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). 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, 8 October 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)

SOHR & Al-Masdar

I am authorizing the use of both SOHR & Al-Masdar as reliable sources for all edits.

Item 1 a) in the ”Rules for editing the map” says: “A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.” (my emphasis added)

We have been following these 2 sources for over a year now. Their “territorial control coverage” has been reliable. At least as reliable as sources we deem reliable. Note that during the last events in Al-Ghab plain, both sources have been totally correct. Therefore, there is no good reason to deprive our map from the full extent of coverage of these 2 sources. We all know that the editor of SOHR hates the gov and the editor of Al-Masdar loves the gov. But this is beside the point. Also irrelevant is the flag on their website, their rhetoric or their death numbers. The only relevant thing for us is the following: When the source says a town changed hands, is it very often correct or not? General statements that we hear around saying something like "SOHR/Al-Masdar is often wrong" are useless unless people can bring specific examples of mistakes along with a link to the article, the exact sentence that was wrong and links from elsewhere that show the truth.

However, there are some restrictions. One SOHR report of shelling cannot be used to change the status of a town (same for Al-Masdar). We need statements relating to who holds the town, town changing hands, or being contested. Also, only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account. Also, we cannot use Al-Masdar to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc.

It is possible that sometimes the 2 sources would contradict each other. In this case, we need to synthesize. We might not make a change or be conservative by making a contested status. We should not pick the one we like and ignore the other. We should not flip-flop between the two (in an edit war fashion) either.

Keep in mind that even a reliable source can be wrong sometimes. This has happened to us with prestigious media. In such cases, we need to use common sense & do cross checking with other sources to avoid blindly copying a mistake. Finally, SOHR & Al-Masdar are very acceptable as sources in the eyes of Wikipedia administration. Tradedia^talk 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Do not archive this yet. Tradedia^talk 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I presume we are using SOHR Arabic only, as we have previously avoided the usage of SOHR English because of poor translations giving inaccurate detail making it a poor source. Thanks.Prohibited Area (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So I guess that means we can use Al-Masdar and SOHR (still only Arab reports I assume) for all gov, rebel, ISIL, and Kurd advances, though with restrictions, correct? Didn't expect those sources would now be allowed for all edits, since there were those bias restrictions (I think you should know what I mean.)--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is realiable and all news agencies praised it for its neutrality and accuracy,and Por-Opposition sites attack SOHR for being pro-regime and call its author an alawite,Al-Masdar is totally unreliable and is a pro-regime source,and its editor in chief leith abu fadel is a die-hard pro-regime person.Alhanuty (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is a UK-based pro-FSA one-man army (Rami Abderrahman) that allegedly relies on a "network of activists on the ground", something that could made some of it content at least dubious, if not simply partisan & biased. As other users pointed earlier, remember their Aleppo prison fiasco. The fact of being cited by news agencies is irrelevant in this case, as SANA has been also cited by many news agencies several times.--HCPUNXKID 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything what you wrote here is just common sense and logic, and i believe 80% of the editors already understand this, but 20% of them are trolls, and i don't know if you or some other admin can block them because they often brake the rules just to check if they can get caught DuckZz (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC) I agree with you DuckZz,especially the trolls and those whom want go against concenscus Pbfreespace3. Alhanuty (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don´t like when peoples say that we can use only SOHR arabic source. Why? Because this i wikipedia english! (so the sources should be available in english) Sorry I don´t read/speak arabic.Rhocagil (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Tuloul Hamar (Quneitra)

This hill was captured by rebels, marked green but then changed to contested because of clashes few months ago. This video shows the hill yesterday and as you can see, the clashed area is far away because the reporter can freely walk around it and show the important locations. In my opinion, SMART news agency is an fairly objective channel, based on rebel teritory but they have good reports. Opinions ? DuckZz (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, I agree. I will make the edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is confirmation that Tuloul al-Hamar are rebel-held at Quneitra offensive (2015)#Tuloul al-Hamar. This includes 2 articles from As-Safir newspaper (not pro-rebel). Tradedia^talk 08:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front along Turkish-Idlib border

This map released by the Institute for the Study of War [1] shows the al-Nusra Front controlling the border between Idlib province and Turkey, which would make the towns of Al-Alani and at-Tulul as being under their influence. --Ritsaiph (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph Which map? We don't usually use maps as sources for edits as they can be unreliable, especially on a large scale. The map probably infers Al-Nusra influence and not necessarily un-opposed absolute control hence I oppose changing the entire border region to al-Nusra.82.153.100.135 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

