Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Getting mixed messages

Arab chronicle is being used to add pro-regime villages, yet we were just lectured above on why we should only be using it for the opposition-isis fight. Sopher99 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK it is simple we use pro-opp maps to add government held areas and pro-government maps to add rebel areas I do not see anything confusing here.Also if the maps contradict each other(the same place is mapped as rebel held on a pro-opp map and government held on a pro-gov map) then we come to the talk page and discuss the status of the town before adding it.Simple as that.Same goes to ISIS-rebel fighting but as the ISIS don't have any maps we cant use the opposition maps.Daki122 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User Hanibal911 seems to believe that using unverified sources is unacceptable even to add areas to the other side. I guess let's see if he follows up on that and reverts the latest changes. Kami888 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We should classify sources as reliable based on the reliability and objective nature of their reporting. By those measures, the SOHR and the Arab Chronicle are two of the most reliable sources. And SANA is not for several reasons : (1) it is the news agency of a party to the conflict. (2) it uses inflamatory language in its' reporting, and (3) it has a terrible track record, frequently lying about places where it supposedly has taken total control. Daraya is one of the most notable examples.
Of course there are many other sources, both pro-regime and pro-rebel.
We shouldn't assume that all western media are reliable, since they contain many opinion articles that are only loosely based on facts. Which are no more reliable than a typical facebook article. Similarly, we shouldn't assume that all that appears on facebook is not reliable. It is not the media that is the question, it is the nature of the article, and the source.
Is the article an opinion piece, some sort of advocacy, or is it a objective presentation of the facts ? Does it contain enough detail to be clear ? Was it posted after reflection, or on impulse ? Most of these factors would *tend* to eliminate twitter posts (which are too short), as well as facebook (a common media for opinions not necessarily related to facts).
We should not forget : it is the nature of the article that counts, and the reliability of the source, and not the media in which it appears. André437 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Arab Chronicle is a reliable source. Two reasons: First, the "Arab chronicle" is really just one French guy from facebook who had made himself a tiny website to express his opinions, nothing more, he is not an authoritative or mainstream source by any means. He could therefore say absolutely anything without any consequence, there is no pressure on him to be accurate or reliable. Second, he has a history of making verifiably false claims. His maps of Aleppo area tend to be very bad and show the rebels in control of up to 90% of the city proper including areas known to be under government control, and his reporting on the Qusayr situation in May 2013 was so inaccurate that even the rebel bloggers are now weary of him. So I suggest that we be weary too. As for SOHR, it is a source of a directly involved party, is it not? Most of the mainstream media refers to it as the rebel's media arm basically. Whether you think SOHR's information may be accurate or not, I still suggest avoiding it just like we avoid SANA and for the same reason. Kami888 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Arab Chronicle is more that just one person. In depends on numerous sources on the ground, which are verified before publishing, at least in the articles on the site, and on facebook. There are others who help with translation (into english).

The important factor is that he has an excellent track record. His Aleppo city maps have never shown more than about 60% rebel controled, which is the current situation mostly confirmed by maps from other sites. (Including WP in the Alep area, although WP is understandably a little slow to show changes.) Overall, he has tended to show rebel gains (and losses) a little more quickly than other sources.

BTW, using one 9-word comment on twitter about his twitter messages in January 2014 as evidence of his reporting on Qusayr in May 2013 (when he didn't yet have a twitter account) is at most an indication of your bias, not his. As well, it was in a thread on Raqqa at the beginning of January, during a time the rebels had the upper hand there. Before the ISIS brought in reinforcements (from Iraq). No-one is proposing that twitter messages be used, partly because as well as being very short, twitter messages are focused on situations at the moment, which can quickly change, as was the case in Raqqa.

2) SOHR is an independant observer, not a party to the conflict like SANA. The rebels have several media sites. YallaSouriya that you quoted above is an informal pro-rebel site. The SOHR has a strong reputation for impartial and accurate reporting as well, and is used by many mainstream western media. It has condemned misdeeds of both sides. Since the regime is considerably worse (according to UN investigators), there has been understandably more against regime misdeeds.

3) SANA cannot be used as it is a primary source, being the news organ of a party to the conflict. As well it is noted for false claims of regime advances, and frequently omitting to mention aspects of events unfavourable to the regime. For instance, false claims of the surrender of rebels in Barzeh, despite photos available showing jointly manned regime-rebel checkpoints at entries to the neighbourhood and the rebel flag still flying. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

André437 - I disagree with your assessment of AC and SOHR for many reasons, but I don't want to have a drawn out argument here, it's not a political forum (WP:FORUM). Would you like if we put this matter to a vote? I'm fairly confident that most people here would vote against AC and SOHR being considered reliable. That would settle the matter once and for all. Kami888 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

SOHR and Arab Chronicle reliable what the bloody hell did I just read.They never report government advances(unless they have to) and are pro-opp sources much like SANA and Presstv which should not be used(unless they are claiming that the other side advanced).And if we are talking about reliability then what is wrong with Presstv report on Barzeh they have video evidence and I can not see anything better than a video evidence to confirm a rebel/government gain.Daki122 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that SOHR and Arab Chronicle never report government advances unless they happen. Which shouldn't be surprising for impartial sources. (Unlike SANA.)

Reports showing citizens returning to Barzeh are to be expected, since that is part of the detailed agreement posted by the Arab Chronicle. Even SANA reported much of the agreement, a little later.

Glad to see that you accept video evidence. The Arab Chronicle report of the rebels taking the last regime point in Jasim (the region hospital), with considerable video and photo evidence and detailed description was rejected in discussion here (as "unreliable"), only to be accepted 2 weeks later due to a western media source, which had no one on the ground in Syria. So I presume that the next time such a question arises, true to your word, you will accept the Arab Chronicle report. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kami888 Hanibal911 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Soo.. I see people are continuing to use AC maps to draw in more red on the map. Shouldn't we be reverting that? Kami888 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but if an AC map is annotated with places and dates of events, I would find that acceptable. And if it clearly shows places controled by the regime (without dates), I would find it acceptable as well.

Particularly I'm thinking of AC maps, which are generally well annotated in both english and french, but any map from a reliable source that meets those criteria would be acceptable to me.

As far as reliable source, I think the track record is what counts. By this standard, SOHR and Arab Chronicle are among the (many) reliable sources. Although the SOHR often doesn't mention control, but rather conflicts and death tolls, which can make control somewhat difficult to determine.

Note that the WP guidelines say that it is not the preferences of the source, but rather the objectiveness of the reporting that counts. Please keep this in mind.

As well as a reliable source, we also need unambiguous information. It is not enough to say one party advanced to decide that they took full control. Recent reports on Adra demonstrate this point. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I did. I also think we should stop to use SOHR directly from the homepage, just what the mainstream media sees as reliable. While SOHR is way more reliable than other sources, and what they report is mostly true, its still just one guy in London, getting his information from "activists" in Syria. For example, they reported multiple times the capture of Wadi Daif encampment, and in the end of the day, nothing happened but some minor clashes. OberschIesien90 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I like this "just one guy in London" phrase. Besides the fact that mainstream source reporters are "just one guy" (or woman), that is not what counts. What counts is the track record of the observer.

