Jump to content

Talk:Mass media of Transnistria: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
EvilAlex (talk | contribs)
Line 4: Line 4:
''" For example, the stereotype, according to which on the left shore - continuous and black propaganda, and any "voices of freedom" here are suppressed. It turned out that relatively free from THE MGB and Igor Smirnov the voices exist. With the presence of certain courage, professionalism and adherence to principles it is possible to be obtained that not to transmit blindly the messages of authority. "'' Source:[http://www.vremea.net/news/2006-09-27/16:30:41.html] - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
''" For example, the stereotype, according to which on the left shore - continuous and black propaganda, and any "voices of freedom" here are suppressed. It turned out that relatively free from THE MGB and Igor Smirnov the voices exist. With the presence of certain courage, professionalism and adherence to principles it is possible to be obtained that not to transmit blindly the messages of authority. "'' Source:[http://www.vremea.net/news/2006-09-27/16:30:41.html] - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Your source is in Russian, I don't speak Russian and can't check. If this seminar was organised bt British Embassy, why you can not find an English language source for it? And who is the person from which you quote? You mention British Embassy but I doubt the statement is made by an British Embassy employee, probabily is just an employee of Transnistrian MGB which was invited at the seminar.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:Your source is in Russian, I don't speak Russian and can't check. If this seminar was organised bt British Embassy, why you can not find an English language source for it? And who is the person from which you quote? You mention British Embassy but I doubt the statement is made by an British Embassy employee, probabily is just an employee of Transnistrian MGB which was invited at the seminar.--[[User:MariusM|MariusM]] 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

::That is not an official position of British Embassy. The only words from John Beyer / British ambassador was: "European integration of Moldova cannot negatively affect Moldova-Russian relations" / «официальная позиция Евросоюза заключается в следующем: европейская интеграция Молдовы не может противоречить дружеским молдавско-российским отношениям». All others comments have been made by unknown journalists, third party rubbish. Unknown and insignificant. We should include in the article: Official government position, Well known and respected NGOs, and Individuals with good reputation. All others are insignificant. It was a seminar any one could attend it. If some one from the crowd will shout "there is a freedom in Transnistria", are you going to quote him too? [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


==14 or 2 main newspapers?==
==14 or 2 main newspapers?==

Revision as of 22:52, 3 January 2007

Press freedom?

The stereotype is that there is no press freedom in Transnistria. A seminar in Moldova, organized by the British Embassy in Chisinau, recently examined this. From part of the conclusion:
" For example, the stereotype, according to which on the left shore - continuous and black propaganda, and any "voices of freedom" here are suppressed. It turned out that relatively free from THE MGB and Igor Smirnov the voices exist. With the presence of certain courage, professionalism and adherence to principles it is possible to be obtained that not to transmit blindly the messages of authority. " Source:[1] - Mauco 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is in Russian, I don't speak Russian and can't check. If this seminar was organised bt British Embassy, why you can not find an English language source for it? And who is the person from which you quote? You mention British Embassy but I doubt the statement is made by an British Embassy employee, probabily is just an employee of Transnistrian MGB which was invited at the seminar.--MariusM 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an official position of British Embassy. The only words from John Beyer / British ambassador was: "European integration of Moldova cannot negatively affect Moldova-Russian relations" / «официальная позиция Евросоюза заключается в следующем: европейская интеграция Молдовы не может противоречить дружеским молдавско-российским отношениям». All others comments have been made by unknown journalists, third party rubbish. Unknown and insignificant. We should include in the article: Official government position, Well known and respected NGOs, and Individuals with good reputation. All others are insignificant. It was a seminar any one could attend it. If some one from the crowd will shout "there is a freedom in Transnistria", are you going to quote him too? EvilAlex 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14 or 2 main newspapers?

U.S. Department of State claims in its report that there are 2 main newspapers in Transnistria and several others weekly or monthly publications or publications with small impact. Original research of Mauco is telling that there are 14 main newspapers. Sorry, I trust US Department of State, not Mauco. Probabily weekly or monthly magazines, as well as regional newspaper with small number of printed copies were promoted by Mauco as main newspapers, but we can not keep original research in this article.--MariusM 11:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you trust the BBC country report? It doesn't say 14 but it certainly doesn't say 2 either. Besides, like everywhere else, life moves on. In a year, the place went from just 2 main political parties to now nearly ten. Some of them have their own newspaper (a good example if the Yuri Sokov published Respublika party newspaper). How is that so hard to understand? - Mauco 13:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the BBC country report? Yes, I will trust it, if you provide a link and I will be able to read it myself.--MariusM 13:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is only in the links section of the Transnistria article. Everyone voted to keep it, so it should still be there. Unless you removed it. I see that you have been removing links, and unilaterally changing links headlines without consensus, despite the fact that this was voted upon. - Mauco 13:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BBC report talk about 3 main newspapers, I agree with the number 3. Also, BBC is mentioning: "The authorities exercise tight control over the media. Media rights groups report that self-censorship is widespread. Printing facilities are state-run. The territory's first private radio station opened in 2003". We should include this also in the article, is more relevant than what a litlle known Russian language newspaper is telling about a statement of an unknown person made at the British Embassy seminar about which nobody else heard.--MariusM 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove sourced information about an important and recent seminar at the British Embassy which was attended by all the leading journalists from both Chisinau and Tiraspol. THAT, my friend, shows your POV. - Mauco 13:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this seminar organised by British Embassy was so important, why you are not able to find an English-language source about it? I asked above who was the person who told the words you want to quote and you didn't answer. You want to create fake impression that British Embassy endorses the view that there are no problems with press freedom in Transnistria.--MariusM 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple: English language press rarely covers Transnistria. Moldovan (in Romanian) and local press (in Russian) are the two main sources for Transnistria info. I do not speculate on why the Moldovan press decided not to write about this seminar. That is their problem. I have given a source for the info, and if you do not like it, you have to explain why it is is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Otherwise, it stays. I will defend all my edits and I will give sources. But I will not guess on why the press in Chisinau, or London, or some other place, decided not to write about the seminar. That is their problem, not mine. - Mauco 00:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: who is the person who told that press is free in Transnistria? Please provide translation.--MariusM 01:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the source in the article. It was there until you arbitrarily removed it without prior discussion. Please look at an older version of the page, click on the link, and read the source. If you can not read it, then please find someone to help you who can translate for you. I do not want to sound crass, but I can not do your research for you. That is your job, and not mine. I merely provide the sources for my edits. - Mauco 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't provide translation I will revert any mention about this so-called seminar, as I don't trust you. Mentioning of British Embassy is incorect, as British Embassy didn't support your views (at most, they provided a room for a disscussion in which anybody was free to tell whatever he want, including employees from Transnistrian MGB).--MariusM 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not allowed to make threats, and you have to be civil. See WP:TPG. Non-English sources are allowed when no English sources are available. Please read Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. If you are unable to double check the research, that is, frankly, not my problem. I am sure that others here in Wikipedia can do that. You and I are not the only ones who edit. My work can stand up to exhaustive peer review. There is no reference to any employees of PMR MGB having been invited to the British Embassy, or present at the British Embassy, so please do not introduce straw man arguments to deny the presence of a reliable source. - Mauco 02:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to explain in talk exactly who was the person who made this statement and preferr edit wars, that IS your problem.--MariusM 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiraspol Times

Tiraspol Times is not a newspaper, only a propagandistic website. Yes, they claim being a newspaper also, but this is not true. I had long debates with Mauco on this subject, in User:MariusM is explained this. Editor of Tiraspol Times edited at Wikipedia as User:MarkStreet and User:Mark us street [2], also he used sockpuppets User:Henco [3], User:Esgert and User:Truli, probabily he used other sockpuppets as well. He was asked in Talk:Transnistria (now archived) to prove the real existence of his newspaper and he didn't. Meantime, independent checking done by Wikipedia users with friends in Transnistria showed that no newspaper with the name of Tiraspol Times is available on the streets of Tiraspol. We should not include fallacies in Wikipedia.--MariusM 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have rewritten the article on Tiraspol Times. ;-) bogdan 12:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marius, you keep clinging to your statement that Tiraspol Times is not a newspaper. That is unfortunately the fruit of your own fantasy. I have seen several copies of it, personally, and so have others. You, too, can see it if you go to Transnistria (where you have never been in your life, but where the newspaper is freely available). In the meantime, check this out. If you want to edit on Wikipedia, at least follow the links and do your research. - Mauco 13:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM, do you still claim that Tiraspol Times is not a newspaper? You said so less than 2 days ago. Or have you changed your tune to something else now? - Mauco 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]