| Revision as of 13:59, 20 December 2006 editWilliam Mauco (talk | contribs)4,907 edits →4 + 10 + Mauco, TSO1D, Jonathanpops,...: yes, I think we are done. Let us see what others say← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:44, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,290,362 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 4 page: Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states, and disputed regions.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|search=y}} | |||
| {{controversial3}} | |||
| {{FAQ|page=Talk:Transnistria/FAQ|collapsed=no}} | |||
| {{Off topic warning}} | |||
| {{Controversial-issues}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{On this day|date1=2009-09-02|oldid1=311523911|date2=2010-09-02|oldid2=382530048|date3=2014-09-02|oldid3=623787504|date4=2015-09-02|oldid4=678726893}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Moldova|importance=top}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|hist=yes|pol=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Countries}} | |||
| {{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=High}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Press|url=https://aux.avclub.com/this-soviet-breakaway-republic-never-fully-broke-away-1844486137|title=This Soviet breakaway republic never fully broke away|author=Mike Vago|org=]|date=26 July 2020}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(90d) | |||
| | archive = Talk:Transnistria/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 22 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Annual readership}} | |||
| {{Old move|date1=15 December 2021|destination1=Pridnestrovie|result1=not moved|link1=Special:Permalink/1061471607#Requested move 15 December 2021|date2=10 September 2024|destination2=Pridnestrovie|result2=not moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1245797182#Requested move 10 September 2024}} | |||
| == Possibly incorrect water percentage? == | |||
| Hello, I was looking over various countries' water area and was unable to find any official metric for Transnistria, so I was surprised to find that this Misplaced Pages did list a water percentage. However, looking over the article's history, this metric seems to just have come from some random person who added up the "listed area" of the biggest lakes. This doesn't seem like a proper source of information and it likely is inaccurate, since the "listed area" is often not perennial water area and it fails to account for smaller bodies of water, such as rivers (which can contribute to a substantial amount of water area). | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center" colspan="2"|]<br>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Has revising this value been considered? Or is it just kept for archival reasons? ] (]) 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The source of this seems to be ]? ] (]) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It should also be noted that this person gave no other source than "their own research." ] (]) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, that definitely fails ] and ]. Removed. –] (]]) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where does the total area figure come from? –] (]]) 00:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems to show up constantly so I'm unsure of the actual source, but it is stated to be 4,163 km2 which seems to be an official Transnistria page? There were other official looking pages that stated them number. ] (]) 01:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ''Atlas of the Dniester Moldavian Republic'' (2000?) which is available (unfortunately academia.edu) has the same figure at the top of page 3. Unfortunately there didn't appear to be a water area calculation but there are some other figures that might merit inclusion. Hope this helps those improving statistics here. ] (]) 08:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Should the name of this article be changed? == | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| On 5 September 2025, the region’s parliament passed a bill banning the use the word “Transnistria” in public. Therefore does Transnistria remain an appropriate name to use for this article, given that use of that word within the territory that is the subject of this article is now illegal? If the name of the article does need to be changed, what would be the best option to use, the full constitutional name in English “Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic“ or the short form “Pridnestrovie”? - Source: https://balkaninsight.com/2024/09/05/breakaway-moldovan-region-transnistria-bans-use-of-name-transnistria/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/separatist-region-of-moldova-banns-the-term-transnistria/ ] (]) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Intro Poll== | |||
| :In this discussion, it was noted many years ago that this term is extremely offensive and is not the name of either the Pridnestrovian region or the Pridnestrovian republic. However, the local Romanian nationalist lobby disagrees: the name they managed to promote seems to them to be an important propaganda victory and will be defended to the end. ] (]) 20:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As we are discussing how to best preent the introduction to the article, numerous perspectives have been presented and various users have displayed contrasting preferences. In order to determine whether a consensus exists or to limit the viable number of choices in order to seek a final compromise, I propose this poll where all editors can give his view. The choices are the versions labeled 1-5 by William and the introduction. In order to give a more general idea of what versions could be reconciled, please vote '''Prefered''' for the version you like best and '''Acceptable''' for the ones you can accept with minor modifications. ] 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don’t think it’s helpful use terms like “propaganda” or “Romanian nationalist lobby” in this discussion. Please avoid using emotive language and keep the discussion civil.] (]) 20:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It is more reasonable to use the general name "Pridnestrovie". The official name of Moldova is "Republic of Moldova", but it is almost never used. The same is true for other countries and autonomous regions. Here the full official name is even longer, and using it constantly simply does not make sense.] (]) 05:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have changed the first sentence in the article to "The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, commonly referred to in English as Transnistria and locally as Pridnestrovie" ] (]) 12:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Are you sure that this is a good idea? I'll join you in a vote, of course, but I still have ugly memories of all the sockpuppetry and vote-shopping that took place when we tried this approach for the external links. Voting is evil. ;-) - ] 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I don't mean for this to be a vote, just a quick poll to see where everyone stands. Participation is of course voluntary and the results will not be conclusive. In fact I doubt there will be a solid consensus either way, but I just want to know what all users think. It is difficult to follow the multiple threads that run all over the page and I hoped that having a brief indication from all active editors here might give a better overview of the situation. Even ] states that this method is sometimes useful for a quick summary. I hope no one will take this too seriously (especially to the point of using socks). ] 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This sounds rather strange. "Pridnestrovie" is an geographical and historical name from which the full official name of the republic is formed. That is, it is part of the official name and its short version, and not some alternative name known only locally. Moreover, as has already been noted here, in English-language sources the term "Transnistria" refers mainly to the territorial division of Moldova, and not to the state calling itself Pridnestrovie. ] (]) 08:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As you can see below, other users don't have the clear head that you do on this. They already misinterpreted this as having to choose one, rather than commenting on the various. If this is a content dispute, then let us follow ] and you will see that a vote or a poll is just about the worst way to handle things. Our overriding principle HAS TO BE factual accuracy. When it comes to factual accuracy, I am afraid to note that we have users (on both sides) who often fall short of this goal. I really don't think you are handling this the right way, TSO1D. - ] 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I see that many users haven't read (or chose not to follow) the guidelines I proposed, however what I wrote was more of a suggestion than a rigid set of parameters. As for the unkind responses that are exchanged between some of the users, that has been the case for a long time on this page and I don't think the voting exacerbated the problem, just opened a new arena for the frustration to be vented. However, I fully agree with you, factual accuracy should be the key principle. Of course we cannot vote on facts, and that really wasn't my intention. If the majority would favor a version that is factually incorrect I would still oppose it. However, I believe the facts are pretty much agreed upon by everyone, it is just their presentation that is an issue of contention. I just wanted to see where everyone stood, and in spite of the numerous problems that are inherent to such a poll, I believe the mechanism was effective in giving a glance of all the users' views. I actually don't fully agree with any of the versions presented, and I believe furhter changes will be needed to be introduced before a final version can be found. However, in spite of all the negative comments on the page, many constructive ideas have been put forward that we can use to create a better introduction. ] 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This has been discussed to death. It could be changed if English-language sources, as we're in English Misplaced Pages, started employing "Pridnestrovie" more often than "Transnistria", per the policy ]. It is this policy that allows ] not to be titled "Tighina". But we're far from it right now . It is hard to imagine that this change in sources will come anytime soon due to the current geopolitics of the region. ] ] ] 10:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Current Version=== | |||
| ''Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.'' | |||
| :: Sorry if I have caused trouble. I only started the discussion because the government of the PMR have passed a law banning the use of the word "Transnistria" within the territory and I was not sure if it would still be appropriate to use a name which is now illegal to use in the polity in question. My personal opinion is that the title of the article be "]", the full English language name of the polity rather than the local short form "Pridnestrovie" which as you pointed out, has not entered common usage in the English language. This also matches how we use the full English name "]" rather than "Stînga Nistrului" on the article about the the official Moldovan government designation of the territory. By using the full English name, for both claims to the territory we are not appearing to take sides in the dispute and are not breaking any local laws. ] (]) 22:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Acceptable''' it is concise, but maybe a little biased. ] 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::We use the common names so as to not take sides. ] are not the guiding principle for naming. Looks like the name law is covered in the Toponymy section. ] (]) 02:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Acceptable''', but the name Pridnestrovie is official only for PMR. Insted of "officially Pridnestrovie" we should write "named also Pridnestrovie"--] 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: In fact, this is a lie. In 95% of cases, in English-language texts, the name "Transnistria" refers to "the autonomous region of Moldova" or "territory not controlled by the government of Moldova" (Stinga Nistrului or Left Bank Moldova), but not to the Pridnestrovian Republic. The use of the term "Transnistria" to a state where this word is banned is an invention of Misplaced Pages and has no connection to reality. This is purely an element of political bias promoted by certain vested interests. ] (]) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok, now I understand some other of your edits. What you say is that we need a disambig page, with PMR on one side, and the geographical region on the other. I fully agree. ] 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''The only acceptable yet'''. It may be improved to | |||
| <blockquote>Transnistria '''is internationally considered''' a region of the Republic of Moldova, in southeastern Europe, which declared its independence on September 2, 1990 '''(proclaiming itself Pridnestrovie)'''. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.</blockquote> | |||
| We should first say how they are internationally considered and second how they call themselves (the first is the opinion of a bigger entity). It is not Misplaced Pages's role to say what Transnistria is. All we have to do is to inform the reader.] 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Acceptable''' nice and short ] 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Acceptable''' -- technically, what happened on September 2, 1990 was that the Trans-Dniester Moldovan SSR (PMSSR) declared itself a separate republic '''as a subject of the USSR'''--a declaration which on December 22, 1990 was declared ''invalid and illegal de jure'' '''by''' the Soviet Union. So, I would propose the following as a completely factually accurate description (no interpretation of events, no imbuing of events with personal POVs of their significance): | |||
| ::Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty and the continued presence of Russian military forces there remain issues of contention. —] 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I've contributed 8 and 9 below, not wanting to be the one pushing this into the "double digits." :-) —] 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' Transnistria is a free and independent country and all the edits in the world cannot change some peoples dream that some day it may become a region of Moldova, but until that day comes we must call it what it is. ] 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not free and independent as long as Russian troops remain, having started with transplanting into Moldova the OMONs who failed in retaining the Baltics for the Soviet Union, having propped up a leadership which has not changed since the inception (and which rushed to the defense on the side of the Soviet Union subsequent to the putsch and has been associated with the most "Soviet" members of the Russian Duma). Once the PMR is truly free, then it can choose what it wants to be. That is not today. —] 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Mark Street, there is a difference between the ] reality and the ] assumption. De facto, Transnistria is an unrecognized country. No doubt about it. No ifs, or buts. De jure, it may or may not be a region of Moldova. But please notice the clever phrasing of the entry above: "is internationally considered''' a region of" is not the same as saying "'''is''' a region of". It is a technicality, but if we are splitting hairs here, then technically, the above entry is correct. Most countries still cling to the legal fiction (de jure) that Transnistria is part of Moldova. The fiction is of course not supported by reality, but the proposal above uses the word "considered" and that is factually correct at this point in time. - ] 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::i disagree with many of your statements in particular I disagree that: "De facto, Transnistria is an unrecognized country." It is utterly wrong, Transnistria currently under '''De facto military occupation''' of Russian federation. And that is why majority of government officials are not native born Transnistrians. ] 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The Russian troops you refer to are borderguards that are there in small numbers as part of a multinational peace-keeping mission, Thankfully, PMR is not under the military occupation of anyone. ] 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The so called peace-keepers composed of of '''Operational Ground Forces''' of 14th Russian army, a military force that have been trained for offense action and not for peace-keeping mission. No one seems to agree that that thy are peace-keepers except Russia. ] 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I have summarized a little of what the esteemed Wikipedians have said above and composed a renaming request based on the facts provided. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this procedure. ] (]) 11:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: But they not undertaking the 'offensive action' you state they are trained for, their role is that of maintaining the peace. The lack of casualties must surely stand as testament to that.] 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)pompey64 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move 10 September 2024 == | |||
| ::::::::Re "their role is that of maintaining the peace". Against whom? In 1992 Moldavian government fought a war with Russian 14th army. Moldavian government didn’t fight against its own people. Why do you think the villages near Dubossary rebelled for? It there haven’t been a 14th Russian army then there would not be a war. And no the "peace" to maintain. ] 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' | |||
| The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: "Lack of casualties" is an '''assumption''' on your part that '''hostilities''' would break out. I offer you the alternate assumption that '''freedom''' would break out. —] 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::: Are the reductions in numbers not worthy of note?] 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Are they keeping the peace? Yes. Then they are peacekeepers, ipso facto. It is a very effective peacekeeping operation when you compare to Kosovo, for instance, or Abkhazia. Lots of lives lost there, no lives lost in Transnistria. I am sure that lots of conflict areas around the world would actually love to have this kind of "military occupation" especially when you consider what went before it: The 1992 attacks by Moldova. - ] 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: To you, Mauco as well: "Peace" and "lack of casualties" is purely an '''assumption''' on your part that '''hostilities''' would break out. I also offer you the alternate assumption that '''freedom''' would break out. —] 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::They are not keeping peace they have divided the nation and they keep as apart. They are Nation dividers ] !!!. ] 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Mauco-the Russians are propping up the Transnistrian regime, having ''engaged in military action against the Moldovans on the side of the Transnistrians at every opportunity'' and remaining there long after they agreed to leave. The Moldovans did not start the violence in Transnistria, the Transnistrians raiding Russian weapons stores did. | |||
| ::::::: Mark-if the Russians are so minor a presence, being mere border guards (and what are they guarding against, exactly?), why can't they just leave? The Transnistrian military is already run by a defected Russian army officer, much of their military are already defected Russian soldiers, they already have the best in Soviet/Russian arms. The Russian presence is there at this point only to deliver the message of who is in charge--not to Moldova, but to the Transnistrians. —] 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Surely the antequated millitary leftovers have to be safeguarded? And are the numbers of Russian troops not steadliy being diminished?] sorry for not signing. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :::: "...the Moldovan defeat in Bender marked the climax of the conflict. From the outset, the Moldovans were both outmanned and outgunned. The hastily organized national army consisted mainly of former police officers or interior ministry forces equipped with mortars, armored personnel carriers, and antitank weaponry. '''The DMR forces, by contrast, had at their disposal ] and ] tanks, ] and Alazan rocket systems, trained specialists from the Fourteenth army''', and Cossack volunteers." Charles King, ''The Moldovans'', just about the only source we've agreed on here so far. The number of Russian troops is down but still numbers in the thousands. </small>—] 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Acceptable'''--] 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Acceptable'''] 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Version 1=== | |||
| <i>'''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''') is a ] ] and ] region of the ] in ] which ] on ] ]. ] its ''de facto'' independence has not been ] and ] remains an issue of contention.</i> | |||
| * Any version with the word "country" is '''unacceptable'''.--] 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Agree with MaruisM, '''unacceptable''' —] 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Acceptable''' If de jure comes first and ATU is mentioned. ] 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree with TSO1D. This is OK but infeiror to #4. --] 17:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' Transnistria is a free and independent country and is not a region of Moldova. ] 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: De facto, it certainly isn't. But, de jure, maybe it ''is'' a region of Moldova. However, this depends. ] has a long and well documented set of definitions of what constitutes a country. Take a look at the ], for instance, but it should be noted that this is far from the only source which supports the conclusion that under international law, Transnistria is already a country. We can of course modify the statement by calling it an unrecognized country, which is what Misplaced Pages does on all the lists, but it is still a country nevertheless. Like it or not. - ] 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Montevideo convention was signed only by few countries from America. None European country ever signed Montevideo convention and Moldova also didn't sign it.--] 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It is totally unacceptable for me to accept the words 'unrecognised country' It is like calling someone an 'unrecognised person' Transnistria is a free and sovereign independent country and I can accept no less. I understand Moldova's aspirations and I am willing to accomodate them but not to this point. ] 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In Misplaced Pages we don't need your acceptance.--] 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Mark, I will not be as rude as MariusM, but he is right. Your opinion is, of course, valued, but neither you nor me nor MariusM can impose ourselves. Yes, it is indeed a travesty that they are unrecognized, and this makes them second class citizens compared to the rest of us. Your own publication wrote about that problem already: <br> | |||
| ::::: I agree that it is sad that there is not yet a permanent status settlement with Moldova, one way or the other.<br> | |||
| ::::: However, having said that, we must also realize that Misplaced Pages already uses the term "unrecognized country" to define Transnistria and a number of other states. If you don't like the term, then go to the various lists (in particular the 3 main ones) and argue your case for why the phrasing should be different. Until it changes, however, we can unilaterally adopt one phrasing here and ignore what a bunch of editors from the rest of Misplaced Pages has already worked hard to determine that these things should be called. I am sorry that you do not like "unrecognized country" but it is the current term in use. - ] 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Politely, He is not right and either are you, we are not an unrecognised country, we are a new country whose diplomatic status is emerging, calling us 'unrecognised' is a slur on our hard fought freedom. ] 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Mark, please don't take my comment the wrong way, but why do keep saying "we" in reference to Transnistira? I though you were Irish and were just working as a reporter there. I don't mean this in a bad way, I am simply curious. ] 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: I reside in Transnistria, I have lived in many countries, I am not here to discuss me or my life. ] 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Mark, this is not the forum for these kind of discussions, so sorry, but I have heard from a source in Transnistria that you only reside there part of the time and that they haven't seen you there in over two weeks now. If you will be there for this weekend's election then please see if you can post some photographs under GFDL because I asked Kramar about the same and we still don't have any really good pictures. - ] 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: I'm there as often as I need to be but I can be moved about as things happen , goes with the job ] 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Yes, I know other journalists too. They do travel. At least we can consider you a much more authentic source for Transnistria's point of view than EvilAlex who is a Moldovan, and who lives in England, and whose views on this issue are in complete contrast to will of the vast majority of the voters who actually reside in Transnistria. - ] 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' Transnistria is not a country. Transnistria is a region in Moldova under Russian military occupation. ] 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable'''--] 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Version 2=== | |||
| <i>'''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''') is an ] in ] which ] from ] on ], ]. Its ''de facto'' independence has not been recognized and the ] is an issue of contention.</i> | |||
| * '''unacceptable'''.--] 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Agree with MaruisM, '''unacceptable''' —] 16:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' PMR never declared its independence from Moldova. PMR existed first. ] 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:Moldova existed as Moldovan SSR, a republic with right of secession according both Soviet and Moldovan SSR constitution. Transnistria didn't have any right of secession.--] 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sources, please. MariusM, you are wrong. Please show us the appropiate sections in the two documents which you cite. You will discover (no doubt to your surprise) that the "secession" of Moldova was illegal, according to Soviet law. So was the secession of Transnistria. They were BOTH wrong. You are wholly incorrect if you think that somehow Moldova's secession was legal, and Transnistria's wasn't. It may help that you read the actual legislation which was current at the time before you hold yourself out as a legal expert on Soviet law. - ] 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I myself am no expert, however as the article the ] here states: "Even though Soviet Constitutions established the right for a republic to secede, it remained theoretical and very unlikely, given Soviet centralism, until the 1991 collapse of the Union." In fact, Article 72 stipulated: "Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR". The central authorities of course did not like the turn of events in 1990/1991 and tried to stem the independence of the Baltic states and later other republics, however in the end the constitutional principle was upheld and even ], ] and other core states "seceded". So in a way, yes, Moldova's secession was legal under the framework of the USSR, whereas Transnistria's wasn't. ] 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As you say you are no expert, and even if that argument held a drop of water 'in a way' sadly we are unable to facilitate 'in a way' arguements on this issue but I do really thank you for trying to assist. ] 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: We cover this below. The specific USSR legal framework governing the actual secession process is the and according to that law, Moldova (which had the right to secession) DID NOT follow any of the specifics, such as a prior referendum. So its secession was illegal. Transnistria (which did not have the right to secession) DID follow some of the specifics, like the referendum referendum. This is why Transnistria (on Pridnestrovie.net, for instance) claims that their secession was legal. This is, however, quite debatable. I am sure that most serious academics will conclude that they were BOTH illegal, albeit for different reasons. - ] 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' Transnistria is not a country. Transnistria is a region in Moldova under Russian military occupation. ] 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable'''--] 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Version 3=== | |||
| <i>''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie'''), located in ], ] on ] ]. ] its ''de facto'' independence has not been ] and ] remains an issue of contention.</i> | |||
| *''' Weak Acceptable''' Needs revision ] 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Mark, the version should mention that Transnistria is formally part of Moldova. ] 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)....Or formally free and independent, let's be precise and work together. ] 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable'''.--] 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Why? Is there anything wrong or factually incorrect in this version? Or do you just want to oppose everything that Mark Street favors? That is called obstructiomism. Let us instead try to be constructive, and work together, please. - ] 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' too short and confusing ] 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''', no mention of Moldova. —] 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable'''--] 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Version 4=== | |||
| <i>'''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''') is a region in ] that is internationally recognized as an ] of the ], however ''de facto'' functions as an ] having ] from ] on ], ]. Its independence has not been recognized and the ] is an issue of contention.</i> | |||
| * '''Conditional Support''' of this version - but re ] a page such as this really ought to have a two or three paragraph intro. So I would support this as the first paragraph. --] 09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Conditional Support''' of this version, with the provision that it states not everyone refuses to recognize Tansnistria's claim, if this is the case. ] 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Can you be more specific, please? I do not understand what you would like to add to the current version. ] 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Prefered Version''' As I said before, I still like this version best. ] 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * This is '''not acceptable''' for me, Transnistria is an independent country, it is NOT a territorial unit of Moldova, Also we never declared our independence from Moldova, we existed as a country before Moldova. existed ] 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Mark, do as everybody does, and write '''Support''' or '''Oppose'''. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease ] 12:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, Dpotop. This is not a vote. See what TSO1D says above. He merely put it in here in order to facilitate discussion, and it can in no way be a beauty contest where personal preferences (yours, Mark's, or anyone's else) override factual accuracy. Facts are facts. - ] 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Weak Support''' - Not being completely factual, it seems to be NPOV w.r.t. the users editing here. It contains the actual factual information: declared independence, but not recognized by others. It also contains the POV that Mark and Mauco are pushing ("unrecognized country"). ] 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please get your facts straight, Dpotop. I am not pushing a POV. I am asking that our phrasing on THIS page adheres to the SAME phrasing that Misplaced Pages is using on OTHER PAGES AND LISTS where Transnistria appears. I think it was User:Pernambuco who originally advocated that we needed consistency (see archives) on all lists, and this is merely what I am agreeing with. If you don't like the wording "unrecognized country" - which is factually correct, and all the rest of Misplaced Pages uses it - then change those lists first, there, instead of fighting to censor the phrase from this page, here. - ] 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As long as this is the page of Transnistria, the rest of Misplaced Pages uses/will use the same words we agree on here. We shouldn't invoke secondary pages when we are writing the main one on the subject.] 13:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What you are asking was not agreed by other editors. Misplaced Pages has lower standards that Britanica or other encyclopedias, we should improve those standards.--] 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I beg to differ. Misplaced Pages is much, much better than Britanica when it comes to Transnistria, and several other subjects too. Start by comparing basic facts (such as population figures) and then tell us who is right and who is wrong. You can't rely on Britanica for research on Transnistria, sorry. Too many errors there. - ] 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We have an other area of disagreement. Misplaced Pages have the advantage of being able to include quickly recent info, but Britanica is less exposed to POV pushers. However, if we are looking for Misplaced Pages standards, we should look at ] and ] articles.--] 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Unacceptable'''. Too long.--] 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: According to MariusM. Not according to ]. May I remind everyone that our personal opinions don't matter much if WP policies and guidelines specify something else. - ] 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::May I remind you that you are not in the position of teaching others about WP policies and guidelines?--] 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ouch. That was rude. Be civil, please. All of us can read, buddy. I suggest that you read ] before you claim that this version is too long. That is all. - ] 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This page has 34 000 characters. As a rough guide, we should be having one paragraph per 10 000 characters. So to be honest this is a good 'first paragraph' of an intro. But more context is still needed it in one or two following paragraphs. I don't think those are key at the moment, by the way... they could be added once the first bit becomes stable. But to say this is too long is to say that pretty much every single introduction on Misplaced Pages is too long. --] 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' | |||
| # Where does ''autonomous territorial unit'' ideea come from? | |||
| # "It is recognised as... '''however de facto funcions'''... " is highly biased.] 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:Autonomous territorial unit is the offical status of the region in Moldovan legislation (there is a source in the political status section). ] 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' . ] 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Mark, your vote is like the kiss of death. Now that you've declared what is unacceptable to you, you will get half a dozen Romanians come out of the woodwork - people who normally never join in the discussions like the regulars here - just to oppose you. Your enemies here will make sure of that, through the same kind of collusion that we've seen in the past on issues. Emails and private messages are being sent behind the scenes as I write this. This is why a vote or a poll won't work. A case like this should be decided on the facts, and on the facts alone. It should not be determined on who can muster the highest amount of friends to come to his rescue on a given POV. - ] 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : You can never oppose the truth. I will accept the truth and not one word less. I am not trying to trample on Romanian dreams, I want a precise, scientific and sharply accurate non-POV intro. Let's call it what is and not what people dream it should or could be. I believe we can reach that point. .] 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I know, Mark, but Moldova is a larger country than Transnistria. It should be no surprise to you that there are plenty of people here who want to keep the illusion alive, even if it is totally disconnected from reality. The number of Moldovan voices will always outnumber the number of Transnistrian voices, so you can't ask for a vote or a popularity contest on which intro is best. It should be decided ONLY objectively and ONLY based on facts. No POV influence, for or against. - ] 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' Dont like it. ] 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Unacceptable''', not a country. —] 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Acceptable'''--] 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Acceptable''' Like it. Perhaps change ] to ] per Vecrumba, since, technically, the Republic of Moldova didn't exist at that time? --] 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Version 5=== | |||
| <i>'''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''') is an ] which ] from ] on ], ]. Its independence has not been recognized and most countries consider it an ] of the ]. The ] is an issue of contention.</i> | |||
| * '''Unacceptable'''.--] 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Unacceptable''' Historically wrong, Transnistria was a country BEFORE Moldova. ] 22:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : That depends on how you define a country. International law usually classifies a country as a state which has control over a defined territory, has a permanent population, a government and the ability to enter into relations with other states. It is telling that diplomatic recognition is usually NOT mentioned anywhere among the listed requirements. In the few cases when it ''is'' mentioned, it is mentioned merely to underscore that it is not a requirement. I quote from U.S. practice, Swiss practice, and indeed the practice of most of the Western hemisphere. If anyone else here has a different definition on what a country is, please make sure to back it up with the appropriate references to ]. - ] 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' Transnistria is not a country. Transnistria is a region in Moldova under Russian military occupation. ] 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''', not a country. —] 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Unacceptable'''--] 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Version 6 === | |||
| <i>'''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''') is a ] in South-East Europe that established its ] on September 2nd 1990. It is governed by a democratically elected parliment and is seeking increased international diplomatic recognition. Despite Transnistria's independence the ] also claims sovereignty of the territory. | |||
| * '''mildly acceptable''' I think this one has merit ] 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''acceptable''' BECAUSE: based on the facts alone, namely the reality on the ground, and not some legal fiction, the above is correct. Moldova tried in 1992 to make reality correspond to the legal fiction that they maintain, and they failed. - ] 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable'''. Is not a country and is dependent of Russia. Without support from Russia, Transnistria would not have been born as a political entity.--] 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is not conclusively proven by anyone. And even if it was, lots of countries in the world have received support from other states before, during and after the state creation process. This is a political issue, and in and of itself it does in no way disqualify any country from being a country under international law. - ] 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well it is a country and the rest of us have long left that argument behind. Regardless, PMR recieves massive support from a number of countries in the west, including the UK, USA, Holland, Norway, Germany, and Ireland. to name a few, if Russia pulled out of humanitarian aid programmes these countries would and could fill the void. ] 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unacceptable''' Transnistria is not a country. Transnistria is a region in Moldova under Russian military occupation. ] 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not until hell freezes over''', agree with EvilAlex.--] 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Version 7 === | |||
| '''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''') is a region of the Republic of ] in southeastern Europe which since September 2, 1990 have been on de facto control of ]. Moldova and international community have strongly criticized Russian government action and called for unconditional withdrawal of arsenal and personal of 14th Russian army stationed on Moldavian territory. | |||
| * '''acceptable''' The only version that reflect the present day reality ] 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not even remotely acceptable'''. Both this one, number 7, and number 6 are equally rediculous, but for opposite reasons.] 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''acceptable''' | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| As President Bush said recently in Washington, during a visit by Romanian President Basescu, the U.S. seeks resolution of the Transnistria conflict that fully and unequivocally respects Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Transnistria is a part of Moldova, no questions asked. Fomenting separatism, whether in Transnistria or elsewhere, is simply unacceptable. As part of the solution, let me also reaffirm our view that Russia needs to fulfill its commitments made in Istanbul in 1999 and remove its forces and munitions from Moldovan territory.</blockquote> | |||
| according to David J. Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs (US official)] 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : This is merely a political opinion of a foreign official from a country which has no ties to Transnistria, no borders with Transnistria or Moldova, no historical connections, and no large amount of citizens living in Transnistria. It is not ], and it can certainly not be used to determine how we edit Misplaced Pages. I wonder why you either bother to list it here. It would be much more appropriate to list the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry which repeatedly has stated that any status settlement solution must take into account the democratic will of the people who live there: The affected population. - ] 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: The declarations of the Russian foreign ministry will always support a position which justifies the presence of their troops in Transnistria and the privatization (i.e., eventual legalization of the privatization) of Moldovan assets into Russian hands. Declarations about the PMR by the Russian foreign ministry are as POV-slanted as those by the PMR itself. Russia is a direct party to the conflict--while the U.S. is not. You seem to be saying the U.S. is more POV than Russia itself, moreover, that only those with direct and-by-definition-highly-POV involvement (and only on the side of Transnistria) are reputable sources. ''U.S. government = discredited and inadmissible source as per Mauco?'' It's entirely appropriate to report what the U.S. government says (this is after all the English Misplaced Pages, and the U.S. is the largest English-speaking country) without the need to draw further conclusions. —] 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '' '''Unacceptable''' Pure extremism. ] 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''not accepted''' not because I dispute its contents, as does Mark, but because there does need to be mention that September 2 was the declaration of the PMSSR. <small>Were this actual agreement with Mark, the Earth would have stopped spinning and we'd have all fallen off.</small> —] 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Acceptable'''--] 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Acceptable'''.--] 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Version 8 === | |||
| Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty and the continued presence of Russian military forces there remain issues of contention. | |||
| * '''Acceptable''' —] 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Acceptable'''--] 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *''' Not Acceptable''' Transnistria is NOT a region of Moldova, Moldova has a stale claim but the de-facto reality is Transnistria is not a region but an independent country. ] 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Version 9 (= version 8, but does not mention Russian troops) === | |||
| Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention. | |||
| * '''Provisionally acceptable''', Mauco and Mark will maintain that a small insignificant helpful Russian "peace-keeping" force has no bearing on the situation there. Acceptable as long as presence of Russian troops remains appropriately mentioned elswhere. —] 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Provisionally acceptable''', agree with Peters.--] 17:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ''' Not acceptable''' Transnistria is not a region of Moldova no more than California is a region of Mexico. ] 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Mark, it's not recognized and it's within the boundaries of Moldova. To leave Moldova out '''removes all historical context''' for why the PMR even exists. You might as well just say it's a region on the planet Earth. Accordingly, double digits, this (Version 10) is also factual and makes '''no''' reference to the '''current''' Republic of Moldova... | |||
| : P.S. '''Absolutely no possibility of calling the PMR an independent country''' until the Russian Federation Russians leave (and sufficient time has passed to ascertain the result). Sorry, that's just the way it is. Print what you like on your web site. —] 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Version 10 === | |||
| Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the former Moldovan S.S.R. in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its ''de facto'' independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention. | |||
| *'''Provisionally acceptable''' (as before, with reference to Russian troops). —] 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC) . | |||
| *'''Comment''': I think that the lead should not mention the legislative technicalities of the declaration. They should be in the history section. Instead, perhaps, a differentiation should be made between ''Pridnestrovie'' (the territory that is internationally recognized as a region of Moldova) and ''PMR'' (the internationally unrecognized state that currently controls Pridnestrovie) to avoid confusion about what's recognized and what's not, as well as to prevent those truly moronic suggestions like "unrecognized region". --] 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : "10" is a bit much, no need if Mark is departing... "9" I think states it about as well as possible. It *is* significant that the PMR declared itself a sovereign ''Soviet republic'', not "independent"--and that ''de facto'' independence only came as the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union (which the PMR was eager to forestall!). <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 04:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm not saying that it's insignficant, just that it's too technical ''for the intro''. I would rather prefer #4 instead, as I don't understand how mentioning that the territory now functions as an unrecognized state can be POV. --] 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There is no POV in explaining the reality. Unless certain editors live in a fantasy world and won't accept what is really going on. - ] 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Version "4 + 10" === | |||
| Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a region of the former Moldovan S.S.R. in southeastern Europe that is internationally recognized as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova. | |||
| Transnistria declared itself a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, (most of) that territory has ''de facto'' functioned independently under the control of the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR). The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state, and sovereignty over Transnistria remains an issue of contention. | |||
| * '''Provisionally acceptable''' - As per Mauco's observation that brevity need not be the overriding factor, I incorporated Illythr's most recent comment (MariusM has also commented in this regard) that we must take more care in clarifying the territory versus the controlling party--and what territory that encompasses, which has not been static over time. I took out the "also called...", alternately, "officially..." references just leaving "(Pridnestrovie)"--the rest of the intro serves to summarize what things are called. ("Provisionally" = article '''must''' mention continued presence of Russian troops in proper context at the top of the article body itself.) <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It's not bad, though "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, (most of) that territory has ''de facto'' functioned independently under the control of the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" doesn't make much sense, if you don't know the story already. I mean as a first time reader you'd have to ask why "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union", as there's no qualifying reason to go with it. ] 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Maybe it's just a word order/clarification issue, and that a longer sentence was better after all (to not interrupt the train of thought from the start as part of the USSR to the collapse of the USSR...)— | |||
| ::"Transnistria declared itself a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990, and with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, (most of) that territory has ''de facto'' functioned independently under control of the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR). The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state, and sovereignty over Transnistria remains an issue of contention." | |||
| === Version 11 === | |||
| Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention. | |||
| Of all the proposals, this is the one which is closest to the current version while avoiding flame-war words like "region of Moldova" and "unrecognized country". - ] 12:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Archiving == | |||
| This Talk is currently 289 kilobytes long. Who'll volunteer to do an archive? We normally do so around the 150K-200K mark. I have normally done it in the past but I got accused of censorship the last time I tried, so I will let someone else have the honors this time. Too frequent archiving is a bad idea, but too long talk pages are also not good. Hopefully with Mark Street gone we will now have a better signal-to-noise ratio. This request is directed at all of us, though. - ] 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, I archived everything but the intro debate, as that appears to be an ongoing discussion. ] 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Intro == | |||
| Looking at the results of the informal poll I set up, it appears that some versions are better starting points than other due to greater support or acceptability by users. Of course, a greater number of votes is not necessarily a better version, but could just represent a bigger number of people supporting one side. Ideally, we will be able to combine the positive aspects of all the proposed versions into one. So far some of the observations I have: | |||
| *The current version (at the time of the vote) was the most "acceptable". | |||
| *The other versions with a decent level of support from most sides where: 1, 4, and the last one (4 + 10). | |||
| *Brevity should not be considered an important factor as even the longest intro would still need to be greatly expanded. | |||
| Personally, I think the current version could be improved and that the (4 + 1) version might be one of the best starting points for further discussion. ] 15:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How about: "'''Transnistria''' ('''Pridnestrovie''') is a region of the former ] in ] that is internationally recognized as an ] of the ] but functions as an ]. Transnistria declared itself a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990, and since the collapse of the ], that territory has retained ''de facto'' independence as the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR). The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state, and sovereignty over Transnistria remains an issue of contention." ] 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Sounds quite good. The last sentence needs to say who hasn't recognized the PMR as an independent state, I don't meant list them all but just, for instance, "The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state by the wordlwide community by and large.." or something like that.] 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : TSO1D, they are not votes and they can never be. This is not a popularity contest. Whatever the "numbers", we have a duty to strive for the most accurate and neutral description. - ] 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I fully agree with you, and I did say that we should incorporate the best elements from all proposals. Nevertheless, consensus is a major policy of Misplaced Pages, so we should strive to find the best version that is acceptable to the greatest number of people. However, I don't believe that these two considerations have to diverge. I sincerely believe that the last version I have put forward (the modified 4+10) presents a very accurate and neutral of the situation. What is your opinion of it? ] 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, but ... "greatest number of people" is not necessarily the guarantee of an encyclopedia-worthy outcome when all of us are biased and we have little outside participation from non-Transnistria focused editors. We all suffer from the bias which (as Bogdan once pointed out) is inherent in anyone who knows enough about this subject to be able to edit it in a meaningful way. On this basis alone, the idea of a vote is inherently bad. I know that you always just intended it as a poll, but the more enthusiastic cheerleaders among us clearly did not see it as such ( where the editor thinks that we are "voting"). What strikes me most is the unwillingness of otherwise reasonable editors here to consider objective facts: How does the rest of Misplaced Pages refer to Transnistria. - ] 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't really know what you mean. Didn't you say that it should be called an "unrecognized republic"? That is part of the text. ] 00:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I haven't really been voting or commenting much on these, as you can see. I am skeptical about an approach which resembles a popularity contest and don't take the most basic considerations into account, such as - <br> | |||