The ultimate sources are either connected with the regime, connected with the rebels, or "activists" who are generally more sympathetic to the rebels than the regime. Not surprising considering the massive anti-regime protests. There is also the occasional exception of a foreign reporter given a guided tour by one side.

I'd be really interested in seeing references to SOHR claims of rebels taking Wadi Daif. Besides the fact that SOHR rarely claims control (except more recently), I've followed SOHR since long before this WP page, and have never noticed such a claim.

However some sources have said that the rebels intended to take the base, and evidently they didn't succeed. They have made similar declarations of intent for Damascus and Alep, which were only partly successful.

But that contrasts sharply with a number of regime declarations that they had already taken a place, which later turned out to be false. (e.g. Daraya) André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had proposed that (using only SOHR reports when they are published by mainstream media) several months ago, but some users replied then "if mainstream media uses sometimes SOHR reports that means that all SOHR reports an always credible and reliable, so no need to use a mainstream media source, but SOHR sources intead (even from their Facebook page)". Of course, when I pointed "mainstream media sometimes also publishes SANA reports" they rapidly replied "no, no, SANA cannot be used a source, even if they are quoted by mainstream media". A clear example of partisan sectarianism and double standards. Good luck in trying to convince that people...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is any double standard, it is trusting an undocumented article by a reporter from "mainstream media" sources over a documented report by other sources, or over a report from source with a considerable track record of accuracy, like the SOHR and Arab Chronicle. The irony of all this is that in terms of control, the most reliable media to date has been the Arab Chronicle, only better than the SOHR because the SOHR doesn't focus on control.

Think : if claim A depends entirely on claim B, then considering claim A adequate for changing the map means that claim B must be adequate as well. And if claim B is not adequate, then claim A can't be either.

Simple logic. André437 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your view of logic is twisted, for not saying something worse. So you say that a partisan activist report is more reliable and credible than a neutral journalist report?. OK, enough said. That portraits your POV and attitude in WP very, very clear. And you still claim that Arab Chronicle is not a reliable source, but the most reliable media!!! (an amateur blog from a French student with a record of lies, false claims, etc..., yes, it sounds much more reliable than any worldwide mainstream media). Keep trying to made the rest of users using activist blogs, Facebook and tweets as reliable sources while trying to block real journalistic sources, you are trying to break several WP rules, so I dont think you are going to reach anyway with that...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

1) I have never claimed the Arab Chronicle is not a reliable source. Rather, it is one of the most reliable sources available.

2) You obviously misunderstand the meaning of media.

3) Denigrating a post-graduate student in arab and middle east history with hundreds of local contacts misses the point of reliable source. Some of the best sources are researchers who specialise in methodic gathering and confirming of information.

4) It would be interesting if you could enumerate any "lies, false claims, etc" from the Arab Chronicle. The worst I have seen is being a day or two late to recognize certain changes on the ground (regime or rebel gains). Other times he is 2 or 3 months ahead of other media, as he has been more than once in Daraa. "Mainstream" western media is often weeks after the fact.

5) Maybe you are challenged by the fact that the Arab Chronicle is initially french-language. English (as well as arabic) is a second language. Similar to SOHR being initially in arabic. Both have help translating their english posts. (For following the Arab Chronicle, I do have the advantage of being fluent in french.) André437 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Manjib

Kurdish factions are advancing on the areas of manjib and al bab against ISIS, according to the arab chronicle. https://twitter.com/ced_lab

keep an eye out forces sources confirming. Sopher99 (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Twitter not reliable. EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither is ced_lab, which is unfortunate because that guy has potential. Kami888 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the Arab Chronicle is reliable (he specialises in arab/middle east history), but his twitter posts are often on transiant situations, so we should wait to see a trend over time. As well, we will need the names of the specific locations involved. (This is typical of the most reliable posts on twitter.)

BTW, it is kurdish (al-Akrad) and FSA-associated forces together according to his posts. He says that the YPG is supplying arms to al-Akrad (but not the FSA), but the YPG is not participating directly.

(FWIW, my view is that the YPG/PYD is trying to respect the "canton" boundaries they set up, in the hope of future accommodation with moderate rebels.) André437 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Musbin, Idlib

location: http://wikimapia.org/27873703/Musbin Does anybody have information in regards to this town? which is east of Ariha, so far ive read from Pro-Government tweets and @TahrirSy from twitter which claim that the Syrian army has taken the town and showing a picture of a soldier with syrian flag & video from syrian tv, please regard this as reference only. More information would be appreciated.-- Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Soran

Soran in Northern Hama seized by Government troops per SOHR. https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/484623178312692?stream_ref=10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.163.223 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In other news, visual evidence that another one of Ced_Lab's maps is wrong:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Besh-OYCYAIRcUH.png:large

Assad's troops in Muadamiya Feb 4,2014:

https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/p180x540/1013846_629838897051896_1200233034_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/p180x540/1601055_629838367051949_1689833171_n.jpg

Tread carefully. Kami888 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To those trying to discredit Cedric Labrousse's maps, his map was made simply BEFORE the fall of Souran and at the time he made the map, Morek wasn't fully under rebel control yet. --Amedjay (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Who's trying to discredit his maps o.O? The only person discrediting CedLab's maps is CedLab himself by making gross one-sided errors in half his maps. It's obvious by now that he's a pretty crappy source of information on the subject. Kami888 (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you had been following Arab Chronicle posts, you would have noticed the following :

1) It has reported the loss of Soran by the rebels, a day or so after taking Morek to the north. His latest map showing control of Soran, of at least a week before, showed only partial control of Morek. Evidently a regime counter attack had taken Soren, much like an adjacent rebel held town had been taken some time before. Changes which Arab Chronicle tends to report before other sources. Note that at the time of the last Arab Chronicle map of the area, the WP map had incorrectly shown Morek in uncontested control of the regime, and Soren as contested.

2) It is not evident where the photos you posted were taken. Please note :

2a) The truces reported by the Arab Chronicle gives the right of unarmed personel (including soldiers) to freely enter truce areas controled by the other side. As you can see in the diagram of truce areas, some are at least partially under control of the regime.

As well, the Arab Chronicle said that preliminary reports of the first truce agreement in the Damascus area, with Mouadamiyah, said that the regime flag would fly.

Tell me, do you see any armed regime soldiers in your photos ? If this is Mouadamiyah, note that it would be next to Daraya, largely held by the rebels.

3) Most observers realise that the war is not static. Just as the WP map will change according to the changing control, Arab Chronicle maps represent control at one point in time. The changes in the Morek-Soren area are an excellent example. As was the few months that the rebels held the town of Khanasir, later celebrated by the regime as an important regime advance when retaken. Another example is control of Raqqa city and surrounding area, which escaped ISIS control at the beginning of January, later retaken by the ISIS, a control now seriously compromised by rebel guerilla attacks causing important losses on ISIS forces there now. (Which shows how difficult it is for well armed forces to control an area against the will of the population.)

4) Most western sources miss many details of the war. Unlike sources with considerable local contacts, such as SOHR and Arab Chronicle. (It also helps to be able to communicate in arabic.)

- André437 174.93.178.123 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As expected, tons of imaginary excuses for what is a pretty obvious mistake on the part of ced_lab. :) Within the past few weeks we have seen no reports of the situation in Mouadamiyah changing radically, which means what he painted was simply incorrect. It's just like his other maps I've already shown previously, such as this [1], clearly screaming of professional quality, keen attention to detail, and lack of obvious errors. In fact in almost any map he's made I can point to factual errors, some more obvious than others. But while everyone makes mistakes, his mistakes are often rather gross and very one-sided. Basically, the maps and statements made by him on Arab Chronicle are to be considered insufficient evidence to show rebel gains or presence. It is already the policy followed as of now, and it shall continue to be followed as well until/unless he works on improving his map quality. If you disagree with it, you are welcome to put it to a vote. Kami888 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please just prove us he made an actual mistake rather than just saying he doesn't know how to make maps without proofs.--Amedjay (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Kami888, you present something that is obviously a sketch giving the general situation without details, and includes the comment "possible ...". Besides the fact that it was a fair presentation of the approximate situation at the time, your comments are a totally unreasonable criticism of the reliability of Arab Chronicle reports.

As I have already very clearly pointed out, in considering the utility of a report, one should consider the reliability of the source (in general), and if the detail of the report is enough to support what we are claiming that it represents.

And as I have also pointed out, a map alone is not enough unless it is accompanied by textual information explaining the situation. Which, by the way, almost all Arab Chronicle maps contain either on or with the map when published. (In your example, the key word was "possible" on the sketch map.)

That requires analysis case by case.

Suspending analysis because it comes from a particular source is folly, whether it comes from one of the most reliable sources (e.g. SOHR or Arab Chronicle), or a usually reliable mainstream news source, or some other sometimes reliable news source.

Noting also that any claims by a party to the conflict (that is, the government or a rebel group) should automatically be suspect.

Many reports presented here as from a mainstream news source are just quoting the Assad regime (military or SANA) (e.g. most reports from China News, Iranian news agency, frequently Russia Today.) Nobody here should attempt to present such reports, unless they support a rebel advance or position held.

In claiming errors on the part of the Arab Chronicle, you seem to forget that control changes over time, sometimes rapidly. It is easy to go back to March 2011 and claim that the Assad regime controls all of Syria, or advance to March 2016 and say that the new democratic regime controls the entire country.

By the way, this shouldn't be decided by a popularity contest, but on the merits of the particular report. By consensus, and not "vote". If the accuracy of the WP map is the concern. Sometimes I get the feeling that in response to reasoned arguments, all I get in return is "nyaa nyaa" André437 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Jarabulus

I think we need change the city Jarabulus on contested. Because that this source Hawar News confirms that now in the Carablus clashes between FSA vs ISIS. And for those who dont know Carablus it is kurdish name for city Jarabulus.source Hanibal911 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I already did that but your buddy EkoGrak reversed it.Alhanuty (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Secondly the clashes include jabhat al Akrad,which means if ISIL loses the city,there will two yellow rings with one green ring.for jarabulus.Alhanuty (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Secondly the clashes include jabhat al Akrad,which means if ISIL loses the city,there will two yellow rings with one green ring.for jarabulus.Alhanuty (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

And about the city Jarabulus I absolutely agree with you. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

military bases under rebel control

i noticed that the map doesnt show any military bases and checkpoints under rebel control and we all know that the rebels managed to capture a lot of bases and checkpoints over the last few years

Yea but the rebels don't stay in these bases they are not garrisoning unlike the army which keeps tanks artillery pieces and other stuff in them and I don't blame the air force will not wait a second they will bomb them to bits so no point for rebels to hold a base.Daki122 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think the infantry school north of Aleppo is a base of the Tawhid Brigade/Islamic Front. Base 46 west of the city used to be under ISIS until it was captured last month. Kami888 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo Map pt Deux

Alepo map needs update the army has closed in on the eastern parts and has just taken Karm Al Tarb[2][3] this is pretty reliable evidence it cant get better than this.Daki122 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I can pinpoint some of the locations of those pics; indeed they are in Karam al-Tarab.-Rob2014 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor Governorate

Activist say ISIL has almost completely withdrawn its fighters from eastern province of Deir al-Zor.ISIL forces have pulled back to the eastern provinces of Raqqa and Hassaka, according to activists.Al Jazeera Reuters The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

latest updates in Aleppo

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/485391231569220?stream_ref=10

Put back kuwayris as bisieged .Alhanuty (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest waiting for a neutral source. SORH also said today that Aleppo Central Prison has fallen, and just a few hrs later it corrected that news. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.115 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. And we do not use pro opposition sources to display of rebel advances. Here is sources NOW News Inter Aksyon Relief Web Gulf Todayconfirms that rebels seized most of territory prison, but army took the initiative and retake part of seized territory. This is confirmed and SOHR. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

NONSENSE!!! SOHR reported,that 80% of the prison were taken and that later in the evening the rebels partially retreated because of heavy airstrikes and artillery-strikes! SOHR did NOT report the FULL capture of the prison. And there are also heavy fights inside Kuwaires-airport, the villages in the environment are clearly in rebel-hands.the village Judaydah near the airport MUST be under rebel-control,please change it to green or black!!!

Syrian troops repel rebels' attack on Aleppo's central prison. That confirmation from pro opposition source.All Voices and other sources Haberler Xinhua Daily News And also carefully read your source. Regime forces have taken back parts of the prison with Nusra and Ahrar forces retreating from areas surrounding the prison after intense bombardment on gathering areas.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian opposition groups fail to capture Aleppo prison.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also rebels in Aleppo only declared the beginning of the operation to try seize Aleppo central prison and the Kweiris military air base.7 News Hanibal911 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously ill and I advise you to contact a psychologist. It will do you good. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Users Like 2.186 should be permanently banned from writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.115 (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

SOHR reprot:"clashes continued between Jabhat Al-Nusra and Ahrar Al-Sham against regime forces around the central prison of Aleppo, regime forces regained control on wide parts of the prison, the clashes led to death of 20 regular forces and 17 fighters at least from Jabhat Al-Nusra most of them are non-Syrian fighters ( including the leader of this battle " Saif Allah Al-Sheshani " ), 4 Syrian fighters from Jabhat Al-Nusra were killed, and 5 prisoners killed by shrapnel inside the prison". So I guess the rebels did very good in the offensive(sarcasm).The rebels never reached the prison at first all there videos showed rebels attacking an nearby detention center but never actualy entered the citadel all the videos show that from the start of the attack till the end the rebels only were around the prison(100-200m) guess the rebels are so good in storming they cant take a place which is a year under siege my suggestion to the troops in the prison is to execute every rebel in it so even if the prison falls the rebels will only find there own fighters dead in it.Daki122 (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Advocating war crimes by the regime ? They do more than enough already André437 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian troops retook most of Aleppo's prison, lost to rebels a day earlier.Aid News Naharnet Z News The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Daki122 before bringing your 2 cents sarcasm here read this : https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/485769931531350 and just to tell you; if it wasn't for assad's warplanes, the prison, Al Kindi, Menagh, Hamidiyah and Wadi Daif would have fallen a LONG LONG time ago. You think that it's the soldiers inside the base who repelled heroically the attack but it in fact they've been beaten and they called help for the planes to come shelling the prison. As rebels risked too many losses, they pulled back. Remember the planes are the only thing keeping this prison and other besieged positions in assad's hands... --Amedjay (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok Amedjay the Syrian Army from now on will fight with no air support as yea the air force is too much for the rebels.The Syrian Army will drop there weapons and fight with rocks so it could be fair for the rebels you know as they are so strong and organized and the Army is just mean to them and they can't prove them self's.The Syrian Air force should get the new planes from Russia which they bought(36 YaK 130 and at least 24 Mig 29M/M2 MRCA) but wait that wont be fair for the rebels(I do belive the planes will be delivered as the Russians delivered the upgraded Su-24MK2 which are now running the show) well let me tell you this:"All is fair in love and war" so if they can't handle one little structure because of the air force god help them when they even try to attack on government front lines.And to all other users if you can't handle the truth don't bitch about it here and post offensive statements because that is only making you more pathetic then you actualy are.Daki122 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not tell you that the army should fight without airforce I just answered because you said the offensive is a disaster actually the offensive was NOT a disaster as it proved that rebels are capable to take the prison (with heavy losses though due to airforce). I'm trying to make you understand that if rebels did not keep the prison, it was because of assad's airforce that's all. War is not fair but you look like you're trying to convince yourself the soldiers in the prison heroically resisted and repelled the assauld. Anyways, nevermind, prison should stay red but besieged. --Amedjay (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude i'm just saying the rebels knew what they are going to fight with and if the latest reports in the media are true that Russia will step up its military support to the Syrian Army it is going to get even worse for the rebels I mean the Su-24 can carry 8 tons of ammo or to be precise it can carry enough bombs to level a small village a group of those can destroy a neighborhood with ease so it is a rely grim situation(even tough until this time of the war they haven't used large scale high altitude bombing attacks with groups of aircraft but that those not mean there won't be any) for the rebels as long as these planes keep flying and I personaly think that they will keep on flying as Russia is commited to support the Syrian government as it has much more interest there then the US(just not so long ago Russia paid 90 million dollars for oil research in the Syrian shore) so don't think this will end with Geneve II my bet it is going to get more serious with rebel groups dividing each other into smaller groups I mean look at the FSA it is non existent now it is either a small group of fighters , Islamic front or Al-Nusra so that is very grim as the opposition delegation in Geneva does not control these groups so even if a peace agreement is reached it will not be implemented on the ground.My opinion on Syria is a wide government from opposition "FSA" and the regime with the leading role going to the Army(Bashar can stay or go I don't care)as the Army is the only force powerful and organized enough to combat Islamists and thrust me Islamic front, Al-Nusra and ISIS are the same snake with tree heads they all want Sharia law which the minorities and some Sunnis(the middle class are very much pro-government and that is the only reason why the Army still has majority Sunni and has not defected as this is not a secterian conflict it never was)don't want to see in place.And one last thing is that I still can't belive that the US is supporting the same terrorists that did 9/11 they are betraying those who died in that terror attack and that is just sad to watch. Daki122 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Daki122, you claim that you can't tell the difference between the ISIS (almost as bad as the regime), al-Nusra, and the Islamic Front ? Since much of the info has already been presented here, and is readily available elsewhere, it looks like willful ignorance. For instance, insisting the the Islamic Front proposes the sharia, when they have formally proposed the rule of law. And considering the ISIS aberration of "sharia" as equivalent of that of al-Nusra, considering their respective behaviors, simply defies reason. In contrast, Assad's support of terrorists to attack other countries (at least Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia), as well as slaughtering innocent civilians, doesn't seem to bother you. Apparently the word al-Qaïda leaves you incapable of looking at the facts.

2) Many relatively moderate groups (such as the Islamic Front) cite the sharia as a guide to ensuring morality in future laws. Which is in no way the same as rule by the sharia. Not surprising, after 4 decades of Assad dictatorship. Others propose the sharia as an interim system of justice, until the Assad regime is toppled. Maybe you just don't understand "sharia" and "rule of law" ?

3) You claim that the US is supporting terrorism, but it is Russian and Iran that are supporting the biggest terrorist group, the Assad regime. All of the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been fighting al-Qaïda for decades (before 911), and at least the first 2 have only supported moderate rebels in Syria, who present little risk of terrorism.

4) BTW, I think that almost everyone in Syria, except the Assad clan, would appreciate a few weeks moratorium on air strikes in Syria. Particularly the civilians targeted by barrel bombs. André437 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Andre, it's not really useful to try to make them understand... They will just keep saying "no more moderate FSA just Al Qaeda baboons" which of course is false. It's just the pro-assad rhetoric... --Amedjay (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, more pro-terrorist cheerleading blabbering again...--HCPUNXKID 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

al-Yarmouk

Gunmen linked to the Jabhat al-Nusra group began pulling out of al-Yarmouk refugee camp in southern Damascus. The Palestinian brigades commanders and representatives of the Palestinian Popular Front earlier reached a deal to make the camp safe. The deal calls for the withdrawal of Jabhat al-Nusra from the camp after surrendering their headquarters to the Palestinian fighters.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we mark it as red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.115 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Better is to remove it from map, because camp position is over city circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No sources needed?

The situation here is reaching incredible levels, now I discovered that some users (well, its the same user wich is always causing troubles here) dont need sources to add towns to the map. Im talking about this & this. If so, I would be glad to add the towns i'd like without giving any source, as that user does. Oh, and someone with patience should try to explain him & others similar to him (good luck) the difference between journalistic sources and activist sources, something very difficult to understand for them...--HCPUNXKID 16:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

PBS frontline

They have up what looks to be a good map here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/map-syrias-shifting-battle-lines/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.64.46 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Map in this source is highly dubious do not think that we can use this map. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of unreliable sources

As some users are trying to use non-journalistic activist partisan sources while denying the use of journalistic sources, I would list some websites wich clearly cannot be used as source for the (decreasing) credibility of Wikipedia:

Peter Clifford Online[4] (Note the "rebel" flag on the top of the page, the personification of the Syrian gov. with Assad, the cartoons trying to mock "evil butcher" Assad, etc...). Clearly an unreliable partisan activist unreliable as a source.
Arab Chronicle [5] Amateur (the author is a French student!) partisan activist (just take a look at his Twitter account messages. If that's neutrality, Im a bishop. Not to mention his support to ISIS-Assad collusion conspiracy theories :-D, or as other user had stated earlier, that he had been exposed making false claims several times), clearly unreliable as a source.
EA World View [6] Another activist trying to look like journalists site, filled with agit-prop pieces (like this one, signed by a, quote:"observer and supporter of the Syrian Revolution", seems very neutral, huh?), conspiracy theories and short, crappy & blurry YouTube videos posted as purpoted evidences. Oh, not to mention that the Syrian Support Group lobby is one of EA's main advertisers, a guarantee of objectivity, I suppose...Another not reliable one.

