Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Abu Kamal

The Islamic State captured the town Abu Kamal , previously controlled by the Nusra Front.Al JazeeraThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Abu Kamal is contested. Neither of those sources supports ISIS control. The title of the second one is "86 dead as Syria's Qaeda, allies repel jihadists"... how can that possibly be construed as ISIS has taken the town?Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Carefully read the source:"The Observatory said 51 fighters died in fighting around Bukamal on Thursday, when the flare-up started. The Islamic State captured the town, previously controlled by the Nusra Front"Al JazeeraThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

But, that same source has a more recent post that says the exact opposite. If you're taking it as a credible source, use the most recent information posted. And if there's conflicting information, leave it as contested until confirmation one way or the other can be obtained.Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP the rebels regained full control of Albu Kamal after reinforcements poured in." From the same link / Al Jaz blog. 6 hours more recent. Everywhere is quoting the more recent Observatory news: http://news.yahoo.com/86-dead-syrias-qaeda-allies-repel-jihadists-131203845.html http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/86-killed-in-fighting-between-rival-rebel-factions-in-syria http://gulfnews.com/in-focus/syria/86-dead-as-syria-s-al-qaida-allies-repel-jihadists-1.1318092 https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/22571645/

Request Abu Kamal be changed from ISIS held to opposition held - or contested, at least. SOHR source above listed. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

CHANGE from THIS: {{#invoke:location map|mark |Syria |lat=34.45|long=40.918 |mark=Location dot lime.svg |marksize=12 |link=Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war#Abu Kamal |label=[[Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war#Abu Kamal|Abu Kamal]] |label_size=113 |position=left}} TO THIS: {{#invoke:location map|mark |Syria |lat=34.45|long=40.918 |mark=8x8anim-yellow-black.gif |marksize=12 |link=Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war#Abu Kamal |label=[[Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war#Abu Kamal|Abu Kamal]] |label_size=113 |position=left}} The reason is the resent storming of Abu Kamal by ISIL.

Source: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eda_1397165442

Savalito (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

It is Al-Bukamal not Abu Kamal, and it is not with ISIS. ISIS left Al-Bukamal and Kabajeb. 2.50.75.206 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

al-Rastan

Rastan contested http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=17792&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U0lPVvl_uYg FS1911 (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.39.72 (talk)

it only says that clashes took place on the northern borders of al rastan, the city itself is only besieged.85.170.166.86 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Draw Aleppo police Academy in non ISIS Jihadists hands

In February 2013 Jihadists captured the Aleppo Police Academy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-rebels-storm-police-academy-near-aleppo/2013/02/24/f21ed078-7eb1-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

can some one draw it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo Map

It is not up to date. Rashidin, Ramouseh, Layramoon, Al-Zahra is not up to date

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/syria-rebels-advance-aleppo-city-2014412101712303691.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.155.104.15 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Morek

For weeks there has been heavy fighting around Morek as governement forcess try to retake the town. Several editors here have already said so. Morek should be green with a red circle. The town itself is clearly under rebel control, and serves as one of the main chocking points for loyalists in contested Khan Shaykun to the north. Any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Morek is contested and fighting inside the southern part of the city has been reported till recently both in SOHR and inhttp://www.documents.sy. I cannot see any reason to change its status. Paolowalter (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that their is often incursions that have been until now stopped... But I don't see the point in changing its status because it's directly on the front line. All civilians have fled from the town itself even if it's controlled by rebels. Moreover, it would be non sense to mark it as besieged, since it's not. Assad troops are south of the city and do not control the roads leading to the northern parts of Morek. That's why "contested" is more precise than besieged.Oussj (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree that the town is probably rebel held, I agree with Oussj, for the same reasons. André437 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
If we had semicircles for a front outside a town, that might be good. I could make some fairly quickly, if there is a consensus for that. (We would need 8 for n, ne, e, se, s, sw, and w.) (Then add in the menu something like : "semi-circle around = on front") André437 (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that whould be useful... The map's key, which is already quite complicated for a neophyte will only become more complicated. I believe the aim of the map and of our work is to give the common wiki user and the more interested one a readable map, and for someone "normal" less interested as we are there is not a great difference between "on the front line" and "contested".Oussj (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Just an idea. Users should be able to see the more exact state by following the link. (Assuming it isn't broken.) André437 (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In Hama province, regime forces and paramilitary allies seized parts of the village of Morek, the Observatory said.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Damascus countryside

According to AP Jibbeh and Jbaadin is also under army total control. Please proceed to the changes in map.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Syrian documents

