File talk:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg

When did ISIS lose control of these towns? The map depicts them outside of their control.--41.76.208.114 (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They've lost control of Abu Kamal and the rest of the Deir ez-Zor Governate. The Map needs to be updated. I'd do it but I don't know how. Toolen (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this map to be a bit more useful than the current one on Wikipedia, since it shows the cities and a more precise area of control. Any chance we could have something like that here? Esn (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That island of ISIS looks a bit dubious to me. According to the Ministry of Peshmerga [1], their southern line of control is the Hamrin Mountains, which cut from NW to SE of that red island. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a map made my BBC News in that and that link which is different this current one, BBC News' source is Institue for the Study of War, well I don't know this isntitue but sounds cool and it is BBC so I believe that is a reliable source. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 06:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difference is that this svg includes the 'countryside' (in this case mostly desert) whereas the BBC maps only mark the actually inhabitated areas. Different approach I guess. What I find strange is that they have not marked any of the Kurdish 'gains' and that Kirkuk is marked as contested when no source I can find states any sort of dispute in Kirkuk at the moment (barring a political one). Akerbeltz (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds got northern Syria and Iraq (Iraqi Kudistan) as you know and they are only defending their lands not advancing like ISIS so it makes sense not to mark cities as Kurdish controlled etc. You can put that map in your source section by the way as you refered to it.

And what is that red area on western Syria, i couldn't see it in BBC's map but in this one it marked as ISIS controlled ?

And found another map with Kurds mentioned in elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 14:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making is that currently the Kurds control a lot more than the 3 official provinces of the KRG. The current southern border of the Kurdish controlled area is way south of Kirkuk so I'm therefore somewhat confused as to why Kirkuk should be marked contested. It's not my map by the way, I was just pitching in about some aspects of the map. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate didin't know it. Spesh531 could you join this conversation please. What do you think about those things? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 17:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just go by the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map and Template:Iraq war detailed map. It is nitty-gritty work doing this, so I just use the templates, and as they update, this map updates. (Although with exams coming up, I may be a little slow to do it.)—SPESH531Other 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding a third colour group in GIMP but I'm just useless with graphics. But I really think we need a third colour group in 3 shades (I was going to use greens but not hung up about the colour) for KRG (officially), KRG (controlled) and YPG (the Syrian Kurdish militia). Akerbeltz (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a mockup of what I was trying to explain and put it here [2]. Dark green for the official KRG area, lighter for the areas they inofficially control (some they have controlled for quite some time) and a different shade for YPG. Thoughts? I don't want to mess around with the original - too bold ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a separate map for just Kurdish areas (there's a reason this file is for only ISIS, I mean just look at the title!)—SPESH531Other 02:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is that but if you look at the pages using this map, it is intricately linked to the Kurdish push. While not coordinated, they go/went hand in hand, which is why I think they need to be on the same map. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could do that, and just change request to change the file name.—SPESH531Other 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you could add the date to the bottom of the map; e.g., "As of 21 June 2014". Then, every time you update the map, you also update the date. I edited the caption in Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant but it would be better if you edit the date right on the map itself. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would actually be a good idea. But what about its use in other languages?—SPESH531Other 21:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could use international date format without text, ie 2014-07-06 - Technophant (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to know what are the sources for the changes in the map of the ISIS controlled area.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the images to find out.elmasmelih 14:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted a source concerning to the capture of the region surrounding Amerli: [3], but it displays several flags, some of which I don't have a clue about which do they belong. I recognize the Kurds, the Turkmens and the Iraqi flags, but others I have no idea. Someone could help about this, and update the map? (if it's considered to be a reliable source, of course) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here at 2:08 VICE news shows a map that looks much less like a solid shape, many more holes in it.Victor Grigas (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the map seems to be inaccurate insofar as it claims that IS would control the desert inbetween its controlled territories. All other sources (the VICE video at 2:08, as well as the BBC) do not show the uninhabited territories as controlled by IS (in fact I believe they are controlled by no one, neither the governments nor IS), but only the communication routes. The map should be changed accordingly. Else it is unverifiable and original research. (Wikipedia guidelines apply to images and maps, too!) --RJFF (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also compare these maps: [4] (New York Times), BBC, that show "holes" within the IS territory as well. We should always follow the reliable sources.

Moreover, the BBC map differentiates between "IS control" and "IS support". Should we follow this example and make this differentiation, too? --RJFF (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in showing divisions of control and support. I use the template's of Iraq and Syria to edit the images, and so, my data is based off of that. Many black dots are within areas of support or no control at all, so how would it be known of what is actually controlled desert or not? And by using the method I have been using to figure out where IS is present, how can I differentiate between support and control? I put the maps from the sources given above on the template, and they do not match up.—SPESH531Other 03:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The desert regions are not inhabited, so to have it shaded as controlled is wrong and implies a successful war campaign in those areas. Maybe have it cross-hatched in red. If it is cut off by the isis territory, then it can't remain pink/grey; that would be just as misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.89.230 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the map. 84.171.90.26 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This map doesn't look like any other map I've seen of areas controlled by ISIS, including the maps that appear in what is stated as the sources for this map. No map shows ISIS as controlling anything but scattered towns and some of the roads connecting them.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difference lies in the colouring of uninhabited areas. It's a tricky one. The maps you refer to show ISIS control as corridors (which one might argue makes it look smaller) versus this one which just adds 'empty' territory to either side depending on the control of the nearest settlements. Both approaches have the downsides. One can easily argue that ISIS does not control the western desert because there's no presence but then again, the Iraqi army isn't present *either*. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this approach has two major downsides: (a) if the title says "territorial control" then marking anything but areas that are actually controlled by ISIS is false; (b) regardless of what one may "argue", if the map does not depict what reliable sources depict or describe verbally, then it constitutes original research. This map should either just show areas that are actually controlled by ISIS, or perhaps, if there are reliable sources that describe this dubious other category of "control by default", it can be included with a different color (because "control by default" is not control in actuality). You cannot just assume that ISIS controls the areas in between. I can't really see any downside to actually showing reality as it is, i.e., showing just the areas ISIS actually controls.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have the perfect map, wouldn't it? :) The BBC has a better map regarding ISIS but on the other hand, it *really* sucks as far as Kurdish control goes and assumes (since it colours the rest in beige) that the Iraqi govt control ALL the rest. I don't think this makes this map here anything out of the ordinary or indeed OR. It just make it look worse for the Iraqi government - just as the BBC map makes it look less worse for them. I don't think there's a perfect solution. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The map need not specify which areas are controlled by the Kurds or the Iraqi government, it just needs to specify which areas are controlled by ISIS, as its name indicates! Just showing what the name of the map indicates and nothing else seems to me like a perfect map. It may or may not convey the message you want it to convey, but that is besides the point. Or you can rename it File:Territorial control of the ISIS plus some vast uninhabited territory all lumped together.svg...--160.39.220.198 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

158.222.143.13 forum shopped their opinion to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Maps_if_ISIL without alterting any related talk page (this one, ISIL and Onefireuser started deleting the maps from the ISIL article. I'm opposed to these actions as they do not help the reader. See [the Atlantic article]. "Roggio of The Long War Journal, which is also tracking the spread of ISIS, writes in an email that ISIS influence can be felt even in these deserts, however. "Iraqis in the small hamlets and villages not directly under Islamic State control know who are truly in control," he says. "Think of it like this: Americans living in the remotest areas of Alaska often see little to no government involvement, but ultimately they know the U.S. government can assert itself if it needed to." Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not forum-shop, I asked how to mark it as OR. I didn't ask for its deletion or removal, and I don't think it ought to be removed. I do think that it should be clarified whether or not it constitutes original research, and modified if so.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

update plz. 84.162.3.115 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the whole claimed territory thing may be a fabrication created a couple of years ago with a map presented in this Google image search with results from 01/01/2013. Is there anything in any properly reliable source to back this up. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiki crew!

Firstly, sorry for my imperfect English - I am not a native speaker.

I will try to be brief as possible. I am doing something like dissertation (on lower level) and my topic is "Unrecognized countries and territorial disputes". My goal is to create maps very similar to this "Territorial control of the ISIS" as an attachment of the work. So I have downloaded QGIS and shapefile layers of administrative areas of the countries and coloured the regions controlled by rebels (e.g. ISIS).

Now I want to export these maps so that the unrecognized countries my work is focused on are well-marked and highlighted. I find the Wiki solution (simple, grey background just with borders) very elegant but there lies the problem - I need a shapefile (and open source, if possible :-) version of these amazing background maps in order to import them to my QGIS project.

So here are my questions: 1) Where can I find the shapefiles of the Wiki (or similar) background maps? Or is there a way how to get the .shp layer from the .svg file? 2) Is there a better and more efficient way how to do this kind of maps (e.g. in a different programm)? Or simply, how do you create the great maps like this one?

I would be very grateful for any instruction, advice or tip! Have a nice day!

František Kopřiva

P.S. I will check this "Talk" section but you can also answer me via e-mail (frantisek-kopriva(at)seznam.cz) in order to avoid this off-topic Q&A and delete my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.178.9 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the new map, Saudi Arabia has the same color as the uncontrolled parts of Syria and Iraq, which contradicts the color key for the images...Naraht (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey should be added to 'presence' countries. There are many reports that indicate of their presence and Turkey is dubbed as 'gateway/highway to jihad' by some media outlets. Also they have carried out at least 4 attacks in Turkey. Check Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for further details. kazekagetr 21:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of 16 March 2015, this map is tremendously outdated in both Syria/Iraq and Libya. IS-aligned militants also control territory beyond the scope of the present map, particularly the recently-joined Boko Haram in Nigeria. If we aren't going to update the map, can we at least take it down? IS is not a country, and the current war map is doing fine in terms of the situation in Syria/Iraq; it is a little redundant. Futur3g4ry (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]