Talk:Supreme Council (Transnistria)

Don't move an article by copying & pasting. Try Requested moves. bogdan 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks, - Mauco 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They have an English language website now. Please see http://www.vspmr.org/?Part=5&Lang=Eng - They refer to themselves under two names: "Supreme Council of Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic" seems to be the most prominent. In the text, they also call themselves "Parliament of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic." The phrase "Supreme Soviet" is not used anywhere in English. - Mauco 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The official name is Soviet. When they will change the law and rename "parliament", then we will change in Wikipedia, explaining also different names during time.--MariusM 11:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. You did not see the source: http://www.vspmr.org/?Part=5&Lang=Eng and this is an OFFICIAL source. "Soviet" is merely a Russian word. It means "Council" and it is being translated correctly. In English Wikipedia, we use English words. This is even true for names. The opposite is considered vandalism. See for an example. The previous article was in error, and I fixed it. More importantly, I fixed it with an official source. We have rules here that 1) English words have preference over foreign words, and 2) Official names should be used whenever possible. In this case, BOTH of these conditions are met. Please do not change it back to the old, wrong version. - Mauco 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. "Soviet", meaning "council" should be translated as such.  Only in relation to the Soviet Union should the word not be translated, since the untranslated word immediately brings up images of the Soviet Union, images which are inappropriate here. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's consensus?
Where's consensus on moving this here? Parliament of Moldova, for instance, isn't called 'Parlamentul Moldova' on Wikipedia. Alaexis 20:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Official name is "Transnistrian Supreme Soviet", in Russian also is used the name "Soviet", this was the original name of the article, but it was moved without consensus by sockpuppeteer William Mauco.--MariusM 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Совет' should be translated as 'Council' then. Alaexis 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Совет' is Soviet EvilAlex 20:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. See Webster's dictionary - . Alaexis 07:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case lets rename the 'советский союз' - soviet union into council union. EvilAlex 12:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Ozgoodelawyer's arguments about the translation of the word "совет". Alaexis 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see translation for 'верховный совет' - 'supreme soviet'. Your own link at Webster's dictionary. EvilAlex 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you clicked on that link you'd find that the Supreme Soviet (Verhovniy Sovet, literally the "Supreme Council") comprised the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union and the only one with the power to pass constitutional amendments. No other meanings are given. Alaexis 21:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transnistrian separatism started in the time when Soviet union still existed, ands was fueled by forces which were against the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They named "Soviet" their self-declared parliament to show their allegiance to Soviet Union. Soviet Union dissappeared (one of biggest tragedy of the century, to quote Putin, I don't have refferences) but the leader of Transnistria is the same - Igor Smirnov. Nothing changed in Transnistria, no reason to change the name in English of the "legislative body", while it never changed in Russian or Moldovan.--MariusM 21:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it your original research? Alaexis 10:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Alaexis and Ozgoodelawyer here. There's no reason not to translate "совет" as "council", as that's what the normal translation of the Russian word is outside the technical meaning of "soviets" in the Soviet Union. Whatever this thing here is, it is not technically a "soviet" in the sense of the communist system of the Soviet Union. And I've seen no evidence adduced by the supporters of "soviet" that the subject of this article is commonly referred to as such in English outside Wikipedia. The insistence on "Soviet" here is transparently motivated by a POV desire to attach negative connotations to the title. Guys, I can understand how you don't particularly like that entity, but that's not how we decide about names here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was created in January 2006 with current name (Transnistrian Supreme Soviet) and remained with that name one year, without anybody expressing disaproval about this name. We can translate "sovet" from Russian both as "soviet" or as "council", however, the entity we are talking about appeared when Soviet Union still existed, and at that time everybody translate it as "soviet". It never changed its name, contrary with what happened in Russia, where parliament was renamed "Duma". If Transnistrian authorities never renamed it (in Russian or Moldovan, official languages of the region) why should we rename it in English? In "Moldovan language", authorities purposely refused to rename it, they want to show one more difference between so-called "Moldovan language" (where the word "soviet" is used) and Romanian (where is used the word "parlament", same word being used in Chişinău, while authorities of Moldova are not yet sure if Moldovan language is or not same with Romanian). If Transnistrian authorities will change the official name in the Moldovan variant in "parlament" I would agree to change the English translation. As long as they are using "soviet" not only in Russian but also in "Moldovan", the translation "soviet" is best. BTW, I don't think the conection between Transnistria and Soviet Union is artificial and POV-ish. To quote Russian politician Viktor Alksnis, member of Rodina pro-Putin party, Transnistria is the base from which the Soviet Union's restoration would begin (John Mackinlay and Peter Cross (editors), Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, United Nations University Press, 2003, ISBN 92-808-1079-0 p. 137). Not being the dreams of Soviet Union's restoration, no Transnistrian problem would exist. For Russia, Transnistria has a value not in itself (only 1% of ethnic Russians living outside Russia are in Transnistria), but as a base of a larger geopolitical game aimed to restore, at least partially, the Soviet Union. Is accurate to link Transnistrian regime with Soviet Union. I am not claiming that restoration of Soviet Union is something bad (this would be POV), I am just telling the truth: leaders of Transnistrian regime were against the dissolution of Soviet Union, they organised referendum for keeping the Soviet Union when authorities in Chişinău refused to organised it, they loved Soviet Union, this was their country, they suffered when they lost it. Why you don't understand this, why are you so insensitive at the feelings of those people?--MariusM 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Examples of recent usage of word "Soviet" regarding Transnistria in English language: Eurasia Daily Monitor 17 May 2005, Global policy Forum 2 February 2007, Eurasian Home Analythical Resource not dated article but with refferences on December 2005 events, it should be from 2006, Moldova Fundation 6 March 2006, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 2005, Civic Media 24 January 2007 Kosmopolit 17 april 2007 and don't forget Wikipedia in the entire year 2006.--MariusM 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good grief, why do you guys on this page -- all of you! -- have to absolutely bloody accompany every single little issue with useless rants about what opinions you or I or somebody have about Transnistria? I am "insensitive about the feelings of those people"? What the bloody fuck has that to do with anything??? -- But now at least you are quoting usage in English. That's progress. That's what all of you ought to have been doing for four months now, since this topic came up. Go on like that, and you might actually work out which usage is more common in reputable neutral sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Council not Soviet
The actual name is Council as stated on the official website. The English Word soviet and the Russian word совет are not equivalent. Sotnik (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The English word soviet is a transliteration of the Russia word совет, no? PetersV     TALK 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration of the Russian name
The current transliteration—Verkhovny Soviet Pridniestrovskoy Moldavskoy Respubliki—is not correct, as all common translit systems use “e” for the Russian “е” in these positons, see Romanization of Russian. (Moreover, it's also inconsistent because the last word (Республики) uses “e” in the transliteration.) --Glebchik (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the BGN version (e.g., Sovyet) would be more applicable to EN WP as that promotes more accurate pronunciation if you prefer to go by transliteration and not historical usage. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK


 * Е is transliterated in BGN as ye only in cases where there is indeed the glide /j/, most often after vowels and word-initially (see BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian), this is not the case. If Russian е follows a consonant we don't actually get /j/ (the preceding consonant just becomes palatalised), so it's doubtful whether ye would provide much more accurate pronunciation in that position. If you're interested, here's the IPA transcription: /vʲɪrˈxovnᵻj sɐˈvʲet prʲɪdnʲɪˈstrofskəj mɐɫˈdafskəj rʲɪˈspublʲɪkʲɪ/. --Glebchik (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)