This is an archive of past discussions about Transnistria. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Starting with these IP edits, and continued with recent edits, the citizenship information turned into a glut of stats, and a very long passage from the Moldovan constitution. I'm assuming double citizenship means dual citizenship. The current stats seem to ignore Transnistria citizenship, and I don't think they help the reader. Can someone who understands the sources simplify? CMD (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
'Republica Moldovenească Nistreană (rusă: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика,
ucraineană: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка) este numele dat
de forțele separatiste entității politice autoproclamate din Transnistria.
Google Translate is full of gibberish. It is not readable to people who only speak English. Please stop using it- you are wasting your time. Ratemonth (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Been away. Just here to mention the ICDISS is a bogus front seeking to legitimize the Tiraspol regime. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01
It seems over the top to capitalize the entire expression "Transnistria autonomous territorial unit with special legal status". It is a description, not a title, cf. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", in which capitals are used only where it makes sense to do so. Looking at the article on the Moldovan designation, I see that the expressions in the three principal languages of the area are not similarly capitalized.
If nobody comes back on this soon, I shall alter both articles accordingly.
The later was just created by splitting the lead in two, which I've reverted. If we want to move some of this content out of the lead, I agree that it should go to the "Political status" section. TDL (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is Crimea's status dealt with differently than Transnistria? The article in Wikipedia on Crimea makes it clear in many ways that the status of the territory is in dispute. For Transnistria, however, an entirely different format is used making this point far less clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.18.194 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As someone who knows nothing about Transnistria, there is a lot about this article that is unclear. Who in Transnistria wants to join Russia and why? Is it the large Russian minority, as one would imagine? When and why did so many Russians end up there?Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually presence of Slavs in the early medieval period and colonization of Transnistria during the Russian Empire period are mentioned. Do you think that more details should be given? Alæxis¿question?20:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
In most of the peripheral Soviet republics, Russians were needed because Russian people knew advanced technologies. Wherever this phenomenon is observed, you will likely find Russian-built steel mills, car/truck/airplane factories, textile mills, etc, built and staffed by "expatriat" Russians. It all made sense at the time, but it's proven difficult to unwind. Santamoly (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Transnistria 1929 The entire area had an overlap of Romanian and Russian, including pockets of Romanian settlement further east. Also, significant areas of German settlement. Russian interests have been portraying Transnistria as wanting to join Russia ever since Victor Alksnis sent in Antyufeyev and his OMON forces. VєсrumЬа ►TALK03:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Flag of Transnistria
I have just put back the image with the hammer and sickle. The image which had replaced it is of the reverse of the flag. My edit summary went a little wrong. The matter is made clear on VexiWiki - Wikia. LynwoodF (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The image has again been replaced. It seems pretty clear that the hammer and sickle do not appear on the reverse of the flag. See also this website. I shall revert the new edit.LynwoodF (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Self-contradictory statement.
A recent edit reads:
The majority of the population is ethnic Moldovan (32.1%), which historically had a higher percentage of 49.4% in 1926.
This statement is not sourced, but I have not removed it, as I suspect it contains some truth. However, 32.1% cannot constitute a majority. Do I understand correctly that the Moldovans are the largest single ethnic group? If so, could we please have a reference and a date for the figure given? LynwoodF (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone has altered the wording, but there is still no reference or date, so the statement is still unsatisfactory. LynwoodF (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
My grievance about Wikipedia taking the side of the people who commits a cultural genocide in Transnistria, by calling Romanians Moldovans,was erased because Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
No is not, that's why my grievance about this page was written, because you broke the rules and took the part of the people who commits or had committed a genocide against Romanians from Transnistria and Bessarabia.
The Moldovan vs. Romanian argument exists in that part of the world, only because the Russian part is conducting a cultural genocide and is trying with all their powers to promote that Moldovan identity from 1917, in the past, soviet times, an ethnic genocide too. So only in Russian world the Moldovan has an ethnic meaning from 1917, because of the political agenda.
So what I said in not a soapbox, because today Romanian identity is under siege in Transnistria, is banned, the only high school in the Romanian language is constant under pressure to close his gates, then not all Romanians from Transnistria have cultural links with Moldova region, but with Transylvania too! So naming Romanians from Transnistria ethnic Moldovans is flawed in many ways. Name my argument a soapbox infringement, but i name your way of taking the side of the Russian propaganda a soapbox infringement too.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Why do you think so? I believe that the most notable is geographical region, for instance. Someone else can have different opinion. Transnistria should be disambig. Or at least redirect to the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. But the title of this page definitely must be changed. --Shmurak (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It isn't a well-defined geographical region. The term may have a longer history in Romanian (I don't know), but it is only an English word from ~1940. The Transnistria of World War II was much larger than the current Transnistria and, of course, the term just means "beyond the Dniester". Compare the term Abkhazia, an old geographical term. Our article is about the breakaway state and we don't even have an article on the region. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Wikipedia articles usually use the common name, not the official name (cf. France, not "French Republic", and so on.) I doubt the English-speaker people would be at all familiar with PMR. Transnistria would be more common. As long as the disambiguate is made clear at the top of the article, there is no problem. Ground Zero | t00:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Recognizability) and WP:OFFICIAL (common names in English preferred to obscure official names.) Transnistria is the name used everywhere in English and I'm not aware of anyone who knows what is the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Political Status edit for greater accuracy
Under 'Political Status' we read this, "Transnistria is considered by the vast majority of countries as a legal part of the Republic of Moldova. Only the partially recognised states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognize it as a sovereign entity [...]" I suggest this version, "'Transnistria is not recognised by any UN member state. Only the partially recognised states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognize it as a sovereign entity [...]'"
Transnistria is just a breakaway region is not a state by no means. It's not recognized by Russia or UN either..2QW4 (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Transnistria" is a somewhat ambiguous term meaning both the region "beyond the Dniester" and the PMR. The latter certainly is a state, albeit a politically unrecognized one (a "quasi-state", so to speak). However, the only problem with your suggestion is that it adds a third "recognize(d)" into the line. --illythr (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Partially recognized" has been fought for tooth and nail by those seeking to paint the Tiraspol regime as completely legitimate. "Not recognized by any U.N. member" should be sufficient and succinct. I mean, really, even Russia doesn't have the gumption to recognize it after conquering it, providing $billions in energy subsidies, and happily watching as the bulk of Moldova's industrial assets get sold off to the Russian oligarchy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Transnistria is not even "partially recognized", the text already says so. The proposed changes say the same thing, but with an additional "recognized" close to the other two. --illythr (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a photograph of a Transnistrian passport which raises the interesting question (true of all unrecognised States that issue "passports") of which countries accept it. Most Transnistrians (I am guessing) travel abroad outside the CIS on Moldovan or perhaps Russian passports, assuming they are eligible for them as many or most will be.) The Transnistrian and Moldovan nationality laws are online, at least in Russian and Romanian. Interestingly, some unrecognised States' passports are generally accepted as such (Taiwan), some are accepted proof of identity but visas put (at least by the USA) on a separate consular form (TRNC), and some are not accepted at all (Somaliland; but most of its "citizens" want to travel only to Arab countries so they use Somali passports which engage no security whatsoever: journalists have bought them.) Andygx (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Difficult lead paragraph
The opening sentence is very difficult to read due to the proliferation of multiple names and translations thereof for this entity. Recognizing that the name is doubtless controversial and may be inherently complex, would it nevertheless be possible to move some of the alternative names and parenthetical translations to a lower section of the lead or perhaps a new section, 2.1 Naming?
Thanks for pointing this out. I quite agree; what we have here is a rather egregious case of lead sentence bloat. Will try a quick stab at disentangling it. Fut.Perf.☼07:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Partially recognized states
The lead section of article refers to Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Artsakh as partially recognized states. Yet, independence of Transnistria and Artsakh are not recognized by any state. Addictedtohistory (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Semiprotection
I have semiprotected the article per a discussion at ANI: Special:Diff/893651726 and have reverted the article to the last version before the edit war. Please continue editing from here. Use the Talk page to gain consensus for anything controversial. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Some collateral damage has occured: this legit edit has not been restored, but because it was done through a tool making many changes of a repetitive nature and the ongoing controversy on the article, I am reluctant to restore these edits. Any suggestions? Also pinging RhinosF1Optakeover(U)(T)(C)04:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, there's nothing to discuss with anyone. These aggressive politicized clowns will not enter into a meaningful discussion, so you can block the discussion page of this article. Otherwise they will not like what they can write there. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The name Transdniester (anglicized as Transnistria) is the name that was historically used during Soviet and Moldovan oppression, the people fought for their freedom and decided on the name Pridnestrovie (anglicized Pridnestrovia). The continued use of Transdniester is seen as outdated and simply derogatory by the population, similar to the western use of 'the Ukraine' instead of Ukraine. Please change this as an open platform of information such as Wikipedia is ought to display only fair and objective information, not biased propaganda. (this is a matter of de facto independence, whether the nation of Pridnestrovie is de jure independent is not the present discussion) Bapo224 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This term is not generally accepted in the English linguistic community due to the insignificance of the object. In this case, the terminology is chosen and determined depending on the context. The term "transnistria" is absolutely inappropriate in this context. 217.19.216.247 (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of English language sources that, in context, use the word Transnistria, but not in a derogatory manner. Wikipedia follows outside usage in its article naming. CMD (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Many English-language sources literally cite Romanian-Moldovan sources, which a priori cannot be neutral without considering similar Pridnestrovian sources. And without context, the term "transistria", like "Pridnestrovie" in English does not mean anything, because officially neither one nor the other name is used anywhere. There is only "an autonomous territorial unit on the left bank of the Dniester" from Moldova and "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". And "transnstria" is only the territory between the Southern Bug and Dniester occupied by the Romanians during the Second World War. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
It is more appropriate to say that pro-Romanian editors of Wikipedia themselves are engaged in the promotion of this terminology through English version of this encyclopedia. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's face it: this article was written extremely biased from the standpoint of militant Romanian nationalism by local Romanian editors who still do not accept the fact that Moldavia with Pridnestrovie have never been and will not be part of Romania. Therefore, the current state of the article in an unchanged form is so vehemently protected by them even from the slightest amendment (see User_talk:217.19.216.247). Is this appropriate in an encyclopedia, the fundamental principle of which is declared neutral point of view? I think no. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Some illustrative examples:
"The Romanian administration of Transnistria attempted to stabilise the situation in the area under Romanian control, implementing a process of Romanianization" - this is about the genocide of hundreds of thousands of civilians and their replacement by the Romanian population.
"Red Army reconquered the area in 1944, Soviet authorities executed, exiled or imprisoned hundreds of the Moldavian SSR inhabitants in the following months on charges of collaboration with the "German-fascist occupiers"" - certainly, the "crimes" of the Soviet government are much worse, otherwise it is not the Romanian point of view. And probably no one committed crimes in transnistria during the years of occupation, they themselves occurred. And, of course, the occupiers are German, but not Romanian.
"returned Moldovan to the Latin alphabet" - returned, despite the fact that Moldovans never used it, as did the Romanians until the end of the 19th century.
"Volunteers, including Cossacks, came from Russia to help the separatist side" - about the crowd of Romanian "volunteers" engaged in looting and looting, says nothing. And the separatists came out here just Moldova, and Pridnestrovie was in favor of the integrity of the country.
And so on about the infringement on the Romanians, the lack of human rights, discrimination, smuggling, etc., with absolutely biased sources or with their absence at all. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This is your own interpretation. Where are your sources? I've asked you many times already and you haven't given any. Wikipedia has already made clear on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View that properly-sourced information must be in-place for controversial edits. You keep claiming bias but you still haven't provided any evidence that your proposed edits should be kept. Optakeover(U)(T)(C)10:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No interpretation, just facts. If you look at the history of rollbacks, you will see that I brought a whole bunch of sources, but you didn’t even pay attention to this, trying to defend your point of view at any cost in the article (which you are trying to pass off for “neutral”). Don't like something? Write on each specific item what does not suit you, then there will be something to discuss. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, I see, for you it is too difficult, but the political bias still does not give rest. Now I made changes to the section on the name of Pridnestrovie. What objections will be specifically on this? If nothing, why did you roll back this edit? 217.19.208.96 (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The “Moldovan language” and the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet
User Super Dromaeosaurus has been removing the term “Moldovan” from this article, stating that this is not the name used in the Moldovan constitution. Transnistria may be an unrecognised country, but I maintain that we should go by the de facto situation (which is that according to the constitution adopted by the Transnistrian government, the Romanian language is called Moldovan and that it is written in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet). This is also the term used in the infobox. What do other users think? Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that it's notable that in Transnistria the language is called Moldovan and the Cyrillic script is used - though of course we should mention that the same language is called Romanian in Moldova. Alaexis¿question?10:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I propose using Romanian and Moldovan Cyrillic in the lead and using a note to say the Romanian language is termed as Moldovan in Transnistria. SuperΨDro11:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I propose sticking to Moldovan, using a note explaining that this term is the one used in Transnistria. Romanian is just not a term used there (and the language is written in a different alphabet, called Moldovan Cyrillic). One may have different views about this, but Wikipedia does, from what I know, have the aim to write about the situation as it, in fact, is. I feel using the term “Romanian” here deviates from this path. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I have changed back to the original version and propose that we, in accordance with the rules, leave the article be until this question has been resolved. I find it troubling that user Super Dromaeosaurus continues to change back to “Romanian” despite not participating in this discussion. I would also like to add that “Moldovan” is the name of the language according to the constitution. Stating anything else is, in fact, incorrect, as that is what the constitution tells us. The constitution is linked in the article itself. Naturally, we should still make use of a note, whereby we explain that this term is not used in Moldova (but, in my opinion, not the other way around). Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
My proposals are to use "Romanian/Moldovan" in the infobox and "Romanian and Moldovan Cyrillic" in the main text. Perhaps we could get a better proposal for the main text one though. I will not accept any proposal that makes Moldovan look as a valid and proper language. SuperΨDro12:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
No one who is interested in this subject can think that Romanian and Moldovan are two different, distinct languages. Moldovan is, however, the term used in Transnistria, making it “valid and proper” for them (just as it did when Moldova itself used this name in their constitution). It is up to every country, recognised or unrecognised, to refer to one of its languages as they see fit. This is not a discussion about politics, but rather one about how things for a fact are. This is the role of Wikipedia. One indisputable fact is that in Transnistria and according to the constitution of Transnistria, the Romanian language is called Moldovan. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I have taken a good look at the article again and I must say that I see no good reason to not keep it as it is. The Moldovan language is already stated to be identical to Romanian in a note. If anyone wants, we can add a similar note to Moldovan in the main text, but I see no reason to change things entirely and start calling the language “Romanian” in an article about a country that has obviously never used this term. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I took the liberty to add a note, explaining that Moldovan is the name used in the constitution of Transnistria, but that the language is referred to as Romanian in Moldova. I think this makes things clear. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the text of the note to say more explicitly that the Moldovan language is a variant of Romanian. I still do not fully agree with the changes, but if we leave it as it is now, we can end the discussion. By the way, I have removed the reference that you left in the note because the link did not lead to any particular article. You can add it again later with the fixed link. SuperΨDro00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) the most widely accepted English name should be used, so you'll need to argue that Transnistria is not the most common English name. The fact that this name is not used in PMR itself and is considered offensive is notable and can be mentioned in the Names section of the article. Alaexis¿question?10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
You'd of course have to cite Transnistrian and Russian websites. A shame that no other ones use this name more than Transnistria. As stated, Transnistria is the common English name and it will thus be kept. SuperΨDro12:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
And who, in your opinion, should pay attention to the insult, if not the offended party? Appealing to the authorship with ignoring arguments is a bad move. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The name used in the article is not generally accepted. For the autonomous territory of Moldova, the generally accepted (often used) is "Stinga Nistrului", for an unrecognized state - "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" (in this form, to make it clear that we are not talking about Moldovan autonomy). In English, the established term for this country does not exist due to the obscurity of the subject. This word was used by biased Romanian editors when creating the article for offensive purposes and was strongly defended by them in the future. In addition, the word is offensive not only in PMR, but everywhere. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The name is only offensive by those Transnistrians fed up with propaganda comparing Romanians with genocidals and nazis. This is always the only argument for considering "Transnistria" offensive. And Transnistria is indeed the generally accepted name everywhere except in Transnistria itself and Russia. The reason why "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" was moved to "Republic of Artsakh" was because many websites started using the new name approved in 2017 referendum. No such thing as happened with "Transnistria" and "Pridnestrovie". SuperΨDro12:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know any Transnistrians, they were all convicted and executed as war criminals after the Second World War. The word used is an insult in any context for all Pridnestrovians. Your comment about propaganda for a lot of things. I just wrote about this when I was talking about biased editors. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
About Artsakh: only the sites of Artsakh itself. The spread of the term in the English-language Internet began only with the renaming of the article in Wikipedia. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is unfortunate, but there are zero chances of renaming as long as Transnistria remains the most common English name (see [1]). Note that the alternative names appear quite prominently in the lede. I suggest you add the fact the the name of Transnistria is considered offensive due to its associations with the WW2 entity to the article. Alaexis¿question?12:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
And what part of the number of references to the word "Transnistria" refers directly to Transnistria or quotes a Romanian source, and what part thus means Pridnestrovie? Otherwise, in the same way, I can ask you to rename the article "Vagina" (293,000,000 mentions on Google) to "Pussy" (1,170,000,000 mentions). This is not an argument, it is a biased position in relation to Pridnestrovie itself. I will not edit the article under the heading "Transnistria", describing Pridnestrovie, - this is insulting to me and to all Pridnestrovians. Although, as you can see from this discussion page, such attempts were made and did not lead to anything. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
If you prove that "Pridnestrovie/PMR" are used more frequently than "Transnistria" when referring to the modern state, I will support the move. Alaexis¿question?13:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
More often where? On wiki resources? No, here the correct term is deliberately overwritten, and corrections are treated as a war of edits. In official documents? "Transnistria" is not used anywhere at all: the autonomy of Moldova is designated as "Stinga Nistrului", the state as "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" (including in translations of official documents and websites of the PMR into English). In colloquial English? Neither one nor the other is used, because it is an absolutely insignificant phenomenon for an ordinary native speaker. On the Internet and in publications? It is determined solely by the context and can vary in a very wide range: Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Pridnestrovia, Pridnestrovie, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, Cisdniestria, etc. The word "Transnistria" is indeed often used in relation to Pridnestrovie, but mostly in an offensive context or as a reference to Wikipedia. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I read it. And on what basis was the Nazi insult chosen as the title of the article in 2003, when it was created? Because the further spread of this term on the Internet is directly related to Wikipedia. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is not a forum and you don't need to convince me as I'm not against this change. As it's a contentious renaming it would likely be challenged and then you'll need to explain why the new name should be chosen according to the relevant policies. Alaexis¿question?18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 30 January 2021
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Transnistria → Pridnestrovie – Incorrect name, chosen for political reasons. Does not meet the neutral point of view and the requirements for naming political entities, geographic regions and disputed territories; expressing the attitude of editors to the subject. In fact, it is not a name, but an insult; refers to the subject of the Second World War and the Holocaust and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
We can't talk about a common name for such highly specialized concepts. The terminology is determined solely by the context, the current name was taken from a biased and offensive context without any reason to do so. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
What established common name can we talk about if a typical native English speaker has never heard of Pridnestrovie? The range of titles that can be found in publications is extremely diverse: Pridnestrovie, Pridnestrovia, Cisdniestria, Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, etc. The established term of those that are correct is only Pridnestrovie (and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic as the official name). Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I will repeat what was previously written. Which part of the references mentioning "Transnistria" describes Pridnestrovie, and which part describes Transnistria itself or quotes Romanian documents or terms? Also: [4][5] - rename it?
I am pretty sure that "Transnistria" was more used than "Pridnestrovie" before the creation of Wikipedia, even after the Transnistrian War. Take a look at this. As you can see, "Pridnestrovie" has never been even close to being as common as "Transnistria". SuperΨDro20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's repeat your experiment with Artsakh and Karabakh: [6][7] (5 150 000 vs 18 600 000). And this is after 4 years of the existence of the article in Wikipedia. No one rebelled against the renaming Nagorno-Karabakh in 2017? Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Also that Pussy/Vagina argument is flawed by design. While "Transnistria" and "Pridnestrovie" refer exclusively to the territory, Vagina has other multiple uses, so does Pussy, and many times they are not used interchangeably. If you believe that Artsakh has to be renamed, then request a move there, stay on topic. (CC)Tbhotch™20:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It is not flawed by design, because "Transnistria" also has multiple uses. This word refers to the Nazi occupation regime, to the texts in Romanian, and to the incorrect use of the term in relation to Pridnestrovie. This is exactly the same as the example I gave. And I am not going to rename the article about Artsakh, because it contradicts common sense; on the contrary, I believe that it was renamed correctly. We need to rename this article. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose neutral and most commonly used name. "it is [...] an insult" false. "refers to the subject of the Second World War and the Holocaust and has nothing to do with the subject of the article" false as well. Transnistria existed as a name before WW2. It's just that the war popularized it. SuperΨDro20:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a false. This term existed exclusively in the Romanian language (and still exists). In any other languages, this means exclusively the Romanian occupation zone on the territory of the Odessa region of Ukraine and a genocide of civil people there. The fact that the name is not offensive is also a false, the links given by the commenters above confirm this. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope. "Transnistria" is the name of this region in any other language of the world except Russian, other Slavic languages such as Ukrainian and probably some other minority languages in Russia. That Transnistria is synonymous to the Romanian occupation of WW2 is an invention of yours. And that Transnistria is offensive to Transnistrians is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that Georgians for example would prefer to have their country called "Sakartvelo" or any other variation but Georgia is still used because it's the most common name. SuperΨDro20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
"that Transnistria is offensive to Transnistrians is irrelevant" - of course irrelevant, because they are all dead. Your statements look absurd against the background of a whole lot of references that confirm what I said. How do you identify names in other languages? From Wikipedia links? And I know this firsthand or from the Internet. In all languages of the region (excluding Romanian) and the former USSR, either the term "Pridnestrovie" or something like "Dniestria" (without any prefixes) is used. In all other languages, the term is taken from the original source / context. Do you understand that your statements about the fact that Transnistria did not exist are the rehabilitation of Nazism and the denial of the Holocaust? Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it's irrelevant because it is called appeal to emotion. And that's the key problem with this RM. There are no arguments that support your proposal, you just want the page to be moved "just because". (CC)Tbhotch™21:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
"because they are all dead" huh? This article says there are some 469,000 of them. As it has already been said, Wikipedia uses the most common name. No other arguments are needed to oppose this request. You still have not shown how is "Pridnestrovie" more common than Transnistria in English (which is the most relevent language in this discussion as it is this Wikipedia's) and other languages. "Do you understand that your statements about the fact that Transnistria did not exist are the rehabilitation of Nazism and the denial of the Holocaust?" no, because this is false. SuperΨDro21:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is blatantly misleading with its title. All Transnistrians were killed either during the Second World War, or convicted by a tribunal and executed as war criminals. At the same time, you deny that Transnistria really existed, claiming that Transnistria is Pridnestrovie. Meanwhile, about 300 thousand civilians were killed in Transnistria. This is a direct rehabilitation of Nazism and a denial of its crimes. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The arguments are repeatedly listed. You have nothing to object to, so you are trying to prove that this is a common name (no) and that it is not an incorrect and offensive term (also no). Other than links to Google search (the meaning of which has been refuted) and Wikipedia itself, I didn't see anything. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
To support the most common name of a region is not any "rehabilitation" of Nazism nor any "denial of crimes". "Other than links to Google search (the meaning of which has been refuted [when?]) and Wikipedia itself, I didn't see anything" where else would you possibly need to look at? SuperΨDro15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere is it possible to find a justification for the fact that "Transnistria" is a "common name", because there is no common name in English for Pridnestrovie. As already mentioned, the choice of a term is solely the prerogative of the author, who defines it using the context. The frequency of links in Google is created solely by two factors: 1) Wikipedia and its position in the search results; 2) mixing to search for texts in English, in Romanian, and texts about the crimes of the Nazis in World War II (only a part of the references is the use of the term imposed by Wikipedia, in relation to Pridnestrovie). And the rehabilitation of Nazism is not in defending the position regarding the title of the article, but in denying the real crimes of the Nazis and the deliberate use of Nazi terminology and rhetoric against people living today. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose — Per WP:COMMONAME. "Transnistria" is the most recognisable name for the political entity in English media, regardless of its political connotations in other languages. Googling "Transnistria" gives just a little under six and a half million results, while "Pridnestrovie" gives just a little over half a million. CentreLeftRight✉23:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Pridnestrovie is almost never mentioned either in the English-language media or in scientific papers. When the need arises, a context is always introduced that allows you to understand what is being said, because no matter what term is used, the audience will not understand what is being said without an explanation. That is, there is no any common accepted term. There is only a Wikipedia article that directly affects the output of Google results. So that's not an argument. The only name of this country in English is Pridnestrovie. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It has already been shown that Transnistria was more used than "Pridnestrovie" even before the creation of Wikipedia. SuperΨDro15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
First, no, because it is impossible to determine which part of the references refers to Pridnestrovie, and which to the Nazi occupation regime Transnistria, or quotes Romanian sources (or just a Romanian text). Secondly, I have already given a range of names: Pridnestrovie, Pridnestrovia, Cisdniestria, Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, etc.. Many of these names were used no less frequently. That is, your argument about the "common name" is completely refuted. At the same time, you can not justify the choice of this particular term. The rationale for the renaming was given. What are the questions then? Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Support, the current title of the article was purposefully selected as a politically biased attack on this unrecognized political entity. This word has a clearly negative and politicized connotation and cannot be used as the title of an article. The arguments about a "common name" are untenable for obvious reasons. (P. S. Unlike other commenters, I live in this region and know what it is about). 217.19.208.109 (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
That you live in Transnistria does not give any weight to your arguments, which are pretty much the same as those stated by nominating user and which have already been countered. SuperΨDro15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't live in Transnistria, I live in Pridnestrovie. In this discussion, I didn't find any arguments against renaming. However, the reason for renaming the article is reinforced concrete. 217.19.208.109 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, marginally. The request makes two or three statements, with no sources to back them, and with insufficient reference to the guidelines. It may be correct, or just an opinion with no real basis. I suggest the requester rewrite the request (and ping me if you feel it is convincing). And since I’m just a drive-by responder, no, I will not research this entire page of discussion to discover whether the argument is hidden in there. Sorry. I did do my own 30-second research: Brittanica calls thisTransdniestria, and mentions the names and spellings Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Republic, Transnistria, and Pridnestrovie. So on the surface it looks like either is acceptable, but I see no well-backed argument to rename. —MichaelZ.15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Google Scholar results for names in quotation marks, with -Wikipedia (as per WP:GOOG):
Transnistria 18,100
Transdniestria 2,990
Pridnestrovie 1,550
Trans-Dniester 1,260
TransDniester 1,150
Trans-Dniestria 226
Google Advance Book Search results, same search, limited to English sources and 21st century:
How exactly does one count Google Book Search result? I was under the impression that they removed counts some time ago. Going manual, I only count 304 books for Transnistria with your filters.Anonimu (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hm. I page to the end of results, hide the “tools” bar, and read the number there. But I am not completely confident in the result there. Relying on the advice in WP:GOOG. (Amazing that one of the world’s richest companies has let these bugs sit on the face of its flagship product for two decades.) —MichaelZ.15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The Transnistria Governorate was not at all the same geographical entity, but it was short-lived and existed a good long time ago, so I agree with you that it is insignificant in this discussion. Your numbers bear out my point (below), which was just an overall feeling. LynwoodF (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The geographical referent, even though its precise borders and political administration varied, is one and the same. You won’t convince me that Nazi-occupied “France” wasn’t France, either. —MichaelZ.
My point is that we don't know how many references to Transnistria refer to this entity (it's not always mentioned as Transnistria Governorate), with which the modern Transnistria has only a partial geographical overlap and no chronological, legal or cultural continuity whatsoever. When I did Google Books search 1 out of top 10 results refers to the WW2 entity, so I believe that they are a minority but I can't think of a way of quantifying it. Alaexis¿question?19:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
How often do you use this word in your speech, or did you first hear it after reading a Wikipedia article? Then what "common used in English" can we talk about? 217.19.208.109 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
When you first saw it term in the articles from this source, you already know what it was about? Of course, not if you have not previously specifically read the subject. If we ready, for example, about Russia, the United States, China, Germany, France, etc., we know in advance what we are talking about, because these are common names in English. But if you see the words "Transnistria", "Pridnestrovie" or some other name, how do you understand without context what it is about? In any case, the article is forced to explain to you what it is about, regardless of the name it used. This means that there can be no question of any "common name in English". Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I have been reading about Transnistria in English for years and find that it is most commonly referred to as Transnistria. It is clear to me as a native speaker of English that the name for the territory in my language has become Transnistria in the minds of a majority of people using English who take an interest in it. LynwoodF (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
That's right, there is no established name. At the same time, all official documents translated into English and all websites related to Pridnestrovie use the term "Pridnestrovie". In addition, the current title is not just one of a large number used, but carries an offensive political connotation and was chosen deliberately for this purpose. Why should we leave it? Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In fact, the names Pridnestrovia, Cisdniestria, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria are also correct, but the preferred name is "Pridnestrovie", which comes from the country's self-name. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Transnistria “carries an offensive political connotation and was chosen deliberately for this purpose”—please cite some reliable sources that support these two statements. —MichaelZ.14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agreed, MOS:LEADLANG specifically mentions "a single foreign language equivalent name". A parenthetical stretching over three lines is self-evidently disruptive to readers. CMD (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this, but there's a note already on that part, we need to change something so that there isn't a note within a note. SuperΨDro11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Assuming you mean the Romanian language note, it is already present in a different form in the infobox as well. CMD (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly, in the era of ubiquitous tolerance in the West, none of the local editor risk calling black people as nіg-gеrs, homosexuals as fa-gs, the Holocaust as Jеwish fal-sification, etc. They even installed filters for these words. Is this where the restrictions on discriminatory and political insults end, and in relation to certain countries and people can be written anything? I did not find anything in the Wikipedia rules about such double standards. 217.19.215.203 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Your personal opinion doesn't count. Please accept Transnistria is the most common English name for the region. SuperΨDro20:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m not sure exactly what the anon is referring to, but WP:reliable sources like dictionaries and encyclopedias tell us those terms are pejorative and offensive. In the case of Transnistria, sources such as Britannicatell us this is a normal English name. —MichaelZ.20:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The editor above has given you sources showing that this is a gross insult with a hint of genocide. I do not consider it necessary to repeat his/her messages. 217.19.215.203 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The set of links I think you might be referring to are all politicized, all directly expressing the views of government officials who are not legally legitimate (and many of these sources seem to work pretty hard to associate the name with historical Nazis even though there seems to be no concrete connection, which gives an impression of a counterfactual propaganda effort). There is an absence of the presumably different WP:POV of the legitimate authorities, more importantly of any neutral analysis of this question in WP:2ARY, and of any relationship to the standard references which makes the argument look WP:FRINGE. Repeating and amplifying this inadequate argument will likely not help change the article. —MichaelZ.14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not think that the "legal legitimacy of power" is an argument. From the point of view of the "legitimate" official Chisinau, no "Transnistria" exists, this designation is not officially used, and in colloquial speech only as an insult (in Romanian / Moldovan the PMR is called Nistrenia). 217.19.215.203 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
False. The Romanians in Transnistria call it that way but in Romania and Moldova, Transnistria is called Transnistria. You can see the official page of the Moldovan Presidency using the term commonly [8] (17 pages with 7 results each). Most recent results are from Igor Dodon. I think everyone would agree that Dodon wouldn't really have intentions of insulting Transnistria, considering he set as a goal reintegrating Transnistria into Moldova in 4 years if he got elected again in 2020. By the way, you also get results when searching on the Romanian Presidency's official page [9]. SuperΨDro15:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying this to a person who lives in a country where 30% of the population is Moldovan, and the Moldovan language is taught in schools? I will repeat what I wrote on another discussion page. This term was invented by the Romanians after 1918, when they occupied Bessarabia. It did not mean anything offensive, it was simply "on the other side of the Dniester", "abroad" from the point of view of Romania, used in Romanian. However, in 1941 this term received official meaning as the Romanian occupation regime on the territory of the Odessa region of Ukraine. After the destruction of Transnistria, the return of Bessarabia to the USSR, the condemnation of war crimes and the execution of the criminals, only historians remembered this term. However, it was recalled by Romanian nationalists during the 1992 military conflict and began to use it in relation to Pridnestrovie in an offensive context with a direct reference to the Nazi occupation regime. It was in this form that it spread in the English-language media covering the events of that conflict. With this, I think, no one argues? 217.19.215.203 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I seriously doubt your claims considering the use of "Transnistria" by the Moldovan and Romanian Presidencies, the UN, NATO, OSCE, the United States Government and even the Ukrainian Government and Presidency (let's remember Ukrainians call this region "Pridnistrovia" or something similar to "Pridnestrovie", yet they officially use "Transnistria"). If the term was always used with offensive and genocidal intentions, why would so many countries and international organizations use it? Are only Russia and Transnistria right and everyone else wrong? SuperΨDro18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you doubt my words? Can you cite at least one source (in any language other than Romanian) before 1992, where the Nazi term is used not in its direct meaning (in relation to the Odessa region, east of Moldavia, or something else)? Can you give me statistics on the use of names in relation to Pridnestrovie before the spread of the Nazi term on the Internet through Wikipedia, that is, before 2006-07? What kind of doubt then?
What does the term mentioning in your links refer to? In relation to Pridnestrovian Republic? It does not exist for international organizations, that is, there is no official mention. In relation to the administrative unit of Moldova with citing Romanian / Moldovan sources? Are we discussing it? We are discussing here the fact that the Romanian Nazis' term is incorrect as designation of modern state or region and offensive for its people.
I do not deny the fact that this term is really widespread - in narrow circles of those English speakers who for some reason even heard about Pridnestrovie - and is often used outside of an offensive context, but this does not mean that the term itself ceases to be offensive and acceptable for use in an encyclopedia. To say that this is some kind of common name is generally ridiculous, and in several previous discussions other speakers have already told you about this and, as I can see, you participated in them. 217.19.215.203 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
And all those who tried to change the name from Transnistria failed. "Can you cite at least one source (in any language other than Romanian) before 1992, where the Nazi term is used not in its direct meaning (in relation to the Odessa region, east of Moldavia, or something else)?" What do you mean? Obviously before the PMR declared independence the term Transnistria was exclusively used for the land between the Dniester and the Southern Bug. "Can you give me statistics on the use of names in relation to Pridnestrovie before the spread of the Nazi term on the Internet through Wikipedia, that is, before 2006-07?" Yes. Enjoy them. "What does the term mentioning in your links refer to? In relation to the administrative unit of Moldova?" not necessarily. The links I gave from Ukrainian authorities never specify whether they mean the separatist republic or the Moldovan administrative unit [10][11][12][13]. Here is one example from the Moldovan Presidency page [14]. Ukraine and Moldova wouldn't really want to fix the Transnistrian conflict by using a genocidal offensive name, but they are using the name, so your claims are doubtful (also, it doesn't really matter if they refer to the republic or the region, because the name of the adminustrative unit is not Transnistria). By the way, this "common name" thing is not some made up argument, it is an actual Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME). The name Transnistria is backed by it, Pridnestrovie is not. SuperΨDro20:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, you yourself cannot say what is generally discussed in the sources that you cite. This can be the original meaning (the Nazi regime), the territory that this regime occupied, the territory of eastern Moldova, the Pridnestrovian Republic, direct citation of Romanian sources, and anything else. Actually, without referring to the official Chisinau, this term is meaningless to use for other purposes, therefore, without context, it is absolutely incomprehensible what it means. Incidentally, I do not find a single source where the word "Transnistria" is called the interfluve of the Southern Bug and the Dniester without reference to the Romanian Nazis. The way in which this term came into use in relation to Pridnestrovie, I described above. Once again: the term denoting a criminal regime, whose leaders were convicted as war criminals and executed, is deliberately transferred by the political opponents of Pridnestrovie to this state and region, and this is done in the context of justifying Romanians' claims to lands "beyond the Dniester" and the crimes committed. In this form, it is picked up and distributed in the Western media and finds a "second life" with the spread of the Internet and Wikipedia. There were no other sources of its appearance. That is, what you are trying to pass off as a "common / recognizable name" is not only not so, but in itself is non-neutral and carries a very specific political message. 217.19.208.101 (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you mean that. Know that on Wikipedia we already have articles about regions in a country that are more commonly used in other countries. See for example Partium (moslty located in Romania, but its Hungarians the ones who use the term). Also, as you said, we are discussing the republic, and not the region or anything else... and the republic happens to be most commonly referred to in English as Transnistria, not Pridnestrovie, so Transnistria goes with the Wikipedia rules and Pridnestrovie doesn't. And it doesn't matter how did it become the most common name. Wikipedia rules aren't conditional. SuperΨDro11:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Based on the current discussion, the dominant group of editors and administrators with certain views interprets the rules as they please. This has been discussed earlier here, and, as I see, relatively recently and with your participation. The republic is most often not called at all in English, because very few people even know about its existence, and the rest speak within a given context: "In the Eastern European country of Moldova, there is a secessionist regime that is called Transnistria"; "In 1990, the state called the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic declared independence from the MSSR", etc. That is, outside the historical and political context, neither one nor the other term is used. Therefore, firstly, you cannot talk about a common name (now it is not a name, but a highly specialized term), and secondly, the choice of the term is most often determined by the political views of the author and in the case of the word "Transnistria" it always has a political connotation, that is a priori is not neutral (what then to say about the article, which is so entitled). That is, the example with the Hungarians is in no way suitable here. Here the option would be more appropriate if, for example, Poland was called Auschwitz or Treblinka, or Israel was called "the unburned firebox of Holocaust" (I quote, I do not want to offend anyone). 217.19.208.101 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Consider being neutral yourself before talking about neutrality. These claims you do are exaggerate. If Transnistria was THAT offensive, it wouldn't be used by international organizations and governments. Drop the stick already, you've been since 2013 trying to effort this name change in Transnistria and you still haven't been able to. "The republic is most often not called at all in English" that is irrelevant. When it is called, it is called in most cases Transnistria. And I showed you the statistics. SuperΨDro13:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It is used only because it directly quotes the Chisinau authorities. Why would they think about some "separatists" in some impoverished Eastern European country, about the existence of which very few people even know? And not even in some official list of unrecognized states or something else, but simply as a mention of "the territory is not controlled by the official Chisinau." This is not an argument. I will not say about 2013, I mainly use the Russian/Ukrainian Wikipedia, and President of the PMR drew attention to the problem only in 2019, before that I had never imagined that it would ever occur to someone to seriously use the Nazi term for now living people, and I wrote here only now, because I came across an article about Tiraspol, which is called "the capital of Transnistria" (and an attempt to fix this was met with fierce resistance).
It has already been said about statistics: if in some marginal circles something is often called by a certain term, this does not mean that it is really called that; and it is impossible to say what was really discussed in the sources calculated in the statistics (see above). Note: I do not argue with the fact that the autonomous territorial unit of Moldova can be called "Transnistria", this is quite logical and acceptable (and it is indeed often called so in English-language sources). But to call the Pridnestrovian Republic by this word is absurd. 217.19.208.101 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Illegality, international non-recognition, and absence of confirmed free and fair democratic institutions supporting these points of view certainly may help explain why they are not represented as a consensus in WP:reliable sources. Also why arguments about “the people” choosing a name or fighting “for freedom” are not carrying much weight for me. —MichaelZ.16:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Your attitude to the official Pridnestrovie and the issue of recognition of its democratic institutions has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Here the conversation was about the fact that some editors of Wikipedia, instead of writing an encyclopedia, are engaged in political provocations and the promotion of their views. 217.19.215.203 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
My assessment of the arguments of proponents for a name change contributes to the consensus. That’s part of writing an open encyclopedia. —MichaelZ.18:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
More precisely, assessment of the proponents themselves. This is called "argumentum ad hominem". It sounds like: "If a Pridnestrovian said that he is being insulted, then this is not so, because the Pridnestrovian himself said it." And you don't take into account the fact that, according to that list of sources, speeches are given not only by members of the Pridnestrovian government (allegedly a priori biased), but also by deputies, public figures and representatives of science and education. 217.19.215.203 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I assessed the argument of editors advocating the article’s renaming, in light of Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sources. You might recognize in this some hints as to how you may or may not be able to improve your argument. Separately, I mentioned that I think reliable sources don’t hold the same view as the Transnistrian government because it is not assessed as legitimate or democratic (by reliable sources; I did not make up these facts). I did not assess any people, but I believe you are when you accuse unnamed Wikipedia editors of political provocation. Anyway, enough friendly chat. Think about how to improve the articles with edits accepted by consensus. Good luck. —MichaelZ.22:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not know what "Transnistrian government" is, but most of the arguments that have been voiced in the sources cited have been repeated on this discussion page many times. Note that it does not contain any controversial statements that need to be certified by sources (at the same time, if we want to write an article in a neutral key, we must explain, for example, that the official Chisinau/Brussels/Washington thinks so, and the official Tiraspol so), but a listing of historical facts. The existence of "Transnistria"? Fact. Genocide? Fact. Purposeful use of this name in relation to Pridnestrovie during the conflict with Moldova and after? Fact. This should be reflected in the article even without references to these sources. In its current form, this article does not perform other functions than as a political message of a very specific orientation.
Someone has already written about Artsakh above. Why did the Azerbaijanis, who, according to the international community, own this territory, were not outraged by the renaming of the article? Because the old name did not carry any political message, unlike "Transnistria". Such conflicts are natural, but they need to be resolved, and not frozen in a position that is beneficial to one of the parties; and this will be consensus. 217.19.208.101 (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME and if you want to change the name you need to prove that Pridnestrovie is the most common name. When there are several equally common variants other considerations can play a role, e.g. what is the official name, whether it's considered offensive by someone etc. For example Kiev was renamed Kyiv only when it became a more widely used name.
Estimating the usage of "Transnistria" and "Pridnesrovie" is complicated by the fact that Transnistria refers also to the WW2 entity and is the Romanian name, which, being written in Latin, "spoils" the English-language google search results. On the other hand, Pridnestrovie can be written in so many ways that it's hard to assess the usage. I don't know if anyone has tried to disentangle it, but if you did your case would be much stronger. Alaexis¿question?19:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
What you say about the WW2 governorate is true, but I want to note Transnistria also has many ways of being written. SuperΨDro19:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Once again, I note that not only the Nazi Transnistria itself "spoils the statistics", but also the autonomous territory existing under the laws of Moldova, a piece of territory that the Romanians call "Transnistria", a piece of territory within Moldova, lying east of the Dniester (this is also sometimes called "Transnistria"), citing Romanian sources and the like. Someone above, it seems to me, tried to figure it out and gave a list of the names used, it is very curious (it's hard to remember another country or region with so many mentioning options).
The example with Kiev is not entirely correct: "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are the same name in a different pronunciation. But "Karabakh" and "Artsakh" are different, and the former was much more widespread. However, none of them is offensive and absolutely does not carry any political connotations, these are just historical and geographical terms. That is, it is impossible to pull here the rule about a common name, we are not talking about a common name in English, but about a highly specialized and unsettled term. The arguments why this particular term is unacceptable have already been set out. 217.19.208.101 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
On another page, I was asked to start a new vote on renaming. I have read the previous discussion carefully and can make an accurate prediction of what this will look like.
Who will participate in the discussion? Independent and unbiased experts on the Eastern European theme which considering argumentation? No, only a group of editors who are interested and not indifferent to this topic.
Will they be guided primarily by the rules of Wikipedia and the principles of a neutral point of view and not bringing to absurd? No, that's not why they are here. The question is too insignificant to attract the attention of a "third party", but it is important for interested persons. And they are absolutely indifferent to the "common name" rule that they want to attract here for no good reason. They just need to call Pridnestrovie as "Transnistria", this is their "anti-Pridnestrovian (or even anti-Russian) bridgehead" on Wikipedia.
Will the discussion lead to a consensus between the participants in the discussion, and the most correct decision will be made that meets the requirements for the format of the encyclopedia? No, the decision will be the opinion of the majority or administrators.
Which editors are the majority here: sympathizing with the official Chisinau or Pridnestrovie? I can assume that the latter are not here at all, judging by the fact that this article still exists. Everything, the result, I think, is obvious.
This is not a complaint against editors who defend their positions contrary to the basic principles of Wikipedia - it's just the nature of a person who contributes to a project and wants to have moral satisfaction or even earnings from it. This is a note about those trying to pass it off as rule-following and consensus to be followed despite the sheer absurdity of what it leads to. The use of Nazi insults against an entire people is one such manifestation. And the point is not that some authoritative sources do the same, but that it is Wikipedia that becomes the main source here, which is why it is primarily used to promote certain positions and ideologies, and not to give people free and impartial knowledge. 217.19.208.101 (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I object to the constant misapplication of the term “Nazi” by editors on this talk page. Romania in WWII was not “Nazi.” The Transnistria governorate was not “Nazi.” The name Transnistria is not “a Nazi term.” This mislabelling is WP:POV pushing, an attempt to establish a false given by its repetition, an emotionally charged term being used as a substitute for a view supported by WP:RS, and could contribute to a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere.
This articles title is supported by consensus after move requests in 2018 and 2021. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. I’m considering this topic closed until and unless someone brings a new argument that can be used to improve the article.
Bravo, perfect comment! This is exactly what was expected. It remains only to challenge the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal. I ask to bring the discussion to its logical conclusion and block the IP ranges related to Pridnestrovie, since there will be constant attempts to remove the insult word in the articles: 31.31.0.0 - 31.31.31.255; 37.26.128.0 - 37.26.143.255; 62.221.64.0 - 62.221.127.255; 77.235.96.0 - 77.235.127.255; 80.94.240.0 - 80.94.255.255; 95.153.64.0 - 95.153.127.255; 217.19.208.0 - 217.19.223.255 (1)(2) (it is even better to block the entire territory of the USSR, so it is safer). 217.19.215.54 (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Separatists vs Moldova
I disagree with this move, which equate transnistria separatists with Moldova. According to the Soviet Constitution, constituent republics of USSR technically had right to secede from the union or be recognized in international law. No such ground existed for autonomous republics or other separatists, so it is not historically or legally accurate to equate Transnistria's desire to separate from Moldova with Moldovan desire to separate from USSR. This text that was removed on such ground should be put back because it is more accurate.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The sentence "The present history of the region dates to 1990 amidst the Soviet Union being disintegrated when pro-Soviet separatists in the Moldavian SSR declared the establishment of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic in September 1990 in hopes for the republic to remain with the USSR if Moldova unified with Romania" has been added a few days ago. I think the the outline of events is broadly correct. Moldova wanted to separate from the USSR and Transnistrians wanted to stay there and both sides can be characterised as separatists (and are referred to as such by reliable sources[1]). In view of this, I think it's not helpful to use this term when discussing events of 1990-91 before the USSR dissolved and Moldova declared independence. We can simply describe the sequence of events.
You are right about the USSR constitution but I don't think it should influence our decision (and for that matter, Moldova did not leave the USSR as prescribed by the USSR law on secession). We should be guided by the terms used by sources and strive to make the clear to the reader. Alaexis¿question?10:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
References
^Beissinger, Mark R. (2002). Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. Cambridge University Press. p. 226. ISBN9780521001489. Gagauz separatism was thus in large part a reactive response to the emergence of Moldovan separatism
The issue is not the source, it's the wording of the addition. Wikipedia is not an academic journal or paper, and should not be mimicking the tone and language used in them. CentreLeftRight✉22:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE doesn't apply as it is one single sentence, and the claims are now attributed, so no NPOV violation here either. Transnistria is clearly more noteworthy of this label than those countries. There are hundreds of sources for smuggling of weapons and other illegal activities in Transnistria: [16][17][18][19][20] ("Transnistria's main exports are cigarettes, arms, alcohol, and food.") [21][22][23][24][25]. Note that what the article says is that the Transnistrian economy has been dependent on contraband and gunrunning. We cannot say the same of Turkey, Malta or Venezuela. But some of these sources talk about how Transnistria used to engage in this, so we could say that Transnistria used to be referred to as a mafia state. SuperΨDro09:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that arms smuggling and contraband was (is?) widespread and that Transnistrian economy was to a large extent dependent on them. Even North Korea's economy is not described as such in spite of their very shady dealings. Maybe we should have an RfC. Alaexis¿question?10:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Move to Pridnestrovie?
"Legitimacy" is out the window at this point. If it's a state, it's a state. If we keep this at Transnistria, why don't we move Taiwan to Chinese Taipei? What about changing the Afghanistan article back to its pre-2021 status?
We should use the names the de facto heads of a territory have chosen, rather than the names de jure leaders set up. It is clear Pridnestrovian editors in this talk section find the use of the term "Transnistria" as the primary one to be extremely offensive, and while Wikipedia is not censored, the name "Transnistria" should be second to the name "Pridnestrovie". It's as simple
Currently it is like this:
"Transnistria, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR)"
When it should be like this, which is more accurate.
"Pridnestrovie, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR), and also known as Transnistria"
To pre-empt the argument that the name "Transnistria" is much more widely used, there are three reasons why such calculations can be inaccurate.
Transnistria often refers to the WW2-era Transnistria Governorate and not to the current unrecognised state.
There are many ways to write "Pridnestrovie" in English (Pridnestrovie, Pridnestrovye, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika, Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika, Dniester Moldavian Republic).
Searching for Transnistria in google scholar/ngram will give you results both in English and Romanian, whereas only the former should be relevant for the naming purposes.
This isn't true. If we put together the alternative names of "Pridnestrovie", we still get less results than with Transnistria. Check it yourself. [26][27]. Results vary among countries, but I get 7,090,000 results with the first link and only 373,000 with the second! And note that I included all the names you used for Pridnestrovie (including the Russian ones and the unrelated Dniester Moldavian Republic) and that I excluded Wikipedia results and results with the word "governorate" for Transnistria and that I also didn't include the alternative names for it that you forgot to mention (e.g. "Transdniester") and still the difference between both is abysmal. Again, Transnistria is simply unmatched as the common name. SuperΨDro14:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
" "Legitimacy" is out the window at this point. If it's a state, it's a state. If we keep this at Transnistria, why don't we move Taiwan to Chinese Taipei? What about changing the Afghanistan article back to its pre-2021 status? " ...what? None of this is related in any way. Transnistria remains the most common name in English. It is under this policy that we don't move the article Germany to Deutschland. It also doesn't matter what the governments say. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. SuperΨDro14:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 15 December 2021
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment. I want to do some research before !voting, but please see my comment in the discussion thread above why common tools of assessing usage should be used with care. Alaexis¿question?06:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment I am not an expert in Transnistria-related issues. Could you provide some WP:RS which indicate that Transnistria is considered an offensive word by the local people and they prefer Pridnestrovie as the name of their country? I am a strong supporter of self-determination. If you could proof that Pridnestrovie is the preferred name used by the local people, I will support your move proposal. 2001:8003:9008:1301:5999:DEA8:BEA3:7A47 (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose and quick close. There are two unarchived move requests to the same effect on this page above, and the purported discussion immediately above brought a grand total of zero sources to the table. CMD (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Support per my arguments in the initial talk page section and as indirect nom. Sorry I'm late, but I found something that might help my case. This site is the official presidential one, so I hope it serves the needs for a reliable source. It says the name is offensive and evokes images of genocide of Pridnestrovians. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ12:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, from the source provided: "The variant 'Transnistria', used in the West [...] is unacceptable for Pridnestrovie [...] The term 'Transnistria' in relation to Pridnestrovie is invented by the Moldovan side". The government admits the current name is the WP:Commonname where this website is hosted and whose audience uses and knows more about the term "Transnistria" rather than Pridnestrovie. (CC)Tbhotch™20:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
No no new arguments providen, proposed move already rejected twice this year. Transnistria is the most common name. Period. SuperΨDro14:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, the common name in English remains Transnistria: Euronews [29], diplomats at the UN refer to it as Transnistria [30], New York Times [31], etc. Transnistria also overshadows Pridnestrovie in Google searches. Pilaz (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Conflicting population figures
The infobox says the population is about 347,000. Adding up the populations in the table in the "Administrative divisions" section gives a total population of 465,000 people. And the "Political status section" includes this statement: "As of 2009 the population of Transnistria comprised about 555,000 people"; that's supported by a breakout of five categories, with some citations.
So, three very different numbers.
And yes, I know that the 2009 population is unlikely to be the same as the 2021 population, but a 37% decrease in twelve years?
Yeah, it's a mess. The main reason is the discrepancy between the numbers provided by the PMR statistical service (obviously they want to minimise the population loss in the glorious state of PMR) and by the Moldovan authorities (who have the opposite motives). I've tried to clarify it in the infobox. Alaexis¿question?07:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Let my hands be covered in blood up to my elbows etc.
A lot of people said all kinds of outrageous things in that period - and if talking about furniture sounds especially improbable you should take into account that it constituted the most valuable personal property for the majority of Soviet citizens. The sources for this statement are not highest-quality but not necessarily unreliable. Here Komsomolskaya Pravda in Moldova (a Russian-language Moldovan newspaper) mentions it in 2020 as a well-known fact [32]. And here it's mentioned in an article on materik.ru, a site of the Russian think-tank Institute of SNG[33]. FWIW, Lari was described as nationalist by the Washington Post in 1990 [34]. Alaexis¿question?16:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Corjova not on left bank but on right bank of Dniester River (when viewed in the water flow direction)
The current article text contains:
"Six communes on the left bank (Cocieri, Molovata Nouă, Corjova, Pîrîta, Coșnița, and Doroțcaia) remained under the control of the Moldovan government after the War of Transnistria in 1992, as part of the Dubăsari District."
From looking at a map, near 47°05'45.2"N 29°10'18.5"E, I conclude that Corjova is not on the left but rather on the right bank of the Dniester River.
I also noted there is another Corjova, Dubăsari near 47°17'11.4"N 29°07'53.4"E which is on the left bank. Is that the Corjova that is meant? If so, pointing that out would improve the article's clarity.Redav (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the one at Dubăsari is the meant one. "Corjova" on the text is already pipe linked to the one at Dubăsari. I don't think any clarification is needed, the link is enough. SuperΨDro16:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Moldova topic template
Saturdayopen, why are you removing the template from this page? Transnistria is clearly a topic related to Moldova. I don't understand your rationale. SuperΨDro19:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Because no other non-UN state (besides the Republic of Artsakh and South Ossetia prior to this fiasco) has the topic template of the country that claims sovereignty over it. Taiwan doesn't have the China topic template. Northern Cyprus doesn't have the Cyprus topic template. Somaliland doesn't have the Somalia template. Even the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, which wasn't even on the states with limited recognition until Russia decided to recognized them, never had the Ukraine topic template. And don't act like the Moldova topic template was here for quite some time. It got added two days ago by Giorgi Balakhadze because he got upset that I removed the Georgia topic template from the South Ossetia article. Saturdayopen (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that it wasn't here before. Everything in Wikipedia "wasn't" "before" at some point. And it isn't like there was a discussion about it before banning these kind of things. Do you have any logical reason for this template not to be added here? SuperΨDro20:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I just gave you a logical reason: no other non-UN state has the topic template of the country that claims sovereignty over it. Saturdayopen (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. There was not a consensus for keeping these templates out of such articles. There's also no Wikipedia policy saying that "if other articles don't have this, you can NEVER add this into another". Again, can you give me a reason why we shouldn't consider Transnistria a "Moldova topic"? SuperΨDro09:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Victor Gusan is not mentioned in the article. Shouldn't there be some information of the de facto ruler of Transnistria here? JonStryker (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused. How do the comments of an American senator have anything to do with their military? It feels awkwardly inserted. --96.35.60.159 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
As an interesting discussion is going on Republic of Artsakh talk page about the sensitivity of the terms applied to political entities with limited recognition, wanted to check here:
1) is there a perceived difference between "self-proclaimed" and "breakaway" terms applicable to Transnistria?
2) is there a prevailing opinion that "self-proclaimed" would be a neutral enough term to use for Transnistria?
3) is there an appetite for an RfC to allow choosing a unified, more neutral terminology such as "partially recognised state" or a "state with limited recognition"?
I don't see any neutrality problems with both of those terms. If we opted for one unified term, it would repeat a lot throughout these kinds of articles and all over Wikipedia. SuperΨDro13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Self-proclaimed is a good term, indicating lack of legitimacy. Breakaway is descriptive, focusing on an aim, but in my opinion is less useful on its own. Partially recognized or having limited recognition is problematic in this article, because Transnistria has no recognition by internationally recognized states. Being part of a club of illegal organizations doesn’t make an illegal organization any less illegal. —MichaelZ.21:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
One more option is de-facto independent state and variations thereof which are used fairly widely in the scholarly literature. Personally I don't like self-proclaimed since a large number of states which exist today are self-proclaimed, including the US. Alaexis¿question?21:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The US is also a de facto independent state. As I said on the Artsakh talkpage, there's little difference between all these terms, which provide basically the same information to readers. CMD (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Rename
I propose to rename this article to Pridnestrovie. The current name refers to a completely different territorial unit and not describes the subject of the article, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Also this name is offensive in this context, and not being a well-established exonym. 217.19.208.99 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
We really should mark this as a stale topic until people start using a name more than they use Transnistria Kxeon (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
But Transnistria is the common name... Even I, of whom uses Pridnestrovie over Transnistria, has accepted this indisputable fact. Infact, I know it due to me just figuring it out myself! WP:COMMONNAME apparently makes the article stay as Transnistria. (Even though I see Pridnestrovie as the official short name, this fact still rings true.) Kxeon (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Even though WP:COMMONNAME doesn't allow for the title of the page to be called Pridnestrovie, I want to at least acknowledge that some people call the unrecognised state Pridnestrovie. Can I do that? Kxeon (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
It appears that the editors and moderators of Wikipedia are doing everything to block this website in all countries except the EU and North America. Calling the subject of the article a directly insulting politicized term and putting it in the title for the sake of declaring one's political claims and nationalist ambitions is brilliant in its absurdity. It's funny when a propaganda mouthpiece calls itself an encyclopedia. 2A03:F680:FE04:2887:D9DB:C9D5:A139:DA0B (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you should find a better thing to do. Pridnestrovie will not be used. It won't change even if you come back every few months. SuperΨDro20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Bro, you don't understand. This is the English section. Wikipedia is like a brainwasher for the Western layman, not for us. They will not be affected by the loss of an audience outside the so-called "Golden Billion" and its colonies. Topics related to Moldova and Romania are supervised here by people from the same cohort that today is trying to set Moldova against Pridnestrovie and start the war again. Therefore, they will insult us with impunity and write undisguised propaganda, despite how absurd it looks from the outside. The project Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia failed a long time ago. 217.19.215.111 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Adding the category "Russian military occupation" is counter to the policy, specifically to the WP:CAT guideline which states that "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." We have the article Russian-occupied territories where we can provide the necessary context.
