Talk:Transnistria/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22


Commonwealth of unrecognized states

Why, the original edit did say that they're both unrecognized... This has actually been the cause of rather extensive edit war on ruwiki...

As for NK - yes, I'm pretty sure - that's what the "СНГ-2" was all about, but don't have the time to fish out a source right now. Feel free to slap on a fact tag for now. --Illythr (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just see about NK at some point in the future, and either modify here or in the table entry of the List of unrecogn. I am not a favorite of excessive cn tags if I know the issue is tended to in good-faith. Obviously, no rush. Just to avoid inconsistency. I am actually very surprized that a (according to List of unrecogn.) Armenia did not recogn NK. Dc76\talk 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not about source citation. It's about: are you sure NK explicitly recogn., or just implicitly? If you recall seeing the explicit recognition as a news on tv at some point, that is totally fine without any citation. Dc76\talk 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was sure Armenia recognized NK, too. Ok, I'll look for some sort of official statement on the issue. --Illythr (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyhow, I removed it for now. --Illythr (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


Change of Flag

Hi, I changed the flag picture from the tri-colour with the sickle and star in the corner to the simple, basic tri-colour, since it's evidently more correct as shown here on a government website: [1]

Interlaker (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please put the official flag back. When the law changes, the graphic can change. There is nothing "more correct" about the tri-color. —PētersV (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
According to Flag of Transnistria, the hammer & sickle version is the state flag and the basic tricolour is the civil flag. As we know, Wikipedia uses the civil versions, ie. not German flag with the eagle. So you are correct to change it, unless the Transnistrian customs are that different, which I don't know. --Pudeo⺮ 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't know that. Feel free to revert my edit, then... --Illythr (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
We are are not talking about the state war flag or ensign (the example of Germany). The sickle and star are on the official flag of Transnistria. Until the law is changed there is no reason to change the flag that has been on the article all along reflecting that law all along. That the flag's colors can be used and adopted any which way according to the law for civil use including as a "flag" without sickle and star does not change the official flag. -PētersV (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
And P.S., the "official" pridnestrovie.net web site cited is supported by a documented propaganda outfit (ICDISS) for Russian interests in the frozen conflict zone territories whose paid employees spent their full time planting pro-Transnisrian anti-Moldovan/anti-Romanian propaganda on WP until banned. What that site states and what reality is or what Transnistrian "law" states are two different things. -PētersV (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The hammer and sickle, associates strongly with communism and this can impact negatively on foreign investment from Western Europe. This is the only reason the Transnistrian haters on wiki insist so strongly on using it.To them it's not important which flag is correct, but rather which causes the most damage to Transnistria's economy. Either flag is acceptable to Transnistrians, but the propaganda officers push the old flag only to hurt the Transnistrians, and hopefully topple their economy, leading to civil war and death Tommyxx (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Either flag is acceptable to Transnistrians, but the hammer and sickle one is the state flag. The problem of Wikipedia is accuracy of representation. Actual content is problem of the content provider, in this case, PMR. --Illythr (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
1) I concur the correctness and accuracy of Illythr's edit: the re-wording he did is indeed better.
2) Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. It can not be held responsible for the economic well-being of a region. That is the responsibility of the government.
3) The last thing on the mind of propaganda officers a bunch of ordinary editors of WP is to hurt somebody, topple something, let alone lead to civil war and death. Again, that is the responsibility of the government of Transnistria, and unfortunately the people are its hostages. If the western investors are reticent of Transnistria, its becuse they do not trust too much Transnsitrian authorities, not because of a hummer and sickle, which the same authorities could change any day if they want, but they don't (change it). Dc76\talk 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which flag should be used here. Transnistria has different civil and government flags and there's no standard approach to this problem in Wikipedia (sometimes a civil one is used in the main article (Germany) and sometimes a government one (Ecuador). Alæxis¿question? 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there two, one "civil" and one "official", flags according to Transnistrian "legal" acts? If yes, then I understand the dilema. If not, then, respectfully, we can not just give a qualification "civil" based on analogy with Germany, because it would be OR and because Germany is an important country with rich culture and tradition, while Transnistria is a breakaway region which does not even have its own culture (distinct from that of Moldova, Russia or Ukraine). On a personal note, I couldn't care less what is on that flag. But my personal note is irrelevant. Dc76\talk 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The law on the Transnistrian flag has not changed. The only official flag is with hammer and sickle. The other "flag" is not that at all, it is the use of the colors of the state flag, sans insignia, in any format for pretty much any purpose, whether its a flag or stripes on a can of soda. PetersV       TALK 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
As for Tommyxx, sounds like Des Grant aka "Mark Street" all over again (WP full of Transnistria haters causing the deaths of Transnistrians). PetersV       TALK 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) The ONLY official flag of Transnistria is the one with star, hammer and sickle. Per Article 4:

The national flag of the PMR and its image, independent of size, must always correspond exactly to the colored and diagrammatic representations per the present law.... The reproduction of the national flag is allowed...also in simplified form and [alternate] proportions (except by organs of authority and control) without the star, sickle and hammer. The national flag in the simplified form is not allowed use by organs of power of the state and control, by the local Soviets of People's Deputies, or by the state administrations.

That is, use of any simplfied form by any organization of government is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. Ergo not any kind of official flag. PetersV       TALK 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Tommyxx, your Transnistrian minister of security had his OMON thugs shoot up a Transnistrian ambulance klling and wounding its occupants and blamed it on the Moldovans. Yup, the regime that cares. About its image. No need for a civil war, it's the regime that kills its own. PetersV       TALK 03:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not looking here for a long time, but the German eagle flag is not just a war flag. It is flown by all government buildings, it's the same in Finland where I live. Universities fly the state flag because connected to the state, high schools that are run by municipalities fly the civil flag. No one has insisted Wikipedia is the "official state context" and suggested the use of state flags. Wikipedia usage is not usage "organs of power of the state and control", but rather national flags are used. --Pudeo' 10:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand, according to the official website the flag of PMR has only three colors, why did you add a simbol on it? --92.202.85.64 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

people hurting people

Those that cause deliberate hurt to others, eventually attract hurt upon themselves, that's the way of the world. Tommyxx (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I trust you are referring to individuals such as Antyufeyev and his Baltic OMON thugs imported by Viktors Alksnis—who in no way represent the hopes and aspirations of Transnistria's residents—and are not making thinly veiled threats against WP editors opposed to the regime because they support those hopes and aspirations. PetersV       TALK 14:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro

...however, seeing as how it was a battlefield in the past, I'm not particularly attached to the new version and will revert to the stable one should major objections arise. However, I think that using the same definition for all of these unrecognized states will help protect these articles from POV-pushing from both sides, as politically motivated POV-pushers tend to have polar opinions on Kosovo vs PMR S.Oss et al. --Illythr (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think we need to distinguish between the frozen conflict zone territories and Kosovo. They are not the same and the same wording does not necessarily apply. PetersV       TALK 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the dispute specifics - certainly, that's what the rest of the intro is for. But their political status is the same (either 1. Not recognized by any UN member, or 2. Recognized by at least one UN member or 3. Admitted into the UN itself). Kosovo, S.Oss and Abkhasia (and Northern Cyprus, I think) are 2, Transnistria and NKR are 1. --Illythr (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
About this. First, I would like to object that Moldova lost control in September 1990. For example, as late as December 1991, there were presidential elections in Moldova, where indeed Mircea Snegur ran alone but that's a different story (and for your notice I am not a supporter of him), and the elections took place normally in Dubăsari and Grigoriopol districts. They did not take place in the cities of Tiraspol and Rîbniţa, true. Just as 6 March 1991 Soviet referendum did not take place in Moldova, which does not mean that USSR lost contol of Moldova by then. Also, I remember quite clearly how Soviet TV was making head news in autumn 1991 when the police in the cities of Tiraspol and Rîbniţa recognized PMR as their superior instead of Moldova's government - they held celebrations in the two cities. Also remember that Smirnov had fled Transnistria after the August 1991 putch, because Moldovan police and security force was searching him throughout the neighborhoods of Tiraspol. This is also why Smirnov had such a grudge on Ilie Ilaşcu - Ilaşcu was leading some police units to all the hideouts he could think about.
Second, even in the case of Kosovo, such words as "disputed" instead of "breakaway" are evidence of POV pushing. (Note that "breakaway" is already a compromize from "Separatist".) The fact that Kosovo independence on WP was pushed slightly over what is in reality does not mean that we also have to push all other separatist movements over the reality state of affairs. The real state can differ from conflict to conflict. I also would like to have a simple world, where all these breakaway regions have a similar clear for everyone not changing from day to day status, but that is not what the reality is! I think we run a trap here by accepting Mr. Putin's stance that once some countries have recongnized Kosovo, the world is oblidged to treat post-Soviet conflicts likewise. This is Mr. Putin's point of view, it is not the worldwide point of view, and I don't see the merit to push him view here. I am not saying anyone is doing this on purpose. On the contrary, Mr. Putin's propaganda (some of us do have access from time to time to Russian news) made such conclusion seem just natural and steaming from us, not realizing that we step into the shoes already prepared.
Third, obviously I made an error when I used "governed by a government". But I also do not understand "and the city of Bendery within the former Moldavian SSR." The de facto independence of Transnistria started with the War of Transnsitria, in 1992, when Moldavian SSR was defunct. I think that war is pritty important to be mentioned right away, and not as a secondary event. Transnsitria independence was declared from Moldavian SSR (in fact, it was already SSR Moldova in Spetember 1990), but was achieved from the Republic of Moldova, independent and UN member on March 2, 1992, when the armed conflict started. Previously there were small clashed, incidents, without implications on territory control, but this was by contrast already war, with all implications. Dc76\talk 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The republic formally seceded on that date, and stopped taking orders from the central government even earlier. It was also governing the place since the OSTK was formed (and local communist authorities were deposed/switched allegiance). Moldova lost control over the governing body of the region. Control over the region did indeed remain a contested issue, but it was governed by the PMR leadeship since 1990 at the earliest. You also have a very strange idea of the modus operandi of Ilascu's "Bujor." His counter-insurgency/terrorist (depending on who you ask) group consisted of just a few men and was able to assassinate only two Transnistrian officials before getting caught and sentenced. It's not like he was in any position to arrest Smirnov&Co.
I think "disputed" is better, as all of these regimes have stabilized in the mean time. However, I'd agree to change the wording to "breakaway" as well, provided it is done in all instances. I'm also not sure what Putin has to do with all this - formal political status of all these states is the same, the only difference is the number of UN members who recognize them (zero or non-zero).
Yes, it should be noted that PMR authorities managed to consolidate their control only following the war. Still, they formally became an independent governing body after declaring independence in 1990, effectively starting the territorial dispute. I'll change that part a little later today. --Illythr (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a small misrepresentation in your answer: Transnsitria did not exist as a separate entity in Moldova before the 1992 war. (You use the word "republic" as if it was a republic in Moldavian SSR, just double read carefully what you said.) Indeed, self-proclaimed PMR had authrity, but over what? At first, it was over the city of Tiraspol only, while your wordking suggests that the region was clearly territorally delimited before, and that Smirnov had authority over rural areas, which is totally false.
Also, independence in 1990 can mean from USSR, which is again totally false. Since Smirnov declared PRM simply a Soviet republic. And I am not sure he meant outside Moldavian SSR, because he preserved the word "Moldavian".
I get that you agree to change back "disputed" to "breakaway", but condition the correctness in the article Transnistria with somehting happening in other aticles. Respectfully, some of us might not be interested and not so knowledgeble about other articles. The truth is truth, it should not be conditioned. I would gladly, though, support you on proposing similar chaged in other articles, just because I trust you know what you are talking about there (I don't know them well enough to contribute on my own).
P.S. I believe that personal discussion about Ilaşcu can be done elsewhere, and not mixed with this article. For what it is worth, I would like to mention that to me it seems that you have a very strange idea of the modus operandi of Ilascu's "Bujor." :) For one, the word "Bujor" is an invention of Smirnov and Co, which already points out that they fooled you to a certain extent in regards to Ilascu. The assassinations you are talking were not by him, but by the Russians, they were attributed to Ilascu long after he was "arrested". Their "sentencing" was a mock trial, officially condemned by the European Court on Human Right, and Russia had to pay a substantial fine for allowing it. Ilascu and others were just an example of resistance to the Russian military occupation of the region. There was nothing in his activity that was not directly and personally targeted at the leaders of the separatist regime. French resistance for that was much more "terrorist". Dc76\talk 16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I will let you and the others edit for a while without getting involved. From my earlier edit and my comments on the talk page, I think it is pretty clear what I object, what words are ok, and what not. So, you definitively can take them into consideration when you edit. Thus, I think it is totally ok to "leave the ball" to the rest of you for some time. I will simply come back if other issues are raised, and then after you perform a number of edits I will review the whole bunch and point out if there are still issues. Good luck with editing. Dc76\talk 16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

While I don't know the exact extent of PMR's control over its claimed territory between 1990 and 1992, it is known that they have taken over the administrative mechanism of the region rather swiftly. Anyhow, I added the war between the declaration of independence and the word "governed" to avoid the problem until some sort of source can be added to describe it more precisely. I think that "breakaway region" is incorrect: the region is just a piece of inhabited land, it stays there until the next apocalyptic event in our history. What really did break away was the administration of that region, which now lays claim to it. But Transnistria (like Kosovo, South Ossetia, etc) are first of all territories, whose existence is disputed by nobody. Only control over them is.

On Ilascu, indeed, here is the wrong place for that. --Illythr (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"While I don't know the exact extent of PMR's control over its claimed territory between 1990 and 1992, it is known that they have taken over the administrative mechanism of the region rather swiftly." -- In Tiraspol and Ribnita in September 1990, then again in late autumn 1991 - indeed very swiftly. I definitevely agree with that. I only say that they did not control all the countyside. They needed to start the war for that. Now, let's say it plainly, these two cities alone account for 1/2 of Transnistria's population.
"What really did break away was the administration of that region, which now lays claim to it." -- I repeat, it was the administration of those two cities, not of a region that did not exist by itself. Also, when one talks about a "disputed territory", the dispute must be between 2 external sides, not between the territory itself and the country to which it legally belongs. For the latter case there are other adjectives recognized in English: separatist, breakaway, etc. Separatist is usually the government, breakaway is usually the region. And, BTW, Kosovo and South Ossitia are also breakaway regions.
"But Transnistria (like Kosovo, South Ossetia, etc) are first of all territories, whose existence is disputed by nobody." -- While the territorial extent of Kosovo and South Ossetia isn't, that of Transnistria is. We have at least 3 different Transnistrias: the left bank, the subdivision of Moldova, the territory claimed by PMR. Someone could argue that the differences are of up to 20 localities, but I would reply - those 20 localities lost a lot of lives in 1992 because of that. Except the night 19/20 June 1992 when there was a possiblity for Moldovans to launch an attack on Tiraspol itself, something swiftly prevented by the intervension of Mircea Snegur, all other events were about control of specific localities whose population did not want to stay with the separatist government, not about taking down that government. Dc76\talk 22:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, this is a very intelligent edit, and solves one problem. Here is what remains:
  • the word "disputed" (should be "breakaway")
  • the word "province" (should be "territory")
  • "considers it to be an autonomous unit" is not precisely correct, because "it" here is all the territory claimed by Smirnov, which is strictly larger than the territory controled by Smirnov, which itself is strictly larger than the territory considered autonomous unit by Moldova. Current wording suggests to take Smirnov's claim as a starting point. I believe the other two are at least as logical to be starting points. Dc76\talk 22:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiraspol was the administrative center of the whole left-bank region, was it not?
Yes, there is a problem of the geographical and political entities being slightly different, but I don't think this is such a big point - nowadays, when one talks about "Transnistria" - the PMR-controlled territory is meant.
Hm, you have a point on breakaway versus disputed. I still think "breakaway region" is incorrect, even though often used, as it's the region's administration that's breakaway, but whatever. Let'see if anyone else decides to chime in. I'm curious as to how the Kosovo article regulars will react to such a proposed change... --Illythr (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiraspol was the administrative center of the whole left-bank region, was it not? -- No, it was not. Moldavian SSR was divided into 40 raions and 4 cities. Tiraspol was just one of them. Neither Gaguzia, nor Transnistria had any official identification during communism. That's why I am so much talking about.
nowadays, when one talks about "Transnistria", the PMR-controlled territory is meant" -- First of all, not always. Second, ok, I agree that this is the territorial extent that is mainly of concern in the article, but then this is not what the intro after your changes says. The intro includes the claims of Mr. Smirnov over localities he does not control. Obviously, you did not meant that, but that's the result.
As I said, if you want me get involved in Kosovo article, I am on your "side" there.
I think I understand your argument about incorrectness of "breakaway region", but I did not give it deep thought. I simply see this often used by politicians, diplomats, journalists.
again funny, because Moldova does not consider PMR as part of it, but Transnistria the territory. "PMR's territory" would also be incorrect, because it is first a territory of Moldova which then broke away/seceded, not PMR with its territory claimed by Moldova. I don't really see a way around the word "territory" without any adjective. But, maybe you or someone else has more ideas. Dc76\talk 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
How about "The modern Moldova does not recognize the PMR authorities and considers the secesionist territory to be a part of its sovereign ..." etc ? Dc76\talk 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, now it is better. :)
Now, let's go to the previous sentence: "which claims the left bank of the river Dniester and the city of Bendery within the former Moldavian SSR." How about something like "which claims the left bank of the river Dniester (controls most but not all of it), and the city of Bender."
Then, when you say disputed region, it has to be somewhere "of Moldova". Or an equivalent form.
And then there is disputed vs. breakaway, which I understand we wait for more input from others.Dc76\talk 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the few villages here and there are too minuscule a detail for the first paragraph of the intro.
Since its disputed, we say who considers it as belonging to who, instead of making flat statements. In case of Transnistria - it's the whole UN against the "CUS", but that's included into "unrecognized..." --Illythr (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Before being between UN and CUS, it is first between Moldova and Transnsitrian authorities. OK, how about we forget the word "claims" and use the word "controls", rendering: "which controls most of the left bank of the river Dniester, and the city of Bender." Dc76\talk 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
"first between Moldova and Transnsitrian authorities" - exactly, that's why I put Moldova there explicitly. "Controls" will have to reshape the sentence - note that it claims dominion over territory of a historical state (ideally, it should be the part of MASSR, not MSSR, but I guess it's too complex for the intro), whereas the modern state does not recognize this claim. Is the phrase "it is governed by" not sufficient to point out that PMR controls the territory? --Illythr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

I know we've been "here" before. It would be helpful to be clear about the territory versus controlling authority (whether considered legitimate or not). "Control" is better than "claim" where the PMR is concerned. "Breakaway" is better than secessionist, since there's little about the controlling PMR authority that is reputably considered democratic. Will have more thoughts... PetersV       TALK 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's from a slightly different point: my aim is to stem POV-pushing from both sides by introducing a unified definition for all of these articles about unrecognized states sharing the same political status (except for NCR, which is currently applying the article fork solution - one article for the region, one - for the government), so that there will be no more of these "unrecognized region" or "sovereign, independent country" things. BTW, what does secession have to do with democracy? --Illythr (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

media section

At the last conference regarding Transnistria media organised by the Moldovan Government and United Kingdom Transnistrian press freedom was confirmed to be more free than Moldova, yet the Molodva wiki page has no reference to Media Situation. Perhaps it is time to look at this changed environment, either drop it or edit it Tommyxx (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Got a link? --Illythr (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this link (or Google view as HTML) albeit from last January:

The Survey on the Freedom in World 2008 drafted by the Freedom House published on 16 January ranked the Republic of Moldova according to the seven points scale on political rights and civil liberties within the countries which are partly free while the breakaway region of Transnistria as not free.

Emphasis reproduced from original document, not mine. PetersV       TALK 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would've been a surprise. --Illythr (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Their ratings are quite interesting. They've got two ratings - Freedom in the world [2] and Freedom of the Press[3]. Unrecognised countries are included only in the former. Moldova has been ranked as "not free" in the Freedom of the Press index since 2004.[4]
[5] In the Freedom in the world index Transnistria has always been classified as "not free" (6 points both in civil liberties and political rights; the range is 1 to 7, the more the worse). Interestingly, Abkhazia fares slightly better (5 points in both categories) and is considered "partly free"! In 2008 Moldova scored 4 and 3 points, Georgia - 4 and 4 (both partly free) and Russia - 5 and 6 (not free).[6] Alæxis¿question? 12:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Abkhasia more free than Russia? Hehe, curious. --Illythr (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I found this. [7] Tommyxx (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We've been through this one when it was first published in 2006. Its problem is that it's vague, it's old and it's Tiraspol Times. I think you'll agree that the 2008 Council of Europe link above is far more authoritative. --Illythr (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes your sources are stronger, agreed. However Russia which has the same ranking as Transnistria does not have such a 'media' section on its' page, as is the case of other states too, so why is it considered important on Transnistria's page? Anyone have some advice on this ? Tommyxx (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
On double checking the Counci of Europe was only citng Freedon House, amd it is the same organisation that claimed the death toll in Ossetia was a few dozen, are they a credible source, I will try and find out more. And the other report was only for Moldova Tommyxx (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics- 103.6% election result

The U.S. State department report that someone cited as saying Igor Smirnov received 103.6% of the vote in one district DOES NOT says this. So the statement should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt2findtruth (talk • contribs) 07:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Use Ctrl+F, look for "103.6". --Illythr (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NATO resolution

I've noticed that it's kinda weird: "The Assembly, ... URGES the government and the parliament of Russia : ... to respect its commitments ... and has to withdraw its illegal military presence from the Transdnestrian region of Moldova in the nearest future"

:)

So if we want to keep all that paragraph [sic] and quotes should be placed where they are missing now (for example now it looks like the illegality of Russian presence is fact and not an opinion of NATO GA).

Personally I think that the short version

is fine enough for the general article about PMR. If someone thinks there are still some important points there among the usual diplomatic babble (about spheres of influence, perhaps), let's add these points to the short version. Alæxis¿question? 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Text detractive and untrue

According to the U.S. Department of State report referring to year 2006, The right of citizens to change their government[105] was restricted[...] Authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention.[...]In Transnistria authorities limited freedom of speech and of the press.[...]Authorities usually did not permit free assembly.[...] In the separatist region of Transnistria the authorities continued to deny registration and harassed a number of minority religions groups.[...]The separatist region remained a significant source and transit area for trafficking in persons.[...] Homosexuality was illegal, and gays and lesbians were subject to governmental and societal discrimination.[106]


The author of the article caused insult to all the people of Pridnestrovie. You must remove or correct the text quoted by me.

This constitution eliminates discrimination against citizens of Transnistria Transnistrian Republic, in this case because of sexual preference.

Administration obliged to apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutacia (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mutacia, a.k.a. "all the people of Pridnestrovie", please address your concerns with the U.S Department of State. Wikipedia is not responsible for what is written in sources used in WP articles. Dc76\talk 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

“Tirapol Times” has gone off the air

Click on the “http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/” link and you’ll get this “account suspended” page.

And, according to I’ve seen on the Wired website, the Tiraspol Times was not the only case of suspended Transnistrian website.--MaGioZal (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sovietic propaganda

The website needs clean-up.

First it has to be stressed the following very, very important elements:

  • Transnistria is a virtual no man's land with Soviet-era infrastructure
  • has no foreign investment,
  • has no internationally-recognized government to formally accept foreign assistance
  • has no international banking system
  • the paragraph with recognition of Ossetia by Nicaragua... well that's not the place in this website, obviously.
  • it's a breakaway region
  • Special attention must be for Moldova's proposal - see the added lines
  • economy section..it's a mess: stress must be on the fact that revenues are largely derived from criminal activity, including weapons smuggling and woman trafficking, crimes which go unpunished by corrupt authorities
  • languages section: stress must be on the way the Russia-backed separatist regime, has forced the Russian language and Cyrillic alphabet on the Moldovan-speaking citizens of Transnistria
  • Military, Russian presence against Moldova's will

--Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the stuff is already there, the rest is just POV-pushing. you really should concentrate on making constructive edits to Moldova-related topics until one of the admins finally blocks you. --Illythr (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't try to discourage me and to threaten, stick your ideas in that place you know well. The very important elements about Transnistria will stay. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
..and with what exactly you don't agree? Those are the facts and pure reality. It's hard to admit them as long as you agree with them. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
2 Ghimpu. The only reference I could find in your additions was to Al Jazeera video and its description. You must have noted that the economy section is already referenced with many reputable sources such as Western (and one Moldovan) NGOs, peer-reviewed magazines etc. Clearly International Crisis Group report, created by a well-known NGO and itself well referenced weighs more than a TV reportage.
As an example, weapons smuggling is also mentioned in the Al Jazeera video as a fact. The situation with weapons is described in detail in the special section of the article, again with reputable sources backing every statement. If OSCE officials say that [they have no evidence that the Tiraspol regime has ever trafficked arms or nuclear material http://web.archive.org/web/20070930023757/http://rfe.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/05f3742a-1c2d-4e1a-a57f-0e9780549795.html] it's clearly inappropriate to write that write that 'Revenue is largely derived from criminal activity, including weapons smuggling' as a fact without comments, proper attribution, opposite opinions etc. And again, the situation with alleged smuggling is already well described in the article.
The rest of your additions are completely unsourced. In case of the paragraph dealing with PMR's recognition it's merely your opinion that it doesn't deserve to be here. Wikipedia is edited by consensus so you have to achieve it prior to removing anything.
Please bring up your concerns one by one at the talk together with neutral and reputable sources you use at the talk for us to discuss them and achieve consensus. Alæxis¿question? 19:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You must be kidding. What source do you need to show me right now in 2009 that Transnistria doesn't have a Soviet-era infrastructure and is a virtual no man's land ? Reply to this one first. For sure it doesn't have the Japan's infrastructure! But maybe you can prove me it has tousends of highways..Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Moldova, Russia, Romania and many more countries don't have Japan's infrastructure either. Why didn't you add this statement to articles about them? The claim that it's a 'virtual no man's land' is clearly a POV and also sounds rather vague.
The more obvious your claims are the easier it should be for you to find sources proving them. Alæxis¿question? 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to address point-wise:

  • Transnistria is a virtual no man's land with Soviet-era infrastructure
  • has no foreign investment,
    • define foreign. it has Russian companies
  • has no internationally-recognized government to formally accept foreign assistance
    • what exactly you find problematic? at least my last edit made it very clear it is not internationally recognized
  • has no international banking system
    • the way you say it, is very vague and can be mis-interpreted. find a good source and cite exactly what the source says.
  • the paragraph with recognition of Ossetia by Nicaragua... well that's not the place in this website, obviously.
    • the first good point you made
  • it's a breakaway region
    • that is already said in the lead
  • Special attention must be for Moldova's proposal - see the added lines
    • again, find a good source and cite as the source says
  • economy section..it's a mess: stress must be on the fact that revenues are largely derived from criminal activity, including weapons smuggling and woman trafficking, crimes which go unpunished by corrupt authorities
    • You would be surprised how long a subsistence economy survives. Large-scale weapon traficking is mostly a thing of the past. In 2000s international persecution of smugglers got much better.
  • languages section: stress must be on the way the Russia-backed separatist regime, has forced the Russian language and Cyrillic alphabet on the Moldovan-speaking citizens of Transnistria
    • ok, perhaps this is the second good point. but you have to write it accurately, not your personal impression.
      • Actually, they didn't enforce it - they simply didn't change the way it was in Soviet times. What should be mentioned there is that Russian has come to dominate the language spectrum (as opposed to the claimed equality of the three languages). The problem, as it was back in 2007 was the lack of sources for this assessment. --Illythr (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        • That's not quite true on language, instruction is available only in the Cyrillic version, if people wish to school their children in proper Romanian, they have to do so on their own dime—and those dimes are difficult to come by. Tiraspol enforcing a policy of cultural and ethno-linguistic isolation is not just "not changing" something benign. And let's not forget all the claptrap on the PMR's sadly departed Tiraspol Times web site/mouthpiece about the PMR "restoring Romanian to its cultural roots." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Fact is, Cyrillic was in use in the MSSR. It was changed to Latin in 1989. Transnistrian authorities refused to make the change. In both cases, the status quo is enforced by legislation. Whether is was benign or diabolic is not the point. The stuff about returning to the roots is beside the point as well. --Illythr (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Military, Russian presence against Moldova's will
    • that is already mentioned, isn't it? last time i read the entire article a few months ago it was they loud and clear. ... and I find it now:
Andrei Stratan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova stated in his speech during the 12th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Sofia on December 6-December 7, 2004 that "The presence of Russian troops on the territory of the Republic of Moldova is against the political will of Moldovan constitutional authorities and defies the unanimously recognized international norms and principles, being qualified by Moldovan authorities as a foreign military occupation illegally deployed on the territory of the state".[49][50]

To Alaexis: You committed a logical mistake: "If OSCE officials say that they have no evidence that the Tiraspol regime has ever trafficked arms or nuclear material, it's clearly inappropriate to write that write that 'Revenue is largely derived from criminal activity, including weapons smuggling' as a fact"

It is a fact that some revenue is derived from weapon smuggling (Soviet stockpiles are still large), but they do not need to feed half a million people, only a few hundred at the top. The largest revenue contributor if I am not mistaken is the steel factory in Rîbniţa, with 2/3 of budget revenues. They are neither stupid no desperate to sell AKMs to African conflicts and pay teachers with that money. Dc76\talk 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Er, what's the source for that? o_O --Illythr (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
To Dc76. Sorry, I still don't get where I've presumably mistaken. I will reiterate my point: in light of everything written in the 'Arms control and disarmament' section (including OSCE official's statement that they have no evidence that the Tiraspol regime has ever trafficked arms...) it's not appropriate to write in the economy section that 'Revenue is largely derived from criminal activity, including weapons smuggling'. Alæxis¿question? 07:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, there are tons of reports of arms trafficking. That the OSCE states it has not been traced to the "official" PMR regime is not a statement that there is no arms trafficking. Don't contend more than the OSCE states. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that the discussion above concerns the phrase 'Revenue is largely derived from criminal activity, including weapons smuggling'. --Illythr (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Some reality


  • Transnistria is a virtual no man's land with Soviet-era infrastructure

- A no-mans-land is not under control of conflicting sides. Transnistria is controlled bu PMR Government/ authoritues.

  • has no foreign investment,

- No so, it has more factories than Moldova and most are foreign owned.

  • has no internationally-recognized government to formally accept foreign assistance

- This is also not the case, the PMR recieves large sums from Russia and other countries.

  • has no international banking system

- Er call Western Union and ask can you wire money/ No problem.

  • it's a breakaway region

- In a sense it is, and in a sense it is not. See, it was created before Moldova, so ut's hard to figure how it broke away.it's more of a disputed region.

  • Special attention must be for Moldova's proposal - see the added lines

- Yes s[ecia; attention for everything Moldovan (this could be seen as one sided ).

  • economy section..it's a mess: stress must be on the fact that revenues are largely derived from criminal activity, including weapons smuggling and woman trafficking, crimes which go unpunished by corrupt authorities

- makes excooted reading but is simply - fiction. Any OSCE- eu offical will tell the PMR will not tell that is untrue.


  • languages section: stress must be on the way the Russia-backed separatist regime, has forced the Russian language and Cyrillic alphabet on the Moldovan-speaking citizens of Transnistria

-what ??? Everything in PMR is in three languages.

  • Military, Russian presence against Moldova's will

- There is no Russian Military presense, there is joint peacekeeping force that includes Ukrainian peacekeepers, who you forgot ? to mention.

STOP THE PROPAGANDA On TRANSNISTRIA - ITS DRIVES MOLDOVA and PMR APART

Tommyxx (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Last changes

Hi! Concerning the last changes (those are the changes):

1) "a disputed region in Eastern Europe" should be replaced with "a breakaway territory in Eastern Moldova" because first of all, this disputed region is a breakaway territory (of course, we can also use also the formula "a disputed breakaway region"). Transnistria is officially part of Moldova, as well as Somaliland is officially part of Somalia. We can also use this formula "a disputed breakaway region located de jure in Eastern Moldova".

2)The insertion of "(but also the Bessarabian city of Bender and its sourrounding localities)" shouldn't be a problem, I suppose.

3)I also suppose that the inclusion of this sentence "(though it doesn't share all the features of an independent state since it is't recongnized an an independent state by any sovereign state and cannot have diplomatic relationships at a level of embassy with those states). Since May 2006, all the Transnistrian exports must be authorized by the Moldovan authorities and the transnistrian companies are registered at the Moldovan authorities." won't be wrong. I mean, if we already insist to cite the authors who say that Transnistria is "de facto independent", we also must mention the aspects that don't match to this point of view. Because those aspects make Transnistria to be not really a real "de facto independent country".

--Olahus (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re 1) It's already written in the intro that de jure (officially, as you say) Transnistria is a part of Moldova (second paragraph) and that Moldova considers it part of its territory (first paragraph). Maybe we could merge these somehow..
Re 2) No problem, but imho no point as well. It's clear from the context that Bender is on the right bank of Dniester.
Re 3) Here unfortunately the source you've used is no longer available. However it was a Moldovan site and so it may have some bias. The are many non-partisan sources about Transnistria and we should use them where possible, especially for basic statements in the intro. Alæxis¿question? 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
1) The current form "disputed region" has been around for a long time and I see no reason to change it - the information you are suggesting is already there, and the form is also used in the Kosovo article as well as several others.
3) I agree that this should be mentioned, but only if a non-partisan reliable source is provided that makes this summary. Right now, there are at least four such sources (refs 7-10) that contradict you. --Illythr (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
1) Although the formula "de jure" is already included into the article, I think it is important enough to be mentioned in the first paragraph; every atlas published everywhere in this world represents Transnistria as a part of Moldova. And now to the user Illythr particularly: Transnistria's status is more similar to Somaliland than to Kosovo.
3) Actually, the news are taken from RIA novosti (see the mention at the bottom of the page). However, this and this articles confirm the article. --Olahus (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that companies registration and export authorisation should be mentioned in the economy section. Alæxis¿question? 08:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1) The word "unrecognized" is present in the first paragraph and says just that.
3) There's actually a section here and an article about this. Both need to be updated, though. However, the problem is not the factual correctness of the events, but the "though it doesn't share all the features of an independent state" part - present sources contradict this and the news sources say nothing. While I agree that a state can't be considered sovereign if it must seek approval of another state before it can export anything, this will remain an issue of WP:V until resolved by a source that directly support this. Once a source is provided, we can elaborate on the problem in the Political status section, as well as adjust the lead accordingly ("there is disagreement, whether..." etc). --Illythr (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3a) On Somaliland - cosidering this, not so similar. Actually, that article's lead should probably be brought to the form used here to address that weird "those who call it" thing. --Illythr (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but if the statement about the so-called "de facto independence" is mantained in the top of the article, we should also mention all the points of view because Transnistria does not encounter all the features of such a status. --Olahus (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As long as this remains your personal point of view, it doesn't belong in the article. Please bring a reliable source criticising Transnistria's sovereignty based on this issue. --Illythr (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Personal point of view? I'm only trying to present the entire situation as it is. And I am using quotings. We cannot just simply say that Transnistria is a "de facto independent" republic as long as it doesn't fulfil all the conditions to be regarded as one. And if we do it, then let's present is as it really is. Per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. --Olahus (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Point is, it's not we who is saying this, it's (in this case) 4 non-partisan sources. What is your source for this: "it doesn't share all the features of an independent state"? --Illythr (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Point is that no independent state (I'm talking here about the UN) does recognize the existence of a Transnistrian state and furthermore it doesn't encounter all the features of an independent state at all. They are indeed some authors who describe Transnistria as a "de facto independent" state, BUT "de facto independet" means nothing but "actually, it is independent". We cannot put the opinion of some authors on a higher stage than the reality. And if you insist to exclude the sentence "it doesn't share all the features of an independent state" - i agree with it, maybe it sounds subjective. But the listing of the features that absent in an independent country shouldn't be deleted. --Olahus (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I consider the intro to be balanced. Transnistria does not have diplomatic missions because there are final status talks ongoing but its sovereignty is recognised and acknowledged by the 'international community' and its borders are recognised and protected by internationl peacekeepers defining its territorial integrity. Even though the very countries that protect this situation also support Moldova's claim to Transnistria. It's a complicated situation so I suggest that only strongly sourced changes be used. Tommyxx (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The 'international community' recognizes only the exitence of an administrative entity Transnistria (as well as the Moldovan government also does - it regards Transnistria as an autonomous region). But nobody recognizes is as independent - not even Russia. --Olahus (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As you know the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not Truth. The opinion of 'international community' is not an absolute truth either (although it's very important and as such is mentioned in the first, second and third paragraph of the intro, and elsewhere in the article also). Please bring reliable sources for other statements you'd like to include here. Alæxis¿question? 14:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
On which statement? That nobody recognize Transnistria as an independent state? --Olahus (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"it doesn't share all the features of an independent state" --Illythr (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I will not include this sentence. --Olahus (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) Err, okay, then what is it that you wish to include/change and where? --Illythr (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing but that I wrote above (with the changes established in the discussion, of course) --Olahus (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Please review the discussion and restate, which of your three points you'd still like to insert - regardless of counterarguments presented (or amended). --Illythr (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You mean, I should write again what I already wrote? How many times should I write it again? --Olahus (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There were some counterarguments to your points and you have apparently withdrawn point 3) (or at least, a part of it). We have to know whether the discussion has had some effect or if it's coming full circle. In the former case, we can continue. In the latter case, we'll need outside input. --Illythr (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you reverted EVERYTHING and it is not OK. If you still dislike something in my changes, please let me know what exactly it is. What you did might be called "vandalism". You have complained that that my opinion concerning the Transnistria's status ("it doesn't share all the features of an independent state") isn't objective. Fine, I removed it. So, what is your problem now? We already discussed about the other changes.--Olahus (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted about half of the changes you keep pushing, ignoring the whole discussion above. At the same time I tried to implement most of the rest as a compromise. You just mindlessly revert irrelevant things like technical markers or wikilink corrections. Had you actually looked at what you were reverting, you might have seen that most of what you wanted was already there. Vandalism? I don't think so. --Illythr (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you behave exactly like a POV-pushing vandal. I pointed my changes in 1), 2) and 3) (see the top of this discussion) and I discussed all of them. Do the same thing, please, and stop to revert my edits without a reason. --Olahus (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are problems your latest set of edits.

  • The changes in intro haven't been agreed, and I still don't quite see why should established and stable text be modified (for example underlining that Transnistria is in Eastern Moldova 2 times in first couple of lines seems POV to me).
  • Adding "Some authors describe Transnistria to be de jure part of Moldova... " without specifying what authors do you talk about is not good. Also I don't understand this passage - almost everyone (not just some authors) agrees that Transnistria is de jure part of Moldova.
  • Please don't remove citation needed tags without adding sources. Alæxis¿question? 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
1)and 2) Transnistria is located in Eastern Moldova (at lease "de jure"). That's what the entire world is saying. Transnistria can't be described in the same was Kosovo, Abchasia and South Ossetia is. Transnistria just hasn't this status. Nobody regard is as a "disputed region", but rather as a "breakaway territory" or as a "breakaway republic". Every atlas represents Transnistria in the map of Moldova. There is not even a single exception. Every publication about Transnistria locates it in Eastern Moldova. Not simply in Eastern Europe (do you realize what the therm "Eastern Europe" means? It's the entire eastern half of the European continent... it stretches up to the Ural Mountains) I don't see a simgle reason why wikipedia shoul make an exception here. The authors that describe Transnistria as "de facto indepenent" can be mentioned in the quotings. Or do you want them to be mentioned directly in the text?
3) Probably you are writing about the sentence that says that the numer of Russians increased, while those of Moldovans and Jews decreased. Well, those are the census results. I will mention this in the quotings.
4) I will add a new issue: why did you replace the therm "relative majority" with "plurality". Why should we use the term "plurality" in the sense of the voting system? The designation "relative majority" versus "vast majority" is more commonly used and for sure more accurate for the reader. --Olahus (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
1) & 2) I took the sentence from the Kosovo article to avoid this kind of endless argument with one side claiming that one of these unrecognized states is part of the country they broke away from and the other side claiming that they're not. Since the reality is that they de jure are and de facto aren't, the best solution I saw was to state just that while leaving the location with a purely geographic descriptor ("Balkans," "Eastern Europe," "Nothern Caucasus" etc), as long as the recognition issue is addressed immediately (three times in the first para alone, now). This solution has proven to be stable enough to hold for a year.
3) Your presentation of census data is incorrect - the absolute numbers of all nationalities have increased by 1989, only the Russians and Ukrainians increased faster (due to migration).
4) Because "relative majority" means the same thing (note the redirect), but is more confusing (relative to what?). In addition, "plurality" is not limited to politics, whereas "relative majority" is. --Illythr (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
1)+2) You're confusing Transnistria with Kosovo. Transnistria is not Kosovo. And, probably, it never will be (Ukraine will have the last word to say here, but since it has already enough headaches with his own russophone population, I doubt it would be ready to create a precendent in Moldova). Read for example here, how the German ministry of foreign affairs is describing Transnistria: "Verwaltungsstruktur: 32 Kreise (raioane) einschließlich der autonomen Region Gagausien und der Region Transnistrien (Status ungeklärt)". Or here: '"Der abtrünnige Landesteil Transnistrien (selbst ernannte „Republik Transnistrien“) befindet sich außerhalb der Kontrolle der moldauischen Regierung.". So, Transnistria is a "Landesteil" - a part of a country (which isn't controlled by the Moldovan government). Transnistria is a breakaway region that belongs to Moldova without standing under it's control.
3)Ok, it should be written "share" or "percentage" instead of "number".
4)The term "plurality" has more significations. It can also mean "a large number" - but it doesn't specify whether the largest number is ment or not. For example, the Ukrainains live in large number in Transnistria. But: do they constitute a relative majority? No, because they are not the most numerous ethnic group in the region.--Olahus (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
1) + 2) Both Kosovo and Transnistria (etc) are secessionist territories, whose independence is not recognized by the states they seceded from, but are not under control of these states. In this, their status is identical. The difference lies in the number of states which recognize them, and it is resolved here (listed in different sections). Ukraine has nothing more to do with Transnistria than Albania has with Kosovo. "Belongs to Moldova" is POV. NPOV would be to say that it is considered part of Moldova de jure, and so it is written in the intro - no need to say the same thing twice.
3) Actually, now that I looked it over, it's not your fault, you weren't the one who put it this way. I'll fix this myself.
4) Hmm, you have a point there. Ok, no objection.
5) I also disagree with describing Bender as "Bessarabian" - Bessarabia is a historical territory and it seems anachronistic to use it in a modern context. There is also no need to convolute the intro further, as the phrasing "left bank and the city of Bender" already implies that it's not on the left bank. Might make sense to change "left" to "western", though. --Illythr (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
1)+2) A disputed region is Kashmir or the Ecuadorian–Peruvian border or the Halayeb Triangle. Transnistria is a breakaway republic (yes, a republic, not just a "region") within the Moldovan borders. This is what teh UN-members are saying. The opinion of Abchasia & South Ossetia (two states that are recognized by only 4 states that don't recognize Transnistria anyway) can be mentioned further in the text of the article. "Belongs to Moldova" isn't POV, and really not "Belong de jure to Moldova". I also cited you as example something from the German ministry of foreign affairs and you still call it POV? I'm sorry to say this, but POV is what you are trying to push here in Wikipedia. Even in the page linked by you, Transnistria is shown in a completely different situation that you are claiming.
5) Bessarabia is the opposite of Transnistria. If we call the right bank "Transnistria", I don't see any reason for excluding the term "Bessarabia" when talking about the left bank. --Olahus (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
1,2) The opinion of other states is just that - opinion. In this case, majority opinion ("Transnistria is part of Moldova") disagrees with reality (since 1992 Moldova exercises no control over the region). Which is why we use the neutral "de jure" vs "de facto" to avoid breaks from reality while maintaining NPOV at the same time.
5) While "Transnistria" is used nowadays as a vague reference to the PMR, I haven't seen references to modern right-bank Moldova as "Bessarabia," except in historic contexts (perhaps because 1/3 of it is part of Ukraine now). --Illythr (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
1+2) Sorry, but it smells like POV (a personal POV of you, to be more accuratey). Besides, Transnistria doesn't encounter by far all the features of an independent country (if you agree so much the POV). Don't start a POV-war now.
5) If we say that Budjak (Ukraine)is located in southern Bessarabia and Moldova mostly in Bessarabia, I don't see any reason to make an exception for Tighina and to hide the fact that the town is located in Bessarabia. --Olahus (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Unrecognized?

Transnistria is recognized by South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of them are sovereign nations and are recognized by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru. I understand that the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is controversial, but I don't think "unrecognized" is completely accurate in this situation. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothern Cyprus has always been recognized by Turkey, but that didn't affect its status as an unrecognized state. I doubt Transnistria qualifies for Kosovo's "partially recognized." Besides, the infobox clarifies this in more detail. Do you have a suggestion? --Illythr (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Not that of Transnistria. --Olahus (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The article should say that it is in fact recognized by two non-UN member states. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are states, that are partially recognized, but not themselves members of the UN. We should present the facts and not make conclusions. Outback the koala (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Where are 3rd-party independent sources which say that Transnistria is "in fact recognized by two non-UN member states"? --windyhead (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
@Outback the koala: I just did that.
@windyhead: The three members of the "Commonwealth of Unrecognized states" recognize each other (see links in that article). --Illythr (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, not even the Russian officials do speak about a "state" Transnistria. Only the Abchasians and Southern Ossetians do. --Olahus (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Russia is not part of the "CIS-2" anyhow. --Illythr (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh? What is "CIS-2" ? --Olahus (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
A nickname. Check the last mainspace bluelink in this section. --Illythr (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
please consider this as a personal attack against the user "Node eu"

Dear "Node Eu" I do take personal pride and honor to say to you and your commander an well deserved "Fuck you !!" and yes I know as this moment your real identity ( please forgive me wikipedia). I want to assure you and your family ( and this extend to the family of mr. Bortnikov) that no harm intended or untended from me will occur. It was a long process and some well spend money involved. But I realize finally that you deserve only my mercy. Good look to you. And yes, wikipedia, this is my last posting as I do realize that I have no place here. I do much,much better in the real scientific world.Catarcostica (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened here? O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Raison d'etre

Most countries have some kind of justification for existence - historical independence, distinct ethnic identities, language, religion, maybe something more nuanced like economic or social systems. Scanning this article I can't find any obvious grounds for Transnistria's independence. Is it because it has a higher percentage of Russians and Ukrainians than the rest of Moldova? And why these particular boundaries? The history section doesn't indicate that Transnistria ever existed as a political entity earlier. Brutannica (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the second and third paragraphs in the section "Secession to the present" are insufficient, can you suggest an improvement? Make it more pronounced? Expand the lead section? --Illythr (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy/Pasted reference to France in Infobox

The infobox map showing Transnistria's boundaries in relation to its neighbors is captioned with a completely irrelevant reference to France. The protection prevents me from correcting this. Feel free to delete this section once that's fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.229.232 (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging in Roman Catholicism in Transnistria

Support. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, as the page linked does not seem to exist. Outback the koala (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure what page did not exsist, Outback the koala, but once fixed-- you fail to even have a reason to not merge. Carlaude:Talk 11:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support merge.
See also the merge of Roman Catholicism in Somaliland. Thanks. Carlaude:Talk 11:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support; while the page is cited and provides a jumping off point from which the article could expand. I see no reason - unless improvements are made - to keep the page. Outback the koala (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Flag

La flag is not correct on the official site there is this version:[8]

Furthermore the name of the country is not correct too. Transistria is offensive and incorrect as explained in the official website [9] --92.202.85.64 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the flag, but regarding English naming, the common approach is to consider English-speaking sources such as BBC to be more reliable than "official" ones --windyhead (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's the PMR law on the state flag:

Статья 3

Государственный флаг Приднестровской Молдавской Республики представляет собой прямоугольное полотнище двухсторонне красного цвета. Посередине полотнища каждой стороны во всю его длину располагается полоса зеленого цвета.
В левом углу верхней части полосы красного цвета располагается основной элемент герба Приднестровской Молдавской Республики - серп и молот золотистого цвета с красной пятиконечной звездой, обрамленной

каймой золотистого цвета.

So the flag is quite correct. --Illythr (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
From what my google translate result told me this seems to be true. Glad to see the flag restored. Outback the koala (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Name

They call their land "left" if the dnieste river? It means that look at the world from north to south, opposite of what we usually do in Europe. Could someone maybe add a short sentence commenting on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.239.133.50 (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is on the left side of the river Dniepr. As the river flows in the north-south direction, its eastern part is at left.Japf (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Pridnestrovian

What does this word mean in English?--UnQuébécois (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "Pridnestrovie is a transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье", that means "[a land] by the [river] Dniester." man with one red shoe 15:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So it's not really an English word, but a loanword from Russian. Is there a better translation that could be used instead of simply using the loanword? --UnQuébécois (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
See Names of Transnistria. --illythr (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes, but that does not answer my question. --UnQuébécois (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
With the possible exception of "Trans-Dniester", they all are loanwords. "Transnistria" is just the most commonly used one. "Pridnestrovian ..." is only used when the context calls for a self-name, so there is no need to replace it. --illythr (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

discrepancy about recognition by Nagorno-Karabakh

According to International recognition of Transnistria, Transnistria is recognized by Nagorno-Karabakh, but the last paragraph of the introduction implies that it is recognized only by South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Which is correct? Lesgles (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

They all do appear to recognize each other, but it's proved hard to find a direct source that says so explicitly. Changed. --illythr (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Lesgles (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria/Archive_20&oldid=1136227169"