Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Status of Iraqi border crossings

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Control%20Zone%20Map_5_1_15.pdf

This article, from a reliable source, states that Walid border crossing may be under ISIS control, and that control of the Trebil border crossing is unclear. Now, we have both Walid and Trebil listed as under government control. Should they be changed to contested, or perhaps only Walid? I can't seem to find any other sourced indicating control of these crossings. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:9D20:3A1A:2CA1:AE09 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If ISW has no data on it why should we change the status of the border crossings? https://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/2000px-iraq10.png here a map from anti gov.Spenk01 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Area where located the Al Wallid border crossing under control by Iraqi troops. This confirmed (pro Syrian opposition) sources.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for helping determine the status of the control of these border crossings.2601:0:B200:F7D9:4839:1AB:A62B:CDB5 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Baiji Refinery

https://twitter.com/SeniorB/status/592224791832166400 Pro-Kurdish Rudaw Reporter and if true, IS forces are deep in Baiji Refinery and it needs to turn to contested. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDiZvAqWMAICDOa.png Pro-ISIS source It looks like a third of the refinery captured and the place cut off which aligns with other IS sources saying they cut it off and are clearing the barracks. Leave to our Arab speakers to check other sources for corroboration. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/shlonesh/status/592672236353499137

https://dump.to/bn1

If these are true, Baiji Refinery has been overrun, leave it here to corroborate with other sources Tgoll774 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

https: // justpaste. it/ kt8t If true, then again Baiji is overrun Tgoll774 (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOh6N-g0B4Q&feature=youtu.be Baiji must go to contested. IS fighters are clearly in the Czech Barracks and the Distillery towers. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUeTsMGvcRY This clinches it, Baiji is clearly being contested, if not taken by IS. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpo4QjsOPIQ Al-Jazeera Tgoll774 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

80 percent of the refinery was held by the IS group. A second senior Energy Police official said recently but still the refinery isnt shows contested why?

source http://www.iraqoilreport.com/news/iraqi-forces-overpowered-at-baiji-refinery-14460/ http://english.shafaaq.com/security/14184-isis-controls-half-of-baiji-refinery-sites-in-its-20th-attack.html

(Jack6780 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHwXyLq4Qlw&feature=youtu.be The evidence is overwhelming that IS controls the vast majority of Baiji Refinery and it needs to switch to IS Control Tgoll774 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/04/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-refinery-idUSKBN0NP1L320150504?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Confirms Baiji City under IS control. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Kirkuk Province

https://twitter.com/shlonesh/status/596309461582651392/photo/1 claim by IS to have taken some fields. As is typical it might be so, but ISF won't admit for a few days as they are attempting to get it back Tgoll774 (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Alas & Ajeel oilfields

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnonPrykrLY Purportedly taken in these fields. IS claims control. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to switch all Iraq and Syria Updates to Syria/Iraq Combined Module

Since since this is increasingly expanding, for ease of updating, I propose both Syria and Iraq updates be discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map/doc&action=edit and that joint map be the sole map with this and the Syrian one dropped for ease of editing, discussion, and debate. Its easier for all involved without having to switch in between modules. Tgoll774 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No personal preference, though because you added this to the top of the talk page, people may miss it entirely as they scroll to the bottom to read new things. Banak (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll add it to the bottom as well then. Tgoll774 (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to switch all Iraq and Syria Updates to Syria/Iraq Combined Module

Since since this is increasingly expanding, for ease of updating, I propose both Syria and Iraq updates be discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_and_Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map/doc&action=edit and that joint map be the sole map with this and the Syrian one dropped for ease of editing, discussion, and debate. Its easier for all involved without having to switch in between modules.Tgoll774 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I think this will make it far easier for people to see edits in both maps, and will streamline the process of editing both. 2601:C7:8380:3B01:58E0:9F82:69B5:5ADD (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Both maps are already huge, and a lot of people's computers can barely handle one of them at a time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

change

{ lat = "34.889", long = "43.860", mark = "Icon NuclearPowerPlant-black.svg", marksize = "7", label = "Ajil oil field", link = "Ajil oil field", label_size = "0" },

to

{ lat = "34.889", long = "43.860", mark = "Icon NuclearPowerPlant-red.svg", marksize = "7", label = "Ajil oil field", link = "Ajil oil field", label_size = "0" },

source: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g2W85i-JG08/VVE0MacoCYI/AAAAAAAADKo/p8kN-OVYcMM/s1600/Iraq%2BSITREP%2B2015-5-11%2B-%2Bprint.png%2Bhigh.png

Change Ajil Oil Field to Iraqi control. 2601:C7:8380:3B01:C147:1686:F337:CAAD (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ISW just regurgitates what ISF and Kurds tell them which is always unverifiable. They have no one on the ground. IS however has posted video and photos showing them controlling the fields. Whoever made the change must have found enough corroborating evidence for it. Tgoll774 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

When did ISF launch an Anbar Offensive?

I see a whole bunch of cities from Abu Ghraib to Fallujah in East Anbar that went from Black or Contested to red without any source for it. That is a big chang and I see no corroborating evidence for it or news mentioning it.Tgoll774 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal already provided those two sources for those edits on the 10th of May. Check edit history for the said date. Regards.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 04:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't find them can you link me up? 109.110.113.134 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's one and here. --Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 20:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

H1, H2, H3

These Airbases were destroyed in 2003 and no longer used with the runways rotting away. They should be removed from the map.Tgoll774 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But these Air Bases (H2,H3) not be totally destroyed in 2003! Also in Anbar province later was built new the Air Base(H1)here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay then the Wikipedia Article needs to be updated to indicate they were rebuilt after US pullout. Tgoll774 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We must find out if the Iraq government has a supply line to Walid and Trebil. This Lebanese news agency says Trebil is 'surrounded by ISIS positions'.

Not sure about Trebil but the Al-tanf side of the Al-walid crossing is now marked as ISIS controlled.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Article.aspx?id=296448&link=Business/Regional/2015/May-01/296448-jordans-overland-trade-hit-by-iraq-syria-border-woes.ashx 2601:C7:8380:3B01:388A:8E8C:FECF:E294 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2015

change

{ lat = "33.221", long = "43.421", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qaryat al-Ankur", link = "Qaryat al-Ankur", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

to

{ lat = "33.221", long = "43.421", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Qaryat al-Ankur", link = "Qaryat al-Ankur", label_size = "0", position = "top" },

and

{ lat = "33.477", long = "43.660", mark = "Abm-red-icon.png", marksize = "7", label = "Saqlawiya Camp", link = "Saqlawiya Camp", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

to

{ lat = "33.477", long = "43.660", mark = "Abm-black-icon.png", marksize = "7", label = "Saqlawiya Camp", link = "Saqlawiya Camp", label_size = "0", position = "top", },

source: http://s6.uplod.ir/i/00601/qkz7ldfbk7b5.jpg

2601:C7:8380:3B01:DDF6:793A:54B8:669F (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Baiji Area

IS claims control of Al Fathah http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.061969&lon=43.550234&z=14&m=b and https://twitter.com/mediaactivsy228/status/598348359938797568

If true, it shows IS is starting its Summer offensive. However, I don't think we'll see the dramatic advance like last summer. ISF's morale despite causalities isn't breaking. Probably be like Syria with stalemates and minor advances for both sides. IS is launching major attacks in Syria as well to take advantage of SyAA's morale crash. Well I'll leave it to the usual editors to corroborate. But I think all the real action this summer will be in Syria. IS has to clear the Euphrates of SyAA if it wants to secure Anbar.Tgoll774 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0NY0TS20150513?irpc=932 Confirms Baiji City is under IS control. Tgoll774 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/05/strategy-to-defeat-islamic-state-is-working-us-department-of-defense-claims.php Further proof IS controls Baiji and the surroundings. LWJ has accurate info. Baiji should turn black. Tgoll774 (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ramadi

http://s6.uplod.ir/i/00599/nqz8wdbo7ywv.jpg Pro-Shia source. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Isil 'seizes Iraqi city of Ramadi'

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/world/middleeast/isis-fighters-seize-government-headquarters-in-ramadi-iraq.html?smid=tw-share

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11608236/Isil-seizes-Iraqi-city-of-Ramadi-as-black-flag-appears-on-government-buildings.html

https://twitter.com/RudawEnglish/status/599198650531647488

now waiting for hanibal to say telegraph and rudaw isnt reliable {Jack6780 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)}

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/15/266798/islamic-state-takes-ramadi-government.html More confirmation. ISF has collapsed Tgoll774 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/05/islamic-state-seizes-government-center-in-ramadi.php#comment-72976 Evidence is overwhelming now. Tgoll774 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And more confirmation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/isis-gains-control-of-major-iraqi-city/2015/05/15/68a8036c-fb0c-11e4-a47c-e56f4db884ed_story.html?tid=sm_tw

{Jack6780 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)}

http://i.imgur.com/g8Nqgyd.jpg This makes only 3% of the city contested. Its a mop up operation now. Change it black. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC) http://s6.uplod.ir/i/00599/kwr1cjxjlk2i.jpg Pro Shia, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFEd1Y2WYAAvvI8.png Pro IS. Both pretty much agree. I say make Ramadi Black but put a partial red circle west on it because of Eighth Brigade and the small number of holdouts in the western side. Tgoll774 (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Tgoll774 Pro ISIS source here showed that the some parts a city of Ramadi still not taken ISIS. Al Mala´abAnbar Operations CommandJustice Palace and base of 8th Brigade These objects are also a part of the city and they still not taken. But we can mark Ramadi in black color and put some red dots inside that would display areas which still control Iraqi troops. So what you think about my offer? Hanibal911 (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Eighth Brigade is already part of the map and so is Anbar Operations Command, keep those red. But the small holdouts as like Tikrit are not good basis for keeping city contested since over 90% of the city is now securely in IS hands Tgoll774 (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Fuel depot in the south west to the city Ramadi should also be black according to all the above maps {Jack6780 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)}

http://i.imgur.com/g8Nqgyd.jpg Less than 5% of main city under ISF control. Should go black. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Tgoll774 This pro ISIS sourcehere but relaible source reported that the Iraqi troops counterattacked and regained control of Al-Mukhabarat neighbourhood inside the city of Ramadi.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Elijah Magnier isnt a reliable source He is anti ISIS and there are so many instances he was proven wrong Yes he can use for ISIS advances but not for ISF advances {Jack6780 (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)}

The 8th Army base west of Ramadi is in ISF hands, it's one of the most important bases in the province. Showing it in black is a big mistake in the map.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/05/islamic-state-overruns-anbar-operations-command-takes-full-control-of-ramadi.php Tgoll774 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Rudaw is claiming the "entire city" is now in IS hands. According to the province spokesman, "The city was completely taken."'[1] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

ISF Defenses Collapse in Habbaniyah

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/05/islamic-state-breaks-iraqi-defensive-line-outside-of-habbaniyah.php LWJ. Tgoll774 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/22/middleeast/isis-syria/ Its getting desperate. Tgoll774 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Baiji under IS Control

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/iran-sends-troops-retake-iraqi-oil-refinery-isis For weeks I have posted substantial evidence this city was under IS control and has been for months. ISF got ran out of town an the fighting is concentrated at the refinery. Tgoll774 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think so too. The Islamic State is wholly controlling Baiji city while there are still battles ongoing in the oil refinery near Baiji. --햄방이 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Siniya is under the Islamic State controll too. # "We have to retake Siniya and Baiji towns to cut all supply routes coming from Anbar province and used by Daesh to send reinforcements whenever they need,” said a source in the Salahuddin Operations Command. Daesh is another name for Islamic State. --햄방이 (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Any reason why Baiji is marked as contested again? Especially after the article talking about the 16 traders killed earlier.

Fight has been started near Haditha

Yesterday, the Islamic State attacked al-Khasfa near Haditha and they took control of Haditha asphalt factory. The Islamic State and Republic of Iraq is still fighting in there. #--햄방이 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Since they are still fighting there shouldn't it be marked as in contention rather than as ISIS....

Yes, it should. Thanks --햄방이 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Al Khasfa was not under the Islamic State controll, but

Al Khasfa was not under the Islamic State controll, but it is now contested between Republic of Iraq and the Islamic State.

And I have a more news; Tharthar dam is under the Islamic State controll--햄방이 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thar Thar Dam

https://twitter.com/shnoya3nii/status/591652918044073985/photo/1 Can someone check this out on the Arabic Channels. IS claims control of this. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2437722&Language=en Confirmed by this source. IS can't open those gates unless they control them. Tgoll774 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Who switched Tharthar Dam back to ISF without citing a source for it? Its under IS control as confirmed above and IS video feed. Tgoll774 (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/04/islamic-state-captures-dam-overruns-base-in-western-iraq.php Tgoll774 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What source says Tharthar Dam was retaken, I don't see a supporting cite saying it was reclaimed by ISF. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Tharthar Dam is still held by IS. ISF has not taken it back. Tgoll774 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Still no evidence provided that Tharthar Dam was retaken by ISF, it should revert back to IS control based on LWJ Tgoll774 (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Tharthar Dam is currently under the Islamic State control. --햄방이 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

햄방이 Pro ISIS source confirmed that this area still under control ISF.hereherehere and this data confirmed another source(not pro ISIS) here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Kabisa is not surrounded

Are there any proofs that Kabisa is surrounded? --햄방이 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thar Thar base is under the Islamic State control

#

Are there any sources claiming it is recaptured by Republic of Iraq's military? If there aren't, I will change its colour to black. --햄방이 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The dam and the base were recaptured by Security forces 2 days later. https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/592647860790894592 --8fra0 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh very thank you. But I think base is under their control because there are no mentions in that twitter. They only mentioned "Tharthar" and "Nazim ath tharthar dam". Nothing about a base. Your help is very useful. THanks--햄방이 (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Baiji Oil Refinery

Islamic State have taken control of 90 percent of Baiji oil refinery after clashes with Iraqi security forces around the refinery continue and nearly 150 Iraqi soldiers and soldiers were surrounded by the militants inside.WAR Media Hanibal911 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The war media source is from May 4th

Who switched Baiji to Red? The Refinery is still heavily contested and largely destroyed. Also Baiji City is under IS control fully as confirmed multiple times by Long War Journal Tgoll774 (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Source (link, not just a news name) please? Rules are rules, Tgoll774.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 00:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/06/iraqi-security-forces-shiite-militias-make-gains-in-baiji.php Refinery is still contested Tgoll774 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Argh, edited the wrong icon. Baiji Refinery was the edit for contested, not the Thermal Plant, as LWJ has sufficient evidence to show it as contested and IS is about to release a new video on it. IS still holds between 50 and 80% of the refinery. Though at this point its scrap metal for all the good it will do anyone. Tgoll774 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Map

Is the following map by https://twitter.com/nrg8000 reliable?

http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e5c9/cmbpg9l4uxyv8b0zg.jpg

I need to know if this map can be used to edit in favor of ISF. It shows certain areas near Ramadi as under control of ISF that are not shown as such on our map. I know LightandDark2000 has used it already to edit one town to ISF control, but I need to know if the map is reliable. Is there a way to determine this? Does this user have a bias to any one side? I would think he is pro-ISIS since the areas near Samarra and Muqdadiyah are shown as ISIS-controlled. However, I think the source may have a pro-kurdish bias per this tweet: https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/609738929034493952 Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Jalawla

According to this source http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/05/the-kurd-shia-war-behind-the-war-on-isis.html?via=desktop&source=twitter Jalawla is under full control of the Peshmerga. Saeed alaee (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

According to this source and several others, there had been deadly clashes between Kurdish & Shiite militias in Jalawla on 12-13 June 2015. Other sources (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/once-an-islamic-state-stronghold-jalawla-is-now-a-ghost-town-b6c861229014) confirm the presence of Shiite militias in Jalawla.--HCPUNXKID 16:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Republic of 3iraaq fully controlling its Diyala Governorate?

I know that the republic claimed that its forces elinimated the Islamic State's Province of Diyala in February 2015, but according to some neutral and pro-Islamic State maps, they show there are some pockets of rural control in Diyala by the Islamic State? What's happening in there? In addition, what's happening in Shamaal Baghdaad province(Southern part of Samaara Governorate)? Did Republic of Iraq kicked IS out of Southern part of Samaara province such as Nebai or Dujail?--햄방이 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State has no real 'control' over either of these regions. Its supporters simply like to say that it does to make ISIS territory seem bigger. Some sleeper cells still remain, but they are not anywhere near powerful enough to be shown on a map. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Color of Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon

Syrian Civil War and regional spillover map

A related discussion is currently ongoing concerning the color of Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon. It is argued whether the Lebanese government should be blue and Hezbollah red (like Syrian Ba'athist regime and its allies), or alternatively that Hezbollah should be blue but Lebanese Government as red (arguing that in each country the legitimate government is colored as red on the map). The problem of course arises at the combined regional map in case Lebanese government is colored red - making the Lebanese government and Syrian government forces the same color, while making Hezbollah - a staunch ally of Baathist Syria, into blue; also Hezbollah-controlled areas in Syria and Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon show in different colors (Syria in red together with the Assad forces, but in Lebanon blue). Obviously it creates a complete incoherence with the combined regional war interactive map Template:Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanon Conflicts detailed map, and the regional spillover map which is based on it (right). Please discuss it at Lebanese Insurgency detailed map page.GreyShark (dibra) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish - ISIS Confrontations

Please update the map. There are a lot of clashes between ISIS and the Kurdish forces.

See here:

• http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/150620152 (In Kazhir)
• http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/140620155 (In Bashik near Mosul)
• http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/140620153 (In Kifri)
• http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/130620151 (Makhmour)
• http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/11062015 (South of Kirkuk)
• http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/170620153 (Kurdish minister talking about fights around Kirkuk)

I changed the Makhmour to clashes; the source you gave for kifri does not say there are clashes and the other towns kazhir and bashik are not on the map (atleast not with this name) also i'm not sure what to do with the clashes in kirkuk, can't simply put kirkuk on contested. Could you also end your posts with 4 times ~ this way we can see who made the post and when it was made so it's easier to manage. Cheers. Spenk01 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll do that next time. Just forgot it. :) Bashik is Bashiqa on the map. It's about north-east of Mosul. Makhmour is again just yellow. But just this morning the allied airforce attacked ISIS there. Peshmerga and ISIS are fighting around the city. Thanks! :)--Asenger (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like because the article was talking about 'the bases around makhmour' (the syrian civil war and iraqi civil war maps are being taken over by heavily biased kurds who will bite you if you make a mistake),i took a better look at the sources and the source with Bashik is talking about artillery which are not clashes.And According to the kazhir source it was a convoy of vehicles which was destroyed which also does not say clashes. Rudaw also isn't clear about where these clashes are they are rather talking about 'bases' around these fronts. I'm sorry that's all i could do for you Spenk01 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No need for being sorry. Thank you for your help! It's fine how it is.--Asenger (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources needed

Hey 햄방이, could you elaborate/provide sources on your 4 recent edits - the source you provided does not support, or even mention, any of the edits you made.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed Habbaniya, Khalidiya, Shihabi into dots showing contested situation and I added Ṣafrah because those are mentioned in here.link --햄방이 (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I used an incorrect link. Sorry to bother you, and thank you. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015

Please remove black semicircle al-Muthanna Chemical Weapons Facility. The facility was besieged by IS, but the siege was broken by government forces. This source confirms:

https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/604623857731936256 Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Already done Stickee (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

change Fatha (near Baiji) to government control.

source:

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iraq-situation-report-may-28-29-2015 Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: Now shows mixed control. Stickee (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro ISF bias

Editors are changing the map without any proper sources there is lot of pro ISF bias going on in this thread , Like south Ramadi no one has ever provided a proper source for making those dots red ?

When isis takes over a city we wait for entire world media to report it before changing the map but it comes to ISF we take anyones world like Elijah magnier who is pro ISf and shia militia which you could clearly see in this latest Beiji Edit which has been only reported by elijaj and Al arabiya , Which clashes are still ongoing and the city is contested {Jack6780 (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC))

latest baiji edit was made by Hanibal using this source: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/07/middleeast/iraq-forces-baiji/index.html?sr=twcnnbrk06715iraqforcesbaiji749aStoryPhoto it clearly says CNN. 햄방이 keeps making edits without reporting any sources though. Spenk01 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You must know that there are small pockets of resistance. It is your mistake not mine. # --햄방이 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes and it turns out to be really immature statement from ISF once again , They made few advances but the city still heavily contested (Jack6780 (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC))

I deeply agree. Many people in here are instantly believing Republic of 3Iraq's statements without any proof. I usually rely on a neutral sources such as Jewish or Sa3udi or non-governmental sources.--햄방이 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello 햄방이. Here is a source proving ISF captured Thar Thar camp. http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/iraq%20SITREP%202015-6-05.pdf "ISF repelled an ISIS attack against a 1st Rapid Intervention Division base in Nadhim Thar Thar area, northwest of Fallujah...ISF and the "Popular Mobilization" later advanced toward al-Yabani Bridge, south of Nadhim Thar Thar." Nadhim means camp. ISF controls Thar Thar camp. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your great information. --햄방이 (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence and source showing the outskirts of Ramadi under ISF control. These are major changes with no corroborating sources posted. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/ Shows many changes are not justified especially around Ramadi, the map has been blatantly vandalized and needs to be fixed. I don't have the time to do it all. Tgoll774 (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The town of Anah and villages of al rayhanna and al sagra

The town of Anah has been under IS control since June 2014 and it still is today.

Yeah this map had a lot of pro-ISF changes with no reliable sources justifying it. Tgoll774 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This source reports those towns under ISF control: https://twitter.com/LandonShroder/status/608822471140192256

Firstly, Anah is marked under ISIS, so i don't understand why you are complaining. Also, if you don't like the map, why not provide a source to show these towns are under ISIS control? It seems like you want to edit in favor of ISIS and are biased, seeing as you NEVER provide ANY reasons or sources for your edits. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Some twitter guy with 80 followers is your source? what a joke it goes against all the wikipedia rules this guy is unknown and dont have any creditability lots of youre recent edits comes from really unreliable sources, you just messing up this map in big time if you have a beef against isis take it somewhere else , we are here to record history not favor someone {Jack6780 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC))

Iraqi army freed Baiji

Why hasn't anyone updated the map? source 109.110.115.243 (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/cap_fall/status/607610631194308608/photo/1 Pro-IS says otherwise. The last time ISF said Baiji was liberated it was not and I posted repeated video evidence for three weeks it was not. The proof ISF offered is old videos and Nasheeds. Tgoll774 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Proof that Baiji is under ISF control. I see no evidence of it. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Baiji is still heavily contested per reports by Joel Wing, a renowned Iraq Expert since 2009. http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/ and on this article he provides the Iraqi Sources that show the city heavily contested. Baiji must go contested, ISF press releases are not credible. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Still no proof Baiji under ISF control, it needs to go to contestedTgoll774 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.eurasiareview.com/27062015-why-is-islamic-state-a-master-of-tactical-defeats-oped/ As I thought, Baiji is still being fought over. Tgoll774 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ibtimes.com/iraqi-government-forces-take-control-baiji-oil-refinery-1988773 Prohibited Area (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Source says no such thing. It says the main street was taken, which is not all of Baiji and it is only the word of ISF which is not credible. Tgoll774 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000

User:LightandDark2000, please engage on the discussion page before making edits. Arbitrarily making mass edits is not how Wikipedia works; it is a joint venture. Your recent edits on this module fly in the face of the elementary rules of editing. This edit cited a source that doesn't even mention the town you edited. This edit you cited an Iranian source and a source that is just reiterating the central goverment's claims to edit an ISF advance (we don't use pro-X sources for pro-X edits/advances, for any side). This edit you just cited an amateur map and some twitter account. Please self-revert the above, as none of them conform to the rules governing usable sources. I refer you to this discussion, where the community tried to engage with you, and to this message from the modules' creator.Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Stharkov, NightShadeAEB, DuckZz, Rhocagil, Pbfreespace3, Tradedia, anyone else who might care.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid it's is only his POV pushing just like the edits he makes on the syrian civil war template,He changed all places and neighborhoods of Ramadi,and it looks more likely like an offensive which no one reliable source mention it.PapaDock547 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — PapaDock547 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Lindi29 (talk • contribs).

I'd like to believe that we can have constructive dialogue and work together to make the map as accurate as possible; and I assume in good faith that User:LightandDark2000 is editing in the same spirit. That being said, PapaDock547, since you've taken an interest, would you mind terribly reverting one of the unjustified edits listed above? I have already used a revert today. *I am in no way advocating edit warring in any sense, and if you are not comfortable with my suggestion I retract and apologize in advance. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid the fact that the user uses unknown twitter accounts and not disscusing it first I would have revert him but I still dont have access editing on semi-protected pages.PapaDock547 (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC) — PapaDock547 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Lindi29 (talk • contribs).

Its going to take a lot of research to figure out what places should revert due to the massive unjustified edits. Especially around Ramadi as no offensives have occurred there, all the fighting is around Fallujah so those outlying Suburbs of Ramadi need to go back to IS control as the last reliable sources we have show them under IS control. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 RUINING THIS MAP

Am shocked to see so many mistakes in this map and its all because of this two editors who are ruining this map entirely and their edits are far from reality

Few examples are like town of anah albu nimr and ramadi sorroundings which has edited by looking just at some tweets with people who has less followers than 90 , They look like Anti ISIS , But guys we are here to record history and changing dots in this map not gonna change reality on the ground , We have strict rules here in wikipedia to edit this map Like Source should be Neutral and well known

I request someone to do something about this absurd editors or delete this map entirely {Jack6780 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)}

P.S Guys am going to propose this page for deletion if we didnt able to find any solution regadring this editors , Thought?

Ask Magog the Ogre to page protect it for the time being and do a full source audit to correct the map then we can get back to user edits but under tighter scrutiny. Tgoll774 (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

problem is not with this two editors the problems is with the other editors who are choosing to ignore this before Edits like this wouldn't even survive for an hour now people are taking this as fact i hope somebody concern will do something about it {Jack6780 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)}

If they're causing a problem, consider getting an uninvolved administrator, per the general sanctions:

"After being notified of the sanctions, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to edit in accordance with the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Sanctions may include blocks for up to one year, page bans, and topic bans." Banak (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am pbfreespace3. I didn't edit any towns near Ramadi to Government control. In fact, I edited some to contested *from* government control. Also I fully understand how incompetent the Iraqi Army is, so don't say I have a pro-ISF bias in my editing. I have also added many important towns and villages to this map along the Tigris and near Haditha and Mosul, all ISIS villages. I never added a ISF-controlled village: just look at my edit history. Now the Syria Map has been locked because of some bad edits, and the map is frozen in time! I think it is far better to have a good map with some errors rather than no map at all. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Trying to stem the tide.. in situations as listed above where edits are made based off of random twitter accounts and the like. 1RR makes that kinda difficult though. Not sure what's up with the shade being thrown at Pbfreespace3 though - this editor actually will engage in conversation and discuss sources/the most accurate information if you simply reach out.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed checked Pbfreespace3 last week edits sources seems to be pretty reliable my bad confused him with some other editor who is making lot of pro ISF and pro Kurdish edits without any good sources