Talk:Transnistria

Archives

• /archive 1
• /archive 2
• /archive 3
• /archive 4

What will happen if Moldova joins Romania?

File:Ro-mol-union.gif

Map thumbnail

Really? I highly dought romania would want a slavic populated area just outside it's historical area.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zazaban (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The proper page for that is Movement for unification of Romania and Moldova and there are several proposals, one of which does not include Transnistria. - Mauco 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff

Moldpres (Moldova's state owned news agency) has highlighted the friction between Smirnov and Sheriff, and this would not be the case if Sheriff was "owned by president Smirnov's eldest son" as we claim in the main namespace. See http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=ru&ID=46774.
I propose removing those six words. - Mauco 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections? Done. - Mauco 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

GDP

The 2005 GDP per capita was wrong so I corrected that by dividing with population figure. The source we give has it in the context of a 5% increase but the actual number is only 1% higher than the 2004 amount ($756 vs $748). In 2004, GDP per capita was $720 in Moldova and $748 in PMR. Source: "Transdnistrian Market and Its Impact on Policy and Economy of the Republic of Moldova" by CISR (published in Chisinau, July 2005), available at Centrul de Investigatii Strategice si Reforme website www.cisr-md.org - Mauco 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Population

Pretty hard to see how the 1989 population changes from 546,400 to 679,000 without citation or comment. Can anyone explain what is going on here? - Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. User:MariusM (who made the change) should at least give a source. Meanwhile, an anon user bumped the figure up to 780,660 [1] in a related article, and left the original reference in place. The problem is that this reference was for the previous figure and does not support the new, higher number. - Mauco 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the refference: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm (Olvia Press - which represents the view of separatist government of Transnistria). Those are official data of the separatist government. Other sources talk about 739700 people in 1989, but this figure include some areas which are not controlled by the separatist government from Tiraspol, but by Republic of Moldova. I think we should compare only the area which is currently under the control of separatist government. --MariusM 16:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful to not compare apples with oranges. In our 1989-figures, we exclude Bender. Our text says: "Total population on the left bank of the Dniester river (minus Tighina)" whereas Olvia Press and the rest of the Transnistrian government always includes Bender, seeing it as part of Transnistria. The numbers in the Olvia article (679,000 for 1989 and 555,000 for 2004) clearly INCLUDEs Bender/Tighina as well. - Mauco 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a line with total population in 1989 including Tighina. Correct comparation is between 679000 people in 1989 vs. 555000 people in 2004 - those are data for the actual Tiraspol-controlled area (include Tighina and other few villages from Basarabia, exclude some villages from Dubăsari district which are not controlled by Tiraspol), and a good measure of the practical results of the separatist government.--MariusM 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Referendum

I moved the section about referendum from "Politicall status" to "Internal Politics" and added info about the latest arrests of political oponents of Tiraspol regime.--MariusM 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The move to "Internal Politics" is OK, but I had to remove your addition. It had bad grammer and was partly misspelt, but more importantly was not factually correct. Ghenadie Ţăran was released after questioning, then went to PSDM in Chisinau where he spent ten days, and he is now back home normally, with his whereabouts known. You may want to read the article "Disinformation and dirty tricks in referendum campaign" for some background info on how two news agencies even contradicted themselves in August to make the Transnistrian authorities look bad. - Mauco 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to find that the fate of Ghenadie Ţăran is known and his dissapearance was only because he left home for few days. I hope the pro-separatist source you quote is correct. However, even your source confirm that Ghenadie Ţăran and other activists of NGO "Dignitas" were arrested by transnistrian authorities and that, as I wrote in my addition, persons and organisations that are against separation from Moldova "are harassed by Transnistrian authorities and not allowed to campaign for their point of view in the referendum". The fact that those activists were arrested for only few days is not a reason not to mention this fact in Wikipedia. Is confirmed, even by "Tiraspol Times", that no charges were made against "Dignitas" activists regarding criminal activities. I consider their arrests as a relevant fact regarding the political climate in Transnistria during the preparation of referendum. I added back my comment, without the sentence regarding Ghenadie Ţăran.--MariusM 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The group was brought in for question 3 days after a bus explosion killed two people. Fact: They were released after questioning due to lack of evidence. Fact: They never produced a single bit of election material or campaign material, not even as much as a letter to the editor in a newspaper. Fact: They were not and are not active in any way in the current election campaign. Therefore, to tie one thing to the other, and make it an example of a "political arrest", would be wrong, and we must not include it. Furthermore, it is cited as one example (leading the reader to presume that there are others), but no such other examples have been cited either. I posted a citation request in main namespace last week but no further sources have been posted to prove the statement's accuracy. - Mauco 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The pro-moldovan side in Transnistria will not participate in the referendum and will not recognize its outcome. Fact: In order to report a higher participation at the referendum, the transnistrian authorities already started the falsification of results, diminishing the total number of voters [2]. Fact: is no reason for a pro-moldovan organisation in Transnistria to write letters to Transnistrian newspapers, as newspapers in Transnistria will not publish such letters. Fact: Ghenadie Ţăran, leader of the NGO "Dignitas" is called "pro-moldovan NGO activist" by "Tiraspol Times", in the article you quote. You don't see the conection between his opinions and his arrest, but I see. The fact that is no conection between NGO Dignitas and the bus explosion was confirmed even by transnistrian authorities.--MariusM 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place to debate political positions for- or against. The more narrow purpose of this Talk page is for the editors of the article to specifically discuss new additions and changes to the article. In doing this, we must adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines (as opposed to our personal opinions of the subject, which both you and I and most of the other editors here certainly have). As you have pointed out, this is a controversial topic. At various times it has been under dispute. For this reason, this page urges all of us to please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. - Mauco 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, you reverted an entire paragraph that I added, and you marked this as a "minor" edit - I don't consider this in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Bellow is the paragraph I want to add, let's disscuss it:

Pro-moldovan organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.Apelul reprezentanţilor societăţii civile privind “referendumul” neconstituţional din regiunea transnistreană a Republicii MoldovaMOLDOVAN NGOs REGARD TRANSNISTRIAN REFERENDUM AS A FARCE. The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year), fact considered by pro-moldovan NGOs as an artificial way to increase the percentage of people who participate in the referendum. Other opinion on this subject is that transnistrians are voting with their feets, leaving the heaven of Transnistria.--MariusM 05:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Moldovan organizations in Moldova proper have refused the referendum, as would be expected. If any such organizations within Transnistria have taken this stand, it would be of much more relevance to the article. However, the largest pro-Moldovan organization takes the opposite position. See http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol73-09-06.htm This is most likely related to the fact that most Moldovans are in favour of independence, something which has been recognized by the OSCE and by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. There is a summary of that here http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/179 - Mauco 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the percentage shrinkage of the electoral roll, it would be an interesting bit of data for the Politics of Transnistria article but we should abstain from speculation or conjecture, especially polemics of the "leaving the heaven of Transnistria / voting with their feet" kind. Even if this argument is true, it has probably more to do with economics than politics; seeing how a similar situation has taken place in Moldova proper. (If I am not mistaken, Moldova holds the European record for the highest percentage of gastarbeiters abroad.) - Mauco 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that the puppet organisation of Moldovans created by the separatist regime in Transnistria is "the largest pro-moldovan organisation". It did not reflect the will of the majority of Moldovans in that region (what "Tiraspol Times" is saying is not true) and is not pro-moldovan but pro-separatist. Between the organisations that signed the appeal for boycot are some composed by transnistrians as "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex". The leader of Moldavian Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (Ştefan Urîtu) is also from Transnistria, even if his organisation include also basarabians. Instead of "pro-moldovan organisations" I will use "anti-separatist organisations", which is a better description, as not all anti-separatists are ethnic Moldovans. As long in the article "Transnistria" is included the problem of referendum it should be mentioned the appeal of boycot and the doubts about the corectness of the referendum. The shrinkage of the electoral roll in Transnistria can not be compared with that in Moldova. Census showed a 6% populaton decrease in Republic of Moldova and 18% decrease in Transnistria between 1989-2004 http://ro.altermedia.info/cealalta-romanie/recensamintul-din-transnistria_2927.html. Between 2005 and 2006 Transnistrian authorities anounced an other 7% shrinkage of electoral roll, this is not a normal situation even by East European standards, and rise concerns about the falsification of data in the referendum (the efforts to report a higher presence).--MariusM 06:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I add that there is no pro-moldovan organisation that appeal to voters: "participate in the referendum and vote for reunification with Moldova". In the reunification camp, all appeals are against participation and recognition of the referendum.--MariusM 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that we disagree on this. However, until there is a semblance of consensus, please do not impose your views on the article. As for Tiraspol Times, I read the article and they are not saying anything other than repeating claims already made by UN, OSCE, a pro-Moldova politician and former spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. As for statement of "puppet organisation", you may know that the same claim is being made against the specific groups that you cite. See http://www.regnum.ru/english/704387.html for instance. - Mauco 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course that the head of the Russian-Transdnestr Information-Analytical Center is supporting Transnistrian independence and future integration in Russia. Is no doubt about the expansionist policy of Russia in Transnistria, Russia gave even armed support in 1992 War of Transnistria. (However, in the article you quote doesn't exist the expression "puppet organisation"). The fact that appeals to boycot the referendum exists from the anti-separatist side is not my view, is a fact. You may consider that those who made such appeals are bad boys, their point of view is wrong, but you can not deny the fact that those appeals were made. I consider necesary to include this fact in the article.--MariusM 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, we can not attack the messenger just because we don't like the message. The head of the Analytical Center has an accusation far more serious than "puppet": He ties the anti-separatist organizations to Moldova's secret services, ex-KGB, and he names them with their names. It is hard to be clearer than that and the argument that civil society is a farce then becomes a case of the pot calling the kettle black. - Mauco 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, in the Transnistrian conflict, a Russian organisation is not an un-biases one. Remember that one of the question of the referendum is about the union with Russia (independence of Transnistria seems forgetten). No proves were shown by this Russian organisation that those antiseparatist organisations are indeed linked with ex-KGB. They have KGB archives in Moscow, why they don't show the documents? Libelling the political oponnents as ex-KGB is common in ex-Soviet space, but as long as proofs were not shown is only propaganda. If you want to add the comment of this Russian organisation in the article, I have nothing against, but please don't delete the fact that appeals were made to boycot the referendum, even if you don't like those appeals.

No one ever claimed that a pro-Russian organization would be unbiased. But in this conflict, neither are the Moldovan organizations which you insist on citing. The fact that they are directly tied to the Secret Service of Moldova has not been refuted by the directors, who are fully identified by name and affiliation. - Mauco 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I added info about the fact that from 46 countries represented in the council of Europe, only one (Russia) want the recognition of the referendum's results http://www.azi.md/news?ID=40985. Also, some info about OSCE position (you seem to ignore it) http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790 --MariusM 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that you, as a new editor here, don't seem to be heeding the statement at the very top of the header of this Talk page. In the past, we have had a lot of "revert wars" and to avoid that, now we try to debate changes first, before making them. Because of adherence to this policy the flamewars and edit wars of the past don't exist anymore. Your edits are very welcome, and as you know, I have welcomed them and supported them on some other pages, like the schools. But it would be a shame if they cause this page to become a battleground like in the past, where for long periods of time it was even locked down, so I ask again - for the third time - for consensus to be reached here first, please. - Mauco 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I always gave the source of my statements. What consensus to be made about indiscutable facts? 45 of the 46 countries represented in the Council of Europe wanted a resolution against recognition of Transnistrian referendum and Russia had an other opinion. This is a fact, why you deleted it?

I reverted it because you did not give any of the other editors of this page a chance to discuss your changes here before you included them, as we normally do on hotly disputed topics in order to avoid precisely what you complain about (namely, reversion). Apart from the that, your addition is not factually true but merely perpetuating Moldovan spin. If you look at Thursday's voting record, the motion was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Russia opposed and the rest abstained. So even though it wasn't a majority, it was not exactly 45 out of 46. In contrast, a less confrontational statement, which did pass (and which you do not mention) had the support of all. Why should our main namespace article concern itself with a Council of Europe statement which did not pass, while not mention the contents of the one which actually got passed and which was officially issued? It smells of POV-"spin" and that is not worthy of an encyclopedia. - Mauco 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am merely asking new editors to follow the guidelines which are clearly posted on the top of this page, and which have been extremely useful in the recent past to help lower edit wars and generally bring consensus to the article. To wit: This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. The purpose of doing so is to allow us to present a clear picture which is free of spin (pro-Moldova and pro-Transnistria alike). - Mauco 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Instead of answering the above, the content was almost immediately reposted. May I request, now for the fourth time, that we follow the norms of this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. I am sure that I, and hopefully other editors as well, will be able to reach consensus which is free of spin or blatant POV from any of the two sides, just as we have been able to do in the past as well. - Mauco 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I already put in the talk page all the arguments for the inclusion of the paragraph about the appeals to boycot the referendum, and about some foreign countries and organisation point of view regarding the referendum, but you are deaf on this topic. You also deleted some addition made by EvilAlex, without disscusing them in the talk page. You are not a neutral person on this topic, Mauco, you just want to delete the facts that you don't like.--MariusM 06:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The instructions on the top of this page are fairly easy to understand, but you have chosen to not heed them. That's all. If you can please follow the guidelines, then I am sure that we can collaborate and develop some great, balanced, neutral, and factually correct additions together. I will start a thread for this now, right below your attempt at personal attacks on my person. - Mauco 07:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is William Mauco?

Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) [3] Mauco, look what Edward Lucas wrote about you: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...And the point is? Actually, for the record, I have collaborated somewhat with Edward Lucas since then. I like him a lot, and we had intelligent discussions and full agreement on what we talked about. I have been able to provide him with some material which he asked for in relation to a follow-up article and he and I have been in contact since then, back and forth a bit on this and some other subjects. I also corrected him on some minor items (like the mistaken fact that I have never been at a sort of conference in Mexico City with anyone, for instance). In addition he knows that I am not affiliated with ICDISS, and at one point commented that he would do the same as me, in such a case. He valued the new information that I could provide for his work, and told me so, and I stand ready to work with him again in the future whenever he needs my help with anything. - Mauco 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that unlike a MariusM, William Mauco speaks under his name. `'mikka (t) 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did someone mention that personal character attacks against someone else is totally UNCOOL? - 84.73.243.158 14:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For some people, truth is UNCOOL, dear anonimous user.--MariusM 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the truth", but I have to agree with IP 84.73.243.158 that personal character attacks are uncalled for. I have not asked who you are, and don't care as long as you can bring good and constructive edits to the article. However, not that it matters, another use here already wrote me in private to tell me that he thinks you are permabanned Bonaparte. There is nothing wrong with debating an edit proposal on its merits, but there is everything wrong with attempting to change the debate into a personal attack when you can't convince others solely on the basis of the facts. In my case, as you can see above 22:09, 15 September 2006, your mud won't stick. - Mauco 15:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed section, referendum

Moved from main namespace, proposed by MariusM, and submitted here for discussion:

" :Anti-separatist organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.. "

If we include this, we should include the fact that these organisations are based in Moldova, and that they do not speak for any of the voters, be they the Moldovan residents of Transnistria and other residents of Transnistria in general. In other words, they are considered outsiders and not primary participacing organizations or organizations with a direct relevance to the referendum. Those organizations which are directly relevant are civil society groups based within Transnistria, and they have taken the exact opposite viewpoint. This must be mentioned in order to not present a one-sided view. It may also be of note to include what Transnistria's response was to the petition by Moldova's anti-separatist organizations. Why might this relevant? Because if we give the opinion of Moldova, but if the article is about Transnistria, then at the very least we deserve to also give a fair hearing to Transnistria's response.
It may also be interesting to mention the political organizations within Moldova who actually support or understand why Transnistria is holding a referendum, and have gone on the record in recent days to publicly say so, rather than only present the negative viewpoint.
Finally, while we mention organizations who claim to speak on behalf of Moldovans, we must not omit a mention of the largest such group within Transnistria and their viewpoint. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I already told, between the organisations that signed the appeal for boycot are some composed by transnistrians as "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex". The leader of Moldavian Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (Ştefan Urîtu) is also from Transnistria, even if his organisation include people from the entire Republic of Moldova. About the "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie", in the talk page of that article I presented my view, that is a puppet organisation created by separatist regime, which is not representative for Moldavians in the region and which has no other activity that to show support of separatist regime (they didn't publish a single book of Moldavian literature, they didn't make anything else than telling that Republic of Moldova is the enemy of Transnistrian Moldovans)--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Like you correctly said, this is 'your view. Need I say more? A very solid case can be made (and has been made, since 1993 in numerous respected studies) for the argument that the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are actually opposed to unification with Moldova. One of our fellow Wikipedia editors, Jamason, even based his thesis on that (which he was kind enough to send me a copy of). - Mauco 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And your view is opposite. Why should be your view included in the article? Of course there are a lot of Russian-propaganda studies which told that ethnic Moldovans are against Moldova, but those studies are biases. You insist of including pro-Russian opinion and delete all antiseparatist opinions.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My view has no right to be included in the article either. I know that you haven't been an editor for very long, but please save all of us some time and read up on the guidelines for this encyclopedia. Meanwhile, I am not sure what studies you call "biased", but Wikis guidelines cover those situations quite clearly. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

" : The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year). "

This can certainly be included, provided we can source it. It ought to also be added to the Politics of Transnistria series, in that case. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I already gave the link that prove this fact http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392 --MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We should include also the opinion of antiseparatist organisation, that the shrinkage of electorate is an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum. This argument was removed from the article by user Mikkalai. It may be a speculation, however is their point of view, and 7% decrease of population in only one year is something odd anyway.--MariusM 07:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no rule on Wikipedia that we have to include the point of view of a third party organization unless it is specifically relevant to the article. In this case, I am not sure that it is, seeing that the organizations don't represent the voters and are, at best, just outside commentators and, at worst, in the employ of Moldova's secret service, as Transnistria has apparently documented (by naming names and specifying the relationships of the spokesmen). The actual shrinkage of the electorate is relevant, possibly in this article and especially in the Politics of Transnistria article. - Mauco 08:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Antiseparatist organisations point of view is relevant when we are talking about this referendum. As I already explained, those organisation are not outside commentators and nobody proved that are in the service of Moldova's secret service. Some will say that the entire separatist regime of Tiraspol was created by Russian secret service. Why is, for example, Stefan Urîtu an outside commentator as he is a Tiraspol resident?--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Urîtu does not live in Tiraspol, and the rest is original research which has no place in Wikipedia. You can always start a blog or something, if you want to have an outlet for these opinions. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Urîtu has a flat in Tiraspol, he was resident of the city even before the 1992 War of Transnistria. He is known as a fierce critic of the Human right abuses not only of Smirnov's regime, but also of Republic of Moldova president Vladimir Voronin's regime. Here is an example how he protested against some arrests made in Chişinău http://www.curaj.net/?p=1043. Calling Urîtu an employee of Moldova's secret service is like calling the leader of Hezbolah an employee of Mossad or the president of Israel an employee of Iranian secret service (he was born in Iran). And remember there is not only Urîtu who signed that protest. What about "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex"?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

" : International organisations, as OSCE , the European Union and 45 of the 46 countries represented in the Council of Europe were against the recognition of the referendum's results, the only country which support this referendum is Russia . "

A statement of the countries that will not recognize the results of the referendum, along with OSCE stating the same position, certainly ought to be included in the article. As for the rest ("45 of the 46"), this is misleading and a Moldovan "spin" on a story which actually happened somewhat different, as an examination of Thursday's chain of events and the facts about both the original statement and the Finland-issued statement will show. It would be best to drop it altogether, because it is of marginal relevance. But if it has to be included, at least get the facts straight and don't present a misleading picture. If we can take the above points into account, I will be very happy to vote for inclusion of these new additions. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Council of Europe you need an unanimity to pass a resolution, this is why the resolution could not pass without Russia's aproval. I gave the link about 45 of 46 countries supporting the resolution, you didn't gave any link to prove that things happened somewhat different.--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just count. The data is on this page. I quote from above: "If you look at Thursday's voting record, the motion was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Russia opposed and the rest abstained." Even conflict.md, which you cite as a source, has this info so there is no need to "spin" the story as something which it isn't. I am not sure that is relevant, however, it is certainly relevant to mention the countries which won't recognize the outcome of the referendum (starting with Moldova, of course). - Mauco 08:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just give the exact link from where you took the quotation.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The quote is from this page (above) and the source for the data can be found in at least 10 different places on the web (which you can easily find with a couple of seconds of Googling). One of the sources even include a site which you yourself cite, namely http://www.conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1414 - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I qoute from the link you gave: "The document’s project was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Of the 46 member countries of the Council of Europe, only the Russian Federation rejected the declaration, without motivating its official position on the document". I think is exactly what I told. From 46 members only Russia was against the declaration. 46-1 = 45. Nowhere in the link you gave is any mention about countries which abstained. Can you tell which are the countries which abstained?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In favour: European Union (25) + GUAM (4) + Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey makes 33, not 45. This is called "putting a spin" on a non-story about a statement which did not pass and therefore, as per the rules of that body, does not exist as an official Council of Europe document. - Mauco 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)