| :::::*To call it a 'region', 'area', 'territory', etc is fine, but it is iffy to call it 'region of the Republic of Moldova' or similar use of the possessive, as this implies that we are taking sides. Most of the documents I have seen from the negotiation process don't do this. They refer to the parties by name, but without implying who owns which part of who (since this is the whole point of the 5+2 talks to define, and this is an ongoing process; not yet concluded).<br> | |||
| :::::*Our intro should deal with the status (de jure/de facto) only in very brief summary form. Later, users will see a section which deals with that, and there even a full article (the 'Disputed status') where we can add any level of detail.<br> | |||
| :::::*Consistency is important. Someone else advocated this originally. If there is a phrasing which is used on the major lists for countries, states, dependant areas, unrecognized widgets, etc., then look there, see what they call these things, and copy the phrasing to here. (If they are wrong, we tell them and fix it, so we can still strive for consistency.) This project, Misplaced Pages, will eventually become useless if we are not in sync with the standard terminology.<br> | |||
| ::::: This is the checklist which should be used to evaluate ALL of the proposals above, instead of nursing our pet causes or personal baggage. We can't really vote on something like this. A poll is merely an indicator to smoke out individual opinions and maybe stimulate debate that will help us see the issues more clearly. - ] 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: If "region of Republic of Moldova" is POV, then certainly "unrecognized country" is POV even more so, and then we get into, as already mentioned, who does and doesn't recognize it and why, etc. etc.--again we wind up with something that's a popularity contest. That's why I had left "unrecognized country" out of 4+10. Wikipdia is not in a position to state the PMR (or any other territory) is a country albeit unrecognized. This is a problem in general with all unrecognized countries listed in Misplaced Pages, not just the PMR. Since Transnistria is already autonomous in any event, if we're not happy with region of the Republic of Moldova, we can certainly say region or territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of Moldova. I'm much happier with de facto functioning independently than taking the leap to unrecognized country--there's still too much foreign (Russian) influence to characterize this as spontaneous a development or a fully functional country as the PMR would paint itself. I do think we're very close to having a much more informative and accurate (and agreed to by all) introduction. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 03:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I wonder sometimes if some of the editors here think that the phrase "unrecognised country" has more importance than I think it does. I think just because the phrase has the word "country" in it some people are getting frustrated, but to me the "unregognized" kind of cancels out any perceived benefit pro seperatists may feel they gain with the use of the word "country". The phrase "unrecognised country" has, for instance, been used before in the UK to describe a village in the south of England that declared independence and made their own passports, which most people didn't take all that seriously. It has also been applied to a British offshore oilrig, and a group of less than 10 people in Ausrtralia. I think when most English speaking people see the phrase | |||
| "unrecognised country" they think it means a place that wants to be a country, but actually is not a country, and take it far less seriously than the wikipedia page ]. In fact if you search Google et al for "unrecognised country" you get the wikipedia article and nearly everygthing else on the front page is about Transnistria, because it's one of the few places whose followers keep trying to plug the phrase. | |||
| To put it in perspective, Republic of China (Taiwan) is probably the most famous "unrecognised country" for getting backing from the USA. It is an island that fuctions entirely seperatly from mainland China, yet their page, ], does not use the phrase "unrecognised country" at all. I'm not sure what good, if at all, any of this is to us editing this article, it's just something I was thinking about.] 12:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks, Jonathanpops. But Misplaced Pages is near the top of the list for pretty much everything, not just for the phrase that you mention. - ] 12:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not really relevant in the least to what I was saying?] 14:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Peters, I think that we are getting somewhere. The phrase "within the internationally recognized boundaries of Moldova" seems to be aggreable to all, rather than region of Moldova, and so does "de facto independent" rather than unrecognized country. - ] 12:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then how about "<i>'''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''') is a territory in ] within the internationally recognized boundaries of the ]. Although ''de jure'' it is regarded as an ] of Moldova, a local Transnistrian government known as the PMR has exercised ''de facto'' control since Transnistria ] from Moldova on ], ]. Its independence has not been ] and the ] is an issue of contention.</i>" ] 13:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Good. It is not my '''Preferred''' version but '''Acceptable'''. You can polish some of the phrasing, however. The first sentence will sound better by moving some words around and you don't lose any meaning. Try: "Transnistria (officially: Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe". We can also work on the other sentences, but they are minor issues (for instance: the "government known as PMR" part can probably be left out of the intro, since we deal with all of that elsewhere). - ] 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === 4 + 10 + Mauco, TSO1D, Jonathanpops,... === | |||
| Another try at it (I sectioned it off just to make future editing a bit easier)... | |||
| :Transnistria (also, Pridnestrovie or Pridnestrov'ia) is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence from the Moldovan S.S.R. as a sovereign republic within the U.S.S.R. on September 2, 1990. Subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR) has exercised de facto control over most of Transnistria. The independence of Transnistria under the PMR has not been recognized, and sovereignty over Transnistria continues to be an issue of contention. | |||
| * "officially" is not the best word, as it signifies according to some authority; also, in terms of academic writing, I've seen Pridnestrovie and Pridnestrov'ia fairly equally (if not actually more towards the latter); it's also the (transliteration of the) Russian appelation, so "officially" also makes it out to be a primarily Russian territory; I think we should simply show both versions so that people know how to do searches to find the widest range of materials (without having to dig through the separate names of Transnistria article which is more historically oriented) | |||
| * Transnistria did not declare independence; it declared sovereignty within the Soviet Union; to simply say independence implies it declared itself an independent country subject to no other authority, which is not the case; it's a vital clarification, which I've done my best to word as compactly as possible; | |||
| * so that we're a bit more rigorous on territory versus authority (and since it's not good form to introduce acronyms without first using the full version), I've spelled out the PMR in full followed by acronym, and | |||
| * in the last sentence, I've made it clear that it's the authority of the PMR as an independent state that has not been recognized; accordingly, it's not the sovereignty *of* Transnistria (it's certainly at least autonomous, which is also a form of sovereignty), it's really who (controlling authority) has sovereignty *over* the Transnistrian territory; finally, | |||
| * "continues to be" seemed to flow better in the overall context than "is", nothing else intended. | |||
| I was cutting and pasting in notepad, my apologies for not having all the appropriate Wiki-links embedded! (Obviously, I'll be glad to do it if it's deemed as having merit.) <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : No, please don't introduce new names, at least not in the intro. TSO1D and I worked a lot on the naming issue earlier in the year, and I think we are both defending the status quo. There is a reason for the "officially" which is an indicator of how they refer to themselves in in their constitution. It does not imply official recognition. The intro used to start like this: "Transnistria, officially Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR (short form: Pridnestrovie) ..."<br> | |||
| : If we use the "also" word instead, then we should not mention Pridnestrovie but rather Transdniestria or Trans-Dniester since they are the two most commonly used alternate names. - ] 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think we need extra names either, not in the intro anyway. I'm not sure about using Moldovan SSR, I know that is the factual history but it's a bit confusing. It might be better, just in the intro, to ignore the history all together and just talk about the here and now, then have the detailed history further down the page. Fow me looking up something like this in an encyclopedia I'd want to know what it is and where it is right away in the intro, then learn the other stuff if I feel like reading down the page. It (the intro) should be so uncontroversial that no one could even think of disagreeing with it or finding any part of it irksome, which I guess is what we are trying to do here.] 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree with you here, Jonathanpops. Keep the intro short and sweet. Then deal with the finicky details later, in the text itself. Peters is technically correct, but too technical. Just say ''"which declared its independence on September 2, 1990"'' and this is 100% correct, too. It was an independence declaration from the MSSR, and initially with the aim of becoming a separate SSR, and all that can and should be explained ...just not in the first line which is just a summary. - ] 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Moreover, where did "Pridnestrov'ia" come from? To me, "Pridnestrov'ia" = the genitive declension of "Pridnestrov'e" (Приднестровья and Приднестровье respectively). I have never seen this used as an alternative spelling and I have a hard time seeing it become so (at least among those familiar with Russian grammar). ] 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do have to rather insist that saying Transnistria declared "independence" is incorrect. To make it simpler, it could be independence as a republic of the Soviet Union and leave out the Moldovan SSR reference. However, it's crucial to the understanding of later events to note support for the Soviet regime from the outset. I'd be fine with this simplification: | |||
| ::::''Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on September 2, 1990....'' | |||
| :::I've seen the Pridnestrov'ia spelling in various documents, and now that you mention it, you are completely correct that it should be ''pridnestrovye'' (Pridnestrov'e) not ''pridnestrovya'' to be in the proper nominative form. (So yes, that usage was incorrect!) On reconsideration best left out and just dealt with in alternate names. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: In the spirit of compromise: I'd be fine with this, too, but please re-insert the word "officially" in the parenthesis to explain what "Pridnestrovie" is all about. This was part of the stable version for most of the year anyway. The reasoning goes a long, long way back. and is a compromise based on the constitution and the naming decree. TSO1D and I handled this already, from opposite sides. - ] 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Then we just need to note what "officially" means--is it simply "(''officially'' Pridenstrovie, ''in Russian'')" or "(Pridnestrovie, ''official Russian form'') or "(Pridnestrovie, ''official Russian term'')? I don't inherently have an issue with the word "official" itself, only that we shouldn't use it without putting it in context. | |||
| ::::: I would be fine with stating that's the official Russian form--or ''whatever else'' is the proper context--just a word or two. It's only the lack of context that is the issue. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: OK! How should we phrase it? We used to have - in the stable version, for the longest time - the following: ''"Transnistria (officially: Pridnestrovie) is a ..."''<br> | |||
| :::::: Can we keep that?<br> | |||
| :::::: If not, do you want ''"Transnistria (or Pridnestrovie, per its constitution) is a ..."'' ...?<br> | |||
| :::::: If we say something like ''"Transnistria (Russian: Pridnestrovie)"'' then that doesn't really cover it. It is their English name, too, according to themselves. They want to be called Pridnestrovie in English. They made a naming decree about this, some year ago. - ] 05:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: "(Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution)" works perfectly well. That already implies "officially" since we identify it's according to the PMR constitution, but I don't object to adding the word "officially" as it's now clear what is official according to whom. I'd ask for PMR over Transnistria so we maintain a distinction of territory and authority--that is, I would not agree to "(Pridnestrovie, per its constitution)". <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Oh so close! (re-indenting..., "" in brackets indicates word optional...) | |||
