Talk:Political status of Transnistria

Merger proposal
I propose merging Political status of Transnistria into Transnistria conflict. I think the content in Political status of Transnistria can easily be explained in the context of Transnistria conflict, and a merger would not cause any article-size problems in Transnistria conflict. In other similar cases, there is one article - Crimean problem, Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, Georgian–Ossetian conflict, Cyprus dispute. There are also a big overlap with International recognition of Transnistria and Transnistria War, but articles are perhaps best kept separate. Somerby (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is possible. As the creator of this article I don't oppose it for now, but I see you're new to Wikipedia, so I advise you to wait until a substantial number of users have stated their opinion too and not merge both articles if noone has said anything in a few weeks. Merge proposals are slow processes, which may be ignored for months or even years. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably a merger should go the other way, given this page is newer and shorter. The name can be changed through an RM if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CMD, no problem. I did not know the rule. Then first merge into Political status of Transnistria and then move to Transnistria conflict. --Somerby (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear oppose. "Transnistria conflict" is a well-defined conflict whose name is used by several sources and notable institutions      (document from OSCE)  (page of the Moldovan Presidency)  (also from the Moldovan Presidency, more recent and in Romanian)  (European Parliament) . Even if not under the name "Transnistria conflict" (but under Moldova-Transnistria conflict for example), we still have sources referring to this event as a specific and concrete conflict   (State Duma of Russia). We need a precise concept in Wikipedia that can cover everything related to what's going and has been going on between Moldova and Transnistria, both before the Transnistria War (identity, language laws, first separatist organizations in Transnistria, etc.) and after it (2006 Transnistrian customs crisis, 2012 Moldova security zone incident, resolution attempts, etc.), and put it together. A page titled Political status of Transnistria can perfectly cover resolution attempts, but the 2012 Moldova security zone incident wouldn't fit as much. Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh for example only covers diplomacy, not incidents like these (and I imagine we all know Nagorno-Karabakh does have lots of them, so it isn't because there are no incidents to cover). It is better that a concrete concept cover all of this instead of something more abstract like Political status of Transnistria.  Super   Ψ   Dro  08:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Super Dromaeosaurus, I agree with you, but as CMD told me, we should first merge the articles and then to move the page to Transnistria conflict. I think that everyone agree that Transnistria conflict is better title than Political status of Transnistria. --Somerby (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand. I am okay with that, as long as there's an article titled Transnistria conflict in Wikipedia. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed, but doesn’t it make sense to first merge International recognition of Transnistria into Political status of Transnistria, because the former is merely a major aspect of the latter? —Michael Z. 13:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We either merge International recognition of Transnistria to Political status of Transnistria, which would give the latter more notability (as it would now be the article covering the international recognition of it) or merge Political status of Transnistria into Transnistria conflict (or viceversa and later a rename, same thing). But I doubt all three should be merged. Other European unrecognized states have at least two other articles about these things (see Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhaz–Georgian conflict and Georgian–Ossetian conflict and International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). I believe we should do it as it was done with Abkhazia and South Ossetia as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been way more violent in comparison, so its page is more focused in military and people (displacements, massacres, etc.), which makes a separate page on politics and diplomacy more plausible. The Transnistria conflict in the other hand (and the Abkhaz and Ossetian ones to an extent) are more peaceful and their pages more politics and diplomacy focused, so an article about the political status of these regions might make less sense. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

POV wording
Re this edit, I believe that we should use neutral rather than loaded terms. It's irrelevant from the policy point of view that one side is recognised and the other isn't. Transnistria considers Bender to be inside its jurisdiction btw so by your logic it can't occupy it. Alaexis¿question? 19:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to change it. To say that Transnistria occupied Tighina is accurate, it isn't within the Transnistrian Autonomous Territorial Unit. Furthermore, Transnistria is not internationally recognized, this including Transnistrian rule of the city. What Transnistria thinks of itself is irrelevant when it lacks international recognition. A similar case of this situation in Wikipedia is in the article Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh (this title being decided in a RM). These lands are (or were) outside the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, just like Tighina is outside the Transnistrian ATU. It would be weird to say Transnistria/Artsakh occupied Tiraspol/Stepanakert, but it makes more sense to say they occupied Tighina/Lachin. A province cannot occupy itself but it can occupy territories adjacent to it. This is the terminology that Wikipedia uses for Nagorno-Karabakh, and I don't see why it wouldn't be used for Transnistria. It would be different if Transnistria was a widely recognized state such as Kosovo. No article on Wikipedia says Kosovo has occupied anything of the land it considers its. But this is not the case. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alaexis that it reads oddly. The Nagorno-Karabakh situation is WP:POVTITLE, but what is being dealt with here is article content. Having two sentences next to each other use different words is not going to help the average reader. Regarding international recognition, that equally applies to the entirety of the area under Transnistrian control, not just Bender. CMD (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the title for the Nagorno-Karabakh article is POV. It seems as the most accurate title we could get. I also don't see how this could pose any problem to the readers. But I guess we could use another word. How about "takeover"? We need to use a word that implies that Tighina was not of Transnistria before the war. This does not apply with Moldova, since all of Transnistria was directly controlled by it before the conflict. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no Transnistria before the war. The conflict started when Moldavian SSR was still part of USSR and there was no such entity as Transnistria. Transnistria emerged as a result of this conflict. From the Moldovan point of view PMR control of Tiraspol and Bender is equally illegitimate and from the PMR pov it's equally legitimate. The word "control" makes the situation clear for the reader. Alaexis¿question? 11:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the Transnistrian autonomous territorial unit existed before the Transnistria War (or at least before 1992, when Tighina was taken). Now that I know this, I've rewritten the infobox. It should all be good now. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Alaexis¿question? 13:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)