2601:0:b200:f7d9:f19a:3146:52ec:f471 (talk) |
→Editor 8fra0: See WP:TALKNEW "Don't address other users in a heading" |
||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
:: {{u|Lindi29}} I also totally agree that this city need marked as contested! [[User:Hanibal911|Hanibal911]] ([[User talk:Hanibal911|talk]]) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) |
:: {{u|Lindi29}} I also totally agree that this city need marked as contested! [[User:Hanibal911|Hanibal911]] ([[User talk:Hanibal911|talk]]) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Road between Haditha and al-Baghdadi == |
|||
== Editor 8fra0 == |
|||
This editor {{u|8fra0}} is making edits only by himself wihout any disscusion on the talk page and relies on 1 source, aslo he rv my edits without explanion and source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=643130570&oldid=643129741 here],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=643128872&oldid=642928143 here].[[User:Lindi29|Lindi29]] ([[User talk:Lindi29|talk]]) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC) |
This editor {{u|8fra0}} is making edits only by himself wihout any disscusion on the talk page and relies on 1 source, aslo he rv my edits without explanion and source.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=643130570&oldid=643129741 here],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=643128872&oldid=642928143 here].[[User:Lindi29|Lindi29]] ([[User talk:Lindi29|talk]]) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:49, 20 January 2015
Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions
![]() | This module does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
al-Wafa
Anyone know where al-Wafa is? Boredwhytekid (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Boredwhytekid its 45 km west of Anbar’s capital Ramadi that i am trying to find since yesterday.hereLindi29 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
ISW shows it southwest of Ramadi but I still can't locate it.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Al-Wafa, wherever it is, got retaken source Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Mosul governate
According to this map Isis is under control of al-kasik military base and 3 towns Khariz,Faqiruq,Qasr Sarij.here.Lindi29 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Lindi29 the map is not up to date as it does not show the new territories retaken by the Peshmerga offensive that started from Zumar and Yarubiah border crossing Wednesday the 17th(yesterday). Hanibal911 also made some changes around Sinjar according to this map, some of them were correct but some had just been retaken by the Peshmerga. I've been reading about the most recent developments [according to which Peshmerga are now in control of Qasr Sarij, Hardan, Tal Afar mountain(which is 3 km away from Tal Afar); are fighting inside Snuny and have connected their terrotories from Zumar to the Mount Sinjar and are a few kms away from Sinjar(town) itself] in pro-Kurdish websites so I couldn't use those information to make changes to the map. But now other sources are conforming this. For example this source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISLAMIC_STATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-18-13-04-30 I think we should wait until the offensive is over and the situation becomes stable and then make changes according to reliable and unbiased sources. Saeed alaee (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hanibal911 you have already made an edit with this source.here.and with this one herechanging Hurriyah, what do you think.Boredwhytekid what do you think?.Regards Lindi29 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- For now according to data from the reliable source we know that Peshmenga entered to the village Uwainat (30km form Sinjar) today and keep advancing. Also Yazidi forces Attacked Sinuni village with the support of by U.S air.Elijah J. Magnier So Saeed alaeeyou can provide sources confirm your data. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Many reliable sources have reported about this, Voice of America International Business Times Deutsche Welle Telegraph The New York Times CNN and many more. But the reports have not been detailed enough to mention the Tal Afar mountain or the exact size of territories gained. However, I also found these reports, The Guardian and ABC Online and Independant confirm that 700 square kms(270 square miles) have been recaptured by Peshmerga, thus confirming all the gains claimed by Peshmerga forces as they too claimed the territories recaptured sized 700 square kms. This AlJazeera report details all the Peshmerga claimed territories recaptured. Hanibal911, I'm not going to change the map as I am pro-Kurdish and there's a chance I'm letting my Kurdishness bias my judgement about this. But I trust you and I think you are unbiased and fair, so if you are convinced that the claims are true change the map accordingly. The Tal Afar Mountain(3 km north of Tal Afar) is located here, just in case. Saeed alaee (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- For now according to data from the reliable source we know that Peshmenga entered to the village Uwainat (30km form Sinjar) today and keep advancing. Also Yazidi forces Attacked Sinuni village with the support of by U.S air.Elijah J. Magnier So Saeed alaeeyou can provide sources confirm your data. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Lindi29 u were right about the Kasik military base, it's still in the hands of ISIL according to this pro-Kurdish report. Apparently the Peshmerga are planning to capture it. Saeed alaee (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Sinjar
Hanibal911 according to this source peshmerga has not enter the Sinjar City only in the Province.hereLindi29 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Your source is invalid as it does not disprove that peshmerga are inside Sinjar city. It simply points out that they are also in the province. Also note that changes on the battlefield come rapidly. The situation in the morning of 20 December can be very different from the situation at evening. You need to keep updated before editing. Online Rudaw TV shows direct footage during news broadcasts of Peshmerga in the center of Sinjar city, drinking tea and giving interviews. Source: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/201220141 or https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=719900271451212 and many others.
Source also indicates that Peshmerga have attacked Tal Afar. A joint operation between Peshmerga and Iraqi Army should be under way here. I don't know how to indicate this, so I will leave it to some one else. Source: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/201220141 https://twitter.com/AlFayth/status/546396377891078144/photo/1 https://twitter.com/GawadiKurdi/status/546085488126603264/photo/1
- This report has confirmed that Sinjar has been retaken by the Peshmerga. More details may come out about Tal Afar soon, so let's monitor it soon and see.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 23:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
just watched President Barzanis speech. And According to him Peshmerga is controlling a large part of Sinjar, though not all of it and fighting is ongoing.85.227.176.244 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't know who listed Sinjar as Kurdish, http://www.ajansakurdi.net/?p=43689, fighting is still ongoing. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Tal-Afar air base
Hanibal911 according to this source iraqi army has captured tal afar air base.Lindi29 (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Lindi29 Which source? Hanibal911 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hanibal911 hereLindi29 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Press TV is the state-run TV in Iran, it is highly anti-ISIL, it is also pro-Iraq, and they have forces helping the Iraqi Army and the Shiite militias; we're gonna need reliable sources as this one, in this case, isn't reliable. Saeed alaee (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Saeed alaeeHere reliable source confirmed that Iraqi troops recaptured the Tall Afar Air Base Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hanibal911 this one is reliable, thus acceptable. Saeed alaee (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Saeed alaee I agree. Also this report confirms this as well.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hanibal911 this one is reliable, thus acceptable. Saeed alaee (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Saeed alaeeHere reliable source confirmed that Iraqi troops recaptured the Tall Afar Air Base Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
http://cloudyvideos.com/embed-anq1ph674ppy-600x330.html IS still holds the base. Just like Baijji, Western Sources are repeating Iraqi Sources without verification.Tgoll774 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Template NPOV and Unbalanced tags
NPOV and Unbalanced tags were dated July 2014 by JoetheMoe25, so I assume the dates on them should not be updated. Therefore we should revert the most recent changes, right? Trying to avoid the edit war that's starting over it. I'm also not sure why we kept these tags, as as far as I can tell only he was in favour of them. --John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Mulla 'Abd Allah (Mala Abdulla) and Kirkuk province
This area is recaptured from ISIS, it should be yellow. See here: [1]
Can we also please add some more dots to the Kirkuk province? SalahWaisi 23:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Sulaiman Bek is controlled jointly by both Peshmerga and Iraqi government according to the latest sources.
Why is there no template for jointly controlled towns? source: https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/2000px-iraq2.png and http://en.trend.az/world/arab/2307071.html
Now corrected along with Amirli which was also recaptured in a joint operation. No source indicates peshmerga have left since.
If you read the key there is a symbol for it: "3 nested circles: mixed control with stable situation" i.e. shared control between 2 sides.
I can't remember where, but on some talk page I seem to remember that an editor said that it is difficult enough to get reliable sources for control and that it would be impossible to get fraction of control for each side using reliable resources. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
^ In lack of sources and on these particular towns, surely fractional controle is more certain and neutral than whole controle for either side. We know for certain that Peshmerga took part in the recapture of both towns. No source indicates that they have left. We should not assume such.
Ah, Ok. I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean. I'm saying we can't say that 1/2 is controlled by X 1/3 by Y and 1/6 by Z. We do have a symbol for fighting between two sides already though. So we don't use a fraction as this would be impossible to do neutrally but instead just a fighting symbol. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Al-Walid Border Crossing
Al-Walid Border Crossing was attacked by ISIS about a week ago. They claim to controll it and show pictures of their "spoils of war". I changed it to red/black animated. 99.42.97.16 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Need confirmation this data from reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's on Twitter. Look up "walid border crossing" and scroll down a little and you'll find more pictures. https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=walid%20border%20spoils&src=typd 99.42.97.16 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the towns Sulaiman Bek, Amirli, Jalawla and Sadiya
According to various sources all over the internet, all of the mentioned towns in the headline were recaptured in joint operations between Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army. There is no reason to assume that either sides would leave upon recapture. Yet this is indicated on the map without proof that either side has left. Is it not much safer and neutral to assume that both parties are still present in all towns? I changed the templates for those four towns, but someone revoked it without providing any source that proves either side has left. The joint presence is very important to note in this conflict as it can lead to further tension between Erbil and Baghdad.
- You provide data from pro-Kurdish sources. But we cant use data from pro-Kurdish sources to show success by Kurds. Need confirmation your data from more reliable or neutral sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
^ That is not true Hanibal911. There is no rule that says kurdish media cannot be used as source, unless you can prove that kurdish media by default is biased. You have not proved that. On the contrary, the same kurdish media confirms that there are shiite forces in Jalawla. But if you have a problem with kurdish media then here is an european source that also verifies that both Peshmerga and shia millitias took part in the recapture of Jalawla and Sadiya. Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/irgc-isis-suleimani-kurdish-iraq-islamic-state-fighting/26709813.html - As for Sulaiman Bek here is another non-kurdish source that verifies that both Peshmerga and Iraqi Army recaptured Sulaiman Bek. source: http://english.shafaaq.com/index.php/security/11146-iraqi-army-and-peshmerga-manage-to-liberate-sulaiman-bek . And as for the recapture of Amirli here is a completely independent source that verifies the role of kurdish fighters in the recapture of Amirli: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0IW0ZA20141112?irpc=932 All sources are non-kurdish and prove that both Peshmerga and Iraqi Army took part in the liberation of the mentioned towns. All relevant templates should be changed to joint controle, unless prove is provided that either force has since left.
- Well, I'm not entirely sure about this rule either but I can live with it because it also cuts the other way i.e. we don't take pro-ISIS or pro-IDF sources as valid sources for ISIS or IDF gains so it's only fair that we don't take pro-Kurdish sources to back up Kurdish gains. So far, it has worked ok I think, even if sometimes we're a bit behind timewise. Certainly this map seems to be more accurate than what the BBC is putting out there. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, the best source for our policy I can find is from the corresponding Syrian page, which said here
"1- If an event is covered by a neutral source, then we use this source and ignore all non-neutral sources. 2- If an event is not covered by a neutral source, then we can use a non-neutral source only in two cases: a) pro-gov source talking about rebel success b) pro-rebel source talking about gov success The reason we do not use non-neutral sources is because they tend to overstate their own successes & understate those of their enemy. However, in some cases, these non-neutral sources are forced to admit their enemy’s success because it might be too obvious, and therefore not admitting it would further diminish their already weak credibility. These cases will be rare, however, we should exploit them whenever possible." This appears to be the same policy we have in place here, though I couldn't find anything in the archieves here that's that general. [[Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map#Mosul_governate] shows a comment where an editor admits that you cannot use a Kurdish source to back up a kurdish success. Kurdish sources could be used to back up an ISIL victory and vice versa. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Akerbeltz About situation whith towns of Sa'adiya and Jawlala reliabe source Al Jazeera clear said that Iraqi troops and Shia militias retook the town of Sa'adiya and were moving towards nearby villages and Kurdish Peshmerga forces retook the town of Jawlala and were securing the area.Al Jazeera So that the reliable source clearly said that the town of Sa'adiya under control by Iraqi troops and the town of Jawlala under control Peshmerga. Also village of Amirli for now marked on the map under joint control of Iraqi army and Peshmerga. It's an unwritten rule about because government sources can distort information in favor of the government army and also the pro-Kurdish sources can distort the situation in favor of the Kurds and the same with pro-ISIS sources. Also your source dated 1 September reported that Sulaiman Bek was retaken by Iraqi troops and kurds.Shafaaq News but another a reliable source which dated 5 September reported that the less than 48 hours after siege of Amirli was lifted, no traces were left of peshmerga inside the town. The closest peshmerga post was a checkpoint on the road connecting Tuz Khormato to Sulaiman Bag, several miles away.Al Monitor And another source of 21 December also clear show that the town Sulaiman Bag under control by Iraqi army and Amirli under jointly control.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
---
I don't understand the above emphasis on the discussion about accepting kurdish sources or not. This discussion is completely irellevant in this case, as there are plenty of non-kurdish sources verifying the joint operations in those mentioned towns. All sources are non-kurdish and neutral (some would even say anti-kurdish because they are mostly arab). Unless someone can provide evidence that either force has left the area since recapture, all mentioned towns should have joint templates. It is not rocket science. Here are the sources again:
Non-kurdish source 1 for joint operation in Jalawla & Sadiya: http://www.rferl.org/content/irgc-isis-suleimani-kurdish-iraq-islamic-state-fighting/26709813.html
Non-kurdish source 2 for joint operation in Sulaiman Bek: http://english.shafaaq.com/index.php/security/11146-iraqi-army-and-peshmerga-manage-to-liberate-sulaiman-bek
Non-kurdish source 3 for joint operation in Amirli : http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0IW0ZA20141112?irpc=932
Hanibal911 - Your first source claims that only Peshmerga recaptured Jalawla. This contradicts almost all other neutral sources. Numerious neutral sources quote Peshmerga verifying that there are shia millitia forces inside Jalawla. Consequently the second claim from the same source, that there were only shiite millitia forces involved in the recapturing Saadiya, cannot be trusted either. Numerious neutral sources also contradict this claim. Your second source says that Peshmerga retreated from Amirli upon recapturing it, which contradicts your third and final source that clearly shows Amirli as a town under shared controle. You third source also contradicts my neutral source that claims Peshmerga also took part in the recapture of Sulaiman Bek. In the case of Sulaiman Bek we have to chose between two neutral sources, one claiming total controle of Iraqi Army and other claiming joint controle. Which sounds more neutral?
- Mozad655 You are wrong!
- Reliable sources clearly said that the town of Sa'adiya under control by Iraqi troops and the town of Jawlala under control Peshmerga. Al JazeeraYahoo NewsLocal News 7The Daily Peoples Time
- Also village of Amirli for now marked on the map under joint control of Iraqi army and Peshmerga.
- Also source Shafaaq News which reported that Sulaiman Bek was retaken by Iraqi troops and kurds of 1 September but another a reliable source which dated 5 September reported that the less than 48 hours after siege of Amirli was lifted, no traces were left of peshmerga inside the town. The closest peshmerga post was a checkpoint on the road connecting Tuz Khormato to Sulaiman Bag, several miles away.Al Monitor And another source which dated 21 December also clear show that the town Sulaiman Bag under control by Iraqi army and Amirli under jointly control.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Makhmour Area
There are significant advances by joint ISF/Sunni Tribes/Peshmerga units in Makhmour Area. 4 villages were liberated: Tal Al-Sha’eer, Jwayzat Tahtaani, Jwayzat Fuqaani, Sultan ‘Abdullah (I couldn't find where Jwayzat Tahtaani and Jwayzat Fuqaani are). This has been reported by TheArabSource and also ISW. The ISW report also said that Kannos and Shiekh Hammad were liberated by "Combined Forces" yet Kannos is only yellow, can we change that. Also can we find where Shiekh Hammad is? Malik Danno (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should revert Sultan Abdullah and Tall Ash to yellow for now. Most other sources (like [2]) very firmly put these into KRG control and I'm not sure how reliable almasdarnews is - or indeed why the Baghdad Govt should suddenly come up with these two 'islands' of control. It makes no sense, strategically or practically. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- All these villages are under Peshmerga control. There are no real Iraqi army presence there. There are only a few hundred soldiers who were previously part of Iraqi army but now are only nominally part of it (for political and propaganda reasons), as they are ethnic Kurds who are under direct and sole command of Peshmerga authorities. Also various and numerous reliable and verifiable sources point to Peshmerga as actual military power there on the ground: http://www.abna.ir/english/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/01/06/662967/story.html http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2015/01/kurdish-forces-retain-town-from-isil-20151521032261358.html http://www.caldiranajans.com/pesmerge-stratejik-sultan-abdullah-koyunu-isidden-geri-aldi.html http://www.haber7.com/guncel/haber/1264485-pesmerge-komutanindan-irak-askerleri-kacti-suclamasi http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/dunya/178337/Pesmerge_komutani__Irak_askerleri_kacti.html (and hundreds of more sources). All these justifies and explains why we should sadly revert you recent edits dear Malik Danno.
- Clarification: for Peshmerga, north of Mount Hamrin and eastern bank of Tigris mark natural borders of Kurdistan. Then, near Badush dam, even the western bank of Tigris is Kurdistan. Southeast of Mount Hamrin are the border towns of Jassan and Badra which mark the southernmost towns of Kurdistan. Roboskiye (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see those articles, but we cannot ignore ISW post. ISW has been probably the most reliable source in both the Syria and Iraq happenings. ThisISW. report states " On January 1, MoD stated that forces from the 91st Brigade of the 19th Division “supported by the Peshmerga” cleared the villages of Tal al-Sheir, Jwizat Tahtanai, Jwizat Fuqani, and Sultan Abdullah of Makhmour district, southeast of Mosul." In this report is says that Peshmerga 'supported' the 91st Brigade. I suggest we do the same thing as we did for Amerli. A joint yellow and red controlled towns. Malik Danno (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- You do not have read the sources. This is what has happened i simple words:
- 1- Peshmerga attacked eastern shore of Tigris and after pushing back ISIS, Peshmerga appointed its puppet (= a brigade of ethnic Kurdish Iraqi soldiers who virtually take orders from Peshmerga).
- 2- One day later ISIS carried a counterattack and drove out that puppet brigade who escaped the war scene immediately and without any resistance.
- 3- A few hours later Peshmerga attacked the shore and pushed back ISIS to western shore of Tigris.
- As you see and even read in numerous articles there is now need to put them as jointly controlled. Thanks. Roboskiye (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see those articles, but we cannot ignore ISW post. ISW has been probably the most reliable source in both the Syria and Iraq happenings. ThisISW. report states " On January 1, MoD stated that forces from the 91st Brigade of the 19th Division “supported by the Peshmerga” cleared the villages of Tal al-Sheir, Jwizat Tahtanai, Jwizat Fuqani, and Sultan Abdullah of Makhmour district, southeast of Mosul." In this report is says that Peshmerga 'supported' the 91st Brigade. I suggest we do the same thing as we did for Amerli. A joint yellow and red controlled towns. Malik Danno (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Sayed Gharib confirmed as Liberated?
The live map currently shows Sayed Gharib as contested when an operation to liberate it was launched by the Iraqi military in early December, and confirmation has been given that this has been achieved. Unless there is a good reason, Sayed Gharib should be showing as red (ISF controlled)
On the 3rd January 2015, Iraqi News reported, citing a security source in Salahuddin Province that Iraqi security forces liberated Sayed-Gharib, which is located in northwest of al-Dajil area.
The source advised IraqiNews, “The security forces have managed to liberate the whole area of Sayed-Gharib, located 120 km southern Tikrit in the district of al-Dajil,” adding that, “The clashes between the security forces and ISIS militants resulted in killing 7 ISIS snipers positioned inside some abandoned houses in the area.”
The source, who requested anonymity, added that, “The military operations are currently ongoing to free the rest of the areas towards al-Ishaqi, al-Jazeera, al-Naba’aii, al-Farhatiya, al-Rufaiyi’at and al-Rumaiylyiat regions.”
Al Ishaqi is already showing as red (ISF controlled)
Rerns10 (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Rerns10
Qayyarah
According to presstv.ir, Qayyarah should be a three way red-yellow-black? Not sure how to do that. There newsclip is here Akerbeltz (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the rules when it comes to war maps like these, we cannot use pro-gov sources for gov advances, since Press TV is very biased and a staunch gov supporter. We also cannot use pro-opp sources for opp advances. Need reliable source to confirm this. Sorry.
Oh, and the three way contested battle? We don't have that yet for this war map. Though it would kind for someone to make like the 3 way contested in the Syrian War map.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 03:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure how helpful it would be. In the Syrian case I took it to mean all vs all, but I doubt the Kurds are fighting the Iraqi government. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll scrap what I mentioned about the 3 way contested. Besides, Kurds are not even fighting against the Iraqi government. Not to mention that Iraqi and Kurdish forces are working together to fight ISIS. Thanks for the heads up.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 05:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure how helpful it would be. In the Syrian case I took it to mean all vs all, but I doubt the Kurds are fighting the Iraqi government. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I realised what you meant, I was saying using an animation like the previous one could be misunderstood because of it having that meaning on the Syrian map. Personally I'd prefer using a 2 by 2 square with 2 grey ones and 1 of each of yellow and red because it'd be clear when screenshotted. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would vote for an 2 by 2 orange and black square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:dd20:4e20:9c46:de64:7d25:5a56 (talk • contribs)
- It would be a good idea so we can really show what's going on in the battlefield. I'm in for the 2 by 2 square with 2 grey ones and 1 of each of yellow and red. But we need someone to make it.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 02:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would vote for an 2 by 2 orange and black square. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:dd20:4e20:9c46:de64:7d25:5a56 (talk • contribs)
Gwer Attack
On 03:00 10/1/2015 ISIS attacked gwer and controled it (including other small villages:Sultan Abdullah,Tal Shaiir, etc.....).
Plus if anyone can change gwer and the other villages to contested becuz I don't know how
- (SEE MY THIRD COMMENT) Source? Because if you don't provide a source, then it's POV vandalism. Use only reliable sources (CNN, Institute for the Study for War,etc.) Not to mention that we can't use pro-gov for gov advances and pro-ISIS for ISIS advances, only use pro-gov for ISIS advances if (or rarely, pro-ISIS, but usually maps, to explain gov advances) there's no neutral source to explain the situation. Again, neutral sources would be much better. No source and you change something, reverted.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- P.S.: Don't forget to add your signature when you finish your sentence!--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just found it right now. It's here:http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/xinhua-news-agency/150110/kills-28-iraqi-kurdish-security-forces-surprise-attack. Though Kurdish forces have already pushed ISIS back, so town remains in Kurdish hands. You just didn't put the source so that's why I said that I assume to be unsourced unless with proof.--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 21:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- P.S.: Don't forget to add your signature when you finish your sentence!--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't have a source because people from Gwer and the surrounding villages called a friend of mine at 03:00 10/1/2015 telling him it was attacked by ISIS and they confirmed it more than 6 hours later. P.S: The people who are being attacked aren't really working for the goverment. and I kinda do not know how to add my signature.
Shouldn't Al Khadir be showing as Islamic state (Black dot). It has been confirmed by Kurdish sources that Iraqi forces retreated from this area prior to and leading to the Gwer attacks. They appear to still be fighting in and around Gwer, and there is no mention of retaking these forward positions in Al Khadhir. [1]
~~Rerns10~~
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.244.235 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 January 2015
- This source herehttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/11/252677/in-heaviest-fighting-since-august.html, shows that Kurds repelled the attack. So this town will be Kurd held (at least what I assume). I apologize if I made a mistake on something in case..--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 02:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015
makhmour was never contested or even attacked. Gwer was assaulted for about 1 hour but then was retaken when backup came.( isis didn't attack the front in gwer but went around using boats over the zab river(tigris pretty much). Sultan abdullah etc were never lost at all. Ownyaah (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Al-Mada'in
Al-Mada'in, the town just southeast of Baghdad, has been shown to be under ISIS control since June 2014. It has not changed since. Can someone please get a reliable source on why this town was marked under ISIS control? I can't find any. If not, then I think it should be listed under Iraqi government control. Thoughts? 2601:0:B200:F7D9:F19A:3146:52EC:F471 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)mikethemoose
there is hardly any press releases coming from baghdad about any battles at all more or less. This isn't the only city that we have no actuall idea of who is in control or what not
(OP) I think that unless a source is found, it should be changed to government control. It's not like ISIS has been entrenched there for 7 months. Besides, I can't find any sources except this one, [1] which shows one suicide bombing on government troops that were already there. I think this indicates it is government controlled. Can it be changed? 2601:0:B200:F7D9:F19A:3146:52EC:F471 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)mikethemoose
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 0ali1 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 January 2015
Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015
sultan abdullah was retaken 2 days ago. There is even 20min video of the assault that kurdsat put up. Ownyaah (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Samarra
What is the source that Samarra is contested ? It is still under government control. If samarra is contested then you can also claim that Tikrit is contested too, because the governmemt is attacking ISIS in south-Tikrit. So do you have sources for Samarra ?
Rutbah under siege?
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iraq-situation-report-january-12-15-2015 indicates that there is fighting near the town of Rutbah in the Iraqi desert between ISIS and Iraqi 'coalition' and tribal forces. Should a red circle be put around it? Or perhaps a rural presence icon? Do we need more sources first? 2601:0:B200:F7D9:F19A:3146:52EC:F471 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)mikethemoose
shia millitants forming in kirkuk airbases.
Iraqi government forming Shia militias in kirkuk and in kirkuk army bases
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/08012015
Al-Mada'in never under control of ISIS
Al-Mad'in is south east of Baghdad was never control of ISIS. It is under the control of the Iraqi Security Force.
Haditha
Here new map which show situation in area of city of Haditha (which besieged ISIS) on 17 January 2015. How do you think if we can use this map. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hanibal911 I agree.Lindi29 (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015
{ lat = "33.15", long = "44.616", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "Al-Mada'in", link = "Al-Mada'in", label_size = "0" },
Please change Mada'in from black to red because ISIS have never controlled the area. 0ali1 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, nor have you shown that the edit that turned it black had no reliable source. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Muqdadiya, Diyala Province
On map this city is marked red, but according to this tweet of reliable source Elijah J Magnier https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/557096636732964865 , I think its status should be changed to contested( if not IS-held with a red circle around) Fab8405 (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree.Hanibal911 what do you think ? Lindi29 (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Lindi29 I also totally agree that this city need marked as contested! Hanibal911 (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Road between Haditha and al-Baghdadi
This editor 8fra0 is making edits only by himself wihout any disscusion on the talk page and relies on 1 source, aslo he rv my edits without explanion and source.here,here.Lindi29 (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I fully support Lindi29. Because editor 8fra0 violates the rules for editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Lindi29 as you know you have to edit this page only using reliable sources. A Justpaste link managed by pro ISIS propaganda is NOT a reliable source. On the other hand, ISW is widely known for being one of the most reliable sources available for Iraqi war, so don't complain if me or other authors keep editing this map using ISW as a reliable source.8fra0 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- 8fra0 I provided reliable sources and provided pictures from justpaste together but you keep rv my edits without explanation and see for yourself you keep making mistakes and edit big cities like Haditha without disscusion with others on the talk page but you edit them without reaching consenus beacause you cant rely only on 1 source like the blogspot. Lindi29 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- First of all i provided reliable source but you keep editing without any disscusion on the talk page.here,Second here your mistakehere,Third you cant just rely only on 1 source and then edit by yourself without reaching consensus.Lindi29 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I also fully support Lindi29 : all major changes should first be first discussed on the talk page.
- I would go further to suggest that all changes be first presented on the talk page, particularly for any reverts. WP a a collaborative work, and in a fast-changing situation with often uncertain sources of info, like the war in Iraq, collaboration is even more important.
- That said, I agree with 8fra0 that ISW is a reliable source. (I also follow ISW, via their mailing list.)
- Personally I would agree that opening and securing the road between Haditha and al-Baghdadi means that they (and towns between) are no longer besieged. (But would mark al-Baghdadi with the semi-circle to the SE for besieged-one-side, if that is to be used.)
- However I would have posted here first for feedback before making any changes. André437 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not an active member on the Iraqi front. But changes should be made after consensus and proper presentation of reliable convincing evidence. You find, share, agree then change. Cheers! ChrissCh94 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015
{ lat = "33.15", long = "44.616", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "Al-Mada'in", link = "Al-Mada'in", label_size = "0" }, http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2014/12/25/turkey-condemns-terrorist-attack-in-baghdad indicates that al-Mada'in is still in government control, as we probably would've heard if ISIS took control of it. The suicide bomb was directed at a pro-government militia, which means ISIS doesn't control it. Source provided, change to red, please. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:F19A:3146:52EC:F471 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)mikethemoose
Suggestion: date marks on map
I don't know how much use, or how practical this would be, but I think it might be a good idea to put a date on marks on the map, particularly besieged and fighting symbols, to show when we last had information on them. I believe this would help us identify areas that may have had a change in situation since we last got information on them here. Thoughts? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting idea. They would have to not interfere with viewing of the map, though. It's already pretty crowded as it is, so if this is done, the date marks need to look inconspicuous. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:F19A:3146:52EC:F471 (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)mikethemoose