Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jalawla

There is clear evidence that Jalawla is in the hands of both Peshmerga and Iraqi Army affiliated forces. One of the newest most clear sources is this (kurdish) video that physically shows the presence of shia forces inside Jalawla. Is there a "joint controle" label? There should be. The label will not need to specify how much of the town each force controles, just that they are both there (in most cases it is 50/50 or the superior force would have pushed the other out). Here is the video that I was talking about.

http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/videos/islamic-state-war-the-sectarian-aftermath-in-iraqs-jalawla-minidocumentary_29054

Mozad655 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a small number of Shia militia in Jalawla. They are there temporarily. Their object is said to be destroying Sunni houses in two suburbs of the city. On the other hand, there are thousands of Peshmerga soldiers in Baghdad since many years ago. Should Baghdad be labelled joint too? Roboskiye (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather it was on who is actually in control. In my opinion, Baghdad is still under Iraqi gov control regardless of how many Peshmerge soldiers you have. If we label everybody who has a significant force but is fighting for another group, and did the same on the Syrian map, we'd have to have a new colour around Kobane for the Iraqi Kurds who are helping the Syrians Kurds. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Same should be applied to Jalawla. In contrary, in Kobanê on Syrian map, we see an unnecessary green dot. So many Anti-Kurdish double standards on these two maps. Roboskiye (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I just believe that the map is very deceiving when it shows Jalawla as yellow, when in reality the situation is extremely tense as there are just as many shia millitia who unlike kurdish peshmerga in Kobane or Baghdad, DO claim controle. Also, what makes you think that there is only a "small number" of Shia millitia in Jalawla and that they are there "temporarily"? Mozad655 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the rebels in Kobane, I know, Roboskiye, believe me I know. I'm going to ignore any green in that area (unless the rebels actually control the village/city by themselves) when shading because otherwise it's going to give a very misleading impression. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

One solid colour does not mean who controls the 'city' or 'village' that wouldn't make geo-political sense. The point of 2 colours is to show that there are 2 groups operating in this city/village. that might mean that the Iraqi forces control 2 or 3 neighbourhoods in this village and the Peshmerga controls 5 or 6 neighbourhoods. In split ethno-religious communities you will not see one dominant group control the ENTIRE city/village. So the dominant group does not really matter in the 2 or 3 neghbourhoods that another group controls. Look at Qamishli and Hasaka in the Syrian map, YPG controls 'x' amount of neighbourhoods and Assad control 'y' amount of neighbourhoods ... it would be improper to label the two cities entirely red or entirely yellow. Malik Danno (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, Malik Danno, you are also FOR a mixed label where nessescary? I think Qamishli is a great example from the Syria template map. Because there are both Syrian Army forces and YPG forces in Qamishli, and both claim controle, Qamishli has been marked with a mixed label. I see no reason why the same mixed label should not be applied to Jalawla. The current label for Jalawla is very deceiving.

Yes I am for a mixed label in cities/towns that have some neighbourhoods controls by one faction and other neighbourhoods controlled by another. I think it is geo-politically incorrect to assume that all cities/towns are one homogenous units. I am not sure about Jalawla, but if you have proof that some within the Baghdad Government/allies are inside some neighbourhoods of Jawala, then by all means change it. Malik Danno (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let us point out then that only towns with two factions who BOTH claim controle, can be changed to mixed label. Towns such as Kobane where there are other factions like the FSA and peshmerga and who operate under the authority of the YPG and do NOT claim controle, should NOT be changed to mixed label. The whole point of the mixed label is to show who is in controle, not who is there and the two are not always the same. Does this make sence to everybody? Mozad655 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who claims control of the city/town. My point is that we should not assume a city is a homogenous unit but a unit made up of many neighbourhoods. Now if Peshmerga control the city centre and 60% of the rest of the city and the Shi'a militia does not control the city centre but still controls 40% of the city centre (through control of different neighbourhoods) then we should label it as such (mixed colours). This is the most correct way to go about things. The reason is simple ... when down the line there is a battle in Jawala between Shi'a and Peshmerga and the colour was mixed on this map then it would make sense why there are clashes in the city, however if we make the colour solid now and then 2 weeks from now we see clashes between Shi'a and Peshmerga it wouldn't make any sense because there would be questions of how Shi'a went in? How they entered the city? and how did they get through the peshmerga chekpoints? ,,, all those questions will be irrelevant because the Shi'a militia were always there ... hence why it should be mixed. Mozad665, discussing what is wrong with Kobane here won't do anything for you, you should go to the talk page in the Syrian map. But my assumption is that they did that because the FSA does patrol and function inside the city and they still maintain a presence inside the city and provide security. Malik Danno (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well fighting can break out in any way. I don't think people will ask those questions if shia millitia fight peshmerga at some point. Shia could get in through fighting. They enter through fighting and got through the checkpoints through fighting. So altthogh I agree with you on the need for mixed labels, my reasons are mostly to show the situation as it is and not so much about what potential it has in terms of starting conflicts in the future. Regarding Kobane, I know this isn't the place to complain about the Kobane, but my point was that we should not make the same mistake on this map. Regarding the criteria for mixed label, I still believe that only towns where different factions BOTH claim controle, should be changed. If one faction does NOT claim controle, then why should we label it as such? Mixed labels only make sence if there is a dispute over controle. This comes back to the fact that my reasoning for mixed labels is all about showing the current situation, and not "explaining" conflicts that may or may not happen in the future. Mozad655 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Its the "claiming" control that is confusing me. So a question for you, what if one faction claims control of the city and another does not claim control of the entire city centre but claims control of 'x' & 'y' neighbourhoods in the city ... what do you suggest in that case? Malik Danno (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they claim only certain neighbourhoods or the entire town. If two sides are in dispute, regardless of whether it is over the entire town or only parts of it, then there is a dispute and disputes should be marked with mixed label. I see your point though and it would be nice to have a more detailed map of the town in those cases showing that its not all of the town that is disputed. But there is no need for this yet as I don't think we have this problem anywhere. Usually they claim all or nothing. The disputed towns are not that big. Mozad655 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the 4 new villages added in Kirkuk Region

Villages were added to outline the border after request from other users for more dots in Kirkuk Region. Very few if any sources indicate who is in controle of each village (and many others in that area). The only indication is the 2011 Iraqi Insurgency map. In lack of sources we have to follow the consensus that is already accepted on that map. Do not just change the color of the dots for the sake of changing them. Mozad655 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Which consensus are you talking about? The 2011 Iraqi insurgency map derives from this map, you cant' use it as a source in a recursive way! The areas where there are no points have been marked averaging the distances between the places in which we have sources about their control, this doesn't mean that that map is accurate. The places you added near Hawija for istance are almost 100% in IS control, imho we can either edit them to black or remove them as long as we haven't direct sources --8fra0 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that map derives from this map. When we have no sources the marked averaging is all we have. How do you know that the places near Hawija are "almost 100% in IS control"? You say this like its undisputeable fact, but without providing any source. Your proposal to either edit the villages to black or remove them all together is extremely biased. The only neutral options are, 1) Follow the average line as shown on the 2011 Iraqi Insurgency map, 2) Assume that the villages are shared equally, or 3) remove them all together. Feel free to remove them all together, but making them all black or yellow without reason or souce is out of question. Mozad655 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that the places near Hawija are almost 100% in IS control (at least until some days ago) because, if you check all the available sources and visual evidences, you can easily see that the frontlines in West Kirkuk are placed something like that because the Hawija plain is quite isolated from the rest of Kirkuk (there is a river in the north and a mountain in the east): http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.382612&lon=43.799057&z=11&m=b&gz=0;436043930;353659557;5568695;72788;4892349;814301;3004074;1909928;0;0&search=kirkuk There are no reports of Peshmerga having crossed Batiwa mount, most likely the actual frontline is placed a little east of that mount, where there is a channel/river. Near that place, until some weeks ago, there was the only open "border crossing" between IS and Peshmerga controlled Kurdistan, placed about here: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.389190&lon=44.178643&z=15&m=bs&search=kirkuk --8fra0 (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are your own specualtions and estimates based on your own interpretation of the geopgrahy. Good thing is that I have found a source that verifies your speculations This map. Feel free to change the color of the villages according to that map. I'm not sure about Kharap Rut and Mansoriyeh Kasabasi. I can't find Karap Rut on the geopgrahic map but it is most likely kurdish. This kurdish news report claim that the prisoners were captured near Kharap Rut. But feel free to change the color of the 3 main villages on the Hawija plan. Mozad655 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

remove

{ lat = "33.912", long = "44.441", mark = "map-arcEE-black.svg", marksize = "8", },

This was originally intended to show ISIS presence east of the town. But now ISIS is mostly gone from the Muqdadiyah region, so we can remove this now. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:79D3:86C:2E47:32F7 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC) 2601:0:B200:F7D9:79D3:86C:2E47:32F7 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the original edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=next&oldid=639955899

This tweet from December 28, from a trusted source, shows ISF are clearing towns near this one: https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/549199271271346176

This article details a suicide bombing in the town: http://www.salon.com/2014/12/30/is_group_claims_suicide_attack_in_iraq/

This tweet, from December 30, says ISF recaptured the town: https://twitter.com/thandojo/status/550348277799866369/photo/1

This tweet, from January 2, shows a photo of the Iraqi PM raising the flag in the town: https://twitter.com/brett_mcgurk/status/551038525051654144/photo/1

There is no reason for a siege icon to exist here. ISIS no longer controls towns in Muqdadiyah, so logically, it wouldn't be besieging the town anymore. I couldn't find any sources claiming it was besieged. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:ED96:280A:4E54:5A9F (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

4 villages near Hawija

This 4 villages are near Hawija which is in Isis controll but this 4 villages are shown Kurd controll,not olny that but there are mistakes for Aqulah(Alushah) place it is not near Islamiyah(Salamiyah) but near Al-Khan,And all are under Isis controll all southwestern places are in Isis controll.here,here,here.Lindi29 (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In this situation I totally agree with Lindi29 Hanibal911 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A section has alreayd been made and we have agreed to change the color of those villages to black based on this this map. As for a mistake in location I don't see why. Both google map and wikimapia clearly show a small village called "al-Islamiyah" directly to the right of Aqulah. Al-Khan is further south west and its location is also correct. But I will remove al-Islamiyah. Its too small and there are other larger villages that are more noteworthy that show on the wikimapia map but not on google map. Mozad655 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish sources like this http://awene.com/article/2015/02/01/38681 report Peshmerga has advanced and taken over 16 new villages south of Kirkik. Roboskiye (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably not the most reliable source though. I'm sure all kurdish media would be all over the place with such news if true. Mozad655 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and a suggestion

This is a great project (and likewise the one for Syria). Would it be possible to add an option to view changes in territory over a specific period of time, to show which side is gaining territory? I think that would be very helpful for many people, otherwise you have to follow the situation manually and try to spot the change in dominance for each little point on the map. Ryn78 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is something I've looked into a bit, for the purpose of updating File:Iraq_war_map.png and similar maps. I came up with a couple of not great solutions. One of them is to save screenshots of the map and use picture difference with photo editing software. Another is to compare versions of the source code (Though note that maps of towns that have their own maps on the syrian modules will not work for this). One thing you can do is then create a map showing only the marks that have changed.

As far as I know, there is no way to load past versions of a module, other than manually recreating them (e.g. in your sandbox). I'd also be interested if there is a way to load modules and files with 50% transparency. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely a feature that would make this map go a lot further in efficiently displaying the information it's trying to portray. If there is any way to do this, even if it's a sloppy one, I would totally be in favor of it. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Baiji

There are new clashes in Baiji city between IS and ISF: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/06/396416/Iraqi-army-kills-70-militants-in-Baiji - http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/security-forces-begin-operation-biji-70-isis-militants-killed/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter --8fra0 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Beshir

I suggest we remove the village of Beshir all together for now. There is no fighting in Beshir and there are also no reports of any recent fighting. The current fighting label is especially wrong now that the labels everywhere else in Kirkuk have been changed back to yellow. For these reasons. I believe it is very clear that the current fighting label in Beshir is wrong and should not be there. Now we can either change the label to yellow or black. In lack of recent source for either force being in controle, the village should be completely removed until it is mentioned again in the media. There is no point having a village on the map when we don't know who is in controle, and where there are no reports of any ongoing or recent fighting. Mozad655 (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Guideline to adding villages

I notice that there are are some places on the map where villages have been added so close to eachother that they almost form a straight line. Can we avoid these? They make it very hard to differentiate between the different areas and add a whole lot of mess to the map. There is no need to add villages that are right next to each other unless specific events have taken place in each one.

Smaller insignificant villages should also be replaced with larger villages. For example the villages in the Hawija area, where the villages added are very very small while there are other larger ones that are not on the map. Mozad655 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)