Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 53

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 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

SOHR & Al-Masdar

I am authorizing the use of both SOHR & Al-Masdar as reliable sources for all edits.

Item 1 a) in the ”Rules for editing the map” says: “A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.” (my emphasis added)

We have been following these 2 sources for over a year now. Their “territorial control coverage” has been reliable. At least as reliable as sources we deem reliable. Note that during the last events in Al-Ghab plain, both sources have been totally correct. Therefore, there is no good reason to deprive our map from the full extent of coverage of these 2 sources. We all know that the editor of SOHR hates the gov and the editor of Al-Masdar loves the gov. But this is beside the point. Also irrelevant is the flag on their website, their rhetoric or their death numbers. The only relevant thing for us is the following: When the source says a town changed hands, is it very often correct or not? General statements that we hear around saying something like "SOHR/Al-Masdar is often wrong" are useless unless people can bring specific examples of mistakes along with a link to the article, the exact sentence that was wrong and links from elsewhere that show the truth.

However, there are some restrictions. One SOHR report of shelling cannot be used to change the status of a town (same for Al-Masdar). We need statements relating to who holds the town, town changing hands, or being contested. Also, only Al-Masdar itself is considered reliable. So this excludes anything else written by its editor (Leith Fadel) including his Twitter account. Also, we cannot use Al-Masdar to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc.

It is possible that sometimes the 2 sources would contradict each other. In this case, we need to synthesize. We might not make a change or be conservative by making a contested status. We should not pick the one we like and ignore the other. We should not flip-flop between the two (in an edit war fashion) either.

Keep in mind that even a reliable source can be wrong sometimes. This has happened to us with prestigious media. In such cases, we need to use common sense & do cross checking with other sources to avoid blindly copying a mistake. Finally, SOHR & Al-Masdar are very acceptable as sources in the eyes of Wikipedia administration. Tradedia^talk 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Do not archive this yet. Tradedia^talk 01:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I presume we are using SOHR Arabic only, as we have previously avoided the usage of SOHR English because of poor translations giving inaccurate detail making it a poor source. Thanks.Prohibited Area (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So I guess that means we can use Al-Masdar and SOHR (still only Arab reports I assume) for all gov, rebel, ISIL, and Kurd advances, though with restrictions, correct? Didn't expect those sources would now be allowed for all edits, since there were those bias restrictions (I think you should know what I mean.)--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is realiable and all news agencies praised it for its neutrality and accuracy,and Por-Opposition sites attack SOHR for being pro-regime and call its author an alawite,Al-Masdar is totally unreliable and is a pro-regime source,and its editor in chief leith abu fadel is a die-hard pro-regime person.Alhanuty (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is a UK-based pro-FSA one-man army (Rami Abderrahman) that allegedly relies on a "network of activists on the ground", something that could made some of it content at least dubious, if not simply partisan & biased. As other users pointed earlier, remember their Aleppo prison fiasco. The fact of being cited by news agencies is irrelevant in this case, as SANA has been also cited by many news agencies several times.--HC PUNXKID 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything what you wrote here is just common sense and logic, and i believe 80% of the editors already understand this, but 20% of them are trolls, and i don't know if you or some other admin can block them because they often brake the rules just to check if they can get caught DuckZz (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC) I agree with you DuckZz,especially the trolls and those whom want go against concenscus Pbfreespace3. Alhanuty (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don´t like when peoples say that we can use only SOHR arabic source. Why? Because this i wikipedia english! (so the sources should be available in english) Sorry I don´t read/speak arabic.Rhocagil (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Tuloul Hamar (Quneitra)

This hill was captured by rebels, marked green but then changed to contested because of clashes few months ago. This video shows the hill yesterday and as you can see, the clashed area is far away because the reporter can freely walk around it and show the important locations. In my opinion, SMART news agency is an fairly objective channel, based on rebel teritory but they have good reports. Opinions ? DuckZz (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, I agree. I will make the edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is confirmation that Tuloul al-Hamar are rebel-held at Quneitra offensive (2015)#Tuloul al-Hamar. This includes 2 articles from As-Safir newspaper (not pro-rebel). Tradedia^talk 08:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Deir Ezzor

Source. al Muri'iyah and the missle base should be SAA held. MesmerMe (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The source does not state that SAA took al Muri'iyah; also it does not even mention the missile base at all.131.188.48.174 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"attacking the Syrian Armed Forces’ frontline defenses at the Military Airport; the Al-Sina’a, Al-Haweeqa, and Al-‘Amal Districts; and the village of Al-Muri’iyah" & "ISIS sent two waves of fighters towards the contested army base (southern perimeter of the airport)" They mention both the base and the town. MesmerMe (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1) As you say: "attacking the Syrian Armed Forces’ frontline defenses at [...] the village of Al-Muri’iyah". So the article clearly states that there are SAA frontline defenses at Al-Muri'iyah. It does NOT state that SAA has full control of Al-Muri'iyah or that SAA captured Al-Muri'iyah. However, Al-Muri'iyah already is red in the map for some reason. 2) Army Base != Missile Battalion. Missile Battalion [1], Army Base [2].84.138.69.94 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Muriyah area is contested between government and ISIS. The person who made the edit changing Muriyah used al-Masdar as a primary source, and the article only mentioned SAA defenses inside the town. It never stated the town was in SAA hands, and in reality ISIS has dug-in positions in the eastern part of the town area. It should therefore be changed to contested. And of course the Missile Battalion is still ISIS-held. Even now, Masdar reports heavy firefights in Jafra and Muriyah towns, even saying that both sides are deadlocked for control. Clearly Muriyah should be contested based on what some people claim is a pro-government source.73.45.167.247 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the town of Al-Mariyah from SAA control to contested between SAA and ISIS, per pro-government but also apparently reliable source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-and-shaytat-tribesmen-launch-a-large-counter-offensive-in-deir-ezzor/ 73.45.167.247 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Per "1B" rule rationale. Banak (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Infantry school captured by ISIS North Aleppo. Al Basha and Kafr Ajouz Captured by the SAA Northern Hama.

Infantry school source: [3]

Al Basha and Kafr Ajouz: [4]

Edited map with the sources provided SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SAA capture Tall Sikeek, West of Atshan in northern Hama -

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-air-force-takes-over-the-northern-hama-offensive-over-30-islamist-rebels-killed/ The offensive got off to a great start for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they captured the villages of Al-Mughayr, Markabat, and Lahaya, while also capturing the three hilltops of Tal ‘Uthman, Tal Sakhar, and Tal Sikeek after a series of intense firefights with the Islamist rebels of Liwaa Suqour Al-Ghaab (Al-Ghaab Hawks Brigade), the Free Syrian Army’s 101st Brigade, and the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.115.2 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fix Cement Plant and Kafr Qaris!46.99.7.138 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro OPP.source #Aleppo: #Urgent: Islamic State retakes Tel Susayn village in North Aleppo countryside from Rebels. https://twitter.com/F1ea1337/status/652844662747701251 Alligator200 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

ISIS retake the village of Tal Susyan.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/violent-clashes-take-place-in-the-northern-countryside-of-aleppo-and-russian-warplanes-strike-a-post-for-islamist-movement/ Alligator200 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request Quneitra

Rebels have taken control of Tell Ahrar, Mazrat al-Amal and the 4th Batallion. Those should be green. Also, we should re-add Tell Trinjeh on the map as being contested. Somebody deleted it. Source: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/566003-quneitra-rebels-take-strategic-hilltop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk)

Further proof today. Al-Masdar says both Tell Ahmar and the nearby UN Hill (to the east) are under rebel control: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-declare-control-over-u-n-hill-in-al-quneitra-renewed-offensive-at-tal-qabaa/

This makes Tell Ahmar, Mazrat al-Amal, the 4th Batallion and the UN Hill under rebel control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Counter assault was done by SAA/Hezb. at Tell Ahmar, it's atleast contested and UN Hill was retaken. Editors should wait 1-2 days, there will be no real neutral source/clear picture until then.Totholio (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Totholio, I would like to see a source on that. 73.45.167.247 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

SAA Offensive Hama

According to Al-Masdar (article here) there is an full scale ongoing SAA offensive on the opposition hold pocket in northern Hama. SAA is supposed to have taken Al-Mughayr, Markabat and stormed the citys of Latmeen, Al-Lataminah, Kafr Zita and others, fights are ongoing. According to Peto Lucem (source here and here) SAA has captured Kafr Nabudah. Anyone? More news or confirmation about this? Rhocagil (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

#SAA and allies take full control of Maarkaba, Atchan and Skayk & Hweir hills in #Hama today supported by #Russia Air Force.https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/651802715513745409 #BREAKING - SYRIAN ARMY CAPTURES KAFR NABOUDAT https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/651811484222291968 Alligator200 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody remove these trolls and re-edit the map? We have no single neutral source of evidence that those town have been taken by the SAA. On the contrary: most tweets, pictures and short films from the region show only burning SAA armour. It seems the offensive was a total failure. Even SANA and FarsNews didn't comment on it. So, revert this edit and start providing NEUTRAL SOURCES like the RULES say you must. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No neutral sources, or anything that's not pro-government, is corroborating these claims, and with how large the offensive is, if it were true, we'd see it somewhere else, which we haven't.

Twitter posts can't be used as sources, by the way, but judging from how much SAA military tech has been destroyed, I'd say their offensive has failed, badly.DaJesuZ (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Masdar can be used as source, no changes in that have been made. MesmerMe (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not an edit. I´m asking for more news and conformation but not for 84.24.43.183 stupidity. And JesuZ I don´t care what you say, I care if you can provide relevant information. Rhocagil (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's analyse the usable sources so far, i.e. [5] and [6]. The Al-Masdar article has just one paragraph on actual change of control on the ground (the rest of the article talks about temporary clashes): "Leading the way into Al-Mughayr, Ahaya, and Markabat was the Syrian Arab Army’s 87th Brigade; this contingent has announced the capture of the aforementioned towns after fierce clashes with the Islamist rebel forces earlier this morning." This supports colouring Al-Mughayr [7], l'Ahaya [8] and Markabat [9] red. SOHR: (difficult to parse) "[..] amid advancement for the regime forces in the village of Latmin, while they re-attacked the village of al- Sayyad after they retreated from the area and from areas they advanced to in al- Latamnah, Kafar Zita and Khan Sheikhoun, [..]". This justifies changing Latmin [10] to contested. Only pro-SAA sources seem to report on Kafr Nabudah so far, so it should not be changed to contested or red, yet.84.138.69.94 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes 84.138.69.94 this is discussion, information and some conformation. You can if you want. I agree with you about Kafr Nabudah and if SOHR or Al-Masdar does not confirm by tomorrow I will revert it (note that Kafr Nabudah was not my edit) Rhocagil (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If we have agreed that al-Masdar should be used as a primary source, then the towns should be changed to Assad regime control. The opposition have talked about heavy Russian airstrikes in this area, and if they are to be taken at the word, it should not be surprising that a major offensive is going on. Al-Masdar reports this, and SOHR mostly confirms it. Therefore, the change should be made. Also, the government siege icon on Kafr Zita needs to be removed, as pro-government sources do not report that the SAA is literally on the edge of the town.2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just like Al-Masdar, the rebels are notorious for their exaggeration; they might also well be using old footage to show their "victory". The advance is reported by Syrian State TV 84.24.43.183. See [11] Deserttanker (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar confirms that Kafr Nabudah and Latmin are under rebel control [12]: " [..] However, following these advances, the Syrian Armed Forces pushed too deep into enemy territory; this became reality when they took over the town of Kafr Naboudah, which was then followed by a counter-attack from the Islamist rebels. The Islamist rebels took recaptured the territory in Kafr Naboudah and pushed the Syrian Armed Forces back towards the eastern entrance of Latmeen;" Latmin should be green but besieged from the east. The same article also states that SAA took control of some hilltops: "Following their success in the wee hours of the morning, the Syrian Armed Forces advanced closer to the Idlib-Hama border, capturing the hilltops of Tal Sakhar, Tal-Sikeek[13], and Tal Uthman[14] before imposing control over the town of Al-Haweez near the imperative city of Kafr Zita." I can't seem to find Tal Sakhar and Al-Haweez.Schluppo (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is Tal Sakhar, but we need further sources for that though. MesmerMe (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro FSA source (https://archicivilians.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/latmin.png) confirmed that no rebels near Maan http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.353636&lon=36.790466&z=13&m=b&show=/7467080/Ma-an&search=Latmin and town Atshan http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.386531&lon=36.829948&z=13&m=b&show=/20495748/Atshan & Tell Sukayk http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.408640&lon=36.786346&z=13&m=b&show=/26754450/Tell-Sukayk & Tell Othman http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.399545&lon=36.459332&z=13&m=b&show=/27046309/Tell-Othman&search=Latmin now under control of Syrian army. Alligator200 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Relialbe source confirmed that Regime troops and allies take full control of Maarkaba, Atshan and Tell Sukayk & Hweir hills in Hama today supported by Russia Air Force.https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/651802715513745409 Alligator200 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerning [15]: We can not use maps to make changes. A reliable source is needed. Anyway, archicivilian stated that SAA was pushed out of Atshan and Tell Sukayk after he created the map: [16], [17]. Regarding the tweet [18], it is not from today, it is from yesterday. I suppose it is best to leave Tell Sukayk as green and Atshan as contested until reliable sources confirm or contradict archicivilian.Schluppo (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Opposition source claims that rebels took the grain silos [19] south east of Kafr Nabudah [20]. Again we need to wait for a reliable source to report on this.Schluppo (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the green half-circle north of Ma'an maybe be removed? MesmerMe (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

SAA capture Tall Sikeek, West of Atshan in northern Hama -

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-air-force-takes-over-the-northern-hama-offensive-over-30-islamist-rebels-killed/

The offensive got off to a great start for the Syrian Armed Forces, as they captured the villages of Al-Mughayr, Markabat, and Lahaya, while also capturing the three hilltops of Tal ‘Uthman, Tal Sakhar, and Tal Sikeek after a series of intense firefights with the Islamist rebels of Liwaa Suqour Al-Ghaab (Al-Ghaab Hawks Brigade), the Free Syrian Army’s 101st Brigade, and the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.161.115.2 (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro OPP.source #Urgent: #Hama: The village Atshan in #Hama countryside is now under full #SAA/#NDF control after heavy clashes with Rebels. https://twitter.com/F1ea1337/status/652818682326982656 #SAA progressing in North #Hama countryside and have captured Um Haratayn wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.400105&lon=36.839905&z=14&m=b&show=/11704957/Umm-Haratayn and Atshan http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.386531&lon=36.829948&z=13&m=b&show=/20495748/Atshan https://twitter.com/F1ea1337/status/652826771713343488 pro SAA source reported that SAA captures Fawru in Al-Ghab Plain.https://twitter.com/Ibra_Joudeh/status/652823219628548096 Alligator200 (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Mansoura,al-Safafah,Al-Koum,Al Huriyah under Syrian troops according to data from (pro FSA) source.http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/a5a7/530c9paupx5y6eczg.jpg https://twitter.com/IUCAnalysts/status/653142088645611520 Alligator200 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

al-Arba'ein wesi of Kafr Zita under control FSA.http://s2.img7.ir/shrii.jpg Alligator200 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Kafr Nabl is not Al Nusra town

This town is famous for the release signs during protests

They always carry FSA flags as seen here from one of the many examples https://malcolmxtreme.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/demonstrators-in-kafr-nabl-4-11-2015.jpg 86.26.230.122 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This source would dispute that. It says it is controlled by Jaish Fatah. However, another source also says that the FSA is present in the city. I will submit an edit request to change the town to mixed control. 73.45.167.247 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2015

This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Kafr Nabl to mixed al-Nusra/rebel control per 3 sources, including photographic evidence:

These sources indicate FSA ("moderate rebel") presence: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/10/4_russian_missiles_aimed_at_sy.html https://malcolmxtreme.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/demonstrators-in-kafr-nabl-4-11-2015.jpg This source indicates Jaish Fatah (including Jabhat al-Nusra) is also present there: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/rebels-battle-is-after-advance-in-syrias-aleppo/articleshow/49300040.cms

Therefore, mixed Nusra/FSA control is appropriate here. 73.45.167.247 (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits without sources

Dear users,

In the past days, this map has seen multiple edits without sources. Especialy in Hama and Latakia, villages have changed status based on Twitter reports, YouTube and Facebook. This is NOT permitted. Wikipedia itself has already warned multiple times. This behaviour could mean the deletion of this map! I'm talking about the following towns and villages:

Jubb al-Ahmar, changed to red without a neutral source given
Al-Ziyarah, changed to contested without a neutral source given
Quneitra, not changed even though we have a neutral and a pro-regime source giving evidence of rebel advances
Atshan, changed without a neutral source given

If this continues, I'll need to report this page to Wikipedia. We agreed to be fair and neutral in our edits. This is NOT neutral NOR fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Jubb al-Ahmar, a reliable source was given. Again, if you disagree that Masdar is a reliable source, then have us hold a community vote.
Regarding Atshan, it was changed to government control based on SOHR, which is said by most people to be pro-rebel! How can you call that "not a neutral source"!! It is SOHR for goodness sake!
I agree with you that Quneitra is static and needs to be changed, but the main issue is deciding what is a reliable report or not. Besides, there have not been major gains by one side there for awhile.

Making threats isn't going to get you anywhere. We've already had people try to delete the map but it has survived the process. If you are complaining that Masdar is being used to show government advances, you don't have to use Masdar to edit; you can use SOHR or a variety of other sources. If you want to stop people from using Masdar and SOHR for government and rebel gains, respectively, then we should vote on it, in my opinion. Unless everyone agrees to this, this fight over Masdar and SOHR is never going to end until this war ends, which will be years from now. Until then, we should stick to using both sources for all sides advances and losses, no questions asked. 73.45.167.247 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

84.24. I have no idea what are you doing here it's obvious you are an al nusra fanboy. If a pro rebel/beheader source reports advances for SAA it's not the same if they report biased casualty/opposition advances and vica versa.Totholio (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is the equivalent to SOHR. The former may have been mildly pro-government politically while the latter have been mildly pro-rebel, but they are acceptable sources since they are the least bias sources.

No offense, but when I see many people here are lauding SOHR as being more reliable source than Al-Masdar, it makes me think many users here are very bias in favour of rebels when editing map situation. If Masdar is "unreliable", then so is SOHR by logic unreliable. So if SOHR were to used, then Masdar MUST be included to confirm the verification because neither is neutral. No sources these days (including Western and Russian/Iranian/Syrian media) are exclusively neutral since every sources have been politically affiliated to a certain faction, hence its the reason we must use sources from both sides to verify any breaking news. TonyTohcy (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

TonyTohcy I think I advocated for something similar to us using both sources, but, when making edits in favor of either side, use the other as verification. If they conflict, use other sources to back up either one, and find whichever side to have the most evidence in support of it. My issue, personally, has been the advocacy of al-Masdar to be used for edits (and the partisan rhetoric that follows), and simply going by it, without verification by other sources. MAny of these pro-regime users treat al-Masdar as if it were the Koran, and that it must alays be taken word for word, and trusted, no matter what. DaJesuZ (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Many of these pro-Regime..." Look at your own words, its Government the people of Syria voted the Government in to power in a democratic election in 2014. You are a ISIS supporting terrorist supporter and yet all you contribute to this article is whinging and crying about it. If you dislike the article and the people who use it why not create one where all you Al Nusrat and Free Shit Army guys can make a false map that your brainless followers will believe. Stop spamming the article with your narrow minded view of how you think it should be. You support a dirty terrorist organization, you honestly expect people not to tell it how it is? We can't assume good faith with a fucking dirty scumbag terrorist supporter. So stop crying like a 10 year old child DaJesuZ SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

SyrianObserver2015, fucknut, if I were so against Assad, and so in support of the Islamic State, why in Christ's name would I be FOR the use of al-Masdar to confirm opposition gains? You're of of the half-witted idiots that praises al-Masdar for its accuracy, and NEVER uses anything other than it to show gains by the government, and you ONLY pmake posts that support government gains. THAT is what I object to.

Democratic election? Dumbass, half of the Syrian population didn't even participate, and based on the actions the government took against protestors, those who did not confront or attack troops sent in to quell any dissent, I'm calling complete and total bullshit on any claim that the election was, in ANY way, democratic.

You have yet to show how I'm, in any way, a supporter of the Islamic State taking over Syria and Iraq, and until you do, kindly fuck off. Allow me to do the leg work for you, where I'll copy a post from my talk page, so I can show you my stance on the Islamic State.

"As for my anti-jihadist but pro-IS sentiments; I want the Islamic State to win. I see that as the best possible outcome for the civil war. If they win, they knock out Bashar al-Assad, as well as the Shia government in Iraq. If they took care of Bashar al-Assad, Israel would almost certainly become involved, and get rid of the IS government in the country, and whatever's left of the rebels would have power turned over to them. In Iraq, to prevent an Islamic State being created there, one of the goals of AQI (IS), Israel and the United States would invade, and topple the relatively weak jihadist government. We'd pretty much have a complete reenactment if the Second Gulf War (the 2003 invasion of Iraq), but, hopefully, we'd be smart enough to leave behind a force to help deal with the insurgency that would come out of the invasion. There are, however, three big problems with this outcome: The FSA and Kurds are in an alliance. They'd allow the creation of a Kurdish state, or, at least, autonomous area on the border with Turkey. That could trigger Turkish military action. Next, if Israel invaded, that would worsen Israeli-Turkish relations, and Turkey has effectively stated their opposition to Israel. Lastly, if Israel aided in the invasion of Iraq, that could trigger a confrontation with Iran. There's really no way this war can end with only Syria and Iraq being ravaged. I think this war is destined to turn into a large scale international conflict, and not one involving simple pest control (air strikes).DaJesuZ (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)"

I rest my case, bitch.