| Transnistria ( Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution) is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on September 2, 1990. Subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR) has exercised de facto control over most of Transnistria. The independence of Transnistria under the PMR has not been recognized, and sovereignty over Transnistria continues to be an issue of contention. | |||
| * '''Agreed''' (do still need to have that appropriate mention of Russian troops sooner rather than later in the article body) <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Agreed''' (not the best version, but an acceptable compromise. And yes, of role of Russia has to be dealt with, too. It will always be a big part of Transnistria's recent history, for better or for worse. I agree with you on that, too, Peters.) - ] 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == POV of word "region" in intro == | |||
| The use of the word "region" to describe Transnistria is being pushed by Moldovan government officials. This is despite the fact that it has not been used before in official documents, like the 1992 cease fire mandate signed by Mircea Snegur (then-president of Moldova). | |||
| Source: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol154-12-06.htm | |||
| Quote: ''делегация Республики Молдова стремится заменить название "Приднестровье" на "Приднестровский регион Республики Молдова", и это вызывает определенное беспокойство у приднестровской стороны. "Извините, если мы берем за основу действующую инструкцию, то должны использовать ту терминологию, которая в ней употребляется", - сказал Александр Порожан.'' | |||
| Rough translation: ''The delegation of the Republic of Moldova aims to replace the name "Pridnestrovie" with the "pridnestrovian region of the Republic of Moldova", and this causes certain uneasiness on the Transnistrian side. "Excuse me, but if we use the mandate as our basis, then we must use the terminology, which is used in it", said Aleksandr Porozhan.'' | |||
| Previous documents did not use this terminology. Real life shows that Transnistria is no longer a part of Moldova and that Moldova's government has, in reality, lost all control over Transnistria. The push for "region" is an attempt by Moldova's government to put something into the paperwork between the sides which is not the actual case, based on the evidence on the ground, and which has never been used before. - ] 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, the names for the region and state are often used interchangeably. That is why the delegation states that it is referring specifically to the region (so that it won't seem that it implicitly recognizes the state). That is also why I urged to differentiate between them is these issues. --] 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Illythr, the way that OSCE and most others have done it in the past is to call Moldova a republic, by spelling out the full name "Republic of Moldova", whereas Transnistria is never (ever) spelled out by its own constitutional name, "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". It is merely called Pridnestrovie. Not state, not republic, not region. Just the name. The OSCE has a bunch of the official documents on its site, and the Peacemaking project by the British Embassy has a lot of that, too.<br> | |||
| :: My point is this: To call it a "region" is just as much POV as if we call it a "country". Moldova wants to call it a region, PMR wants to be called a country, but the mediators have long ago found an middle-ground that sort of satisfies both sides. - ] 03:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Region is vague enough to be neutral. A region is not necesarily a division of a country. Region of Middle East, for example, includes many countries.--] 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Sure. But there is a difference between vague and neutral words like "Region" and "Area", and then "Region of Moldova" which implies a possessive relationship. This is why the government of Moldova is POV pushing it but the other sides in the conflict won't let them get away with this little stunt. One of the two sides in the conflict will not accept it, and besides, it is wholly wrong as it does not correctly identify the actual situation in the real world. - ] 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Why not "territory"? --] 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: As you can see, the issue is not so much the word itself (like MariusM says, 'region' can be a neutral word, too), but the context when it is used as a possessive. This was the gist of the unaccepted attempt by Moldova, which is described above and for which I provided a rough translation. Otherwise territory is certainly good, too. - ] 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Yes Yes Yes, The Transnistria country is supposed to be part of Moldova and now she is ruled by Smirnov and I suggest we write that this country will be part of Moldova and we all believe that this will return though peace talks and good words. ] 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Ah yes, let us vote for peace in the entire world. Eliminate all crime and injustice. Kill all the evil people, too, while we're at it. :-) --] 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Photo of Smirnov == | |||
| I like show photo of Igor Smirnov so people can see his face. This is a good idea. Tell no lies about him of course. He is their leader and respect that , Bad people write things and this is important to check I have some iplaans for the page, I will help you all. I am fair you will see Mr E is for you all. | |||
| : We already have two photos (three if you count the election poster). They are on the ] page. The use of leader photos on other Misplaced Pages country pages is mixed. ] does it, so does ], but many other countries don't. I would personally prefer an "action" photo (Smirnov doing something, or in a context setting) rather than a portrait, so we show a bit of Transnistria as well, since the article is about Transnistria and not Smirnov. Thanks for your offer to help. Please work through consensus. We will not tell any lies about Smirnov and I do not believe that we are currently doing so. - ] 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Good Good, And the chairman of Transnistria too, the new man, he is not like Smirnov, he is sensible and he is the real keader. Put him above Smirnov and tell why ] 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Are you referring to ]? He is not the "chairman of Transnistria" but the Speaker (chairman, if you will) of VS PMR; which is their parliament. - ] 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Border Guards == | |||
| The Transnistrian border guards are very strict and are are slow. This is deliberate tactic. Sometimes they take money or cigerettes. And Ukraine bordermen too. Moldovan will take a few coins but not like the others. This is something wrong. Smirnov's son is the top border customs man and he is over these men. Also deliberate long delays for cars, ] 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : That reminds me. ] article is still undeveloped... --] 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I've introduced back Travel Warnings, according to the . | |||
| I've introduced back Propaganda and Disinformation chapter. Whether some sources on the subject are objective or not is really important. Especially if it is about Misplaced Pages. | |||
| On violent incidents, the word ''isolated'' is biased.] 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Were they widespread and all over the <s>country</s> <s>unrecognized state</s> region? --] 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|Pridnestrovie}} – In connection with the new laws adopted in the Republic of Pridnestrovie regarding the names of this state, the need to rename this article has become obvious. Let me remind you that the Parliament of Pridnestrovie amendments adopted to the laws, according to which the use of the term "Transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie entails arrest for up to 15 days with possible reclassification under a criminal article. The reason is that the word "Transnistria" is extremely offensive to the people of Pridnestrovie and has repeatedly become a cause of conflicts. In general terms, this is interpreted as a wish for genocide to Pridnestrovians. | |||
| :: Dl.goe, your wholesale revert is a bit rash, considering 1) there is certainly no conclusive outcome of the discussion which you cite, and 2) ] specifically states that ''"Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users"''. I am certainly willing to work with you, and others, on developing phrasing which is acceptable to all. But it must be done here, and not on mainspace unless we all enjoy engaging in those tiresome revert wars back and forth. I know I don't. - ] 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I moved the propaganda and misinformation subsection to ] for the time being. --] 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The current title of the article is absolutely incorrect. ] in this case cannot justify it, since the overwhelming majority of cases of using the term Transnistria in English-language texts refers either to the administrative division of Moldova (the autonomous entity ]), or to the so-called territory of the left bank of the Dniester not controlled by Chisinau ("breakaway region of Moldova"), but not to the Pridnestrovian Republic, which is described in this article. Such naming is, apparently, an invention exclusively of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :::: Of course, it fits there better. But now perma-banned user Greier was singling out Transnistria and painting it in the worst possible light, whereas in reality, ] is a part of what every country does. It is not unusual for them to use ]s to do so. Pretty much all nations are guilty of this (with the United States being the current world leader in this field). Whether we like it or not, is a reality of the international relations field. The other side will always call it propaganda and disinformation. That is another fact of life of international relations. - ] 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If there is no consensus, there is no consensus either for introducing or for removing the text. I would like to know the reason why ]'s text is not suitable. I added back Travel Warnings because the discussion on it was stopped. I don't understand what ] thinks on Travel Warnings: | |||
| ::::1.The information is irrelevant. | |||
| ::::2.The information is relevant but this article should not include a chapter that is not yet present in any other article. | |||
| ::::3.The information should be included, but the phrasing should be developed. | |||
| :::The article should not describe the violent incidents as isolated. This is like saying if the region is safe or not. Misplaced Pages should contain the facts and let the reader judge on them.] 09:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is not a single Misplaced Pages article about a geographical or political entity whose name directly offends its population or would be prohibited by law in this country, except for this one. It would be absurd to leave an article with such a name. | |||
| As Mauco made some misleading comments about Misplaced Pages policies regarding banned user, just a reminder: ] is telling about reverting any edit made in '''defiance''' of a ban. Banned user Greier didn't edit in defiance of a ban, his edit was previous of the ban and was discussed in talk page. It was a legitimate edit. Fact that Greier was banned afterwards (without any relation about the edit we discuss) does not mean that everything he wrote in Misplaced Pages in one year should be removed. Also, it doesn't mean that nobody else can share Greier's view about a certain edit. Regarding Greier's ban, I consider an abuse --] 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would also like to remind you that the article about the former ] was renamed ] following a referendum in that republic, although the old name was unconditionally dominant in all non-Armenian texts and was not offensive at all. This did not meet with any objections in Misplaced Pages community. Of course, this cannot be a precedent, and we must be guided by the rules, however, in the case of the term "Transnistria", apparently, there is a circle of interested parties defending this absurd vicious practice in their own political interests (]). This also needs to be paid attention to. | |||
| : There is really no point in discussing this. ] is clear on the matter, and Greier is permanently banned for good. On a contentious page like ], it is not kosher to introduce entire new sections without prior debate and trying to achieve consensus. So far, only Greier, yourself and EvilAlex have done that wholesale. It is even less cool to reinstate the edits of banned users. There is no need to debate this endlessly, since on your own talk page, MariusM. - ] 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The following suggestions: | |||
| ::I told to this admin that I don't agree with him. Misplaced Pages policy is written and very clear. Expression "defiance of a ban" is mentioned, and Greier's edit was not in "defiance". We don't need Mauco's interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies when we have clear policies.--] 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie. | |||
| # On the Transnistria page, put a template about a polysemantic term and list the articles it may refer to: ], ], ], etc. | |||
| Why "Pridnestrovie" and not "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic"? According to ] and for the same reasons that articles are called "]" and not "Republic of Moldova", "]" and not "Russian Federation", etc. | |||
| ::: Ask some more admins, then. The policy is obviously not as clear as you say, if there can be this kind of doubt about it. - ] 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Links: | |||
