Talk:Transnistria

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]

Chipmunkdavis, I am not sure what do you intend to mean by Rv, standardized variety language name per relevant topic. There is no "Moldovan" standard, it is Romanian written in Cyrillic. Your wording is misleading as it is not only the text in Latin script that is Romanian. Moldovan is not a language per our own articles in Wikipedia. I've also already expressed that "Moldovan language" ≠ Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, it makes no sense to pipelink them. Super Ψ Dro 16:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The official language is called Moldovan. Our articles do not say it is not a language, they say it is a name for a language also called Romanian. The use of official language names for official languages is well-established, notably by the Serbocroatian-speaking country articles. Slightly more meta, you've made this change before and it has been disputed before, waiting awhile to make it again without discussion is not productive. CMD (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan language, opening sentence: is one of the two local names for the Romanian language in Moldova.. Here in Wikipedia we have a decided stance on the topic. We are also not obliged to potray a text in a language it is not, much less in respect of the legislation of an illegal breakaway entity. To suggest the latter is insulting given the low status the Moldovans' language has in the foreign-backed entity in their country that they live in. And the version you've restored still has the two issues I've mentioned. The pipelink does not make sense and both scripts, and not only the latter, are in Romanian.

The situation with Serbo-Croatian is

WP:OTHERSTUFF and their social situation not analogous either. The standard in Wikipedia is that "Moldovan" is not given credit [2] [3] [4]. There was already a discussion about a different part of the infobox, in which you participated [5], and a consensus was found. Now I propose the following: Moldovan (Romanian), just like in the other part of the infobox, and with the two names either marked with {{lang|ro|}} or with no template at all. What suggestion do you have? Super Ψ Dro 16:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

That quote seems right, it is the name of the language. My suggestion is to keep the official names in the official languages. That is part of the essence of their being official names. The situation in Serbian is entirely analogous, please don't cite OTHERSTUFF to discount something and then immediately link to various other stuff to support your view. CMD (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under what argument do you say that we ought to give exclusive credit to a term not even official in the parent country, other than becuase we also do in a set of countries with a different social situation? Per the academic consensus, the consensus in Wikipedia and the official legislation of the country where the notion of a separate Moldovan language was applied in the past, Moldovan has no linguistic fundament, there is no text in Moldovan in the infobox but in Romanian, and even if we consider to give Moldovan credit, the current version of the infobox is problematic, because neither Moldovenists nor Romanian nationalists would consider the two names to belong to two separate languages by virtue of being written in different alphabets. Worth mentioning that you defend using only the official designation, but the version you restored does not even do this as the text displayed references the Cyrillic alphabet.

I proposed to maintain the official name next to the real and linguistic term. I haven't even gotten a proposal to fix the issue of the pipelink and the arbitrary use of language names, which wouldn't even necessarily bring the text closer to my desired outcome, but would fix a misunderstanding of the Moldovenist view (Moldovan in the Latin alphabet would still be Moldovan). Super Ψ Dro 17:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "credit" here, I don't even understand that framing. You haven't explained how a social situation affects languages getting different names being different in some cases but not others. Totally open to noting it is Moldovan in the latin alphabet, although not due to a "Moldovenist view" or similar. Both are real terms. CMD (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With credit I refer to potraying Moldovan as a different language at the same level of the listed Russian and Ukrainian ones with no additional notes. I question this practice when Moldova does not use the term and when we are referring to Transnistria, which is an unrecognised entity where Russian is the main language. The official Moldovan has an almost ceremonial status and is almost lacking from public life. In this context you say we should give exclusive credit to the official view in Transnistria. I say we include the official term in Moldova too and that because the language is anyway scarcely used in Transnistria I do not agree with only potraying their fringe view. Super Ψ Dro 17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article text in question is the official names of the unrecognised entity. This is not a view, it's a simple reflection of the status. Moldova does not think Transnistria has a different official name, it more broadly asserts that Transnistria should not be issuing anything official at all, something the article already reflects very clearly. CMD (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are used to identify what language the text is in. This goes beyond their official legislation and falls within our choice. Super Ψ Dro 18:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should not choose to use templates to treat languages as if they are in some sort of competitive credit framework, especially when the purpose is to at a quick glance let readers know what the official names names are. CMD (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about a "competitive credit framework", but about giving a fringe view the weight it is due. Would you agree to removing the {{lang|mo|}} template from the text, which goes beyond the quick glance purpose and makes an assertation on the language the text is in? Super Ψ Dro 00:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the value of not letting a reader know what language the name is in. CMD (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text in Romanian is shown to be in Moldovan. Readers are anyway not capable of seeing what language does the template assert the text to be in unless they put the cursor above the text. It also removes this article from Category:Articles containing Moldovan-language text, appropriate considering there is no text in a Moldovan language there. Super Ψ Dro 00:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a helpful or productive framing to state that a name that exists doesn't exist. I suspect the category is as useful as the Croatian and Bosnian ones, which are used, so I'm surprised it is empty. CMD (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to the unrelated Serbo-Croatian case. The situation evidently couldn't be equal when "Moldovan" is not official in Moldova. In the Moldovan topic area the supposed language never had widespread usage. It is not used at

Template:Moldovan Cyrillic

and not {{lang|mo|}}, nor do they call the script "Moldovan language". This is the only article striving away from the standard practice.

I would like to ask you to research more on the situation in Wikipedia and perhaps even the situation of the language in Moldova as you're evidently unfamiliar. I keep getting replies from you that let me know that I haven't really been understood, such as the quotation of "Moldovenist view", or It isn't a helpful or productive framing to state that a name that exists doesn't exist. when I had already expressed intention not to remove the official designation but to mantain it with the parentheses. Totally open to noting it is Moldovan in the latin alphabet, except "Moldovan" is persecuted in Transnistria when taught in the Latin alphabet [11] [12] [13]. Super Ψ Dro 13:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me to click around articles when I can see the category? I am familiar with Moldovan and its various court cases, and the situation at hand. I stated before you have never explained your opposition to Serbo-Croatian, and the not being official in Moldova doesn't explain that. Your continued use of odd phrases like "supposed language" seems a continuous distortion of the situation at hand. "Moldovenist view" was something you said. CMD (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you. It is very clear I asked you to click around articles so that you can see "Moldovan" is not used throughout Wikipedia. You had already accussed me of linking "to various other stuff to support your view". I am not "opposed" to Serbo-Croatian. I am not distorsing anything, there is not a Moldovan language, it is Romanian, and academia and our own practices in the website reflect this. Why exactly are you defending a problematic version inserted by an IP [14]? You had been watching the article before and had not involved yourself in this topic. I have proposed several outcomes to leave this dispute, I could right now propose to restore the edit before the IP's, but I have a feel you will come back with another message saying you haven't understood me. And all of this while a different part of the infobox potrays the version I am defending. I don't understand your stance. Super Ψ Dro 17:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chipmunkdavis, I have restored the version that existed before the two disputed versions you or I defended. I then also removed {{lang|ro|}} from the text in Moldovan Cyrillic. I believe this is the best solution and recommend to maintain the current state. I've pinged you, however, so that you're notified of this and can express your disagrement if necessary. Super Ψ Dro 23:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What should be done is to put a footnote, at the language name and perhaps also next to the official name, explaining that "Moldovan" "is one of the two local names for the Romanian language", which actually explains to readers what you want to say without hiding it behind obscure parentheses that the reader has to click through to figure out the meaning of. CMD (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note. Super Ψ Dro 13:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust it so it doesn't continue to beg the question, as language here has done. CMD (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked in this edit summary does not support the summary. It states that there are 6-8 schools teaching Romanian using the latin alphabet, reaching somewhere below 15% of students. Even if they didn't, "always" is a very strong claim. CMD (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[15]: It is convenient at this point to recall the central facts of the case. The applicants are children and parents from the Moldovan community in Transdniestria who complain about the effects on their and their children’s education and family lives brought about by the language policy of the separatist authorities. The core of their complaints relate to actions taken by the “MRT” authorities in 2002 and 2004, to enforce decisions adopted some years previously, forbidding the use of the Latin alphabet in schools and requiring all schools to register and start using an “MRT”-approved curriculum and the Cyrillic script. Thus, on 22 August 2002 “MRT” police forcibly evicted the pupils and teachers from the Ştefan cel Mare School in Grigoriopol. The school was not allowed to reopen in the same building and subsequently transferred to premises some 20 kilometres away, in Moldovan-controlled territory. The children and staff were evicted from the Evrica School in Rîbniţa in July 2004. The same month, the Alexandru cel Bun School in Tighina was threatened with closure and disconnected from electricity and water supplies. Both schools were required to move to less convenient and less well equipped premises in their home towns at the start of the following academic year. Super Ψ Dro 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the article linked in the edit summary. It also doesn't support the edit summary, while leaving out "At the date of adoption of the admissibility decision, there remained only six schools in Transdniestria using the Moldovan/Romanian language and the Latin script", which seems to be what the linked article says. CMD (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• NB Moldovan language and Romanian language are considered by the Tiraspol authorities (certainly I have not often heard Moldovenists in general put forward this view) to be purely script-based designators. The arguments put forward for using Cyrillic script largely boil down to the ease of writing Russian loanwords, and the "Eurasian axis" upon which the Moldovans are assumed to sit. All the best, I hope this can be worked out amicably. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]