The list can & sadly perhaps should go on, but I had more things to do now (I have a life), but perhaps I will continue with it tomorrow...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on this is ridiculous. Are we going to discard possibly the best source of info on the Syrian conflict, and by extension a wealth of valuable material; due to the concerns of (unconfimed) bias? (Both) SOHR (& Arab Chronicle)are (both) incredibly useful source(s). SOHR, although sometimes displaying elements of partisanship, certainly refrains from bias reporting. I think it is worth noting that SOHR is committed to reporting events from a Human Rights perspective and therefore posts abuses committed by both parties. The fact that SOHR espouses pro-rebel sentiment, certainly does not mean that it engages in bias reporting: there is a notable difference between the two. I think it is also worth noting that the reason behind SOHR's supposed support of the rebels originally stemmed from the oppressive practices of the regime towards Syrians, therefore SOHR approaches the conflict from a humanitarian perspective (hence its condemning of human rights abuses by other groups). I think, and I am sure you would agree, that a humanitarian perspective is a reliable perspective to use for the editing of this page. Do you really think that it is likely that an organization which places so much value in, and derives its perspective from, the well being of its countrymen; will engage in false reporting? If you want to refute SOHR as a source, then bring some evidence of it's false reporting in favor of the rebels. Again, and as Andre has mentioned, it doesn't matter if SOHR takes a particular side; all that matters is whether the information that SOHR provides is accurate and real. If you fail to produce a single episode of false reporting from SOHR then we can assume that it's information is accurate, and if it is accurate then it should be used as a source on this page. I hope you can hear the sincerity in which I bring this argument, and appreciate why SOHR should be considered an accurate source.Jafar Saeed (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

By looking at this section and the couple above it, I think it is fair to say that there is an emerging consensus that the perceived bias or the lack thereof is not relevant to whether the source is reliable or not. So your approach here is somewhat flawed. The right approach is as follows: The source is not appropriate under one of the following three conditions:

if it is an entry from a private blog, facebook, twitter, or some such network. The people making these entries are absolutely unaccountable no matter who they happen to be. If what they say is valid and true, let us wait until a more authoritative sources quotes them first or confirms what they say.

OR

if it is directly related to one or more of the participants of the conflict, for instance a website made by an opposition activist or a government supporter. This rules out SANA, SOHR, al-Manar, and probably Press TV.

OR

if it has proven itself to be unreliable by frequently reporting information contradicted by the more authoritative sources. This may include absolutely any source if you can show us that it has a history of false reporting. I think it includes the Arab Chronicle/Cedric Labrouse and I can cite a few examples where he was wrong, but I'm not sure about the other sources you've mentioned.

Anyway just to reiterate, if a source just seems biased or uses inflammatory language, it's probably not a good idea to rule it out just for that. Kami888 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing, if a source is unreliable for any of the above reasons, it is NOT okay to use it to confirm gains by the other side either. I wasn't the one who came up with this rule but I'm okay with it. So please avoid doing that as well. Kami888 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kami888, Peter Clifford Online & Arab Chronicle fall clearly in the first two conditions you mentioned, so they shouldnt be used. Both are private blogs or personal pages, and both are opposition supporters. And about EA Worldview, I suppose that being paid for advertising by a Syrian opposition lobby is not precisely a guarantee of objectiveness...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right about Peter Clifford - it seems to be a personal website and thus falls under category 1 and should be avoided. With regards to EA Worldview, I'm willing to give them a chance no matter who funds them. I mean we use Al Jazeera and they're owned by Qatari government. Kami888 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One could add http://www.syrianperspective.com/ from the Assad side. But what's wrong with using pro-rebel sources for SAA gains and pro-SAA sources for rebel gains, & making changes when both sides agree on something? This is a war after all, and it's well-known that "the first casualty of war is truth". Especially in a war like this in which pretty much all of the major world powers have taken a side, so all of the normally respectable news organizations are to some degree compromised. Consider historical precedent: "In the early days of the Iraq War, media analyst Andrew Tyndall examined 414 news stories aired by ABC, CBS, and NBC about the build up to the war, finding that 380 of them, a staggering 92%, sourced back to one of three U.S. government agencies: the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon. A further study found that of 574 stories aired between Bush’s speech to the UN in September 2002 and the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, only 12 stories, just 2%, dealt with the possible aftermath of the invasion." Not very much is different now. All of the most respectable newspapers & news organizations are from countries which have taken a specific position on this war, and they tend to cover things that are close to the "official line" whether they are state-owned or not, because by doing that they are rewarded with better relations to important officials. It works the same in democratic & capitalist countries. Keep in mind Glenn Greenwald's comment about how most mainstream journalists are "courtiers to power". For most subjects on Wikipedia, sticking to reliable sources is enough. For a topic like this, that's not enough: you have to look at motivation. Esn (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah syrian perspective should not be used either, I think, no matter how fancy its maps are. From my understanding it's also a private initiative of a pro-government activist, basically Arab Chronicle from the other side haha. But I can be wrong. Anyway, regarding "what's wrong with using pro-rebel sources for SAA gains and pro-SAA sources for rebel gains" - I'm guessing the logic is that two wrongs don't make a right, as in if two bad sources from the opposite sides agreed on something it doesn't yet mean it's the truth. I am not the one who made the rule and i'm kind of ambivalent on it.

Finally, yes I'm fully aware that most of the mainstream media ultimately get their information from very shaky sources and are thus fallible, but at least they more to lose than a private blogger for being plain wrong on something. Anyway, that's what english wikipedia ultimately is - a reflection of the mainstream media and mainstream view. Kami888 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There IS no single mainstream view on this. The mainstream view in, let's say, Russia or Iran is fundamentally different from the mainstream view in France or Qatar. For example, the recently-released paper by American researchers from MIT about the August chemical attacks didn't get much press in the US mainstream papers - one had to go to RT to read about it. Anyway, I'd say that there are precious few consequences for many mainstream journalists when they get something wrong (or are sloppy) about a place as far away as Syria. There are also consequences for smaller, partisan press because they're closer to the conflict so people actually rely on them and they lose credibility among their own partisan "side" when they're consistently wrong (like here). Of course they also like to exaggerate successes and downplay losses, but it makes logical sense that if the biased media from both sides agree on something that it's probably true. As close to true as we're likely to get in a war situation. Esn (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"There IS no single mainstream view on this." there is a mainstream view in the English speaking world at least, and this is English language wikipedia. Kami888 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not the job of the English Wikipedia to present the mainstream Anglosphere view on things, particularly when the topic is not itself Anglospheric. Else this template would not exist. Esn (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that HCPUNXKID qualifies himself only as a bishop. He gives the impression that he thinks he is the pope.

Seriously :

1. Having a list of "unreliable sources" as criteria is simplistic at best. Particularly the reasons given. (a) Shows a rebel flag. And if the red flag were shown, it could be taken as pro-regime. (b) anti-regime attitude. The question should be objectivity of reporting. Virtually all sources not pro-regime have an anti-regime attitude. (c) Blurry videos. Of course, Disney cartoons would be clearer, but not necessarily more useful.

2. The founder of the page set out certain principles, which he restated in the last few weeks. They seem a reasonable starting point :

. a. Reliable non-biased sources should be accepted.

. b. Biased pro-regime sources should be accepted if they show rebel gains.

