Talk:Transnistria

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7

Fact: Transnistria is an unrecognized country

The Montevideo Convention sets out four criteria for statehood: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." On this measure, Transnistria is already a country, but of course an unrecognized one. Does lack of recognition invalidate the statehood qualification? International law says no, since article 3 explicitly states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Transnistria is listed on List of countries, and, get this, on the List of sovereign states.

However, in the interest of neutrality, we can agree to not call it a "country" but merely an "unrecognized country". Transnistria is also listed on List of unrecognized countries.

Will anyone here, except for the edit warrior (who says that he loves to get his war on), please explain how in any way, shape or form it would be factually incorrect to call Transnistria an unrecognized country? Comments, please. - Mauco 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think that issue has been thrashed out, the edits can be made in due course but full discussion is still required to keep everyone onboard , nobody will be completely happy but we must proceed with the facts before us. MarkStreet Oct23rd 2006.

Well, let us keep the thread open for a while longer before making the edit. If no one else objects, then I will do it, but it is good custom to give others a chance to respond as well. Remember that there are editors who are not online at the same time that we are, so give them a chance to catch up and add their comments (constructive comments, please). - Mauco 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no consensus about it being a "country" separate from Moldova. Some definitions of "country" might require international recognition. Anyway, "region" is a neutral as it can be. A region tells you that it's a "portion of the earth's surface", but not whether it's independent, recognized, etc. bogdan 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Region is fairly neutral. However, I think that what MarkStreet was objecting to, when he raised the point earlier today, was the phrase "region of the Republic of Moldova". It sort of is, and it sort of isn't. The intro paragraph is not the place to get into that in detail (we do that elsewhere).

Furthermore, Bogdan, please play fair here. You are using an EvilAlex-style argument by claiming that the issue is whether or not to call it a "country". That is NOT the case. The proposal is "unrecognized country" which is a whole different ball of wax altogether, and a much less controversial proposal than merely "country". In fact, for accuracy's sake, it is a more common definition of Transnistria than the phrase "region of Moldova". In all the major lists of countries, including here on Wikipedia, Transnistria is listed as an unrecognized country: here, here and here so this proposal is hardly anything new to Wikipedia or radical at all. It has been debated by other editors on the Talk pages of these 3 compilation lists. - Mauco 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from the Republic of Moldova in 2 September 1990.

instead of:

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence in 2 September 1990.

bogdan 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Remember, we already cover the whole Moldova/Unrecognized country debacle elsewhere, so the less of that we can have in the intro, the cleaner it is. Just one correction: take out "Republic of" because that only started in 1991. So the final wording would be:

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in Southeastern Europe which declared independence from Moldova on 2 September 1990.

OK? - Mauco 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. Be consistent with the info-box at the end of the page. Transnistria is = "Unrecognised state". Keep that. - Pernambuco 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's an "unrecognized state", still part of Moldova for all people in the world except some of the Prednistrovian people. So, the NPOV must be heavily balanced towards the status quo. Dpotop 06:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Broadly agree with whats been suggested by all above but would like to see the final version to ensure its fair and accurate. Remember its not what you, they or we think , its about what it is MarkStreet Oct 24 2006

To me the phrase 'Unrecognised state' is a bit confusing. A state is often part of a larger country, so even if Transnistria did officially join Moldova it would still be called Transnistria and be a state. I think that most people who are pro joining Moldova see Transnistria as a state of Moldova already. So anyway I think 'unrecognised country' is better, which reflects the fact the most of the world does not see it as a country but also the fact that it's government (at the moment at least) is trying to make it so that it is a country. I also agree that 'region of Moldova' suggests a point of view and shouldn't be used.--Jonathanpops 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jonathanpops, Bogdan already switched that to "a region which declared independence from Moldova" which is NOT the same as saying "a region of Moldova", so I have to correct you, and with regards to the "unrecognized state" argument, Pernambuco's point was that this is the term used on the page already (in the large infobox at the very end of the page). If that is wrong, then the info box is wrong, and Pernambuco just argued that it should be kept in that phrase in order to have consistency in the page. It is similar to how we use Transnistria throughout, even though others use Transdniester and Trans-Dniestria and other names like that. We then have a section where we explain the whole thing in detail (just like we do with the names). - Mauco 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see Jonathanpops' point here, the use of the word country is a more precise definition than 'state' given that 'state has two meanings it would cause confusion. MarkStreet Oct23rd 2006.

Guys, you are going in circles. I, myself, think "unrecognized country" is best, but others (Pernambuco, Dpotop, and Bogdan) do not agree. Should we try to convince them? So far it is 3 against 3, but this is not about who has the most "votes" but about who makes the most logical sense.

As an alternative, Bogdan proposed "region" but the two other users don't agree with that. They both instead prefer "unrecognized state". I am open to that compromise, too. I agree that it is a bit confusing, BUT the argument from Pernambuco is that it is part of the infobox at the end of the page and Dpotop agrees. I can accept that, too, just to get the whole thing solved. Not perfect, IMHO, but some the others think so which means I am OK to compromise as well. - Mauco 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongy disagree, using 'State' is highjly confusing because state is another word for provisional county. It is offically a country albeit not recognised, therefore that's exactly what it should be called. I checked with Century Traveller Club and they say its officially deemed a country. Hopefully thats that.MarkStreet Oct 24th 2006.

Instead of region, and avoiding the whole official/unofficial/recognized/unrecognized, since the "PMR" does have specific boundaries, perhaps: Transnistria ("Pridnestrovie") is a territory in Southeastern Europe which declared independence from Moldova on 2 September 1990. I'm sorry, but we have to do better than quoting travel agencies as authoritative sources. Ten years after Latvian independence the British Tourism Board published a brochure about Latvia stating that the 3 stars on the Freedom Monument in Riga represented the 3 Baltic States, and that the monument was built to thank Stalin for liberating them from the Nazis. Let's be serious. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so to summarize: We have four proposals - "region", "territory", "unrecognized state", and "unrecognized country". Actually, all of that should be dealt with IN DETAIL, including Moldova's territorial claim and the lack of recognition, but right now, we are only looking at how to phrase the introductory sentence. It should be as neutral and accurate as possible. Please don't vote on it because it is not a popularity contest, it is about how we can best summarize things without showing bias against the Moldovan position or the Transnistrian position. - Mauco 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Century Travel Club is not a travel agency, best research before commenting please, but I agree that it is not an absolute authority. The point is Transnistria is deemed an unrecognised country, it is not a nice thing to call it, they may find it insulting but that is what it is. To further downgrade it to a 'region' or 'territory' is not being accurate. It passes all and every aspect of being a country and is listed as one on Wikipedia's own list of countries. It is pure political game playing to downgrade it to ' Territory'. I agree that Moldova's claim should be including. That is fai. It is also proper to point out that the international community has of yet failed or refuses to recognised the de-facto independence. But and this is key. We cannot shy away from the FACT that Transnistria is a country with its own, Parliment, Consitution, Army, Currency, Borders, Customs, posts, Unique police force, its own President, Ministers. Can anyone think of anything else a country must have before its a country. It is listed as a country everywhere else on Wikipedia, Clearly it has to be listed here. The debate should be whether it is deemed a 'country or unrecognised country. Mauco's inclusion of region and territory are not appropiate or even scientific.

As a country the only thing is does not have is 'recognition'. Therefore to be sensitive mention that MarkStreet 24 Oct

Because MarkStreet reopened the issue of how we define Transnistria, here is my proposal: Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova under Russian military occupation.--MariusM 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Does not sound very neutral. The other four proposals are more neutral. My own suggestion is to just be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. If they use one particular term we do the same. That term is appropriate on all other pages so why not also here? - Pernambuco

It may sound not neutral, but is true. Russian Army is there and was there from the begining of the creation of PMR. Without Russian Army, today we would not have the subject of our disputes here in Wikipedia.--MariusM 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is true, there is a whole section to indulge in that. We are only discussing the intro sentence, and there have been several proposals for how to make it sound as clear and neutral as possible, I agree with the user who says that your idea is not neutral. It is similar to MarkStreet who wants to call the place a "country" with no ifs, ands or buts. Both of you have your arguments, and in a way, his argument is true as well (if you follow international law, see elsewhere on this Talk page for examples). However, the intro sentence is not the place for neither of you to pursue extremes. - Mauco 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with you Mauco, My position is factual. Marius' statement about Russian troops is not correct. There are no troops in TD per-se , there is an international peace keeping corp of which Russian troops play a role along with Ukrainian and others.. They are only on the border to keep sides divided. The vast majority of TD residents want the peacekeepers so we cannot call then an army of occupation. Marius was only joking I doubt he ever really considered his statement a real effort, In fairness mine was. So please Mauco stop treating me as an extremist. MarkStreet Oct 25th 2006

Yes, I agree. I can see now that the statement from MariusM was only proposed in jest. However, we call that "trolling" and it would be better to argue on one of the 3 or 4 proposed alternatives, instead of coming up with something new which he already knows will not be accepted by other editors and where there is zero chance of reaching consensus. - Mauco 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a final decision yet? Otherwise I can propose one. I think that the best wording is to follow how the place is called on the rest of Wikipedia. This is how we achieve standardization of Wikipedia. I have no preference. If you see above, all I want is consistency. Best is if this page uses the same terms and phrases that the rest of Wikipedia has. - Pernambuco 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as you stick to established Wikipedia standards for the phrasing and don't invent something new or controversial then I also am fine with all or most of the proposals which the other editors put forward in this section. Go ahead and add neutral phrasing because the lack of entries here in this section, for most of this week, is a good indicator that there is no longer any controversy over this point. - Mauco 20:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

well good. I used the suggestions from bogdan and part of Jonathanpops and changed my own original suggestion. Now it matches with the same wording of what the various lists and templates on Wikipedia all say. - Pernambuco 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that somebody "reversed" me. This was why I asked here 2 days ago if there was a final decision on this yet. The person who reversed me did not object, and no one else from this talking section objected either. Only when I made the change. What is going on with you people? - Pernambuco 17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, look who reverted you.[1] That is a perennial problem here. He had all the time in the world to participate in this discussion, and he didn't. You asked for permission, got feedback, waited a day more and then added. No one objected until it was there. If it was so important to EvilAlex, you would have thought that he could have participated in the discussion when you asked. Sometimes I think he just reverts others for the fun of it and to be disruptive, overall. You may be aware that he has said, publicly on these Talk pages, that he enjoys edit wars because otherwise life gets boring for him. - Mauco 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As Moldovans residing in the PMR vote in Moldovan elections and the PMR is not widely recognized as a country, I would question the use of "de facto independence" without tempering that statement to include the continued presence of Russian troops from the inception (whose presence is now in direct violation of international agreement by Russia). The word "autonomy" might be more appropriate as well. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is only about the word 'region', 'territory', 'unrecognized country'. If you start to introduce new elements into the mix then we will never finish. Mauco and MariusM have already agreed that the detailed information fits in a more detailed section. This part we deal with now is only the first line, it is what we call the "intro" and it is always short so you can't modify the opening sentence with more statements until later down in the same article, ok. - Pernambuco 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pernambuca and I support 'his' and the other editors negotiated decision to compromise and the agreed change. Its not ideal but its a much more accurate discription than currently there. Mark us street 7 November 2006

Should we keep the referendum sub-section?

Referendum is already 40 days old, we have a separate article on it Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I believe it will be enough to let only a short sentence about it, with a link to the main article. It was worthy to have a referendum sub-section in this article only as long as this was a current event (this was my position from the begining, see talk archive).--MariusM 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a fairly important part of the contemporary history of Transnistria. The outcome also either shows that the voters are massively opposed to unification with Moldova, or that the Central Election Commission is massively good at fraud (depending on how each individual reader chooses to interpret the results). - Mauco 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is why we have a main article. A mention of the referendum should remain, with a link to main article. In this article I believe is enough now a short sentence. Summary here, details there.--MariusM 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Marius has something of a point here, the section is not suitable unlesss a history of all constitutional refe are used MarkStreet

MariusM, you should probably propose the sentence or short section that you want to keep. Please post it here for prior review so it will be easier to evaluate it. It is a bit hard to really know what we are saying yes or no to, without seeing a concrete proposal. - Mauco 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. MarkStreet Oct 23rd

Yeah, well, apparently MariusM does not or he would work with us constructively to propose an alternative. As you can see, there are some users who just want to delete information that they don't agree with (such as the fact that nine out of ten in Transnistria don't want unification with Moldova). - Mauco 16:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for rephrasing the referendum subsection:--MariusM 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In 17 September 2006, through a referendum was aproved the possibility of a future unification with Russia.