There is an unreasonable position in classifying http://www.documents.sy as pro-regime and unreliable. That is false. Never found wrong info from this site. It is at least relaible as SOHR. Therefore stop reverting my change based on http://www.documents.sy, unless somebody proofs it is unreliable. I hope it is the last time I see reverted my editing without reason. --Paolowalter (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the site, at all, but the first thing I see when I click the link is a map that lists every major Syrian city as "Calm city!" ... bad first impression. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Understand that I do not claim that the data provided by the source of Syrian documents is not reliable but a conflict in the province of Latakia currently illuminated by many news agencies but no one source not confirm that in the village Nab'ain now go clashes between the army and the rebels.So I think it will be fair if we wait for other confirmations of this information from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it sufficient as second source: [1]?Paolowalter (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe the great difference remains in the fact that SOHR is an hunman rights NGO. So it cannot compared to any other news website and that's why the policy is to use SOHR, even with them using the word "martyr" in arab and the green flag on their arab facebook page. If we begin using documents.sy why then not to use other website pro government or pro rebels that are often precise. It will very fast become completely chaotic. That's why we should not use documents.sy or aksalser.com or syrianperspective, or arab chronicle.Oussj (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I would say that there is no question that the SOHR has an excellent track record on incidents on the ground that it has reported. The few errors are essentially not (immediately) noticing certain events.

I might be missing something, but for the same locations, I haven't noticed much difference between reports of documents.sy , SOHR, and Arab Chronicle, when 2 or 3 have reported on the same area. Arab Chronicle tending to be much more detailed, and documents.sy much less so, relative to SOHR. The main difference being that each has missed events reported by one or 2 of the others.

As far as biased language goes, none are nearly as bad as SANA, or the more extreme US-based Syrian Perspective.

BTW, that calm/tense map on documents.sy home page seems to be usually out of sync with the reports. It is probably updated by that script which keeps crashing. I go directly to the "news" page. André437 (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The correct place to look at in english is http://www.documents.sy/news.php?lang=en Paolowalter (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I got no serious objection to use of documents.sy as a source at least as reliable as SOHR (no comparison with aksalser.com or syrianperspective, or arab chronicle ). It has never made significant mistake in reporting news, no more than

SOHR. By the way, SOHR reports on losses are completely unreliable. Paolowalter (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The SOHR is highly prone to understate regime success [Yabrud] and overstate rebel success. That is why in most confrontations, the regime and rebels take losses nearly equally according to the SOHR, even though the regime has better trained soldiers and an air force. The SOHR even outright lied about rebel success in the Aleppo Central Prison, so their track record, not so great. The fact that they may be a human rights NGO does not grant them any extra credibility. Dr Marmilade (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

They made one mistake with Aleppo Prison. Every media in the world made mistakes from time to time, and they apologized for it in less than two hours. And of course, if you take your informations from pro regime twitter accounts, and pro regime propaganda, you will consider that "The SOHR is highly prone to understate regime success [Yabrud] and overstate rebel success". Stop saying nonsense pleeeeeease...Oussj (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I went to syriandocuments. I found a lie in less than two minutes : http://www.documents.sy/videos.php?id=2917&lang=ar They say that the kamikaze attacks on AL Khazanat have been done by the Islamic Front, which is false, since Jabhat Al Nusra claimed them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF8EZqhCk6c This is typical from a propaganda media trying to discredit the Islamic Front, accusing them of being terrorists. You see, that's the great difference between SOHR and this king of cheep war propaganda media, you only need to scratch a little bit to find that they are unreliable.Oussj (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC) That is not a lie, simply speaking it is quite irrelevant to know which brand of fanatics carries on suicide attacks. The issue is the reliability of the advances on both sides that is good. 87.4.49.203 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding, you think that Islamic front that carries out suicide attacks are not terrorists. I suppose the ISIS is Assad's fifth column too? Stop saying nonsense pleeeeeeeease. Its very obvious that you entertain sources like yallasoria, aljazzera,the Arab chronicle, and your friends facebook posts. As for you, you seem to deflect any indication that the SOHR is unreliable simply by ignoring it without justifying why it is a "great" source. The SOHR says regime forces are still 2+ Km from Yabrud, yet it falls hours later, reliable much? Dr Marmilade (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We here do not accuse people of beeing terrorists. Our goal is to give the wiki community a clear vision (or the clearest possible) on what happening military on the ground in Syria. You here are showing in front of us all that you are pro Assad, considering rebels to be "terrorists" which discredit you forever in everything you will say, because you are biaised. Editors have to be, when they edit the map, non prejudiced, and if you refuse it, then go and let the people who are trying to work seriously, and not turn things "red" or "green" on the map like you seem to be, do their job. Oussj (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Following your line of thought, anyone who considers the Syrian government as a "regime" discredit itself forever in everything he will say, as he is biased and pro-"rebel" (another romantic ridicule term, like "Arab Spring"). So, according to your words, you have discredit yourself forever. Otherwise you were showing a clear double standard, unfortunately nothing new here...--HCPUNXKID 16:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So let me sum up what you just said Oussj. First, you make a statement in my name and stick to it [Me calling the FSA terrorists]. You do realize the Islamic Front does not constitute the entire opposition. Then, you declare that I am forever discredited on your own authority based on your assumption and the fact that I do not accept your POV. You still refuse to acknowledge any opposition towards your POV. Then to top it off, you refer to yourself in the plural form [in front of Us all] So basically from a psychological standpoint, you are a narcissist. I was about to bring up the regime, but I say you have already been checkmated for you double-standard by HCPUNXKID. Stop the narcissism and stop leveling accusations against other editors and pretending that you are the "Model Wikipedian" with your rant on "non-prejudice" and "hard work" , or you really will lose your credibility forever. Dr Marmilade (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Distortion, Lies, Embellishment, etc. Both sides are fighting the media war. Glad we can agree on that. Forget POVs. For the purpose of the map, who is/isn't a terrorist, does not matter. Get back to basics. No regime sources for regime advances and of course vice versa. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

