Talk:Ossetia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

think the fact is that both those in north and south ossetia follow orthodoxy. if you are still in doubt and insist on changing my edits, please go to this website to see that christianity is indeed the religion of both north and south ossetia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3632274.stm --User:JPan

Google easily finds several sites that say there's also Muslims among the Ossetians, though I can't find much about the delineation between south and north on religious lines. I'm going to leave in the note about the Islamic minority overall. --Joy [shallot] 10:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

btw, someone should put up a link referring to the recent massacre in beslan...--User:JPan

There, I added a link to Beslan School Massacre...--User:JPan

More info on this discussion of the religion of the Ossetians: I found a source that seems to be quite accurate and precise. Here it is, "The Ossetian population of North Ossetia is predominantly Christian with some Muslim minority and all population of South Ossetia is Christian." http://www.worldwidewebfind.com/encyclopedia/en/wikipedia/n/no/north_ossetia_alania.html With your permission, we should change the page to reflect this finding ???--User:JPan

Um, that's our North Ossetia-Alania article. --Joy [shallot]

Are you saying our North Ossetia-Alania Article is incorrect, Joy? Besides, shouldn't there be consistency within Wikipedia, thus we should edit this Ossetia page to comply with the info from the N. Ossetia page. Let's add this info to this page! --User:JPan

Um, try reading our present NO-A article? It says "The Ossetian population of North Ossetia is predominantly Christian with a Muslim minority" right there in the intro. Also, this sentence hasn't been changed in the last month. --Joy [shallot] 21:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, our SA article currently says "Most Ossetians are now Russian Orthodox Christians, but there is also a significant Muslim minority". --Joy [shallot] 21:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article needs some serious revision; particularly statements like this : "The United States has generally allied with Georgia..." Kober 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Georgian name of Ossetia

I don't see the Georgian name of Ossetia here. I see only the russian name. I think it's best to have also the Georgian name here.--Georgianis 20:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian name "Ossetia" originated from Georgian "osseti" (compare Ingusheti, or in Georgia proper Kakheti, Imereti, Apkhazeti, etc.).

Separatist POV

This article is completely POV and actually promotes separatist agenda. The map os indication that ossetia is divided. This article is against Wiki policies. There is no single Ossetia, only North Ossetia-Alania in Russia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Ldingley 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the new changes. It's very POV the way it is now. Some changes must be done. Georgianis | (t) 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ossetia is not generally described even as a single geographic entity. The term is usually used as an unofficial designation for the compactly settled Ossetic-speaking areas on the both sides of the Caucasus. The article definitely needs serious revision.--Kober 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If there's a "North" and "South" of something, there has to be a term refering to them as one region. See Kurdistan for example. It's not a country, but a geographic and cultural region. —Khoikhoi 18:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. However edits like this one and most the edit summaries are not very NPOV. Georgianis | (t) 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I don't want to make changes in the article without having discussed them here. Below is my version. Tell me what you think about it.

Ossetia is an ethno-linguistic region located on the both sides of the Greater Caucasus Mountains, largely inhabited by the Ossetians, an Iranian people who speak the Ossetic language, (an Indo-Iranian language). The Ossetic-speaking area south to the main Caucasus ridge is within the de jure borders of Georgia, but is largely under the control of the Russian-backed de facto government of the unrecognized Republic of South Ossetia. The norther portion of the region is the republic of North Ossetia-Alania within the Russian Federation.

In the last years of the Soviet Union, ethnic tenisons between Ossetians and Georgians in Georgia's former Autonomous Oblast of South Ossetia (abolished in 1990) and between Ossetians and Ingushes in the north evolved into violent clashes that left several hundreds of dead and wounded and created a tide of refugees. --Kober 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good, but I would stress more on Russia's negative role. -- Georgianis | (t) 18:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can further expand the article adding history and politics sections. This is just a stub. --Kober 18:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Khoikhoi 20:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Map of a proposed United Ossetia"

I changed this because it didn't make that much sense. If the map was of a unied Ossetia, wouldn't the North and South both be the same color? If we're going to make a map like that, it would like like a united Korea. I changed the caption to "map of North and South Ossetia". —Khoikhoi 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pov article

This article is POV and contradictory to South Ossetia and North Ossetia are not the same and they are definitely not like N and S Korea. There was no such thing as united Ossetia or single name entity of Ossetia. Therefore, its original research and also POV article. Should be considered for deletion. Ldingley 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan also has never been united. That's not enough to delete an article imho. Alæxis_¿question? 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please present any sources where there is a single unit or entity called Ossetia? And please no Russian ones this time, neutral ones. You like to google right? Ldingley 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Asserting that an article on the geographic region Ossetia should be deleted is not a proposal that merits thoughtful response. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there any scholarly references which would treat Ossetia as a geographic region? The two Ossetias are separated by the formidable barrier of the main Caucasus Ridge and cannot be considered as a single geographic region.--Kober^Talk 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

North and South Ossetias are not a single region in any sense. Geographicaly, they are divided by a "wall" of the Great Caucasus gorge, so that effective communication between them was impossible until the 1980s, when the Roki Tunnel was built. No need to say, that they have never constituted a single political or administrative entity. The very name "South Ossetia" is a later invention, promoted by the Bolshevicks. If you look at the maps of Russian Empire, or any earlier historical map, you will never find any administrative entity, anyhow resembling the borders of the modern "South Ossetia". The content of this article is an obvious POV. Pirveli 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Darial gorge wasn't built by Soviets, was it?

Anyway it's called an ethnolinguistic region here (as Kober proposed here). Alæxis_¿question? 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, you demonstrate lack of even elementary georgraphical knowledge of the region: Darial gorge has absolutely no connection to South Ossetia. Look at the map at the very least, before talking about the problem. Regular communication between North and South Ossetia became physially possible only after the tunnel was built in the 1980s. Pirveli 20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, yes, I was mistaken. On the other hand part of Voenno-Osetinskaya road is in South Ossetia ([1]). Anyway what does it have to do with calling Ossetia an ethnolinguistic region? Alæxis_¿question? 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you weren't. The medieval Alania has indeed existed on the both sides of the gorge. And the very name of Darial comes from the Persian "Darialan" - gate to the Alans. Óðinn 00:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia DID NOT ATTACK Georgia!

People of the world. You deceive! World mass media conduct propagation of a false information. Russia DID NOT ATTACK Georgia! 07.08.2008 at 22:00 Georgia has attacked South Ossetia. At 3:30 08.08.2008 tanks of the Georgian armies have entered into city Tskhinvali. Artillery bombardment all the day long proceeded, fights with use of tanks and heavy combat material, both against ossetic armies, and against peace inhabitants were conducted. 2000 civil people already were lost. The Russian peacemakers have arrived to South Ossetia in the evening 08.08.2008 for settlement of the conflict and prompting of the world in republic and protection of the Russian citizens living on territory of South Ossetia. Georgia has attacked South Ossetia on eve of Olympiad, it is top of cruelty and cynicism. Proofs and video-materials look on : www.1tvrus.com/ , www.1tv.ru/owa/win/ort6_main.main , www.rian.ru/ , www.vesti.ru/news , news.ntv.ru/ , www.ren-tv.com/ , www.newsru.com/ .We shall tell is not present to WAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.8.31 (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

One sounds like an opinionated one, when he uses one all the time, ab initio. Point not taken? If you knew anything about the country, you would have known Ossetia is both North Ossetia and South Ossetia. North is Russian, south is a breakaway republic, recognized by Russia, that hates Georgia. Using this knowledge, Georgia invade South Ossetia, bombed the crap out of it, and then ran like cowards, when the Russians entered South Ossetia, through north Ossetia, at the behest of the Ossetian people--promptly kicking out the garbage, who had no right to be in Ossetia, since it wasn't their country, ipso facto.

how Russia claim them as citizens? - They have russian citizenship (as far as georgian) and russian passports. It's kinda old abkhazian trick. 91.76.20.75 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A trick doesn't make for a true argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

What is his connection with Ossetia? He was born in Gori! Tsf (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin, a Georgian, divided Ossetia into North & South Ossetia, and made South Ossetia part of Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.196.30 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalin is connected to almost everything that happend in Soviet Union since he came to power until his death in 1953. Anyway it seems that somebody removed this remark. Tsf (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Where to put the History of Ossete?

