Talk:Tskhinvali

---

Obvious mistake in the article

Russo-Georgian War section: Vladimir Putin was not president of Russia directly before and during the conflict as mentioned in the article, the order to counterattack was given by then-president Dmitry Medvedev. Also, Russian peacekeepers were present in the city and surrounding area since 1992. The death of Russian peacekeepers as well as dual Russian citizens among the civilian population during the initial Georgian artillery attack is what prompted a full-scale military response from the Russian Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonNJP (talk • contribs) 08:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What church is on the photo?

Is it the St. George church mentioned in the article? Alaexis 13:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, unfortunately for you, its a Georgian church. Iberieli 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why unfortunately? I have absolutely nothing against old Georgian churches. I'd like to see this one sometimes in future... Alæxis_¿question? 06:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation Guide?

There should be a pronunciation guide. I have no clue how Georgian pronunciation works --CooperRanger (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The t and the h are more or less silent, giving skin-vul-lee, second syllable unstressed. Hope that helps. 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.118.43 (talk)

Incorrect. Ts(uh)-heen-váh-lee. Nothing is silent. "Ts" as in cats, "kh" as Spanish j (Jorge), Russian "х" but "h" is close enough. Pronounced similarly in Georgian, Ossetic and Russia, only in Russian you can drop the final vowel (optional), in Ossetic, there is no "-ee" in "-lee". Anatoli (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Looks like Georgians via cellular networks totally control the internet access in S.Ossetia just like in Abkhazia. This article features Georgian POV, and the only source named on the page is Georgian propagandist 'classbook'194.85.148.66 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)DR.InK

Let us all be a little more adequate on this sensitive issue. Please don't change anything if you do not have at lease one source to post after that.85.202.113.34 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Name

As the city appears to be know as Tskhinval to the majority of its inhabitants I suggest that is how the article should describe it. PatGallacher (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a political plays of Russia, the translation was started by russian law, but this city is not in russia, so how Russia can rename it, and why would we rename it because of this, the Osetia is self pronounced country, an is not recognized by US or any european or english speaking country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.11.194 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with PatGallacher. Anybody can take care of that? Speaking fish 04:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia articles about places should be named based on which variant is predominant in English langauge (otherwise we'd have Moskva, München etc). Please check WP:NCON. Alæxis_¿question? 05:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, good point Speaking fish 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish (talk • contribs)

The comparison is completely inappropriate - Moscow and Munich are known to the English-speaking world since centuries, whereas this city is known to the Occident for 100 years and therefore should have the only correct name. Look at the Spanish article - it has been changed in accordance with the majority of its population in November 2007 and the Russian Wikipedia is discussing right now whether to move it to Цхинвал with the pro-votes evidently prevailing! I suggest that the article be renamed as soon as possible exactly as Priština is Pristina and Ljubljana is Ljubljana and not the historically established for a millenium Laibach (until 1918) and Harare is no more called Salisbury! Bogorm (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says that the Russian version of the name is Цхинвал but at least the latest edition of the Itogi magazine writes Цхинвали. Narking (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a political plays of Russia, the translation was started by russian law, but this city is not in russia, so how Russia can rename it, and why would we rename it because of this, the Osetia is self pronounced country, an is not recognized by US or any european or english speaking country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.11.194 (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here calls the city the way s/he likes :)

Bogorm, according to the rules of English Wikipedia the name that is predominant in English-language sources (in Russian Wikipedia it's different, by the way, since Russian language has the central regulating authority). Tskhinvali is now much more widely used in English language. You can check this yourself using Google or GoogleBooks. Alæxis_¿question? 16:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I skimmed the article and adjusted some potentially non-neutral language and removed some unreferenced claims. If there are any remaining complaints about the neutrality of the article, please let us know what specifically is in dispute; it's not necessarily obvious to people not familiar with the city. (I had never heard of it until today.) -- Beland (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm typing this anonymous, because of obvious reasons. It is clear the chapter '2008 Georgia vs. South Ossetia and Russia war' only depicts the recent unverified Russian statements. As long as they can't be verified: Please remove! (user X). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.20.178 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

..."Because of obvious reasons"? :-D ...Are you afraid that Russians will come knock on your door? Speaking fish 04:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaking fish (talk • contribs)

The evil KGB is looking through the talk pages in order to find antagonists... ;-) Taamu (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this article!

Would be great if we could have this article semi-protected. Otherwise, it's becoming a propaganda tool. Speaking fish 04:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

City sights / Architecture

93.177.151.101, first of all don't use the article as your own page! I put "citation needed" next to Ossetian architecture. Taamu (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are intentionally distorting chronology by placing "Ossetian" before "medieval Georgian" although you seem to agree that the medieval architecture of Tskhinvali is indeed Georgian. The most ridiculous thing is that you have put "citation needed" to your own words. This can only mean that you don't even know what you are talking about. How can "Ossetian architecture" precede medieval Georgian churches and castles? Care to explain... --93.177.151.101 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I put "citation needed" in order to provide a source to the article, to make you stop violating the rules! As I understood I affected you when I put "Ossetian" before "Georgian"? Do you have a hang-up concernig it? Taamu (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You did not affect me; you distorted the chronology and violated the rules by damaging the integrity of this entry. If you think that I feel any prejudice towards the Ossetians, you are mistaken: I'm 1/3 Ossetian. You can change a wikipedia article but you cannot change history. Tskhinvali became an Ossetian town only in the 1920's-30's. How can "Ossetian architecture" precede medieval Georgian churches and castles? Having failed to answer this question, you switched to caustic remarks, thereby demonstrating your own hang-up. Please stop editorial fighting or I will have to request from the wikipedia moderators to "force you to peace." Warm regards! --93.177.151.101 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You want to say that there were no Ossetian population until 1920? But you have forgotten that the city was a mixture of Jews, Armenians, Georgians and Ossetians. My second point, as I already told you that city has the monuments of Georgian medieval architecture (does anyone argues this fact?) as well as Ossetian architecture (national motifs that were implemented in modern history (modern does not mean contemporary)). I told you that there is no Modern Ossetian architecture, although you removed the "Ossetian architecture" and changed it to "modern Ossetian architecture". I understand you, the main aspect for you is the sequence of the words "Ossetian" and "Georgian". Taamu (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Please stop editorial fighting or I will have to request from the wikipedia moderators to "force you to peace." It's sound exactly what Georgia does after it's military offences in South Ossetia. She started the war, and than she askes "moderators" (USA and NATO) to "force Russia to peace." Taamu (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You see, again you distorted the chronology. Georgia has long been asking the west for mediation but they had been reluctunt until Putin's marauding hordes invaded Georgia and started to slaughter and pillage. I'm not going to engage in this fruitless discussion with you. Ciao... --93.177.151.101 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got no vested interest here in either side's veracity in the war, I just came to read this article and learn a little about Tshkinvali. I think you've both forgotten that the wiki's main purpose is to provide ACCURATE information. The rest of us don't care if you write Georgia or Ossetia first on the line. If there's modern buildings that you feel should be included in the article, then please put a little detail in about them. Else they aren't worth mentioning. If there's medieval buildings worth mentioning, then include them. What's the point of propagandising here? Snag two more tourists that like the look of Ossetia from what they read here? You're writing about history, for a worldwide readership. Write neutrally, write accurately and don't deliberately leave out facts. If it's disputed, don't put it in the article until it's resolved on the talk page. Simple as that. 58.165.234.17 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Site

Official site of city is tskhinval.ru, but not chinval.ru. Second site was registered only few days ago by private person. See, for example, this news (in Russian) and compare the sites cominf.org and [tskhinval.ru tskhival.ru] - their design is identic. Dinamik (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

City area

Does anyone have a reference to the city area? I belive 7.4 km² is too small for Tskhinval. Taamu (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