Syrian government apparently making advances. Extent of them not known/stated http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34500516. DaJesuZ (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.80.126 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing Offensives

Salma should become contested: Source. Reports are also coming in of the SAA entering Kafr Nabudah but more reliable reports than simple tweets would likely be needed. I would, however, suggest putting a circle south of the city. Masdar reports on first entering the city, than the full taking. MesmerMe (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Kafr Nabudah under control by Assad troops.https://www.facebook.com/www.documents.sy/posts/836322503133690 Alligator200 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Durin might be green per pro-rebel sources

[1] and [2] and alJazeera [3] All are pro-Rebel and claim FSA controls Durin. Any reliable sorces or Pro-Regime on this ? Helmy1453 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

0 pictures and videos from Dureen, SAA/NDF denied it, they are slowly advancing on Salma(reported) https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/653535398304460801/photo/1

But Kafr Nabudah looks retaken by the orcs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciRUCZjBx8c Totholio (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-reclaim-kafr-naboudeh-in-northern-hama/ Totholio (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

All reports of militants recapturing/entering Doureen village in Latakia are Biased.https://twitter.com/Ibra_Joudeh/status/653571837784399874 Doreen still on 100% under SAA control.https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/653575793952616449 https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/653535398304460801 https://twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/653522138528280576 https://twitter.com/watanisy/status/653517976755376128 Alligator200 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Doureen still under Assad troops. Ahrar al Sham statement claim that rebels entered Durin but retreated later.http://ahraralsham.net/?p=9868 https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/653638963094253568 Alligator200 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Salma made contested without a pro oppesition source

Salma in Lazeqia was green . now it is contested I want to know based on what ? Helmy1453 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't even reported by pro SAA, they are going for the hills overlooking Salma for fire control.Totholio (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, no reason for this change. Maybe it will be soon but we will see it.Paolowalter (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Masdar reported that the SAA was in heavy firefights with al-Nusra in the town of Salma. If we are going to use Masdar as a source, then this town should be contested, Paolowalter. 73.45.167.247 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This report just states "SAA began their assault by targeting Jabhat Al-Nusra’s defensive positions in Salma’s east district". That does not make Salma contested. In the more recent posting [www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-is-on-a-roll-in-northeastern-latakia-two-strategic-towns-captured-in-48-hours/] Al-Masdar states: "Kafr Al-Dalbeh and Kafr Ajouz are two towns situated south of the rebel stronghold Salma; if lost, then the aforementioned city’s southern perimeter will be exposed by the hills that overlook it. With their success, SAA are now in a prime position begin a major operation to capture this rebel stronghold that has been out of their possession since early 2012". It means they are going to attck it but it is still in rebels' hand.Paolowalter (talk)

"That does not make Salma contested". Yes it does!. Source clearly talk about fighting IN SALMA'S EAST DISTRICT, so that means INSIDE THE TOWN OF SALMA. Funny trying to avoid that change when in other cases other users had used sources stating clashes "AROUND X TOWN" or "IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF X TOWN" in order to misinterpretate that sources and made their POV-driven edits...--HC PUNXKID 21:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

New color for Russian air base in Latakia

Russian controlled the Latakia Airport (Military sector only). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hezbollah areas along the border of Lebanon, as well as Fuah and Kafraya, have never been marked as being under the control of that group, and have always been marked as being under the control of the government, and I think the same should be done with any Russian controlled areas, as well as any Iranian held areas within the country. If you start coloring these places differently just to show what pro-Assad group holds them, you'd need to start coloring every area held by a different opposition group a differently. The idea simply doesn't work.DaJesuZ (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hezbollah no represent a state they not represent the Lebanese Army they fighting under Syrian Arab Republic flag.

The Russian are deployed their personal using the Russian flag deploying troops under the Russian flag into this base this is the official presence from a third state in the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Iranian Republican Guard has been actively involved in the war for quite a long time. We haven't used the Iranian flag to show what areas they hold or are supporting the government in. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. DaJesuZ (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OMFG the Iranians, Lebanese, Iraqis fight under the SYRIAN OFFICIAL FLAG, the Russian base in Latakia is under the RUSSIAN FLAG with OFFICIAL Russian military personal stop to be dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

On the Iraqi map, we don't mark al-Asad Airbase, Camp Taji, and Taqqadum Airbase as purple or something just because the US has hundreds of military trainers and advisers present, especially because they are alongside local forces, and the local forces in both situations nominally control the base. I don't think a separate color is appropriate here. Only if forces clash should subforces be shown. In which case, no Hezbollah or Iranians, but rebels vs Nusra should be shown, as clashes have occurred. 73.45.167.247 (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Jesus christ... then let's mark the jordanian/saudi/turkish/qatari coalition founding and pouring in FOREIGN forces by the thousands with intel support/logistics cause you know without them the war would end in 2 months.Totholio (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who should stop saying stupidities, Russia aint a differenced party on the war, but part of the pro-government side, just as Iran or Hezbollah are. Period.--HC PUNXKID 21:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. We color them according the who/what the fight for. The Kurds have their own interests, so we mark them yellow. Jabhat al-Nusra has their own interests - an Islamic State in Syria - so we color them grey-ish, as they came into conflict with the more moderate rebels, or those aligned with the FSA, necessitating the change. The areas under the control of Jaysh al-Islam, the FSA, and the Islamic Front (as well as various other smaller groups) are marked as green because of their alliance with the FSA, meaning we should mark them a single color, as open fighting is rare among the members of the alliance, and do not risk it tearing the front apart. Russia and Iran may both be totally separate, third party, groups, involved in the way, but their interests are tied to keeping the Assad regime in power, and the actions of their military in the country reflect that. Pro-government areas are staying red. FSA (and allied groups) are staying green. Jabhat al-Nusra is staying grey-ish. IS is staying black. Local/unaffiliated groups are staying blue. Kurdish peshnerga are staying yellow. If anything is changed, I'm reverting it. DaJesuZ (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to post this. Al Masdar is ruining this map

This HD map for the area N. of Damascus was made by a reliable reporter, and we use him for both government and rebel advances. It shows that our map is outdated and pretty much wrong. Even the hardcore government supporter Leith Fadel made a comment on his map, and the only 2 locations for which he had some critism were "Al Tal, for which he actually changed his argument and said that both FSA/SAA are present inside, but i will not believe him" . So basically, everything from this map is true, even Al-Tal as confirmed from Leith Fadel. This only shows how much Al Masdar is bad for wikipedia. DuckZz (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any commment on this ? I have been talking to this reporter on twitter and he said that Leith has basically no idea what he's talking about, acting like a proffesional reporter but invents thing for which nobody heard anything of. The best example is Hasaka, he was arguing with Aris Rousinos, a reporter from Hasaka, basically claiming everything opposite, nothing is true etc ... i want to start editing this map and discuss with other people, but as long Al Masdar stays under the primary source rule, this map won't go to far. Tradedia^talk DuckZz (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC) i agree.Alhanuty (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

SOHR aint by a far a reliable source, but a one-man organization wich aim is to be the cheerleader of that dying bandit group called FAKE Syrian Army, and anyone not pro-"moderate" beheaders knows it...--HC PUNXKID 22:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Maghar al-Mir, Rif Dimashq

Maghar al-Mir (مغرالمير‎) was put on our map on 23 December 2014 as contested by copying from pro-gov Peto Lucem map. His map is biased towards the gov, so Maghar al-Mir was put on the frontline. However, there are no reports of clashes in the town for many months and there is the pro-gov website of شبكة أخبار مغر المير (Maghar al-Mir News Network) that makes a prayer on June 28, 2015 that Maghar al-Mir would “return to its people” (majority druze). Also, many reports that it is regularly bombed by air… It is now part of the rebel-held pocket of Beit Jinn. So Maghar al-Mir should be put in green. Tradedia^talk 13:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar proved to be unreliable,they reported yesterday that Regime Naboudah was regime-held,but it came out to be false.Alhanuty (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Masdar posted no such thing, Leith did, on his personal Twitter account. MesmerMe (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

whom is an editor on Al-Masdar,so it is unreliable.Alhanuty (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is even more unreliable. Inventing deaths and he is living in Coventry one man. Enjoying hotels from day to day. Paranoid out of his head. He was the one that said 36 civilians had died by Russian bombs 4 hours before the Russians even had started to take off. This is not an out lying incident. He continues to say the Government forces are using gas on several occasions recently all turned out to be fabrications.

I find it strange that a pro isis, pro Al nusrat and pro FSA editors all agree that Al Masdar to be removed but I suggest removing SOHR as well if you remove Al Masder as there is 10 times more fabrication from that idiot.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A new (to me at least) source can be https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa. She is professional journalist and seems to be reasonably unbiased and claims to have sources on ground. We can follow the same rule used for the Kuwaitian journalist (I cannot remember his name). She confirms that https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/652213249581142016 is under attack .Paolowalter (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

She is pro "opposition" and claimed this as a development for syrian women. http://www.integrales-productions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/jenan_moussa_Alep_7integrales_productions.jpg but definitely not biased. Totholio (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk •

SyrianObserver2015 SOHR is more unreliable? Totally. A source that is denounced by several rebel groups, the head of which even called an Alawite by some, ridicule for being pro-regime, is more unreliable. That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. Al-Masdar has been inventing its own deaths, such as when it claimed to have eliminated upwards of 150 IS fighters after repulsing an assault on Dier ez-Zoir, when in actuality, somewhere near 80 fighters were killed, and they didn't even comment on SAA casualties, which is currently suffering from manpower shortages, and falling morale. You, also, realize that SOHR reported Russians bombing opposition targets before the Russian or Syrian governments saying Russians began operations there doesn't mean that they didn't happen, right? The US began air and missile strikes on Daesh targets before acknowledging it, and because of Syrian losses over the past year, it was in Russia's best interests to intervene, acknowledging it or not. None of the gas attacks, by the way, have been shown to be false, and have only been disregarded by those who support the government, showing bias.

The map was, relatively speaking, accurate, before the inclusion of al-Masdar, and has received much less praise, by EVERYONE who has looked at it since, about, eight months.

The editors for Al-Masdar have consistently shown to be biased, unreliable, and have given the page great reason to not use it as a source. It need to be removed, immediately.DaJesuZ (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Save me the "sky is falling" rant already. We already told you we don't care about the death tolls reported from either side, only territory changes. You slam Al-Masdar for lack of reliability while claim that ISIS casualties are only 80 and that the SAA is suffering failing morale. Who told you that, your ISIS friends? I don't care what several rebel groups say about SOHR, there is not doubt of its bias, and SOHR has had its fair share of lies [Aleppo central prison ring a bell?]. Unless you can produce solid examples of Al-Masdar [from al-masdar news ONLY, not leith's twitter feed] being consistently wrong about TERRITORIAL CHANGES, Al-masdar will stay alongside SOHR. Simply generalizing and saying "Al-Masdar is killing this map!!" won't cut it. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Go through the talk history of this page, XJ-0461 v2, and you will find myself, as well as other users ridiculing SOHR for bias and unreliability (and I am pro-FSA, not Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, or IS), and called out inconsistencies regarding its claims. I have never claimed to want IS to win this war, nor have I claimed that I want them in power, but people like you, and those who have defended Al-Masdar have consistently shown that you, effectively, support a Middle Eastern Soviet Union, where people ridicule the opposition for beheadings and murders, yet you turn a blind eye to the Syrian military, in some cases, intentionally killing its own civilians, or eliminating any opposition to the government. Is that what you want? Are you seriously as bad as the pro-fascists on 4chan's /pol/ board? The claim that somewhere around 80-90 IS fighters was made by various opposition sources I found while screwing around on Tor. Tor doesn't save browsing history, so I don't have them readily available. DaJesuZ (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So, according to what you say, both Al-Masdar & SOHR should be removed or both should stay. Otherwise, you're showing an enormous bias...--HC PUNXKID 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove town "Bayanoun", "Kafr Dael", and "Halisah", as they are already present on the Aleppo png map, as we don't include dots in detailed maps: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Rif_Aleppo2.svg 24.125.6.171 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the town Kafr Nabudah from contested to rebel control with gov siege icon to the south per pro-government source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-reclaim-kafr-naboudeh-in-northern-hama/ 24.125.6.171 (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sukayk

I saw many reports that Sukayk (east pk Kahn Shaykun) is SAA controlled (including various maps) but I could not find 'reliable' source' about it. Does anybody know of any confirmation?Paolowalter (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed indirectly by https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/653635695924281344.Paolowalter (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Supported by SAA official statement. See below. I go for changing it.Paolowalter (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Also from https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/653641608257253376.Paolowalter (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have other sources other than twitter? Deserttanker (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter, Twitter can't be used as a source. That was decided some months ago. Provide something better than that.DaJesuZ (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Finally http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-enters-the-idlib-governorate-after-capturing-sukayk/ confirmed it.Paolowalter (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Rastan

From SOHR it is apparent that part of Rastan is under government control. The city should be contested I guess.Paolowalter (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Very strange AL-masdar has not reported anything about this. Maybe SOHR considers a part of the north side of the river a part of Rastan. We could at least wait one day for more news before making any changes.Rhocagil (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Quneitra front

4th battalion and Tal al-Ahmar under control Assad troops.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/explosive-barrels-on-quneitra-countryside-and-losses-in-al-hasakah/ Alligator200 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Message to user HCPunkKid

You continue to change areas such as the Youth prison and infantry school to rebel held, when both sources have showed that these areas were taken by government forces after the terrorists FSA groups ran away to the Turkish border. If you continue to revert edits that have been made by sourced information and those being provided here, I will look for you to be blocked from this page. And that goes to ALL editors who support different factions stop fucking manipulating the map, simples. Hail Putin bitches.

I have undone your revisions and these areas went back to RED, the colour they should be. However if you done this by mistake ( Which I highly doubt)then you may explain your actions here. Otherwise do not change around 30 locations from red to green just because you support the terrorist moderate beheaders.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain me what the fuck you talk about? "change around 30 locations from red to green just because you support the terrorist moderate beheaders"?!?! Who, me? Are u stoned, high on heroin or what? And stop menacing me, moron...--HC PUNXKID 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

SyrianObserver2015, you say that editors should stop manipulating the map in favor of one side, and yet you constantly do so yourself. "Hail Putin", it could not be more obvious which side you support! How can you tell others to stop being biased when you yourself are so biased! You clearly support the government of Syria, based on unsourced edit after unsourced edit! All in favor of the government! You need to provide sources for all edits that you make so we know the changes are accurate. Threatening to block people also won't get you anywhere, as it make you look bad. Neither I nor HCPUNXKID are threatening to block you, and yet you take sourced pro-rebel edits personally when there is no need to. There is little you or me can do to influence the battles on the ground and the outcome of the war. All we can do is document what is actually happening using reliable sources we show in the edit summary. This hatred and vitriol must stop now, for the good of this map and Wikipedia, so editors need to stop calling each other terrorists and ISIS-supporters. AFAIK, no-one here actually supports ISIS, so stop calling names every single time you post. Be calm, stay civil, and source all your edits. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:443E:EFF2:92D0:3090 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Official Syrian Army claim from new villages controlled (October 12)

http://sana.sy/en/?p=57550

The General Command said that the Armed Forces established control over the towns and villages of Kafar Nabouda, Atshan, Qubeibat, Maarakaba, Oum Harten, Sekik, Tal Sekik, Tal al-Sakher, and al-Bahsa in the northern countryside of Hama province.

In the northern countryside of Lattakia province, army units established control over the towns of Jub al-Ahmar and Kafar Delbe, in addition to Katef Jouret al-Batikh hills and Ruwaiset Khandaq Jamo, the statement said, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Kafr Naboudah was controlled by SAA but they relost it per SOHR and AL-Masdar SOHR. Atshan is contested and alot of clashes is going there but I can't find it on the map at all ?? am I not seeing it or it dosn't exist on the map ? Jub Al-Ahmar alot of mixed sources and it looks to me like cintested as each side gains it then the other regain it. other locatins you mentioned I have no idea. Helmy1453 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

SOHR http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/the-russian-warplanes-carry-out-about-40-raids-on-the-town-of-kafar-nabboda-while-the-violent-clashes-continue-in-the-northern-countryside-of-hama-and-sah-al-ghab/ stated Kafr Nabodah is contested. No discussion about Atshan, it is here. I saw no reliable mixed source about Jub Al-Ahmar. Before Saa took 4 hills, then the fifth, then the village itself. Paolowalter (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

pro FSA source confirmed that Atshan, Al Arbaeen under regime troops, clashes near Al Tamanah.https://twitter.com/VoSham/status/653640753885806592 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRIuM6OUsAElkcw.jpg:large Alligator200 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Doureen still under Assad troops. Ahrar al Sham statement claim that rebels entered Durin but retreated later.http://ahraralsham.net/?p=9868 https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/653638963094253568 Alligator200 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing like 'Assad troops'. They are the syrian arab army or SAA.Paolowalter (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar (pro-govt) admitted SAA lost Kafr Nabudah. TonyTohcy (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

SOHR claim that the regime forces and militiamen loyal to them from Syrian, Arab and Asian nationalities took control of al-Mansura village after clashes against rebels http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/factions-advance-again-in-kafrenbudeh-and-clashes-continue-in-the-countryside-of-latakia/ Alligator200 (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty low. "regime forces and militiamen loyal to them from Syrian, Arab and Asian nationalities", Seems our buddy Abdul-Rahman is ratcheting up the rhetoric. Then again, that's pretty typical given what's happening in Syria right now. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

XJ-0461 v2, he basically means Iranians and Kazakhs. And yet pro-rebel SOHR said there were government gains! If you are anti-SOHR, then why are you opposed to this edit? 2601:C7:8303:22DC:443E:EFF2:92D0:3090 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm just pointing out how there seems to be an increased emphasis on supposed foreign elements fighting with assad. At first it was regime forces, then regime and allies, then regieme and allied afghans, now regime and allies from Syria, Arabia, and Asia. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Ihras and Tell Jabbin (north of Aleppo) to contested between rebels and ISIS per http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/14/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0S81A320151014 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Many contradictory statements about the status of these two towns. Probably better put them contested and wait that the dust settles.Paolowalter (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Ghab front

Pro FSA sources reported that the Assad's forces take over the villages of ‪Fawru‬ and Sirmaniyah‬ in the western suburbs. https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/posts/1244934792200321 https://www.facebook.com/Hamah.Now/posts/687521778049511 Alligator200 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Purple on the map?

There are a few cities/towns around Damascus that are colored purple, but there is no indication anywhere I can find of what purple signifies. The key should be edited to indicate what the purple means, as is I have no idea who controls those towns. al dumayr and ar-ruhaybah are the largest of the towns marked purple, but there are several others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4101:40A4:D135:BA18:6359:2B32 (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It means a truce or ceasefire XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Aleppo Front

Now (Pro rebels source) claimed that the Assad troops now controls the Infantry School,after ISIS seized it from Rebel forces. https://twitter.com/Abboud11S/status/653952289426788353 https://twitter.com/YallaIr7al/status/653914090629394432 https://twitter.com/YallaIr7al/status/653913879689449472 pro FSA reporter also confirmed that Aleppo Infantry Schoo under control Assad troops.https://twitter.com/HadiAlabdallah/status/653913150006394880 Alligator200 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop to said as dumb "Assad troops" the correct term is Syrian Army or SAA, wait a official confirmation twitters claims it's not a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

All these areas have been changed with sources stop changing the infantry school and Juvenial priison in Aleppo to Terrorist rebels held, when clearly they are running for the Turkish border, whoever undone these sourced edits better have a source for undoing them. The next person I see changing this area to rebel held I will be seeking to get banned from the article permenantly. This is clear map manipulation, and destruction of the truth. The Syrian Arab Army have control of these areas and both ISIS and Rebel terrorists are retreating to Turkish border to ask Erdoggin for more weapons.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

no confirmation SAA is in infantry school. They are nearby and in the free zone Jumada (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Alligator200, Twitter isn't a source, and can't be used as onem this was agreed on months ago.

SyrianObserver2015, act on your threats, or shut up... The whole of the page is getting pretty tired of you.

The regime isn't in the Juvenile school or infantry academy. Not even al-Masdar claims they are. DaJesuZ (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

DaJesuZ Juvenile Prison under control by Assad troops.via (pro FSA source) https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/posts/1243486995678434 Alligator200 (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Facebook pages or twitter accounts of unknown origin cannot be accepted unles we know the author behind them is reliable (like a professional jurnalist). Nevetheless this page is right because this gains of SAA (not Assad troops) were reported by relaible sources. That is not the case for the Infantry Accademy. So situation on the ground based on reliable source is Juvenile prison red and Infantry accademy black. I'll change correspondingly.Paolowalter (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter DaJesuZ official pro rebels source {Local Coordination Committees of Syria} confirmed that Juvenile Prison under control by Assad troops. https://www.facebook.com/LCCSy/posts/1243486995678434 and pro FSA source (zamanalwsl) confirmed that Aleppo Infantry School under control of Assad troops. https://www.zamanalwsl.net/news/64946.html#.Vh1IKUrJQvQ.facebook. So stop revert my edits. Alligator200 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Alligator200, we don't use social media as a source, as anyone, claiming to be a part of any organization, can put out anything, supporting any side. Facebook, Twitter, tumblr, and any other social media outlet, are not sources, and should not be treated as though they are.

Paolowalter, are you sure about that? I was under the impression that we don't use social media as sources, and with the large number of people backing Hemly's suggestion regarding edits made to the page, I didn't think we could use them. I could be wrong, I'm just saying what I thought.

BTW - DELETED SyrainObserver's comment. I'll be doing that from now on when personal attacks are lodged. DaJesuZ (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We can use them under very restrictive conditions, after discussion on this page and after consensus is reached. That was decided long time ago. Some of the editors are not following this approach.Paolowalter (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

DaJesuZ I'm not use just only data from personal page the some activists from social media. I only use data from page of the official pro rebels source Local Coordination Committees of Syria in Facebook and those my actions dont violate the rules of editing. Alligator200 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you are also using https://www.zamanalwsl.net/news/64946.html#.Vh1IKUrJQvQ.facebook. And also Local Coordination Committees of Syria must be accepted by consensus.Paolowalter (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Facebook page can be used exceptionally only if we know whi is behind them, just claiming to be pro or against of party is not sufficient. The LCC seem to be rapresentative, so we may decide to use it for against FSA claims. But we need to reach a consensus about it. Other site like https://www.zamanalwsl.net/news/64946.html#.Vh1IKUrJQvQ.facebook seem not representative and they present an ubelievable history that SAA and ISIS are hidden allies. So another time Infantry School is black. Infact LCC is not claiming it. Please revert it or I'll do it tomorrow.Paolowalter (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter Also many pro rebels activist confirmed that Aleppo Infantry School under control of Assad troops.(Jad Bantha)https://twitter.com/JadBantha/status/654325602024079360 (pro rebels activist)https://twitter.com/Abboud11S/status/653952289426788353 (pro rebels source The Revolting Syrian) https://twitter.com/YallaIr7al/status/653914090629394432 https://twitter.com/YallaIr7al/status/653913879689449472 and pro rebel reporter (Hadi Alabdallah) also confirmed that Aleppo Infantry Schoo under control Assad troops.https://twitter.com/HadiAlabdallah/status/653913150006394880 and source (zamanalwsl) which support anti-Assad forces also confirmed that Aleppo Infantry School under control of Assad troops.https://www.zamanalwsl.net/news/64946.html#.Vh1IKUrJQvQ.facebook. So I ask you stop claim nonsence and stop revert my edits. Alligator200 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually bet that Alligator200 is a sockpuppet of Deonis2012/Hanibal911. He has a history of making sockpuppet accounts, and Alligator200's account was only created 7 days ago, which was 3 days after another confirmed sock, YokoHama was banned. Alligator has only ever edited pages involving this conflict, too. It's not that I disagree with what Alligator200 is trying to do, but I want to be sure Alligator is true and not covering this up. It is just a hunch, and I am not sure where to report this. PErhaps someone else can open an investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not some sockpuppet I only new guy in Wikipedia. So why you accused me that I connected with some bad guys such as the Deonis2012/Hanibal911 or some guy which have name YokoHama. Very strange to hear such things from anonym who even does not want to register in Wikipedia and use only your IP. Alligator200 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"Bad guys such as Hanibal911"?!?! What a bunch of ignorant morons you are, Hanibal911 (and I had serious discussions & disagrees with him) was by far 10 trillion times better & fair editor than any of you are...--HC PUNXKID 22:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For the first time, I find myself in agreement with HC, as I liked and respected Hannibal, and was sad to see him go, despite his staunch pro-regime views. He was fair. Ridiculing those who are not here to reply to criticism is a pretty low thing for you to do, Alligator200. I suggest you stop. DaJesuZ (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Tell Jibbin & Ahras

I've put both towns as contested, as SOHR (http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/20-rebels-and-is-militants-killed-in-clashes-in-the-northern-countryside-of-aleppo/) & Al-Masdar (http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-continues-advance-into-aleppo-city-islamist-rebels-retreat-from-two-towns/) sources contradict each other. This is what I see as a compromise solution, but I wouldnt be surprised if any other user revert it, good faith & neutral editing aint something abounding here...--HC PUNXKID 23:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Now Al-Masdar confirm that the rebels (insurgent) took control of it and I changed them to green.Paolowalter (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bir Khalah and other things to fix

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map thinks to check:

Bir Khalah has double entry,
Qabr ‘Aymu and Ar Rafi 'ah have the same coordinates.

--Hogg 22 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Tall Ayyub is not on coordinates (36.109, 37.593) but (36.112, 37.617) ie 2 km to the east. --Hogg 22 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Double entry:

{ lat = "36.339", long = "36.954", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "5", label = "[[al-Zooq]]", link = "al-Zooq", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
{ lat = "36.339", long = "36.953", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Zuq Al Kabir]]", link = "#Zuq Al Kabir", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

I believe this Kurdish willage is under YPG. --Hogg 22 (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Hayzah and Dallawiyah Saghirah apperas to be on the same cooridnates:

{ lat = "36.902", long = "41.196", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "[[Al Hayzah]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
...
{ lat = "36.902", long = "41.196", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "[[Dallawiyah Saghirah]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

Wikimapia says that willage is called Al-Takht. Please clarify. --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Tal Hamidiya and Hamidi have the same coordinates, but Tal Hamidiya (lat 36.817, long 41.166) is archeological site on a hill 1.5 km N of Hamidi. { lat = "36.806", long = "41.166", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Tal Hamidiya", link = "#Tal Hamidiya", label_size = "0", position = "top" }, { lat = "36.806", long = "41.166", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Hamidi", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible duplicate entry:

{ lat = "36.628", long = "40.987", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Sibat]]", label_size = "0", position = "top", },
{ lat = "36.628", long = "40.988", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Al Sabat]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate entry:

{ lat = "36.470", long = "38.566", mark = "map-ctl2-lime+yellow.svg", marksize = "4", label = "[[Tuzinj]]", link = "Tuzinj", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
{ lat = "36.470", long = "38.566", mark = "map-ctl2-lime+yellow.svg", marksize = "4", label = "[[Derbatan]]", link = "Derbatan", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

Derbatan should be moved. Change to:

{ lat = "36.502", long = "38.511", mark = "map-ctl2-lime+yellow.svg", marksize = "4", label = "[[Derbatan]]", link = "Derbatan", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Kafr Halab and Jazraya, change

{ lat = "36.082", long = "36.87", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Kafr Halab]]", link = "#Kafr Halab", label_size = "0", position = "top" }
{ lat = "35.850", long = "37.050", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Jazraya]]", link = "#Jazraya", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "36.061", long = "36.871", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Kafr Halab]]", link = "#Kafr Halab", label_size = "0", position = "top" }
{ lat = "35.860", long = "36.983", mark = "Location dot lime.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Jazraya]]", link = "#Jazraya", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

Anybody reading this ;)? --Hogg 22 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Khatunīyah is actualy Killiyah Khatunīyah and Killiyah on Wikimapia, maybe change

{ lat = "36.473", long = "38.363", mark = "Location_dot_black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Khatunīyah]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "36.473", long = "38.363", mark = "Location_dot_black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Killiyah]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
{ lat = "36.467", long = "38.334", mark = "Location_dot_black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Khatunīyah]]", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Grouh has wrong coordinates, see Jruh on wikimapia.

{ lat = "35.106", long = "37.605", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Grouh]]", link = "Grouh", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

needs to be changed to

{ lat = "35.104", long = "37.497", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Grouh]]", link = "Grouh", label_size = "0", position = "right" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate entry, Ghweilan = Khuweylan:

{ lat = "36.674", long = "39.342", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Ghweilan]]", link = "Ghweilan", label_size = "0", position = "left" },
{ lat = "36.674", long = "39.342", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Khuweylan]]", link = "Khuweylan", label_size = "0", position = "left" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate entry of Jabal al Hayt

{ lat = "34.734", long = "37.901", mark = "map-peak-red.svg", marksize = "8", label = "[[Jabal al Hayt]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
...
{ lat = "34.734", long = "37.9", mark = "map-peak-red.svg", marksize = "8", label = "[[Jabal al Hayt]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove

{ lat = "33.017", long = "36.7736", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "4", label = "[[?]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

because it's Banat Ba'er, which is already listed:

{ lat = "33.017", long = "36.774", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Banat Ba'er]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a duplicate entry for Rimat Hazim:

{ lat = "32.758", long = "36.534", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Rimat Hazim]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
...
{ lat = "32.758", long = "36.534", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "[[Rimat Hazim]]", link = "#no", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

--Hogg 22 (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Qaramitah Checkpoint

North of Hama (on Orontes River) Nusra-Checkpoint in red Area??? No it is not. please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.19.32.66 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the keen eye you must of had fun zooming in that far. The checkpoint was Qaramitah, changed to red not possible to be grey now.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to solve the Al-Masdar SOHR conflict

Lots of arguments/fights have been going on this page cause of the disagreement on how to use Al-Masdar specially as it is Pro-Regime. but nothing is solved as the answer is always SOHR is pro-Rebels as well. So here is my suggestion to solve the conflict :- Al-Masdar can be used for non-regime gains unconditionally. SOHR to be used for non FSA/Kurds gains unconditionally . Al-Masdar to be used for Regime gains just if it is confirmed by neutral sorce or unchalenged by Anri Regime sources and the wordings to be clear (no smart conclusions it has to state clearly SAA is in control of so and so land-village whatever). SOHR to be used for FSA/Kurds gains just if it is confirmed by neutral sorce or unchalenged by Regime or ISIS sources and the wordings to be clear (no smart conclusions it has to state clearly FSA/Kurds is in control of so and so land-village whatever). I guess this method is fair reliable and accurate and will cut out with alot of proplembs in the talk page and incorrect edits that needs to be reverted every once and a while. if chalenged then contested is always a good solution for a while until we gets more sources. Let me know what you guys thing of this . Helmy1453 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be a great idea to solve our current problem. If we could get editors to adhere to the following terms. One problem I see though, is what type of source would be considered reliable enough to challenge Al-Masdar/SOHR. For example, if Al-Masdar said SAA takes village A, but a twitter account called @deathtoassad/longliveISIS says that village A is still under ISIS control, would that be a valid challenge? XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

XJ-0461 v2 Good and valid point. But one step at a time. If we agree on such method we can define reliable but biased chalenging sources. By the way from my experience following this war most sources don't chalange othersides gains, they just don'r mention it as if it never happened. but we can use news agenecys like AL-Mannar and SAA and Aljazeera Alarabia as chalenging claimers. all these are super Biasses but controlled as they are not a @deathtoassad/longliveISIS twitter account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem would probably be the same. Which sources would be labelled as "neutral"? Al Jazeera?, Press TV?, BBC?, AL Arabiya?, France24?, RT?, CNN?... Neither of them are neutral, and same would happen with all that bunch of Twitter self-titled "analysts", for example the pompous named "Institute for United Conflict Analysts", wich is clearly biased towards one side, at least in Syria (well, also in Ukraine, where is also crystal-clear which side they support). So I see very difficult to find a solution for that. But it's curious that only weeks before Al-Masdar was included as a reliable source pro-"moderate" suicide bomber fanboys started crying about it, when we had to accept that FSA-cheerleading one-man army called SOHR for years as almost the only source allowed, ah the double standards... --HC PUNXKID 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would generally consider most western media to be reliable. The main exceptions are the following:

RT (Russia Today) is founded and run by Russians and some Russian government people, generally supports the Russian government and its allies, and therefore is pro-government.

Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya come from mostly Sunni Gulf States/allies and generally support Sunnis and tend to be against Shias in wars. Therefore they should not be used to show rebel gains.

Press TV is Iranian state media, and therefore should not be used for government gains.

All of the others seem fine to me. If there is a case of specific bias, then we can analyze it, but most western sources are actually not that pro-rebel from what I have read and seen. I hope this Masdar/SOHR conflict ends soon and we can all mostly agree. 24.125.6.171 (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Majority of the Western media took their sources from none other than SOHR, a pro-rebel group. If SOHR reliability has been come into question, then so should Western media. Like I said before, no sources these days are neutral to the conflict. TonyTohcy (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: 24.125.6.171, as you said, that is your personal opinion. For me and many others, perhaps some Western media are not nominally runned by their governments, but in practice they are the mouthpieces of their governments, and in other cases they are simply their government speakers, for example:

BBC is property of the British government, so they will paint the vision that Downing street dictates to them.
France24 is owned by France Médias Monde, wich is a holding company of the French government, so logically they are the mouthpiece of L'Élysée.

So, it has no logic unless we accept double standards and hypocritical western world moral superiority that we deny credibility to RT or Press TV for being state-owned, but at the same time we accept it on state-owned BBC or France24. Regards,--HC PUNXKID 14:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Throwing my backing behind this, Helmy1453. Seems to be, for the most part, a good idea.

XJ-0461 v2, Twitter can't be used as a source, however, say pictures or videos that can be confirmed to have come out after the area was said to be under government control, contradicting that claim, I think the area should be contested, until we can find other, neutral sources backing either side.

BTW - DELETED DaJesuZ comment. I'll be doing that from now on when personal attacks are lodged.--HC PUNXKID 22:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

DaJesuZ, I dont give a fuck about subhumans like you, "people" who support genocide of a ethnic group (you would be a brilliant follower of Joseph Goebbels & Heinrich Himmler, for sure), who cheer the decapitation of civilians because of their beliefs, who support the violent imposition of sharia law by force in a country where the majority dont want it (I hope that someday that yihadis you love so much impose an islamic emirate in your town, that would be soooo funny...), so you can stay vomiting all the muck you have inside (difficult when you have tons of stinky shit inside you). I dont like to fall to this level, but its you who have started with the personal attacks ("moronic piece of hypocritical shit"), so Im not gonna stay silent. I didnt pointed to a particular user on my previous comment, so if you feel that was aimed at you, you should think why you feel & act like that, perhaps an emotional trauma?. I would recommend you to leave WP, as it seems that your input here can be resumed on crying like a baby protesting things you dont like and trying to engage into conflict with other users by insulting & making personal attacks. I repeat, I know WP's talk page aint for this, but its you who started to engage into personal disqualification. For my part, I hope this is the last time I talk with you, as my time is too precious to waste it with crap like you.--HC PUNXKID 14:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Two points All first- news agencys are of nkown biasis but. some goverments (Muslim countries, Russia, USA) are more involved than others. France24 or BBC cares less about the whole situation, but anyway this is not a problem even if we identify ALL WESTERN MEDIA AS PRO-REBEL , because they are in the shadow of two main sources SPHR/AL-Masdar .

