Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Jihadist-held towns

I am going to raise a question that I think should be addressed. How does everybody feel about marking (black) the towns which are held by jihadist groups (Nusra, ISIS, etc) and not moderate rebels like the FSA? I am asking this because of the recent events where you have the jihadists coming into conflict with both the FSA and the Kurds and predictions by many that if and when Assad falls that the next conflict will be between the moderates and the radicals. EkoGraf (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I remain in opposition to this. Recent statements from the FSA leadership indicate that they hold the same positions re: Kurdish autonomy that al-Qaida (Nusra/ISIS) does. There were some sporadic clashes between FSA-aligned groups and ISIS last week, but I haven't seen any indications that these are continuing. I'm also not sure if we have adequate information as to who exactly controls what rebel-held town on the map; I suspect that in many cases control is mixed. There's also the question of how to mark SIF and SILF groups. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Deciding which rebel group is jihadist and which isn't might be difficult. I suggest we do what is done at File:Northern Mali conflict.svg and give each major group/coalition (Nusra/ISIS, SIF, SILF, FSA, Kurds, etc.) its own color.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, some sources have confirmed that most of the rebel-held (not Kurdish-held) towns in Deir ez-Zor, Raqqah and Hasakh provinces are in fact held by Nusra and ISIS. Raqqah for example is for the most part held by Nusra or ISIS with some Kurdish-held neighborhoods. Shaddadeh is also a prime example of a town held primarily by radicals. And when I said jihadist I know I used a really broad term since some of the moderates are also saying they are waging a jihad against Assad. So to be more specific I ment that we mark black the towns which are held by the radical groups like Nusra and ISIS. But, if you guys are not up for it, ok, it was just a suggestion, never mind. EkoGraf (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also opposed doing this - unless we do the same for government forces. Shabiha and NDF towns (Homs, Jaramana, fu'ah ect) colored orange, Syrian army towns colored red. Sopher99 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The NDF and the Shabiha defer to Assad (or at least share his goals) and at the very least are not ideologically opposed to him to the point where they could be considered a different faction. The same cannot be said for the FSA and the ISIS. Nevertheless, unless more information can be gathered to determine which town goes where for every town colored green, we should hold off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.73.158 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude wtf the NDF are not jihadist and dont clash with the government but are actualy the best organized militia witch will fight for the SAA they are not separated from the army but are the army while Armored and mechanised divisions provide artilery tanks and some infantry the NDF provides the infantry they all fight under one banner while the al nusra fight under the banner of ISIS while others for the FSA its a big difference and also to mention NDF are also acting as defence for the cities and they control almost every city in syria while the army controls the city countryside and intervines when needed with armor and artilery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.247.129 (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with both anonymous users. The relationship between the government militias and the Army is totally different than between the FSA and the jihadists. The FSA and the jihadists have ideological differences, have clashed on occasion in the past and don't follow the same command structure. While the Army and government militias have no ideological differences, have not clashed and listen to the same commands given by the government. Although I said I'm dropping the discussion I think this will have to be revisited in the very near future considering recent events. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Daraa

Fighting took place between rebels and army. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920505001101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.174.211 (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Syrian army forces have driven out al-Nusra Front terrorist group from al-Jubailiya village in Daraa Province and returned peace and stability to the region, al-Alam reports.http://en.alalam.ir/news/1497144#sthash.X4SutouH.dpuf94.178.4.47 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Adra

The town was captured 6 months ago and is still contested.Who the hell is changing it to contested its not contested its in government hands change it now even al-Jazeera the pro-opposition news agency mentioned it in there article

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/2013723182219298817.html

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights on Tuesday reported that the opposition fighters were killed near Adra, a town which saw heavy fighting when Assad's forces recaptured it from the rebels a few months ago.

Rebels were killed near the town not in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I have edited the town to be red under Army control based on three sources. Al Jazeera [1] and Reuters [2] who both say the Army captured it months ago and that the rebels were killed near it not in it. And directly from SOHR [3] who also said it happened by it not in it. However, user Sopher is refusing to acknowledge this and keeps reverting me and the other editors citing other sources who say in, however those sources were not as detailed about the event as these three and didn't even mention that the town had already been captured by the Army. Some of them even mistakingly call it a Damascus suburb. However, given SOHR, who has activists on the ground, said it happened by the Industrial city, which is actually not part of the town itself and is just to the east of Adra (check on Wikiamap) than more than likely the ambush did not happen in Adra. EkoGraf (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The ambush was to the road for Adra and not the city itself which is government controlled. Beyond sources by using common sense is more than obvious that you set an ambush to the road and not to a city where enemy will find cover and be tipped.....--Dimitrish81 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2013

Khaldiyah was taken today by the regime. Upgrade the situatioon of Khalidyah in the map and the short description about it.

description about rebel's progress in Alep' neighborhood and southern syria are not in the description either Epennes1 (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Alalam exclusive video footage confirms on spot also the take over.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Province

According to pro government SANA thearmy took over control in the villages of Tallet Khanaser on Aleppo road, along with the villages of Abdo Mousa, Hjara Kbira, Jub Awad, al-Qurbatiyeh and al-Rashadiyeh. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats why we wait confirmation.In Quinetra as you see we have it from pro opposition Jazeera. --Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest red ring for Khan al-Assal per https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/fighting-rages-for-town-in-syria-chemical-weapons-row OberschIesien90 (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Western and Middle East sources are confirming the event of the clashes in the outskirts of the village. Red Ring is enough for now.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tradedia^talk 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Army artilery base Kokab Brigade 546 near Hasakah http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.518190&lon=40.825195&z=13&m=b&show=/25601235/&search=Aleppo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Tradedia^talk 15:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Province

According to pro government SANA the army took over control on village of Tallet Maragha. Can we have it on the map in order to understand army moves....--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

According to SANA Andan and Hretan are under SAA attack --92.243.182.16 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Al Waer

Clashes in Al Waer suburb of Homs per Unicef, please add. OberschIesien90 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Al Waer hosts military instalations it didn't see fighting but there is mortar and rocket attacks on the district witch resulted in a huge explosion a few days ago killing 40 people there is actualy no rebel presence there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As you see on the satellite picture, there is a military area and a civilian area in Al Waer. Military complex is already on the map, in government hands. They should ad a new symbol for the civilian suburb where the source says the clashes occur. The huge blast was in Wadi Dahab OberschIesien90 (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No pro-opposition source has reported it but if you want you can added it but just to say i saw the map and clashes may have hapend but it is posible they spilled over from old Homs where rebel fighters are trapped and trying to escape through Al-Waer in any ways we should put it and see how the situation develops and if there are no reported clashes from other news agency it can go the way it was Daki122 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Khalidiya under full government control (BBC)

Khalidiya not contested anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.25.65 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In a rare tactic pro government SANAreport the total capture of Khalidiya after SOHR and other Gulf pro opposition media already admit it. Please update the map and proceed also to Bab Hood as contested.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Western media also confirm Khalidiya take over.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes Bab Houd is under heavy army advancing. It is absolutely contested: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Aug-06/226425-rebels-in-homs-look-to-nusra-for-help.ashx#axzz2bE5IGw00 Roboskiye (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Khalidiya is under government control everyone confirmed it. Check out Al-Arabya, Al-Jazeera, BBC, Reuters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Daraya

Was going to debate this here first before making any changes. The Associated Press reported that the Army had recaptured Daraya earlier this year after several weeks of fighting. Source here [4]. This would corellate with the news on the ground, or rather the lack of news about fighting in Daraya. The last news report about major fighting or rather any fighting in Daraya, for Daraya, was sometime in late March, since than nothing. Those last reports were just before the Army offensive that recaptured large parts of the Damascus countryside and cut rebel supply lines. So I am asking, do we turn Daraya red given the lack of reports on any major fighting for the city for five months now and now a report by AP that it had already been recaptured months ago? Reminding AP is a highly reliable source. EkoGraf (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have found one more source here [5] which calls Daraya, and I quote, a former rebel bastion. The source also goes in detail saying that Daraya was held by rebels for months and it took the army weeks of heavy fighting to regain control of the suburb earlier this year'.EkoGraf (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Debunked https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/384575934984084 Sopher99 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally how do we know assad visited darraya? He doesn't go out in public anymore. The journalist is making an assumption - they have not been on the ground or contacted sohr about Daraya's status. I should remind you the Syrian army has claimed capture of Darraya many times before. Sopher99 (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Second source refuting this - fighting occured as recently as July 21. http://www.syrianews.cc/syria-journalist-wounded-mortar-daraya/ obviously this is not a reliable source because it blabs about "criminal terrorists" and what not. But it is a pro-assad admission of fighting, and the RT journalist being wounded did happen. Sopher99 (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And last but not least http://syrianewsdesk.com/en/news/violent-clashes-erupt-daraya Sopher99 (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would usually be the first to support SOHR accounts. However, when asking who is more reliable, SOHR or AP, than AP is always more reliable and trustworthy. In any case, US Army conducted air-strikes in towns they controlled in Iraq all the time during the war. Plus, this time, it is not the Army who is claiming Daraya was captured, its AP. And nowhere in the source does it say that the journalist is just assuming that Assad is in Daraya. That is your personal POV. You are seriously not comparing the credibility of AP to the Syrian Army are you? As for your other source, Syria Desk, its a little known opposition news website whose reliability and credibility is even a lot less than SOHR's. So what I'm trying to say, opposition sources can not just debunk a reliable and trustworthy source like AP. EkoGraf (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No where in the source does it say where the journalist got his info. It didn't say according to " x ", and certainly didn't say reported or that AP "has learnt". It is at this time we are questionly the accuracy of the journalist. Additionally we have testimony from opposition, near-neutral sohr, and pro government. Daraya stays the same. Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Assad visits himself Daraya (BBC, Reuters): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23529440 I would suggest a red dot with green circle around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.25.65 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Russia Today (pro-assad) reports its staff was wounded from rebels within daraya firing mortars back. http://rt.com/news/rt-correspondent-wounded-syria-390/
New york times reports on near constant shelling of Daraya this week. http://projects.nytimes.com/watching-syrias-war/homes-burn-shelling-damascus-suburb Sopher99 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Now this New york times source is important, look toward the bottom , under the section what we do know "Daraya and other southern suburbs of the capital have been heavily bombed in recent weeks". Sopher99 (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We now have the New york times saying that Daraya is constantly shelled in recent weeks, and sohr is playing the source of the shelling mostly on the government. Pro-assad and anti-assad newsmedia both confirm clashes. What else could you possibly want that shows that AP journalist made a typical error? Sopher99 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Both sources (RT,NYT) are at least 1 week old.194.158.25.65 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Irreverent because Eko's sources are claiming the Syrian army took daraya months ago. So if anything, the fact they are from this week proves that AP journalist is making an error. Sopher99 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An interesting relevant interview before the AP release of today's Assad visit report: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/01/ml-syria-war-drama/194.158.25.65 (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sopher, it is not we who are questioning the reliability, it is you. And it is not one AP journalist, it is actually two of them who have reported it. You saying two veteran journalists got it wrong? And I said this many times in the past, our personal POVs do not count on Wikipedia. What is said in a reliable source is what we base our edits on. If you wan't to question the reliability of the AP journalists if they did their jobs right and accuse them of being in error, fine, that is your right. But you need to take it up at the Wikipedia noticeboard for reliable source and can not disregard a source based on your POV. Wonder how well it will pass at the noticeboard when someone questions AP. As for the other matter...if I remember correctly you yourself have advocated that pro-government and Russia Today sources should be ignored all-together correct? And again I repeat those sources do not talk of a battle for the city they talk about clashes in the city which could as well be insurgent hit-and-run attacks, rebel ambushes, military counter-insurgency raids on rebel hideouts and close-air support strikes of a unit in contact, all of which happens in an insurgent conflict, prime example of US Army-held cities in Iraq which had all the same situations, but were still considered US Army-held. And again I repeat, AP journalists are considered a much more reliable source than opposition activists. Not to mention that the BBC and Reuters are now also running the story, giving it much more credibility. EkoGraf (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave pro-assad views because you in fact used the "admittance logic" a few days ago with Adra. Robert Fisk -verteren journalist, very much pro-assad - and winner of several awards, is biased on the Syria war, so much that other media calls him out for it. Sopher99 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless the new york times, which has been around 120+ years and is considered the "top" of credibility - tells a different picture. Not least blatantly stating they know it. (implying its shared knowledge for many ny times reporters on syria) SOHR confirms. Sopher99 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually did not use pro-assad views for Adra, I used the New York Times, Al Jazeera, Global Post, and SOHR (opposition) views for Adra. There was no pro-assad claim in there, so you are incorrect in that accusation. As for your New york times source, if you read it more closely it actually says We do not know if the shell used in this attack was launched by the government or by rebel fighters. And I would remind that mortar, air or rocket strikes do not necessarily mean a battle for the city. EkoGraf (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. I never said you used pro assad view. You used pro-rebel views (admittance logic, where if one side admits defeat it has to be true)

I stand corrected and apologies. EkoGraf (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

SOHR confirms the shelling was from the government. Thats like the first source I gave. Sopher99 (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The huffington post is more specific. "has since been able to retake parts of the town." (bottom section) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/assad-visits-troops-daraya_n_3688657.html?utm_hp_ref=world Sopher99 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The suburb is mostlycontrolled by the Syrian Army. RT Journ was wonded from mortar fire from distance.Daraya is mainly controlled by Syrian troops. However, there are parts of the town – especially those in close proximity to the military air base of Mazzeh – that are still held by the Free Syrian Army. Concluding the army in the next days after the carefully planned visit of Assad will announce the take over after finish the last pockets in the above area. Until then we can leave area contested. The report is from 21th of July but i dont think that something changed since then. If it was the army will announce the take over. Generally they dont risk to announce take over of areas which are not true in the recent months....only fake looses and battles.....--Dimitrish81 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\

Everything South of Daraya is controled by the Army in majority this you can see becouse ANNA (pro-assad media but has a very good coverege)stopped making videos in Daraya becouse there is rearly no clashes there cuz 90-95% is in army control so i say one big red circle sarounding a tiny green one would be good Daki122 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are really no reliable sources of information on Darayya. Yes, state TV released a propaganda video showing Assad lisping at a bunch of soldiers in a part of the town. So what? It's been known that govt troops have occupied parts of Darayya for months during the clashes, and state media has falsely claimed its "capture" repeatedly since January. The flashing square means contested and/or unclear control. Both adjectives are applicable here. No change until conclusive information comes out. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why but Lothar always says the state media showing propaganda well let me tell you that al-Jazeera,CNN,BBC and others are the best at propaganda spreading and they have no reporters on ground and get info only from opposition activist who most of the time lie,they always say opposition holds this in Damascus or that in Homs but the truth is they don't hold anything,they say that there were 30000 people in Qusayr and then that number was reduced to 2000 and in the end truth was civilians abandoned there homes before the assult began so you should stop saying that SANA which has its reporters on the ground who can see the situation better then any other news network.And for last of course there will be no conclusive information from pro-opposition media they don't want to add another defeat to the opposition that's why they don't report it. Daraya was retaken by the army a long time ago opposition members don't have a single foothold in western Ghouta and are losing their grip on the suburbs of Damascus so i think Daraya should be changed to red with a green circle near it or in it that would be tiny or should i say as big as old city in Homs.Daki122 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good, then let's replace all our sourcing for WWII articles with Das schwarze Korps and Pravda. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lothar. But some " WP:RS. " checking has to apply to media affiliated with biased governments, such as Al Jazeera [Qatar], BBC [UK], CNN [US], Al Arabiya [Saudi], similar while with more delicate deliberation than RT, SANA, Press TV and other pro-Assad biased channels.194.158.25.65 (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok give me sources about this towns:

Tall Hasel Alepo contested-to rebel held what source? Tall Aran same (source?) Aziza Alepo red-contested(source?) Tadmur green circle why? there is no rebel activity there city is not under sige and if so where is the source? Shayk Maskin Daraa from red to contested source? Sayyaidah Zaynab under sige (source?) if a city is not surrounded its not under sige

And one more thing don't think that if you don't change the map it will effect anything on the ground and you should view both sides of the story to get the precision mapping of this war and not only taking sources from SOHR, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and other pro-opposition media who will fabricate anything to get you to think that the rebels are winning ! Daki122 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone talks here check these sources http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-syria-crisis-assad-idUSBRE9700Q720130801

And see this" According to the diplomat, the Syrian army has managed to secure part of the northwestern edge of Daraya and is busy demolishing houses in order to remove cover from which FSA units could launch attacks." http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Jan-26/203769-syrian-sides-prepare-for-key-damascus-battle.ashx#axzz2JybjsECq

Assad only controls the northwest part near the mezzah airport,and prts near the main road to daraa,and southern cross byAlhanuty (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That report you quoted Alhanuty about just the northwest part of the city is waaaaaaaaay back from January, half a year ago and even before the Army offensive in the countryside during which they cut rebel supply lines. A lot's happened since January. At the very least, if not the whole city, than most of the city has been probably recaptured by the Army. But to tell me that they have not advanced in 6 months? No way. In any case, I'm dropping the subject. Don't want to argue over it. EkoGraf (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Reuters is saying that Assad only regained parts of Darayya ,and I am sure it is the part near the main road and airport.

Even the march report said that all government attempts to advance were repelled,and even Russia today is saying their crew was wounded Alhanuty (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that President Assad was walking in Daraya yesterday is the definite proof that the Syrian Army won the Daraya battle.

Your article is seven month old. Bashar Al Assad was in Daraya. He wouldn't have been in Daraya if it wasn't secured.

Daraya is under full control of the governement and the map must be changed accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:16d8:2:201::132 (talk • contribs)

If you understand german, here is a source saying fighting renewed in Daraya the day after Assads visit. http://www.rp-online.de/politik/ausland/menschen-hungern-nach-angriff-auf-kornmuehlen-1.3578566 OberschIesien90 (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fighting in Daraya is outside the town and the army controls the town if it didnt controled it then Assad wouldnt visited it .Daki122 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, he would certainly have. Propaganda is a big component of this war. Just like rebels like to exaggerate civilian deaths, the government likes to exaggerate its ground control. The rebels are entirely willing to admit defeats, as it makes their position look more desperate and thus makes foreign countries want to prop them up—just look at the shift in US support toward the rebels after the fall of Qusayr—while the government has a vested interest in reassuring those loyal to it that the situation is under control. It's very easy to wait for a lull in the fighting (which is never constant, these aren't big battles like WWII) and truck in your leader to a part of the area that you control, have a photoshoot, and send him back to safety. It's even easier if the location is less than 10 km from his place of residence. It's quite clear that Assad only visited a tiny part in the north of the town. You see a lot of open spaces, not like the dense centre of the town. You can even see that this picture was taken in front of this building at a roundabout in the very north of the town. If you cannot understand these basic things, you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to be a productive editor in this topic area. At any rate, Oberschlesien90's RP Online piece definitively settles the matter as far as sources are concerned. Darayya will remain contested on this map. If you're still upset, go blog about it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Further enforcing Lothar's comment is today's SANA report on "clean-up" operations/clashes inside the Daraya. http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/08/02/495393.htm 194.158.25.65 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The government media site did not yet even mention the capture (or "libaration") of the suburb/town of Daraya. The indications from the various sources are that the SAA may have the upper hand in this battle, but it is far from constituting full territorial control. I have to voice my appreciation of Lothar keeping the most balanced and objective stance out of the frequent editors.194.158.25.65 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Even Euronews stated that President Bashar al Assad visited the TACKEN BACK BY GOV.FORCES TOWN,suggest red dot for Daraya whit green circle around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.1.213 (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys i served in the army and i do know what mock up opperations are they are opperations after recapturing a town and going house to house in a bid to ensure that the place stay calm Daray is captured by government forces and thes are the indications: 1.Opposition videos stopped coming out of Daraya(previously there were almost everyday videos about this town now there is almost no video) 2.The president has visited the place cuz he was certain that his forces have every thing under control if it wasnt recaptured he wasn't going to risk his life to get shot by a sniper or hit by a mortar shell.Daki122 (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And i think this will be the best source Al-Jazeera has confirmed it:He(Asad) made the comments while touring Daraya, A FORMER REBEL-HELD AREA NEAR THE CAPITAL DAMASCUS http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/201381151917384955.html at the end of the article what else do you need they say its former held town means army has controll there is no rebel presence there a pro-opposition media confirmed it !!!!!!Daki122 (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Numerous other sources provided above—including SANA, in case you missed it—report otherwise. This is getting tedious now. Either rein in your bias and accept that it's unclear/contested, or go make a blog and complain about how evil Wikipedia is. We're done here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No Lothar! SANA is talking about Daraa, and not about Daraya. Roboskiye (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Citing SANA (2 Aug. '13) "In Daryaa city, the army units continued hunting terrorists and killed a number of them, including Mahmoud al-Bosini and destroyed their weapons.". SANA tends to use "Daryaa" instead of "Daraya" as a transcription of the town in English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariskar (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Lothar i read the whole article on SANA not a single word about Daraya they mentioned Daraa but never mention Daraya while even pro-opposition media are saying that Daraya is in army control but if you think that if you don't change it on the map it will change something on the ground ok let it be contested i had posted my sources which are reliable and have nothing else to add to this sectionDaki122 (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Daryaa" is another transliteration for the Arabic name of the town (داريا‎). Moreover, it's under the heading "Terrorists killed in Damascus Countryside". Last I checked, Daraa is not in the Damascus countryside. Accept that you're wrong or go make a blog to whine about it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Daraya is Daraya and Daraa is Daraa if the headline says Damascus countryside it doesn't mean that everything in that everything in the article will be about Damascus and here is how SANA writes Daraya and i quote:'In Daryaa city, the army units continued hunting terrorists and killed a number of them, including Mahmoud al-Bosini and destroyed their weapons'.And one more thing i rely don't care about Daraya as you said above it should be contested but what i rely want to ask is why in Daraa province people are adding everything they want Nawa city it has never been confirmed that it has been captured(SANA says there clashes in the city http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/08/02/495393.htm) Inkhil also in Daraa there no reports it has been captured and yet it is green i mean i don't want to sound like i'm supporting one side and hate the other but you guys should be more objective i give several sources like Reuters al-Jazeera and Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/01/syria-assad-lauds-his-army-says-will-win-war/) that Daraya was captured by the army and you guys don't change it (whcih is ok cuz you provided other source including SANA saying otherwise)But then someone comes changes 2-3 towns into green and nobody cares.I'm always saying if you don't have sources about a city don't change it and if you do, post the sources so everyone can see them. Daki122 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

sorry for my little opinion, SOHR still write about figtingh in Daraya, if there are fight. regime forces don,t have full control of district, probably they control the most of Daraya Marcinkrkpl (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Daraa 2

Please revert the latest changes by André437 they are all unsourced. OberschIesien90 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, everything I changed was sourced in the cities section, just not the corresponding changes on the map. And all my changes were reversed. André437 (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Daraa city has neighbourhood detail, so changing the base icon to "contested" is unnecessary. Nawa is listed as "mostly" under rebel control. Logically then, it is not fully under rebel control and so should be marked as contested. Jasim only has a Youtube video as its source, no news confirmation. Bosra and Inkhil have no sources on the page suggesting any clear control.