. c. Biased pro-rebel sources should be accepted if they show regime gains.

3) Note that (english) WP guidelines say that we should consider bias in terms of the reporting, and not in terms of a preference that the source may have. This means that a source that has a preference (e.g. SOHR or Arab Chronicle) is not necessarily to be considered biased. Since both of these sites (among many others) have a record of accuracy, they should be considered reliable. Other sites with a record of inaccuracy, even if from "mainstream media", should evidently be considered unreliable.

BTW, it would be interesting if anyone can document supposed inaccuracies of either of these 2 sites, with references. I have followed both, and haven't noticed anything worse than not noticing a few events right away, and even in that respect they seem better than most sources. Arab Chronicle considerably better. Anyone claiming twitter messages of rapidly changing situations as proof should think again. As well, both have published editorials which have succeeded in displeasing both sides.

4. Articles with evident bias in the language of events reported should be considered unreliable. This includes any articles calling the rebels "terrorists", for example.

5. In addition to the question of reliability, there is also the question of sufficiant detail to support a proposed change to the map. Generalities are not necessarily useful, as the recent sources in the Adra section demonstrate.

6. Another question is the nature of the article. Is it an opinion piece, as is often published on facebook or twitter, and even mainstream articles ? Or is it reporting specific facts rather than general impressions, which enable us to decide control ? Just because it appears as a news item in a mainstream source does not mean that we should skip this question.

7. WP:facebook has been considerably abused on this page. I suggest that anyone unclear on the meaning read/reread the guideline, along with the adjacent sections. To summarise, they say that primary sources on blogs, facebook, twitter or other social media should be usually avoided. A primary source is the creator of the information, or a party to the conflict.

SOHR and Arab Chronical are conveying facts from their various contacts, and are thus secondary sources. (Because they are observers of the events, rather than participants.) Except for their evident editorials, where they would be tiertiary sources.

WP guidelines say that for the reporting of facts (which is what we are looking for), secondary sources are to be preferred over tiertiery sources, and primary sources avoided.

8. There are probably more factors to consider. However these are close to the rules followed, more or less, up to a few months ago. Before SOHR started being considered pro-rebel. Arab Chronicle had been mostly ignored, as it only recently started to publish in english. André437 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely, I dont know if you cant understand irony or you simply look always for confrontation. I will not loose more time with someone who cant understand the difference between a journalist and an activist, concepts like neutrality or objectivity applied to media (if someone pays you -EA Worldview case-, you dont bite the hand that feeds you, even a 5 year-old kid could understand that), someone who called a YouTube-like platform as LiveLeak, quote: "a pro-regime propaganda site". Enough absurdities. Of course, Im open to debate with the rest of editors.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

André437 - "The founder of the page set out certain principles, which he restated in the last few weeks." - where did he do that? This contradicts the principles agreed on in the previous section. Kami888 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Articles with evident bias in the language of events", that's a lot more common than you'd think. Friendly countries have "governments", unfriendly countries have "regimes". Friendly rebels are "freedom fighters", unfriendly rebels are "terrorists". It's everywhere in mainstream papers, but maybe a lot of readers don't notice it. Biased language should not automatically disqualify a source, but it can certainly tell us what sort of information we might trust from it. If an article talks about how "the murderous Assad regime" is making some progress, probably Assad's forces are actually making those gains. Likewise if you read "terrorists have taken over a town" - probably rebels have done just that. Esn (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Kami888, I realise that you are new here, so you wouldn't be aware of this point which has been restated many times.

BTW, before HCPUNXKID arrived here a few months back, we didn't have a lot of controversy here. One of HCPUNXKID's early acts was to proclaim that he would reverse all changes using a source published on facebook media, despite the fact that Tradedia himself often updated the map based on SOHR posts on facebook. SOHR was considered a neutral source. HCPUNXKID has been cited for vandalism several times on other WP pages.

Here is the post of Tradedia User_talk:Tradedia, the founder of this page. (You can verify in the history of this talk page here) :

Methodology

I have nothing to say for now about Al Dumayr, Daraya, etc... However, i wanted to make some clarification points about methodology:

   1- If an event is covered by a neutral source, then we use this source and ignore all non-neutral sources.
   2- If an event is not covered by a neutral source, then we can use a non-neutral source only in two cases:

       a) pro-gov source talking about rebel success
       b) pro-rebel source talking about gov success

The reason we do not use non-neutral sources is because they tend to overstate their own successes & understate those of their enemy. However, in some cases, these non-neutral sources are forced to admit their enemy’s success because it might be too obvious, and therefore not admitting it would further diminish their already weak credibility. These cases will be rare, however, we should exploit them whenever possible. Tradediatalk 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

André437 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(Irony on) Yes of course, before I arrived here, there werent any controversies, the 9 archived talk pages are mostly blessings and love messages between users, I'm guilty, until I arrived here this was a peace haven. And yes, I'm guilty again, as committed the crime of not accepting the breaking of WP rules, because as everybody knows if the "founder" of an article break of ignore WP rules (knowing it or not) nothing happens, its a prerogative that he/her have... I pledge for pardon!!!(Irony off) -The pharenthesis are needed, as some users here dont understand irony, among maaaany other things :-D-.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting him, André437. Indeed I have not been following this page since the beginning of time so I'm relatively new. Here's a couple of points though: firstly, my sources tell me that the original creator of the MAP was Lothar, not Tradedia, also Tradedia has not been contributing to the map for a long time now it seems. And second of all, I disagree with the way he phrased the requirements. There's no way there's ever going to be an agreement on which sources are neutral regarding a subject like this. And haven't you yourself been saying not too long ago that it doesn't matter if a source has a clear preference (i.e. lacks neutrality), what matters is the accuracy of the facts they report? I think the plan I suggested is easier to follow, but you be the judge. If you insist on this methodology, we'll just have to put each source to a vote and see how many people think it's neutral and go with the majority opinion. Kami888 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only been following this page for about a year, so I know what it is like to be new here. Lothar, who works closely with Tradedia, called me to order once or twice.

Tradedia created the SCW page, and you inform me that Lothar created the map. Which explains why Tradedia often referred me to Lothar when I suggested improvements to the structure of the map. But answered suggested improvements to the page directly himself. As far as contributing to the map, about the time Tradedia made the post I quoted about a month ago, Tradedia made several updates to the map. He tends to come and go. Otherwise, it is often Lothar who does the updates. But in the last few weeks neither seems to be present, and there has been a lot of chaos. Not that there weren't disagreements before, but they were certainly more civilized. Certain users didn't feel so free to make controversial updates.

As for a more detailed view on my take on things :

Source means the party that creates the article or map, and not the media on which it is published.

A source that creates the information, or is a party directly involved (as a side in a civil war) is a primary source.

A source that reports a fact or is an observer of an event (such a a battle), is a secondary source.

A source that makes an analysis of an information or series of events (such as what is happening overall in a war, or likely to happen next) is a tertiery source.

WP guidelines say that a secondary sources are preferred as reliable sources for facts, which is what we are looking for in order to update the map and the tables in the associated page of cities and towns.

WP guidelines say the language used is an important indicator of the bias of information from the source. They also say that a source can have a preferred point of view, and still be free of bias in the information provided.