| The policy is quite clear. The fact that a user is banned does not have any inherent effect on the validity of their prior edits. (If they were banned for repeated plagiarism or use of faked sources that would be an issue, but that is not the case here.) The whole point of the rule about rolling back edits made in defiance of a ban is so that they have nothing to gain by defying the ban. - ] | ] 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| :] (]) 11:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * This RM reasoning is misplaced. The commonname argument is wrong; the "breakaway region of Moldova" ''is'' the Pridnestrovian Republic. See for example this , with its President Vadim Krasnoselsky. There are also plenty of Misplaced Pages articles about geographical or political entities whose name is rejected by that entity. ] is a perennial one, ] pops up every now and then, ] is getting there. We even have names about groups of people which can directly offend them, eg. ]. ] (]) 11:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for clarifying this for all. Of course, a good part of why Greier is no longer with us is because he pulled non-consentual stunts like this on pages with a high level of dispute. Finally, the community's patience just ran out. - ] 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose move''' per the 2018 and 2021 RMs. The common name remains Transnistria. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' A very poor RM rationale. Apparently we're being threatened with arrest by the nom if we refuse to comply with an illegitimate and government. That's not how it works. '']'' that the ''de facto'' leader of Transnistria Vadim Krasnoselski has equated the term Transnistria with "fascism" and "Nazism", prefers the "Russian term Pridnestrovie" and is threatening imprisonment and fines for those who use Transnistria in "public speeches, publicly displayed works or in the mass media" as Krasnoselski considers it a "manifestation of Nazism". What bollocks. Transnistria remains the ] until evidence to the contrary is presented. Recent usage of Transnistria include by , , , and even the Russian website ] (]) 13:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I rarely edit articles, and when I do, it's on topics very far from politics and geography (I haven't even created my account yet); however, in this case, I think it's necessary to speak out. The article '''needs to be moved''', using a politically neutral name. I am not a supporter of separatism and I absolutely do not sympathize with pro-Russian forces, but political propaganda has no place in Misplaced Pages, regardless of its orientation. Especially if the term that was used as the title of the article is offensive. The author of the move request is right, I have never come across an article in Misplaced Pages that would contain such non-neutral names in its title. Indeed, most of the references to this region that I have come across used the name Transnistria, but I have to agree with the RM author that all these references did not refer to the state as such: they were either about a region of Moldova or about a separatist movement in Moldova, but not about this state entity with its political system, state symbols, etc. Therefore, we must be guided first and foremost by the principle of a neutral point of view and the inadmissibility of political propaganda in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <small>— ] (]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I find the Karabakh/Artsakh comparison uncompelling. The "Artsakh" name caught on rather easily and was convenient because the name "]" refers to the entire region and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" was a mouthful. While I am sympathetic to the argument that the name "Transnistria" could be offensive, the arguments made were unpersuasive as the nom did not substantiate this with sources, but instead substantiated it with a repressive law. I would like to remind the nom that Turkey requests we call it Türkiye, but every attempt to move the article ] to ] is slapped down because "Türkiye" has not caught on as the common name in English, and I find it highly unlikely that it ever will. That's not to say that new names never catch on. They most certainly can. Swaziland -> Eswatini was broadly accepted rather quickly. But, as Chipmunkdavis mentioned, we still use the name "]" over "Côte d'Ivoire. Other times, it's more ambiguous. I see both East Timor and Timor-Leste used fairly often. And in my own anecdotal experience, I've actually seen the name "Czechia" used more often than "Czech Republic" these last few years, but the name remains ]. But "Transnistria" is, almost without exception, the only name you will ''ever'' see in sources to refer to this polity. And so it will remain Transnistria, no matter how many threats are made against those who use it. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 13:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I hold no strong position on the article name however I note that I think it is ''us'' setting precedent w.r.t. the name here rather than the various sources. While we standardised on ''Transnistria'' from day dot (2003), sources at the time were very divergent on the name (although I don't think ''Pridnestrovie'' was ever among them). Transdniestria, Trans-Dniester, Trans-Nistru, and so on even continue to be used in certain circles. | |||
| :: Agreed. But his individual edits should stand or fall on their individual merits. I've crossed paths with him quite a few places, and by no means was his work uniformly bad, unlike his attitude toward contributors with whom he disagreed. - ] | ] 08:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(In 2003 the preferred term in English in Tiraspol, at least as seen in the archive of "Olvia-Press", was Dniestria, short for "Dniester Moldavian Republic".) | |||
| ==Transnistrian side or Separatist side?== | |||
| We are labeling pro-PMR links in our External links section as "Transnistrian side". This is misleading, not all Transnistrians are supporting the separatist regime. We should use the label "separatist" instead of "transnistrian", in this and in other related articles when we are talking about forces which support Smirnov's regime. A big part of Transnistrian people want to get rid of Russian occupation and unite back with Moldova. Also, there were always some forces in Chişinău which support Smirnov's regime.--] 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Perhaps "Official Moldovan" and "Official Transnistian", then? It's true that the links for both sides do not speak for all of the Transnistrian or Moldovan people. Although in this case I thought one would naturally assume governments, not people. --] 10:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::From the 4 websites labelled as "Moldovan side" none is made by Moldovan government. Conflict.md is supported by OSCE (is publishing even pro-separatist information), Azi.md often is critic against Moldovan government. Maybe we should use the label "anti-separatist".--] 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Not made, supportive. The material presented on those sites in relation to Transnistria supports the official Modovan position. Hm, the presidential website apears to be down, btw. --] 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How about PMR side instead of Transnistrian side? ] 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: PMR would confuse new readers ] 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But I think that by the time they would reach the external links section they would know the term. ] 13:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I disagree, keep things uniform, like if we include Moldovan links here it goes that Transnistrian links should also be on the Moldovan page too, and the Moldova page is really lackiing in Transnistrian info. It is like its been hidden by both sides, ] 13:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :While precedent today certainly agrees with "Transnistria" and in English I can't see that "Pridnestrovie" was ever really common (doesn't help that it looks like a malformed English Latinate name ending in -ia (like Moldavia, Romania, Gagauzia, etc.)), I'm not sure that precedent would have favoured the Romanian "Transnistria" without our input. ] (]) 13:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The two sides are currently referred to as "Transnistria" and "Moldova". MariusM is of course correct in saying that not Transnistrians support independence. If we go by the referendum, only 97% do.<br> | |||
| ::I'm not so sure. "Transnistria" is the name applied to the area in the context of World War II (e.g., ) and the only term that really shows up in before about 1990. ] (]) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| How many in Moldova support the official Moldovan irredentist position? I spoke to Popov who told me that there is a shift in opinion among intellectuals in Chisinau. They look to Europe and they see Transnistria as something which is holding them back from that. They would just as rather cut loose from Transnistria (the past) and focus on Europe (the future). His words. How many support the official line? Probably a majority. But not all.<br> | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Flawed rationale. ] (]) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| That is how democracy works. We do not need all Transnistrians to agree with the official line, nor do we need all Moldovans to agree with the official line. If the positions are official and/or representative of the majority, it can accurately be labelled "Transnistrian side" and "Moldovan side" just as we do now. No change. - ] 14:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
| : I think an explanatory note that "pro-Transnistrian" means regarding the current PMR regime as legitimate, and "pro-Moldovan" means regarding the current PMR regime as not legitimate would be sufficient to make the appropriate distinction without confusing people. (It doesn't really boil down to just agreeing with the Moldovans or with Smirnov/Antyufeyev, which is what is implied if there is no further explanation.) <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
| == Map around Roghi: PMR or Moldova? == | |||
| There is no need to fix something which is clear to everyone already. MariusM's proposal proceedes from the implied assumption that the majority of Transnistrians are in disagreement with their government. This is an erroneus assumption and he has no credible sources to support it. Studies published in 2006 on this matter, by German and other Western analysts, while sowing questions about the level of democratic commitment, agree that if free elections were held today under OSCE auspices, the current leadership would easily win reelection. - ] 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've just realized I should maybe have started the debate here but I asked the question there: ]. ] (]) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: No real need to change this ] 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:44, 20 October 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transnistria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is this article titled "Transnistria" and not "Pridnestrovie"?
A1: The preponderance of reliable English-language sources use the name "Transnistria" over "Pridnestrovie". See WP:COMMONNAME for relevant policy details and Talk:Transnistria/Archive 21#Requested move 17 February 2018 for the most recent move discussion.
|
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Transnistria. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Transnistria at the Reference desk. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 2, 2009, September 2, 2010, September 2, 2014, and September 2, 2015. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
Possibly incorrect water percentage?
Hello, I was looking over various countries' water area and was unable to find any official metric for Transnistria, so I was surprised to find that this Misplaced Pages did list a water percentage. However, looking over the article's history, this metric seems to just have come from some random person who added up the "listed area" of the biggest lakes. This doesn't seem like a proper source of information and it likely is inaccurate, since the "listed area" is often not perennial water area and it fails to account for smaller bodies of water, such as rivers (which can contribute to a substantial amount of water area).
Has revising this value been considered? Or is it just kept for archival reasons? 99.64.160.215 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- The source of this seems to be this archive? 99.64.160.215 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that this person gave no other source than "their own research." 99.64.160.215 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, that definitely fails WP:CALC and WP:SYNTH. Removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where does the total area figure come from? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to show up constantly so I'm unsure of the actual source, but it is stated to be 4,163 km2 here which seems to be an official Transnistria page? There were other official looking pages that stated them number. 99.64.160.215 (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Atlas of the Dniester Moldavian Republic (2000?) which is available at this link (unfortunately academia.edu) has the same figure at the top of page 3. Unfortunately there didn't appear to be a water area calculation but there are some other figures that might merit inclusion. Hope this helps those improving statistics here. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to show up constantly so I'm unsure of the actual source, but it is stated to be 4,163 km2 here which seems to be an official Transnistria page? There were other official looking pages that stated them number. 99.64.160.215 (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Should the name of this article be changed?