In the future, you should explicitly say where your sources come from: either URLs or stating the Wikipedia page used. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Adra 2

Why is Adra contested what source? Change it if there is no reliable source to say otherwise and may i remind you that if anyone got this from al-Jazeera they are claming a chemical attack on the city which is a little stupid and at the end it says this "The video footage below, which cannot be independently verified by Al Jazeera, shows injured civilians rushing into a hospital". So please change it.Daki122 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no sources citing clashes inside Adra town. Some skirmishes were reported outside Adra, mainly between Adra and Douma. I think it should be reverted to red. Similarly, shelling of Douma has been reported, but no clashes inside the residential area. Please undo revision by Sopher99, Facebook and SOHR are not reliable sources. 194.158.25.65 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Again and again he same. Adra is not contested and again clashes where reportes outside the town. We always get news for clashes in the road leading there(army ambush to rebels......) its obvious that the town is government controlled.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone change Adra to government held clashes are reported outside the town in the industrial area and on the road near Adra it is not contestedDaki122 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

At the very least we can all agree that there is fighting somewhere near or in Adra—depending on how you define it. At its broadest definition, Adra stretches from the prison in the west to the main residential area in the east. In between, there are industrial zones, military outposts, farmland, and a smaller residential zone (New Adra). If we limit our definition to the main residential area, then it is probably correct to state that it is government-controlled. But the picture becomes less clear if we include the other areas of the town.

Similarly, north of Aleppo is the Muslimiyah area. The area is currently shown here as "contested". But here, rebels control the residential areas, while loyalists are besieged in two small outposts at Kindi Hospital and Aleppo Prison.

I propose a solution: Adra can be made red, but a flashing square should be added between it and Douma to show the industrial area is the site of clashes. At the same time, Muslimiyah should be made green, but a base icon with a green circle around it should be added below to show that loyalists are besieged at the hospital and prison (the scale is too large to allow for two icons). Otherwise, both will remain marked as "contested". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well one thing i know for sure is that Adra city is in government control so the city should be red the country side is not our problem cuz we map the city's.Plus you guys are actualy saying it is contested cuz there were chemical attacks reported? I think that anything based on something like that should not be taken into consideration ,Adra city is government Held while the countryside between Adra and Doma has clashes(sugest to mark the industrial area as contested not the city its self) and it is contested.Here is a map for better understanding(you can notice that Adra is a large region so clashes occur in that area and not in the city): http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.629628&lon=36.469116&z=13&m=b&search=Aleppo Daki122 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is Adra city still contested there are no sources that suggest this(except al-Jazeera live blog which says a chemical attack hapend there but it also says it can not verify that)It should be put back o government heldDaki122 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sixty-two rebel fighters were killed in a Syrian army ambush at dawn on Wednesday near the town of Adra, east of Damascus, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group opposed to President Bashar al-Assad.

The state news agency SANA did not give a death toll for the ambush but said the rebels were from the al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front.

It said all the rebels were killed and machineguns and rocket-propelled grenades were confiscated. [Reuters]

This is a report that says that fighters where killed near the town so it suggests that the town is in army control and the countryside is contested.Daki122 (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lothar's compromise solution for Adra. The industrial area is definetly contested. This is the second time in 10 days that the rebels were ambushed there by the Army resulting in massive rebel casualties. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ariha

SAA now controls Ariha - source unverified. somebody to know more about?Kostadin24 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mengh Airbase

Did someone notice that the base was change as opposition held.There is no sources that suggest that anywhere!Daki122 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No reliable sources yet, but there does seem to have been a massive rebel onslaught against the last army positions inside the base over the past 24 hours. Reports are filtering out that the base has been almost completely if not totally overrun. In any case, I've reverted the change until the dust clears and credible information comes out. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reuters now reporting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We've read such articles several times - "opposition activists said" - this is very reliable info.Kostadin24 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So we wait for confirmation from SANA ? ... Another source. Pro-rebel, like the source cited by Reuters, with some additional details. There is also the SOHR, which claims (at the time) an "Almost full takeover of the Mennegh military airport". André437 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone here really think that there is more than the occasion objective source available on the ground ? The so-called reliable media are almost always depending on sources with a bias either pro-regime (SANA) or pro-rebel (almost everyone else). That doesn't mean that we can't make judgements as to what is more likely reliable, but we shouldn't fool ourselves that it ultimately depends on objective sources, except in the unlikely case that both sides confirm the information. André437 (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind several reliable sources reported it.Daki122 (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Mengh airport is under rebells hands. pro government and rebells parts confirmed that. pro government side said that all (but 21) soldiers and all weapons are safe and sent to Nubul and several videos from rebel side show the airport inside with a "tour operator. That is enough to close this "issue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.156.2 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Mujaheedin

Do you think it'd be useful to mark in black or grey the towns and cities held by radical islamists? By the way the are strong in a quarter of Syria, following the Eufrates river.

According to "La Chronique" [6] https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/945078_555639814472910_1637619384_n.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archinovista (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful but impossible to be accurate and updated. Several opposition held areas are controlled by different groups, sometimes mixed in collaboration, other times in conflict among them. For instance Aleppo governorate is jointly controlled by FSA, Al Nusra or Islamic state of Iraq & Syria. Sometimes the groups clash with each other. However, splitting towns and villages would be rather inacurate and unsourced to be updated over time. The only justifiably distinguishable group is the ethnical group of the Kurds which is serving its own interests without clear government or FSA affiliation.194.158.25.65 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In short with good faith, I would say: useful but not feasable. Thanks.194.158.25.65 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful, and largely feasible, if we use sources like "La Chronique", which distinguishes all the major groups in their posts, with different icons on their maps. The moderate (FSA, SILF, FAD, kurdish PYD), somewhat more radical SIF, and the radical islamists (al-Nusra, ISIS, and mostly foreign Mujahadin).

In the war between ISIS and the kurdish PYD, the ISIS has no moderate allies from other groups, unlike the PYD. So the kurdish - non-kurdish division is not necessarily meaningful for the rebels. The PYD claims to be autonomist wanting to remain in Syria. (Their allies are mostly part of the FSA, which is not autonomist.) The radical islamists claim they want a caliphite, a theocratic government run by sharia rules.

It is admittedly complex. Al-Nusra is split between supporting and opposing the ISIS. Maybe separate on the basis of support/opposition to the ISIS would be easier to manage. It is much more clear. (ISIS + northern al-Nusra + mujahadin on one side, other rebels on the other.) This would give us black or grey replacing or appearing alongside some of the green in mostly just Hasaka, Raqqa and Alep provinces, and maybe some Latakia, Hama, and Homs.

Suggest calling it "radical islamists". We could use "La Chronique" maps as a starting point.

Another thing we could do is have shared rebel presence, indicated by multi-coloured indicators. e.g. Green/Black dots or circles for points controlled partly by moderate and radical rebels, Green/Yellow or Black/Yellow for points shared by moderate/PYD or radical/PYD (Particularly in Hasaka and Raqqa), etc. This should reflect the fact that the kurds are rebels too, mostly fighting *with* other rebels against the regime.

Just some ideas. If accepted, I'd be glad to provide references to help implement them :) André437 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to differentiate between islamists fighting inside (or in cooperation with) FSA and some others that are fighting for their own agenda, like ISIS. That's the point. By the way there're some units moving their loyalties from FSA or Al Nusra to ISIS and other foreign groups who are trying to impose Sharia as soon as they conquer a town. Groups like Al Nusra or Ansar Al Sharia, also wants the Sharia, but they're waiting to win the war against Al Assad before. Archinovista (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Be carreful !. "la chronique" is managed by one person completely from one side. So, if you want to be honest, don't take these informations without verifying them (how many battles rebels won on this facebook page and, finally, how many of these winning were untrue..............). The aim of your MAP is to show the situation between pro and anti government. If you begin to try to show differences between this or this group, you are going to be fool rapidely as they are a multitude............. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.156.2 (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Idlib Province

According to progovernment SANAarmy took over the city of Kafr Najd (not displayed at all at map)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Roboskiye (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Undone, we don't ever use SANA (or LCC or SOHR) alone as a source. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Rebels dont deny that and what they dont deny is true(as government does of course).--Dimitrish81 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Lothar! You cannot remove it altogether. Pro-Alqaida/FSA sources 5 days ago admitted that army has entered the town. [7][8]. To the degree that the rebel commander in the town was killed. [9] We restore the town and label it as contedted. Roboskiye (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes,we don't use nor SANA or LCC,only SOHR is permitted Alhanuty (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And this is the most stupid thing that Lothar has told us yet "We don't use SANA as a source" but then when it comes to Daraya we use SANA and don't use Al-Jazeera and Reuters who said that the town was captured by army forces.Can you be a little more one sided i mean come on don't make your self stupid.Daki122 (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

SANA was used claiming clashes, hence not full territorial control, something in its image advantage. It's like if a one-sided media (SANA, SOHR, LCC) claims a negative situation/defeat, that makes it more credible than when claiming a victory, territorial gain, or full control over an area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense 194.158.25.65 (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Army units restore security and stability to Kafr Najd town in Idleb countryside

Aug 03, 2013 Idleb, (SANA)_A military source said that army units restored security and stability to Kafr Najd town in Idleb countryside.

M. Ismael

And you say this is clashes -_-

Second of if you are refering to the question about Daraya you should know that if clashes occur it does not mean it is contested it means what it says clashes fighter come to Daraya clash with army units and the retreat further south or to the east where they have strongholds. Daraya is under full army control you accept it or not it won't make a change on the battlefield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Clashes means contested as far as this map is concerned. SANA was not the only source used in the decision, it was mainly used to try and talk sense into you. Control your raging bias or leave. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As much as we dont like a source or like it we are not in an position to exclude sources. SANA and government are reporteing first the take over and hide their losses. The same is with rebels and their media supporters. When we dont have a false statement from the other side then its almost sure we have correct news. As for SANA foreign media due to lack of ground personnel they transmit both SOHR and SANA claims. At the bottom line is meaningless to try to deny news but we can simply see the other side media reaction. By this we cannot exclude sources.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we can exclude sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No you dont by using SOHR and other pro opposition as sources. Western media are using claims of rebels throw SOHR but they transmit also the news from SANA as government sources.--79.131.124.237 (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Homs

According to pro government SANAthe army took over the neighbourhood al-Qarabis inside Homs, cutting off completely the Old City.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it is an expected outcome, we need less alligned, secondary sources to verify it. I would propose Bab-Hood changed to contested (from rebel held), as clashes inside the neighbourhood as a result of repeated SAA incursion attempts were reported by various sources during last week.194.158.25.65 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

SANA still reports clashes in Al Quarabis http://sana.sy/eng/337/2013/08/09/496470.htm 194.158.25.65 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghabaghib

Ghabaghib in Deraa province was captured by army during a counter attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Daraa_offensive

Since then there were no reports of clashes in the town. Could you please change the flashing icon to red or provide a reasoning why there is a flashing icon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.185.9.110 (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems a credible change through internal reference.194.158.25.65 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

All that is said is that a counterattack was launched on it—in contrast to Sanamayn, which is explicitly said to be captured in a counterattack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Damascus

Is this map pro-opposition or what! i mean you only add opposition gains while Adra north of Damascus is in full control of the government and should have just a green circle around it here is what al-Jazeera has to say about it and its a pro-opposition !

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces have ambushed rebels in a strategic suburb near the capital Damascus, killing at least 49 people, a pro-opposition monitoring group said.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said the opposition fighters had been killed on Sunday near Adra, a town that rebels have been fighting to recapture from Assad's forces.

It lies on a route that the rebels had been using to smuggle weapons into Damascus until the army captured it a few months ago.

Also on Sunday government troops fired mortar rounds that slammed into a main market in a town in northern Syria, killing at least 20 civilians, SOHR said.

The mortar shells struck the town of Ariha, which is held mostly by opposition fighters, a few hours ahead of iftar, the meal that breaks the dawn-to-dusk fast during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Stop crying about rebels losses and start editing this map half of the contested places in this map are in control of the Syrian army and yet they are contested becouse there was shooting on the outskirt of the towns: Khansser(south aleppo main resuply route for the int airport in the city government held) Ghabaghib(no reported fighting yet still contested)Ariha (as you guys said sheling is not fighting in the city its government controled oppositin fighters are geurilas they get in and out overnight)And you havent added several towns (government held in Damascus) yet they are much larger than some villages that opposition holds cuz that will look bad cuz red color will be dominant in this map -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.196.67 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, shut up will you? Arihah is mostly governement controlled. How can you possibly think the army would shell a city it's holding itself? If rebels infiltrate a town, you fight them with infantery and tanks, not by shelling the city! Also, Khanasser is contested because rebels control the backroad leading to Aleppo. We don't know the status of the city itself, but it's clear their is heavy fighting near or inside Khanasser. There are no major cities near Damascus that are not in this map. Only Dumayr is missing ;) so don't begin to cry to the maker of this perfect map please and go read some SANA .... thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well if there is fighting in those cities and towns prove it post your sources and prove it!?

And i'd like to say good job on Damascus its way better then the previous map,very good job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.177.12 (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And can someone add these cities as well east and north east of Al-Qutayfah they are dozens of army bases and facilities in the area they are all held by the government hear is the map: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.764164&lon=36.672363&z=13&m=b&search=Aleppo

And army base of brigade 22 which host a military comunication centar between otayba and brigade 39 here the map for that too http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.546796&lon=36.584086&z=15&m=b&search=Aleppo

Ok, i just added brigade 22 Tradedia^talk 22:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo Khan al Asal i read on Al-Jazeera live blog it was retaken by opposition change it into green and check on the live blog thanks in front ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.177.12 (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Rankus - it seems there are some clashes in parts of this town according to SOHR: The water reservoir area and the farms (in it's western side) in the Rankus town are under regime forces' bombardment. accompanied by a raid, carried out by regime forces, on the western farms of Rankus, with no news about casualties, yet. https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/403504519757892 Someone has other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.240.103.2 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Latakia prov.

Rebel forces start big offensive in Latakia, many place talking about it and there are few map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Latakia_offensive, maybe you add some villages from this prov. people could look progress and status in this region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcinkrkpl (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

maybe you could add more villages in Latakia prov, situations there is thery interesting http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=41c_1375926501, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/08/syrian-rebel-attacks-latakia-al-qaeda-jihadist.html, there are very fine map http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b9_1375669254, I understand that map is too small and you couldn,t add every villages and situation in not clary but cold think about it Marcinkrkpl (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, usually I just put sources in the edit summary, but this is going to be more complicated. These two articles give a fair bit of detail on this recent offensive. The first is a translation of a piece from As-Safir, a Lebanese outlet that tends to be somewhat sympathetic to the Syrian government but is still a decent source. The second is an Al-Monitor original, and is probably the more reliable of the two. Each article gives several sources on control. I will break them down as follows:

• Al-Monitor:
  • Shaykh Mufawaq Ghazal (Alawite cleric)
  • SANA (official Assad "news agency")

• As-Safir:
  • Newspaper itself
  • SOHR (opposition-leaning activist/watchdog)
  • Abdullah 'Ali ("Syrian expert on jihadist groups")

These various sources give different reports on control. Some match up, others contradict. I will present each version:

• Sheikh Ghazal:
  • Rebels took control of Balutah, Barudah, Istrabah, Barmasah, Hambushiyah, Nabatah, and Khrattah
  • Government forces recaptured Bab 'Abdallah, Aramo, Bayt Khodr, Dumazin, 'Ubin, and Abu Makkah

• SANA:
  • Government forces control Aramo, Istrabah, Talla, Bayt Shakuhi, and Kafraya
  • Hostilities in 'Ubin ("destroyed a refuge of Jabhat al-Nusra"; cannot be taken as evidence of control either way, as is typical of much of SANA's newspeak)

• As-Safir:
  • Rebels took control of Istrabah, Abu Makkah, Balutah, Barudah, Aramo, Nabatah, Talla, Hambushiyah, and Durin
  • Government forces retook Bayt Shakuhi and maintained control of Kafraya

• SOHR:
  • Rebels control Barudah, Talla, and Nabatah

• 'Ali
  • Rebels captured Basanqul (located in Idlib province on the Lattakia-Idlib highway)
  • Government forces hold a base on Nabi Yunus mountain.

