Talk:Siege of Kobanî/Archive 1

Archive 1

vague statement

In the article's section of supporters it says it's unclear why the US Air Force is attacking oil refineries without pointing out multiple media sources and journalists have said ISIS gets the majority of it's money from oil they have stolen/extort from Syria and Iraq in areas they control, or is there something I'm missing? Either way it seems to be a very vague, if not somewhat politicized, statement.

Original statement: "It is unclear why the US Air Force has been concentrating on destroying Syrian oil refineries by airstrikes, instead of trying to protect civilians from ISIL attacks." 142.255.52.232 (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

Currently, the last sentence of Battle of Kobanê section says:

However, after the arrival of ISIL reinforcements, the jihadists pushed 50–70 west of the industrial zone and captured the market area.

50–70 of what? Meters? Fighters? This should be clarified. 188.252.187.254 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

POV tagging against consensus

WP:NPOVD says that tagging should be a last resort and basically the editor must discuss the issues on the talk page with specific proposals. This has not been done, so I removed the tag. The removal was quickly reverted, so I removed it again. We established COMMONNAME already, and no other issue about the article has be raised. This is a high traffic article about a current event. Inappropriate tags are not helping the readers. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Search results for "Siege of Kobane" About 7,950 results https://www.google.com/search?q=Siege_of_Koban%C3%AA&oq=Siege_of_Koban%C3%AA&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.969j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8&qscrl=1#safe=off&qscrl=1&q=%22Siege+of+Koban%C3%AA%22 Search results for ""Siege of Ayn al-Arab"" About 292 results or like 27 times fewer. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the tagger has failed to discuss the reasons for the POV tag, I have reinstated it on the advice of an Admin at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Legacypac_reported_by_User:Supreme_Deliciousness_.28Result:_.29 he took me too only because it appears I reverted him twice. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion above, you would know why the tag was added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Number of fighters involved

There is a lack of consistency in the infobox concerning the number of FSA fighters involved. This source [1] indicates that there were initially 1,250 fighters from Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa, but that the number has since decreased to 300 (from 13 October). This (possibly outdated) source [2] mentions that the FSA is 1,500 strong (from 9 October). The 1,500 likely included the 250 from the Grouping of the Dawn of Freedom Brigades (http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/profile-tajammu-alwiya-fajr-al-hurriya/) [from 2 October]. Should we just stick to the 300 fighters from Liwa Thuwar Raqqa and 250 from the Grouping of the Dawn of Freedom Brigades? What should we do? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Change name to Battle of Kobane

This isn't a siege, this is a fluid battle for control of a city. The terrorists aren't besieging the city and pounding it with artillery, they are on the offensive on the ground. No siege mechanics have been involved as the fighting is following the one of a regular battle. Right Truth (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; battle is a better descriptor of what's actually happening on the ground. See Battle of Misrata for a comparable. OhlundFan2 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish general commander

"General commander of all kurdish forces defending city against ISIS is female. Her name: Nalin Afrin. @akhbar" https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/520884317942063105 46.115.25.120 (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Many sources (example: http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/143236-mujer-kurda-estado-islamico ) report Nalin Afrin as the nom de guerre of Meysa Abdo, so effectively we listed her twice at the commander section, can someone change it?

Elthosian (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Map Update

The map could do with updating to reflect current battle lines. The kurdish have pushed ISIS to the out of town towards tall shair and have raised their flag on it. Also unsure if this can be shown on the map but ISIS are still occupying the east of the town to some extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.162.107.10 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

See #City map request. 94.253.154.131 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why Turkey Doesn't Want To Fight ISIS

I found this and it's quite interesting: Why Turkey Doesn't Want To Fight ISIS on YouTube~Technophant (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is quite obvious actually.Kurds have accused Turkey of supporting (or at least turning a blind eye) on ISIS and other Islamists for at least a couple of years.Moreover the Syrian regime fears bombing Islamists on the Turkish border because Turks have already shot their bombers in the past.--Catlemur (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Updating Casualties

I've checked the SOHR reports and I think the number of casualties should be updated as follows: YPG:277 ISIL:494(in addition to U.S.' claim that "hundreds" have been killed by the airstrikes)

These are the reports: http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/more-than-650-killed-in-a-month-since-the-is-started-its-attack-on-ein-al-arabkobane/ 258 YPG and 374 ISIL

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/final-death-toll-for-thursday-16102014-approximately-195-people-killed-in-syria/ 3 YPG and 5+13 ISIL

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/final-death-toll-for-friday-17102014-approximately-226-people-killed-in-syria/ 3 YPG 14+21 ISIL

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/final-death-toll-for-saturday-18102014-approximately-194-people-killed-in-syria/ 7 YPG 16+15 ISIL

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/final-death-toll-for-sunday-19102014-approximately-108-people-killed-in-syria/ 7 ISIL

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/8-isis-killed-in-ein-al-arabkobane/ 8 ISIL

http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/final-death-toll-for-tuesday-21102014-approximately-214-people-killed-in-syria/ 6 YPG 18+3 ISIL

The U.S. report of the airstrike casualties was announced before the 15th so the airstrike casualties reported by SOHR have been taken into account. I would have updated it myself but I couldn't handle the references properly, so after freaking out I decided to ask you guys for help :)) Saeed alaee (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Government's Claimed Aid Supplies to Kobanê

The Syrian Government has "claimed" to have helped the kurdish and FSA fighters by sending them supplies. That claim was made, conveniently, only two days after the U.S. airdropped supplies to the besieged town; and it not only was not verified by the forces fighting in the town, it was also simply ignored by the majority of the media except for a few websites, and furthermore all the websites I could find and check(which didn't number more than three) were word-by-word copies of one another. Moreover, notice that there is a considerable number of FSA fighters inside the town and for the Syrian regime to have helped the town it would mean helping the FSA(a de factto alliance between SAA and FSA against ISIL? Unlikely) and that would be an important event that would be widely covered by the press. So here, I'm asking the user Hanibal911 and anyone else who believes the Syrian regime helped the town, to find and present verification by reliable sources inside the town that such help has actually been received inside Kobane. Until then I don't think it would be neutral of us to just simply put Bashar Assad and the SAA as part of the defense of Kobane.Saeed alaee (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

siege of Kobane or siege of Ayn al-Arab

The question arising from recent page move is ragarding the naming convention of this event. Per most sources it is certainly "Siege of Kobane" (2,770 results. However some may argue that official Syrian name of the city prior to 2011 civil war was Ayn al-Arab, even though we don't find sources calling it "Siege of Ayn al-Arab" (only 9 results, mostly blog entires). What do we do here?GreyShark (dibra) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The name of the village is Ayn al-Arab. A Google search usually finds Wikipedia mirror sites (the name of this article was previously Kobane) and the organizations working in the area are all Kurdish, so they use the Kurdish name when they are reporting from the area and therefor some western journalists inaccurately follow the Kurdish name, not knowing that the real name of the village is Ayn al-Arab. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Its actually a town, not a village (a population of 55,000). EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I vote for Kobane.--Catlemur (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no vote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The area is in self declared and defacto state of Syrian Kurdistan with a functioning govt. Common name should apply? Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The entire area is a war zone, and also it is an enclave not connected to al-Hassake that kurds control. The official name of this Syrian town is Ayn Al-Arab. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME should apply here. Most media are referring to the town as Kobane or Kobani. Ayn al-Arab is rarely seen at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the organizations working in the area are all Kurdish, so they use the Kurdish name when they are reporting from the area and therefor some western journalists inaccurately follow the Kurdish name. And the accurate real name Ayn al Arab is used also by western media: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/20/world/meast/syria-turkey-kurdish-fighters/ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/kurds-call-help-fight-isil-syria-2014918224956846511.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/europe/over-130000-flee-syria-for-turkey-in-wake-of-isis-raids.html?_r=0 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The CNN cite says: "The Syrian Kurdish town of Ayn al-Arab, or Kobani as it is known to the Kurds, is an island, surrounded by ISIS on three fronts and the Turkish border to the north."
• Al Jezeera cite says "Thursday’s attack on the city of Ayn al-Arab, known as Kobani in Kurdish, came two days after a top US military officer said the Syrian opposition would probably need the help of the Syrian Kurds to defeat the Islamic State (ISIL) fighters."
• NYTimes says "known to Arabs as Ayn al-Arab and to Kurds as Kobani."

since the cites for the Arab name give equal prominence to the kurdish name the point is mute. Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason is informative, but less important than the fact that Kobane is clearly the common name for the place at this point, which Wikipedia should apply based on WP:PRIMARY and WP:COMMONNAME. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a vote.It is a dispute resolution process in order to avoid a page move war.--Catlemur (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What the Assad regime calls the place is meaningless. They don't control it and would need to go through both ISIL and the Kurds and maybe the FSA to even contest it. We need to follow what the RS commonly call the city - the kurdish name - and stop edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Assad regime actually has nothing to do with this. Back to main point of discussion. Official international name of the town is Ayn al-Arab, the Kurdish name is Kobane. However, the common name used in the media is Kobane so we go with the common name per WP policy. And remove the , Syria part from the title, its totally redundant. EkoGraf (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Kobane" is the common name, but the circumflex diacritic is not commonly used. This article from the BBC is one example. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a duplication of the discussion on the Kobane page, and comes down to "Common" vs "Official" name. In both cases, the consensus seems to be that Kobane is the most common usage of the word Audigex (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct name of the city is Kobanî

The name of city is Kobani (Kobanî in Kurdish) Kobanê is totally incorrect. --Laser Perşikita (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses Common Names, not "Correct" or "Official" names. The name of the city within this article should follow the main Kobane article, for consistency. Audigex (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The city isn't officially called Kobanê

It's officially called Ayn al-Arab. Please name it Ayn al-Arab (Kobanê) in the article and that's with Kobanê in brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As discussed exhaustively elsewhere, Wikipedia uses the Common Name, not the Official name: the article should follow the main Kobane article, which has extensive discussion of this question Audigex (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

City map request

Since virtually all of the fighting is now taking place inside the city, not in the wide area around it (as it was in the previous phase), could we have the map of the city instead of the wider map? Something like maps in Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) and Deir ez-Zor clashes (2011–present) articles. Current map is descriptive for the previous phase, but now a more zoomed-in map would be more appropriate in the infobox and current map could be moved to the ISIL advance" or Coalition Airstrikes and Kobanê surrounded subsection. 188.252.185.11 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestion to a source of "Public Domain" city maps that can be used in this article? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army ?

The Syrian rebels fighting in Kobane are FSA-affiliated groups and not dedicated FSA units. I think it would be more accurate to list them as FSA-affiliated insurgents and not Free Syrian Army troops.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look up the two brigades fighting inside Kobane on wikipedia it says for both of them to be "part of" FSA. Saeed alaee (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you can't use Wikipedia as a source here...the problem is that these units are obviously not understood to be part of the FSA. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The war in Syria is a fluid situation and the FSA has always been a loose grouping of rebels. When the source says affiliated we can safely say the fighters are FSA. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Siege of Kobanî → Siege of Kobanê – A recently closed RM at Kobanê has decided that this will be the name used on enwiki so for consistency this article should also use that spelling. ~Technophant (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This is actually a request that goes in a different part of the page on WP:RM, where there is a section for requests to revert undiscussed moves. The stable title of this page is Siege of Kobanê, so I have restored that title. Please note that although I closed the recent request that resulted in moving the city to Kobanê, I do not have any personal investment in calling the page by a particular name and have no opinion about what title or spelling is "correct." If someone would like to initiate a further move request, it would make sense to include at least this page, the city page, and Kobanê Canton. The procedure is shown on Wikipedia:Requested moves. (Cross-posting part of this at Talk:Kobanê.) Dekimasuよ! 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just requested a move here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koban%C3%AA#Requested_move_2 at Kobane => Kobani since we now have a lot of evidence and RS that Kobani is more correct. This page should move as well to Siege of Kobani if that RM is approved but I suggest we NOT run two parallel RMs dealing with the same name. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kobanê which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hill dispute

Saeed alaee, you may be seeing the article published on the 23rd, but I'm seeing it was published early on the 24th. That's number one. Number two, the Dawn source clearly says the hill was recaptured on Friday (the 24th). Number three, if your WSJ article was indeed published on the 23rd as you say, then per Wikipedia policy the Dawn source trumps the WSJ source because Dawn is a newer (more up-to-date) source. Older sources are disregarded in these situations. Fourth, the Dawn source clearly states ISIL retreated from the hill the previous night but the Kurds recaptured the hill only the next morning. The WSJ was most likely referring to, when it only said ISIL lost it, to their overnight retreat. The WSJ source however did not say the Kurds immediately recaptured it. Fifth, I added a second source [3] confirming the hill was recaptured on the 24th. Two sources trump one. EkoGraf (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a battle - all the sources agree that over night control of the hill passed from one side to the other. It is not like there was a formal handover and the fight continues. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ekograf, First of all, I live in Iran, with Iran time zone(+3:30), so if it's still the 23rd in Iran, it most definitely is still the 23rd in Kobani that is in Syria time zone(+2). Second of all, the difference between Dawn's report and that of WSJ is not what happened, but rather when it happened. So the WP policy in this case is a bit irrelevant and instead common sense indicates that an incident happened "before" the first report of it was published; and Wall Street Journal is a highly reliable source and on the 23rd it wrote "The extremist group captured a hill near Kobani early Thursday before losing it again to the Kurds, as intense bursts of fighting continued throughout the day, Khaled Barkal, vice president of Kobani’s local government, said by phone from the city." Third of all, the SOHR source does not say when the hill was recaptured. It was sure published on the 24th but a report about an incident is not uncommon to be published a day after the incident. The SOHR source only says that the hill was recaptured. So it does not contradict WSJ's report in anyway. And finally, I agree with Legacypac so I will try to edit it in a way that we can all agree on. I'm assuming "good faith" out of all this and I hope you do the same. Saeed alaee (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

New Section about outer forces coming to fight in Kobane

I think we should have a new section in the article describing the process in which forces outside kobane(from Iraqi Kurdistan and possibly Syrian opposition or elsewhere in the future) were prepared and sent into the fight for kobane. The peshmerga forces from Iraqi Kurdistan are to enter kobane soon and there has been much talk of 1300 FSA fighters coming to help in the town's defense(although denied by YPG and FSA but still worth mentioning in the article) and I personally didn't know where to put these information(which are both important and relevant to the "Siege of Kobane") as they were not part of the "Battle for Kobane" and it would be controversial to put them under the "International Reaction" section. So if you agree with me please help in making of this section as I'm not sure how and where in the article that section should be made. Saeed alaee (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I inserted a new heading in the timeline since the intervention of new ground troops via Turkey is a major milestone in the timeline. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/406952/SAS-are-the-heroes-of-Kobane-after-protecting-town-from-Islamic-State claims British SAS on ground in Kobani calling in US airstrikes. Noted in timeline Legacypac (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Daily Star article is reliable. The Daily Star is a tabloid, and the article doesn't identify the sources of the supplied quotes. Let's wait for corroborating sources. 98.218.180.142 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - while there is little doubt that Coalition forces of some kind (observers, special forces, advisors) etc are on the ground somewhere (most likely in Turkey, not in Kobane itself), the Daily Star is NOT a reliable source. Particularly when the item is an unattributed, unsourced quote. Audigex (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Euphrates Volcano involvement

According to this source [4], the Euphrates Volcano operations room has operated in Kobanê. How should they be added to the info box? The operations room is made up of YPG and FSA-affiliated groups. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of ISIS fighters killed.

Most sources agree over 600 ISIS fighters dead, there is no mention of 900 killed in any link? 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the source the 609 figure does not include the fatalities that resulted from coalition air-strikes. The Pentagon spokesman said several hundred fighters (300) had been killed in the air strikes. So that makes the number of ISIS deaths in the range from 609 through 909. EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL casualty dispute

Ekograf, the following are my reasons for reverting your edit: Quite frankly I find the way casualty of ISIL is documented as 609-909 confusing. When you write 609-909 it means that the death toll could be only 609(zero deaths by airstrikes? it does not make sense) and the fact that 909 is mentioned suggests that we are sure that the airstrikes death toll is not more than 300(which we are not) and further more when you write "609-909 ISIL deaths several hundred of which have been taken out by airstrikes" an average reader could interpret "several hundred" in different ways while not knowing that the 909 put there is our assumption that several hundred means 300 and there is a 609 documented death toll for ISIL excluding those killed by airstrikes. These are basically why I find this method of writing down the death toll problematic. And as for my justification of how I'm editing the casualty section: We already know there are 609 documented deaths of ISIL excluding those killed by airstrikes. And we know that there's a 15 October U.S. claim that several hundred of ISIL have been killed by airstrikes(I would have used a SOHR estimate if I could find one). This means we have 609 + at least 300 ISIL deaths. But I think putting 300 is still not okay as it is original research(interpretation of "several hundred") as the U.S claim didn't say "at least 300"; it said "several hundred". And I think we should use U.S. claim's exact wording in this case and wait until new reports are published; preferably by SOHR. I also would like to know why you disagree with the way I put the casualties. Saeed alaee (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Updated Map

The image used for the infobox showing the situation is outdated. There are maps on social media, #Kobane has an updated map from the same source that gave the info on the first map. --Acetotyce (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS prefers Ayn al-Arab name

Now the Chechens are the "saviors of the Kurdish people in Ayn al-Arab [IS’s name for Kobani]." "The militant goes on to assert that there "will not be any communist, godless Kurdistan." http://www.rferl.org/content/under-black-flag-chechen-militants-saving-urds-communism/26688138.html can it be worked in? Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think they call it Ayn al-Islam. I can't access the link as it's censored in Iran but I too had heard such news. I doubt we could work it in unless we make some changes in the sections. It can't be part of the international reaction, can it? Saeed alaee (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL controls 20% of Kobani

http://www.rferl.org/content/islamic-state-kobani-plea-for-prayer/26700077.html this is the link used for that information; unfortunately in Iran that website is censored so I can't see what it says. If it uses the claim by Idris Nassan I think it should not be used as it is probably biased. But if it uses other sources please let me know by responding to this section. Also, Rami Abdulrahman has estimated that Daesh still has about half of the town, another analyst has also estimated the same figure recently, this is why I'm skeptical about this new figure.

I have found this source http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-suffers-setback-in-drive-for-syria-turkey-border-city-kobani-1.2845220 it says isil controls a quarter of the town and it's not biased. It also has some good information on airstrikes in and around kobani and the casualty toll for isil. I have some examinations for the coming days and weeks but I would appreciate if anyone took the time and used it to enhance and improve the article. Saeed alaee (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Very good - CBC is Canada's publicly owned broadcaster and is only biased about their own government subsidies for producing Canadian content like dramas etc. If you want me to check any websites you can't access just ping me and I'll try to help. Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I notice that the "Offensive" section of the article has not been updated since 5. November. I would like to update it myself with Syrian Observatory for Human Rights citations. Is the SOHR considered a reliable enough source for Wikipedia? Radioactivemutant (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is one of the most reliable sources for the Syrian civil war. And usually other internationally reliable sources(major newspapers and news networks) often use the first-hand information provided by SOHR. Saeed alaee (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not very reliable. Typically, government official sources are the most reliable. Followed by UN estimates. Private sources like SOHR are not reliable, especially if they operate in another country. Heck, even CIA was way off when CIA estimated ISIS at no more than a few thousand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The IP is very incorrect. Saeed alaee is correct. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIL casualties

According to SOHR: "905 fighters from the IS, killed during clashes against YPG and al-Asayesh, and targeting their vehicles and locations by YPG fighters in EIn al-Arab”Kobane” and its surroundings, 23 of them detonated themselves in areas in the city and its countryside. We, in SOHR, believed that the real number of casualties in ISIS is higher than our number with 500 ,because there is absolute secrecy on casualties in the IS, and due to the difficulty of access to many areas and villages that have witnessed violent clashes and bombardment."

It says nothing about airstrikes. The ISIL casualty is due to clashes and targeting their vehicles and bombardment(ISIL uses the word "bombardment" for mortars and heavy ground weapons, not airstrikes. It uses "airstrike" for airstrike) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed alaee (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Read it again. It says the unconfirmed 500 died in violent clashes and bombardment. It does not say it was YPG bombardment and actually, on occasion, when SOHR makes reports on airstrikes they use the term bombardment. Also, the definition of the word Bombardment is when an artillery is used to attack or when an aircraft drop bombs. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I read it again, but my point is something else; here are the last five daily casualty reports by SOHR. http://syriahr.com/en/2014/12/99-killed-on-saturday-06122014/ http://syriahr.com/en/2014/12/final-death-toll-for-thursday-04122014-approximately-144-people-killed-in-syria/ http://syriahr.com/en/2014/12/final-death-toll-for-wednesday-03122014-approximately-129-people-killed-in-syria/ http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/105-killed-on-friday-28112014/ http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/220-killed-and-wounded-by-regime-air-strikes-on-al-raqqa-yesterday/ I also checked some of the other reports just to be sure. They all used airstrike for coalition airstrikes and they occasionally used "air raid" for regime airstrikes. None of them even once used the word "bombardment". Also keep in mind that the English SOHR reports are usually awkwardly written; but in all of them(which I've seen) coalition airstrikes are called airstrikes. If you are sure put a SOHR link here in which it calls coalition airstrikes "bombardments".

I also just checked the original arabic report; it says: إننا في المرصد السوري لحقوق الإنسان، نقدر العدد الحقيقي للخسائر البشرية من الطرفين المتقاتلين، أكثر بنحو 500 من الرقم الذي تمكن المرصد من توثيقه حتى اللحظة، وذلك بسبب التكتم الشديد على الخسائر البشرية وبالأخص في صفوف تنظيم “الدولة الإسلامية”، الذي يتحفظ على نشر خسائره البشرية، ويقوم بدفن جثث مقاتليه، الذين لقوا مصرعهم في الاشتباكات سراً. It uses the word "eshtebakat serran" which means secret clashes. It does not, in any way, mention airstrikes. Saeed alaee (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I also read the arabic version, and the translation is actually burying the bodies of its fighters in secret, who were killed in the clashes. And clashes/fighting/battles can also involve air-strikes. So, again, english definition of bombardment is clear, even per Wikipedia standards, and the source at no points says the 500 died due to the YPG exclusively. EkoGraf (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong, the "serran" is the adjective for "eshtebakat"; it means secret clashes. Here, also, is the translation of the two last sentences by google translate: The burial of the bodies of his fighters , who were killed in the clashes in secret. الذين لقوا مصرعهم في الاشتباكات سراً means: those who(alathina) had been killed(laqu masre'ohom) in(fi) secret clashes(eshtebakata serran). SOHR, as I provided numerous links, does not use the word bombardment in the sense of airstrikes. And if it does(and the evidence so far is strongly against that) you are going to have to provide at least one link in which it uses the word "bombardment" that we can be sure is a reference to airstrikes. Until then I can't help but undo your unjustified edits. Saeed alaee (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your translation literally makes no sense. Secret clashes? Really? Whats so secret about them? And you seem to be totally ignoring the official SOHR English version of the report where they use secret when referring to because there is absolute secrecy on casualties in the IS. If you would use all literal translations from Arabic than we would be calling the Shaer gas field in Homs province the poet of the gas field as per google translate as seen here [5]. But if you want to stick to literal translations from Arabic per google translate, and you are requesting at least one link that shows SOHR using the term bombardment when refering to air-strikes than here you go [6]. And again the English definition of the word bombardment is pretty clear (in that it also refers to air-strikes). EkoGraf (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You revert it and I will have to revert it back. Why? Because for this to be resolved a SOHR report in which "bombardment" is used in the sense of airstrikes is required; I read the report by SOHR you provided, I read it very very carefully and I could not find any of the words "bombardment" or "airstrike" or any other English words. It was in Arabic. Fancy that! Resolving an issue about how a certain word in English is used by a monitoring organization who, based on their reports so far, can not be identified as fluent English writers(and there is no reason for us to believe that they are using the word per Wikipedia standards) by providing a report they have written in Arabic, their mother language! And as for the translation, I translated it word by word on intention as I sensed you were having difficulties following my points. Anyways, the issue, if you think about it, is not the word "serran" or its meaning. "Eshtebakat" is the issue(in the Arabic report); it means clashes. For us to assume it includes airstrikes would be interpretation(which is the same as "original research") and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. And the issue in the English report(which we are using as our source) is that it uses the word "bombardment", we know SOHR uses bombardment for artillery and mortars and things like that(ISIL shells on Kobani and Peshmerga bombarding the ISIL positions at the south-west), but we have no reason to believe they use the same word for airstrikes as they easily and repeatedly use the word "airstrike" and not once have they used the word bombardment in that sense(you claim they have? provide link to "English" SOHR report).

Oh and the part about "absolute secrecy", التكتم الشديد is the part they have translated into absolute secrecy. It has nothing to do with "serran" which comes in the end of the sentence. This was irrelevant to our dispute but as you were kind enough to mention this in your comment I felt obliged to answer.

And as for the current way you have edited it, I don't have much problem with it except for its ambiguity of 905-1405. 905: documented deaths. 500: SOHR estimate of the undocumented deaths. I will edit it in a way to remove that problem. And just for the record; I still think providing a note for the 500 estimate is a better way to go about it. But this one will do as well. Saeed alaee (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First, I lost concentration after reading only half of what you said. Per WP policy, if you want to make your point across you need to make shorter message posts (this one is bigger than anything I ever wrote). Second, it was you actually who first brought up the google translation of Arabic as a potential source and the link I provided you google translate translates the Arabic to bombardment when referring to air strikes. But whatever. As for the 905-1,405. You may insist on that several hundred killed in air-strikes being separate from SOHR posts, and I may even relent for the moment, but on this issue no. 905 is the confirmed number, 500 is the estimated additional number of deaths, so the death toll is somewhere in-between thus 905-1,405. Short and simple. And this is in line with WP: CALC. And apparently other editors agree with me, such as Tan Khaerr [7]. EkoGraf (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

EkoGraf the confirmed number of deaths is 905 by SOHR sources and the 500 "estimated" death that you say its just a suspected or predicted numbers by SOHR itself they dont have any prove to confrim this so its better to stick with confirmed number rather than suspected numbers.Masive respect Lindi29 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Its proper neutral conduct (per WP policy) to include both numbers and not exclude one over the other. 905 confirmed (lowest number) with the total possibly running up to 1,405. And SOHR's reliability and them being an authoritative site (per western media) has long ago been established thus providing credibility to their suspicions and predictions.EkoGraf (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe Saeed alaee speaks arabic so we should defer to their expertise. The higher ISIL death numbers seem very plausible given the amount of ground changing hands and bombs dropped. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am working in the Spanish article, and need to estimate the number of terrorists killed. So, a very important question for you gentlemen: are the 600+ killed by airstrikes in Kobani included in the recently published 1.046 dead across Syria figure? LlegóelBigotee (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

They should be yes. EkoGraf (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, then it's settled: 3.937 IS terrorists dead LlegóelBigotee (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Why no updates after January 6?

Yes, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.228.107 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Always mention all forces involved. Not just YPG or Peshmerga

The coalition against ISIS is YPG, FSA and Peshmerga. All three will have to be mentioned when talking about achievements in this battle for Kobane, as all forces play a crucial role and no single force can succeed without the other two doing their part.Mozad655 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Run down of Turkish paper reporting - some interesting spin here.Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes but it is part of politics and it was predictable that the turkish government would react somewhat negatively. They have to balance their collaboration with the kurdish forces and kurds in general, with turkish nationalism. That is if they want to avoid losing support from the nationalist wing. The second and third largest parties in Turkey (CPH and MPH respectively) condemned AKP for even allowing Peshmerga reinforcements through to Kobane. This is the kind of pressure that the AKP constantly has to deal with with from the nationalist wing. Mozad655 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Loins of Rojava facebook page has lots of comments that Pesh and YPG are all Kurds and one team. There is open mocking of Turkey's claim to have helped, some saying Turkey is confused and thinks ISIL won. Clearly the YPG are the main players (the locals) and the US, Pesh and FSA all played a critical supporting role. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I think you can expect that kind of mocking on a PKK page, as I'm sure you'll see alot of mocking of the PKK on Turkish pages. This is part of their war. Turkey's help is limited to allowing 150 peshmerga through, which is a huge shift in turkish politics and something AKP was heavily critisized for inside Turkey. I agree that the YPG or PKK are the main forces. I don't think anyone is arguing against this and their death toll speaks for itself.Mozad655 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Heavyweight drones and multiple sourced tanks

EkoGraf, you omitted the tanks casualty saying "at least use one source", then you added the YPG claim on destroyed tanks. And you also omitted the drone saying that it was underweight. I appreciate your concerns, but here's why I disagree:

Tanks: Three sources were used for the tank losses because each of the sources referred to tanks being destroyed in different days(so they are not the same tanks). Personally I don't see what's wrong with adding the losses like this when it makes sense; it's also not against Wikipedia policy. I suggest that we put the tank losses as follows: 7-16 tanks destroyed(multiple claims)

Drone: The drones would be underweight if the conflict was between two recognized and powerful states(for whom purchasing, maintaining, utilizing and targeting drones would not be surprising). But the two ends in this conflict are ISIL and Rojava, both unrecognized states(Rojava autonomous and ISIL independent) and both eager to make out as if they are as good as any other state. So having and using drones for ISIL becomes so important that it makes headlines in international news agencies(ISIL itself went so far as to make a propaganda video starring Mr.Cantly in which footage of Kobani is shown that was recorded using their drones). It is also important that Rojava had the ability and technology to shoot down drones(they are small, stealth and made in a way to attract least attention possible).

I can't edit these changes as this is a 1RR article. But I will edit it tomorrow. If you disagree please state your reasons here. Saeed alaee (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Saeed alaee Your arguments for the loss of the drone are your personal opinion that you have a right to, but if the loss of the drone was not notable enough among reliable and notable sources than I am referring you again to WP: UNDUEWEIGHT. Its fine if you think its notable, but it needs to be notable enough in the international media/sources for it to be notable enough to be included here. As for the tanks, I have been in general against including equipment losses in the infobox for two reasons. First, it inflates an already sizable infobox which Wikipedia requires us to be short with a quick overview of the information. Second, I was looking for it to fit the standard template we have established with 99% other Syria battle articles. If you look at all of them you will see we generally include only the numbers of dead fighters or civilians and NEVER equipment losses. Equipment losses can easily be mentioned in the main text body of the article. So, those are my reasons. However, I am willing to compromise. So, firstly, the SOHR source cited for the loss of the drone makes no mention of the drone, so that's UNSOURCED. However, I tried searching for the information on the Net and the only source I could find was a YPG claim they shot down 2 drones. So, I will include that info along with its source as part of the YPG claim on ISIS losses. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Split the article

I recommend that the part of the article for the battle of the city to be separated into its own article and have its result as coalition victory,meanwhile this article is to continue and end,when the siege is broken,by either the FSA and moderate opposition by territory reaching Kobani,or the Kurdish forces in Hasakah by territory reaching Kobani.

Looks fine to me as it is. No need for a split, all part of the same event. EkoGraf (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

then,the article is to continue until the siege is broken.Alhanuty (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See talk above, the siege was broken some days ago, and the thwarting of ISIS attempts to capture Kobani marked the end of their offensive that started almost five months months ago. New sources coming in are calling the current Kurdish offensive the start of a new campaign (which would probably require a new article). EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The conflict itself has yet to end. The US clarified that Kobanî has not yet been completely liberated. Until officials sources declare this, the battle for Kobanî (which includes the infamous siege) will continue. And as such, I see no need for a new article, at least not until Kobanî and its suburbs are 100% free of ISIL attacks, and only after the Kurds launch a completely new offensive campaign. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No split - I don't interpret this [8] as saying there is a new battle, "A campaign was launched to push ISIL out of the nearly 350 villages surrounding the iconic northern Syrian town, local officials say." but "And as the battle for the full control of the greater Kobane area is raging, Muslim said his fighters need more military assistance." Practically they have a victory in the city but only a few villages recaptured so far, so until the Kurds clear the Kobane Canton its all the same battle. Let's just make it very clear the battle for the area continues. Legacypac (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This was my original thought, and I agree with Legacypac when he says that the battle isn't over until all of the Kobanî Canton is reclaimed. US Government sources have stated that the battle is far from over, and even the Kurds report that despite something of an ISIL withdrawal, militant resistance is still persisting in the outskirts. Besides, ISIL began this campaign to conquer the Kobanî Canton; therefore, the battle won't actually conclude until the fate of the entire region itself is decided, either by a Kurdish/Allied victory, or an ISIL victory. All the same, this battle is far from over, even if it is no longer a "seige." LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is true that this engagement is not over as has been elaborated on by the previous two editors. I agree that it should be made clear that the battle is not over and so the article should reflect that. Mbcap (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Support a split to allow for ongoing coverage of the fighting around Kobani while closing the book on what is now a historical event. To expand on that, I don't think WP:RS support the contention that the siege of Kobani is ongoing; by all accounts, including ISIL themselves, Kurdish and allied forces now control all of Kobani and ISIL fighters have retreated. That being said, there is clearly still a battle for control of the region going on. It should be covered in a separate article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Isis finally admits defeat in Kobani after air strikes force its fighters to retreat

"Isis finally admits defeat in Kobani after air strikes force its fighters to retreat"

Two fighters from the Islamist group said in a video that aerial attacks by fighter jets from the US and several Arab countries were the main reason for the withdrawal. “The warplanes were bombarding us night and day. They bombarded everything, even motorcycles,” one said in Arabic. Another said the warplanes “destroyed everything, so we had to withdraw and the rats advanced”. They vowed to attack the town again and defeat Syria’s main Kurdish militia, the YPG. The US military confirmed that Kobani had been retaken from Isis.

--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kobanî

This is the name of the city, and with ISIS out, the siege is a Kurdish victory. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Acetotyce - There was a previous discussion here about this issue - see "split the article" section on this talk page. Since this topic is about the siege of Kobani, reliable sources have so far not stated that the Kobani Canton has been cleared of ISIL fighters which is what you would need, in order to be no longer under siege. If you have come across sources that state otherwise, please do post them here. Mbcap (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap:, this is not a siege anymore, the siege ended when ISIS was cut off from Aleppo road. This article focuses more on the city as opposed to the villages in the canton. I suggest a rename, or changing to a YPG/FSA/Peshmerga victory. --Acetotyce (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is not just about the battle for the city but the overall ISIS offensive that started in mid-September, half a month before the battle for the city started. And although ISIS has been defeated in Kobani city, in regards to the countryside they still control 335 villages/towns that they captured since the offensive started. And declaring the result of this offensive to be an exclusively Kurdish victory is missleading since they only won in the city, but overall they still lost 90 percent of territory they held before the ISIS offensive started. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Map

We need a new map. Kobane has been cleared of ISIS and the Kurds are now gaining territory around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.228.12 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Would a close up of the Syria map be sufficient? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could use De Syracuse's maps, according to De Syracuse "All these maps are original creation. You can re-use partially or completely by mentioning credits '@deSyracuse'". Saeed alaee (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What should be the result?

I wanted to open up a debate on what should be the result of the battle considering it may soon end. If this article only dealt with the battle for the city than its an outright Kurdish victory, no doubt. However, this article deals with the overall ISIS offensive that started half a month before they even reached the city. During this offensive, the YPG may have managed to defend Kobane city but lost control of virtually all towns and villages in the region of Kobane, 350 of them to be precise. So to say its a YPG victory when in the end the Kurds still lost 95 percent of territory they controlled before the battle started is missleading. Here are my proposals for a result - 1. Indecisive 2. Partial ISIS victory 3. YPG victory in Kobane city; ISIS victory in the Kobane countryside. I think the third one would be the most appropriate and per the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the Kurds may have driven ISIL out of the city for now, but I've not seen reports ISIL has been driven back more then a few km. That leaves the Kobani region still contested and the subject open. Second, I've seen no reporting that ISIL has quit the siege of the city, so it seems premature to call a result. When they give up regular attacks and RS report a result is when we should consider adding a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac I agree with you that we should leave the result Ongoing, however the whole day several editors (mostly IP) have been putting in Kurdish victory as the result. I've been reverting them but they always reinsert it. So that I wouldn't get banned for 3RR I simply tried to compromise with them and have now put the third proposal as a result. YPG victory in city, ISIL in countryside. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf its a 1RR article where "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users " Therefore as I understand it and as I've used this rule at 3RR Notice Board, IP edits can be reverted all day long by logged in users but the IPs are subject to 1RR so they can be reported and blocked. Discussion here definitely is a good thing. I've just requested the page be set to Pending Changes review which will allow all to edit but permit oversight on IP edits. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac Ok, I was for it to still be ongoing earlier because there were still reports of fighting in the outskirts of the town. But now multiple reports ISIS has been fully cleared from the city. Going to leave it as ongoing for a few days in case ISIS conducts some kind of counter-attack, but if nothing happens by lets say Friday than we should close the article. After all, its called the Siege of Kobani. In any case, the ISIS offensive that started the article is well and truly done. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the article started when ISIL was taking villages in Kobani Canton (per map) and moving toward the city of Kobani. Does the siege not end when ISIL is kicked out of the whole area - reversal of the siege? At any rate, we need to wait until ISIL is no longer actively threatening the city from within shooting range and headed out of the area. If they counterattack tomorrow or the next day it is just part of the same battle. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing, there is no more siege, the siege has been broken and even the ISIS direct supply line to Raqqah has been cut. And if the Kurds go on the attack to reclaim territory they would be starting their own offensive which would warrant a new article. Even the news is starting to call it the start of a new campaign [9] launched by the Kurds. In any case, lets wait for a few more days to see if the situation remains the same, like you said, if ISIL counter-attacks in the next few days its part of the same battle. EkoGraf (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See continued discussion further down. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The conflict is obviously Ongoing

Lately there has been much disagreement over the result of the conflict. If we were to put a result NOW, it would obviously be a slight ISIL victory overall(they gained ground since the offensive), even though the battle for Kobani city was a defeat for ISIL. But the conflict is ongoing as of now; clashes happen on a daily basis and ground keeps changing hands. I think there should be AT LEAST two weeks of relative calm in which neither side launches serious offensives or counter-offensives and neither side are able to expand the ground they control. Then we can say that the ISIL offensive that started 16 September last year is over(regardless of whether ISIL has been completely pushed out of the region or not, also regardless of whether all of Kobani has been captured by ISIL or not). Until then, I believe, a simple "Ongoing" would suffice as the result.

LightandDark2000; EkoGraf; Legacypac; Nulla Taciti; I would like to know how you guys think. Yours, Saeed alaee (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Kobani Canton consists of a town and 350 villages. There were about 45,000 people in the town of Kobani and therefore about 350,000 (400,000 total in region) in the rural areas. The rural areas are obviously less densely populated. Avg 1000 people per villlage so we can estimate % roughly based on population. If YPG recovers 50 villages they still have 75% of the population centres to go, and more then 75% of the ground still controlled by ISIL. No one knows when or how this will end but it is obviously ongoing now and the Kurds have been clear they intend to take back all the rural area too. If/when fighting stops for a significant amount of time or the Canton is recovered or falls completely we would call this over. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There clearly needs to be a new article detailing the ongoing fighting to take back the rest of Kobanî canton, i.e. Kobanî canton campaign (2015–present). The battle for the city is over and has been won, and ISIS are incurring territorial reversals still in the rural areas. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are to start a new article on the retaking of the rural areas by the Kurds than the result section of this article needs to state a YPG/FSA victory in the city, but a generally ISIL victory in the countryside because they still hold around 335 villages/towns in the Canton they had captured when they started their offensive. Just saying this was a YPG/FSA victory is missleading since the Kurds still lost 90 percent of the territory they held before the ISIL offensive started. Otherwise, if editors are against this wording to be in the results section than the article should remained open and ongoing. So that's my position. In essence I think the ISIL campaign that started in September has ended with a YPG victory in the city and a generally ISIL victory in the countryside and what is happening now is a new campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The villages in Kobane Canton don't appear to be particularly WP:N, and ISIS forces are in a full fledged retreat putting up little resistance to YPG/FSA advancing well beyond the town limits. So if the events are confined to this article, results need to be reported accurately, according to recent sources. Claims of ISIS "victory" in Kobane Canton have so far been unreferenced, and the situation is clearly ongoing outside of the town itself. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First, this article is about the offensive that started in mid-September and initially captured ALL of the villages/towns before they entered the city and not just about the fight for the city. So, just forcing the result of the battle for the city, while ignoring the fact the YPG still lost 90 percent of territory they held before the offensive started is highly missleading. If you want to have an article devoted exclusively to the city battle than please go ahead and branch of from this one. Otherwise the WHOLE situation on the ground needs to be presented and not just part of it. You are right, the results need to be reported accurately, ALL of them, and not just partially. Second, I changed the wording so to try and compromise with you saying ISIS controlled most villages which is fact. You said I provided an out-dated sources while not taking into account the fact that I provided a source from just SIX days ago which clearly states ISIL still controls several hundred villages in the countryside. The YPG has recaptured only 30 villages so far, with 320 still being in the hands of ISIL, which is MOST (90%). Third, if you want to continue adding up villages the YPG recaptures than it would be appropriate to leave this article open as ongoing and not close it until the fighting in the countryside dies down. So in that case, I would than agree with Saeed alaee and Legacypac. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force anything. The battle for the town was the focal point of the fighting, and should be proportionately represented. Any claims of ISIS victory should be specifically referenced. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The conflict is ongoing as of now, the battle for Kobani(city) is over but that's a part of this conflict, not all of it. I would agree to making an article concerning the battle for Kobani as the battle dragged on for more than three months and is important enough to have a separate article(media coverage was simply phenomenal). And as for this conflict, well yes it's called "Siege of Kobani" but the truth is what this article details is the ISIL offensive on Kobani Canton of Rojava in September. The Siege of Kobani Canton by ISIL started in 2013 if I'm not mistaken. The Siege of Kobani city started in early October when ISIL came close enough to Kobani to shell it. This article, on the other hand, deals with events that started in mid-September with a new offensive by ISIL on Kobani Canton(there was another one in June). And the immediate counter-offensive by YPG and FSA is the continuation of this conflict and part of it. So I think we should wait until there's no more concentrated fighting in the area for a period of time long enough to be sure it's over. Later offensives by either side should be treated as related but separate conflicts in my opinion. Saeed alaee (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was the focal point, like Saeed alaee says it was still just a part of the conflict. And again, ignoring the fact the Kurds still lost 90 percent of their territory is missleading. EkoGraf (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit calling it a tactical Kurdish victory as it conflicts with this consensus (and what is that anyway). Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

2000 casualty figure

Regarding the casualty toll per SOHR, the new 2000 figure is an update to the previous 1196, and so should be used as the only figure given by SOHR. There's no justification to use a figure by SOHR that's two weeks old when we have a newer one.

Regarding the casualty toll by WSJ, General Lloyd Austin, who is the top commander regarding the airstrike campaign against ISIL says they have taken out 2000 of ISIL. Here's the part:

Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander, said in an interview that the Americans focused firepower on Kobani because that is where Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi choose to make a stand.

“We said a long time ago Kobani was not strategically important to us,” Gen. Lloyd said. “But it is awfully important to him…In that alone, we have taken out over 2,000 of his troops, which is a phenomenal sacrifice.”

EkoGraf, I'll revert the edit in one or two hours. Hopefully you'll be around to argue for your way of editing it before I do revert it back. Saeed alaee (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Decided to neglect WSJ as the wording could also suggest that all the killing(of the 2000) was not done by airstrikes. But I edited the 1196 out as it is out-dated in comparison to the 2000 figure. I hope this is convenient now. Saeed alaee (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, we have both SOHR and US officials saying 2,000 were killed overall. So WSJ most likely ment that but paraphrased it incorrectly. The word helped as you say was the sticking point. As for the 1,196. I also thought about removing it, hower, I remembered SOHR always works with two sets of numbers. The confirmed documented numbers (1,196) and the unconfirmed estimated numbers (2,000). Since SOHR documented the deaths of 1,196 fighters by the end of the battle (10 days ago) the 2,000 number probably includes the undocumented deaths. Remember a month ago SOHR said beside the documented numbers they estimated another 500 died in the battle they couldn't document/confirm. EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated Map Available

The map on this page needs to be updated, it differs significantly from the current one. --Acetotyce (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done! I used a comprehensive map from the max ISIL advance in October 2014 to the turning point in January 2015. Courtesy of Agathocle de Syracuse, of course. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in 4th paragraph in section 'Spillover on the Turkish side of the border and protests'

The sentence "On 28 November, Kurds alleged that an ISIL suicide bomber crossed over in a vehicle from Turkey into Kobanî; however, Turkey drnied this." Contains a spelling mistake and probably should be edited to "On 28 November, Kurds alleged that an ISIL suicide bomber crossed over in a vehicle from Turkey into Kobanî; however, Turkey denied this." Of course without bold or italics.

 Done. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We need totaled out figures.

It's a logical thing to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viveret (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015, siege is over

While the campaign in the Kobane canton is ongoing, is it not fair to say at this point that siege of Kobane city itself is over and that the ISIS attempt to take the city has been repelled? Jdorney (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have for some time. Last I checked, there was no apparent consensus to make this change, however. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The local battle for the city may be over, but the overall battle for the rest of the Kobanî Canton is not. Since this article is about the entire Kobanî Canton assault that began in mid-September 2015, this battle won't actually terminate until the Kurds regain full control of the entire Canton, which most likely won't happen until mid-March to April 2015. So for this article, the conflict is still ongoing (it hasn't really ended, to begin with). LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case the article should probably be renamed, 'Kobane campaign' or such. The actual siege of the city is over. Jdorney (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is titled per the common name policy. We said we would close the article when the YPG recaptures all villages lost in the initial ISIL assault (300 down, 50 to go) or if continues combat operations stop for a period of minimum one week (in essence a stalemate once again ensues). Last change in territory happened three days ago when the YPG reached the east bank of the Euphrates just before the ISIL stronghold of Jarabulus. If no more territorial changes happen in the next four days we will close off the article. EkoGraf (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The article should be split. A discrete operation (the siege) ended a month and a half ago, and the ongoing operation (rolling back ISIL control of the rural environs) is a related but separate battle. It simply is not correct for the infobox to list a battle called the "Siege of Kobanî" as ongoing, as reliable sources tell us that is not the case. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This article, like we said before, is about the battle that started with the ISIS offensive in September 2014. The ISIS offensive was stopped finally at the end of January but its now being reversed without a break in the fighting by the YPG. EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We should at least divide the outcome into phases of the battle, then. That would be most factual and faithful to sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Siege - 'a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender'. This phase of the Kobane campaign is over. It ended with the breaking of the siege of the city. The siege is not ongoing. Therefore either the article should be renamed 'Kobane Campaign, 2014-15' or it should be split off into a separate article. Jdorney (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We name an event per the common name Wikipedia policy. And most reliable sources call it the Siege of Kobane and cite the start date when the ISIL offensive started in mid-September (two weeks before they even reached Kobani city itself). This issue was discussed earlier and it was agreed that when the continuing Kurdish counter-attack halts than the battle itself has ended. And it seems it will end really soon as they approach the original borders of ISIL-held territory before the offensive started. EkoGraf (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Jdorney Kudzu1 I have closed the article since, as seen here [10], the Kurds have retaken all territory previously lost in the Canton (except for two villages) as of March 15, while there have been no YPG advances for more than a week in the northwest part of Raqqah. PS I gave it some thought, and if you still want to change the name to 2014-15 Kobanî Campaign or somesuch I wouldn't object if it was noted in the lead paragraph that the event was also alternatively known as the Siege of Kobani. But only if other editors also agree to the rename. EkoGraf (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think itsok no, thanks. Jdorney (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Who Is Doing the Struggling?

In a statement that has no citation, no footnote for a source, the claim is made: " Turkey's own struggle against Kurdish independence has clouded its stance toward the Rojava Kurds." Who is basically in control & who is doing the struggling? If a man is tied up by his enemies, he struggles to get loose. In this case is it Turkey that struggles or the Kurds who struggle? Should the statement be changed to say, "Turkey's own fight vs. Kurds who struggle for independence . . . "? (EnochBethany (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

SOFIXIT. Information must be reliably sourced and presented in an encyclopedic fashion. This fails that test on both counts. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Icons used in prose

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:NOICONS, Icons are not to be used in prose, in fact they are discouraged in Infoboxes also, lets stay within the guidelines, everyone is finding enough to argue about. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the same policy page, it is OK to use flags for identification when they help, just not in general writing. The flags are not disrupting the paragraphs, since they are placed before their beginnings, so their use there is acceptable. Also, I have found the use of flags in similar fashions on pretty much every other conflict page with a "response" section that I have been to. As a side note, I have noticed that without the flags, it has been much harder for me to identify the various countries and organizations (and I am very skilled in English). But what about the people who have language impairments? As the policy states, Wikipedia should also have visual aids for the impaired, and I can't imagine the impaired or foreign readers having an easier time than I am trying to navigate that section without the flags. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The icons are being used in what is essentially a list format, which is permissible. It's not like they're being dropped in mid-sentence or even mid-paragraph. I don't think NOICONS applies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, pretty much every other intervention and conflict article implements the use of flags in their "response" sections is a pretty lame rational, It's obviously due to those pages have not been seen by some who follows policy/guidelines. Care to list them ? Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You can find the usage on pretty much every intervention and major battle article pertaining to the Syrian Civil War, and for some articles pertaining to the Iraqi insurgency, in addition to many of the other ongoing insurgencies across the Greater Middle East. But I agree with Kudzu1. I don't really see the flags becoming disruptive to the flow of the paragraphs, or distracting in any way. As such, I believe that WP:NOICONS does not apply to this case, and that the use of flags in this article is justified. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for more input here, just letting you know. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone here show the diff of what is being proposed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: [11] Mlpearc (open channel) 18:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure I agree that this kind of usage happens sometimes. Recently a prominent politician in Singapore died and on his wiki article at Death_of_Lee_Kuan_Yew#Governments there are flags in the section. For major events where countries all react, I see flags, and this seems to be a practice which gets accepted.

I think that it could be worthwhile to clarify best practices at WP:NOICONS. I do not have a personal opinion about what is best. I want the article to be as clear as possible and easy to edit, and perhaps flags make it easier to read or perhaps they are confusing and make it harder to edit. I might recommend taking this up one level and discussing it as a general policy rather than a specific case here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The NOICONS policy page was updated since I last visited it. Apparently, the example has become much more specific. According to what I see there now, regarding what has been cited for the usage of flags here, the currently usage does not violate that policy at all. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What the €∞§‡@* is going on?!?!?!?!

The article is Black. you can't even see anything!!! Ericl (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you.....el

Turkey allowed 300+ Peshmerga to help defenders of Kobani

I think you must add some info about it. Because that was the game-changer act for Kobani defenders, in my opinion if there is no Peshmerga aid, Kobani would fall. Turkey had allowed Peshmerga forces to cross the border through to Kobani from Turkish soil to help defenders of Kobani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karak1lc1k (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Assault commander name

This name is continuously changed without sources. I explained it last time: Read the source and name Abu Khatta Al-Kurdi is not his real name. Abu Khattab is his real name and he was not assault commander, he was just one of the operations commander. Also, first source is unreliable. Undo if you find better sourceFerakp (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Siege of Kobanî. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150130192630/http://en.firatajans.com/news/news/ypg-shoot-down-two-exploration-drones-of-the-isis-flash.htm to http://en.firatajans.com/news/news/ypg-shoot-down-two-exploration-drones-of-the-isis-flash.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150107081700/http://kurdishquestion.com:80/kurdistan/west-kurdistan/what-s-happening-in-kobane.html to http://kurdishquestion.com/kurdistan/west-kurdistan/what-s-happening-in-kobane.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140924041535/http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/kurdish-leader-urges-world-to-protect-syrian-town-from-islamic-state/40789514 to http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/kurdish-leader-urges-world-to-protect-syrian-town-from-islamic-state/40789514
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140922220715/http://www.euronews.com:80/newswires/2699412-turkish-deputy-pm-says-45000-syrian-kurds-enter-turkey-fleeing-islamic-state-advance to http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2699412-turkish-deputy-pm-says-45000-syrian-kurds-enter-turkey-fleeing-islamic-state-advance/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140920014948/http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2697556-hundreds-of-syrian-kurds-fleeing-islamic-state-gather-on-turkish-border/ to http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2697556-hundreds-of-syrian-kurds-fleeing-islamic-state-gather-on-turkish-border/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006131500/https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25190353/kurds-battle-for-key-syria-town-woman-suicide-bomber-hits-is/ to https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25190353/kurds-battle-for-key-syria-town-woman-suicide-bomber-hits-is/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141010173105/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/is-militants-seize-parts/1401176.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/is-militants-seize-parts/1401176.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141011151034/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2014-10-09/kurds-bullets-run-low-in-kobani-on-islamic-state-arms-su to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-10-09/kurds-bullets-run-low-in-kobani-on-islamic-state-arms-su
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141104155745/http://kurdishquestion.com/kurdistan/west-kurdistan/breaking-ypg-and-peshmerga-take-back-4-villages-in-kobane/402-breaking-ypg-and-peshmerga-take-back-4-villages-in-kobane.html to http://kurdishquestion.com/kurdistan/west-kurdistan/breaking-ypg-and-peshmerga-take-back-4-villages-in-kobane/402-breaking-ypg-and-peshmerga-take-back-4-villages-in-kobane.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141111222056/http://www.france24.com/en/20141111-syria-kurds-recapture-areas-kobane/?aef_campaign_date=2014-11-11&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_linkname=editorial&ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter to http://www.france24.com/en/20141111-syria-kurds-recapture-areas-kobane/?aef_campaign_date=2014-11-11&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_linkname=editorial&ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141214150046/http://www.syriahr.com:80/archives/40582 to http://www.syriahr.com/archives/40582
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141219220228/http://syriahr.com/en/2014/12/10-is-militants-killed-in-clashes-with-ypg-fighters-in-ayn-al-arab-kobani/ to http://syriahr.com/en/2014/12/10-is-militants-killed-in-clashes-with-ypg-fighters-in-ayn-al-arab-kobani/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150213181641/http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/advances-for-ypg-in-kobane-after-violent-clashes-against-isis/ to http://syriahr.com/en/2015/01/advances-for-ypg-in-kobane-after-violent-clashes-against-isis/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

The number in infobox for civilian casualties is highly inadequate. Over 100 civilians died because of blasts of mines and other ammunition left from the battle in following months (til October 2015), which shall be counted, also massacres by ISIL forces in surrounding villages shall be counted. The capture of those villages is considered as part of the siege, is described in the article and also dating begging long before entering the town includes that. Moreover I am not so sure there were killed so little civilian people in the town itself. It is possible due to massive evacuation, but still there was repelled shelling before entering the town. I am not here to spread kurdish propaganda and I am well aware, good evacuation prevented harder losses of lifes, but they definitely don't count 39-55, it looks almost like mocking of those killed by the hands of terrorists. Many people are lazzy to read full article and just check the infobox for brief introduction and they shall be informed correctly. I am aware, it is difficult to find proper source, because nobody makes census in war-zone, so I suggest (in a case nobody will came up with better source - for example scientific work) to phrase it: "Hundreds of civilian casualties".

With best meanings without bias, --89.177.235.222 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)