| Revision as of 16:28, 10 March 2006 editWilliam Mauco (talk | contribs)4,907 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:44, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,288,366 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}} | |||
| ==Archive== | |||
| {{FAQ|page=Talk:Transnistria/FAQ|collapsed=no}} | |||
| {{Controversial-issues}} | |||
| {{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}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{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? == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| 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). | |||
| ==Protection== | |||
| Protected the article. Please work it out through ] if necessary. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Has revising this value been considered? Or is it just kept for archival reasons? ] (]) 23:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == I'm Lost == | |||
| :The source of this seems to be ]? ] (]) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I looked at all the changes trying to understand what happened but I was not able to keep track of all the changes and reverts. However, Node's edits appear particularly disquieting. He labeled them as "minor", however they were anything but that. He removed entire paragraphs (only retaining some sentences in each). Subsequent changes are simply cofusing. Most were only partial and so were the reverts, which makes understanding them extremely difficult. In any case, I suggest going back to the last version before Node and then the valid latter changes can be re-inserted. ] 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It should also be noted that this person gave no other source than "their own research." ] (]) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (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? == | |||
| :I didn't label them as minor. I said I was disentangling copyvio (which I did, and which you have now re-inserted), *as well as* making minor changes. --] 00:23, 5 January 2006 (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) | |||
| ::Oh, and, you guys have consistently removed a valid Interwiki link. That qualifies as vandalism, no questions asked. --] 00:27, 5 January 2006 (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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::Node, I do not intend to sound patronizing or something, but it would be helpful for the dispute if wou were more specific, ideally provide a diff of the edit you're refering to. Otherwise I've no idea what ar you talking about. --] <sup>(])</sup> 01:00, 5 January 2006 (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) | |||
| ::::Are you referring to the removal of valid interwiki links? *any* of your reversions of my edits qualify for that. You can't miss it - right at the end of the article. Consistently. Every time. You remove that link with no good reason... that qualifies as vandalism. It's to mo.wiki. | |||
| ::::If you were referring to the post where I said "I didn't label ... minor", then the appropriate diff is . All of the changes there are either: 1) Removal of copyvio or 2) Very minor such as fixing spelling, grammar, or wikisyntax. Note the "or" -- I never claimed ''all'' of those were minor changes. Removal of copyright violations is not a "minor" change. --Node | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Looking at , I believe that the current version is pretty close to the one before Node's and further confusing edits. I've requested the article to be protected until a consensus on its contents is reached, as the recent edits had been overwhelmingly confusing. I'd suggest that we start looking at it section by section, as below. --] <sup>(])</sup> 20:40, 4 January 2006 (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) | |||
| ::You are right, not too many significant changes exist between the two versions. I believe that the phrase: "and requiring proficiency in the ] for public servants" should be re-inserted, as well as this: " In the security zone controlled by the Russian peacekeeping forces, the MRT regime continued to deploy its troops illegally and to manufacture and sell weapons in breach of the agreement of ] ]. In February ], the ] and ] imposed visa restrictions against the Transnistrian leadership." The other changes are negligible. ] 22:37, 4 January 2006 (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) | |||
| :Let's wait and see what the others think. We need to slow down here a bit ... --] <sup>(])</sup> 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move 10 September 2024 == | |||
| == NPOVing == | |||
| <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.'' | |||
| Now, that the page is protected, can we discuss what's bothering whom, section by section ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 12:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| ===Content dispute=== | |||
| :''Only content dispute in this section, please'' | |||
| ====General==== | |||
| I believe the article is in better shape than yesterday. Still there are many trivial problems that probably arrived due to the revert war: | |||
| *] section is completely illogical. We talk about the 1994 events, then about the present, than back to 1999, etc. I think the events should be in the chronological order. | |||
| *Ilascu's story is told twice, in the ] and in ], not to mention that we refer to its own ] article. Maybe we should move Violation of human rights into the Political status or next to it and deal with Ilascu only once? | |||
| *There are quite a number of wikilinks to ] and ], maybe we should decrease the number. There are also a reference to ] that is a disambig, I believe there should be ], there also a few of similar trivial issues ] 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Moldavian language vs Romanian language==== | |||
| I personally share the thought that Moldavian is an artificial language, created in 1920ies by Soviet ideologists, and that it is identical or very close to the Romanian language, but this is '''my personal opinion'''. The '''official language''' of Moldova and Transnistria is Moldavian. Until the legislators of these states officially accept that their language is Romanian, we have no rights to state that the official language of Transnistria is Romanian (see the infobox). It is misleading and false. What we can do somewhere in the article (probably in the Names section) specifically say that ''according to the most of linguists, Moldavian is an artificial language created by Soviets to facilitate the annexation of Bessarabia, that is de facto identical to Romanian.'' In the linked ] article an interested reader will find all the details. I think this will balance usage of the term ''Moldavian language'' through out the article (except the pre-1920 part) ] 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well according to Title I, Article 13 of the Moldovan Constitution, names it the "national language" (limba de stat) of the country. In the ] of ], it is co-official with ] and ]. The ] law on language of the ], which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution {{ref|Constitution}}, asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-] identity". {{ref|languagelaw}} ] ] 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You want to say that according to Moldavan constitution the state languga is called Romaninan? It is new to me, please provide references ] 08:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know is new for you but you have them above. And don't forget that was officially renamed in Romanian in 1989. ] ] 08:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: According to the Moldovan constitution | |||
| ''Article 13 The National Language, Use of Other Languages'' | |||
| :::::''(1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is '''Moldovan''', and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet...'' | |||
| ::::: I am affraid you owe me an appology ] 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What appology? You didn't read all I suppose. Read one more time. According to the laws that are still working '''Title I, Article 13 of the Moldovan Constitution''', names it the '''"national language" (limba de stat)''' of the country. The '''] law on language''' of the ], which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution {{ref|Constitution}}, '''asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-] identity".''' ] ] 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, According to the Title 1, Article 13 the State Language of Molova is named '''Moldavian Language Latin Script'''. Period. The day they change it to '''Romanian Language Latin Script''' we will change the state language in our articles, before this, the language is Moldavian. ] 11:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think "according to most Romanian and Moldavian linguists" would be better. Seriously, most non-extremist-nationalist linguists don't touch "dialect/language" issues with a ]. :) - ] 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| ::Francis not only Romanian or Moldavian linguists, other as well from all over the world agreed that it's about Romanian with a another name. ] ] 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: You have to stay in Tiraspol if you want to study the problem. --] 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Vasile, I agree, although I would characterise this as more of a ''dispute'' than a problem. Bonaparte, you didn't read, or didn't understand what I wrote. - ] 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It is for you, maybe, to study in Tiraspol whether is a dispute or a problem. --] 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's not bring the here, otherwise we will get tired of typing :) --] 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Haha, true, I don't think wiser words have been said. ;) - ] 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===="Copyrighted paragraph"==== | |||
| There is a paragraph based on Pavliuk's article, that is constantly inserted as relevant to the ''Aftermath'' and removed as a copyvio. I do not have my opinion on the copyright status of it as I have not seen the alleged original. According to my experience it is needed 15-20 minutes to completely retell a paragraph of such a size without any copyright problems. We can do it here while the article is protected. Alternatively we can put it as an attributed quote. I prefer the second way as the part about the common interests of Moldova and Ukraine is not a fact but an opinion and should be attributed. ] 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Theresa answered very well...http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Just_a_tag#Copyvio_accusations and not only there. ] ] 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I understand, many disagree with you. Is the Pavliuk's article available online? ] 08:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's kind of strange that you reject a valid source as Pavliuk (Oleksandr Pavliuk,Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze) they are not romanians I suppose with those names, so they are more likely to be russians :) Their point of view is very neutral, so I see no problem. Who dissagree with me are more likely to diasgree with NPOV. ] ] 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bonaparte, I'm not sure you get it. I agree with nearly everything your god-forsaken sources whose copyrights you have repeatedly violated have to say. I just '''don't''' agree with you copy-pasting what they have to say directly in giant chunks, or without putting it in quotes. --] 09:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have nothing against the source. Actually I want to put it verbatim and attributed. I jusy do not want to mix Facts and Opinions ] 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think Node_ue put it very well ''The paragraph or two just before "The Kozak Memorandum" is the only one I can find with the diff engine. I thought there were more, but I can't seem to find them.'' then he added ''Also, the section containing the text "within the framework of Moldovan" was copyvio'', when I reffered to the section with "within the framework", Theresa said: ''Node_Ue this doesn't look like a copyvio to me. Is this one of the paragraphs you are disputing?'' and Node_ue replied ''No -- it's not.''. | |||
| I mean really, is there anything else to add here ? :) --] 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Russian POV==== | |||
| As a representative of a Russian POV I have a following problems: | |||
| *The legality or illegality of somebody's actions is decided in the Courts of Law, not in Misplaced Pages articles. I am not aware of any of such court descisions. Thus instead of ''Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally'', I would like to have some attribution ''According to many political analysts (including Mr. Pavliuk) Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally''. | |||
| :this is the was President of Moldova declared. A Precidency of a country is an authority. So if he said that russian troups are illegal then is illegal. | |||
| ::Great suggestion: ''According to President of Moldova Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally''. Thanks. If you could provide the dates and sources it would be even better. | |||
| :::What do you mean "according to president of Moldova" ? This is simply part of the country that is under occupation. How could this be "legal" ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Similarly, the phrase ''Ukraine and Moldova share common interest in removing the Russian Army'' is an opinion not a fact (quite possibly they share common interest in keeping the peace in the region without sending their own peacekeepers). Both phrases appear in the disputed Pavliuk's paragraph and the problem will simply disappear if we attribute the quote to Pavliuk. | |||
| :Both countries had declared in written that wants russian troups out of the territory of Moldova. There are also many US declarations in this sense. | |||
| ::It is fine to say that both Ukraine and Moldova asked Russia to withdraw the forces. It is a good suggestion and I applaud it. It would be even better if we can provide the dates and sources, but I agree even on the unsourced version] 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Very good. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Many Russians believe that the 14th Army was a peacekeeping force that stopped the bloody war, not a participant in the war. I would like to see this opinion mentioned somewhere.] 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually many believe that so called " peacekeeping force " are only '''occupation forces'''! Can you explain otherwise why US, Europe, China said that Russian go out? ] ] 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Peacekeeping is their official status, anyway I do not insist they will be called peacekeeping forces through out the article, still mentioning it once somewhere will be nice ] 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we have any official (non-Russian and non-Transnistrian of course) source confirming their peacekeeping status ? If not then they are simply occupation forces. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Personal comments and other rants=== | |||
| :''Please do not use this section for ]'' | |||
| == Wholesale reversion by Wojsyl == | |||
| OK take a look at this: "I have restored the unexplained wholesale reversions by an anon of TS01D, mine, Node ue and Phil Boswell edits, I do not think we deserve such a treatment by an anon abakharev 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)" (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Transnistria/archive_2") | |||
| And of course, Abakharev's reversion of ''anon vandalism'' was instantly reverted by Wojsyl with '''no good explanation''', especially considering that in doing so, Wojsyl: | |||
| # Re-inserted copyvio material | |||
| # Removed a perfectly-valid interwiki link | |||
| # Overwrote corrections to English grammar and usage | |||
| Please explain. --Node | |||
| :Theresa already explained you once Node. See the discussions in the Archive. However now is important to discuss the issues not the grammar spelling. You can do that later. And don't pretend that you didn't remove valid references. You should explain why you did. ] ] 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::1) Theresa Knott never explained Wojsyl's reversion. Nobody is really discussing grammar or spelling here, we're talking about '''copyvio''', '''removal of interwiki links''', and '''reversion of perfectly valid corrections''' of poor English. 2) I never removed any valid references. I just removed ]. --] 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::She did. Check in the archive. Case closed. ] ] 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I checked. She didn't. Case not closed. --] 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==stop talking in terms of russian POV== | |||
| #This is my first suggestion. ] ] 07:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #: Why not? Russia is a party to the conflict and according to ] all points of view should be included. ] 08:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #::Why not you ask? Because is better for you to try to be neutral I suppose. I know is hard for you but try it. We all here try to be neutral and in the moment when you position yourself as the representant of the russian POV looks not good, that's why. Try to be neutral and bring valid, neutral sources like we did. ] ] 08:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Bonaparte, how can you pretend that you are neutral? For humans to truly be neutral in a conflict is impossible, especially in a conflict which is close to them... and I must say, ever the Romanian nationalist, the issue of Transnistria is clearly very close to you. At least Alex Bakharev admits that he is not neutral, even though he tries. You, on the other hand, pretend that it is possible for you to be neutral, when it really isn't. --] 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So, my opinion is that instead of self proclaiming the russian POV you should pay more care to the sources and facts that were presented here. ] ] 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately all the people who know enough about a given topic to write about it, have a point of view on the topic. I could say I'm pretty neutral right now - the closest I've been to romania, or transistrania for that matter, is Budapest. But what use is a person like me who doesn't know enough about this thing to even have a POV. We just have to live with the fact that there will be POV, but at least we should try to present all of the possbible points of view, making the article somewhat neutral. :) --] 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==US asks Russia to withdraw the troups from Transnistria== | |||
| The article is here ]. It is in romanian. Someone should translate this please. | |||
| :SUA someaza Rusia sa se retraga din Transnistria | |||
| :SUA au cerut din nou Rusiei sa isi retraga trupele din Moldova si s-au declarat dezamagite de faptul ca negocierile in dosarul transnistrean bat pasul pe loc, potrivit site-ului Departamentului de Stat, citat de Mediafax. „Practic, nu a a fost inregistrat nici un progres, mai ales din cauza atitudinii obstructive a partii transnistrene“, a declarat, joi, ambasadorul Julie Finley, reprezentantul permanent al Statelor Unite in cadrul Organizatiei pentru Securitate si Cooperare in Europa (OSCE), referindu-se la negocierile din perioada 15-16 decembrie. „Nimic nu ar ajuta mai mult procesul de reglementare decat incheierea retragerii trupelor Federatiei Ruse de pe teritoriul moldovean, asa cum prevad angajamentele asumate la summit-ul de la Istanbul din 1999“, a declarat Julie Finley. | |||
| :Ea a cerut partilor sa demonstreze ca trateaza negocierile cu seriozitate, o ocazie fiind urmatoarea intalnire la masa verde, din 26-27 ianuarie, care va avea loc in Moldova. „Cerem in special partii transnistrene sa respecte atat spiritul, cat si termenii protocoalelor stabilite la cele doua runde in format cinci plus doi, care au avut loc anterior, si sa furnizeze OSCE informatii militare complete cat mai repede cu putinta“, a spus ambasadorul american. Statele Unite sprijina o solutionare pasnica a conflictului, care sa respecte suveranitatea, independenta si integritatea teritoriala a Republicii Moldova, a adaugat ea. | |||
| :SUA si UE au statut de observatori la negocierile mediate de OSCE. ] ] 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages is '''not a discussion forum'''. We are attempting to build an encyclopaedia. Talk pages are to allow fellow encyclopaedia-builders exchange messages relating to a specific article. They are '''''not''''' for you to post large amounts of text from news articles. It should be sufficient to ''link to them''. It is not only annoying, but bad Wikiquette, to copy the entire thing and paste it here. It takes up lots of space and makes talkpages hard to navigate. Because of you, there are over 10 archived pages on ]. You constantly posted news articles, pasted articles from books and webpages, and the like. It made it all much more confusing. Now please, please, please, stop posting full-text articles. --] 09:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd say the 10 archived pages are due to Node_ue. --] 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And remind me when you stepped in to that talk page? Around the time of Archive Page #9 or maybe #10? --] 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Lets put the info in the article ] 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Megalomanul Smirnov a ridicat un complex sportiv de 500.000.000 $ == | |||
| http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2006-01-05&id=14030 ] ] 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Someone should translate this also please. | |||
| *OK lets put it here as well] 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This article ] is about how the family of Smirnov controlls the economy. ] ] 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] should also be updated. Two years ago, Washington Times estimated the cost of the completed parts of the complex to $200 million. ] | |||
| :::Some facts about ] according to ]: | |||
| *:::-average wage is 35$/month (this is very poor) | |||
| *:::-average wage of a worker 20$/month (extremely poor) | |||
| *:::-average wage of a journalist 90$ | |||
| *:::-average wage of a teacher 70$ | |||
| ] ] 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Any article whose title starts with "megalomanul smirnov..." is clearly not neutral. --] 09:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a fact that all ] like huge things. Look at ](North Korea) or ](Iraq). And is very neutral since it reflects reality...] ] 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::To assert that Smirnov is a dictator is POV. While I certainly don't think that Transnistria is _truly_ democratic, it claims to be, and one must admit that they have presidential elections. And does the article ] say "Since he's a dictator, he likes huge things"?? No. --] 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: According to dictionary.com: | |||
| ::: ''megalomania: An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.'' | |||
| ::: Can you claim that building a $500 million stadium/sports complex/hotel in a very poor country is not something extravagant ? ] 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, I can. Thus is the framework of NPOV. Everything is relative. You can't use such adjectives as "extravagant" because there are no objective criteria for measuring them. --] 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: You have to find more solide criteria of "neutral". --] 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright issues == | |||
| I don't understand the sense of this "protected" tag applied on the article. Once again, with all sort of editorial and adminship special policies and tools, this article was "frozen". And this time I see no objective reason to that. With all due respect, I request the removing of the "protected" tag. --] 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. ] ] 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Not until we have the dispute with Node settled one or the other way. I don't think we need to waste time on perpetual revert wars. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I doubt that we will be able to settle the main dispute with Node any time soon. However, the majority of contributors to this article have already agreed on a number of other changes and I believe it would be beneficial to act on those. As regards the larger dispute, I am sure we can all use self-restraint and refrain from making great changes in those volatile areas until a consensus is reached. In any case, it is not fair that one user should be able to freeze an entire article. ] 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Can we agree on these alleged copyvios, then ? Firstly, which parts are supposed to be copyvios, specifically ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: If I understand well, the problem is located on a statement (opinion about a common interest Moldo-Ukrainian). While the statement doesn't say too much about that alleged "common interest" and nobody can say what the authors actually have thought about the matter, I suggest that the statement should be discarded and let's move on, unprotecting the article. --] 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that we can move on and add the things that I presented you below. ] ] 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you mean this statement of the article: | |||
| ::::''Also Moldovan and Ukrainian authorities share an interest in a resolution of the crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty and in the removal of Russian forces from the region.'' | |||
| :::makes a copyvio ? We have already agreed to change it into: | |||
| ::::''Both Ukraine and Moldova requested Russia to withdraw the forces'', | |||
| :::so this one hopefully is solved. Are there any other copyright issues, or was this the only one left ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I never read any Ukraine leader that formally requested Russia to withdraw its army from Moldova. --] 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not that I know of. ] 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::They (Ukr. President and Md. President have agreed and met many times and have common declaration on the territorial integrity of Moldova, status of russian forces and so on..) especially after "orange revolution from Ukraine" when Ukraine left moscow for bruxell.] ] 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Do we have any statement or other source to confirm it ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===source no. 1=== | |||
| Yes! I put now the romanian request and later the US and so on. | |||
| President Traian Basescu declared yesterday in Kiev, that the first step to solve the transnistrian crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime. | |||
| In the speech presented at the Forum of the Democratic Option Community, the president referd at the Romania's responsability as an NATO member and future UE member state, in the process of democratic transformation, showing that "Romania is ready to share its expreience, for that itself has benefited by the support of friends". At the reunion where presidents of Estonia, Georgia, Letonia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine have also took part, Basescu discussed the problem of the security and stability in the baltic-pontic-caspic region. In this context, the chief of state affirmed that the most important challange it is the existance in the area of conflict zones, such as the autoritarian regimes from the separatist entities of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Osetia. President Basescu showed that, for Romania, Transnistria represints the most close and the most clear example in this sense. "The first step to solving the crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and also the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime, on the basis of a precise callendar, with multilateral guarantees", has underlined the chef of state. | |||