Second Point- >]]PUNX< I don't understand why can't pro-Regime editors/commenters be more displined in thier termenology when talking on this page. This is not a facebook page, this is not a debate page about who is bad and whom is good. It is about who controls what. You can't be more centimental about this war more than my self, I lost many friends to this war, and yet I confine to the agreed termenology I don't run around calling Rigime or Pro-Regime names ? I Adhere to agreed neutral terms. Please stop using statemnts like beheader terorist fanboys and all that crap. IT IS JUST not helping. I have my political and humanterian view, I publicise it but this is not the place for that. Helmy1453 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You should look at what I wrote in bold upwards if you really feel what you wrote. If you like to put the other cheek when someone hits you, its OK for you, but not for me. Also, its too hypocritical & cynical to cry about terminology, when many editors use heavily biased terminology like "regime" instead of "government", "Assad Army" instead of "Syrian Army" or "Syrian Arab Army", etc... Im not gonna accept that clear double standards, so if you dont like my wording, you can easily solve it: Stop using derogatory terms for SAA, Syrian government, etc... and I would do the same. Simple as that, fair as that.--HC PUNXKID 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh! and about the media, I cant understand what you're talking about. Both France & UK are involved in Syria, as they're bombing it (just like USA, Russia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, etc...), so that's the fact, not mine or yours opinion. I repeat, the issue is that we cant deny RT or PressTV as sources & at the same time accept BBC or France24 (as ALL are state-owned!), unless we agree with double standards & POV-driven bias. Regards,--HC PUNXKID 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

,--HC PUNXKID I read what you wrote. You started the naming not DaJesuZ by saying "pro-'moderate' suicide bomber fanboys," . I use Regime/Pro-Regime because this is the agreed termenology. I have seen no where that we agreed to use goverment but regime (actually there is no difference and if you want to switsh from regime to geverment make a thread about that i personally don't care as there is no difeerence) . I agree that using Assad forces is wrong as we agreed to use SAA . I have no double standard but I have seen Assad forces only once on this page by unknown user while main editors like yourself (who shuold be an example keeps using terrorists and beheaders all the time) . we can count you will find 90% of out of agreed name caling is done by pro-Regime ediditors.

About the media I didn't disredard RT or Press TV or Al-Manar I said they are pro Regime. If we agree that BBC and France 34 are pro-rebel fine, I don't care . same for me. I HAVE NO DOUBLE STANDARD. read again my sugestin and tell me if it can be improved by posotive critisism like XJ-0461 v2 did. 12.46.189.10 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, open your ears because I dont going to loose more time with this stupidities:

-"You started the naming not DaJesuZ by saying "pro-'moderate' suicide bomber fanboys,"". If you cant understand the difference between talking in general, not naming anyone in particular (what I did) and talking about a concrete user (what DaJesuZ did), perhaps you should return to college, take it as a suggestion. Oh, and according to your bizarre interpretation, its not me who started the naming, but several other users wich weeks ago started to talk about "ISIS beheader supporter", "HezboSheytan", etc... so its not my fault, try again!

-"I use Regime/Pro-Regime because this is the agreed termenology (sic)". Agreed by whom? That terminology is clearly biased, so please dont try to make it look as normal, how funny & hypocrite is to state: "Using regime for syrian government is good, but using terrorist for the (so-called) rebels is bad!". It doesnt matter that the "moderate rebels" (what a joke of a term) use car bombs, suicide bombers, beheadings, execution of civilians based on their faith, etc...(Am I lying or they did that? Yes they did it, that's the bitter truth) they cant be called terrorists, although any other group in other place of the world doing a minimal part of that would be instantly labelled as terrorist and treated like that.

So, you'd better stop trying to give moral lessons, as you are clearly not neutral & biased towards one side (as the 90% of editors here, including me, but I have the balls to recognize it, Im not crying "Im neutral, I dont support any side" while using biased terminology). And about the terminology I would repeat it 999,999,999,999,999 times if necessary, I will stop using derogatory terms for your beloved "rebels" when your side stop using derogatory terms for your hated "regime". No more, no less, simple & fair as that...--HC PUNXKID 21:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"I dont give a fuck about subhumans like you, "people" who support genocide of a ethnic group"

>So me disagreeing with you makes me subhuman? Nice. Also, when did I advocate the elimination of any group, other than Jihadists? Scroll of on this page, a bit, and you'll, very clearly, see a copied post from my talk page, detailing that I am not in favor og Jihadists winning this war. Before making an accusation, do a bit of research, because I'm not in favor of the Islamic State, or any group that beheads civilians, or imposes Islamic Law on a people that do not want it, you fucknugget.

"(you would be a brilliant follower of Joseph Goebbels & Heinrich Himmler, for sure)"

>Didn't you just call me subhuman? The hypocrisy is fucking stark.

"who cheer the decapitation of civilians because of their beliefs, who support the violent imposition of sharia law by force in a country where the majority dont want it"

>I'm getting a bit tired of being called a terrorist supporter. None of you pro-regime (and I'm using that word correctly, as the Assad government is heavily authoritarian, and has a strictly planned economy) has yet to show how I, or any other editor is a supporter of those who impose Islamic Law, behead civilians for infringements on tiny parts of Sharia, or institute laws based on the teachings of the Koran and Hadith. Until you do so, if you even can, shut the fuck up about it.

"(I hope that someday that yihadis you love so much impose an islamic emirate in your town, that would be soooo funny...)"

>I never advocated it in any place. If you're going to make an accusation, you need to have something backing it, which you can't, because I don't support it, dipshit.

"so you can stay vomiting all the muck you have inside (difficult when you have tons of stinky shit inside you)."

>This is so damn incoherent, it's pitiful.

" I dont like to fall to this level, but its you who have started with the personal attacks ("moronic piece of hypocritical shit"), so Im not gonna stay silent. "

Yet you, with no hesitation, call someone that disagrees with you, "subhuman," and lodge baseless accusations at people in an attempt at demonizing the community against them, which isn't going to work, because your accusations are completely baseless.

"I didnt pointed to a particular user on my previous comment"

>No, but several pro-regime users have attacked me, Pbfreespace3, and DuckZz with similar accusations, and there seems to be a near-universal consensus among those who are pro-regime that we are pro-jihadist dumbasses. Whether you stated who it was directed at is irrelevant. We all know who you were referring to.

"I would recommend you to leave WP, as it seems that your input here can be resumed on crying like a baby protesting things you dont like and trying to engage into conflict with other users by insulting & making personal attacks."

>I would recommend that YOU leave Wikipedia, for inciting arguments. Did I attack any user for being in support of the elimination of a particular group? No. Did I advocate the elimination of opposition to the government? No. Did I say I want a jihadist government in Syria or Iraq? No. What I say to other people, in which attacks are lodged, are reactions.

"I repeat, I know WP's talk page aint for this, but its you who started to engage into personal disqualification."

>Which one of us called other users, "pro-'moderate' suicide bomber fanboys"? I'm the one inciting arguments? No. Shut up.

"For my part, I hope this is the last time I talk with you, as my time is too precious to waste it with crap like you."

>Then why did you respond...?DaJesuZ (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I was tempted to answer some hypocrite, cynical islamic terrorist cheerleader vandal, but its pointless, as my time is so precious to waste it with useless "people" like him, and as his goal is probably that, getting me mad & engaging into an eternal discussion. The use of the term "terrorist" to refer to the so-called "rebels" is logic, fair & acceptable, as not only ISIS & Nusra front use terror in order to achieve their political goals, but also the so-called FSA & other "moderate rebel groups". FSA & other "moderate rebel groups" are responsible of sectarian massacres (a Sunni Syrian pro-FSA cleric permits the killing of Alawite women & children, Hatla massacre:60 Shia Muslims massacred in rebel ‘cleansing’ of Hatla, rebels 'kill Shia residents of eastern village', Khan al-Assal massacre: Made by Ansar Khilafah Brigade, then part of the 19th Division of FSA, Aqrab massacre: of a Siege in Syria Differ on Rebel YouTube Channels and British Television, there a massacre in the Syrian town of Aqrab?), use of car bombs (Unleashes Huge Car Bomb in Aleppo, TERRORIST PRESENTS HIS HOMEMADE CAR BOMB FACTORY! SHOCKING + DISGUSTING), suicide bombers (18 July 2012 Damascus bombing: bombers strike outside Syrian military headquarters in Damascus, [Rebels Plan Suicide Attacks on Russians]) and other tactics worldwide recognized as terrorism. So, calling FSA and other "moderate rebel groups" terrorist is fine and correct, as it adjust to reality and to the definition of terrorism.--HC PUNXKID 23:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you not then by the same standard say that the Syrian government are also terrorists, as they deliberately and regularly bomb civilian areas with helicopters, airplanes, and cannons with the purpose of demoralizing and frightening the jihadi supporters and regaining control over the country, which is using violence against civilians to achieve political goals? That is the definition of terrorism, and if you say that groups like FSA are terrorists (which is supported by your evidence), then surely the Syrian state is also terrorist? The point of this post is to get you to stop calling other people terrorist-supporters. Even if it is true, it doesn't matter. What matters is biased editing, which should be stopped. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:443E:EFF2:92D0:3090 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you in that final phrase. It doesnt stop my sleeping what terminology people use here to refer to the sides of the conflict, but biased editing, misinterpretation of sources, use of twitter and other bullshit social media as if they were reliable sources, etc... Sadly, all that is so common here. I've been editing this map since at least 2 years ago & I've seen all type of tricks used by several vandals & trolls in order to POV-push for their interest & political views. That's why Wikipedia sucks & stinks more & more everyday, & perhaps why the number & quality of editors is drawning every month...--HC PUNXKID 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

HC, a lot of quality editors left or were forced out after breaking rules. Take Hanibal911 for example. 75% of his edits were great, with little bias. He was removed for being a sockpuppet of some guy who left 3 years ago, but even if he wasn't, he is now, with his 40 sock accounts. Boredwhytekid hasn't been here for 3 months. The same is true for 8fra0. It is sad so see the fighting going on between the rebel supporters and the government supporters, especially with the Masdar-SOHR conflict. I hope it is resolved soon and the map gets up to speed with the changes on the ground. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Unusual labelling

There are a number of strange labelling: Mahajjah green in the middle of a government controlled area. Why? Haws Hamad contested green/black on the front line between SAA and rebels close to Khalkhalah air base. Zabadani still violet. I guess it was handed to government. Right? In Latakia Rabia is contested? Probably green. May be we should fix them. Paolowalter (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As for Mahajjah and Khalkhalah I have no idea, but for Zabadani i think the transfer has yet to be completed. And when it is completed I´m pretty sure that we will know from Al-Masdar or SOHR. Rhocagil (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've always found Mahajjah strange, ever since sombody changed it a month ago or so. Can anybody provide a source? MesmerMe (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This map from what I would say is a pro-rebel source was provided for the change. Another pro-rebel source saying Mahajah is rebel-held. Desyracuse, who some say is pro-rebel but others say is neutral, shows the town as government-held on his latest map. Obviously, Masdar shows it is government-held on their map. I would say contested is a good compromise, but it may well be held by one side or another. I don't know.

