Talk:Transnistria: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Eastern Europe (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Moldova B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Politics and law C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Limited recognition B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 2, 2009, September 2, 2010, September 2, 2014, and September 2, 2015.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Mike Vago (July 26, 2020). "This Soviet breakaway republic never fully broke away". The A. V. Club.

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 Wikipedia'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.

There's a section "Political status" and there's "Disputed status", both about roughly the same topic. Merge? --illythr (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The later was just created by splitting the lead in two, which I've reverted. If we want to move some of this content out of the lead, I agree that it should go to the "Political status" section. TDL (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Crimea's status dealt with differently than Transnistria? The article in Wikipedia on Crimea makes it clear in many ways that the status of the territory is in dispute. For Transnistria, however, an entirely different format is used making this point far less clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.18.194 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation "[a land] by the [River] Dniester" seems not to be correct. "При-" means "near, but before" here, e.g. "Приполярный Урал" and "Полярный Урал". 46.0.4.102 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with these IP edits, and continued with recent edits, the citizenship information turned into a glut of stats, and a very long passage from the Moldovan constitution. I'm assuming double citizenship means dual citizenship. The current stats seem to ignore Transnistria citizenship, and I don't think they help the reader. Can someone who understands the sources simplify? CMD (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria - is only 'o regiune geografică'; see http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria

Link http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica_Moldoveneasc%C4%83_Nistrean%C4%83 is about unrecognized state 'Republica Moldovenească Nistreană'.

'Republica Moldovenească Nistreană (rusă: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, 
ucraineană: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка) este numele dat 
de forțele separatiste entității politice autoproclamate din Transnistria. 

Please, separate the article:

1. Transnistria (geographical ragion), synonyms are Pridnestrovie (geographical ragion) or Stînga Nistrului.

2. The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (unrecognized state), synonyms are The Dniestr Moldavian Republic (unrecognized state) or PMR. --217.19.208.110 (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give a break, will you? Recent info (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can wait. I have an interesting material that can be used in a new article about The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (unrecognized state): The International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS). State sovereignty of The Dniester Moldavian Republic in accordance with International Law , Categories of wiki-PMR , MFA PMR: Overview, Government and ATS, Production and Industrial Capacity, International and Political Situation , Basic overview of the History, Geography, Culture, Economy and Investments and Detailed History with Atlas of The Dniester Moldavian Republic. --217.19.208.101 (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is full of gibberish. It is not readable to people who only speak English. Please stop using it- you are wasting your time. Ratemonth (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been away. Just here to mention the ICDISS is a bogus front seeking to legitimize the Tiraspol regime. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01

27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's been down for the count for a while now. --illythr (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Political Status' we read this, "Transnistria is considered by the vast majority of countries as a legal part of the Republic of Moldova. Only the partially recognised states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognize it as a sovereign entity [...]" I suggest this version, "'Transnistria is not recognised by any UN member state. Only the partially recognised states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognize it as a sovereign entity [...]'"

Transnistria is just a breakaway region is not a state by no means. It's not recognized by Russia or UN either..2QW4 (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Transnistria" is a somewhat ambiguous term meaning both the region "beyond the Dniester" and the PMR. The latter certainly is a state, albeit a politically unrecognized one (a "quasi-state", so to speak). However, the only problem with your suggestion is that it adds a third "recognize(d)" into the line. --illythr (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Partially recognized" has been fought for tooth and nail by those seeking to paint the Tiraspol regime as completely legitimate. "Not recognized by any U.N. member" should be sufficient and succinct. I mean, really, even Russia doesn't have the gumption to recognize it after conquering it, providing $billions in energy subsidies, and happily watching as the bulk of Moldova's industrial assets get sold off to the Russian oligarchy. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria is not even "partially recognized", the text already says so. The proposed changes say the same thing, but with an additional "recognized" close to the other two. --illythr (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done without adding another "recognize". Hope this alleviates OP's concern. --illythr (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, now it's "partially recognized" again..? o_O --illythr (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photograph of a Transnistrian passport which raises the interesting question (true of all unrecognised States that issue "passports") of which countries accept it. Most Transnistrians (I am guessing) travel abroad outside the CIS on Moldovan or perhaps Russian passports, assuming they are eligible for them as many or most will be.) The Transnistrian and Moldovan nationality laws are online, at least in Russian and Romanian. Interestingly, some unrecognised States' passports are generally accepted as such (Taiwan), some are accepted proof of identity but visas put (at least by the USA) on a separate consular form (TRNC), and some are not accepted at all (Somaliland; but most of its "citizens" want to travel only to Arab countries so they use Somali passports which engage no security whatsoever: journalists have bought them.) Andygx (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/another-crimea-ukraines-neighbor-asks-join-russia-111331723.html 72.79.135.33 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems over the top to capitalize the entire expression "Transnistria autonomous territorial unit with special legal status". It is a description, not a title, cf. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", in which capitals are used only where it makes sense to do so. Looking at the article on the Moldovan designation, I see that the expressions in the three principal languages of the area are not similarly capitalized.

If nobody comes back on this soon, I shall alter both articles accordingly.

LynwoodF (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this and also changed a disambiguation page. LynwoodF (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who knows nothing about Transnistria, there is a lot about this article that is unclear. Who in Transnistria wants to join Russia and why? Is it the large Russian minority, as one would imagine? When and why did so many Russians end up there?Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually presence of Slavs in the early medieval period and colonization of Transnistria during the Russian Empire period are mentioned. Do you think that more details should be given? Alæxis_¿question? 20:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the peripheral Soviet republics, Russians were needed because Russian people knew advanced technologies. Wherever this phenomenon is observed, you will likely find Russian-built steel mills, car/truck/airplane factories, textile mills, etc, built and staffed by "expatriat" Russians. It all made sense at the time, but it's proven difficult to unwind. Santamoly (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire area had an overlap of Romanian and Russian, including pockets of Romanian settlement further east. Also, significant areas of German settlement. Russian interests have been portraying Transnistria as wanting to join Russia ever since Victor Alksnis sent in Antyufeyev and his OMON forces. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opinion of Ukraine now?Xx234 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit reads:

The majority of the population is ethnic Moldovan (32.1%), which historically had a higher percentage of 49.4% in 1926.

This statement is not sourced, but I have not removed it, as I suspect it contains some truth. However, 32.1% cannot constitute a majority. Do I understand correctly that the Moldovans are the largest single ethnic group? If so, could we please have a reference and a date for the figure given? LynwoodF (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has altered the wording, but there is still no reference or date, so the statement is still unsatisfactory. LynwoodF (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "ethnic Moldovan"? By this do you mean ethnic Rumanian? On other topic this article should be split into Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic which is the mostly-unrecognized government, and Transnistria which is the geographical region. 196.52.22.75 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put back the image with the hammer and sickle. The image which had replaced it is of the reverse of the flag. My edit summary went a little wrong. The matter is made clear on VexiWiki - Wikia. LynwoodF (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image has again been replaced. It seems pretty clear that the hammer and sickle do not appear on the reverse of the flag. See also this website. I shall revert the new edit.LynwoodF (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005352/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2012 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2012
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604134515/http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11767991 to http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11767991

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010052258/http://www.aiarad.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39 to http://www.aiarad.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203062724/http://www.freedomhouse.org:80/uploads/press_release/fiw07_charts.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/press_release/fiw07_charts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070616124417/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR590012007 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR590012007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927045344/http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=78&l=2 to http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=78&l=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110319155215/http://www.unece.org:80/stats/trends2005/notes.htm to http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/notes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100226201112/http://ceumonitor.group.googlepages.com/Transnistria_ethnicity.jpg/Transnistria_ethnicity-full.jpg to http://ceumonitor.group.googlepages.com/Transnistria_ethnicity.jpg/Transnistria_ethnicity-full.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418150950/http://www.cbn.com:80/cbnnews/133101.aspx to http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/133101.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140102191045/http://www.kommersant.ua/doc/656240 to http://www.kommersant.ua/doc/656240
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005522/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2143 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2143
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016050811/http://tiras.ru:80/en/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1172054345&archive=&start_from=&ucat=25& to http://www.tiras.ru/en/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1172054345&archive=&start_from=&ucat=25&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071025224219/http://www.peacebuilding.md/library/153/en/Moldova%20Strategic%20Conflict%20Assessment%202006.pdf to http://www.peacebuilding.md/library/153/en/Moldova%20Strategic%20Conflict%20Assessment%202006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205120232/http://www.tirotex.com/index.htm to http://www.tirotex.com/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005634/http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2303 to http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2303
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927010610/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2467 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2467

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a similarity in topics, editors here are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iasps.org/eng_editor/socor_show.php?lang=&main=&type=6&article_id=356
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616151054/http://strategiya-pmr.ru/?p=1237 to http://strategiya-pmr.ru/?p=1237
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://worldwindow.md/trans_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313165452/http://transnistria.md/ru/info to http://transnistria.md/ru/info
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.acus.org/publication/moldova-matters-why-progress-still-possible-ukraines-southwestern-flank
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011075500/http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041200_cstp_art_l%C3%B6wenhardt.pdf to http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041200_cstp_art_l%C3%B6wenhardt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523132421/http://www.km.press.md:80/arhiv/09_06/pridn2.html to http://www.km.press.md/arhiv/09_06/pridn2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312092901/http://politicom.moldova.org/news/tiraspol-not-willing-to-register-opposition-representative-in-electoral-race-20417-eng.html to http://politicom.moldova.org/news/tiraspol-not-willing-to-register-opposition-representative-in-electoral-race-20417-eng.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russias-humanitarian-assistance-is-a-planned-propagandist-action-chisinau-claims-11365-eng.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512230751/http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-troops-in-transnistria-a-threat-to-the-security-of-the-republic-of-moldova-20998-eng.html to http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-troops-in-transnistria-a-threat-to-the-security-of-the-republic-of-moldova-20998-eng.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616004647/http://www.vspmr.org/Upload/File/doklad2007.rar to http://www.vspmr.org/Upload/File/doklad2007.rar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207061448/http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/1.shtml to http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/1.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207061455/http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/5.shtml to http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/5.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cbpmr.net/resource/prbvd95.zip
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528060422/http://www.osce.org:80/moldova/43605 to http://www.osce.org/moldova/43605
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.osce.org/moldova/47949
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626204456/http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/05(07)-GPH.pdf to http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/05(07)-GPH.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403001714/http://tv.poiskpmr.info:80/ to http://tv.poiskpmr.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My grievance about Wikipedia taking the side of the people who commits a cultural genocide in Transnistria, by calling Romanians Moldovans,was erased because Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

No is not, that's why my grievance about this page was written, because you broke the rules and took the part of the people who commits or had committed a genocide against Romanians from Transnistria and Bessarabia.

The Moldovan vs. Romanian argument exists in that part of the world, only because the Russian part is conducting a cultural genocide and is trying with all their powers to promote that Moldovan identity from 1917, in the past, soviet times, an ethnic genocide too. So only in Russian world the Moldovan has an ethnic meaning from 1917, because of the political agenda.

So what I said in not a soapbox, because today Romanian identity is under siege in Transnistria, is banned, the only high school in the Romanian language is constant under pressure to close his gates, then not all Romanians from Transnistria have cultural links with Moldova region, but with Transylvania too! So naming Romanians from Transnistria ethnic Moldovans is flawed in many ways. Name my argument a soapbox infringement, but i name your way of taking the side of the Russian propaganda a soapbox infringement too.

http://www.nineoclock.ro/three-employees-of-%E2%80%98lucian-blaga%E2%80%99-high-school-in-tiraspol-detained-by-militia-for-five-hours/ https://books.google.ro/books?id=O5rs8UkMj64C&dq=Romanian+high+school+Tiraspol&ots=6Ba7b9Vq3B&q=In+Transnistria+authorities+continued+#v=onepage&q=In%20Transnistria%20authorities%20continued&f=false http://www.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/social/singurul-liceu-cu-predare-in-limba-romana-din-tiraspol-a-fost-inconjurat-cu-sarma-ghimpata-158011 http://www.moldova.org/en/pupils-studying-in-romanian-in-transnistria-are-surrounded-by-barbed-wire-240280-eng/ http://adevarul.ro/international/europa/ion-iovcev-tiraspol-lucian-blaga-liceu-8_52f35468c7b855ff561e4228/index.html http://www.moldova.org/en/romanian-school-in-transnistria-faces-new-provocation-241073-eng/ http://www.media-azi.md/en/incidents-lucian-blaga-high-school-tiraspol https://www.agerpres.ro/english/2016/10/30/moldova-election-romanian-speaking-people-of-transnistria-mobilised-to-vote-for-pro-europe-president-16-56-13 http://www.dela0.ro/trans-dniester-stealing-words-life-behind-europe%E2%80%99s-last-iron-curtain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.147.172 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :) Delete this spam, please. 05:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511022945/http://www.eubam.org/en/about/overview to http://www.eubam.org/en/about/overview
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.km.press.md/arhiv/09_06/pridn2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609183548/http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/ to http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moldova.org/download/eng/515/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016213958/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2CCOUNTRYPROF%2CRUS%2C%2C4954ce57c%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2CCOUNTRYPROF%2CRUS%2C%2C4954ce57c%2C0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbpmr.net/resource/prbvd95.zip
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.osce.org/moldova/47949
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120804015138/http://www.km.ru/magazin/view.asp?id=B5A90475FA6B4800A679D5F28F31C354 to http://www.km.ru/magazin/view.asp?id=B5A90475FA6B4800A679D5F28F31C354
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/05%2807%29-GPH.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transnistria.md/en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.poiskpmr.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else seeing the following error code near the top of the lead?

error: {{lang}}: unknown language code: mo (help)

As far as I can tell the issue seems to be that moldovan and romanian have been merged in the ISO standart: http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=mol

I don't know enough about this sort of thing to know the proper remedy. Best, BananaCarrot152 (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been taken care of. Thanks BananaCarrot152 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://transnistria.md/en/news//284/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320113935/http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?SHORTCUT=1652 to http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?SHORTCUT=1652
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105231746/http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm to http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160921034927/http://usefoundation.org/view/436 to http://usefoundation.org/view/436
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303195233/http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol27-02-01.htm to http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol27-02-01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102193846/http://www.bne.eu/archive_story.php?id=3467&words to http://www.bne.eu/archive_story.php?id=3467&words
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160228110016/http://www.olvia.idknet.com/news15-07-04.htm to http://www.olvia.idknet.com/news15-07-04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523091733/http://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/view-resource/211 to http://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/view-resource/211

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence is very difficult to read due to the proliferation of multiple names and translations thereof for this entity. Recognizing that the name is doubtless controversial and may be inherently complex, would it nevertheless be possible to move some of the alternative names and parenthetical translations to a lower section of the lead or perhaps a new section, 2.1 Naming?

On the same note, I would also recommend removing "(the area between the Dniester river and Ukraine)" as one can simply refer to the map or the Transnistria (geographical region) page. deptstoremook (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I quite agree; what we have here is a rather egregious case of lead sentence bloat. Will try a quick stab at disentangling it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of article refers to Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Artsakh as partially recognized states. Yet, independence of Transnistria and Artsakh are not recognized by any state. Addictedtohistory (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to rename this article to Pridnestrovie. The current name refers to a completely different territorial unit and not describes the subject of the article, Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Also this name is offensive in this context, and not being a well-established exonym. 217.19.208.99 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name Transdniester (anglicized as Transnistria) is the name that was historically used during Soviet and Moldovan oppression, the people fought for their freedom and decided on the name Pridnestrovie (anglicized Pridnestrovia). The continued use of Transdniester is seen as outdated and simply derogatory by the population, similar to the western use of 'the Ukraine' instead of Ukraine. Please change this as an open platform of information such as Wikipedia is ought to display only fair and objective information, not biased propaganda. (this is a matter of de facto independence, whether the nation of Pridnestrovie is de jure independent is not the present discussion) Bapo224 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia most often uses the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic in English-language sources. CMD (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not generally accepted in the English linguistic community due to the insignificance of the object. In this case, the terminology is chosen and determined depending on the context. The term "transnistria" is absolutely inappropriate in this context. 217.19.216.247 (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of English language sources that, in context, use the word Transnistria, but not in a derogatory manner. Wikipedia follows outside usage in its article naming. CMD (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many English-language sources literally cite Romanian-Moldovan sources, which a priori cannot be neutral without considering similar Pridnestrovian sources. And without context, the term "transistria", like "Pridnestrovie" in English does not mean anything, because officially neither one nor the other name is used anywhere. There is only "an autonomous territorial unit on the left bank of the Dniester" from Moldova and "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". And "transnstria" is only the territory between the Southern Bug and Dniester occupied by the Romanians during the Second World War. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more appropriate to say that pro-Romanian editors of Wikipedia themselves are engaged in the promotion of this terminology through English version of this encyclopedia. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it: this article was written extremely biased from the standpoint of militant Romanian nationalism by local Romanian editors who still do not accept the fact that Moldavia with Pridnestrovie have never been and will not be part of Romania. Therefore, the current state of the article in an unchanged form is so vehemently protected by them even from the slightest amendment (see User_talk:217.19.216.247). Is this appropriate in an encyclopedia, the fundamental principle of which is declared neutral point of view? I think no. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some illustrative examples:

• "The Romanian administration of Transnistria attempted to stabilise the situation in the area under Romanian control, implementing a process of Romanianization" - this is about the genocide of hundreds of thousands of civilians and their replacement by the Romanian population.
• "Red Army reconquered the area in 1944, Soviet authorities executed, exiled or imprisoned hundreds of the Moldavian SSR inhabitants in the following months on charges of collaboration with the "German-fascist occupiers"" - certainly, the "crimes" of the Soviet government are much worse, otherwise it is not the Romanian point of view. And probably no one committed crimes in transnistria during the years of occupation, they themselves occurred. And, of course, the occupiers are German, but not Romanian.
• "returned Moldovan to the Latin alphabet" - returned, despite the fact that Moldovans never used it, as did the Romanians until the end of the 19th century.
• "Volunteers, including Cossacks, came from Russia to help the separatist side" - about the crowd of Romanian "volunteers" engaged in looting and looting, says nothing. And the separatists came out here just Moldova, and Pridnestrovie was in favor of the integrity of the country.
• And so on about the infringement on the Romanians, the lack of human rights, discrimination, smuggling, etc., with absolutely biased sources or with their absence at all. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is your own interpretation. Where are your sources? I've asked you many times already and you haven't given any. Wikipedia has already made clear on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View that properly-sourced information must be in-place for controversial edits. You keep claiming bias but you still haven't provided any evidence that your proposed edits should be kept. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No interpretation, just facts. If you look at the history of rollbacks, you will see that I brought a whole bunch of sources, but you didn’t even pay attention to this, trying to defend your point of view at any cost in the article (which you are trying to pass off for “neutral”). Don't like something? Write on each specific item what does not suit you, then there will be something to discuss. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see, for you it is too difficult, but the political bias still does not give rest. Now I made changes to the section on the name of Pridnestrovie. What objections will be specifically on this? If nothing, why did you roll back this edit? 217.19.208.96 (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to Wikipedia to completely disregard the feelings of the local populace and to just side with the foreign oppressors without any form of compromise nor neutrality. Bapo224 (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have semiprotected the article per a discussion at ANI: Special:Diff/893651726 and have reverted the article to the last version before the edit war. Please continue editing from here. Use the Talk page to gain consensus for anything controversial. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Some collateral damage has occured: this legit edit has not been restored, but because it was done through a tool making many changes of a repetitive nature and the ongoing controversy on the article, I am reluctant to restore these edits. Any suggestions? Also pinging RhinosF1 Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever restores those edits should probably look at each one to be sure it looks like a WP:Reliable source and is relevant to the page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's nothing to discuss with anyone. These aggressive politicized clowns will not enter into a meaningful discussion, so you can block the discussion page of this article. Otherwise they will not like what they can write there. 217.19.208.96 (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks (warning). El_C 10:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Block evasion will not be tolerated. El_C 10:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• State seal of Transnistria.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Super Dromaeosaurus has been removing the term “Moldovan” from this article, stating that this is not the name used in the Moldovan constitution. Transnistria may be an unrecognised country, but I maintain that we should go by the de facto situation (which is that according to the constitution adopted by the Transnistrian government, the Romanian language is called Moldovan and that it is written in the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet). This is also the term used in the infobox. What do other users think? Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's notable that in Transnistria the language is called Moldovan and the Cyrillic script is used - though of course we should mention that the same language is called Romanian in Moldova. Alaexis_¿question? 10:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose using Romanian and Moldovan Cyrillic in the lead and using a note to say the Romanian language is termed as Moldovan in Transnistria. Super Ψ Dro 11:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose sticking to Moldovan, using a note explaining that this term is the one used in Transnistria. Romanian is just not a term used there (and the language is written in a different alphabet, called Moldovan Cyrillic). One may have different views about this, but Wikipedia does, from what I know, have the aim to write about the situation as it, in fact, is. I feel using the term “Romanian” here deviates from this path. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed back to the original version and propose that we, in accordance with the rules, leave the article be until this question has been resolved. I find it troubling that user Super Dromaeosaurus continues to change back to “Romanian” despite not participating in this discussion. I would also like to add that “Moldovan” is the name of the language according to the constitution. Stating anything else is, in fact, incorrect, as that is what the constitution tells us. The constitution is linked in the article itself. Naturally, we should still make use of a note, whereby we explain that this term is not used in Moldova (but, in my opinion, not the other way around). Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see his participation, just above your comment.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

My apologies. The username is different, making for some confusion. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My proposals are to use "Romanian/Moldovan" in the infobox and "Romanian and Moldovan Cyrillic" in the main text. Perhaps we could get a better proposal for the main text one though. I will not accept any proposal that makes Moldovan look as a valid and proper language. Super Ψ Dro 12:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one who is interested in this subject can think that Romanian and Moldovan are two different, distinct languages. Moldovan is, however, the term used in Transnistria, making it “valid and proper” for them (just as it did when Moldova itself used this name in their constitution). It is up to every country, recognised or unrecognised, to refer to one of its languages as they see fit. This is not a discussion about politics, but rather one about how things for a fact are. This is the role of Wikipedia. One indisputable fact is that in Transnistria and according to the constitution of Transnistria, the Romanian language is called Moldovan. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a good look at the article again and I must say that I see no good reason to not keep it as it is. The Moldovan language is already stated to be identical to Romanian in a note. If anyone wants, we can add a similar note to Moldovan in the main text, but I see no reason to change things entirely and start calling the language “Romanian” in an article about a country that has obviously never used this term. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to add a note, explaining that Moldovan is the name used in the constitution of Transnistria, but that the language is referred to as Romanian in Moldova. I think this makes things clear. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added a link to the constitution. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the text of the note to say more explicitly that the Moldovan language is a variant of Romanian. I still do not fully agree with the changes, but if we leave it as it is now, we can end the discussion. By the way, I have removed the reference that you left in the note because the link did not lead to any particular article. You can add it again later with the fixed link. Super Ψ Dro 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I have no further objections to anything myself. The new text looks good. Thank you for making me aware of the link. Åttiotrean 226 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to:

• President of the PMR: The term «Transnistria» is the occupational concept offensive for Pridnestrovie
• «Zadnestrovye» — «Transnistria» was thought up by Romanians. «Pridnestrovie» was accepted by the people
• Transnistria must be vanished
• Pridnestrovie, not Transnistria. Bendery deputies want to appeal to UN
• "Holocaust" and "Transnistria" is synonyms for Pridnestrovie
• Want to torn Pridnestrovie into a "forgotten cemetery"?
• The Constitution of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, article 55, paragraph 1
• Decree of the President of PMR No. 591 of November 29, 2000 “On transliteration and toponymy of names”
• The PMR Constitutional Law of July 4, 2011 No. 94 “On Amendments and Additions to the PMR Constitution”
• Decree of the President of PMR No. 252 of April 6, 2012 "On transliteration and toponymy of names"

217.19.215.244 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) the most widely accepted English name should be used, so you'll need to argue that Transnistria is not the most common English name. The fact that this name is not used in PMR itself and is considered offensive is notable and can be mentioned in the Names section of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd of course have to cite Transnistrian and Russian websites. A shame that no other ones use this name more than Transnistria. As stated, Transnistria is the common English name and it will thus be kept. Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And who, in your opinion, should pay attention to the insult, if not the offended party? Appealing to the authorship with ignoring arguments is a bad move. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name used in the article is not generally accepted. For the autonomous territory of Moldova, the generally accepted (often used) is "Stinga Nistrului", for an unrecognized state - "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" (in this form, to make it clear that we are not talking about Moldovan autonomy). In English, the established term for this country does not exist due to the obscurity of the subject. This word was used by biased Romanian editors when creating the article for offensive purposes and was strongly defended by them in the future. In addition, the word is offensive not only in PMR, but everywhere. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that there were no objections to the renaming of the "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" to the "Republic of Artsakh", although there was not even a hint of an offensive context, and before the 2017 referendum about renaming, almost no one outside the region had heard of the name "Artsakh". 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name is only offensive by those Transnistrians fed up with propaganda comparing Romanians with genocidals and nazis. This is always the only argument for considering "Transnistria" offensive. And Transnistria is indeed the generally accepted name everywhere except in Transnistria itself and Russia. The reason why "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" was moved to "Republic of Artsakh" was because many websites started using the new name approved in 2017 referendum. No such thing as happened with "Transnistria" and "Pridnestrovie". Super Ψ Dro 12:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any Transnistrians, they were all convicted and executed as war criminals after the Second World War. The word used is an insult in any context for all Pridnestrovians. Your comment about propaganda for a lot of things. I just wrote about this when I was talking about biased editors. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Artsakh: only the sites of Artsakh itself. The spread of the term in the English-language Internet began only with the renaming of the article in Wikipedia. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, but there are zero chances of renaming as long as Transnistria remains the most common English name (see [1]). Note that the alternative names appear quite prominently in the lede. I suggest you add the fact the the name of Transnistria is considered offensive due to its associations with the WW2 entity to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 12:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what part of the number of references to the word "Transnistria" refers directly to Transnistria or quotes a Romanian source, and what part thus means Pridnestrovie? Otherwise, in the same way, I can ask you to rename the article "Vagina" (293,000,000 mentions on Google) to "Pussy" (1,170,000,000 mentions). This is not an argument, it is a biased position in relation to Pridnestrovie itself. I will not edit the article under the heading "Transnistria", describing Pridnestrovie, - this is insulting to me and to all Pridnestrovians. Although, as you can see from this discussion page, such attempts were made and did not lead to anything. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you prove that "Pridnestrovie/PMR" are used more frequently than "Transnistria" when referring to the modern state, I will support the move. Alaexis_¿question? 13:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More often where? On wiki resources? No, here the correct term is deliberately overwritten, and corrections are treated as a war of edits. In official documents? "Transnistria" is not used anywhere at all: the autonomy of Moldova is designated as "Stinga Nistrului", the state as "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" (including in translations of official documents and websites of the PMR into English). In colloquial English? Neither one nor the other is used, because it is an absolutely insignificant phenomenon for an ordinary native speaker. On the Internet and in publications? It is determined solely by the context and can vary in a very wide range: Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Pridnestrovia, Pridnestrovie, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, Cisdniestria, etc. The word "Transnistria" is indeed often used in relation to Pridnestrovie, but mostly in an offensive context or as a reference to Wikipedia. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. And on what basis was the Nazi insult chosen as the title of the article in 2003, when it was created? Because the further spread of this term on the Internet is directly related to Wikipedia. 217.19.215.244 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum and you don't need to convince me as I'm not against this change. As it's a contentious renaming it would likely be challenged and then you'll need to explain why the new name should be chosen according to the relevant policies. Alaexis_¿question? 18:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Transnistria be renamed and moved to Pridnestrovie. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Transnistria → Pridnestrovie – Incorrect name, chosen for political reasons. Does not meet the neutral point of view and the requirements for naming political entities, geographic regions and disputed territories; expressing the attitude of editors to the subject. In fact, it is not a name, but an insult; refers to the subject of the Second World War and the Holocaust and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• According to arguments of two previous authors who favored renaming. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, opinions apart, I don't see any evidence that "Pridnestrovie" is the common name (beyond this list of non-independent-to-the-subject sources). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't talk about a common name for such highly specialized concepts. The terminology is determined solely by the context, the current name was taken from a biased and offensive context without any reason to do so. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, article titles are determined by WP:COMMONAME, not WP:OFFICIALNAME. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What established common name can we talk about if a typical native English speaker has never heard of Pridnestrovie? The range of titles that can be found in publications is extremely diverse: Pridnestrovie, Pridnestrovia, Cisdniestria, Transdniester, Trans-Dniestr, Transdniestria, Dnestr Republic, Nistrenia, Nistria, Transnistria, TMR, PMR, Left Bank of Dniester, Stinga Nistrului, etc. The established term of those that are correct is only Pridnestrovie (and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic as the official name). Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  [2] vs [3]. This is why there are no "correct names", only "common names". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The range of names used is indeed big but the most used of them by far is "Transnistria". Super Ψ Dro 20:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I will repeat what was previously written. Which part of the references mentioning "Transnistria" describes Pridnestrovie, and which part describes Transnistria itself or quotes Romanian documents or terms? Also: [4] [5] - rename it?

  The entire spread of the term "Transnistria" on the Internet is connected with Wikipedia. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am pretty sure that "Transnistria" was more used than "Pridnestrovie" before the creation of Wikipedia, even after the Transnistrian War. Take a look at this. As you can see, "Pridnestrovie" has never been even close to being as common as "Transnistria". Super Ψ Dro 20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's repeat your experiment with Artsakh and Karabakh: [6] [7] (5 150 000 vs 18 600 000). And this is after 4 years of the existence of the article in Wikipedia. No one rebelled against the renaming Nagorno-Karabakh in 2017? Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also that Pussy/Vagina argument is flawed by design. While "Transnistria" and "Pridnestrovie" refer exclusively to the territory, Vagina has other multiple uses, so does Pussy, and many times they are not used interchangeably. If you believe that Artsakh has to be renamed, then request a move there, stay on topic. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose neutral and most commonly used name. "it is [...] an insult" false. "refers to the subject of the Second World War and the Holocaust and has nothing to do with the subject of the article" false as well. Transnistria existed as a name before WW2. It's just that the war popularized it. Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a false. This term existed exclusively in the Romanian language (and still exists). In any other languages, this means exclusively the Romanian occupation zone on the territory of the Odessa region of Ukraine and a genocide of civil people there. The fact that the name is not offensive is also a false, the links given by the commenters above confirm this. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. "Transnistria" is the name of this region in any other language of the world except Russian, other Slavic languages such as Ukrainian and probably some other minority languages in Russia. That Transnistria is synonymous to the Romanian occupation of WW2 is an invention of yours. And that Transnistria is offensive to Transnistrians is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that Georgians for example would prefer to have their country called "Sakartvelo" or any other variation but Georgia is still used because it's the most common name. Super Ψ Dro 20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "that Transnistria is offensive to Transnistrians is irrelevant" - of course irrelevant, because they are all dead. Your statements look absurd against the background of a whole lot of references that confirm what I said. How do you identify names in other languages? From Wikipedia links? And I know this firsthand or from the Internet. In all languages of the region (excluding Romanian) and the former USSR, either the term "Pridnestrovie" or something like "Dniestria" (without any prefixes) is used. In all other languages, the term is taken from the original source / context. Do you understand that your statements about the fact that Transnistria did not exist are the rehabilitation of Nazism and the denial of the Holocaust? Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's irrelevant because it is called appeal to emotion. And that's the key problem with this RM. There are no arguments that support your proposal, you just want the page to be moved "just because". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "because they are all dead" huh? This article says there are some 469,000 of them. As it has already been said, Wikipedia uses the most common name. No other arguments are needed to oppose this request. You still have not shown how is "Pridnestrovie" more common than Transnistria in English (which is the most relevent language in this discussion as it is this Wikipedia's) and other languages. "Do you understand that your statements about the fact that Transnistria did not exist are the rehabilitation of Nazism and the denial of the Holocaust?" no, because this is false. Super Ψ Dro 21:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is blatantly misleading with its title. All Transnistrians were killed either during the Second World War, or convicted by a tribunal and executed as war criminals. At the same time, you deny that Transnistria really existed, claiming that Transnistria is Pridnestrovie. Meanwhile, about 300 thousand civilians were killed in Transnistria. This is a direct rehabilitation of Nazism and a denial of its crimes. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The arguments are repeatedly listed. You have nothing to object to, so you are trying to prove that this is a common name (no) and that it is not an incorrect and offensive term (also no). Other than links to Google search (the meaning of which has been refuted) and Wikipedia itself, I didn't see anything. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To support the most common name of a region is not any "rehabilitation" of Nazism nor any "denial of crimes". "Other than links to Google search (the meaning of which has been refuted [when?]) and Wikipedia itself, I didn't see anything" where else would you possibly need to look at? Super Ψ Dro 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — Per WP:COMMONAME. "Transnistria" is the most recognisable name for the political entity in English media, regardless of its political connotations in other languages. Googling "Transnistria" gives just a little under six and a half million results, while "Pridnestrovie" gives just a little over half a million. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Pridnestrovie is almost never mentioned either in the English-language media or in scientific papers. When the need arises, a context is always introduced that allows you to understand what is being said, because no matter what term is used, the audience will not understand what is being said without an explanation. That is, there is no any common accepted term. There is only a Wikipedia article that directly affects the output of Google results. So that's not an argument. The only name of this country in English is Pridnestrovie. Citizen of Pridnestrovie (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been shown that Transnistria was more used than "Pridnestrovie" even before the creation of Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: As already stated above. (Rgvis (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Support, the current title of the article was purposefully selected as a politically biased attack on this unrecognized political entity. This word has a clearly negative and politicized connotation and cannot be used as the title of an article. The arguments about a "common name" are untenable for obvious reasons. (P. S. Unlike other commenters, I live in this region and know what it is about). 217.19.208.109 (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That you live in Transnistria does not give any weight to your arguments, which are pretty much the same as those stated by nominating user and which have already been countered. Super Ψ Dro 15:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in Transnistria, I live in Pridnestrovie. In this discussion, I didn't find any arguments against renaming. However, the reason for renaming the article is reinforced concrete. 217.19.208.109 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, marginally. The request makes two or three statements, with no sources to back them, and with insufficient reference to the guidelines. It may be correct, or just an opinion with no real basis. I suggest the requester rewrite the request (and ping me if you feel it is convincing). And since I’m just a drive-by responder, no, I will not research this entire page of discussion to discover whether the argument is hidden in there. Sorry. I did do my own 30-second research: Brittanica calls this Transdniestria, and mentions the names and spellings Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Republic, Transnistria, and Pridnestrovie. So on the surface it looks like either is acceptable, but I see no well-backed argument to rename. —Michael Z. 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Transnistria is the namely common used in English. I have no political axe to grind. LynwoodF (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]