82.153.100.135 , this map: [2] --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Massively biased and unsorced posts

My original article regarding this was deleted, so, here's a repost, and it will continue to be reposted, despite a certain pro-regime user constantly deleting it:

Recently, over the course of, I would say, six months, pro-government bias has shown up in posts, ranging from claims that Chinese military units fouls soon be in Syria to aid in the war against the Syrian opposition, to claims that about 80% of those killed in the war were rebels, or other anti-government individuals, to even calling people who edit this map, such as Pbfreespace3, "terrorists," and, "jihadi fanboys." I, myself, was called an, "ISIS beheader supporter." This partisan rhetoric does nothing to help map development, and only serves to polarize those who help with its development, therefore, I suggest we start deleting posts like that. I have already done so with a few of them, but before I continue, I think everyone should state their views on doing so. DaJesuZ (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is my belief that we need to stop all personal attacks. The revert rules and misunderstanding what Wikipedia considers to be vandalism get enough people blocked and banned as it is. If we can calmly discuss sources without talking of bias or anything, that'd be a massive improvement and save us all time and energy.

This also means, I hope we can move towards saying "you can't use that source because it's pro-gov" rather than "Stop pushing your pro-gov viewpoint" etc. In short, can we actively try to be civil? Banak (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I stoped editing and looking at this map since 40 days. There are several reasons for this. First thing is that we use Al Masdar as a primary source. The second thing is that admins aren't doing their job properly. I don't want to bo civil and act like i do care for opinions which are based on hate and retarded thoughts. If someone is clearly wrong, then he's wrong, i don't want to talk to him and act like i do care for his stupid opinions. Too many trolls and autistic editors settled on this page, that's why this map is getting ridiculous and outdated. DuckZz (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

First, claiming that the Chinese is coming was released by a Russian senator. It has nothing to do with pro-gov or not, so you are bring up an invalid point. Second, if there is any inaccuracy on the map, edit it yourself with reliable sources or point it out. Stop complaining gratuitously it is pointless and ridiculous. Deserttanker (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, your claim of 40 days is incorrect, you have edited the map several times within the last 40 days, perhaps you mean it's been about that long since the edit warring block? In your eyes, what job are Admins not doing that they should?

Can you either demonstrate that the areas you believe to be wrong were done via a bad edit, of provide a usable source that backs you up, if possible. At the very least say specifically what you believe to be wrong. Banak (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

russian senator? hahaha it was only dreamed by the israeli debkafiles http://www.debka.com/article/24909/A-Chinese-aircraft-carrier-docks-at-Tartus-to-support-Russian-Iranian-military-buildup- Also this post makes 0 sense nobody cares what a pro al nusra duckz says, you have 0 credibility. Both SOHR(cheating with casualties, claiming 30 civilian deaths in Homs 2 hours before the russians started to bomb and now blaming them) and Al-masdar shouldn't be used as map editing source. Totholio (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Deserttanker, oh really? It's totally invalid? 213.94.235.254 was the address of someone who claimed that the Chinses military would be putting booth on the group in Syria, and had absolutely nothing backing it up, other than a pro-gov source. The Chinese government is in support of Bashar al-Assad, so how, exactly, is that point invalid?

Totholio, I somewhat side with you on this, however, SOHR is often denounced by several opposition groups as being pro-regime, and its head has even been called an Alawite (I don't have the source for this, but will look for it). The issue with not using either sone as a source is that we don't have much of an alternative.208.92.227.84 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 213.94.235.254, your sarcastic language cannot help you win. These two sources can totally reject your claim that China is pro-gov; the Chinese also denied its intervention: [3] [4] . Deserttanker (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Watch your eyes on Northen-Homs governate

According to pro-goverment Al-Masdar news, the SAA is preparing a major offensive against the remaining rebel-held areas to north of Homs with the help of Syrian and Russian Air Force: [5] Oroszka (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bir Khalah and other things to fix

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map thinks to check:

• Bir Khalah has double entry,
• Qabr ‘Aymu and Ar Rafi 'ah have the same coordinates.

--Hogg 22 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Tall Ayyub is not on coordinates (36.109, 37.593) but (36.112, 37.617) ie 2 km to the east. --Hogg 22 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Double entry:

{ lat = "36.339", long = "36.954", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "5", label = "[[al-Zooq]]", link = "al-Zooq", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
{ lat = "36.339", long = "36.953", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Zuq Al Kabir]]", link = "#Zuq Al Kabir", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

I believe this Kurdish willage is under YPG. --Hogg 22 (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Al Hayzah and Dallawiyah Saghirah apperas to be on the same cooridnates:

{ lat = "36.902", long = "41.196", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "[[Al Hayzah]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
...
{ lat = "36.902", long = "41.196", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "[[Dallawiyah Saghirah]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

Wikimapia says that willage is called Al-Takht. Please clarify. --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Tal Hamidiya and Hamidi have the same coordinates, but Tal Hamidiya (lat 36.817, long 41.166) is archeological site on a hill 1.5 km N of Hamidi. { lat = "36.806", long = "41.166", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Tal Hamidiya", link = "#Tal Hamidiya", label_size = "0", position = "top" }, { lat = "36.806", long = "41.166", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Hamidi", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Possible duplicate entry:

{ lat = "36.628", long = "40.987", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Sibat]]", label_size = "0", position = "top", },
{ lat = "36.628", long = "40.988", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Al Sabat]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Duplicate entry:

{ lat = "36.470", long = "38.566", mark = "map-ctl2-lime+yellow.svg", marksize = "4", label = "[[Tuzinj]]", link = "Tuzinj", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
{ lat = "36.470", long = "38.566", mark = "map-ctl2-lime+yellow.svg", marksize = "4", label = "[[Derbatan]]", link = "Derbatan", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

Derbatan should be moved. Change to:

{ lat = "36.502", long = "38.511", mark = "map-ctl2-lime+yellow.svg", marksize = "4", label = "[[Derbatan]]", link = "Derbatan", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Kafr Halab and Jazraya, change

{ lat = "36.082", long = "36.87", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Kafr Halab]]", link = "#Kafr Halab", label_size = "0", position = "top" }
{ lat = "35.850", long = "37.050", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Jazraya]]", link = "#Jazraya", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "36.061", long = "36.871", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Kafr Halab]]", link = "#Kafr Halab", label_size = "0", position = "top" }
{ lat = "35.860", long = "36.983", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Jazraya]]", link = "#Jazraya", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

Anybody reading this ;)? --Hogg 22 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Khatunīyah is actualy Killiyah Khatunīyah and Killiyah on Wikimapia, maybe change

{ lat = "36.473", long = "38.363", mark = "Location_dot_black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Khatunīyah]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "36.473", long = "38.363", mark = "Location_dot_black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Killiyah]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
{ lat = "36.467", long = "38.334", mark = "Location_dot_black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Khatunīyah]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Grouh has wrong coordinates, see Jruh on wikimapia.

{ lat = "35.106", long = "37.605", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Grouh]]", link = "Grouh", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

needs to be changed to

{ lat = "35.104", long = "37.497", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Grouh]]", link = "Grouh", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Quneitra changes

In the past week, rebels have been taking ground in Quneitra province near the Israeli border. Rebels have taken over Tell Ahmar hill, the 4th Batallion Base near Tell Trinjeh and Mazrat al Amal. The small village of Mazrat el Amal should be green, as well as Tell Ahmar and the 4th Batallion. The article also claims rebels are near Brigade 90 in Quneitra, so half green circle?

Source: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/566003-quneitra-rebels-take-strategic-hilltop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Deir Ezzor