Should the History of Ossete be put under this article or North Ossetia-Alania? 118.169.96.236 (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the history of the region or the history of the Ossetian people? Khoikhoi 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Is it "Oh-SEH-tee-uh", "Oh-SEE-shuh", or something entirely different?

It is the latter. The English and American media have been negligent in actually looking up the proper pronunciation; a massive groupthink error on there part, if you will. No one pronounced it that way before this conflict; in fact, I doubt any of the contributors to this discussion, including myself, could have told you where the country was located on the map. It is incredibly embarrassing to me that Americans and Westerners are so insular--they won't even ask someone who knows, or reference the word, before they go on national television and make fools of themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.156.189 (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe (and anyone, please correct me if I am wrong) it is the first one, "Oh-SEH-tee-uh". (This is in response to the above question, but for some weird reason when I indent my response in the edit, it shows up in a light pink box; sorry, don't know all the intricacies of editing in Wikipedia :-)74.116.240.69 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the pronunciation of the English name is "Oh-SEE-shuh", but the other pronunciation does seem to be used some in the news lately, probably because of influence from the Russian name. The IPA for the AHD pronunciation would be /oʊˈsiːʃə/. —KCinDC (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday on the news a professor from Georgia called it "Oh-SEE-shuh" but most of the reports I've seen call it "Oh-SEH-tee-uh". Should it follow the same English style as Croatia (which is, humorously, nothing like what the Croatians call their country)?121.44.192.110 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the IPA, since someone had added a non-IPA pronunciation and someone else had marked it for cleanup. Still, there definitely are other pronunciations out there that could be added as alternatives if sources can be found. I couldn't find a famous non-American dictionary that had an online pronunciation for "Ossetia". —KCinDC (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here in Australia, the media have universally been pronouncing the "t" separately in "Ossetia" (/ɒ'sɛtiə/, with some variation according to accent). It sounds very much like the sort of pronunciation that you would get from asking non-English-speaking locals what the name of the place is in English. It sounds extremely bizarre in English. I can't really imagine pronouncing the name as anything but /ɒ'si:ʃə/ (or a relaxed pronunciation with schwa: /ə'si:ʃə/). I see that an American dictionary prescribes this, but with an /oʊ/ or /əʊ/ diphthong for the initial "O". Note that this is not a possible pronunciation for a word beginning with "Oss-" in English (it would be fine before a single "s"). I fear that the loss of the /ɒ/ phoneme in American English leads to this sound being semi-randomly replaced by either /oʊ/ or /ɑ:/. — Chameleon 09:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course English pronunciation doesn't always follow what one might expect from the spelling. The /oʊ/ may not be logical, but it's certainly possible, since some people use it. But /ɒ/ is pretty much universally replaced with /ɑ:/ in American English — no randomness involved. Can you name any other examples with /oʊ/? Also, Merriam-Webster has /ɑ:'si:ʃ(i:)ə/.

In the U.S. media, something like /ɑ:'sɛti:ə/ seems to dominate, though I did hear /ɑ:'sɛʃə/ a few days ago. —KCinDC (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I called it semi-random because it is not consistent. Essentially, /ɒ/ is usually merged into /ɑ:/, but in certain cases involving foreign words there seems to be a feeling that /ɑ:/ doesn't do justice to the original foreign sound (which is often something like /o/). In those cases, you often get Americans saying /oʊ/ (or /əʊ/) instead. Apart from "Ossetia", the first examples that spring to mind are "Pinocchio" and "kudos". — Chameleon 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"United Ossetia"

Political aspirations of some Ossetians can be discussed in a separate article. But let's try to keep it neutral please. This is not the place to mention separatism, unification, etc. Let's just stick to the current status of the region. Khoikhoi 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If they did unite and make one country it would be simillar in area and population to Montenegro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent history

"1922 — Ossetia is divided citation needed into two parts: North Ossetia remains a part of Russia, South Ossetia - transferred to the Georgian SSR."

This isn't correct! First in the history these two parties were connected (and not divided!) during the soviet time. And this first "geographical connection" took place when the Roki tunnel was built. This was built by the Soviet authorities. There is a big difference between "divide" and "connection". My request to administration: Don't allow controversial remarks needed citation. Thanks! --Serafita (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To user Soslanx: First of all Central Asia and the Caucasus is pro-Russian journal, no doubt. Secondly footnote 9 is quoted from „South Ossetia“which comes from Encarta Encyclopedia. And sources like this don’t count for sources. Thanks! --Serafita (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

How could Ossetia be divided in 1922 when the Tskhinvali uyezd was part of the Democratic Republic of Georgia/Georgian SSR and North Ossetia part of the Russian SFSR? These had not been a single entity even under the Imperial Russian rule. The text of the 1920 Russo-Georgian treaty of mutual recognition clearly places what is now S. Ossetia into the Georgian borders.--Kober^Talk 13:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Encarta Encyclopedia is relyable source. i agree whith you...Central Asia and the Caucasus is pro-russian journal,but neither pro-ossetian nor pro-georgian. yours respectfully Soslanx —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Its rubbish to debate about events never happened! Then I hope you are from the earth and it’s not new thing that so called South Ossetia does to be a little protégé under the auspices of Russia (because of your reference that Central Asia and the Caucasus seems not to be pro-Ossetia). And when you like to read Cornell than I’d be grateful if you could read he writes Ossetians have had wide opportunities to protect their language and culture under the Soviet Georgia (Cornell, Svante E.: Small nations and great powers. A study of ethnopolitical conflict in the caucasus. Richmond: Curzon, 2001, p. 156) what haven’t had the Ossetians from Nord Ossetia under the Russian Federation (and they haven’t it still just as all the small people under Russia). --Serafita (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Divided" means a division of what had been united, does not it? Could you please provide a source proving that what are now S. and N. Ossetia were united as a single entity at the time when the Soviets decided to create these autonomous entities? --Kober^Talk 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the word 'divided' doesn't always imply that there had been some single entity sometime before. For example Kurdish people are frequently described as divided even they they have never had a single country of their own. Alæxis_¿question? 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the word 'divided' with the indication of a specific date does imply that the supposed ethno-political area had been united before being divided.--Kober^Talk 15:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

United Ossetia (including tyrsygom and kudgom-modern kazbeg region of georgia) became the part of russian empire in 1774. thats fact.can you provide a source about transfering s.o. to georgia. there is no document about osetia south parts seceding from russian empire from 1774 to 1922. there is no ossetian document of that period whith georgian stamps. Кавказский сборник. т. ХIII. Тифлис, 1889. с. 3-4 kavkazskij sbornik ХIII. Tiflis,1889 pages 3-4 (rus) here ossetia borders in the end of ХIII are being described . Soslanx —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Well, well... First off, I would be extremely grateful if you could explain what the phrase "there is no ossetian document of that period whith georgian stamps" mean. Second, I'm waiting for a map of the pre-1801 Russian Empire which shows modern SO or the acclaimed "United Ossetia" as its part. Also, please let us known of which governorate "United Ossetia" was part prior to the Russian annexation of Georgia (1801). On my part, I'm eagerly providing the 1780s map of the Russian Empire where I don't see any "United Ossetia" or any sign that would suggest of Russian possession of the would-be SO at that time. Moreover, here's the quote from the 1920 Russo-Georgian treaty which reads:

"Article IV. 1. Russia undertakes to recognize unconditionally as entering into the state of Georgia, in addition to those parts of the province of Chernomorsk transferred to Georgia in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 3 of the present treaty, the following provinces and regions of the former Russian Empire: Tiflis, Kutais and Batum with all districts and circuits forming the said provinces and regions, and, in addition, the circuits of Zakatalsk and Sukhum."[2].

I hope the fact that the lands corresponding to modern SO was a part of the Tiflis Governorate is not disputable.--Kober^Talk 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

there are documents about land transfering from one family to another . what about Ur map and Ur [3], they have nothing to prove .Soslanx —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC).