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 2a03:f680:fe04:45d2:2874:44dd:c6da:c38e (talk) at 08:06, 10 September 2024 (→Should the name of this article be changed?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
If you have no desire to improve Wikipedia, stop writing here. — kashmīrī TALK 12:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reading carefully. I wrote what needs to be improved; there is no other way. 80.94.250.208 (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles need improving. Most things in the world need improving. Anything more specific? — kashmīrī TALK 15:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is, indicating that the title of the article is unacceptable, that is, that the article cannot initially be improved because it contradicts any signs of encyclopedicity in this form, is not specific enough? How can you improve someone's insults? Add more insults? 80.94.250.208 (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your adequate assessment of this absurdity, friend! But this article is an excellent example of how Wikipedia has become an exclusively propaganda tool, and a very crude one at that. This stream of insults against Pridnestrovie is necessary precisely for edifying purposes, to demonstrate to people what this website has become (here, for example, is a good use case). Local politized provocateurs are doing much more harm to Wikipedia with this article than to Pridnestrovie, so I'm not sure there's any need to be outraged by these insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.19.215.86 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this article but generally...

Why do we use Romanian/R.Moldovan designations for Romanian-language designators of things in Transnistria as opposed to Transnistrian ones (e.g. Flag of Transnistria is given as Steagul Transnistriei instead of Steagul Nistrean or Steagul Nistreniei)? Since we are giving names in the three official languages - surely it is more correct to use more official designations. Thought I should try to establish a consensus here before pushing anything myself. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever seen "Nistrenia" on Wikipedia. I am actually kind of doubtful this name exists. Not even the Moldovan Government, which surely would rather use the name if it was preferred by its inhabitants, employs it, it rather uses Stânga Nistrul ("The Left of the Dniester") or Transnistria. Super Ψ Dro 21:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the Moldovan Govt. doesn't use it for the same reason they don't typically use Приднестровье in Russian (although as that is a geographical designation like Transnistria you do sometimes see it (see section 470, in Russian)) - it is the short-form name of the de facto national state. As far as "official" (Transnistrian govt) sources go, it's used in the anthem and the constitution (Article 55, in Moldovan Cyrillic). Also in a couple of less governmental places, I found this journal article on Christmas carols and this little essay. Interested to hear people's thoughts in light of this. All the best. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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?

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria&oldid=1244973092"