Talk:Union of Moldovans in Transnistria

Legitimate organization representating majority of Moldovans in PMR

This article is about the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie which is an umbrella- or federation-type organization which brings together a number of communities. These communities and local groups are very real, and perform a social function first and foremost (the political aspect of their work is secondary). It would be false to say that this is a paper organization or a fake organization which has been artifically manufactured to prop up the local leadership, and I will demonstrate below will this is not the case. - Mauco 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie is a puppet organisation created by the Tiraspol regime. The sentence in the article: "As stated in a 2004 OSCE-report[2], ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova" is only propaganda of Tiraspol, as the link given as a proof is not from OSCE, is only an article from pridnestrovie.net[1], a site that support Transnistrian independence. In that article only the title is claiming that OSCE and UN support separatist Transnistria, and the only evidence for it is that a moldavian politician, Oazu Nantoi, wrote a report prepared with the support of UNHCR Moldova about differences between Basarabia and Transnistria. This does not mean that what Oazu Nantoi wrote is the official point of view of OSCE or UN (Knowing Transnistrian propaganda, I am even not sure that Oazu Nantoi was quoted correctly in the article). I ask those who created this article to give a link to an OSCE or UN report, not to an article from pridnestrovie.net, to prove that "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". Else, I am going to delete that sentence. The official point of view of OSCE is against the separatist regime of Transnistria http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790 .Pridnestrovie.net is claiming the opposite, but this has nothing to do with the truth.--MariusM 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to doubt what you call "Transnistrian propaganda" because that is why we have Google. I spent a couple of seconds and found this link, from the US Department of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/13611.pdf which is a reprint of the OSCE report that mentions what the article itself purports to show. I checked the quote, and it checks out. You can do the same. It is factually correct. - Mauco 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the new link you gave. Is not a direct link of an OSCE report, but an unsigned document which is based on a background paper of "CSCE Conflict Prevention Center". In the document is written: "Many ethnic Moldovans living of the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the center, prefer to speak Russian and do not consider themselves as Bessarabians". This is quite different with "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". Many is not the same thing with overhelming, aversion against being governed directly from the center does not mean they want to be governed from the center of Tiraspol instead of the center of Kisinev. Also, nobody put the problem to consider transnistrians as bessarabians. In U.S.A., no Oklahoman want to be considered Washingtonian, but this does not mean that oklahomans want the independence of Oklahoma (even if exist a distinct feeling of being "oklahoman"). I add that in Bessarabia proper there are many ethnic moldavians which prefer to speak Russian (13% of Moldavians from urban areas, as shown by the 2004 census), effect of Russification policy, and that the actual president of the Republic of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, is himself a transnistrian (of mixed origin, Russian/Moldavian), contrary with the president of self-proclaimed Transnistria, Igor Smirnov, who was born in Russia and came in Transnistria only in 1987.

OSCE has the document, too, and it is widely quoted + referenced by Kolsto, Crowther, Charles King and other scholars. It is incredible that anyone would seem to doubt the authenticity of a document which is, after all, part of State.gov - the official location of the State Department of the United States of America. - Mauco 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Few more questions: Is there any other activities that this "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie" had, beside showing support of the separatist regime of Transnistria? Did they publish any book in Moldavian language, about Moldavian literature (in cyrillic, if they love cyrillic)? Did they ask for the opening of any school in Moldavian language in any of the villages with Moldavian population from Transnistria that don't have such schools (see Moldovan schools in Transnistria)? Give me one single example of an action that "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie" had, else than making statements that Republic of Moldova is the enemy of transnistrian Moldovans.--MariusM 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tulgar, the president of the Union, is quoted all the time in the press. It is a very active organization. In fact, they held a rally yesterday (18:00 pm, in Tiraspol, at the stadium) along with other organizations. You are welcome to do your own research, and whatever you find, please add it. The whole idea of a stub is that it should grow. Please, however, no original research as this violates Wikipedia policy. - Mauco 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OSCE document

As obviously in the OSCE document you quoted there is not such a statement as "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova", this sentence need to be deleted.--MariusM 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Read the report, and many others like it, and you will see that the statement is actually supported by most observers (except by the Moldovan government, obviously). Have you seen the Carnegie survey? It says the same thing. And, to give yet another example, the is a report today from the US-funded Radio Free Europe which concedes some of the same things. They admit that there is no good reason to believe that Moldovan peasants, joining the ranks of industrial workers in Tiraspol and their more successful, Russian-speaking urban milieu, cared very much about preserving their native tongue or nourished the idea of an independent Moldovan statehood. This means that today, even these ethnic Moldovans are not, for the most part, keen on Moldova. Radio Free Europe reports that "it is hard to imagine many Transdniestrians will hesitate on September 17 when it comes to choosing between "independence" with a rich Russia or "loss of independence" with a poor Moldova." Before you delete, please cite source material which gives you reason to believe that the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria are opposed to independent statehood for Transnistria. - Mauco 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell me at what page in the document you quoted is the sentence "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". We are not talking about any "pridnestrovian identity" here, the entire game is about Russia's expansionism. If this Union care about a "pridnestrovian identity", it will be against joining Russia, it will "have an aversion against being governed directly from the center", even if this center is Moscow--MariusM 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: Before you delete, please cite source material which gives you reason to believe that the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria are opposed to independent statehood for Transnistria. Since 1993, the date of the first OSCE background paper, most of the available documentation states the opposite. See, for instance, the OSCE selected bibliography of over 100 books and articles on the Transdniestrian conflict.[2] If you don't want to wade through that, you can also do the math: Oleg Serebrian, is quoted in the most recent Moldova report by the International Crisis Group as saying that 90% of the Transnistrians prefer independence. Now, seeing that 32% of them are ethnic Moldovans, and assuming that the other ethnic groups vote 100% in favor of independence, this means that only about one third of ethnic Moldovans (33% of the 32% of the population which they represent) are in favor of joining with Moldova, and that twice that number are opposed to it. And no one in their right mind would call Oleg Serebrian a propagandist for Transnistria. - Mauco 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I asked you to tell where in the OSCE document is the sentence "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". You didn't answer to my question. I am not going to read hundreds of books about Transnistria, to see if somewhere is this sentence. I expect from you a link to an OSCE document where, if I make a search with the word "overhelmingly", I can find the sentence you put in the article. As I already explain, the official point of view of OSCE is against the separatist regime of Transnistria http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790. In the document you quote, the only sentence made is "Many ethnic Moldovans living of the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the center, prefer to speak Russian and do not consider themselves as Bessarabians". This is no the same as you wrote in the article. I consider this remark as a proof that transnistrians don't want to be governed from Moscow, as separatist regime want (see first question in the 17th September referendum), they want the autonomy offered to them by the government of the Republic of Moldova. Many Siberians have a distinct feeling of being Siberians, but this does not mean they want separation from Russia.--MariusM 07:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are confusing apples with oranges here. Nowhere in the article for Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie does it claim that most of the ethnic Moldovans want to be governed from Moscow. What it does say, however, is that they are averse to unification with Moldova. You might want to also get yourself a copy of the survey made by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which says the exact same thing, as the result of months of on-the-ground research and polling. It is not my job to do your research for you, or provide you with the reports, but if you delete something which there is general consensus among the expert community - and which has been mentioned repeatedly in scientific works from 1993 onwards - then it is you, not me, who must demonstrate that this fact is not true. - Mauco 07:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, just read what Oleg Serebrian says, and then do the math on the percentages. - Mauco 07:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see, is not anymore OSCE, is Oleg Serebrian and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. However, in the article you wrote that is an OSCE document. This is not accurate. Regarding Serebrian and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as you made the statement about their opinion, you should provide the link to prove it.

I never questioned the fact that "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie" is averse to unification with Moldova. I just want to change in the article "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova" with "The Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie represent those Moldavians who are averse the unification with Moldova". Are they "overhelmingly" or only a minority of the Moldavians in the region, this is a matter of debate.--MariusM 08:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, I agree with you. Now we are getting somewhere, and that is what the discussion is about. The main point is precisely what you say, namely whether it is a fact that an overwhelming majority of Moldovans in Transnistria prefer independence, or whether this sentiment is only shared by a minority. As for the reference and source citations: When building a stub, as I first did, I guess that it is normal to just slab the first reference in there, in the hope that someone else will add to it later (and not delete, please). In my case, I used the link which you object to, but there are several others who say the same thing. The Carnegie study, for instance, has been referenced by the International Crisis Group. Ditto for Oleg Serebrian's comments. Both of these reports are on the crisisgroup.com website, under Moldova. - Mauco 08:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I checked www.crisisgroup.com and the link didn't work.--MariusM 09:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another solution is to go to the International Crisis Group and then, from there, click on the link to their website. On the site, look at Moldova, and get the two reports in question (and any others which you think are interesting. It is worth the time to read up on this issue, so as to have a clearer picture of how the majority of the Moldovans in Transnistria feel about joining Moldova). - Mauco 10:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Look what recomandation is the International Crisis Group making in their last article about Moldova: "5. Call off the 17 September 2006 referendum on independence and work constructively with Moldova and the international mediators on reaching a settlement, and, more immediately, on customs and trade issues".http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4340&l=1. --MariusM 14:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ICG has many interesting suggestions. Please do not change the subject, however. The suggestion which you quoted has nothing to do with whether or not the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria are in favor of independence, which is the topic that we are discussing here. Based on sources, I am sure that we can reach consensus, but until this is done, I must remind you - as Mikka has already done, too - that you are not the sole editor of this and that your edits will not be accepted unless you able to demonstrate them with factually correct source material and the proper citations. - Mauco 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Amidst rever was between you two you are nonchalantly discarding edits of other editors. Either you remove your hands from the "revert" button, or the article will be protected. `'mikka (t) 08:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the sanity reminder. - Mauco 08:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for harsh tone. Too old to change myself. `'mikka (t) 08:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I checked the logs and both of us (new editor MariusM + myself) were guilty as charged. Besides, I like your style and have long admired it from other pages. And in Transnistria, 'your' flag is still there. - Mauco 08:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai intervention

Mikkalai, you only accept to delete the word "overhelmingly", but kept the asertion that Moldovans in Transnistria are against unification with Moldova. This happened just when I and Mauco seem to reach to a consensus, that we should not make statements about the opinion of the entire Moldovan community of Transnistria, but only to mention the opinion of the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie.--MariusM 09:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As the stub was first written, and I speak here as the original creator of this particular stub, the phrasing was meant to convey that the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie hold an opinion which is shared by the majority of the ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria and not just by a minority subset. While recognizing that there are of course exceptions, this majority is fairly large. How large? Depending on the source we use and the parameters we accept, it ranges from a low estimate of 67% to a high estimate of 90%. - Mauco 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai is an Anti-Romanian user. (added by 217.200.200.52)

Be that as it may. We also know that at least one other editor of this page is himself Anti-Transnistrian. Regardless of preferences, we can not let personal bias get in the way of good editing, and in this particular case, Mikka's edit is backed up by the available facts and statistics (namely that a majority of Moldovans in Transnistria are against unification with Moldova). The other editor who wants to delete this statement has as of yet failed to demonstrate the contrary, or show why the existing sources and data should not be trusted. - Mauco 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize and to end the dispute

In my opinion in the article should be written "Some Moldovans from Transnistria are oppose to unification with the Republic of Moldova. Their view is represented by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie". In Mauco's opinion we should keep the current phrasing "As stated in an OSCE-report [2], ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie".

It is clear that OSCE report doesn't contain such words like the article says. Mauco says that there are others sources, like comments of Oleg Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, that are proving the correctness of the actual article. Even if this is true, then in the article should be mentioned "As stated by Oleg Serebrian" or "As stated by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" and not "As stated in an OSCE report". I asked Mauco to show a source to prove what Oleg Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told. I receive the advice to check at International Crisis Group website to find those comments. I found at that webpage an article against Transnistria's referendum for separation, but not what Mauco told. Maybe I didn't looked enough, but as a matter of principle, as not me but Mauco was telling about Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace opinions, he should provide the source (exact link, not advices like "go to this website with houndreds of articles and dig"). We should keep the principle "the person who make an asertion has the duty to prove its correctness".--MariusM 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree, and - moreover - this is one of the main principles here in Wikipedia. If not sourced, it is grounds for deletion. I will find a number of different sources which, independently of each other, make the same point. Then we can add all of them and make a unified point. The statement should then be "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie". or, if you prefer, "Ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie".' Of some other interest to you, perhaps, although only marginally relevant: On Sunday, September 17, two-thirds of the voters of Dubăsari went to the polls versus a Transnistria-wide turnout of 77%. Dubăsari is of course the area with the highest concentration of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria. The difference in turnout between seems to indicate that about one of out every eight voters of Dubăsari followed the call from Moldova to boycot the referendum. We can also read it another way, in that seven of eight ignored Moldova's request and instead went to vote. When we couple that with preliminary results of probably 90%+ against unification (based on exit polls, due to the time of which I am writing this), it would seem to be YET ANOTHER indicator of the truthfulness of the statement that "the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova." It would of course fall under the category of original research, so we can't use it, which is why I will find the sources that you request. - Mauco 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The following sources as cited for a statement that not "some" but "most" (or "the majority") of Moldovans who live in Transnistria prefer independence over joining with Moldova. - Mauco 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1994 CSCE (OSCE) background paper

Background Paper "The Transdniestrian Conflict in Moldova: Origins and Main Issues", Vienna, 10 June 1994, CSCE Conflict Prevention Centre. A summary can be found in "Transdniestrian Conflict, Origins and Main Issues" at http://www.moldova.org/download/eng/275/ (PDF). This is a paper used by the US State Department as well. It was the first to identify that many ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria prefer independence and have an aversion to being ruled by Chisinau. See for instance the statements that " Many ethnic Moldovans living on the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the centre, prefer to speak Russian, and do not consider themselves as "Bessarabians". Several prominent political figures in the self-proclaimed PMR are ethnic Moldovans. " (It does not quantify as the other sources here do.)

Strategia / Carnegie survey

This is a detailed survey done in 1997 among 350 respondents in PMR, conducted by the Tiraspol polling firm “Strategia”, under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Foundation. The results of the survey are reported at length by Nikolai V. Babilunga in “Territorial Identity as a Factor in the Political Stability of Transniestria” which is a paper presented at the Conference on “National Identities and Territories”, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, May 14-16, 1998. This does not appear to be online, but it is referenced by other papers which are online. For instance, in "National Construction, Territorial Separatism and Post-Soviet Geopolitics: The Example of the Transdniester Moldovan Republic" by John O’Loughlin, Vladimir Kolossov and Andrei Tchepalyga, at http://www.colorado.edu/IBS/PEC/johno/pub/PsgeTMR.doc

Some main points:

• 82% were in favor of keeping the PMR and 83% want consolidation of PMR statehood (with no explanation given as to why these two numbers are not the same. This is how it was reported).
• In answer to the question, “do you consider yourself to be a citizen of the former Soviet Union?”, 70% of the Moldovans agreed.
• The survey suggests that opinion is unchanged since 1991.
• Only 15% support unity with Moldova.

International Crisis Group / Oleg Serebrian

Report titled "Moldova’s Uncertain Future" (Europe Report N°175 – 17 August 2006) from International Crisis Group on Moldova at http://www.conflictprevention.net/library/documents/europe/75_moldova_s_uncertain_future____cpp.doc quotes Oleg Serebrian, leader of the Social-Liberals, an opposition party in the Moldovan parliament, as saying: "If there was an independence referendum, 90 per cent of Transdniestrians would vote for independence."
He does not break it down into ethnic groups, but we can do that. With 90% for independence, 10% are in favour of joining Moldova. We can, for sake of argument, assign this 10% exclusively to ethnic Moldovan Transnistrians. Since 32% of the population are ethnic Moldovans (2004 census), this still leaves 22% of the ethnic Moldovans which are for independence.
In other words, among the ethnic Moldovans living in Transnistria, at best 31.25% would join Moldova versus 68.75% who prefer independence.

Pal Kolsto

Report titled "Nation-building in Russia and Post-Soviet States" by University of Oslo (Norway) scholar and OSCE-researcher Pal Kolsto, published in Colorado by Westview Press, in the year 2000. Approximately thirty two percent of Transnistria’s population (as of November 2004) is Moldovan speaking, some being of Romanian origin and primarily residing in rural areas. They are among the “most vehement anti-Romanians in Transnistria” (quote from page 144). It can be added that they are also among the strongest supporters of separate statehood for Transnistria. Another commentator dryly noted that they “have not fled the so called Stalinist dictatorship to join their ethnic brothers in Moldova.” (Source: British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG), Report titled "Transnistria 2003: Eye in the Gathering Storm", page 3, available at http://www.bhhrg.org/ )