Talk:Operation Ring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Operation Ring is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Operation Ring has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

[edit] GA nomination on Hold for 7 days

Hello,

This article looks quite good. A lot of excellent work has been put into it, and I really have almost nothing to complain about.

I put a few {{fact}} tags on the article. If I happened to put a tag on a fact that is actually referenced in a nearby sentence, please remove the tag and explain the deletion in a detailed edit summary.

In all, though, this article will be GA with just a bit of work. I certainly don't think it should take the whole 7 days. In fact, it shouldn't be much work at all.

Good work!

Please feel free to ask if you have questions --Ling.Nut 10:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

PS In the closing section, I thought that the exact dates of the Armenian and Azerbaijani secessions would be helpful. --Ling.Nut 10:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination PASS

Good work!

I'm gonna PASS this article as GA.

On my second look, I noticed things that I did not pick up on the first time around. I'll leave these for you as you strive toward FA. However, I believe they are fairly important.

• The first thing is that a section on world reaction seems necessary.
• The second thing.. and you'd better address this quickly, lest your GA be reviewed for possible delisting.. is that the article seems more POV on the second reading than it did on the first. A bit more on the Soviet side of the story (whether you agree with it or not) seems reasonable, plus some adjective like "grueling" and "pillaging" seem a bit POV-ish. I see you have references to back up those adjectives; that definitely helps.

I suggest that you do not put this article on the back burner just yet; some more work would be wise at this time.

Kudos, --Ling.Nut 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I think the best thing to do would be to scan the article, find the most evocative adjectives/terms, and delete them immediately, replacing them with less descriptive terms until you can plan a careful way to present the information.

--Ling.Nut 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how many people actually saw this operation as a good thing. Most, if not all, people described Operation Ring as a complete failure that terrorized the population of Shahumyan without even seeking after the objectives of rooting out the militamen. What was the purpose, for example, of deporting women and children or civilians out of their towns? of burning down villages? of utilizing Azeri soldiers in such a politically intense climate. I agree that both views must be fully be present in the article but there's only so many synonyms for "pillaging" and subjecting citizens to harsh interrogations. --MarshallBagramyan 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. It is extremely possible that I am more concerned than I need to be. :-) In fact, there's a reason why I didn't think of this the first time: because some events are less disputed/controversial than others.

What made me think to tell you this was that I had recently been cautioning another article along the same lines — and for very good reason. It was a much more controversial topic. It was nearly guaranteed to get disputed, unless it was very careful about how it presented its facts.

It is not at all impossible that someone could insist that standards applied elsewhere be applied here as well. But maybe it is unlikely.

Having said that, I would still make it a project to add a "world response" section. That's not about POV; it's about completeness.

I would also still try to find & add some quotes of the official Soviet editorial line etc. Just to be safe.

Hope this helps.

Cheers --Ling.Nut 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PS -- as for words like "pillaging" and "looting": find extremely reputable sources, and quote them directly, within quotation marks, giving page numbers etc. Then you're way more covered.--Ling.Nut 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll scourge around for their response and just added one opinion of the Russian parliamentarians. Media coverage regarding Armenia at the time was relatively sympathetic and since the USSR was in such chaos at the time, I'm unsure of how much the world concentrated on this specific event. But again, I'll search around. Thanks for the input--MarshallBagramyan 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, --MarshallBagramyan 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/--Ling.Nut 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian POV

Contains an external link to an Armenian website, where the video is not even available http://www.mrav.net/en/videos_en.asp --adil 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The video is available at http://mrav.net/2007/operation-ring-shahumyan-getashen-1991/ (I just checked), and is the only available video documentary of Operation Ring. It cannot be considered POV since it covers a tragic and terrible event, and therefore is somber in nature since it takes the point of view of the victims through the eyes of an objective observer (it was created by a Bulgarian journalist). It is like saying that documentaries about the Holocaust are POV!!! Please refrain from removing or altering anything before discussing it first, as such acts will be considered in bad faith...HyeProfile 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The video works. Artaxiad 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is with the Armenian site, not video per se. If we are to allow that site, then we can certainly allow Khojaly massacre videos and photos from Azerbaijani websites. Until that is agreed upon, per our discussion before with interested parties, I will remove -- and you would act in bad faith if you revert the removal. --adil 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we're not relying on the site for anything excepting hosting the documentaries by Paskaleva. The NK War page uses a heavily biased Azeri website [1] to display an article by the Boston Globe. We're not relying on khojaly.net for its interpretations but an article it presents. Your removal of mrav is unjustified no matter how you want to frame its rationale.--MarshallBagramyan 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it is justified because you already have TWO citations of an ethnic Armenian and very POV author Markar Melkonian, and have in addition to that an Armenian website URL. I removed only the URL, and didn't do anything to the Melkonian's two citations. I think this is more than fair, as still, as opposed to being 3:0, it's 2:0, as you have not presented any Azerbaijani sources. --adil 07:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Disregarding a source based on someone's ethnicity is a foul cry; no one complains about balancing Soviet and German sources on WWII articles and this is no different. For the umpteenth time, Wikipedia is not a battleground along national lines.--MarshallBagramyan 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be coy, otherwise we start including all Azerbaijani websites and sources, along with Turkish one's, in every page about Armenians and Armenia. There is a rather clear NPOV policy, and view of the community that in order to keep the articles well written and unbiased, third-party sources should be used. If you propose abandoning this policy, that's fine by me -- but as I said, then you and your friends should not prevent the inclusion of Azerbaijani and Turkish sources and links in other pages. --adil 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

...?

You have a source? introduce it, otherwise quit pussyfooting around the issues and leave these articles in the state they were before your disruptive edits arrived on Wikipedia. --MarshallBagramyan 16:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What a rich vocabularity you are showing off, MB. But it doesn't address the fact that your external links are POV and have no place here. --adil 07:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not being used as a citation in the article so they can remain; I don't think I can simplify this any further.--MarshallBagramyan 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is simple-- no biased, POV external sites allowed here. And yes, in case you didn't notice, this page concenrs two ethnicities, and the Wikipedia arbitrators decided to call the ArbCom as "Armenia-Azerbaijan" and themselves make a clear distinction and separation based on ethnicity. So save your links, references and other intimidation tactics out of here. --adil 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." To clarify: bias is to be avoided in the content of Wiki articles. That policy makes no judgement regarding biases of external sources. 128.220.159.1 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm truly going to savior the moment your account goes the way of the dodo. By now, it should have accidentally dawned on you on what a poor and bad-faithed contributor you have been.--MarshallBagramyan 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)