Main article: Transnistrian referendum, 2006

That is a bit too short, in my opinion. But we can of course discuss this. Meanwhile, I am getting rid of this sentence: "No country expressed support or recognition to this referendum" since it is incorrect. After the referendum, Russia's State Duma supported the referendum with 419 votes in favor and not a single vote against. It can also be argued (although this is a much less clear-cut case) that the referendum received a certain level of support by Ukraine's parliament. There is a parliamentary statement which says that the will of the people of Transnistria should be treated with respect, referring specifically to the refendum results. This "support" is of course different from recognition, which Ukraine specificially DID NOT give. - Mauco 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember the statement of Ukrainian foreign ministry? Something like: "The condition in Transnistria does not allow the free expression of the will of the people". Details are in Transnistrian referendum, 2006.--MariusM 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I was not referring to that, but to the more recent post-referendum parliamentary statement[2],[3] which includes the words "People had their say in a recent referendum in Transdniestria and their opinion must be respected." While this was clearly not a statement of recognition, it could be argued that this was a statement of support. It was issued by Oleksandr Moroz, the Speaker of Ukraine's parliament (the Verkhovna Rada), and he also said that "The Ukrainian president and prime minister share this approach." In light of this, a prior statement by Ukraine's foreign ministry can clearly not be seen as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There are several angles to this issue and the newest statement shared by Parliament, President and Prime Minister is in contradiction to the previous one by the Foreign Ministry. - Mauco 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All those details should be included in the main article. General article about Transnistria is already too long, this is why I propose to keep only a sentence about referendum with a link to main article, as referendum is not anymore a recent story. Political declaration usually are not "the whole truth and nothing but the truth". As you know, pro-Russian forces obtained power in Ukraine, the reason of recent declaration are in internal politics, not in truth.--MariusM 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not adding this favorable-to-Transnistria statement to the main Transnistria article. But you are wrong on the motivation argument: the President of Ukraine (who shares the latest statement of implicit/limited support for Transnistria's referendum) is hardly pro-Russian. If I were you, I would not speculate on the reasons for the recent declaration, just as I and other editors did not speculate about the reasons for the contradictory Foreign Ministry statement. Both statements simply exist and it is not our job to determine Wikipedia:Truth because there is no such policy. - Mauco 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove important referendum summary until there is overall agreement. MariusM, You asked, and you were told no. The referendum was held 43 days ago. It was the most important political event of Transnistria in 2006. Why remove it from the article?

In comparison, the same user (MariusM) recently added some old and completely outdated information from 2001 about some banned politicial parties (which are not banned anymore. There are no banned parties in Transnistria today, but of course the reader of our article wouldn't know that. He thinks that parties are banned because MariusM exists that a description of what internal politics was like five year ago should still be included today, and is still relevant even though the situation has changed enormously since then). - Mauco 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove the mention on referendum, I kept a summary and a link to main article. Don't start again with your claim about wonderfull transnistrian democracy.--MariusM 00:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you know of any political parties which are banned in Transnistria today, please supply the source. There have been important political developments in the past 5 years in Transnistria, like it or not. No parties or political movements are banned, and the old information which you added recently is no longer valid or current. It dates back to 2001 and does not accurately reflect the current state of affairs. To a reader who does not know about Transnistria, this insistence on emphasis on something which is no longer true is in itself a lack of NPOV. - Mauco 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No real changes in Transnistria, as Smirnov is still in power, info is relevant. What you are saying is only propaganda.--MariusM 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. Lots of expert commentators and analysts have identified a real opposition in Transnistria today, see e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. If you are not aware of the substantial political changes which have taken place in Transnistria since 2001 then I do not know what you are doing on this page. But thank you for confirming that you do not know of any politicial parties which are banned. I don't know of any either. It is not a perfect democracy, of course, but at least there are no banned parties in Transnistria and that is a huge improvement over the situation five years ago. This fact should be cheered by all friends of democracy, it should not be blasted as propaganda. - Mauco 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, we are talking about referendum subsection. Can you come with a proposal for shortening this section?--MariusM 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am currently OK with the version that we have now. It is short and to the point. - Mauco 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the referendum was very important in TD, Indeed it is fair to say had 97% of the people called for a unification with Moldova Marius would be calling for a massive 'up in lights' section to further his opinion. Its current format is very small and accurate factualy and is not in the least bit victorionic so I think we'll agree to keep it as is and move on Nov7 Mark us street

Political status

On the main page under the policy of accuracy I request the following changes be made and invite opinion on the matters. Firstly, I believe that date of independence 2nd Sept 1990 should be inserted. Secondly, it should be clearly stated that the Transnistrian government is in full command and control of Transnistria. Thirdly, i request the incorrect POV that the country is under 'the effective authority of Russia' be removed. There is no basis of truth let alone evidence that this is the case. Clearly the TD government is completely independent from Russian authority and enact their own laws in their own parliment without interference. 25th Oct 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkStreet (talk • contribs)

The territory under control of the PMR is not independent (though obviously you can indicate that something was declared). The "Transnistrian government" is not in full control of Transnistria, if it were, the (what you term) "peace-keeping" force would not be required. There's no basis in truth the "country" is under Russian control? Viz:

• SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich — “President”, born on 23 October 1941 in Khabarovsk, Russian Federation, Russian passport No 50 NO. 0337530
• SMIRNOV, Vladimir Igorevich, son of SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich — Chairman of the “State” Customs Committee, born on 3 April 1961 in Kupiansk (?), Kharkovskaya Oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 50 NO. 00337016
• SMIRNOV, Oleg Igorevich, son of SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich — Adviser to the “State” Customs Committee, born on 8 August 1967 in Novaya Kakhovka, Khersonskaya Oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 60 NO. 1907537
• ANTYUFEYEV, Vladimir Yuryevich, alias SHEVTSOV, Vadim — “Minister for State Security”, born in 1951 in Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, Russian passport
• KOROLYOV, Alexandr Ivanovich, “Minister for Internal Affairs”, born in 1951 in Briansk, Russian Federation, Russian passport.

The Russian government does not need to force anyone to do anything, the whole operation is run by Russians (who pop up periodically in Moscow for regular consultations). And let's not forget the Russian troops were supposed to withdraw, when was it, in 1999? The entire so-called "peackeeping force" is there in direct violation of an international agreement that Russia signed and now refuses to comply with because its co-opting of sovereign Moldavian territory has not gone as smoothly as it hoped it would. Instead of Russia honoring its international obligations, the Russian Duma passes unanimous resolution hailing its Transdniestrian breathren. Russia not controlling events? Please! You can state the PMR position all you like, noting it as such, but making that the entire sense of the article would make it into nothing but PMR/Russian propaganda. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Emotional language is not needed to state your case. Nor do you need to put the peacekeeping force in sarcastic quotes. It is a peacekeeping force. It is keeping the peace. It is keeping the peace very succesfully. Since it started operating, not a single person has died. It is also not made up of Russians exclusively. Four different sides are involved. Three of them provide soldiers, and one (Ukraine) provides military observers. Moldova provides MORE soldiers to the peacekeeping force than Russia does. It was established by an agreement with Moldova. Moldova is a party to this agreement. It has not withdrawn or ended the agreement. The agreement is still in force. This is not PMR/Russian propaganda, but the opposite. - Mauco 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, just as the links section is divided into PMR and Moldova, the same should be done to annotate the footnotes, that is, —Moldova or —PMR. That will stop argument about who is citing what/whose "side." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It would be unwieldly, and a "first" for Wikipedia. Whenever a source is mentioned which is biased, we make note of that in the article. For instance, I consider the EU list (which you quote) as useless and worse than bad. It is full of errors, as I have documented. This is why I only agreed to include it with the disclaimer that this is the EU's opinion. Then readers can decide for themselves if they will take it at face value. - Mauco 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark, the date of the independence proclamation is already mentioned 3 times in the article: In the intro sentence, in the infobox (right hand side) and in the history section. Isn't that enough? Remember that the idea here is to present the information in an easy format, but not to repeat things that we like at every turn. - Mauco 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

