| Revision as of 14:42, 23 March 2007 editPernambuco (talk | contribs)1,533 edits →Dragalina cemetery← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:44, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,310,272 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 4 page: Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states, and disputed regions.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|search=y}} | |||
| {{controversial3}} | |||
| {{FAQ|page=Talk:Transnistria/FAQ|collapsed=no}} | |||
| {{Off topic warning}} | |||
| {{Controversial-issues}} | |||
| {{todo}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| {{On this day|date1=2009-09-02|oldid1=311523911|date2=2010-09-02|oldid2=382530048|date3=2014-09-02|oldid3=623787504|date4=2015-09-02|oldid4=678726893}} | |||
| |- | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| !align="left" colspan="2"|]<br>] | |||
| {{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=mid}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{WikiProject Moldova|importance=top}} | |||
| |- | |||
| {{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|hist=yes|pol=yes}} | |||
| | | |||
| {{WikiProject Countries}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{WikiProject International relations|importance=High}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{WikiProject Limited recognition|importance=High}} | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{Press|url=https://aux.avclub.com/this-soviet-breakaway-republic-never-fully-broke-away-1844486137|title=This Soviet breakaway republic never fully broke away|author=Mike Vago|org=]|date=26 July 2020}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| *] | |||
| | algo = old(90d) | |||
| *] | |||
| | archive = Talk:Transnistria/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| *] | |||
| | counter = 22 | |||
| *] | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| *] | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| *] | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| *] | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Annual readership}} | |||
| {{Old move|date1=15 December 2021|destination1=Pridnestrovie|result1=not moved|link1=Special:Permalink/1061471607#Requested move 15 December 2021|date2=10 September 2024|destination2=Pridnestrovie|result2=not moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1245797182#Requested move 10 September 2024}} | |||
| == Possibly incorrect water percentage? == | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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? ] (]) 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==New Changes== | |||
| can somebody explain why is alaexis keep undo my posting on the mainpage? if there is no link about investigative stories about Transnistria, why was my post deleted? I understand that a russian doesen't want critical posts about transdniester but this wkipedia section is for international use - is not even the russian version of wikipedia. | |||
| : You should've noted that not only I have reverted your contributions. They are highly pov imo, besides in wikipedia you don't just put links in the article and say that all the interesting info is there. ] 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The source of this seems to be ]? ] (]) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| define "pov imo" . they are journalistic articles. so, please be so kind and tell me where to post links to an interesting serie of investigative stories on transdnniester. done on the field by journalists living in the area. could you give me similar examples to those articles, russian boy? or could you give me an example of a similar investigation into transdniester? | |||
| :It should also be noted that this person gave no other source than "their own research." ] (]) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : It isnt nice to call someone "Russian boy", the editor has a name, you can use that if you want to address him directly, but he is right, you should read about wiki-pedias rules for links, they are here: ] ] 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, that definitely fails ] and ]. Removed. –] (]]) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where does the total area figure come from? –] (]]) 00:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems to show up constantly so I'm unsure of the actual source, but it is stated to be 4,163 km2 which seems to be an official Transnistria page? There were other official looking pages that stated them number. ] (]) 01:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ''Atlas of the Dniester Moldavian Republic'' (2000?) which is available (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. ] (]) 08:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Should the name of this article be changed? == | |||
| :: Please refrain from personal attacks in future. If these links deserve to be put in the article (which I doubt) they should go to the 'External Links: Romanian Sources' section. Regards. ] 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Congratulation Mauco== | |||
| Please join me on congratulation to Mauco for his new article on http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/670 | |||
| Viva Highland!!! ] 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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/ ] (]) 18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mark Almond on Weapons == | |||
| :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. ] (]) 20:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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.] (]) 20:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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.] (]) 05:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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" ] (]) 12:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In his article via link 54 it says "...Despite admitting that Iraqi WMD in 2003 were an invention of febrile conspiracy theorists in the US government and their willing propagandists,". Who admitted to this, I don't recall that happening and it doesn't say in the article? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| :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. ] (]) 08:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recognition== | |||
| I believe that if a sovereign country exists and functions independently and possesses all the modern virtues of a state,it is not right to just say that such a country does not exist. In the time before the middle ages, a country would be proclaimed and be sovereign and it would not need any "recognition" by another country, so Transnistria is in fact a sovereign, independent nation, only not recognised because of politics. | |||
| I also believe that if a region or a people of a region wish to become independent,then independence is a fundamental right of their and no one can surpress this in any way. | |||
| ] 17:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This has been discussed to death. It could be changed if English-language sources, as we're in English Misplaced Pages, started employing "Pridnestrovie" more often than "Transnistria", per the policy ]. It is this policy that allows ] not to be titled "Tighina". But we're far from it right now . It is hard to imagine that this change in sources will come anytime soon due to the current geopolitics of the region. ] ] ] 10:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: In the time before the middle ages the notion of sovereignty did not exist. Sovereignty, as it exists today, is a modern concept. ] 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: 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 "]", 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 "]" 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. ] (]) 22:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Transnistria is not sovereign. The PMR has de facto control. That's what it is. There is no such thing as "de facto sovereign." And please explain to me how the PMR is an expression of the people of the region when the authorities record who voted and for whom and the authority in place is supported by the presence of Russian troops.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::We use the common names so as to not take sides. ] are not the guiding principle for naming. Looks like the name law is covered in the Toponymy section. ] (]) 02:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 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 Misplaced Pages and has no connection to reality. This is purely an element of political bias promoted by certain vested interests. ] (]) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I have summarized a little of what the esteemed Wikipedians have said above and composed a renaming request based on the facts provided. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this procedure. ] (]) 11:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Well, in the middle ages they used to burn people for being witches and claim countries by going to live there and building castles and telling everyone else to get lost... things have moved on a bit since then, in most parts of the world at least. I do agree though that if a country and its people want to be independent, and are running their system independently, then what other countries think shouldn't really matter too much. The only thing is that lots of people have doubts about the people controlling Transnistria, their motives, and how many people are just ] for fear of gaining difavour from their superiors, govererners and police etc. In out modern world of mass media, air travel and the ] a lot of the more developed countries like to care (some may say, stick their noses in) about the affairs of other, lesser developed countries. ] 09:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move 10 September 2024 == | |||
| :: BTW: nobody has doubts about who's ruling Transnistria. It's Russia. But Russia is a great country, and few governments dare criticize it on such a minor subject as Transnistria. ] 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' | |||
| The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: As long as Russian troops continue their presence, nothing in Transnistria can be objectively represented as the will of the people.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :::: Come on, get real. There is a multilateral peacekeeping force. It is not just Russian. Troops are also supplied by Moldova, Transnistria and Ukraine. And the ] participates in the management of this peacekeeping force. If Moldova hadn't attacked with MIGs, ] residential neighborhoods, none of this would have been necessary and the international troops would most likely have left a long time ago. - ] 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Vecrumba's probably referring to the 14th army and Socor's articles. I understand that the MiGs were used only about once or twice with minimal results (bombs missed and fell into the Dniester). --] 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Mauco, you misread my intent. '''As long as Russian troops remain'''... is exactly what I meant. I was not referring to any aspect of multilateralism. I meant Russian troops (and all related Russian presence) in particular. And you "get real" about troops otherwise leaving "a long time ago." <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Could you perhaps elaborate how exactly do the ~1500 Russian troops strangle the free will of the people? A link to the corresponding Socor's (I'd wager) article will do. --] 11:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I've been itching to ask the same thing for a while, but I restrained myself. Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use this page as a discussion forum. Vecrumba is from the Baltics where, for better or worse, they here a very special phobia involving Russians in uniform. His comments are par for the course for Baltic political discourse, but they are rarely shared with the same level of zeal by non-Balts. - ] 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Intro change == | |||
| I think I haven't added anything new with this changes. Does anyone disagree that Transnistria is a republic? If it's not DFI it must be de-facto part of some other country and it has to be proven. ] 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : What was the change? Maybe I missed it or someone else reverted you? To answer your question: Transnistria is de-facto like an independent republic but it is part of Moldova in the eyes of the international system. It is not clear from the introduction but that is actually the current situation. ] 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I was indeed reverted but I'm going to change it back in a few minutes. The only change is 'breakaway territory'->'de-facto independent republic'. The words 'within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Eastern Europe' remain and make it clear for anyone that Transnistria is considered part of Moldova by other countries and international organisations. The wording proposed by me is kind of unofficial standard on wikipedia - it has been adopted for almost all other unrecognised states. ] 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::"de-facto independent republic" is a ] how about "under de-facto military occupation". Pleace read ] ] 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I disagree that "de-facto independent republic" is POV. Look at the ] article. It's written there that: | |||
| :::: | |||
| ''A de facto government is one that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.'' | |||
| ::::ps. This definition is taken from the Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504. ] 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is a disagreement whether Transnistrai is an independent republic. Transnistria curently is under de-facto military control of Russian 14-th army. Vast majority of transnistrian government officials are not native born transnistrians. Smirnov itself was born in Kamchatka. If you insist on including your POV in the main article then everyone should be able to include their opinion too. ] 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: <s>Do you have statistics about the birthplaces of Transnistrian officials?</s> ], the speaker, was born in Rybnitsa, for example. Anyway the fact that Igor Smirnov was born in Kamchatka does not prove that Transnistria is ruled by Russia.] 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I've found these statistics in the ] article. It's a bit weird but it's not a direct proof of total Russian control over Transnistria. After all only 9 of 43 mps were born in Russia. Most of those who were born outside of Transnistria moved there dozens of years before the war as a result of the industrialisation of Transnistria. Some were born in the areas of Ukraine adjacent to Moldova (like Chernovtsy or western Odessa region) so it's no wonder they came to Transnistria. ] 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::who cares if you are Russian who was born in Eastern occupied Germany or in Kazakhstan and then migrated to Transnistria. What i am saying is that i seriously dough that Transnistria is a Independent Republic. When natives will be represented in the government only the i will belive. Only 15%+ of government officials where born in Transnistria. All others are emigrants, the nation have been ruled by forefingers. Look at Smirnov and sons, litskai... ] 17:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: no, it is more than 15%. Even so, would you say that the governor of California is a representative of an occupying force because he was born in Europe, and not in the USA? Get real. These people were elected. If Moldova won't recognize the election, that is Moldova's problem. They are recognized by the people who live there, and that is what matters. Anyone is free to vote for whom they want. - ] 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::There is a huge difference between California and Transnistria: In California people are free to choose their leaders. In Transnistrian people are ruled by dictator for 15 years now. ] 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Besides, lots of these folks came to Transnistria when they were kids. It strains credibility to think that Moscow would send two-year olds to Tiraspol twenty years in advance of a planned takeover, in order to maintain control of Moldova. Oops, I take that back: Historically, Transnistria was never part of Moldova. But it was populated by ], and it part of ], more than a thousand years ago. And it has been a formal part of the Russian empire since 1792. Compare this to Moldova: A traditional part of Romania. The Dniester river was the border. - ] 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: As for the definition of de facto, it fits. The question now is: Can anyone document how Transnistria is NOT a de facto independent republic within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova? - ] 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Simple: Government officials does not represent the nativ population. that is the formula for occupation. ] 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: No. They are recognized by the population as valid, legal representatives of the will of the people. If you do not want to agree that Transnistria is a de facto independent republic within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova, then you must state how this is not so. Document with reputable sources, please. - ] 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The facts says the opposite: Not a single country recognize Transnistria as an independent country. The reality is quiet opposite: many countries (including Russia) stated that they recognize territorial integrity of Moldova. ] 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I support the intro change, but it wouldve been better if Mauco and Vecrumba could tell is they agree too, well Mauco said yes, what does Vecrumbas say? the reason I ask is because these two made the original compromise, but of course I can see that the compromise already has been forgotten, because the compromise between them did never include the word 'breakaway' and it also had the word 'officially', and that word is left now, so maybe it doesnt matter and we just need to forget about the compromise and instead put in the article what is the best and most accurate description. Like I said, I support the intro change, it is the same way all the other unrecognized countries have it in the articles ] 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, the original compromise proposal broke down a long time ago and Vecrumba never did much to defend it. Go ahead and use the factually accurate Aalexis version instead. - ] 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No i dont support the intro changes. ] 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: When you reverted the article you've also reverted the valid changes Ştefan44 had made. Besides you haven't answered to the arguments raised on the talkpage. ] 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I dont see arguments i see POV. There is no agreement on removing this line:'''Its independence has not been recognized, and its legal status continues to be an issue of contention.''' ] 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: This line is still in the article. It has never been removed, and nor should it. However, you are trying to remove nearly a whole month worth of work by a dozen other editors without any prior discussion here in Talk. Please don't do this, EvilAlex. - ] 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We had an agreement: between '''region, territory, state, republic''',... we choose territory. Now you try to change it. Be a man of your word, stick to the previously achieved agreement.] 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: As part of a much larger compromise on the intro, which we all know is no longer observed by anyone anymore.<br> | |||
| :::::::: Short reality check:<br> | |||
| :::::::: In early 2006, TSO1D and I developed a convention on the naming issue, starting with the following words:<br> | |||
| :::::::: * "'''Transnistria''', officially '''Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR''' (short form: '''Pridnestrovie'''), is ..." | |||
| :::::::: This was respected for most of the year, until MariusM / EvilAlex / others objected.<br> | |||
| :::::::: In late 2006, Vecrumba and I instead developed an alternative compromise, starting with these words:<br> | |||
| :::::::: * "'''Transnistria''' (officially '''Pridnestrovie''', per the PMR constitution) is ..."<br> | |||
| :::::::: If no one can even respect something as basic as conceding that Transnistria officially calls itself Pridnestrovie in its own constitution, we had better start off from scratch. In doing so, it is admirable that several other editors (including Alaexis and Stefan44 who is not pro-Transnistria) looked to other Misplaced Pages articles to find out how these issues are dealt with. Meanwhile, it is clear that "the previously achieved agreement" is only invoked by EvilAlex when it suits his own purposes. - ] 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I haven't agreed to anything with you guys :). De facto independence has nothing to do with formal recognition by other states. ] 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Dear Alaexis, we are not here to make make new states and republics. We are here to write the chronology of the history. ] 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I think that EvilAlex was referring to me with his "be a man of your word" comment. However, as I just pointed out, the so called "previously achieved agreement" that he refers to (which you weren't part of) is no longer in force and should not be a barrier to factual accuracy in Misplaced Pages. If he wants to invoke it, the first thing he could do is to start the article with the words "'''Transnistria''', officially '''Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR''' (short form: '''Pridnestrovie'''), is" ... but somehow I think he won't do that. - ] 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Maco is a lier. Shame on you. How easily you withdrew your words and promises. ] 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: This is abusive behavior, besides being wholly incorrect. It would be more credible if supported by DIFFs. - ] 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits by EvilAlex == | |||
| Did anyone see what EvilAlex did today, he showed up and undid a whole month of work, and it is something like 25 reverts on the page, does anyone mind if I restore the page to the normal version? This is similar to the bonaparte-person, why can these people not propose their changes and discuss them first???? ] 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Someone else apparently already restored to the pre-EvilAlex version, but if EvilAlex insists, just go ahead and restore the page again. Meanwhile, he will be blocked for 3RR. He was warned (twice) but decided to ignore it. He never discussed any of his changes here, or sought consensus in any way, shape or form. - ] 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: While I'm not exactly a great fan of Alex' work, a few of his (reverted) changes were actually valid, if made in a rather aggressive way. For example, did ''some EU countries'' really send ''humanitarian aid'' to Transnistria? And if yes, then what countries? I am only aware of the aid that came from Russia. --] 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: yes i agree but in that case why dont he ask about it, for instance check with the person who introduced it (not me), or put a fact-tagging request, and then if there is no source for it, delete it later as unsourced ] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree with Illythr. The fact that EvilAlex reverts idiocies in a blunt manner does not mean he is not entitled to do it. I am sincerely happy he is here, because I don't have the time myself to undo all the pro-Transnistrean propaganda of some of you, guys. It's disgusting, frankly. ] 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Fighting fire with fire, eh? Unfortunately, if Alex keeps doing this in such a way, he'll discredit his cause just as Mark Street did his own. --] 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| EvilAlex was blocked only because he tried to show you the factual errors in article. That is what i call '''injustice'''. -- 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I hope you used and open proxy for this one. Circumventing a block is a punishable endeavour. Anyhow, I think that presenting your issues with the text on the talk page instead of constantly reverting to your preferred version would've been a much better idea. --] 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == POV == | |||
| I added a POV tag. The article does not follows wikipedian guidance on ]. <br> | |||
| Here is my proposal to make it neutral: . | |||
| ] 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Taking a quick glance at it, it actually looks even more POV. For starters, you open with the words "breakaway territory". None of the other ] are described this way in their respective Misplaced Pages articles. Shouldn't the Transnistria article follow the NPOV standards used in the rest of Misplaced Pages? - ] 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: we could change that to:<br>Pridnestrovie) '''is a region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova '''in Eastern Europe. <br>How is that? ] 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The last version could be applied to, say, Gagauzia, as it's a '''region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova ''' without any doubt. The important thing is that Moldova has no control over this territory currently and that it (Transnistria) considers itself to be independent. This should be reflected in the first sentence of the intro imho. ] 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We already have that line:<br>'''Transnistria''' declared itself a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on 1990-09-02 (as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) and subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 '''has exercised de facto control''' over most of the Transnistria region<br>] 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I fear that EvilAlex may be missing the point: The current intro is simply standardization to match how other unrecognized countries are dealt with in their respective Misplaced Pages articles. Alaexis said as much in his edit summary when he first introduced the change. See the logs. - ] 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There is a disagreement whether Transnistria is an independent republic or under the foreign military occupation. We simply cannot call it a country or independent republic. we can call it a region, territory, whatever.. ] 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Correct, Alaexis. Insofar as the same phrasing is used on other Misplaced Pages articles dealing with unrecognized countries, I fail to see how it can be POV to do the same (not more, not less) when it comes to Transnistria. There is nothing wrong with EvilAlex adding a POV tag in good faith, providing he does not do so to be disruptive and is in fact willing to discuss his concerns in order to make the article better. - ] 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Temporary protection== | |||
| Temp protection has been applied to stop edit war, expiry 48 hours, at 0200 UTC 6 March 2007. You can still edit this talk page.] 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Sounds good to me. I personally have an issue with the graveyard information, which I find poorly sourced, from one side only, and thus biased. It frankly does not reflect reality, based on my knowledge of the nearly one year development of the events related to this Bender cemetery. But I will look for more sources before I bring it up here. I believe the issue of international relations (and lack thereof) ought to be covered with three or four sentences. I will propose them here to get feedback from others before they are incorporated into the article. I also support TSO1D's desire for a copy edit, but none of that is urgent. I can't see how an edit war could develop as long as others remember that deep reverts, such as the serial attacks by EvilAlex blanking and overwriting the past 100+ edits, should not be done without prior discussion and a semblance of consensus. - ] 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is what could happened if Maucos dirty hands get hold on Transnistrian page. The article now reflects the Maucos personal views. Wikipedian policies? What Wikipedian policies? Mauco has truly showed his intention to continue long lasting tradition of a true Soviet NKVD followers to: disrupt, to lie and to deceive ordinary readers in order to enforce his ideology on entire Wiki community. '''Bravo comrade Mauco! Bravo!''' ] 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I am not inclined to respond to ''ad hominem argumentum ad personam'' by EvilAlex or anyone else. Most of my edits to the page this year have been very minor. And unlike EvilAlex et al, I usually discuss major changes first. If there is anything factually incorrect in the article, it should of course be fixed. - ] 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Alex, you're really discrediting yourself with this kind of rhetoric. Drop the personal attacks and stick to the facts, sources and diffs if you want to further your point. --] 14:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK! Peace. ] 14:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Opposition parties or publications banned? == | |||
| '''I propose to change this :''' | |||
| No opposition parties or publications are banned. Political candidates in favor of unification with Moldova are allowed to stand in elections, Tiraspol Times. Dec. 3, 2006. Retrieved ], ] although they rarely achieve more than 5% of the votes from the electorate. Regnum News Agency. Dec 13, 2006. Retrieved ], ] Likewise, unionist political parties Tiraspol Times. Feb. 6, 2007. Retrieved ], ] and newspapers are legally registered and operating freely. (in Russian) | |||
| '''to this:''' | |||
| n November 2006, the Moldovan press reported that the offices of the Rîbniţa district committee of the Communist Party in Transnistria were closed by the local Transnistrian authorities.. The Communist Party of Moldova condemned the act and claims it was closed under false pretenses. | |||
| Some parties and publications were banned. People's Power Party led by Supreme Soviet member ] was banned in May 2001; after an appeal the ban was lifted but was reintroduced in December 2001, again the ban was lifted to be reintroduced in August 2002 and confirmed by the "Supreme Court" in December 2002.. | |||
| "Power to the People" Party led by Nicolae Butchatsky was banned in February 2002 . | |||
| On November 14, 2001, the Transnistrian customs service banned the distribution of the publication "Glas Naroda", as it contained Radchenko's electoral platform. Radchenko said in a press conference that "Glas Naroda" has been published outside Transnistria because all the printing houses had refused to print it after having discussed the issue with representatives of the Ministry of State Security . | |||
| ] 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : The first line correctly summarizes actuality. The proposed replacement does not. Besides being old and outdated, and not relevant to the current political reality of Transnistria today in 2007, the proposed information is one-sided and highly biased. All of this comes from only two sources. Both are pro-government Moldovan. A cursory look reveals that both of them are full of numerous factual errors and highly misleading. Can you find any independent sources that confirm the same? Maybe something oppositionist or from outside Moldova? And, more importantly, why should the article remove a brief, snappy summary of the current status (2007) with a longwinded essay on past misdeeds which have since been corrected? Unless drastically improved to qualify for Misplaced Pages's standards, I for one must reject your suggestion. Sorry. - ] 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So if i understood you correctly: you would like to erase entire Transnistrian history and start from the scratch. In your case the references point to a highly controversial portals as regnum and tiraspoltimes. ] 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, you did not understand me correctly. You misunderstood me. Please read my response again. It states my position and my requests quite clearly. - ] 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well it state that:'''No opposition parties or publications are banned''' where in fact the opposite is happened. This line is a clear POV. You just closed your eyes. "snappy summary of the current status (2007)" - you erased the past. You started from the scratch! That is not the way how wiki should be written. ] 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If it's true there's no reason to ignore the facts listed by EvilAlex. However the references should be to more neutral sources since Moldovan ones are likely to be biased. ] 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'''Lets compare the references''':<br>My references - '''Moldova.org''': Moldova.org is a non-political, non-governmental and non-commercial portal that provides Moldova's and international news. Moldova.org was launched in February 1997 (and sustained by their volunteer efforts through 2003) by Vlad Spânu (then a senior diplomat at the Moldovan embassy in Washington, DC). It became the best and most comprehensive information source about Moldova in English language. In 2003-2006<br>Mauco References - '''tiraspoltimes.com''': Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website.<br>The article, which the site says was "adapted" by a journalist named Michael Garner, appears to support Transdniester's claim to independence.<br>"I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says..<br>Conclusion Refs provided by me are more reliable than Maucos. ] 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I've never written I'm a great fan of Tiraspol Times. It could be useful sometimes but it ceratainly is not an example of ideal objectivity. Nevertheless the references to Moldovan sites (even to non-governmental ones) are not any better. ] 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: There's no need to let the argument get sidetracked. It is not about any particular source (in this case, the Tiraspol Times) but about a very basic question: Are there any banned parties in Transnistria today? The answer is no. Earlier this year, the Social Democratic party was legally registered and its candidates are allowed to stand in any election despite the fact that the party advocates unification with Moldova. Are any publications banned, closed down or prohibited in any way? The answer is no. There is a strong opposition press, some of it even partly funded with money from Chisinau. The opposition has both an online presence and full, legal distributions at newsstands in Tiraspol, Bender and some of the other major cities. - ] 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Great speech! The only things that are missing are references. ] 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Tiraspol Times is only one out of a number of references. It was chosen because it is in English. Dozens of other sources back up the same claims, but most of them are non-English. EvilAlex is arguing that just because something is published in a Transnistria newspaper, it is automatically untrue. I am surprised that I need to say this, but the mere fact that something appears in Tiraspol Times does not mean it is not factually correct. Barring evidence to the contrary, I stand by the following statement of fact: There are no banned publications in Transnistria at this point in time, and no banned political parties. - ] 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reputation is everything! Basic physiology: if someone lied ones - there is a great chance that this will happened again! There is a huge black spot on the face of Tiraspoltimes. Tiraspoltimes is not reliable anymore. ] 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Reality-check: '''There are no banned political parties in Transnistria today and opposition parties are allowed, even parties which advocate unification with Moldova. No publications are banned either, and an active opposition press exists.''' End of story. You are referring to an outdated 2001 incident which was later overturned (twice, no less). And if you introduce factual, non-biased sources you will discover that the situation - even back then - was a lot more nuanced than EvilAlex's proposal makes it out to be. - ] 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wiki should be build on a history brick by brick. Not the way you want - start from the scratch. ] 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You are attributing wrong motives to me. Please focus on the edit, and stop with the ad hominem. May I kindly ask that current, factual and fully sourced information be allowed to stay in the article. Do not remove it, only to overwrite with a long tirade of dubiously sourced, outdated information which no longer presents an accurate picture of the current political reality of Transnistria. - ] 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] may be a better place for this (upd: Oh, it's already there!). I see no reason not to mention a short summary here as well. I mean, a banned party no longer officially exists, so you can't really say that there are any banned parties today. And it doesn't overrule the fact that some of those parties were banned. --] 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Sure, but before this happens, EvilAlex is obliged to provide better sources than the Grecu book. From my own knowledge of the situation, the case always centered on just one single party. It slightly changed its name to circumvent the on-and-off ban (from 2001 to 2002), similar to what Kommersant did in Moldova when it was outlawed and instead became Kommersant Plus. Note also that a banned party can still exist even after a ban: Some Communist Parties were banned in parts of Eastern Europe for some years in the 1990s, but existed illegally as underground parties. In this case, it was much less draconian. The "banned" politicians have been active in politics throughout, with no restraints. One was a full member of parliament until 11 December 2005, when he failed to get enough votes for reelection. He since relaunched his political career with a new come-back initiative, the PMR Social Democratic Party. It is pro-Moldova, is legally registered, and plans to field candidates in the next election. - ] 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re:"EvilAlex is obliged to provide better sources than the Grecu book"<br>All of the sources that have been provided by me - meet Wikipedian standards.<br>Re:"Note also that a banned party can still exist even after a ban"<br>Mauco you are trolling... It is a rubbish you talking now. <br>Re:"From my own knowledge"<br>Bla-bla-bla... We need sources, we need citations. We dont need your fairy tales.<br>] 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Alex, I know it's really hard, but do try to stay civil. You seem to have some success in this, don't give up the effort! | |||
| ::: Grecu's and Ţăranu's research is very POV and includes a lot of weird claims. It's may be a useful source at times, but stating anything in it as fact requires further scrutiny and, preferably, direct attribution. | |||
| ::: A banned party can indeed exist, just not "officially", as I stated before. | |||
| ::: The names of the two parties look pretty much the same indeed... --] 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Grecu's and Ţăranu's research is very POV - could you point their errors? Could you discredit their reputation (the same way as Tom de Waal did to Tiraspoltimes). If not then they are reliable. ] 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: POV is not necessarily ''false''. In this particular case, the report defines its goal quite clearly: to show how abhorrently evil Transnistria is. To that end, it does not employ lies. Instead, it picks up all sources, no matter how questionable, that have (or can be interpreted to have) something bad to say about the region and its authorities. I'm kinda surprised they didn't include your site a source as well. This basically means that information provided in that report should be attributed directly to whoever provided it, otherwise you can just as well state that Al-Quaeda has got training camps in Transnistria and the republic is providing every terrorist group in the world with weapons (page 20). ] I pointed out some more issues with it. --] 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I am not going to respond further to EvilAlex if he can not respect the most basic ]. This, effectively, handicaps him - not any of the rest of us - as it means that he can no longer justify any of his edits by claiming that they were discussed in Talk first. | |||
| :::: But be that as it may. Before EvilAlex introduces the proposed change, more appropriate sourcing and a fuller understanding of the actual events at the time would be required. ] 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Could you please do the same? In particular i would like to see replacements of all Tiraspoltimes references in this article. Lets fallow the steps of your logic and apply it to your sources too, after all i have more prove in unreliability of your references.<br>] 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: For me is looks like this. Its is true that I did something to your mother, like 2-3 years ago, but now I'm a good guy. OK, I did that also 1 year ago...but I'm a good guy now. So, why your mother don't want to come to my party? She's afraid of something? (mother=opposition, guy=smirnov)] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute == | |||
| '''I would like to add some statistic data on "blockade":<br> | |||
| According to the data of Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration , during the two days of the partial border de-blocking by Tiraspol, various companies had managed to import nearly 1,400 tons of chicken meat into the Transnistrian region. And since the beginning of the year, Transnistria has already imported 12,600 tons of foodstuffs, including 9,700 tons of meat, 890 tons of fish, over a thousand tons of sugar, 18 tons of medicines. Despite that in the following months Russia desided to send a humanitarian cargo's "to uphold vital sectors of society". | |||
| <br>] 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : This is my own impression, too. The "economic blockade" argument rings a bit hollow, at least compared to REAL trade blockades and economic sanctions like those imposed on Iraq before the second Gulf War. "Border customs dispute" is a more accurate term, which is what Misplaced Pages quite correctly calls it. At the same time, there is no denying that the move did have an effect on the economy. Exports dropped massively from both Transnistria and Moldova in 2006. (In the case of Transnistria, because of Moldova's and Ukraine's move. In the case of Moldova, because of Russia's retaliation - which of course a direct result of the move). So in retrospect, the March 3, 2006, customs rules didn't do anything good for anyone. To declare a winner here is wholly inappropriate. - ] 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re:"In the case of Transnistria, because of Moldova's and Ukraine's move"<br> This one is a POV. How do you know that the vine embargo on Moldova didnt had the negative impact on Transnistria? ] 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Such POV does not appear in main article space. POV is of course allowed in Talk pages, as you yourself have amply showed us. - ] 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Frankly I don't think that Alex' version is any better than the current one. The latter should stay imho. ] 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Correct, and notwithstanding another somewhat important detail. When Mikkalai (who is not Russian) developed this section, he added a note in the source which is still in place and which includes the following instructions: ''"Please do not expand this section beyond the very basic summary. Edit the "main article" instead"''. - ] 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The article wrongly mislead readers. It used such words as '''"economic blockade"''', '''Ukraine declared''', '''Ukraine imposed'''. falsely misleading reader about the true state of affairs. In reality negotiation on normalization of the border crossing procedures have been discussed a few ears in advance. And Transnistrian government have been fully aware of that. () | |||
| :::::::: The current version is not at all misleading. EvilAlex's summary of it, however, is quite so. To clarify: The article states that ''"Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". "'' Note the scare quotes around "economic blockade" and note that the article correctly attributes this to Transnistria's and Russia's definitition of the event. Misplaced Pages does not call it that, but merely reports, with sources, the term used by these two. This is not misleading in any way, shape or form. As for the use of the words "imposed" and "declared" they are also correct in the context of the article and the events that the article deals with. - ] 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It sound like Ukraine is some kind of aggressor. That is a POV. What is Ukrainians have done to you now? Where is your slav solidarity?. Mauco remember article should be written in NPOV - it should be neutral. We should categorically avoid use of that words. instead of imposed we should say introduced. instead of blockade or rules we could say "border crossing procedures" ] 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: "Rules" (or the equivalent word "regulations", which is the one that appears in the article) is the most neutral word. And as for me, I am not Slav. - ] 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: I agree with Mauco ...he is not a slave. ] 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Kozak memorandum == | |||
| '''I would like to add this line:'''<br> | |||
| On 21 November ] (First Deputy Prime Minister of ]) stated that "as guarantee for an <s>independent</s> intended federation, Russian troops would remain in Transnistria for the next 20 years." Moldavian President ] refused to sign it. | |||
| ] 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Good suggestion. Please spellcheck it and then add it to ] (an article to which the main article already links). ] is merely an overview article and not to be clogged down in minutiae, least of all about a memorandum which never made it past the discussion stage. Remember the golden rule: ''"Summary here, details there."'' - ] 14:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I also think that a detail of Kozak's memorandum (that never got implemented) hardly deserves to be put in the main article. Overall this is quite a minor issue imho. ] 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, I understand that this was presented as one of the main reasons of why Voronin refused to sign it, so it may be worth a mention somewhere. But what is a "guarantee for independent federation"? Sounds weird. --] 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re"Sounds weird." Welcome to realty. ] 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: "Sounds weird" as in "Where did the word "indepedent" come from? Could you provide the source of the quote?" Maybe the original word was "neutral"? | |||
| :::::::sorry misspelled page 109. indepedent -> intended. ] 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I just read the report and it says that it was Transnistria, that demanded the "guarantee", as well as many other interesting details (I liked the the "don't do it" part most :-) ). | |||
| :::::: Based on the report, I'd suggest "''Vladimir Voronin was initially supportive of the plan, but he refused to sign it after Russia had endorsed the Transnistrian demand to maintain a Russian military presence for the next 20 years as a guarantor of the intended federation, as well as due to pressure from the OSCE and US.''" --] 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::we could include this citation in that article too. ] 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Actually, the whole "Secession to the present" section is already longer than it ought to be. At some point in the future, EvilAlex or someone else might want to try to trim it a bit, and then leave the deeper level of detail for the main ] article. - ] 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yeah, but the Kozak Memorandum is the closest they came to a resolution, I think it should therefore be mentioned together with the reasons of why it failed. --] 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: That does make sense. I am not against adding it, but just concerned about the length of the section compared to the others in the History part. But later someone will hopefully find a way to trim the section by doing copy-edit in a way that just removes unneeded words without taking away any of the meaning. I took a look at the current four paragraphs in that section, and they are all good/useful. Removing one or more would do damage to the article, but careful copy-editing could probably shorten it by about a fifth without losing any meaning. - ] 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == International aid == | |||
| There's currently a citation request on the following sentence: | |||
| ''"In the months following the regulations exports from Transnistria nosedived and cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia and some EU countries to uphold vital sectors of society."'' | |||
| From the editsummary by EvilAlex, only the last part seems to be in dispute. I believe we all know that exports nosedived and Russia sent aid, so the issue is if EU countries did the same. | |||
| Even though the edit wasn't mine, I did some research into this and found that it is somewhat true, but only a half-truth. Apart from Russia, aid in the period following the March 3, 2006, was received from OSCE (made up mostly of European countries) and from USA (not a EU country!), as well as from a few individual NGOs in EU countries, most notably Ireland. But here's the rub: An NGO is not a country. Thus, a more correct formulation would be "were sent from Russia and from NGOs in the United States and in the European Union to uphold vital sectors of society." | |||
| There is also some official involvement in the U.S. part of the aid, with the deliveries to Tiraspol having been organized by the U.S. State Department. However, I am not sure how we can include this in the article since I have no source for this information apart from internal State Department documents which are not public and can not be used for Misplaced Pages purposes. In view of ], it might be best to leave out any mention of this until such time it can be better sourced. | |||
| Finally, I also propose removing the words ''"to uphold vital sectors of society."'' While this was indeed the stated reason for much of the Russian aid, such reason is less clear in reference to the aid from OSCE, the USA and the NGOs in Europe. In fact, in the case of the OSCE aid, the purpose had to do with health and with prison conditions, and at least the latter is hardly a "vital sector of society." | |||
| If there are no objections, I would like to make these edits when the article gets unlocked. - ] 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My version:<br>In the following months cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russian Federation. <br>Regarding "aid from OSCE, the USA and the NGOs in Europe" i would like to see references, surely you dont expect me to believe in your words?! ] 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I guess that means that you agree... :-) --] 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I write only the true! Yes cargos from Russia were send but: there wasnt a Ukraine imposed blockade, there wasnt a humanitarian catastrophe. Why did Russia sent this cargos? The answer - lets look at timing. At there same time there was an election in Ukraine and if any of you guys watched Russian TVs then you know that it was a '''show time!'''. ] 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Sources state that the Russian aid was sent in response to the hardship caused by the customs rules. No sources indicate that it had anything to do with "show time". But the "uphold vital sectors" bit should be left out anyway, IMHO. Just to make it clear: I am proposing to modify the disputed sentence to instead read as follows: ''"In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived and cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia and from NGOs in the United States and the European Union."'' | |||
| :::: This will of course be fully sourced. If the sources do not meet Misplaced Pages standards, feel free to point it out so I can either provide more or remove the content thus insufficiently sourced. - ] 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Re:"hardship caused by the customs rules"<br>during the two days of the partial border de-blocking various companies had managed to import nearly 1,400 tons of chicken meat into the Transnistrian region hardship? What hardship? Do you know what is 1,400 tons of chicken meat per small Transnistrian population? Well it approximately 2 kilo per person per day. Do you know what will happened if you will it so much meat? (Pardon me just scientific data) You will have a ].<br>Re:"from NGOs in the United States and the European Union" This one is not good. We need refs to support this statement. <br>] 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Hm, how importing foodstuffs is supposed to show that Transnistrian heavy industry is doing fine? Mauco agrees that "uphold vital sectors" should be removed and I see no "humanitarian catastrophe" in the article either. Although I think that the "humanitarian aid versus PR action" part could be expanded - in the ] --] 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::OK! then following your logic let me ask you the opposite question: How humanitarian aid is supposed to help Transnistrian heavy industry? ] 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Heh, good point. By feeding the workers, I suppose. :-) Then again, maybe they were stockpiling it or something? Anyhow, here are the facts: exports did drop, a humanitarian catastrophe was declared and aid was sent. The Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration qualified this whole event as a planned PR action. --] 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Ah, the great 'Chicken Smuggle of 2006': http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/search/node/frozen+chicken - ] 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Anyway, this was a lot of debate over just one sentence. I am not surprised that other editors are staying out of this one. Anyway, I don't see major opposition to my proposed changing and trimming of the disputed sentence (apart from EvilAlex's request for sources, which of course will be present in mainspace as promised by me and as required by Misplaced Pages). For expansion of the summary, I again remind everyone of Mikkalai's posted request: ''"Please do not expand this section beyond the very basic summary. Edit the "main article" instead".'' - - ] 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re:"from NGOs in the United States and the European Union" - no agreement on this! OK regarding your refs: does not support your statements. Also your refs to TiraspolTimes are questionable too Could you provide alternative references? ] 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The CMI ref is ok. Look . ] 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I dont have anything against CMI. But in this particular case the link doesnt say that because of economic blockade CIM group decided to sand medical aid. No. As i understood it is a Christian group that helps prisoners, children, unfortunates people... it is nothing to do with "blockade". how Mauco wants to present. ] 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: EvilAlex wants to say that because something appears in http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/ it is by definition untrue. He has tried to do the same with references from Olvia Press, and anything else from Transnistria. He is wrong. - ] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Mauco, reputation is everything! tiraspoltimes has damaged reputation. ] 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Not to me. It is the most complete source for updated news from Transnistria which exists in the English language. Your mileage my vary, but I have already done independent factchecking on www.tiraspoltimes.com (including on the item that you keep dragging up). My conclusion is that, while somewhat biased, I find it to be more correct and accurate than the opposite side in the debate. TT often prints articles critical of the PMR government as well. As for your own link, please note that it is produced by an outfit which is funded by the American government and which Misplaced Pages lists under the following two categories: "United States government propaganda organisations" and "CIA front organizations" - ] 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: From my POV tiraspoltimes is just propaganda. Correct and accurate ?????? Can somebody move this paper under "Comic book" category ?? ] 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==weapons trade== | |||
| This section should really be removed. Yes it had its place in a moment of time many years ago. Fears and allegations are no longer enough to support such a section. There are much more important articles such as Russian privatisation of Transnistrian industry and Offical Corruption and Russian political influence.] 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Official corruption? If you have the sources, go ahead and post them. I don't think there is more corruption in Transnistria than in Moldova (or in Ukraine for that matter), yet that word - corruption - is not given much space in either article. ] 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No offence but I can assure you I know quite a lot about this weapons area, When the curtain fell there was wholesale grey market weapons sales much of it went tfrough Ukraine. There was real fears back then that Transnistria was involved and this would cause disruption , not to mention that it would hurt legitimate American arms sales. It is only now we know that the only region that didn't sell weapons was Transnistria, They had a paranoid fear of Moldova and clung onto theor stockpiles like a vice grip. Everything they had , they still have, it seems they wouldn't sell a bullet. . ] 11:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: But it has serious corruption problems, that is a proper issue for the region now ] 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well, one of the administrators a while back suggested that crime should be dealt with in the ] article. That article can have a section on corruption, if the sources merit it. If we then use the same principle that we do for other content, this means that we still ought to have a summary in the main article. Along the lines of: Summary here, details there. - ] 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, get rid of the weapons article because doesn't hold water. The crime section is a bit weak too. However corruption does exist and is a much more serious problem. Also how Russian 'investment depletes Transnistria and how the Transnistrians are being turned to the Russians by outsiders. Look at this {{http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2]]. ] 12:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I against removing weapons trade section. Wiki should be build on a history brick by brick. If you have something new to add be my guest, but erasing it - it the same as to erase history.] 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well I think we understand each other. Do remember Transnistria is a changing place. We all need to change how we view it. What do other editors here think ? ] 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm also against the removal of 'weapons smuggling' section. It's well referenced and relevant. Btw the report on the CRJI site (http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2) is definitely POV imo. We should remember it's a Romanian site. ] 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It may be Romanian, so what ? It is true.The weapons section is not a fair portrayal. ] 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Let us not remove anything drastical for now. I suggest that anyone who has new information to add can do so on ]. As that page grows, we can then re-visit the issue of perhaps including a more representative summary in the main Transnistria article. But for now, I support EvilAlex and his position on this issue: Let it stay. - ] 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thats fine by me] 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Of EvilAlex== | |||
| Mauco, I've seen your message saying that I should not help EvilAlex because doing so is turning him into a bad boy. I find your suggestion quite immoral. Somehow, you ask me to give up my oppinions and let you and your pro-Transnistrean propaganda group just to keep EvilAlex out of trouble. As if he were not smart enough not to overstep the rules. I remind you that you were grounded, too, on Transnistria-related subjects. You have 4 blocks, whereas EvilAlex has 5. And this difference is probably due to the fact that he is a bit loner than you are. ] 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| BTW, my edits are prompted by the simple remark that EvilAlex's version is better (clearer, more NPOV) than yours. ] 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Who are Mauco's group. I am no part of his group, indeed Mauco had reverted me more times than anyone here and even reported me for 3RR with a request to have me blocked. Evilalex is one person the really cares about Transnistria and is respected here. ] 13:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've reverted EvilAlex' last edit because (contrary to what he claims) the consensus about the first sentence had not been reached. ] 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Dpotop: Edit warring is of course bad, whether engaged in by EvilAlex, by me, or by anyone else (including you). But "His version", as you call it, is basically a page where he overwrites and undoes a month full of edits and the work by a dozen people on the page, as the edit log of the past month shows. I was not the first to point this out, but if we are discussing what is "immoral", then such blatant disregard for the procedures of Misplaced Pages would fit the bill. I am not imposing a version, but merely - as others have also done - restoring the page from what I see as blatant, undiscussed blanking which is bordering on vandalism. | |||
| : There should of course be an open, valid debate of POV and NPOV, and which intro is better. And this can naturally not be limited to the intro. But please note: The place for such a debate is here, in Talk. Nothing is achieved by seeing who can revert the most (and get blocked first) in mainspace. - ] 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::you have introduced the changes that haven't been agreed in the talk page. ] 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please seek consenus here first, but Mauco you have to give others the right to edit too. Evilalex behaves like this because he feels he is not listened to. Do I understand you Alex? ] 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Edits are OK. Overwriting / blanking the improvements made by a dozen editors during the past month? That is hardly the same. When I and others have reverted, we have not undone any new work but merely restored the integrity of the page. - ] 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi. I just pointed few factual error in the article. The article does not follow NPOV guidelines. Just read it: Ukraine imposed; Ukraine declared; Economic blockade,... author - Mauco! ] 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: No, I did not write this. Mikkalai did. Anyway, it seems that Illythr is addressing your concerns. Personally, I believe "imposed" is a correct, descriptive word because the move was certainly introduced without any OK from the Transnistrian side. - ] 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Customs dispute trimming == | |||
| This section is getting "longish". I propose a couple of small trims.<br> | |||
| 1. Change ''"The Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration had expressed concern over this declaration and called it "deliberate misinformation"."'' to ''"Moldova called the declaration "deliberate misinformation"."'' Half the size, and no meaning is lost.<br> | |||
| 2. Change ''"Of the major mediators of the conflict in the region, the United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move"'' to ''"The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the move"'' since EU and US are not mediators. They only have observer status. - ] 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This sentences just have been added and already you want to remove it on a false pretends! ] 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Not remove, trim. In a way that makes the article shorter, more readable, and still preserves the full meaning. No context is lost. See ] if you do not understand the concept, and please tone down the personal attacks. - ] 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: 1. I have no objection to that, except that "had expressed concern over this" should stay, IMO, as without it, the Moldovan statement looks kinda bad. | |||
| :::: 2. Perhaps a mention should be made, that they're in fact observers and not just some interfering foreign entities? --] 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Has that ever stopped the United States from expressing its opinion anywhere? Oops, sorry - this page is not a political discussion forum. I agree with you, Illythr, but I try to keep the "summary here, details there" principle in mind. I have a lot of respect for what Mikkalai has done for Misplaced Pages over the years. - ] 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Its o.k. to "trim" but not take away meaning ] 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: OK dude, I'm in USA. And I will ignore you this time. But don't push your luck!!! ] 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey alex== | |||
| Evilalex, I am rverting your last edit. There is a potential libel and its only inter media stuff. ] 14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I did it for you. Some of this is covered in the archives as well, and in the edit log. Besides, now we have a later, more updated and fuller link from the same source, which gives the complete background to the conflict. - ] 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Mauco I see you deleted my text again removing 'separatist' Can we agree to practice what we are preaching.?] 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There is really only one context where the word "separatist" is appropriate: During the time of the separatist struggle. Anything after that reflects the point of view of one side to the conflict, since the official Transnistrian position does not consider itself separatist. - ] 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == I have an idea! Self-restraint. == | |||
| Since everyone here claims to be of good faith, I have an idea to reduce edit warring on this page. | |||
| We can all exercise self-restraint by: | |||
| # Making at most one edit per user every day (including minor changes). | |||
| # Making an edit after describing it on the talk page and then having at least 3 other editors agree upon it. | |||
| Of course, the agreement would fail the first time one editor does not respect it (but then, we would know who is the bad guy). | |||
| As a token of good faith, I would ask we start from EvilAlex's version. :) | |||
| ] 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, since the moment of your proposal, EvilAlex was the only one to edit the article more than once, so he's the first one to violate it. :-P --] 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: That could have been by mistake ] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: His unrestrained actions today show otherwise. - ] 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you want, Im fine with just one per day, in fact I am sometimes not online every day, but can others limit? there has to be the same rules for everyone, if someone can make ten edits in one day, someone else can do the same....... ] 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==war changes== | |||
| The edits I made were only made to make the paragrapgh more easy to understand. Mauco reverted me and inserted his own extra twists Then Alex blasts off calling the Transnistrians 'rebels'. I feel like reverting the two of you.] 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::At that point Transnistrian side was a 'rebels' site. And after reading that paragraph i've got an impression that Moldova is an aggressor where in fact the opposite is happened. The rebel forces have been attacking police stations in Dubosary and in Bendery. Moldova responded by attacking rebels with Moldavian police and volontiry force (at that time Moldova didnt even had its own army - an aggressor without n army, interesting!!). ] 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: That is not what I was doing, and it is wrong to call or infer that either side were Rebels or Aggressors when dealing with the Civil War. ] 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : There is a difference. I am not changing your meaning, Buffadren, but making your edits easier to read by doing copy-edit. In contrast, EvilAlex added a big section of non-encyclopedic language talking about one sided attacks by rebel forces, and re-adding - twice - a part which has no place in a summary and which is already present in the detailed article on the customs conflict. - ] 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Trolling edit summary. ] 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where? | |||
| :::Alex, if you want the part about the chickens to stay, you should at least link it up with the rest of the section somehow. The current version looks strange, jumping from one thing to another like that. --] 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looks fine to me. ] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: no, i have to say, it is out of place, it is something very detailed, and the part in this article is just a summary. So really, the details need to be in the article that deals with the customs thing, and I checked, and it is already there, so it can go from the overview Transnistria article, dont repeat all the details both place, if people want details they go to the second one ] 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I agree. ] 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Article: "in work"== | |||
| I will spend a lot of time for improving this article. --] 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm sorry but I'll have to revert your changes. | |||
| : Looks like something familiar, btw. ] 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Another Fake Photo at Tiraspol Times Website? == | |||
| Is it just me or does this photo of "Anatoly Semerenko, the country's #1 bodybuilder, stands in front of Pridnestrovie's parliament" look totally fake? http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 ] 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : It, uh, looks like a painting, actually. Or at least heavily Photoshop'd. Shouldn't you be posting this ]? --] 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Illythr is right. This page (here) is for dealing with edits to the article. But since the thread is already open, my own 2 Купон's: Scroll down to the end of the text of http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 and look for a link which says ''"On the web: » Anatoly Semerenko photo gallery"'' and links to http://fbb.land.ru/foto/index_p3.htm, then scroll down to the end of that page, and the same photo appears. Click on it to see a VERY large version. Then look for Photoshop artifacts. I am no expert, so I'll not venture to give a verdict. But Illythr or anyone else with time could also write to Anatoliy Semerenko and ask him, since he just happens to be president of the federation whose site his picture appears on. - ] 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| well, the ] page already suggests that the content may be dubious, but this pages uses the website as a reliable source - it has a badge that says "Get the Facts", clearly "The new Arnold: Anatoly Semerenko, the country's #1 bodybuilder, stands in front of Pridnestrovie's parliament" is not a fact. I guess I'm just adding to the list of false claims found at Tiraspol Times in a attempt to discredit the site as a useful external link, or perhaps hoping we may one day label it as having some dubious content? ] 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I wouldn't put it quite as harshly. It is a photo caption, and if it is falsified in any way, then clearly Tiraspol Times did not do the falsification. The photo is from Semerenko's own site, and they make no attempt to hide the link which leads directly to it. Besides, the background IS the PMR parliament building. It could be a painting, as Illythr suggests, or it could just be that it is out of focus due to the photographer focusing on Semerenko. If this is a concern to anyone (it isn't a concern to me), then why not just ask Semerenko himself instead of double guessing? I have both his email and his work and home phone numbers, for anyone who wants. They are from the "Kontakt" page on his website. - ] 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I wouldn't really call it a major concern, just another example of dodgy reporting. It is NOT a picture of him in front of the parliament building, like it says, but a picture of him in front of a picture of the parliament building. I'm not interested in Semerenko, he has no control over what a website writes about one of his pictures I'm sure. ] 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: We don't WHAT it is (or if is a painting) until someone asks Semerenko. - ] 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: This is not a bid deal. I agree with Mauco this time. ] 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Johnathanpops claims this is a fake photo and then it is then proven the photo came from the politician's own website. The Tiraspol Times clearly lifted it from the site as any paper would do and do. Johnathanpops is the one reporting false information to discredit Tiraspol newspapers. The question is why? Perhaps he has his own media interests. Johmathanpops who is very concerned about press transperancy should state clearly now if he has any connection with any publishing outlet. ] 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok Mark. I must admit I didn't realise that it was leeched from another website until Mauco pointed it out. Still, it's patently obvious, to me at least, that's it's not a photo of somone in front of a building but rather a photo of someone in front of a picture of a building (behind some trees, way in the background). So I think it's just bad reporting rather than bad reporting and photo manipulation on the part of the website called Tiraspol Times. I already stated my reasons pretty clearly in my last message. I'm not comparing the Tiraspol Times to any other website, I'm just saying I think the content is of a highly dubious nature. I don't have any other websites to offer up as being any better. ] 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Referendum == | |||
| article on Portalul ONG-Moldova talks of "a national referendum on independence". An by the United States Dept of State talks of an "independence referendum" in headline and body text. And, of course, has something like a hundred references to the same term (some are quotes from neutral third parties). | |||
| Looking inhouse, ] even use the term for a similar event in a very similar setting. - ] 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There is no "transdnistia" nation. You can use " independence referendum". ] 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Independence== | |||
| Now, really, how should we go about PMR's independence? It declared itself a separate SSR, so it's certainly not "from the USSR". During the declaration there was no Republic of Moldova, so, technically, it's not "from Moldova" either. Maybe from MSSR? Uhh, *confused*. ---] 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : September 2, 1990, is the official date. On that date, they declared independence from the ]. Not Moldova, not Soviet Union either. However, it is easy to get confused. They keep declaring independence all the time. They have done it in 1991 again, in 1995, and in 2005 with the new foreign policy objectives. Arguably, the referendum of 2006 could also be seen as an independence declaration since it was followed up with an official request by the PMR Supreme Council to a number of CIS parliaments for statehood recognition. It is sort of like a ] skit: They keep declaring independence, again and again, but no one cares... They also declared independence from the Soviet Union (in 1991) but never from the Republic of Moldova since they don't consider themselves to have been part of Republic of Moldova in the first place. Remember that today's Republic of Moldova only came into being on August 27, 1991. - ] 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I understand the difference between the Moldavian SSR, THE USSR and how the USSR is structured to begin with, in practice and principal. I just thought you might as well list the USSR since 1, Transnistria succeeded from Moldavia without permission and 2, USSR did not recognize it becoming a Soviet Socialist Republic or even remaining in the USSR SO Transnistria effectively left the USSR since its aim was independence and that was in conflict with the Russians/Soviets yet they maintain it. You should probally list its independence as coming from the USSR and Moldavian SSR and that Transnistria is the succesor state to the rogue PMSSR. What do you know about whats stated on the President of Transnistria page in terms of past leaders? - Vital Component 4:40am 3/13/07 | |||
| : First time I hear USSR didn't recognize Pridnestrovie as its part (via MSSR)... --] 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Viktor Neumoyin Assassination == | |||
| I guess we should add this http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13136774.htm to the violent incidents, or somewhere in the article? ] 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, good idea. It is also and , with his photo. But please add it to ] or else the main page will grow unwieldy over time. - ] 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I did not know that page existed, I'll move my section on the Border Corruption into that. ] 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yes, I noticed that you added that a while back. It is good, but it is better in the detailed part. You didn't know it existed? It has been around for a while now. But I guess we forgot the 'See also' line. - ] 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why does his name have different spellings, is it a language thing? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
| == New site suggestion== | |||
| I found this site http://www.transdniestria.com It is very informative. It should be included ? ] 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes.For moment its just a bit better than tiraspol.com ] 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hardly better. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Recognition?== | |||
| How can Russia recognize PMSSR as a a part of its territory yet recognize the Moldavian SSR's succesion? | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|Pridnestrovie}} – In connection with the new laws adopted in the Republic of Pridnestrovie regarding the names of this state, the need to rename this article has become obvious. Let me remind you that the Parliament of Pridnestrovie amendments adopted to the laws, according to which the use of the term "Transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie entails arrest for up to 15 days with possible reclassification under a criminal article. The reason is that the word "Transnistria" is extremely offensive to the people of Pridnestrovie and has repeatedly become a cause of conflicts. In general terms, this is interpreted as a wish for genocide to Pridnestrovians. | |||
| : The PMSSR was within the Moldovan SSR, so not part of either the Russian SSR now Federation nor of the Ukrainian SSR now the Ukraine. The PMSSR (whether it existed or not--its declaration was rejected by central Soviet authorities) would have ceased to exist with the demise of the Soviet Union, so there is nothing there for Russia to now recognize. Nor does Russia recognize sovereignty of the current PMR (Duma declarations supporting the "democratic aspirations" of the Transnistrians notwithstanding). ... unless there's new news?<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — ]</span> 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The current title of the article is absolutely incorrect. ] in this case cannot justify it, since the overwhelming majority of cases of using the term Transnistria in English-language texts refers either to the administrative division of Moldova (the autonomous entity ]), or to the so-called territory of the left bank of the Dniester not controlled by Chisinau ("breakaway region of Moldova"), but not to the Pridnestrovian Republic, which is described in this article. Such naming is, apparently, an invention exclusively of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| == Dragalina cemetery == | |||
| There is not a single Misplaced Pages article about a geographical or political entity whose name directly offends its population or would be prohibited by law in this country, except for this one. It would be absurd to leave an article with such a name. | |||
| I think this should be included in the article: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| According to the Moldavian and Romanian press, in February 2007, Transnistrian authorities ''destroyed and profaned'' the Dragalina cemetery in Tighina (also known as ''The Romanian cemetery''), thus violating the ]<ref>The Geneva Convention requirs that the ''"dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found."''</ref>. The Transnistrian authorities did not exhume the bodies; they only removed the crosses and leveled the terrain with bulldozers.319 identified Romanian and 14 unidentified soldiers, as well as 13 Soviet prisoners were buried at this cemetery.<ref>{{en icon}}Ziua:<br>Ziua: <br>] article: </ref> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| I would also like to remind you that the article about the former ] was renamed ] following a referendum in that republic, although the old name was unconditionally dominant in all non-Armenian texts and was not offensive at all. This did not meet with any objections in Misplaced Pages community. Of course, this cannot be a precedent, and we must be guided by the rules, however, in the case of the term "Transnistria", apparently, there is a circle of interested parties defending this absurd vicious practice in their own political interests (]). This also needs to be paid attention to. | |||
| ===References=== | |||
| {{reflist|1}} | |||
| The following suggestions: | |||
| ] removed the content writing: | |||
| # Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie. | |||
| " puts the Ziua article into perspective." | |||
| # On the Transnistria page, put a template about a polysemantic term and list the articles it may refer to: ], ], ], etc. | |||
| Why "Pridnestrovie" and not "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic"? According to ] and for the same reasons that articles are called "]" and not "Republic of Moldova", "]" and not "Russian Federation", etc. | |||
| I don't understand Russian, and I don't know what the analysis he found contains. Ziua was not the only newspaper to publish this news: ...] 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Links: | |||
| : can anyone read Russian and maybe just put a quick summary here or something, like D1.goe I have the same problem, cant read Russian but it would be nice to know, just the main points. The other item, about the geneva convention, well that is something you can delete at least, the reason is this, how can Transnistria violate a convention that it is not part of, or did it sign this convention, probably not because how can it sign a convention when it is just an unrecognized country and has not yet membership of the International organizations ] 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| The '''gist of the article''' is that: | |||
| * | |||
| *The authorities in B/T are to reinter the exhumed soldiers outside of the city. | |||
| :] (]) 11:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Authorities have take steps so that the identities of exhumed soldiers are not lost. | |||
| *Another graveyard was moved recently as well, this one comprised of mainly ethnically Russian soldiers. | |||
| ] 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well I assume that Transnistria authorities didn't think they went against the Geneva Convension, but we aren't talking about what Transnistria authorities think are we? I think the main question is, is Moldova covered by the Geneva Convention, as Transnistria is part of Moldova in the eyes of other countries involved, the same countries that no doubt would see this as a violation, if it's true. ] 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There have been some questions wether profaning a cemetery is violating human rights. I think refering to Geneva Convention as international law is appropriate.] 10:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * This RM reasoning is misplaced. The commonname argument is wrong; the "breakaway region of Moldova" ''is'' the Pridnestrovian Republic. See for example this , with its President Vadim Krasnoselsky. There are also plenty of Misplaced Pages articles about geographical or political entities whose name is rejected by that entity. ] is a perennial one, ] pops up every now and then, ] is getting there. We even have names about groups of people which can directly offend them, eg. ]. ] (]) 11:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest we add this to the previous text: | |||
| *'''Oppose move''' per the 2018 and 2021 RMs. The common name remains Transnistria. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong oppose''' A very poor RM rationale. Apparently we're being threatened with arrest by the nom if we refuse to comply with an illegitimate and government. That's not how it works. '']'' that the ''de facto'' leader of Transnistria Vadim Krasnoselski has equated the term Transnistria with "fascism" and "Nazism", prefers the "Russian term Pridnestrovie" and is threatening imprisonment and fines for those who use Transnistria in "public speeches, publicly displayed works or in the mass media" as Krasnoselski considers it a "manifestation of Nazism". What bollocks. Transnistria remains the ] until evidence to the contrary is presented. Recent usage of Transnistria include by , , , and even the Russian website ] (]) 13:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I rarely edit articles, and when I do, it's on topics very far from politics and geography (I haven't even created my account yet); however, in this case, I think it's necessary to speak out. The article '''needs to be moved''', using a politically neutral name. I am not a supporter of separatism and I absolutely do not sympathize with pro-Russian forces, but political propaganda has no place in Misplaced Pages, regardless of its orientation. Especially if the term that was used as the title of the article is offensive. The author of the move request is right, I have never come across an article in Misplaced Pages that would contain such non-neutral names in its title. Indeed, most of the references to this region that I have come across used the name Transnistria, but I have to agree with the RM author that all these references did not refer to the state as such: they were either about a region of Moldova or about a separatist movement in Moldova, but not about this state entity with its political system, state symbols, etc. Therefore, we must be guided first and foremost by the principle of a neutral point of view and the inadmissibility of political propaganda in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <small>— ] (]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I find the Karabakh/Artsakh comparison uncompelling. The "Artsakh" name caught on rather easily and was convenient because the name "]" refers to the entire region and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" was a mouthful. While I am sympathetic to the argument that the name "Transnistria" could be offensive, the arguments made were unpersuasive as the nom did not substantiate this with sources, but instead substantiated it with a repressive law. I would like to remind the nom that Turkey requests we call it Türkiye, but every attempt to move the article ] to ] is slapped down because "Türkiye" has not caught on as the common name in English, and I find it highly unlikely that it ever will. That's not to say that new names never catch on. They most certainly can. Swaziland -> Eswatini was broadly accepted rather quickly. But, as Chipmunkdavis mentioned, we still use the name "]" over "Côte d'Ivoire. Other times, it's more ambiguous. I see both East Timor and Timor-Leste used fairly often. And in my own anecdotal experience, I've actually seen the name "Czechia" used more often than "Czech Republic" these last few years, but the name remains ]. But "Transnistria" is, almost without exception, the only name you will ''ever'' see in sources to refer to this polity. And so it will remain Transnistria, no matter how many threats are made against those who use it. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 13:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I hold no strong position on the article name however I note that I think it is ''us'' setting precedent w.r.t. the name here rather than the various sources. While we standardised on ''Transnistria'' from day dot (2003), sources at the time were very divergent on the name (although I don't think ''Pridnestrovie'' was ever among them). Transdniestria, Trans-Dniester, Trans-Nistru, and so on even continue to be used in certain circles. | |||
| "''While according to the Romanian edition of ], the Transnistrian authorities announced that the crosses will be smashed up with explosives and, in a mixture with asphalt will be used to repair the roads of the city, according to PMR News, the authorities in Transnistria are to reenter the exhumed soldiers outside of the city, | |||
| authorities have taken steps so that the identities of exhumed soldiers are not lost.''" | |||
| :(In 2003 the preferred term in English in Tiraspol, at least as seen in the archive of "Olvia-Press", was Dniestria, short for "Dniester Moldavian Republic".) | |||
| ] 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :While precedent today certainly agrees with "Transnistria" and in English I can't see that "Pridnestrovie" was ever really common (doesn't help that it looks like a malformed English Latinate name ending in -ia (like Moldavia, Romania, Gagauzia, etc.)), I'm not sure that precedent would have favoured the Romanian "Transnistria" without our input. ] (]) 13:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've introduced the new paragraph in the article. I will remove the content template if no one opposes.] 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not so sure. "Transnistria" is the name applied to the area in the context of World War II (e.g., ) and the only term that really shows up in before about 1990. ] (]) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : i dont oppose ] 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Flawed rationale. ] (]) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
| == PMSSR recognition == | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
| == Map around Roghi: PMR or Moldova? == | |||
| Russia could have not recognized the PMSSR as sovereign of the Moldovan SSR yet as territory that did not want to leave. Any SSR that did not leave would probally be attacked to the Russian SFSR anyways so they could recognize the internal succesion then not recognize the PMR's since that would be like leaving after they went thru the trouble to join. Check out my presidential graph. | |||
| ] | |||
| I've just realized I should maybe have started the debate here but I asked the question there: ]. ] (]) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I added a headline because i dont think this comment was about the graveyard, also theres an article about it, it is ] ......] 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:44, 20 October 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transnistria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why is this article titled "Transnistria" and not "Pridnestrovie"?
A1: The preponderance of reliable English-language sources use the name "Transnistria" over "Pridnestrovie". See WP:COMMONNAME for relevant policy details and Talk:Transnistria/Archive 21#Requested move 17 February 2018 for the most recent move discussion.
|
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Transnistria. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Transnistria at the Reference desk. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 2, 2009, September 2, 2010, September 2, 2014, and September 2, 2015. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- The source of this seems to be this archive? 99.64.160.215 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Okay, that definitely fails WP:CALC and WP:SYNTH. Removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Where does the total area figure come from? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
This has been discussed to death. It could be changed if English-language sources, as we're in English Misplaced Pages, 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 . 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- I have summarized a little of what the esteemed Wikipedians have said above and composed a renaming request based on the facts provided. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this procedure. 2A03:F680:FE04:45D2:2C72:43DD:63F1:682C (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 10 September 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Transnistria → Pridnestrovie – In connection with the new laws adopted in the Republic of Pridnestrovie regarding the names of this state, the need to rename this article has become obvious. Let me remind you that the Parliament of Pridnestrovie amendments adopted to the laws, according to which the use of the term "Transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie entails arrest for up to 15 days with possible reclassification under a criminal article. The reason is that the word "Transnistria" is extremely offensive to the people of Pridnestrovie and has repeatedly become a cause of conflicts. In general terms, this is interpreted as a wish for genocide to Pridnestrovians.
The current title of the article is absolutely incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME in this case cannot justify it, since the overwhelming majority of cases of using the term Transnistria in English-language texts refers either to the administrative division of Moldova (the autonomous entity Stinga Nistrului), or to the so-called territory of the left bank of the Dniester not controlled by Chisinau ("breakaway region of Moldova"), but not to the Pridnestrovian Republic, which is described in this article. Such naming is, apparently, an invention exclusively of Misplaced Pages.
There is not a single Misplaced Pages article about a geographical or political entity whose name directly offends its population or would be prohibited by law in this country, except for this one. It would be absurd to leave an article with such a name.
I would also like to remind you that the article about the former Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was renamed Republic of Artsakh following a referendum in that republic, although the old name was unconditionally dominant in all non-Armenian texts and was not offensive at all. This did not meet with any objections in Misplaced Pages community. Of course, this cannot be a precedent, and we must be guided by the rules, however, in the case of the term "Transnistria", apparently, there is a circle of interested parties defending this absurd vicious practice in their own political interests (WP:POV). This also needs to be paid attention to.
The following suggestions:
- Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie.
- On the Transnistria page, put a template about a polysemantic term and list the articles it may refer to: Stinga Nistrului, Transnistria Governorate, Pridnestrovie, etc.
Why "Pridnestrovie" and not "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic"? According to WP:OFFICIALNAMES and for the same reasons that articles are called "Moldova" and not "Republic of Moldova", "Russia" and not "Russian Federation", etc.
Links:
- The presidential initiative on the inadmissibility of using the term "transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie was adopted unanimously
- Transnistria must be vanished
- This RM reasoning is misplaced. The commonname argument is wrong; the "breakaway region of Moldova" is the Pridnestrovian Republic. See for example this BBC profile of Transnistria, with its President Vadim Krasnoselsky. There are also plenty of Misplaced Pages articles about geographical or political entities whose name is rejected by that entity. Ivory Coast is a perennial one, East Timor pops up every now and then, Turkey is getting there. We even have names about groups of people which can directly offend them, eg. Mormons. CMD (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose move per the 2018 and 2021 RMs. The common name remains Transnistria. O.N.R. 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose A very poor RM rationale. Apparently we're being threatened with arrest by the nom if we refuse to comply with an illegitimate and repressive government. That's not how it works. Euractiv has reported that the de facto leader of Transnistria Vadim Krasnoselski has equated the term Transnistria with "fascism" and "Nazism", prefers the "Russian term Pridnestrovie" and is threatening imprisonment and fines for those who use Transnistria in "public speeches, publicly displayed works or in the mass media" as Krasnoselski considers it a "manifestation of Nazism". What bollocks. Transnistria remains the common name until evidence to the contrary is presented. Recent usage of Transnistria include by Al Jazeera, The Economist, The Guardian, TVP World and even the Russian website Eurasia Daily AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I rarely edit articles, and when I do, it's on topics very far from politics and geography (I haven't even created my account yet); however, in this case, I think it's necessary to speak out. The article needs to be moved, using a politically neutral name. I am not a supporter of separatism and I absolutely do not sympathize with pro-Russian forces, but political propaganda has no place in Misplaced Pages, regardless of its orientation. Especially if the term that was used as the title of the article is offensive. The author of the move request is right, I have never come across an article in Misplaced Pages that would contain such non-neutral names in its title. Indeed, most of the references to this region that I have come across used the name Transnistria, but I have to agree with the RM author that all these references did not refer to the state as such: they were either about a region of Moldova or about a separatist movement in Moldova, but not about this state entity with its political system, state symbols, etc. Therefore, we must be guided first and foremost by the principle of a neutral point of view and the inadmissibility of political propaganda in Misplaced Pages. 190.57.181.3 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
— 190.57.181.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oppose I find the Karabakh/Artsakh comparison uncompelling. The "Artsakh" name caught on rather easily and was convenient because the name "Nagorno-Karabakh" refers to the entire region and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" was a mouthful. While I am sympathetic to the argument that the name "Transnistria" could be offensive, the arguments made were unpersuasive as the nom did not substantiate this with sources, but instead substantiated it with a repressive law. I would like to remind the nom that Turkey requests we call it Türkiye, but every attempt to move the article Turkey to Türkiye is slapped down because "Türkiye" has not caught on as the common name in English, and I find it highly unlikely that it ever will. That's not to say that new names never catch on. They most certainly can. Swaziland -> Eswatini was broadly accepted rather quickly. But, as Chipmunkdavis mentioned, we still use the name "Ivory Coast" over "Côte d'Ivoire. Other times, it's more ambiguous. I see both East Timor and Timor-Leste used fairly often. And in my own anecdotal experience, I've actually seen the name "Czechia" used more often than "Czech Republic" these last few years, but the name remains Czech Republic. But "Transnistria" is, almost without exception, the only name you will ever see in sources to refer to this polity. And so it will remain Transnistria, no matter how many threats are made against those who use it. Vanilla Wizard 💙 13:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I hold no strong position on the article name however I note that I think it is us setting precedent w.r.t. the name here rather than the various sources. While we standardised on Transnistria from day dot (2003), sources at the time were very divergent on the name (although I don't think Pridnestrovie was ever among them). Transdniestria, Trans-Dniester, Trans-Nistru, and so on even continue to be used in certain circles.
- (In 2003 the preferred term in English in Tiraspol, at least as seen in the archive of "Olvia-Press", was Dniestria, short for "Dniester Moldavian Republic".)
- While precedent today certainly agrees with "Transnistria" and in English I can't see that "Pridnestrovie" was ever really common (doesn't help that it looks like a malformed English Latinate name ending in -ia (like Moldavia, Romania, Gagauzia, etc.)), I'm not sure that precedent would have favoured the Romanian "Transnistria" without our input. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. "Transnistria" is the name applied to the area in the context of World War II (e.g., here) and the only term that really shows up in ngrams before about 1990. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Flawed rationale. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Map around Roghi: PMR or Moldova?
I've just realized I should maybe have started the debate here but I asked the question there: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities#Territorial_continuity_of_Transnistria. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2015)
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class Moldova articles
- Top-importance Moldova articles
- Moldova articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Limited recognition articles
- High-importance Limited recognition articles
- WikiProject Limited recognition articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press