Talk:Battle of Damascus (2012)

Adding in content

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)

Battle end

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Syrian Troops Entering Midan

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)

Rephrase the "Syrian army regains control over most of Damascus"

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)

→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)

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)

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

Operation "Vulcano Damascus" is the rebel name

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)

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)

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)

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

Usage of the term "decisive"

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Usage of the phrase "Decisive Syrian Army victory"

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)