About Russia's involvement, yes, the section can be improved. First, we have this sentence:
The Russian authorities contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist government in Transnistria. Militarily, this is debatable. You have heard the old saw that "winners write history", right? Well, in this case, there are no clear winners ... and as a result, there are two different versions of history. The Moldovan side overstates Russia's role. The Russian side tries to minimize it. ECHR was divided between a majority opinion and some fairly substantial minority arguments of a good segment of their judges. Jamason has started to work on some indepth research, and it has been covered by some German scholars in the recent past too. As regards our sentence, the word "contributed" is a bit imprecise but it wouldn't necessarily be inaccurate.
Next sentence:
The PMR remained under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of Russia, and in any event it survived by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support that Russia gave it.
This is crapola. Even the author of the sentence knew the problem. "PMR is under Russian authority" .. erm.... "Well, maybe not, but at the very least under decisive Russian influence" ... wait, hold on, maybe not that either ... "well, at least at any event, then it survives because of Russian help..."
So what is it? If we are not sure, it shouldn't be included. If we are sure, then that should be included and it should be accurate. Russia has certainly given aid to PMR, but so has Ireland, and the United States' State Department, and several other countries within the last year alone. - Mauco 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the use of the word 'serparatist'. It could be argued that Moldova is the Separatist state too. As a compromise the word should be dropped for both TD and MD, Please note that Ukraine also provodes peace keepers. .MarkStreet 25 oct.2006.

May I add that smuggling issue has been dismissed as bogus by the EU monitors. It should now go tooMarkStreet oct 26

Ilaşcu

I would like to improve on the following sentence (which is part of the 'Human Rights' section):
"In the best-known such case, Ilie Ilaşcu, and three other politicians in favour of Moldovan union with Romania, were sentenced to death by Transnistria authority.
First of all, he (like the others) was not a politician at the time of his arrest or his sentencing. They became politicians while imprisoned.
Second, it sounds like he was sentenced to death because he favored Moldovan unification with Romania. This was not mentioned at his trial at all. His activities were also not political carried out as a politician at the time. They were very violent, and he has never hidden that fact (even today, while in freedom, he still advocates violent action to reach political goals).
Third, only Ilaşcu got the death sentence (later changed and then commuted). The other three did not. The current sentence makes it sound like all four got sentenced to death. They never did. We are not writing a political screed here. This is important in an encyclopedia which is committed to just reporting the facts. If we know that something is wrong, it is our duty to correct it. - Mauco 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Wasn't he the local leader of the Popular Front organization at the time? 2) I think that's the truth, in addition to the murders. 3) Actually, I didn't notice that part. Of course, only he got the death sentence, the others were imprisoned for 20 some years... Hm, their articles don't indicate the duration, strange... --Illythr 01:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

1. He was the leader of the local (Transnistria branch) of the Popular Front. They, at the time, wanted unification with Romania. Of course his activities were politically motivated. He and his group were not using political means, however. They never hid the fact that they believed in violence in order to bring about political change. This was not a position wholly shared by all of the Popular Front, of course. In fact, the Front's Transnistria-based branch split in two because of a letter which Ilaşcu published in a local newspaper, where he called for some really drastic measures that many (most, in fact) of the Front's followers did not agree with. This left him with his little core group.

2. He was tried for the murders. There is a lot of controversy about this. However, probably the key is that, as far as I know, he never denied the murders, not even after he got out. His whole defense was based on the premise that he wouldn't recognize the authority of the court to try him. This was the same defense that Milošević used in The Hague, and which Saddam Hussein is now using in his trial.

3. Ilaşcu got death sentence (but was released in 2004). Leşco got 12 years, but was released in 2001 (after serving 9). Petrov-Popa and Ivanţoc got 15 years each, and have so far served 13. They will be out in 2008, barring early release. I will add the duration of these sentences to their articles now. - Mauco 04:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: They were not tried by some homemade "Transnistrian law" but according to the Criminal Code of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic. The prosecutors and judges were real prosecutors and judges who had been appointed by MSSR. Of course, the MSSR did not exist at the time of the trial but many of the laws were still in force, as you will recall. - Mauco 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the grounds that the court which had convicted them did not have jurisdiction and that, at all events, the proceedings which had led to their conviction had not been fair. They also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the confiscation of their possessions, and maintained that their detention had been unlawful, contrary to Article 5. Mr. Ilaşcu further complained of a violation of Article 2 on account of his being sentenced to death. All the applicants complained in addition of the conditions of their detention, relying expressly on Articles 3 and 8 and, in substance, Article 34.
Mr Petrov-Popa and Mr Leşco had been denied access to a lawyer until June 2003.
The Court held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release.[12]

Proposal:
In the best-known such case, Ilie Ilaşcu, a politicians in favour of Moldovan union with Romania, was sentenced to death by Transnistria authority. Three other (names..) were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
EvilAlex 11:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposal. That sentence is factually wrong. Please read what this particular talk page says on the subject. - Mauco 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal2:
In the best-known such case, Ilie Ilaşcu, a politicians in favour of Moldovan union with Romania, was sentenced to death by Transnistrian authority. The other applicants were sentenced to terms of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment with confiscation of their property.

"Applicants"? Don't copyvio, please. I will work you on a better proposal, but isn't it important to mention why he and his group was convicted, and the detail that Ilascu never denied his murders? - Mauco 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: why he and his group was convicted. Because of his political believes.
Re: Ilascu never denied his murders. He pleaded innocent on his trial
EvilAlex 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his defense was based on the premise that he wouldn't recognize the authority of the court to try him. This was the same defense that Milošević used in The Hague, and which Saddam Hussein is now using in his trial. Did you read some of the interviews that he gave to the press? He was proud of his group's violent methods and felt that terrorism was the right way to effect quick social change at the time. He currently lives in Romania and still gives interviews. He is a notable public figure and quite outspoken. - Mauco 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

He pleaded innocent to ALL chargers and court verdict was: "The Court held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release."[13]
If you disagree with decision from European Court of human Rights then good luck to you it is you chose .
Re: "He was proud of his group's violent methods and felt that terrorism was the right way to effect quick social change at the time." Any Ref: to prove your statement or should i believe you again? EvilAlex 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

EvilAlex, I should have clarified: Ilascu did not recognize the authority of the Transnistrian court to try him. He did, of course, recognize ECHR, in fact, he himself was the petitioner! I have the deepest respect for the European Court of Human Rights and the work that they do. AFAIK, he never denied the two murders but merely questioned the (Transnistrian) courts jurisdiction in the matter. As for references, I will be glad to provide references for the full and final edit which we decide should be included in the article. If it includes a mention of his public advocacy for violent government overthrow (read: terrorism), then I will of course provide source citations for that as well. If not, then it is unrelated to the edit and you can do your own research, buddy. - Mauco 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So many words and no References at all. Please prove your position. Ref, ref, ref.... EvilAlex 14:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Read: As for references, I will be glad to provide references for the full and final edit which we decide should be included in the article. If it includes a mention of his public advocacy for violent government overthrow (read: terrorism), then I will of course provide source citations for that as well. If not, then it is unrelated to the edit and you can do your own research, buddy. - Mauco 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not me who accuses him of murder. In any normal society the basis of a fundamental right is innocent until proven guilt. You the one who makes accusations - you the one who will have to prove it. My position is backed by fundamental right - based on this he is innocent. Remember innocent until proven guilt. You cant just accuse anyone of murder and then say "do your own research". Put up or shut up EvilAlex 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just been reading this page but I don't think that anyone was accusing anyone else of murder. You should both fight less. - Pernambuco 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Full protection

Well, unfortunately we just earned ourselves full protection thanks to the more and more frequent pointless and seemingly endless edit wars. It should come as no surprise that what triggered this move, finally, was a gross blanking of some fully sourced and uncontroversial United Nations information by EvilAlex [14], without even mentioning it here in Talk or attempting to seek any form of consensus with the other editors.

May I suggest to all that we use this "time out" as productively as possible, and try to work out some of the pending issues. This includes the definition of the phrasing for the intro section, as well as the issue raised by MarkStreet on how to rephrase the Russian involvement, plus my own suggestion that one of the sentences under human rights (dealing with Ilaşcu) can be made more precise. I also believe that MariusM will give us a proposal for how to shorten the referendum section, so it is not as if we are lacking in work. Hopefully we can use this time to settle on some mutually agreed phrasing, so that we are ready and in full agreement when protection gets lifted. Maybe I am hoping for too much? - Mauco 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your ref: http://www.undp.md/main/seesac_eng.shtml does not confirm your climes that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking. Report recommends that the Moldova Government develops a targeted programme to improve small arms control. Also is says that territory under the control of Transdniestrian authorities is highly militarisedthe, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown.
You put your words in UNDP mouth. EvilAlex 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the full report. It supports all the statements which you tried to delete and blank, without any discussion or prior consensus. If you thought that something was wrong, why did you not ask first? That is what the Talk page is for. We discuss changes. We don't just delete whole sections of sourced information that we don't agree with. The latter is called vandalism, and it was your little stunt which caused the page to be locked down under full protection this time. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

no it is not. read full report and compare to your paragraph you will find huge misinterpretation. EvilAlex 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Such as? It would help if you could give proof and EXAMPLES instead of just throwing accusations around. I quote from official policy of Wikipedia, WP:CIVIL, which says that behavior which contribute to an uncivil environment includes: "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute." EvilAlex, please participate in a respectful and civil way. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.- Mauco 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The latest research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking'. Can you show me that part in UNDP the document? Lets use exact words from the report and not your imagination (EVILs and DEVILs). And that paragraph will not sound so firm. EvilAlex 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The "latest research" is the report (source has been given). The report does not say outright that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking. It indicates it. The indication clear as water in several places in the main report, and also so important that they decided to include it in the summary. In the summary, it is less pronounced but still present, for instance by stating that production and trafficking of weapons has been exaggerated, and that there is no reliable evidence (at the time of the writing of the report, in other words 2006) that this is currently happening. If this is not an indication of a non-event, then I do not know how else you would define that word. I take it that English might not be your native language and that you are more comfortable speaking Romanian? If so, then there is also a Romanian version, and it says the exact same thing. - Mauco 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: It indicates it. If it indicates it then you decided to make report perfect by placing your words there. great! Lets use exact words.
Товариш Mако мой родной язык Русский. EvilAlex 18:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia so we are better off using English, and as you yourself admitted (albeit half-heartedly), my use of the word "indicates" is the correct word for the summary of the conclusions of the United Nations report. - Mauco 12:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We going to use citations from UNDP and not your words. It "indicates" to you, to me there is such citations as:"territory under the control of Transdniestrian authorities is highly militarisedthe, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown", which you yourself ignored. As i said before you have changed report so that it sounds perfect for you. EvilAlex 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On topic: We have a United Nations report which is clear on the issue. All other credible sources now say the same thing. There are no weapons factories in Transnistria and no weapons exports, no weapons smuggling, etc. This is a point which has been made public over and over again throughout 2005 and 2006: by Western diplomats, OSCE, the international weapons inspectors, the European Union, United Nations, etc. Does anyone here seriously believe otherwise? - Mauco 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is strange that no one answered this question after a whole week. I can not say yes or no but but I am interested in hearing the answer from others. - Pernambuco 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: There are no weapons factories in Transnistria and no weapons exports, no weapons smuggling
I would like to see references that would support this statement. In particular i am interested in seeing Refs to OSCE, Refs to European Union
Re:We have a United Nations report which is clear on the issue.
No we not. Your statement is not supported and cannot be verified by your refs. Non of the respected organization will say There are no weapons factories in Transnistria and no weapons exports, no weapons smuggling.. it is too blatant. Nobody would like to put their reputation on the line for a regime that have been accused in the past. I repeat again You did not provided any refs to support you claim! EvilAlex 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for answering, finally. I don't that the person who asked the question likes your answer but at least you answered him and that is very good, and I was interested in hearing about this myself so I can learn more. I really want to become more active in this article later on. This is really a fascinating article. Have they only been accused in the past, or is there actually any evidence or proof to back up those accusations? It is an interesting subject. - Pernambuco 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