Source. al Muri'iyah and the missle base should be SAA held. MesmerMe (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The source does not state that SAA took al Muri'iyah; also it does not even mention the missile base at all.131.188.48.174 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"attacking the Syrian Armed Forces’ frontline defenses at the Military Airport; the Al-Sina’a, Al-Haweeqa, and Al-‘Amal Districts; and the village of Al-Muri’iyah" & "ISIS sent two waves of fighters towards the contested army base (southern perimeter of the airport)" They mention both the base and the town. MesmerMe (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1) As you say: "attacking the Syrian Armed Forces’ frontline defenses at [...] the village of Al-Muri’iyah". So the article clearly states that there are SAA frontline defenses at Al-Muri'iyah. It does NOT state that SAA has full control of Al-Muri'iyah or that SAA captured Al-Muri'iyah. However, Al-Muri'iyah already is red in the map for some reason. 2) Army Base != Missile Battalion. Missile Battalion [6], Army Base [7].84.138.69.94 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Muriyah area is contested between government and ISIS. The person who made the edit changing Muriyah used al-Masdar as a primary source, and the article only mentioned SAA defenses inside the town. It never stated the town was in SAA hands, and in reality ISIS has dug-in positions in the eastern part of the town area. It should therefore be changed to contested. And of course the Missile Battalion is still ISIS-held. Even now, Masdar reports heavy firefights in Jafra and Muriyah towns, even saying that both sides are deadlocked for control. Clearly Muriyah should be contested based on what some people claim is a pro-government source.73.45.167.247 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar as a primary source

I'm siding with those who want Al-Masadar removed as a primary source. Read the article linked below.

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-disastrous-defeat-in-deir-ezzor-over-150-terrorists-killed-in-24-hours/

This stuff reads more like Hitler and his generals bragging about being able to hold their own during the invasion of Normandy, which we all know was total horse crap. This stuff is massively biased in favor of the Syrian regime, and if we are to make an accurate map of what's going on in the Syrian Civil War, we need to use as objective as sources as possible, and this isn't one of them.DaJesuZ (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure dude,sad part is you as being a moderate beheader supporter got 0 credibility, not to mention SOHR which wasn't in Syria since 2000 and got info from "activists" "on the ground" who are 100% pro opp. He did not lie about massive ISIS casualties in Deir/Hasakah http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/more-than-90-members-of-the-islamic-state-were-killed-during-the-attacks-at-deir-ezzor-city-and-its-vicinity-and-the-outskirts-of-mount-abdul-aziz-in-the-countryside-of-al-hasakah/ Totholio (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately SOHR is as pro rebel as Masdar is pro-regime. Besides, prove this piece of news wrong or stop blaming pointlessly. Deserttanker (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You can hardly find "neutral" sources about the conflict. Masdar & Sohr should be used together to find out what is happening. Oroszka (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Both Al-Masdar and SOHR are NOT neutral. However, their statements about ground control of particular villages or bases usually are correct. While they are not NEUTRAL, they still are mostly RELIABLE, as far as ground control of concrete locations is concerned. So, in my opinion, we should use both Al-Masdar and SOHR, but strictly and precisely filter out all the propaganda and numbers of dead people and just focus on statements about control over concrete localities.131.188.48.174 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For instance, the criticized Al-Masdar article ([8]) contains just a single sentence that is talking about actual changes in ground control: "With ISIS’ frontlines crumbling, the Syrian Army’s 137th Brigade took advantage of this, capturing a half dozen building blocks and unearthing a 150 meter tunnel that belonged to the terrorist group inside the Al-Haweeqa District." This sentence probably reflects the actual situation. The rest of the article should be filtered out and ignored. 131.188.48.174 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure Al-Masdar is so musch biased, here they report about rebels taking Tal Al-Ahmar Islamist Rebels Declare Control of Tal Al-Ahmar in the Golan Heights. --Hogg 22 (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Totholio I'm getting pretty sick of the partisan rhetoric, so let me reiterate: I do NOT want those who go around, finding those who infringe on every tiny thing Islamic law says must be followed, and doing things like burning these people alive, executing POW's, and using a fucking Roman amphitheatre as the stage for propaganda videos, but if you want to be an ass about it, why don't I mention the Syrian government killing those who dare question the government, the military, or anyone in them? I've stated before that BOTH sides are responsible for a large number of atrocities, many of which amount to war crimes and human rights violations, but I refuse to support an authoritarian government taking it upon itself to eliminate opposition to it. Would you enjoy being thrown into a gulag? That's literally what you're backing, should you question the government. The SOHR article you provided proves my point, by the way, as it would appear the Syrian government is fudging the numbers to make themselves look better. Nice work completely contradicting the fucking point of your post.

131.188.48.174, kinda hard to do that when you're being called a terrorist.DaJesuZ (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a longer time lurker on this page but I will finally have me $0.02. Of course Al-Masdar are biased, only a fool would deny that, but that isn't the issue. The question is whether or not they are reliable when it comes to reporting basic facts on the ground. Forget the rhetoric, it is completely irrelevant. Those who have a problem with using al-Masdar as a primary source need to show examples of edits being made to this map on the basis of al-Masdar that were latter proven to have been false/mistaken. Conservative Thinker (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

new updates pls.

SAA Offensive Hama

According to Al-Masdar (article here) there is an full scale ongoing SAA offensive on the opposition hold pocket in northern Hama. SAA is supposed to have taken Al-Mughayr, Markabat and stormed the citys of Latmeen, Al-Lataminah, Kafr Zita and others, fights are ongoing. According to Peto Lucem (source here and here) SAA has captured Kafr Nabudah. Anyone? More news or confirmation about this? Rhocagil (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

#SAA and allies take full control of Maarkaba, Atchan and Skayk & Hweir hills in #Hama today supported by #Russia Air Force.https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/651802715513745409 #BREAKING - SYRIAN ARMY CAPTURES KAFR NABOUDAT https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/651811484222291968 Alligator200 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody remove these trolls and re-edit the map? We have no single neutral source of evidence that those town have been taken by the SAA. On the contrary: most tweets, pictures and short films from the region show only burning SAA armour. It seems the offensive was a total failure. Even SANA and FarsNews didn't comment on it. So, revert this edit and start providing NEUTRAL SOURCES like the RULES say you must. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No neutral sources, or anything that's not pro-government, is corroborating these claims, and with how large the offensive is, if it were true, we'd see it somewhere else, which we haven't.

Twitter posts can't be used as sources, by the way, but judging from how much SAA military tech has been destroyed, I'd say their offensive has failed, badly.DaJesuZ (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Masdar can be used as source, no changes in that have been made. MesmerMe (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not an edit. I´m asking for more news and conformation but not for 84.24.43.183 stupidity. And JesuZ I don´t care what you say, I care if you can provide relevant information. Rhocagil (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's analyse the usable sources so far, i.e. [9] and [10]. The Al-Masdar article has just one paragraph on actual change of control on the ground (the rest of the article talks about temporary clashes): "Leading the way into Al-Mughayr, Ahaya, and Markabat was the Syrian Arab Army’s 87th Brigade; this contingent has announced the capture of the aforementioned towns after fierce clashes with the Islamist rebel forces earlier this morning." This supports colouring Al-Mughayr [11], l'Ahaya [12] and Markabat [13] red. SOHR: (difficult to parse) "[..] amid advancement for the regime forces in the village of Latmin, while they re-attacked the village of al- Sayyad after they retreated from the area and from areas they advanced to in al- Latamnah, Kafar Zita and Khan Sheikhoun, [..]". This justifies changing Latmin [14] to contested. Only pro-SAA sources seem to report on Kafr Nabudah so far, so it should not be changed to contested or red, yet.84.138.69.94 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes 84.138.69.94 this is discussion, information and some conformation. You can if you want. I agree with you about Kafr Nabudah and if SOHR or Al-Masdar does not confirm by tomorrow I will revert it (note that Kafr Nabudah was not my edit) Rhocagil (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If we have agreed that al-Masdar should be used as a primary source, then the towns should be changed to Assad regime control. The opposition have talked about heavy Russian airstrikes in this area, and if they are to be taken at the word, it should not be surprising that a major offensive is going on. Al-Masdar reports this, and SOHR mostly confirms it. Therefore, the change should be made. Also, the government siege icon on Kafr Zita needs to be removed, as pro-government sources do not report that the SAA is literally on the edge of the town.2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just like Al-Masdar, the rebels are notorious for their exaggeration; they might also well be using old footage to show their "victory". The advance is reported by Syrian State TV 84.24.43.183. See [15] Deserttanker (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar confirms that Kafr Nabudah and Latmin are under rebel control [16]: " [..] However, following these advances, the Syrian Armed Forces pushed too deep into enemy territory; this became reality when they took over the town of Kafr Naboudah, which was then followed by a counter-attack from the Islamist rebels. The Islamist rebels took recaptured the territory in Kafr Naboudah and pushed the Syrian Armed Forces back towards the eastern entrance of Latmeen;" Latmin should be green but besieged from the east. The same article also states that SAA took control of some hilltops: "Following their success in the wee hours of the morning, the Syrian Armed Forces advanced closer to the Idlib-Hama border, capturing the hilltops of Tal Sakhar, Tal-Sikeek[17], and Tal Uthman[18] before imposing control over the town of Al-Haweez near the imperative city of Kafr Zita." I can't seem to find Tal Sakhar and Al-Haweez.Schluppo (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is Tal Sakhar, but we need further sources for that though. MesmerMe (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro FSA source (https://archicivilians.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/latmin.png) confirmed that no rebels near Maan http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.353636&lon=36.790466&z=13&m=b&show=/7467080/Ma-an&search=Latmin and town Atshan http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.386531&lon=36.829948&z=13&m=b&show=/20495748/Atshan & Tell Sukayk http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.408640&lon=36.786346&z=13&m=b&show=/26754450/Tell-Sukayk & Tell Othman http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.399545&lon=36.459332&z=13&m=b&show=/27046309/Tell-Othman&search=Latmin now under control of Syrian army. Alligator200 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Relialbe source confirmed that Regime troops and allies take full control of Maarkaba, Atshan and Tell Sukayk & Hweir hills in Hama today supported by Russia Air Force.https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/651802715513745409 Alligator200 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerning [19]: We can not use maps to make changes. A reliable source is needed. Anyway, archicivilian stated that SAA was pushed out of Atshan and Tell Sukayk after he created the map: [20], [21]. Regarding the tweet [22], it is not from today, it is from yesterday. I suppose it is best to leave Tell Sukayk as green and Atshan as contested until reliable sources confirm or contradict archicivilian.Schluppo (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Opposition source claims that rebels took the grain silos [23] south east of Kafr Nabudah [24]. Again we need to wait for a reliable source to report on this.Schluppo (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the green half-circle north of Ma'an maybe be removed? MesmerMe (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SAA capture Tall Sikeek, West of Atshan in northern Hama -

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-air-force-takes-over-the-northern-hama-offensive-over-30-islamist-rebels-killed/

The offensive got off to a great start for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they captured the villages of Al-Mughayr, Markabat, and Lahaya, while also capturing the three hilltops of Tal ‘Uthman, Tal Sakhar, and Tal Sikeek after a series of intense firefights with the Islamist rebels of Liwaa Suqour Al-Ghaab (Al-Ghaab Hawks Brigade), the Free Syrian Army’s 101st Brigade, and the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.115.2 (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 

Pro OPP.source #Urgent: #Hama: The village Atshan in #Hama countryside is now under full #SAA/#NDF control after heavy clashes with Rebels. https://twitter.com/F1ea1337/status/652818682326982656 #SAA progressing in North #Hama countryside and have captured Um Haratayn wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.400105&lon=36.839905&z=14&m=b&show=/11704957/Umm-Haratayn and Atshan http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.386531&lon=36.829948&z=13&m=b&show=/20495748/Atshan https://twitter.com/F1ea1337/status/652826771713343488 pro SAA source reported that SAA captures Fawru in Al-Ghab Plain.https://twitter.com/Ibra_Joudeh/status/652823219628548096 Alligator200 (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to post this. Al Masdar is ruining this map

This HD map for the area N. of Damascus was made by a reliable reporter, and we use him for both government and rebel advances. It shows that our map is outdated and pretty much wrong. Even the hardcore government supporter Leith Fadel made a comment on his map, and the only 2 locations for which he had some critism were "Al Tal, for which he actually changed his argument and said that both FSA/SAA are present inside, but i will not believe him" . So basically, everything from this map is true, even Al-Tal as confirmed from Leith Fadel. This only shows how much Al Masdar is bad for wikipedia. DuckZz (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any commment on this ? I have been talking to this reporter on twitter and he said that Leith has basically no idea what he's talking about, acting like a proffesional reporter but invents thing for which nobody heard anything of. The best example is Hasaka, he was arguing with Aris Rousinos, a reporter from Hasaka, basically claiming everything opposite, nothing is true etc ... i want to start editing this map and discuss with other people, but as long Al Masdar stays under the primary source rule, this map won't go to far. Tradedia^{talk DuckZz (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC) i agree.Alhanuty (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)}

Maghar al-Mir, Rif Dimashq

Maghar al-Mir (مغرالمير‎) was put on our map on 23 December 2014 as contested by copying from pro-gov Peto Lucem map. His map is biased towards the gov, so Maghar al-Mir was put on the frontline. However, there are no reports of clashes in the town for many months and there is the pro-gov website of شبكة أخبار مغر المير (Maghar al-Mir News Network) that makes a prayer on June 28, 2015 that Maghar al-Mir would “return to its people” (majority druze). Also, many reports that it is regularly bombed by air… It is now part of the rebel-held pocket of Beit Jinn. So Maghar al-Mir should be put in green. Tradedia^talk 13:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar proved to be unreliable,they reported yesterday that Regime Naboudah was regime-held,but it came out to be false.Alhanuty (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Masdar posted no such thing, Leith did, on his personal Twitter account. MesmerMe (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

whom is an editor on Al-Masdar,so it is unreliable.Alhanuty (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is even more unreliable. Inventing deaths and he is living in Coventry one man. Enjoying hotels from day to day. Paranoid out of his head. He was the one that said 36 civilians had died by Russian bombs 4 hours before the Russians even had started to take off. This is not an out lying incident. He continues to say the Government forces are using gas on several occasions recently all turned out to be fabrications.

I find it strange that a pro isis, pro Al nusrat and pro FSA editors all agree that Al Masdar to be removed but I suggest removing SOHR as well if you remove Al Masder as there is 10 times more fabrication from that idiot.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A new (to me at least) source can be https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa. She is professional journalist and seems to be reasonably unbiased and claims to have sources on ground. We can follow the same rule used for the Kuwaitian journalist (I cannot remember his name). She confirms that https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/652213249581142016 is under attack .Paolowalter (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

She is pro "opposition" and claimed this as a development for syrian women. http://www.integrales-productions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/jenan_moussa_Alep_7integrales_productions.jpg but definitely not biased. Totholio (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk •

SyrianObserver2015 SOHR is more unreliable? Totally. A source that is denounced by several rebel groups, the head of which even called an Alawite by some, ridicule for being pro-regime, is more unreliable. That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. Al-Masdar has been inventing its own deaths, such as when it claimed to have eliminated upwards of 150 IS fighters after repulsing an assault on Dier ez-Zoir, when in actuality, somewhere near 80 fighters were killed, and they didn't even comment on SAA casualties, which is currently suffering from manpower shortages, and falling morale. You, also, realize that SOHR reported Russians bombing opposition targets before the Russian or Syrian governments saying Russians began operations there doesn't mean that they didn't happen, right? The US began air and missile strikes on Daesh targets before acknowledging it, and because of Syrian losses over the past year, it was in Russia's best interests to intervene, acknowledging it or not. None of the gas attacks, by the way, have been shown to be false, and have only been disregarded by those who support the government, showing bias.

The map was, relatively speaking, accurate, before the inclusion of al-Masdar, and has received much less praise, by EVERYONE who has looked at it since, about, eight months.

The editors for Al-Masdar have consistently shown to be biased, unreliable, and have given the page great reason to not use it as a source. It need to be removed, immediately.DaJesuZ (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Save me the "sky is falling" rant already. We already told you we don't care about the death tolls reported from either side, only territory changes. You slam Al-Masdar for lack of reliability while claim that ISIS casualties are only 80 and that the SAA is suffering failing morale. Who told you that, your ISIS friends? I don't care what several rebel groups say about SOHR, there is not doubt of its bias, and SOHR has had its fair share of lies [Aleppo central prison ring a bell?]. Unless you can produce solid examples of Al-Masdar [from al-masdar news ONLY, not leith's twitter feed] being consistently wrong about TERRITORIAL CHANGES, Al-masdar will stay alongside SOHR. Simply generalizing and saying "Al-Masdar is killing this map!!" won't cut it. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Go through the talk history of this page, XJ-0461 v2, and you will find myself, as well as other users ridiculing SOHR for bias and unreliability (and I am pro-FSA, not Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, or IS), and called out inconsistencies regarding its claims. I have never claimed to want IS to win this war, nor have I claimed that I want them in power, but people like you, and those who have defended Al-Masdar have consistently shown that you, effectively, support a Middle Eastern Soviet Union, where people ridicule the opposition for beheadings and murders, yet you turn a blind eye to the Syrian military, in some cases, intentionally killing its own civilians, or eliminating any opposition to the government. Is that what you want? Are you seriously as bad as the pro-fascists on 4chan's /pol/ board? The claim that somewhere around 80-90 IS fighters was made by various opposition sources I found while screwing around on Tor. Tor doesn't save browsing history, so I don't have them readily available. DaJesuZ (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Infantry school captured by ISIS North Aleppo. Al Basha and Kafr Ajouz Captured by the SAA Northern Hama.

