This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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.
Mozad655 (talk) 17:41, 27 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
((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)
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)
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)
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/ --8fra0 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Batnaya is not Peshemerga controlled, but still under ISIS (unfortunately.) In fact this hasn't changed since the Peshmerga drew the line between Batnaya and Tel Isqof. I don't have any article about Batnaya being under which hands, but I was in Baqofah, last week to see the ISIS flag being flown from Batnaya myself. So can you please changed Batnaya to black. Thanks. Chaldean (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you need to provide source that it is not peshmerga controlled. You provided no source in your change. Seeing it with your own eyes is not a valid source by any means. Mozad655 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Zanqi was changed to fighting a few days ago which was correct based on this source. However, there has not been any reporting of any fighting since nor has there been any reports of ISIS taking the village. This can only mean that the attacks were repelled, which makes sence as the article also mentioned that "peshmerga forces immediately responded to the attacks". If someone would change Zanqi to yellow again it would be great. (I cannot do it because I have already reverted the edit of a pro-ISIS user and I am not sure if manual editing will count as an revert or not). Mozad655 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Also notice no mention of any fighting or ISIS takeover in Zanqi on this very trustworthy map. Mozad655 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
According to this CNN source from today, ISIS is in complete controle of Sinjar and peshmerga don't seem interested in retaking it. Only occasional airstrikes and assaults to stop the traffic road from Syria to Iraq through Sinjar. 87.52.35.207 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that a siege line at Al-Walid Crossing? If so, we need to make it more visible. You can barely see it because it blends in with the border line and crossing symbol. I only noticed it because a black mark is visible against the grey border. Will someone please look into that? If it isn't supposed to be there, please remove it. Anasaitis (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
1- why the heck does it show iraqi government(shia militia) is inside tuz khurmatu??????? 2- plus can someone change the name from taza khurmatu to tuz khurmatu because taza is bloody wrong! -Sarwar2000
There are two towns. One is called Taza Khurmatu and the other is called Tuz Khurmatu. The one near Kirkuk is Taza Khurmatu. There are shia millitia inside Taza Khurmatu according to many sources. For example this UK source or this source from Yahoo. Mozad655 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Whoever changed Taza Khurmatu without talking about it here first, needs to change it back. If someone else can do it then even better. Mozad655 (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone give a source that says Kar Mardy is under ISIS? It does not seem right. I have not noticed it before. Did someone just add it? If its not wrong then Kan'Us must be wrong. Does anyone have a source for that one being under peshmerga? Mozad655 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You still don't get it. I am not disputing whether the source is reliable or not. The source does not say that Karmardy is taken by ISIS. Airstrikes attacked ISIS positions in this village, but that does not mean that ISIS is still there. Other sources have said that all attacks were repelled, this means ISIS was pushed out again by peshmerga and airstrikes. Again, look at Sultan Abdullah. There were airstrikes there too, but we know it is under peshmerga today. You always interpret the sources and when you are in doubt you go pro-isis. Yes there are no ISIS members in Sultan Abdullah but there were airstrikes. Airstrikes does not prove that they are in there, it proves that they WERE. Do you see the difference between past and present? Here are the sources that say Sultan Abdullah is under kurdish controle DESPITE airstrikes (you still need to get into your head that airstrikes can be used to defend, not just attack). http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/02/22/257430/at-kurdish-front-line-outpost.html or this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31524867 and there are many other sources that say ISIS captured no land. Mozad655 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to change "Al Baghdadi"'s link to Khan al-Baghdadi. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure go ahead. I think its better to use that variant because the leader's name is also "Al Baghdadi". Mozad655 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that in the past days a couple of towns near Mosul have been edited to IS controlled without providing any source. The towns are Darnajukh in north Mosul and Al Khidir in south Mosul. Today a reliable source https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/569813128311128064 is reporting that Kurds are a mere 10 km north of Mosul. --8fra0 (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The source used is this map from a random twitter account called "le_carabinier" that has no credentials. As you can see on the map the area on the right side of Badush Dam is all unclear and disputed. Darnajukh is in the middle of that disputed area and since it was originally yellow, it should not have been changed to black as the area is unclear according to this very source that the editor used. But the editor, Lind29, is well known for always giving ISIS the benifit of the doubt even if it means switching colors. As for Al-Khidir, it is clear ISIS territory according to this map. I suggest we keep Al-Khidir black and change Darnajukh back to yellow, as the source provided does not claim that area to be under ISIS. Mozad655 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Your confused buddy. I don't even understand your english anymore. Write like a normal person. Mozad655 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "32.040", long = "42.255", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Nukhayb", link = "Nukhayb" },
to
{ lat = "32.040", long = "42.255", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Nukhayb", link = "Nukhayb" },
sources:
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISIS%20Sanctuary%20Map%20JAN.%2015.%202015.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/05/us-mideast-crisis-saudi-idUSKBN0KE0G420150105
http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/features/2014/08/26/feature-01
2601:0:B200:F7D9:C873:A79E:4700:26E8 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There were reports in June that said ISIS took over Nukhayb:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sunni-insurgents-capture-more-territory-in-western-iraq-1403428664
These reports from later, in August and January, respectively, claim that Nukhayb was retaken and held by Iraqi forces:
http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/features/2014/08/26/feature-01
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/05/us-mideast-crisis-saudi-idUSKBN0KE0G420150105
This ISIS Sanctuary Map from a reliable source in January shows no ISIS presence whatsoever in Nukhayb:
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISIS%20Sanctuary%20Map%20JAN.%2015.%202015.pdf
I think that based on these sources, including a reliable source (Institute for the Study of War), Nukhayb should be changed to government-controlled. Thoughts? 2601:0:B200:F7D9:B14B:AA4B:64E7:8A62 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Change it. The reuter source is pretty clear and trustworthy. Mozad655 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have edit privileges, so someone else must do it. Sadly, this means for this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png the Iraqi desert has been wrongly marked as ISIS for 6 months. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:8CD4:D21B:E9B4:507B (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. Edit request submitted. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:C873:A79E:4700:26E8 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Source for shia millitia base outside Taza: Source1. Source2
Source for shia millitia base outside Daquq: Source3
Source for shia millita inside and around Tuz Khurmatu: Source4. Source 5
Source for shia millita inside and around Jalawla: Source6 Mozad655 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "35.235", long = "43.890", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Riyadh", link = "Riyadh", label_size = "0", position = "bottom" },
to
{ lat = "35.235", long = "43.890", mark = "80x80-yellow-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Riyadh", link = "Riyadh", label_size = "0", position = "bottom" },
source:
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iraq-situation-report-february-10-11-2015
A besieged icon could also work. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:6DAF:AF66:3742:F250 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we need a couple more soures to verify this. The map said peshmerga and other forces came from Baiji, but there are no reports of peshmerga ever being in Baiji. Riyadh is the middle of ISIS' heartland in Kirkuk province and it is too big of a change for us to mark it as contested or besieged, based on one source only. Mozad655 (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
00:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Will you give it a rest with your POV pushing? Even Kurdish sources openly admit to the presence of Arab militia along the Hamrin line such as Rudaw here here and Ekurd here. Like it or not (I happen to think it's a dangerous move), they're there. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have reported Alan Genco and JapanerRusse and they are now both blocked for 48 hours. If they continue I predict a long term ban. But they did make a good point about possible kurdish forces in Sadiya, Amirli, Sulaiman Bek. I know kurdish forces took part in recapture of these towns but I don't know if they remained. I will look into it and will add kurdish center labels in those towns if I find enough refs. Mozad655 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
ISIS has just taken Al-Baghdadi. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/middleeast/isis-iraq/index.html 76.99.189.128 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The source is clear. Feel free to change al-Baghdadi back to contested. Mozad655 (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
http://basnews.com/en/news/2015/02/15/iraqi-army-re-take-baghdadi-town-in-anbar-province/ Mozad655 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
http://www.euronews.com/2015/02/24/iraq-army-steps-up-campaign-against-isil-in-al-baghdadi/ WaunaKeegan11 11:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Iraqi Security Forces have retaken the town from ISIS and the militants are retreating from the town.
So the battle for Tikrit has started. Government and Shi'ite militia forces are surrounding the city. Pro-government source Peto Lucem reports here https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_HfVVVW8AEyZot.jpg:large that government forces and ISIS are fighting inside al-Alam, but we will have to wait for further confirmation from an unbiased source before we make the edit. I would also watch Albu Ajil, as it may become contested or captured soon. For your benefit, reliable sources include http://www.understandingwar.org/ and https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai.2601:0:B200:F7D9:50F0:8231:62E5:6024 (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "34.456", long = "43.794", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Ad Dawr", link = "Ad Dawr", label_size = "0" },
to
{ lat = "34.456", long = "43.794", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Ad Dawr", link = "Ad Dawr", label_size = "0" },
source: http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iraq-situation-report-march-2-2015
ISW is a reliable source and 'Al-Dour' is the same as 'Al-Dawr'. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:5C95:D6B4:1568:5C25 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
According to many articles from just a couple of hours ago the offensive of ad-dawr is still going on so i don't think your suggestion is valid. https://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&ncl=dgVqlrHgBaP00iMzYp53nNKC_rMZM&lr=en&rfilter=0&q=dawr&btnC=Go Spenk01 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This report, saying it is contested, is from March 2:
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31699632
These reports, saying it was captured, are from March 3:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/04/c_134034749.htm
2601:0:B200:F7D9:DC3B:D1D4:DFFA:55F7 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Al jazeera source was legit Spenk01 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
ISIS has destroyed Ghazlani traning camp south of Mosul. It does not exist anymore. Should be removed.
If you use arabic sources you need to provide translation and source for correct translation. Sources should be accessable to english speakers as this is wikipedia english, otherwise you could claim anything and nobody would be able to challenge your edit. I hope you understand. Mozad655 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
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 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.35.11 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Iraqi government forming Shia militias in kirkuk and in kirkuk army bases
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/08012015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0ali1 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Al-Mad'in is south east of Baghdad was never control of ISIS. It is under the control of the Iraqi Security Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0ali1 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" },
to
{ lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" },
source:
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iraq-situation-report-march-5-6-2015
Karmah is contested. It should be marked contested.
2601:0:B200:F7D9:55B:487E:F348:B074 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
DoneSpenk01 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we confirm these towns Nebai, Sayed Gharib, Tarisha, Al Hawish, Mukayshafah, and Dijlah are still contested. I believe that most (if not all) have been reclaimed by the ISF. Malik Danno (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about this aswell. Some people have a habbit of being the first to mark a town as conested, but abandon the area afterwards and don't follow up with updates. I think most of the RedBlack contested towns are in fact under ISF. They have been labelled as contested for a very long time. Mozad655 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "34.931", long = "43.493", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "12", label = "Baiji", link = "Baiji, Iraq", label_size = "75", position = "right" },
to
{ lat = "34.931", long = "43.493", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "12", label = "Baiji", link = "Baiji, Iraq", label_size = "75", position = "right" },
sources:
http://news.sky.com/story/1436941/iraqi-forces-launch-operation-to-recapture-tikrit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2976371/Fallen-IS-Iraqi-Syrian-towns.html
I don't know about the 2 towns south of Baiji that are marked as contested, but I think it would make sense to change them to red as well.
2601:0:B200:F7D9:50F0:8231:62E5:6024 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right baiji was captured in November but it seems like it never made it to this wiki page. Spenk01 (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Baiji in december was retaken by IS...http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/897886.shtml ... then clashes re-erupted inside the city according previous statements of various sources including ISW...so, I think its right status is contested. Fab8405 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
But according to this article : http://news.sky.com/story/1436941/iraqi-forces-launch-operation-to-recapture-tikrit "Backed by air strikes from the US-led coalition, Iraqi troops recently seized the nearby refinery town of Baiji." + this article is from Monday 02 March 2015 Spenk01 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Lindi29 Have you checked the date of the Skynews report before you reverted my changes?Spenk01 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
On 9th February 2015, Iraqi Security Forces retake Baiji City. This proves that the Iraqi Security Forces had retaken the city. http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2015/02/08/149-killed-in-iraq-as-security-forces-claim-baiji-again/ (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Change
{ lat = "33.926", long = "44.157", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Sayed Gharib", link = "Sayed Gharib", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
to
{ lat = "33.926", long = "44.157", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Sayed Gharib", link = "Sayed Gharib", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
Sayed Ghraib is liberated from ISIS militants. It should be marked under government control.
You can't use Iraqi sources to verify pro-Iraq edits. Its a well established rule and goes for all parties involved. Please change back and try to find non-Iraqi sources. Mozad655 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Change
{ lat = "34.087", long = "44.038", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Tarisha", link = "Tarisha", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
to
{ lat = "34.087", long = "44.038", mark = "Location dot red.svgf", marksize = "6", label = "Tarisha", link = "Tarisha", label_size = "0", position = "top" },
Source: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/iraqi-forces-kill-27-isis-militants-free-two-areas-near-tikrit/
GRAPHIC: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931017001314
Tarisha is liberated from ISIS militants. It should be marked under government control.
Again no Iraqi sources. Also Iranian sources are not reliable either for pro-Iraq edits. Just like we don't accept PYD kurdish guerilla sources for pro-peshmerga edits, we cannot accept Iranian sources for pro-Iraqi edits either. Both are are partial and sources are therefore ilegitimate for the edits that you have made. Try finding impartial sources (non Iraqi/Iranian). Mozad655 (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Peshmerga launch an attack in order to encircle and regain control of the areas surrounding to the city of Hawija and spend a most important ISIS strongholds to southwest of Kirkuk.Al Mayadeen Hanibal911 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Change { lat = "34.368", long = "41.096", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "13", label = "Al-Qa'im", link = "Al-Qa'im (town)" },
to
{ lat = "34.368", long = "41.096", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "13", label = "Al-Qa'im", link = "Al-Qa'im (town)" },
Source: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/09/400952/60-ISIL-militants-killed-in-western-Iraq
Al-Qaim town is contested. It should be marked contested.
I agree. Press TV is as good as Iraqi TV which we have already agreed isn't valid for pro-Iraq edits, just like YPG media isn't valid for pro-peshmerga edits. Mozad655 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
change
{ lat = "34.931", long = "43.493", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "12", label = "Baiji", link = "Baiji, Iraq", label_size = "75", position = "right" },
to
{ lat = "34.931", long = "43.493", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "12", label = "Baiji", link = "Baiji, Iraq", label_size = "75", position = "right" },
On 9th February 2015, Iraqi Security Forces retake Baiji City. This proves that the Iraqi Security Forces had retaken the city.
I think you need more sources for such a big edit. If Baiji was really captured, all media would mention it. Its also very unlikely that Baiji is captured by ISF before Tikrit now that all the effort is put into Tikrit. In other words, lets wait for more sources before we make any changes to a city the size of Baiji. Mozad655 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
March 9th report of ISW states, in point 9, that IS captured in Badush area three former Iraqi soldiers of Saddam era and executed them in Eski Mosul...so, I think that shows as IS-held Eski and, obviously, the other Tigris's towns located between Badush and Eski( Dawasah, Musharraf Habit and Halabiya)...Fab8405 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Change: { lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" },
To:
{ lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" },
Source: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/181476/iraq-350-daesh-militants-killed-in-anbar-operation.html--0ali1 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Al Karmah SHould be marked as red.
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" }
to
{ lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "location dot red.svg", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" },
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/middleeast/iraq-isis-tikrit/
2601:0:B200:F7D9:D489:B38C:C5C6:9684 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
you haven't made any changes to it. --0ali1 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It was reverted, because it was said by an Iraqi official. However, I think you will find that the town was taken over by the ISF, when unbiased sources report in the next few days. What is happening there is bomb cleanup operations, which is why they say the town is still being 'secured'. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:58D3:6AAD:2C9B:A282 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
{ lat = "35.242", long = "44.272", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Bashir", link = "Bashir", label_size = "0" },
to
{ lat = "35.242", long = "44.272", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Bashir", link = "Bashir", label_size = "0" },
Bashir should be contested.--0ali1 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources: http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/newsbriefs/2015/03/13/newsbrief-03 http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/iraqi-offensive-to-reclaim-tikrit-from-islamic-state-appears-to-stall http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/03/13/Iraqi-offensive-on-Tikrit-appears-to-stall.html
{ lat = "35.242", long = "44.272", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Bashir", link = "Bashir", label_size = "0" },
to
{ lat = "35.242", long = "44.272", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Bashir", link = "Bashir", label_size = "0" },
Bashir should be contested.--0ali1 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources:
Change Kifri
{ lat = "34.683", long = "44.966", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "8", label = "Kifri", link = "Kifri", label_size = "0" },
to
{ lat = "34.683", long = "44.966", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "8", label = "Kifri", link = "Kifri", label_size = "0" },
{ lat = "34.683", long = "44.966", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "3", label = "Kifri", link = "Kifri", label_size = "0" },
Shia Militia Group Enter Kurdish Towns
Khanaqin
Change
{ lat = "34.348", long = "45.391", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "10", label = "Khanaqin", link = "Khanaqin", label_size = "0" },
to
{ lat = "34.348", long = "45.391", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "10", label = "Khanaqin", link = "Khanaqin", label_size = "0" },
{ lat = "34.348", long = "45.391", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "Khanaqin", link = "Khanaqin", label_size = "0" },
Source:http://basnews.com/en/news/2014/11/29/badr-militia-group-enter-kurdish-towns/
I agree with what you said Spenk01, I'll find more sources.--0ali1 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
{ lat = "33.421", long = "43.307", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "15", label = "Ramadi", link = "Ramadi", position = "bottom" },
to
{ lat = "33.421", long = "43.307", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "15", label = "Ramadi", link = "Ramadi", position = "bottom" },
Ramadi is in control by security forces.--0ali1 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128359
Done Spenk01 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Change
{ lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" },
to
{ lat = "33.404", long = "43.914", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "8", label = "Al-Karmah", link = "Al-Karmah", label_size = "0" },
Al Karmah is in control by security forces.--0ali1 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Sources:
http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/475122--32-daesh-militants-killed-in-western-iraq
http://www.9ijanews.com/news/mod-army-forces-began-operation-to-liberate-alkarma
http://newscentral.exsees.com/item/02f6abfee10f9047a8fa8f34acf7644c-1abe97e1f089ccd45b50c769218ca77c
http://www.albawabaeg.com/51472
http://iraqnewsgazette.com/boc-50-terrorists-killed-in-western-baghdad-and-al-karma/
This template isn't reliable anymore and it has taken over by ISF and Kurdish fan-boys , Clearly Ramadi is contested and infact ISIS have an upper hand through their multiple suicide attacks but still ramadi have a red dot
Source
And ESki Mosul is control by ISiS as confirmed by ISW but still its have a yellow dot
Lindi29 According to this map Baiji is not even contested: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAKTBYfUkAEvCm1.jpg Could we put Baiji under IA control with half siege from south now? (borders of Baiji https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Baiji,+Irak/@34.9658724,43.523798,11z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x1553e7778ff80113:0x1ae72e166db7dc78) Spenk01 (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello.
According to a LiveLeak page the village of Bashir has been cleansed of isis-militants. It's current status is disputed. Source: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=302_1426341464. I don't know whether or not this counts as a reliable source.
Greetings
Thunderlips11 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
21:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)So we have heard that there will soon be an operation to retake Mosul from ISIS. When this happens, the battle will probably take a long time, meaning more than 1 month, and we will need to make a map of city control just like Aleppo, Damascus, Deir Ezzor, etc. However, in the meantime, I would like to propose making the icon for Mosul city larger, as well as slightly changing its location to more correctly show where it is. If you look at satellite imagery, Mosul extends as far east as Gogjalil, the town shown to the east on the map. What do people think about this? 2601:0:B200:F7D9:E166:1747:CE2C:97E2 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Reports of ISIL take over of this two camps , These are two important bases in North baghdad but I coundn't find anything regarding this in this map ,May i know why?
Should the base map be updated to show the borders of Halabja Governorate by the way? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change this line: { lat = "36.191", long = "44.009", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "23", label = "Erbil", link = "Erbil" },
to
{ lat = "36.191", long = "44.009", mark = "Dot_yellow_ff4.svg", marksize = "23", label = "Erbil (Hewlêr)", link = "Erbil" },
add the Kurdish name of Erbil City which is Hewlêr
Rah kah (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "35.235", long = "43.890", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Riyadh", link = "Riyadh", label_size = "0", position = "bottom" },
to
{ lat = "35.235", long = "43.890", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Riyadh", link = "Riyadh", label_size = "0", position = "bottom" },
source:
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iraq-situation-report-april-4-6-2015
Clearing operations have begun south of Hawija. I can't find 'Umm al-Ramil' which is mentioned in the article, perhaps they are referring to al-Raml?
2601:0:B200:F7D9:3CCC:8F29:3E5D:AA9B (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A few days ago, Anbar Operations Command was added to the map by Hanibal911.
The coordinates place it out in the middle of the desert northeast of Tharthar Lake:
That is not where it should be. This is an error and needs to be fixed. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:6562:DC43:71BF:F5C3 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
lat = "34.446", long = "43.250", mark = "Abm-red-icon.png", marksize = "6", label = "Anbar Operations Command", link = "Anbar Operations Command", label_size = "0" },
to
lat = "33.443", long = "43.265", mark = "Abm-red-icon.png", marksize = "6", label = "Anbar Operations Command", link = "Anbar Operations Command", label_size = "0" },
A few days ago, Anbar Operations Command was added to the map by Hanibal911. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=prev&oldid=654222810
The coordinates place it out in the middle of the desert northeast of Tharthar Lake: https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B026'34.8%22N+43%C2%B015'39.6%22E/@34.4418183,43.2600833,6781m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0
That is not where it should be. This is an error and needs to be fixed. I think I found the right coordinates. 2601:0:B200:F7D9:6403:87C5:3A12:8241 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Here it is:
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=33.443268&lon=43.265512&z=16&m=b&show=/12083069/Anbar-Operations-Command 2601:0:B200:F7D9:A0F5:98B2:273F:F534 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
These extremely two small villages (literally just a few houses if you look on satalite) were marked as contested a couple of months ago. I would like to change them to red based on probability. It is highly improbable that ISF have captured Tikrit and all the surrounding villages and towns on the path, but gone around Dijlah and Mukayshfah which are literally just a couple of farmers houses. Now because they are so insignificant no source even bothers to mention them these days. I think it would be wrong to wait for a source to disprove when its so extremely unlikely that they are still under ISIS. Does anyone else think this? Mozad655 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't need any source in cases like this when there is an agreement. Your not a pharoah. Mozad655 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a source Nytimes newest map Image here Map (UPDATED April 7, 2015) Ricardomoha (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
As there are now 3 people supporting this very logical edit, with or without source, we will keep it this way and overrule a single user like Lindi29 who is know for being pro-ISIS. Mozad655 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you Lindi29. I have discussed you before and it has become clear that you are pro-ISIS. I have never made any edits using same party sources. In this case it was agreed upon based on probability in which case you don't need a specific source. The sources for the surrounding areas are indirectly source for this edit. I have made pro-ISIS, pro-gov and pro-kurdish edits. Your accusations are baseless and so are your edits. I'm sorry but the majority is against your activity and calling everyone else biased is not the solution to your problems. Mozad655 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This module/map is destroyed,they are olny editing with pro-side sources or source who are citing another side,broken links,amateur maps etc.This is not the real situation.Hanibal911 you are using those sources to.Lindi29 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This is your oppinion and the rest of us don't share your concerns. Noone is using any pro-gov source for pro-gov edits and vice verca for pro-kurdish and pro-isis edits. This is more a case of you being against edits where ISIS lose territory, hence shaming every source that you personally disagree with. All the things you mentioned are things that you have done before yourself. Mozad655 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The rest of us are the editors you critisize, including the three editors on the post regarding Mukayshifah and Dijlah where the majority spoke against you. Nobody is using pro-gov source for pro-gov edits. Your concerned about a problem that doesn't exist. The only problem that exists on this page is you and your pro-ISIS bias. Mozad655 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That source doesn't prove anything. It simply says south of Tikrit but does not say Dijlah or Makayshifah. There are at least three editors who supported changing those two "houses" to red. Both direct and indirect sources have been added. The direct source you can watch yourself and the indirect sources are the sources for the surrounding areas. What is a pro-sider? I have made anti-kurdish edits, anti-gov and anti-isis edits in the past. There is no mistake to be fixed so nothing will be fixed. We will not fix something just because you support ISIS and want them to have as much territory as possible on the map. Mozad655 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Just came out from Kirkuk Province
I'm not an Arabic speaker or reader. Tgoll774 (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Another outpost taken by IS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJLA-CcTTpg No clue where it is, but this what the real war is. Cities are the exception. Vietnam parallels everywhere. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
if a city is 10% held by one side and 90% by another do we consider it as Contested?
Tikret was more than 90% under IS for the past month but it was marked as Contested. Now it is more than 80% under Iraq Army and shia militia with some IS pockets resistance still remaining but its marked red? so do we have standers?3bdulelah (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
For the past month Tikrit was 60-80% under ISF so we marked it as contested. Tikrit is now 99% under ISF. We will not mark it as contested just because of that 1 percent which is essentially just a few dozen ISIS fighters against 20.000+ ISF. I don't see the problem. Mozad655 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/04/islamic-state-assaults-baiji-oil-refinery.php Baiji is under IS control, needs to turn black. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/04/islamic-state-overruns-iraqi-army-headquarters-near-thar-thar.php This base also doesn't show up either and needs to be add ed to the map. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/04/17/Iraq-s-largest-refinery-not-at-risk-from-ISIS-U-S-.html Again confirms IS holds Baiji City. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/iraqi-forces-retake-much-baiji-oil-refinery-isis-n344031 Still fighting going on. Given how Iraq has a history of saying an area is clear only for two weeks later we find out the area is still being fought over, we need to be skeptical of Iraqi Press Reports. Keep it contested till we have reporters walking through it otherwise we have Government saying liberation nine times while the fight is clearly still ongoing. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
https://archive.org/details/NewsSaturday29 IS source, but there is some nuggets of info here. They still claim control of several areas of the Refinery. Given we only have the ISF's word and it has shown to be worth less than trustworthy, I say fighting is still ongoing in the refinery. Especially given the amount of gear IS is committing. Keep it contested as more likely than not, we'll see more videos out of the refinery from IS in the next few days. One was in fact released today only to be deleted by youtube. Tgoll774 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDJK42LWEAIScSO.png:large With all the denials and assurances and counter propaganda, I say the truth is that IS has blocked off the road and controls the perimeter and some pockets in it. Say add another partial ring on the south, but leave the facility as ISF control as the situation is too unclear to say IS has begun contesting the facility after the initial probe last week. Tgoll774 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
https://dump.to/bgG Looks like the Barracks, Warehouse, Oil distribution point, and few other locations have fallen to IS in Baiji Refinery. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDiJwKUWgAAMvxy.png:large IS claim to have cut the road to it and the nearby base and taken a third of the city. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ANBAR PROVINCE:
Abu Ghraib:
Change:
{ lat = "33.292", long = "44.066", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "9", label = "Abu Ghraib", link = "Abu Ghraib", label_size = "0" }, to:
{ lat = "33.292", long = "44.066", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "9", label = "Abu Ghraib", link = "Abu Ghraib", label_size = "0" },
Amiriyat al-Fallujah
Change:
{ lat = "33.179", long = "43.855", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "7", label = "Amiriyat al-Fallujah", link = "Amiriyat al-Fallujah", label_size = "0", position = "top", },
to:
{ lat = "33.179", long = "43.855", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "7", label = "Amiriyat al-Fallujah", link = "Amiriyat al-Fallujah", label_size = "0", position = "top", },
Al Zaidan
Change:
{ lat = "33.25", long = "44.033", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Al Zaidan", link = "Al Zaidan", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
to:
{ lat = "33.25", long = "44.033", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Al Zaidan", link = "Al Zaidan", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
Saladin PROVINCE:
Dijlah:
Change:
{ lat = "34.369", long = "43.764", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "5", label = "Dijlah", link = "Dijlah", label_size = "0" },
to:
{ lat = "34.369", long = "43.764", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "Dijlah", link = "Dijlah", label_size = "0" },
Mukayshfah:
Change:
{ lat = "34.367", long = "43.743", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "5", label = "Mukayshfah", link = "Mukayshfah", label_size = "0" },
to: { lat = "34.367", long = "43.743", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "5", label = "Mukayshfah", link = "Mukayshfah", label_size = "0" },
Nebai:
Change:
{ lat = "33.823", long = "44.129", mark = "80x80-red-black-anim.gif", marksize = "6", label = "Nebai", link = "Nebai", label_size = "0", position = "top", },
to:
{ lat = "33.823", long = "44.129", mark = "Location dot red.svg", marksize = "6", label = "Nebai", link = "Nebai", label_size = "0", position = "top", },
SOURCE: http://isis.liveuamap.com/--0ali1 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Source isn't reliable at all, many mistakes on the map, but i did provide reliable source about about Dijlah and Mukayshfah, I don't know why they didn't change it. Ricardomoha (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Richardomoha they were changed to red but later they were changed back to contested.--0ali1 (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Found a source that shows that Abu ghraib, Al-zaidan, Amiriyat_al-Fallujah are under the ISF Control. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-update-iraqi-army-making-huge-strides-al-anbar-governorate/#prettyPhoto
It's a pro Iraqi source we can't take it as an evidence, but my Nytimes map shows that Abu gharib and al zaidan are with goverment, Amiriya is still contested. Ricardomoha (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
{ lat = "36.335", long = "43.118", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "26.5", label = "Mosul", link = "Mosul", position = "left" },
to
{ lat = "36.350", long = "43.155", mark = "Location dot black.svg", marksize = "35", label = "Mosul", link = "Mosul", position = "left" },
and
{ lat = "36.301", long = "43.148", mark = "Fighter-jet-black-icon.svg", marksize = "11", label = "Mosul International Airport ", link = "Mosul International Airport", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
to
{ lat = "36.301", long = "43.156", mark = "Fighter-jet-black-icon.svg", marksize = "11", label = "Mosul International Airport ", link = "Mosul International Airport", label_size = "0", position = "right" },
source:
Changing the city of Mosul: more accurate coordinates and slightly bigger (more accurate) size. Also slightly changed location of Mosul Airport to still be visible.
2601:0:B200:F7D9:9C84:2F90:F8EC:86BF (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/shlonesh/status/592342117583826944/photo/1 There has been quite a few IS releases from that area and even Shia sources talk about fighting there. Can someone check on it and see what the ISF sources say? Tgoll774 (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/50-isis-elements-control-bashir-village-kirkuk/ Fourth time IS took it. Tgoll774 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This edit request to Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nowres (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)