In the context of the syrian civil war, very few would prefer that the Assad regime have a total victory, since it has long been widely criticized for its' massive violation of human rights, even before the civil war started. So the fact that almost all observers who are not partisan of the regime are against the regime to some degree is not the question. It is rather, are the reports from such sources unbiased. Most observers internationally say that the SOHR, which was established to criticize human rights violations by the Assad regime in 2006, is one of the most reliable and objective sources. Despite its' preferred outcome. Similarly, I would say that the Arab Chronicle is reliable. It has been accepted at least once in an update by Tradedia, despite the article being entirely in french. Many here are hesitant to accept it since until recently it published almost exclusively in french, just as the SOHR started in arabic. Some oppose the Arab Chronicle because it is centered around a history student (focusing on the arab world and the middle east). But like the SOHR, he depends on a network of local contacts (from all sides), and in a number of cases has reported rebel advances long before other media, including the SOHR. All of which subsequently have been universally recognized, even by SANA. And he has always readily acknowledged regime advances as well.

So you see that my definition of reliability is essentially a neutral tone and a consistant track record.

We also have to look at each article (or map) in question. A neutral tone is very useful, as the source is not necessarily coherent. But also is the detail present in the report adequate to be confident of the change proposed ? Recently there were 2 reports in the subsection *Adra*. The first was from a reporter outside the country, who started with a quote anti-rebel from a resident of Damascus, and made a series of general statements about various places around Syria. One such statement said that the rebels had been "pushed back" in Adra. Which led some here to say that the regime had taken complete control of the town. A subsequent report a few days later, from a reporter in place (behind govt lines), said that the rebels controled most of the town, but the regime had retaken part. The reporter arrived via an improvised road the govt forces made to access the edge of the town. Evidently, although the rebels had indeed been "pushed back", an on-site report showed that they still controled most of the town.

As far as neutral tone, please note that "regime" is a neutral term. The rebels are trying to change the regime, or system of government, for a democratic system, so it is totally appropriate in the context of the civil war. However "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" are evidently biased terms for the neutral term rebel.

So yes, we have to examine each article or map instead of blindly automatically accepting the source. Or blindly refusing a source because of the media on which it is published.

One thing that would help considerably is if all changes to the map were made subsequent to a corresponding entry in the cities and towns tables. (A positive suggestion by HCPUNXKID, among others.) This seems to have been the original practice, up to mid 2012, a bit before I arrived here. (There are very few entries after that point.)

This way, besides being easier to confirm, we create a history which was the original purpose of this page and map. As it is now, there is no easy way to confirm most points on the map.

Hopefully this isn't too long ... André437 (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"like the SOHR, he depends on a network of local contacts (from all sides)" - I am not aware of SOHR having any contacts among the regime personnel, likewise I highly doubt that anyone from the pro-government side would share any information with SOHR given its reputation - which is that of being an opposition mouthpiece. Because of this and other factors already mentioned I'd caution against considering it to be reliable. Again, would you mind if this matter was put to a vote? Kami888 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In case anybody's still reading this, there's a good article over here which provides an overview of the most prominent pro-Assad "Alternative Media" news sites. SyrianPerspective is mentioned, as is VerifiedNews and Syrian Girl Partisan. Esn (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Ma'an, hama

the rebels has seized control of the village of Ma'an in the north of hamah. the source: http://yallasouriya.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/syria-hama-rebels-control-maan/

and three videos confirms the rebels victory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnoLjumoso8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQoRHR7jmss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHaTl-KGoKQ

it should be turned to green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amensnober91 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This only pro opposition sources but they not are reliable sources. Need confirmation from more reliable sources. Also we dont use pro opposition sources for opposition advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

what about the clips, they are very clear that the rebels are in the village. it should be at least contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amensnober91 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua landis has confirmed the capture. Alhanuty (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We not use pro opposition sources to display the rebel advances. And we cant use message Joshua landis in twitter because he is support syrian opposition. We need confirmation from more reliable source than a message in Twitter. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I say contested as 3 videos that amount around 2 minutes of video does not prove much and at the last video lots of gunfire so my suggestion contested.Daki122 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Acc to my sources the town has been taken but since no new videos have been posted with the exception of them only showing "dominance" over the town and no official media reports, it should be under contested.--Rob214 (talk)99.160.184.97 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, Youtube is forbidden as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua landis is a very reliable source to use, he is a. Scholar who studied about Syria and is married to an alawite ,so he is a reliable source,a neutral source that can be used, i still remember when you people wanted to keep the eastern ghouta cities red,even after sources indicated that rebels captured jarba,baharia and madayaa and other cities,and you editors like EkoGrak and hannibal and Daki insisted to confuse the reader and spread your point of view with the excuse that source is unreliable, until pro-government source at last admitted it.Alhanuty (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Feb-09/246853-islamist-fighters-seize-alawite-village-in-central-syria.ashx#axzz2sk38sDRI confirmation someone should just make the changes.Daki122 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Landis is a blogger seen him a million times always criticizes the government and that is why we dont use him as a source so if I can stick to the rules and dont use sources then you can stick to it as well.Daki122 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Landis isn't a "blogger", and the fact that a faceless and disposable Wikipedia editor like you would call him such shows that you either have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about, or that you simply will try to reject anything and anyone who remotely clashes with your views—or both. Landis—who has spent 14 years living in the region and is married to a Syrian Alawi woman from a military (i.e., SAA, in case you didn't understand) family—is a well-established scholar on Syrian affairs with three degrees to his name and around 25 years' worth of professorial experience at five universities. Does he make statements critical of the regime? Sure—but "NPOV" doesn't mean that we ignore reliable sources simply because they take stances on issues, it means that we represent and give due weight to all major viewpoints. For the record, rebel fanboys hate him too, and I think that you wouldn't even take issue with him if his views coincided better with the POV you want to push here. Not wanting to use twitter is one thing, but making up stupid and false rationales for rejecting real scholars is another. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the admins here just don't like rebels victory, don't they? its still red not even contested!! the dailystar is reliable source so you should change it to green.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/02/09/world/middleeast/09reuters-syria-crisis-hama.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.51.55 (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Guys calm down everything will be edited when there is a reliable source just don't clutter the page I was at work so I did not have the time to edit it that is why I posted the source only.You need to calm down and everything will be done just have to be a little patient.Daki122 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the criminal rebels did massacre many of the peaceful famailies in the Alawite village of Ma'an.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

^Are these types of comments even legal on wikipedia? O.o Kami888 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No and that is why it has been removed from the talk page from now on this kind of anti-semetic comments will not be allowed on this page especialy when a massacre on religious bases has happened.Daki122 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

oky, but what about the another comment why they didn't delete it? calling the rebels criminals? and talking about the alawite families which HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAP. is this site is pro regime?Amensnober91 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know when you talk about evidence-based facts that it is pro-regime behavior. EkoGraf (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

he's calling the rebels criminals. is that a fact? no. its pro regime. if I call the saa criminals or dogs you people will deleate my comment, right? which makes this site a pro regime.Amensnober91 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure rebels are criminals. In any country. lol Kami888 (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

so every rebels in the world are criminals? this world you live in is MADE by rebels and revolutions. just read history.Amensnober91 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes and the regime massacring civilians in Banyas, Nabek or Halfaya is just heroism right? Anyways, that's how it seems to some editors here... --Amedjay (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just not let this discussion became political. I'm sure we all have very different point of view, especially on this very sensitive subject... We are here to present to the users an objective and factual map discribing what's going on on the syrian field today. 85.170.166.86 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)a

You're right, i'm sorry about that but the pro-regime posts here are starting to become unbearable... Sure there are also pro-rebel editors but they never go as far the pro-regime ones who openly call rebels "terrorists" --Amedjay (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes, poor "freedom fighters", they are clearly the victims, fighting for liberty and democrazy sharia-style, but shut up, or chief Lothar will get angry and block you...--HCPUNXKID 23:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to block anyone, sweetie. And the fact that I find manipulative fanboys like you to be highly distasteful doesn't mean that I have any sympathy for a bunch of craven Salafi bandits. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Im sorry but please suggest another name for the Al-Qaeda linked "rebels" in Syria because I do not see any mentions even on opposition sites for the so called FSA because the FSA has been wiped out of the game they either get a truce with the government or they get wiped out by jihdaists.And about the massacares I think everyone should remember Houla, Latakia, Adra, Khan al Asal, the Kurdish massacare,Darayya,Judeit Artuz,Maalula,Mahin and the latest Maan all secterian based killings so any anti-semetic comments must be reserved you can call someone a criminal a terrorists but no discrimination comments based on religion.Calling someone criminal and offending someone on religious bases is not the same.Daki122 (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just what I said, pro assad comments "No FSA just Al Qaeda". If you knew more about Syria, you would know that if they indeed are not as present as before in Northern Syria, they are still very powerful in the south. As Islamic Front they are pretty far from Al Qaeda. The simple fact of saying that rebels in Syria are from Al Qaeda show how ignorant you are. Please stop posting such comments full of pure and simple ignorance. --Amedjay (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Islamic front is a proxy Army for Saudi Arabia how can anyone even call them moderate they are the same thing as Al-Nusra they want sharia law and want to kill off or displace the minorities out of the country and install another regime so that is not a FSA style army that is an Al-Qaeda group under another name.I mean look at the videos they are always saying they will slaughter every one that is not like them what the hell should you call that.These rebels are nothing more then a proxy army which has one goal alone that is to put the Syrian people under another even worse rule and do the bidding of the gulf monarchies and the west only a blind person will think this is a fight for freedom this is a battle for Syria which the Syrian army needs to win or else my prayers go to all those people who are not supporting the rebel wahabi and salafi ideology as they will be slaughtered by this "rebels"(Christians,Druze and Alawite minorities make up around 25-30% of the population)or will be forced out of the country.Daki122 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Listen, here you bunch of outsiders who have no connection to Syria anyway,alot of experts warned at the time of the Houla and qubeir and taremessa massacres back in 2012,that Assad's henchmen committed these autrocious massacres,so that he can destroy the bond of coexistence between the syrian people,so that alawites have no way other than support them,and this setted a high level of hatred between Sunni Syrians and alawites,which led to the radicalization of the FSA brigades,from call a democracy to call for an Islamic state based on shura (democracy),and led the Sunni wants revenge from the alawites,secondly,there is no hatred towards Christians or Druze,Assad tried to spread hatred between them,but he failed to do so,I don't expect at all a grim future for any of syrian sect,except alawites for this generation,and actually most Christians are neutral,and most Druze are on positive neutrality,ALL HERE HAVE TO realize,no matter who much the conflict goes on,it will end with Assad losing The war,the syrian army has became a marginal player in this war,who are actually fighting is Hezbollah,Abu fadel al Abbas and the houthis and Shia fanatics from around the war,and the Iranian revolutionary guards,and the national defense forces (another volksturm army) and the syrian resistance,for the opposition side,we are witnessing the decline of jihadist forces in Syria,ISIL will most likely be eleminated from Syria by March,and all who would be left fighting on the ground will be Syrians,and don't expect the US and allies, European,Saudis,qataris,Turks watch Assad gaining momentum and seeing him rejecting the basis of Geneva 1 of a transition ruling council,and be silent and allow him go on,they will most likely arm the opposition and allow them to besiege Damascus,so that Assad and his high command is forced out of power via negotiations,and IF GENEVA 2 is failed by Assad,EXPECT full Armenia of the opposition with alots of stingers missiles and anti-aircraft missile and the government planes will fall in enormous rates that will eliminate the syrian airforce out of the war,if that occurs expect a libyan ending scenario in Syria.Alhanuty (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And you, as a Kurd, write all of this from USA, while your Kurds are slaughtered by jihadi salafists in Syria. Kurds die everyday in Syria and yet you dont care. Everyone knows Kurds help SAA. It seems you don't have connection with your brain or Syria. You don't have connection with reality, mainsteam media in USA did damage to your brain. --Bozocv (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing. Me as a Christian dont buy all that BS that you wrote. Why on the earth terrorists would attack Ma'loula‎ if they did not have anything against Christians? Why did they set whole place on fire? Also this.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozocv (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Aside from some Arabised jash like Omar Ossi, the vast majority of Kurds do not see themselves as "helping" the SAA. At best, they view Assad as a minor threat in comparison to the bearded psychopaths actively attacking Rojava, and maintain unofficial truces in several areas (while actively undermining the administrative centrality of the state). But nobody has forgotten 2004 or the decades of the Ba'athist government's Arab-chauvinist policies. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty just to remind you that Russia has sold Syria 36 Yak-130(they are in Russia and a if the US steps up military support so will Russia) and more than 34 MiG-29M/M2 MRCA(Some were delivered others will be delivered in mid 2014) which can't be brought down with stingers also stingers are overrated I mean they can't shot down anything faster than 1500 km/h or anything over 4000 meters in altitude they will only make the situation worse because then the Army will go into carpet bombing from high altitude which will only result in escalation of the conflict not ending it(Stinger and any type of that kind of a missile can fire at 3km hight and 5km range at max an Su-24 can drop 8 tons of bombs from altitudes beyond 10km so they won't do a very good job) second of your so called rebels are only here because of outside intervention Qatar spent 3 billion dollars for the rebels in the past year Saudi Arabia spent also over 10 billion dollars on the rebels and they still can't get any results and don't tell me about outside forces because the rebels are an outside force,people from 83 countries are fighting on the rebel side so if that is not a outside intervention I don't know what is.Daki122 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link

I discovered that the town Nasiriyah, close to the air base in the north-east of Damascus, is linked here: to the Iraqi town. Should you delete the link or change it? Guidoriccio11 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

City of Al-Nasiriah and An Nasiriya - Military Airbase in Rif Dimashq. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I know. But still on the map there is a wrong link, because is linking the Iraqi town... Guidoriccio11 (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Batbo, Hazano

Hazano and Batbo in Rebel (non-Isis) control. Im not in the mood to add them, so please.

Source: http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article124636132/Dort-ist-al-Qaida-Die-schneiden-Ihnen-den-Kopf-ab.html OberschIesien90 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)