Talk:Transnistria/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Are there rules and ethical standards?

Question asked, question answered, the same question is already in the FAQ, and this discussion veers deep into obviously unproductive WP:TALKPOV. CMD (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a few questions about the Wikipedia rules, maybe someone can answer them since I'm new here. Tell me, please, do the rules allow the use of clearly abusive terms in the texts and titles of articles, regardless of their prevalence on the Internet? Or is the last factor more important, i.e., for example, can I, for example, describe Black men (61,000,000 on Google) as monkeys because the latter term is more common (126,000,000 on Google) or Romanians (4 mil.) as gypsies (14 mil.) and because I'm used to calling them that and does it fit with my personal ethno-political and biological views? And why is the article about Nagorno-Karabakh Republic called the term Artsakh, which was introduced by the government of this unrecognized republic in 2017 and was almost unknown in the English language before that? Is it due to the fact that article about Artsakh is just not subject to politicized censorship and is written in accordance with common sense? 80.94.250.167 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Transnistria is the most common name in English. End of the issue. Keep making ridiculous and meaningless arguments like comparing calling black people as monkeys. All you're going to achieve is further fatigue on this issue which has been discussed to death. One day comments like these will start just being removed because there's simply nothing new we can get from further discussion. If you don't like it, complain to mainstream media, not to Wikipedia. We only follow sources, and they mainly use Transnistria. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Are you suggesting that I read the entire discussion archive? These are not answers to my questions. I want to remind you that the word "Transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie (as well as the name "Artsakh" in relation to Nagorno-Karabakh) have spread on the Internet mainly thanks to Wikipedia, and not some abstract media. That is, Wikipedia here acts as the primary source of an abusive term used in the context of a politized informational provocation. Therefore, either this has not been discussed here before, or this misunderstanding has not yet been eliminated due to the malicious intent of local censors, which make the discussion useless. It should be borne in mind that in many countries inciting ethnic hatred is a serious criminal offence. In this case, this works in both directions: hatred is provoked on the part of the Pridnestrovians towards the Romanians who insult them (although the Romanian people itself have nothing to do with it, this is a provocation of a handful of nationalists) and at the same time a negative attitude towards the Pridnestrovians themselves is formed. 80.94.250.163 (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC) I want to remind you that the word "Transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie (as well as the name "Artsakh" in relation to Nagorno-Karabakh) have spread on the Internet mainly thanks to Wikipedia, and not some abstract media. Excuse me? Source? Do you think English speakers did not talk about Transnistria until Wikipedia was founded? If you check mentions of "Transnistria" and "Pridnestrovie" in English language books and journals over time since the early 20th century, the former is dominant, by far. Super Dromaeosaurus has already pointed out in this discussion and in many others that the common name used in reliable sources is what is used on Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with "personal ethno-political and biological views" or "ethical standards". Wikipedia has rules, read them. This "I'm just asking questions" nonsense is a waste of everyone's time. Like does a reasonable person really have to answer why you shouldn't call people racial slurs? Are you really implying in your question that English speakers, by in large, call black people "monkeys" instead of "black people"? Furthermore, the fact that you did not mention "Transnistria" or "Pridnestrovie" once in your first comment but insisted your question was directly related leads me to believe you're already familiar with the grievances at hand in previous discussions. Stop jumping from IP to IP and wasting your and everyone else's time. Yue🌙 21:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) You're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia if you 1. Ask questions about Wikipedia's rules before reading them, 2. Assert your questions were not answered and ask them again before reading the rules, and 3. Make up incredibly stupid things (Wikipedia made the name "Transnistria" popular!) to counter responses. There is ignorance and there is bad faith acting; you are not the former. Yue🌙 21:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC) What? To know that the word "Transnistria" is an rude slur, should I read some discussion? In my opinion, any person who has even the slightest relation to Pridnestrovie knows about this fact. Wikipedia has rules, read them. This "I'm just asking questions" nonsense is a waste of everyone's time. I took the time to read the rules before asking the question, but I didn't find anything that would give the right to insult countries, peoples, races, religions, states, or anything or someone else, citing the prevalence of this swearing. Perhaps I was inattentive, so I asked those who understand better to suggest. Can I find something in the rules about double standards, for example, why blacks cannot be insulted, but Pridnestrovians can? If you check mentions of "Transnistria" and "Pridnestrovie" in English language books and journals over time since the early 20th century, the former is dominant, by far. About the beginning of the 20th century sounds strong. Especially considering that at that time this territory was called the Bessarabian, Kherson and Podolsk provinces of Russia, and for the first and only time a territorial unit with the official name "Transnistria" appeared during the Romanian invasion of the USSR during WWII in 1941. If I am not mistaken, the authors of this article did not try to describe this page of history, but something about the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, which arose in 1990 and is not called "Transnistria" in any