Jump to content

Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55

Cant understand map anymore

What is going on with this map?? Why are there so many small dots now I can barely see them are they checkpoints or farms ??? and many other dots are being removed from the map which is making the map more confusing to know who is in controll of those places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.40.242 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Some parts of the map are being changed, yes. What was happening was this: as more and more towns and villages were added, many users complained that the map was becoming too cluttered. Towns with 50 houses and towns with 5 houses were both marked as the same size. I and other users thought this was stupid and should be changed. I have made some towns smaller and others larger based on their size. That is why the towns east of Homs have changed size, as well as ones near Hasakah and Aleppo. Our goal here is to make the map as reliable and true-to-life as possible, and adjusting dot size based on population and geographical size is the best way to do that at the moment. I will continue to make further edits to government-held territory, as well as the rest of the map, to make dot sizes true-to-life. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I like it; it shows where the front lines are yet it also shows what every group has taken and what the importance is of certain villages like in Homs. Keep up the good work! Spenk01 (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's great, though it would be nice if there were shading like the png map showing general areas of control. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That's, uh, what the png map is for. Most of us are too lazy to want to implement some kind of adjustable shading actually inside the online map. There's little benefit to be honest. If anything, I personally think that this method (without shading) is better. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
But shading would allow us to clearly see the front lines. Though I understand what you mean considering often uninhabited desert is shaded as territory. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Pbfreespace3 where do you take all this information "Towns with 50 houses and towns with 5 houses were both marked as the same size" ??.Wikimapia??How can you adjust the sieze of a dot based on that where there is a war going on where houses and villages are being destroyed and rebuild in the same way everyday.It's absurd!!! Also adjusting the sieze of the dots based on population and geographical size it's more absurd we dont have any informations on these towns and villages beacause the hole country its a warzone and most of villages where the front line is have only faction fighters in it not civilians example Ghab Plain,Eastren Homs etc,demographics in –syria[1] changes everyday:4 mil refugees,people die every second etc.And I noticed that you made a controversial edit maybe by mistake Here the pro-regime source is talking about lifting the siege in Al-Jurah district in Deirezzor not the village and capturing some farms in Al-Mari'iyah not the whole village.My advice is that you if you want to edit than dont rush immediately to edit first of all read carefully the source what is it saying because it changes all what it is writen on that source and doesn't show the real fact and the map is less credible and doubt the wiki editor if it is pro-side one.
With your rethoric all towns should be the same size... The point of different village sizes is to show how big a village actually is this doesn't have to be based on amount of villagers but by the actual size of the village you can simply look it up on wikimapia.org or google maps. Houses in small villages don't get destroyed/rebuilt that quickly unlike houses in bigger cities. Smaller villages consisting of 10 buildings should get a matching dot size, for example it would be a shame if you set the size of Quneitra the same as the size of Damascus. Spenk01 (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map

This is a notice to all editors of the Syrian Civil War map:

To Tradedia, DuckZz, Alhanuty, Boredwhytekid, Paolowalter, LightandDark2000, 8fra0, Roboskiye, EkoGraf, Ahmetyal, HCPUNXKID, Prohibited Area, XJ-0461 v2, Tgoll774, BD2412, LogFTW, Ariskar, NightShadeAEB, André437, Rhocagil, Jackmcbarn, Greyshark09,

As most of you probably already know, PKK and other Kurdish insurgent attacks have been steadily escalating in south-east Turkey for the past 3 weeks. Though the PKK is known for hit-and-run attacks and ambushes, of which it has made many recently, it could escalate these attacks into all-out city warfare. This is not just speculation; there have been multiple reports from Kurdish sources that the PKK has already seized several villages, including photographic evidence: https://twitter.com/anfenglish/status/632943451496153090 http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/armed-clash-between-local-people-and-soldiers-in-silvan http://www.anfenglish.com/kurdistan/police-and-soldiers-cannot-get-out-of-their-bases-in-varto https://twitter.com/janbolad/status/632916674522578944 https://twitter.com/cahitstorm/status/632879638453338112

Although many of these reports are yet to be fully confirmed by western media outlets, there is a reasonable indication that the PKK is engaged in a full insurgency against Turkey, and that some militants intend to seize control of many towns and villages. It it for this reason that I have created the bare elements necessary to start a Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map. I have copied from the Syrian Map, as I don't have the knowledge of how to create a map module, and the necessary requirements for the map.

It is for this reason that I call all editors of both this map and the Iraqi Insurgency Map to help build the Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map. The module and documentation page can be found through a wiki or google search. The goal of the map is to show who controls which cities, towns, and villages in southeastern Turkey, and to document the PKK insurgency. Most editors here have shown a great willingness to tirelessly document control in Syria and Iraq, and I call on you to extend this great work to Turkey. I need someone with experience, probably Tradedia, to help me by making the appropriate location map pages, which I do not know how to do. Thank you. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

May I be the [[User:Syrian[2]Observer2015|SyrianObserver2015]] of this new map's talk page, calling BS whenever the map displays something that I don't like?DaJesuZ (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

DaJesuZ Can you please let other people know about this? There really needs to be more participation if this project is going to get off the ground. The location map and module desperately need attention. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you put user names like this : Pbfreespace3 , they will be notified by email (by default, if they haven't changed it).
There might already be a map of Turkey available. I could make new icons if you need any. Just let me know. Otherwise I don't have much time to contribute, but good luck with your project :) André437 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of projects, should we make these maps into a wikiproject? Banak (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Banak, You could if you want to. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Woah, I didn't realize this was proposed. Nice idea. A civil war is likely coming on in Turkey. And Ergodan will use the opportunity to give himself the dictatorial powers he wanted. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Jubb al Jarah Front

What is happening here? Masdar reported on the repulsion of the offensive and IS nothing. The villages of Rakhoum, Umm Sahreej, and Maksar should also be turned to SAA held. And while I know Masdar is fairly pro Government, there is absolutely no other news comming from those areas. MesmerMe (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Al masdar & SOHR are approved sources for all edits as for the repelled attacks; the villages have been marked SAA control but with a (half)siege mark. Spenk01 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
MesmerMe I think the siege icons are pretty fair. According to the reliable/pro-government source, ISIS launched a coordinated attack against government positions, fielding likely dozens of fighters in an offensive maneuver. That shows ISIS probably has a degree of infrastructure and presence pretty close to those towns, which is why I added a siege icon. An anti-government user might have used the report to mark the towns as contested, so this is pretty neutral. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

YPG took over Khatuniyah and is fighting actively in Al-Hawl. Both east(right) of Hasakah

Multiple Sources named here: https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/3hqmfc/ypg_on_its_way_to_liberate_alhawl/

Greetings Sebayt (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's awesome, but do you have a source that isn't reddit? I checked rudaw and found nothing. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Its difficult to get information out from that front because of a media blackout. Coldkurd and Avashin are reporting it though [1][2]. --Ahmetyal (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Media blackout? By who, the YPG? Anyway, I think ColdKurd is reliable. And it's not surprising in general considering that they've made huge gains very quickly with the tel Abyad offensive. I wouldn't be surprised they took Jarabulus any day now. But there should probably be a non-twitter source. Maybe in arabic media? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I was wondering what you thought about starting a page for Turkey considering apparently Dersim declared its autonomy. I presume the formation of an autonomous North Kurdistan is imminent. Do you know of any other PKK-controlled areas? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Monochrome I have already created that map. Please feel free to contribute to it by adding towns, provided you have the sources. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, media blackout by YPG. --Ahmetyal (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If YPG is doing a media blackout, that is probably to hide its troop movements from ISIS. If YPG operations are successful (meaning Hawl is captured), I am sure we will hear about it soon. Also, Rudaw said that YPG kicked out all of its reporters in Rojava, so that might be part of it too. We'll see. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please update

It hasn't been updated in over a week. YPG has made lots of gains in Hesîçe, including Al-Khatuniyah. They've reportedly surrounded al-Hahl. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll make the updates when we get reliable sources. We have already edited a good part of that area, and if Hawl is taken and a good source reports it, we will show it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Syria maps

Probably a stupid question but can't the maps for the capital provinces be edited as a .png ? I think the current maps are outdated & hard to update this way, because in my opinion yes .svg maps can be edited as easy as any other map, but the problem i have is

  • a) When i open any map in any program, i get like 1200 layers that shouldn't be there, leftovers etc, with 1000 nonsense catchpoints, leftovers. Instead of 20-30 catchpoints, i get like 500, and it's not possible to stretch and area like i want it to be, it's just to complicated because the original .svg file stays always the same, i don't know.
  • b) .svg files have the perfect quality, but is the difference so big ? DuckZz (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hakoura

What source is Hakoura in the al Ghab Plain being rebel held based upon? MesmerMe (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources,changing town status based on assumption or without a source is prohibited.Alhanuty (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That is my point, what source was used to change (some time ago) the twon of Hakoura to rebel held. Im nost necessairly asking for a change back to Government held, I just would like the source, since it looks implausbile. MesmerMe (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It was set long time ago. Impossible to recover the source now.
By the way SOHR on English reports https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/photos/a.150495128392167.28686.121855461256134/738219519619722/?type=1&theater that Al Msheek and Al-Qahira are taken by SAA.Paolowalter (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
[3] Banak (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We had Hakoura marked red for many months, and then, as the link posted above by User:Banak shows, someone made it green by copying from a map. So I went and did a google search on “Hakoura Syria” in English and Arabic (حاكورة سوريا). Follows what I found.
Just today (August 25) Islamic Front video shows them "targeting regime strongholds in Hakoura town with heavy weapons." And yesterday (August 24) pro-rebel Radio Alkul talked about rebels destroying a “cannon 23” of gov forces stationed at the Hakoura checkpoint by using a Konkurs missile. Note that the Hakoura checkpoint is to the East of the town of Hakoura. Also, pro-rebel source features a video showing rebels shooting at the Hakoura checkpoint (August 22). And Orient News talks about rebels targeting the Hakoura checkpoint with rockets on August 19. On the same day, pro-gov syria 24 english talks about “Violent clashes @ #Mansoura #Ziyarah & #Hakoura #SAA #NDF Still Defending”. In addition, pro-rebel source 1, pro-rebel source 2, Aljazeera, and Free Syria TV talk about rebels destroying a tank based in Hakoura checkpoint (August 18). Also, pro-rebel Syria News Desk talks about gov forces destroying some houses in gov-held Hakoura (May 27). Then, pro-rebel source talks about rebels shooting at the Hakoura checkpoint on July 15. In addition, pro-gov video shows the “Booby trapping operations & the bombing of some houses in the village #Hakoura by gov troops to prevent rebels from using them if they take the town” (5 June). Finally, pro-rebel source says NDF forces are guarding Hakoura on April 30.
There is no source claiming Hakoura is rebel-held. How many more times does our map need to be made wrong before people understand that copying from maps is not allowed? Tradediatalk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Latakia:Nabi Younis hill

  • vicinity of Qemmat al-Nabi Younes: 7 Regime soldiers killed:

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/the-regime-forces-lose-more-of-its-members-in-clashes-in-the-countryside-of-latakia-and-renewed-clashes-in-jobar/

  • around Nabi Younis hill: 5 Regime soldiers killed:

http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/clashes-continue-in-lattakia-countryside-and-more-losses-in-regime-forces/ 88.224.79.89 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC) What about the 70 + rebels killed? Did he forget that part? lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.54.191 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC) I do not even know why he is posting this pointless thing lol. (talk) 4:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mahin

Masdar mentions that Mahin is firmly SAA held. MesmerMe (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Masheek, Ziyarah, Tal Waset, Mansoura, Grain silos, Qahira

SAA retreated from its recent gains in Ghab plain. Masheek, Ziyarah, Tal Waset, Mansoura, Grain silos, Qahira are all captured by Syrian Opposition. Source: 1, 2. 88.227.133.123 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the Kurds have made gains against ISIS. Like a lot. Unfortunately the media reports are vague, mentioning "villages" without specifying which. Here's the news from Reuters

Masheek, Hama

Masheek Hama is captured by Syrian Opposition: 1, 2212.174.38.3 (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I added that change earlier but reverted it suspecting it was an unreliable source. I'll make it now. I believe it, since earlier those for towns were rebel held and still listed as SAA, and we only realized they were Jaysh held when pro-Assad media boasted of the capture of the cities. Rant. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User DuckZz map manipulation.

The towns of At Taff, Sha'arah in Dara'a countryside north are constantly being changed to green by user DuckZz with no source, these towns have been held by the Syrian Arab Army for more than a year, they were changed to green by DuckZz with no source provided, I have sanctioned him for this. Now if he wants to provide a legitimate source for these changes he can. He is claiming the terrorists of Al Fatah have taken the towns very recently but fails to provide a source. Changing them to green with no contest between the two warring factions is absurd and manipulation of the map. There are hundreds of troops in these towns, are we expected to think a terrorist brigade poorly equiped entered these towns, with major losses all summer in Dara'a countryside and city. This is clear and blatant map manipulation.

Al Masdar reported on the 24/08/2015 that the SAA were in control of over 60% of Al Basha, battles continue here this morning and DuckZz also changed this town with no source provided, so I have changed it back until source is provided ( SOHR Al Masdar) not a tweet from some ISIS fan boy living in Tunisia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All editors here agree that YOU are the one whom is manipulating the map and breaking editing rules,you should refrain from such behavior.Alhanuty (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You really have nothing better to do than troll on this map, you're playing the dump card all the time. You are :

  • 95% of your edits are without a source
  • You write in the description "I changed this village or location to this and that", and you didn't changed that but a completely different thing, to make it even worse, no source was provided even for the thing mentioned in the first place
  • You are making edits that doesn't make any sense, changing 2 locations in 1 province, 1 village in a completely different location, again with no source
  • Calling others ISIS fanboys, terrorists, and glorifying one group (in this case the gov.) by calling them "Syrian Arab Army had always control here and not terrorists", makes you even look more like some kid
  • I manually changed some locations because you changed them few weeks ago, nobody had noticed that, you did't provide a source for that, so I'm now manually reverting them. And you reverted my edit saying "you are breaking the rules, provide a source for your edits". Are just playing or a you really dump, i believe neither of that, you're just a internet troll. END. DuckZz (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Everyone just be quiet and listen here. Nothing is going to get done if we call SyrianObserver2015 a troll, and if SyrianObserver calls DuckZz a terrorist jihadi supporter. Everyone here MUST provide a source for ALL edits, regardless of circumstances. Include the source in the edit summary.
Whoever changed the towns to rebel control (I think it was DuckZz, but forgive me if I'm wrong) needs to provide a source for the edit. I looked all throughout the edit history, and I couldn't find the source. DuckZz, you need to link the source in a reply to this post. If the edit is justified, I will change the towns to rebel-held. Otherwise, we keep the government control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say, read againg the dots i wrote. Ok, now let's make this clear, look at his edits on this map, just look at them, not for a single one was provided a source, and he's trolling other users by manually reverting their edits which are 3 weeks old, for which a source was provided, but he doesn't care and just randomly changes locations on this map because .... well because he can and nobody can do anything about that. DuckZz (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, I agree with you that none of his edits are sourced. I just want you to provide a source for your edit, or for those towns near Daraa that are in question. Find the source, and paste it here. Then I will revert his edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should i provide a source for the 2nd time in 3 weeks ? So, a troll can call that every day, until when ? And i haven't made those edits, you probably didn't know that, but i have seen that the source was Leith Fadel which said that those villages are under rebel control because they are attacking the nearby villages from them. SOHR also said the same thing, but Leith Fadel as a source was enough, i don't remember what user made that edit, but it was a good edit. This troll is now calling me because i manually reverted his edit 1 week ago, because he obviously did not provide a source. Now today he manually reverted my edit, so that's his second time for the same locations. Now he wants a source from me ? Does he really think i'm that dump. DuckZz (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with the attacks. I will revert the edit just to silence you, but I really need a source. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You can ask the editor who made that edit, but i guess this is the source or the conversation. This is not a good thing from you, why ? You ask me for a source to revert his edit, but you're not aware that he made that edit without posting a source, that's ok according to you ? But according to you, it's not ok if someone made an edit few weeks ago, with a good source, and now he can't find it again. And we are talking about the same locations. DuckZz (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, that is a good source. I also used SOHR to confirm this, and made the edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AlAboud83 Edit: Please Revert

AlAboud83 transferred about 10 villages from YPG to Rebels in Afrin Canton. As his sources he listed an Arabic language news article (against established rules) and a tweet showing pics of YPG on the front lines of Shawarghat village. If anything, that tweet proves that YPG still control that village. Please revert this egregious edit. Palamunas (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

firstly that arabic source is a pro-government source,which indicates that the YPG doesn't control these villages.Alhanuty (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This might be my first time posting on this site but I've been following it for a while. That pro-gov source is in Arabic, which can't be used for sources, something that was agreed upon in this talk page. Second, the tweet was a pic and an amateur map. Amateur maps are also disallowed, as was decided by the editors in this page as well.Palamunas (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

any source from any language can be used as a source.Alhanuty (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the article/tweet are from 30 June 2015 and 2 Aug 2015... 2 and 1 month old sources, respectfully.Palamunas (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

i made the edit 3 weeks ago,but it was reverted,by an unknown editor.Alhanuty (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For convenience: http://www.dampress.net/?page=show_det&category_id=6&id=61308 https://twitter.com/sylezjusz/status/627965152424534016 Palamunas (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Abu ad Duhur and Aleppo updates

The fighting around and inside Abu ad Duhur airbase in Idlib is continuing. Nusra and several other rebel groups have once again taken over parts of the airport (for the second time this week). It would be good to show the airbase as contested, since fighting is now ongoing inside and at the edge of the base itself.

Also, rebels of the Shamiyah Front have regained control of Sandaf village north of Marae. The city of Marae itself is not contested, as is shown by recent battlefield developments. So Sandaf to green and Marae to green wiht a half circle on it's eastern side. Source: http://aranews.net/2015/08/syria-rebels-expel-isis-from-town-near-aleppo/

Actually there is still fighting raging between ISIS and Al Quieda rebel terrorists in Mare and isis have a strong foothold in the east of the city, also Mare is surrounded from 3 sides North South and East [4]. Here is a map not to be copied but just for reference, posted by Al Masdar [5] this map and the report I just published proves your unreliable sources are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.83.130 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Nusrats retreated from Abu al Duhur vicinity, not a single house was captured. The situation in the north is very liquid, the moderate beheader assault was repelled by the non-moderates with a lot of deaths. Thotholio (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your language, you are not sincere in your wish to update this map neutraly. I provided mainstream news stories. You counter with older sources. So, we need to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


The way people around here try to thrust their bias and views on the map really is astounding. I personally couldn't care less who controls the Abu al-Duhur airbase, as I don't support the rebels or the government in their fight with each other. But the hatred here is amazing.

Now to the reports: I don't think the reports are strong enough to change the airbase to contested. We will know when it is contested. Look at past examples: at Thalah airbase near Daraa, and Kweires airbase east of Aleppo. In both cases, a rebel force has tried to storm a government-held airbase, managed to capture a few houses and barracks inside the perimeter, but ultimately failed to hold their gains, and were pushed out. Most likely, al-Masdar News will report that the base was stormed if the rebels do manage to actually seize >30% of the base. Most battles like these don't last a long time: the base is besieged, and a successful storm takes maybe 12 hours at most. The point is, there isn't a massive battle going on inside the airbase itself, so a contested icon isn't warranted. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 you are correct this map needs more neutral editors and less bias ones .Also do you agree the Zabadini/Fuah 48 hour cease fire is over now as reports of fighting have started again .86.135.154.183 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3, I'd help out with the edits, but I don't have the patience to sift through the editing page (learning that thing would be like learning another language, and because I'm already learning German, that'd be an issue), and because of my anti-Jihadist, but pro-IS sentiments. If anyone could quickly teach me how to use the editing page, lemme know. I'll help out where I can.DaJesuZ (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Madaya

SAA is moving within the Mdaya; south of Zabandani, the city should changed to contested. Source. I would suggest turning Burqayn to contested as well since the town is seen as as a part of Madaya, but that is up to the editors. MesmerMe (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Less than 250m2 remained in Zabadani according to SAA sources on ground. Tomorrow it will fall most likely 89.132.121.212 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No ISIS presence near Jawsiyah Crossing remove it

Remove the ISIS presence near Jawsiyah Crossing it's incorrect I dunno why some one draw it without evidences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.100.154 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No. If you look at the edit history, it was well sourced from an anti-terrorism monitor. ISIS is there, as evidenced by the heavy fighting with Hezbollah near the crossing, but they have I'm essence gone undercover, and SAA/Hezbollah have not tried to clear them out yet, unlike West Qalamoun and Zabadani, where they are busy fighting. So no, the presence icon stays. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There are not evidences stop to draws bullshits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.100.154 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I know there isn't a lot of evidence. But ISIS has pushed towards this area from the east, so the idea that there are ISIS fighters here isn't crazy. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually ISIL briefly took control of Jawsiya crossing two weeks ago [6].GreyShark (dibra) 06:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Idlib province Towns represented with multiple dots, discussion about edit.

I notice in Idlib province on the map, there are many towns, both small and large represented with 2-4 dots each. Even in larger urban areas such as Dara'a this is not the case on the map. May I ask is there a reason behind this? As it adds around 60-70 extra edit plots also making the map bigger and longer to load for users. You can not even curse over the dots as there is dot upon dot upon dot! This map has a very bad reputation right now among a lot of online communities. Do not mistake my wanting to make the map more accurate with such childish accusations.

I think the whole of Idlib province should be fixed that happens in no other areas on the map only "Rebel" held areas.

It is making the map messy and harder for editors to work. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? On /r/syriancivilwar we appear to have a pretty good reputation. [7][8]

[9] Most threads about maps have their top comments link to one of our modules, or our png maps (more often the former). That said, if you think there's a problem with the map, let's deal with it, but let's not panic about people disliking it. The size of the map is a bit of a problem, and duplicate marks aren't good. To deal with the the size, we've removed some villages away from the front lines, and I've seen past edits to remove duplicate marks. Banak (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A few maps I've seen on Reddit link to Wikipedia maps or pages, which then link to the more detailed maps they are based on. If the maps were unreliable, they wouldn't be linked to. In all seriousness, I haven't seen much in the way of opposition to this map, except in a few ultra_conservative Muslim groups that still want to say the Islamic State controls an area the size of Great Britain.
BanakI have an idea: The combined module, showing the wars in Iraq and Syria in one unified map, displays Iraw as being much larger than Iraq is for the map for that war alone. Why not simply zoom in more on the map (the one for Syria), since that would put more distance between markers, and allow people to see what dot represents what town, villiage, or city. Just a thought. I have no idea what consequences it would have.DaJesuZ (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Whilst in a couple of places we do have so many marks it's hard to see, the main issue with size is that the map becomes harder to load. For example, many people can't view it on mobile, and it has quite a high load time. A greater zoom is something that would help with allowing us to distinguish sizes, but makes it harder to see everything at once, or the surrounding, so you have a trade-off between detail in an area and context in it. Banak (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite how you think how the map is, does not change the fact that there are really small towns with around 50 buildings with 4 even 5 dots in cases, idlib on this map is a complete mess and makes it look like more territory than actually is. I personally will fix the whole of Idlib it needs to be done. You may agree or disagree but its being done. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

While i do agree that some parts of Idlib province have a big number of marked villages, but that's why our map is different than others, and according to many people it really shows what's actually happening there. For example, the area around Marat Numan town should stay untouched, people should know that rebels made their first big offensive around that area, same goes for Idlib town. The province should be a bit cleaned, but not to much, as i really don't see too many locations overlapping one on another, maybe the area west of Jisr Shugur town. Look at my latest color Syria map update, i removed some villages, so maybe you can compare that map with this one. DuckZz (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Having further inspected the edit plots for Alya as it seemed to me as I cursed over those 4 towns all said it was Alya but it is not edited that way, I guess they are just to close together and need a bit more spacing as I thought they had 3-4 dots but I was wrong it is just over lapping of dots. East of Jisr Al Shughur yes is very messy. Maybe playing with the coordinates may make this issue a bit better.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Suwayda/Suweida

things are escalating in Suwaydaa,an eye must be kept on what is happening there.Alhanuty (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please define the druze as a group under the map before adding a unique color due to clashes in Suwayda. Vissar2g (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I already did,but some editors are reverting it,like User:HCPUNXKID and User:Deserttanker.Alhanuty (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID firstly,Druze constitute a majority group in suwaydaa,secondly SOHR confirms that Gov forces have withdrawn into ther barracks with the people of suwaydaa and pro-balous fighters along with the NDF seizing control of the city,so i recommend a shared control icon for suwaydaa.Alhanuty (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

First, Assyrians constitute a majority group in several areas in Hasaka, were they have exclusive control (neither SAA, neither YPG), so including Druze as a differenced group but not Assyrians would be another example of personal political POV-driven attitude (unfortunately, we have seen soooo much of that here). Not to say that you have acted unilaterally (as usual) and added a new colour icon to the map without discussion or debate. Other user would have been blocked for that continued wrong behaviour, but it seems you have so much luck or so many WP administrator friends... Second, SOHR confirms that calm had returned to the area on Saturday morning, and there's not a single reference about shared control of the city, so Suwayda icon stays red.--HCPUNXKID 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

oh,really,so adding black for ISIS was vandalism,adding a grey icon for nusra was vandalism.Alhanuty (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC) druze are a majority in the entire gov,not like the minority assyrians in hasakah.Alhanuty (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC) User:HCPUNXKID Plus the SOHR reported is more recent and detailed http://www.syriahr.com/2015/09/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A1/.Alhanuty (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, more recent SOHR report confirms Suwayda is in calm now, not a single word about shared control, only about checkpoints being manned by neighbours and NDF (do I have to remember that NDF is staunchly pro-government?), so stop it: http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/09/more-people-killed-in-al-suwaydaa-amid-the-continuation-of-uneasy-calm-in-the-city/. --HCPUNXKID 16:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)it clearly says that regime forces and security forces have retreated into their barracks with NDF and People of suwaydaa taking checkpoints,plus druze are protesting,the assassination of balous.Alhanuty (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Government institutions are in control of the city as they have been for the last 5 years .The fact that the army has returned to barracks means the situation is calm and stable . 86.178.97.225 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Mahajjah, Daraa province

I believe this town is under rebel control and under siege for a long time. We had a similiar situation with Kafr Shams, it was under rebel control for 2 years but our map showed it as under government control. Pro-rebel sources are saying that this town is under rebel control and had always been, but we can trust them. Here SOHR says that a number of rebel fighters and civilians killed due to shelling on the town of Mahajjah. Also here SOHR said again almost the same thing. I think this is enough to make the edit, i will wait if someone has a different opinion even though i don't have to. DuckZz (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. I did a google search on “Mahajjah Syria” in English and in Arabic (“محجة سوريا”). Follows what I found: On 26 June, pro-gov source says: “A number of al-Nusra Front militants were killed as Syrian troops stormed their hideout in the town of Mahajjah.” Also Bosnjo says (on Sep 1) that: “Mahajah is under rebel control.” Also, pro-rebel source talks about “gov gathering troops to storm the town.” (sep 2). In addition, FSA website talks about “violent shelling on the town from gov troops” on aug 30. And many more similar news if you look at twitter hashtag محجة…
The reason we had it gov-held was because deSyracuse map has it gov-held and we just mindlessly copied it without looking for news reports like you just did. Tradediatalk 20:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jaish al Nasr mujahideen captured Ma'er Kebbeh, Hama

SuriyedenHaber Jaish al Nasr mujahideen captured Markabeh: video of the liberation 212.174.38.3 (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

JAN/FSA seized Abu Duhur Airbase

1. BBC: Syria conflict: Jihadist rebels seize key Idlib airbase
2. Asian Defence: Photos claim to show JaN fighters inside Abu al-Duhur airbase near Idlib, Syria
3. WN: Syria conflict: Jihadist rebels seize key Idlib airbase
4. Healtonews: "Jihadist rebels seize key Syria airbase"
5. Reuters Daily Mail: "Syrian air base falls to rebels, troops exit - state TV" 212.174.38.3 (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone make a half Al Nusra/Rebels fighter jet icon just the same way as for dots ? Because the airbase was captured both by Al Nusra and other groups like Jund Aqsa, Ahrar Sham and small FSA presence, but 50% is 50%. DuckZz (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

André437 You are the person for this job above. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Jund al Aqsa is also AQ, and in fact has ISIS sympathies. It wouldn't be unfair to make this a grey only airport, as Nusra's been known to lead the siege for months. NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Just did that. I also added other rebel-held towns near the airport, as they have supply lines running from Saraqib which allowed them to send fighters and equipment to the area using a road, in order to besiege the base. Previously, many of these towns along the road were unmarked. I also adjusted the size and coordinates of dozens of villages near Abu al-Duhur and Khanaser. May I ask what people think about these changes? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
All WPdians thanks a lot to you about the changes. The more villages on the map, the more it is informative on how the war proceeds.212.174.38.3 (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Huwwarin

Since when has Huwwarin been under IS control? Which source was used to make this edit?Prohibited Area (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well probably the same guy that put Mahin and Huwwarin under isis control 2 weeks ago, the founder of this page. I'll change it back and once a reliable source is produced it can be changed. But all my sources indicate this is still under SAA control and also Rouhoum in East Homs is under SAA control also, the pro ISIS editors go off on a tangent on the map, making them look better than they are, source is on my Talk page will edit it in.Fixed East Homs also Al Hawa and Rahhoum under SAA control and fixed unrealistic surroundings of towns 20 km from the front line! Source out dates the edits made by the pro isis editor ( map founder) :http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/east-homs-isis-carries-out-a-large-scale-assault-in-al-hawa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The rules say that you can't use a pro-Assad source for changes in favour of the regime. You should realise that al-Masdar/Leith Fadal is just a mouthpiece for regime propaganda. Much of his claims are pure fantasy.
Please revert your changes, at least until you find a reliable source.
Note also that "front line" has little meaning on a map with as low resolution as our map. As well, this is not first world war trench warfare. André437 (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Unknown you might want to have a look at the rules again then buddy, coming here and saying that does F.A. The change was made with 0 sources. Post your source or GTFO. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

North Eastern Latakia Offensive.

Attacks on Kabir in North Latakia confirm the Syrian Army is on the offensive, will make edits of arcs west of this point (Kabir). Source: [10] SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jazal oilfield

According to Reuters, IS took control of the Jazal oilfield northwest of Palmyra [11].131.188.48.174 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

almasdar states that IS controls the Jazal village but lost control of two of the Jazal gas wells after initial advances [12]131.188.48.174 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
It's recaptured. Could editors turn it SAA held again. SOurce http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-takes-advantage-of-the-weather-and-launches-a-surprise-attack-in-western-palmyra/ MesmerMe (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done with source provided. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

pro SAA source: Homs governor: the Army fully gains control over the oil and gas fields in Jazal area. https://twitter.com/breakingnewssy/status/641646424749404160 https://twitter.com/Hope_Zahra/status/641650865317785600 https://twitter.com/Hope_Zahra/status/641601854690992128 Reliable source confirmed that SAA/NDF retook all of of Jazal Field/Oil Fields. from ISIS. https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/641653089506689026 and Anti-SAA source also confirmed that Regime army regains control of all oil wells in Jazal field in eastern Homs province. https://twitter.com/Abduhark/status/641632433448816640 Rohanny (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Army recaptures all gas fields and ground taken by ISIS in Jazel. Source:[13] SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jazel Town captured, strategic hills east of Jazel also captured Source[14] SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Suwayda

We now have a source confirming that there have been clashes in Suwayda city between Balous-Druze men and the SAA/NDF. I suppose, giving the contents of this article, that we turn the city of Suwayda to contested between Druze en the regime. There is no fighting now, but like Hasakah and Qamishli, some parts of the city are clearly controlled by militiamen outside of government control. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/syria-sweida-protest-demonstration-druze-electricity.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there is any fighting ongoing. It may be true that there are Druze militiamen in the city, but that is the same as saying there are FSA/Nusra members in al-Mayadin, or rebel fighters inside Homs city. The point being: it isn't really contested in the true sense of the word. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

its like qamishli joint control.Alhanuty (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Deir Ezzor changes

on september 10 2015 Al Jazeera English reprted that ISIS fighters overran the "army's rocket battalion" near the Deir Ezzor military airport. I assume that is the same as the "missle battalion" on this map which is still shown as regime held please make this important update as quickly as possible. to assist Wikipedia with this I have provided links to useful news reports.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/isil-advances-military-airbase-eastern-syria-150910141157852.html http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/189517 http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2015/09/10/foreign/at-least-54-dead-as-is-advances-on-east-syria-airbase-monitor/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.128.124.35 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Missile battalion and ground recaptured in Deir Ez Zoir 140+ ISIS killed 72 hours, 12/09/2015. Source: [15] Source from edit date: [16]SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

These sources don't state that the missile battalion was captured by SAA. In fact, almasdar states clearly that the missile battalion is controlled by IS on this map: [17] (click on it to see the full map).84.138.69.94 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Kuweires air base

Pro-opp source https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/643405809137938432 states that SAA and ISIS are fighting inside Jabbul. Do we have it on our map?Paolowalter (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter, yes, it is on our map. I just made the edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Jayroud (Qalamun)

Al Masdar source showed this town under rebel control, and not under truce. I can't remember why we made this town under truce, most probably because Dumayr and Ruhayban are under truce. Usually we don't copy from maps but this is a speciall situation ? DuckZz (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit. If it's wrong, meh, I'll take the flak for it. The map is from al-Masdar, so I think an edit based on it is justified.DaJesuZ (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We actually made these 3 towns under a truce last year because of someone's map, i think it was petolucem. So i think we can use this map to fix our mistake. DuckZz (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The map quoted is just a copy of ours and cannot be used. Some kind of truce must be operating because no fighting has been reported since a long time. To change the status we need fresh information, otherwise it stays as it is.Paolowalter (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Heck, the Masdar map even shows Wa'er in Homs as under truce, even though SOHR reports that there is daily government firing on it: http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/09/continuous-clashes-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-homs-and-intense-aerial-bombardment-over-sahl-al-ghab/
By the way, my personal opinion on map use is that we should be able to use maps as secondary sources to back up and further detail a reliable primary source, such as a Masdar or SOHR report. Especially in the case of maps made by al-Masdar. A legal justification for this use of maps is that the Masdar map specifically labelled towns and stated who controlled it based on an icon that the editor had to choose. That is why I made the recent edits near Homs with a Masdar map, because it clearly showed government losses versus how we had the map, and it was backed up by a neutral reliable source (SOHR) as well as an anti-gov source (@Nowresr twitter). In other cases with only a map, it is much more dubious, and therefore should not be used. But if a map is used to back up a primary source, then I personally believe that is OK. I think DuckZz, DaJesuZ, Alhanuty, Paolowalter, and Tradedia will agree with me on this.
The Masdar map is based on ours, however there are big differences in some areas, for example East Homs, where the frontline was different from our map. What used to be a pro-gov source (Masdar), but is now considered reliable, reported ISIS was doing better than on our map, clearly showing several towns it controlled that we had not shown. That is why I made the edit, and it was also backed up by SOHR and other sources. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well then change Hamar hill (previous talk page section) to rebel held because my source indicated something, and Al-Masdar shows the same thing, which can be used to back this up. DuckZz (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ISIS editor map manipulation

Hello, I will give one warning to the isis editor who keeps changing government held towns to isis control in East Hama, where they have clearly been beaten back and had to pull men back to palmyra and Quaratyn because of there hundreds of losses. Also in Deir Ez Zoir SAA control Al Tabayah and the missle battalion and the area to the eas of the misslile battaion. I have sources showing all these towns are in Syrian Army control.

Heres whats going to happen: post a source for the 14 towns and villages that have been changed to isis in the last day.

Fix Deir Ez Zoir.

If the sources are not posted within 20 hours I will revert all the changes on the map, as there has been no disscusion and no mention of these 'captures' by any news source pro gov/pro opp/pro isis.

If the bias continues and the false claims are not fixed I will push for this maps deletion again. Because it is becoming a scum pit of isis and jihadi supporters misleading the people who view this map.

The article and map will be considered for deletion to the appropriate administrators, you have 20 hours Jihadi boys fix it or face a wave of Government supporting editors coming here to fix it, or face deletion, your choice day dreamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC) SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you don't run afoul of the 1RR. If edits are repeatedly made against consensus, remember that the 1RR isn't the only sanction. Banak (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It's really funny that this pro-government moron keeps spouting off about how the government is doing oh so well, when even Bashar al-Assad himself commented on having to abandon areas the government deemed unimportant, and only uses pro-government sources to back up his claims. Pro-government sources will ALWAYS say the government is doing well in the war, regardless of whether they are or not, because it is in their, and the government's, best interests to NOT describe opposition gains.
I'm getting pretty sick of this immense pro-gov bias constantly rearing its head; show something that someone who is NOT in favor of the government describing government gains, or shut up. Better yet, provide SOMETHING, since you didn't cite anything, at all.DaJesuZ (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

namecalling,threatening wikipedia editors,using pro-government sources,threatening to delete map,who are you to do all that.Alhanuty (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's stick to the facts. Regarding the Deir Ez Zor Missile Battalion, almasdar stated on 2015-09-13 that the missile battalion is controlled by IS: [18] (click on it to see the full map). Is there any newer reliable source that states that SAA recaptured the Missile Battalion in the meantime? SyrianObserver2015: what are the reliable sources for your claims? 131.188.48.174 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
al-Masdar reported the capture of the missile battalion, and has not reported anything else on the matter, and SOHR has made no mention of what's going on there, either. Provide something to back up the claim that the SAA is in control of the missile battalionDaJesuZ (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC).


I assume that SyrianObserver2015 is referring to me when he calls me a 'pro-ISIS editor. Let me respond. Firstly, I am not pro-ISIS in any way. I have not supported ISIS, and will not ever support ISIS. I am not jihadi, Sunni, or Muslim. I am not from the middle east. So stop with the name-calling and unprofessionalism.

Secondly, I provided a pro-government but reliable source, al-Masdar, for these changes: http://i3.minus.com/ibiiYtzDCBZ5Gh.jpg http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/complete-battle-map-of-syria-mid-september-update/ The source even explicitly mentions the towns in question by labelling them and marking them as ISIS-controlled. Here is another source mentioning the clashes taking place near these towns: syriahr.com/en/2015/09/continuous-clashes-in-the-eastern-countryside-of-homs-and-intense-aerial-bombardment-over-sahl-al-ghab/ So the edit is justified, since a reliable source, which is also in my opinion pro-government, stated that ISIS controlled that region. In addition, this is backed up by other reliable sources, and pro-ISIS sources.