Indeed, Mauco, could you give me page numbers where it is said, as you claim, that "foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control?". I presume you know them, otherwise you qualify yourself as a troll, and should be banned for spreading false information. Dpotop 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened to assuming good faith? Before you accuse other editors spreading false information and before you start throwing words like "troll" around, you must check the source which is provided. There are links to the full report, and if you are lazy and don't want to read the full report, there are also links to executive summaries. Both of them fully and completely support the statements included in your article. They are available in three languages, including your own tongue (Romanian). - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

EvilAlex, I suggest we wait until Mauco replies. If he does not, or if he does not answer this question, we should report him as a troll (through an RfC). Dpotop 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would love an RfC, and maybe we should ask what vandalism is? That might be when someone shows up on a controversial page, goes straight to mainspace, starts deleting perfectly correct, good, true and fully sourced information which was part of a stable version of the page, and then only joins the Talk page discussion AFTER his pageblanking activity gets restored. Dpotop, to date, all of your edits have been highly POV and the particular sentence which you removed has now been restored. There was never any controversy about until MariusM solicited your services and made you become more active on this page. While discussing this with you, you became uncivil and started to impose your own criteria for sources, and your disruptive behavior generally took valuable resources away from editing. It is interesting that you are accusing others of the very same behavior which you yourself is engaging in. We can agree to disagree, but it would be good if you can concentrate on the facts and stop with trying to discredit other editors or their sources just because they don't fit with your Romanian world-view. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And report yourself for the same offence when you are there Dpotop, it wil save me the time of doing it., MarkStreet 26th 2006

Ok, I'll file one on you, too, for lies. I never put in the text information for which I did not have the source. Dpotop 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me !!! On this page alone you claimed that my contributions we being made by me on behalf of my employer, please supply the 'source' for that. Now you have coupled that by excusing me of lying. So twice on this page you have outdione yourself . If you have the good manners and good grace to excuse yourself I'm happy enough to let it go and it won't go any further than here. MarkStreet 26th 2006/

Yes, since dpotop is so quick on requesting sources, now it is his turn to back up his words with facts. All the stuff about how only people who are paid by Transnistria agrees with Transnistria is a cheap shot at discrediting those people who do not share his views and the views of his fellow Romanians. Now, please note that there is an official policy here on civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. No one should be like dpotop and go around and threaten people with an RfC as a way to get their own views imposed. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile Mauco should provide evidence to his edits, In fact the entire article should have the same criteria , which it does not 26th MarkStreet

Main points, from page 5 of the Executive Summary of SALW Survey: "Evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transdniestria has in the past been exaggerated (...) There is no reliable evidence (...) The Transdniesterian authorities regulate the use and and possession (...) Transparency (...) evidenced by good levels of co-operation in some areas during the research for this report." There are lots more of this, in detail, in the full report. Everything which is currently included in the article related to this subject is verified and fully backed up by the report which the United Nations published. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so let's compare what the report says and what you say:

• Report: "While the Transdnistrean authorities have a history of low transparency on SALW issues, attitudes may be changing, as evidenced by the good levels of cooperations in some areas during the research for this report."
• You: "foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control"

To me, "some areas" means "not all areas", and "attitudes may be changing" is not "there is currently transparency and good levels of cooperation". To me, the text from the report is OK. Yours isn't. Dpotop 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See below for full answer. And, if anything, the United Nations report considers Transnistria to be more transparent in the field of weapons control than Moldova. Here is what it says about Moldova: "Levels of transparency within government ministries on topics relating to SALW vary widely." - Mauco 17:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So, on one side you have Moldova: There is detailed information (4 pages) about state structures in Moldova, and the fire-arm crime is at normal European levels. Free press, NGO, a.s.o. And, guess what, the Ministry of Defence is more secretive. One would say Britain, Ireland, or even the US.

Now, on Transnistria you have far more documented weapons for a population that is 5 times smaller. There is an unknown number of weapons wondering free in the nature, and an undocumented number of weapons in Russian hands. There is no information on the so-called government. NGOs and journalists (including, probably, our fellow editor Mark Street from the Tiraspol Times) is, I cite, "either unwilling or unable" to investigate weapon smuggling (I wonder why). And because "attitudes maybe changing" you say that it's better than in Moldova?

Come on, you can't be serious. :) Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder why a commission interested in fire arms spent 4 pages on Moldova and only 1 on Transnistria, given than the situation is more delicate in Transnistria. Maybe because there is less transparency? Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps they feel that the problem is worse in Moldova. Surely you are already aware that Moldova exports weapons, right? Whereas in the case of Transnistria, there have been a lot of propaganda-accusations but no proof or hard evidence, ever. There is a difference. You may also want to know what EUBAM (the European Union's border monitors who are stationed on the border with Transnistria) have to say on this matter, in their official reports. - Mauco 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we ONLY use what is in the report, word for word, but Thanks Mauco for coming back. MarkStreet26th Oct

Drotop, are you splitting hairs? Surely you, more than anyone, should know about copyvio. We always rephrase on Wikipedia. What were the foreign experts trying to say? The gist of that is included in my summary, just not word for word. If in doubt, please read their full report and not just the exective summary. Selective interpretations to fit a Romanian view of Transnistria are not neutral and are not welcome. - Mauco 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Mauco "We always rephrase on Wikipedia" in other words Mauco will always put his words in somebody's mouth. EvilAlex 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:COPYVIO if you are not yet aware of why we have to rephrase on Wikipedia. Thank you. - Mauco 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why do you always seem to rephrase decent text into propaganda? You sound like a spin doctor payed by some Mafia boss to build a decent image. Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have a comment related to the editing of the main article, then please state it. Otherwise, I would kindly request that you refrain from speculating on personal issues involving editors that you have a conflict dispute with. It is highly inappropriate to imply that another editor is here because he is being paid to do his work, and truly below the belt to include words like "mafia boss" in the text. - Mauco 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you're talking about COPYVIO, you also probably know about FAIR USE. Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I do, and if you read my answer to EvilAlex, you will see that it not specifically directed at this particular edit but a general, Wikipedia wide response. As such, it stands. - Mauco 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And my advise to you to read WP:TROLL EvilAlex 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Which I why I specifically should NOT reply to the above comment... - Mauco 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody with any reading comprehension skills can look to the example Dpotop gave above and see that Mauco is rephrasing "decent text into propaganda," and there are many similar instances of this. This is "splitting hairs"? At some point, one has to stop assuming good faith. --Pēteris Cedriņš 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. Your invitation to assume bad faith is also uncalled for. It would be more useful and constructive if you would provide an alternative way of phrasing the same information. There is no evidence of any weapons production. Period. There is no evidence of any weapons smuggling. Period. The United Nations report says this, using the best possible diplomatic language they can. - Mauco 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. Yeah, I guess. Try handing the phrase and your rephrasing to anybody not familiar with the discussion and asking whether your version bears a close resemblance to the original. I'm a translator, dear Mauco, and am often compelled to interpret. Try it, Mauco, seriously. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At least EvilAlex is giving us suggestions for rephrasing, which is more than we can say about you. He has a track record of being disruptive, but in this case, he is actually being more helpful than you are. It is also funny how you claim to be a translator. This is the exact same job as your sockpuppet, User:Anna Planeta. - Mauco 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't use sockpuppets and have never done so; I sign with my real name, always, and you will find links to some of my translations on my user page. I don't know what's so "funny" about translators knowing other translators. --Pēteris Cedriņš 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. Thank you for clearing that up. The suspicion of sockpuppetry was not levelled by me, but by an administrator.[15] In this case, you will not object to a voluntary CheckUser, will you? - Mauco 20:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fear Of Communism

One of things I encounter most as a reporter on the ground in Transnistria in regard to people fears regarding Moldova is the Communist Government that exists in Moldova. Transnistrians really hate communism, they prefer the Open Free Market Democracy of their current system that is much more western style . I think its important to state that the Transnistrians have a fear of the Old style communists . This is why the commie party does really badly in TD. Not one of my edit requests has ever been made ,yet I am the only Transnistrian voice on here. Unless things change I am going to call in higher mediators to settle matters. MarkStreet 27 2006.

Delusions, no wonder Tiraspol Times have such a poor reputations. Transnistrians really hate were there is no hot water, were they have been ruled by foreign power, were their country UNDER DE FACTO CONTROL OF RUSSIA, due to stationing of russian troops on its territory EvilAlex 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

MarkStreet, please refrain adding plain fallacies in this page. You are not a Transnistrian voice (maybe only an employee of Transnistrian government). The only transnistrian voice here is User:EvilAlex.--MariusM 11:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Marius, what happened to the much-touted "Romanian democracy"? Are you asking MarkStreet to shut up just because you disagree with his opinions? This is censorship. MarkStreet has a right to his opinion and - unlike some of your comments - all of his edits deal directly with the subject of this page. They are ON TOPIC, and he provides edit suggestions and edit requests. Now, as you know, I do not agree with him on all of his suggestions. In fact, I have rebutted most of what he suggested. But he has a right to his opinion. - Mauco 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And as for calling them "fallacies", that is what the Talk page is for. You can debate him, but you can not ask him to shut up or try to smear him (as you have tried to smear me, too) by speculating that someone is or is not an employee of the Transnistrian government. You may want to read Wikipedia policies regarding these matters. Discussion should focus on edit work, and not be a social discussion nor should it involve personal comments on other editors. - Mauco 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, MariusM, you yourself have made several edits in mainspace for which there was no consensus and for which you have been reverted. Meanwhile, MarkStreet has NOT done the same. It has been pointed out to him (by me) that he has a possible conflict of interest, and we have requested that he only edits in Talk. He has followed this request. This is in stark contrast to some of your behavior and the behavior of your colluder, EvilAlex. Both of you have a history (which I can document) of jumping right into the main page and make highly controversial edits without first discussing them with other editors in Talk. We don't always agree with MarkStreet, but his behavior here is much better than yours, and he certainly has a right to share his opinion with us here in Talk. We can then decide if we agree with him or not. - Mauco 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked MarkStreet "please refrain adding plain fallacies in this page" and Mauco is crying: Censorship! Democracy in danger! Wikipedia's rules are not followed! EVILS and DEVILS MariusM, Dpotop, EvilAlex (list is open) are making edits in the main space without Mauco's agreement! However, when MarkStreet claim "I am the only Transnistrian voice on here", this is a fallacy, as he is not born in Transnistria and don't live there, at most he is sometimes a tourist in that place.--MariusM 13:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

MarkStreet is NOT adding any fallacies anywhere. This is a TALK-page. He states his opinion. He has never made a single edit in mainspace. Now, you can be a Transnistrian voice without having been born in Transnistria. The governor of California is widely accepted as being the official voice of California in many of the most important matters, yet he was not born in California. What is your point? MarkStreet has a right to his opinion, whether or not you agree with it or not, and it is improper to ask him to stop. - Mauco 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. Let me remind you that Wikipedia Is Not A Forum, so opinions are not really relevant on talk pages. bogdan 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this sanity reminder, Bogdan. I myself added the following template to the top of this Talk page just a few days ago: "Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum." What this means is that we can not censor MarkStreet or anyone else because of their opinions, or ask them to shut up. But we can (and should) ask everyone, including MarkStreet, to only comment on issues which are relevant to editing the main article: Edit suggestions, sources, etc.

PS: I just archived the 300K-long Talk page, as Archive 7. I kept topics open where we still have some pending issues to take care of, in advance of the protection being lifted. - Mauco 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this sanity reminder, Bogdan, But it seems that Mauco decided to continue his TROLLING EvilAlex 13:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we please stop with all the namecalling around here? Be civil, all. - Mauco 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments even on this page are constantly being edited out, It's very frustrating not having a voice on this page never mind on the main page.......every agreed edit never took place. Its a complete waste of time. I have lost all faith that Transnistria can have a voice on this. If higher people in Wiki want me back in the future fine but for now I am leaving these pages. I have worked hard on presenting factual evidence for the main page, not a single edit has ever been inserted. Yet it has been widely agreed I am the only TD voice here. Imagine a USA page where USA citizens have no voice and Al Jaz writes it. MarkStreet 27th 2006

Just for the records: it was never agreed that you are the only transnistrian voice here. It was not even agreed that you are a transnistrian voice. Are you a transnistrian citizen?--MariusM 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can be "a Transnistrian voice" without having been born in Transnistria. The governor of California is widely accepted as being the official voice of California in many of the most important matters, yet he was not born in California. Mark works for the only Transnistrian news source in English. He knows the score. They deal with news from the region every day. What is your point? - Mauco 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You compare democracy with dictatorship. Governor of California was chosen by people. In Transnistria Smirnov and others have been appointed. Lets ask the people what they wont and not the representatives of the government. And I am people, I am Transnistrian :) EvilAlex 23:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that some people believe Transnistria to be a dictatorship. Others don't agree. There will be another election in December and it will be interesting to observe how it plays out. Meanwhile, the claim that Smirnov was appointed is an exceptional claim which would require some exceptional substantiation if you want to include that in mainspace. - Mauco 01:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:There will be another election in December
Santa Barbara (TV series) episode 20. EvilAlex 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If the USA page was written by Al Jazeera, it would look more or less like the Transnistria page does right now: With information that "yes, there is a democracy, but it is really only a sham" and a huge emphasis on crime, terrorism and weapons smuggling (much of which does not exist, as per the reports by EU, OSCE, U.N., etc). You should reconsider and don't let ultra-nationalist Romanians scare you away. The person who told that your voice in the discussion was not welcome was clearly out of line. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion. - Mauco 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: If the USA page was written by Al Jazeera, it would look more or less like the Transnistria page does right now.
Mauco you are not so bad,you can be funny. EvilAlex 13:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Terlezki was a British politician and considered the voice of his voters in Cardiff. But he was not born in Cardiff (or even in England), but near Transnistria. You can be the voice of someone without necessarily having been born in the area. What matters is that you represent a constituency and that the constituents - the voters - have elected you as their man. - Mauco 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that User:MarkStreet received the votes of Transnistrians, or what?--MariusM 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No. To clarify: My point is that a person can be the voice of a certain place without necessarily having born there. I have given some examples of that, and will be glad to give many more if that is needed to drive the point home. It is a very valid position; proven amply throughout the history of the past century. - Mauco 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Weapons Trafficking suggestion

