Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tradedia (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 7 September 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:10, 7 September 2015 by Tradedia (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Control of cities during the Syrian civil war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

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

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Rules for Editing the Map

1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.
a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.
b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).
c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Misplaced Pages for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “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
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Misplaced Pages content or publications that rely on material from Misplaced Pages as sources.”

3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.

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.

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:CIRCULAR.
I cite the WP:RS rule verbatim: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
I cite the WP:CIRCULAR 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). 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)

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) Do not archive this yet. Tradedia 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the points raised by Tradedia in this section. Also, frustration with the blind application of "sources" by Hanibal911 was part of the reason I stopped contributing to this page a while back. (I was also busy with other priorities.)

I'm glad to see the reorientation of this page, as I think that it makes a very valuable contribution to Misplaced Pages as well as informing about the situation in Syria.

-- my 2 cents André437 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

SOHR & Al-Masdar

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

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind that even a reliable source can be wrong sometimes. This has happened to us with prestigious media. In such cases, we need to use common sense & do cross checking with other sources to avoid blindly copying a mistake. Finally, SOHR & Al-Masdar are very acceptable as sources in the eyes of Misplaced Pages administration. Tradedia 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Do not archive this yet. Tradedia 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abu ad Duhur and Aleppo updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No ISIS presence near Jawsiyah Crossing remove it

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

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

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

I know there isn't a lot of evidence. But ISIS has pushed towards this area from the east, so the idea that there are ISIS fighters here isn't crazy. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually ISIL briefly took control of Jawsiya crossing two weeks ago .GreyShark (dibra) 06:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Madaya

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

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

Mahajjah, Daraa province

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

You are correct. I did a google search on “Mahajjah Syria” in English and in Arabic (“محجة سوريا”). Follows what I found: On 26 June, pro-gov source says: “A number of al-Nusra Front militants were killed as Syrian troops stormed their hideout in the town of Mahajjah.” Also Bosnjo says (on Sep 1) that: “Mahajah is under rebel control.” Also, pro-rebel source talks about “gov gathering troops to storm the town.” (sep 2). In addition, FSA website talks about “violent shelling on the town from gov troops” on aug 30. And many more similar news if you look at twitter hashtag محجة…

The reason we had it gov-held was because deSyracuse map has it gov-held and we just mindlessly copied it without looking for news reports like you just did. Tradedia 20:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Suwayda/Suweida

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? On /r/syriancivilwar we appear to have a pretty good reputation.

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

A few maps I've seen on Reddit link to Misplaced Pages maps or pages, which then link to the more detailed maps they are based on. If the maps were unreliable, they wouldn't be linked to. In all seriousness, I haven't seen much in the way of opposition to this map, except in a few ultra_conservative Muslim groups that still want to say the Islamic State controls an area the size of Great Britain.

BanakI have an idea: The combined module, showing the wars in Iraq and Syria in one unified map, displays Iraw as being much larger than Iraq is for the map for that war alone. Why not simply zoom in more on the map (the one for Syria), since that would put more distance between markers, and allow people to see what dot represents what town, villiage, or city. Just a thought. I have no idea what consequences it would have.DaJesuZ (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Whilst in a couple of places we do have so many marks it's hard to see, the main issue with size is that the map becomes harder to load. For example, many people can't view it on mobile, and it has quite a high load time. A greater zoom is something that would help with allowing us to distinguish sizes, but makes it harder to see everything at once, or the surrounding, so you have a trade-off between detail in an area and context in it. Banak (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Huwwarin

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

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

Jazal oilfield

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

almasdar states that IS controls the Jazal village but lost control of two of the Jazal gas wells after initial advances 131.188.48.174 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories: