Talk:Battle of Damascus (2012)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adding in content[edit]

I uploaded an image to Wikipedia commons and will add it to the article as it is relevant to the information displayed by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaik10a (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle end[edit]

According to media reports, there are not more clashes in Damascus? I reccommend to change article title to Clashes in Damascus (2012).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Army seem to have gained the upperhand but it is not totally over. Also the fighting has been signifiant to deserve its own article. The kamikaze bombing made it a prime event but even without that it would have been notable. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rename, most media as well as the rebels and even the Russians have called it a battle. Sporadic fighting ongoing. When it dies down to only occasional gunfire we call an end. Seems a final battle for Damascus is still a long way of, the war continues. EkoGraf (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than 24 hours there were not any combats except sporadic clashes, so I think that we can close this battle.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 07:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were clashes again during this night. News are that the rebels are on the verge of being defeated and pushed out of Damascus by the army in this battle, but don't go faster than the events. --DanielUmel (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't seen reports from last night. Do we have some news about loses on both sides?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'll get the full casualty report. The government rarely releases casualties by battle. Also the rebels and activists are generally biased with their figures. They release casualty reports that include dead rebels as civilians and keep the amount of rebels being killed at an unrealistically low level. It would be interesting though to see how many died in this battle. There were boasts of 2,500+ rebels from all over the country taking part. Since they clearly lost the death rates must be high.62.31.145.100 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is higly probable that hundred of rebels have been killed in addition to the one arrested. But the numbers will never come out. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably hundreds of rebels have been killed, wounded or captured but without some independent estimation, we cant give some precise numbers (or even estimation). Same thing is with government units.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can only estimated the number of dead based on individual reports from the government and the opposition. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the government and at least one opposition activist confirmed the military has reclaimed most of Damascus. If by tomorrow the situation is the same as it was today I think we can call a finish. EkoGraf (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, probably there will be some low level clashes in the future, but we can not tell that it is part of this battle.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Activists confirmed tonight that most rebels have retreated from the capital and a channel 4 reporter said government troops are parading down boulevars in Damascus. It is over. EkoGraf (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Troops Entering Midan[edit]

This picture is NOT of Syrian Army troops entering Midan during this week's fighting in Damascus. It appears to be extracted from video footage obtained in February 2012. It was added to the website on 2/29/2012. See this link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=536_1330535163

Same soldiers, bystanders, and buildings in that piacture are in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.149.22 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase the "Syrian army regains control over most of Damascus"[edit]

One should consider rephrasing the following sentence "Syrian army regains control over most of Damascus".

You might ask why. Is there any credible source stating that rebels have been taking "over most of Damascus" (read "most" as <50% of Damascus) so that the Syrian army "regains most of Damascus"?

This is disinformation or bad writing; implicating that the Syrian state had "lost most of their Damascus territory" is INCORRECT as the army already had control of almost whole Damascus except a few suburbs. We are only talking about some suburbs and NOT "most of Damascus". Intouchabless (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


→I tried to change it to "Damascus regains control most of lost territory" but it was reverted back and they included a source which have nothing to do with the actual statement before my change.

"Thabet Salem, a journalist in Damascus, says the Damascus neighbourhood of Barzeh is being shelled from helicopters. This is the first time Damscus has witnessed such fierce shelling, he told Al Jazeera. There are very huge explosions. Shelling of this volume, it's very new to us." http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/damascus-neighbourhood-shelled-helicopter-gunships

I will change it once again unless someone else can come up with something more credible. Intouchabless (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I changed it to a more realistic sentence. The Syrian governement did not lost any territory. Rebels were present in some areas of Damascus but they did not control anything enough time to say the territory was "lost" by the governement. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, better than my sentence :-) Intouchabless (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation "Vulcano Damascus" is the rebel name[edit]

This codename is coming from one single rebel commander and it should be noted. I find it a clear breach of neutral point of view to not mention this fact. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's being referred to by that name by the international media also and multiple opposition members not just one rebel commander. EkoGraf (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only one rebel used this expression. And it was not referred by the media. Some reported the name, but none used this title to describe the events.--DanielUmel (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, check examples of other code-named battles articles. EkoGraf (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the term "decisive"[edit]

The usage of the term "decisive Syrian Army victory" is non neutral and original research. The neutral phrase is "Syrian Army victory". "Decisive" implies a major turning point in the Syrian civil war, which I don't quite see it being, since the Syrian Army was originally in control of the city and now is once again in control of the city. Also, using that term implies a a turning point in the positive direction for the Syrian army, which I don't think it was, since in fact the battle showed the partial weakness of the army especially with the death of key leadership figures. But, the whole argument I make is really not relevant, since figuring out whether the battle was decisive or not generally would be considered original research. If you wish to call the Syrian Army's victory "decisive", which is fine with me, you'll need to include a source for that term.Guest2625 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition, the government, international media and international diplomats called it a decisive battle. I think that more than qualifies it to be called decisive, don't you? Sources here [1][2][3][4][5]. If the battle is said to be decisive, than the outcome is decisive, no matter which way it goes. EkoGraf (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A decisive victory is a victory that is a major turning point in a war for the positive for one side. Generally, you'll also use decisive to mean penultimate battle or the battle that led to the finishing of the war. This battle requires no qualifiers. A battle can be decisive for one side if they win, while not being decisive for the other side if they win. In this case, if the FSA had won the battle for Damascus, that would have been a decisive victory, since that would have significantly changed the status quo of the Syrian war, however, personally I wouldn't even use "decisive" in this case since it usually takes the distance of time to know what was decisive. That the Syrian army won the battle was a continuation of the status quo, as far as can be seen, the insurgency has continued and the FSA remains as active as before. Guest2625 (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"using that term implies a a turning point in the positive direction for the Syrian army, which I don't think it was, since in fact the battle showed the partial weakness of the army"

This is original search and non neutral. On a personal point of view I would say that crushing in 3 days an offensive led by thousands of rebels who had swore to turn it into the final battle was quite an impressive response. Also, journalist Thompson said that it was the biggest morale boost of the whole civil war for the Syrian Army.--DanielUmel (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The end was pretty decisive because with the Syrian Army victory the war will continue and will not end within days as predicted. EkoGraf (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one predicted end of war in matter of days. Second, decisive in terms of battle was used in completely different meaning. If Assad had lost Damascus, it would be decisive as it would be same thing as fall of Tripoli during Libyan civil war. Yet, we do not call Tripoli protests and clashes (February 2011) as decisive pro-G victory. Third, no source calls Syrian army victory decisive, therefore it is OR. Fourth, regime was in control of Damascus which it described as impregnable and major stronghold. What happened is that despite having fortress-like status, rebels were able to strike in the heart of the city, kill 4 members of inner circle, force regime to recall troops even from Golan heights - ie borders with state that they are in state of war for decades and which regime describes as biggest bogeyman ever, and bring artillery and air force shelling right under the windows of presidential palace. So where exactly does anyone see that decisiveness? That regime managed to hold onto a most guarded and most important city in whole country using SpecOps, artillery, air force, several army divisions, militia, ministry of interior forces and others again outnumbered and out-gunned forces which was armed only with small arms? No even mentioning that after end of this battle insurgency and guerilla warfare still countinues in suburbs and sometimes in city proper as well. If so, I guess we can describe every Syrian Army or rebel victory anywhere as decisive. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Ellsworth here. - Goltak (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, Tripoli protests and clashes (February 2011) was called for a long time decisive but someone removed the word. Second, saying that if the rebels won it would be decisive but if the government won it is not decisive that is a non-neutral POV. Yes they did predict the battle of Damascus to end the war. And by defeating the attack on the capital the battle has decisively (as it was called) determined a continuation of the conflict as was predicted in the case of an army victory. EkoGraf (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eko, that is not true. Had rebels captured Damascus, government would collapse as in case of Libya. They did not and I don´t really see rebels crumbling. What I see are L-39s in sky of Aleppo throwing S-5 rockets into the city districts. Month ago, both Aleppo and Damascus were described as forteresses. Now we know that they are not. Decisive means that it was crushing. Had rebels suffered terrible loss by not capturing it? No. Would govenment suffer decisive loss by loosing it? Yes. Those are facts, not POV. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"There has been more fighting during the night around Syria’s capital Damascus, activists say, days after rebels declared a final battle for the city."

"The BBC reported gunfire in a street just next to Syria's parliament, as rebel spokesmen declared a "war of liberation" in the capital."

"Rebels will intensify attacks inside the Syrian capital and target sensitive security installations in what they call an operation to "liberate Damascus"

""There is no going back. The Damascus battle has priority for us. We have started the operation to liberate Damascus," Saadeddine said, adding the rebels had called their operation "Damascus volcano and Syrian earthquake""

"We will hit security buildings. There is major coordination between all military councils regarding this. We will not stop, there is no return."

"A third officer said: "I cannot give details but all in all the situation is good, the regime started this battle and we will finish it.""

Do we need more? Of course now the rebels are not calling it a decisive battle anymore, since they got annhilated in a few days, losing hundreds of fighters and being pushed out of Damascus.

But seeing their press reports at the beginning of the battle, it is clear that they tried to seize the power in Damascus but got destroyed. --DanielUmel (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contugratulations, you managed to completely ignore all of my points. They tried to capture Damascus and failed. How the hell is that decisive government victory? And 175 KIAs, what is government claim, not veriable as both sides exaggerate their claims, is destroyed. From 2 - 5,000 which were participating in the offensive which, once again, claimed lifes of 4 members of inner circle. They were so destroyed that dew days ago Alex Thompson reported this It is now a week since the battle for Damascus was joined and then subsequently lost by rebel forces. But not lost completely. And not lost forever. Fighting still continues in some pockets of the suburbs. [6] Now, try to figure out for yourself difference between battle that could´ve been decisive, and was not, and decisive victory. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Especially keep in mind this part
But not lost completely
That throws out any decisiveness out of the window so hard that you can hardly see it. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The governement almost never release casualties numbers. The number of rebels dead is really a minimum, with addition of some commander reports and some corpses showed by television. The rebels lost hundreds of fighters in intense battle after the counter attack.

The thing is that the rebels tried to seize Damascus and to overthrow the Syrian Governement and they suffered a crushing defeat, saving the syrian governement. It is very decisive. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? SANA always that many "terrorists" were killed by security forces here and there. Exaggeration of inflicted casualialties is standart for both participants of the conflict. Of any conflict. Where do you see logic in saying that army killed less guerillas than they actually did? So what I see in those two sentences is simple WP:OR (rebels lost hundreds. No, government never said that and neither did rebels but I just know that!).
Again, WP:OR. You do not even bother with arguments anymore. Crushing defeat, how was that crushing defeat? If it was rebels would have to be crushes. Newsflash, they are stronger than ever. Not strong enough to take down capital, but point stands. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the casualties here have SANA as sources. The rebels death toll is an addition of security sources in one quarter, rebels executed there (from opposition sources), corpses shown on media and so on. SANA almost never release number of casualties. They name a few of the killed and talk dozens, scores, tens of but don't release full numbers and never have done.--DanielUmel (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have government controlled media. For example
pro-government media said that more than 80 armed men were killed in the Damascus clashes [7]
That number of KIAs is largely from government sources and medias. Hundreds, which you claim were killed in Damascus, is unsourced, therefore OR. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what the following sentence is not neutral? "The Battle of Damascus, also known as Operation Damascus Volcano, started on 15 July 2012 during the Syrian civil war. Thousands of rebels infiltrated the capital from the surrounding countryside and the whole country. The battle lasted around one week between rebels trying to seize the power, calling it the final battle, and the Syrian governement which repelled the assault and emerged victorious."

