# Talk:Operation Ring

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)

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)

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)
Adil, you are simply trying to disrupt the article without just cause... Make an argument, bring in neutral sources, or let it go... The current links should remain. HyeProfile 20:04, 3 April 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 judgment regarding biases of external sources. 128.220.159.1 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm truly going to savor 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)
Thank you Marshall for finally coming out clean. Meanwhile, once again, bias is to be avoided in an encyclopedia, and the shauvinist websites you offer have plenty of that. It has been discussed before, and various admins and users did support the notion that Karabakh war pages should be clean up of the POV external links. --adil 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And they will be — once you're blocked and your disruptive edits cease, we can work to improve the quality of the articles that you so unabashedly vandalize otherwise, grasping for straws isn't doing you any good.--MarshallBagramyan 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes 2 of us... HyeProfile 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
HyeProfile, you have never created or improved any article, so you can't join MB. Meanwhile, MB, what and who prevented you from improving any of the articles? I wasn't able to pay more attention to them before, so it's clearly not my "disruptions". Admit it, you are a biased user, a POVster, who can't have a fair discussion and can only resort to personal attacks, incivility and coersion. There should be no POV on these pages.  adil 07:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
''HyeProfile, you have never created or improved any article The same can be applied to you, I cannot think of any article you have touched which has not resulted in an all out edit-war/protected status.
Of course I'm biased! Does this even require in-depth analysis? 
It is pointless to hide any "bias" I may have but keep in mind that I have respectfully adhered to Wikipedia's rules for over a year whereas you have been warned, blocked, edit-warred, insulted and virtually violated every conceivable (and now just banned) rule there is on Wikipedia time and time again. 
Whether or not I'm a "POVster" is however, subject to opinion; it is hypocritical of you to accuse me of incivility and personal attacks when that has been the crux of all your edits on Wikipedia. Must I really remind you that you have officially been banned from this site for committing all those things against Armenian users that you now accuse me of?--MarshallBagramyan 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting how you keep using the word "banned" when several of your friends will be banned and otherwise restricted as well, so it would be better if you look after yourself. Secondly, per incivility and personal attack claim, you recently made unfounded and full-of-irony claims of anyone but yourself being a "liar", etc. Once again, the article should not have ultra-nationalist Armenian POV links or content. --adil 07:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Aghpet Welcome to Wikipedia, I reverted your edits because you did not justify the removal of the Gandzasar monastery picture. Since you are new and you probably don't know many of the Wikipedia rules. I welcome you to tell us why you think we should delete the picture. VartanM 00:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs fair use rationales to be added for Image:Mil-24 OpRing.jpg & Image:Operation Ring Article.JPG for its use on the article. Once the FURs are added, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. I don't see that being a problem since these are really easy to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Regards, Nehrams2020 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now passed the article since the FURs have been added. Keep improving the article and consider taking it to WP:FAC after you've gotten a peer review and a copyedit from several outside editors. I have changed the article history banner to reflect this review. Good job and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there objection to renaming this article Operation Koltso per naming convention for operational codenames which retain language of origin, with creation of redirect from Operation Ring?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the renaming. Operation Ring is far more notable than Operation Koltso. A google search yields 100x as many hits. Also Human Rights Watch, United Nations and other non-governmental organizations. Also, all the sources in this article call it "Operation Ring". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
ist good articule in spanish --Զրոլեկս (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch is factually wrong when they say that "The Soviet army title for this military action is "Operation Ring," because its basic strategy consists of surrounding villages with tanks and armored personnel carriers and shelling them. " because the Soviet Army did not name operations in English!,and because like the UNHCR it does not refer to the Second World War operation, but to the operation "In the spring of 1991, and with the aid of Soviet forces, the Government of the then Azerbaijani Soviet Republic conducted an exercise known as "Operation Ring", ostensibly for the purposes of internal passport control"!
As for Google search, it is not an acceptable way to identify what the title of an article should be called. The guideline and convention accepted in the Military History Project has been that the native language names be used where an operation uses a codename, which is the case here. Operation Koltso is what an acknowledged authority[[2]] on the Eastern Front calls it. In fact I did a Google search, and only found Operation "ring" on the third page of the search, from a Netherlands site, while this is not the case with Operation Koltso.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's 100 to 1 in favor of "Operation Ring" in google then that should be taken into account. However If you look at Google Scholar 980 hist for "Operation Ring" and 4 hits for Operation Koltso. Also, as mentioned non-Governmental organizations use Ring as well as the media. And it's not always consistent that military operations are named after the countries language doing them. For example Operation August Storm or Operation Storm. It's no contest, leave it as "Operation Ring". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose renaming. "Koltso" is not a proper name. It is "ring". And rightfully most sources translate it. `'Míkka>t 03:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the first reply I made that the Operation Ring you pointed to had nothing to do with this article?!
Operation August Storm is a bad example because that is not the name of the operation...at least not a Soviet Army one. You will not find it used in any Russian sources.
I was unaware of Operation Storm; the only other operations during Second World War's Eastern Front that remain in English that I'm aware of are the operations in Finland. All others have been moved to their native Code name after substantial discussions elsewhere, including in the Project talk page. I'm just not keen on dredging up the arguments. However one that stuck was that the code names of the operations are actually the names on the documents associated with the operations. If I was to go to the archives looking to research them, asking for "Operation Ring" would not get me very far.
Koltso is a proper name in English because its a code name! It is a foreign noun.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what you have done is redirected the Second World War Operation Koltso staged in 1942 to the 1991 operation! See here Battle of Stalingrad--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is well known (and how talking about it many sources, including neutral), the "Operation Ring" touched not only in the North-Karabakh, but also territories of Shusha (Berdadzor subdistrict) and Hadrut district Nagorny Karabakh. Totally 17 villages were completely deported there. However, that information is not present in the article. --FHen(ru) 22:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)