The caption of the image showing a destroyed building claims that the damage was done by Georgian fire. The city was a scene of intense fighting between Georgian and Russian troops for five days, from August 7 to August 12. Is there any proof that the image dated to August 18 shows the damage inflicted by Georgians? I'm chosen a neutral wording to which user:Taamu remains vehemently opposed. I'm urging him to discuss his rationale on the talk page instead of engaging in pointless edit warring. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 09:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the image off the page entirely; if nobody can agree what it's even describing, there's no reason for it to be there at all. I hate to see unsubstantiated opinion on the wiki, if you want to propagandise, go publish a newspaper article. Until then please use the discussion page please before you restore your own opinion, Taamu. 58.165.234.17 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's looks like vandalism; you don't even give a proof of your actions. I don't see any reason for you to remove the image. Do you know who started the war? who started shelling civilians' houses, a hospital, a school? Ossetians? They wouldn't have started killing their own people. Was it Russians? No, still not. Civilians attested that it was the Georgian troops who began the aggression. So, please, argue before acting. Regards. Taamu (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure who started the war, regardless of what the news sources tell everybody, and regardless of how many rounded viewpoints I do try to find for myself. That's completely immaterial anyway. I removed the image because a) I didn't feel it was of vital importance to the article, and b) your stupid edit warring, insisting on displaying biased and factually non-sound information. I didn't intend a permanent removal, just an end to the edit-war and a start to using this page. Do you know who started the war, or who bombed that specific building? Were you there; do you have RELIABLE, cross-checkable information? No. Regardless of who started the war, anybody could've bombed it. Indian terrorists could've detonated a carbomb there for all we know. I removed it to preserve neutrality, so until you have undisputed fact to back up captioning it, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. More than likely the Georgians were responsible. But would you want a picture of Putin captioned with "Baby eater," or something more subtle, sourced from a dedicated slander/gossip page? Or one purporting to be an unbiased newspaper? It's the same thing. I don't personally care who bombed it. I'm just interested in truth and neutrality. You should be, too. 58.165.234.17 (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your first reference, [1], says buildings were destroyed in the fighting "since Georgia attacked". The video in the second [2] and third [3] shows soldiers firing guns - not explosives - on nondescript buildings. I can't personally tell if they're Georgian or not, maybe somebody else could verify that. The wording of the third article ("Грузины восторженно кричали, убивая из танков, гранатометов и пулеметов беззащитных женщин, стариков, детей.") begs to question the neutrality and veracity of it too - even when it's completely unrelated to the caption on the picture! At best that last reference should be put under "Further reading" and not be a reference for the picture. If you were thinking I didn't look at your sources I did. These events are still unfolding, and investigations by neutral parties are still incomplete, so veritable information on such a specific thing will likely be impossible to find. The undisputed fact is that it is a building in Tskhinvali that was damaged in fighting, between Georgia and Russia. That's all that needs to be said about it. 58.165.234.17 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is when we are trying to avoid the personal arguments.

Flooded I-10/I-610/West End Blvd interchange and surrounding area of northwest New Orleans and Metairie, Louisiana

File:Gori residential district after Russian air strikes.jpg

Destroyed residential building in Gori after a Russian air strike

I don't know for sure who started the war....You see, you've said it yourself that you are not knowledgeable, but still you're insisting on your rightness.

Here is my point (I don't know if it's good or not):

Do you think that this images are not neutral? First is about Hurricane Katrina; second image captures Gori after the air strike. Can I say that it was not a hurricane that destroyed New Orleans? Or I should remove it??? The image is not displaying the action itself, but it camptures the fact. The same with the second picture. See, no propaganda.

As for the sources I have attached to the image. They are connected to it "indirectly" (i.e. references say that it was Georgian troops that shelled the civilians' buildings etc.). Do you have any source that would claim that it was Russians who destroyed the city? Any? The answer is qiute clear - No, you don't. Taamu (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was, that it's irrelevant who started the war. It's undisputed fact that a hurricane destroyed New Orleans. It's undisputed that Russia bombed Gori. Was there active fighting and shelling by both sides in Gori? If there was (I don't know; just talking about the picture here) then that picture should have a source with it. If it was just Russians attacking then it's common sense.