This characterisation is controversial: while Moldova says that Transnistria is occupied by Russia, Transnistria itself, or Russia for that matter, does not agree with that. Even Encyclopedia Britannica, which is hardly sympathetic towards Russia, talks about a "substantial Russian military presence" without using the o-word [36]. Alaexis¿question?19:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
No it's not controversial, it's calling a spade a spade. Russia is obviously not going to state that they are occupying Moldova. I am not sure why does it matter. Russia keeps on with its "special military operation" lie yet the article is called 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, even if the Russian government does not like it. I am also not sure why should the word of Russia matter in the first place. It recognizes Transnistria as a part of Moldova. And the illegal occupation regime's word definitively does not matter here. There is no-one better to state whether Moldova is occupied or not than Moldova itself.
Britannica's example is quite arbitrary. Just like you sent a source not specifically calling Moldova occupied (not denying it, simply not mentioning it) I can also bring in sources stating it is. SuperΨDro14:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The inclusion of the category would be appropriate if several reliable sources began describing Transnistria as a "Russian military occupation", "Russian military-occupied zone", or something along those lines. To my understanding, this is not yet the case. I do not think that neutrality is the relevant policy in this case. Yue🌙08:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Knižnik, you claim that including Romanian in the infobox as one of Transnistria's official languages is misleading. I too can argue adding Moldovan is misleading as a Moldovan language is not a real thing. By the way, I think the alphabet issue here is irrelevant. Romanian is still Romanian either written in Latin or in Cyrillic.
I propose to achieve a middle ground, taking Moldova's page as a model (see this diff [37], right before a long edit war). Before Moldova changed its official language to Romanian earlier this year, all language templates used Romanian parameters (the |ro| thing). I believe this is appropriate as with these templates we're simply showing the language the text is in to the reader and politics cannot enter this issue. As for the infobox, I propose we do the same we did for Moldova's page, add "Romanian (officially Moldovan)". This would consequently need the removal of note b in the infobox as it would be redundant.
I didn't oppose "including", I opposed "labelling" in the most visible parts of the main infobox. The view of this entity is that it has 3 official languages: Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian. No-one even recognizes officially this entity as a country, but de facto it exists.
Right now it reads:
Republica Moldovenească Nistreană (Romanian)
Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ (Moldovan Cyrillic)
Cannot you see how weird this "combo" might seem to an average reader (most of whom cannot locate Moldova on the map)
What I suggested was explaining the consensus view on linguistics in the footnote. Wikipedia shouldn't be dumbed down nor should we have an aim to "bring education to the toiling masses" as was a Soviet slogan about forcing people to learn. Your comparison with the Moldova page is comparing apples and oranges: Moldovanism and Romanian unitarism were two competing identities there in 1990s and even well beyond that. In Transnistria, however, only the former is prevalent and as detailed articles say (I don't remember whether I read about it here or on Russian language Wikipedia): the handful of available Romanian alphabet schools face state discrimination. Also, presumably most of the Moldovan (Romanian) population of Transnistria actually do self-identify their language as "Moldovan".Knižnik (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue is complicated. If it appears weird to some readers so be it. It will also be weird if they see Moldovan in the infobox and when they click on its article they find out it is basically another name for Romanian that is not even official in Moldova itself. We can simplify this issue up to a point. I also can't see why is comparing this article with the Moldova one inappropriate. It is a common thing in Wikipedia to apply a common practice throughout articles, and these two are very closely interrelated. None of this "dumbs down" Wikipedia either. As Moldovan is not a real language we should not portray and treat it as such, and we indeed don't in any Wikipedia article. Again, the templates' purpose is to show the language that is being shown to the reader. It is a fact that Republica Moldovenească Nistreană is Romanian while Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ is Romanian in Moldovan Cyrillic. In the infobox we have more maneuverability as many articles take different approaches, thus my proposal for a note in parentheses. SuperΨDro20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Look, right now the box reads (emphasis mine): Official languages: RussianaRomanianbUkrainianc
Cannot you see that it's odd because Romanian does not have any official status. Linguistic view is one thing (of course the relevant special Wikipedia entries should highlight the predominant view (even though there are nuances)), the region's de facto rulers' enforced view is another thing, and thirdly we have the speakers' own opinion, too. Knižnik (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The official language is indeed Romanian and Romanian indeed has official status, it's just that it is called Moldovan in Transnistrian legislation. We cannot simply say one of the official languages is "Moldovan" because there is no such thing. Popular opinion has no relevance in Wikipedia, otherwise the title of this article would be Pridnestrovie. The only argument to favor the changes you suggest is the official legislation in Transnistria which follows a situation not in line with reality. We should give prevalence to reality over what the government of an unrecognized republic says. Or should the President of Transnistria have more say than all linguists? SuperΨDro21:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
De jure there is also no such thing as Transnistria (or whichever way you call it), yet we have an entry on this territory. Anyway, I am not going to argue any more. It will lead to nothing, I illustrated (quite literally) my point on what I find discrepancies to be. Suppose just Wikipedia had existed when the Moldavian SSR passed its language law and declared "Moldavian" its official language. My view is then Wikipedia entry on Moldavian SSR should have marked "Moldavian" as this entity's official language, with an additional footnote that linguists actually consider this in effect to be near-identical with Romanian language. Now I'll just let others opine.Knižnik (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Infoboxes generally reflect the official information, which in this case is apparently 3 languages. However, we should have a footnote. This is for example what is done at Bosnia and Herzegovina (as well as the other countries in that area, although less dramatically). CMD (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, my point, too, was that the boxes should represent official information. The BiH infobox lists: Official languages: Bosnian Croatian Serbian[a]
Which merely supports my view that linguistic reality should be dealt with in footnotes/explanations: there is really no "Bosnian" language according to most scholars: all these 3 are politically/ideologically motivated labels for one common language: Serbo-Croat. Cf. Declaration on the Common Language.Knižnik (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm also uncertain as to why would Knižnik find the comparison with Bosnia and Herzegovina appropriate but not the one with Moldova which is the country this region in fact belongs to. I'm opposed to having a note. I'd like the situation to be explained right in the languages part of the infobox so that readers do not have the chance of believing there is a Moldovan language. This can be done briefly so I don't see why could it not be an option. We can do this through my proposal "Romanian (officially Moldovan)" or perhaps by reversing it into "Moldovan (Romanian)". SuperΨDro13:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Infoboxes aren't really a good place for nuance to be explained. The general practice of sticking to official designations for official languages is long-standing and usually helpfully avoids this sort of interpretative dispute. Serbia has Serbian, Indonesia has Indonesian, Slovakia has Slovak, etc. CMD (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Both Serbian and Indonesian are standardized and backed by institutions that regulate them. Slovak is indeed a language of its own. "Moldovan" only exists in Transnistrian and Ukrainian governmental legislation, and it has none of the aforementioned elements. I would argue its claim to being a split language is weaker, and this is reflected in our articles: take notice that Serbian and Indonesian are presented differently than Moldovan. Explanation of this situation can be easily done in the infobox as it was in Moldova's article for months or years. This approach is already applied in this article in other aspects; "Moldovans / Romanians" is included in the infobox in the ethnic groups section (as done in Moldova's article).
The current status quo in which only Romanian is mentioned might not be appropriate, but I don't think only mentioning Moldovan is either. I insist in a middle ground option: "Moldovan (Romanian)", "Romanian (officially Moldovan)", "Moldovan / Romanian". SuperΨDro15:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Administrator note Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks (warning). El_C 10:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Done here. Hoping this is satisfactory, but feel free to change it. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
