Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 22 June 2015

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Control of cities during the Syrian civil war at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Template talk:Syrian Civil War detailed map redirects here.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Tha'lah Airport is contested

according to SOHR Tha'lah airport is contested SOHR tha'lar arabic Anti assad sources claim full control anti assad I know that pro Assad sources denies . so what is the rule on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.189.10 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source cleary said BosnjoBoy Government forces (NDF) recaptured parts of the Talah airport, rebels withdrew to Sakak village in the vicinity, clashes ongoing 217.99.132.128 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

SAA took back Ad Darah near Thalah air base sometime yesterday seen here and here . Roepcke is a pro rebel journalist but would still wait for other statements on this territory change. Alastairjc (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Important message from creator of map: Please read

Misplaced Pages administration is obviously not happy about the way the map is being managed (refer to the indefinite block of Hanibal911 for violation of Misplaced Pages rules on the map). We need to conform more strictly with Misplaced Pages rules. I have been in contact with administrators with respect to the situation and am in charge of putting back the map in strict conformity with Misplaced Pages rules & standards. You have to realize that many admins do not like the map and consider it un-encyclopedic and in violation with WP:NOTNEWS. They are waiting for an opportunity to harm it and lead to its deletion. Those of you who have been around about a year ago know that the map has been nominated for deletion and survived the procedure. You also have to know that the first version of the article “Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War” was deleted after an “Articles for deletion” (AfD) procedure and I had to fight back and create a new modified version. In any case, I will do whatever it takes to protect us. I count on your cooperation and discipline. Please avoid getting in contact with admins and be very nice if they are around and let me handle them. We need to conform strictly with the following Misplaced Pages rules:

1-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from reliable outlets are approximate and therefore unreliable for any use. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Misplaced Pages for any use. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRC.
I cite the WP:RS rule verbatim: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
I cite the WP:CIRC rule verbatim: “Do not use websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content or publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources.” At least one map maker has admitted to using the Misplaced Pages map as a source. There is strong suspicion others do the same.

2-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will no longer be tolerated. If you are not sure what the source is saying, post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. Tradedia 09:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia I really didn't know that tweets can't be used as a source. I mean, i understand the term that anybody can make a tweet, but we have a "list" of pro-government and pro-opposition users that are active for several years, i believe that 50% of our edits are based on their tweets, and it's somehow working, no complains about that ... but ok. Something else, can we use this talk page as a source, i mean if we aren't sure about something, we disquss it here, and if everyone agrees about something, we make an edit based on the talk page, is that ok ? DuckZz (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits are not made based on total consensus, DuckZz, they are made based on general consensus involving everyone who participates in editing the page.

Tweets are fine to use as sources, so long as they can be backed up by other, more reliable, sources, should they come from smaller, lesser known, and possibly less reliable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So Elijah Magnier can no longer be used as a source,but SOHR is the only source that can be used,SOHR has been an agreed condition between the editors and admins three years ago,and so the main source will be news outlets,what about ISW.Alhanuty (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With such rules no Pro ISIS sources can be used. How is that neutral ? (All pro ISIS sources are tweets) !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to twitter was more in the context of copying from maps. The problem with maps is that we don’t know when they are guessing and when they are not. Twitter is not a source. Twitter is a media tool. The person writing the tweet is the source. Since Elijah Magnier is a well-known journalist, he is a valid source. So it all depends on the credibility of the person writing the tweet. Anyone can open a twitter account and start relaying rumors. It is important to also not use a source automatically, but assess the credibility of the writer and see what other sources are saying about the same town/situation. Some people who tweet are known to have information about the situation in Syria. So they can be used as a source, while taking into account their bias (no pro-gov/opp/kurd/ISIS sources for gov/opp/kurd/ISIS gains). For example, we can use the tweets of Leith Abu Fadel as a pro-gov source because we know he has information (similarly to other prominent pro-opp/kurd/ISIS internet activists). However, we cannot use the tweets of PinkFuzzy444 because we don’t know who the heck it is. So we need to be careful and weight the news by the credibility of the writer. Again, we have to look at what other writers are saying as well. For example, it might be prudent to make a town contested based on one source and then wait a little for other sources to change the color completely. We are trying to avoid mistakes, but at the same time be reactive to changes on the ground, so it is all common-sense. All previous and new sources should be looked at before making a map change decision. There is a balance to be found between jumping the gun too early and being unreactive and have something become outdated. Concerning the question about the “talk page as a source”, the answer is yes. Tradedia 18:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 .Because of the unfair way Hanibal911 has been treated I will no longer donate to Misplaced Pages and will advise others to do the same .Also I say goodbye to all of you on this talk page .thankyou .86.135.154.220 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise it, but we lost Lindi29 to a sockpuppetry indeff on the first, and the tools that were used to find the top editors are down (as of the day Hanibal911 was blocked). Lindi was quite active too (about 5% of edits to this module). Banak (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

talk Tradedia Users LightandDark2000 and 佐倉千代 are using twitter Hashtags as a source, pro-opposition tweets for Rebel advances etc.. breaking the rules and even making edits according to "their own opinion"... please respond, i can't revert them all because they make more than 10 changes during their edits so i need to do it manually. DuckZz (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Frustration with how this project was being managed drove me from this map 6 months ago. Glad to see some order is being restored. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick clarification please, Tradedia; pro-gov't al Masdar and (for the purposes of this map) pro-op Institute for the Study of War are two of the more vigorous outlets reporting on the Syrian Civil War. Their reporting/information often comes in the form of maps, some more detailed than others. 100% unusuable? Not trying to equivocate, and will abide by your response for all future editing. Thank you. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also would appreciate clarification on archicivilians, which I see is still in use as a source Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid: Interesting that you mention the Institute for the Study of War. Just now, I had to revert an edit (based on their map) on https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Rif_Damashq.svg (see File talk:Rif Damashq.svg#Khan al-Shih). ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. So in this case, our Rif Damashq map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from ISW map!

Concerning al Masdar, he usually hosts maps by pro-gov PetoLucem (or another Persian map maker). There is a major difference between our map and their maps. Our map marks towns (or bases, etc.) that we have information for. On the other hand, their maps color the whole territory assigning a control status to every area. Do they really have enough information to assign every area to a specific party? Do they have information to be able to draw the frontlines? Our map has started by marking all the towns for which we had information/sources. We did not have the aim to cover the whole Syrian territory. We prefer not to guess. If we don’t have reliable sources/information about an area, we should just leave it empty.

Just because an amateur map is classified as pro-gov, it doesn’t mean that map is always correct for the towns that it marks as under rebel control (and vice versa for pro-rebel maps). We need to be examining all sources, instead of blindly copying someone else's map. For example, just because Peto Lucem is classified as pro-gov, does not mean all the rebel areas on his maps are correct. Many months ago, he had the area around Al-Tulaysiyah marked as rebel held (you can read all about it in the archives of this talk page). However, I was able to find a source that showed that in reality it was gov held. We informed Peto Lucem of his mistake and he corrected it.

Also, i can give you 2 recent examples off the top of my head where the map by DeSyracuse was wrong and we copied it and made our correct map wrong:

1- See Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 34#Abu al-duhur airbase

2- His map dated 8-january-2015 shows Kafr Shams gov-held. This was before the large gov offensive (beginning february). So we know it was wrong since one of the gov offensive’s objectives was to capture Kafr Shams.

Also, see here an honest dialogue with DeSyracuse, where I confront him with the fact that his maps are not up to Misplaced Pages standards.

We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse (same story for archicivilians)… We need a source that talks specifically about a location so that we know it is not guessing. So the source has to say: “location xyz is under this control or that status…” The news could be right or wrong, but we need a news, not a guess. Amateur maps have been wrong too many times and made our map wrong too many times. They are not sources. They are our competitors. Tradedia 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Propsal to Reintegrate Nusra into General 'Rebels'

Throughout the country; Nusra is forming coalitions with other rebel groups (Jaysh al Fath in Idlib, W. Qalamoun, E. Qalamoun; Majlis Shura Mujahideen in Deir Ezzor last year). In other areas, such as Daraa/Quneitra, it has operated in tandem with all of the other rebel groups. When the rebels seized Busra al-Sham, a Nusra shari'i was present at the celebration-meeting in the Roman amphitheatre alongside representatives of all the rebel groups.

The editors' decision to seperate Nusra from rebels has to be seen in its context. That context was the conflict between Nusra and SRF & Hazm. Both of those movements have long been utterly destroyed, thus the dinstinction is outdated. It therefore seems strange and baseless to continue with this distinction; particularly in Idlib where the other rebels and Nusra have effectively united under one banner. My personal opinion is that it is a vestige of the relentless POV pushing that this map has been inundated with since its inception. As part of normalisation, I think it would be prudent to do away with the seperate grey colour for Nusra.Jafar Saeed (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to make this point that the nusra rebels do not take there orders from the central command of the FSA and that the USA/COALITION have bombed them in Idleb several times .So I believe this sets them apart in Idleb however in Darra this is not the case and you may have a point about putting all under the rebel (green) color .86.135.154.220 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Today Alnusra is attacking Anwar al Sham in Al Bara Idlib .86.135.154.220 (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep the grey and it actually should be expanded. Many more of the green areas should be half grey/half green. The grey does not just represent the head choppers of JN but also the other extremist religious groups that fall under their umbrella. The green is important because this represents the more "moderate" rebels with direct nato backing, who sadly have constantly worked with the head choppers. I think proposal to reintegrate grey with green is part of the constant POV pushing of pro-islamist posters on this page. So as to reflect the actual on the ground dynamics, it is important to keep and even expand the illustration of where JN and its umbrella of head choppers are present. They just massacred many Druze families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the word, but your viewpoint is just shit. Grey does not mean Islamist, but Jabhat al-Nusra. Groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al-Aqsa have been fighting with and against Free Syrian Army brigades, but FSA brigades have also clashed with each other. The line between moderate, Islamist, nationalist and Jihadist in Syria is often thin. From your talking, I assume you are against any kind of revolution in Syria. Thus, your opinion seems to be biased from the start. I think a separate colour for Jaysh al-Fatah also wouldn't work, since we should then also mark alliances like Jaysh al-Thuwar, Burkan al-Furat and the Southern Front in different colors. It's precisely because the Jaysh al-Fatah operations room in Idlib that we should consider deleting the separate Nusra colours, because the formation is now actively and closely working with other groups (and, for your information, with Free Syrian Army brigades like the 11th Division and Liwa Fursan al-Haqq). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Agree with elimination of Nusra color. It is very confusing on the map. It makes it seem like exclusive control exists, when the reality on the ground is more complicated than that. It just seems like too much effort for not enough return. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nusra color should stay. They are a special case in that they are Al-Qaeda's official branch in Syria and beside coming into conflict with those two FSA groups that they destroyed, on occasion, they also come into conflict with other moderates. EkoGraf (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nusra color shows clear political and unbalanced view. There is no basis what soever to justify such destinction between Al-Nusra while they work in the same group. Forexample Jaish Il islam in Eastern Ghouta is more seperate and confliction with other green groups than Al-Nusra. Why is Hizbullah not geting seperate color !this will end up messy and meaningless. and one more thing the yellow line is confusin as some of the kyrd groups are ant-Assad and others are under Assad forces umbrella . that needs a differnt color not Nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

unlike other rebels, the JAN head choppers have been bombed by coalition forces. Also JAN & their partners have attacked other rebel groups. They obviously should be split up and editors have gone to a great deal of work to show where they have presence and infect the rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Nusra have been bombed by coalition forces this is true, but irrelevent. why would the map colors be dependant on whom the Coalition bombs ? this is total nonsense. Different colors should be for diferrent sides fighting againist each other. Nusra had no clashes with difereent rebbels than any group of rebels have with each others. even Alawits groups had clashes with each other in Homs last months and had been verified and reported , Hizbullah had calshes with alawit units. The seperate color for Al-Nusra is simply wrong and distructive effort — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

for people who value the revolution as a non-jihadist non-AQ effort, it is not destructive. It separates the moderate rebels from the extremists. The clashes inside the regime, have not been anything like the JAN take over of large moderate areas when they backstabbed the revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of Encyclopedia in general is to provide facts not openions. who is moderate and who is extremist is a pure openion (is ahrar alasham moderate or extreme for example ?) . who backsteped whom is an openion not fact. who is fighting in what side and who controls the land are the facts delivered by this map. and imposing openins on viewrs is not a good thing. one question might arouse is what harm in making differnt color. two problems 1- it is confusing to those who are not deep in what is going on in Syria to see 5colors. 2- it affects acuracy where most of the edits on control of Nusra vs green zones are impossible to verify as no clashes happens and peacfull shif of control and mixed control happens all the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to placing it on a side, Nusra's loyalty to AQ is as irrelevant as the loyalty of some groups to the MB, Saudi Madkhali Salafism, and so forth. It is fighting on the same side as the opposition, far more than 50% of the opposition's fighters consider Nusra to be on their team, so far only the Southern Front along with groups like Hazm and SRF have publicly denounced Nusra.

Nusra's situation to the opposition may be compared to the situation of the YPG with the regime. The problem is while there is only one YPG and one regime, there are hundreds of opposition militias each with different standings vis-a-vis Nusra, it's basically next to impossible to gauge them all. To be honest, I'm really torn about this. Because there are other groups like Jund al Aqsa, Jabhat Ansar al Din, Harakat al Muthanna, and others who share Nusra's AQ inspired Salafi-jihadi ideology, I suppose we'd include them as part of Nusra's strength when measuring the grey (I've always done this personally when giving my opinion whether some area should be grey or green).

But then there are stand alone groups like Ahrar al Sham, Jaysh al Islam, and the Southern Front which are as independent and noteworthy as Jabhat al Nusra, the media's hype about AQ not withstanding. Jaysh al Islam for example is always coming into conflict with smaller FSA factions in Ghouta (Jaysh al Ummah comes to mind), and even against Ahrar al Sham and Jabhat al Nusra. The fact is these groups could just as easily be considered as unique as Nusra, within the opposition. But I guess AQ would be a notable topic, and Misplaced Pages's guidelines give notability the final weight on whether it should be a topic or not. So I suppose if there's a consensus that the AQ affiliate in Syria deserves its own colour, then the colour should stay. However, to be perfectly clear, if we wanna be accurate, then either all the opposition is green, or every major faction gets its own colour. But that would obviously be too much work relying on too scant a data that is already very controversial to interpret. NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Nusra grey color should stay, as they are not a part of the formal Syrian Opposition organizations. Further, the grey color should be extended to Nusra's allies - Muhajerin wa-Ansar Alliance and Jabhat Ansar al-Din.GreyShark (dibra) 20:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Daesh collapses in northern al-Raqqah

Several sources confirm that Daesh retreats from both Tal Abyad and Ayn Isa. See for example: http://www.alaraby.co.uk/politics/2015/6/13/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A

Furthermore YPG has surrounded the strategic village of Qantari, south of Suluk. Roboskiye (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

From AlMasdar the city Tal Abyad is still under ISIS control but is being surrounded.Paolowalter (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This pro-Kurdish source reports YPG entered Ayn Isa (Bozani), and clashed with Daesh: http://xeber24.org/nuce/71284.html Roboskiye (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Turkish media say that YPG and allies have captured the town. --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Smartnews reports Tal Abyad is taken by YPG: https://smartnews-agency.com/index.php/ar/breaking/view?id=1108

Furthermore, according to ANHA most of villages south of Tal Abyad are taken by YPG. Roboskiye (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-accuse-kurds-ethnic-cleansing-kurds-deny-092444213.html Kurds have not yet taken Tall Abyad yet, according to their official spokesman. http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/06/15/syria-rebels-accuse-kurds-of-ethnic-cleansing-kurds-deny-it Another source saying the same thing as well as mentioning Kurdish Ethnic Cleansing. And Source for Ayn Isha's fall. Seriously, lets source things here before editing. Did no one read the memo upward? Tgoll774 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources about Ayn Issa in YPG-FSA hands? In the report about the capture of Tal Abyad, SOHR states IS fighters left the border city going to Issa...so, it appears the latter is still contolled by IS...Fab8405 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.belljarnews.com/hundreds-of-syrians-return-to-border-town-from-turkey/851883/ Pro-Kurd source makes no mention of Ayn Issa in Kurdish Hands. Revert it back to IS unless someone posts the evidence. I already used my one revert to fix a vandalism in the East Side of Hasakah. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Hasakah Province

No source is posted justifying a change of Tel Heyder, Qobur Fazil, Rajm Tufayhi, Tal al-Salman, Judaymah, Hadima, Nejmah, al-Shukur, Abu Azalah, Kaka Said, al-Sabat, and Kubayat. All last I checked Cizre Canton sources were under IS control especially IS just posted a photo set from operations there.

And I see no source for Suluk's fall either. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the source used to justify Suluk falling to YPG. 'IS has completely withdrawn from Suluk' http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-kurds-close-in-on-is-held-syria-border-town-2015-6?IR=T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That explains Suluk, but the others are not, and if I don't see a source, I'm reverting the edit by tonight. Tgoll774 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this will help. SOHR says that YPG is 5km away from Tall Abyad, which confirms YPG and pro-opposition reports and maps. DuckZz (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

from the east.Alhanuty (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't explain Eastern Hasakah with the Villages I listed off. After we just had a total thread warning to post sources before editing lets post them before we edit so we avoid edit wars. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Tell Abyad region is not the problem. We know that the YPG and FSA are fighting near Tell Abyad. Here is a list of sources:

1. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/14/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-idUKKBN0OU0LM20150614 (shows Tell Abyad should be contested, fighting around the town)
2. http://aranews.net/2015/06/isis-capital-in-syria-under-kurdish-fire/ (proof that YPG/FSA advanced from east and west towards Tell Abyad and Soluk)
3. http://www.albawaba.com/news/syrian-kurds-advance-towards-raqqa-fight-against-daesh-707240 (proof that IS lost control of Suluk town)

The only region I'm not sure of is the Tell Hamis and Tell Brak area, were the map shows the YPG advancing. However, I haven't seen any sources or twitter records of another YPG offensive in that region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, who edited that area? What were thir sources since the last source and a Pro-Kurdish one showed that area under IS control. Otherwise I'm reverting the change at 10:00PM my time after checking for a source for Tell Hamis and Tell Brak. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When for a few months ago YPG cleared the area between Tel Hemis and Tel Brak, a certain editor got angry and added dozens of black dots to imply that ISIS still has a presence at that region. Since, as usual, there were no sources to mention all that petite villages have been fallen to YPG, much of those dots remained black giving the impression that ISIS is still controlling those villages. This also affected many of those maps on internet who take Misplaced Pages as one of their sources! In reality Pro-ISIS sources regularly claim are involved in hit and run attacks against unbelievers (i.e YPG) at villages south of Tel Brak, such as Rajm Tufayhi, Qobur Fazil, Tel Heyder, Um el-Rus etc. I really has it hard to believe there are any ISIS presence at least north of the river. Roboskiye (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify a revert of the corrective edit I did as pro-Kurd sources themselves that I posted showed the areas I corrected last night as IS held when that area was last edited prior to last nights changes with no justifying source. No source has again been posted so I'm reverting back to black what I corrected last night in east Hasakah.

Hello, Tgoll774, I reverted your edit because you did not provide a source in the desription of your edit. Had you given a link to your source, I would've let the edit stand. Where are these pro-kurd sources you speak of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbfreespace3 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It was on here till someone deleted it and threw this under Eastern Qalamoun instead of astern Hasakah. Plus I reverted a sourceless edit which has since expanded with no source again and to which I gave time for whoever edited it to post their source. SO the burden is on them to post their sources or I'm taking it to the admins. That said this is the latest information from the Pro-Kurdish Source we have http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#9/36.5747/40.7401 If Cizire Canton had liberated those areas he would have known. Nor do we have anything from ANHA or other pro-Kurdish outlets. I'm reverting back to what it was Tgoll774 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Vandalism was fixed except for Tall Muhammad Ali which I missed but should go black. That said, whoever vandalized the map needs to post his sources as asked or stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgoll774 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/610485669840949248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.70.96 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I give up, no matter how much I point to our last up-to-date pro-Kurd sources confirming Tall Muhammad Ali', Al Shukur as IS controlled and Al Sakman Regime Controlled it keeps getting changed to YPG control. Whoever is doing go ahead and vandalize to your heart's content. Its not worth brain cells over. Tgoll774 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Source for Al Sakman and Kubaybat being YPG held when Kurdish sources say they are regime and IS held respectively, and sources that show Al Sabat, Kaka Said, and Abu Azalah as being contested. Its common courtesy to post sources so at least I see what you are basing a change on. Tgoll774 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Idlib countryside

acc. to SOHR, SAA retook all the areas lost yesterday in idlib countryside (mushayrifah, tell sheikh khattab and jannat al qura) http://www.syriahr.com/2015/06/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1/Hwinsp (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait with that. SOHR has been wrong before, were Idlib is concerned. We will see sources soon enough if Jaysh al-Fatah takes the last Idlib villages around Frikka, or if the SAA start the large-scale counteroffensive which they have hinted at from the Ghab plain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is rarely wrong. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is a source which only makes mistakes in details, for example which group captured something, but an article like this is never wrong. Pro-government soures also report the same, which means this is confirmed. DuckZz (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: SOHR rarely wrong? Come on, remember when they claimed that they beloved "rebels" had taken control of Aleppo's central prison, wich was confirmed as false by other sources shortly after. I know that SOHR is one of the few sources we can use for this, but dont try to make it as a 100% reliable source, wich clearly aint (apart from their clearly pro-Sunni "rebels" bias, but that's another question...).--HCPUNXKID 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Status of south Palmyra desert

Some time ago Hanibal911 added Syrian Arab Army presence near the Walks border crossing and south of Palmyra. This map by Thomas Van Linge http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2015/06/12/2000px-syria-29.png shows a latent army presence, but also a huge rebel presence. Another map by Karybdis does not show any army presence there, and it even shows an ISIS supply line to Suwayda. My first question is obviously: who controls this area? My second question: is Karybdis anti-ISIS? If so he can be used to edit this region to ISIS control. I personally doubt there is SAA presence there. There must be consensus before we edit this. Who controls this area? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Van Linge is not a good source for rebels advancements, as he usually overstates their advances and territorial control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.242.132 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Van Linge, but I've looked around, and a lot of people bash him for inaccuracies. As for Karbdis, I'm pretty sure he's pro-rebel/anti-Assad.

As for the area in question, Eastern Homs, Eastern Rif Dimashq, and North-Eastern Suwayda, I've wondered if the Islamic State had a supply line linking their fighters from the areas in those areas, but I haven't found anything stating they did or did not. It makes sense that they would, though. Assad wants to keep the majority of the population under his control, and a lot of them are in the South-West of the country, meaning if the Islamic State had fighters in that area, South-East of Damascus, they would be under massive pressure from government troops. Their enduring their somewhat suggests some kind of link between Homs and that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 June 2015‎ (UTC)

In any case, I don't think there is enough information for us to make any edits to this part of the map. I wish it wasn't listed as under regime control however: its a desert with hills. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A reminder to everyone

Specially to those who are breaking the rules of editing.

- POV edits

- Rebel tweets for rebel advances

- Rebel/Opposition maps for Rebel/Kurdish advances

- Kurdish maps for Kurdish advances

etc...

Should not be tolerated and the admin is informed. This is a wikipedia map, and not your own personal blog or twitter account. DuckZz (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You do realize we can, theoretically, use anything as a source, correct? What's needed is verification of whatever's being used as a source, for example: Rebel Tweet from unreliable source states Aleppo is under rebel control. It being an unreliable source doesn't immediately mean it cannot be used, it simply means that further verification of that statement is needed before any edits are made to any of the maps. Sources that can be used to verify it are more reliable sources. Again, what's used as a source is somewhat irrelevant, so long as it can be verified through other and more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Old maps being used for SCW page updates

A certain user constantly uses older maps, which are, for the most part, outdated, and uses them for updates to the savable .png file for the Syrian Civil War. This is extremely annoying, because it shows that user's inaneness. The current version of the map ignores certain advances made in/around Rif Dimashq, by both the SAA and IS. It also ignores advances made by Jabhat al-Nusra, as many other area in Idlib should be under joint control. My point is that further edits to the maps should be based on the last reliable map given, and so far, there aren't many users doing so, and Banak is one of the few who does so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with above user. In fact, I myself have actually had to save my own versions of the png file and update them myself to show what's actually happening on the ground becuase of the inaccuracies in the map. Someone fix this please. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 DaJesuZ Are you talking to me ? I update the color map every week. If you have some issues then write them here and i will fix them in the next update, because obviously i can't see everything. DuckZz (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this may be down to the fact that some people appear to update the map by only updating one area of the map at a time, which means less active fronts can be repeatedly missed, and remain outdated. From looking at other past version of the map while investigating this, I also noticed that shading around the Al-Walid crossing looks very artificial, which might also be what they mean? Banak (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. That is what we are talking about. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Qunaitra

Report: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565443-syria-rebels-launch-quneitra-campaign A very detailed report about a large battle launched today by rebels calling themselves Jaysh al-Hermon in Qunaitra province. Some Southern Front and local Islamist units took control of Tuloul al-Hamar area and are fighting near Hader. We should add Tuloul al-Hamar and make Hadar half-besieged. Also, we have this Syrian Rebellion OBS map: https://twitter.com/Syria_Rebel_Obs/status/610803085418622976 It shows Turanjah clear under rebel control. Anybody any thoughts about the region? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with above user. These maps are not biased. These areas are under rebel control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is pro rebel source. How pro rebels surce can show rebel advance? Another time rebel anounce start big offensive. First they must show some evidence 217.99.132.128 (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:25AA:1:4004:0:0:0:6E (talk)

Pro government source says terrorists have been repelled at jabaa and tall krum, i suggest removing the half siege at umm batinah https://twitter.com/ResistanceER/status/611091273588604928 and indeed you can't justify terrorist advance using pro terrorist source. Spenk01 (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just like we can't use your pro-Assad twitter source to edit this map :) same story, sorry. Reports today that rebels took Tall Brizaq, we should wait for some official news outlet or claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kurds vs regime in Qamishli

According to Now Lebanon there have been clashes going on between Kurdish forces and regime forces in the city of Qamishli. 76.99.189.128 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR Confirms: http://www.syriahr.com/2015/06/%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A/ I believe the clashes were only temporary and have subsided since a reported prison exchange and hence, I propose setting the city back to mixed, stable control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reports about "Unwritten truce in Qamishli." Stharkov (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar reports about new clashes in th city. 93.182.46.24 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS presence near Hisyah is wrong

They are away this place according these maps (Are very precise) http://s2.img7.ir/M5dTa.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHpSIzJVAAA3tX3.jpg:large

They lost substantial ground In fact most are inside Lebanon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.39.24 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we tend to partisan sources very skeptically, and this is one of those. Could you please provide more information on what is wrong with our current map? Also please provide a link to a pro-opposition source, a neutral source, or a pro-Assad source which has consistently proven to provide unbiased information. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no substantial evidences about ISIS near Hisyah at the moment and maps got good credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.39.24 (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Errors and fixes

So much of this map is either outdated or incorrect. Here are some suggestions:
In Quneitra province, the following places are held by opposition: Turnajah (surprisingly listed as govt held), Ufaniya, Tell Ahmar, Al-Huriyah, Al-Hamidiyah, At Tayhah
In Damasucs countryside, the following places are held by opposition: Mughr al-Mir (located between Sa'sa' and Beit Jinn, and is currently listed as "contested")
In Daraa province, the following places no longer exist and should be deleted: the three military checkpoints that are north and west of Judayyah (in northwestern Daraa province.) Also, there are five red dots located between Busra al-Harir and Asim which correspond to the following villages: and should be named properly rather than be left blank, and by the way they're controlled by the opposition.
In Idlib province, the following places are held by opposition: Jannat al-Qura (west of Ariha), and Mafraq Bab Hawa Checkpoint (northeast of Idlib city)
I hope these suggestions clear up the map and make it more up-to-date. Moester101 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources? Jannat al-Qura is under SAA control Stharkov (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice sources. Totholio (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I will change these gov.held locations according to your sources...so no. DuckZz (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Quneitra offensive

Sources:

1. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33166040?utm_term=*Mideast%20Brief&utm_content=buffer87c82&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
2. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565443-syria-rebels-launch-quneitra-campaign
3. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jun-17/302526-rebels-surround-druze-village-in-syrias-golan-activists.ashx?utm_content=bufferbc3c0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

If your read these three reports from the past two days, we need to make several adjustments on this map:

• Tuloul al-Hadar to rebel held (already done), as well as a strategic hill north of the town
• The village of Hadar besieged by rebels

However, besieging the village of Hadar is only possible of you have control of Turanjeh and Ufaniya. So, both towns need to be marked green. So this would mean: Turanjeh and Ufaniya to green, Hadar to besieged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Color of Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon

A related discussion is currently ongoing concerning the color of Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon. It is argued whether the Lebanese government should be blue and Hezbollah red (like Syrian Ba'athist regime and its allies), or alternatively that Hezbollah should be blue but Lebanese Government as red (arguing that in each country the legitimate government is colored as red on the map). The problem of course arises at the combined regional map in case Lebanese government is colored red - making the Lebanese government and Syrian government forces the same color, while making Hezbollah - a staunch ally of Baathist Syria, into blue; also Hezbollah-controlled areas in Syria and Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon show in different colors (Syria in red together with the Assad forces, but in Lebanon blue). Obviously it creates a complete incoherence with the combined regional war interactive map Template:Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanon Conflicts detailed map, and the regional spillover map which is based on it (right). Please discuss it at Lebanese Insurgency detailed map page.GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Hezbollah should have a diffrent color since the areas they liberate in Lebanon are eventually under control of the Lebanese government just as the Syrian towns which are liberated in Syria. There are no clashes either between the Lebanese armed forces and Hezbollah in fact Hezbollah want's the Lebanese army to cooperate with them. so my suggestion is removing the blue color from the lebanon map, if marking Hezbollah is necessary then i suggest to change the color (since blue is known to be controlled by locals(Maybe bright yellow since Hezb flag is yellow)) but keep the background color the same as LAF (orange). Also the orange on this map doesn't look good either i suggest picking a color that is more similar to the pattern of iraq/syria redish/purple. Spenk01 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The areas controlled by the Iraq and Syrian governments is red/maroonish, which was not done to refer to Syria and Iraw as allies. If we are to keep with the current motif, then the area controlled by Lebanon should remain the colour it is, as showing Hezbollah areas coloured red might imply that that area is controlled by Lebanese government forces.

Yellow, a colour in the Hezbollah flag, wouldn't work, as it would imply that they are Kurds. Green, which is also in their flag, would imply their part of the more moderate rebels. Currently, there atre no areas under the control of local, nonaffiliated forces, so Hezbollah staying blue is acceptable, but should local forces taken control of any part of Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria, it should be reassessed. In summary: The areas under Hezbollah control should not be coloured red, as anti-government forces in Iraq and Syria have been representwed with colours other than red, and given red has been the colour of government controlled areas, it should remain as is. (Other maps, such as those of the Yemen and Libyan Civil Wars show government controlled territory in red. It makes more sense to leave it as is, as red does not reresent any country having a close relationship with Syria.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hader, Quneitra

Anyone locate the Arabic SOHR post referenced by Vice News, Times of Israel, ynet news, Daily Star, BBC, etc about the encirclement of Hader? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is al-Monitor confirming clashes "within the perimeter of Hodr village on the base of Mount Hermon" (Hodr = Hader) - surmised by the following sentence "All the while, mortar shells have been landing in the occupied Golan, where occupation sources have announced their intention to establish field hospitals in neighboring Majdal Shams". A quick look on Wikimapia shows Hader/Hodr directly across the border from Majdal Shams (neighboring). I hope this puts to rest the question on whether or not Hader is now an active battlefield. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Khadr

Where is this druze town of Khadr on the syria side of the Golan border? It should be red but under green/grey siege. It looks like a small town. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.661701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you refer to Hadar or Hader. Hebrew media would likely pronounce it Khader. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.280889&lon=35.834312&z=12&m=b NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Offensive south of Tal Abyad

The map lists Hammam al Turkman and Sharakarak as under YPG control, yet two pro-YPG/rebel maps show them both under ISIS control for the time being. Additionally, a more conservative map maker depicts that Ayn Issa and Qantari were not taken either, although Qantari was later reached today, but this means we labelled Qantari as YPG days before this happened. What sources are editors here relying on? It's difficult to browse through the edit history every time a major change is made, so can editors please just drop a shout here in the discussion, as a courtesy call? Then when issues like this arise, we can easily access the sources responsible.

