Talk:Transnistria conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Position of the Transnistrian side[edit]

Mikkalai wrote: "Since Moldova declared independence of the Soviet Union, all political arrangements made within the Soviet Union must be considered void." This is the gist of it, but it is a sweeping overgeneralization. We need to work on this to represent the Transnistrian position more accurately ... and we need to also add a section for Position of the Moldovan side. - William Mauco 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


== "All political arragemenets made within the Soviet Union must be consiedered void" ????? This is just an unfortunatelly joke. I will bo the most happiest person in the world if this. Catarcostica 06:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV / factual accuracy.[edit]

The territory to the East of the Dniester River never belonged neither to Romania, nor to its predecessors, such as the Principality of Moldavia.

False. It belonged for some (rather short) time to both the Principality of Moldavia and of Romania (during WWII). bogdan 21:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly false. First, this is stated as Position of Transnistrian side. A report of the position is basically correct, only obersimplified, as mentioned above. Second, I don't know about Moldavia, but the WWII case is beyond any doubts, just like Soviet annexation of Baltic States was not recognized in the West. mikka (t) 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not false at all. If it belonged to the Principality of Moldavia at any time in history there is no record of this which I can find. I just checked with Charles King, author of "The Moldovans" which is probably the most comprehensive resource in English about both Moldova and Transnistria, and the two areas history.
With regards to the WWII interlude, yes: Romania and Nazi Germany occupied Moldova and Transnistria. In fact, they used Transnistria as the killing fields for all of Moldova's jews. (This is where the saying "Jews into the Dniester" came from). But, they never took any formal steps to incorporate Transnistria. In fact, in King's book he clearly states that they weren't interested in the area other than as a deportation area and buffer zone; and that for them, Greater Romania ended at the Dniester River. To claim that it belonged to Romania during part of WWII is wrong and there is no historical record of any formal incorporation whatsoever. It is akin to saying that France, Italy and parts of Germany belonged to the U.S.A for part of WWII just because allied forces held the land. In summary I do consider the statement The territory to the East of the Dniester River never belonged neither to Romania, nor to its predecessors, such as the Principality of Moldavia to be factually accurate. It is so true that it need not be listed as the Transnistrian position or POV but can be part of the general text of the article. It is a crucial statement which is key to understanding the entire conflict. - William Mauco 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no major political party or pressure group in Transnistria supports union with Moldova

Of course, that's because we're talking about a totalitarian regime in here. If you want, I can give you links about what the international human rights organizations say about the freedom in Transnistria. bogdan 21:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. mikka (t) 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totalitarian or not is outside the narrow scope of this article, as it deals only with the Disputed Status of Transnistria. However, Transnistria's parliament has stated that any solution to the conflict must be approved not just by them or by Transnistria's foreign ministry but also by the people themselves in a referendum. They have also declared their willingness to let this referendum be organized with international supervision and according to the full set of OSCE rules for free and fair elections. - William Mauco 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather heavily edited the Moldovan side, not because of its POV (which is the point of labelling it as "side" and is OK in that particular section) but simply because of factual inaccuracies with regards to history. I'll be glad to document and reference each item if asked to. However, since I am probably not a very passionate representative of Moldovan POV, I would prefer to let someone else develop that section. - William Mauco 05:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble I would appreciate a brief explanation for the edits (I don't necessarily need sources for everything I am just curious about my mistakes). I know that the part about Transnistria not being part of other entities is incorrect, however what about the part regarding Romanians living in some numbers there before, the treaty with Ukraine, etc. TSO1D 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to, it is absolutely no trouble whatsoever. To begin with, the section is labelled as the point of the view of the Moldovan side so we part from the premise that it should accurately describe the official position of the government of the Republic of Moldova. Thus, it should try to avoid any arguments which can not be shown or sourced as being the officially the policy of the Republic of Moldova. For instance, although it is indeed very true to say that Moldovans (ethnic Romanians) have lived in Transnistria for ages, the casual reader will take this as being the main argument for Moldova to claim Transnistria, and it is not. In fact, it would be a disservice both to the reader and to Moldova, because Moldova has a better argument (territorial integrity). The reason they don't use the ethnic argument is that it won't work in international law: Texas would be part of Mexico, and more than 50 other countries would need their borders changed, too, because a large minority of their population lives on the "wrong" side of the border (Hungary in particular has this problem). Next, stating that Transnistria was not form a part of another greater political entity either before its incorporation into the Russian Empire in 1792 is factually wrong. It was part of Kievan Rus, and later most of it was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Next item: Technically, Moldova did NOT receive the territory from the Ukrainian SSR. To say so is counter to the available historical documents. Rather, what is today the Republic of Moldova minus Transnistria was incorporated into the Moldavian ASSR. Roughly put, Transnistria received Moldova and not the other way around. Moldova, in its independence declaration, even denounced this act as an illegal annexation. Next item: The "tit for tat" argument has some moral validity. It is the argument that Moldova got Transnistria in return for Budjak, Northern Bukovina and Hertsa. It has no historical or legal validity however. The "trade" was never made, discussed or formalized, nor is it used as the official position of the Moldovan side. So we can agree that they are justified in wanting Transnistria in return for other lost lands, and I am sure that Ukraine even agrees, but I removed it out of concern that Wikipedia would consider it original research. The statement that after the breakup of the USSR Moldova and Ukraine have signed a treaty recognizing the current borders is true, although the treaty was primarily about Moldovan access to the Black Sea. I also reformulated it to a more all-encompassing phrasing that "The Republic of Moldova considers itself the rightful succesor state to the Moldavian SSR" with the consequence that all of the borders of the MSSR are those of Republic of Moldova, and recognized as such by the world community (not just by Ukraine). I also kept your sentence stating that the government of Transnistria is considered illegitimate and not the righful representative of the population. This is indeed the official Moldovan position. Finally, I kept your sentence that Transnistria cannot exist as an independent political entity but must be reintegrated into Moldova. So basically the essence of the section was preserved, with an emphasis on those arguments which reflect the official Moldovan government position. - Mauco 15:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that explanation. I agree with your changes. The only point I believe could be preserved is the "territorial exchange" with Ukraine, however I will first look for a crebible source that I can cite on that subject. TSO1D 16:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, and if we can add some more volume to the Moldova section that would be good too. At least in terms of words we then give "equal time" to the two point of views. - Mauco 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know by now everything that is writed by WM can be considerded fake or at least soviet opinion Catarcostica 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan side [...] What's the point[edit]

I added a section detailing Moldova's arguments regarding the conflict in order to make it more neutral. Nevertheless, I don't believe that this article is of great importance as virtually all the information regarding the dispute is considered in the main Transnistria article. In any case, if you want to preserve this article, I don't believe it should built to a great lenght. It should just be an overview of the dispute and roughly retain its present size. TSO1D 15:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, I tend to agree with User:TSO1D. The article is useless from wikipedia point of view as a sepatare text, at least at this moment. It must be incorporated into the Transnistria#political status (BTW it had wrong content, I moved some text elsewhere). mikka (t) 20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Please think about it some more, and compare with how Wikipedia treats other wholly disputed territories (Gibraltar is one but the policy of splitting to a separate Disputed Status article is followed in almost all other cases, too.) Doing it this way conforms to how other articles are structured. Besides, the main Transnistria article is already too long and should either be trimmed or broken up into specific articles, such as a History of Transnistria. - William Mauco 03:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partially disagree with disagreements. I clicked two disputed territories at random, but with big coverage, so that they have their own categories: Category:Kurdistan, Category:Nagorno Karabakh. Both don't have this section. Breaking up is always a good idea. BTW, "history" section is a mess. "Disputed status" is a small part of a small "political status" section, no need to break up yet. Breaking is not done for the sake of breaking. Lots of miniarticles by 3-4 sentences each does not make the text readable. mikka (t) 04:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a miniarticle I can easily see how this one could become as substantial as History of Transnistria, War of Transnistria and possibly an enlarged Politics of Transnistria. - William Mauco 05:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halych-Volhynia[edit]

User Greier asked for citations on the fact that Transnistria was part of Halych-Volhynia after the fall of Kievan Rus. All one has to do is to Google 'Halych-Volhynia' and 'Dniester' and dozens of historical references come up which show that Halych-Volhynia clearly covered Transnistria and even, at times, the Moldovan side of the Dniester (what would later become Bessarabia). I can cite them here if required, although in my opinion this is more appropriate for the Talk page of History of Transnistria. - Mauco 21:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Iuliu Maniu / Constantin Bratianu quote[edit]

Charles King: "The Moldovans", Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, California, 1999, page 94: "The decision to move across the Dnestr into Transnistria was more problematic. The two preeminent political figures of the day, Iuliu Maniu (chair of the National Peasant Party) and Constantin Bratianu (leader of the National Liberals), urged Antonescu not to take the war beyond the Dnestr. "Although the fight for the reconquest and liberation of Bessarabia and Bukovina was legitimated by the entire soul of the nation," they wrote in April 1943, "the Romanian people will never consent to the continuation of the struggle beyond our national borders." The source for this quote is a public letter from C. I. C. Bratianu and Iuliu Maniu to Ion Antonescu, April 20, 1943, which is published by AND-DAIC, f. Pantelimon Halippa, d. 1008/1941, f.3, so please do not remove it and call it unsourced. - Mauco 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of Greater Romania[edit]

User Greier has asked for sources for the following statement: With the rise of Romanian nationalism in the nineteenth century, the far reaches of Transylvania were considered the western boundary of the Romanian lands[citation needed] while the Dniester formed the eastern[citation needed]. The first source is Charles King: "The Moldovans", Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, California, 1999, page 180, which says that "Even with the rise of Romanian nationalism in the nineteenth century, the far reaches of Transylvania were considered the western boundary of the Romanian lands while the Dnestr River formed the eastern. The romantic ideal of Greater Romania usually fell within these boundaries." The second source is Nicolas Dima's history of Moldova, published in 1991 as part of a series of East European Monographs, Boulder, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. Online at http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm and right in the introduction it says: "From a geographical point of view, Bessarabia represents a continuation of the Romanian land with the Dnestr (Nistru in Romanian) separating the Ukrainian monotonous plains from the hilly lands of Bessarabia and the Romanian mountains." This is merely one quote out of many similar, as the text has much more of the same. And, of course, we also have our very own Greater Romania article. - Mauco 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sentence[edit]

I deleted this sentence entirely from the "Historical status" section of the article: Typically, most of Transistria`s Russian and Ukrainian population are not natives (born there), and even possed Russian citisenship, as most of the Transnistrian governamental aparatus. I did so because its blanket statements, in in particular the use of the word most, don't match the census results for neither 1989 or 2004. See 2004 Census in Transnistria and, for more detail, http://pridnestrovie.net/2004census.html - Mauco 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Greier changed this:

Although ethnic Romanians have historically been a large minority of the population, the area was never part of Romania. The territory east of the Dniester river belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Halych-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries, passing to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and then into the hands of Russia in the eighteenth century

to this:

Although ethnic Romanians have historically made the largest ethnic group of the population, the area was never part of a Romanian statal entity. The territory east of the Dniester river was under the control of the Petchenegs and Cumans (see Cumania). It fell under the Mongols in the middle of the 13th century. In the 15th centur, it becamed part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and imediatelly after fell under Ottoman ruling. It becomed part of the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century.

Why was the information about Kievan Rus', Halych-Volhynia, etc. removed?? —Khoikhoi 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that these two are part of Slavic history, and show a Slavic influence over Transnistria which Greier (like Bonaparte) would like to erase from history. He replaced it with a reference to Cumans, but Cumans were nomads and even though they did exercise authority over large swatches of land here and there, around the Black Sea at various times, it is well known that they did not establish any specific borders. - Mauco 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, historical revisionism anyone? ;) Also note how "then into the hands of Russia in the eighteenth century" was deleted as well... —Khoikhoi 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should all strive just for historical fact and try to avoid having particular horse in this race. It should be the job of Wikipedia to represent the facts as objectively as we can, based on the generally accepted historical record. I have been spending the past two hours trying to clean this up and thanks for helping as you did, too. It would have been a lot easier to just revert all of Greier's edits, but that wouldn't be fair to the work that he put into the article, so I prefer to justify every edit or revert of my own and explain why; especially because Greier took the time to ask for sources for some of the article's original statements. - Mauco 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have a feeling that this conflict is going to last longer than we anticipate, however. —Khoikhoi 23:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've subsequently restored the info about Kievan Rus' and other elements of Transnistria Slavic history. —Khoikhoi 23:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selective rewriting of history[edit]

I had to remove some recent edits by Greir which took a few separate incidents and made them the central focus of some 500 years of the area's history (and, in the process, replaced other facts). To avoid these selective distorsions being re-added, I would like to call attention to the following historic facts, written from a Romanian point of view and generally accepted by all mainstream Romanian historians:

1. "The eastern boundary of Moldavia as well as the extent of the Romanian mass settlements remained, however, along the Dnestr river."

2. "During the fourteenth century, Prince Bogdan and his successors established their sovereignty over most of the land between the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river already populated by Romanians."

3. "Then, Prince Alexandre the Good (1400- 1432) drove the Tatars (remnants of the last great Asian invasion into Europe) beyond the Dnestr and established his boundary along the river. At the beginning, however, in the course of repopulating the new lands and extending state authority, the region between the Prut and Dnestr rivers adjacent to the Danube and the Black Sea, belonged to the Wallachian dynasty Basarab, after whom the entire province was later named."

4. "As a matter of fact, the northern and eastern boundaries of the Principality were fixed by the Prince of Moldavia and the King of Poland as early as 1433. The boundary followed the Ceremus river in the north and the Dnestr in the east, unquestionably including within Moldavia what later came to be known as Bukovina and Bessarabia. Soon after, the Moldavian princes began to fortify the Dnestr against the Tatars and built several fortresses which stand to this day. No fortress was ever built along the Prut River which flowed through the middle of the country."

5. "advancing from the west beyond Dnestr, the Romanian natural expansion encountered the Slavic colonization and the two cultures collided."

6. "1792: For the first time in history, Russia established its boundary along the Dnestr in the immediate vicinity of Moldavia. At that time, Moldavia had been in existence for almost five hundred years and her eastern boundary had been the Dnestr for all this time."

All quotes are from NICHOLAS DIMA 1991: East European Monographs, Boulder, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, and can be seen online at http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm - Mauco 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Colonisation" inconsistency[edit]

This sentence was added today: "The colonisation which begun during Tsarist times was greatly increased in during the Soviet Union. This lead to a decline of ethnic Moldavians in raport with Russians and Ukrainians, of which numbers continued to grow (however, ethnic Moldovans still make up the largest ethnic group)." There are 2 inconsistencies with this. First of all, 1) the sentence gives the Nicholas Dima history of Moldova as a reference. This source, however, refers to a "colonisation" begun in Tsarist times of Bessarabia (Moldova) and does not deal with this subject in reference to Transnistria. It specificially draws the line at the Dniester (see, for instance, the 6 quotes immediately above). So it should not, in my opinion, be quoted as a source for the supposed decline of ethnic Moldavians in a section dealing with the historical status of Transnistria. Second, 2) that "this lead to a decline of ethnic Moldavians" is not borne out by other sources. If anything, since 1792 the number of Moldavians and Russians both increased on the left bank of the Dniester, at the expense of Ukrainian peasants; at the time the single largest ethnic group in the area. We have dealt with this extensively in the Talk-page for History of Transnistria, giving sources. The newly added sentence ought to either be edited to correspond with the facts or else deleted altogether. - Mauco 00:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would prefer it deleted or else have an edited (corrected) version of it moved to History of Transnistria which is the main history article for the subject. Why? To avoid too much detail here in this article, since the inclusion of a small Historical status of Transnistria section in this particular article, Disputed status of Transnistria, was never meant to be a full history but merely intended as a small background capsule to help the reader frame the issue of the disputed status in its proper historical context. - Mauco 00:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is apparently no opinion for or against, I'll just go with my own suggestion and take it out altogether. - Mauco 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed? NPOV?[edit]

User:Greier added some tags yesterday, claiming NPOV on this article and a disputed section. The tags says that we should see Talk. But he has not bothered to state anything in Talk. Greier, what is your POV concern? How can we help you to make the article more NPOV, in your opinion? It is a bit hard to improve if you don't let us know what you see as being biased. As far as I can tell, the article is perfectly well balanced at the currently point in time, and factually correct in every way. - Mauco 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has had 2 days now to join the discussion, and is still invisible. The dispute tag is not a graffiti, it should be there if any good will proposals present on the talk page and I do not see any. I am removing it now, as per WP:VAND: "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus." I think that this is exactly the case here. There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article. In short, typical vandalism-style behavior. - Mauco 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greier just replied, albeit belatedly -

I raised the issue months ago. They are:

I am interspersing here. Sorry, Greier, I know that this is not good Wikipedia practice. To differentiate, I will put my comments in italics. Yes, it is true that this issue was raised months ago. It was also answered months ago. I am sorry that you do not agree with the answers, but they are right here on this talk page (see above). - Mauco 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. for Historically, Transnistria was inhabited by Moldavian Romanians (along with Ukrainians), but the area was never considered part of the traditional lands of Romanian settlement. the issues are: Define "Romanian area of settlement". What is the relevance of ethnicity (may that be Romanian, Moldavian, Ukrainian or Russian) in a political dispute? What is the relevance of the term "Romanian" when this issue is a Rep. of Moldova vs. Separatist regime, not an ethnic conflict? Even if they have a issue with the Romanians, and aknowledge it, then why do they speak only of Moldovan people, Moldovan language, and even call the country Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública?

It is best to just keep the conversation ON TOPIC so I will not turn this into a political discussion of why the place is named the way it is. The relevance of the background to the conflict is obvious, and it includes an ethnic component. Romanian settlement can be defined as the historical borders of Romania, in its greatest extent. If you prefer, we can change this wording to just "Romania". That will make it even easier to define the borders, and end this discussion. Let me know. However, sources have been provided above which defend the current phrasing, too. - Mauco 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. for The territory east of the Dniester river belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Halych-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries the issues are: the Kievan Rus is already on the talk of Transdniester article. As for Galicia, the claim is not backed by any sources.

Of course these statements are amply backup up with historical sources. See above. Some sources: Do a google on Halych-Volhynia+Dniester [1] such books as historian Charles King in "The Moldovans" where he writes that: "The territory east of the Dnestr River belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries." Published by Hoover Press, Studies of Nationalities series (Stanford University, the year 2000). In fact, even in Talk:History of Transnistria we have a user who went through all sources and noted that the area was part of Halych-Volhynia during what he calls "an 80-year exception of control when Galicia-Volhynia was at the peak of its powers". As for Kievan Rus, the evidence is even clearer still. * John Haywood: Cassell Atlas of World History; * Penguin Atlas of Russian History (Puffin, 1995); * David Christian: A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, Vol. 1 (Blackwell, 1999); * Charles King: The Moldovans (Hoover Press, Studies of Nationalities series (Stanford University, 2000); * Andrew Wilson: "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora" (Westview Press, 1998). In most maps of Kievan Rus I was able to check, the area of Transnistria is shown as the dependency of Kiev. It was settled by the Slavic tribe of Tivertsi, who (according to the Laurentian Codex) settled all along the Dniester down to the Danube delta. They are mentioned in the chronicle twice: when they sided with Oleg of Novgorod and Igor I of Kiev during their campaigns against Tsargrad in 907 and 944. During the reign of Svyatoslav I, they most certainly were subjugated by the Rus: the capital of this prince was Pereyaslavets in Bulgaria. There is no way in the world that anyone can claim that Transnistria was NOT part of Kievan Rus. It was. - Mauco 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. passing to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and then into the hands of Russia in the eighteenth century. False. Skipping a few centuries doesn`t matter.

Are you telling us that, according to you, Transnistria was not part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or that it did become part of Imperial Russia in the 18th century? I am not sure what you are objecting to. Either way, please demonstrate why, specifically, you believe that these statements are false. I will gladly show why they are true. - Mauco 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. for By this time, Moldavia had been in existence for almost five hundred years with the Dniester marking its eastern boundary for all this time. What is the relevance of this in the twentyfirst century? Also, why doesn`t it say that Muscovy had also been in existance for centuries, and not only Trns., but actually the wholre region norht of the Black Sea, has never been part of it until the eighteenth century (New Russia)

It is relevant because it is part of a historical background section. In the current conflict, one of the two sides is using a historical border to show why they think that they have a claim to the territory. As for your other concerns, much of that is covered in History of Transnistria under the principle of details there, summary here. Muscovy is not a direct party to the conflict, but Moldova is, thus the relevance of Moldova and not Muscovy. - Mauco 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Even with the rise of Romanian nationalism in the nineteenth century, the far reaches of Transylvania were considered the western boundary of the Romanian lands while the Dniester formed the eastern. What is the relevance of Romanian nationalism, Romanian lands??? Which is it in the end? Who are their enemies: the Romanians or the Moldavians? Or is it that they are Moldavians (see the name of the country), and are fighting against the imperialist Romanians? And for that matter, what were the western and the eastern boundaries of the Russians? The Dniester in the west and Kamchatka in the east???

Please do not be polemical. Please debate factual accuracy, as the relevance is explained both above, and below. Is the description of the Romanian/Moldovan boundaries true and wholly accurate? Yes. - Mauco 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. The national poet Mihai Eminescu, in his famous poem Doina, spoke of a Romania stretching only "from the Dniester to the Tisza" and not farther east. Again: what is the relevance of the term Romanian? What is the relevance of a 19th century poem afterall????????? And how come we had even got to the point where we take a poem literally????

It is interesting that Greier is not contesting the factual accuracy of any of this, but merely the relevance. The relevance is to show the national sentiment of Romania at the time, and to bolster the previous statement that Transnistria was not considered a traditional part of Romania. When there a several mutually supporting statements to this effect, they are all relevant. Some would argue that one of the most famous poems, which manages to go down in history, is a more important indicator of sentiment than ten or twenty quotes from come-and-go politicians. I agree. - Mauco 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. In World War II, when Romania, aided by Nazi Germany, for the first time in history took control of Transnistria there was never any attempt to annex the occupied territory beyond the Dniester for it was generally considered merely a temporary buffer zone between Greater Romania and the Soviet front line. what is THE RELEVANCE ??????????????? for God`s sake? And when the Russian Empire (then U.S.S.R) took it, what it was considered? The Holy homeland?????????

The relevance is clear. In fact, it is stated in the sentence: namely that Transnistria, for the Romanians, was considered merely a temporary buffer zone. In fact (not mentioned in the article) it was used as place to deport and then kill Jews from all over Southeastern Europe. This was in marked contrast to Imperial Russia which founded a city and immediately started to develop the area after its 1792 annexation and incorporation. - Mauco 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Transnistria had never been considered part of Bessarabia Duhh... Really intelligent observation...

Factual. And certainly a relevant mention in a conflict where one side, Bessarabia (Moldova), claims sovereignty over Transnistria. - Mauco 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Two preeminent political figures of the day, Iuliu Maniu and Constantin Brătianu declared that "the Romanian people will never consent to the continuation of the struggle beyond our national borders." Againg: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THE WORD "ROMANIAN". Also, I wan`t to know what were the "national borders" of the Romanian people? Where they defined in the constitution? And I wonder what the "national borders" of the Russian and Ukrainian colonist were.... Greier 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately before Moldova and Transnistria were merged in the MSSR, Moldova was part of Romania and Transnistria was not. This alone makes it relevant. If there are other issues which you think are relevant, too, please suggest them. - Mauco 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this dispute even about?[edit]

As far as I can tell, it's not even directly about Molodovans vs. Transnistrians, but is about secondary issues with editing the article? AnonMoos 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is both. The ARTICLE is about the disputed territory (Transnistria) and aims to give some background in order to then present a summary of the arguments of each side, followed by some links for those who want more info. The CURRENT EDITING DISPUTE (as detailed in this section of Talk) is something else entirely. It is about history, which was much prior to the current dispute. So there are two disputes: One in the real world, between Moldova and Transnistria, and then a content dispute here on Wikipedia between Greier and the rest of us. Until this happened, the article has until now been very stable, and has in fact been edited very amicably by people on either side of this issue. - Mauco 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Transnistria" to "PMR regime"[edit]

Does this really add anything to the article? AnonMoos 16:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When something referes to the territory, then it is obviously Transnistria. When something referes to the unrecognized authorities on this territory, then it is PMR regime. You see, Transnistria can also refer (only or among other) to the population as a whole, to the localities not under the control of the PMR regime, to politicians (not all of which support separation from Moldova), and it is not normal to ascribe everyone the attitudes of PMR leadership. And the opposite, a church or a national park is located in Transnistria, not in PMR (its de facto government).:Dc76 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for nagorno karabakh allegedly recognizing transnistria[edit]

I may be able to find something from the tiraspol times. Is it ok to cite the tiraspol times for something that is alleged?

Dealt with. BHHRG hasn't been known to falsify facts so it's a valid reference in this case imo. Alæxis¿question? 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition.[edit]

[2] According to this Documentary. Transnistria is de facto recognized by Russia and the Ukraine, as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Should this be included... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.62.73 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian irredentism fit much better than Romanian nationalism in this case[edit]

  • Nationalism, in fact, has a worse meaning than irredentism and may be used for unjustified territorial claims. It was not exactly the case for the Romanian claims on Transylvania (see Historical Status of Transnistria).--Deguef (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the original reference was not as much to territorial claims but to the general movement towards creating a single Romanian state. Moreover, irredentism is the advocacy of territorial claims (justified or not), whereas nationalism has a much broader meaning. It's also a direct quote from King's Moldovans (p 180). --Illythr (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nationalism in this case is not neutral as irredentism. I dont know if the position of King towards Romanian claims on Transylvania is neutral. As Italian I dont like the term nationalism , connected to some extent with fascism and imperial expansionism. On the other way irredentism is connected with the Risorgimento. Mazzini, Garibaldi, and later Cesare Battisti and Nazario Sauro were not nationalists--Deguef (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

I suggest the article be renamed to Political status of Transnistria. All similar articles about the disputed status are named Political status of Kosovo, Political status of Western Sahara, Political status of the Palestinian territories etc. Jan CZ (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Makes sense. --illythr (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, political status seems to be a much more open title than just bringing out "Disputed". CMD (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, "political status" is a better description of the content in the article. TDL (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Japinderum (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Improvements[edit]

1. Improve the info box (add more specific information)
2. On "Moldovan Position"

  • Review statements/ only include those coming from reliable sources
  • Include statistics

3. On "Territorial Issue"

  • Improve English style
  • Include Map

4. On "United Nations Resolution A/72/L.58”

  • Provide more context to the Resolution

5. Add Section on Transnistrian Identity
6. Add Section on Transnistrian Government on Political Status
Evguenia21 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus for the merge Political status of Transnistria into Transnistria conflict. Еechnically first a merger go the other way into Political status of Transnistria and then page will be moved to Transnistria conflict. (non-admin closure) --Somerby (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Political status of Transnistria into Transnistria conflict. I think the content in Political status of Transnistria can easily be explained in the context of Transnistria conflict, and a merger would not cause any article-size problems in Transnistria conflict. In other similar cases, there is one article - Crimean problem, Abkhaz–Georgian conflict, Georgian–Ossetian conflict, Cyprus dispute. There are also a big overlap with International recognition of Transnistria and Transnistria War, but articles are perhaps best kept separate. Somerby (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible. As the creator of this article I don't oppose it for now, but I see you're new to Wikipedia, so I advise you to wait until a substantial number of users have stated their opinion too and not merge both articles if noone has said anything in a few weeks. Merge proposals are slow processes, which may be ignored for months or even years. Super Ψ Dro 19:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a merger should go the other way, given this page is newer and shorter. The name can be changed through an RM if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, no problem. I did not know the rule. Then first merge into Political status of Transnistria and then move to Transnistria conflict. --Somerby (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clear oppose. "Transnistria conflict" is a well-defined conflict whose name is used by several sources and notable institutions [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (document from OSCE) [9] (page of the Moldovan Presidency) [10] (also from the Moldovan Presidency, more recent and in Romanian) [11] (European Parliament) [12]. Even if not under the name "Transnistria conflict" (but under Moldova-Transnistria conflict for example), we still have sources referring to this event as a specific and concrete conflict [13] [14] (State Duma of Russia). We need a precise concept in Wikipedia that can cover everything related to what's going and has been going on between Moldova and Transnistria, both before the Transnistria War (identity, language laws, first separatist organizations in Transnistria, etc.) and after it (2006 Transnistrian customs crisis, 2012 Moldova security zone incident, resolution attempts, etc.), and put it together. A page titled Political status of Transnistria can perfectly cover resolution attempts, but the 2012 Moldova security zone incident wouldn't fit as much. Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh for example only covers diplomacy, not incidents like these (and I imagine we all know Nagorno-Karabakh does have lots of them, so it isn't because there are no incidents to cover). It is better that a concrete concept cover all of this instead of something more abstract like Political status of Transnistria. Super Ψ Dro 08:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Super Dromaeosaurus, I agree with you, but as CMD told me, we should first merge the articles and then to move the page to Transnistria conflict. I think that everyone agree that Transnistria conflict is better title than Political status of Transnistria. --Somerby (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. I am okay with that, as long as there's an article titled Transnistria conflict in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 09:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed, but doesn’t it make sense to first merge International recognition of Transnistria into Political status of Transnistria, because the former is merely a major aspect of the latter? —Michael Z. 13:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We either merge International recognition of Transnistria to Political status of Transnistria, which would give the latter more notability (as it would now be the article covering the international recognition of it) or merge Political status of Transnistria into Transnistria conflict (or viceversa and later a rename, same thing). But I doubt all three should be merged. Other European unrecognized states have at least two other articles about these things (see Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhaz–Georgian conflict and Georgian–Ossetian conflict and International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). I believe we should do it as it was done with Abkhazia and South Ossetia as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been way more violent in comparison, so its page is more focused in military and people (displacements, massacres, etc.), which makes a separate page on politics and diplomacy more plausible. The Transnistria conflict in the other hand (and the Abkhaz and Ossetian ones to an extent) are more peaceful and their pages more politics and diplomacy focused, so an article about the political status of these regions might make less sense. Super Ψ Dro 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV wording[edit]

Re this edit, I believe that we should use neutral rather than loaded terms. It's irrelevant from the policy point of view that one side is recognised and the other isn't. Transnistria considers Bender to be inside its jurisdiction btw so by your logic it can't occupy it. Alaexis¿question? 19:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to change it. To say that Transnistria occupied Tighina is accurate, it isn't within the Transnistrian Autonomous Territorial Unit. Furthermore, Transnistria is not internationally recognized, this including Transnistrian rule of the city. What Transnistria thinks of itself is irrelevant when it lacks international recognition. A similar case of this situation in Wikipedia is in the article Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh (this title being decided in a RM). These lands are (or were) outside the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, just like Tighina is outside the Transnistrian ATU. It would be weird to say Transnistria/Artsakh occupied Tiraspol/Stepanakert, but it makes more sense to say they occupied Tighina/Lachin. A province cannot occupy itself but it can occupy territories adjacent to it. This is the terminology that Wikipedia uses for Nagorno-Karabakh, and I don't see why it wouldn't be used for Transnistria. It would be different if Transnistria was a widely recognized state such as Kosovo. No article on Wikipedia says Kosovo has occupied anything of the land it considers its. But this is not the case. Super Ψ Dro 20:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alaexis that it reads oddly. The Nagorno-Karabakh situation is WP:POVTITLE, but what is being dealt with here is article content. Having two sentences next to each other use different words is not going to help the average reader. Regarding international recognition, that equally applies to the entirety of the area under Transnistrian control, not just Bender. CMD (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the title for the Nagorno-Karabakh article is POV. It seems as the most accurate title we could get. I also don't see how this could pose any problem to the readers. But I guess we could use another word. How about "takeover"? We need to use a word that implies that Tighina was not of Transnistria before the war. This does not apply with Moldova, since all of Transnistria was directly controlled by it before the conflict. Super Ψ Dro 09:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no Transnistria before the war. The conflict started when Moldavian SSR was still part of USSR and there was no such entity as Transnistria. Transnistria emerged as a result of this conflict. From the Moldovan point of view PMR control of Tiraspol and Bender is equally illegitimate and from the PMR pov it's equally legitimate. The word "control" makes the situation clear for the reader. Alaexis¿question? 11:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the Transnistrian autonomous territorial unit existed before the Transnistria War (or at least before 1992, when Tighina was taken). Now that I know this, I've rewritten the infobox. It should all be good now. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Alaexis¿question? 13:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes & casualties[edit]

Why is there no section in this page about the conflict's casualties? If there's a military conflict, then hasn't someone died already? Dunutubble (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?[edit]

According the lead the 'Transnistria conflict' is about a conflict between newly found Moldova state and the breakaway region Transnistria, dating as far back as far as September 1990. However, i am struggling to find any overview of what the conflict is about. Not sure what relevance is the 'Historical status of Transnistria' in ninth to the fourteenth centuries?!, or why the events of 1992 War are under there, or why there is so much emphasis on positions and recognition, and very little on well the topic of article. --Nilsol2 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing status of Moldovan areas east of the Dniester river[edit]

I'm confused.

The map on this page indicates that the orange areas ('Moldovan controlled areas east of the Dniester') are under Moldovan control. If so, this would mean that Transnistria is split into two as the Moldovan areas touch the Ukraine border (specifically, the area comprising Vasilievca, Roghi, Cocieri and Corjova).

The map on this page (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Naddniestrze.png) suggests that this area is itself split into three non-contiguous chunks by Transnistrian-controlled roads.

The Geography section of the main Transnistria page suggest these areas are under the control of Joint Control Commission rules, yet the page for this does not explain how this works in practice. Either side can pass through as they wish? Transnistria can use the roads but not the lands either side? How then would Moldova access these lands? The roads are neutral?

88.107.215.235 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC) A Confused Person.[reply]

2023 Developments[edit]

There have been several recent developments. The question is just whether this is the right page, or there's a better one in the topic cluster.

https://www.politico.eu/article/moldova-energy-crisis-inflation-russia-ukraine-war/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64626785

https://www.politico.eu/article/maia-sandu-moldova-nato-alliance-joining-ukraine-war-russia-invasion/

https://www.rferl.org/a/chisinau-protesters-rally-against-moldova-government/32278318.html

https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-announced-ukraines-readiness-help-021600355.html

Very possible it could turn kinetic this spring. Sennalen (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sennalen, Moldova and the Russo-Ukrainian War is probably an appropriate page for this. Super Ψ Dro 23:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page for everything. It looks like that one needs more incoming links. Sennalen (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update[edit]

I don't think that Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh exists any more... AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria_conflict&oldid=1216237209"