Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

If this is true then this is very good news!

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed!!!!

• Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that US planes had succeeded in killing three of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's (Isil) top commanders, including a key deputy of the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.The Telegraph Hanibal911 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry friend, you misread. An aid of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi was killed, not Abu Baker Al-Baghdadi. Do not worry, his time will come eventually. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was Turkmani.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Totholio (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 December 2014

Al-Waer

I'm not sure about this. Can someone explain what exactly means "contested" in this term. SOHR is reporting about this district every few days, always writing the same, either "Regime forces fired shells" or "Air bombardment on Al Waer". There haven't been any clashes inside the district since March. DuckZz (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes there have been. I have read numerous times when SOHR stated that "regime open fire with heavy machine guns on areas of Al-Waer". That means the regime is in Al-Waer and in control of some positions, that is what contested means. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean with shells. DuckZz (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Heavy machine guns =/= shells.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The SAA is in Al-Waer, they control parts of the district after they captured them during the spring. EkoGraf (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

DuckZz After the retreat of the rebels from the city of Homs this area was the only place where the rebels still present.here But they did not control the entire this area some parts of this area still controlled by army. Later they signed a truce which was later broken and there is renewed fighting. Although the rebels control much of this area, we cant to mark this area full under control by rebels. You can also read the previous discussion on this topic.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Handarat district

saa captured hadnarat district according to document sy. https://www.facebook.com/documents.sy/photos/a.265734213489342.65122.265726053490158/853635638032527/?type=1Hwinsp (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR did report SAA advances there but still no complete control yet ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not full control but very close to a collapse in the jihadist defense lines.

Handarat Camp is fully under regime control. The siege of east Aleppo city is now complete.Edward Dark Hanibal911 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Talbisa in Homs province to ISIS

A rebel battalion with its base in Talbisa reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS and ISIS declared the town to be part of its emirat [1]. So what do we do? Switch it to black? EkoGraf (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Article says the battalion was 500 strong, and 400 abandoned it when the commander made this announcement. Doesn't sound like the pro-IS statement has traction with this group's fighters. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe city Talbisa need marked under control by ISIS. Because Lions of Islam Brigade led by Rafed Taha, one of the biggest brigades in Talbiseh in the Homs countryside, pledged allegiance to Baghdadi(leader of Islamic State) which forced Jabhat al-Nusra fighters to withdraw from the front of the village of Umm Hurcouh, out of fear of the brigade betraying them following its pledge of allegiance to Jabhat al-Nusra’s arch foe.Al Monitor I would like to hear the views of other editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I still disagree. The original article reporting this also says 80% of the battalion abandoned it once the leader pledged himself to IS. They're no longer "one of the biggest brigades in Talbiseh" - and even if they are, only JAN withdrew; the other local brigades did not. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

We need more evidence to change a big town like this but ISIL is growing in strength all over rebel held Syria .Pyphon (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not going to change it just wanted to ask the opinion of other editors. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Homs Governate

According to this sources Isis is in controll of more territories and i think we shoud add some town there to like buraq,al-waghi,jabriyah,shuwayhah,safwani,kahliliyah,abu-liyah,tafhah,hanajaf,rasm,humaydah,dab'at al milli,jibab hamad,manuh,tadmuriyah etc.What do you think?here.hereLindi29 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is antigovernment sources and we cant use him in this issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have other sources to confirm that these are not in isis control? and the syrain template it's also based on this sources. Lindi29 (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We can poke around for sources - but this area has not been highly reported - hence the "presence icons" were so helpful in showing that the IS controls/traverses this area en route to its Homs holdings Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid Hanibal911 have you guys found any sources about this towns yet if not then let's add this towns to Isis control.Lindi29 (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindi29 I will try find other data from neutral sources which can indicate who controls these cities. Since we can not use in this situation just only antigovernment source. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New Al-Monitor article with lots of important information

See: Al-Monitor: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/12/jabhat-al-nusra-islamic-state-clash-qalamoun-risks-daraa.html

• western Qalamoun should not just have the green rebel presence, but the black as well.
• Town of Talbiseh, near homs, is green currently. It should be made green with a black circle within it, this is because IS affiliated Lions of Islam Brigade is active here. Nusra has fled the location.
• Fighting in Saham al-Jawlan and Tasil in western Daraa province reported here. These towns should be made green-black conflict: IS affiliated Martyrs of Yarmouk Brigade fighting against Nusra, Harket al-Muthanna and the Syrian Revolutionary Front. This is ongoing.

Great source if true, but the fighting is not yet taking place in Daraa but it is on the verge.

As mentioned earlier the city Talbiseh was still under the control of moderate rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone posting that Yarmouk Army pledged to IS, but no comment from the Yarmouk Army. I believe that they didn't pledged and Nusra is basically using that excuse to attack FSA in the south. If it was true other Free Syrian Army brigades, that vastly outnumber Nusra, would join the battle in Nusra side, since they hate IS. While Yarmouk Army is the biggest FSA faction in Daara, FSA still number some 25/30 thousand outside the Yarmouk Brigade.

Here is a Daily Star source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Dec-20/281728-nusra-front-and-rivals-clash-in-deraa-and-qalamoun.ashx

It seems that the situation is as following: Nusra accused the Yarmouk Army of pledging to ISIS. The Yarmouk Army denied, and fighting started around Tasil. Nusra says it is trying to cleanse the area of "corruption", the same statement it used to fight the SRF and Hazm in Idlib province. The Yarmouk Army is one of the most powerful FSA groups in Daraa, and a leading member of the Southern Front. Mediation attempts have failed so far. Other FSA groups seem to be grouping around the Yarmouk Army. This does not mean a large infighting between secularists and Islamists. Many Islamist brigades are in the Southern Front, but Nusra never was. Nusra only seems to have an ally in the al-Muhatta Islamist brigade, a small local brigade. I say we wait a few days before editing this map, for we don't know if this becomes a full-scale war or just some skirmishes like we have seen before.

I agree with you ,who ever you are .81.156.224.243 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

East Aleppo besieged?

More information is needed to confirm this but this was just posted by reliable source in West Aleppo who writes for Al-Monitor (and is critical of both rebels & government): https://twitter.com/edwardedark/status/545638757672960000

East Aleppo cannot be besieged by taking hadarat .Jandoul roundabout on the Castelo road needs to be taken.Pyphon (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That is very false. SAA is 200-300m away from Castello road in 2 points, that is more than enough for fire control.

Please sign your posts. Use ~~~~, or the pencil icon above. André437 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well the SAA do not agree with you . When they do besiege east Aleppo the general command of the army will be broadcast loud and clear ,because its a major issue for them .81.156.224.243 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be a big gain for the regime. Without a siege, western Aleppo is at risk of being besieged by the rebels, as already happened briefly last year.

For example, the newly trained rebel forces could target the regime instead of Daesh, or the rebels could receive an important supply of heavy weapons.

Agreements with the YPG will allow resupply through kurdish controlled areas : in Aleppo suburb Sheikh Maqsoud as well as through Afrin if necessary. Even a narrow corridor of a few hundred metres in some parts will still allow passage of supplies. André437 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Andre437 .I agree the saa may have to surround Sheikh Maqsoud to completely control entry to rebel held Aleppo.81.156.224.243 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

or capture Layramoun / Kafr Hamra 88.105.67.34 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Map from Study of war

There is this map from Study of War, strongly anti-regime, [2] that marks clearly all the road to DeirEzzor as government control. And also a string of territory controlled by government between Kasaka and Qamshili, that is not reported in our map.Paolowalter (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

First, that map obviously is not detailed. As well, the areas around both Aleppo and Daraa are grossly inaccurate.

Since I follow the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) to which your link indirectly refers to, I suspect that the map is a forgery. In any case, it is not in the article referred to in the twitter post. (Which is a summary of a much longer real article, published a few months ago.) Also, no other ISW map I've seen gave areas of shared ISIS/JN/rebel control.

Such vague maps should never be taken seriously, whatever the source.

BTW, ISW is an independent neutral think tank, and NOT anti-regime. They don't make any moral judgement of any side. Just an ongoing fairly detailed analysis of various conflicts, currently focusing on Syria and Iraq. They produce various types of maps, this type being totally useless for updating our map. About once a week they give an annotated summary map for Syria, giving change of control or contested areas of cities, major towns and other important areas. Smaller areas are ignored.

This page gives a sample of the various articles on Syria, the top 2 refering to maps on which we could rely for control or conflicts. You can see that there is (a quite objective) analysis of all parties to the conflict. André437 (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Source Institite for the Study of War openly opposed the Syrian government so let's not call it neutral. Most of the data are published in this source are based on data from a preconceived pro opposition sources. All the maps that he publishes mainly based on data from opposition maps. But in one thing I agree with you that the map is not very accurate. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Kabajeb and Al-Shulah

With what sources are they changed to red. Lindi29 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Look at section (map from study of war) .I think that's why also when it changed from red to black there was contention about the source .I did not change it .81.156.224.243 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Why were these locations changed back to black? There was consensus about they being red.192.135.12.144 (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Abu l Duhur Airbase

It has been reported that the airbase is shelling nearby rebel-held villages. This comes amid talk that it could be the next target after Wadi-El-Dayf and Hamidiyah. Pro-regime sources said last month that SAA temporarily raided the nearby villages, destroying rebel equipments/killing rebels and then retreating back to the base. So my question is why are the surrounding villages still regime held? ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This confirm the pro opposition mapdeSyracuse and some sources herehereherehere and some pro government source hereherehereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Except for DeSyracuse, all the sources you provided are pro-regime news outlets. SAA did take over those villages but they retreated soon afterwards: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/538330384359235584

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=811869798873794&id=226509117409868

The second pro-regime source describes in details the operation that was meant to clear the areas surrounding the airbase and not controlling them. Both sources (neutral + pro-regime) say that after the operation the SAA task force returned to the airport and so please change the surrounding villages back to rebel-held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that say rebels re-entered these villages? if we do change them ,if not then they may be small empty places .81.156.224.243 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You could find a lot of recent sources saying that the airbase is being shelled by the surrounding villages and that the rebels are gathering there troops + equipment. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes pro- gov sources have said base is being shelled from west and south of base but nothing yet about north so I suggest we wait a bit until we get more info .It is possible rebels are back in those northern villages but I think we need to here something .81.156.224.243 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is interesing news, when someone change all villages near Abu al-Duhur Airbase to green. here It follows that SAA control Umm Jurayn and Abu Duhur airbase has a 25km safe Perimeter. IvanSidorenko is neautral source 22:34, 21 December 2014

1- Ivan Sidorenko is moderately pro-regime

2- Combing in arabic also means suppressive fire. It is done with heavy machine-guns/AA guns.

3- A 25km perimeter is a square with a 6.25km side. Easily done within the airbase using AA guns. ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly nobody has a source that tells us who is in control at this time editors are speculating with sources so as far as i am concerned there uncertain .81.156.224.243 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is becoming more biased and less reliable

Greetings fellow users. I know that many of you might accuse me of being biased because of this section so let me clear one thing up: there are no neutral sources regarding the Syrian conflict except Al Monitor. TheDailyStar is pro-opp but reports gains on both sides. RussiaToday is pro-regime but also reports gains on both sides. But the subject today is SOHR. Long regarded as a neutral and reliable source, I've noted as an objective observer that it is becoming increasingly biased in its reports:

• Calling Bashar Al Assad "the children killer" or "child murderer". I mean this might be true, but any respected news outlet doesn't show that much emotion.
• Denying regime advances: In Jobar for example or in Huwayjat Sakr.
• Trying to improve the rebels' image by:

- When rebels shell residential areas with handmade gas canisters and primitive bombs --> "No reports of losses"

- When the regime shells residential areas --> "confirmed reports of deaths/injuries among civilians"

- When the rebels shell regime areas --> "confirmed reports of injuries/deaths among regime forces"

- When the regime shells rebel positions --> "No reports of losses". Here what really annoyed me was when recently SOHR reported 42 air raids on Wadi Al Dayf area, they said they had no reports of losses. I mean how do they know more about regime forces yet claim they lack reports concerning the rebels. SOHR also claimed once that armed civilians fighting the regime are considered among civilian deaths. Rebels/Jihadis are claimed as martyrs while regime forces are not.

• Last but not least: numbers. Today they published an article claiming 200 000+ people died in Syria among them 120 000+ Regime forces. DOES THIS EVEN MAKE SENSE??

I know and I expect many to accuse me of pro-regime bias. But I wont criticize regime media since we never used it because we all know how biased and unreliable they are. Here I'm criticizing a source we use and consider as Neutral. What I pointed out can be clearly seen from an objective point of view and those who'll accuse me of bias, check the talk page you'll see that I'm a neutral editor seeking a precise and accurate map. Cheers ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure if the onus of responsibility should be laid at SOHR's editor's door, or at the feet of the sources who are giving him the information, but either way, a grain of salt is necessary, ESPECIALLY with the casualty numbers. Was something lost in translation though? Earlier this very month SOHR reported approximately 44000 as the casualty toll for the SAA/government side (a report directly cited by ISW) - the report continues "We in the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates the real number of non-Syrian casualties from the IS, al-Nusra Front, Islamic factions, Jund Al-Aqsa battalion, Junoud al-Sham, al-Katiba al-Khadra’, Jund al-Sham, rebel battalions, regular forces and pro-regime militants to be approximately 80,000 more than the documented number due to the extreme discretion by all sides on the human losses caused by the conflict and due to the difficulty of communication in Syria." - so, it kinda sounds like those untold 80,000 mistakenly got tacked onto the SAA/government tally, when SOHR actually ascribed them to all groups/sides. Not sure. Certainly ChrissCh94's above examples ring true in that the SOHR's claims of civilian deaths/casualties are suspect. But, for the purposes of this map what are we more concerned with: the casualty numbers reported, or the fact that when SOHR says there was/is shelling or bombing or fighting, there usually is? Idk. As goes with any source, I think the best course of action is to seriously dig for corroborating/refuting sources, and in lieu of those, discuss the claims on the talk page. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The English SOHR post says "In the last August, reliable resources with a strong link with officers in the Division of Organization and Administration in the Syrian Regime Army reported to SOHR that the death toll of the regime forces is more than 75000 that means 35000 soldiers more than the number which is document by SOHR." - again, SOHR claiming around 40000 SAA casualties (a not unreasonable number, probably), but quoting a "reliable source" saying it's higher Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR's credibility is tanking fast. I believe that the system proposed by Boredwhytekid is best, trust but verify. Rather than take SOHR exclusively at its word, we should seek corroborating sources. I personally never trusted SOHR's death tolls since the beginning, but their actual news was fine. Now, however, their vitriol against the regime is growing and they are increasingly neglecting regime gains. Luckily it is not as bad as it once was in terms of source scarcity. Now we have sources like Al-Monitor, Al-Masdar, and EJM that we can use for corroboration. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you guys Boredwhytekid XJ-0461 v2. We should view SOHR in a more careful way and try not to use it as a lone source concerning rebel advances. Same goes for Al-Masdar and regime advances. We need to complement them with additional sources. ChrissCh94 (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

One, SOHR is denying regime advances because they are not happening. If we we're to believe Al-Masdar and Lucem maps Jobar is 75% taken by the army and completely cut off from Eastern Ghouta. How on earth are the rebels resisting? Also, lol, they make the ISIS pigs hold only 10% of Saker Island for MONTHS now, how on earth they can't take control of that small area that Masdar and Lucem claim they don't hold? Also, Masdar numbers are as far-fetched as SOHR's. Really, they claim 200 Nusra(not counting other rebels) deaths in Shaykh Miskin by 10 of November. After that, we had over a month of a bloody battle, so likely the rebels suffered even more deaths, and they also said that hundreds more of Nusra fighters we're injured. But the estimated number of Nusra numbers in Daara is 3.000. How would they hold together after losing effectively 1/6 of their forces in TEN DAYS, specially since they battled in Shaykh Miskin for a month after that. Yeah, all forces that lose 1/6 of their forces in a single battle, that only in 10 days, are capable of fighting the same battle for a extra month and still be existing. Makes much sense. Such logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.14.221 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You are still not asking the important questions. Estimated by WHO? We were told that JAN was just a fifth column, and now look at them in Idlib. Jobar is cut of from eastern ghota, that much as already been confirmed by sources such as EJM. Also, the regime capture of Khazanat, never happened. Regime advances in Saker Island, never happened. Regime repels ISIS and retakes Jaffra and airport perimeter, never happened. Really, you want to claim that? Also, going back to your "logic" argument. When Ahrar Al-Sham attacked Safria a few months ago, they were repelled, but SOHR only reported 5 rebel deaths. Does it sound logical that an entire offensive fell apart with 5 deaths. This is just one of many examples.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's be objective SOHR it is anti-government source and this confirm many reliable sources. So when we using data from SOHR we need be very careful. Because in a situation when we use data from SOHR to display success rebels we need to be more careful and if possible, provide confirmation of these data from other sources. We agreed to use it only because he has a lot of information about the situation in the areas where fighting is taking place. Still, let's not forget that the source of the opposition and its data may be biased. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To the unsigned comment, this section is about SOHR, not Al-Masdar. Again I agree with Hanibal911 as well. We need to be careful when using SOHR to confirm rebel advances. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR started to lose credibility since the Battle of Yabroud, I remeber that the Daily Casualty Report on Facebook was acurrate and updated time to time. But since that SAA Offensive the way SOHR reported all news the same way, "Clashes between system forces and Rebels....... with confirmation of regime losses". Or the clasical: "regime forces bombarded .... with report of civilian caualties, no report of rebels losses so far". SOHR simply want to paint the whole war like this, The regime kills scores of civilians and they suffer more losses than the civilians by Rebels Hands. A complete nonsense, with all those losses SOHR claims, the Regime could not have advanced so far, They are just lying, Regime Losses are not as high as mentioned or at least the rebels are hiding their. Behold the fact that SOHR will start to report massive Rebels losses until they reach a 1:1 ratio with the SAA.200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In general, we have to use data from SOHR to display success rebels only if its data confirms the other reliable sources or the pro-government sources. And the only way because we clearly see that SOHR it is pro opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is reliable and its reports are very enough to be used to make a change on the map,alot of Oppositions sites call SOHR a pro-reginme,the French Lemonde calls SOHR a source biased to the government,getting an independent confirmation in some cases is impossible,and also Al-Masdar can't not be used for government advance,because it is an unreliable source.Alhanuty (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

True, and even some rebel organizations and groups that have been upset by SOHR's reporting have called it pro-government - but, it's a pro-opposition operation. I don't think there's much contention on that fact. I agree that it's information is usually reliable, but it's also true that SOHR exercises selective reporting, one example briefly outlined by ChrissCh94 here. Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So,The Status of the usage of SOHR must be kept the same.Alhanuty (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Libyan Crisis detailed map

I would like to invite experienced detailed map editors to contribute for the development of the template:Libyan Crisis detailed map. ThanksGreyShark (dibra) 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already made one [3].Alhanuty (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

[4].Alhanuty (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alhanuty: Thanks for the notice.GreyShark (dibra) 07:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get this cleaned up. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm game Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Me to Lindi29 (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Thanks for the cleanup. I wasn't aware, there is already a module for Libya as well.GreyShark (dibra) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had the time, I would as well. If any new icons are needed there, let me know, and I'll do my best. I've created a few for this page. André437 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaykh Miskin

City of Shaykh Miskin still contested this confirmed pro opposition source.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

West ghouta map

New west ghouta map from petolucem.82.48.87.190 (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

YPG advance in Hasakah against ISIS

SHOR was informed that YPG taken over 8 villages on the border line between Iraq and Syria in al-Ya’rubia countryside after violent clashes against ISIS. But SOHR not indicate which the villages was taken.SOHR Maybe someone has more information which can help us in this issue and clear indicate those villages which was taken YPG. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC) we need to wait for more news.Alhanuty (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Also here map show that area wher located village Jaz'ah and surrounding area was taken by Kurds.here But just warning you that I can not claim that this map on 100 percent the reliable. Just I try to find at least some some information about the situation in the area after the Kurdish forces in Iraq launched a major offensive in the border area with Syria. Also pro government source reported that Peshmerga have recaptured the Iraq - Syria border from Islamic State in Sinjar area located west of Mosul.map Hanibal911 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Villages retaken, pro-Kurd info Rhocagil (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So according to pro Kurdish source YPG retake villages of Zeraya, Hirêşiyê, Xemîsiyê, Xirab Hesen, Hecokê, Dosa, Mişheniyê, Mosa.Hawar News Also opposition source SOHR reported that YPG taken over 8 villages on the border line between Iraq and Syria in al-Ya’rubia countryside.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also Al Jazeera is writing about it today "In addition to opening a safe corridor between Sinjar and the Kurdish areas of Syria, the YPG said on Sunday it had captured seven villages from ISIL on the Syrian-Iraq border - three on the Syrian side and four on the Iraqi side" here. The three villages on the syrian side are according to hawarnews: Ramallah, Qadda and Kanho (link here). Rhocagil (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

9 villages in total taken by YPG and MSF found in this report. this operation has been going on for 3 days, but doesn't specify which villages. Malik Danno (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are right because Al Jazeera also reported that YPG had captured the seven of villages from Islamic State on the Syrian-Iraqi border three on the Syrian side and four on the Iraqi side.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

PetoLucem says IS took control of the village Abu Qasayib:

https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/547431563471106048

Pro-SAA SANA says SAA fought IS in the Tal Gazal area just a few km west of Abu Qasayib:

https://www.facebook.com/SyrianArabNewsAgencySana/posts/850003828355479

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.878247&lon=41.341982&z=15&m=b

While pro-IS twitter users say IS gained control of the area:

https://twitter.com/mhasakah/status/547334789444141056

So, do you think Abu Qasayib should be turned black and Tal Gazal contested?

190.67.135.181 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Abu Qasayib should be marked contested, even pro-kurd Hawarnews talks about it in article Fierce clashes around Tall Hamis. Rhocagil (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Who put all those villages red-black as per Elijah Magnier statement? I understand he is a reliable source but not only areas deep into YPG controlled territory are marked red black (Tal Nasr? Seriously?) but areas like Ghanamiya are contested when many sources even from loyalists like PetoLucem have reported IS advances toward North and there isn't a single report about SAA pushing South.

190.67.135.181 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting info on Eastern Qalamoun

This pro-gov article: https://www.facebook.com/page.F.S.N.N/posts/760969903940056 states that a deal might be struck between SAA and FSA where:

• SAA re-opens the Dumeir-Ruhayba road
• FSA re-opens the Baghdad-Damascus road by retreating from the Khan Abu Shamat cement factories.

This is done in parallel with allowing aid to enter Eastern Ghouta and exchanging POWs and dead bodies. The deal isn't formal yet but it reveals 2 important informations:

1- Ruhaybah and Dumeir at least partly under FSA control but both are under a truce.

2- FSA still controls the Khan Abu Shamat cement factories overlooking the Baghdad-Damascus road.

Note: Rebels captured in spring 2014 the Khan Abu Shamat cement factories. Those are NOT the Khan Abu Shamat chemical storage sites. So just add the words "cement factories" to the rebel held Khan Abu Shamat site. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys don't add another site! It's the same site, the Khan Abu Shamat site, just add to its name cement factories to differentiate it from the KHan Abu Shamat chemical warfare storage sites still held by the regime. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94So if I have already addhere what I need do. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes man I saw that but it is not what I meant. It's the same site, the Khan Abu Shamat site, just add to its name "cement factories" to differentiate it from the "Khan Abu Shamat chemical warfare storage sites" still held by the regime.

That's what the rebels captured in 2014: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.669497&lon=36.963501&z=11&m=b&show=/23895178/Badia-cement That's the chemical storage site still held by the regime: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.661496&lon=36.883850&z=11&m=b&show=/30331259/Khan-Abu-al-Shamat-Area

All I did was suggest changing the name of the rebel held "Khan Abu Shamat" site to "Khan Abu Shamat cement factories" to make it more accurate. This post also showed that it is still rebel-held. So Hanibal911 just keep the previous site the only rebel held site only change its name to Khan Abu Shamat Cement factories. Don't add another one its the same! ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the edit, but are you sure? Khan Abu Shammat is a military complex, and don't quote me but I'm pretty sure when this site was added the sources said the rebels took the military complex Khan Abu Shammat. As opposed to the nearby cement factories. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No the rebels took the cement factories there cutting the Damascus-Baghdad road. The army base is a heavily fortified CW site with a nearby AirDefence base. My suggestion was clarifying the issue by changing the existing rebel-held site to Khan Abu Shamat cement factories so we don't confuse it with the nearby SAA held CW facility. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what the rebels posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yLqzgdpJCk

They say they controlled the Cement Factory and the nearby Police HQ here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.691210&lon=37.002640&z=12&m=b&show=/25706874/Military-site

So Hanibal911 just keep 1 rebel held site in the area and name it Khan Abu Shamat cement factories. You could also add the nearby Chemical Storage Site and mark it as regime held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrissCh94Did you mean this objects!Chemical Weapons Storage Base Hanibal911 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Hanibal911 the site you now provided is regime held while the nearby cement factories are rebel held. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The source from which the site was added stated that the rebels took the base, not the cement plant. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

eaworldview from the time paraphrasing Sigrid Kaag, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemicals "Kaag said the 100 tons of material is “safe and secure” in an airfield controlled by Syrian forces not far from Damascus. She said they had been transferred from another site about 19 miles away that has since been captured by insurgents." Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I get your point Boredwhytekid don't get me wrong but the sources you provided quoted pro-opp activists. I mean I searched all their YouTube channels none showed "a captured" Chemical Facility. If they captured a Chemical Facility and a nearby AirDefence base they would have at least filmed it and celebrated it they way they usually do. All I found (and provided here) was pro-opp videos stating the capture of cement factories. Then I provided a regime source saying rebels still control the cement Factories (the ones they captured from the start in spring 2014). It now makes perfect sense that the rebel held site in the area is the Khan Abu Shamat cement factories and that was one of my post's goals. The other goal of this post was proving the truce in Ruhaybah and Dumeir. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid your link was Reuters, a source that claimed Mayda'a was regime held. They wrote the name of the area wrong. They quoted 1 diplomat saying that the chemical base was overrun and another one saying rebels did not attack the chemical base because they will face consequences. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemicals isn't pro-op, it's just anti-chemical weapons. Quoted on a pro-op site, yes.And Reuters is considered neutral and quoted "a diplomat" - unspecified. Idk. Go ahead and make them one site. I'm not convinced, and will poke around to prove my point, but, if I can't I won't raise any further objections. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright man if you could find a reliable source proving that the rebels also captured the chemical storage site (and the military sites defending it), you would be helping us make this map a more accurate one. Maybe they did capture it and then retreated (just like what happened in Battalion 559)? Til now all we could prove was that the rebels still control the strategic cement factories located on the Baghdad-Damascus highway so I suggested changing the name of the rebel held site there to "Khan Abu Shamat Cement Factories". Cheers! ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, sidenote, Reuters quoted one diplomat as saying rebels overran the "abandoned and emptied chemical base at Khan Abu Shammal" (yes, spelled wrong) and then a separate diplomat saying the rebels knew there would be consequences if they switched their momentum *towards the base where the Khan Abu Shammat stockpiles were transferred to* - they were not both talking about Khan Abu Shammat. The second diplomat was talking about Sayqal Airbase. "The remaining chemicals at Sayqal have yet to be packed into containers for the road journey to Latakia, the diplomat said...Another Western diplomat said rebels understood they could face consequences if they changed the focus of their attack and tried to take the chemical base." Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The chemical base, I took it as the chemical storage base while you understood it as Sayqal AirBase. The talk page in a nutshell lol ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I only have this pro-opposition source which said that 28 April rebels taken this chemical storage base.here But I do not have data from other sources that they still control it. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's a pro-opp source that showed the cement factories rebel held (also shown as rebel held by the regime source) and the chemical storage base as conflicted. So we currently agree that the only rebel held site in the area should be the Khan Abu Shamat cement factories. The status of the Chemical Storage base isn't clear: I think it is regime held but Boredwhytekid is not convinced. What do you think Hanibal911? ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

lol the arduous journey to mutual understanding Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

pietervanostaeyen and desyracuse too Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The first source is extremely pro-opp since Assal El Ward is Rebel held. DeSyracuse is moderately pro-opp, generally reliable (especially in confirming regime gains) but can't be used as a sole source (to confirm rebel gains) in difficult areas especially if he/she relies on sources just like us. So til now I'm not convinced. ChrissCh94 (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea I'm just throwing them up here. I'm still stuck on the Reuters "The diplomat said rebels have overrun the abandoned and emptied chemical base at Khan Abu Shammal" off of which Khan abu Shammat has remained as is on our map for a year. And I still haven't seen a source refuting that. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is my personal opinion but I think that for now we have to leave everything as is. But if we get reliable data from the pro-opposition or a reliable source that the rebels had left, we edit it. But in this issue ChrissCh94 rights that pro opposition sources can not be used to display the rebel successes. But let's not rush and still wait a while that would try to find other evidence. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My friend,Hanibal911, no one here said the rebels left. You missed our point. I provided regime sources and rebel sources showing that the rebel held area in Khan Abu Shamat was/is the cement factories. So I suggested renaming the existing rebel-held dot to cement factories because the dot was only named Khan Abu Shamat. I suggested renaming it because there is a nearby Chemical storage base with an unknown status: I think it is regime held but Boredwhytekid thinks otherwise. That's why I asked your opinion on the base. But on the map, we agree you only keep 1 rebel held dot in the area and that it the cement factories. When we find more sources regarding the Chemical storage base we will add it to the map. ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 we agreed here that you remove the Khan Abu Shamat chemical storage facility since its status is unknown, I believe it is regime held but Boredwhytekid thinks otherwise so until we find reliable sources proving who is controlling it we agreed on removing it. Only keep the rebel-held cement factories ChrissCh94 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Tradedia^talk 06:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Infighting in the Darra province

Fight regained between the Yarmouk brigades and Al Nusra in Daraa with no real advance for Al Nusra. Main areas of infighting in Nafe'a and Ain Zikr.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hanibal911 what do you suggest to do ? Contest this area? Lindi29 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Not yet! For now the best solution will look for other evidence and do not rush edit a map. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source reported that fight between Nusra and Yarmouk continue in Daraa province. Mohamad Saadeddin al-Bryeidi, Aka 'Al-Khal", called all Huran groups to fight Al Nusra.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just posting a report

Carnegie reports. One notable point: says IS is in the Damascus suburb al-Hajar al-Aswad. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS does not have direct presence in the Damascus area those are all local rebel groups that pledged support to the group. Daki122 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The entirety of IS is groups or individuals that pledged support to the group.. with the exception of the core. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Pro-opp and pro-regime sources do say that ISIS has an important presence in Hajar Al Aswad. They are not alone there but they are the dominant fighting force. The same goes for Qalamoun ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to note that al-Masdar shows the FSA flag in al-Hajar al-Aswad Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR

Based on the results of the previous discussion here in the future if we use data from SOHR that would display succes of rebels we need confirmation this data from neutral source because SOHR is a partialy biased pro opposition source. And its data should be used only with confirmation from a reliable source. So let's be objective if we use to display success by army pro government sources we always need to provide proof from a reliable source and I agree with that but in the case of opposition sources must be the same. So now we dont have to use to display the progress of rebels only data from the SOHR we need to confirm of this data from more reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask all who wish to speak on this issue to be tolerant and to express their opinions without unnecessary emotions and insults. Let's in cases where we display the achievements of the rebels, we will use the data from SOHR if them publish a reliable source, or if we use the data directly from SOHR we must provide other evidence which can confirm these data. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't use SOHR as a neutral source ? They do favor the opposition but they don't have a reason to post false informations because they have a contract with UN and UNICEF. I have read the previous discussion and : - They have few editors, some of them write regular army, other regime army, while other have a strong content in their articles especially in their English version. - They aren't denying any advances if they don't write about them. Their office location is not Syria so they need to wait for confirmation from their reporters/activists, they can't write anything with their opinion. - I have never seen an artile saying "no losses" because they just don't know, how should they if they haven't recieved any information ? - They are posting about rebel casualties every day.

You don't understand the purpose of SOHR. DuckZz (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the SOHR long been opposes the Syrian government and this recognized to many reliable sources. Also the source on its main page uses the flag of the Syrian opposition so that dont say that SOHR is neutral source. Also about dead rebels, he often speaks as of the martyrs but the soldiers from Syrian army which die in clashes, he just called their dead regime fighters. Also in their reports, he mainly writes about civilian casualties due to the bombing and shelling regime forces but almost nothing about civilian casualties due to shells from the rebels side. Also in this discussion here other editors agreed that the SOHR the opposition source and data which he publishes need confirm from other reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's part of the SOHR report: "The Syrian Observatory for Human Right demands from people of the towns, cities and villages of the Syrian coastal mountains not to join Al Shabiha militias and NDF because the regime has used them in its battle in order to kill the Syrian people, where tens of thousands of civilians were killed by these militias" SOHR Sorry DuckZz but this is clearly not a neutral statement so that this statement shows that SOHR openly opposes to Syrian government and the resistance fighters which support Syrian army. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, SOHR SHOULD be backed up by a usable secondary sources whenever possible - editors should make the effort to corroborate its claims. That being said, SOHR reports on a lot of happenings that don't make their way into any other outlet/report. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR should be used to:

* Display regime advances

* Display rebel advances WHEN they are also confirmed by Neutral/regime sources ChrissCh94 (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely can't sign on to that - not when we use desyracuse by itself. When there are corroborating or refuting sources to SOHR's claims, find them. If not, still usable solo. Regardless of its ridiculous casualty claims and obvious pro-rebellion bias, its track record of battlefield claims (advances, territory lost/gained) still places it among the most reliable and accurate sources on the conflict. SOHR can absolutely be used solo if it's the only outlet reporting. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for due diligence - making sure SOHR isn't reporting bull**** - but no way we write it off as unusable by itself when we accept amateur maps as lone sources. THAT would be some pro-gov't nonsense. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write anyone off. I just said (most of us agree) that SOHR itself can't be used as a SOLE and LONE source. What do you suggest then? If SOHR reports rebels captured area X we can't immediately change it to green. We wait for secondary sources. That was my proposal, that SOHR now belongs with Al-Masdar in the partially biased sources category. None should be used alone. The only source that can be used alone is the neutral one and for me that's Al-Monitor, Elijah... SOHR had a good credibility that decreased gradually since Spring 2014 while Al-Masdar due to its links to SyrianPerspective had a poor credibility that gradually improved. I now view both in the same category, not fully reliable on their own but they do give a general impression on the situation, an impression that needs to be confirmed by other sources. ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid I'll take for instance what happened last week in Daraya:

*Regime forces launched a surprise attack on the eastern front and captured several blocks --> SOHR remained silent.

*When the rebels counter attacked and recaptured most/all of the blocks --> SOHR reported rebel advances in Daraya.

If we only relied on SOHR, we would have thought that it was the rebels who advanced into regime held territory. People were surprised on how starved rebels (who are eating cats!) could launch a daring offensive on surrounding regime forces, while in fact they just recaptured recently lost territory. That's one example on why we can't use SOHR as a lone source. ChrissCh94 ([[User talk: |talk]]) 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But that example misses the point. Was SOHR's report true or false? That's all that matters. I don't care about what they DON'T report - we obviously have to, and do, use other sources in those cases. We know SOHR is pro-op and will omit SAA advances; that's proven. But when SOHR does report, it's information is correct 99% of the time, and that's the bottom line. Their bias doesn't matter, the validity of their information does. If anything, SOHR NOT reporting SAA advances helps us out - it confirms that either the SAA advanced or that SOHR doesn't have sources in the area. Again, not denying SOHR is overtly pro-op. They want to show only rebel advances. However, the rebel advances they report are rarely wrong. Besides, if we can't use SOHR for green, we might as well just delete this map, because al-Monitor, Reuters, Associated Press, Yahoo, Al-Jazeera, Daily Star, etc all use SOHR, so we will no longer have any source at all considered usable for rebel gains. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't take SOHR at face value. Dig for sources proving or disproving SOHR's claims. But if there are no other sources, we gotta use SOHR because it's claims are almost always true. Still haven't seen a single example to refute that. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well not mentioning something leads to misinformation, if they mention ADVANCES when the rebels are RECAPTURING lost territory that would lead to misinformation. That stuff is used by propaganda sources such as the regime's media. For example let's say the regime captured a small building in a small corner in Al-Raqqa. That's a small event. I could say the regime advanced in Raqqa. My statement is true but it doesn't reflect the whole reality, the whole truth because it sounds like a big thing. So yes SOHR's report was true but its context was wrong and that's an important aspect concerning perspective. I'm not saying we stop using SOHR.. All I'm saying is we back up SOHR's statements with other sources when necessary/possible. If no source is found we wait a couple of days then we change it according to the territorial change mentioned by SOHR. That's all: BE MORE CAREFUL concerning SOHR the same way we're careful using AL Masdar etc. ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But by that logic, no source ever properly reports SAA gains, because everything they take is technically being recaptured, not advanced upon, because they originally lost it at some date/time. I'm 100% with you ChrissCh94 as goes looking to prove/disprove SOHR's claims every time. But if there are no other sources, I'm using SOHR. My edit today - should we revert and wait? No outlet other than SOHR will ever report this, and though the town is clearly DEEP in rebel held territory, we'll never have another opportunity to add it because it will never hit the news again. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I get your point but I'm talking about a same battle. For example if the SAA lost a position then gained it back a few days later and a source came talking about SAA advances in the area that wouldn't be completely honest now would it. Get my point? Yes all the territory SAA is now gaining is lost territory but it has been lost long ago. For example if a pro-regime source came saying that SAA advanced in the Homs desert (by recapturing Shaer gas field) then that's just propaganda. That's the thing with some SOHR posts. They note recently lost territory as advances while it's just recaptures. Yes when we have no other sources confirming/denying a SOHR claim we have no choice but to use it. However, we used to immediately rely on SOHR posts to modify the map. Now let's just be more careful and patient. Cheers guys! ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Very true - it's counterproductive to just see an SOHR facebook post and immediately edit the map instead of trying to confirm/refute it Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with ChrissCh94 because SOHR biased opposition source which openly opposed to Syrian government and support Syrian opposition. So that according to the rules of edit we can use data from SOHR if this data not confirm more reliable source. And in issue with maps we had previously agreed that we use maps from pro-government sources to display success rebels and vice versa. And let's stick to the rules. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source clear said that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights(SOHR) it is anti-government monitoring group based in Britain.JazeeraAl JazeeraAfghanistan TimesWorld Food ProgramPolitics and SocietyAl Arabiya Hanibal911 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, SOHR meets all criteria for a reliable source. Under section Usage by other Sources, the fact that "Rami Abdulrahman's UK based SOHR has been cited by virtually every western news outlet since the beginning of the uprising," verifies that SOHR's status as a source on the Syrian Civil War is one of good standing. Not my opinion. The facts as stated by the guidelines of Wikipedia. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boredwhytekid on this. Although it is true that SOHR has some missed important events, that is appropriate for a reliable source that is unable to confirm such events. What they do report is almost always true. They have a much better track record than most other sources, including certain that some editors here accept as reliable, such as Elijah J. Magnier (who often reports anticipated events before they happen).

It is true that SOHR is strongly against human rights abuses, and much more often cites the regime for such abuses. But SOHR also frequently cites the rebels for human rights abuses as well. Note that even Russia, a critical regime ally, has admitted that the Syrian regime is guilty of major human rights abuses.

For the map we are concerned about SOHR reporting on control by the various forces. Here, according to WP guidelines, SOHR is an independent objective observer.

BTW, a source called conflict reporter on twitter uses geolocation from videos posted on line to determine rebel and regime control. He says he is a professional geographer. He posts photographic maps on twitter, overwritten with red or green lines to indicate control, with link(s) to related videos. We should probably consider that a reliable source. The last one I saw showed all of SE Sheikh Maskin under rebel control. See here. His previous map of the town showed much of that sector under regime control. André437 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

1) SOHR it is antigovernment source and this fact confirmed in many reliable sources so that not need said that he neutral source.JazeeraAl JazeeraAfghanistan TimesWorld Food ProgramPolitics and SocietyAl Arabiya

2) Also source conflict reporter it is on one hundred percent pro opposition sources. Here is a sample message: The #Assad #terror regime also killed men,women and children in #Idlib todayhere or The worst terrorist #Assad keeps on destroying the Syrian capital here So that dont say that this a neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

3) So that you're saying that SOHR the neutral source after this message: "The Syrian Observatory for Human Right demands from people of the towns, cities and villages of the Syrian coastal mountains not to join Al Shabiha militias and NDF because the regime has used them in its battle in order to kill the Syrian people, where tens of thousands of civilians were killed by these militias" SOHR So it is not for all the rules are the same. So let's be objective. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose and other editors XJ-0461 v2PaolowalterEkoGrafDaki122 express their opinion on the matter.

SOHR data should be used to:

• For display by army advances
• And for display rebel advances but when they are also confirmed in Neutral or pro government sources. And it will be right. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Usually I am the first to say when we are dealing with a pro-opposition source, like SOHR, that it should only be used to display Army advances, just as we use pro-government sources only for opposition advances. However, in regards to SOHR, I have for a long time advocated it be used for both rebel and Army advances (just as we have done so far). My reasons are that, despite their heavily biased language against the Assad government in political statements as well as possibly (as of recently) publishing unbalanced casualty figures (in favor of the rebels), they are and have always been reporting advances and failures by both sides in an un-biased manor as they occur. Sometimes they even waited for a day or so for confirmation while other sources made reports of advances. Plus, un-biased sources such as Reuters, AFP etc have at times described SOHR as an authoritative source on events of the conflict. Thus, due to neutral sources in Syria being virtually non-existent, I am still for SOHR being used as a source for both sides advances and failures. EkoGraf (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But then let's use the data from SOHR for display the towns or villages as contested only if SOHR clearly says that the clashes inside the city or village. And not noted city or village as contested if he only said about airstrike. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have said several times that SOHR is a opposition source and that is clearly visible in their logo as they use the "revolution flag" and the multiple statements calling the president of Syria a "butcher" or the fact that they wrote last week that 120 000 pro-gov fighters were killed (that is 60% of all people killed according to them and if we take the approximate 3 WIA to 1 KIA that's "500 000" soldiers out of action!?) if those numbers were true there would be no Army left in Syria so yes they are pro-opp source.Daki122 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Listen guys we all agree that SOHR is pro-opp. That's not the argument here! We are discussing how reliable it is as a field source not a political one. Any source can have political alignments yet can also remain neutral in reporting advances/setbacks. And that's where SOHR became less reliable. BUT we also cannot deny that more than half of this map has been made thanks to SOHR's field reporting. We can't stop using it as a source nor can we stop using it for rebel advances. BUT since SOHR has been somewhat slacking recently, we as editors should adapt by being more careful when SOHR posts about rebel advances. We try to look for other sources confirming/denying those advances. We wait a day or two till the dust clears and then we change the map accordingly. If we only have SOHR as a source, despite its decreasing credibility, we have to use it since it covers all areas of conflict where others sources don't. One last thing and this may even cause more controversy but it's a talk page anyways, what do you guys think about Al-Masdar? Yes I know who is its editor in chief etc. but recently I did find it somewhat reliable. Maybe not completely honest concerning casualties but it has been fair in field advances for both parties of the conflict. Your opinions?? ChrissCh94 (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am missing the most part of this discussion. SOHR is clearly a partisan source and does not pretend to be neutral. Its quotations of casualties are absolutely unreliable and should be disregarded. As to advance in the ground it has proven reasonably reliable in the past, still missing many changes on the ground. Recently it got worse, its information are often of little relevance and rather unclear (also because of its broken english) leading to a lot of discussion on how to interpret it. E.G. you can find fighting in certain town foe weeks without understanding which is the front line and who is advancing. Other sources like Al Mansar are now better and more precise. The pool of acceptable sources should be enlarged rather than restricted including Al Mansar and maybe Petolucem map otherwise we will be unable to change anything. In case of contradiction, the places will become contested. Of courese changes of the map should be done only in presence of clear statement of SOHR (fighting is ongoing, such town taken by a one of the side) not extrapolating from a text unclear or discussing other topics. Paolowalter (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is an authentic source, its reports are reliable and can be used, independent confirmation is sometimes impossible, since, you don't have the media reporting this, and Pro-Government tend ignore the reports.Alhanuty (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If we take pro-opp sources (SOHR or Conflict Reporter) to indicate opp. advances, and not taking pro-gvt sources (Like Petolucem or Al-Masdar) to indicate pro-gvt advances, there will be a serious imbalance in this map. Certainly, SOHR sometimes notify pro-gvt advances but Petolucem as well for pro-opp advances (One example of today here: PetoLucem ). Moreover, SOHR shows its unreliability for not credible death toll and other things as well (Amazing to see how some shells always cause gvt. casualties and "devastation of vehicles"... While the contrary is hardly the case). Using wisely SOHR, why not? But to keep balance on this map, we should just apply the same rules for the use of SOHR and "reasonable" pro-gvt sources like Petolucem or Al-Masdar. Kihtnu (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what I have been trying to say for the longest time. If we take SOHR at face value for all advances but ignore sources that are even remotely pro-government, we will have an imbalance on the map. Take, for example, Khazanat, Khan Shiekoun, Deir-Ez-Zor, and Hasaka. If we used SOHR as an absolute source, Khazanat and Khan Shiekoun would be green, Al-Jaffra and the Deir-ez-Zor airport perimeter would be black, and the buffer zone around Qamishli would be nonexistent. SOHR is starting to make major omissions in its reporting, meaning that it is now necessary to make room for moderate and reliable pro-gov sources. As for their death toll, I am in favor of disregarding them. As Daki pointed out, if we do some basic calculations, we come out with 500,000 SAA fighters out of action [more fighters than the regime has]. My opinion is the both Al-Masdar and SOHR be used WITH conformation from outside neutral sources like Al-Monitor or EJM [2 reliable sources that DO NOT quote SOHR]. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You should know SOHR reports on occasion fighting in al-Jaffra, has never reported the airport to be totally surrounded and the buffer zone around Qamishli was originally established based on SOHR reports. As for the death toll, basic calculations without sources are Original Research so its not really allowed by Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"The buffer zone around Qamishli was originally established based on SOHR reports" Not true. It was established based on an original independent report by Robert Fisk. Also, my basic calculations were to call SOHR out on their fictitious death tolls, they were never intended for use on Wikipedia.XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert Fisk did report the 20 km advance around Qamishli but it was actually SOHR a month or so before Robert Fisk who stated the SAA control of some villages around Qamishli in the first place. Fisk's report helped us later to expand the range of the SAA control a bit. As for the casualties, its not up to us to call SOHR out on their fictitious death tolls without evidence. And per established editor agreement from three years ago, all this time we have been using SOHR for the casualty tolls, always noting (as seen in the war's infobox) that we are using its figures. Its up to the readers to decide if they believe it or not. EkoGraf (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict Report and SOHR are not comparable at all. Conflict Report is a heavily pro-opposition biased source that has shown no reliability in its reporting. While, the issue of SOHR, which we have discussed dozens of times over the years and each time with the same result, is that despite it being pro-opposition its reliability when it comes to reports on battlefield advances and failures is un-questionable. Proof to this can be seen in four things: 90 percent of all of their battlefield reports are established to be true; SOHR has been called by the reliable media outlets (BBC, AFP, AP, CNN, etc) as an authoritative news source on Syria; the outlets I mentioned use SOHR almost exclusively as their source for almost all of their reports on Syria; Wikipedia itself considers SOHR reliable (cited earlier). So, I agree with DuckZz, Boredwhytekid and André437. PS Agree with earlier Hanibal's request. Use SOHR to mark towns contested only if SOHR reports clashes in them and not if it reports air-strikes only. EkoGraf (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry mate but un-questionable? They were the last source to report that Yabroud had fallen. Reliable media outlets? All those you cited are Western News Agencies known for their pro-opp stance. I'm with XJ-0461 v2 and Hanibal911 on this one. SOHR is no longer 100% reliable concerning battlefield advances so we should be more careful and we should use when possible other "reliable" sources (neutral/other pro-opp/pro-regime). ChrissCh94 (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So according to you AFP, AP, Reuters etc are unreliable because they are Western News Agencies known for their pro-opp stance? If we edited based on that view we would not have any sources at all to cite. I'm sorry mate, but that is your personal opinion and not the opinion or the policy of Wikipedia which regards them as reliable and notable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

He is saying that SOHR is favored by them due to their pro-opp stance. Their favoritism does not make SOHR any more credible. We define credibility based on reliability, does what the outlet report actual happen. In SOHR's case, its accuracy is dropping and the policy needs to change. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And I am telling you XJ what I told him. Saying that SOHR is favored by them due to their pro-opp stance is your personal un-sourced opinion as well which is regarded as Original Research by Wikipedia. In regards to defining credibility and reliability, Wikipedia and its editors established all of those news agencies credibility and reliability long ago. And those agencies call SOHR the authoritative source on Syria events. If you want to question the reliability/neutrality of those media outlets in the case of this conflict than Wikipedia has a procedure for it. Which is, you can try and request from administrators a debate whether to mark them as unreliable sources and rule their use out when it comes to Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Masdar also has bullshit casualties numbers, not a SOHR exclusivity. Like, they said 100 Nusra fighters died in Abu Al-Duhur in the last 6 days. Nusra may number more then the estimated 5/6 thousand, but even if they number a more realistic 10 thousand they would effectively stop being a player in the war with the number of casualties Al-Masdar say they are suffering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.219.152.90 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

How could a news outlet be reliable in field news if they DO NOT HAVE reporters on the ground. All their reports use amateur video/activist opinions to portray half of what's going on in Syria. It's not my opinion it's a fact that has been seen in every war. I'm not saying the regime's news is any better in fact it's worse.. it's propaganda. Point is I don't have the time to raise a full scale debate here on Wikipedia about SOHR and Western News Agencies. All I'm saying and most of the fellow editors agreed that we be more careful when it comes to SOHR reporting rebel advances. That was it. And about Al-Masdar, I said we start using its battlefield reporting since it has proven to be MORE OR LESS reliable. Forget the casualties figures etc. They report most army advances/losses so why not use them? Of course by "Use Them" I mean in a very careful way just like we'll do with SOHR. ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR being used by western medias is more a problem of laziness of those medias than a complot: Absence of fact checking culture, no reporter on the field, urgent need to define quickly and simplistically a good side and an evil side, etc. Moreover, SOHR has a wonderful pompous and deceving name (Syrian Observatory of Human Rights) and can provide to medias magically precise death tolls, which they are so fond of. I call again for this simple request: We should apply the same rules, whatever they are, for SOHR and "reasonable" pro-gvt source like Petolucem and Al-Masdar. Favoring SOHR gravely impair the balance of this map. Kihtnu (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well Said. Why not give Al-Masdar a shot? ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Inkhil

Why did Inkhil lose it's red half circle to the east? I mean there is a whole brigde on its Eastern outskirt. Could you guys provide us with sources indicating its current status? (pro-opp or pro-regime) ChrissCh94 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done here. Who removed it? Good catch. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

IS shoots down Jordanian warplane

I know this isn't relevant for mapping purposes but, geez. I wonder what type of escalation this will prompt BBC EA Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State supporters are asking ISIS to exchange pilot on prisoners in Jordan. If this happen, ISIS wild ask freedom of core Jihadists.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Saw that too. Oh wait now I read he is a christian ... i give him 3 days. DuckZz (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Talbiseh

From petolucem clashes in Talbiseh. It was also reported by SOHR a couple of time in the past. It is maybe time of turning the city contested.Paolowalter (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talbiseh is a rebel stronghold. It is not contested. Just south of the city there is the Malouk army complex from which army troops attack the southern border of the city. This has been going on for months, but the rebels are holding up well... so the city is not contested & the clashes can still be reported routinely for months in the future along the same pattern. No evidence that army troops can do anything other than hit & run attacks. The red semi-circle is enough for now. Tradedia^talk 06:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no such thing "rebel stronghold" especially in Homs, the whole area is sorrounded by SAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.122.57 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

After the fall of old Homs, all the rebels that were there went to the Talbiseh-Rastan pocket, which made it stronger... Tradedia^talk 01:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

YPG advance in Hasakah

YPG recaptured Abo Qasayeb from ISIS south of Qamishli in the Tall Hamis area [5]. Please add the town, thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Tall Barud

Cross-reference the SAA-held area per deSyracuse map [6] with the location of Tall Barud on Wikimapia [7]. I would say it plainly shows Tall Barud being in the area marked by deSyracuse as SAA-held. EkoGraf (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: ok I see what happened. If you look at the desyracuse map in the contested area, you see the words “تل بارود” = “Tall Barud”, which is not in the same place marked on wikimapia. Tradedia^talk 06:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

He (deSyracuse) must have gotten the location of Tal Barud on his map wrong. Wikimapia is more probable to have the location right. EkoGraf (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat troublesome that you think that “deSyracuse must have gotten the location on his map wrong,” yet you are still willing to use him as a source… Tradedia^talk 01:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing troublesome about it. We have been using him as a source for a year now without any trouble. EkoGraf (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Just monthly debates lol. Like when desyacuse uses the Ba'ath Brigades' proclamations about their own advances to edit his map. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that all that you've remember about this source. But that you forget how much he made changes on based on the data received from the opposition sources. Also this source based on opposition sources edited the map during the Al Nusra offensive in the Idlib province . So that guys let us will not each time to remember the one moment when deSyracuse use data received from the Government source. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Taybah

Al-Taybah should be marked as SAA-held.There is no source proving it's contested--94.66.176.141 (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

For now we not have reliable sources which can confirm that this town contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Some rebel groups in Aleppo joined to ISIS

Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar and al-Katiba al-Khadra(Green Battalion) declared about Ba'ya (loyalty) to Islamic State in Aleppo.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

According to ISIS and not him. He's using them as a source lol, I have read the same thing on IS twitter channels. Currently we do not have any 100% confirmation. DuckZz (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I just publish information to talk page. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian National Coalition representative to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Adib Al-Shishakli has warned that moderate Syrian opposition fighters are increasingly joining the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) for financial reasons.Asharq Al-Awsat Hanibal911 (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ras Al Maarra - Qalamoun

Who said it was contested? Please provide sources/proof before randomly editing. And who said it was Al-Nusra and not ISIS/FSA? ChrissCh94 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC) ChrissCh94 Here source said that according to data from SOHR the shelling was coupled with clashes between the government troops and extremist groups, mainly the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front in the town of Ras al-Ma'ara in al-Qalamoun.Global Times But I researched all the reports from SOHR for the period from 18 to 20 December and I dont find reports about clashes in Ras Al Mara between the army and Al Nusra. So it may be an error in this report. Maybe clashes on the outskirts of town or in a mountainous area near the town. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think so since we should have seen many reports IF the rebels had entered the town. But even the most pro-opp sources did not mention any attack by Al Nusra on Ras Al Maarra so my vote is revert it back to red, SAA held ChrissCh94 (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ChrissCh94 and my vote also is revert it back to red. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ChrissCh94 and wait for more sources to confirm it, but i think we should put the siege mark in the west side based on this report.Hanibal911 what do you think? Lindi29 (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we put a half green circle to the west just like Assal Al Ward. But no way is it contested. No one reported Al Nusra entering the town. Such an event would have been symbolically important. ChrissCh94 (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Carnegie - fighting at Ras al-Maara, al-Bawaba fighting in the outskirts of Ras al-Maara, ISW JAN and IS near Ras al-Maara Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

All those sources reported 1 incident: ISIS vs Al Nusra fighting in Jurd Rass Al Maara (Jurd = Mountains). So that's a confirmation of ISIS + JAN Presence near Ras Al Maarra. ChrissCh94 (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Made the concentric icon visible. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)