I'm not sure what to do about Ayn Issa. Others on Twitter claim to have local sources (SRO, CizireCanton, etc), yet others still speak of a push towards Ayn Issa taking place now, alongside Sarrin. After Qantari, there's some serious questioning regarding the status of Ayn Issa. Especially since Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa is claiming they were as far south as Khunayza ("almost") and Tel Seman while also claiming they are assaulting Hazima . Those are so close to Raqqa, around here . I don't see any non-anonymous source aside from LTR on Twitter or anywhere else for Ayn Issa. For the time being, we should wait until we had confirmation that Ayn Issa is captured. I'm also reverting Hammam al Turkman and Sharakarak since nobody has seriously claimed them. NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I just reverted an edit, would it be considered a revert if I changed those two towns (Hammam al Turkman and Shar Karak) from yellow to black, given that they've been this way for days already? Also based on observing this source , the current claim that the operation reached Ayn Issa does NOT make a supportable claim that Ayn Issa is captured by them. Reaching and capturing a town are different; it seems WSJ was intentionally vague due to the murkiness of current reports. Can someone please revert it to black? NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Every edit on this map was added by someone, so when is an edit considered a revert, and when is it not? NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB, can you edit that Islamic State pocket west of Tall Abyad to YPG control? There are 9 villages there. These sources say that it is no longer under Islamic State control.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LCarabinier/status/611227480343584768/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/611339220444160000/photo/1

Thank you. With regards to the editing based on questionable/ameteur sources, I do think it's true some people were too quick to edit based on rumors. However, I also think it's important to trust people's good faith when they edit. In many cases, the reports are quite accurate, but more trustworthy sources don't report the news until later. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone's already changed them to yellow, which is accurate in this case. But Hammam al Turkman and Shar Karak should still be returned to black. The reports we use are usually accurate, but this time there have been a lot of mistakes. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

According to this pro-kurdish map released today (18 june) YPG/FSA-forces are yet not in Ayn Issa and villages just east of Al-Qantari are still under ISIS control. Rhocagil (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@sylezjusz Twitter is so far the most reliable mapmaker on Rojava. Everybody else jumped the gun and declared Ayn Issa liberated, he did not. When he updates a map to contradict other mapmakers, I think he should be given the upper say. Here's the latest map version, shows them still some distance from Ayn Issa. We should remove the green colour from its outskirts. Latest map NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Using 'reliable' sources quoting rebels to justify rebel advance

An edit was made adding a location to the map which was supposedly controlled by rebels here . The source used to justify this edit was quoting pro rebel sources and clearly biased. Since the source was not neutral i reverted the edit. Now the editor in question has personally visited my talk page and threatened me with reporting me to an admin for an unjustified rollback ...

Now i have the feeling biased editors are justifying rebel advances by quoting, for them 'reliable' sources, even though these sources as biased.

I'd like to know if there are any standards for using 'reliable' biased sources here?

Cheers. Spenk01 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

if you read the report well,you will see that on the contrary,it reports the hills under rebel control,and here is another http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-braces-for-refugees-as-syrian-rebels-surround-druze-town/.so stop making biased edits,because there now has been repeated incident of appearence of multiple pro-government account with their only focus of imposing the pro-government narrative on the articles.Alhanuty (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"“Hader is now totally surrounded by rebels, who just took a strategic hilltop north of the village,” Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP." cited a SOHR source which is not a justification for rebel advance. And i only have one account on wikipedia, don't bother to blame me for something i haven't made myself guilty to. I'm just guarding the integrity of this article and you are definately quoting pro rebel sources to justify rebel advance. last time i checked this wasn't according to the rules of this page. You should use a pro government source to justify rebel advance. And i don't agree with the way you are treating me either. Spenk01 (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is a reliable source.PERIOD.Ask anybody about SOHR and they will give you the same answer so self-revert,plus you have breached the 1RR Rule,so i advise you to self-revert.Alhanuty (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR might be a reliable source but it's definately not a neutral source, it's biased towards the rebels. As i said you migh think a source is reliable but you can't use it to justify rebel advance if it's a pro rebel source. I could say the exact same thing about Al-Masdar news or SANA which i consider more reliable than 1 man managed SOHR. I have not breached the 1RR since i have only undone your edit, after that i have merely edited the status of this hill according to the article you provided but in a neutral point of view. Spenk01 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Spenk01, we should wait for the confirmation from pro-gov. sources. There is no need to hurry. Stharkov (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule on Misplaced Pages against using biased source as long as they are reliable. Pro-regime editors need to understand this. WP:NEUTRALSOURCE NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no standard for a reliable or non reliable source in this module, whereas pro-rebel supporters see SOHR as a relibable source, pro-government see SANA and al-Masdar as a reliable source but either one deny the reliability of the opponent's source. We have agreed upon the fact that we can not show opposition advance using sources in favour of them. pro rebel & pro government need to understand that. Spenk01 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't wiki's Usage_by_other_sources consideration come into play at some point? Again, this specific SOHR claim is being cited widely by various outlets.. Bloomberg, Vice News, Times of Israel, ynet news, Daily Star, BBC. The situation is being discussed in the Israeli parliament; Israeli Druze communities are staging rallies over the developing situation.. The Israeli Druze community would not be so galvanized if the SOHR claim was fabricated. Frankly, we seem late to the game.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all opinions are equally valid. Whereas SANA resorts to making up information, the SOHR has been relatively accurate, to the point where some in the opposition have accused its runner of being an Alawite officer in the Syrian navy. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have caught SOHR multiple times on reporting a city being taken over while soldiers on the ground said that wasn't true. SOHR is also making up random numbers of casualties i do not consider SOHR to be reliable. the fact that various news outlets are quoting SOHR does not make SOHR more reliable since these outlets have commited themselves to biased reporting about the syrian civil war and since SOHR is one of the few reliable and relatively known rebel sources which report in English they quote that. Even though I was sure that editors of this map agreed upon the rule that you need a pro rebel source to justify SAA advance and pro SAA to justify rebel advance, this has nothing to do with reliability of a newsoutlet. And your argument about the guy behind SOHR is also made up and irrelevant to this subject. Spenk01 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, but it goes to show that the SOHR doesn't kowtow to appease anyone, not even the opposition. As for Western media, if you're gonna argue that it's biased, one can easily see that it's biased against all sides in different ways. But for example, when rebels occupy a Christian town, the media goes crazy over minority persecution, but when the regime retakes a Muslim town, the media describes it as a strategic victory. Compare Maaloula versus Qusayr two years ago, as an example. But the sensationalization and misinterpretation aside, major media outlets are usually factual, and they give as much weight to claims as they are probable of being true. For example when there are videos of rebels inside Idlib city, the media can only ignore regime denials while still playing it safe, ex. "This video cannot be independently confirmed." The next time you notice the SOHR was wrong, please share it in the discussion as it'd help us ascertain credibility. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Boredwhytekid There has been a various POV vandalism edits since Hanibal is blocked. The same editors just revert back when i revert their edit. How to report someone ? I never did this before so i don't know DuckZz (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Me neither DuckZz. I've been looking around on this, and found this section . I think since it's not clear what is happening is edit warring or vandalism, we can use this one to simply get the attention of an administrator and see what can be done. Don't forget to notify users you bring up to admins. NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Government adds in Quneitra

Some government additions need to be made on the map in line with the reuters article here, also the besieged Druze/Gov town of Hadar still needs to be added. Reuters says government controls Tel Shaar and Tel Bazaq in Quneitra, and Liwa 90 base, Baath and Khan Arnba. Some of these are not on the map: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN0OX0JO20150617 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Al of those places are already on the map, and under SAA control? The only thing is that Turanjah and Tuloul al-Hadar need to be rebel held, and the village of Hadar needs to be besieged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.102.2.163 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Atareb

LightandDark2000 Seriously stop changing Atareb back to Nusra held. I followed this battle live. Just because the mass media like LATimes doesn't bother to be detailed doesn't mean we at Misplaced Pages should give inaccurate information. I explained this in the edit summary, Jabhat al Nusra took Regiment 46, Urum al Sughra and Reef al Muhandiseen, not the city itself. Not long after that happened, activists accused Nusra of blockading Atareb's roads from the outside, which can only mean that Atareb is still rebel held. There was NO battle of Atareb. Please don't use vague sentences and interpret them wantonly like this. Atareb may be Nusra controlled now if Nusra moved into the city gradually, but until we find evidence of that, it stays green. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

From the same link they reference the weapons captured and the lentils. Those videos were very clearly from Regiment 46, not from inside Atareb. Hazm's headquarters were most likely Regiment 46; Nusra activists began "eulogizing" Hazm as soon as Regiment 46 was captured. The reports on Twitter said the same; Hazm left Regiment 46 for Atareb. Again even Jabhat al Nusra itself never claimed capture of Atareb city, just the Regiment 46 base outside it, which is already marked grey. NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bashkeuy (south of Tell Jibbin)

Bashkeuy was cleaned from Assad's Army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1C2nDJVkf0&feature=youtu.be 88.226.73.222 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1 you cant use a video as source. 2 the buildings you see are outside of bashkoy, they are afghan buildings outside of the town rebels have not managed to breach into the town. Spenk01 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The area in the video http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.332850&lon=37.128414&z=18&m=b which is confirmed by pro SAA source https://twitter.com/watanisy/status/611256652780716032 It's on the outskirts of the town which is already marked as contested.Spenk01 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You reverted the edit which led to the whole Bashkuy dot disappearing. Does that mean Bashkuy wasn't on the map before? NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No someone added Bashkoy with his unsourced edit, I just undone it. if you look closely you can see the village is still on the map though but not as a dot. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Rif_Aleppo2.svg Spenk01 (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

SAA recaptured al-Afghan Block. Source: SOHR Stharkov (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocks

I've just blocked three different people for violating 1RR sanctions on this article in the last ~24 hours.

Everyone, please be careful not to edit war but instead to consistently use the talk page. If you see anyone violating 1RR, please report them rather than just violating it yourself to get your preferred version back.

I realize it's not ideal, and not all edits come equal, but it's the way that the rules are written, and for good reason: it helps keep sanity around here.

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

what can be done with the disruptive pro-government accounts,they have to be informed with the editings rule.Alhanuty (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alhanuty: in my experience in such situation, the accounts are usually not as fire-breathingly evil as it might seem at first glance. The best way to handle things is through dispute resolution. I also recommend you:

• Abide by the rules
• Report rule-breaking
• Are cordial to other parties even though you dislike them (I can't stress this enough)
• Follow the dispute resolution process

When people do this, it will usually work in their favor. Usually the bad apples manage to rot themselves enough that they get removed, and only the good guys are left. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm having an issue understanding what constitutes a revert and what doesn't, because as the nature of this map is, unless you're adding a new location, every single contribution counts as a "revert". At some point, like I did two days ago, you may notice no less than three areas needing fixing, but I can only fix one per day because I don't know whether I'll breach 1RR or not. I've written about the mistakes on the talk page but no one has fixed them themselves. Does this mean we're confined to a literal one contribution per day on this map? NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@NightShadeAEB: I would not personally consider it a revert unless it is regarding the same dispute. If someone made a change two months ago due to a movement, and now there is a totally different set of circumstances, and there was never a dispute, then I would not consider that a revert. Does that answer your question? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you block the person who reverted the Damascus area map to the old inaccurate map? Why was this done? It is an obvious violation of the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Tuloul al Hemer

Acc. to pro-gov sources, Army "has captured Taloul Al-Hamr (Tuloul al Hemer) in Al-Quneitra" and "Hadar is no longer besieged" Sources: . No confirmation yet from pro-rebel sources. Stharkov (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

al Masdar too. Let's keep eyes open for more sources. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The location of this hill is wrong. According wikimapia this hill is north-east of Hadar, between Hadar and Beit Jean. According pro gov source SAA control also Ibra Joudeh Hadr Hills south of the village 217.99.132.128 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2015

Acc. to pro rebel source Abdel Rahman SAA captured one hill north of Hader but I can't find any hill north of Hader on wikimapia (except the Red Hills)....SOHR report about "advancement in the area for the last mentioned party (SAA) and taking control over a hill in the vicinity of Hder". Stharkov (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no other hill north to Hadar, next is Mt Hermon and Tell Harboon, but this is far far away 217.99.132.128 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2015

Ariha should be grey or grey / green

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11638630/Al-Nusra-Front-rebels-take-Idlibs-last-Syria-regime-bastion-in-pictures.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We already had a disqussion about this. These sites are using SOHR as a source, but obviously wrong, because SOHR clearly said "Jaish Fatah" and named 5 groups, together with Al Nusra, not enough for joint control. DuckZz (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @OP that we should change the town to mixed control. According to this source the offensive was lead by al-Nusra so they do have significant influence over this town. more sources that quote 'al nusra front & allies' taking Ariha: And this is only a fraction of the sources that claim al nusra took the town. We can't simply ignore the fact that al Nusra has a stake in this. Spenk01 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz You are arguing that the lime-yellow dot´s inside Kobane Canton should stay that way because that was the way they where reported captured. In the same way, if you follow your own logic Ariha must be marked under joint control (lime-grey). "SOHR clearly said "Jaish Fatah" and named 5 groups, together with Al Nusra" exactly, together = joint control. I don´t know if you are pro FSA and I don´t really care, but i serenely look like you are if you argument like this and you should at least pretend to do neutral edits. I think you are the most stabile editor since Hanibal was blocked (btw: why the FU** was he blocked? was he not the most nerd-loyal to the rules there is?). Well so please DuckZz keep up the good fight against the vandalizing. Rhocagil (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhocagil Spenk01 Ariha was a compensation for Idlib town. What does this mean ? We had a really hard disqussion about Idlib town, few days after it fell. SOHR and other rebel sources named groups which participated, and numbers, we used JAN sources and rebel sources. All of them stated that Al Nusra was only like 35% involved during the clashes. Which means that the joint control rule wansn't there, but still Idlib town stayed under joint control. Hanibal was the first person to change Ariha town, and he marked it as under rebel control, probably realizing his mistake for Idlib town.

Now some users like to use old sources to change some locations, which is fine, but the thing is, they use websites with articles, and those articles want to say "According to SOHR", but that's tottaly wrong. SOHR never said "Al Nusra took control, or Al Nusra and another group", they clearly said "Jaish Fateh took control, named Al Nusra and 5 other groups", and that's just not enough for joint control. 5vs1 is clearly too much.

Yes i do follow this logic, and yes Kobane town is not marked as under joint control, obviously YPG did like 70% of the job, but i marked a lime icon because of YPG statements that FSA helped them, also SOHR said that FSA captured the hospital inside Kobane etc.. I think the joint control should be removed from Soluk town, not a single source showed FSA groups, and the user who made that edit was doing POV vandalism action, nobody reverted it. Remove the joint icon from Soluk first, Kobane too, but things in Idlib are pretty much clear. DuckZz (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, you're a seriously massive hypocrite.You're marking areas as under FSA control, that should be marked as under joint control (Islamists and FSA), but you get pissed off and start reverting edits made to Kobane Canton, when people start raising valid points, regarding whether or not FSA still has any presence at all in Kobane Canton.

I'm taking this issue up with Banak. If he agrees with me, I'm marking Ariha as under joint control of the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra. If you revert my edits, I'm reporting you for vandalism of both the savable version of the map, as well as the more detailed one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful to understand what Vandalism is. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". If you misunderstand this you risk believing you can revert an edit as being "obvious vandalism" only to discover it doesn't count and breaks the 1RR, and end up being blocked. Please make sure you fully understand what vandalism is not. It appears to me that you mean that you think that DuckZz is violating NPOV. I do not wish you to be blocked for misunderstanding this. There have been 41 blocks listed as being for 1RR/3RR on syrian civil war and iraqi insurgency modules/templates in less than 2 years.