So, comparing the versions, we get:

• Rebel-held: Balutah (Ghazal, Safir), Barudah (Ghazal, Safir, SOHR), Barmasah (Ghazal), Hambushiyah (Ghazal, Safir), Khrattah (Ghazal), Durin (Safir), Nabatah (Ghazal, Safir, SOHR), Basanqul ('Ali)

• Government-held: Bab 'Abdallah (Ghazal), Bayt Khodr (Ghazal), Dumazin (Ghazal), Bayt Shakuhi (SANA, Safir), Kafraya (SANA, Safir), Nabi Yunus ('Ali, probably should be marked as a base, not a village)

• Ambiguous: Istrabah (rebel: Ghazal, Safir ; govt: SANA), Aramo (rebel: Safir ; govt: Ghazal, SANA), 'Ubin (govt: Ghazal ; contested/unclear: SANA), Talla (rebel: Safir, SOHR ; govt: SANA), Abu Makkah (rebel: Safir ; govt: Ghazal)

I think I have listed everything in the articles, if I missed something feel free to point it out. I have also been able to locate all villages except Bayt Khodr and al-Khrattah. The question now is what to do with the above information. The unambiguous ones can probably be added forthwith. Getting into that third category, though, we need to decide what to do. Either we can weight the sources used, or we can mark all as contested and call it a day. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Good job Lothar it is realy hard to find out who controls what in Latakia mainly cuz the government forces are very strong there and the situation changes from hour to hour but you pinpointed every source and made it very reliable. Good jobDaki122 (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and put Istrabah and Talla in green as Safir cannot be suspected to be against the gov and they care about their credibility... Tradedia^talk 22:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Too many dots on the map

There are too many dots on this map. Instead of showing every little village can't we shad the provinces or regions their respective colors. Also can we add the islamist gains in black, because they are pretty much split from the free Syrian army and the official opposition

I already proposed once that we separate the jihadi-held towns, most notably the ones in the east of the country, with black dots, but people don't seem in favor of the idea. EkoGraf (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is the the "Syrian civil war detailed map". It was created to show details.

The "Free Syrian Army" and "official opposition" are splintered in a myriad of ways themselves, and are perfectly happy to collaborate closely with Qaida (see: Menagh). Barring all-out war between them (which hasn't happened, only some minor scuffles), there is no reason to separate them. Lines between "moderates" and "radicals" get very blurred on the ground, despite SMC propaganda. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Check this source,this reports about an opposition advance in damascus http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/opposition-advances-damascus 24.0.210.152 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that can we color red those areas that are government control and green those which are opposition. This map is a whole bunch of white with dots every where. Yes the respective forces control those towns but they also control the land around the city. Can we color it in. Heres what im proposing. http://consortiumnews.com/2013/05/02/an-excuse-for-syrian-regime-change/ this website has the same map as this one but the territory control is better shown by coloring the surrounding areas also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenrules777 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we can't. Not technically feasible, not what this map was created for, and not reflective of the ground situation, particularly in frontline areas. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Quinetra Province

According to pro government FARS, the army took control on a series of villages in the Golan Area cutting the supply routes throw Israel.Beit Jan and Jebata al-Khashb(map displayed) are among those.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta star removal

I believe the green star in eastern Ghouta is not consistent with the map layout of cities and not areal marking/coloring. Moreover, it is misleading to a more rebel-held look of the map than is the case to date (24/07/13) that the government and rebels have split control of Ghouta area major towns and villages.

I agree battles and clashes are constant in the Ghouta area and this area is under constant atack by the government which has taken some parts of it and has a foothold in the area its under sige from every side (north from Adra to Otaiba in the east and the sige ends up down to the south in western Ghouta area where government have full control) and syrian armor is constantly operating in the are with little to no resistance(several videos show this on youtube including ANNA news agency) from the opposition which is stationed in the vilages in these area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.200.215 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I do also agree. The territory control is split and it doesn't match the layout.Ariskar (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And i think its also good to mention that the Ghouta area is split in two Western (controled by the government it is like a military zone south of Damascus has a lot of military facilites ) and Eastern (where government forces and opposition forces are clashing constantly ) so dont be one sided becouse the eastern Ghouta area(one with the green star) is as big as the Western so instead of putting red and green stars i suggest the removal of the eastern Ghouta star

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.452641&lon=36.355133&z=11&m=b&search=Aleppo Western Ghouta 1 and 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.247.129 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And dont you guys think that Qaboun should be smaller i mean government forces did capture the industrial zone and separated Qaboun from Barzeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.247.129 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Ghouta" here is the Eastern one, that should be obvious since it is east of Damascus.

The circle/square icons for cities, towns, and neighbourhoods don't represent surface area, so no. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I wanted to bring this up weeks ago. The huge, glowing, green star next to the word Damascus makes it look like Damascus is under rebel control. It heavily skews the neutrality of this map, which's purpose is to only visualize actual facts on the ground, into a rebel propaganda. I already find the use of the color green for "freed" and the color red for "evil government" biased, but there is no chance that'll get changed into something neutral. The first time I looked at this map, I thought all of Syria was under rebel control and the military was only still holding out in the north and south. At least let's get this green glowing star removed, because it has absolutely no purpose. Every other small town area is simply a dot. And put the word Damascus next to the large dot that is Damascus.

It shouldn't make it look like Damascus is under rebel control because Damascus is clearly still a big red circle. The star was chosen mostly because it was the only green icon with a faded border to signify that the Ghouta is not a city or town and that control of its fringes is always unclear.

The colours are based primarily on the most distinctive colour in each side's flag. Red for the top bar in the state flag, green for the top bar in the opposition flag, yellow for the Kurdish sun. In the Libyan war, the colours were reversed: green for the Gaddafi flag, red for the top bar of the rebel flag [10].

Take the tinfoil off your head, thinking might be a bit easier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with access rights listening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.21.181 (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The star is also impractical as it is overlapping the rebel-held Al Maliha and Kafr Batna.Ariskar (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything on this map overlaps. That's what happens when you try to show as much information as possible in a limited space. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lothar, it has to be decided whether the maps indicates cites and towns or painted area (territory) control. Moreover, the area painting effect of the star does not represent the population size/proportion either, as compared to other cities. Please help giving a cleaner and more neutral look to the map by removing it.194.158.25.65 (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The replacement option would be a collection of green dots, which I think many of the above commenters would also find upsetting to their "personal opinions" regarding this conflict.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lothar i think that like this its not fair Western ghouta is controled by the army its much larger then Eastern Ghouta and yet its not marked i can name at least 50 villages in tartus and Latakia province that the government controls and yet they are not added i can name a dozen places (like Mount Qusain) that are not red in this map my oppinion is to put the largest Eastern Ghouta towns and remove the star that would seem much more logical and anyway if you take a good look at the Ghouta area you will see that towns to the far east like otaiba are part of Eastern ghouta

The "Ghouta" on the map is explicitly marked as the Eastern one. The Western one, though much of it is govt-held, also includes parts of 'Aqraba, Hajar al-Aswad, Darayya, Khan al-Shih, and Mu'adamiyat al-Sham, none of which are under complete army control as far as I am aware. Otaybah is indeed on the very edge of the Eastern Ghouta, but you'll note that it is 1) outside the fade of the "star" and 2) marked as red. Again, the option would be to replace the star with whatever number of green dots that can be reliably sourced. If that's the consensus, then it can be done (though placing them will be a nightmare due to the clutter in the Rif Dimashq area). Those who find the colour green to be "personally offensive" should understand that in place of the current faded star, there will be a number of green dots in the area; the visual effect won't change unless/until the army advances (in reality, not in SANA agit-prop) beyond the outskirts of the Eastern Ghouta.

