Talk:Human rights in Transnistria

Refs 7 and 8. I tried to find some information about these sources in order to cite them fully, but the links appear to be dead. The US Embassy link isn't really necessary as the are numerous other sources that basically repeat the same statement. The PMR one, however, matters more as this page needs some balance. I will wait for a day to see whether these links are really dead or if their servers are temporarily down, but it would be great if other sources can be found to replace the two. TSO1D 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they are up. - Mauco 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's strange the Pridnestrovie link seems to work for me as well now but the US Embassy site does not. Does the latter work for you? TSO1D 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It works fine, yes. Note: I am in the UK, not in Moldova. Maybe it is unavailable for Moldovans? The title of the report is "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2003-2004" - Mauco 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is actually really odd. It appears that the official website of the embassy has moved from www.usembassy.md/to chisinau.usembassy.gov, so you should not have been able to access the link. Maybe your browser had cached to document? There is another link [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd/2003/31021.htm here though and that seems to work fine.

Article title

The person who created this article made a small mistake. It should not be "Human rights of Transnistria" but "Human rights in Transnistria". See other titles of similar articles in Category:Human rights by country - Mauco 01:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The page can easily be moved to Human rights in Transnistria. Would you favor this? TSO1D 02:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. If you see Category:Human rights by country then ALL of them use "in", not "of". - Mauco 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this! Now, if only it was this quick and easy to fix the human rights in/of Transnistria ... (sigh) - Mauco 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead people / human rights

While I sympathize with the families of these soldiers, if the story is true, I am not sure of the relevance for a human rights article:

"According to the Moldavian and Romanian press, on February 2007, the Transnistrian authorities destroyed and profaned a cemetery in Tighina, where Romanian soldiers were resting. The Transnistrian authorities did not exhume the bodies; they only removed the crosses and leveled the terrain with bulldozers. Russian, German, Turkish and Swedish soldiers were also buried in this cemetery."

The question is: Isn't human rights for the living? U.S. Supreme Court has held that constitutional rights does not apply to a very young fetus. How about someone who has been dead for a few hundred years? I don't mean to sound crass. Just need to ask where, technically and legally, the line is normally drawn when it comes to rights. If you can't give a technical/legal answer, please don't border. Emotional outbursts are uncalled for in an encyclopedia. - Mauco 03:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The dead have rights.[1]

Profaning a cemetery is not respecting the right to religion.Dl.goe 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(Ziua article) "Eastern Romania", huh? Interesting... --Illythr 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[This analysis] puts the Ziua article into perspective. - Mauco 14:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)