Talk:Transnistria

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8 /archive 9 /archive 10 /archive 11 /archive 12 /archive 13 /archive 14 /archive 15 /archive 16 /archive 17 /archive 18 /archive 19

Blockade?

In my opinion, there is no blockade of Transnistria, they just need to have documents with Moldovan customs stamp. On this issue, Clockword is right. Transnistria is still doing a lot of imports and exports.--MariusM 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Blockade" is what Transnistria has called it. No problem, when proper attribution's in place. The export/import stuff is indeed in need of an update. Got fresh stat info? --Illythr 09:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As we have a separate article about the custom conflict, we should keep in this article only a short mention about this issue, with link at detailed article. In my opinion, Transnistrian authorities just want to find somebody else to blame for the deteriorating economic life in the region. An old game (not specific only for Transnistria).--MariusM 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty small as it is, considering that it's the most recent major point of contention between them. I think it's the "Human rights" and "Security concerns" sections, that need shortening seeing as how they, while also having their own article, still take up, like, a third of this one. --Illythr 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights is an on-going problem, while the blockade is unexistant, Transnistria is exporting, only that they should make some papers for it. Do we have an agreement that the expression "blockade" is unappropiate for this article, and we should only describe the facts (that they need Moldovan custom stamps) without labeling it in POV style?--MariusM 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing or not, it's taking way too much space. A short summary should be sufficient, provided that all relevant information is kept in another article. As for the blockade - what's the problem? We have the fact that it is in place and that exports from Transnistria had decreased significantly. We also have the reaction of both sides which is, of course, POV, but since it's attributed and both sides are represented, it shouldn't pose a problem. It's all pretty short as it is, considering the ruckus it had caused. What we lack is current information. --Illythr 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with MariusM. "Blockade" is a POV. ClockworkOrange 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly willing to propose or discuss your edits here, I take it? --Illythr 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Viddi well, me brother, i ready to answer any of your questions. ClockworkOrange 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The section right above this one, thanks. --Illythr 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific it is too confusing 2,3 7... what exactly you dont like in me edits? Every edit have been explained in edit summary. ClockworkOrange 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on this article right now, but I think a rewriting without the word "blockade" is necessary. I would agree also with a shortening of "arms control and disarmament" section. Illythr, can you come with a proposal for that section? In my opinion is enough to mention that Russian troops are still there and that Colbasna exist, without so many details and opinions.--MariusM 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with the word "blockade" as long as we clearly state who called it such.

The arms control section may be shortened as well, compacting the facts, but leaving none out.

The personal security subsection can be eliminated, except for the travel warnings that probably should stay somewhere. --Illythr 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with elimination of personal security section, which is a short section and we don't have a separate article about this. Agree to shorten the arms control section. "Blockade" section also need a shortening, especially as, contrary with "Personal Security", we have a separate article dealing with all the details.--MariusM 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marius on all three issues. :Dc76\^talk 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A section dealing with individual acts of criminal offense is absent from any city or county articles I've visited, even those where this threat is much more significant. It might've been marginally useful for an article like "crime in Tiraspol", but here, in the main article about the whole region it is totally out of place. The blockade section is pretty short already, IMO, but suggestions are welcome. --Illythr 18:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe "personal security section" refers to security of ordinary people, not to individual crime offenses. Putting a bomb is a personal security issue, not an individual crime. Beating of X by Y is an individual crime, not a personal security issue, unless regularly repeated or associated to anti-national or anti-racial or anti-religious or nationalist or ultra-religious things. If it were a single incident, I would agree to remove it. Ditto goes if there are no repetitions over a long period of time. About other articles, I was on the verge of putting a similar note in the Balti article last year, when an anonymous bomb threat phone call was made in reference to one of the schools (former no. 16, don't know its current name). However it turned out it was a bad joke by two school children, and was discovered mere 30 minutes after the call (but the school was evacuated nevertheless, and genists called). Then I said to myself that if there is any second call, I should put the info in the article. Fortunately, there wasn't. If you consider, it should be there, I won't oppose it. :Dc76\^talk 19:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, I don't think you get it - even articles on regions where crime or terrorism is a far more serious concern (like, say, Venezuela or Israel, respectively) don't list the individual cases. There's a general sentence or two tops, saying that it's a notable concern and a maybe link to an article dealing with it. Here we have several scattered incidents that don't even have a systematic nature to them. Oh yeah, and we *do* have an article on that stuff, too. It's linked to right after the section itself. --Illythr 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. You do not oppose to mention it. You simply say that in mentioning it, to refer to these cases in a single general sentence, and then the list of individual cases can be moved to Crime in Transnistria. Ya, that's an idea.:Dc76\^talk 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Illythr, you came with the idea to make shorter the "Security concerns" section, and it seems that everybody is agreeing to shorten the "arms control" part, which is the biggest part of the section you wanted to make shorter. Why don't you come with a proposal for rewriting this part and you are focusing in contentious issues?--MariusM 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I proposed to eliminate the "personal security" subsection (minus the warnings). You were the one who suggested the same for "Arms control". I agreed to that, provided it's proposed and discussed here first, but I'm too lazy to do it for you right now. :-) --Illythr 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should focus in the areas where there is consensus. There is no consensus to eliminate personal security section, but it seems there is consensus to shorten the "arms control" section. Let's focus on that.--MariusM 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please present your version and we'll discuss it. Shortening for the sake of shortening isn't good idea imho. Alæxis_¿question? 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PMR cars will not enter Moldova any more

As per http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_transnistria_automobile.shtml and http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_inmatriculare_transnistria.shtml cars registred in PMR will no longer enter in Moldova starting from 1st of Jannuary 2008.Nistriana 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Moldovan authorities want to get Transnistria eventually it's a rather strange decision, imho. The last thing that can topple enemy government is sanctions (proven by USA, Russia and others). Alæxis_¿question? 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange decision? why? it's rather called "cutting the balls and throwing them to cats!" PMR can't survive any more, it's just a matter of months. So, "de facto" idea is gone. De facto, will no more exists.--Nistriana 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at US and Cuba, US and Iraq in the interwar period, Russia and Georgia recently. Were any of these measures particularly effective? Why should Moldova be different? Alæxis_¿question? 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The situation doesn't seem similar to me, companies from Transnistria as far as I understand from this page can very well do import/exports as long as they follow Moldova's laws (and most likely even if they don't follow them) and the same thing will probably happen with cars, if they are registered with proper Moldovan authorities they will be allowed on the road, that makes sense for a country who wants to set some rule of law, letting in cars/products/persons with papers emitted by an unrecognized authority would be ludicrous. Don't know if this will have any success, probably Russia will squeeze Vorodin's balls (to use Nistriana's expression) before these measures will have any effects, but regardless of effects this is the normal thing to do, I'm wondering what Moldovan authorities have done till now... have they just woken up? -- AdrianTM 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another measure was to bann double citizenship (many Transnistrians are also citizens of Russia or Ukraine). Moldova can't accept double citizenship for people from PMR. --Nistriana 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is not a ban of double citizenship, but a ban of allowing people with double citizenship to hold some positions in governmental authorities. It is directed mainly against political leaders who have Romanian citizenship. Main concern of Voronin is pro-Romanian oposition, which won with a large margin (61-39) last elections for mayoral office in Chişinău.--MariusM 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Joint army proposal

Russian-speaking Transnistria refused Romanian-speaking Moldova to have a common army. Russia, which supports the Transnistrian side and maintains some 1,500 troops in Transnistria, despite a promise to remove them by the end of 2003, refused also Moldovan proposal.--Nistriana 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And as far as I know, President Voronin proposed full demilitarization of Moldova on both banks of the Nistru River. He proposed the “liquidation” of all tanks and armored vehicles, multiple rocket launchers, and artillery of any type, both by the lawful Moldovan and the unlawful Transnistria forces, within six months. Actually, Voronin proposed this demilitarization keeping in mind with Moldova’s status of permanent neutrality. The idea is that constitution bans the stationing of foreign troops on Moldova’s territory. --Nistriana 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldova and Transnistria-based polling stations for Russian elections

As I read Moldovan authorities are against opening of Transnistria-based polling stations for Russian parliamentary elections. Moldovan side recommended to the Russian side to abstain from opening polling stations in the eastern districts of the Republic of Moldova which are not under the control of the legal authorities as well as from using mobile ballot boxes in the cities of Balti and Comrat (north and south of Moldova, respectively). Also, Moldovan Government said that in case illegal polling stations are opened in the country's Transnistrian region, the whole responsibility for consequences will fall on those who organized them, and the fact will be interpreted by the Moldovan authorities as interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Moldova. This position was reiterated at a meeting of the ministry's representatives with minister-counsellor of the Russian Embassy Vitaliy Tryapitin who was invited at the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister - (please remark the name!!!)) on 7 November 2007. At a request by the Moldovan side, the Russian diplomat said that the Embassy had been informed about no understanding in this respect between the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and the Tiraspol administration. The Russian diplomat underlined that his country observes the national legislation of the Republic of Moldova and will act in line with the position expressed by the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister). The Russian parliamentary elections will be conducted on 2 December 2007. --Nistriana 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair, Unbalanced, and Non-neutral

This article is incredibly one-sided! Since I know this is a very sensitive topic for many, I'll post a list of issues I have on the talk page first. In no particular order:

1. Gorbachev decree -- I do not see how this is directly relevant to the article. The overall tone of the comment makes it sound like a case against PMR's independence, which is neither neutral or appropriate. Gorbachev is obviously a very respected figure, and the comment implies that he is against PMR. This is not the case, his actions in 90s were aimed at preserving the USSR, and nothing else. This needs to be clarified.

Incidentally, his comments sounds as though he was opposed to Transnistrian separatism, because he was :) Besides, the article makes no comment about his personal feelings, but only describes his actions, and I think you agree that there's no factual inaccuracy there. On the other hand, trying to speculate how he really felt about Transnitria's right to secede, then or now, would constitute Original Research and should be avoided in the article. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Romanian support of Moldovan forces -- There is hardly any mention of the direct military and political support of Romania for the Moldovan side, while on the other hand there are more then plenty references to the support given to PMR by Russia. This is clearly cheery-picking of facts to present an unbalanced view of the conflict.

If you feel that this area is not explained well, please feel free to change (or suggest certain changes you want introduced), however please provide credible sources supporting any additions in this regard. However, I don't necessarily agree with you that the article is unbalanced in this regard, simply because there existed a great disparity between direct military involvement by Romania and Russia. While it is true that Romania did provide some light weapons to Moldovan forces, this was much less than the 14t

h army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

3. 400,000 citizens of Moldova. -- This comment strongly implies that the majority of people in PMR wish to be a part of Moldova. This is not the case, as is mentioned later in this article. Most people who live in PMR accept Moldovan (as well as Russian and Ukrainian) citizenship because of the legal difficulties that exit with travel. This needs to be clarified.

I don't understand, if as you already mentioned, the feelings of Transnistrians toward reunification is already mentioned elsewhere, why should it also be added here? The fact is true, and I don't necessarily see the same implications that you see. Most probably took citizenship for practical reasons, but this is only my speculation. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Number of Russian troops in PMR. -- According to Russian sources Russia has fully completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords. The only remaining Russian troops in PMR are peacekeeping and their presence there is unrelated to anything other then the conflict between Moldova and PMR. The number of troops present is around 500, not 1500 as is stated in the article. I will add this information with sources to present both points of view.

I think the 500 soldiers you mentioned are only the peacekeeping forces. There are about 1000 who defend the munitions. A few months ago, another editor and I tried to find more specific info, but 1500 seems to be the number most often quoted, on both English, Russian, and Romanian sources. As for fulfilling the Istanbul accords, I think even the Russian foreign ministry stated that Russia cannot fulfill these demands at the moment due to the ongoing crisis, and that they refuse to further withdraw their munitions (as provided in the accords) until the status of Transnistria is resolved. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

5. European court of human rights on Russian troops. -- Once again, apart from badmouthing PMR and Russia how is this relevant? That court has no authority (political or moral) to declare a peacekeeping operating as illegal or legal and as mentioned above Russia has completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords.

I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

6. Other conflicts, causes. -- There is a sentence that compares PMR to other secessionist conflicts in the FSU. There is s strong implication that the only reason for these conflicts is Russian interference. However what is not mentioned is the root cause for these session movements. In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority. One of the root causes of this conflict are the actions of Romanian nationalists in the 80s-90s. I will add this to the article. If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone interested in this article has any comments, please post them here, otherwise I'll make my changes in a day or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotnik (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have very limited time now so I won't comment on all of your points. I agree with most of them and disagree with some. Regarding #2 it would be great if you added info about the Romanian support (of course it should be confirmed by a reliable source or at least attributed). Alæxis_¿question? 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

" One of the root causes of this conflict are the actions of Romanian nationalists in the 80s-90s." -- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems... -- AdrianTM 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A new editor that believes Wikipedians are picking on the PMR? Please note, there is no such thing as if editors don't object I'll start making article changes. All changes to articles which have been an area of contention should be discussed and agreed to by the active editorial community. Please do not make changes to the article summarily.

• Gorbachev decree -- it is relating a fact, there is no value judgement, the point is that no "secession" has been deemed legal either before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, do not delete
• Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?
• 400,000 citizens -- this is a fact. This article is not about representing Transnistria according to how you might editorially like to see it. Please do not take statements made as statements of fact, then imply they mean something to you personally, then those statements need to be changed because they don't fit your view of the wants of the inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory
• Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there
• "Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.
• Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.

If you have specific edits you wish to make, please insure you discuss them fully. You yourself start your list of issues by saying you know it's sensitive. "Otherwise I'll make my changes in a day or so" is not appropriate to articles in the Transnistrian space. PētersV 14:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unfair, Unbalanced, and Non-neutral

First, please do not make edits within my comments. This makes everything very hard to read and follow. I specifically enumerated my points (and will do so in the future) so that they are easier to reply to.

1. Before I get to the specifics, I want to make a couple of overall points. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant. However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here. This article fails to adequately present all sides in a neutral and encyclopedic way.

2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.

3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.

4.

Incidentally, his comments sounds as though he was opposed to Transnistrian separatism, because he was :) Besides, the article makes no comment about his personal feelings, but only describes his actions, and I think you agree that there's no factual inaccuracy there. On the other hand, trying to speculate how he really felt about Transnitria's right to secede, then or now, would constitute Original Research and should be avoided in the article.

I'm not speculating on how Gorbachev "really felt". He supported the continuation of the USSR and generally the status quo. He was against the independence of all and any republics from the SU, Moldova included. If you want to mention his decree on PMR, it needs to be put into proper context. The way this section is worded now is a perfect example of what I mention above, selectively using factual information to present a non-neutral narrative.

5.

If you feel that this area is not explained well, please feel free to change (or suggest certain changes you want introduced), however please provide credible sources supporting any additions in this regard. However, I don't necessarily agree with you that the article is unbalanced in this regard, simply because there existed a great disparity between direct military involvement by Romania and Russia. While it is true that Romania did provide some light weapons to Moldovan forces, this was much less than the 14th army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis.

I believe this is an interesting and worthwhile fact to mention. In my view (and the view of PMR) Romanian support for Moldova was significant, if in no other way, then politically. I will provide my sources shortly. I also have comments with regard to the other things you brought up, but I want to stay on topic. When the current issues are addressed I will get back to these points.

6.

I don't understand, if as you already mentioned, the feelings of Transnistrians toward reunification is already mentioned elsewhere, why should it also be added here? The fact is true, and I don't necessarily see the same implications that you see. Most probably took citizenship for practical reasons, but this is only my speculation.

My view here is that the article should be consistent in the information it presents. If its stated that the majority of the people in PMR do not wish to be a part of Moldova (which is something I strongly believe is the truth), it is bad practice to imply in other sections of the article that the opposite is true. I don't see a problem with rewording that sentence.

7.

I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.

This needs to be reworded, European Court doesn't have a clear legal place in this conflict. Their ruling is an equivalent of a simple opinion. They have no jurisdiction to decide these kinds of matters and that should be made clear.

8.

If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.

That's fine by me. I'll post specific changes I want to make shortly.

9.

-- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...

Since Moldovans and Romanians are the same people (my personal view) I generally prefer to use the term Romanians. I will be more specific as necessary. In this particular case I'm referring to the actions of the Popular Front in Moldova which identified itself as Romanian.

10.

Gorbachev decree -- it is relating a fact, there is no value judgement, the point is that no "secession" has been deemed legal either before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, do not delete

See my comments above on this topic.

11.

Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?

I don't know about Romanian troops, but I did read about arms shipments and combat volunteers.

12.

400,000 citizens -- this is a fact. This article is not about representing Transnistria according to how you might editorially like to see it. Please do not take statements made as statements of fact, then imply they mean something to you personally, then those statements need to be changed because they don't fit your view of the wants of the inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory

Read my above comments on this topic. I'm not implying anything, nor do I have any desire to editorialize this article. What I want is to add additional information to clarify this specific issue. As it is currently written, is it unclear and biased.

13.

Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there

First, tone down your rhetoric, its unnecessary and rude. Second, PMR certainly want the the Russian peacekeepers to stay. They are still there because the conflict is not resolved.

14.

"Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.

See above.

15.

Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.

I very strongly disagree. It is more then certain that the origins of this conflict was the desire of the ethnic Slavic people living in PMR to distance themselves from the ethnic Romanian majority, especially in light of the heavy nationalist rhetoric of that time. At the very least this is a legitimate and documented point of view.

16.

P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?

What exactly is your point? Russians and Ukrainians form the majority of the population in PMR, why would they not be in the army there?

Sotnik 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Could you also propose your version? We'll discuss it then.

15. I agree that currently the wording isn't quite adequate. The conflict certainly wasn't just about the loss of influence.

In other cases I'll wait for your proposed variants to comment on them. Alæxis_¿question? 08:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with many of Sotnik's comments. We should not make assumptions in this article, we should stick to the facts. Gorbatchev's position is relevant. I am not convinced that transnistrians are enthusiastic about independence, this is only what the PMR regime is claiming. Some facts, like the big number of people having Moldovan citizenship, is suggesting the opposite. European Court has jurisdiction, as Moldova accepted its jurisdiction and Transnistria is part of Moldova.--MariusM 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sotnik

Sotnik's comments excerpted as appropriate.
1. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant.

• Good, agreed

However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here.

• Please show where sources are not represented fairly and accurately.

2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.

• Then you should not imply the current article is "cherry picked"

3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.

• Good, agreed

4. ... If you want to mention his decree on PMR, it needs to be put into proper context. The way this section is worded now is a perfect example of what I mention above, selectively using factual information to present a non-neutral narrative.

• The current narrative states what the decree was. It makes no judgements about motivations or desires.

5. In my view (and the view of PMR) Romanian support for Moldova was significant, if in no other way, then politically.

• This is different from talking about supporting armed forces. As with all contentions, reputable sources please.

6.If its stated that the majority of the people in PMR do not wish to be a part of Moldova (which is something I strongly believe is the truth), it is bad practice to imply in other sections of the article that the opposite is true.

• Your strong beliefs, along with my strong beliefs, are utterly irrelevant. What do reputable sources say? No WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

7. (re: I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.) This needs to be reworded, European Court doesn't have a clear legal place in this conflict.

• The European Court is what it is, what they have said has been reported. I can argue that the entire PMR regime has no legal place in Transnistria. That is my personal opinion, as is your opinion on the European Court, i.e., editorially irrelevant.

8. (re: If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.) That's fine by me. I'll post specific changes I want to make shortly.

• I look forward to your appropriately sourced statements.

9. (re: -- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...) Since Moldovans and Romanians are the same people (my personal view) I generally prefer to use the term Romanians. I will be more specific as necessary. In this particular case I'm referring to the actions of the Popular Front in Moldova which identified itself as Romanian.

• I think it is useful to differentiate between ethnic Romanians of Romania and ethnic Romanians of Moldova.

10. Gorbachev decree, already covered
11. (re: Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?) I don't know about Romanian troops, but I did read about arms shipments and combat volunteers.

• Reputably sourced would of course belong.

12. (re: 400,000 citizens...) I'm not implying anything, nor do I have any desire to editorialize this article. What I want is to add additional information to clarify this specific issue. As it is currently written, is it unclear and biased.

• "Bias" as in reputable sources not fairly and accurately represented? If you require balance, then please insure you bring additional reputable sources also fairly and accurately represented.

13. "Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there" First, tone down your rhetoric, its unnecessary and rude. Second, PMR certainly want the the Russian peacekeepers to stay. They are still there because the conflict is not resolved.

• What I stated about why Smirnov is now the apparent "impediment" to the Russian army evacuating is completely true. My personal opinion is that it's all a dance but that's neither here nor there where the article is concerned. Russia cannot be represented as having complied with international obligations when they have not, regardless of Russia's contentions.

14. (re: "Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.) See above.

• I hope that means as above, not to delete facts.

15. (re: Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.)

I very strongly disagree. It is more then certain that the origins of this conflict was the desire of the ethnic Slavic people living in PMR to distance themselves from the ethnic Romanian majority, especially in light of the heavy nationalist rhetoric of that time. At the very least this is a legitimate and documented point of view.

• You and all other editors are certainly free to bring reputable sources to bear on the topic. My point is that "ethnic" is an oversimplification which does not accurately represent the loss of influence issue. This is not an "ethnic" conflict.

16. (re: P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?) What exactly is your point? Russians and Ukrainians form the majority of the population in PMR, why would they not be in the army there?

• My statement is that Russian army of Russian nationality stationed in the Transnistrian territory now forms the bulk of Transnistria's "own" armed forces including its commander, hence the Russian army has not "left" in the numbers you claim, and even if the Russian army withdraws completely, it will not have "left". These are not Russians or Ukrainians who already lived in Transnistria when this all started. PētersV 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unfair, Unbalanced, and Non-neutral

I disagree with many of Sotnik's comments. We should not make assumptions in this article, we should stick to the facts. Gorbatchev's position is relevant. I am not convinced that transnistrians are enthusiastic about independence, this is only what the PMR regime is claiming. Some facts, like the big number of people having Moldovan citizenship, is suggesting the opposite. European Court has jurisdiction, as Moldova accepted its jurisdiction and Transnistria is part of Moldova.--MariusM 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make any assumptions either and everything I want to add is a verifiable fact. If you believe that Gorbachev's position is relеvent, I have no problem with it being in the article, but I will add the additional text from his decree and the fact that he was actively working to preserve the SU. There is already a third party source referenced in the article that states the majority of people do support independence. Once again, I don't want to remove the fact about citizenship as long as its dully explained with verifiable sources. First of all the Court's jurisdictional is only in issuing fines, it has no political authority in Moldova. If the precise role of the court is explained and perhaps a view from PMR on this decision is added I will be fine with that being there

Please show where sources are not represented fairly and accurately.

What does this have to do with sources being represented? I said that faction information is presented in one-sided way.

Then you should not imply the current article is "cherry picked"

I don't imply it is cherry picked, I said it is cherry picked, which it is. I'm assuming good faith with people I'm speaking to. Whether the article is the way it is now because it was intentionally written with bias by a single individual or simply due to ignorance of all points of view is irrelevant to me. What matters now is making the article neutral and presented all opinions in non-biased way.

The current narrative states what the decree was. It makes no judgements about motivations or desires.

That part is weaselly the way it is written. See above.

Your strong beliefs, along with my strong beliefs, are utterly irrelevant. What do reputable sources say? No WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

There is already a source in the articles that supports my view.

The European Court is what it is, what they have said has been reported. I can argue that the entire PMR regime has no legal place in Transnistria. That is my personal opinion, as is your opinion on the European Court, i.e., editorially irrelevant.

Not quite, PMR (legal or illegal) is a party in this conflict where as the court is not. In any case I would be fine with leaving the court ruling in the article if its role is explained.

I think it is useful to differentiate between ethnic Romanians of Romania and ethnic Romanians of Moldova.

As stated, I will distinguish where appropriate.

What I stated about why Smirnov is now the apparent "impediment" to the Russian army evacuating is completely true. My personal opinion is that it's all a dance but that's neither here nor there where the article is concerned. Russia cannot be represented as having complied with international obligations when they have not, regardless of Russia's contentions.

I disagree, there are two parties involved in the Istambul accords, Russia and NATO, if one side claims it is in compliance with the accords and the other claims it is not, both view are need to be presented in the article.

You and all other editors are certainly free to bring reputable sources to bear on the topic. My point is that "ethnic" is an oversimplification which does not accurately represent the loss of influence issue. This is not an "ethnic" conflict.

The fact that the rise of Romanian nationalism and xenophobia in the late 80s early 90s led to two separate ethnic conflict, one with the Gagauz and one with the Slavic minority is a very clear indication that this is an ethnic conflict.

My statement is that Russian army of Russian nationality stationed in the Transnistrian territory now forms the bulk of Transnistria's "own" armed forces including its commander, hence the Russian army has not "left" in the numbers you claim, and even if the Russian army withdraws completely, it will not have "left". These are not Russians or Ukrainians who already lived in Transnistria when this all started.

The 14th army was stationed in Moldova for decades before the war. Those people did live here when it all started. Moreover, unless you have some source that claims that the armed forces of PMR are under the the direct military control of Russian MOD, then you cannot refer to them as the "Russian army".

Sotnik 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sotnik, I think it would be better if you proposed certain specific modifications to the article. I don't believe talking about it in the abstract is very likely to change anyone's view, and these discussions tend to snowball and then drag to infinity (you can look at the last thirteen archives if you don't believe me :. TSO1D 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) PētersV 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifics

I think its a good idea to lay out a road map for the changes I want to make, but this is fine, lets get to specifics.

Lets start with Russian troops in Moldova, here is a Russian source 1, that states Russia is now in full compliance with the Istanbul accords. The only troops left in Moldova are peacekeeping who will stay until the conflict is resolved.

The specific change I want to make is from this,

A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent (the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova of the Moscow Military District), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. The Russian contingent was originally the Soviet 14th Guards Army, but in the late 1990s it was redesignated as a Operational Group. Moldova and the OSCE demand their withdrawal.

To this,

A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent, as well as 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria. The status of this contingent is disputed. Moldova and the OSCE maintain that the Russian contingent is a part of the Soviet 14th Guards Army and demand their withdrawal based on the Istanbul accords. Russia and the PMR maintain that all the troops of the 14th Army have already been fully withdrawn. The only Russian troops in Transnistria are peacekeepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire agreement and will not be withdrawn until the conflict is fully resolved.\ Sotnik (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think the I don't think it's correct to say that all Russian troops are peacekeepers though. Most of them seem to be defending the munitions and old bases. For instance this news story: "Между тем 14-я воздушная, которой командовал генерал Лебедь, давно расформирована. Нынешнее российское военное присутствие, невыносимое для Кишинева, - это 1500 солдат и офицеров. Из них 360 - "голубые каски". Остальные заняты охраной военных складов." (this is saying that 1500 Russian soldiers remain, out of whom 360 are peacekeepers and the rest guard the munitions.) http://www.rg.ru/2005/10/28/vijutovich.html In fact, when this issue was last discussed here, the connsensus was 1500 troops total among which 300-400 are peacekeepers, with 360 being the most common number. I suggest the following:

"A 1,500 strong Russian military contingent as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. The Russian contingent was originally the Soviet 14th Guards Army, but in the late 1990s it was redesignated as a Operational Group. Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords, however Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations and that the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers and are not in violation of the accords." TSO1D (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not too bad. How about a couple of changes. First there is already a reference to a 2007 Reuters article 1 that states the number of troops is 1200. Since the date is newer then the article you provide, I think its reasonable to stick with 1200. Second, 20,000 tons, I believe is referring to munitions (makes sense, weapons are not measured in tons, munitions are). Do you agree or disagree? Third I think its noteworthy to mention the 92 ceasefire agreement in reference to the peacekeepers? What do you think? Sotnik (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the new article with 1200 is fine by me. I'm not sure though, if they are counting the blue-helmets or not, because in the past their number was given at around 300, so the 1500 would make sense. But I guess we can use the same wording as the article and not really going into specifics until we find more concrete information. As for munitions or weapons, I never really though about it that way. If you think that is makes more sense to only include the word munitions there, then I'm fine with that. As for 92 agreement, I agree, so borrowing from your version, how about:

"Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords. However Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations and that the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords." TSO1D (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would get rid of the second 'and' in the last sentence for style. A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent, as well as 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria. Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords. However Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations, the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords.'Sotnik (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the version without "and" doesn't really sound right though; the sentence seems a bit disjointed. With "and," the structure is: Russia insists A and B. Without it, it sounds like, Russia insists A, B. Since the second part is an independent clause, omitting the conjunction makes it a run-on sentence in my view. TSO1D (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, it does sound a bit awkward. Maybe something like, However Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords. ? Sotnik (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll make the change. TSO1D (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Sotnik (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A question of style

In Moldova article, inhabitants are named "Moldovans", here they are called "Moldavians", maybe we should stick with only one form. -- AdrianTM 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When we had a long discussion on this issue, I think it was agreed upon to use the term Moldovan for inhabitants of Moldova and as the ethnonym. Moldavian was reserved for the Principality of Moldavia, both in a historic context and for modern day inhabitants of the Romanian region. TSO1D 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So, can I go ahead and change to "Moldovans"? -- AdrianTM 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -- AdrianTM 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not very sure I understand you about "ethninym", and what you mean by that. "Moldovan" is the adjective of "Moldova". It means citizen of Moldova, regardless of the ethnic group. Moldavian is the ethnonym, imho. Is there any non-WP source that uses "Moldovan" in ethnic sense? I don't want to contradict you, but I do not recall not even one such case. I do understand the problem that appears in relation to reference to the Principality of Moldavia, but that is indeed one of the non-clarity problems generated by the Moldovenism political curent. (by the way, the word Moldovenism comes in english directly from Romanian, not from "Moldovan") :Dc76\^talk 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook for instance has: "Ethnic groups: Moldovan/Romanian"; also, I believe that the official census page (statistica.md) calls the ethnicity Moldovan. TSO1D (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way we need to be consistent, we can't call people in Moldova "Moldovans" and in people in Transnistria "Moldavians" (I'd say the same thing about Moldovans in Romania since in Romanian there's no difference, they are all called "Moldovans" but that's a longer discussion and last time it was met with resistence because of historical usage in English, it's a tricky issue.... it's also very confusing because it's not clear if we can use "Moldavian" as a translation for "Moldovan" or we need to use the term that's used in Moldovan legal acts without translation, as I said, tricky) -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks of Moldopodo=Sotnik

The socks play on the blocks.

I'm afraid not. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Moldopodo Sotnik (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal terms

My un-edits refer to "republic" (recently added by Alaexis), and "state". IMHO, usage of legal terms can be done only based on legal sources, not on political commentaries. No matter how good faith and thorough they are, all they claim is to observe and comment the de facto situation. They never claim anything about the legal status of the territory/region. "A self-proclaimed republic/state" is ok, though, because it does not state a de jure thing, but a de facto one. Without the adjective, it becomes colloquially ok, but legally false.:Dc76\^talk 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that 'republic' is a legal term? Alæxis_¿question? 19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly used in legal settings, constitutions, declarations of independence, electoral laws, etc. it's not a colloquial term used by common people for common issues as in "I set up a republic in my bathroom" -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "republic" as a form of government. In former USSR and former Yugoslavia, it was used also as territorial divisions, but this practice is no longer in place, even in Russia today republics are equated in powers to regions wiht only the name preserved. Anyway, imho, to a western consumer "republic" is a form of government, the other alternative being a monarchy. Well, if you (I meant Alaexis) consider "republic" not a legal term, that would explain a lot of our mutual misunderstandings... :Dc76\^talk 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

“ 1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic> ”

It's the definition from Webster's. The legal term cannot have 3 (or rather 5) different meanings. Imho PMR fits this definition nicely (although it's rather irrelevant since this wording isn't something I thought up lately but something that is properly referenced).

ps. Our republics aren't equated to regions. They have varying degrees of autonomy - some of them are little more than oblasts and some of them (Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Chechnya) have considerable autonomy (money distribution, language, etc). Alæxis_¿question? 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you know much better about Russian republics, and I have no other intention but to believe you. In fact, what I heard was more or less exatly what you just said.

Back to our issue, Transnistria does not fit this definition, because it is neither a nation/state, nor a government of a nation/state (definition a). "State" is a legal term as well. Neither is Transnistria "governed by elected representatives responsible to citizens according to laws" (definition b) - their "republic" is ilegal, legally void, recognized by noone; there is not legally recognized citizenship of Transnistria: they are all either Moldovan, Russian, or Ukrainian citizen on Moldovan soil; Moldovan citizens have not elected Smirnov; and clearly they can not practically held Smirnov responsible. :Dc76\^talk 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, that Webster defines the daily usage of the word, not its legal weight. Like "guilty" - I can call X guilty, but legally X is inocent until sentenced by a court. Nevertheless, as I have just shown, Transnistria does not fit even the Webster definition of proper usage of English terms. It is an abuse of language to call it republic. But that does not mean that some people won't use it. On the contrary, a language is a "living body". Maybe from the example of Transnistria, the meaning of the English word "republic" would mutate. But even if that happens, leaglly it would not mnutate.:Dc76\^talk 20:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with you that PMR doesn't fit Webster's definition. What is 'political unit'? For sure it's not a legal term so somebody may consider PMR as such and another one may not.

Anyway, Wikipedia doesn't have to use words in their legal sense. It it did, actually, it wouldn't be human-readable :) If enough people call PMR 'breakaway republic' there should be no problems with using these words here also. I'd like to remind you that the previous wording was 'breakaway territory'. Compare these variants using google, googlebooks and googlescholar and you'll see that the current variant is much more widespread. Alæxis_¿question? 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Breakaway territory" is NPOV. Reading a dictionary to interpret what the PMR is is WP:SYNTH. Besides, there are rumors of future non-independence. The PMR is still not recognized, not even by Russia. -- PētersV (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From Webster, republic - a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president further from Webster, government - the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit . PMR fits those definitions. A government (and a republic) maybe either legitimate or illegitimate, internationally recognized or not, etc. As long as the article makes it clear that PMR has no international recognition, saying republic and/or state is appropriate. Sotnik (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mafia fits that definition too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference being PMR also fits the common understanding of what a state and a republic is, whereas the Mafia does not. In any case the point in question is does PMR fit this definition or not and it does. As long as no attempt is made to disguise or misrepresent the fact that PMR has no international recognition, I see no reason to not use the term. Sotnik (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also now that I think about it, I'm not sure you can say that the Mafia exercises authority over a political unit, that's a bit of a stretch.Sotnik (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They have some authority over territory, see Paolo Pezzino's quote in Mafia. Anyway, I think the recognition by at least one external legitimate party is a necessary condition to call an entity "republic" or "state" and I think this is the common understanding (not only mine), I can probably find some reference related to this, but this seems too trivial to require definition when common sense is enough -- if no legitimate party accepts the claim that Transnistria is a "state" or "republic" then it means that it isn't from the point of view of international affairs and that's then only POV that matters in this respect, not contorted dictionary quotes and interpretations. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right that PMR is not a 'state' from the point of view of international affairs. Wikipedia doesn't have to be written 'from the point of view of international affairs' though. Try to find a wiki-policy that requires it. Alæxis_¿question? 06:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. Its a stretch to go from some authority over territory to a political unit. More to the point, it is very common to refer to a number of places as a break-away republic or state. Case in point, this Washington Times article 1 that refers to Nagorno-Karabakh (a region that in many ways is similar to PMR) as both a break away state and republic. I can find more then plenty similar reference in many major and respectable sources. Also, dictionary definitions cannot be "contorted " that's the perceive reason dictionaries exist.Sotnik (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's my fault that I've brought this whole thing with dictionaries up. It's not directly relevant to this issue. What is important is that PMR is referred to as 'breakaway republic' in reliable soutrces. Alæxis_¿question? 06:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the problem with the dictionaries, it's not the dictionary that is contorted is the use of them, let me use what Dc76 wrote in edit summary because I think makes the point perfectly: <A self-proclaimed state is ok. "de facto independent" is ok. but "de facto state" is non-sense, just as "found de jure not guilty, de facto guilty" would be> -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First lets agree that 'breakaway republic' is acceptable. Second, these words do no have a very complex or deep meaning, they are very simple. Once again, the word state according to Webster, a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people 1. Very clearly. the word state is acceptable in this context and does not imply international recognition. I also found a PMR source that addressed this question, which may be of interest 1. Lastly if you feel so strongly about this and want to change the wording from 'it is de facto an independent state to it is a de facto independent state, to me the meaning is the same, so I would not object.Sotnik (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, let's see "a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people" if somebody declares a republic/state in his bedroom and co-opts his wife and kids there will be: 1. territory 2. body of people 3. political organization (where there are more than 2-3 people there could be parties and political process) would that make that a state? No, official recognition by at least one party is the required element, of course mass media will report that somebody has decided to declare a republic in his bedroom, but that cannot be used a "reliable source" to quote that that's a republic, which basically it's done in this article, people quote reporting as "reliable source" to prove things. "Self-proclaimed republic" is probably the acceptable term. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And most importantly "republic" is a form of government, you can't have something to be considered a form of government if it's not officially considered a government. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy is ridiculous and incorrect, 2-3 people cannot physically maintain either a government or a state, nor could they have the means to archive de facto independence, where PMR has done all of the above. More importantly, please provide evidence to support what you are saying, so far you have provided only your opinion. I want a source that supports what you claim. As the words state, republic and government, do not mean what you claim they mean based on either (1) the dictionary definitions, (2) common usage, and (3) according to this source 1. international law, I have no idea what you are trying to claim.Sotnik (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the dictionary definition that you use for "republic"? Any definition that I could find talks about it as a form of government, and since the government of Transnistria is not officially recognized at most we can talk about "self-proclaimed republic" the article on Republic starts by saying "A republic is a state or country [...]" (my emphasis)-- Transnistria is neither a state or a country. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, we are going in circles. Webster's gives this definition - 'a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government'. Alæxis_¿question? 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, PMR is a state (and in turn a republic) based on (1) the dictionary definitions, (2) common usage, and (3) according to this source 1. international law. If you disagree please explain and back up your arguments with actual sources. Sotnik (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I will provide evidence when you'll provide me evidence that it's a state according to international law as you claim. It's a "self-proclaimed state" with the stress on "self-proclaimed", it's not a "state". -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First please take the time to read what other people write before responding, as this will save everyone time. and (3) according to this source 1. international law. I await your source. Second, there is no requirement that this article is written from the point of view of international law (this too has already been mentioned). As the language that it currently used is correct by the dictionary definition AND common usage AND there is no ambiguity as to the legal status of PMR in the article, its acceptable. Once again, I ask you to provide sources for every one of your claims. At this point, in my view, what you are arguing is completely baseless.Sotnik (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how tiraspoltimes can be considered an unbiased reliable source in this discussion. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You have no valid arguments regardless the definition of the word state by international law, because there is no such requirement. However, if you so insist, here is another source, International bodies charged with enforcing international law also recognize that de facto states are bound by it. See Appellants' Br. at 20-21. Most recently, the International Tribunal formed by the U.N. Security Council to prosecute humani- tarian law violations in the former Yugoslavia defined "state" to include de facto regimes as well as recognized governments State: A State Member or non-Member of the United Nations or a self-proclaimed entity de facto exercising governmental functions, whether recognized as a State or not. 1Sotnik (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a different context, see here (same reference that you used): "U.S. and international law recognize that certain actions of de facto regimes must be accorded the same legal status as those of a de jure state. The existence of a de facto regime is determined by applying clearly defined criteria:" so they talk about "de facto regimes" that have to be hold accountable as states, see here: "By acknowledging the existence of a de facto regime a court does not legitimate its actions, but simply recognizes those actions, and those of its officials, as state action for which they may be held legally accountable." So it's all about accountability not about statehood. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is not what's in question here. Provide sources that claim what you claim, not your interpreations. Here is another source that says, "State: A State Member or non-Member of the United Nations or a self-proclaimed entity de facto exercising governmental functions, whether recognized as a State or not."' 2Sotnik (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, that's the way it is used in that judicial opinion, basically they say that you can't hide behind non-recognition and you have to abide by the rules like any recognized state no matter if you are only a "de facto regime" unrecognized by anybody else. Whatever you say you cannot deny that the common understanding of "state" is "internationally recognized political unit" just a small example (last bullet point) and this is obtained only by a simple googling around, if you want more respectable sources I'm sure I can find them, I only need more time, keep in mind though that it would be a good idea to use formulation in the lead that are not easily misinterpreted, even that reference that I provided is an enough proof that people don't necessarily understand by "state" what you claim that they should, that's why formulas like "self-proclaimed state" should be preferable, do you have any reference against calling Transnistria a "self-proclaimed state" I can provide sources for this wording upon request. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, that's the way it is used in that judicial opinion, basically they say that you can't hide behind non-recognition and you have to abide by the rules like any recognized state no matter if you are only a "de facto regime" unrecognized by anybody else.

Yes you can't hide behind non-recognition specifically because by UN rule (i.e. international law) a state is defined to mean, State: A State Member or non-Member of the United Nations or a self-proclaimed entity de facto exercising governmental functions, whether recognized as a State or not.

Whatever you say you cannot deny that the common understanding of "state" is "internationally recognized political unit" just a small example (last bullet point) and this is obtained only by a simple googling around, if you want more respectable sources I'm sure I can find them, I only need more time, keep in mind though that it would be a good idea to use formulation in the lead that are not easily misinterpreted, even that reference that I provided is an enough proof that people don't necessarily understand by "state" what you claim that they should, that's why formulas like "self-proclaimed state" should be preferable,

To me this reads like nonsense, you cannot claim that there is any ambiguity about PMR legal status, in the following sentence, Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure part of Moldova, it is de facto an independent state There is NO possibility for any misinterpretation here. Moreover as already stated, by common usage and dictionary definition and I maintain by international law this formulation is proper.Sotnik (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would this not be enough or correct: "Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure part of Moldova, Transnistria is de facto independent" I think that you use a definition of state that is not applicable in the context, the quote that you used is for a specific context of accountability of rulers and it applies to any "self-proclaimed entity". -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the reason I don't like the term 'self-proclaimed' is that most of the countries in the world are actually self-proclaimed (US or Moldova, for example). So these words don't give any new info to the reader imho. Compare these search results [1], [2] also. Alæxis_¿question? 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, this time I used the term in that law. The term of self-proclaimed is pretty widely used and breakaway has many meanings: [3] a quick search of Google dictionary doesn't even list the meaning of "breakaway republic", anyway breakaway is probably fine, if no other editors have anything else to say about that... -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Breakaway territory" and "self-proclaimed republic" together are fine. I would note there is no real standard for "Transnistria", Transdniester, Transdnester and various hyphenated forms are all commonly used. The quote earlier regarding accountability has nothing to do with any explicit or implicit recognition of authority, that's all Sotnik's WP:SYNTH. All it says is, we don't care who or what you are, we expect you to abide by international law (so, human rights conventions, etc.). Finally the Tiraspol Times (I noted a reference) is a PMR mouthpiece, their contributors/editors pushing pro-PMR propaganda have come and gone here on Wikipedia, banned as single-purpose accounts. It is not a reputable source, please do not cite it in the pursuit of NPOV if you want anything you say to be taken seriously. PētersV (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no synthesis or conjuncture on my part and in no place do I mention anything about recognition of authority. I provided an example, where in a formal legal document a breakaway republic is referred to as a state, to show that this language is appropriate. I know quite well that TT is a pro-PMR paper, however that particular article had a few references to various treaties and precedents, which I found to be interesting and relevant to our current discussion. Anyway, I'm fine with the wording of the introduction as it stands now, as said, aspects of statehood can be discussed in the body. Sotnik (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Overview

This entire section should be removed. The introduction is supposed to function as an overview for the article, and that should be expanded, possibly using info from this other section. However, as it now stands, the overview section has no purpose as it overlaps with other parts of the text. All important information should be moved to other subsections and this section should be deleted. TSO1D (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the section holds all the stuff that the folks here have tried to push into the lead for various reasons. That is, I pretty much agree. --Illythr (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here, it was cleaner before. "ABC however XYZ" are points to be discussed in the body. "Breakaway territory" and "de facto independent" are things which are non-interpreted facts and belong up top. Discussing various aspects of "statehood" belong in the body. The other item belonging up top is no international recognition. PētersV (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy

The International Crisis Group reports on Transnistria extensively discuss the "shadow" sector of the region's economy. Why is this article so silent about that? --Kober^Talk 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased

This page is very biased against the excellent work being done by President Smirnov and his team of committed, reform-minded public servants. Furthermore, there is little mention of the excellent public transportation system in Transnestria, which is substantially better than many in the "West", including Windsor, Ontario.