official document in any language. Or am I confusing something, and this state existed at the beginning of the 20th century and was called "Transnistria"? Maybe it's even a self-name? Share the information if you think you understand this topic. Wikipedia made the name "Transnistria" popular! Yes, in this case, Wikipedia acts as the primary source for most of the use of this swear word on the Internet. This word in relation to the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (and not the territory controlled by Romania) came into use only after Wikipedia gained popularity. Moreover, even after the spread of this term, in the vast majority of cases it is called either the so-called Administrative-Territorial Units of the Left Bank of the Dniester, or the actual Romanian occupation zone 1941-1944, but not the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Even such a geographical name never existed. Stop jumping from IP to IP and wasting your and everyone else's time. In my opinion, such disparaging rhetoric is not welcomed by the rules. You can complain about the IP change to my provider, it will not be difficult for you to find it, I have nothing to do with it. 80.94.250.163 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not the cause of this.[1]  —Michael Z. 23:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC) A very revealing chart, thanks. As we can see, it is the second rise in the use of "Transnistria" in publications, which began in 2011, is associated with its spread on the Internet, while, obviously, being several years behind the similar dynamics in it (that is, around 2008-2009, in a few years after the creation of this article). But the method itself is not entirely correct. In fact, in the documents and publications of 1990 - the first half of the 2000s in English, the designation "Dniester Republic" was most often used to designate the state with its capital in Tiraspol. It is impossible to analyze what was meant by the word Transnistria, but it is obvious that in the overwhelming majority of cases this is not connected with the Pridnestrovian state (which they tried to describe in this article), but with the territorial division of Moldova (the so-called "left bank of the Dniester", which is not even territorially coincides with Pridnestrovie) or with some historical or offensive context. This also applies to the current situation: the Pridnestrovian Republic is mentioned much less frequently due to its political status than the "territory not controlled by the official Chisinau". Why did some Wikipedia editors decide that the word Transnistria should designate exactly the Republic of Pridnestrovie? I think the answer is obvious. 80.94.250.163 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Please don't talk about "disparaging rhetoric" and "rules" when you start a discussion with open racism and continue it without reading any of the rules laid out for you (to answer your "questions", might I add). My assumption of good faith went away when you misinterpreted Super Dromaeosaurus's response and then claimed Wikipedia was the reason why "Transnistria" is widely used in English. Do you want to engage with any of the points anybody has brought up, or should I close this discussion so we don't waste more of anyone else's time? Talk pages aren't forums, if you're really interested in Wikipedia's rules on content and article naming, just read WP:RS and WP:NC, because 100% of all your questions, if I take them as good faith questions, can be answered there simply by reading the first couple paragraphs. You're not here to ask questions, you're here to start trouble. Yue🌙 01:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC) My "racism" is given solely as an example showing the savagery of the situation with insulting the people of Pridnestrovie by this article (I am not a racist in any way). You didn't answer any of my questions. 80.94.250.163 (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Pridnestrovians is not really an ethnic group. The local régime put the name on their census for the first time in 2015, and then reported that 1 in 500 residents checked that box.  —Michael Z. 22:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) The population census does not include a list of ethnic groups, belonging to which a person can choose. This is a free field that a person fills in himself. Here one should distinguish between ethnic and national identity. A person can consider himself a Moldovan, Ukrainian, Russian or anyone else and at the same time a Pridnestrovian as part of a political and cultural community. In this case, the term Pridnestrovians means the entire population of Pridnestrovie. 80.94.250.163 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC) You’re the one who brought up “ethnic hatred.” 99.8% of people in Transnistria don’t report their own ethnicity as Pridnestrovian. It is frustrating to address your claim then see you ignore what you said and assert a completely different claim. I think I’ll decline to continue participating here. This kind of arguing won’t achieve any new consensus.  —Michael Z. 02:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) The hatred here is precisely ethnic: between the Romanians and the basically Slavic population of Pridnestrovie. 80.94.250.163 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) No, there is no such thing. It however reveals your own mentality and how you perceive Romanians. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC) My own mentality? "Transnistria" is a manifestation of aggression against all Pridnestrovians. But I do not understand what is the point of promoting this Romanian insult. Will this somehow help Romania seize Moldova and Pridnestrovie? No, on the contrary, it provokes hatred towards those who show aggression, in this case, towards the Romanians. It has no other effect. In the place of the Romanians, I would behave in the opposite way, it would be much smarter. 80.94.250.163 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Unrecognised recognised state

I noticed that the first sentence says, "Transnistria, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR),[c] is an unrecognised breakaway state that is internationally recognised as a part of Moldova." I removed the word "unrecognised" on 01:06, 12 August 2023, with the rationale, "unrecognized and recognized are visually oxymorons even though by the semantics of the sentence they may not be, therefore, better more clarity by removing the instance".

On 07:34, 12 August 2023, User:Super Dromaeosaurus made a revert, reinstating the word "unrecognised", with the rationale, "I don't understand the problem. With recognized, do you mean the link to List of states with limited recognition? That's an internal link that readers aren't supposed to see."

My revert was not about the link as my edit summary shows and the edit itself that left the link in the page. It is about the bad form of the sentence. The words recognised and unrecognised are opposites. The sentence basically says that Transnitria is an unrecognised state that is internationally recognised as part of Moldova. That is an oxymoron. It is either recognised, unrecognised or has a level of recognition or unrecognition. But stating that it is both recognised and unrecognised at the same time in absolute terms is simply a grammatical and semantical error that should not stand.

That's why I think it is better simply saying that it is a breakaway state that is internationally recognised as part of Moldova. Or there are other iterations that could be used instead. For example, it is a breakaway state mostly recognised as part of Moldova. Or it is mostly an unrecognised breakaway state, considered internationally as part of Moldova. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, that's not the long-standing version. I wrote it two days ago [2]. Mzajac's version is superior in terms of simplicity. It also addressed Thinker78's raised issues. It is factual and neutral to state that Transnistria is Moldova. I do not see any problem with the reverted version. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably I wasn't precise. While the exact wording is indeed new, the formula "a breakaway state recognised as part of Moldova" has been here for ages 2022, 2020. If the presence of "unrecognised" and "recognised" in close proximity is the problem, that we can remove one of them without any loss to the reader. In fact this is how it was in 2020. Alaexis_¿question? 09:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The diffs you showed use the wording "is an unrecognised breakaway state". My rewriting (the version you reverted to) had already addressed Thinker78's issues. Which was simply the repetition of the word "recognised" or derivates. I disagree with this edit [3]. It does not produce any net benefit. Not only is Transnistria Moldovan territory but so is it an unrecognised breakway state. We're altering perfectly precise wording for no reason. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with "unrecognised breakaway state" and see no problems with that version. I can self-revert this edit. Alaexis_¿question? 11:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"unrecognised breakaway" is redundant, they have the same implication. It would be better writing to use one here, allowing the other to be used at another point that would add some variety to the text. "sovereign territory" is also a redundant addition to the simple "Moldova". CMD (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"breakaway" implies non-recognition by the country the entity separated from while "unrecognised" here would imply non-recognition by the international community. A "partially recognised breakaway state" is also possible in my eyes, an example would be Kosovo. This is how I see it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Breakaway speaks to aims, meaning “secessionist.” Unrecognized speaks to status or legitimacy in the international order. One could also use terms like rebel to indicate the relationship with local government, but that might be inferred from the others (although there are legal separatist parties in various places).  —Michael Z. 20:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Alaexis, I propose "is an unrecognised breakaway state internationally considered as part of Moldova". What do you think? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Moldova has parts (administrative divisions of Moldova), and none of them are the Transnistria “state.”

  In the territory of Moldova is fine.

  In territory considered part of Moldova would be a minimum, but encyclopedia articles probably name ten million things “in X” country, so I don’t see what point is being made by adding the formula “internationally considered” here except to both-sides a legitimate country and an illegitimate Russian spoiler project.  —Michael Z. 01:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I was looking for a middle point since I wasn't seeing a consensus. Chipmunkdavis and Thinker78, do you have an opinion on this? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am staying neutral. My concern was the redundancy. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with this wording. The terms "unrecognised state" and "de facto state" are widely used in RS and on Wikipedia reflecting the editors' consensus, see Somaliland and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Alaexis_¿question? 09:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Let’s avoid de facto as a way of explaining political status, because the term is often misunderstood and misused, and this is an example of misuse. Yes, de facto, “in fact,” can describe a situation, as in some illegal group’s de facto occupation of some territory. But what does “de facto state” actually mean? This language often unintentionally legitimizes things that are in fact not states, are really fake states.  —Michael Z. 14:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is your opinion. As you can see on google books, "unrecognised state" and "de facto state" are widely used terms and are often employed when describing Transnistria, which is the only thing that should count. Alaexis_¿question? 16:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We have consensus for the first part of the sentence. As for the second, Mzajac raised an important issue that Moldova has parts (administrative divisions of Moldova), and none of them are the Transnistria “state.”. "in the territory of Moldova" is looking to me as a short, brief alternative without the issues that the version I proposed has. To be fair I've also not heard any actual reasoning from Alaexis as to why would this alternative be inappropriate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"internationally considered" is clunky, and the initial redundancy is still there (verging on a pleonasm). The administrative divisions of Moldova are irrelevant to the sentence, "part" does not have that strict meaning in English. Simple "Moldova" remains the best outcome, but "the territory" is better than "sovereign territory" (another pleonasm). CMD (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Those who propose to make a change should provide sources which back it up. The phrase "internationally recognized as part of Moldova" and its variations are widely used in the scholarly sources. It's clear and concise. The issue of Moldova's administrative division is irrelevant: we can say that Provence is part of France even though it doesn't correspond exactly to any of its current regions. And again, there are many sources that use similar wording, for example Not on the Map: The Peculiar Histories of De Facto States - Page 65 Transnistria is officially considered part of the Republic of Moldova by all members of the United Nations (UN). No country recognizes it, BBC profile The separatist region of Transnistria ... broke away from Moldova in 1990. The international community does not recognise its self-declared statehood, Putin's World: Russia Against the West and with the Rest Transnistria emerged as a de facto autonomous state protected by Russian troops, although it is internationally recognized as part of Moldova. Alaexis_¿question? 07:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is definitively a stretch. You've only sent three sources. If you want to make an argument that your preferred version is more common than the other, you'd need far more sources than that. But this is anyway not something we do with the prose of articles. The problems of doing that are obvious, for instance the three sources you used do not use any unified wording, the first one I don't know if that sentence is being used as an opening sentence (which is the whole point here), the second is composed by two sentences in two separate paragraphs which you merged (clearly the second sentence is not part of the opening paragraph) while the third uses has the same problem as the first while also using bizarre wording ("although") for an opening sentence which we wouldn't use here.

The issue of Moldova's administrative division is irrelevant: we can say that Provence is part of France even though it doesn't correspond exactly to any of its current regions. Provence is mostly understood as a region, Transnistria is not. To put an example, few people talk of Kosovo, under that name, as a region. And in any case this article is not about a region like Provence is. It is about an unrecognized entity artificially created in 1990, and not as a result of an already existing Moldovan province breaking away. To date there's not a province in Moldova called "Transnistria" covering the same territory that this entity does.

There's no Wikipedia policy requiring us to go word by word in the proses of articles. Let's not waste more time in minute details. As Chipmunkdavis also showed support of the shorter version while Thinker78 did not voice themselves against it I think we have consensus. I've restored this version [4]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Since you want to change the stable version, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the new one is indeed supported by reliable sources - in other words that this is how the majority of them refer to Transnistria. Alaexis_¿question? 12:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Stable version" is a meaningless argument. See Wikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Other than this, you have not argued how "in the territory of Moldova" is problematic. This is a minor dispute regarding uncontroversial wording. We do not require to resort to sources, nor do we have a way to see demonstrate which way of such a basic and general thing is the most common. Policies like WP:COMMONNAME apply for article titles, not for opening sentences or for the wording of an article. I will also note that two other editors voiced their approval of the version I restored. I do believe we're finding a consensus here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should prove that sources only ever refer to Moldova as the “internationally recognised sovereign territory of Moldova.”

This is just silly. You going to force us to solicit more input to show consensus for referring to a country by its name?  —Michael Z. 15:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus indeed may change but I'm not sure it has changed in this case. I don't see anything controversial in checking whether the proposed wording is employed by reliable sources. WP:RS applies to all of the article, including the opening sentences.

The fact that it's recognised as part of Moldova but is not controlled by it is probably the single most important fact about the political status of Transnistria. Therefore I think that saying "internationally recognised as part of Moldova" is a great way of conveying this information to the reader. I agree with Chipmunkdavis that the "sovereign territory" is superfluous and can be removed. Alaexis_¿question? 20:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You're asking for verification of the exact wording of a sentence. I do not believe this is necessary, required or possible in the first place. Both versions are already very similar and give the exact same info. For conveying the region's political status "unrecognised breakaway state" already does the work briefly. And the longer version still carries the problem raised by Mzajac. "Transnistria" as this political entity is not a part of Moldova, the territory it occupies is. It's a minor nuance but then we have another version which avoids it altogether and which is also shorter so why would we not use it? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to CMD's version I don't think that the reader would think that Transnistria as a political entity is a part of Moldova. It's called a breakaway state after all. "In Moldova" is indeed shorter but it's actually more puzzling to the reader. If it's a breakaway state, in what sense exactly it is in Moldova. Adding "internationally recognised as a part of" makes the situation clear. Alaexis_¿question? 13:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)