Jump to content

Talk:Transnistria

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.94.250.208 (talk) at 11:37, 11 February 2024 (→The article looks like a propaganda leaflet: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Done. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, that's not the long-standing version. I wrote it two days ago [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am staying neutral. My concern was the redundancy. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Recognition by Artsakh

Transnistria has been recognised only by three other unrecognised or partially recognised breakaway states: Abkhazia, Artsakh and South Ossetia.

First time commenting but the government of Artsakh dissolved a month ago following an Azerbaijani attack that seized the region. Not sure how to edit but just wanted to state 50.26.186.162 (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Artsakh should be removed. Alternatively we can say that it *was* recognised until 2023. Alaexis¿question? 16:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made my first edit to a Wikipedia page, so please correct if need be. I had raised the same question on this article and based my changes on another user’s change
Armenian Revolutionary Federation 50.26.186.162 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with user Super Dromaeosaurus' reversion, we should wait until the formal dissolution of Artsakh in January. THMWikiAcc (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no government of Artsakh anymore. There is no entity holding any territory. No need to keep waiting, the "state" doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter that as they were being arrested their leadership said that the "state" will officially cease to exist on Jan 1, if there is no government and no territory it is little more than a micronation at best, and I don't think wikipedia includes national recognition from micronations. Scu ba (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks like a propaganda leaflet

This article was written by completely engaged and biased editors who have prejudices against Pridnestrovie. There is nothing resembling a neutral point of view here, right down to the title of the article (Transnistria), which is a dirty political insult to Pridnestrovie, not its name. I believe it needs to be removed. 2A03:F680:FE04:20E1:F404:CF37:C4DC:DEC8 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria is an English word and is not offensive. All the editors of this article are independent editors and have used reliable sources. --LDM2003 talk to me! 19:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will allow myself to express an unpopular opinion here, but the article is really biased and reflects the purely point of view of Western ideologists in the context of the confrontation with Russia, in which Pridnestrovie is presented as one of the instruments of this confrontation. I do not consider it appropriate to discuss this now, because these concerns not only the topic of Pridnestrovie. However, the article is not only biased, but downright offensive, at least by its title. In this discussion, several pages earlier, commentators clearly explained how and in what context the term "Transnistria" (in relation to Pridnestrovie) arose and how it is used, so I will not repeat this. This is a direct politically charged insult that cannot be considered a name of the real region with real living people. There is not a single article on Wikipedia that, by its title, would insult the population of any territory other than this one. 80.94.250.208 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and any particular suggestions for improvement beyond a rant about artice title which anyway isn't going to change? — kashmīrī TALK 11:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In an article with such a title, it makes no sense to change anything; it a priori has not encyclopedic functions, but propaganda ones, and has the character of hate speech. 80.94.250.208 (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags and Coat of Arms

At the moment the flags for this article appear to be Greek and Byzantine, not the actual flags of this state. Additionally, the coat of arms is just a picture of a statue of Alexander the Great. Seems like someone's messing with the page. KingDeadCo (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been reverted, thanks for notifying. CMD (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria&oldid=1206176836"