Jump to content

Talk:Transnistria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possibly incorrect water percentage?

[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

The source of this seems to be this archive? 99.64.160.215 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, that definitely fails WP:CALC and WP:SYNTH. Removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the total area figure come from? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Should the name of this article be changed?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This has been discussed to death. It could be changed if English-language sources, as we're in English Wikipedia, 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 [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2024

[edit]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.

There is not a single Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:

  1. Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie.
  2. 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:

2A03:F680:FE04:45D2:2C72:43DD:63F1:682C (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • Oppose move per the 2018 and 2021 RMs. The common name remains Transnistria. O.N.R. (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 190.57.181.3 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map around Roghi: PMR or Moldova?

[edit]

I've just realized I should maybe have started the debate here but I asked the question there: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Territorial_continuity_of_Transnistria. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria&oldid=1252167051"