Less importantly, but more what you were asking for, the usage of the grey colour has been debated, in particular when, if ever a mix of grey and green should be used. Roughly speaking green is "generic rebels" (any rebels that aren't JaN, IS or Kurds). However, people have said in the past that there needs to be a significant JaN presence to make it mixed grey/green, which leads to a whole load of debate about what constitutes it. I personally try to avoid such arguments. Banak (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz I thought Jaish Fateh was an operation room witch included JAN. As for Kobane the FSA forces are about 5% maximum 10% of joint the operation room there and the only place that is de facto under joint control now is Tal Abyad and especially it´s border crossing. Witch the kurds argued to maintain that way to try to calm Turkey. Probably maybe Ayn Issa will go under joint control, if and when it´s captured.Rhocagil (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhocagil Regarding your edits - nobody disputes that Liwa al Tahrir and Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa participated on the eastern front which took Suluk - to say nothing of the fact that Suluk is the second largest Arab city in the area after Tal Abyad. It stands to common sense that the FSA is there. Since we don't know how the city's gonna be administered, we should use the information we have, namely that the FSA, used by the YPG to gain legitimacy in an Arab area, participated in the overall campaign, and thus has probable presence in Suluk. Everybody says Suluk was captured by the YPG-FSA coalition, nobody so far has specified which specific factions claimed or administered the town. We can only judge based on what we know within reasonable expectations. NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As for Jabhat al Nusra - the fact that it is being equated to the combined might of the rest of the opposition's factions, doesn't seem balanced at all. Ariha's area in Jabal al Arbaeen is a traditional stronghold of Suqur al Sham, now subsumed into Ahrar al Sham, making the non-Nusra Islamists more powerful than ever. Why would Nusra be treated as an equal here? Even for Idlib, Saraqeb, Maarat al Nuuman and Khan Shikhoun the colours don't make sense. Jisr al Shughour makes sense because of the presence of Jabhat Ansar al Din and Junud al Sham which lend weight to the Nusra-Jund al Aqsa Salafi-jihadi brotherhood. But this trend of turning every city where Nusra makes headlines into Nusraland is very biased. NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually why didn't we think of this before. Change all joint-control towns between Nusra & other opposition so that Nusra is a smaller grey/blue icon embedded in the green icon. Just like Kobane. We should do the same for Tal Abyad and Suluk. That way we remain fair and consistent towards all parties, recognizing those who make up the majority. NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB (The Suluk edit) It does not stand to common sense that FSA was there when captured. The FSA that joined in with YPG from the east front was merely a hand full. And I don´t care "common sense" since that is something existing very rarely in here. I do care sources and and discussion about them. And now a source was provided for the Suluk take over, trustworthy or not I don´t know but it was a source. I´m sorry for my edit and I stand corrected. As for the Tell Abyad situation this is one of few, maybe the only situation where there is de facto a joint control over a town or parts of it between YPG-FSA as the Kurds clearly said that this is the way AranewsRhocagil (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, every source says the YPG-FSA coalition took the area, Suluk included. The source provided for reverting your edit doesn't really satisfy me, but mainstream media and YPG spokespersons mentioning the battle for Tal Abyad, including its rural areas and not just the city itself, includes FSA allies, should be enough for us to consider the FSA a partner. I found an approximate source that could be used:

"The Kurds who dominated the battle in Kobane have been joined by several Free Syrian Army units. They are fighting as a coalition called Burkan al-Furat, or Euphrates Volcano. Forces with the coalition also have advanced from Kurdish-held territory to the east of Tel Abyad. On Saturday, they encircled the town of Suluk, to the south of Tel Abyad, further pressuring the Islamic State."

This shows the FSA participated in the siege, at least. Or rather, "the coalition" participated. The key here is that the media doesn't distinguish between subfactions of the coalition; it's basically "YPG et al". NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing Al-Rastan to contested

Al-Rastan should be changed to contested based on this televised report from Al-Mayadeen from inside the city where they state that the syrian army still controll the northern neighboorhoods of the inside city.

http://mayadeen.trafficmanager.net/Newscast/nJGsr09A,EGmTaJfAN_SlA/6/2013-10-22

http://www.almayadeen.net/news/syria-HKAjFbEGsk6hxaS5ANS9RA/الرستن-واحدة-من-أعقد-مناطق-تواجد-المسلحين-في-شمال-حمص (Ali bachir (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC))

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali bachir (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

While I agree, this source cannot be used since it has a fairly pro government stance. It's not extremely pro, like Leith, but we should still look for better sources. For now, it's likely best that Rastan keeps the red from the North. MesmerMe (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not about some random claim from Al-Mayadeen, i know they are pro gov, but this is a tv report where they are reporting from INSIDE the city, their reporter concluded the report by a video message from inside the city northern neighboorhood where SAA soldiere are positionned so it should be changed to contested. (Ali bachir (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC))

Or it should be changed to three way held (Nusra, FSA, SSA). There is an icon for that. Rhocagil (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some will say this is a pro-government source that can't be used, despite the readiness of the scientific method (geolocation). I would agree with it, but I don't think the video is from inside Rastan. The conclusion of the video said from the northern entrance of Rastan. There's a bridge that they do not cross, and a valley in between. It's probably located here:

There's a clear discontinuity between the northern ridge, and the city itself. It doesn't seem to be considered part of the city according to the map, although the extent of the municipality's authority on the ground could very well include it. Still, this to me seems similar to the situation with Jisr al Shughour and Idlib's outer checkpoints, which were marked separately from the cities themselves. I don't think it should be marked as contested. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In the report they talk about defending the rastan damn which means they are south of the damn thus inside the city, a city should be put as contested evn if one side controll only one building.

I have been following this page for months now and there where always report from SOHR about clashes inside the city of rastan but they would be ignorent because there where not providing any evidence and the editors where afraid it was a mistranslation or a misenterpretation of the situation.

Now i am providing a proffessional video evidence from inside the city the city of Rastan, the position of the outlet who made the video is irrelevent, because they have actually provided a sybstantial evidence for their claim.

In the end it is the editors choice, but to refuse to change the city to contested, based on actual evidence not random claims, would reflect the wrong direction this map is taking since the editors are now ignoring undisputable evidence in favor of their political oppinion or the fear of being blocked after the recent events. (Ali bachir (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC))

The editors refused my videos before. I'm not refusing yours, but did you even look at the map I posted? South of the dam is still outside the city itself, your own video shows them north of the bridge which they do not cross. Calling it a "professional video" doesn't change the fact that you are misrepresenting it. With a simple geolocation, I can show them as being outside the city, and if they were inside, they'd control perhaps a few buildings - hardly enough for a change in a city the size of Rastan. In Homs the opposition controls a whole neighbourhood - Waer - and the city is still considered red. What does that say about the wrong direction of this map when you complain about Rastan, but no one complained about Homs, or previously Idlib during the battle?

Please open this link and check for yourself the area between the dam and the bridge: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.934391&lon=36.736779&z=16&m=b Ali bachir NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Skakh

SAA forces recaptured Skakh (Sakaka), west of al-Tha’la military airport. Source: SOHR pro-gov sources: Rook and ElectronicResistance stharkov (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reports

Reporting user LightandDark2000 for using rebel sources for rebel advances, kurdish sources for kurdish advances here1, and here2. I don't want to revert those edits because that obviously doesn't make any sense, the user will do it again. DuckZz (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Damascus map? Why was it reverted to old inaccurate map?

It took a long time to have the Damascus map updated with the information from the Pentagon linked ISW reports. Now the map has been reverted to the inaccurate old map. Why is this? The top left corner is Purple and the bottom left corner is mostly government except for one besieged city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You should ask Tradedia. Rhocagil (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. They should not be used as a source. In fact, there is a good reason why “Copying from maps is now strictly prohibited” (see #Important message from creator of map: Please read). So the April 2015 ISW map shows the rebels in control of only the town of Khan al-Shih?! Clearly in the past, they had a large area around it including the towns of al-Dirkabiya, Zakiyah, al- Mqelabiyya, al-Taybeh. So did the gov recapture those towns back? There is no such news anywhere on the internet (not even from pro-gov media)! A check like this needs to be done before changing our map. This is not the first mistake from ISW map (and likely not the last). In fact, on June 13, 2015, SOHR reported “The regime forces opened fire on areas in the road between the towns of Khan al-Shih, Zakya and al- Mqelabiyya in west of Rif Dimashq and on areas in al- Mqelabiyya town, information about injuring of some people in al- Mqelabiyya town.” So our map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from an approximate map! Please stop copying maps and stick to real sources (news reports). We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse…

Concerning "the top left corner", it will be made "purple" soon, but this time based on a real source (http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-cut-water-supplies-feeding-damascus/). Tradedia 02:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Shulah