Thirdly, show us one shred of evidence SAA controls the Missile Battalion. You say "I have sources showing all these towns are in Syrian Army control." Can you post these sources please? We'd like to see them. Masdar itself reported that SAA didn't, as ISIS was said to be launching recent attacks from there. Masdar would have definitely reported this on the front page if SAA retook the Missile Battalion.

Finally, you need to stop with the biased and partisan attacks. Calling the editors of the map 'jihadi fanboys' doesn't do anything to improve your standing in the community, and neither does calling the map a scum pit or making threats to shut down the map if we don't do exactly as you say and make the edits you want. If you want pro-gov maps, I suggest you try Peto Lucem and Amin Akh.

No. We are going to follow the rules, use reliable sources, and make edits that are true to the actual situation on the ground, which as of the time of this post is as follows: ISIS in control of Missile Battalion, Jazal under SAA, East Homs villages in question under ISIS, but vicinity contested. This isn't hard. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

FSA and JAN captured Talat al Ziraa, Jubb al Ghar, Qabr Hashesh hill, Tallat Fares (Latakia)

All of these sources appear, at least to me, to be pro-opposition sources, which prevents me from making the edits. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

All of these sources look very unreliable.Deserttanker (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Map size/fixes

I'm mostly referring to the user Pbfreespace3 . Why are you doing this if I may ask ? What's the point ? I can barely see 40% of the villages you have edited, they are to small, and again what is the point if for example we have 2 villages, one is larger than the other in reality. Previously they had a size of lets say 6 and 5, and you change them to 5 and 4, what's the point, the result is the same but now they're barely visible. You only edited 40% of the map, and some towns are actually marked 3 times smaller than some tiny village. You have to understand that this is not googlemaps, neither wikimapia, this is wikipedia and you can't basically copy/paste their way of editing. This map needs to be visible and big, i mean just look at the Yemen/Lebanon map, look at their sizes. I would ask you to change the size of every village, just add 1 size more, and it will be visible, because know it looks really bad. DuckZz (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion; he´s doing a good job and to me the map appears more realistic. I myself would not "waste" time on this, but it´s not my time. So if Pbfreespace3 wants to put time in it, let him(?) do it. Rhocagil (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Some time ago, several users complained about the map being too cluttered, but the general consensus of the page editors was that the villages should stay, but be reduced in size, to eliminate map clutter, and still give a more accurate representation of where the front line is.Personally, I like this way of doing things; it makes sure that all known towns are still shown, and who controls all of them.DaJesuZ (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Let it also be known that I just reverted an obvious point-of-view vandalism edit from SyrianObserver2015, who has pro-government bias in all of his editings and statements. He made many rebel and ISIS-held towns impossible to see by decreasing their sizes drastically, as well as blatantly changing various towns to government control with no sources whatsoever. Even al-Masdar news reports some of these towns are not gov-controlled. He has accused me of being "pro-ISIS scum" and a "jihadi fanboy", which I am not. I have urged him to stop his biased vandalism, although I doubt he will do so. Please be on the lookout for other biased vandalism from him, so you may remove it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I can barely see some places now. Deserttanker (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

FSA/JAN liberated Deir al-Zaghb (SW of Al Foah, Idlib); Next Foah?

According to reliable sources, FSA/JAN just captured several military checkpoints in the southern outskirts of Fu'ah [19]. FSA/JAN attacks on Deir al-Zaghb and from al-Suwaghiyah have reportedly been repelled. 84.138.69.94 (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how a saudi/uighur/chechen/turkmen al qaeda beheader group will liberate anything in Syria from syrians. "reliable sources" The attack after 7 suicide bombers got repelled according to every source on ground. LOL Totholio (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What you mention as "Saudi/Uighur/Chechen/Turkmen al Qaeda beheader group" are ALL SUNNI people just like the GIANT MAJORITY Syrian people (80% of Syrian population), whereas what you refer as syrians are "Irani/HezboSheytan/Alawite group" and SMALL MINORITY (10% of Syrian population) that administered Syria DICTATORSHIPLY till now (remaining 10% is Christian). Clear? That's why, LIBERATION. 88.224.145.69 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Could someone ban this guy already? you braindead half of the syrian army is sunni,80% lives in government controlled areas, the first lady and half of the government is sunni, so you believe a 10% minority is at war with the 90% for 5 years and still standing? congratulation. Your sources are only pro beheader like markito :DDDD there will be a ceasefire in the 2 shia cities and Madaya/Zabadani for 2 days, it just started right now. Totholio (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to checkpoints to the south of Fu'ah, Tell al-Kirbeh has now been taken by rebels as well. [20] 84.138.69.94 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to fight, go to Syria and fight with machine guns or whatever your weapon of choice is. Until, then, stop with the attacks here, as we don't need them and it isn't useful. Syria should be partitioned between the Sunni Arab parts and everything else (Shia, Christian, etc.) That is the only way the long-term conflict will stop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Foah

Foah is under intense fire. Hence, must be shown as contested.78.168.154.94 (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing will be contested specially not after saudi/uighur/turkmen suicide bombers tried to infiltrate the 2 cities and did nothing. Like this "syrian" "rebel" xD https://twitter.com/DR_SHAHID/status/645246839428546560/photo/1

Ceasefire in 4 cities http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-ceasefire-brokered-in-al-zabadanimadaya-and-al-fouaakafraya/ http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-ceasefire-agreed-for-3-syria-battlegrounds-monitor-2015-9 (SOHR) Totholio (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do not link to photos of dead people here. Such photos give no new information but may disturb readers. Nobody doubts that people are dying in Syria, there is no reason to link to such photos, or make fun of their death, be it "rebel", "regime" or IS corpses. But it is true, there is a ceasefire until Monday. Supposedly, rebels will be allowed to remove wounded fighters from Zabadiya, Madaya while the government will be allowed to send humanitarian aid to Fu'ah, Kafraya. 84.138.69.94 (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You know their an Obama/mc Cain puppet when they use the word "regime" all aboard the zionist bus, to visit Al bagdadi leader of the FSA/AlNusrat/ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Both your language and sources are unacceptably biased towards officially designated terrorist groups. Deserttanker (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked from the language used here in this discussion. Is there is no limit to agresive language here ? I thought it had been agreed long long time ago to use terms like rebels/Regime no matter what is your political stand. Also this is not a political forum or the place to discuss if the regime is a minority or rebels are terorists. It is useless and exhaustive and I sugest any one with such mentality is more aload on this page than a help and should just go write on his facebook page whatever he loves Helmy1453 (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Label

(Location dot blue.svg Druze)

(Location dot blue.svg Local tribe-held) >"old version"


"Al-Asharah"

The change in the label has created a blunder, Al-Asharah has nothing to do with Druze (to my knowledge). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7F30:A501:B5AA:5B0F:2FD9:355F (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


HCPUNXKID AlAboud83 this is your mess, clean it up. Rhocagil (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Druze are officially represented by Blue,choose another color for Shaitat,choose brown.Alhanuty (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned up. Still waiting for ACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCES stating a shared control of Suwayda by SAA-NDF, etc... in one side and independent Druze militias, groups, etc... in the other. Maintaining it on the basis of a single source about events that happened on September 4-5 (and according to all sources, since that date ALL Suwayda city and governorate -except an ISIS-held zone at the northeast- is government-held), is at least suspicious. Let's be serious, if Druze militiamen would have confronted SAA-NDF and gained territory, we would have a few reports, photos, videos, interviews, etc... of that. Look at the examples of Hasakah or Qamishli. This is not the case. So please leave aside the phobias & philias and try to make a credible map...--HCPUNXKID 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID is was relating you to that Al-Asharah still is marked contested blue-black. Rhocagil (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and its because of some heavily biased, POV-driven, staunchly pro-"opposition" (many people would called them terrorists, logically) fanboy unilateral editors who doesnt use reliable sources or manipulate & distort them to the limit, that the blue colour was given unilaterally without any discussion to a ethereal entity called "Druzes", when that sect doesnt control exclusively a single town, and when the vast majority of Druze militiamen are closely allied with the SAA-NDF, wether that editors like it or not, facts are tough...

PD. Regarding Al-Asharah, I will put it back as black, as there are no news about Shaitat tribesmen finally expelling ISIS from that town, or controlling a part of it.--HCPUNXKID 13:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Zabadi and Fuah seacfire

I want to know what is the ruling for purple color (trice) zones. As Zabadi and Midea are marked purple but Fuah and Kufriah stayed red ? where it is the same seacfire ? Is there a eason for this contrast or it is just a mistake ? Helmy1453 (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is done because whilst Zabadani is contested, Fu'ah and Kafraya are both held firmly by the regime. The truce symbol is only necessary for locations which are divided between two factions to show that there are no clashes there.Prohibited Area (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Zabadani will be evacuated complitely to Idlib, Madaya will be not,just the injured. 10 000 civilians(mostly under 18 and 50+) will be evacuated from Fuah/Kafraya in the coming weeks, both groups under the UN security which requires a lot of preparation.Totholio (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Learn how to type and speak english properly before you come here making terrorist demands, we have enough pro- isis/FSA/Al nusrat terrorist supporting editors on this map. One more could sink this rubber boat in the mediterian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.100.67 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey you Mr. Rubber boat. Why don't you go kill yourself it would be nicer for humanity if you just die — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.189.10 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

AANNDD purple they went. purple they should have been since I mentioned Helmy1453 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with people? Stop calling people terrorists. It is clear that you are pro-government and read Leith Fadel because of your use of the slur 'nusrat', which he uses on his twitter. Edits requests of any kind will be answered, regardless of the affiliation of the person making it. Stop with the partisan attacks and actually contribute to the map, or get out now. We don't need trolls here. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

YPG advance on Jarabulus

Pro-Kurdish [[21]] reporting the possibility that YPG forces have advanced and liberated areas of east Jarabulus, this could be big.Prohibited Area (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Everything I have seen now does not yet indicate that the YPG has entered the city itself, but there were many reports of heavy shelling, which is why I decided to add the siege icon. I wonder how YPG crosses the river since all of the bridges are destroyed. Maybe they use boats like ISIS has before. Regardless, we will watch the situation there closely and see if YPG decides to attack the town. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also mentioned that YPG has just captured parts of Castello Road in Aleppo, cutting off the "rebel" suppline lines in the city. https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/648162810011119616

What do other scources say ? Any news about this ?Oroszka (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this is the case. Pro-gov sources report this too. But back to Jarabulus. It looks like the YPG could storm the town at any time: http://aranews.net/2015/09/ypg-bombs-isis-headquarters-in-syrias-jarabulus/
The sources aren't really clear if the YPG is actually on the west side of the river, but I doubt it, because I think ISIS would pounce on them as soon as they crossed. But it seems like the YPG is massing forces on the eastern side to storm across and take Jarabulus.


https://twitter.com/VivaRevolt/status/648289457792253952
According to this pro-rebel, anti-ISIS source, it looks like the Kurds could move on Jarabulus within the next 24 hours. He claims that the US has said to the YPG that it would not oppose the move and that air cover is an option. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

zabadani

Zabdani should not be marked as in truce (violet). The rebels were transferred in Idlib and the town is under government control. It must go red. Violet is OK for Madaya and Serghaya.Paolowalter (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice sources.. 84.138.69.94 (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If all the terrorists are gone from Zabadani then it is in full government control so it needs to be changed to red as there is no one there to have a truce wit... fairly dumb comment above. No terrorists = Red. Just another biased editor trying to make things look nicer for the terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.100.62 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you provide NO sources for you claim. 131.188.48.174 (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Another biased editor? I didn't realise that asking for proof showed bias. Prove that all rebel fighters were transfered to Idlib, and one of the editors will make the change. If you provide no sources, it will remain as violet.DaJesuZ (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we will hear from SOHR and Al-Masdar when/ if the transfer is complete. Let´s wait for that before making any changes. Rhocagil (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

SOHR http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/09/ongoing-preparations-for-executing-the-first-steps-of-ceasefire-agreement-in-al-zabadani-al-fuah-and-kefrayya/ states that preparations are ongoing. Al Masdar http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-begin-withdrawal-from-al-zabadani-first-transport-buses-arrive/ states that some of Zabadani fighters have been moved away already.Paolowalter (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The sources just claim that preparations for moving the rebels started and that buses were provided. They do NOT state, that any rebel fighter moved away from Zabadani. They certainly do NOT state that ALL rebel fighters moved away from Zabadani. Thus the sources do NOT support the claim that "The rebels were transferred in Idlib and the town is under government control." and there is no reason to change Zabadani to red (yet). Rebels probably will be transported in the next days or weeks, but it has not been done yet, according to the sources. 84.138.69.94 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If the government controlled all of Zabadani, Masdar wouldn't shut up about it and SOHR would report it too. Also, no sources were provided to show that the government controls Zabadani. Therefore, the town should remain under truce status. Also, 193.1.100.62 If you continue to call people biased towards terrorists, things could get difficult for you. Already, almost no one takes you seriously. If you want to contribute to the map, then actually do so instead of calling people biased terrorists on the talk page. It only makes you like like the biased troll, not us. If you want changes to be made, provide sources. Otherwise, shut up. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Russia now first outside country legally involved in Syrian War, first base established, China coming too.

Russia should now be shown on the map they have taken up positions on the front lines in Latakia province, and are actively engaged in ground and air operations against the Al Qaeda terrorists of Al Nusrat and the Al Qaeda terrorists of Army of Conquest/FSA. And also now in Eastern Aleppo on the battle to end the siege on Kurwas Military Airbase with massive reinforcements sent here with new equipment.

"Russian Marines and Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen Build a Protectorate in Western Syria " [22]

" Russian Jets Strike ISIS in East Aleppo to Propel the Syrian Army’s Advance on Kuweires Airbase "[23]

" Chinese Military Personnel Expected to Arrive in Syria "[24]

Also the rebel terrorists are leaving Zabadani Tomorrow it will be completely free of Terror. "Islamist Rebels Begin Withdrawal from Al-Zabadani: First Transport Buses Arrive" [25] The Syrian Arab Army will control this and Mayada completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.235.254 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Care to inject some more bias? The Russian military being actively involved in the fighting would be a massive developement., as would China's. To make edits that show Russian and Chinese military units being involved in fighting, I think we're going to need more than a single site, who's best interests are in making the government look good. DaJesuZ (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather hear from a non ISIS be-header supporter on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.84.255 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to take that as an insult, or if I should just ignore you as an ignorant, prejudiced 20 year old. I think I'll go with the latter, because, if you actually cared to look at my Talk page, I want the rebels, the more moderate, which does not include a;-Nusra, IS, or the Islamic Front to win this war, in the end. Your attempt to defame me only makes you look foolish.DaJesuZ (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So you support the FSA, who are now made up of Al Nusrat, Jayesh al islam and the islamic front. As far as I am aware there are 180000 FSA now rotting in the ground in Syria, along with their saudi arabian, Turkish, Jordanian, American, British, Israeli, Qatari, French supplied weapons and money. Along with their false revolution. Not to mention that the rebels are around 15% actually Syrians. The rest being mainly Sauids, Chechins, Libyians, Eygptions, Jordanians, Pakistani, and many many more breeds from Europe. Ya keep believing in a faction that has completely been wiped off the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.84.255 (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

>Injecting my own post here, as a rebuttle to the pro-Assad moron.

Again, if you read my talk page, you'd see that I would want those who are moderates to be in charge of Syria. The FSA is not gone, and remains one of the largest participants in the walk. Jabhat al-Nusra (aN) and the Islamic Front (IF), aren't a part of the FSA, thank Christ, however, the FSA does have an uneasy alliance with the groups. I feel the same way towards both of these groups as I do towards IS, I want them glasses, however, when the time is right. Again, read my talk page, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Don't ignorantly throw accusations at me, creating further polarization of this page.

Care to provide some proof that 80% of those killed in this war are rebels? I can pull up many statistics, from the UN, and even the Syrian government, that state that the casualties are somewhat comparable, with more rebels having been killed due to lack of sophisticated hardware and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please adhere to "Wikipedia is not a forum" [26]. Nobody is interested in your opinion on the various factions in this war. This is a map about actual control of towns, cities and military bases in Syria. So if you have reliable sources that state that Russia or China took some towns or bases from SAA, please post them and explicitly state the names of the towns or bases. 84.138.69.94 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that Russian/ Chinese forces should be included under government forces just like Hezbollah has been instead of adding new colour icons which would confuse the map further.Prohibited Area (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Hezbollah and Iranian units fight alongside SAA, but there is not enough data to show them on the map, unlike Nusra and the rebels, which have solid control over certain towns. Russian military units, if they are on the front lines at all, are most likely deeply embedded within Syrian army units in an advisory role, i.e. spotting for airstrikes, providing tactical advice, etc. It is for this reason they cannot be shown.
And will we stop it already with the partisan rhetoric, 83.71.84.255! Stop accusing people of supporting one side when it is not relevant to the discussion. It is not useful and needs to stop immediately. If you don't want to contribute to the map and instead are trolling the talk page, kindly leave immediately. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This page is already full of colors and super complicated . it is more confusinng than helping for those who are not already verry verry aware of the Syrian civil war. Don't get me wrong this is my favourite page on Wiki I love it. but the last thing to make it better is adding more colors. Adding color for Druz, Russians, Turks ect.... THAT IS NOT GOING TO WORK .As for the comparison between JN and Rebels I was againist making a seperate color for JN all the way from the begining, anyway that was discussed intensively we reached agreement that JN is a separate color because it has clashes with other rebel groups and THAT WAS THE CRITERIA to keep it in a seperate color. As for now russian involvment is no different than Iranian or Hizbullah involvment and as long as these factions cooperate together and no internal clashes between them . THEY SHOULD STAY THE SAME COLOR. Helmy1453 (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Blue and purple dots

Guys, the blue and purple dots are totally confusing. It seems some editors are using those with no coordination whatsover, resulting in a complete confusion on the map. The purple looks like a new force in the war, while the blue seems redundant (1 dot??). We should decide what is the exact usage of blue prior to implementing it (Druze, unaffiliated, etc.). Regarding purple - we already have half red-half green circle, so what is the point of purple??GreyShark (dibra) 09:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, we have blue as being Druze in the documentation, but it's mainly been used as an "other" before, or for whatever group people wanted to add such as Assyrians or Turkmen. Banak (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
GreyShark, there is no need for any confusion. Blue means a local unaffiliated tribe, such as the Druze, as opposed to Druze who support the government. This is the main reason why Suwayda is still marked red, because no one controls part of the city that is not aligned with the government. Hence it is red, even though it is Druze. If the Druze do rise up against the government, we will most likely use blue as the color to represent them, to differentiate them from the rebels. This is why it was listed as such in the description. Purple means a ceasefire/truce situation, such as Fuah/Kefraya and Zabadani; it is the same purple used in the Damascus map to indicate truce.
With regards to whether the green-red icon should be used to indicate joint control, this would not work well in the Fuah/Kefraya area, as the rebels do not control any part of those towns. In Zabadani it might work, but as of right now, purple is the best way of indicating that the towns in question are not being fought over, even though they were. In my personal opinion, joint control means a lot more than just a truce or ceasefire agreement. In the case of Tell Abyad, the joint control indicates the fact that the local Arab rebels and Kurds jointly control the town as allies, though they have separate affiliations. I don't think this would convey the right message if used in Zabadani, for example. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is unwise - it looks like another force in the map; Also we don't have purple on any other conflict map in the MENA region.GreyShark (dibra) 06:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pbfreespace3: - where is the discussion on introduction of purple color to the map?? I wanna see it.GreyShark (dibra) 08:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the discussion, GreyShark. The creator of the map made this change.

Afghan Template?

Anyone interested in creating a template for the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan? Personally I do not know how to create such a map and hence I am asking if any other editors would be happy to create one? I believe that the Taliban has control over some areas of Helmand as well as areas of Kunduz, including most of the city itself.Prohibited Area (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a map, but I'm totally in support of this. IS has been gaining support, and the Taliban have gained, apparently, total control of the provincial capital of Kunduz, and are moving in on the airport. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34377565DaJesuZ (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I can make the file if you like, but you'll have to agree a key etc. I have links to all the existing ones I'm aware of on my user page. Banak (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Created at Template:Taliban insurgency and Module:Taliban insurgency. Banak (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You are officially awesome, Banak. I will go there immediately. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well done, will take a look.GreyShark (dibra) 06:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you very much Banak.Prohibited Area (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

YPG takes Al Heisha (?)

Reports/tweets (here) that YPG take full control of Al Heisha (east of Ayn Issa, north of Raqqah). Does anyone have a valid source or more info on this? Rhocagil (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I just made the edit. Since it is pro-Kurdish, I changed it to a contested icon from black. According to Wikimapia, there are actually 2 Heishas, a north and a south. The north was marked contested, with the south black. I changed it to: north YPG-held, south contested. I think that is a fair compromise. Please keep a look out for new information. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar

I am less and less attracted to this map. My last edit is probably several weeks ago old, maybe months. As long as we use Al Masdar as a direct source this map will not change, and will stay the same and outdated. Basically i just canot believe that we use a source which autor is Leith Fadel, banned 2 times from twitter for racism and fascism voice. He openly makes fun for civilians casulties, praises foreign forces in Syria (Iran/Hezbollah etc) calls for the extermination of 200k rebels in Syria, calls for killing civilians in Jisr Shugur, Qariatajn etc because they are traitors etc. Now to get back to Al Masdar. Basically, every article contains like 70% of fictinal content, which was just made up to fill in the gap, i know that because twitter users always make fun of him on twitter because he posts things which can't be theoretically true.

The best last examples are :
  • According to Al Masdar, the SAA has recaptured Jazal oilfield for 2 times already, actually they wrote 3 articles, in first they said "SAA repeld ISIS atacks on Jazal", next article is "SAA recaptured Jazal", next article is "SAA recaptured Jazal area after clashes with ISIS".
  • The next example is Deir Ezor. ISIS, SOHR and rebel sources said that ISIS advanced around the airport and captured some areas including the missile battalion. While Al Masdar denied any ISIS advance and said that SAA is actually advancing. Their next article is actually even more weird, they wrote "SAA repeled ISIS attacks on the airport" which is contradictionary because now suddenly SAA is actually still inside the airport. To make this even worse, next Al Masdar article says that SAA recaptured the missile batalion, which is again contradictionary beacuse they said that SAA never lost it.
  • Next example is Kanaker town south of Damascus. Al Masdar is convincing us that this town is under SAA control and always was, and now suddenly 3 years later they write an article where they say "At least 500 rebels surender in Kanaker" .... i mean.....
In my opinion Al Masdar canot be used as a Direct source for edits, because their Syria articles are writen by Leith Fadel, and he basically has no idea what's happening in Syria, those who follow him on twitter know that. He was actually talking with Aris Rousinos on twitter (a guy from Vice news who was in Hasaka), and Leith Fadel was convincing him that his reports are fake and that everything what he said was a lye, YPG never captured those areas etc ... i mean ..

That's it from me, i don't really have time to argue about this. DuckZz (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think, Al Masdar never stated that SAA captured the missile batallion near Deir Ezor. There was an article ambigously stating that SAA controls "the base" which however referred to the Airbase, not the missile batallion [27].109.43.2.221 (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No matter what you say, the source is up-to-date and fairly accurate. SOHR also has the problems you mentioned above. Deserttanker (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Leith is way more unbiased than the SOHR who simply cheats with deaths. Most of the points you mention are simple liar, also you are a moderate/non moderate beheader supporter duckzz.Totholio (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz why do you bather ? you already know this page is highly dominated with proregime editors . This is an obvious face super clear from the history of this talk page. you find 60-80% of the edititors writing about terrosirsts and SAA freeing areas ect. Helmy1453 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

you should learn to write before claiming "proregime" editors. This map is better than most security analysis maps and big media outlets maps.Totholio (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


This is a very brutal, bloody conflict, where all of the sides hate each other and want to kill each other. They are willing to lie, exaggerate, inflate death tolls, and outright make up information to support their side and point-of-view. In my personal opinion, SOHR is pro-rebel, as it constantly accuses SAA of deliberately killing civilians (which I think it does) and Masdar is pro-government, because Leith Fadel constantly calls rebels 'terrorists dogs, pigs, rats', etc. and happily posts photos of dead rebel fighters.

The truth here is not: there is no truth. What is actually going on on the battlefield is very hard to find out given the reliability of the sources reporting it. Everyone is going to exaggerate to make their side look good. Pro-gov sources brag about airstrikes and dead terrorists, pro-rebel sources brag about TOW missiles destroying regime tanks, ISIS sources gloat about killing everyone, and Kurds, though the most reliable group, still often fail to report battlefield losses, with the exception of obvious cases like Kobani.

"pro rebel" brag about hundreds of beheadings/executions, abu seqqar the cannibal is getting interviewed as "liberator of Idlib", and suicide bombings. I'm not sure why duckz is crying here, this map is much better than most of the professional ones. I'm not sure who he supports cause the "moderate opposition" only lives on paper, he has 0 credibility.Totholio (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My point here is that we cannot use either SOHR or Masdar. Both are laced with bias but also rough truths sometimes. Few other sources report on the conflict as much as these 2 do, and if we decide we can't use 1, then we can't use the other either. Either we use both or neither: that is the only way the map will remain somewhat 'reliable'. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We started using Al Masdar since April i think, and before that this map was perfectly up to date, no mistakes, no nonsense discussions, we used SOHR as a final source, and it was good. Al Masdar was listed as a source because few pro-regime trolls said that it's not fair to use SOHR only. So basically they didn't care about the map, their plan was to make this wikipedia page a battle between pro-rebel and pro-government editors, just like twitter. They are not doing edits, they just don't care and want this map to get biased and unreliable for the public, which is actually happening. DuckZz (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, what things on the map do you think are incorrect or biased towards the regime? I would like to talk about them to make them map better. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, if you really think that SOHR (also known as the one-man organization -Rami Abdurrahman-, yeah, told me about that mantra of the phantasmagoric "net of activists on the ground", yawn) is neutral and not staunchly pro-terrorist "opposition", you have a big, big comprehensive problem... And talking that until April there were no mistakes, no hard discussions, etc... is simply bullshit & lies, with more that 50 talk pages archived, dozens of editors blocked, 1 Revert-Rule included long ago, several other rules implemented several months ago, etc... But well, its so easy to see that you support one side of the conflict. I dont blame you for that, as most editors here (including me) are in a similar position, but the difference is that I dont have any problem on editing YPG or ISIS gains for example, and I dont misinterpretate or try to POV-push in favour of my politically-driven opinion...--HCPUNXKID 14:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, That is what I told you. For every realiable real logical editor like Pbfreespace3 in this page there is ten lier pro-regime stupid nonheaded senselss crule undescribalbe creatures like .Totholio . One more thing SOHR is definitly Pro-rebel. That is unarguiable. but I guss it's acuaricy and reliability is unquesionable by all moderate/neutral editors in here. only hardcore Pro-Regime editors are questioning it. Helmy1453 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Helmy1453 I actually think it is quite funny that some pro-government people think this map is biased towards rebels (SyrianObserver2015), while others think it is quite good and accurate (Totholio). Also, some pro-rebel people think this map is biased towards the government (DaJesuZ). People of different loyalties all see what they want in this map. I think it is pretty accurate as it is, and is becoming more of a professional-quality map every day. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Pbfreespace3, I do not believe this map is biased towards either side, but am staunchly anti-government in this war. The map seems to be mostly accurate. The only issue I take with the Syrian Civil War page, and the maps and pictures on it, is the downloadable file, which has its frontlines going absolutely nuts, looking like they were drawn by a five year old with ADHD on meth.DaJesuZ (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
DaJesuZ I take it you mean File:Syrian_civil_war.png? Do you consider File:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png's Syria borders to be better or worse? How would you change the map? Banak (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Banak, I would smooth out the front lines on File:Syrian_civil_war.png, because, like I said, it looks like a kid with schizophrenia, who just drank a lot of coffee, drew them, especially in central Syria. This is purely an aesthetics thing, and because I'm on the Talk page, here, or the Cities and Towns page, this isn't a big issue, for me.DaJesuZ (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000, who is also known as BlueHypercane761, is the person who draws these maps. He intentionally disregards this map and the control areas, claiming they have an anti-Kurdish bias and other biases, and instead draws his own lines. If you have an issue, you should take it up with him on his talk page. I have done so, but he has refused to bring his map in line with ours. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
While I'm interested the above perception and how accurate it is (and I mean very interested because it directly effects when and how I update the maps), I must point out that the thing being complained about is wiggly front lines is on a map lightanddark hasn't updated since June. It apprars it is DuckZz's front line on File:Syrian_civil_war.png that is being discussed. Banak (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes. DuckZz's. I see now. I agree, they could be better. The Tiyas area is accurate though. Also, it appears he has used comic sans rather than whatever font we use for some of the labels, such as Ghurah near Hasakah. At least the towns are actually ACCURATE and true to this map! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sabsaba, Daraa

We had the town of Sabsaba (Daraa) marked red on our map for a long time until this edit made it green based on copying from a map. As you can see at 2015 Southern Syria offensive#Sabsaba, we had it red based on SOHR and Al-Masdar from March 1. On the other hand, a google search on the words “Sabsaba Syria” in English and Arabic (سبسبا سوريا) returned no news reports after the date of the sources we already had (March 1). If Sabsaba was recaptured by the rebels, at least someone (anyone) would mention it. So Sabsaba is still gov-held as we had it before the edit that copied from an incorrect map. In addition, you can see on the comments to the map (that we copied), messages that point out the mistake in the map: “nice map but sabsabah under SAA control.” Tradediatalk 08:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Change it! Rhocagil (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian military

With heavy Russian military presence in Syria, and it active role in the war since today - we should indicate its forces on the map. It cannot be shown as "Syrian" forces, since Russia is far from being a part of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance, but rather a third party with its own regional interests. Its forces are also very significant - including an entire marine base and a fully secured air field (with no Syrian presence). Ideas?GreyShark (dibra) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If we should mark this out, I think that in this stage we should only mark out the marine base and the airbase. Rhocagil (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by, "indicate its forces." Hezbollah and Iranian forces have always been shown as red, indicating that they were fighting for Assad to stay in power, which I think should be continued. Marking Russian forces off, but leaving icon colours Red seems, to me, to be the best plan.DaJesuZ (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
GreyShark you say "Russia is far from being a part of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance, but rather a third party with its own regional interests" which in my openion is incorrect. Russia is obviosly part of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance and they even don't claim otherwise. Putin clearly stated we are in Syria to support Assad to saty in power . simple . If you hate stating a super power like Russia under the name of Syrian forces then change thwe name to Regime Allience or whatever name is proper. But uptill now as long as Russia is fighting with the red team sharing land acuring and giving it to Regime/Iran/Hizbullah without clashing with them . and as it doesn't have any seperate administration . I say Russian forces red .Simple . Crear easy to modify . All pros no cons . seperate color is confusing for editiong imposible to track and will make this map unreadable for other than who makes it. do you make this map for yourself or other viwers . If there wa a poll on this I am sure regular Wiki readers will love less colors and teams to understand what is going on . Note that as in Ukrain Russia will not announce every clash and position it is in. No transperant data will be available to track. Helmy1453 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There is already an idea to mark Hezbollah forces as pink. I guess my proposal for the Russian forces would be dark red.GreyShark (dibra) 17:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm opposing this vehemently. I have no issue with areas Russia may take for the regime being labeled as such.
Here's just an example: Th Lime area of the map is controlled by the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front, and various other conservative and moderate opposition groups, however, they work together to accomplish the same thing: Overthrow Assad, and institute a moderate to conservative Islamic government, however, these forces, again, work together, and, while their alliance has been very tenuous, and often times strained to the breaking point, as was the case with al-Nusra, they don't fight among each other, openly, to any large extent.
My point is that if you are going to start making some dots Pink, and others Dark Red, for the sole purpose of showing what regime-aligned group controls what towns, you would need to do the exact same thing with the swath of territory in Aleppo and Idlib. This idea has no point, and simply doesn't work.DaJesuZ (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless Russia forces start fighting with Hezbollah/Iran/Syrian Gov keep them red. Banak (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Banak and DaJesuZ. Pbfreespace3. (talk)
Don't care what you guys think of me doing it; Partisan, and blatantly biased rhetoric and accusations do absolutely nothing to help in the development of this map, and can only polarize it further, so if I see another unsourced post by the pro-government moron referring to anyone opposed to the Syrian government as, "terrorists," or leaders of various terrorist organizations, such as Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State, I'm removing them. Sue me. I don't see how posts like that do anything to help the map, and most people WANT the biased crap to end.DaJesuZ (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what this comment has to do with this thread, however I agree with removing unsourced edits, or edits from same side sources. Banak (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess DaJesuZ just people just can't understand the differnce between FAcebook and Wikipedia . Sad fact Helmy1453 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Banak funnily, someone is deleting the thread I keep making about the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
For some reason that use of my name didn't give me an alert, which is odd (and not your fault). I will talk in the section below. Banak (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Watch your eyes on Northen-Homs governate

According to pro-goverment Al-Masdar news, the SAA is preparing a major offensive against the remaining rebel-held areas to north of Homs with the help of Syrian and Russian Air Force: [28] Oroszka (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front along Turkish-Idlib border

This map released by the Institute for the Study of War [29] shows the al-Nusra Front controlling the border between Idlib province and Turkey, which would make the towns of Al-Alani and at-Tulul as being under their influence. --Ritsaiph (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph Which map? We don't usually use maps as sources for edits as they can be unreliable, especially on a large scale. The map probably infers Al-Nusra influence and not necessarily un-opposed absolute control hence I oppose changing the entire border region to al-Nusra.82.153.100.135 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
82.153.100.135 , this map: [30] --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Quneitra changes

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

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

Massively biased and unsorced posts

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

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

It is my belief that we need to stop all personal attacks. The revert rules and misunderstanding what Wikipedia considers to be vandalism get enough people blocked and banned as it is. If we can calmly discuss sources without talking of bias or anything, that'd be a massive improvement and save us all time and energy.
This also means, I hope we can move towards saying "you can't use that source because it's pro-gov" rather than "Stop pushing your pro-gov viewpoint" etc. In short, can we actively try to be civil? Banak (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

DuckZz, your claim of 40 days is incorrect, you have edited the map several times within the last 40 days, perhaps you mean it's been about that long since the edit warring block? In your eyes, what job are Admins not doing that they should?
Can you either demonstrate that the areas you believe to be wrong were done via a bad edit, of provide a usable source that backs you up, if possible. At the very least say specifically what you believe to be wrong. Banak (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
russian senator? hahaha it was only dreamed by the israeli debkafiles http://www.debka.com/article/24909/A-Chinese-aircraft-carrier-docks-at-Tartus-to-support-Russian-Iranian-military-buildup- Also this post makes 0 sense nobody cares what a pro al nusra duckz says, you have 0 credibility. Both SOHR(cheating with casualties, claiming 30 civilian deaths in Homs 2 hours before the russians started to bomb and now blaming them) and Al-masdar shouldn't be used as map editing source. Totholio (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Deserttanker, oh really? It's totally invalid? 213.94.235.254 was the address of someone who claimed that the Chinses military would be putting booth on the group in Syria, and had absolutely nothing backing it up, other than a pro-gov source. The Chinese government is in support of Bashar al-Assad, so how, exactly, is that point invalid?
Totholio, I somewhat side with you on this, however, SOHR is often denounced by several opposition groups as being pro-regime, and its head has even been called an Alawite (I don't have the source for this, but will look for it). The issue with not using either sone as a source is that we don't have much of an alternative.208.92.227.84 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 213.94.235.254, your sarcastic language cannot help you win. These two sources can totally reject your claim that China is pro-gov; the Chinese also denied its intervention: [31] [32] . Deserttanker (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar as a primary source

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both Al-Masdar and SOHR are NOT neutral. However, their statements about ground control of particular villages or bases usually are correct. While they are not NEUTRAL, they still are mostly RELIABLE, as far as ground control of concrete locations is concerned. So, in my opinion, we should use both Al-Masdar and SOHR, but strictly and precisely filter out all the propaganda and numbers of dead people and just focus on statements about control over concrete localities.131.188.48.174 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
For instance, the criticized Al-Masdar article ([33]) contains just a single sentence that is talking about actual changes in ground control: "With ISIS’ frontlines crumbling, the Syrian Army’s 137th Brigade took advantage of this, capturing a half dozen building blocks and unearthing a 150 meter tunnel that belonged to the terrorist group inside the Al-Haweeqa District." This sentence probably reflects the actual situation. The rest of the article should be filtered out and ignored. 131.188.48.174 (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure Al-Masdar is so musch biased, here they report about rebels taking Tal Al-Ahmar Islamist Rebels Declare Control of Tal Al-Ahmar in the Golan Heights. --Hogg 22 (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Totholio I'm getting pretty sick of the partisan rhetoric, so let me reiterate: I do NOT want those who go around, finding those who infringe on every tiny thing Islamic law says must be followed, and doing things like burning these people alive, executing POW's, and using a fucking Roman amphitheatre as the stage for propaganda videos, but if you want to be an ass about it, why don't I mention the Syrian government killing those who dare question the government, the military, or anyone in them? I've stated before that BOTH sides are responsible for a large number of atrocities, many of which amount to war crimes and human rights violations, but I refuse to support an authoritarian government taking it upon itself to eliminate opposition to it. Would you enjoy being thrown into a gulag? That's literally what you're backing, should you question the government. The SOHR article you provided proves my point, by the way, as it would appear the Syrian government is fudging the numbers to make themselves look better. Nice work completely contradicting the fucking point of your post.
131.188.48.174, kinda hard to do that when you're being called a terrorist.DaJesuZ (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

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

new updates pls.

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. Tradediatalk 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. Tradediatalk 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. Tradediatalk 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Do not archive this yet. Tradediatalk 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all the points raised by Tradedia in this section. Also, frustration with the blind application of "sources" by Hanibal911 was part of the reason I stopped contributing to this page a while back. (I was also busy with other priorities.)
I'm glad to see the reorientation of this page, as I think that it makes a very valuable contribution to Wikipedia as well as informing about the situation in Syria.
-- my 2 cents André437 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.kafanet.com/
  2. ^ http://www.kafanet.com/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war/Archive_52&oldid=1136334952"