First the quasi totality of western medias always refers to the syrian government in Damascus using the word "regime" (for exemple http://www.france24.com/fr/20140414-syrie-armee-ville-chretiens-maaloula-qalamoun-damas/) and we all agree to use those medias. That's why using the word regime is quite differente than using "terrorists" to speak about the islamic front. But here is not the point. I reckon that I was a little nervous when I wrote may comment above, and for that I apologize. But maybe it was because of the tense I feeled in your first comment, Dr Marmilade... However, I believe we should all try to put our political opinion aside when we work on the map and try to cooperate together and not bring the war here, like some people tends to do it. Here, regardless to our opinions, we are a team. And we should work all together to try to give the world a clear vision, far from the "distorsions, lies and embilishment". Don't you all agree ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oussj (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sarkha (Bakhah)

Taken by loyalists - http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Apr-14/253263-syria-army-retakes-maaloula-security-source.ashx#axzz2ymJtehwD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.59.253 (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

+ assal al-ward http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Apr-15/253395-syrian-army-enters-aasal-al-ward-after-gunmen-surrender-al-manar.ashx#axzz2ymJtehwD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Qmeenas

[2] talks of batle in Qmeenas in Idlib countryside. Is anybody able to locate it? --192.135.12.144 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC) here:http://wikimapia.org/#lang=tr&lat=35.885191&lon=36.680646&z=16&m=b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please change Huwayjat al-Sallah to Huwayjah al-Sallah .

Please change Huwayjat al-Sallah to Huwayjah al-Sallah. It's a Hama governorate section village. The current link on the map to Wikipedia article on this village is an incorrect name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.124.114 (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the spelling used here is more accurate. The issue has been fixed by moving the page in question. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hawsh al-Arab

Hawsh al-Arab to government as per Elijah Magnier . Twitter source but he's proven neutral and reliable throughout the past. 134.117.249.128 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A twitter source is not enough. You have to use a reliable source.

Thanks Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mazabel Checkpoint

Well, I guess that we can remove Mazabel Checkpoint in Qalamoun, south-west of Rankous, and close to Manin. This checkpoint has no longer a strategic value, considering recent advances. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.72 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Tfail, Lebanon

Should the town of Tfail on Lebanese territory but only accessible via Syria be added on the map? Rebels allegedly are in Tfail via al-Monitor Location: http://wikimapia.org/5777568/Tfail--Homan 056k (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why Al-Shulah is in black in Deir Ez Zor ?

on this map from March 29 is clearly Visible when is this place called Al-Shulah is under Army Controlled zone http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Syrian_civil_war.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.98.216 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The point is that Al-Shulah and Kabajeb are on the road connecting Palmyra and Deir ez Zor, that is unquestionablt under government control. On the basis of which sources, are they black? If not supported, they shouls become red.Paolowalter (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just today, some (very biased) on this topic [3] and [4]. Maybe Kabajeb is under ISIS control ?? But not Al-Shulah. I am not sure how to interpet these infos.Paolowalter (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This road has been used by Isis for the offensive on Abu Kamal less than one week ago, they could never have used it if it was totally controlled by government, unless you are suggesting Isis and Damascus are working together, which is despite rumors quite unlikely...Oussj (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

the road btw deir ez zor and damasucs has been cut more than a year ago,ISIL CAPTURE BOTH KABAJEB AND ALSO AL SHULAH FROM jan AND OTHER REBEL FORCES.typo mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.86.17 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