This pro government map show more closely how the current situation is in Shulah, the Oil Field East of the city is SAA held, but the city is IS/SAA held. My suggestion is to keep it like it currently (or possible a read half circle) and put a SAA held SAA Oil Field. Moreover, this map shows Akram Oil Field, North of Palmyra as SAA held, since this is a Pro Government map no changes should be made, but it's an interesting note.MesmerMe (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Please see #Important message from creator of map: Please read Tradedia 10:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not copying anything, Leiths' map simply confirms the map since the current wiki map already indicates that everything east of Shulah is SAA held. I simply suggest to to put the Shulah Oil Field on there as SAA held (same as Thayyam), which will clarify the situation there. MesmerMe (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the current wiki map does not indicate that everything east of Shulah is SAA held. There is the Deir ez-Zor city small map that indicates that the east of the 137th Armoured Brigade is SAA held. Then to the west of the Deir ez-Zor city small map there is a white space, then there is Al-Shulah contested icon. We do not have information about the white space between the Deir ez-Zor city small map and Al-Shulah. Leiths' map shows SAA in control of the area south of the the Deir ez-Zor city-Al-Shulah road (which includes the Shulah Oil Field). How do you know that SAA does not instead control the area north (not south) of the the Deir ez-Zor city-Al-Shulah road (which does not include the Shulah Oil Field)? In this case, ISIS could be in control of the Shulah Oil Field. Tradedia 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That is actually a really nice map, Can you find the original size? I found this hasakah map which is a close of of the one you provided, but I'd really like to see other areas close up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumada (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-syrian-civil-war-june-2015/ MesmerMe (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This pro-government map says that the areas south of Palmyra and east of Suwayda are not government held. Our map shows government towns and positions there. I don't think there are any. What is the status of these areas? Who holds and controls this terrain? Is there a significant army presence in these towns and on those mountains to warrant red icons? 2601:C7:8303:22DC:80FF:CA06:FCEA:9BC6 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If this map is accurate, al Asaylem, Faraj, and Abwah need to change from YPG held to IS held. It also confirms the edits I made in Easter Hasakah and that whoever is vandalizing it is wrong. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

New map by Al Masdar is a disgrace

Al Masdar has started a new map obviously based on copying our map without even giving us credit! So after DeSyracuse copied our map and put his name on it, now Al Masdar is copying our map and putting their name on it. I wonder if there is a way to sue them for copyright infringement... In any case, their map is a clear violation of WP:CIRCULAR (“Do not use websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content or publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources.”) There is no way to know if the differences between their map and our map (or the additional things on their map) are based on information or guessing. Tradedia 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia Every map showing the situation in Syria looks almost the same, as it's not really hard to find out which town/village is under control of what group. A better idea would be to somehow better publish our File:Syrian civil war.png map, using a watermark, and maybe ask some reliable twitter user to publish it after we make the weekly update. We would get more attention to this map, while other users on twitter & co. will compare it to other map users and then warn them if they copy us.

Something else. I understand the rules, but the rule for map usage as a source is not really good in my opinion. I know that anyone can make a map, and claim this and that, but we really have few good, quality and realiable map users on twitter, pro-government/rebel/kurd, maybe we can make a list of what maps are acceptable to use as a source ? DuckZz (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A list of valid maps is a damn good idea! I would also like a list of recognized "neutral" sources. Rhocagil (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a list of sources with when we can use them would help. We could also make a blacklist. Ofc, the question becomes where to put these lists, and how to decide them. It probably won't change much for you frequent contributors, but it might help those of us that don't know your sources so well. Banak (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We have been looking at reliable media & amateur maps for years now. None of them is “good, quality and realiable” and all of them made our map wrong many many time. There is not one map out there that meets Misplaced Pages standards for sources. Every map maker is approximating or guessing. Why should we copy the approximations or guesses when we can base our map on real information? We are working on an encyclopedia that has standards for reliability. None of the other map makers have such standards. Reliable media just need their map to give a general idea (approximate) to their readers. Amateur map makers can do what they want without ever having to show verifiability/sources. We gain nothing from copying maps other than pollute our map with mistakes.

Every element on our map should be verifiable. Our map was designed to represent the information in Misplaced Pages articles. Notice the “link=” parameter in the map code. This is supposed to link to the part in the Misplaced Pages article that contains the source and talks about the events in the town. Unfortunately, these links are not being maintained because of laziness because it is easier to just dump a source in the “Edit summary” rather than to write something in an article and then link it to the dot on the map. However, one day these links could be added after the fact and obviously copying from maps will not allow making these links.

Copying from maps has just become an easy way to do POV pushing, and this is what Misplaced Pages administration does not want anymore. There is a phenomenon of “map shopping” where our map becomes a sort of a video game between biased editors who shop for a map that is classified anti their favorite side and then look to see if some town colors are different from our map. They then just mindlessly copy the map without worrying about what sources were used on our map in the first place. In this case, they are not updating our map, but rather replacing correct information by the guessing or approximation of some map maker.

Before our map became popular on the internet, there were very few other maps. Now there are plenty of maps, and the main reason is that they more or less copy from us. Most editors here don’t have a real appreciation for our map and what it has accomplished. We built our map based on sources up to Misplaced Pages standards. Many of the early editors who have built this map to what it is now, have left for one reason or another. Newer editors have come and do not seem to have the high standards of previous editors and have just engaged in cluttering the map with a pile of icons copied from here and there… Our map is supposed to set the standard for maps on the internet, instead of bringing itself down to the level of forums and twitter junk. Tradedia 03:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this going to be enforced at all? I mean, just since the last time I logged on, 1, 2, 3 (a map is referenced, but not even provided here), 4, 5, 6, 7, etc..! edits just straight from other maps. Not to mention the unsourced edits.. 1 2, 3, 4,.. Are the rules being enforced or not? Because 1RR makes it impossible for editors to push back a tide like that.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Biyarat, Homs

Reports of the SAA taking Al-Biyarat, Homs, 10km from Palmyra Daily Star, The Sun.. both citing SOHR and al-Watan. Location of Al-Biyarat? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Also al-Masdar is reporting the SAA recaptured Jazal and the Jazal gas fields. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Al-Biyarat and Jazal also confirmed here to be recaptured by SAA. Is Al-Biyarat the place marked as Al Bilat on the map? If so than mark as SAA-held please. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Advances south of Tal Abyad

Ali Bajliya and Brigade 93 have reportedly been liberated. However, I can't find any original source for everyone else's claims aside from Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa. Given the wild claims made by LTR before, especially regarding the fall of Ayn Issa and the capture of Tel Seman, Khunayza and Hazima, I request that nobody changes anything from black until it gets confirmed by SOHR or other reputable sources. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) SOHR confirmed that they captured huge parts of it.Alhanuty (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000

What are you doing? Why are you using maps? Why are you using pro-rebel/YPG sources for rebel/YPG advances? here "Since the Free Syrian Army is the primary combatant in the Ayn Issa region, using "lime" color for non-town/village symbols." Source? Stharkov (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000 Please engage in the discussion section. Misplaced Pages is edited based on consensus, not solo work. If you continue to avoid engaging users, we will have no choice but to bring this to the attention of administrators. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB No use. This user is doing this for a certain period of time, last 2 weeks. I already reported him on this talk page but no answer from the administrator while he is more busy explaining to us how using maps or other similar sources are bad for this article, while on the other hand this user and others are doing more than just POV vandalism edits. I think it's better to just edit something without providing any source than providing sources against the rules. The best example is the area around Ayn Isa (north Raqqa), on our map it was rebel held, kurd held, contested, then again rebel held, then lime-kurd held and now again under IS control. According to some users, these edits were just fine, no sources but still OK ... unbelievable DuckZz (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe I responded to the previous discussions. I don't know what you guys think I'm doing, but I do provide sources for all of my edits. If you don't see it in my edit summary, then it means that I provided the source in a previous edit. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 You don't just have to respond just once or twice, but regularly. As a regular contributor, it should be your responsibility to check the talk page for discussions and consensus. It feels like you're just going it alone most of the time. Try providing sources here in the talk page instead. This is not just you, but applies to most other people too lazy to document changes, but at least they engage in the discussion, so we can reach a common ground through dialogue. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• List-Class Syria articles
• Low-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles