Talk:Transnistria

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2026

Change

" During the Romanian occupation of 1941–44, between 150,000 and 250,000 Ukrainian and Romanian Jews were deported to Transnistria;"

to

" During the Romanian occupation of 1941–44, between 150,000 and 250,000 Ukrainian and Romanian Jews and 25,000 Romanian Roma were deported to Transnistria;"

Sources: https://www.roma-sinti-holocaust-memorial-day.eu/recognition/the-holocaust-in-romania-and-deportations-of-roma-to-transnistria/

The Auschwitz Institute for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities and the Roma Program at the François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, Harvard University, Matache, M., Ghindea, G., Demetrescu, M., Chiriac, B., Đuković, M., Hadroj, R., Karčić, H., Argiro Kouki, E., Krasniqi, V., Kyuchukov, H., Dragoljub Orlović, D., Pisarri, M., Selmani, D., & Janko Spreizer, A. (2022). The Roma Holocaust/Roma Genocide in Southeastern Europe - BETWEEN OBLIVION, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND DISTORTION. In https://www.coe.int/en/web/roma-and-travellers/-/launch-of-the-regional-research-report-on-the-roma-holocaust-roma-genocide-in-southeastern-europe-between-oblivion-acknowledgment-and-distortion. The Auschwitz Institute for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities, New York, U.S.A. and The François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University, Boston, MA, U.S.A. https://rm.coe.int/the-roma-holocaust-roma-genocide-in-southeastern-europe-report/1680a8a4c9

Zoe Petre ed., et al., Istorie. Manual pentru clasa a XII-a [History. Textbook for the 12th Grade], p. 50. 0804R1605 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

"Moldavian" vs. "Moldovan"

Hello Kxeon, I had restored the "Moldovan" spelling as I disagree with having unconsistency across articles, most articles already use such spelling. I think we should stick to the article title of the topic, which already uses "Moldovan". The "Moldovan" spelling is also considerably more employed in academia to describe the ethnolinguistic conditions in Transnistria . I don't think the argument of needing to use the spelling the so-called constitution uses is very valid when we're titling this article with a name that is illegal to use in the breakaway statelet.

This is a small, petty detail, but I think it would be nice to agree on a standard. Other editors may feel free to express their opinion. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 10:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Last night, I learned that even though the official term is "Moldavian" (which is indeed used by the government, occasionally they use "Moldovan" instead.

Novosti Pridnestrovya does the same, sometimes Moldavian, sometimes Moldovan.

I haven't really figured out how to find only sites from the lands of Transnistria, but now something tells me we might want to relegate it to a sentence saying something like "The Moldovan language is called 'Moldavian' by the constitution of Transnistria, and is used; although the term 'Moldovan' is still used in the state too". Maybe. Thanks, kxeon  talk 15:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally I believe it is not necessary. An explanatory note could be added but I think it would essentially amount to cruft. I remember discussing with an editor who expressed worry that "Moldovan" could possibly be controversial as it could entail connection to Moldova, undesirable from the separatist perspective. I haven't really ever seen such a dispute or nuance existing or described in mass media, academic sources or social media, as it does with "Transnistria" vs. "Pridnestrovie". English is, after all, quite a marginal language in the context of the political conflict. So I think it really is a harmless thing. Just like we don't have an explanatory note next to the statelet's official name to clarify that it is sometimes written as "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" . It's just that in these two separate cases, different spellings are the most common. And then there's also the case of Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet, should we also have a note for this one?

I incite editors to express if they would desire such a note. Otherwise, I suggest we revert back to the previous version. Super Ψ Dro 15:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Questions: do these two forms correspond to two different word forms in Moldovan/Romanian itself, or are they just two different preferences on how to translate it into English? If the latter, I think we can safely ignore the difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

"Moldavian" does not exist in Romanian, only "Moldovan" (moldovean, moldovenesc, etc.). "Moldavian" in English originates from Russian, hence Moldavian SSR. As far as I know, the demonym "Moldavian" is the only one used in Russian, though "Moldova" instead of "Moldavia" is used often by Russian-speakers in Moldova to refer to the country. So, "Moldavian" does not exist in Romanian, and "Moldovan" either does not exist or is rare in Russian. There is no ethnolinguistic connotation of sorts when using either translation, or at least I don't think one would be able to find sources describing such a thing. Super Ψ Dro 19:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, didn't know that they did this too. And this time, a mention in the Toponymy section (or even a footnote in the lead?) seems pretty good to have, since it, again, diverges from the official name of the country, and is used quite a ton outside of government stuff in place of the other name. Whether or not Moldavian and Moldovan being synonyms invalidates its place here I still do not know, and thinking about it, any implied connotations with Moldovan and Moldavian may be unintentional considering they do do that. (Also there's already an article for alternative names, where it could go if it doesn't fit here)

However, it appears "Moldavian Cyrillic" appears to be much less used than "Moldovan Cyrillic", even more so than the Moldavian language to Moldovan language, if I am not wrong. So none of that, I guess. kxeon  talk 17:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a mention at the toponym section, I think that'd be fine. In my opinion, a footnote dedicated to this detail would be undeserved. Footnotes are more visible than a sentence at one of the article's sections, and I think we should reserve them for more relevant informative details.

Perhaps a similar solution could work out for the language issue, a short mention on the English spelling used in the so-called constitution at the topic's own article. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 19:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I was about to edit it into there, but turns out I forgot about {{efn|name=romd|"[[Moldavian language|Moldavian]]" is the official name in Transnistria for the [[Romanian language]]. It is written in the [[Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet]], as opposed to the [[Romanian alphabet|Latin alphabet]] used in the rest of Moldova.}}. Now I'm back to not knowing what to do, since this footnote even exists.

If "official name" was changed to "the name used", then it might be inconsistent. Saying "Moldovan or Moldavian" instead might be doing nothing to avoid a footnote for this, trying to replace the entire footnote with "See this page's section on toponomy for more information." also just doesn't seem right after this for some reason, even though it technically might not have footnote for this specific thing anymore. Confusing... kxeon  talk 15:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current version (), I changed a bit your latest additions but they've been generally good. I'd like to remind that after all, the note's interest is the fact that Romanian is officially termed "Moldovan" in the region, not what exact spelling is used in English for this artificial term. I think the additions at the toponym section have been a nice positive too. Feel free to discuss my arguments from the two edit summaries, but I think we could leave it here. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 12:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Potential reference to "Executive Order granting Russian citizenship to citizens of Transnistria"

The third paragraph and "Status" section talk about the citizenship of Transnistria's residents. I feel it is important to mention the "Executive Order granting Russian citizenship to citizens of Transnistria" signed by the Russian president on the 15th of May 2026. At least a sentence in the status section. I haven't seen many people talking about this order, so I assume not many people know.

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/79762 ~2026-34410-99 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That Executive order changed the route to Russian citizenship, but it did not create the route and would not have immediately affected the overall statistics covered by paragraph 3. CMD (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, could you link to more information about this? Thanks. ~2026-34410-99 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Most news sources cover this, eg . CMD (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Map

Can someone please fix the interactive map in the table? It shows the 0.0 point instead of the country. SommoTheYugo (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)