when they made this few weeks ago. DuckZz (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I use a SOHR article to edit Furayka to being under rebel control? Is SOHR deemed a reliable enough source.Prohibited Area (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory of Human Rights is a pro-rebel source

DuckZz and all, I think that most people here agree that the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights is a pro-rebel source. Is this somehow not the case? I am now being reported for reverting an edit which changed a town from contested to rebel control based on a SOHR post. How am I violating the rules? Is there something I am unaware of? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the map in favor of the rebels cannoy be made with pro-government verification of whatever edit you made happening. Perhaps that's why you were reported.

DaJesuZ, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I reverted a pro-rebel edit because SOHR was the source. Why would someone threaten to report me? What rules did I break? I need to know so that I do not make the same mistakes in the future. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 You registered 2 months ago on wikipedia and tell other people what should and shouldn't be donne because apparently it's not the way we used to do it.

Since I'm looking at this article, and that's more than 2,5 years, we always used SOHR as a source for every kind of edits. There was some time users didn't like it, and they or we, had discussions about that, but we did always agree to keep on using SOHR and again and again, and it's working perfectly. You are a) Breaking 2 rules at the same time b) Telling other people that they are wrong. Period, please don't do this ever again. DuckZz (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed half a dozen times over the years and each time it was agreed that, regardless of them being pro-opposition, SOHR are neutral in their reporting of territorial gains by both sides and war crimes by both sides. As a credit to this, reliable sources such as Reuters, AFP, BBC etc have called it an authoritative source on Syria and have used it in their reporting on a regular basis. Thus, it has been established policy among editors for the last four years to use SOHR on a regular basis as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you EkoGraf,i needed this clarification to the other new editors.Alhanuty (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Am losing patience with this user Pbfreespace3 he is reverting every edit unless his pal Leith or Almasdar confirms it he is not willing to accept SAA losses , Specially in the case of qaryatayn he is your sources but still the town is SAA held??

https://twitter.com/ZeinakhodrAljaz/status/629238725873168384 https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/629234690512171008

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/the-islamic-state-take-full-control-of-the-entire-strategic-city-of-al-qaryatayn/

http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20150806-syrie-al-qaryatayn-controle-combat-ei-etat-islamique-osdh-rahmane?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&aef_campaign_date=2015-08-06&dlvrit=1448817

Hasakha map

I have no idea who removed the Hasaka detailed map from the map and why whom ever did it, did so without discussion. Meantime whenever or not there going to be a discussion I will put out loyalist village Al-Dhiyabah (just north of Hasakha) on the big map. I anybody feel unsure about that please have a look at the old detailed Hasakah map.Rhocagil (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

[64], [Discussion of need for an update]. Banak (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Quneitra

Syrian Army captured Al Hamidiyah and Tal Qubba on July 2nd 2015- not changed for over a month. SOHR has not reported because his source was killed in the town, so there will be no announcement from him on this, because his sources are very limitedd in Syria, covering less than 12% of the country (Rebel/Al Quieda held Area). Article will be nominated for deletion if these are not changed.

2-http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-captures-tal-qabaa-near-the-israeli-bordder/

1-http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/southern-front-conducts-another-large-assault-on-the-golan-heights-and-daraa-city/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any pro-rebel sources that can confirm this? I agree and would edit these however it would violate the map rules which I interpret as unnecessarily strict and inhibit the map from portraying a realistic representation of the current situation in the war. Prohibited Area (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again there are no pro opposition members left in this town, the town has been in army control for over a month, the pro opposition obviously has no sources here, once again map changes are made for opposition gains instantly with pro opposition sources (SOHR) which has sources in less than 15% of the country, how can you base a map of a war on such a limited and biased source which has made many false claims in the past? Once again make the change or this article will be nominated for delition, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I cannot make the edit without a pro-rebel source or a neutral source. I have listed some proposals above regarding the rules of editing which you are welcome to comment on to express your opinion on. For the time being we will have to be patient.Prohibited Area (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats BS heres a video of the location with Druze and SAA in control ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcAPPxkaljg. Guess I will nominate it again to point out the flaws and complete bias of this page, and its editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I will make the edit on the basis that Al-Masdar is a reliable source.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Will someone, anyone at all, please explain to me how making an edit in favor of the government, without confirmation of anti-government or neutral sources, makes any sense, and would you, kindly, explain to me how it shows bias in favor of the rebels, SyrianObserver2015, when we do not make edits in favor of the rebels without government or neutral sources confirming whatever assertions are made?DaJesuZ (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well things have changed and if you want your map kept I suggest you keep it up to date, you can update rebels with pro rebel source, but can't update Government area for over a month, now you little terrorist supporting shite, if you keep crying about it I will nominate the map and the article again for deletion, because as far as I am concerned the info below the map is mostly false and out of date. The editors of this map are a joke and are mostly terrorist fanboys. So you can start to change or you can see your map nominated for deletion every week untill it is gone.

Qamishli Map

Icons for Qamishli airport and military bases do not correspond with the Qamishli Map, can someone edit these.Prohibited Area (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

qaryatayn capture by ISIL

https://twitter.com/ZeinakhodrAljaz/status/629238725873168384

https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/629234690512171008

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/the-islamic-state-take-full-control-of-the-entire-strategic-city-of-al-qaryatayn/

http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20150806-syrie-al-qaryatayn-controle-combat-ei-etat-islamique-osdh-rahmane?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&aef_campaign_date=2015-08-06&dlvrit=1448817 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack6780 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Map improvement

Thank you very much for your fine and detailed work on this map. There is only one thing missing that is of crucial importance in any conflict map , main roads and highways ! Is there any possibility of including them in this so detailed map ?

Thanks in advance and best regards

2A02:582:C92:AB00:9111:BCDE:D06A:BDF6 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Thanos

Good point! Rhocagil (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)