The undisputed fact in Tskhinvali is that Russians and Georgians were both fighting there, both shelling. You could look around Tskhinvali and see some Russian damage, some Georgian damage. The picture captures the fact that a building was damaged. Nobody knows by who THAT BUILDING WAS DAMAGED. It's not common sense who damaged it because both sides fought there, and there's no reliable information. Put a picture of bullet holes in a building from Georgian soldiers shooting it, sourced from a video they made themselves, and say it's Georgian damage, that's true and verifiable. The building in the article is just a damaged building in a warzone. Either side could have done the damage. Especially because the image is dated Aug. 18, after all the fighting stopped.

"(i.e. references say that it was Georgian troops that shelled the civilians' buildings etc.)" If any of the references said that we wouldn't be having this argument. They say Georgians attacked and fought with Russians. That's all they say. 58.165.234.17 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

I deleted this section, consisting of four lines, because the references to stand-alone and potentially copyrighted images are about as veritable as this image. If anybody wants to re-add that information, please include a reliable, cross-examinable source. Even the best articles on some cities lack cultural makeup data, as accurate information is difficult to find. 58.170.122.106 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Country

Why is the country quoted as South Ossetia / Georgia? Surely we should follow the example of Pristina in Kosovo and use the defacto country (i.e. remove Georgia).

Does anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.8.42 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian name

Karimov, stop this meaningless edit war and refer to WP:NAME and WP:ON, which states that

New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.

This means that Wikipeda can reject none of the commonly used names and the alleged standard established by an obscure state agency is by no means a standard for Wikipedia. WP:ON further reads:

Disputed, previous or historic official names should also be represented as redirects, and similarly treated in the article introduction in most cases. But if there are many of these, or if they are relatively obscure, it may not be good to have them in the introduction. In this case:

• The alternative name should be mentioned early (normally in the first sentence) in an appropriate section of the article.
• The redirect should point to this section.

A quick news scan in Russian yields 1,420 hits for Цхинвали and 1,100 for Цхинвал. Google Books gives 35,400 for Цхинвали and only 8,490 for Цхинвал. Clear now? --Kober^Talk 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tskhinvali → Tskhinval – This is the name by which it is known to most of its inhabitants and the de facto government. Google searches and the like are not necessarily decisive, this place is not so well-known that it can be said to have a well-established English name like Rome, Moscow. PatGallacher (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The place is well-known enough to have its established English name. Check Google Books. Most reliable sources published in English use the name Tskhinvali. In the United Nations and OSCE documents the town is referred to as Tskhinvali. [4], [5].--Kober^Talk 19:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- This is a highly political issue, dependent on whether you regard it as subject to de jure Georgian or the de facto situation of it being an autonomous Russian protectorate. The article indicates that the final i is a nominative ending. Other languages may have a different ending or none. The question is probably thus one of what is the local name, which probably depends on whether you are talking to a Georgian or an Ossetian! No view but there should be a redirect from the other version. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Of course it's a political issue. The de jure situation is disputed, the de facto situation is not, which is that it is under Ossetian administration and has a predominantly Ossetian population. There already is a redirect from the other name. PatGallacher (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammar of the first three sentences

The subject of the first sentence is "Tskhinvali...", and the second sentence starts "It has been recognised as an independent Republic...", misleadingly suggesting that the city is the Republic.

I'd suggest the second sentence to begin "South Ossetia...", and the third sentence to begin "It..."

94.175.140.247 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest to remove all the text about Tskhinvali region, and to focus mainly on the town. It repeats words that an interested person can find in the main article of the region.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

2008 war

Currently most of the contents 2008 war section are not directly relevant to the topic of this article. I would suggest to remove everything before the sentence "In the afternoon, Georgian personnel left the Joint Peacekeeping Force headquarters in Tskhinvali", keeping links to Russo-Georgian War and Battle of Thkhinvali as main articles. Alaexis_¿question? 06:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"was always part of the Georgian state as a single military and administrative entity."

The source of the statement "Tskhinvali Region, known historically as Samachablo, was always part of the Georgian state as a single military and administrative entity." in the introductory paragraph is an article about the region on the Georgian government website. The addition of such statement by a source heavily biased against the Ossetian independence might be considered POV-pushing. Tuirse (talk ☘︎) 13:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)