On 5 September 2025, the region’s parliament passed a bill banning the use the word “Transnistria” in public. Therefore does Transnistria remain an appropriate name to use for this article, given that use of that word within the territory that is the subject of this article is now illegal? If the name of the article does need to be changed, what would be the best option to use, the full constitutional name in English “Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic“ or the short form “Pridnestrovie”? - Source: https://balkaninsight.com/2024/09/05/breakaway-moldovan-region-transnistria-bans-use-of-name-transnistria/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/separatist-region-of-moldova-banns-the-term-transnistria/ Dn9ahx (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- In this discussion, it was noted many years ago that this term is extremely offensive and is not the name of either the Pridnestrovian region or the Pridnestrovian republic. However, the local Romanian nationalist lobby disagrees: the name they managed to promote seems to them to be an important propaganda victory and will be defended to the end. 41.237.122.82 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think it’s helpful use terms like “propaganda” or “Romanian nationalist lobby” in this discussion. Please avoid using emotive language and keep the discussion civil.Dn9ahx (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is more reasonable to use the general name "Pridnestrovie". The official name of Moldova is "Republic of Moldova", but it is almost never used. The same is true for other countries and autonomous regions. Here the full official name is even longer, and using it constantly simply does not make sense.190.119.76.150 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I have changed the first sentence in the article to "The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, commonly referred to in English as Transnistria and locally as Pridnestrovie" Dn9ahx (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds rather strange. "Pridnestrovie" is an geographical and historical name from which the full official name of the republic is formed. That is, it is part of the official name and its short version, and not some alternative name known only locally. Moreover, as has already been noted here, in English-language sources the term "Transnistria" refers mainly to the territorial division of Moldova, and not to the state calling itself Pridnestrovie. 2A03:F680:FE04:45D2:2874:44DD:C6DA:C38E (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death. It could be changed if English-language sources, as we're in English Misplaced Pages, started employing "Pridnestrovie" more often than "Transnistria", per the policy WP:COMMONNAME. It is this policy that allows Bender, Moldova not to be titled "Tighina". But we're far from it right now . It is hard to imagine that this change in sources will come anytime soon due to the current geopolitics of the region. Super Ψ Dro 10:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if I have caused trouble. I only started the discussion because the government of the PMR have passed a law banning the use of the word "Transnistria" within the territory and I was not sure if it would still be appropriate to use a name which is now illegal to use in the polity in question. My personal opinion is that the title of the article be "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic", the full English language name of the polity rather than the local short form "Pridnestrovie" which as you pointed out, has not entered common usage in the English language. This also matches how we use the full English name "Administrative-Territorial Units of the Left Bank of the Dniester" rather than "Stînga Nistrului" on the article about the the official Moldovan government designation of the territory. By using the full English name, for both claims to the territory we are not appearing to take sides in the dispute and are not breaking any local laws. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- We use the common names so as to not take sides. WP:OFFICIALNAMES are not the guiding principle for naming. Looks like the name law is covered in the Toponymy section. CMD (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, this is a lie. In 95% of cases, in English-language texts, the name "Transnistria" refers to "the autonomous region of Moldova" or "territory not controlled by the government of Moldova" (Stinga Nistrului or Left Bank Moldova), but not to the Pridnestrovian Republic. The use of the term "Transnistria" to a state where this word is banned is an invention of Misplaced Pages and has no connection to reality. This is purely an element of political bias promoted by certain vested interests. 103.82.126.146 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if I have caused trouble. I only started the discussion because the government of the PMR have passed a law banning the use of the word "Transnistria" within the territory and I was not sure if it would still be appropriate to use a name which is now illegal to use in the polity in question. My personal opinion is that the title of the article be "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic", the full English language name of the polity rather than the local short form "Pridnestrovie" which as you pointed out, has not entered common usage in the English language. This also matches how we use the full English name "Administrative-Territorial Units of the Left Bank of the Dniester" rather than "Stînga Nistrului" on the article about the the official Moldovan government designation of the territory. By using the full English name, for both claims to the territory we are not appearing to take sides in the dispute and are not breaking any local laws. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have summarized a little of what the esteemed Wikipedians have said above and composed a renaming request based on the facts provided. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this procedure. 2A03:F680:FE04:45D2:2C72:43DD:63F1:682C (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 10 September 2024
- 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.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Transnistria → Pridnestrovie – In connection with the new laws adopted in the Republic of Pridnestrovie regarding the names of this state, the need to rename this article has become obvious. Let me remind you that the Parliament of Pridnestrovie amendments adopted to the laws, according to which the use of the term "Transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie entails arrest for up to 15 days with possible reclassification under a criminal article. The reason is that the word "Transnistria" is extremely offensive to the people of Pridnestrovie and has repeatedly become a cause of conflicts. In general terms, this is interpreted as a wish for genocide to Pridnestrovians.
The current title of the article is absolutely incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME in this case cannot justify it, since the overwhelming majority of cases of using the term Transnistria in English-language texts refers either to the administrative division of Moldova (the autonomous entity Stinga Nistrului), or to the so-called territory of the left bank of the Dniester not controlled by Chisinau ("breakaway region of Moldova"), but not to the Pridnestrovian Republic, which is described in this article. Such naming is, apparently, an invention exclusively of Misplaced Pages.
There is not a single Misplaced Pages article about a geographical or political entity whose name directly offends its population or would be prohibited by law in this country, except for this one. It would be absurd to leave an article with such a name.
I would also like to remind you that the article about the former Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was renamed Republic of Artsakh following a referendum in that republic, although the old name was unconditionally dominant in all non-Armenian texts and was not offensive at all. This did not meet with any objections in Misplaced Pages community. Of course, this cannot be a precedent, and we must be guided by the rules, however, in the case of the term "Transnistria", apparently, there is a circle of interested parties defending this absurd vicious practice in their own political interests (WP:POV). This also needs to be paid attention to.
The following suggestions:
- Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie.
- On the Transnistria page, put a template about a polysemantic term and list the articles it may refer to: Stinga Nistrului, Transnistria Governorate, Pridnestrovie, etc.
Why "Pridnestrovie" and not "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic"? According to WP:OFFICIALNAMES and for the same reasons that articles are called "Moldova" and not "Republic of Moldova", "Russia" and not "Russian Federation", etc.
Links:
- The presidential initiative on the inadmissibility of using the term "transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie was adopted unanimously
- Transnistria must be vanished
- This RM reasoning is misplaced. The commonname argument is wrong; the "breakaway region of Moldova" is the Pridnestrovian Republic. See for example this BBC profile of Transnistria, with its President Vadim Krasnoselsky. There are also plenty of Misplaced Pages articles about geographical or political entities whose name is rejected by that entity. Ivory Coast is a perennial one, East Timor pops up every now and then, Turkey is getting there. We even have names about groups of people which can directly offend them, eg. Mormons. CMD (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose move per the 2018 and 2021 RMs. The common name remains Transnistria. O.N.R. 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose A very poor RM rationale. Apparently we're being threatened with arrest by the nom if we refuse to comply with an illegitimate and repressive government. That's not how it works. Euractiv has reported that the de facto leader of Transnistria Vadim Krasnoselski has equated the term Transnistria with "fascism" and "Nazism", prefers the "Russian term Pridnestrovie" and is threatening imprisonment and fines for those who use Transnistria in "public speeches, publicly displayed works or in the mass media" as Krasnoselski considers it a "manifestation of Nazism". What bollocks. Transnistria remains the common name until evidence to the contrary is presented. Recent usage of Transnistria include by Al Jazeera, The Economist, The Guardian, TVP World and even the Russian website Eurasia Daily AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I rarely edit articles, and when I do, it's on topics very far from politics and geography (I haven't even created my account yet); however, in this case, I think it's necessary to speak out. The article needs to be moved, using a politically neutral name. I am not a supporter of separatism and I absolutely do not sympathize with pro-Russian forces, but political propaganda has no place in Misplaced Pages, regardless of its orientation. Especially if the term that was used as the title of the article is offensive. The author of the move request is right, I have never come across an article in Misplaced Pages that would contain such non-neutral names in its title. Indeed, most of the references to this region that I have come across used the name Transnistria, but I have to agree with the RM author that all these references did not refer to the state as such: they were either about a region of Moldova or about a separatist movement in Moldova, but not about this state entity with its political system, state symbols, etc. Therefore, we must be guided first and foremost by the principle of a neutral point of view and the inadmissibility of political propaganda in Misplaced Pages. 190.57.181.3 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
— 190.57.181.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oppose I find the Karabakh/Artsakh comparison uncompelling. The "Artsakh" name caught on rather easily and was convenient because the name "Nagorno-Karabakh" refers to the entire region and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" was a mouthful. While I am sympathetic to the argument that the name "Transnistria" could be offensive, the arguments made were unpersuasive as the nom did not substantiate this with sources, but instead substantiated it with a repressive law. I would like to remind the nom that Turkey requests we call it Türkiye, but every attempt to move the article Turkey to Türkiye is slapped down because "Türkiye" has not caught on as the common name in English, and I find it highly unlikely that it ever will. That's not to say that new names never catch on. They most certainly can. Swaziland -> Eswatini was broadly accepted rather quickly. But, as Chipmunkdavis mentioned, we still use the name "Ivory Coast" over "Côte d'Ivoire. Other times, it's more ambiguous. I see both East Timor and Timor-Leste used fairly often. And in my own anecdotal experience, I've actually seen the name "Czechia" used more often than "Czech Republic" these last few years, but the name remains Czech Republic. But "Transnistria" is, almost without exception, the only name you will ever see in sources to refer to this polity. And so it will remain Transnistria, no matter how many threats are made against those who use it. Vanilla Wizard 💙 13:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I hold no strong position on the article name however I note that I think it is us setting precedent w.r.t. the name here rather than the various sources. While we standardised on Transnistria from day dot (2003), sources at the time were very divergent on the name (although I don't think Pridnestrovie was ever among them). Transdniestria, Trans-Dniester, Trans-Nistru, and so on even continue to be used in certain circles.
- (In 2003 the preferred term in English in Tiraspol, at least as seen in the archive of "Olvia-Press", was Dniestria, short for "Dniester Moldavian Republic".)
- While precedent today certainly agrees with "Transnistria" and in English I can't see that "Pridnestrovie" was ever really common (doesn't help that it looks like a malformed English Latinate name ending in -ia (like Moldavia, Romania, Gagauzia, etc.)), I'm not sure that precedent would have favoured the Romanian "Transnistria" without our input. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. "Transnistria" is the name applied to the area in the context of World War II (e.g., here) and the only term that really shows up in ngrams before about 1990. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Flawed rationale. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Map around Roghi: PMR or Moldova?
I've just realized I should maybe have started the debate here but I asked the question there: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities#Territorial_continuity_of_Transnistria. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2015)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class Moldova articles
- Top-importance Moldova articles
- Moldova articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Limited recognition articles
- High-importance Limited recognition articles
- WikiProject Limited recognition articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press