Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Roads

Shouldn't this map show at least the major roads and railways? After all, maneuver is critical in warfare, and that would explain more why this or that city or village is strategic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.182.120 (talk)

Absolutely. Someone please create a version of the base Syria location map with those features drawn. Alternatively, we need a picture file that has syria roads on it and nothing else. I can then use the "overlay_image =" parameter in the "Template:Location map+" to overlay that "road file" on top of our map. For an example of the result of this parameter, see a "Location map+" where a picture file with arrows was overlayed on top of it. Unfortunately, i don't know how to create picture files. If anyone can create such a file (same size as our map; with a transparent background) and put it in commons, then i can overlay it on top of our map. Tradedia^talk I brought this back from archives as this is still an ongoing issue. And while we are at this, it would be good to also draw Lake Jabbūl Tradedia^talk

I agree that adding some of the most important highways to the map would make it more useful. It would have to be done delicately, because it could quickly make the map very cluttered. Looking at road maps of Syria, I would suggest something showing a few major highways, along the lines of this [1] (scroll down slightly), rather than something more like this [2], which would overwhelm the map. Hulahoop122 (talk)

Good idea. Between those 2 examples, the difference seems more how the roads are drawn (thin red lines vs. wide light brown lines), than the number of roads. In some areas, there seems to be more roads on the first map with the roads in red.

Note that our map is bigger, so we could probably place more roads (if appropriate) without problem. In some areas there are many alternative roads allowing easy passage around the main routes, so it might be a good idea to indicate that.

With a good source map with the roads already on it (and not too many complicated things in the same colour), I could produce the road overlay. The colour of the roads could be changed to whatever you like.

There is a map on my computer that might be good, with many roads, except it could be as much as 20 years old. (The latest date on the map is a 1994 border treaty.) It is better to have something not long before the civil war started.

According to my map, most of lake Jabbul is dry much of the year. (All except the north-west corner.) It also has rivers and railways, which might be interesting to show. (the roads, water, and railways could be put on separate layers so as to be easier to maintain, if necessary. Not hard since they are all different colours.) André437 (talk)

If you have the skills to put that map layer together, that would be great. You could post it on a test page, just as you did with all of the conflict icons you created, and see how the community reacts. Hulahoop122 (talk)

Ok, as I have time. It could take a while, since I will have to use google maps or equivalent to fill in the few places where a small window overlay covers roads, etc in some areas, and also clean up any stray marks I find. (There are a lot of annotations, but mostly outside Syria.)

I'll also have to adjust the scale and align it, which will be the most difficult part.

I'll put the roads/water/railways in separate layers initially as well. Easy to do since they are separate colours. That way it will be really quick to modify (or remove) one without affecting the others.

That icon project helped remind me of a few tricks with the software I use. (gimp)

BTW, I have an unrelated idea for locations contested from one side only : using a semicircle open on the opposite side. And for truces, using a broken outside circle, instead of a continuous one. Just mentioning it as something to think about.

I'll keep you posted :) André437 (talk)

Important Edit, South Eastern of Hamah Gov.

Uqayribat village in south east of Hamah Gov. is under opposition's control from months ago, and also some other villages around it to Al-Sha'er mountain area, are mostly under oppositions control. There are some forces camping in this area since since one year ago; aiming to complete the conrolled areas from Uqayribat to northern of Homs Gov. (Rastan area), but the operations there have been stopped and activated early near to Salamiya-Sheikh Helal-Ithriya road.

Thanks. 2.50.75.206 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please,please bring a source to make the change.24.0.210.152 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

-- Important Edit, South Eastern of Hamah Gov.

It is hard to find a good sources since there are no actions in this area from months, but there is some useful articles here:

Eastern Hamah Gov. Coordinate on Twitter (they share news about the opposition's controlled villages there): https://twitter.com/rev_hama_east

This is a simple blogspot belongs to the city's people to share their news and videos: http://3qerbat.blogspot.com

This is an article about the regime latest attack on the city before 3 days: http://www.mojez.com/News/SocialMedia/23/265003/%E2%80%AB%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A9:-%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%AF%D9%81-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82%D9%8A

This is a video have been recorded in Uqayribat on the 2nd of April, 2 weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69UdryQp1Hs

This is an article about an early attack on Qastal village near to Uqayribat, last week: http://www.aksalser.com/?page=view_news&id=9c2ea144ae041948c50036f060c25910

This is a video for a small medical center has been opened in Uqayribat in 1st of March: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QxpqRWdNmY

I have checked more about the opposition's controlled villages there and created a map that is useful and helpful to be more specific, just inform me how to upload it.

Minesforinfo (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

All your sources are not "reliable" enough according to our standards...Oussj (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Atshan and Bsida Villages

Please Add "Atshan Village" and Bsida Village to the map. 80.79.80.232 (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Both villages are between Idleb and Hama provinces, Atshan is controlled by opposition while Bsida by the Army that have a major checkpoint in the village. It is important to add both villages because they are part of the major battle occurring between Morek and Khan Sheikhoon.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT - EASTERN HAMAH GOV.

Then what kind of sources do you need! Anyways, most of the villages there are under opposition's control including Uqayribat, Soha, Qastal, Na'emiye, Khdeira and others. Find a way to get some useful sources for you to edit the map if it requires to be more specific to viewers.

Thanks. Minesforinfo (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not a matter of sources being required to be more specific to viewers. Its a matter of Wikipedia policy that no edit can be made without a proper reliable source. Your word simply isn't enough. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not youtube, or facebook, or twitter, aksalser and that kind of website.Oussj (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Change ISIL to ISIS in the captions

Its confusing to see the terms both ISIL and ISIS in the captions. ISIL is usually referred to as ISIS, so ISIL should be replaced with ISIS 149.78.93.125 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014

Hi Would you please change some part of this map like Aleppo to Dot map because it shows the changes better and for ease of change?MZarif (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC) MZarif (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the page's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Something about SOHR

When we discuss about SOHR people often says that they use the word "martyr". Well look here, speaking on the victims of the terrorist attack (blowing up a car in the middle of civilians is a terrorist attack without any doubt) in Ikrimah in Homs, which is an Alaouit neibourhood, they called them "martyrs" too. http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18095&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U1EdDvl_sYkOussj (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source Reuters calls SOHR opposition source her so I think we should be more careful when we use data from SOHR to display success rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Jane's on SOHR http://www.janes.com/article/36885/air-strikes-kill-four-isil-militants-in-syria-s-aleppo Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Saba7 el kheir silos

The source used : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4BSVuqBjE is just from an other government propaganda media. It's completely biaised and absolutely not reliable according to our standards.Oussj (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I really don't understand why so many people can't get it... Without a proper source, nothing can be changed or added on the map, that's all.Oussj (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And when I look more, Hanibal911 has also used sources which are not reliable according to our standards ? What is happening ? http://www.mjhar.com/ar-sy/NewsView/2212/72288/%D9%87%D8%B0%D8%A7_%D9%85%D8%A7_%D8%AC%D8%B1%D9%89_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8_%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B3_%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7_%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7_%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%8A%D9%84_%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1_%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84%D9%89.aspx and http://topic.ibnlive.in.com/adel-eid/videos/532014-hR4BSVuqBjE-5961.html I really don't understand. There are here clear breaches to WP policy !! Oussj (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal's pro-regime bias has been well established at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.106.22 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that my sources are not reliable and you said about violation rules editing but why you do not pay attention on editing in favor of the rebels without specifying the reliable source.herher Also, if you examine my edits for this map you'll notice that I also edited and in favor of the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I personaly don't accuse you of being biaised. ANd because your sources are always reliable I was astonished to see that this time they were not. However, I still don't agree, you gave three sources. Two of them are just a video from SAMA channel which cannot be considered reliable at all. ANd the third is not oppening (http://www.mjhar.com/ar-sy/NewsView/7/70532.aspx). I remember when you refused a source from Al Jazeera saying that we should rather use Al Jazeera english, I agreed then. But I wasn't thinking that you would use a propaganda media like SAMA. So while you won't give a reliable source for these silos, I think they should not be added to the map, and I will suppress it.Oussj (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And if you find irregularities from people POV pushing for rebels, I suggest you correct it. I'm correcting this because I remarked it that's all.Oussj (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and think you're right that these sources are not foolproof. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

100% support for Hanibal, he is only neutral and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.62.27 (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I support hanibal too.And hanibal isnt pro-regime bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Hanibal911 is one of only very few neutral guys here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.16.251 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Syrian forces have taken over Sabah Al-Khair silos.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope that matter is closed and everybody is happy and will no longer statements about not reliability of data. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. I just don't want our standards to be lowered that's all. Because if we start using like SAMA, I belive we will have a snowball effect sooner than we expect, and the whole map will be out of control. Thank you Hanibal911 for finding a reliable source. I must admit I tried to googlize Saba7 el kheir silos in arabic for stopping this nonsense, but I found only websites which are not enough professional according to WP policy... Oussj (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This source is correct https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4BSVuqBjE

Is pro government yes but is a professional journalists TV source .. The neutrality no exist if we considerate that regime media - we need to considerate Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, BBC, CNN propaganda for insurgents — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

editor HCPUNXKID

We agreed here that the sources provided for Saba7 el kheir silos were not "foolproof" quoting Hanibal911, which was a nice way to say that these sources were not reliable at all regarding to WP standards and policy. ANd HCPUNXKID putted them back wihout any regards for the talk page, and it's not the first time he does that. I don't wish to be forced to complain, but if he do not obey to WP rules, I'll do it. It's not because I don't want those silos on the maps, it's just that we all have to obey by the rules of WP. Give us a reliable source (not SAMA or other propaganda media) and put it back. But if my change is reverted a new time without a proper source, I'll complain.Oussj (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough patience. Stop your hipocrisy about "reliable sources", SAMA TV video images are indisputable, they clearly show SAA soldiers in control of that facility. Or are you going to claim that the images are false, or any dumb non-sense? And we are talking about a professional journalistic video, not one of that that blurry "rebel" videos. I've never had any problem to use Al-Jazeera videos, although they are clearly biased on this issue (or as you would call it, a "propaganda channel"). Oh, and nowhere in WP policy or guidelines says that SAMA TV is unreliable, thats simply your personal opinion. The problem here is the biasedness and POV-pushing efforts by some users, who try to do anything possible to push their views, for example: Sama TV, Al-Mayadeen TV, Al-Manar TV, Press TV, RT, etc...are "unreliable" for them, but Qatari-owned Al-Jazeera or Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya are "reliable" to them, a crystal-clear example of double standards. So Im not gonna accept your imposition of your personal ideas on this, so as both are properly sourced both should be maintained or both deleted (they are not towns, airports, dams or military bases).-HCPUNXKID 16:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For your information, last time I used Al Jazeera my edit was reverted and I agreed. Despite Al Jazeera do not speak about "terrorists" or "criminals" as propaganda media like SAMA does. Manar TV is the official media of Hezbollah which is right now fighting in Syria. Despite everything, Qatar Army is not fighting on the ground... SAMA, al Manar or Al Mayadeen cannot be considered reliable at all and everyone here agrees to this except you. The one who are trying to POV push is you right now. I said just find an other source. That's all, if there is not, then don't add it to the map. And for the last time, this has nothing to do with me, it's about WP rule you are trying to bypass, so stop saying non sense please.Oussj (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Qatar or Saudi Arabia are totally neutral towards the Syrian civil war, they are not funding and arming the so-called "rebels", so their mouthpieces (Al Jazeera & Al Arabiya) are very, very reliable...talking about the "regime" and the "peaceful protestors" (who were killing Syrian policemen back in May 2011), yes, not a propaganda channel: ha,ha & ha! Oh, and stop saying false things like "cannot be considered reliable at all and everyone here agrees to this except you", as simply looking upwards on other talk sections it can be seen that you lie. The worst users here are the ones who being partisan in editing then claim to be neutral and unbiased...--HCPUNXKID 16:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not just counter-reference any claim by regime oriented media outlets with rebel biased ones before editting? And vice versa of course. Again I say, both rebels and regime are fighting the media war; we all know that. And with that knowledge, it's self evident that the map loses objectivity and credibility whenever an edit is made that is supported exclusive by reports from just one side. Substantiate claims by sourcing from both sides for every edit. There will never come a time when everyone agrees on which sources constitute "reliability"... so just confirm edits with a wide range of source/references. Is this really so difficult? Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fightings in Al Hasaka

This report http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18152&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U1Lav_l_sYk says that rebels (IF and Nosra) has taken from Isis the village of Jarwan, which is, according to SOHR, in the road between Shadadeh and Raqqa. I tried to find it, but I have not been able to do it. Does anyone knows where it is ?Oussj (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Jarwan is 11 KM North East of Shaddadeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.80.233 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea it looks like Jarwan is way out of position. Two different locations.. http://mapcarta.com/13116634 and https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jarwan/@35.8921171,40.7194503,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x154bdb9d5efdb36f:0x6a47f6c052cfc16b Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fajdan

The Fajdan village in southe Aleppo countryside http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=35.929093&lon=37.513504&z=12&m=b is marked green on the map, but today SOHR announces [3] that "Islamic fighters took hold of the Fajdan village in southern Reef Aleppo after clashes with regular forces. Violent clashes are still ongoing between regular forces and islamic fighters in the perimeter of the Fajdan village." Apparently it was under SAA control and now is contested. It is a small village, little hope to have other info from other sources. I would put a red ring around it. Paolowalter (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, their are several places which are outdated but even SOHR don't speak about it... Oussj (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Al Ghasibyah

SOHR has reported here http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18203&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U1VHXPl_sYk that fightings are happening around Al Ghasibiyah. I wanted to put a green circle around the red one but I made a code a mistake. Could anyone do it please ?Oussj (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected your edit according to the map. The correct coordinates of the village Al Ghasibiyah her and her Hanibal911 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Article which said about clashes on outskirts village of Al Ghasibyah removed from the site SOHR.her so I'll remove a green circle around this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Halboun

In [4] SANA states that pepople in Harboun staged a rally pro-SAA. Halboun is marked as green in the map. Even if SANA info cannot be relied upon in general, but it is hard to believe that the new was invented altogether. Any opinion? Paolowalter (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The city Halboun under control the army this confirms pro opposition source.Arab Chronicle Hanibal911 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

http://sana.sy/eng/21/2014/04/21/540258.htm al mamurah is under assad control. please change to red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

We cannot rely on SANA source to change status in favour of government. Nevertheless I think al mamurah is in a area under SAA control and simply was not mentioned because of its small importance. So it should go red. Paolowalter (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

agree with paolowalter, can someone change to from green to red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Haven't found any other sources yet. But, although SANA typically isn't to be taken at face value for government gains, given the strategic tilt in Qalamoun.. odds are that regime control of al-Maamoura will be confirmed by other outlets shortly/in due time. Change it today, wait until the report is substantiated by rebel media - either way it's probably going red in the next 48 hrs..Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that al-Maamoura is such a tiny settlement (it doesn't even appear on Google maps) that it probably won't get mentioned by most media sources. It does seem extremely unlikely that rebel forces are holding it, or would even attempt to, now that Rankus, Assal al-Ward and Hosh Arab are all in government hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.149 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Al-Ma'murah (sometimes 'Al Maamoura') is completely under Government control. State media (SANA) has reported this and shown footage from inside the village and pro-Govt blogs such as Syrian Perspective have all shown maps in which it is well inside Govt controlled territory. There wasn't even a fight for it, Opposition forces simply withdrew at the same time they withdrew from Assal al-Wad. As the comment says above, it is such a small village that it is unlikely to be name-checked in anything besides pro-Govt media. Mainstream media clearly states that Govt has advanced to Zabadani, so logic would dictate that all villages with the exception of those directly surrounding Zabadani are now under Govt control. --CommieMark (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

CommieMark is right.We should make red.SANA is trustable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not have the "trustable source" discussion AGAIN. But for this, I agree that it's unlikely such a small conquest will be highly reported, and the KNOWN situation around Rankus indicates that in all likelihood the SAA has consolidated Al-Ma'murah / Al Maamoura. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt to keep eyes pealed for further sources/confirmation as well. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We will continue to have this discussion until everyone obey WP rules and policy. Nothing can be changed without a proper source. It's cristal clear ! A simple "explicit" video is not enough ! In that case why not beginning to use youtube videos filmed by fighters ? What is our garanty taht those videos are not outdated, or faked ? Moreover, once you open this window, everyone rushs to change the rules like proposing to use SANA as a source, for exemple... Why not using the website of the Syrian National Coalition in that case, or ISIS twitter accounts ? This is simply ridiculous !

So Let's make it clear for the thousandth time, no one can change anything without a relable source.Oussj (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC) We do not change things because of "logic", it simple... Why are they so many people who can't understand it ?Oussj (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably the same reason why you can't understand that every time you say Qatari and Saudi media are the staple of reliability whilst Syrian (regime) and Iranian are entirely discounted, you give the impression of bias. No, the regime's word/media shouldn't be taken at face value, but neither should it's opponents'. Hence why I'm a proponent of sourcing from both sides ie counter referencing. But to offer up the contention that we should completely ignore what one side is propagating and swallow the pill of the other side, every time, without salt, is ludicrous and, well, biased. Boredwhytekid (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly this is completely ridiculous. We have a tiny village, basically a handful of properties, where we know that the surrounding areas is under government control. While we cannot say for certain that the rebels do not still control it all the evidence and logic suggests that they do not. It simply isn't credible to suggest that the rebels remained here while fleeing every other village in the area. To leave it marked as in rebel control just because it is so small that most media outlets don't mention it is absurd and undermines the credibility of the map. There needs to be some common sense applied if such obvious errors are to be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.149 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

First, you should know that saudi and qatari medias are not really accepted here neither... To change something only with aljazeera is generally not accepted. But it's not exactly the same question. You can compare the reliability of qatari medias with the reliability of iranian, or russian medias. SANA is the official voice of the government, it cannot be compared to Al Jazeera or to Al Alam (an iranian pro government media). It's simply not the same question here.

And for the second objection, I disagree with this. We do not act on "logic". We don't care about "logic" and "common sense". The conflict is too much complicated for this and our personal opinions are too much divergent. Our work is only to report what others have reported, that's how wikipedia works. Frankly, my point is not with that village that is in fact "according to common sense" government held by now, my point is in lowering our standards, which I refuse.Oussj (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Using common sense is not lowering standards. What does lower standards is rigidly applying rules in the face of all evidence. The aim of the map should be to be as accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.49.149 (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

NEW AC map in Idlib

From the new AC map [5] I could deduce that Hish is under government control but on the front line (Green ring) like Der Basidah, Al so Dayr as Sharqui is red with green ring. Same for Marr Shamarin and Mar ShamSha. Maar Hitat is red. Also Sahyan suold be red wirh green circle. If there is no objection, the map can be changed accordingly. --Paolowalter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the changes. However its funny that The Arab Chronicle(which is exetremely pro-rebel) can be used to edit the map but Al-Manar and SANA are deemed too biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not funny: AC can be used only to determine government position and Al-Manar/SANA/Syrian Perspective to determine rebel positions.

Paolowalter (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=33.805754&lon=36.412296&z=16&m=b&permpoly=66978 it is so little that is probably irrelevant to mark it on the map (other larger villages like the neighbouring Hamrasta are not marked). Being already there we can keep it and turn it red, but in general we should restrain from marking too small places, unless they have some strategic meaning, because it is very difficult to keep track of their status. Paolowalter (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Border crossings

Can anyone explain why the border crossing symbols on the frontiers with Turkey & Irak are much bigger than the ones on the frontiers with Lebanon & Jordan? That's a non-sense, all must be of the same size, personally I prefer the smaller one symbol (size=16 or 18, I guess) to avoid problems with adjacent towns.--HCPUNXKID 17:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it was due to problems some editors had with conflicts with other nearby points. Most map editors don't have the skill (or inclination) to do map edits properly. As well, few take the time to point the links to supporting references. So the map suffers in more ways than one.

BTW, I did fix a few such border crossings. (setting the size to 18, if I recall correctly.) André437 (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

tomb of Süleyman Shah

It looks like Turkey has sent in a convoy of 300 soldiers into syria to expand its garrison at the tomb of Süleyman Shah. Shouldn't this location be marked on the map as a military base? what color should be used for turkey? http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-confirms-aid-to-turkish-military-post-inside-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nID=65477&NewsCatID=352 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.65.67 (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know ... Blue ? It's only one position...Oussj (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, blue, is good and it will stick out. 300 men + old garrison, plus 6 battle tanks and a dozen armored cars is a significant deployment. It is supposedly close to ISIL positions. I'm not sure where exactly the coordinates of it are. Can anyone locate it on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.129.78 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

36.6386° N, 38.2075° E. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.636847&lon=38.209119&z=15&m=b Smack dab next to contested Qarah Qawzaq. Apparently "According to press reports, ISIL forces are about one kilometer from the tomb" http://www.todayszaman.com/news-346046-turkey-says-convoy-sent-to-tomb-in-syria-ordinary-activity.html Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

talfita under goverment control

2003:66:8F16:1301:C8F4:2839:A4E8:6C6B (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Last reference to Talfita I've found says rebels still hold but are surrounded. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=303652182 Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brigade61

Rebels conquered Brigade61 which is N-W of Nawa at Daraa Province.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1WzaqYPJ3s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The video (which is not a reliable source...) is only showing that islamist rebels have taken the hill overcoming the brigade. The brigade itself is actually until total government control.Oussj (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

YouTube is not reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is some more videos including 61 Brigade HQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51op8N92wHo (HQ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfzAMyzBEb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89aN6zCbh94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uy4IT73oK4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_qpDrIkLEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_qpDrIkLEE But I know the rule and will respect it, I will wait for secondary resource's news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.209.56 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Two rebel leaning sources in support of Oussj comment - just the overlooking hill. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/syrian-warplanes-target-crowded-market-201442423583080298.html http://eaworldview.com/2014/04/syria-daily-insurgents-take-major-regime-base-southwest/ Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tour inside Brigade61 by rebels https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fthCACFSYGU I think it is not just overlooking hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not use as a source of amateur videos from YouTube. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Brigade 61 had been changed to green without a posted source. Someone please change that. Dr Marmilade (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

SOHR declared the recent captures around Nawa. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/519775248130818?stream_ref=10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Al Sheikh Miskin

According to SOHR, government army has bombed sheikh miskin. But on the map sheikh miskin is gov held... should we mark it as contested ? http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18363&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U1lGBPl_sYk Oussj (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC) http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18262&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U1lJb_l_sYk The source says that their are clashes "in the northern parts". We changed rastan to contested with the same kind of source, morek too by the way.Oussj (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We need more confirmation from other reliable sources because many reliable sources called SOHR opposition source her. So we need more information for this major editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What am I missing here? Sheikh Miskin is contested on the map, no? Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

al Zabadani

This article says rebel surrenders are taking place in al zabadani, but need other sources to verify this. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/syrias-border-rebels-give-up-fight/story-fnb64oi6-1226896325324#mm-premium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.66.253 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4072124.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/syria-rebels-surrender-border-town-2014426152724543924.html Paolowalter (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Already edited the map.Daki122 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/syria-rebels-surrender-border-town-2014426152724543924.html zabadani red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.98.255 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

All other towns in Qalamoun should be marked as red. It's over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.163.104 (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

new Aleppo map by wall street journal

see here http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/ALEPPO0425?ref=SB10001424052702304626304579505351626614392 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.66.253 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Alleged FSA seized towns in Raqqa governorate

I wouldnt have any problem to recognize that add of towns, except from the fact that its based on the claims by Omar Abu Layla, who is a spokesman for the "Free Syrian Army". Unless a reliable source is shown, that change must be reverted, because as far as I know we dont accept claims from a part of the conflict as valid to illustrate advances by that same part of the conflict.--HCPUNXKID 16:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if this continues like that, I will start to use SANA for SAA advances ASAP, simple as that...--HCPUNXKID 16:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been agreed that opposition sources can be used to make changes in battles concerning the mainstream rebels against the ISIL. Take your meds, HCPUNXKID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.36.83 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Undo the changes. Those edits are only allowed if non-biased sources confirm them or if the opposing party admits the loss. Our policy is clear and we will uphold it. And go easy on the ad hominem and POV-pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.140.22 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Turkey-ISIS alliance?

This is for the ones who claimed an ISIS-Syrian Army alliance with no proof except their claims and against all sense, I suppose that due to this flagrant evidence (far more than their previous SAA-ISIS collusion claims) they will agree that the Turkish Army and ISIS are allies, other thing would be a great example of hypocrisy... Turkish Army convoy passing through an ISIS checkpoint without any problem.--HCPUNXKID 17:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is such a stupid claim for whom that knows the leaked voice recordings of a top secret meeting of Turkish FM, Intelligence, Army in which plans against ISIS was being spoken just after ISIS threated to attack & demolish the Suleyman Shah tomb (Turkish souverng land in Syria, 35 kms from Turkey frontier) that is guarded by 25 Turkish soldiers. Turkey is currently in defensive stance. And ISIS is not that much stupid to attack Turkey. That is the explanation of that scene.

But there is evidence of oil commerce between ISIS & Esad, no fighting and aerial bombardment between them even neighbouring, but an interesting harmony to fight & cut logistics path of rebels, captured ISIS members with Iran passports, 4 captured ISIS members in Esad army in Deir Ez-Zor, photos of some regime officers without beards in Esad Army and long bearded ones after they infiltrated in ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So, for you a video in wich you can see a Turkish Army convoy passing calmly under the ISIS yihadist black flag is not enough proof of Turkey-ISIS collusion (wich is explained by you with a silly theory that ISIS are sooo afraid of Turkish Army that they let them pass by their territory, if they are so afraid, what has changed since days ago they supposedly threaten Turkish soldiers in Syrian soil?), but allegations, claims and blabbering by terrorist agit-prop supporters are clear "evidence". Blatant double standards in full effect...--HCPUNXKID 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PunkAiry when ISIL and SAA share front lines with each other throughout Hasakah, Raqqa, and Aleppo and yet are not engaged in ANY BATTLES WHATSOEVER with each other, but instead they are actually cooperating in cutting rebel lines in Aleppo, that does point towards collusion. No conspiracy theories needed, just the simple facts on the ground. See all those SAA bases in Raqqa completely surrounded by ISIL forces? You know how quickly those would have fallen if the ISIL was actually fighting the regime? It's common sense, use your brain, gump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.36.41 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, enough is enough, no need to discuss with analphabet terrorist cheerleaders who dont know a sh*t, continue making agit-prop for your beloved yihadi "revolutionaries" (hahaha) looser...--HCPUNXKID 15:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in this thread has any relevance whatsoever to the map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18476&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U1wOU_l_tMc. Might hurt the pride of those who believe in the fictitious ISIS-Assad alliance. Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Raqqah division 17 still under siege ?

ISIS Look too Busy fighting Kurdish PKK insurgents, Al Qaeda, FSA, Islamic Front.

They really are in the capacity for keep this siege effective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Tal Ahmar

Just to be clear... I disagree myself with my last change and I invite you to revert it unless you find a more reliable source. But I made it to show you the dangers of beginning to change things with non proper sources or acting on the base of "logic". I rather prefer the map to be outdated than to lower the standards of our sources. Oussj (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro opposition source

SOHR is a opposition source and this is confirm many reliable sources,ReutersAl Arabiaagain ReutersToday's ZamanFirst post so it would be right do not use data from the site SOHR to display success rebels in clashes with the army. Otherwise, we violate the principle of non-use opposition sources to display success rebels. We can use data from the site SOHR to display success rebels or data from the government sources to display success Syrian army only if this data confirm the reliable sources but not directly from the site. Also on SOHR website displayed flag the Syrian opposition and it also reflects their position in this conflict. As we can see from the recent events, many reliable sources have become more detailed to cover the conflict and we have enough data so that in the future, stick to the established rules and do not use government sources to display the army advances and the pro opposition sources to display rebel advances if the as I wrote before their data is not confirms the reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We all know that SOHR is an "opposition" source. Yes, they are opposed to the government of Bashar al-Assad, however, that does not mean that they really support rebels on the ground. In Syria, the rebels do not represent the opposition. Moreover, an important part of the armed rebel groups consider the opposition groups abroad to be traitors. Even rebel activists inside Syria do not reckon SOHR, look here : http://all4syria.info/Archive/135759. The "Leader Board of the syrian revolution" in Damascus published here a statement saying that SOHR is a tool of the syrian government... You often use ADAnews don't you, this is a kurd website isn't it ? Despite that, what is important is the reliability of these source, and SOHR has prooved to be reliable. Less than two days ago, Mamourah was turned red on the map on the base of a video, and you want to forbid the use of SOHR ? Oussj (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I just suggest in the future to use only reliable sources. Also if the SOHR in opposition to government its data difficult to call not biased and so we should be more carefull when we be use data from SOHR to display the rebel advances in clashes with the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

But here is my point. The war in SYria is that much ugly that you can be opposed to the government, or to the islamists rebels, without beeing happy nor for the advances of rebels, nor for those of the government. That's why, I think if they are opposed to the government (that according to all western medias that we consider reliable) has no respect for the liberty of speech, that do not mean that you support armed islamists rebels on the ground. I posted last time a SOHR report where they were saying that the victims of the terrorists attack of Ikrimah in Homs are martyrs. The rebel propaganda would never say such a thing. Adanews for exemple is a kurdish media, should we consider biaised toward kurds, and their information is not reliable.Oussj (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

But ARA News I try to use mainly in conflict Kurds against ISIS because many sources do not fully cover these events. But if you know more reliable sources that illuminate the conflict Kurds against the ISIS then I will use it. So I'm not suggesting that ARA News is completely reliable and if other editors against I am will not use it as a source for map editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what Oussj is trying to say is that the SOHR is caught between a government it hates and an opposition it no longer may support. Nevertheless, the SOHR has still declared its open opposition to the government and the sources on the ground from which the SOHR reports are among rebel ranks, so it is inherently an unreliable source. Unfortunately, the civil war is so ugly that the only information that came out of it early one was either from the regime or its supporters, or from the SOHR or sites like Reuters reporting what the SOHR said. Still, I was shocked when I first started editing here that people were using the SOHR for everything, even though the SOHR was openly opposed to the government and had an opposition flag on its site.I agree with Hannibal that it is possible to get information from other sources now that the conflict is somewhat well-publicized now, and have the SOHR officially banned from displaying rebel gains, the same way we have Al-Manar, Fars news, SANA, and SyrPer. Dr Marmilade (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Checkpoints again

Some checkpoints were added based on a map not precise enough to show their exact location. So, what has no sense if one is a neutral, non-biased editor, is accepting that lack of precision on that case but at the same time claiming that a military base is not precise enough located to add it to the map. Logic and NPOV dictates that both must be removed or both added, Tradedia.--HCPUNXKID 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You did not look carefully enough at the source that was used to add the checkpoints (http://iswsyria.blogspot.fr/2013/09/a-video-tour-of-regime-checkpoints-in.html). It is based on a video that shows precisely the position of each checkpoint on google maps. On the other hand, the source that was used to add the military base (11th Armored Division) is based on a very broad map of Syria (http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/SyrianArmy-DocOOB.pdf, map 1 on page 10). Tradedia^talk 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Al_Samra

the alsamra village is under the control of Syrian government or at least contested area by this source: http://sana.sy/eng/337/2014/04/27/541300.htm MZarif (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

True.Other sources: 1- http://www.almayadeen.net/ar/news/syria-BsfpwzwbPEir3aMaALHTeA/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%85%D8%AE%D9%81%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%84 2-http://farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13930207001357 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.41.131.4 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fall of Al-Samra confirmed per: https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/460496838173655040. So much for the outlet to the sea I guess. Dr Marmilade (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930208000380 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Samra must be contested rather than regime control. CedricLabrousse who is refenced as confirmation updated status as: "Al-Anfal Coalition is back in #Samra important parts but still loyalist presence on southern uplands to the village with intense shellings." https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/460725901911949312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this is the police station I guess, which SANA says captured. Did they get the restaurant? http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.927680&lon=35.917214&z=19&m=b Sana News, Fars News, I expect Anna from you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Even North Korea news agency is OK to edit the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Khan Shaykun

I know we don't normaly use YouTube as a source, but I found this video today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgpUK9J23t8#t=52

It show's clearly the Khan Shaykun city entrance, and a FSA officer inside the town. The video is 9 minutes long and takes us through a lot of the city. There is no fighting evident. Should we change Khan Shaykun to green with a red circle? This is the best proof of the ground situation we might get at this point... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Amateur video from YouTube is not a reliable source but even in this video does not say that the city under rebel control we need confirmation from a reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I know. I just found it, to point out that the picture of Khan Shaykun is a bitt blury right now. It seems it is still contested, with rebel fighters having the upper hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

From [6] it is visible that leass than half of the city is under rebel's control (I stress that the map is from rebel, that is biased in their favour). The rest is under government control. In the last days not much has been happening, probably because fightings are concentrated in Morek, and the situation is relatively stable. Paolowalter (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

town of Shammar

town of Shammar is under army control.source: https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/519775321464144?stream_ref=10 location:http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=36.255556&lon=37.286568&z=13&m=b&gz=0;373253631;362395312;17166;137749;0;0;199127;32535;180244;197271;29182;182737;3433;68531 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.41.131.4 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I found a map of Golan[7]. There isn't much news from this province and the current map is outdated. Should we update accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The site is strongly pro-government. Nevertheless the map is not much different from what we have on the map.

Paolowalter (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dont change the subject.I am talk about town of shammar.East of aleppo.And sohr says shammar is under army control.Make shammer red in aleppo map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.155.201.164 (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Kesab & Al-Nabain

These cities are contested areas by this source: http://www.alalam.ir/news/1589106 MZarif (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Site is strongly pro-government, from the translation in english I cannot see mention on Kessab.

Paolowalter (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is Nabi Ain red on this map? Why is Samra besieged? The biased editors are ruining this map. If Nabi Ain was taken by the regime they would have made a big deal out of it. Not a single source has claimed that this has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.36.83 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Nobody is ruining the map. Samra is red (as reported by Arab Chronicle), Nabi Ain is green with red ring, that means 'on the front line', not besieged.Paolowalter (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Al Rafid

Please change "Al Rafid" from green surrounded by red circle to green. 80.79.80.233 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It doesn't make sense that the city of Al Rafid in Golan is still under siege when all the army bases in the area have fallen, especially the north and south Tal Ahmar recently.

That is true for many places across Syria, 'ring around' tends to stay for ever. Paolowalter (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Saida

Please add to the Map the contested city of Saida and Army base 38 80.79.80.233 (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.652817&lon=36.211281&z=13&m=b The Map is missing a major city on the contested road between Daraa and Khirbet Ghazaleh called Saida as well as the Army base 38 north of the city, the map is showing a small neighboring town called Kahil and doesn't show the major city where the real action is happening.

No problem. As soon as you provide sources reporting the status of the city.Paolowalter (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This map lists the town as rebel-held[8] with regime troops just west of the town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.140.22 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Rastan ans Sheick Maksim

I guess that the status of contested for these two cities is not appropriate. They are, at large extent under the control of the opposition and of the government respectively. The other side is located at the outskirt, where some fightings take place. Adding a ring, as used to be, give a better description of the reality. Pleace discuss here, before starting an edit warring. Paolowalter (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

we shouldn't change anything for this two towns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.233.228 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Rastan isn't actively being besieged, but regime troops are nearing from the north. The last sources we had said Sheikh Maskin was under regime control. I agree with your suggestions and think we should edit accordingly. Rastan to Rebels, Sheikh Meskin to government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.140.22 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nawa, Daraa

Please change "Nawa" from contested to green with red circle.

Last paragraph indicates rebel control http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/04/syria-army-retake-kassab-turkey.html# And interview with opposition spokesman attesting that Nawa is in rebel hands @ syriadirect.org under title "Rebels Say United Efforts In Quneitra Leading To Victories" Both sources are from the same side/perspective/affiliation - will try to dig up neutral and/or regime confirmation Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Regime bombing Nawa http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2185&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2EPqE9OWCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredwhytekid (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dont need talk nonsense because your source Al Monitor does not say that Nava under rebel control. A source of Syria direct is a pro opposition source and cant be used to display rebel advances also fact that the army bombed the city does not prove that he is under rebel control. Also a few day ago, the opposition source confirmed that the army controls the northern and eastern parts city of Nawa.Arab Chronicle Hanibal911 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

- #1 Hence I wrote "indicates" and not "says". #2 Yes, pro-opposition source, I said that myself - thanks for the reiteration. Don't need talk nonsense. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

But you asked change the city of Nawa under the rebel control but you not provided data from the reliable source on the basis of which was possible to change the status of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well yea, I asked - I didn't jump in and change it. I posted it here, on the discussion page to see what other people had for sources, knowledge, etc, because those links were the first I had come across in support of opposition control (as opposed to contested status). Everything else I've dug up in the meantime supports keeping it as contested though.. for instance: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/04/article55331655 Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nawa just recently broke its seige when rebels took Brigade 61, http://syrianobserver.com/News/News/Rebels+Break+Siege+Around+Nawa+in+Deraa so it should be green however what is missing in the map is the 4 large army bases to the north and east of the city, please review the map http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.893426&lon=36.093693&z=13&m=b&search=lahaya%20checkpoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.80.233 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tal Buraq

According to SOHR SAA forces captured Tal Buraq near the town of Mashara without any clashes here is source: http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2181&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2Ei3pya33A MZarif (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Toward al-Bab

Advance of SAA east of Aleppo toward al-Bab [9]. These places are in the detailed map of Aleppo region. Furthermore FARS reported that ocuupation of Suran, that is in the middle [10]. The problem is that the Aleppo region map is not updated. Paolowalter (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

and sohr reported Shammar is under army control. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/519775321464144?stream_ref=10 and ramouseh under army control http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/04/syria-army-retake-kassab-turkey.html .We need to update the aleppo map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Double checking

Cedric Labrousse shared two maps regarding Daraa. Hope you see the anomalies on map like Qarqas, Al-Rafid, etc

https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/461558278170746881 https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/461583617706045441/photo/1/large — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

twitter is not a 'source' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally no, but it was agreed a long time ago to use twitter maps from opposition sources if they report on government advances and vice-versa. EkoGraf (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. When was this agreed? The Arab Chronicle is as biased as it gets and not reliable in any way. Whoever put Jasim as rebel-held is a horrible POV-pusher and should be banned. Edits are only allowed if a neutral source confirms this or the opposite side reports it. Stop the vandalism and refrain from POV-pushing please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It was agreed following multiple previous discussions. You should read them. And also, seems you did not understand me. You said Edits are only allowed if...the opposite side reports it, which is the exact same thing I said. Arabic Chronicle's reports, per previous agreements, are NOT used as sources for rebel advancements. AC's reports are ONLY used when they report on government advances. And I would remind you that using the language such as Bullshit is inflamatory and not according to Wikipedia policy on civility. So I would ask you to refrain from it in the future. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully support EkoGraf because he is absolutely right that it was decided to use the maps from Twitter for editing so we use a map from a pro government source to display the achievements of the rebels, and vice versa. And you dear anonymous if not apprised of the situation need not be indignant and insult other editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I withnessed recently editing the map for regime advantage referencing SANA & farsnews. So there are people who can edit the map and ignore the rule you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone uses the data directly from the site of SANA or Fars News to display progress army he broke the rule then I also like some other editors I try to correct such violations. But also I am against use the data directly from the site of SOHR to display the rebel advances because it pro opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why Inkhil went green? No reliable source is quoted. Paolowalter (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fix inkhil.Make contested.We dont have a source to make inkhil green — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone uses SANA or Fars about government advancements that are not backed up by opposition sources than that edit is reverted. As for SOHR it has been established and agreed that 90 percent of their reports are eventually confirmed as correct and despite them being an opposition activist group they stick to a high level of neutrality and have been attacked in the media by both sides for reporting advances, casualties and war crimes of both sides. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Established and agreed by whom? How do you even know that 90% of what they say is correct. Most of the news that comes out of Syria is either from the allies of the regime or from the SOHR and news agencies like Reuters quoting the SOHR since they almost never have reporters on the ground. We have no idea whether what they say is correct [especially small advances]or not because no one sends in reports to verify. You would think that a site that emblazons the opposition flag and has stated its intention of opposing the regime would be treated with more skepticism. Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok Hannibal, just look back at Samra case. 3 references. Sana, Fars, almayadeen news (lebanon based - anti sunni) One referenced cedricLabrousse. I replied him with Cedrics own tweet just 4 hours later. It is marked as regime held without any discussion. Everytime regime advances, just in half a day it is reflected to the map with no discussion. But when rebels advance, there is a strong resistance/hot discussion among map editors for reliable resources. Reliable, 2nd hand resources are ok for me. But we must apply the policy for two sides strictly.

Another issue is CedricLabrousse case. I am following many pro-rebel resources. The others fail sometimes coz publis rumors, but Cedric does not publish rumors. He has references from ground. Generally trying to confirm news. Whenever he gets a refutation/change in situation for previous news, he publishes immediately. I withnessed that he published rebel loses, too.

A third issue, there are many contested areas on map which is isolated, not a frontline, but any 2nd source never attempted to publish a news. (As if Rebels have forgotten them, advancing towards another direction, keeping threat behing them) They seem not that much curious as keeping a map updated. In some cases there are news/video/maps from pro-rebel resources, but no refutation from regime resouces. 2nd sources are not interested either. So shadow areas are starting to appear on map. Hope you get it. (There must be a timeout, or something for illogical cases) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if anybody says twitter is not a reliable resource, cedric has a website also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahadirg99 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nabain

Sohr says army advancing inside the nabain.We should make nabain contested.http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=18648&Itemid=2&task=displaynews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.222.102.201 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Daraa: Ibbta, Sheikh Maskin and Tasil

Fars news about rebels inside Sheikh Maksin: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921101000852 The Journal Times about rebels close to Nassib border crossing: http://jordantimes.com/injured-syrians-pour-into-jordan-as-border-clashes-rage

This should mean that Sheikh Maskin should be green with a red circle, since the army base north of the town is still in loyalist hands and able to shell and shoot into the town. South of Sheikh Maskin, we are missing the town of Ibbta on the map. It's around half the size of Dael and should be in rebel hands, since the supply lines towards Sheikh Maskin extend from the Jordanian border towards Dael and further north.

Nassib border crossing is loyalist controlled, but rebels seem to surround the towns there since taking over the Gharaz prison and silo's. Green with a red line maybe?

I was not able to find anything about Tasil. No mention of fighting in Tasil could mean two things: loyalist control, or rebel control. I don't know, but it seems strange to me that there is still fighting ongoing in Tasil as rebels are advancing already further north in Nawa and Base 61? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Data in your source outdated. Because Fars News article reports on developments in late January and in this article does not say that the city is under rebel control. Also pro opposition source shows that much of the city under the control of the army. Another pro opposition source also reveals that in the city there are fights. Just your source that says about the progress of the rebels near the town of Naseeb dated early March and since then there were no reports of fighting in the area but the pro opposition source in late March shows that the Naseeb border crossing and the city of Naseeb under the control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Homs truce/surrendering?

[11] reports that the rebels will leave Homs or surrendered. Let's just keep an eye on it. Paolowalter (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also SOHR confirms: [12] As well as other sources: [13], [14]. Today or tomorrow it should go red. Paolowalter (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

pro opposition source confirmed too https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/462212028375908352/photo/1 Make homs red . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.228.244 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How many truces have been declared and then violated in this conflict? http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/03/clashes-syria-yarmouk-halt-aid-delivery-20143451218856800.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/03/04/new-clashes-blockaded-area-damascus-halt-aid/rE6l2nNLH2Q2ptHsFMKfoN/story.html http://www.alarab.co.uk/en/?id=2082 http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/10/world/meast/syria-peace-talks/ Let's wait until confirmation of the complete rebel evacuation before changing the status of Homs. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Homs

I think all homs should be changed to red now According to several opposition sources http://www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2014/05/02/هدنة-بين-النظام-والمعارضة-في-أحياء-حمص-المحاصرة.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali bachir (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1590593 MZarif (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

All Homs is now in full regime control http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-homs-idUSBREA410CA20140502

The pro rebel SOHR said "The agreement stipulates a ceasefire and withdrawal of Islamist and other fighters and brigades from the besieged districts of Homs towards northern rural Homs province,"

The Cease fire is just for let the Insurgent out from Homs city — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Make homs red. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27252396

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/syria-homs-truce-rebels 'The guardian says a deal that will bring the country's third-largest city under the control of forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad.'

Sayqal Air Base

On what source does the map show this base as besieged? Dumair air base has been shelled, and the area between Dumair and Sayqal has seen clashes, but has there been any information at all that indicates Sayqal is surrounded/has been shelled/anything? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-idUSBREA410MY20140502 Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dumayr and Sayqal air bases are not besieged - On this link NO SAID the Rebels besieged the Dumayr and Sayqal air base there just said "Activists" who obviously support the Insurgency claim the Rebels "Shelling Away" the Dumayr air base..

Dumayr and Sayqal air bases are NOT under siege and Rebels NO Captured a Chemical weapon facility....

common don't made the map a Sh1t again — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just shelling.NOT besieged.and rebels NOT Captured a Chemical weapon facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.228.244 (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Reuters has confirmed that the opposition fighters have taken the chemical factory ,and that they have isolated the sayqal airport,and that they are attacking the Dumeir airport.and and to keep you update,we use the circle over an area if it is besieged or attacked.Alhanuty (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's what the source said: Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held.Reuters In the source only said that because clashes hampered the transport links with Sayqal air bases and it makes it difficult to export the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons there because because it isolated air base located in the desert but the source does not say that it is the rebels besieged it. Also source only said that Dumair air base, came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels but source not said about clashes in this base or around her. So you were wrong when noted these two air bases as besieged. So that Alhanuty I suggest you correct this mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arab chronical reported a rebel attack on thedumeir airport.Alhanuty (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arab chronicle isnt a 'trustable source'.He is pro opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The green circle around Sayqal is not justifiable then. Dumair has been bombarded, so it's slightly more accurate to keep the green circle there to at least indicate the rebel presence in the vicinity and the shelling. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Al buwaydah

Opposition source say al buwaydah under army control.https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/462301534399635456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.42.228.244 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Blatant pro-"rebel" and anti-ISIS source AC is clearly unreliable for that.--HCPUNXKID 09:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Somethings need to be fixed.

• Homs city is now 100% under control of the Regime the cease fire MANY Sources said the Cease Fire for 24 hours was just for the Rebels withdraw the city.

• Dumayr air base it's not under siege
• Sayqal air base it's not under siege

The "Activists" who support the Insurgency said http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-idUSBREA410MY20140502 Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held.

• There not said the CW Facility were captured by the Insurgents ...

• There no said Dumayr air base is under siege pro Insurgents activists just claim "Rebel Clashed with Assad forces" Near Dumayr air base

• There no said Sayqal air base is under siege pro Insurgents activists just claim Rebels launch some rockets in direction to this base but away...

Pro regime sources claim no exist any siege on Dumayr http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/05/terrorist-advance-on-jaramaana-and-al-dhumayr-ab-debunked.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The pro government sources not said that Dumayr air base or Sayqal air base in siege.Syrian Perspective Hanibal911 (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Haniball please fix the map.You are the only trustable editor.Every source says homs under army control and there is no source about bases and cw facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Woah. NO source says Homs is under regime control, yet. The truce has been declared, but truces get broken every other week in this conflict. Wait for confirmation that the rebels have indeed withdrawn. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Okey cedric labrousse.Dont get mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha why jump the gun? If the truce holds, confirmation will be forthcoming. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, A green dot should be kept in the middle of Homs to represent a truce until the term of 48 hours expires. If the treaty goes on without being broken, then the green dot will be removed. But I wouldn't trust a treaty between the disorganized rebels and deceptive regime. Dr Marmilade (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Make the air bases Dumayr and Sayqal under siege is just a trolling action common it's just "Activists" just claim the Insurgents "Clash With Assad forces" near Dumayr and "Rocked" the Sayqal air base zones when Regime troops are more Stronger is Damascus Labrousse it's not credible he exaggerated everything if Rebels launch a Home made Mortar in Jaramana killing fews children in a School he wrote on Twitter "BREAKING THE REBELLION ARE DOING A HUGE STRONGER STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE IN DAMASCUS WITH IMPORTANT PROGRESS" ..... And make a CW Facility in Insurgents Hands is a Meta Troll action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC) LOGWTF take an English course before editing on the page please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.94.46 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dumayr air base not Under siege and working without problems there is official Source is the Syrian News Agency https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0e_A-QVzE — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Al-Waer is also under the deal in Homs[15]. Dumayr AB and Syqal are not under siege the sorce says rebels clashed near the Dumayr base but SOHR today said rebels clashed with a convoy heading to Syqal AB. SOHR:"Violent clashes taking place between regime's convoy which is moving from al-Domer airport, against Islamic battalions on Damascus-Bagdad road, reports of human losses in both sides."Daki122 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Daraa fixes

This map was made by the pro-government Syria Report in Feb 2014 and shows the following cities/towns that are currently marked as 'contested' under rebel control: Inkhil, Simlin and Adwan. It also shows some other towns under rebel control that are not yet on the wikipedia map.

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/ll_a_s/2014/Feb/17/LiveLeak-dot-com-81f_1392660892-1911638_219655471558911_209120125_n_1392661324.jpg?d5e8cc8eccfb6039332f41f6249e92b06c91b4db65f5e99818bade9f4d4cdedea663&ec_rate=230 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KajMetz (talk • contribs) 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

February is outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.58.143 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This link does not work. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Homs Agreement

Why is there still a little green dot in the center of Homs? An agreement was reached that all rebels would be pulling out to the suburbs. Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/May-03/255214-rebels-to-abandon-homs-as-part-of-cease-fire-deal.ashx#axzz30fQTLw1z 213.204.103.19 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)