It describes better than the current lede which is very bad. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added more info to the lead so now it presents all reported POVs. EkoGraf (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the word, then I discovered this conversation. Basically my point is that decisive means that the battle was a major turning point or something else of the like- and its much too soon to claim that. --Yalens (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for EkoGraf's earlier note that had the rebels won Damascus, it would be over within days as pundits allegedly claimed... this is a good point, but it is still based on mostly speculation (whether of wikipedia editors or media observers). If anything it should manifest itself in an "analysis" section rather than the decisive label.--Yalens (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the phrase "Decisive Syrian Army victory"[edit]

Currently, there are two editors EkoGraf and DanielUmel who support placing the phrase in the summary box. The main argument for inclusion appears to be that reliable sources state that the battle could be decisive.

  • That reliable sources state that the battle could be decisive is not disputed.

However, the argument does not address the phrase "decisive Syrian Army victory", which does not mean the same thing as "decisive battle". The point of dispute currently is simply one of English and understanding the nuisances of the language. This is what the three other editors Guest, Yalens, and EllsworthSk have been explaining.

In order for the phrase "decisive Syrian Army victory" to be included, some reliable sources are going to be required that state clearly the phrase "decisive victory" not "decisive battle", otherwise the phrase is going to be considered original research. Edit warring is not going to get the term included. If required the issue can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, where some other editors can share their opinions about the linguistic difference between a possible "decisive battle" and an actual "decisive victory". Guest2625 (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The main point is that the rebels labelled this offensive as the final one, as the decisive battle, as the "liberation of Damascus" and threw unprecedented forces in the battle. The battle happenned in the capital of Syria, it was a matter of live and death for Syria and it won the battle. Therefore, this is decisive. --DanielUmel (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No source states that it was decisive victory, on the contrary I posted source which says this about battle But not lost completely. I stated my arguments before and I am not going to repeat them again as no one reacted on them. Per source I provided I am removing it. If you can find a source which will back your claims, feel free to post it here. So far neither EkoGraf, nor DanielUmel managed to do so. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is not lost forever has nothing to do with the decisive term. The Syrian Army successfully protected its capital and crushed the rebel advance. You can't make more important outcome. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think the main critic against the word decisive is that some people understand it as "final" or "ending", but that's not the only sense of the word. A compromise would be using one of the following words:

Important, crucial, pivotal, critical, essential --DanielUmel (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a good idea to try to speak for those who have a different opinion than yours. My main gripe has nothing to do with it being "final" or "ending", but rather that it is based mainly around speculation and disputed (and in my opinion, premature) personal analyses by wikipedia editors rather than experts.--Yalens (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yalens you are right. Fighting appears to be ongoing, and there was nothing "decisive" about the Ba'athist regime victory. Sans culottes 23:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not personal analysis by wikipedia editors but by journalists, experts and rebels that are in the sources I listed above. Also, San culottes, please refrain from using the term regime, it shows a bit of a non-neutral pov, and this specific battle, the battle for the city, has very much concluded. What is happening at the moment are standard insurgent hit-and-run attacks that have been going on for months. Its all back to the same old routine now. EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 5th source you posted above doesn't lead to an article but rather the main of the Hindustan times, so unfortunately I can't judge it. The other 4, however, do not show the opinions of experts or even opinions of journalists (who as we shall see, are simply quoting others, though I don't necessarily trust journalists to begin with), but rather quotes from actors. The 1st source features a quote from the Muslim Brotherhood before the battle that was most likely intended to rally morale. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th sources meanwhile, feature quotes about the battles decisiveness from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoabi. I don't trust these as reliable, and much less neutral, sources. --Yalens (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion. Which we should keep aside. But, in any case, I'm bored with this debate so do whatever you want. Remove the word decisive. If anything history will be the judge. P.S. The Hindu article was probably removed because it was old, they do that sometimes on that site. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept. The Syrian Army and the government faced a moment of total collapse and soldiers were even reported to be retreating. The rebels didn't come all the way from areas like Idlib and co-ordinate their attack on Damascus with Aleppo for no reason. They wanted to take out the government and the government fought back. They talked about having thousands of figthers in the city but after the battle is over it's clear that the majority have either fled or died. So far there's hit and miss attacks at work but they control no area in Damascus city and there attacks seem to come from the Rif. It was descive victory for the government as they turned the situation from where they faced total collapse to a victory that has hurt the rebels.