| The source link is the newspaper Romania libera: (http://www.romanialibera.ro/editie/index.php?url=articol&tabel=z03122005&idx=10) also others Curierul National (http://www.curierulnational.ro/?page=articol&editie=1018&art=66680) ] ] 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===source no. 2 US State Dept.=== | |||
| Link: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=December&x=200512221225281CJsamohT0.2225305&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html | |||
| The conflict was halted by Russian troops, who remain in the region despite Russian pledges at the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit to withdraw them. | |||
| '''Calls for Russia to fulfill its pledge to withdraw its troops from Moldova have accompanied U.S. statements on the conflict for years, and Finley’s statement December 22 was no exception. “Nothing,” she said, “would help the settlement process more tangibly than for the Russian Federation to resume the withdrawal of its forces from Moldovan territory in fulfillment of its 1999 Istanbul Summit commitment.”''' | |||
| '''The United States supports a peaceful settlement to the conflict that fully respects Moldova's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, Finley said.''' | |||
| ] ] 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Allright. Do we have any other copyright issues in the article remaining, or was that all ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 18:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No, we're fine. Now let's re-open the page. ] 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would very much like to, but I would also like to hear a statement of others, esp. Node and Alex on this. In the meantime, let's work on Bonaparte's list below. --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Things that must be added== | |||
| I made an incomplete list with the things that must be added to this article: | |||
| '''All the aspects from this list must be emphasized and accentuated in the article:''' | |||
| #Poor wages (20$-month) for workers and other categories of people | |||
| #* Poor is a relative term. What is the cost of living? -TK | |||
| #:Yes, how does it compare to Ukraine or the rest of Moldova ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:: According to , in Moldova, in November 2005, the monthly average salary was 1284 lei ($100) and the average wage in agriculture was 674 lei ($52). () ] 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #about the meaning of ]/] identity which has led to political conflict and ultimately civil war | |||
| #russification process made by war, force, deportations, massacre, prison, etc. | |||
| #changing of the ethnic composition | |||
| #the cultural and ideological identity applied to create another nation | |||
| #political tactics like school closures (romanian language one) | |||
| #status of ] | |||
| #factors that influence the status of ] | |||
| #]'s role in the region | |||
| #], ], ] and other powers role in ] | |||
| #border identity | |||
| #isolation of the regime at internationally level | |||
| #relations with other countries including Gov. of Moldova | |||
| #influences of the activities of the Popular Front (a pan-Romanian organization) | |||
| #Igor Smirnov's real identity - short CV, background | |||
| #opposition to democratization and conflict resolution of the current gov. | |||
| #identity formation and socialization by education (-->see closure of romanian langauge schools) | |||
| #OSCE's role in Transnistria | |||
| #opposition to latin script of Romanian language | |||
| #politicization of education and instruments for creating visions of Transnistrian indentity | |||
| #future status part, autonomy, federal? | |||
| #census results, illegal changing of the results | |||
| #elections in ] | |||
| #political interference in education and culture | |||
| #teaching of history, "history of Romanians", "history of Moldovans", "history of Moldova" | |||
| #free press, mass-media | |||
| #schools closures in Transnistria, impact at the internationally level, impact on the civil society in ], ] and other countries | |||
| #the influence of the fact that there are more ukrainians then russians in Transnistria (28% vs. 25%) | |||
| #international comunity reaction | |||
| #maybe the last one impact of a future union of Moldova with Romania, or joining the EU. | |||
| I will complete the list with other issues later. ] ] 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This article is pretty long already. How about extracting ] to a separate article ? This could also possibly help in keeping the edit conflicts away from the main article. What do you think ? --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==List of Romanian bias in the article== | |||
| "Romanian bias", you are already biased by bringing us such a nice new section name. --] 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''From the Middle Ages to the 20th Century''' | |||
| #Russian Empire ''annexed'' rather than ''colonized'' Transnistria in the late 18th century , since it was not an independent nation at the time but Ottoman Empire's procession and in the context of time Russian Empire had legitimate claims to the regions (i.e. Orthodox Christian empire protecting its co-religionists, re-taking the lands of Kievan Rus and Byzantine Empire to whom Moscow traced its historic origin etc. ) | |||
| #: Hi Fisenko, long time no see. As regards the above-mentioned statement, I believe that the word colonization is more appropriate in this particular context. Though the region was in fact annexed by the Russian Empire, colonization refers to the settlement of the region by people not native to the region. This did in fact happen to some extent as people of different nationalities were brought to the region in order to develop the area. The word colonization here should not be viewed as bias as it does not necessarily have a negative connotation but merely reflects a reality. ] 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #::] is used too liberally all around to make a point that something bad was done rather than to use the right word. In fact, you cannot ] something through the treaty, even an unfair treaty forced by the stronger nation over the weaker one, because ] is a unilateral act. "Forcing to cede", "expand", "drive out", etc. should ne used instead of ] in such circumstances. --] 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It wasn't I who proposed using the word annexation, but Fisenko. The current word used is colonization. ] 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| '''Soviet Moldova''' | |||
| # | |||
| #''The Moldovian SSR became the subject of a systematic policy of Russification, even more so than in Tsarist times. Cyrillic was made the official script for Moldavian.'' | |||
| This is another biased statement. Especially the issue of Cyrillic alphabet which is not a simply Russian policy completely foreign to native people of Moldova but also a historic script used in the region even by Romanian-speakers. Latin alphabet was only introduced in Moldova in the 20th century unlike in Romania proper where switch from Cyrillic to Latin occurred almost century earlier. | |||
| : Moldovan "Soviet-made" Cyrillic is not the same thing as Romanian Cyrillic. You can write English using the English Latin alphabet or you chen rait it iuzing Rumeiniăn Latin alphabet. :-) ] 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's not horribly different. The only changes were to symbols for vowels. Well, that's originally -- later on (in the 1970s or 1980s I think?), they added the glyph of "zhe" with the little breve above it to signify the "dj" sound. Also, there are only a handful of changes to vowels, and some could be considered "standardisation" because that character was already used in some situations (such as character for î). In fact, as far as I know, the only 2 real differences were using "ь" instead of "й" for the palatalisation at the end of words, and using "э" instead of "ъ" for the short u sound. So ðat woud be like riting English like ðis I þink. Yes, it's different, but any language with a long written history undergoes some sort of reform at some point. I think the '''most major''' change was the switch from using Graiul Moldovenesc in writing (cf Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei) to using Bucharestian with only a few changes (пыне, кыне instead of пыине, кыине is the chief example), and in some situations trying to replace Gallicisms and Italianisms with Slavicisms or even to replace Romanian words with Slavicisms (амик -> приетен; тимп -> време). --] 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Violation of human rights''' | |||
| # | |||
| #Text below election poster of Igor Smirnov should be instead "Pro Russian election propaganda during 2001 presidential election in Transnistria" changed to more neutral statement such as "Igor Smirnov poster during 2001 presidential election in Transnistria" | |||
| #Transnistrian point of view on conflict with Moldova should either be mentioned or the whole focus of the article which is currently basically states only Moldovan/Romanian view of Tiraspol should be modified. | |||
| For example virtually every problem (crime, corruption, lack of democracy, poverty, harsh prison conditions, women trafficking, religious intolerance etc.) exist elsewhere in Moldova on the same level (or worse) as in Transnistria but it is not a focus of the article about ]. | |||