Here is the source for Hawsh Hamad (near Khalkalah), and the change was made a month ago. The pro-rebel source claimed the area was an ISIS stronghold and that rebels were trying to remove ISIS and take over the town. Months earlier, in May, a pro-rebel source reported that the rebels already kicked ISIS out. Here is another pro-rebel source claiming rebels were fighting ISIS there. Again, another news report saying fighting was going on there in September between Nusra and ISIS. Masdar also reports that the rebels are fighting ISIS there on their map. I would say this is definitely a contested town. We know that there are ISIS supporters in Daraa such as Shuhada al-Yarmouk in Damascus and the southwest corner, and ISIS itself northeast of Suwayda, so I would not be surprised if there was a residual ISIS presence in this area. The government is way too busy fighting the rebels and vice-versa to worry about flushing out all ISIS presence here, so it would not be difficult for ISIS to be there.

Zabadani is still under truce, Masdar would be all over the story if fighting resumed. The deal was not that the government takes the town (according to my understanding) but that dozens of rebel fighters would be allowed to evacuate peacefully to Idlib, and in exchange medical supplies would be allowed to go to Kafraya/Fu'ah. If Zabadani was actually taken over by the government, Masdar would be reporting it ("Zabadani under government control after months of fighting"), and they aren't reporting that. Instead, this agreement is far more like Dumayr/Ruhaybah/Yarmouk where the sides have mixed control over the area.

Rabia is contested based on Masdar reports from Syrian government sources. I believe some rebel activists also reported fighting on the outskirts of the town, although I'm not sure. I would leave it contested for now until more information is released.2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So as rebel held is based on some questionable/weird/argued sources? MesmerMe (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion: the control of Mahajjah by rebels is not supported by anything solid. Most quoted maps above are copy of ours. Is is almost impossible that such a city is controlled by rebels in the middle of a government controlled area without ever hearing of clashes. I'll change to red.

For Zabadani the deal is that SAA will control it and rebels leave. Maybe the transfer is not complete, even if I'd change to red. In any case we can wait.

Paolowalter (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Althought what Im exposing is different from above, it can fit in this section. The labelling wich Im talking about and that I consider ridiculous and damaging to this map are the ones wich are generic (cement factory, poultry farm, military housing, fuel depot) and moreover, that ones wich are marked with ?. Are we crazy? About the latter, I found it very stupid to add icons to the map if we cant even put their name, I think that's common sense. And about the generic ones, let's do an effort and try to clarify & be more specific (for example, I've renamed "Juvenile Prison" to "Aleppo Juvenile Prison", simple change but clarifying, isnt it?). Regards,--HC PUNXKID 12:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Aleppo-Raqqa road cut (Karkiz status)

Al-Masdar reports that Kuweires airbase soldiers have cut the Aleppo-Raqqa road. The problem is that the article doesnt give the exact point where the cut is. However, at http://militarymaps.info/ (page used as reliable source in the Ukrainian conflict maps) it claims that the cut was at Karkiz town, and include that town in the SAA-controlled zone around Kuweires. The claim is based on an Al Masdar article from 5 May 2015, but Karkiz is marked as ISIS-controlled in our map. I suppose that the solution would be review when Karkiz was added as ISIS-controlled and based on what source. What's your thoughts on this?--HC PUNXKID 12:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Put is as contested? This would mean the road is cut, but the status of the town is uncertain. MesmerMe (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that, but I still think that we should review when Karkiz was marked as ISIS-held and based on what. I wouldnt be surprised if the source was a tweet, a Facebook post or some obscure partisan web, as many users had acted like that in contradiction of WP rules & policy...--HC PUNXKID 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable but it is base on original researach that is banned in wikipedia. Better investigate and wait for more reliable news. Unless we decide to consider http://militarymaps.info/ as reliable. What is the editors' opinion? Paolowalter (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I repeat again, we must know when & based on what source was Karkiz added as ISIS-controlled. There are several icons in this maps wich have been added or changed based on YouTube vids, Facebook posts, tweets, partisan webs, etc...and that's not acceptable and must be corrected!--HC PUNXKID 14:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral terms usage

I know this is alittle bit childish but as long as Pro-Regime are using terms like Terrorists and beheader shearleaders then creew it . I personally find myself free to use whatever termenolgy I like. ProAssad dog animal slauter bitshes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I use only 'rebels' for FSA/Nusra/Islamic front etc., IS or ISIS for islamic state, SAA, army or government for Syria government troops. If some of these variants (or some amelioration) gains consensus, I am fine and I'll follow it. Partisan terms should be banned otherwise we can ask to editor to block the accounts.Paolowalter (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally, the nice words are as follows:

Rebels/Opposition/FSA

Government/Army/SAA

The mean words are these:

terrorists/beheaders

Regime/Assadists, etc.

I would recommend only using the former. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The correct term could be insurgent "rebels" sound too star wars

The pro Insurgent media (West media mostly) use the term "rebel" for called them

call them rebels is legitimize their violence

They are using the armed violence for taken their objectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with the 2 last opinions. I had repeated it 'till exhaustion, if editors who support the insurgent side stop using derogatory terms against the government side, I would do the same immediatly, and I suppose & hope the rest of editors will do the same. Regards,--HC PUNXKID 22:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Helmy1453.

I call these people by what they are, by name, or by who/what they represent, and are as follows:

I refer to the FSA as, "moderates". Yes, there are extremists who are aligned with the FSA, but these are not representative of the group as a whole. The majority of the organization are rebels.

I refer to the syrian government as, "the regime," or, "the government," which, according to the definition of the word, "regime," is correct, as it is heavily authoritarian.

Groups the West generally groups in with the, "rebels," such as Ahrar ash-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, I refer to as, "extremists". Their ideology differs very little (bar the whole, "we want to set up a world-wide caliphate," thing) from groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Islamic State.

I refer to the Kurds as, well, "the Kurds," because there's no infighting among the various Kurdish groups in the conflict, and they all fight for the same cause: A Kurdish autonomous area, or state, in northern Syria.

I never know what to refer to the Islamic Front as, and generally group them in with the rebels, but, "extremists," would work, too, because of their very Sharia-based views.

I think my terminology is pretty fair, Paolowalter.

HC, this name calling thing started within the last couple months, when SyrianObserver2015 showed up, referring to anyone that questioned or disagreed with what he had to say as, "terrorists, "beheader supporters," or referred to them as though they were part, or in support, of a particular group, regardless of which side they supported, editing, or reporting. The first person to lash back was myself. THAT is how this whole thing started. Sorry, but a pro-regime user started it. You can't say, "...if editors who support the insurgent side stop using derogatory terms against the government side, I would do the same immediatly, and I suppose & hope the rest of editors will do the same," when someone who supports the government started this.DaJesuZ (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DaJesuZ, following your same reasoning:

I refer to FSA as "terrorists", wich, according to the definition of the word, "terrorism", is correct, as it is a conglomerate of groups who use violence & threats in order to impose their political views & ends.

Oh, and try to be not so childish with that: "No, it was one of your side who started it all!". If everyone acted like that I could say: "Hey it was a pro-FSA user who started using Twitter accounts & Facebook pages as sources!" (and that was the reality, check archives). But that's not the issue.--HC PUNXKID 15:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not going by a double standard. The majority of the FSA want to overthrow the Assad regime and install a democratic republic. I did, however, agree that there are groups and organizations whom the FSA is aligned with, with very strict, Sharia-based views, and their violent methods of imposing them, who I, and every other user on this page, want to see eliminated, regardless, I'll apply your logic to the Assad government: The Assad regime has, on many occasions, used barrel bombs, airstrikes, riot police, the military, cannons, and even, on a few occasions, chemical weapons, to achieve its political and military goals, which qualifies as terrorism. When the government supporters start not being childish, and stop calling those who support the moderate side of this rebellion, we will stop lashing back, which descends into posts like this.

Also, now you're not making any sense, since it is, for the most part, those who support the government who use Twitter, and various other social media outlets, as sources. I agree that some pro-rebel users have in the past, sadly, I wasn't here to call them out on it. I call EVERYONE, regardless of their affiliation or supported group, out on going against the page's consensus, and not abiding by the terms that the users of this page set up for reliable sources.DaJesuZ (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What? You really dont know what you're talking about, perhaps as you have been editing here since only a few months ago, otherwise you're simply lying. It were the pro-insurgent users who started to use Facebook posts or tweets breaking WP rules (and apart of WP rules, its of common sense that social media is very, very unreliable, as anyone can post anything, wether its true, false, or distorted). As I said before, check the talk page archives if u dont believe me...Oh, and as you could see, when you started talking about the government instead of regime I started talking about insurgents instead of terrorists. That's civility!--HC PUNXKID 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

HC, I never said that it was not those who support the opposition who started using social media first, and I agreed that it was, but that was when social media outlets were one of the few means of figuring out what was going on. As the war developed, more Western outlets, and other outlets that arose from within opposition-held territory were founded, we migrated to using those, and came to ignore almost all social media posts, regardless of which side they were in favor of. I've been lurking on this page since the battle of al-Qusayr, and only recently (about a year ago) made this account, and only towards the beginning of this year, started looking to aid the page in any way I could. I have checked the archives. I never disputed your claim that those who support the opposition were the ones who started using social media as sources, first, and am calling out pro-regime users for being the ones to use it more, as of now.

Get it through your head; me referring to the Syrian government as the, "regime," is not incorrect, as per the definition of the word. Allow me to do the leg work for you. ~ Regime - a government, especially an authoritarian one. ~ The word can also refer to a strict, planned way of doing things, and because Syria's socialistic, the word works there, too. You can fire back saying, "Because the FSA uses violence to create fear in a people to achieve political and military goals, I can call them terrorists," but I can do the same thing with the Assad government, as their very well-documented attacks on civilians, and use of force to achieve political and military goals qualifies as terrorism, actually, that's called state-sponsored terrorism, which brings the legitimacy of the state into question. Shall we continue? DaJesuZ (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's just ignore vandalism. The best naming could be: Rebels/Insurgent

 If more precise info is available, we could spell: FSA, Al-Nusra, IF etc.

Government/Army/SAA IS/ISIS YPG: not all kurds fight inside YPG and some arabs joined too. Forget about moderate or regime that implies a judgment on the parties. Paolowalter (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter, I don't think the words, "regime," or, "moderates," imply judgement. "Moderates," is a word used to compare one group to another, in this case, the FSA to various other opposition groups. The FSA, compared to the various jihadist organizations, is made of moderates. I don't think this, inherently, shows bias, and more reflects a comparison between the fighters' views about how Syria should be run after the war. The word, "regime," refers to either an authoritarian government, or a strict, planned way of doing things, and because of Assad's Syria being authoritarian, and being socialist in nature, the word fits. The word is also used to compare one country's freedoms to another, and because I live in the United States, the word, "regime," fits Syria very well, when comparing it to my home country.DaJesuZ (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how can be foreign jihadists who want simple enthnic cleansing called "rebels" in any term. FSA is allied to al qaeda in most places, they are not better, there are moderates only on paper the majority of them are simple jihadist terrorists, but in Syria they are "moderates".I'am not an assadist, but if a group like nusra would be in KSA the media would call them terrorists, moderate or not. Totholio (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I just remind everyone that we don't just have a 1RR, we also have a rule that specifies:

After being notified of the sanctions, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to edit in accordance with the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Sanctions may include blocks for up to one year, page bans, and topic bans.

Civility is a normal editorial process. If we cannot be civil on this talkpage, we will end up with more blocked users. I do not want this. Banak (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I love the naming sujested by Paolowalter for rebels, government, IS and YPG . just we need to add Nusra or Al-Nusra as a seperate name as they have a colour. (name for every color). and I apolgise I have been using Regime/ Pro-regime as I thought that in the ceriation of this page this is the termenology agreed upon by the admins. I don't know where I had this confusion from. Though I don't inderstand why is regime considered bad word as I thought it literely means the government but I will stop using it. An additional naming to the above to add diversity is our colors. so when it is not Syrian army (russians Iraninas Hezbullah) it can't be SAA or government I usually use red. ect. Helmy1453 (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dar al Kabeera

According to alMasdar fighting is ongoing in Dar Al-Kabeera. Should it be contested ?Paolowalter (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Northern Homs Map

According to pro-goverment source this is the map that shows the situation of Northern Homs.46.99.111.37 (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We can't use maps as sources.MesmerMe (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The source from this map is very credible as peto's maps but i think the situation now on our map looking like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Source make very wrong maps. Too many mistakes on maps which he make. Here map from Petro Lucem https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/654565310708756480 Also according to the rules of editing we cant use data only from maps without confirmation from relaible sources. 46.200.207.127 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Here map from more relaible source Al Masdar http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/complete-battle-map-of-syria-mid-october-update/#prettyPhoto http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/complete-battle-map-of-syria-mid-october-update/#prettyPhoto/0/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Outdated October 14 insurgents are losing ground every days too fast atm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Northern Aleppo

Isis terrorist group just published another videothat confrims that they still are in controll of Infantry academy,Cement factory,Free zone etc.46.99.47.90 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You should refer to the warring parts only with their name without adding derogatory term. Video are not considere valid source. No doubt about ISIS controlling Infantry academy but the other places were taken in control only briefly and that captured by SSA according to all sources.Paolowalter (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Same issue has been taken here several times this years: Can we accept YouTube videos as reliable sources? As far as I know, that was rejected, moreover when it cames to blurry, amateurish, personal videos. At least this one seems to be from some ISIS media outlet, I mean, for me, personally, the videos could be considered reliable when they're from a media outlet, wheter is pro-ISIS (Al Hayat), pro-SAA (Addounia TV) or pro-FSA (Orient News). But I repeat, that's my personal opinion, and I believe that last time this issue was brought here the decision was not to rely on YouTube videos, wether they're professional or amateur. Regards,--HC PUNXKID 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Paolowalter which sources ?? Al-Masdar?? here we have another video that confrims the capture of Naam village and its hill today,but al-masdar posted this article which is dated 15 September and where its shows Naam village and its hill captured where editors changed the village with this source and this shows how unreliable this source is.My opinion videos are more reliable than this sources.46.99.8.181 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not shown anything. Locations on the front line change control often and, if they are small and in remote area, they are not always reported. Video from amateur source is forbidden from Wikipedia rule, so that there is no room for discussion.Paolowalter (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

An edit was made for the city of Ratyan, and a siege icon was placed to the south-east of the city. I searched both SOHR and al-Masdar for confirmation of this, and found ntohing about it. Can anyone provide a source that that icon should be there?DaJesuZ (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Village of Herbel south of FSA-held city Mare under ISIS.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/the-violent-clashes-continue-in-the-southern-countryside-of-aleppo-and-the-regime-forces-advance-in-the-area-again/ 46.200.207.127 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Southern Aleppo

Southern Aleppo has started with the capture of Haddadin, Abtin, the army base there, and Sabigiyah. Source and Source.

Furthermore, I think we need to reavaluate of the towns of Balas and Kafr Abid are actually SAA held since Source and Source show it as Rebel held, with SAA inmoving as part of the ongoing offensive. MesmerMe (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We cannot use maps to change ours. Furthermore no reliable source posted that Sabigiyah was taken by SAA just the base next to the village. I think that the map as it is, represent the situation on the ground at best of our knowledge.Paolowalter (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Abtin just got changed to contested cause ahrar al sham tweet claimed they recaptured the Abtin farms with tons of killed and captured.Totholio (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

SAA advancing in Aleppo province and saize village of Al-Waddihi.http://www.syriahr.com/2015/10/%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%83-%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%8A/

SOHR: SAA control Al-Waddihi,Sabiqiyah,Abtin,Tell al-Shaheed,Qaddar and conflicting data about Shughaydilah where there is conflicting information about party that seizes the village of al- Shgaydalah which had been attacked by the rebels after seizing it by the regime forces. http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/10/about-60-victims-killed-during-the-regime-forces-advancement-in-the-southern-countryside-of-aleppo/ http://www.syriahr.com/2015/10/%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B7-%D9%85%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D8%B8%D9%87%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%B7%D9%81%D8%A7/ So villages of Al-Waddihi,Sabiqiyah,Abtin,Tell al-Shaheed,Kaddar under control SAA and for now al- Shgaydalah contested. 46.200.207.127 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Qaddara on map: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.071025&lon=37.131901&z=13&m=b&show=/30808679/Kaddar This village under SAA on based data from SOHR 46.200.207.127 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Use talk page before editing

I do not want to enter another edit war, but I discussed the status of Mahajjah in the talk page and nobody questioned that it was unjustified ant not logic to be green so that we should revert to red that I did. AlAboud83 (a proxi of Alhanuty) rechanged back to green without any discussion: that goes against the rule governing this page. Furthremore he changed Abtin and Shegedla based on SOHR. The source says "in" but all other sources including many prorebeles reports "around" the towns, e.g. [21].

In any case there was no discussion. Note tha the has never done any pro-government edit in his life.Paolowalter (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem aint that Alhanuty aint done a pro-goverment edit, why should he made it?!? We cannot force anyone to made an edit, the problem is his continuous vandalism, edits without sourcing, unjustified reverts, bad-faith misinterpretation of sources, use of unreliable sources,etc... since years ago. I dont know why he aint, but Im sure most other users would be blocked indefinitely if acted like him. Call me conspiranoid, but that only reforce my impression that there are different status of users in WP...--HC PUNXKID 23:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. If either of the towns are changed to Lime, I'll revert them to whatever they were before.DaJesuZ (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not simply report him I notice that all the recent edits have been deleted to protect someone from being reported! Suddenly they just skip to 20th of September????SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

before making accusations,i have changed my name from AlHanuty to AlAboud83,plus for Mahajjah reliable sources were brought to make the edit for it by Tradedia,but you wanted to revert it with no evidence,and you did.User:AlAboud83 (User talk:AlAboud83) 11:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC) and when i revert your unsourced edit,you complain,plus you are a new editor in 2014,i am here since 2012.User:AlAboud83 (User talk:AlAboud83) 11:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC) looks you have poor english skills Paolo:SOHR is more reliable than any tweet,plus it reports rebels spoil in abtin and SOHR confirms it its called content dispute,not Vandalism HCPs,you can't learn from your mistakes and blocks by admins. Paolowalter,you are the one who reverted it with no sources.Alhanuty (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Read this,and you will understand that it is rebel-held https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War&oldid=679950263#Mahajjah.2C_Daraa_province,and Tradedia agrees on it.Alhanuty (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Who cares what Traedia thinks he might be the map creator, but supports isis and has vandalized the map many times in changing Hurwann and mahin to isis held countless times with no source. He also chand At Taff and Sha'rah with no source and they are rebel held on our map but every other map I have seen Sha' rah and At taff are government held, Tradiea has been active in manipulating the map and a prime supporter of isis terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.99.218 (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

SyrianObserver2015 and others, you need to stop calling other users terrorists. You call other users terrorists ISIS beheaded supporters far more than others call you a regime Assadist. The truth is you do not have reliable sources to back your edits up. That's why you never provide sources for any of your edits. Since you don't have real arguments to support yourself, you revert to calling everyone you disagree with a terrorist beheader ISIS supporter. I wonder if you realize that this strategy is not getting you anywhere. Take Taff and Shariah for example. Pro-government Leith Fadel himself said he thought they were Islamist-held in his tweets, but you are so extreme that you yourself refuse to believe what Fadel is saying! Making partisan accusations against editors, specifically against the founder of this map, Tradedia, shows your bad intentions and desire to foist your biased point-of-view on the map. How ironic is that? The point is we need to stop calling each other names and start working with each other constructively to make this map better, more accurate, and more true-to-life. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:5432:9E6B:E28F:9B3 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Show me where I have made an color change edit that wasn't sourced? Sha'Rah and At Taff were changed based on a tweet from some random guy, not even Fadel said that. They were not a mentioned change and they had been held for a long time. I simply reverted the rapid unexplained and none appropriate source used. Anyone can make a tweeter account. I have made edits re-sizing objects because they are blocking other areas of interest that are covered by these areas insignificance. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

SyrianObserver2015, here is Leith's tweet saying At Taff is under rebel control, and here is his tweet saying Sha‘arah is under rebel control. I agree with you about Mahin and Huwwarin, but not these towns. Perhaps it was a result of confusion over these towns as a result of many reverts without mentioned sources. It seems to me Fadel was confirming what pro-Islamist rebel/terrorists/whatever-you-want-to-call-them supporters were saying, which was that At Taff and Sha‘arah were under rebel control. I don't mind your Sooda size edit, but the Wa'er edit was just wrong. That is a huge neighborhood that deserves a lot more than size 4. Well now that has been reverted. I am mainly asking you to stop your pro-government rhetoric in your posts. Do you see me saying "We can't assume good faith with a fucking dirty scumbag Assad regime supporter. So stop crying like a 10 year old child"? No! I have not seen such partisan rhetoric from the pro-rebel editors here (and yes there are such editors, I acknowledge that). Your repeated threats to shut down the map are useless and pointless, as it has survived a shutdown audit before, and can do it again. Just put sources in all of your edit summaries and none of us would be complaining right now. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous edits

Earlier, someone made this change. What is up with that? Why would you remove a siege icon that is backed up by al-Masdar, which clearly shows ISIS presence directly east of the town in question? This edit should be reverted, as it is unsourced. Also, the same user has made dozens of other unsourced edits before, like this, this, and these.

Second, what about this behavior? This user cut the size of a large town in half! Why might you ask? Surely he has a reliable source to back up his claims--no. He simply says "its less than 500 meter area that is contested chump.", referring to a person who reverted his edit. Wa'er is a huge town! Look at it! Thousands of people used to live there. Does that deserve to be size 4, do you think? Ridiculous.

Another example of the unsourced editing I am talking about. Look at this! Are we now just going to change entire towns from one group to another just because we feel like it? This is incredible! The high quality and standards this map is supposed to be held to are not being enforced! All of the previously mentioned edits need to be reverted, as they are unsourced. Everyone needs to provide a description of each edit in the edit summary as well as a source. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree Sakultah behaves very badly. Most of his changes must be reversed.Paolowalter (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree about al-Wa'er. It now looks like a tiny village to the west of Homs as opposed to a significant district on the city's outskirts Conservative Thinker (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The area in al Wa'ar (west of Homs city) is insignificant as it is 0.5 KM's squared of an area with around 600 Islamist insurgents, surrounded on all sides and out numbered massively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.99.218 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree in full of the bad behavior and even if they were right, sources should be given or discussion should be started. As for al Wa´ar I don´t know how many insurgents there are 300 or 1000, no idea. But if they were "insignificant", they would have been overrun a long time ago.Rhocagil (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Emphasis needs to be placed on the user Sakultah, who has just now made multiple edits without any sources in what amounts to edit warring. He has already been warned, and should be blocked from editing this page, as he has repeatedly violated the rules of editing even after being told not to. 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

This edit request to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add lime northern siege icon "map-arcNN-lime.svg" to Jubb al Ahmar, which is a government held area per pro-government and reliable source: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/islamist-rebels-attempt-to-recapture-jubb-al-ahmar-amid-the-syrian-armys-offensive-in-salma/ 2601:C7:8303:22DC:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The source is 5 days old now, if they had captured it we would hear and if they were still around it we would have heard, no point really yet, unless confirmed by elsewhere or a new fresh report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)