Talk:Transnistria

Double standards?

Hi Wikipedians! Please tell me, why does Wikipedia use the terms Romani people instead of the generally accepted Gypsies, the politically correct Black people instead of the standard Negro, etc., but allows itself to call Pridnestrovie the even more unacceptable term Transnistria? Isn't this a policy of double standards? 217.19.215.78 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We use the most common name in reliable sources (btw you're wrong about the most common name for blacks, at least in English). You'll need to show that "Pridnestrovie" or its variants are used at least as frequently as "Transnistria." Alaexis¿question? 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that it was Wikipedia that played a key role in the spread of the term Transnistria, which, before Wikipedia began to appear at the top of search results, was just one of many ways that Pridnestrovie could be called in the English-speaking public space. 223.206.114.176 (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that Transnistria is as offensive as the other two terms you mention. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The funniest thing about your statement is that in reality the term Transnistria is even more offensive to the people of this region, since it does not simply imply passive humiliation or memories of oppression or infringement, but contains a direct call for genocide. It was in this context that it entered the lexicon of Moldovan political radicals in the late 1980s (more specifically: a call to repeat the crimes of fascist Romania in World War II against the population of today Pridnestrovie). This is confirmed by open sources, which, however, Wikipedia ignores (apparently they do not correspond to the local "neutral" political position of the editors). 223.206.114.176 (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have no problem providing those sources. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little bit of research. I have found no reliable sources that back up your claim. I found an unreferenced mention on the WikiVoyage article for this state (I believe other Wikimedia projects are not considered reliable sources, just as Wikipedia itself isn't), one TripAdvisor thread (user-generated content, so not a reliable source), and one Quora thread (again, user-generated content). Also, on the Quora thread, the poster who was most adamant about Transnistria being an offensive term was very clearly a Russian propagandist of some kind. What I did find are reliable sources saying that the Parliament of the state passed a law banning the use of the name Transnistria. However, that does not prove the name is offensive. The North Korean government wants people to call it the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Turkish government wants you to call it Türkiye. But that doesn't mean North Korea and Turkey are offensive, just unofficial. So please provide reliable sources that state that Transnistria is so offensive that it's on the same level as a racial slur.
I would like to raise some concerns about the genuineness of this complaint. On the WikiVoyage page, similarly unsubstantiated claims were made about the offensiveness of the term Transnistria. Several IPs made similar claims, just as they have done here. Never any registered accounts, always IPs. And most, if not all, of the IPs both on WikiVoyage and here geolocate to Transnistria/Pridnestrovie itself. I don't want to make any formal accusations just yet, but suffice it to say I am highly suspicious of the motives behind this crusade.
I mean, a large group of anonymous IPs from Transnistria/Pridnestrovie, making extreme, unsubstantiated claims that just happen to align with the Transnistrian/Pridnestrovian government's view... Certainly a very suspect situation. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I missed the two prior move discussions on this very page... One seemed to be genuinely good faith in nature. The other was, again, an anonymous Transnistrian IP making very bold and unsubstantiated claims that follow the agenda of the Transnistrian government. That settles it in my mind. From now on, I suggest that we just ignore all requests to change the name to Pridnestrovie or something similar unless they provide a very compelling reason or evidence, and only if their post doesn't read like blatant propaganda.
There are more move requests in the archives which mostly seem good-faith. Enough, in fact, that there's a notice at the top of this page explaining why the article is titled Transnistria and not Pridnestrovie...
My point is that this has been discussed to death. Certain parties obviously have a vested interest in having the title changed. Now, whether the Transnistrian government is organising these IP addresses, I can't say. But I'm confident that this claim that the term Transnistria is an offensive slur is bullshit being pushed by a group of people who have a very clear bias. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried looking for information somewhere beyond the first page of Google? If this is how sources are handled here, I am not surprised by the quality of such articles. Especially since you are very clever at hanging political labels, like "very clearly a Russian propagandist".
[1] (English; the article from state news agency)
[2] (Russian; "What is Transnistria", newspaper "Dnestrovskaya Pravda", September 29, 1990 - N. Pasenko, the chairman of the Council of fallen prisoners of Nazi torture)
[3] (Russian; about the appeal of people deputies of the Bendery City Council to the UN regarding an offensive term)
[4] (Russian; "They want to turn Pridnestrovie into a 'Forgotten Cemetery' - into 'Transnistria'", article from an independent news agency)
[5] (English; the historian Pyotr Shornikov about "Transnistria")
[6] (Russian; "Transnistria is inextricably linked with fascist terror" - Serghei Sandu, the chairman of the Union of Moldovans of Pridnestrovie)
[7] (English; about the prohibition of an offensive term by the Supreme Council)
Interviews and articles about the speeches of the President of the PMR, in which he touches on this topic:
[8] (English; the interview for "The Telegraph", the author of the article also confirms that the term is offensive to the population) [9] (English)
[10] (Russian) [11] (Russian) [12] (English)
Examples of travel reports warning about people's attitudes towards the term in question: [13] [14]
I didn't get it about IPs: do you want to say that Pridnestrovians have no right to be outraged by what is written in Wikipedia? As for conspiracy theories in the spirit of secret government plans, I will disappoint you: such organizations have much more effective methods of influencing a mass audience than debates on the Internet. 223.206.114.176 (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the statement "Certain parties obviously have a vested interest in having the title changed" (meaning not hundreds of thousands of offended people, but some organizations) you are trying to turn everything inside out. In reality, we have the fact that a certain group of politically biased figures is using Wikipedia in the information war against Pridnestrovie, considering the dissemination of an offensive term to be their main "victory" in it, and now fiercely defends it, resisting any attempts to challenge this dubious "victory". At the same time, we have an very ugly situation when Wikipedia, instead of offering people unbiased information from various sources, itself has become a source of extremely aggressive and impudent propaganda and insults. And you are participating in this - as correctly noted above, your political bias towards, for example, "Russian propagandists" or the "transnistrian government" is obvious. 217.19.215.28 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why then is this information not presented in the article? The sources provided quite convincingly confirm that the name Transnistria is perceived negatively by the population of the region. The text of the article now gives the impression that Transnistria is the self-name of the region, but the separatist authorities, contrary to this, are trying to impose terms invented by them. By the way, I was not able to fully understand the intricacies of the terminology, although I read all the Wikipedia articles on this topic. Is this the name of a self-proclaimed state, or a geographical region (then how is it defined territorially?), or an administrative unit of Moldova? There is some confusion here; can you enlighten me? Jocik Lewou (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Transnistria" is a Latinate noun used in Romanian for the part of Moldova on the far side (trans-) the Dniester River (i.e. the part that is not geographically Bessarabia). It is not used in the Russian language because it doesn't make geographic sense in reference to Russia, which is on the same side of the Dniester as Transnistria. That is the reason that they use "Pridnestrovie", the meaning of which is explained below.
We use "Transnistria" on the English Wikipedia principally to refer to the modern self-proclaimed state known as the PMR, which legally prefers Pridnestrovie (in Romanian Nistrenia), which means "on the Dniester". Anecdotally this preference also occurs amongst the Russian-speaking but not necessarily the Romanian-speaking population (you can find interviews online with "Moldovan language" teachers discussing how they insist upon their students saying "Nistrenia" over "Transnistria").
There is also the WW2-era Transnistria Governorate, whose name refers to a more geographically bounded Trans-Dniestran region, from the Dniester to the Southern Bug in Ukraine. The use of the term "Transnistria" by the at that time fascist powers of Romania and Germany is used by the government of the PMR as a reason for their rejection of it, however it is also likely (my opinion!) linked to the fact that the PMR wants to be seen not as a Romanian state (like the contemporary Republic of Moldova) but a Russian one, a republic of Russia like the Chechen Republic. The enforcement of the Russian name in English is part of that attempt.
At the time of the PMR's founding an English term was not entirely clear, as many of the people writing about Transnistria in English were not familiar with the Governorate period or, being ex-Sovietologists, were more likely to engage with Russian language sources. The PMR government itself used the term "Dniestria" for a while, something of an Anglicisation of the Romanian Nistrenia, and they didn't use the term "PMR" in English either, but rather "DMR", "Dniester Moldavian Republic".
There is an administrative unit of Moldova, the "Administrative-Territorial Units of the Left Bank of the Dniester" which is really a diplomatically framed term, used to refer to the legal status in Moldova of the area without either accepting the self-identification of the self-proclaimed (and in Moldova illegal separatist) PMR or using a term that would only be inflammatory. It is not usually called Transnistria. In Moldova proper it is usually referred to as Stânga Nistrului, meaning "the left of the Dniester", as a short form.
In the discussion above the IP users are principally Pridnestrovians (to use their own term) defending the policies and views of their state. The sources they give are by and large sources of the "Russian world" (Русский мир) which speak to the values of that group.
Rightly or wrongly the consensus on the English Wikipedia has been for a long time to use the term "Transnistria" for various reasons, but mainly because it is the most common term in English and the MOS (at WP:COMMONNAME) prescribes the use of the most used term over others, where possible.
Sorry, @Jocik Lewou this was quite long, however I thought it best to lay much of it out in one comment so that everyone can be on the same page. All the best. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Bayonet-lightbulb for the detailed and comprehensive response. But judging by the archive of this discussion, there is no consensus on the name of this article, since the question of the name has been raised regularly since 2006, here are just the first five discussoins: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].
Am I correct in understanding that any sources associated with this breakaway state should be labeled as "Russian World" and rejected? I do not want to take the side of either the Pridnestrovians or the Moldovans/Romanians, but the situation is truly unique and deserves a more detailed examination. I have the unpleasant feeling that Wikipedia has become a tool in a political conflict. Jocik Lewou (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can raise a discussion after all. It's better to look at the outcome of discussions, rather than simply that people put the question out there. We had a fly-by merge discussion on Flag of Transnistria recently, for example. The separation of the two articles in that case is quite uncontroversial, there is a consensus, even though people may pose discussion questions.
The sources given should not necessarily be dismissed because they are of the Russian world, I merely used that in reference to the viewpoints of those posting them. It is more to the point that they contravene WP:RS, not least because they are primary rather than secondary sources. Additionally, most of the secondary sources we do have (and most of the independent primary sources, like the OSCE) do not use the term Pridnestrovie. It is for this reason that we stick to "Transnistria". Indeed in some of the sources above the articles themselves use the term "Transnistria" in reference to the PMR banning it. Your concern is greatly appreciated. Thanks Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is permanent doubt or disagreement in a community about a certain issue, can we talk about consensus in that community? I wouldn't pay attention to this if this were a one-off discussion or some run-of-the-mill case easily resolved by Wikipedia rules, but here the situation is quite strange.
By the way, I looked through the sources that could serve our purposes of defining terminology, and almost nowhere is the name Transnistria used in relation to the breakaway state: almost always they talk about the territory of Moldova, including when talking about the "separatist regime" in this territory (however, the opposite would be strange, since this state is not recognized by any UN member). I have some ideas for refining the "Toponymy" section, but I would like to discuss this first. Jocik Lewou (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there have been so so many discussions, all returning the same result, the opinion of the majority of interested editors has been clear for almost 20 years at this point. As such I am personally against any further move discussions on this page, because it diverts resources away from actually covering the topic. I really think 20 years of the same view is expression of a general consensus, even where some groups express different views.
I think part of the reason we stick to "Transnistria" is also that a term like "Pridnestrovie" or "Dniestria" (an option which was considered in early discussions) is pro-separatist. Part of me is uncomfortable with this, but given the, as you said, unique situation regarding the self-proclaimed PMR I think we can't draw precedent from Abkhazia or South Ossetia, and the example of the Republic of Artsakh is perhaps not relevant. "Transnistria" is at least broadly a geographical term, and we do discuss the various names of the state. If Wikipedia was around for the period of Egypt being called the United Arab Republic, I think our article would have similarly been called Egypt.
Relatedly, I am thinking about putting the Names of Transnistria article up for deletion, it was created in reference to this very discussion but it is pretty messy and sourcing is difficult. Most of the information is in this article anyway. Considering that, I am interested to hear your ideas for the Toponomy section of this article, whatever is not in Names of Transnistria could probably be moved over. Thanks! Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, the word "interested" is the key word here. This looks like a group of interested editors suppressing any periodically expressed opinions that do not coincide with theirs, and not like a consensus. I do not take anyone's position, but I think it is unacceptable to ignore arguments that seem quite reasonable. My proposal follows from this: reflect the opinions and arguments of both sides in the text. At the same time, one should adhere to the principle of neutrality, without leaning towards anyone's side.
By the uniqueness of the situation, I meant the fact that, apparently, no article about geography or political entities has such a contradiction with the name, when one side claims that the name is entirely offensive, and the other insists that it is neutral and acceptable. Let's try to figure out in more detail what the parties agree on and what the contradiction is.
If I have understood this topic well enough, then the "stumbling block" here is precisely the name Transnistria, which many authors point out as directly offensive due to its burden of a certain historical burden, while the "pro-separatist" versions of the name do not have such a burden. Is it appropriate for us to take sides and will this follow the principle of neutrality? If I understand you correctly, you believe that yes, we should stick to a strictly "anti-separatist" position. Jocik Lewou (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Part of me is uncomfortable with this. I am personally of the view that the case for naming the article "Pridnestrovie", unsupported generally by the claims of certain IP users, nevertheless has some merit. As unwilling as I am to continue a long-term debate on this topic, I am not sure us using the term "Transnistria" is really sustainable.
What do the two parties in the Trans-Dnistrian conflict agree on? That there exists an area of land within the boundaries of the erstwhile Moldavian SSR which is controlled not by the government of the Republic of Moldova but by a group which broke off from that government as it existed in 1990 or so. This breakup was ostensibly about the rights of the Russian language (whether this was a real reason is disputed). I can't say I can think of much more on this topic where there is real agreement.
The Moldovan government, at least, obviously takes into account the concerns of various groups. Stânga Nistrului is quite a neutral term to use in Romanian, just as Приднестровье clearly is in Russian (see for example the title of this article, on the site of the Romanian government international radio station).
This really is, therefore, a question for English speakers. For us there is no truly neutral term, and we must therefore choose based on criteria such as: how common a name is; its integration into the English language; its actual use (who in English language sources actually uses the name "Pridnestrovie"? Not even the articles published earlier this year in the Telegraph in London with the full cooperation of the government of the PMR); etc. We really need hard evidence for this too. Arguments are not enough. I am in many cases persuaded by arguments in favour of "Pridnestrovie" but just as move discussions are not votes their outcomes should not be determined by arguments, but by the sources. A number of articles published by the PMR government are not reliable sources in this case.
In this clip (from the main non-government TV station in Tiraspol) the news host even states outright "Let's be honest, in the world we are still known as Transnistria" (a WP:COMMONNAME argument if ever there was one!). The discussion in this piece is overall quite interesting, but again the arguments do not make for facts relevant to the policies of Wikipedia, facts which are unchanged since the last RM.
In the discussion last September, several salient points were made and I think consideration of these shows why yet another discussion at least at this time would not be worthwhile. The example of Timor-Leste, moved in December, no longer supports the status quo here, (note that this is because of a change in outside factors, which was a long time coming) but I think Turkey is the most obvious similar case brought up in the September discussion. The fight for a non-English name is in both cases spurred on by national laws and supported by claims (which in neither case have evidence other than anecdotal) that local populations reject a particular name.
Therefore, as unhappy as I am with this fact, I feel that various policies (such as WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME) seriously support the status quo remaining on this article. Not to mention we had a discussion just 9 months ago.
But if you feel it's warranted then please, be bold and put it up for discussion again! All the best. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to briefly highlight the content of this dispute. As far as I can see, both sides agree on the widespread use of the name "Transnistria", this is obvious for the English-language information space.
The "Transnistria side" quite reasonably shows the widespread use of the name "Transnistria" and suggests that this be used as the only factor worthy of attention and the rule on common names:
Transnistria remains the common name until evidence to the contrary is presented.
However, the "Pridnestrovie side" has repeatedly stated that this term is "monstrously offensive":
... this term is extremely offensive and is not the name of either the Pridnestrovian region or the Pridnestrovian republic,
and emphasizes that this word is almost always used in relation to the territory of Moldova, but not to the breakaway state, as is done in this article:
the overwhelming majority of cases of using the term Transnistria ... refers either to the administrative division of Moldova ..., or to the so-called territory ... not controlled by Chisinau
The "Transnistria side" claims, if I understand them correctly, that the current article name is neutral, so any claims of "offensiveness" are either false or should be ignored. At the same time, they claim that it is the term "Pridnestrovie" that is non-neutral, since it is "the separatists' self-designation". Their opponents claim the exact opposite, saying that the word "Pridnestrovie" is a completely neutral geographical name, while "Transnistria" is a purely political term. How to judge who is right in this matter?
The "Pridnestrovie side" in turn puts forward the thesis that Wikipedia has become a kind of primary source in the dissemination of this name:
in this case, Wikipedia acts as the primary source for most of the use of this swear word on the Internet
I was unable to verify this or the opposite, since it is quite difficult to collect statistics on the use of a term that can be applied to such a wide range of entities. But given Wikipedia's role in disseminating information, the thesis seems quite plausible. Also, they cite precedents of renaming articles when the prevalence of the name was not of decisive importance. Indeed, such a practice exists.
Have I correctly presented theses of the parties to this dispute? By the way, my original question in this discussion concerned precisely the thesis about offensiveness, which is not reflected at all in the article. Jocik Lewou (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have certainly laid it out plainly there, thank you. I look forward to the comments of others. Bayonet-lightbulb (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the community of editors will show interest in this topic. Just look at the discussion archives: the first 19 of them relate to 2005-2007, and only the last 3 relate to the rest of the time. Apparently, activity appears here only when someone raises the issue of renaming an article (see my remark above about interested editors and consensus). In my opinion, this is where the insufficient effectiveness of such an editing model is manifested.
Let's first try to use the information provided to us above about the perception of the name Transnistria by the region's population, adding a corresponding remark to the article. There is already information here about how this term arose (a speech by the deputy Leonida Lari), but this does not directly answer the question of why a name is burdened with a history of war crimes was chosen (if I understand the position of the "Pridnestrovie side" correctly, then this is where the "offensiveness" comes from). Otherwise, it looks as if the region's authorities have invented some name and are imposing it on their own population, which obviously directly contradicts reality. Jocik Lewou (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pridnestrovians feel offended when the "T" name is used as it refers to the Romanian occupation of the region. During this period many horrible atrocities occurred which is why Pridnestrovians frown upon the name. According to a sign in Pridnestrovie (they put down a sign in a park to address this issue) "For the citizens of our country this term (the "T" term) is firmly associated with the years of the Romanian occupation, ethnic cleansing of the population, robberies, famine and forced Romanianization of the population. Today the use of this term can be viewed as disrespect for the victims of these events and as an attempt to distort historical memory.
It should also be noted that the population of the country uses the term "Pridnestrovie", as the "T" term does not exist in Russian.
I believe that the "T" term should be used when referring to the Administrative-Territorial Units of the Left Bank of the Dniester article / territory. Pridnestrovie should be used when referring to this article and all other articles about the PMR. Rai56Z (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

In the government and politics section, it is stated without a reference that the Supreme Council consists of 43 members. However, the sources that I've found state that it is 33 members, which is what is stated on the Supreme Council's wikipedia page as well. Please see linked source.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/transnistria/freedom-world/2024 Megalodon153 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please change "43 members" to "33 members"

 Done. Alaexis¿question? 06:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Ratio is wrong

The white-blue-red flag should be in a 1:2 ratio instead of the current one. Crarell (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dn9ahx (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request 21 January 2026

Change "Persons without citizenship: around 20,000–30,000 people[citation needed]" to blank. Since flagging citation needed in October 2021 no citation has been provided. ~2025-43423-41 (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alaexis¿question? 12:38, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transnistria