Revision as of 22:20, 18 May 2007 editMariusM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,058 edits archiving← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:44, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,271,859 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}} | ||
{{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}} | |||
{| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
|- | |||
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=mid}} | |||
!align="left" colspan="2"|]<br>] | |||
{{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}} | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
== Possibly incorrect water percentage? == | |||
== 14th Army source == | |||
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). | |||
] | |||
Here you go.--] 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Has revising this value been considered? Or is it just kept for archival reasons? ] (]) 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "from Transnistria" or "residents of Transnistria" == | |||
:The source of this seems to be ]? ] (]) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
This should be a simple and quick one. Could everyone, please, express his/her oppionion about which of the two expressions, "from" or "residents of" is better : | |||
:It should also be noted that this person gave no other source than "their own research." ] (]) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''"residents of"''' b/c IMO "from" suggests they were in Transnistria before being employed by the Soviet Army, while in fact they arrived in Transnistria to be employed by the 14th Army and were given residence there. :] 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Okay, that definitely fails ] and ]. Removed. –] (]]) 00:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:There is also a math problem there. Let O=the number of officers, S=the number of solders, C=the number of civil personel, T=number of those that reside in Transnistria. Then according to the sourse, O+S=6000, C=230, T=0.51*O+0.79*S+n*C, T=0,80*(O+S+C), where n is the proportion of local resident among C. From these 4 equations, one gets 0.28*O=0.79*(O+S)-(0.51*O+0.79*S)=0.79*6000-T+n*C=0.79*6000-0,80*(O+S+C)+n*230=0.79*6000-0,80*(6000+230)+n*230=4740-4984+230*n=230*n-244. So, even if all C are locals, i.e. in n=1, 230*n-244 is a negative number, hence so is O. In fact, if n<=1, then 230*n-244<=-14, and hence O<=-14/0,28=-50. You need to add 50 officers to get 0. The sourse contradicts itself, or averages too much.:] 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Where does the total area figure come from? –] (]]) 00:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong point - what part of "6,000 soldiers and officers" says 6,500? From the structure of the sentence, it's not even clear whether that refers to the whole 14th Army or not, though one would assume it does.--] 19:34, 16 May 2007 (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) | |||
:::Sorry, I had to memorize all number, after that to check. i've corrected now.:] 19:38, 16 May 2007 (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? == | |||
*While possible, that is unlikely - it says 79% of '''draftees''' came from Transnistria i.e. they lived in Transnistria before entering the army. Anyway, what you're doing is original research - just read the source, yeah? "The majority of these inhabitants were '''indigenous''' Slavs" (my note: the minority were not Slavs, but Moldovans). So putting "residents of" goes against the source, and I see no reason to avoid "from Transdniester", which is all we can source.--] 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:"these inhabitants" in the sourse means IMO "employees of the Army that come from Transnistria". Of these 0,8*6230=4984 people, I do not doubt that the majority were ethnic Slavs. But, I am saying soemthing completely different: many of these 4984 people became residents of Transnistria ''after'', not ''before'' they became employees of the Army. IMO, only for those that were born in Transnistria one can say "are from Transnistria":] 19:47, 16 May 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) | |||
*I agree. The source says ''from Transdniester'' and that's it. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:37, 16 May 2007 (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. ] (]) 20:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::No, the source says "come from Transnistria", not "are from Transnistria". I am currently in Denmark. So, if I go to Germany, I come from Denmark, but I am not from Denmark. :] 19:40, 16 May 2007 (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) | |||
::: Nope. 'Come from' means 'originate/descend from' in English. Check the dictionary. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:42, 16 May 2007 (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) | |||
::: regarding your calculations it seems to me that (civil personnel)!=(administrative structure). ]<sub>]</sub> 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::In that case, we need more specific data. At any rate, the sourse does not say "are born in Transnistria", as you are trying to convince. And with all due respect, "come from" as used in the text means exactly as in the example I gave with Denmark and Germany: when I go to a conference in Germany, I come from a university in Denmark, and that is what will be written on my badge. If you insist, we can ask some native English speakers. Appart from that, these are 1994 figures, not 1992!:] 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::: With all due respect I AM right here. See . We don't say they were born in the Transnistria either. We're just putting in the article exactly what's written in the source. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:59, 16 May 2007 (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. ] (]) 08:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
How about this compromize, we just cite the sourse, and do not coment a single word :] 20:05, 16 May 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) | |||
"1. originate or arise: to have a particular place of origin or source. ''She came from Ohio.''" In my example, I would come to conference from Denmark. My "sourse", or university I would go to that conf from, would be in Denmark. Anyway, all this would be avoided with a direct citation without comments. What do you think?:] 20:05, 16 May 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) | |||
: After my edit it's still written exactly the same what's written in the source. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:09, 16 May 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) | |||
: Except for transdniester->transnistria change, that is. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:10, 16 May 2007 (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 am not going to be picky on transdniester->transnistria change for this detail. But I corrected "whose" to "its" and put the quotation marks.:] 20:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Let's just take a step back and look as our discussion above. Wow. Imagine now the discussion between diplomats, which have to cover 1000 times more important topics, with relevance not only for the record, but also for the fate of 550,000 people. Wow! And that assuming civilized discussion and no dirty tricks as there are in politics!:] 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::The issue is not so important, as the attitude: after the edit was discussed, agrued, and compromised, waiting several hours till the other 2 editors leave, and doing , is a sign of '''bad faith on purpose'''. :] 01:24, 17 May 2007 (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) | |||
:::::You're being quite paranoid, you know that? I've been perfectly civil and patient with you, despite you making a mountain out of a molehill and your creative liberties with the source, and you accuse me of "bad faith"? Because of what exactly? Because I objected to poor style when I saw it, and improved the wording while retaining the same meaning? Give me a break...--] 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Requested move 10 September 2024 == | |||
:::::: 2Dc76. The article has 99 refs now and some of them are not more reliable than this one (imho). Imagine what would happen if we used "your style" of quoting them all the time. ]<sub>]</sub> 04:50, 17 May 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) | |||
== ICDISS as a source in the Economy/Current section == | |||
---- | |||
I find it a bit weird that ] is given as first source for the current economic situation of Transnistria, despite being uncovered as a disinformation tribune by ]. Furthermore, the information is not put in perspective, ICDISS being treated as just another source. One may say that the actual characterization is given in ], but the reader is still disinformed. | |||
I see two solutions: | |||
# If ICDISS is used because no other sources exist, then it must be put in perspective by explaining that The Ecnomist considers it a disinformation tribune. | |||
# If ICDISS is not the only source, it should be removed, or used as a secondary source. | |||
] 08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: I agree. The first two sentences of that subsection don't give any useful info about PMR's economics imho so I removed them. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Oh, that stuff wasn't deleted back then. Meh, I should've be more attentive. Dpotop, see ]. --] 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: No problem, I just want to help, not accuse someone. Anyway, it's done. ] 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== GDP figures == | |||
We should clearly state whether the GDP figures are PPP or market exchange rate, or that we don't really know. I don't know Russian, so I don't have access to the sources. Can someone get this info? ] 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Also, do they give some hints on how this GDP was computed? Does it include Moldovan-controlled areas? If these areas are included, then what does it corresponds to? ] 12:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: They count what they control, I think. Here's what's written in the source: | |||
{{cquote|Объем ВВП (''GDP''): | |||
- в текущих ценах, тыс. руб. (''in current prices, th. roubles'') 4860506 | |||
- в сопоставимых ценах, тыс. руб. (''in comparable prices, th. roubles'') 4465185 ('''107.7%''' compared with 2005) | |||
- в долларовом выражении, тыс. дол. США (US$) 585575 (114.6% compared with 2005) | |||
ВВП в расчете на душу населения (''GDP per capita''): | |||
- в сопоставимых ценах, в руб. (''in comparable prices, roubles'') 8206,6 | |||
- в долларах США (''US$'') '''1076,2'''}} | |||
I've bolded the numbers that are included in the article. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:It was discussed here some month ago, that if possible, we should try to use GDP figures from some international organization, e.g. IMF, WB or OECD. Unfortunately non of them as data about Transnistria. These GDP figures from Transnistria's statistical service were more prefereable compared with some non-standard figures from some Russian news agency inserted originally by Mauco. However, there is no information, which methodology is is used by the Transnistria's statistical service, so it should be clearly mentioned that these are figures from Transnistrian authorities.] 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
I am trying to rephrase some sections to make them more NPOV. For instance, by clearly marking who said what. Do you agree with my transformations of the "External Trade" section? ] 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Almost. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: I don't agree with your revert there. Mentioning who says what is essential here, because we use single sources, and that even the best sources are not super-reliable (IMHO). :) But be it as you wish, I won't change it. ] 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
I think that the debt size need to be checked out. Right now it states the debt is $1.2 billion. At the same time some sources say that only the debt for gas was 1.3 billion. I think it's worth to mention that the debt is mainly for natural gas and that Gazprom sold the debt last year to Alisher Usmanov, the owner of MMZ plant. According to the Kommersant, Smirnov refuses to recognize. Unfortunately I didn't find original Kommersant article and I have only this form conflict.md, which I understand is a debated source. What you think, could we use this information or not? ] 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: the original, I believe. It's not Kommersant but Nezavisimaya Gazeta. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: about these issues, this time from Kommersant. You must've read this one on the conflict.md. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. But if the debt for gas is $1.3 billion, the current sentence "Transnistria has debt of $1.2 billion (two thirds of which are with Russia)" seems to be out of date. Do we have any source saying how big is the current debt? To avoid a controversy, the information about the gas debt and Smirnov's statement should be added after updating overall debt figure.] 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
] → {{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 good solution is to provide both figures, saying: According to source X the debt is Y, and according to source Z, the debt for gas alone is T. All information in this article should be guarded with its source. ] 18:04, 17 May 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. | |||
:::: The info about $1.3 bln debt comes originally from the ''Centre for Strategic Studies and Reforms, Research Paper on Transnistria, Chisinau, '''November 2003''', p.28; available at: http://www.cisr-md.org''. See p. 12 of the document to which the 62nd reference is given. | |||
:::: So in 2003 PMR had only $1.1 bln debt and by Apr. 06, 2007 (when Kommersant article was published) it has risen so only the debt to Gazprom is $1.3 bln ]<sub>]</sub> 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
Something like this?: | |||
In 2004, Transnistria had debt of $1.2 billion (two thirds of which are with Russia), which is per capita approximately 6 times higher than in Moldova (without Transnistria).<ref>, by Nicu Popescu, International Policy Fellowship Program 2005/2006</ref> In March 2007, the debt to ] for the natural gas has increased to $1.3 billion. On 22 March 2007 Gazprom sold Transnistria's gas debt to the Russian businessman ], who controls ], the largest enterprise in Transnistria. Transnistria's president Igor Smirnov has announced that Transnistria will not be paying off its gas debt because "Transdnistria has no legal debt <nowiki></nowiki>".<ref>, Kommersant 6 Aprill 2007</ref><ref>, Nezavisimaya Gazeta 23 March 2007</ref> | |||
] 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Yes. I hope you won't mind a couple of my corrections ) ]<sub>]</sub> 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: Not at all :-) That's fine for me, but I think we should wait an opinion of other active editors.] 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
== transnistria.md == | |||
The following suggestions: | |||
Why was it labelled as '''Transnistrian''' source? It's written there that ''Administration, hosting and copyright - "IMCO"''. is a Moldovan company with the office in Chisinau so I think that transnistria.md should be in the Moldovan sources subsection. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
# Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie. | |||
:Is the transnistrian antiseparatist point of view. Like "Tiraspol Times" was labeled as "transnistrian", while it is from Ireland. Transnistrian authorities don't allow antiseparatist sites to be registered on Transnistrian teritorry.--] 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
# 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. | |||
] 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Who says that this site from Kishinev represents the view of Pridnestrovie? I live in Pridnestrovie and I know what most of the people here want. I don't think MariusM has ever been to Pridnestrovie. Antiseparatist opinions are allowed here, too. | |||
:Show me a Transnistrian antiseparatist site registered in Pridnestrovie.--] 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Considering the arrest of people who are antiseparatists (like Corjova's mayor, recently, Dignitas group before the referendum) I doubt you affirmation.--] 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: Dikarka and Alaexis, your reasonment is fallacious and you know it. It's obvious that "pro-Transdnistrean" is a political notion, not a geographical one. ] 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Links: | |||
BTW, many people interviewed in transnistria.md are from Transnistria.--] 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
::: transnistria.md was labelled as "'''Transnistrian''' anti-separatist". What does the word 'Transnistrian' mean here? ]<sub>]</sub> 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
:Is a site which show opinions of Transnistrian people.--] 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:] (]) 11:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: What was wrong with the old sectionising, if such word exists, btw? Neutral, pro-PMR, pro-Moldovan sites. Isn't it logical? ]<sub>]</sub> 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:See archived talk. I was against the "transnistrian" heading for long time, as is denying the existence of antiseparatist transnistrians.--] 18:44, 18 May 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) | |||
] 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Where's the evidence that this represents the view from Pridnestrovie? www.transnistria.md is registered in Moldova and made by a Moldovan commercial company. Everything on the site is a copy of the official Moldovan government propaganda. It is very misleading. MariusM and Dpotop need to come to Pridnestrovie and see the reality. | |||
*'''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. | |||
:Look at the people who appear in their interviews: Angela Chiper , Tudor Tabunscic (Transnistrian native) , Ion Isaicov, mayor of transnistrian village ] , Valeriu Ciobanu , Mihai Speian , Domnica Croleivet , Eleonora Cecavschi etc. All, people from Transnistria.--] 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:(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".) | |||
== Checkuser, again :) == | |||
I was wondering. All of us here have been checked at least once. Now, Dikarka is a single-use account (Transnistria-related edits alone) created exactly when other users were blocked. So, could he be checked against William Mauco and Mark Street? Or maybe he already was checked, and I missed it (I don't know, this is why I did not submit a B-class checkuser request). :) ] 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: See ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: Yeah, it means too much time passed since the puppet masters have been blocked. How about their puppets? Buffadren, Britlawyer, etc. These ones have recent edits (1 week old). ] 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
::: What do you mean? In the end WM and Dikarka were found to be unrelated (checkuser by --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)). ]<sub>]</sub> 19:21, 18 May 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) | |||
] 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)I am not a he, I am a she. I am a Pridnestrovian girl. What are you? | |||
::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) | |||
:: As I already told a fellow editor making similar inquiries, I am the Pope in Rome, incognito, talking to Pridnestrovian girls. :) ] 19:17, 18 May 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 ] --> | |||
''']] | |||
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
:::A Pridnestrovian girl? That's nice. :-) Maybe we'll nevertheless see another surprise soon? | |||
== Map around Roghi: PMR or Moldova? == | |||
:::Sorry, Dikarka, couldn't resist. I actually think you are not Mauco... (I looked into sockpuppetry a lot lately, I can tell you that...) ] ] 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
I've just realized I should maybe have started the debate here but I asked the question there: ]. ] (]) 11:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: That's twisted, FutPerf! Are you suggesting the girls of Proriv are not quite girls? :) You must be really stuffed by all this Transnistrian business to come up with such a hypothesis. ] 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::: OTOH, if you're sure Dikarka is not Mauco, then it must be Mark. ] 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Actually, Marius and an anon have cleared that up for you as well ]. He doesn't take any chances. :-) --] 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
] 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC) actually i don't care whether you believe that i'm a girl from Pridnestrovie or not.I'm expressing here my point of view and that's it..but i'm a girl, undoubtedly:-) |
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