Jump to content

Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive (August–October 2012)

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

Contested deletion

[edit]
The page describes a battle already listed as the 2011-2012 Damascus clashes. We even have the events of Aug 22-23 listed on that page. Furthermore article name is pov pushing and out of format with the others as well, but my point is that this article is just a copy of an already longstanding article. Sopher99 (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that gets added to the 2011-2012 Damascus clashes. Your article is just a copy split from the original page.Sopher99 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Damascus clashes page is just a compilation of various hit and run operations and some counter attacks. It comes from November 2011 until the Battle of Damscus.

After the battle of Damascus, there is no return to the previous situation. The Syrian Army has started a whole operation to crush the insurgents and it is different from all the operation launched before. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have been trying ot do that the entirety of the conflict, and its all described in the 2011-2012 Damascus clashes article. Sopher99 (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the article is out of the question. Many newspaper are writing about the event, as everyone is able to see that and if someone want's to create a new, more detailed article about the event even better. Nevertheless, this article gives more details about the operation and should remain; with time it could be even more expanded. --Wüstenfuchs 12:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name dispute

[edit]
It should be listed as battle or clashes, like the rest of the articles. No where else in Wikipedia are articles on battles listed as "counter-insurgency operations". Sopher99 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore we call it whatever the media calls it. The reliable sources have never once used the term "counter-insurgency". They have described the fighting as battles and clashes though. Sopher99 (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You could rename it the Rif Damashq offensive, because the very first source in the article calls it an offensive. Sopher99 (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Rif Damashq offensive seems a much better name and in line with the sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the name, we should consider the WP:COMMONNAME. --Wüstenfuchs 17:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Not even SANA [1] [2] [3] calls it a "counter-insurgency". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You think counter-insurgency is POV? Not at all. The Free Syrian Army is composed out of insurgents. Well, nevertheless, it's not important what the Syrian Arab News Agency is writing, but every newspaper. Which name is mostly used? --Wüstenfuchs 17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Counter-Insurgency" is just fine. There are various article with a similiar name, like Counter-insurgency operations during the Second Chechen War also some anti-partisan operations during the WW2. Also, it's impossible that this name is someone's POV. --Wüstenfuchs 12:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with Rif Damashq offensive (2012). Also, I would put the start date as 17 August, the day the military started to clear the towns and villages on the outskirts of Damascus from where the military airport was mortared by the rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to see how many results will I get after I enter counterinsurgency in google search, and I gott only few results. I also agree we raname it to offensive, and I would also add that we should follow a more common name, not Rif Damashq but Rif Dimashq. --Wüstenfuchs 19:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the name is Rif Dimashq offensive (August 2012 - Present) or just Rif Dimashq offensive? --Wüstenfuchs 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the (August 2012 - Present) is needed. I think Rif Dimashq offensive is just ok, because before this now the military didn't attempt any real offensives in the area since the start of the war. There was only the counter-attack from back in February when they retook Douma and Zabadani. EkoGraf (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle over

[edit]

Is this battle over?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 22:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure what the scope of this article is suppose to be. There are definitely clashes still going on at Damascus's suburbs. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not over yet. From what I've been told this is the most important battle taking place at the moment. The main force of the Syrian Army is concentrating on the Damascus region and the rebels have congregated around Harasta and Douma. It's a shame more attention isn't being placed on this battle from credible wikipedia worthy sources. 62.31.145.100 (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The medias don't write about it. --Wüstenfuchs 01:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Army has entered Harasta pro-government sides are claiming that they have already cleared certain areas of the FSA. Also anti-government activists from Homs are claiming that the Army has is sending units down south to Damascus through a route that would take it through the Northern part of the rebel held eastern ghouta. They might be trying to sandwhich them but thats just speculation on my part. What ever is going on this offensive looks like it's ending. 164.11.203.58 (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New name

[edit]

We should rename this article. It's name is wrong, this article also mentiones battles outside the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'd propose something like Army offensive in South Syria. --Wüstenfuchs 18:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the name change, but I'm not sure this can all be chalked up to one government offensive, as rebels have been making their own moves as well. I'd suggest 2012 Rif Dimashq campaign—we can just move information on clashes outside the province elsewhere, unless sources specifically include them strategically with these. This would be similar to the 2011 Nafusa Mountains campaign article, used as an umbrella for all engagements in the Nafusa Mountains during the Libyan war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your argument over the Government offensive and rebel moves, however, we don't need "Rif Dimashq" in article's name. I mentioned reason for that. How about South Syrian Campaign? Its hard to give a name to it as this region doesn't have its historical name. --Wüstenfuchs 07:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree tha the title should use campaign instead of offensive, because this isn't just a govt offensive, the rebels are launching ones as well. As for the inclusion of the province in the title, are the clashes outside Rif Dimashq related to the ones inside? If not, then I don't see any good to change it to "South Syrian Campaign" now. Maybe later, if the fighting in Rif Dimashq spreads further south to Daraa, we can change the title to that, but not now. But again, I definitely think we should change it to Rif Dimashq campaign (not sure if the year is necessary, don't really care) as a temporary move, and then discuss further changes after. What do you guys think?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake about the governorate, I made the conclusion from the infobox map. Then we rename it to campaign or what? --Wüstenfuchs 05:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't see why not. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It started out as a government offensive in mid-August, shortly after the failed rebel attempt at capturing Damascus. I think the military declared it almost at an end sometime in late September. But follow-up operations continued. In mid-November the rebels launched their own offensive in the area. So in essence, two offensives are coverred in this article, the military one August-September and the rebel one November-present. I agree a name-change is needed, Rif Dimashq campaign sounds right. And I agree with Future, the article has so far for the most part covered only the fighting in the towns on the outskirts of Damascus so South Syrian Campaign would be highly missleading, because Damascus is more in the central part than the southern. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved the article and made the new lead, hope it's fine. --Wüstenfuchs 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article, fork, merge

[edit]

What should be the scope of this article? The new article title gives the impression that the article covers all clashes between govt and rebel forces in Rif Dimashq, but fighting in the province actually began on November 2011. Also there is a degree of forking between this article and this one: 2011–2012 Damascus clashes. To solve these problems, I propose we merge the content in "2011–2012 Damascus clashes" to this article. The clashes in in Idlib province all go in one article: 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes. The situation is the same for articles of other provinces. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a split. Damascus is the capital city, so the amount of material can reasonably be expected to be more than for cities in other provinces IMHO. Rather than merge and later split, my suggestion would be to split the roles: 2011–2012 Damascus clashes to focus on Damascus with brief cross-references to relevant wider events in Rif Dimashq campaign, and the lead of 2011–2012 Damascus clashes to make up one subsection of Rif Dimashq campaign. In other words, Damascus would be a "sub-article" of Rif Dimashq. If one is much shorter than the other and stays that way for a few months, then they could be merged. RS'd info on both articles is more likely to expand than shrink over the next 6 months.
In practice, the editorial work would start off with finding common material, deciding which article it is most relevant to, and putting (shifting, leaving in place, etc.) most of the material in that article and putting a brief summary in the other. A hatnote on one or both articles could also be useful to discourage duplication. Boud (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A further subsplit: Damascus info specific to the Battle of Damascus (November 2012) should could go to that article, except for the lead, which can go in the 2011–2012 Damascus clashes article with minor variations (since it doesn't need context when it's inside a bigger article). Boud (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC). Several editors at Talk:Battle of Damascus (November 2012) argue that that article was not yet (is not) justified either qualitatively (RS's say there's a new phase) or quantitatively (WP:SPLIT - too much material here for a single article) to be a separate article. I've added some 29 Nov material there. IMHO WP:SPLIT favours some of this article going to that one (without duplication, except for brief summaries and cross-links), and sources strongly favour that one being separate starting from 29 November. Clean-up work is needed to reduce redundancy. Boud (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was already agreed at the talk page of Battle of Damascus (November 2012) that that article was a content fork from this one and that there are no sources to even confirm a battle for the capital. Insurgent hit-and-run attacks don't count as a battle or we would have had a Battle of Baghdad from 2003 to 2010. The Rif Dimashq campaign article was originally created to talk about the military offensive that started in mid-August and ended in late October/early November. However people continued to write about clashes there even after it ended and the article has now included the Rebel offensive since mid-November. EkoGraf (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of a rebel "offensive" in R. Dimashq Gov.

[edit]

What is the nature of this "offensive", is it possible to call it a wide-range offensive? The Syrian Army (SA) had launched the offensive throughout the whole Governorate, but not the rebels, they had few attacks, but nothing that could be equalised with the SA offensive. My lead, that I wrote, is thus misleading. I did, however, added the explanation that the rebels, unlike the SA, failed to make any significant gain, but Sopher, I believe, claimed they did, refering to certain agricultural field with any significance at all. I avoided further discussion about the significance of such place.

--Wüstenfuchs 13:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lede you wrote defines the Rif Dimashq campaign as two offensives. Do you have sources to back up that definition? I'm still not sure what should be the scope of this article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have a source, I wrote what I considered to be the most optimal solution at the time... I still don't know the nature of the rebel "offensive", to me it's just few attacks, not an offensive. --Wüstenfuchs 16:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we ought to merge (see section above) and expand the scope of the article to include all clashes in the province since November 2011. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't this be part of the Battle of Damascus? Did the battle stop with Damascus Volcano? There was always fighting in the capital it just has happened to had increased in July-August and November-present. (Cjblair (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It can not be part of the Battle of Damascus, from obvious reason - not every town in R. Dimashq is in Damascus. I don't know about the scope, I'd go with it, under condition we make a special section about the Government's offensive. --Wüstenfuchs 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened with operation Damascus volcano was a rebel attempt to capture the capital, which ultimately failed and the rebels retreated to the outskirts into Rif Dimashq province, where the military launched its own offensive, which started the current campaign. So the first Battle of Damascus ended 5 months ago, if a new battle for the capital starts than it will be the Second Battle of Damascus, but for now that has not happened yet. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Darayya

[edit]

I think we should change the Darayya massacre to Battle of Darayya because there are still fightings in Darayya and they are the worst since the 1st battle of Damascus. Comment about this please Amedjay (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darayya massacre is a separate event from late August, the current clashes since early December is a totally different thing. And we don't have enough info or sources for it to warrant a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November/December article cleanup

[edit]

Since the present article Rif Dimashq campaign is already a very long article, IMHO it is pointless to try to force the presently unfolding Damascus events into this article. It's difficult to read and difficult to edit. Moreover, since RS's claim that rebel/govt fighting has intensified in the last week or so, it seems to me that putting most of the late Nov/December Damascus events into Battle of Damascus (November 2012) is justified under WP:SPLIT and by the RS's.

I've done a bit of work to clean up Battle of Damascus (November 2012) (avoid duplication of "background" with 2011–2012_Damascus_clashes; some content tidying; new refs directly in reflist section; Wikipedia source removed from box at top). I have suggested an interim name at the article's talk page, since "Battle of Damascus (November 2012)" does not accurately describe what is well-sourced as an intensification of fighting in late November and continuing into early December, and more weakly sourced as an intensification in early/mid November. I suggest discussion on the proposed interim name to go on that talk page. Boud (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed already on the talk page of that article that there are no sources to confirm a Battle of Damascus, it was the POV of one editor, Alhanuty. Also, the article was more of a content fork from this article. All other editors agreed that the info from that article was better suited to this article. And it was merged. Alhanuty went against consensus and reverted back without even talking. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal on a split

[edit]

Ok guys, since this has become a hot topic I have a totally new proposal. The main central article on all the fighting in Damascus capital and Rif Dimashq province will be 2011–2012 Damascus clashes. The sub-articles to that article will be Battle of Damascus/Operation Damascus Volcano, Darayya massacre, 1st Rif Dimashq offensive (military August-September; result - indecisive), 2nd Rif Dimashq offensive (rebel November-present; result - ongoing). So in essence I am proposing to split this article up into a 1st offensive and 2nd offensive articles, the military one and rebel one. Since the issue of the scope of this article has been hotly debated. And some even proposed that this article cover all the way since November 2011, but 2011–2012 Damascus clashes already does this. So, can we agree on splitting this article into two offensives? Since we already agreed that there have in fact been two offensives. And the 2nd offensive article would of course also include the current sporadic clashes in the capital, although they are still minimal. EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. But what would be the the title of the split articles?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, First and Second Rif Dimashq offensive? XD Or if you have a better proposal... EkoGraf (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there official names for these operations? That would make things a lot easier. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree, that would help. But most news sources refer to them simply as ether military offensive/push or rebel offensive/push. Instead of First and Second, maybe 2012 Military Rif... and 2012 Rebel Rif...? Or we stick with first and second? EkoGraf (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Maybe August 2012 Rif Dimashq offensive and November 2012 Rif Dimashq offensive? I'm having a little trouble with the "first and second" idea, because there were already clashes and arguably offensives in the province before the August offensive, such as 2011–2012 Damascus clashes#Syrian Army offensive.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree with that. Just maybe the first one we put August-October instead of just August because it lasted for those three months. Or better yet Rif Dimashq offensive (August-October 2012) and Rif Dimashq offensive (November-present 2012) Sidenote, the offensive you pointed out, I already talked with Ellsworth recently about creating a separate article for that January-February offensive when they retook the suburbs during last winter. You think maybe we could do that also? Of course it would be a sub-article of the 2011-2012 Damascus clashes. EkoGraf (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the option with the parentheses is in my opinion the best proposal so far. Making a new article about the early 2012 offensive is not a bad idea, because the main Damascus clashes article is already getting pretty long.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if nobody objects to this course of action, I will try and make this doable (the split) later tonight or tomorrow. Your help would also be appreciated Future. Second sidenote, the November-present offensive article would also include the information on the fighting around the airport so there will not be any need for the dubiously called Battle of Damascus (November) article. EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your proposal... The article, as it looks now, is very confusing, at least for me... --Wüstenfuchs 19:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my understanding of the proposal, especially going by Template:Campaignbox_Syrian_civil_war:

  1. main article: 2011–2012 Damascus clashes
    1. sub: Battle of Damascus (2012) = Battle of Damascus/Operation Damascus Volcano in July 2012
      1. subsub: Darayya massacre
    2. sub: Rif Dimashq offensive (August–October 2012) (mainly by Assad government) --- modify Rif Dimashq campaign, then move
    3. sub: Rif Dimashq offensive (November–present 2012) (mainly by rebels) --- modify Battle of Damascus (November 2012), then move

This looks reasonable to me. I think I see where I was confused before: some work would need to be done in the cases where subarticles exist: the sections in 2011–2012 Damascus clashes should become short, referenced, NPOV summaries (more or less the leads) of the sub-articles. The other element of confusion is that the media are mostly saying "Damascus, Damascus" about the present events, but most editors here feel that the highway to the airport and the airport itself count more as "region" rather than city. This seems reasonable to me, modulo my almost total ignorance about Damascus and its surroundings. Boud (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's the essence of what I proposed Boud. Just one correction to what you wrote. Darayya massacre goes as subsub under August-October offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with you idea ecograk,this idea iss good to split it tothe first and second one the first is about the government one and the other about the rebel one Alhanuty (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a clear consensus, I have done a rough split:
  1. Rif Dimashq offensive (August–October 2012)
  2. Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–present)
which are shown as 1st Rif Dimashq and 2nd Rif Dimashq in Template:Campaignbox Syrian civil war.
There are probably some things to clean up, e.g. I used the original Arabic text in both articles - this needs fixing. Boud (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're finally getting somewhere, but there's still an awful lot of inconsistency in my opinion. For instance, is it right to label everything going on in Damascus as "clashes"? I think we should divide it into phases. For example, when the army was blockading the area due to protests and a very negligible insurgency, that's the first phase. The second phase perhaps starts around November 2011, when the article about the clashes says it starts. But then we have the battles in Douma, Zabadani, clashes in Mezze (the first time central Damascus is touched around March 2012), and so forth. At this point it escalates, and I'm not sure "clashes" is an accurate word to describe this phase. I suppose we can consider Douma and Zabadani as aberrations, and leave everything the way it is up till here. The first real problem then arises: the period before the July operation in Damascus witnessed significant escalations. So where do we draw the line between clashes and battles/offensives/campaigns? Does the line stop at the July battle, or does it stop sometime before, and if so, when? Or should we call everything since November 2011 the Damascus Campaign and divide it into sub-articles? Campaign sounds much more inclusive than clashes, because these clashes were the start of a concerted effort to strike at the capital that never stopped, it merely gained more and more momentum over time. Additionally, it seems the Aleppo clashes article says the clashes ended when rebels invaded Aleppo, even though clashes in Aleppo governorate continued well into the middle of the battle, and are ongoing even today. Battles in Aleppo's suburbs are considered as part of the wider Aleppo battle, while the ongoing battles and clashes in suburbs and towns in the Aleppo governorate are only mentioned every here and there in the article for Aleppo proper, with the vast majority of them utterly ignored. This is why we need a more consistent approach in dealing with the Syrian topic holistically.
Then there's the July 2012 operation. It is clear that the battle took place not only in Damascus proper, but in the suburbs too, you can see this just by reading the article itself. In my opinion, I think the title is inverted; the wider battle of Damascus is still ongoing, or had already started before Damascus Volcano was declared, but the push into Damascus proper itself was the offensive that failed. For instance the regime had been cracking down on the north-west suburbs of Damascus, and even began shelling the northern neighbourhood of Qaboun in Damascus proper before Damascus Volcano. The wider battle involved rebels moving back and forth between suburbs and neighbourhoods, and it involved the regime not stopping at Damascus, but taking suburbs like Harasta and Tal as well in the north-west. Following the de jure administrative divisions is meaningless because the operations on the ground pay no attention to these details, and as such the rebels find a neighbourhood like Hajar al Aswad a much more attractive target than a non-Muslim suburb like Jaramana. Then the regime did not stop here, and continued its offensive towards rebel held suburbs, culminating in the massacre of Daraya late in August, which I believe shocked both sides in quieting down a little bit. Pre-Damascus Volcano clashes not withstanding, I believe the battles from mid-July to the end of August could together constitute their own phase of the larger Damascus campaign. Otherwise, we can keep the July operation as lasting from mid-July to the end of August, but we need to recognize its wider Damascene scope, especially given the involvement of suburbs like Harasta, Douma, Tal, and Daraya; it should be seen as phase one, and the two offensives that followed it as phases two and three. As for the pre-July clashes, perhaps we can consider the major offensive after the lull during May as a starting for the Damascus campaign (which will give us four phases for the Damascus overall campaign, not three).
Then there's the naming. As I said above, it makes no difference whether a neighbourhood or suburb is technically Damascus or Rif Dimashq. Both are part of an ongoing campaign by the rebels and loyalists in securing their hold over the capital and its various urban branches. Plus, why do we say Rif Dimashq instead of saying Countryside Damascus or Rif Damascus? It is inconsistent to see Dimashq become Damascus but Rif Dimashq stay the way it is. Damascus is the most widely used name for the capital city of Syria in the English language, and the Dimashq in Rif Dimashq clearly refers to Damascus. There appears no discussion of this name in the article about Rif Dimashq. However, if we are to follow what the mainstream media is saying, they are always referring to the battles in Rif Dimashq as battles in Damascus, near Damascus, or in suburbs of Damascus. We must respect how these battles are being referred to popularly outside Wikipedia. Additionally, there's the problem of Zabadani. It is unique in that it is a good distance from Damascus and is disconnected from the main rebel campaign to secure Damascus proper and its suburbs. If we are to focus on the Damascus campaign, we'd have to put Zabadani aside. Otherwise, if we are to focus on the whole Rif Dimashq governorate, then we must add Damascus proper to it as it is part of the ongoing campaign for Damascus and cannot be disconnected from the battles in Douma and Daraya, nor of course with the all crucial International Airport.
So, at the end of the day, here is my proposal: the April-May Damascus blockades, the November-May Damascus clashes, and the May-present Damascus campaign. The November-May clashes can include the battles of Douma and Zabadani as sub-articles. The late May-present campaign can be labelled as phase one stretching from the end of May to the beginning of July, phase two from the middle of July to the beginning or end of August, phase three from the middle or the end of August till the middle of October, and phase four from October to present. So the articles would be 2011 Damascus blockades, 2011-2012 Damascus clashes, and 2012 Damascus campaign. Sub-articles will include the battle for Damascus proper in July and August, the rebel regrouping from September through October, and the ongoing battle since the end of October. Zabadani also deserves its own article, it's been divided between loyalists and rebels for months now, but no one pays attention to it. That is, unless we just give it its own section in the main Damascus campaign article, or even just mention it in the body of the article every time news about it is available, because it simply doesn't fit in with the battles taking place around Damascus itself. If that's too many articles, we can always just condense everything into the main campaign article, and have only two sub-articles for it: the July-August operation and subsequent offensive till the end of August, and the recent escalation of fighting where the rebels retook Douma and Harasta, and used them to expand their presence and strike at the heart of Damascus again, albeit less climatically this time.
I know it's a lot of ranting on my part and a lot of work being suggested, but I think we must take initiative in ending all the rampant inconsistency regarding the Syrian pages on Wikipedia. Just as a recap on my proposal - 2012 Damascus Campaign; contents: a timeline of the clashes in the governorate since the ceasefire collapsed in late May, and a significant escalation in the fighting erupted in greater intensity than pre-ceasefire clashes, all the way up to now, subarticles: First Battle of Damascus dealing with Damascus Volcano until the Daraya massacre; Second Battle of Damascus dealing with the developments since mid-October to present. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rif Dimashq offensive (August–October 2012). 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).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(August–October_2012)&oldid=1205066974"