Infantry school source: [25]

Al Basha and Kafr Ajouz: [26]

Edited map with the sources provided SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SAA capture Tall Sikeek, West of Atshan in northern Hama -

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-air-force-takes-over-the-northern-hama-offensive-over-30-islamist-rebels-killed/ The offensive got off to a great start for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they captured the villages of Al-Mughayr, Markabat, and Lahaya, while also capturing the three hilltops of Tal ‘Uthman, Tal Sakhar, and Tal Sikeek after a series of intense firefights with the Islamist rebels of Liwaa Suqour Al-Ghaab (Al-Ghaab Hawks Brigade), the Free Syrian Army’s 101st Brigade, and the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.115.2 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fix Cement Plant and Kafr Qaris!46.99.7.138 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro OPP.source #Aleppo: #Urgent: Islamic State retakes Tel Susayn village in North Aleppo countryside from Rebels. https://twitter.com/F1ea1337/status/652844662747701251 Alligator200 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

ISIS retake the village of Tal Susyan.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/violent-clashes-take-place-in-the-northern-countryside-of-aleppo-and-russian-warplanes-strike-a-post-for-islamist-movement/ Alligator200 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Salma made contested without a pro oppesition source

Salma in Lazeqia was green . now it is contested I want to know based on what ? Helmy1453 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't even reported by pro SAA, they are going for the hills overlooking Salma for fire control.Totholio (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree no reason for this change. Maybe it will be soon but we will see it.Paolowalter (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar reported that the SAA was in heavy firefights with al-Nusra in the town of Salma. If we are going to use Masdar as a source, then this town should be contested, Paolowalter. 73.45.167.247 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This report just states "SAA began their assault by targeting Jabhat Al-Nusra’s defensive positions in Salma’s east district". That does not make Salma contested. In the more recent posting [www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-is-on-a-roll-in-northeastern-latakia-two-strategic-towns-captured-in-48-hours/] Al-Masdar states: "Kafr Al-Dalbeh and Kafr Ajouz are two towns situated south of the rebel stronghold Salma; if lost, then the aforementioned city’s southern perimeter will be exposed by the hills that overlook it. With their success, SAA are now in a prime position begin a major operation to capture this rebel stronghold that has been out of their possession since early 2012". It means they are going to attck it but it is still in rebel's hand.Paolowalter (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

Change the town of Al-Mariyah from SAA control to contested between SAA and ISIS, per pro-government but also apparently reliable source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-and-shaytat-tribesmen-launch-a-large-counter-offensive-in-deir-ezzor/ 73.45.167.247 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Per "1B" rule rationale. Banak (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request Quneitra

Rebels have taken control of Tell Ahrar, Mazrat al-Amal and the 4th Batallion. Those should be green. Also, we should re-add Tell Trinjeh on the map as being contested. Somebody deleted it. Source: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/566003-quneitra-rebels-take-strategic-hilltop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk)

Further proof today. Al-Masdar says both Tell Ahmar and the nearby UN Hill (to the east) are under rebel control: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-declare-control-over-u-n-hill-in-al-quneitra-renewed-offensive-at-tal-qabaa/

This makes Tell Ahmar, Mazrat al-Amal, the 4th Batallion and the UN Hill under rebel control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Counter assault was done by SAA/Hezb. at Tell Ahmar, it's atleast contested and UN Hill was retaken. Editors should wait 1-2 days, there will be no real neutral source/clear picture until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits without sources

Dear users,

In the past days, this map has seen multiple edits without sources. Especialy in Hama and Latakia, villages have changed status based on Twitter reports, YouTube and Facebook. This is NOT permitted. Wikipedia itself has already warned multiple times. This behaviour could mean the deletion of this map! I'm talking about the following towns and villages:

1. Jubb al-Ahmar, changed to red without a neutral source given
2. Al-Ziyarah, changed to contested without a neutral source given
3. Quneitra, not changed even though we have a neutral and a pro-regime source giving evidence of rebel advances
4. Atshan, changed without a neutral source given

It this contineus, I'll need to report this page to Wikipedia. We agreed to be fair and neutral in our edits. This is NOT neutral NOR fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)