This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this really a "battle"? The rebels don't seem to be launching another offensive. The wave of bombings and assassinations is more like guerrilla style hit-and-run attacks. Maybe change the title to "Damascus clashes (November 2012)" instead? Another issue is that most of the fighting in the area is occurring in the suburbs. We could merge this article with "Rif Dimashq offensive" and then change that article's title to maybe "2012 Rif Dimashq clashes"? What do you guys think?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I am indifferent, but perhaps you answer lies in this paragrah
"That same day, rebels launched a large operation in Central Damascus. Firing mortars into the predominantley Alawite Mezzah 86 district near the Presidential Palace. Hitting the Prime Ministers offices, and Mezzah's military airport, killing 3 civilians and injuring 12 others. A spokesperson for the Revolutionary Council in Damascus, Susan Ahmed hailed the operation as "a countdown", and also stated "It seems something serious is going on there now and things are going out of control. The regime cannot control Damascus anymore". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20238859"
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with sopher99,and by the way there is heavy clashs in damascus and the FSA controls tadamon neighborhood which is in the heart of the capital,so battle is the best word to descibe what is happening now,it is no longer a gurilla hit and run fighting it is an an attack ,but look it is on levels,no directly in an fullout attack. Alhanuty ( talk) 20:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
the FSA controls the tadamon district in damascus city,and there is continueing fight in damascus. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
What is happening in damascus is very different from what is happening in rif dimashq ,what is happening in damascus needs an article for its own not to be put in rif dimashq offensive,the rif dimashq article was for the regime's offensive in rif dimashq,what is happening in damascus,even in rif dimashq is an attack by the fsa to take control over the areas. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff in here belongs to the Damascus countryside battles. Other than that the rebels never captured Douma and Harasta. They already ahd control of it and before this attack by them they were losing Harasta.
For the battles in the city, I think it's better to wait until the situation becomes more clear. How many times have the rebels infiltrated Tadamon and Hajar Al-Aswad? How many times have soldiers killed or scared away the rebels? It's better to wait for the situation to clear up and see if this was an attack to divert attention away from the Eastern Ghouta region (where they are losing) or a real battle aimed at capturing Yarmouk and maybe the city. Oh and there really shouldn't be much stock put on what the opposition say without corroborating evidence. They have a history of exaggerating and lying with a bad habit of going silent when things turn bad for them. 62.31.145.100 ( talk) 04:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The fighting in Damascus has not been described as a battle for the city Alhanuty, instead mostly as targeted attacks against government buildings which is in line with insurgent hit-and-run tactics and government raids against rebel hideouts. As for Tadamon, your only one source in the article that mentions Tadamon says there are clashes in it, not that it's controlled by the rebels. EkoGraf ( talk) 04:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Damascus (November 2012)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nytimes1":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⥠02:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Several mainstream Western sources seem to consider there to be a major increase in the Damascus conflict as of 29 November 2012, so my feeling is that "late 2012" is justified as a WP:SPLIT from 2011â2012 Damascus clashes. As sourced in this version, Thomson Reuters states that rebels "have been ramping up attacks" as of 29 Nov, i.e. during the recent past as of 29 Nov; and the BBC talks about an "unprecedented" attack by govt forces as of 29 Nov. So "late November" seems justified by the sources to me. Whether this should start in late October or not is less clear to me. But duplication between the two articles (apart from brief summaries) is unencyclopedic. Boud ( talk) 00:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
As I've put in the WP:LEAD, I suggest late 2012 Damascus clashes as an interim (not yet sole legitimate representative) name of the article, while we give a little time to see if Rif Dimashq campaign, 2011â2012 Damascus clashes and this one can be tidied up a bit to avoid redundancy and if RS's and the quantity of non-redundant material justify having all three articles. Boud ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
i agree delete the article,i agree on the split, Alhanuty ( talk) 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In popular reference, there is no such thing as "Rif Dimashq", it's all Damascus, and it's all referred to as the Battle of Damascus. This is a singular event that transcends administrative divisions. I propose a name change to the Second Battle of Damascus, with perhaps a parent article of Damascus Campaign that includes the whole governorate as far as Zabadani, with events since perhaps back in November 2011, January, May, or July, depending on when you consider the clashes to have constituted a "military campaign" from that point onwards (my view is that the present campaign started with the end of the Annan ceasefire at the end of May). As per the sources, it appears most of them refer to it as a battle for Damascus. [1] [2] [3] [4] This is not noting the mentions of battles for the airport (which you can find everywhere), battle for the province of Damascus [5], and the fact that discussions of Damascus districts always involve discussions of suburbs, and vice versa. They are largely lumped together as a single phenomenon in the media. So unless you want to create "Battle of Douma and Daraya" article, I think the best bet is to either divide the whole thing into several phases of a single battle (which would include suburbs but exclude remote towns like Zabadani), or to lump it all together to a wider campaign like my proposal, with at least two main battles. I don't see where "Rif Dimashq Offensive" comes from as neither this setting nor nature of the conflict are in popular usage. Well actually "Damascus Offensive" would sound more accurate than just saying "Rif Dimashq" because Damascus City is intertwined with the battle for the suburbs in every aspect. UltimateDarkloid ( talk) 23:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Changing the title of the article wouldn't be a bad idea now, considering that the rebels have captured Yarmouk refugee camp, which is definitely inside the capital. Also, researchers at the ISW are calling it a "Battle for Damascus". I propose we change the title to Damascus offensive (November 2012âpresent).-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
For the events in rif dimashq ,should be included in the article. About the yarmouk camp ,I think there should be an new article called battle of damascus Alhanuty ( talk) 23:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah the name should change in my opinion , it is true that most of the fightings are in the Rif Dimashq governorate but rebels are now trying to enter the center of Damascus. Amedjay ( talk) 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
References
Here is an interesting article to understand at least the beginning of the battle and its current status as http://www.dedefensa.org/article-damas_tait-il_un_pi_ge_tendu_aux_rebelles__17_12_2012.html Maurcich ( talk) 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The only fact that you call the FSA "terrorists" says a lot about your "neutrality" Amedjay ( talk) 18:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the "200000 soldiers and more reservists" you seem to be forgetting that most of the rebels were part of the army. and now there aren't even 150000 soldiers left. Amedjay ( talk) 14:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Alright , look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_civil_war#Actual_strenght_of_the_Army_and_the_FSA. you will understand everything -- Amedjay ( talk) 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this removal [2], with edit summary "rm material inserted by IP sock of indefinitely blocked editor". I know the rules of the land about socks, but there is also something to be said for common logic. Can someone explain the reason why that info shouldn't be there?-- Mor2 ( talk) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Really? Hezbollah didn't even put up that many against the Israeli assault on Lebanon 2006. Get your s*** together and remove the claim. The website does not even elaborate further about the claim; there's only one single sentence about it. 46.59.9.238 ( talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that the army controls most of Darayya and that is based on two sources I saw Abdo45 ( talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
They said ENTERED not TAKE,the government made the claim to cover up the lost of the taftanaz airport by then Abdo45 ( talk) 00:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
And what do you think entered means? You are now playing with semantics. And that source of yours only proves there is still ongoing fighting in Daraya, which was never denied when it was reported they captured most of the city. In fact at that time it was reported that fighting in parts of the town was still ongoing. It was never claimed they captured the whole town. EkoGraf ( talk) 03:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you a lot lothar for explaining to Ecograk the difference of entered and captured Abdo45 ( talk) 01:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
He didn't have to explain anything to me, I simply didn't agree with your interpretations of the statements. But, since you are pushing it this much I simply don't want to get in a conflict. So, let it be as you see it. EkoGraf ( talk) 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Sources prove that most of Darayya is under rebel control,with parts of the city is under government control,NVM and there is a gigantic difference between entered and captured and the warfare is asymmetrical ,not solid front line Abdo45 ( talk) 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
At this point to be honest I think it's around 50/50. On the January 25th before the reinforcement from Homs arrived the Syrian army was around Sakina Shrine. There's multiple videos of them in that area. Sakina is in the middle of the daraya, so who knows what has happened since the soldiers stationed in Homs came down south. The rebels are usually loud about any success they have and very quite about setbacks and losses. The fact that we haven't heard anything from the daraya rebels during the rebel counteroffensive in Jobar suggests to me that they aren't that successful.
Here's the map of the shrine and it's location
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.4646388&lon=36.2385592&z=13&l=0&m=b
Videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0U0LOR90Z8 http://en.alalam.ir/video/1441137 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTtEA4ZLMls 62.31.145.100 ( talk) 08:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Shrine is south of Darayya not center , we're talking about the Darayya east of Mezzeh military airport. -- Amedjay ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The rebels has pushed into central damascus,should there be a new article for the fighting in the capital Abdo45 ( talk) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Alhaunty, for the moment rebels only entered Jobar , they didn't enter the heart of the city yet. -- Amedjay ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you not large scale fighting yet Abdo45 ( talk) 20:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Note : rebels already pushed into Jobar during the first offensive in late July and it was one of the most important rebel strongholds during the battle. -- Amedjay ( talk) 19:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Back in November, when they breached the capital proper, a consensus was reached to create a new article titled "Second offensive". Now as of last week, I think enough has changed for it to be dubbed a "third offensive" as fighting has just been revitalized by the rebels after months of stalling, taking a heavy pounding in Daraya specifically.
By the way, the article info box summarizes the situation by saying "Free Syrian army takes control of Daraya, Douma, Harasta and Arbin". However those suburbs were already under rebel control by October (not sure about Arbin though). The regime has made gains in Daraya, and Harasta was either never completely under rebel control, or the rebels lost ground to the regime at least momentarily. In any case, Douma has been the most important rebel stronghold since mid-October, and it was certainly not captured just this offensive. Perhaps "retains control of" would be more appropriate? NightShadeAEB ( talk) 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I would agree, but I think it should be called damascus outskirts offensive ,due that all the fighting is in damascus city,and the entire eastern ghouta is under rebel control Abdo45 ( talk) 18:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I got a better name eastern damascus offensive Abdo45 ( talk) 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I would support the new article if it's going to be titled Damascus offensive (2013).-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be better to be named eastern damascus offensive due that all the fighting is occuring east of damascus city Abdo45 ( talk) 19:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay,then is significant offensive now, i agree to the name damascus offensive 2013 â Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk ⢠contribs) 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012âFebruary 2013). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this really a "battle"? The rebels don't seem to be launching another offensive. The wave of bombings and assassinations is more like guerrilla style hit-and-run attacks. Maybe change the title to "Damascus clashes (November 2012)" instead? Another issue is that most of the fighting in the area is occurring in the suburbs. We could merge this article with "Rif Dimashq offensive" and then change that article's title to maybe "2012 Rif Dimashq clashes"? What do you guys think?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I am indifferent, but perhaps you answer lies in this paragrah
"That same day, rebels launched a large operation in Central Damascus. Firing mortars into the predominantley Alawite Mezzah 86 district near the Presidential Palace. Hitting the Prime Ministers offices, and Mezzah's military airport, killing 3 civilians and injuring 12 others. A spokesperson for the Revolutionary Council in Damascus, Susan Ahmed hailed the operation as "a countdown", and also stated "It seems something serious is going on there now and things are going out of control. The regime cannot control Damascus anymore". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20238859"
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with sopher99,and by the way there is heavy clashs in damascus and the FSA controls tadamon neighborhood which is in the heart of the capital,so battle is the best word to descibe what is happening now,it is no longer a gurilla hit and run fighting it is an an attack ,but look it is on levels,no directly in an fullout attack. Alhanuty ( talk) 20:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
the FSA controls the tadamon district in damascus city,and there is continueing fight in damascus. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
What is happening in damascus is very different from what is happening in rif dimashq ,what is happening in damascus needs an article for its own not to be put in rif dimashq offensive,the rif dimashq article was for the regime's offensive in rif dimashq,what is happening in damascus,even in rif dimashq is an attack by the fsa to take control over the areas. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff in here belongs to the Damascus countryside battles. Other than that the rebels never captured Douma and Harasta. They already ahd control of it and before this attack by them they were losing Harasta.
For the battles in the city, I think it's better to wait until the situation becomes more clear. How many times have the rebels infiltrated Tadamon and Hajar Al-Aswad? How many times have soldiers killed or scared away the rebels? It's better to wait for the situation to clear up and see if this was an attack to divert attention away from the Eastern Ghouta region (where they are losing) or a real battle aimed at capturing Yarmouk and maybe the city. Oh and there really shouldn't be much stock put on what the opposition say without corroborating evidence. They have a history of exaggerating and lying with a bad habit of going silent when things turn bad for them. 62.31.145.100 ( talk) 04:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The fighting in Damascus has not been described as a battle for the city Alhanuty, instead mostly as targeted attacks against government buildings which is in line with insurgent hit-and-run tactics and government raids against rebel hideouts. As for Tadamon, your only one source in the article that mentions Tadamon says there are clashes in it, not that it's controlled by the rebels. EkoGraf ( talk) 04:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Damascus (November 2012)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nytimes1":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⥠02:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Several mainstream Western sources seem to consider there to be a major increase in the Damascus conflict as of 29 November 2012, so my feeling is that "late 2012" is justified as a WP:SPLIT from 2011â2012 Damascus clashes. As sourced in this version, Thomson Reuters states that rebels "have been ramping up attacks" as of 29 Nov, i.e. during the recent past as of 29 Nov; and the BBC talks about an "unprecedented" attack by govt forces as of 29 Nov. So "late November" seems justified by the sources to me. Whether this should start in late October or not is less clear to me. But duplication between the two articles (apart from brief summaries) is unencyclopedic. Boud ( talk) 00:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
As I've put in the WP:LEAD, I suggest late 2012 Damascus clashes as an interim (not yet sole legitimate representative) name of the article, while we give a little time to see if Rif Dimashq campaign, 2011â2012 Damascus clashes and this one can be tidied up a bit to avoid redundancy and if RS's and the quantity of non-redundant material justify having all three articles. Boud ( talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
i agree delete the article,i agree on the split, Alhanuty ( talk) 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In popular reference, there is no such thing as "Rif Dimashq", it's all Damascus, and it's all referred to as the Battle of Damascus. This is a singular event that transcends administrative divisions. I propose a name change to the Second Battle of Damascus, with perhaps a parent article of Damascus Campaign that includes the whole governorate as far as Zabadani, with events since perhaps back in November 2011, January, May, or July, depending on when you consider the clashes to have constituted a "military campaign" from that point onwards (my view is that the present campaign started with the end of the Annan ceasefire at the end of May). As per the sources, it appears most of them refer to it as a battle for Damascus. [1] [2] [3] [4] This is not noting the mentions of battles for the airport (which you can find everywhere), battle for the province of Damascus [5], and the fact that discussions of Damascus districts always involve discussions of suburbs, and vice versa. They are largely lumped together as a single phenomenon in the media. So unless you want to create "Battle of Douma and Daraya" article, I think the best bet is to either divide the whole thing into several phases of a single battle (which would include suburbs but exclude remote towns like Zabadani), or to lump it all together to a wider campaign like my proposal, with at least two main battles. I don't see where "Rif Dimashq Offensive" comes from as neither this setting nor nature of the conflict are in popular usage. Well actually "Damascus Offensive" would sound more accurate than just saying "Rif Dimashq" because Damascus City is intertwined with the battle for the suburbs in every aspect. UltimateDarkloid ( talk) 23:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Changing the title of the article wouldn't be a bad idea now, considering that the rebels have captured Yarmouk refugee camp, which is definitely inside the capital. Also, researchers at the ISW are calling it a "Battle for Damascus". I propose we change the title to Damascus offensive (November 2012âpresent).-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
For the events in rif dimashq ,should be included in the article. About the yarmouk camp ,I think there should be an new article called battle of damascus Alhanuty ( talk) 23:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah the name should change in my opinion , it is true that most of the fightings are in the Rif Dimashq governorate but rebels are now trying to enter the center of Damascus. Amedjay ( talk) 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
References
Here is an interesting article to understand at least the beginning of the battle and its current status as http://www.dedefensa.org/article-damas_tait-il_un_pi_ge_tendu_aux_rebelles__17_12_2012.html Maurcich ( talk) 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The only fact that you call the FSA "terrorists" says a lot about your "neutrality" Amedjay ( talk) 18:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the "200000 soldiers and more reservists" you seem to be forgetting that most of the rebels were part of the army. and now there aren't even 150000 soldiers left. Amedjay ( talk) 14:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Alright , look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_civil_war#Actual_strenght_of_the_Army_and_the_FSA. you will understand everything -- Amedjay ( talk) 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this removal [2], with edit summary "rm material inserted by IP sock of indefinitely blocked editor". I know the rules of the land about socks, but there is also something to be said for common logic. Can someone explain the reason why that info shouldn't be there?-- Mor2 ( talk) 22:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Really? Hezbollah didn't even put up that many against the Israeli assault on Lebanon 2006. Get your s*** together and remove the claim. The website does not even elaborate further about the claim; there's only one single sentence about it. 46.59.9.238 ( talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that the army controls most of Darayya and that is based on two sources I saw Abdo45 ( talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
They said ENTERED not TAKE,the government made the claim to cover up the lost of the taftanaz airport by then Abdo45 ( talk) 00:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
And what do you think entered means? You are now playing with semantics. And that source of yours only proves there is still ongoing fighting in Daraya, which was never denied when it was reported they captured most of the city. In fact at that time it was reported that fighting in parts of the town was still ongoing. It was never claimed they captured the whole town. EkoGraf ( talk) 03:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you a lot lothar for explaining to Ecograk the difference of entered and captured Abdo45 ( talk) 01:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
He didn't have to explain anything to me, I simply didn't agree with your interpretations of the statements. But, since you are pushing it this much I simply don't want to get in a conflict. So, let it be as you see it. EkoGraf ( talk) 02:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Sources prove that most of Darayya is under rebel control,with parts of the city is under government control,NVM and there is a gigantic difference between entered and captured and the warfare is asymmetrical ,not solid front line Abdo45 ( talk) 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
At this point to be honest I think it's around 50/50. On the January 25th before the reinforcement from Homs arrived the Syrian army was around Sakina Shrine. There's multiple videos of them in that area. Sakina is in the middle of the daraya, so who knows what has happened since the soldiers stationed in Homs came down south. The rebels are usually loud about any success they have and very quite about setbacks and losses. The fact that we haven't heard anything from the daraya rebels during the rebel counteroffensive in Jobar suggests to me that they aren't that successful.
Here's the map of the shrine and it's location
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=33.4646388&lon=36.2385592&z=13&l=0&m=b
Videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0U0LOR90Z8 http://en.alalam.ir/video/1441137 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTtEA4ZLMls 62.31.145.100 ( talk) 08:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Shrine is south of Darayya not center , we're talking about the Darayya east of Mezzeh military airport. -- Amedjay ( talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The rebels has pushed into central damascus,should there be a new article for the fighting in the capital Abdo45 ( talk) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Alhaunty, for the moment rebels only entered Jobar , they didn't enter the heart of the city yet. -- Amedjay ( talk) 18:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you not large scale fighting yet Abdo45 ( talk) 20:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Note : rebels already pushed into Jobar during the first offensive in late July and it was one of the most important rebel strongholds during the battle. -- Amedjay ( talk) 19:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Back in November, when they breached the capital proper, a consensus was reached to create a new article titled "Second offensive". Now as of last week, I think enough has changed for it to be dubbed a "third offensive" as fighting has just been revitalized by the rebels after months of stalling, taking a heavy pounding in Daraya specifically.
By the way, the article info box summarizes the situation by saying "Free Syrian army takes control of Daraya, Douma, Harasta and Arbin". However those suburbs were already under rebel control by October (not sure about Arbin though). The regime has made gains in Daraya, and Harasta was either never completely under rebel control, or the rebels lost ground to the regime at least momentarily. In any case, Douma has been the most important rebel stronghold since mid-October, and it was certainly not captured just this offensive. Perhaps "retains control of" would be more appropriate? NightShadeAEB ( talk) 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I would agree, but I think it should be called damascus outskirts offensive ,due that all the fighting is in damascus city,and the entire eastern ghouta is under rebel control Abdo45 ( talk) 18:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I got a better name eastern damascus offensive Abdo45 ( talk) 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I would support the new article if it's going to be titled Damascus offensive (2013).-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 16:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be better to be named eastern damascus offensive due that all the fighting is occuring east of damascus city Abdo45 ( talk) 19:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay,then is significant offensive now, i agree to the name damascus offensive 2013 â Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk ⢠contribs) 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012âFebruary 2013). 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)