ISIS don't cut the road from the city Palmyra to the city of Deir ez-Zor and army can still use this highway. This confirms pro opposition source.Arab Chronicle Hanibal911 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I found the situation fairly confusing. Today the mainstream rebels took KABAJEB from ISIL according to [5]. Where are they coming from if both extremes of the roads are controlled by the government? If Kabajeb was and is not under government control, how can SAA resupply Der el-Zor? I am puzzled. Paolowalter (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Al-Shulah is controlled by the Syrian Army but is unclear who controlled Kabajeb that is who said pro government Iranian news agency is only source available The village of Kabajeb in Deir Ezzur was the scene of heavy clashes between the ISIL and the Al-Nusra Front on Tuesday http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930127000384 Kabajeb no cut the Road to Palmira is a road who go to Abu Kamal.

Even if the road is cut, which I don't think is the case, government forces in Deir Ezzor could continue fighting without suplies for at least a year... Moreover, government could still supply them by planes. Oussj (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

T2

This article (and osers I just read) http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/syrie-des-rebelles-islamistes-repoussent-un-assaut-djihadiste-dans-l-est-11-04-2014-1812267_24.php speaks about an ISIS held position named "T2" in the desert 60 km south west of Abu Kamal. Does anyone know where it is to add it on the map. They said that Isis troops that withdrawed after the offensive on Abu Kamal today have fled their.Oussj (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted from the map T2 oil pumping station because this object has no strategic value. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Strategic value" isn't the main consideration of the map—otherwise we might as well go ahead and delete half of the villages on the map. I also am not sure how you came to that conclusion. It's a large facility (bigger than many villages and "military bases" that we have marked) that sits on a major international oil line and serves as a rear base for ISIS in the Deir ez-Zor region. If we can add insignificant villages like al-Hariyah in Deir ez-Zor or pipsqueak "bases" like Brigade 599 in Aleppo, there's no reason why T2 can't be added. Moreover, adding the T2 station presents valuable information to readers by adding a point of control in the otherwise mostly blank desert region. Readding. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Second the above. T2's addition increases clarity of the real situation on the ground; its omission increases the impression that nothing and no one is in the Deir ez-Zor southwestern desert regionsBoredwhytekid (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Without any regards to the discussion above, T2 has been removed. I completely disagree. If you look to the google map, you will see that T2 is a key point in the road network in this part of the syrian desert. Where are those silos you were talking about ? Let's discuss it here. Oussj (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss the importance of sites, as neither you or me are strategy experts. So as I said before, if we are going to add sites different from towns or military sites, its OK, but from all sides (of course properly sourced), otherwise it would be a clear example of POV-pushing, something sadly very frecuent in WP today. So expect more adds soon, it happened with the power plants and it will happen again...--HCPUNXKID 18:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel a lot of tense. Why is that ? We all here are working for the same purpose, which is give the wiki community the clearest vision as possible of what is happening on the ground in Syria. Just don't assume that people here are working on agendas (even if maybe they are) and work will become far less complicated. Anyone who follows the talk page for more than a month knows that POV-pushing here is impossible because of the extreme diversity of the opinions of the editors. And what are those adds people are not letting you do ? Discussing it here will certainly not harm anyone. Oussj (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talfita

Talfita is under army control http://www.almayadeen.net/ar/news/syria-,Kkd9IPQYku8dqMPAIoZUA/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontflipy (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is no reliable source.Oussj (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Source it's not bad at all this is the Lebanese TV but it said (Using google translation) the Insurgents are running from Talfita no the the Army capture it — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

According to DailystarLB, Talfita is controlled by rebels but "surrounded by Assad-held territory."--Homan 056k (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Al Mayadeen cannot be considered at reliable at all, and here is a new exemple showing that al mayadeen is just regime propaganda.Oussj (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As you offered we can not rely on news they come from Al Arabia TV & Al Jazira TV and ... because their supporting country supports the rebels and foreign terrorist which they come from their countries to Fight with Syrian goverment ,What is reliability criteria?MZarif (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In that case why to use CNN if USA is supporting rebels ? reliability is not a matter of to whom the media belongs, it's a matter of the professionalism of the people working in those media. For exemple, even if SOHR logo is a green flag, we globally agree to consider that SOHR is relaible and is sufficient to report rebel advances, because in three years of war, SOHR has shown everyone that despite very scarce mistakes, it's not a cheap propaganda media, unlikely to al mayadeen for exemple.Oussj (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It was proven that SOHR is also has reported bias news and doesn't talk about Jebhat An Nusra And ISIS other terrorist groups crimes which they kill people and cut their head just only because they have different religion,also It doesn't seem to be logical that the medias which is supported with their own govrnment act irrespective .no body has doubt about that The USA and Arabic Saudia and Qatar give weapon to foreign terrorists to fight in Syria to Attenuate syrian government and people and Syria's Infrastructures to protect Isreal and therefore their medias advocade the terrorists .After 3 year people know that their enemy is not Bashar Asad.MZarif (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you are not really neutral in the matter, and because of that you lack credibility... Let's not reoppen the discussion about SOHR right now, but you should know that you speak exactly like rebels and pro rebels media that considers that SOHR, because they don't report their own propaganda, are working on government agendas... As we said before, it would be great if everyone tries to respect the neutrality of wikipedia, by not using biaised words like terrorists for rebels or criminals for the army, or bringing without any reason Israel, like you just did.Oussj (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about SOHR but to be honest I didn't see any news about Jebhat An Nusra & ISIS crimes in their web page however you see thousands of videos in youtube or other medias which they execute the innocent syrian people.I agree that Asad had done alots of mistakes but after 3 years the Catastrophic war isn't the right of Syrian people.When I traveled to Syria before civil war they have better economic situation in comparison with my country and very beautiful cities and now must of them destroyed.I sead these to you if you're syrian you can feel it better!I Offer you read some part of this article:MZarif (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/04/iran-orientalism-western-illusio-20144383631581810.html

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MZarif (talk • contribs) 12:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC) 

Saba7 el kheir silos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fajdan

The Fajdan village in southe Aleppo countryside http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=35.929093&lon=37.513504&z=12&m=b is marked green on the map, but today SOHR announces [6] that "Islamic fighters took hold of the Fajdan village in southern Reef Aleppo after clashes with regular forces. Violent clashes are still ongoing between regular forces and islamic fighters in the perimeter of the Fajdan village." Apparently it was under SAA control and now is contested. It is a small village, little hope to have other info from other sources. I would put a red ring around it. Paolowalter (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

editor HCPUNXKID

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

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

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

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

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

Fightings in Al Hasaka

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

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

Al Ghasibyah

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

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

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

NEW AC map in Idlib

From the new AC map [7] I could deduce that Hish is under government control but on the front line (Green ring) like Der Basidah, Al so Dayr as Sharqui is red with green ring. Same for Marr Shamarin and Mar ShamSha. Maar Hitat is red. Also Sahyan suold be red wirh green circle. If there is no objection, the map can be changed accordingly. --Paolowalter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Border crossings

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

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

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

Al Sheikh Miskin

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

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

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

tomb of Süleyman Shah

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

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

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

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

Halboun

In [8] SANA states that pepople in Harboun staged a rally pro-SAA. Halboun is marked as green in the map. Even if SANA info cannot be relied upon in general, but it is hard to believe that the new was invented altogether. Any opinion? Paolowalter (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something about SOHR

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

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

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

new Aleppo map by wall street journal

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

al Zabadani

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raqqah division 17 still under siege ?

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

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

Tal Ahmar

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

Brigade61

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro opposition source

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

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

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

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

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

Important Edit, South Eastern of Hamah Gov.

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

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

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

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

-- Important Edit, South Eastern of Hamah Gov.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atshan and Bsida Villages

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

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

IMPORTANT - EASTERN HAMAH GOV.

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

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

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

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

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

Change ISIL to ISIS in the captions

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

talfita under goverment control

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

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

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

Turkey-ISIS alliance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Khan Shaykun

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

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

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

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

From [9] it is visible that leass than half of the city is under rebel's control (I stress that the map is from rebel, that is biased in their favour). The rest is under government control. In the last days not much has been happening, probably because fightings are concentrated in Morek, and the situation is relatively stable. Paolowalter (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

town of Shammar

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

I found a map of Golan[10]. There isn't much news from this province and the current map is outdated. Should we update accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.198.55.103 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Al_Samra

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kesab & Al-Nabain

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

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

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

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

Checkpoints again

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

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

Rastan ans Sheick Maksim

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

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

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

Alleged FSA seized towns in Raqqa governorate

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

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

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

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