Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map) (bot |
m Archiving 5 discussion(s) from Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map) (bot |
||
Line 149:
Kirkuk is officially a part, but its been occupied by Peshmerga since 2014 and they claim it. [[Special:Contributions/117.207.148.35|117.207.148.35]] ([[User talk:117.207.148.35|talk]]) 23:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
== Conflicting reports about ar-Rutbah ==
{{u|Mozad655}} {{u|Ahmedo Semsurî}} {{u|Pbfreespace3}} There have been conflicting reports about ar-Rutbah. World On Alert (https://mobile.twitter.com/worldonalert/status/790215781317509121) states ISIL captured it, however (https://mobile.twitter.com/zaidbenjamin/status/790226232692600833) Zaid Bejamin contradicts this by sayi the atyack has been repelled. Zaid Bejamin unlike World on Alert (who even insults others in his tweets) is an expert and journalist, so I value Zaid's opinion more. But still no source should be preferred over another for now. Acc to Business Standard's article (https://www.ft.com/content/05cac86e-9940-11e6-b8c6-568a43813464), a local Iraqi official said ISIL only captured half of the city. According to General Yahya Rasool,they didn't capture any building (http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/iraqi-forces-advance-near-mosul-as-is-attacks-western-town-116102300692_1.html). Some were also reporting much earlier in the day that ISIL had completely captured it. had We should wait for the situation to become clear, for now Rutba should be left as contested. It wouldn't be wise to change its control as it might not be correct, lets see if reports clear up by tomorrow or a few days later if it lasts that long. [[Special:Contributions/117.199.83.117|117.199.83.117]] ([[User talk:117.199.83.117|talk]]) 21:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Also everyone please do not change control of anything to ISIL control using sources with ISIS or Amaq claims of capturing them. Just because ISIS and/or Amaq claims they captured it, doesn't mean its true as it could br biased. Use them for government capture, but sources containing claims by ISIL/Amaq cannot be used for ISIL capture. [[Special:Contributions/117.199.83.117|117.199.83.117]] ([[User talk:117.199.83.117|talk]]) 21:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Even Iraqi Security (https://mobile.twitter.com/IraqiSecurity/status/790302279882706944) is now saying the attack is repelled. And World on Alert has even been insultive of those contadicting him. There are two much more reliable sources contradicting him. Definitely we should go with the more reliable sources, but let's wait for some time. If there isn't a very highly reliable source saying it has been captured by ISIL, then we change it back to government control. [[Special:Contributions/117.199.83.117|117.199.83.117]] ([[User talk:117.199.83.117|talk]]) 22:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
: I reverted Rutbah back to contested because [https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-verge-capturing-ar-rutbah-city-surprise-offensive/ al-Masdar] (pro-gov source) claimed that by Sunday evening at least 80% is under ISIS. Some say ISIS is in complete controle. Some say gov repelled the whole attack. I think its only fair to keep as contested until clarification, as ISIS did attack the city and that was the last known status. [[User:Mozad655|Mozad655]] ([[User talk:Mozad655|talk]]) 22:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree with what you say. Let's wait for a day atleast or a few days even if necessary. [[Special:Contributions/117.199.83.117|117.199.83.117]] ([[User talk:117.199.83.117|talk]]) 22:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Aymenn J Al-Tamimi, a reliable source who's even been reported about in the media, says the ISIL assault looks to have been repelled (https://twitter.com/ajaltamimi/status/790251851136569346). The repelling of the assault seems to be more reliable. [[Special:Contributions/117.199.83.117|117.199.83.117]] ([[User talk:117.199.83.117|talk]]) 23:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
: I don't believe he is reliable. Wen't through his stuff and its obvious that he is pro-shia (pro-Baghdad, Iran, Assad, Hezbollah etc). His choice of articles, content and news clearly serves to portray shia-regimes positively and their opponents negatiely. Also residing in territory under regime in Syria so no surprise there. Add the fact that he is an individual on twitter (which is bad enough on its own) and it makes him an unreliable source for pro-shia gains. Definately not neutral. For pro-edits I would look for non-partisan sources or opposition sources as per rules of syrian template map. Sources like Tamimi, al-Masdar, PressTV etc. should only be used for edits that contradict their allegiance. [[User:Mozad655|Mozad655]] ([[User talk:Mozad655|talk]]) 01:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::What is Shia regimes? We do not use terms like "pro-Shia" gains or "Shia regimes", that is giving a possible sectarian view and bias to our edits. He is against the Syrian rebels, but that doesn't seem to affect his reports much. But I think you are rightRegardless, Al-Masdar News is now stating Iraqi Army is fighting back (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iraqi-army-fights-back-ar-rutbah-isis-sends-suicide-bombers-battle/). Guess we should wait for a few more days for the situation to become clear. [[Special:Contributions/45.122.145.58|45.122.145.58]] ([[User talk:45.122.145.58|talk]]) 08:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::: Who says we don't use those terms? In this map the word sunni is used under both the black and red marker. Nothing wrong with using the word shia. I don't believe it makes us sectarian to refer to them that way. That's just what they are and you can't deny the sectarian nature of this conflict. Otherwise we would have to say pro-Iraq, Iran, Assad, Hezbollah, Houthis every single time. You will find that pro-shia is much easier to say. If your concerned about credibility there are far more serious issues on this map, such as people using personal twitter accounts and people using pro-shia sources to back pro-shia gains or kurdish sources to back kurdish gains. Tamimi is one of those. He is clearly not neutral and should be avoided unless its for edits that unfavor the side he prefers. Using mainstream non-partisan international media is always better and there's plenty of them. [[User:Mozad655|Mozad655]] ([[User talk:Mozad655|talk]]) 11:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Even the ISIL is stating they captured only most of Rutbah and were atill fighting the Iraqi Army (https://mobile.twitter.com/Terror_Monitor/status/790361921249619968). Clearly the reports about it fully capturing it aren't correct. [[Special:Contributions/45.122.145.58|45.122.145.58]] ([[User talk:45.122.145.58|talk]]) 08:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
World on Alert clearly is sympathetic to ISIL if not an outright supporter of its cause. He favored a tweet about a user respecting ISIL's belief and the media being against them. The tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/iedfan/status/790307768808898560) and the like (https://mobile.twitter.com/iedfan/status/790307768808898560/likes). Not just that, he even insults and bashes others those who support the groups he opposes ir those who give reports contradicting him. Also he is just an individual on Twitter claiming he has his sources, not a reliable expert/journalist or news organization. This combined with the fact that even ISIL hasn't said they have captured Rutbah, clearly indicates that the city is still contested and not captured by ISIL. [[Special:Contributions/45.122.145.58|45.122.145.58]] ([[User talk:45.122.145.58|talk]]) 09:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Mozad655}} {{u|Beshogur}} {{u|Pbfreespace3}} Found a [[Alhurra]] news report (http://www.alhurra.com/a/iraq-rutbah-isis-fight/331202.html) stating that clashes are still ongoing as of today and ISIL is holed up in two neighbourhoods. We keep it shown as contested then, reports of ISIL capture seem to have been incorrect or premature. [[Special:Contributions/45.122.145.58|45.122.145.58]] ([[User talk:45.122.145.58|talk]]) 11:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Found another ISIL supporter and also anti-Shia (anti-Shia because he does make anti-Shia tweets) and also seems to be against anti-ISIL groups that has been used as a source here. The user is "CoffeeNews" or @ThatCoffeeTho. See these posts [https://twitter.com/ThatCoffeeTho/status/790507633707024384], [https://mobile.twitter.com/ThatCoffeeTho/status/790506328066252800] as some evidence. Please don't use him as a source in future. [[Special:Contributions/45.122.145.58|45.122.145.58]] ([[User talk:45.122.145.58|talk]]) 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
A local Iraqi source Iraqi News states that the attack was repelled and a curfew has been imposed to eliminate any of the remaining attackers (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/joint-security-forces-impose-comprehensive-curfew-rutba/). [[Special:Contributions/117.199.84.187|117.199.84.187]] ([[User talk:117.199.84.187|talk]]) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
: AlMasdar claims that the attack was repelled: [https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/ar-rutbah-cleared-of-isis-despite-almost-capturing-it/] [[User:Schluppo|Schluppo]] ([[User talk:Schluppo|talk]]) 16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
== Rutbah's control even more confusing now ==
Its become even more confusing. Al Jazeera as well as Al Arabiya (not local organizations) is stating ISIL has captured it (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/isil-captures-iraq-town-ratba-mosul-battle-rages-161024191517704.html) (http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2016/10/24/ISIS-attack-on-Kirkuk-over-offensive-blocked-in-Sinjar.html). They also appear to be contradictory. Iraqi forces have released a video saying they are still firmly in control (https://mobile.twitter.com/hxhassan/status/790626388978130944) - both sources Hassan Hassan as well as Althuguur (which is even followed by [[CENTCOM]] or US Central Command) are very reliable. [[Special:Contributions/117.207.148.35|117.207.148.35]] ([[User talk:117.207.148.35|talk]]) 20:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Reliable and recognized international media is always better than personal twitter accounts. The video could be old. It could even be another town. Still we should wait a bit more until further confirmation or possible counter-attack, especially since the page is protected and edits cannot be made swiftly any longer. [[User:Mozad655|Mozad655]] ([[User talk:Mozad655|talk]]) 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
:The al-Jazeera article is not a good source, since it's self contradictory. At one point it says (citing a twitter source) that the IS controls the whole city, at another point, it's just some neighborhoods. And al-Arabiya is saying the same thing, that the IS controls Mithaq and Intisar neighborhoods. I'd put the city as contested.--[[User:Ermanarich|Ermanarich]] ([[User talk:Ermanarich|talk]]) 20:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::I did a read again and you seem to be right. I've amended my comment. [[Special:Contributions/117.207.148.35|117.207.148.35]] ([[User talk:117.207.148.35|talk]]) 21:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the only way to be sure is local Iraqi sources and news organizations. By that I mean actual local news organizations from Iraq, not news organizations of other Arabic countries operating in it. Local organizations might have better first-hand or second-hand information. We should wait to see what they say. [[Special:Contributions/117.207.148.35|117.207.148.35]] ([[User talk:117.207.148.35|talk]]) 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
:Rudaw says ISIL only captured parts of it (https://twitter.com/RudawEnglish/status/790655924868358146). [[Special:Contributions/117.207.148.35|117.207.148.35]] ([[User talk:117.207.148.35|talk]]) 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::[[Al-Araby Al-Jadeed]] (not a local organization) also says ISIS only took parts of it (https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2016/10/24/is-counterattack-on-rutbah-forces-partial-iraqi-withdrawal). [[Special:Contributions/117.207.148.35|117.207.148.35]] ([[User talk:117.207.148.35|talk]]) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Rudaw's stating that Iraqi Army is battling against ISIL in Rutbah (https://twitter.com/RudawEnglish/status/790832621622296576). Regardless of which previous reports were true, it seems contested again. [[Special:Contributions/59.89.46.74|59.89.46.74]] ([[User talk:59.89.46.74|talk]]) 09:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
According to Almada Press (a local source), officials have stated that Iraqi forces have regained full control of Rutbah (https://almadapress.com/ar/news/78680/القوات-الامنية-تستعيد-السيطرة-على-ا). [[Special:Contributions/59.89.46.74|59.89.46.74]] ([[User talk:59.89.46.74|talk]]) 11:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Mozad655}} {{u|Ermanarich}} The Al Jazeera correspondent from whose tweet Al Jazeera derived its report has also said that Rutba has been fully recaptured by Iraqi forces (https://twitter.com/ZeinakhodrAljaz/status/790876217620754432). Do you think it should be changed back to government control now? [[Special:Contributions/117.241.119.2|117.241.119.2]] ([[User talk:117.241.119.2|talk]]) 15:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
: AlMasdar claims that the attack was repelled: [https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/ar-rutbah-cleared-of-isis-despite-almost-capturing-it/]. [[User:Schluppo|Schluppo]] ([[User talk:Schluppo|talk]]) 16:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
::Yes even Al-Masdar is saying that Iraqi forces have retaken the town, most importantly even the Al Jazeera correspondent upon whom Al Jazeera's report was based also said the same thing. Since multiple sources are saying the same thing, we should put itback under government control. [[Special:Contributions/45.248.183.70|45.248.183.70]] ([[User talk:45.248.183.70|talk]]) 16:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
== Protection level ==
Sorry, but why was this Module actually protected so that no one can edit anymore?
There wasn't a major edit conflict, just a few small discussions, no big problem, at least in my eyes. At the same point, the map has currently many flaws and also needs to be updated.
Please end the sanctions on this module, it's really not constructive. Or, if not, at least tell my why.
Regards, [[User:Ermanarich|Ermanarich]] ([[User talk:Ermanarich|talk]]) 15:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
With all respects, the edit conflicts have been happening for long, this isn't the first or second or 20th time. Just before the protection was made, there was significant amount of edit-warring in a single day. I think the protection is required so users discuss and hash out all the differences instead of edit-warring over an issue. The users already know the rules, but still they keep breaking them and don't care. The protection shouldn't be removed. [[Special:Contributions/117.199.84.187|117.199.84.187]] ([[User talk:117.199.84.187|talk]]) 15:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
But there was no ongoing heavy disputes or edit-warring at the time. The timing seemed very random. Sure there were a couple reverts on that day, but there were no major edits and all disagreements were resolved. I understand the need for protection when edit-warring is frequent, but this was not the case on that day. [[User:Mozad655|Mozad655]] ([[User talk:Mozad655|talk]]) 20:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Couple of reverts? I can easily count more than 5 reverts in less than 36 hours and even more in a matter of less than 3 days. The Iraqi module can become a scene of edit-warring. It needed protection as editors who know all about the rules have edit-warred and broken the rules not just here, but other places as well. This seems necessary so editors will discuss before making any controversial or disputable edits instead of edit-warring over them. If there is an unconterversial edit where the situation is completely clear, you can make an edit request and have it added. The protection seems constructive and will promote discussion. [[Special:Contributions/117.207.148.35|117.207.148.35]] ([[User talk:117.207.148.35|talk]]) 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
:Well, the first one was a correct and necessary revert due to a misinterpretation of the tweet, the second one was because the previous edit used a unreliable source and accidentaly changed one more village, and the third revert only brought back the edits with two better sources.
:The point is, that we currently face many misinformations in the media (even from sources that are normally considered as "reliable") about the Mosul campaign. This makes it necessary to revert another edit. But this is not an edit war. It is just improving the Module. I can just repeat, that these reverts are a vital part of maintaining the maps quality as long as they don't mutate to an back-and-forth for one village/mark.--[[User:Ermanarich|Ermanarich]] ([[User talk:Ermanarich|talk]]) 23:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
::Why not just prevent the users involved in the war to edit, instead of locking the page? --[[User:Ahmedo Semsurî|Ahmedo Semsurî]] ([[User talk:Ahmedo Semsurî|talk]]) 12:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit-warring is not allowed no matter what reasons you have. If there is a dispute, one should discuss instead of making that edit.N Not just that they blatantly break rules, use sources not allowed (even using ISIL claims to change control of a place to IS control, which isn't allowed) and some even plainly refuse to follow the rules. Also it is better to wait instead of making a potentially wrong edit, but mostly no one does. Besides if we blocked all those who edit-warred, most users here will be blocked. And administrators don't pay much attention to it anyway or care about blocking disruptive users. Better to lock it, then let it become a mess. [[Special:Contributions/59.89.46.74|59.89.46.74]] ([[User talk:59.89.46.74|talk]]) 13:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
If you want to have the protection removed though you should talk to administrators. If they think protection isn't required or isn't constructive, then they'll remove it. [[Special:Contributions/45.248.183.70|45.248.183.70]] ([[User talk:45.248.183.70|talk]]) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 25 October 2016 ==
{{edit template-protected|Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map|answered=yes}}
Ar Rasif has been captured by the government. Source (http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/231020162). Also Bilawat is under government control as well, Iraqi security foeces are carrying clean-up and search operations. The source I earlier used for changing it to ISIL control was from a user called IraqBreaking (https://twitter.com/IraqBreaking/). However, his account has been suspended, besides I'm doubting it was reliable. Besides news sources are more reliable. Please change both villages to government control (red).
[[Special:Contributions/45.248.183.70|45.248.183.70]] ([[User talk:45.248.183.70|talk]]) 18:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:[[File:Padlock-pink-open.svg|28px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to [[Help:Editing|edit the page yourself]]. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:ETp --> — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
== Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2016 ==
{{edit template-protected|Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map|answered=yes}}
Peshmerga are still currently trying to completely capture Bashiqa. The Al Jazeera article (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/battle-mosul-peshmerga-seizes-bashiqa-isil-161023103005292.html) used for showing Bashiqa under Peshmerga control jas been deleted by Al Jazeera. The latest article by Al Jazeera says they are still trying to capture it (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/battle-mosul-turkey-confirms-military-involvement-161023144053661.html). Please change it to contested control.
[[Special:Contributions/117.199.84.187|117.199.84.187]] ([[User talk:117.199.84.187|talk]]) 14:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree even though I was the original editor. There was misinformation back then. The town is among a list of villages besieged by peshmerga. The final take-over has not happened yet according to kurdish Rudaw. [[User:Mozad655|Mozad655]] ([[User talk:Mozad655|talk]]) 20:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> It looks like Mozad655 has already made the edit, unless I'm reading this wrong. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 03:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Mr. Stradivarius}} Mozad655 hasn't made the edit, he doesn't have the template editor access anyway. He was just saying he agrees with my suggestion. Please edit the article and change it. [[Special:Contributions/59.89.46.74|59.89.46.74]] ([[User talk:59.89.46.74|talk]]) 08:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
:He made an edit before the page was protected - I'm not well acquainted enough with the subject to know whether it was the right one, though. Now the page is unprotected, though, so you should be able to edit it yourself. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 01:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
| |||