| ::For example ? Reports given in the references indicate that the rate of corruption, crime is much bigger in that region, and your "for example" just doesn't work. --] 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''2004 crisis''' | |||
| #The fact what arrested teachers and parents were released the same day within few hours should be mentioned. | |||
| ::Reference please. --] 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Economy''' | |||
| #The claim what Transnistria is "poorest region in Europe" is highly questionable. By article's own admission a large part of Transnistrian economy is shadow and thus official statistic provided here are of little relevance. Keep in mind as it stated in the article 1) Transnistria is the industrial region of Moldova, while the rest of country is agricultural. 2) A large part of national revenue everywhere in Moldova comes from income earned by its citizens working abroad. | |||
| :Given the official reports and official data it is, if you have valid references proving them wrong, bring it on. --] 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #My information about a number of other large factories in Transnistria not mention in the current version of Economy section of the article and was repeatedly deleted in the past. | |||
| :Cool, my neighbor's information, my neighbor's friend information. --] 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not constructive. Misplaced Pages has a Cite Sources policy. If he has relevant information from a ''credible source'', he should be allowed to use it. Your neighbour and your neighbour's friend are '''not''' credible sources for information about Transnistria unless they should happen to be experts which I somehow doubt. --] 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Bring citations. ] 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Overall '''Economy''', '''Violation of human rights''' and '''Crime''' sections of the article contain most bias. ] 23:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you say. --] 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::...--] 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of Protection == | |||
| I believe we have deliberated enough to warrant the removal of the current freeze on this page. We have reached several important decisions that should be implemented sooner rather than later, otherwise valid ideas will just stack up and be made irrelevant by other disputes. I mean we can sit here and talk until the cows go home but it's not as if we can achieve an ABSOLUTE reconociliation. The present situation is adequate to allow a re-opening of the page to permit futher work. ] 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. Although we should make agreed-upon changes ASAP, I think that an unprotection of the page would just start edit wars anew. --] 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with Node on this one.] 01:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, what do you propose then? ] 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What I see no is that is no opposition to the proposed statement "Ukraine and Moldova against presence of Russian army". There will be more war-edit,] just promised that. But the article should be unprotected now. --] 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh-ho-ho... I "promised" it, did I? No, I said "I think". I don't really have much of a problem with the "Ukraine and Moldova against presence of Russian army" although I'm still a bit skeptical about claims that Ukraine opposes Russian presence (well, OK, obviously they oppose Russian presence just because the Ukrainian government is now pro-EU and anti-Russia, but I mean specific opposition rather than a generalised resentment of Russia). I don't think that will be an issue. I would expect revert wars to be over other things. --] 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Since Node is obviously unable to prove his allegations of copyvio, and even not able to show which parts of the article are the supposed copyvios, I call for a consensus that each such edit of his based on unsupported copyvio allegations will be promptly reverted to avoid the confusion that we have experienced recently. --] <sup>(])</sup> 10:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I proved my allegations, you just ignored it. --] 08:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Come on, playing this kind of game is a waste of time both for me and you. I've asked you many times to show which specific part of the article is the alleged copyvio, but you never did and I'm sure there're many witnesses to confirm this. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did. Please, don't pretend I didn't. Check the archives of this page, it's very clear. --] 09:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Support. --] 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Support. --] 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Support. --] 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Support. ] 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Support. ] ] 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Support. --] <sup>(])</sup> 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well what have we here... all "support" voters are Romanians... surprise? No. --] 08:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Come on Node, have some ]s and be content. ] 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Anyway, I see that a consensus at least on this Node's allegation has been reached. I did not expect Node to support it, as he clearly has his own agenda here. I'm going to request the article being unblocked soon, and we'll see what happens. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've unprotected the page as it seems acceptable to most users here. Don't start edit-warring though. If you think that protection may be required again, you can post a request at ]. ] 16:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Finally. Hurrah! ] 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Chiming in belatedly == | |||
| Hi, Bonaparte asked me to take a look at this page. I don't have a lot to say at this time, but I do have three comments: | |||
| # If people can agree to unprotect the page, great! | |||
| # If not, any genuinely undisputed edits can be made by an admin, once identified and agreed upon. | |||
| # On a separate matter: when alleging copyright violation, it is important to be very specific what you feel is the problem. Keep in mind that there is precedent under fair use law for almost any amount of quotation of political statements by professional politicians. For example, newspapers routinely reproduce entire speeches, and even commercial works ''hostile'' to a politician have been published that consisted almost entirely of quotations from that politician (the ''Bushisms'' series, for example). A paragraph or two quoted from a political figure, especially if it comes from a speech or a newspaper article rather than a book, and as long as it is correctly attributed and used in a relevant context, is almost always fair use. | |||
| ] | ] 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| It has come to my attention that someone is using ] to edit this article. edit was made by an open proxy {{vandal|212.50.186.45}} which I have indefinitely blocked. Editing Misplaced Pages through open proxies is not allowed and IMO is it a shame that there is no way to find out who is using them. ] in this manner is unacceptable in my opinion and I see it as a very cowardly approach; Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. (Message to whoever is using them): if you want your edits to be accepted, please use the talk page to justify them - IMO using open proxies rebuts ]. ] 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==restored information deleted by node ue== | |||
| I restored information deleted by node ue. ] 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{vandal|83.220.143.18}} is also an ] and has been indefinitely blocked. ] 17:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| why did u block him?] 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Because open proxys are not allowed. --] 07:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Removed reference == | |||
| Why was this reference removed from the article: | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| | author = Graeme Herd, Jennifer Moroney | |||
| | title = Security Dynamics in the Former Soviet Bloc | |||
| | id = ISBN 041529732X | |||
| }} | |||
| ] | ] 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Image of map == | |||
| Can someone add a legend to the map into the image page? (I am curious about the meaning of the solid blue area and the areas bounded bu blue lines). I'd also like to see ] there (and in other maps of Moldova), but I guess it is a different technical issue. ] ] 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :solid blue area is transnistria as an administrative division according to moldovan law, and the are bounded by the blue line represent territories that are administred by de facto independent transnistrian authorities (or at least what they claim to be, see map in population section) : transnitria as teritorial unit + most of dubasari raion, municipality of tighina + part of causeni raion (gyska and kitskany regions). the dniester can be added, but the color of the selection should be changed, for contrast. if you want the dniester in all moldavian maps, it's easy to put it, but you'll have to reupload a lot of maps, some of them in commons. please suggest what should i say in a legend and what colour should i choos for the selection, if you want to add the dniester. ] 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A reference request == | |||
| Would the person who claimed that 90% of Moldovan industry is in the disputed Transnistrian region? I'm not trying to argue anything, I just think that source wil be useful in a paper for a class of mine. | |||
| : No, it says 90% of its electricity production, not of the whole industry. | |||
| : And the exact citation is: | |||
| :: ''John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (editors) Regional Peacekeepers. The paradox of Russian peacekeeping. (2003) United Nations University Press ISBN 9280810790, pp 135'' | |||
| : ] 12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==new links== | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| These links are very neutral and fits very well with the current situation from Transnistria. {{unsigned|80.58.19.170}} | |||
| :: The absence of neutrality and offencive character of the linked pages is obvious. {{vandal|80.58.19.170}} Please, stop adding spam to Misplaced Pages. --] 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: AFAIK, links are not required to be NPOV, but to be accepted they have to have enough quality content relevant to the article. ] 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The problem is that besides not being NPOV, which is of course not a demand for personal pages, these links don't have enough quality. If you visit one of them, you'll see it immediately. --] 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For me they have enough quality. Quiet illustrated view on Transnistria.<br>Zserghei are you angry? Look Zserghei you have to accept opposition. I know that in Russia they closing NGOs but Misplaced Pages is not yet in your sphere of influence. Not many transnistrians are pro-Russians that is a fact, Zserghei stop living in a dream world, the only link that you accept are highly misinformation pro-Russian puppet sites- that is unfair, let show two sides of this issue.<br>] 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I couldn't access the first one. The second does not look to me like a quality site. - ] | ] 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think the second one is perhaps a spoof site? | |||
| :''Visitors to Pridnestrovie report that unique among countries in South Eastern Europe, the paperwork process is clear, transparent and easy. There is no visa required and only a quick, hassle-free registration for longer stays. As a multi-ethnic country, Pridnestrovie welcomes foreign visitors with open arms. We hope that you'll visit and see the reality of what our country has accomplished. '' | |||
| The domain was registered in Mexico by the ] which is also registered in Mexico. - ] 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Clarification, I'm talking about site as the "second one". - ] 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| Thanks for the clarification, because Jmabel above is talking about EvilAlex-created site when he refers to the second site above. | |||
| is not a spoof site which is clear from reading their or the . It clearly has a Transnistrian POV. List it under the "Transnistrian side" links so it is clear that the information is biased towards presenting a positive image of Transnistria. The site itself, both in its Russian and English versions, does not attempt to hide that fact either. - ] 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Pridnestrovie.net should be added to the link section, clearly labelled as "Transnistrian side". As Bogdan says, links are not required to be NPOV but just to have enough quality content relevant to the article. Pridnestrovie.net seems to have around two hundred Transnistria photos and around one hundred Transnistria articles. See the site's quite extensive so I think it qualifies. If anyone disagrees let us have a discussion about this, but IMHO it should be added back and stay under Transnistria-side links as a resource for those who want to understand the POV of the Transnistrian side and their opinions on how to solve the conflict. ] 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look this site is misinformational – it is nobody sites<br>It is not reliable<br>1-It says:” International observers call elections free, democratic” Whoever created that site didn’t want to tell you true abou real transnistria!<br>2- “Since independence in 1990, it has a free market economy, 200% growth, and a multi-party democracy with the opposition in control of parliament.”<br>Every opposition leader or fled the country or in jail.<br>There are many misinformational articles (note I am not talking about controversial, I am talking about completely misinformational) <br>] 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::EvilAlex, I understand that you do not agree with the contents of a site. Your own biased POV is clear from the two sites which you yourself created, and . But we list under Transnistria POV. As for not being reliable, please provide sources for your blanket statements.<br>1 - In the last election there were 153 international observers. OSCE did not participate so OSCE does not regard the elections democratic. CIS-EMO did participate and did call them democratic. This is widely reported in the press, see Regnum.ru for instance. Among the observers were members of Parliament, for instance from the Polish Sejm. To say that there were no international observers (as you imply by calling Pridnestrovie.net's info wrong) is not true. Moreover, those observers who were present clearly said what they felt about the elections. If you do not agree, sorry. But the opinion of the 153 international observers are on the record. I am not advocating a point of view but just stating the facts.<br>2 - You dispute the economic figures or thhe fact that tere are multiple parties in Transnistria. Please provide objective data on alternative growth figures. Please provide objective source denying the existence of multiple political parties in Transnistria.<br>3 - Reference, please, for the statement "every opposition leader or fled the country or in jail". Alexander Radchenko lives in Transnistria and is often the subject of foreign interviews. Tom Zenovich still lives in Transnistria. They are not in jail, nor have they ever been. Yevgeny Shevchuk and Mikhail Burla not only still live in Transnistria, they are leaders of an opposition bloc in the Supreme Soviet. You may not agree with them as being opposition (because they do not support your views) but they are: The Council of Europe has recognized Yevgeny Shevchuk as the main Transnistrian opposition leader in a 2005 report. Also in 2005 he used his parliamentary bloc to drive sweeping changes to the electoral code. For instance, election station chairman are no longer appointed by the ruling party but have to meet objective legal criteria. The latest human rights report from the U.S. State Department, released yesterday, also notes that in July 2005 the opposition block in parliament succeeded in making changes to the election code to prohibit media controlled by the Transnistrian government authorities from publishing results of polls and forecasts related to elections which is an advance in order to prevent the government from influencing the way people would vote. <br>Main point to EvilAlex is that you can not just delete a link because you disagree with it. According to the page's history, this is now the third time you do so. This qualifies a vandalism. The link is clearly labelled "Transnistria side" and does not purport to be objective. However, you have yet to point out a single factual error or mistake. With hundreds of photos and articles it would appear to be a quality side even if those of us here do not agree with every opinion it has. I would like to discuss this more but unless a violation of Misplaced Pages policy (such as no relevance) can be shown, then it should be included and should stay included. ] 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 1- CIS-EMO organization (so-called “Elections Monitoring Organization”), is not recognized internationally as an independent election observer. This organization was proven to have poor records in Ukraine ,Kyrgyzstan .<br> | |||
| "Soon after the CIS monitors declared the Kyrgyz vote was "free and transparent," large-scale and often violent demonstrations broke out throughout the country protesting what the opposition called a rigged parliamentary election. These protests culminated on 24 March when Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev fled the country and a new government was formed." <br> | |||
| See . <br> | |||
| "153 international observers" -- so many ??? 153 members of the circus... :))))<br> | |||
| 2- see ] is a Moldovan and Romanian politician, famous for being sentenced to death by the separatist Transnistrian government.<br> | |||
| ] 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :1- "Not recognized internationally" is another blanket statement. CIS-EMO is recognized by the countries and governments funding it. Among other accredited observers there were members of Parliaments (Poland, Russia), political leaders (Ukraine, Jordan) and human rights workers (Britain). A group from Chisinau, Patria Moldova, also sent observers. It is easy to discredit observers, but ultimately we are not arguing whether or not these observers have merit. Rather, Pridnestrovie.net states that there were international observers present (which there were) and that they deemed the elections free and fair (which they did). Pridnestrovie.net also clearly states that the OSCE did NOT participate and claims that the elections were not free and that the OSCE does not recognize the election. Even though the site is obviously Transnistrian in POV, I have yet to find anything untrue. | |||
| :2- Ilie Ilaşcu left years ago to pursue a political career as a senator in Romania. He obviously could not get the required votes to be elected for anything in Transnistria. He is not relevant to the political situation in Transnistria today (2006). Bringing him into the debate hardly serves to reference your statement that "every opposition leader or fled the country or in jail". Former presidential opposition candidates Alexander Radchenko and Tom Zenovich still live Transnistria, as do Yevgeny Shevchuk and Mikhail Burla, leaders of an opposition bloc which today holds the majority in the Supreme Soviet. | |||
| I respect Alex Bakharev but I believe that in this particular case he has failed to make his point and vote that we should restore the link to as being relevant and not in violation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. ] 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ilascu did not left Tirspol by his own, he was forcibly expelled, personally by Mr. Antiufeev in May 2001. Ilascu might be very relevant for the future of Moldova (2006). --] 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::>CIS-EMO is recognized by the countries and governments funding it.<br>By Russia :) Whatever, it have poor records, it is not well respected in international arena.<br><br>>Among other accredited observers there were members of Parliaments (Poland, Russia), political leaders (Ukraine, Jordan) and human rights workers (Britain). A group from Chisinau, Patria Moldova, also sent observers. It is easy to discredit observers, but ultimately we are not arguing whether or not these observers have merit. .<br>Ooo.. my friend that is very matter. They should be well respected in international arena, otherwise… :( no point.<br>.<br>>Rather, Pridnestrovie.net states that there were international observers present (which there were) and that they deemed the elections free and fair (which they did).<br>Look, it is misinformation. .<br>Then I can be an international observer too. Anybody who came from abroad will be an international observer. :)) .<br>.<br> >Pridnestrovie.net also clearly states that the OSCE did NOT participate and claims that the elections were not free and that the OSCE does not recognize the election. .<br>I didn’t see it small print probably. .<br>.<br>>Even though the site is obviously Transnistrian in POV <br>I am from Transnistria and my POV is diferrent from Pridnestrovie.net, so you cannot clime it as “Transnistrian POV”, our POV are different. .<br>.<br>If author of Pridnestrovie.net wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages with his articles and pictures and so on.., then I welcome it… .<br>But as a link this site is misinformational and is not reliable. .<br>] 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am just a visitor, the two of you are arguing over the content of a link, but that misses the point because links do not have to adhere to a neutral point of view, so they can be included when they have relevant content even if the content is not something that everyone agrees on, in fact that is the whole point of including different links like you have here, Russian side, Moldova side, Transnistrian side, and so on, so I give a second vote to William and say to include that link, there is no reason to not have it in there as far as policy guidelines are concerned. Sincerely, R. Gladchi | |||
| ::Link at list should reflect some reality. And not immerse visitor in to the word of fantasy. It is note reliable site. And it is note a government site- it is nobody site.<br>] 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Alex Bakharev has still not pointed out anything on the site that puts it into the world of fantasy. I have read about thirty of the site's articles so far and it has some interesting relevant background information, history of Transnistria, etc. I don't know who added the link, but the site is full of interesting info which reflects how the PMR government thinks. We may not agree with them but it is certainly relevant to know their position on the issues (and how they view themselves) as the conflict settlement talks are underway, so I am adding it back in. I am willing to continue the discussion about this, but you should not just remove the link before the editors of the page have completed the discussion. If you do so, it will be the fourth time you do so unilaterally. As Gladchi says above: the NPOV requirement does not apply to links. But to satisfy your concern, it will go be clearly marked as "Transnistria side", just as pro-Moldovan sites are labelled Moldova side etc. ] 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The link to is good. It has the exact same point of view as the other links listed under Transnistria side: and . Leave pridnestrovie.net's link in the list or else delete all of the Transnistria side links once and for all. ] 02:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| EvilAlex ALSO removed another link: | |||
| It is a site whose main content is a round-up of news. In the last 2 months and 9 days the site has published 72% pro-Moldova news, 21% pro-Transnistria, and the rest neutral. It is updated daily. It is not very pretty, design-wise, but as a news source it is the most complete "one stop" in English for Transnistria. Jim from moldova.org has posted a lot there. Why did you just delete this one, Alex, without prior discussion? Is it any worse than some of the other links? Or do you just not like the domain name? Please do not vandalise more without prior discussion. | |||
| ==pridnestrovie.net== | |||
| whois says: | |||
| pridnestrovie.net | |||
| Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (secretariat@icdiss.org) | |||
| c/o ICDISS | |||
| Paseo de la Reforma 124 | |||
| Ciudad de Mexico, Codigo Postal 22 | |||
| MX | |||
| I have little credigility for "pridnestrovians" from Mexico, and the link must be purged from the article. It is not, like, an official or semi-official country's portal, which would of course obligatory in the article about a country. Briefly looking thru webpage content my best guess it is Sheriff's spawn. ] 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :To anonymous, re domain registration origin: Do you know what "c/o" stands for? Someone else registered the name for them and are hosting it. In what way does this affect the content? Or the relevancy of the content. At any rate, if this is now a criteria for deleting links ... then we also need to also delete the following Moldova.org link in order to be consistent. Otherwise the link must stand as being relevant (albeit biased to official Transnistria POV which is why we list it under 'Transnistria Side') | |||
| moldova.org | |||
| MOLDOVA.ORG | |||
| P.O. Box 796 | |||
| Arlington, VA 22216 | |||
| USA | |||
| :Re "It is not, like, an official or semi-official country's portal". I would argue that it is. Read their : it was built following ''Ruling 2241, "On Adoption of the Foreign Policy Concept of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica"'', cites a presidential statement, has government endorsements (same page, second to last paragraph), and if you can read Russian then you can see that its is written by the state-owned Olvia Press news agency. As a country portal, it is also informative. Biased, of course, but with some interesting insight into how the official PMR sees itself vis-a-vis Moldova. The articles on international recognition are interesting, too. Oxford University staff collaborated on them and one of Condeleeza Rice's people did too as you can see from the site if you look at it a bit more than just "briefly". ] 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <br> | |||
| > then we also need to also delete the following Moldova.org link in order to be consistent.<br> | |||
| Moldova.org was launched in February 1997 by Vlad Spanu (then a senior diplomat at the Moldovan embassy in Washington, DC, now the Executive Director of The Moldova Foundation ) and Sergey Chapkey (then the President of The Rule of Law Foundation, now the President and CEO of Alfa XP Web Software Company, LLC).<br> | |||
| They are well known and respected that is why we can rely on this ste Moldova.org); | |||
| pridnestrovie.net was written by nobody from nowhere, that is why it is not reliable.<br> | |||
| >Otherwise the link must stand as being relevant (albeit biased to official Transnistria POV which is why we list it under 'Transnistria Side')<br> | |||
| I am from Transnistria and my POV is diferrent from Pridnestrovie.net, so you cannot clime it as “Transnistrian POV”, our POV are different. <br> | |||
| >Read their About page : it was built following Ruling 2241, "On Adoption of the Foreign Policy Concept of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica<br> | |||
| Any references to nobody page are not reliable.<br> | |||
| >if you can read Russian then you can see that its mission statement is written by the state-owned Olvia Press news agency.<br> | |||
| Olvia Press didn’t say anything about creating this site..<br> | |||
| And again you rely on nobody page, your references are not reliable.<br> | |||
| Misplaced Pages is not a link library.<br> | |||
| If author of Pridnestrovie.net wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages with his articles and pictures and so on.., then I welcome it… .<br> | |||
| But as a link this site is misinformational and is not reliable. .<br> | |||
| The same I can say about transdniestria.com – nobody page we cant link to it or base our references on it. | |||
| ] 13:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, EvilAlex but several people here have politely asked you to NOT VANDALISE MORE without first exhausting the discussion. Nevertheless, you just remove the links off for the fifth time. You have used a variety of arguments but failed but back up every single one of them. The latest is that these are "nobody sites" although I do not know what you mean by that. If that is a test, please apply that test consistently to ALL links and do not just remove the two sides that show an official point of view from Transnistria that you do not personally agree with. EvilAlex, please do not remove these links again without the editors of this page reaching a consensus as to what constitutes a generally agreed upon link policy. The two links which you have removed for the fifth time should be added back in while the editors of this page participate in the future constructive discussion about this. I believe that our role here is to build a useful research tool and encyclopedia and not to fight an edit war. ] 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Links policy, link section cleanup== | |||
| A couple of suggestions on the link section: It can be cleaned up somewhat by applying a policy as to which links are relevant and which links are not. As editor EvilAlex points out above, "Misplaced Pages is not a link library". I agree with him. Primarily, I suggest that in line with other Misplaced Pages articles our main link policy should be to first and foremost concentrate on including links of a "read more" type. By that I mean links which, when you are doing reading the main Misplaced Pages article on Transnistria you can then branch out and focus in more detail on some of the subjects covered in the body of the article by following the external links. Moreover, since this is English Misplaced Pages, we should only include links to sites that are either completely in English or else have a significant amount of English language content. This is not a huge problem now but if we establish guidelines for which links to include in the future then this should be one of these guidelines. | |||
| ] → {{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. | |||
| Next, I propose the following changes of a "housecleaning" nature: | |||
| 1. Move the link out of the sublabel ''Russian side'' and up under ''External links'' in general. There are several reasons. First, the text of the link does not in any way reflect or refer to official Russian policy on Transnistria. Nor does it promote Russian views. So the heading is misleading. Second, the author (Human Rights and Humanitarian Society "Memorial") has made a name for itself as anti-government in the countries it works in, Russia and elsewhere. It is very much in opposition and receives Western funding, among others from the George Soros foundation. Nothing wrong with that, but it shows that our claim on this page that their information represents the "Russian side" is just wrong and ought to be corrected in the interest of objectivity. | |||
| 2. Remove sublabel ''Others'' or else rename it in line with the previous subcategories of links, to reflect the contents of the subcategory. As it stands now, what is there to distinguish ''Others'' from the main category of initial ''External links'' in general? Removing it or alternatively relabelling it will clean up the links section of the article and make it a tool which is easier to use. If the subcategory is to be renamed, in this case we could call it ''Romanian side'' because the contents is written from a Romanian POV and spells out why there is a Romanian claim or connection of sorts to Transnistria, which I do not personally agree with but which I am certainly willing to let stand as long as the article is labelled as such and as long as we apply a similar link policy to articles with other points of views. Current status: I have not made any changes to the article or moved/deleted/changed any links since I first wanted to hear the opinions of others on the above suggestions. ] 16:27, 10 March 2006 (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. | |||
| == Moldovan vs. Romanian == | |||
| 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. | |||
| :''In the summer of 2004, the Transnistrian authorities forcibly closed six schools that taught Moldovan language using the Latin script.'' | |||
| 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. | |||
| Actually, the Transnistrian authorities name the schools that use Latin script "Romanian language" and the schools that use Cyrillic script "Moldovan language". :-) Er.. What term should we use here? Romanian, Moldovan, Romanian/Moldovan ? ] 10:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The following suggestions: | |||
| :: Bogdan, I can not answer your question. The language, of course, is Romanian, but neither Moldova nor Transnistria will call it that, so it would probably be wrong for the article to call it that also. Transnistria officially calls the language "Moldavian" when it is written with Cyrillic characters and "Romanian" when it is written with Latin characters. Republic of Moldova officially calls the language "Moldovan" regardless of the alphabet used (starting before independence, only Latin characters are used in schools and for any official purposes). | |||
| # Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie. | |||
| The insistence (by both) that Moldovan is somewhat different from Romanian is largely a fiction. I do not speak the language but I have been told that the difference is limited to a small difference in pronounciation and some words that are particular to each area. In other words, like the difference between English and American English. Romania held a "book drive" in early 2006 for books to schools in Transnistria which shows that any difference in the language is insignificant. Perhaps the best solution would be to say something like "Moldovan (similar to Romanian)" when you refer to the language. But that can be cumbersome. It would probably be a mistake to call it just plain out Romanian when none of the two governments do.] 01:24, 10 March 2006 (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. | |||
| == standard of living == | |||
| Links: | |||
| :''the average standard of living seems to be visibly higher in Transdnestr than in the rest of Moldova'' | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| :] (]) 11:03, 10 September 2024 (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 would like a reference for that. ] 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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. | |||
| ::I highly doubt it. Even if it is higher, it can't be "visibly" higher; I may be wrong of course. Either way, without a reference, that sentence is going. --] (]) 23:11, 2 February 2006 (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".) | |||
| ::I can't understand why the Transdniestrian government use communist symbolism for a non communist "state". --] (]) 23:19, 2 February 2006 (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) | |||
| ::: You know, all across the ex-Soviet Union, there is quite a number of nostalgics and the Transnistrian government wants to make sure they don't know that the Soviet Union is history. That's why they have across the city billboards with the coat-of-arms, their parliament is called the ], their newspapers have the same tone as the Soviet-era newspapers, etc. It's like ] for a whole country. :-) ] 23:38, 2 February 2006 (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) | |||
| *'''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 ] --> | |||
| :''The average monthly salary in the breakaway region is $112 per month – higher than that in the rest of Moldova. Although some ordinary residents and visitors to Transnistria suggested that this official figure seemed exaggerated to them, claiming that the average salary of a Transnistrian does not exceed $20-$40, the average standard of living seems to be visibly higher in Transdnestr than in the rest of Moldova, helped by the presence of key Soviet-era factories on Transdnestrian soil.'' | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
| == Map around Roghi: PMR or Moldova? == | |||
| I removed this until references are brought. ] 11:12, 3 February 2006 (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) | |||
| ==Moldovan language== | |||
| This article has a mistake: it's romanian language not moldovan language. --] 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I don't know whether that was a nasty dig or an innocent remark. ] and ] are essentially (some would say exactly) the same language, but the government of Moldova chooses to call the language Moldovan. It is not entirely clear whether this is a claim of a different language or (like ] ''vs.'' ]) just an insistence on using a different name for what is conceded to be the same language. Much of the article ] is about just this matter, or at least was the last time I looked. - ] | ] 00:22, 18 February 2006 (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