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, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hasakah Map Needs Uppdate

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rules of editing

From the header:

Rules for Editing the Map

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

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

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

This raises a few questions:

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

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

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

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

a) Gov.held

b) Rebel held

c) Under clashes

d) Rebel held but under truce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assad forces advance in Hama/Idlib

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

Syrian Army Captures Zayzoun in the Al-Ghaab Plains.Syrian Armed Forces launched a counter-offensive to recapture their lost territory, while also pushing south towards the town of Qahira.[11][12][13]

SAA have entered Frikka and Jaish_Fateh defences have fractured.[14] Syrian Arab Army imposes control over Zeyzoun Power Plant.[15][16][17]

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

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

Mansoura grain silos.[19]

Rebel source: Rebels withdraws from Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[20]

SOHR: Regime was able to re-gain control on Zezon dam and its electricity station.[21]

rebel source said Rebels retreated from the Zeyzoun Thermal Power Plant.[22]

pro FSA - Syrian Army gains control over Marj al-Zohoor area in Idlib countryside amid continuous violent clashes with al-Fateh army’s fighters in the surroundings of the area. [23][24]

Syrian Army forces make major gains into Hama/Idlib govs after overstretch by the Jaysh al Fatah coalition. Map:[25]

Regime forces captured Tell A'war and conflicting information about who control Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[26] Tell A'war - under regime, Tell Hamakah - contested.

Opp. source(Eldorar) SAA controls Tell Awar and Frikka after Jaish_Fateh retreat from the area.[27] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Rebels source: Regime captured Frikka - Marj al-Zuhour - Tell A'war and advancing to Tell Hamakah.[28] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR: Regime forces/Hezbollah to regain control of the town Furaykah.[29] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

SAA sources confirmed Frikka under SAA.[30][31][32] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SAA captured Tell Hamakah according to SOHR.[33] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Opp.source: Syrian army retake Tell Hamakah in Idlib western countryside, amid severe clashes with al-Fateh Army.[34][35] SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

English version of SOHR states that rebels retook Tel Awar and that Mansoura silos are contested [36]. Pro-Government Al-Masdar states that SAA never entered Frikka [37] and that Fawru is contested [38]. Summary: Frikka is not contested (yet); Fawru is contested.109.47.3.224 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Al-Ghab area clashes

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

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

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

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

Syrian Observatory of Human Rights is a pro-rebel source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasakha map

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

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

Quneitra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well things have changed and if you want your map kept I suggest you keep it up to date, you can update rebels with pro rebel source, but can't update Government area for over a month, as far as I am concerned the info below the map is mostly false and out of date. The editors of this map are a joke. So you can start to change or you can see your map nominated for deletion every week untill it is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.58.48 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No bias is being shown, and I realize that me continuing this is going a it far, and personally, I don't care. This map is meant to be as close to what's going on in reality as possible, based on confirmation of opossing sides' advances, confirmed by those who oppose those who made those advances. Rebel gains can't be documented here without confirmation from neutral of government sources, and opposition advances can't be documented without government or neutral sources. No bias is being shown here. We are placing the same citeria for documentation of advances for BOTH sides, talk. DaJesuZ (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

lots of Bias is being shown here, the town of Al Hamidiyah in Quineitra has been captured by government forces for over a month, there is one official opposition mouthpiece, SOHR a man living in a london council house, yet there are half a dozen independent english news agencies in Syria that are unbiased to either side. The town of Al-Hamidiyah was never announced by SOHR, Why? To Keep rebels moarals high in the south as they have sufffered a string of defeats. There are other areas of the map also in government control marked green and grey (South), I will be looking for these to change soon, remember that this map is on the verge of being deleted because of the lack of credable sources, more specifically this pages over relience on a biased media source that has made many false claims and continues to do so. You keep saying we all agreed in the past and the map kept getting nominated in the past because SOHR is the one and only fucking source this page seems to use.

Qamishli Map

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

qaryatayn capture by ISIL

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

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

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

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

Map improvement

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

Thanks in advance and best regards

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

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

You are completely correct. Roads and highways would be a far better thing to show on this map than province boundaries. Someone needs to contact the maker of the location map and tell them to make a special version for this template with major roads on it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unbiased Sources

Regarding Rule 1A: Which sources can we use which we regard as unbiased sources? I would have said that SOHR is a reliable source, despite the occasional inaccuracy, however have seen edits reverted on the basis it is a pro-rebel source being used for rebel advances. So do we have a unwritten list of reliable sources that we can use? Or is Rule 1A basically invalid?Prohibited Area (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my personal opinion about sources: I think SOHR is pro-rebel/'terrorist' and al-Masdar is pro-government/'regime'. I think either can be used to confirm their own losses, but neither can be used to show their own gains. Elijah J. Magnier is a good neutral source, but he doesn't talk about territorial changes as much as I would like. Jack Shahine is pro-Kurdish, but a proven reliable source from the Kobani and Gire Sipi battles.

There's nothing that I can do to stop everyone else without violating 1RR, so I'm plainly going to just give up on the SOHR issue. In case anyone Prohibited Area ( thinks I'm biased for or against any party in this war, here is my personal opinion on the war and who is right. I think all Arab Sunni areas should be controlled by FSA/other moderate rebels, all Shia areas should be owned by a Shia group such as the Assad regime, and all Kurdish areas held by YPG. I don't like ISIS, and think they should go away. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean my only problem is that their are a lack of biased sources reporting their own losses and therefore the rules inhibit us, as the editors, to reflect an accurate depiction of the situation in Syria. I don't mind your opinion on the war as long as it doesn't result in you sabotaging the map, which I'm sure you wouldn't do intentionally, personally I am biased towards the Kurds and don't really mind about what happens in the rest of Syria outside Rojava, however ideally would support a outcome similar to yours, although I don't think the regime can win but rather minimalise their losses.Prohibited Area (talk) 19:48, 9 August 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)

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)

Lighter purple for "truce" areas?

Hi, I was wondering if somewhat lighter purple dots could be used for "truce" areas, as on my monitor (which is a bit dark) it looks a bit too close to the black ISIS colour. Esn (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Lighter or darker purple is the same to me, but purple is the color. It makes sense since the detailed Damascus map also includes this color for truce-areas. So WHY!!? did someone change the color to orange now?? Makes no sense.Rhocagil (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Government Gains in Aleppo, Aleppo map error.

The town of Handarat in Northern Aleppo is shown in rebels control however this town has been in the control of the Syrian Army for over 5 months with no announcement from SOHR once again, it seems he is only interested in announcing gains and not losses, and primarily reporting on Idlib ; http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-advancing-towards-the-water-plant-in-aleppo-city/

Captured: March 13 2015 ; http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-of-aleppo-syrian-army-captures-handarat-village/

Aleppo East, Kuweras Military Airbase and surrounding area secured by the Syrian Army check point to south captured for first time in 8 months from ISIS: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-crushing-defeat-at-kuweires-airbase-over-60-militants-killed-and-3-tanks-destroyed/ Once again I have searched for information from SOHR to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is a reliable source and therefore can be used for government advances, however I do not know how to edit the Aleppo map. Regarding Kweirs Airbase, since 10 August there have been reported developments with IS advances in the area so I would wait until official confirmation for pro-Govt or pro-IS edits in this area.Prohibited Area (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Bashing SOHR for being pro-rebel, when most rebel groups denounce them as pro-government, really makes you look like an idiot". Wow, sometimes you can read really dumb sentences in WP, sometimes its funny, others desesperating...--HCPUNXKID 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kafraya-Fuah

Suwwaghiyah should be removed from the map as i believe that rebels captured this spot. SOHR reports that rebels advanced after clashes, but it also says that clashes are only in the vicinity, which means that Rebels did not advanced inside those 2 towns, but in the vicinity, and that's Suwwahgiyah. On the other hand, rebel accounts are saying that they captured this area, here here1 and here2 etc ..DuckZz (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Are there any sources that actually show Suwwaghiyah, Baba al-Hawa Checkpoint and Deir al-Zahgb as under SAA control? As my understanding was that it was only Kafraya and Fu'ah under SAA control.Prohibited Area (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tall Al-Sim'an

Can we agree that clashes in this village have most certainly ended by now as two weeks without any reports of developments in this area suggest they have ended and even question whether or not SOHR was accurate in reporting them in the first place. May I change the village back to under IS control?Prohibited Area (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area, Clashes were reported in that general area. You can put the town under IS control, but you must put a YPG siege icon on the north side of the town, to indicate that YPG fighters are right there. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3, how would YPG be active/ present in that area when they have no territorial control unless some of the IS-designated villages south of Ain Issa are actually under YPG control? The map just looks inaccurate.Prohibited Area (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Prohibited Area I'm actually betting that some of them are controlled by YPG, but have not been reported on. There are a lot of towns and villages on that corridor, and I think that YPG has probably advanced, at least on the western side, but it hasn't been reported. I will now look for sources on that area, and due to the fact that it is very underreported, I might use a map to make and edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Reports Turkey is Invading Syria

A rebel spokesman: http://tr.sputniknews.com/columnists/20150810/1017050567.html along with multiple pro-kurdish activists, have claimed that 600 (or more) Turkish soldiers/fighters called the "Sultan Murad Brigade" have crossed the border into Syria and occupied Azaz and other villages near there. So far, no other major media outlets are reporting this. I have pressed André437 to make icons for Turkish control, but this user has not responded. If we need an icon, I propose . Please everyone watch the news and media closely to see if any further developments occur. I don't think I will mark Turkish presence yet, but that might change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there's no other sources reporting this, I guess that "claim" is false. Unless if there's other sources reporting this then maybe it can be changed. Besides, if Turkey really did invade Syria, then other sources would be in a frenzy about it. --Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 22:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I hoppe you are joking. Sultan Murad brigade is active in Aleppo town and countryside since 2012 and can easily cross the Turkish border together with any other rebel group, specially if they're from Turkmen origin. It's true that they entered with a lots of cars this time, but we saw what happened when the "real" Turkish army entered Qarah Qawzak, they had over 40 tanks. The number 600 is probably not true, at least not all at once, maybe 600 men during the last month, but that's not worth to mention because people need to be shocked, and 600 is the way to go. DuckZz (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea if this source is reliable, I found it on a pro-rebel news feed on Twitter. http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/the-first-step-of-the-occupation-plan-turkey-enters-syria Can anyone verify?DaJesuZ (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a pro-government source reporting this: https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/630811396339445760 Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 I did answer your request for icons, saying that (1) I can create them quickly, and (2) The green colour you propose is not appropriate, being too close (almost identical) to the rebel colour. There must be a significant contrast to avoid confusion. As soon as we have an appropriate colour, I will make the icons.

(everyone) Any reference saying "Turkman" means Syrians of Turkish origin. They (or their families) generally would have been in what is now Syria since the time of the Ottoman empire. The brigades mentioned in the initial post are well-known FSA rebels.

Note that the "pro-government" source just above refers to JN retreating from proximity of front lines with the ISIS, and rebels (moderate or islamic) taking their place. There are many recent sources for that.

So in sum, the few recent reports of Turkish invasion are exaggerated. But I wouldn't be surprised if the rebels there are now much more heavily armed. André437 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fu'ah and Kafraya

[40] Al Masdar reports Jaish al Fatah have breached SAA fortifications in Fu'ah and Kafraya. Should we change both towns to contested, the source suggests clashes are ongoing. Also can we remove or change Suwwagiyah, Deir al-Zahgb and Bab al-Hawa checkpoint to rebel control as I havent found any sources which claim they are still under SAA control, most sources claim that Fu'ah and Kafraya are the only regime-held towns in Idlib Governorate now, suggesting that they no longer control these positions.Prohibited Area (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll know when the rebels breach the regime lines and actually enter the cities: it will be reported all over the online media. Think Zabadani: everyone will be talking about it. Zabadani was surrounded for months, but it was only stormed a few weeks ago. Reading that report, it doesn't really sound like the towns have been breached, unlike the reports from Zabadani, which were pretty clear. I would wait; we'll know when the rebels breach the government lines. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

[41] I'm not sure if these villages are on the map, but the breaking of the supply route from Latakia to Hama is certainly notable. 50.187.216.93 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a big part of the opposition campaign right now there should probably be a submap of it, like with Deir el Zor [42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.216.93 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)