The towns and villages that are marked on this map are those that can be corroborated by reliable news reports. Believe me, I've spend a while trying to scrape up credible information on loyalist areas, which receive much less coverage due to both the media chokeholds instituted by Damascus and (probably moreso) the fact that they don't experience anything newsworthy (=fighting), but haven't found much. This is less a question of "fairness" and more a question of "information". I will continue to look, and if you find any sources you can always post them here for others to consider. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lothar, who died and made you gatekeeper and chief editor of this article?

1. Several people have complained about the inaccuracy and inneutrality of this map by the use of a large, green glowing star next to the name Damascus (the dot for Damascus is nowhere near the word Damascus, you have to look for it).

2. Except for you, I don't see anyone who states a good reason for leaving the star there, so maybe it is you who has a personal opinion he needs to uphold?

3. There is no area-marking on this map, only place-marking. So why suddenly make an exception for the Damascus/Ghouta area?

4. It can be done the same way it has been done in the Al-Qusayr and Aleppo area: A lot of little dots for each little town, and they don't change color until they are definitely reported as being under the control of one faction. That would represent the situation in Syria more accurately and without creating a false impression.

PS Before you accuse me, just like you did someone above, about having some kind of personal opinion on the conflict, with your implication being that everyone who complains here is some Syrian government stooge, let me tell you that my only personal opinion is for as many people as possible not to die. Nothing else. Neutral, unbiased and accurate reporting and representation of the facts can help achieve that, while unneutral, biased and inaccurate reporting to the favor of one side, are completely contrary to that goal (as has been shown in every single conflict in the past 50 years), and the goal of wikipedia to be nothing but a neutral and unbiased assembly of information.

So please, just do what people are asking for, there are plenty of reasons to remove it and replace it with the little dot system that is on the rest of the map, and absolutely NO reason to leave it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.220.53 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

So do you want a collection of green dots or not? I've presented an alternative, so instead of bitching at me, maybe you can just indicate your endorsement of it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the biggest hurdle to changing over is the serious positional distortion in the Rif Dimashq area making it very difficult to add points. For example, Kafr Batna, which is in reality very close to the Damascus ring road on the western extreme of the East Ghouta, is located roughly in the area of Otaybah on the eastern extreme of the Ghouta on this map!

I've been working on a larger version of Rif Dimashq in my userspace, replacing the star with dots and adding more detail in the area: User:Lothar von Richthofen/Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (Damascus). The positional distortion is greatly lessened, allowing for better representation of detail and greater ease of adding places. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

update

Ma'atram in Idlib province is under army control according to SORH ([11])

Tibarat al-Sakhaneh in Aleppo province is under army control according to SORH ([12])

3 villages under army control in Latakia province ([13]) Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tibarat al-Sakhaneh i read on Al-Jazeera that a village has been taken in Alepo by the army it is probably this oneDaki122 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the 3 villages in the Latakia province are Slunfeh, Kafreya and al-Zobar.

In Rif Dimashq syrian army take control of al-Ghazlaniya town ([14]), help please Rogal Dorm (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

at least in this article the mentioned source led to an update. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(March_2013%E2%80%93present)#Renewed_Army_push --Andylee Sato (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Al-Drushah

Syrian army took over control of the town.Here is the source(with a video showing army units in the town) http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/12/318419/syrian-army-regains-strategic-town/ Location http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.402498&lon=36.118240&z=13&m=b&search=Aleppo Daki122 (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

PressTV is as reliable as SANA or LCC. Need better sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But they have reporter who toured the town which seems to have no fighting I think its reliable.But if i find better source(which i doubt cuz pro opposition media wont report this) i will post it hereDaki122 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

From the large list of international media I view, I would say Press TV is no less a propaganda platform than CNN or the rest in my opinion. Some of the best on scene footage and reporting of the Syrian conflict is from Press TV. They perform the mirror image of Fox, CBS,BBC and are a necessary part of the mix. ~B17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.11.94 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. Iran has a very big stake in this conflict, much larger than any western country or even Russia, and so can be expected to play up its side as much as possible. This is abundantly clear in their reporting. For instance, PressTV uses similar rhetoric to Syrian state media, using labels such as "terrorists" and "foreign-backed Takfiris". A valid comparison would be if CNN & friends called all Syrian government forces "shabiha", "kuffar", or "Baathi dogs". Recently they've taken to reusing videos from Iraq to fabricate atrocities against Kurds: [15]. Worst part is, Qaida is actually committing atrocities, so these media lies (no other word for them) serve only to delegitimise the suffering.

Western media is guilty of mostly laziness. Heavy official restrictions from Damascus give only a narrow view of government areas, and innumerable kidnappings frighten all but the bravest out of rebel areas. Most "reporting" is therefore based on cut-n-pastes from activists and state media. But partisan media like PressTV have the unique ability to directly distort happenings on the ground. Rebel "activist" cameramen frequently do the same, but the fact that they lack the higher organisation and funding to coordinate larger-scale propaganda can mitigate their distortion somewhat.

Interestingly, I have come across very few mentions of this town in rebel media even before this "report". Some news from last year about clashes near a government media building, but really nothing much. Strange, considering the ubiquity of "citizen activist" cameras in rebel areas. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well Lothar tell me how should we know if a source is reliable i mean all western media use activists that all oppose the government and lie a lot.I mean i havent seen a single footage from those media that would confirm their claims and they havent said one single word about government gains since the fall of Qusayr but instead are trying to make the rebels stronger by showing them in a village which does not have a population more then a 100.If we take a look now this can be an endless conversation cuz all of the media use propaganda to promote they're side.I dont know what else proof you want the guy went into the village to report with the army.Second of the term for the rebels i relative.How would you name ISIS,Al-Nusra and the Islamic front, i would not name them rebels that is for sure.

My second argument goes to your last sentence>:"Interestingly, I have come across very few mentions of this town in rebel media even before this "report". Some news from last year about clashes near a government media building, but really nothing much. Strange, considering the ubiquity of "citizen activist" cameras in rebel areas."

Well of course you won't hear from pro-opposition media why would they report there own defeat its like telling your friends you got beat up.The town if you didn't watch the video was abandoned cuz it is mainly christian population.

And my third is for the sentence:"A valid comparison would be if CNN & friends called all Syrian government forces "shabiha", "kuffar", or "Baathi dogs"."

Shall i remind you that the only leigitement army is the Syrian Arab Army which is actualy called "Asad Forces,Loyalist Forces".I dont think that what they are called means that a source is unreliable but as long as it has proof(video photo) about the situation it is a source that is reliable. Daki122 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Western media has actually reported extensively on government gains and rebel setbacks post-Qusayr: Talkalakh ([16]), Qaryatayn ([17]), Khalidiyah ([18]), Rif Dimashq ([19]). In fact, the dominant narrative until very recently was "Assad is winning" ([20]). Hell, western outlets even spent time covering potential government advances that didn't end up materialising ([21])—the so-called "Northern Storm" that has now been exposed as a failure with recent rebel advances around Aleppo. If you're going to tell lies, at least make them remotely convincing.

I call Nusra and ISIS al-Qaida, because that's what they are. They are also rebels, because they are fighting against the Syrian government. Hint: you can be a rebel and also be an al-Qaida member at the same time, just like you can be a rebel but not Qaida.

Rebels commonly report their losses, as it makes their situation seem more desperate, thus attracting sympathy from foreign benefactors. Note how quickly the US changed its position on arming rebels after Qusayr fell. The Syrian government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in portraying itself as a protector of stability and is much less likely to damage that image by conceding losses. Note the utter silence from SANA on what happened at Menagh. This is war, not a schoolyard, and you'd do well to avoid using such childish metaphors in the future.

More to the point, I was not saying that I can't find any evidence of rebels losing the town, I was saying that I can't find evidence of rebels ever controlling the town. One raid on a media station a year ago and that's it. Is the army now launching offensives to capture uncontested territory? If I could find evidence that there were actually rebels controlling parts of the town, I'd take the report more seriously. As it stands, it looks like a fabrication. Do government forces control the town? Probably. They've honestly probably always controlled it (can't find sources, but that's what I think). So why would they send a news team in to document its "capture" from militants which seem to never have been there?

Terminology used is strong evidence of how much effort is put into controlling bias. Outlets that use neutral terms like "government" and "rebels" at least try to impart less judgement into their coverage than propaganda outlets who use sensationalist labels to verbally attack the . Not to say that using neutral labelling makes an outlet perfectly neutral, but it makes them better than those which let their POV run roughshod over their coverage.

"Legitimacy" of an armed group is meaningless here. The fact that you think it's important as we go about covering the conflict shows that you still have problems with WP:NPOV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rebel media are increasingly lieng....look the case of Harrah city in Deraa.....SOHR knew the take over but not mention it.....suddenly today they are mentioning in police style raids in the city adding that the city taken over by the army a few days ago!!!!!!!!!!!! When government sources are accompanied by video footage with road signs and other profs we must immediately accept them without waiting the pro jihadist and rebel media....--Dimitrish81 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Pro-rebel activists actually reported the loss of the town very quickly: [22]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to start use twitting as source, i dont think thats apropriate, SOHR claims in comparison with other always sources are enough i think. Beyond that if those pro rebel sources report that why you dont share with us and proceed to the needed changes? Beyond that the above video footage is far from clear that the city is the frontline controlled by the Army.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting that we start using tweets, merely undermining your contention that rebel sources are lying. Daraa province has very poor media coverage to begin with, and many reported rebel advances (even substantiated by that "video evidence" you crave so much) over the past weeks and months have not been marked here.

This isn't about using partisan media to combat partisan media. Fighting POV with POV just results in a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment and turns articles into worthless amalgamations of competing and contradictory claims. Wikipedia has quality standards for the sources we use, and those are the ones we adhere to here. No, it isn't a perfect system, and some movements on the ground will inevitably go unmarked on the map. That is the way it works. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Video footage with marks and signs is the most strong ad sufficient evidence from some lines written by pro or anti government media. Its far from clear that when we had that video footage eventually the ther part confirmed at the end the inevitable.--Dimitrish81 (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok Lothar name 1 time when press tv reported a lie about a gain by the army.They have much better coverage of the conflict and have never used a lie to proclaim government forces advance.And these new look of the map is cool but you again put some towns that are government controled into contested.I mean you better have good evidence about fighting in Babbila,Yalda,Hujayrah,Al-Sabinah cuz i haven't seen a report nither on twiter nor on facebook or any of the media that there is sheling or fighting in these places since the Daraya offensive which was six months ago and if you have the sources i want to see them so please post them here.Daki122 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Display change requests

1) Could we please increase the scale to make it easier to see things on the map ? Currently it is 1400 px.
From my preview tests, something in the order of 2500 or larger would greatly facilitate distinguishing points on the map.
Any one province would still be readily viewed in typical full screen mode (1200x800px), keeping the browser display scale 1:1.
Of course, most browser configurations would allow reducing the scale, to have an overview of the country.
Such a change keeps the relative position of all locations, but the position of some names would have to be adjusted. As well, either the outline of Damascus, which becomes visible, or the position of Jobar and other neighbourhoods should be adjusted, as Jobar now appears outside the city. Similarly, the display of Aleppo city should probably be enlarged.
The big plus is that detail is tremendously more distinguishable. This change is basically changing one number from 1400 to 2500 (or whatever, larger would be ok).

2) Could we reduce the size of most names, and try to keep them in one line ? As well as positioning them in line with the city/town where possible. (Greatly facilitated with a larger scale, a lot of small changes.)

3) As well, could we try to have a standard spelling for the names ? Presumably close to a direct transliteration of arab script, if there is not already a predominant alternate spelling in English (such as Damascus).
e.g., in the table we often see Deraa as well as Daraa, on the map Daraa, on other maps we see both.

Just some suggestions. I'll be glad to work on whatever consensus arrives for these proposals. (I can post changes.)

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by André437 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I do like the proposals. However you should commit to implement them globally on the map and keep a uniform layout. It could then be evaluated. The increase of detail would also help in removing the East Ghouta star and replace it with (mostly green) town dots.194.158.25.65 (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the base map should probably be enlarged. The level of detail we have in several areas is finer than the map can easily show, and I don't fancy simplifying it.

I personally strongly dislike the visible labels as they clutter the map unnecessarily and obscure dots, though I can see how they would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with Syria's geography.

For all names that I add to the map, I try to use a standard and (mostly) consistent transliteration. I can explain it if others desire.

However, I'd like to see what the map's original architect (User:Tradedia) has to say about this matter before any decision is made regarding its structure. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

please DO NEVER CHANGE IT,THIS WILL RUIN THE LOCATIONS OF THE RIF DIMASHQ CITIES,ADVISE DON't change it,my advise IS to make a new map for Latakia .Alhanuty (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rif Dimashq is already an absolute mess. Yes, it will have to be adjusted if the size increases, but the extra space will allow us to place each town closer to its actual coordinates. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I see a trade-off in determining the optimal size for the map. Increasing the map size has an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that it allows the details to be more visible. The disadvantage is that it increases white space.

I agree that we don’t want to simplify the map. At this point, we are not holding back any details because of map size, but rather because of lack of reliable sources. I don’t like when icons overlap. However, I like it when icons are slightly touching each others because it reduces white space. I like it when the large number of towns in an area gives the impression of a “colored continuous area”. The map should be large enough to allow us to put as much detail as we want, but not larger than that. Again, the larger the map, the larger the white space. I personally don’t feel a need for a larger map. However, I am very familiar with the map, so it might look easy to see for me, while it might be difficult to see for others who are looking at it for the first time. I certainly want the map to be as pleasant as possible to look at, by the general population.

I also don’t like visible labels that much. We already have the labels for most district capitals, which should be sufficient. I view these labels as labeling the district areas, as much as the capitals themselves. Tradedia^talk 22:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, we are holding back details. At this point I bridle at adding anything to the Rif Dimashq area because of how horribly warped the space there is. There seems to be agreement that the Ghouta star should be changed to dots, but I really don't want to have to find the proper positional distortion for every village. The labels in the Idlib-Hama-Homs area slip and slide all over the place. We'll have to make some adjustments, but a larger map would be for the best. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now seen Lothar’s proposed “new” Rif Dimashq area that replaces the “Ghouta star” with many towns. It is a huge improvement! And it could not have been done without the size increase. Therefore, I am now convinced that the map size increase is an absolute necessity. I now realize that our Rif Dimashq area is so wrong on so many levels. This is mainly because the map size is too small. I think we now have a consensus and should implement the map size increase without delay. User:Alhanuty who had written an opposing comment above, has changed his mind as evidenced by his trying to increase the map size himself here. I volunteer to adjust aleppo area (soon after the size increase is implemented) and other areas as needed (over time). Tradedia^talk 17:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am with increasing the map,but for the map increasing iwas just checking how it would look like,a mistake when i made the mentioned edit,but,if you want to change,okay change,but at least correct the rif dimashq area first.Alhanuty (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Already done, check the map! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice job ... especially in the eastern Ghouta :) Andr438 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)