Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–February 2013)

Second "battle"?
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 see this as simple content forking. The information in this article talks about mostly the operations in the suburbs and the towns on the outskirts that are in Rif Dimashq province. We already have an article on the current fighting there and it's called Rif Dimashq offensive. Like Future says, just merge the content into Rif Dimashq offensive and redirect this page to there. As for the title, it most certainly is not a Battle for the capital so the title is inapropriate. Like Future says, it's standard rebel hit-and-run attacks into some central areas of the capital in an attempt to relieve the pressure of the military offensive on the outskirts. They are not trying to capture and hold areas in the capital like they tried back in July. End of story. EkoGraf (talk) 22:27, 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)


 * If you do not have sources which explicitly say that the rebels are conducting a battle for control of Damascus, which they did do back in July, than anything else is your personal opinion which Wikipedia can't take into account. Furthermore, there have been sources which explicitly say that what is happening at the moment in the central parts of Damascus is a rebel attempt, by their own admission, to relieve the pressure of the military offensive on the rural outskirts for which we already have an article Rif Dimashq offensive. I can provide you with these sources. Thus what is happening now in the central parts of Damascus is directly linked to that. In any case, your opinion that there is a battle for Damascus at the moment is unsourced and while some of the fighting you have written on in the article IS happening in the central parts of Damascus, most of it is happening in the rural towns on the outskirts, which is already covered in the Rif Dimashq article and is thus in violation of Wikipedia policy on content forking. Tomorrow I will move all of your info into a separate section of the Rif Dimashq offensive. Except you, none of the other editors have tried to argue for keeping the article. Future and I have pointed out to you the dubiousness of the article and Sopher has stated he is indifferent. EkoGraf (talk) 02:29, 10 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)

Orphaned references in Battle of Damascus (November 2012)
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": From Siege of Hama (2011):  From 2011–2012 Damascus clashes:  

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)

since 29 November 2012
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 2011–2012 Damascus clashes. As sourced in, 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)


 * This is all already covered in the article Rif Dimashq campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

possible interim name
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, 2011–2012 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)


 * Lets name it the siege of damascus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We can't do that without sources that directly call it a "siege", or at least sources which describe the situation in a way which can uncontroversially be described as a siege. IMHO there are no sources pointing to a siege as of 1 Dec 2012. Boud (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alhanuty, have you even read the previous discussion above. There are no sources that confirm ether a siege or a battle of Damascus. Also, this article was more of a content fork from Rif Dimashq campaign. All other editors agreed that the info from this article was better suited to that article. So it was merged. And the new events that you are talking about, the airpot fighting, it is already talked about in the other article, so you are still putting information that is already covered elsewhere. EkoGraf (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any comment by Alhanuty here - except that he reverted the redirect. Anyway, the place for discussion now seems to be Talk:Rif_Dimashq_campaign. Boud (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

i agree delete the article,i agree on the split, Alhanuty (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The split has now been done, and this article is now Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–present). Boud (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Name change
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. This is not noting the mentions of battles for the airport (which you can find everywhere), battle for the province of Damascus, 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)
 * You do have a good point that the current title is far from being WP:commonname However, right now most of the fighting is in the suburbs. If the rebels do manage to bring the fighting to the heart of the city, we could create a new article for the second battle of Damascus or change the name of this article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another possibility I'm okay with at this stage is to change the title to Siege of Damascus per . -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need a better name for Rif Dimashq because Dimashq just means Damascus, and that's how it is translated in the media. That and the battles are usually part of the same campaign, and the media generally refers to the battles in the suburbs as battles in Damascus, albeit with specifications (airport, suburbs, rural, etc). I think describing this in terms of different phases of the Damascus battle might be more helpful. Changing the name to siege won't do, no side has a complete siege on Damascus just yet, and even if we change it, it'll get changed pretty soon as more news labels emerge to contest it. I think a parent article that says Damascus Campaign, which would go inline with the format used for Libya as this describes as multi-fronted battle spanning a geographic region and two administrative governorates, including both Rif Dimashq, Damascus, and all subbattles. Or we can use something else, and I can only think of using the word battle in this case, because it's the most frequently used terminology in popular usage, but this will lead us to reorganize the Damascene morass for over the past few months. The term offensive I find a bit confusing, I mean isn't every single series of attacks in a sustained military campaign technically an offensive? It's a bit murky and doesn't look consistent or neat the way the articles are structured. I mean we have Siege of Homs, Battle of Aleppo, and Rif Dimashq offensive. The whole Syrian conflict needs to be restructure with more consistency. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already a main article for the fighting Damascus. It's called Damascus clashes (2011–present). I agree the title of this article is not great, but I can't think of a better alternative. I also agree that the many of the articles in this article lacks consistency. Wars are usually divided into theaters, which are divided into campaigns/offensives, which are divided into battles.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Al-Nusra Front since November and the FSA in the south, the Syrian Arab Army has embedded reporters like the Abkhaz-Russian ANNA News Network Agency of Abkhazia. They have many interesting videos which can be analyzed by Syrians familiar with the Rif Dimashq region. Daraya is a ghost town more or less and the Syrian Arab Army is penetrating into the rebel-held areas there, as the video shows. I only know Daraya, no other towns, so maybe others can analyse these videos? It is a house to house fighting similar to Stalingrad, but without the frost.NiederlandeFW (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Damascus offensive
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 2012–present).-- 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 damascusAlhanuty (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But the vast majority of the content here concerns fighting in or near Damascus. By now, it's clear the rebels are trying to push into Damascus. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We would need more than just one source calling it Battle of Damascus for it fulfilling Wikipedia's COMMONNAME criteria on it being the common name of the event. And fighting for control of one district (Yarmouk) doesn't make it an all-out battle for the capital. Wait a few more weeks. If we get more sources calling it a Battle for/of Damascus and if the fighting spreads to other parts of the capital than that might be an option. Of course since we already had a Battle of Damascus back in July this would be the Second Battle of Damascus and we would have to rename that previous article to the First etc. But for now, hold of until at least after the New Year to see how things play out. EkoGraf (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would oppose calling this a battle, which is why I prefer the term offensive. The title I proposed was Damascus offensive (November 2012–present), not Second Battle of Damascus. "Damascus offensive" would refer to the rebel's current campaign to push into Damascus, even though they haven't captured much of the city yet.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm... SO do you support changing the title to Damascus offensive (November 2012–present) or not? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The rebels have infiltrated Yarmouk as shown in youtube videos but Damascus, affect a neighborhood event ... I would keep the current appellation of the article because the bulk of the fighting is in the Rif but Yarmouk, why not make a sub-section as to the seat of the Base 46? Maurcich (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a change of name to Damascus offensive only if the fighting spreads from Yarmouk, but like Maurcich said, the majority of the fighting has been in Rif Dimashq, the countryside. EkoGraf (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the latest source in Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war, Al-Qabun, Jobar, Qadam, Tadamon and Barzeh are disputed (ISW from dec 7). These are all in Damascus (not rif dimashq) Tradedia (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Lebanese sources said there are negotiations yesterday to take out the insurgent camp of Yarmouk, today hundreds of Palestinians have returned to the camp, and some say that the bulk of the rebel troops had quitted the camp, only a few dozen men were still in the camp Maurcich (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hamas in Cairo are negotiating with FSA troops to withdraw from the Palestinian camp of Yarmouk near Damascus. Are there confirmed reports of solid rebel intrusions into City of Damascus Governorate proper? Yarmouk is inside that, but not inside the city itself formally. Too early to call it a Battle of Damascus yet.NiederlandeFW (talk) 15:42, 20 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)
 * I agree with the creation of the article in Yarmouk, negotiations are still ongoing and some sources start talking about the withdrawal of insurgents Maurcich (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yarmouk camp will be abandoned by the FSA infiltrating insurgents, as the Syrian Army has the entire camp surrounded. The Palestinian refugees fled to the Damascus city centre, although a few hundred returned. Many at the Army-controlled entrance to north and east are chanting against the "FSA terrorists" "Leave our camp and quarters". Reported by Dutch (anti-Assad normally) media. Even the Hamas, Sunni and formerly allied with Assad but abandoned the secular Syrian government, saw the pr problem in this FSA attack against Palestinians of Syria. Some Hamas supporters joined the FSA insurgents in the past months, but the majority of Palestinians in Syria are firmly pro-Assad, especially after his 2009 Gaza remarks in Doha, Qatar, where the Sunni sheiks of Wahhabi Gulf monarchies remained silent.NiederlandeFW (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

interesting article
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)

Recent events

 * Like Jaramana and Daraya it is technically part of the Rif (outskirts of) Dimashq (Damascus), not part of the city itself. There have been previous clashes and take-over attempts by the Al Nusra- and other FSA terrorists to rise up, in August. This was no full-fledged battle. From a Dutch-Palestinian woman we know that the Palestinians from Yarmouk (civilians that is) fled to the city centre of Damascus, away from the rebels, Al-Nusra and jihadists. She lives in Yarmouk camp. Also, the neighbouring Palestinian (Falesteen) older camp and at-Tadamoun are inside Damascus city itself. It is too early to change the title in my opinion. There is a good chance that Yarmouk will be cleansed. The Jibril rumour about the FPLP-GC (CG) leadership fleeing to "Tartous" is false. However, it is very much possible that the leadership, its families and many PFLP-GC-fighters and policemen retreated to the city of Damascus itself. But the terrorist bombing campaigns of the rebels against Jaramana town and neighbourhoods of the city proper have not resulted in their fall yet. Yarmouk is not entirely under rebel control (yet). The same is valid for Daraya, one should not take analysts' sites from North America and CNN journalists' reports literally. Damon and other CNN journalists were even glorifying Al Nusra Front and others in their reports and broadcasts. The Daily Star of Lebanon and RussiaToday have a far more neutral style of reporting, not claiming victory too soon. We have seen such clashes in August 2012 already, with the same "victory!" claims. The Syrian Arab Army has not even mobilized and deployed all of its capacity yet.NiederlandeFW (talk) 08:33, 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)
 * You taking offense from this statement of mine, also shows where your (unrealized?) bias lays due to media reports in the western world. The rebels' Free Syrian Army is considered a terrorist organization by a large part of the international community, as is the al-Nusra Front and FSA-allied jihadists from Iraq and takfiri extremists from Saudi Arabia and radicalized villages. The United States also considers part of the FSA terrorist as well as al-Nusra. Of course I do not call the exiled or internal opposition parties terrorists. (In fact I openly sympathize with the internal Syrian opposition front and National Dialogue for Political Change and a transition.) Maybe in general some defectors and spontaneous local FSA militias are not terrorists. However, it all depends on the political view and opportunism, NATO-allied terrorists are probably not terrorists, whereas Communist, Nazi, Fascist, anti-American, Chinese, North Korean and African dissident rebels are again very much terrorists. This is no norm for wikipedia though, certainly not for English wikipedia. The ununiformed FSA rebels are terrorists under international law of warfare. This is very true, they represent no legitimate government, no state territory, no electoral base and if ununiformed can never invoke any warfare laws. I also consider the Taliban and other Mujahedeen terrorists. Only uniformed armies with some international recognition as state (by some) are objects of Geneva Convention normal armies. As far as the content is concerned: the Syrian Arab Army today chased terrorists in Douma, Daraya and other towns of Reef (outskirts of) Dimashq. This means it is NO BATTLE OF DAMASCUS (yet or at all). Five days ago the FSA and Al-Nusra terrorists claimed in rumours on internet they were "2 miles from the Presidential Palace in Damascus". All false claims. In fact, in North Syria there is a stallmate, in Aleppo city quarters are cleansed from armed insurgents and Al-Nusra-terrorists once a while and then retaken by the inflow from Turkey again, then conquered again. No real advance is visible, almost 200,000 soldiers and far more reservist soldiers (even if only counting Tartous, al-Hasakah and Latakia governorates) are ready. The Syrian Army is not even fully mobilized yet. Let us hope that the FSA leadership and the terrorist groups will be weakened enough for the exiled pro-insurgency opposition NATO politicians of Syrian origin to concede to a political dialogue under UN auspices for a transition government. The internal peaceful opposition parties (Syrian Nationalist Social Party and Bloc for Change and other non-represented parties like the Aramaic Front etc.) are all prepared for such talks. On the other hand, the Alawite and secular Sunni urban populations are openly calling for the presidential hot-headed brother General Maher al-Assad to become president and chants with "Bashar back to the clinic of ophthalmology" (being a doctor) were heard in Damascus centre and Jaramana (Rif). The real situation on the ground in Syria is very difficult and dissimilar from Libya and Iraq (Central), as the ethnic, political and historical make-up is entirely different. Damascus town will be defended at all costs. The terrorists do not control large areas, they just pop up here and then, as they wear civilian clothing. The suicide bombers and their cars are getting a problem though. I do not think suicide attacks are a military battle though.NiederlandeFW (talk) 09:26, 21 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)
 * Are you trying to allege that 50,000 soldiers defected. This is not corroborated in any way, and even if some young men were pushed by their radicalized Sunni clans to join the rebellion, few now fight with the Al-Nusra and other Salafi takfiri terrorists. The enormous manpower in Damascus town, in Tartus, Latakia and other government controlled governorates to call upon reservists is underestimated by you. We saw the same in January 2012 and in August 2012, when the western media were talking about "imminent collapse of the Assad administration".... Still the map has not Sakhour, Shaar and the airport road as controlled (partially) by the Syrian Army, not brown. THere is nothing but a stalemate upheld by the Army too, because of the international negotiations with Russia, Iran, China and the NATO/USA (Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.)/Israel on the other side. The rebels never were able to continuously control vast areas nor to conquer more. Only suicide bombings and threats against minorities are now taken as means by the terrorists to advance in their rebellion. This is seen in Hama Governorate. Normally, if overwhelming in strength, the rebels would never make such radicalizing threats against Christian, Druze and Alawi villages. Now the Wadi al-Rum is in danger due to the Al Nusra terrorists and Al Taawheed near Hama. All cities, even Idlib and Hama and even Jishr ash Shigur, are firmly in the hands of the Army. Homs was conquered back by October. This can be done in Aleppo, but is not done due to the economic importance and the expensive monumental structures of thousands years old (already damaged by the terrorists like the Souk of Aleppo)....The Syrian Arab Army and Air Force and the Assad government know that they must await diplomacy. Once Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraqi CIA Sunni and Wahabi (Saudi-steered) terror groups and Jordan close off their borders for terrrorists, then the Army will easily cleanse the few quarters of Aleppo from the mercenary terrorists which in large part came from abroad. And now will never return. The numerical strength is still with the Army. The problem is now especially with psychological warfare, morale, ethnic and sectarian threats and other (food and water) problems for civilians and religious minorities. The rebels (even FSA brigades) and Al Nusra terrorists both have called for genocidal policies against neutral Christian villages and towns. The rebels' suicide bombings against Shia mosques and especially against unarmed Christian quarters speak for themselves. Merry and peaceful Christmas, nevertheless!NiederlandeFW (talk) 12:26, 25 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)

Sock or relevant information?
Regarding this removal, 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)

5000 Hezbollah men
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)

Situation in Darayya
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)


 * Than provide those source, but in the meantime do not remove sourced information. SOHR itself confirmed the situation (army taking most of Daraya) on that day after the Army claim was made. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 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)


 * SOHR "confirming" something doesn't make it true—govt probably made some major push that got amplified through fog-of-war to a full-out capture. I'm continuing to see reports of fighting there made almost daily since the supposed capture. Entered means just that: entered. In fact, it would seem to mean that prior to that, government troops were held outside the city—that is to say, a "blue border" around the circle. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SOHR "confirming" something doesn't make it true? OK, I am simply speechless now. I have to warn now that that kind of view is potentially setting double standards. When SOHR confirms or even gives a slight hint at potential rebel military gains editors like Alhanuty/Abdo45 jump at it at once and insert it in articles as fact, but when SOHR confirms potential Army military gains than you are playing with the language and saying that their confirmation doesn't make it true? Well, again I am simply speechless. Than if what SOHR confirms does not make it true and shouldn't be included than you are looking at the deletion of a good 50 percent, at least, of material in all the Syrian civil war articles. Otherwise, if you are going to keep including what SOHR reports than you include both potential rebel and Army gains, and not just one over the other. Also, so what if there are reports of continuing fighting? They did not, I repeat, NOT confirm they captured the whole city. And the source itself in FACT talks of continuing fighting in the remaining parts of the city. The source never stated that fighting for the town stopped. EkoGraf (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember, I'd rather we'd just scrap SOHR and SANA outright, but given practical concerns, I don't oppose their use. When the news broke, sources as this announced that the army had "taken back" Darayya, quoting government media saying that only some "small pockets" were left. It's been three weeks now, and by all accounts, the fighting seems as fierce as it was before this "capture". This doesn't sound like mopping-up operations, it sounds like death and destruction as usual on the southern doorstep of Damascus. When the news broke, it made sense to announce the claims, but now that some time has passed it seems that both sides exaggerated the claims. That's how it goes—fog of war. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So the situation would be more clearer to the reader I will add, with a source, that continuing fighting and bombing of the town continues. EkoGraf (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a source that may shed some light on the situation. On 12 January, the Daily Star reposts this article from Reuters with the claimed capture of "most of" Darayya. But on 26 January, the DS runs this piece, which is a lot more detailed and gives probably a better picture. It would seem that the initial announcement heralded not the capture of the city, but the beginning of a new offensive against it. SOHR's director did not say that most of Darayya had been "captured"—he said that it had been "entered". There is a world of difference between the two words: if you capture a place, you have cleared it of all opposing forces and exercise full control over it; if you enter a place, you are merely present in it. Presenting "entering" as "capturing" is thus a clear misrepresentation of sources.


 * Furthermore, the 26 January article goes on to note the nature of the fighting as being dominated by guerilla-warfare and counter-insurgency tactics. One of the hallmarks of guerilla warfare is that there are no clear front lines—fighting is fluid and dynamic throughout the area affected. So, troops entering the town have by no means definitively captured the town, as they may at any moment be beset by an ambush from any side—places thought to be cleared at one point may turn out not to be when you turn your back for too long. It's clear, then, that the government has launched a major offensive against Darayya and are devoting massive amounts of manpower and firepower to it, but there has been no "capturing" of anything—merely "entering". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:05, 5 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)

Is a new article needed
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)

Third offensive
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 am the same user as Ultimate above, just letting everyone know, I wish all my edits in the Syrian field to be under this name from now onNightShadeAEB (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been of the same opinion recently. The rebel offensive which this article originally covered (that started in November) had in essence ended in early January, at which time it was deemed as stalled and that a new stalemate ensued. Now, like you said, we have a third offensive which started 10 days ago when the rebels started a push to capture the roundabout and Jobar, which is still ongoing. I think they even dubbed their operation/offensive as Battle of Armageddon. So I think this article should be split between Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012-January 2013) and Rif Dimashq offensive (February 2013-present). Who would agree with this? EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 20 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)


 * I agree with Futuretrillionnaire but what is the result of this second offensive ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 19:04, 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)


 * I support the name Damascus offensive (2013). Result of the second offensive? Well, like the sources say, offensive stalled, stalemate. EkoGraf (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay,then is significant offensive now, i agree to the name damascus offensive 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–February 2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130407095245/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iaL6HAw7u0dWI2nh9BBkVwaCn4bg?docId=CNG.c19a448143681e6e4aeace3a0218a1cb.51 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iaL6HAw7u0dWI2nh9BBkVwaCn4bg?docId=CNG.c19a448143681e6e4aeace3a0218a1cb.51
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130127005156/http://news.yahoo.com:80/france-sees-no-sign-syrias-assad-toppled-soon-155606330.html to http://news.yahoo.com/france-sees-no-sign-syrias-assad-toppled-soon-155606330.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)