This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Moldova Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities: National capitals Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. This article is supported by the project's national capital taskforce.

I would like to know how it's pronounced...

When I visited over the summer I learned it was pronounced tear-us-pol, but I'm trying to work out the "official" pronounciation styling for this can anyone point me to a web-link or wiki article to help me, or this way good enough? Jackliddle 22:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Romanians would pronounce it with the stress on the next to last sylabe. Tir-rus-pol Bogdan | Talk 18:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That certainly sounds a lot more like what I heard at Chisinau bus station. Should I add this in the to article as you gave it there 20:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's correct, the stress is on the second syllable. And it's pronounced tear-ahs-pol, in Russian. It's probably different in English.

Does anyone know where we can access the 2005 census where it actually says that Tiraspol has a population of 266.000 people?Constantzeanu 05:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 2005 census (neither in Moldova nor in Transnistria). It is the 2004 census, see below. - Mauco 19:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian Wikipedia is told that in 2004 census population was 158069 people, from which 41,6% Russians, 33,0% Ukrainians, 15,2% Moldavians.--MariusM 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The officially released figures are here: http://www.pridnestrovie.net/2004census.html according to which the urban population of Tiraspol is 158,069 people. The difference between that number and the one which we list in the English version of the article is that our number (slightly higher) includes a very small non-urban population as well. Both figures are actually correct. - Mauco 19:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the source for the claim that in 1919, 42% of population was Romanian?--MariusM 13:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources: Regnum, TiraspolTimes, Moldpres. Which one will it be? I was unable to find anything on the big international news agencies. I guess they're not interested... --Illythr 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List all three, or pick the one which has the most detail. - Mauco 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true in this case, with all 3 being in English. If there are foreign language references, English ones get preference. - Mauco 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for "Romanian"? It's the same as Russian, English and Greek... In fact, I am not aware of any other ways to pronounce it. --Illythr 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are more way to pronounce it: 'ti.ras.pol, ti.'ras.pol, ti.ras.'pol (note the stress) :-)

Thing is, I never heard the 1st and 3rd versions. The second one is used in Russian and, consequentally, in English. No sure about Greek, though. :-) --Illythr 16:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. - Mauco 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree.--193.138.127.70 06:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasons? 'Tis inconstructive... --Illythr 10:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a sock puppet. You can also see him here: [1] All he did was to stalk all of my recent edits. He either deleted them, blanked them or reverted them. He even made an appearance on some talk pages, just to disagree with me (as you can see above). Typical "wiki stalking" from a person who I have had edit disagreements with in the recent past, and who is now out to get me but is too scared to use his own account and then created this sock so as to be able to undo all of my work. - Mauco 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William, you removed:

In the central square of the city there is a soviet tank, situated in front of the building of the Supreme Soviet

Just wondering: where is that famous Soviet tank located? :-) bogdan 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagonal to the Supreme Soviet. They let kids climb onto it and play with it. It is kept in very good shape (not rusting). It is painted yearly and often cleaned for dust and so on. It is of course not a working tank. Technically speaking it is also not "Soviet" since it was taken over by PMR and is therefore now a "PMR" tank. :-) - Mauco 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added:

"In the central square of the city there is a soviet tank, situated in front of the building of the Supreme Soviet and one of Lenin's statue.[2]"

Mauco removed it: "rv rubbish"

I think this information is relevant as the tank is a monument in Tiraspol[3]. And not least important, some would see it representative for how militarised Tiraspol is and for the propaganda the Soviet Army enjoys in Tiraspol.Dl.goe

According to who? Most visitors who actually go to Tiraspol are surprised to see how LITTLE militarized it is. They expected something much more militarized, and instead report on how calm it is, they marvel about the leafy lanes, outdoor cafes, and so on. Propaganda for the Soviet Army? No, not true either. The tank is a memorial of the 1992 invasion and has nothing to do with the Soviet army whatsoever. - Mauco 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should respect the oppinion of all and keep the information that is relevant to some. Disputed subjects are welcomed to an encyclopedia.

But I don't need complicated speaches. This is a monument of Tiraspol. Why shouldn't the page of Tiraspol contain information about a monument in Tiraspol?Dl.goe

Because, according to your own statement, you want this line included as "representative for how militarised Tiraspol is and for the propaganda the Soviet Army enjoys in Tiraspol" and this is your own POV (which is simply not true). - Mauco 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should I understand that you don't want this information included in the article because some would arrive at conclusions you don't want them to arrive at?Dl.goe 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco replaced the soviet tank immage with Statue of Suvorov :"Photo: Suvorov is THE most important monument of all, in Tiraspol"

Please discuss your changes on talk page. Mauco, I don't understand why you realy want the picture with the soviet tank removed. Apreciations on which is "THE most important monument of all, in Tiraspol" is a POV. Dl.goe 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. These things can be OBJECTIVELY analyzed. Is there a Soviet tank on the Transnistrian banknotes? No. Is a Soviet tank part the logo of the stateowned tv station TV-PMR? No. Do people bring flowers to a Soviet tank on independence day? No. Have conmemorative coins and stamps been issued with a Soviet tank on them? No. And I could go on and on. There are at least 20 examples of the importance of Suvorov to PMR. It is not POV. It is merely looking at the facts. Hope that this explains how correct editing should be done. - Mauco 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing against the picture with the soviet tank, I'll add it back.Dl.goe

Please don't. Your inclusion of the tank is POV. - Mauco 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your removal of this picture is disinforming the reader. Insisting that this picture should not be seen by the reader on arguments like Tiraspol is not militarised, you recognize that it might tempt some to regard Tiraspol as a militarised place. So you recognize the controversial status of this monument. I find replacing this picture with A street in Tiraspol. completely unacceptable. This monument is surely more representative than an ordinary street; but you don't want Tiraspol to be seen as a militarised place...Dl.goe

P.S. Also: Could you tell me how a picture could be POV? Is the tank my imagination?Dl.goe

See POV for undue weight. There are no tanks running around the streets in Tiraspol (in fact, the city has only one such monument). In comparison, a very ordinary, typical street is ... well, typical. Nothing could be more neutral, unbiased and representative. - Mauco 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sory, I can't understand you. Are you saying that this monument is not representative because it is unique?

I added two pictures: One with the statue of Lenin in front of the Government building and one with the soviet tank monument. You removed the latter and replaced the first with one in which the statue of Lenin can't be seen(even though it is at monuments chapter). Maybe you don't want them because you think they link Transnistrian regime with communism ideology. Personaly I would like a third oppinion or mediation. Which one do you find suitable?Dl.goe 08:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know where to place my comments, so I guess I'll add them here. I think all pictures being disputed are relevant to the article and could be included. I like the Parliament picture from farther away more. The one from close gives too small a frame around the building (not even all is seen), and then the wires are in the way. I don't know, I guess it's just a matter of aesthetic preference. Nevertheless, I think the picture with the tank should stay up. Not necessarily because the tank is of great importance, but it is symbolic of much of the Soviet imagery that punctuates the city and which is a major motif of Tiraspol. TSO1D 00:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to Tiraspol in April 2011 the tank was there and had 'za ronina' (or something similar) painted on the side. Why would a PMR tank from 1992 have 'for the motherland' painted on the side? I assumed therefore it was from WWII. It certainly looked pretty old fashioned. Incidentally, the place wasn't as militarised as the guide book had led me to believe it would be. Sure the border on the way in from Chisinau was certainly a bit hairy, with a load of modern tanks dug-in and armed soldiers and so on, but once we were in it was just like any other central European city. Ok so there was one tank guarding the bridge between Bender and Tiraspol, but that's about it. Quite a nice place really. Coolug (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

This survey is whether images with and should be included in the article. There is also a question whether is better than (both images represent Tiraspol Government building with statue of Lenin in front) Another aspect is whether the picture with Government building should be considered the most representative for Tiraspol and placed above the info box (like here; otherwise it would be placed at Monuments chapter like this). In your decision please consider all the images with Tiraspol.

Thank you for voting!

• First of all, I know voting is evil, but cheers to DI.goe for such a well-organized survey. This is seriously cool. Regarding my votes above, here are my thoughts:

1. There is clearly more than one monument in Tiraspol. If there is a "monument" section, why not mention more of the monuments? Looking at the pictures we have available, it seems that there is at least a monument to Transnistrian "Afghans" (i.e. veterans of the war in Afghanistan), a monument to Vladimir Lenin, and a monument to the war in 1992. I think the picture of the tank should be included. Especially if we can figure out to what it is dedicated—victory? Or fallen soldiers?
2. I agree with TSO1D. Image:Tiraspol_government_building.jpg is not a very good picture. I am inclined to oppose its inclusion because we have a better picture of that building (Image:Government_building_Tiraspol_01.jpg). I even prefer the third picture in that series over Image:Tiraspol_government_building.jpg. If DI.goe is mainly interested in getting a picture of the Lenin statue into the article, though, than it seems like the best picture we have (unfortunately!) and I do not oppose its inclusion.
3. The picture currently over the infobox is the best picture we have of Tiraspol at a distance. It is therefore the best picture to put over the infobox. jamason 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was going to say the same: Why is the picture of Tiraspol + Dniester not up for a vote? It is the current one in the infobox, and it is GREAT. If we are voting something else into the infobox, it seems that we are voting the current river pic out by default. - Mauco 05:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that photo too. I think a vote for against any of the proposals or an abstention in that category can be seen as constituting an endorsement of the current image. But yes, it is the best one by far. TSO1D 05:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image with Tiraspol Government building with statue of Lenin in front should represent mainly the Government building if it is placed above the info-box, and the statue if it is listed at monuments chapter. I split the last question in two sub-sections. Sorry for modifying the survey during voting!Dl.goe

I do like the government building with the trees in front, Central Park? But I don't think it is a better picture, nicer maybe but not better. This picture should obviously be included in the article though, perhaps with a bit about the park. Jonathanpops 11:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we should focus is the relevance of the pictures. For example, I am for the removal of the picture "a street in Tiraspol" because this street is not a landmark. Is just an ordinary street, not being the PMR flag you could not even tell is in Tiraspol. Tank and statue of Lenin are very nice monuments. Just ask Tiraspol authorities, they are proud of those monuments, which are landmarks for the city. Is excellent that we have in the same picture both government building and Lenin statue, we don't need to put 2 separate photos.--MariusM 16:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one can't see that well the building in the picture with the trees; also it's low resolution, too. bogdan 16:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem with the other photo is that part of the building was cut off. TSO1D 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture with the trees is the nicest, the other is ugly. Pernambuco 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some explanations are needed: The second and third questions refer to the same image. The second is on the picture inclusion in the article, and the third is on the picture placement (provided it will be in the article) If voted for the placement as the image above the info box, it will be placed like in this edit. If voted against , it will be placed like in this edit. Related to the fourth question, as I understand from Jamason, the judgment on which picture is better would be affected by the image placement; some would find better to show the government building, and better as the image above the info box, but better to illustrate Lenin statue, if placed at Monuments chapter. So, I've split the fourth question in two sub-sections:if placed above info box and if placed at monuments.Dl.goe

For what its worth folks, the tank you are all debating is part of a WWII monument that has been there far before the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a T-34 tank (widely reagerded as the best tank ever produced) commemmorating the WWII victory. It is not a "a memorial of the 1992 invasion and has nothing to do with the Soviet army whatsoever." as stated by Mauco at the beginning of this discussion. Now, granted the plaza that was created for it is NOW home to other, more current memorials commemorating the losses of Tiraspol natives in Afghanistan and more recent conflicts, but again, this has nothing to do with the tank.

Furhtermore, I find the conlusions that this tank represents the state of militirazation in Tirapol to be absurd. Granted, militirization IS an issue and it should certainly be debated but a picture of a WWII monument has no bearing on that discussion. There are many similar monuments throughout Russia and Eastern Europe, including one in a town Poland that is the main picture for the T-34 wikipedia article...yet noone is debating the militirized state of Poland.

I am a Tirapol native so I feel like I know what I am talking about. Just thought I would weigh in.--Yoshimbo 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"September 17, 2006: 97.1% of Transnistria votes for independence in a national referendum, rejecting a measure to join Moldova in a common state.[4]"

I replaced it with:

"September 17, 2006: It was held a national referendum which was criticised by many international organisations. It's result was the independence of Transnistria and the subsequent free association with the Russian Federation[5]"

Mauco removed it: "rv rubbish"

When speaking about a controversed referendum we should first of all say it is controversed, or else the reader would form an oppinion on uncertain information. Also, we should say what resulted in the referendum not what didn't.Dl.goe 09:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the two. The first one has no value judgment. It is neutral. The second one is loaded. Sure, the referendum is maybe controversial (to you, and some others - but not to all). This is why we have an article on it, and we wikilink to it. This is not that article. This article is about Tiraspol. Don't deal with the controversy here, just wikilink to it and handle the controversy over there or you will be content-forking. - Mauco 15:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer

"September 17, 2006: It was held a national referendum which wasn't recognised by international organisations such as the OSCE, European Union, GUAM, and some other countries (Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, Ukraine, Turkey, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia, Iceland, Norway). It's result was the independence of Transnistria and the subsequent free association with the Russian Federation[6]"

When presenting controversed information we should say they are controversed. Or else, a naive reader would understand just that 91.7 of Transnistrians are against ... If OSCE, European Union, etc are right these numbers are incorect, and the reader would be misleaded. We must include these information to be objective.Dl.goe 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Instead, we have wikilinks. We mention the referendum but do not go into greater detail. That is what the main referendum article is for, and the controversy is dealt with there in a lot of detail. I know. I am one of the authors of that article, which itself is the subject of some controversy. - Mauco 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reader must know it is controversed or else would not seak further information, and would not acces the detailed article.Dl.goe 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the EU, OSCE and whoever else thinks about a referendum held in the PMR is irrelevant in an article about Tiraspol. What matters is that 97.1% of the people of PMR voted against joining Moldova. Any other added information should not appear, because OSCE and others are not part of Tiraspol, and are in no way affiliated with it. Saying their opinion in this article is pure propaganda. This kind of things are why wikipedia gets rejected as an applicable secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in recent lights, the OSCE can no longer be considered as some neutral entity, as it is heavily politically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

old Tatarian town called Hagi-bei to guard the western border.

Do you have any source for that? I found that some sources say that it was built in the place of a Moldavian town called "Sucleia". bogdan 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagi-bei is modern Odessa. Sucleea was a village, on which site Tiraspol was built, as is writen in the Soviet-time encyclopedias. :Dc76 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeed, the Odessa article talks about it:

The site of present-day Odessa was then a town known as Khadjibey (also spelled as Khadjibei, Khadzhibei, or Gadzhibei; Lithuanian: Chadžibėjus; Crimean Tatar and Turkish: Hacıbey)

bogdan 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Romania gained Bessarabia. - I think the "donor" should be mentioned here as well with an appropriated adjective. But which one? Shattered? Staggering? Crippled?

  Who is the donor? Technically, the Moldavian Democratic Republic, which was already independent.--MariusM 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, perhaps "Russia lost Bessarabia to Romania" or "The MDR joined Romania", then? "Gained" just sounds kinda strange. --Illythr 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We should mention the congress of Moldovans in Tiraspol during Russian Revolution - is mentioned by Onisifor Ghibu (I will look for the source) when was expressed the desire of Moldovans from the region to be included in Bessarabia. The desire falled when Bessarabia united with Romania.--MariusM 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Why it failed is probably noteworthy as well. --Illythr 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1924: Stalin created a Moldavian ASSR - Kotovskii initiated it, Stalin was not yet powerful enough to do it "by himself" back in 1924. I think Stalin is mentioned here as part of the scarecrow tactic: "See, Stalin did this, so it was evil!". Not that is was good or anything...

  Indeed, Stalin was not alone at that time. Creation of MASSR was part of a general policy of Soviet Union at that time, to create autonomies for different nationalities (like bashkirs, chuvashs, komi, chechens, ossetians etc.), not only part of an anti-Romanian conspiracy, how is seen this fact in some works of Romanian historiography. We should mention the creation of MASSR inside the Soviet Union, without names of who was the founding father. Letter which proposed the founding of MASSR was signed by: G. Kotovski, Al. Bădulescu, P. Tkacenko, S. Tinkelman (Timov), A. Nicolau, A. Zalic, I. Dic, T. Diamandescu, T. Chioran, V. Popovici.--MariusM 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe include those people in a footnote? --Illythr 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly for the article about Moldavian ASSR. Not sure if is necesarry this level of detail for Tiraspol article. Let's see what other editors think.--MariusM 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. --Illythr 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The republic had Romanian as its official language. - just Romanian?

  According Elena Negru - "Politica etnoculturală în RASS Moldovenească" (The ethnocultural policy in Moldavian ASSR), Prut International publishing house, Kishinev 2003, page 47-48, Moldavian, Ukrainian and Russian were declared official languages. Negru is reffering at Moldavian ASSR Constitution.--MariusM 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, that's what I thought. I'll add those. --Illythr 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1940: [...] the USSR invades north-eastern Romania and Tiraspol, until then part of Ukrainian SSR, is integrated in the newly-formed Moldavian SSR. 1) That wasn't technically an invasion, Germany persuaded the Romanian govt to yield to the ultimatum; 2) Why call it north-eastern Romania? It was also the "eastern" part... 3) It looks a bit like Tiraspol is invaded as well (clumsy structuring).

  1) It was tehnically an invasion. The yielding says smth about the gvmnt, not about invasion. 2) i fail to see the point 3) Period after "Romania", and start with "Tiraspol ..." Isn't this obvious how to correct? :Dc76 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As a result of the Russian occupation of Romania... - That's "Soviet" occupation, right?

  Soviet occupation is better. Russian people was also under Soviet occupation. Fact that some of them like it is an other issue.--MariusM 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Military occupation is meant here. --Illythr 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 1944: The city was retaken by Russia. As a result of the Russian occupation of Romania during World War II, Bassarabia was added to the Moldavian ASSR, which was renamed the Moldavian SSR. A policy of Romanian denationalization began, including deportation to Siberia of ethnic Romanians living in the city and increased immigration from Russia.

1) I'd favor "liberated". 2) Why is it a result of Soviet occupation of Romania? 3) "Russian"? Shouldn't it be "Soviet" everywhere? 4) The joining of MASSR and Bessarabia happened before the war, by this time the pre-war status quo was restored. Or am I missing something?

• "Liberated" is POV. Retaken is neutral. In Bessarabia began the policy of deznationalization, but not in Tiraspol, where this policy was older. I propose: 1944: The city was retaken by Russia and became again part of Moldavian SSR.--MariusM 16:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why Russia (and not the Soviet Union)? TSO1D 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I changed and put Soviet Union. Thanks for suggestion.--MariusM 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Tiraspol belonged initially to Russia/SU. It was not even occupied in Soviet times (before WW2 by Soviet forces, that is). --Illythr 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody denied that. This fact is well explained in the article.--MariusM 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, okay. --Illythr 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Romanian language in the Latin script... I changed that to "Moldovan" and linked it, as the phrase "Romanian language in the Latin script" looks pretty weird. --Illythr 13:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously, there is no Moldovan language, only Romanian language in latin or cyrillic script, and a normal encyclopedia should show this. Is not however the most important thing for me. Main issue is democracy. In a democratic society the "Moldovan language" theory will vanish naturally. Is a Wikipedia-wide tendency to accept new languages which in fact don't exist (there is for example a Wikipedia in "Siberian" language). Is not worth an edit war for the name of the language.--MariusM 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a democracy. The mo:wiki is currently locked. In Transnistria, the differentiation is made based on the script (Ro in Latin is considered just Ro); in Moldova the situation is a bit weird, I agree, especially since the subject taught in schools is called "Romanian". I think that calling it "Moldovan" and linking to the article where this whole mess is explained is the best way of dealing with the issue here. --Illythr 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, the declaration of independence of Moldova, calls it Romanian, and the 1989 law says that Moldovan is part of the Moldo-Romanian linguistic identity. :Dc76 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Even a pro-separatist Transnistrian site like pridnestrovie.net is recognizing that Moldavian is a dialect of Romanian. See [7], quote: "Nearly 32% of the republic’s population is ethnic Moldavian and speak a dialect of Romanian". Of course, this is only internet-propaganda aimed for English-speaking audience. Don't try to advocate recognition of the fact that Moldovan is only a dialect of Romanian if you are living in PMR, you can have troubles. For foreign audience, a different speech is accepted.--MariusM 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for someone to collaborate with you, perhaps it will be best to just focus on the subject. Be neutral. Avoid the diatribes. And if you don't like the source that buttresses your argument, look for another one that says the same. If you argument is worth its salt, surely there are lots of sources who feel like you do. - Mauco 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advices, but I don't need them. Especially in topics like "be neutral", where you are not the person to advice others.--MariusM 11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you two always fighting? I arrived here on this page becuase "D1.goe" invited me to vote on some links, and here, I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him. There is nothing wrong with the advice that you gave him, you just said "be neutral" and said "Avoid the diatribes" but you are giving it to a person who is not prepared to take it, he says so himself, he says he does not need these advices....

A classic POV conflict. At least, when they both actually agree on something, it's got to be real good. :-) --Illythr 14:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you do now, Illythr, "throw gas into the fire"? Like it or not, you are Moldovan by country. Why do you side with "Russian" POV? You are not from Russia. Or do you like Russia more than your own country? I hope you don't. Romanian language is part of the heritage of your native country, be pround of everything that is yours as well. :Dc76 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody fill the area_total var in the infobox? It's messing up the pretty look. :( --Illythr 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to add that Tiraspol is a capital of the country "Priednestrovie" or as translated "Transdniester" The country has its own president, white house, army, etc. However, the world has not recognized "Priednestrovie" as a separate country for years. It is now a Moldovian Republic, however, still receiving support from Russian government, since the majority of citizens are Russian and most residents only speak Russian. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Prednesrovka 209.253.83.2 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but that's already in the lead section. ;-) --Illythr 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Tiraspol flag (which answers I question I had long, long ago [8]). It is available on ru:wikipedia [9], but I clearly don't understand the rules governing the transfer of such images; every time I try, I just create more work for our already overburdened administrators. Cheers, jamason 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Region of Tiraspol does not exist per se, it simply denoted the fact that Tiraspol was a republican city during USSR, and is a separate city (not part of any raion) nowdays. Some people apparently confuse this. Therefore I merged part of the content of that page (the external links) into the article Tiraspol. Could anyone, please, see where can the remaining text go:Dc76 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Tiraspol is located at 46°50′N 29°37′E / 46.833°N 29.617°E / 46.833; 29.617, on the Eastern bank of the Dniester River. It was founded in 1792 by Russian field marshall Alexander Suvorov.

It is possible to get to Tiraspol by bus from either Chişinău or Comrat in Gagauzia.

9% of Tiraspol's population is ethnic Moldovan (2004 census).

I couldn't find the data about Tiraspol itself but I doubt it was 88% Romanian then. According to Brockhaus and Efron the ethnic composition of Tiraspol district was "Малороссов — 42%, великороссов — 6%, болгар — 5%, молдаван — 31,2%, поляков — 0,6%, греков — 0,07%, немцев — 11%, евреев — 4,1%, друг. народностей (армян, французов, цыган и проч.) — 0,03%." Alæxis_¿question? 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imho it should be removed or severely shortened and merged. This is probably the only article about city where such a section exists and Tiraspol is by no means exceptional in this sense. The Report on Global Anti-Semitism cited in this article tells also about similar incidents in Bacau and Balti that are not mentioned (rightly) in the articles about those places. Alæxis_¿question? 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism is a thing that should appear in an article about Anti-Semitism. Including it here would give no valuable information to the reader about Tiraspol. It would be just a worthless off-tangent thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what you just said makes literally no sense --Львівське (говорити) 02:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518100138/http://www.trondheim.no/vennskapsbyer/ to http://www.trondheim.no/vennskapsbyer/

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) 01:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]