Also should we put a + on the rebel casualty figures? It seems implausiable that only 176 of them died and most of the reports come from their side. They're up there with SANA on the unreliability scale. 62.31.145.100 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@HindustanTimes: Yeah that's what I figured happened.
Does anyone see something specifically wrong with just leaving the page saying "Syrian army victory" and letting history judge whether it is decisive? --Yalens (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the capital isn't completely under government control[edit]

the southern outskirts came back to rebel control,the government went in ,then got out,they don't have the power to hold them anymore,so there a Government held Damascus and a Rebel held Damascus,Alhanuty (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The battle is over, has been for more than two weeks, everything that is happening now is a separate event. EkoGraf (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

then make a new article then for it .Alhanuty (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have one. Here 2011–2012 Damascus clashes. EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can you list the neighborhoods under rebel control Alhanuty (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels do not control a single neigbourhood. They are just hiding. --DanielUmel (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That's why they are called rebel hit-and-run attacks. They don't control any districts in the capital. They are hiding and conducting insurgent attacks on checkpoints, convoys and patrols on the fly. EkoGraf (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Saying the battle is "over" when it clearly is not is POV pushing by an incredibly pro-regime editor (User:EkoGraf) and a permanently blocked troll (User:DanielUmel). There are no sources that say this. If the battle was "over" then the regime would not still be shelling parts of Damascus [8] بروليتاريا (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The battle was over for more than two weeks. And was declared an Army victory by all major news media outlets. This article is specificly about the attempted rebel push in July. We already have an article which covers the fighting that restarted more than two weeks later when the military, not the rebels, started an offensive. There is no battle for Damascus itself at the moment, unlike back in July, that rebel operation, which was dubbed by them Damascus Volcano, ended when the rebels pulled back to the outlying villages. The fighting continued when the military started an offensive against those outlying towns, and like I said we already got an article on that fighting. Please edit that article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have two other articles covering the current fighting in and around Damascus Rif Dimashq offensive and 2011–2012 Damascus clashes. This article covered only the rebel offensive/push for control of Damascus proper, the capital, back in July, which ultimately failed. The current fighting on the outskirts of the city and the sporadic clashes in the city itself are already covered in those two other articles. If the rebels attempt a totaly new organised offensive to capture the capital city area than we create a new article, that's how it goes. EkoGraf (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you use to claim "regime victory" are totally misrepresented. None of them claim regime victory. Not one. They only mention regime claims of victory, if at all. The other articles you mention are just symptoms of the balkanization due to POV pushing that colors all of the Syrian civil war articles, unfortunately. Worse still, upon closer inspection the 4 August date you push as a supposed end date to this obviously ongoing battle is a claim made by a regime general ([9]), a shocking breach of WP:NEU. Sources from yesterday(Syrian rebels kill 21 elite soldiers in Damascus suburbs) and even today (Syrian rebels say capture air defense base near Damascus) confirm ongoing fighting, as well as numerous sources from when the fighting began. Its time to put this nonsense to rest EkoGraf. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If sources say that fighting is ongoing, then fighting is ongoing. Rif Dimashq offensive deals with a separate military operation in the governorate at large, and the clashes article is a weird POV-fork/coatrack. The government has not totally secured the Damascus metropolitan area, and since the article isn't called Operation Damascus Volcano, we aren't constrained to only the rebel offensive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to seriously agree on a standard here before we do anything. The Siege of Homs article contains everything that happened in Homs since May 2011.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battles can and often do continue for months and years. This is just the same issue as the battle of Aleppo page. Regime supporters wanting to give minute, intricate, and overly detailed information as a way of somehow explaining the regime's unstoppable march towards victory, despite all evidence to the contrary. The level of delusion and the amount of WP:POLICIES ignored is incredible. User:EkoGraf has tried to convince me ad nauseum that only the beginning of the opposition attack counted as the battle... and has claimed that the suburbs of Damascus don't count as Damascus(?)... and that sources which don't claim regime victory actually claim regime victory. Enough already. All sources show that the conflict in Damascus has continued since the given start date. بروليتاريا (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources have been provided, including a few that are not coming from the regime. And it is not just me, several other editors have also edited the article in a way that the battle is over (whom you reverted and called them vandalism). Before this time, it was user Pravdavoin who reverted you. The article Battle of Damascus (2012) covers the rebel offensive back from July, which had the aim of capturing the metropolitan area of Damascus...it admittedly failed. That was a highly notable event which deserved its own article (per Wikipedia policy). The rebel operational name of the battle Damascus volcano was also agreed to after a discussion on this very same talk page. We already have an article on the current fighting, it is called Rif Dimashq offensive (which covers all of the fighting in and around Damascus). I already explained that the suburbs of Damascus as you called them are actually separate towns that are in Rif Dimashq province, which is separate from the Damascus province. Still, like I said, despite this, the article Rif Dimashq offensive already covers the fighting in both the suburbs and the capital itself. If we try and reopen an old battle than it would be simply content forking, which is not according to Wikipedia rules. It has already been pointed out in the result section of the Battle of Damascus (2012) that the fighting later continued with the offensive (I added it as a compromise solution). Battle has shifted from an all-out rebel attack to capture the capital to an Army offensive in and around Damascus, at a later date, situation evolved. Siege of Homs has been a continues military/rebel operation for the battle for that city. What happened back in July in Damascus was a rebel initiated operation to capture the capital, which failed. After that there was a two-week period of low-level rebel hit-and-run attacks, after which fighting reignited with the military offensive mid-August. In any case changes can not be made to the article until the discussion is over. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. About your comment that All sources show that the conflict in Damascus has continued since the given start date. There was a conflict in Damascus even before the start date, and there will be in the long run even after different military operations end. You don't see us calling Battle of Baghdad (2003) an ongoing battle just because there are even today ongoing insurgent/rebel attacks in and around that city? This article specificly is about a specific event and military operation, in the grand overall conflict in and around Damascus (that is continuing), that ended two months ago. Damascus Volcano ended the moment the rebels retreated to the outlying towns and abandoned attempts to take the metropolitan area, at the time. Your sources point to rebel attacks and clashes, which were happening long before the July Battle of Damascus, nothing in your sources about their July offensive still continuing. Answer me, truthfully, these three questions. Do you have sources which explicitly say that the rebel offensive to capture the metropolitan area is still ongoing? Sporadic rebel attacks that have been happening since last year don't count. And if you insist that this article is not limited only to the rebel July offensive, than why use the offensives start date (given there was fighting even before)? And if you insist that the current fighting is also part of the battle to capture Damascus (for which you don't have sources) how would this article be any different than from 2011–2012 Damascus clashes? EkoGraf (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The battle has been continuous as all sources show. You are simply referring to the initial rebel offensive to completely capture Damascus, as a result of which several suburbs remained under opposition control to this day [10]. You are pushing a regime narrative, and the sources you provide do not state that the fighting is over. They repeated verbatim regime claims of victory. That is not WP:NEU. End of story. There is nothing to talk about and nothing to compromise on here, the fighting is ongoing. بروليتاريا (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your way of discussion is not helping. When a dispute exists a consensus needs to be reached, that is the way Wikipedia works. Your way is simply POV-pushing. Again, your sources mostly talk about the government offensive into towns on the outskirts of Damascus, in the separate Rif Dimasqh province. In the capital city itself there have been mostly only rebel hit-and-run attacks, which is not a battle for the city itself. There is a big difference between a battle for the city, and rebel hit-and-run attacks...Listen, unlike you, I can be compromising, and so, I am proposing the following, that we look at the model of for example Fourth Battle of Brega. Where you had different phases to a battle. I would be willing to compromise that we state the first phase, which was Damascus volcano, which ended after the rebels failed to take the metropolitan area and retreat, be the first phase. Than a second phase started, sometime during the last two weeks, late September, or early October. Your own NY times source talks about a truce being in place for three months. Still, three months is a longer time than what happened at Brega, so we can also create a new separate article for the current fighting in the capital. Something like Fall 2012 Damascus clashes. So there, two proposals. But I would only agree to this if other editors also agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... I think the guy with the Arabic username just got blocked for sock-puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/San culottes -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, wow, I didn't see that one coming. Guess we continue the debate than only if someone else still thinks the article needs changes. EkoGraf (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic name user even wished me luck in the sock puppet investigation... so I guess I should thank him for his kindness. --Wüstenfuchs 16:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how he accused "permanently blocked troll (User:DanielUmel)" of POV pushing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speechless. EkoGraf (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think breaking up the battle articles into phases is the best way to go. I'm not sure that it's useful to create a new article for each phase, since generally there are many phases to these different location battles. In the case of this article, there was a clear first phase of the battle in which the opposition forces failed to take control of the city. I figure now there is a second ongoing phase that involves lower level insurgent activity. Also, how to organize internally the battle articles is a question. The Fourth Battle of Brega used a timeline format which looks organised and is useful for a researcher of the events of the battle; however, for the general reader it's a bit too detailed and doesn't give a historical narrative telling of the battle. Guest2625 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Proletaria (Arabic user name) on the fact that the battle of Damascus never really ended. Yes, Damascus is its own governorate, as opposed to suburbs such Daraya, Tal, Harasta and Douma, each which qualifies as standalone towns and are part of the Rural Damascus governorate. However, if you look at the map, they all constitute an extension of metropolitan Damascus, and geographically there's no separation between them. Even right now, rebels control Harasta and Douma as well as large portions of the Ghouta area. WHen the rebels attacked Damascus, they made it clear they will never leave Damascus till it is liberated. Occasionally they still reclaim southern and northern neighbourhoods before getting pushed back. However, they have never been pushed out of the suburbs of Damascus, and not even the recent Daraya massacre has broken the rebels' back. Just now media sources[1][2] are noting how Damascus proper has been hit by air strikes for the first time. This shows that rebels are only encroaching further into the capital, slowly but surely.
As far as Brega goes, that was a small town where enemy factions were COMPLETELY driven out of it after every battle. Damascus is a huge city whose smaller outlying towns would dwarf Brega. I do not see the two situations as comparable. The fighting escalated sharply from July 16 within Damascus proper, and even now[3] Damascus has become the city with the third highest number of casualties with 2,623 killed in Damascus proper, up from 792 and fourth place back in July 31st, having overtaken both Hama and Deir ez Zour, but being overtaken by Aleppo. All indicators point to the Damascus campaign and the Rural Damascus campaign being part of the same battle, and frequently on Al Arabiya analysis Tal and Harasta were featured as part of the battle of Damascus despite their belonging to Rural Damascus.
Additionally Futuretrillionaire raises an excellent point about the Homs article, which I've mentioned recently. We need to completely overhaul and reorganize the entire structure of Syrian battle pages, including what constitutes a "battle". It seems some towns are considered a battle (Rastan, Qusayr, Douma, Zabadani, Idlib, Taftanaz, Azaz, Anadan, Maarat an Nuuman), others are ignored (Al Bab in Aleppo, Tal Abyad in Raqqa, Abu Kamal in Deir ez Zour, Bustan al Qasab in Latakia) while others are a siege (Homs), blockade (mostly the early stages but others are called sieges), bombardment (previously Homs) or offensive (Damascus); better yet some are both battles and massacres but referred to as either a battle (Haffa, Tremseh), or a massacre (Houla, Qubeir, Daraya), while other massacres are absolutely ignored (Idlib, Sheikh Maskeen in Daraa, Al Arbaeen in Hama). Maybe it's because the English media isn't as focused on the crisis as the Arabic media is, in which case I can only respect the consensus on notability.
In any case, the original battle of Douma was a one time assault back in January, but this time, instead of creating an article for every suburb such as Harasta and Douma, we need to keep everything defined as a singular Damascene front. Deir ez Zour for instance has one article dealing with the whole delta on the river, from Abu Kamal to Mayadeen, which works due to lack of notability. But Damascus at least is one adjacent urban area, with suburbs closely packed to the capital, and directly involved in the July fighting, which only moved out of Damascus proper but not out of its suburbs; the present ongoing battles in Douma, Harasta and Ghouta are too dynamic to be considered as a mere regime "offensive" in Rural Damascus. Unless we're gonna create an article titled "Battle of Rif Dimashq" I think it is best to merge the two articles and explain that the battle has had two or three phases: rebel incursions and regime offensive in Damascus proper, rebels regroup and the regime takes the offensive to the suburbs, culminating in Daraya, and finally the rebels regroup east of the capital and retake Douma and Harasta, culminating in the regime beginning to use its air force on Damascus proper. Obviously the rebels don't have much time in Damascus proper, but they have all the time they need just around it. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said it before and I will say it again, this article is about the rebel offensive on Damascus in an attempt to capture the capital back in July, which ultimately failed. Further fighting continued with the military offensive into the outskirts. The clashes in the capital restarted only weeks later and they were hit-and-run attacks and not battles for the city itself. P.S. We already have an article on the overall campaign in both Damascus and the Rif Dimashq province, it's called 2011–2012 Damascus clashes EkoGraf (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watching the news nowadays, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this battle is completely entwined. I suggest we change this name to the Damascus offensive, or the July-August offensive, as part of the larger, ongoing battle for Damascus. It's impossible to separate the suburbs from the city proper in terms of the battle because they're all linked together. The battles ongoing in the suburbs ARE for the city itself, they are directly adjacent to Damascus. The large escalation in the city proper ended in rebel withdrawal, but the larger operation is still ongoing, perhaps preceding the July battle itself. This is not a case of a flashy escalation and commence of battle, this is a case of an insurgency very gradually escalating, with sporadic flashes and escalations now and then, but the general trend of escalations itself is part of the battle. The Rif Dimashq offensive makes no sense because the army offensive died down in August, after the Daraya massacre, so if we're to make a separate article for every offensive, we'd need four or five articles covering the post-June phase. The news does not differentiate between Damascus and Rif Dimashq as far as the suburbs are concerned, so based on the consensus on reporting by mainstream news we need to refer to the events by what they are: a battle for Damascus. We can separate the article into sections, or we can keep this one and change its name. But references to a battle in Damascus, when most of the action is happening in the suburbs, has become far too widespread in the media for us to ignore it. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was all covered at length in the previous discussions. Operation Damascus volcano (which this article covers) ended when the rebels abandoned their attempt to capture the capital and retreated to Rif Dimashq province where the military launched their own offensive against them. An article for that offensive and the current rebel one already exists in the form of the Rif Dimashq campaign article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gERs_qh99dkQHhEG8ES8wOTLwI3Q?docId=CNG.493b5bfef777e0c4e6e2103828c1614e.4c1
  2. ^ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/10/31/General-killed-jet-fighters-bomb-Damascus/UPI-48461351665000/
  3. ^ http://www.syrianshuhada.com/default.asp?lang=en&a=st&st=6

the second battle is about to start[edit]

various news and military analiysis confirm that the second battle for the capital is going to begin very sooon,where the regime has withdraw forces to damascus and has turned mount qasioun to a military bases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it begins it begins, but for now it has not, Wikipedia has a rule on not being a crystal ball. EkoGraf (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Map[edit]

Can someone make a new map of the battle of Damascus because this map is old. Can we make a map similar to the one on the battle of Aleppo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenrules777 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on one similar to the one I've made for the Rif Dimashq offensive (March–August 2013). MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Damascus (2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Damascus (2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Damascus (2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Damascus_(2012)&oldid=1199629002"