1. OK Proposal instead of this:
The latest research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking.[38] It states that evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, and affirms that although there is a likelihood that trafficking of light weapons could have occurred before 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs. It also states that the same holds true for the production of such weapons, which is likely to have been carried out in the 1990s primarily to equip the local law enforcement but which are no longer produced. These findings echo previous declarations by Transnistria that it is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons.[39]

This one:
The latest survey published by the United Nations Development Programme UNDP states that the territory under the control of Transnistrian authorities is highly militarised, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown however the evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, while trafficking of weapons is likely to have occurred prior to 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs. It also states that the same holds true for the production of such weapons, which is likely to have been carried out in the 1990s primarily to equip Transnistrian forces.

A survey is the same as research. No need to change. UNDP can be included. We do the same for OSCE and other abbreviations. And why do you want to delete Transnistria's opinion? These are the official statements. They matter in a page about Transnistria. - Mauco 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It says that it was a survey not a research research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilAlex (talk • contribs)

And how is a survey not research? How is a sandwich not food? - Mauco 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets use words from the UNDP document and not discuss the nature on a nature. For more see WP:TROLL EvilAlex 12:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: And why do you want to delete Transnistria's opinion? The Link is broken, and also it points to the pridnestrovie.net not a reliable site for references. EvilAlex 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not the arbiter of which site is a reliable reference. You are the owner (and tried to include in Wikipedia) of the hardly-objective Transnistria.ru.ru and besides, the statements by Transnistria (that they do not manufacture weapons) are not published only on http://www.Pridnestrovie.net but are common knowledge and can be found in at least a dozen other places. - Mauco 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The Link works for me, at least. But if you want even more sources added which show that the statement is true, we can certainly do so. - Mauco 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between placing a link and referencing to it. How would you feel if I will start referencing to Transnistria.ru.ru ? How about this Transnistria UNDER DE FACTO CONTROL OF RUSSIA, due to stationing of russian troops on its territory and a nice reference to Transnistria.ru.ru? EvilAlex 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, http://www.Pridnestrovie.net is of course the appropriate place to quote from. We are stating that the official position of Transnistria is X-Y-Z, and we are referring to their official website as reference to support what they say. It does not matter if we agree with them, or with anything that the site says. We can refer to an official website of the White House as a source for an official White House statement. That does not mean that we have to agree with all (or even anything) that the White House says. I am surprised that I have to even spend my time mentioning this to EvilAlex, who has been called a "veteran editor" over and over again by one of his colluders (by User:MariusM). It is Wikipedia 101. - Mauco 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: These findings echo previous declarations by Transnistria that it is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons.[39]
The findings does not support this statement. There is no indication that Transnistria is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons. I repeat: Transnistria is highly militarised, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown, the denial by Transnistrian authority the full access to international monitors to investigate allegations of illidt SALW... and so on EvilAlex 13:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And how, may I ask, would that quote be an indication that Transnistria manufactures or exports weapons? Please... Get real here. Of course the area is militarized. What on earth else would you expect? The area is a FROZEN CONFLICT, for crying out loud. Moldova tried to take over Transnistria by the use of military force in the 1992 War of Transnistria. Transnistria did not do the opposite (they did not try to take over Moldova by use of military force). So they feel that Moldova attacked them. Since then, Moldova has been upgrading its military. Transnistria is in a highly defensive position. Until there is a final solution to the question of the future status of the area, it will remain a frozen conflict and a highly militarized area. This is obvious, and the report is of course merely stating the obvious. What we, here, should highlight are the interesting findings - the new stuff that the United Nations report found out. This is what is of interest. Not that the sky is blue, or that 2+2 equals 4. - Mauco 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt argue that UNDP says that there is production and sale of SALW. The survey doesnt say or deny that clearly. What are you arguing about? the paragraph is clearly much closer to your position. Re war: Moldova defended its territory from aggression of Russian 14th army. Moldova didnt fought against its own people. In 1992 I was in Bendery. I saw the war with my own eyes. Thousands refugees flied to Moldova (Russians, Ukrainians, Moldovans) while the Russian 14th army bombarded outskirts of the city from Suvorovo hill. Moldavian government helped to all in need (Russians, Ukrainians, Moldovans). Moldovian Government helped with resettlement, helped financial Regardless of race and nation. You know nothing, dont post your crap here. EvilAlex 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"You know nothing" and "Don't post your crap here" is not helpful to collaborative editing. Even if you don't want to assume good faith, at least try to focus on the edit and not on personal abuse. I will not stand for it if you continue with this tone. It was this sort of your-opinion-is-not-welcome-here comment (from your colluder MariusM) which caused MarkStreet to resign from Wikipedia. - Mauco 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Delete :
However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control.[35]

Why should that be deleted? If you do not agree with it, rephrase it. But they did highlight the good levels of co-operation and this was included under a heading bearing the word Transparency. In contrast, it says about Moldova that levels of transparency within government ministries vary widely. - Mauco

Hello again, mr. Spin Doctor. What the report says is that "experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation in some areas ". Dpotop 06:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please: Name-calling is uncalled for. Civility would create a more collaborative editing environment where we can all collaborate on how to make a great article. I am not aware of any areas where the Transnistrians are uncooperative or where there is no transparency, and can not support this with citations from the report. I do know, however, that according to the U.N. report, Moldova has a very sketchy record of transparency. This is not surprising: Moldova is a known and proven exporter of weapons, including to the Middle East, whereas the same can not be said of Transnistria. Nevertheless, claims of weapons exports and smuggling are included in the Transnistria article (despite a complete lack of evidence) whereas they are not included in the Moldovan article (where such evidence exists abundantly, and was even part of the parliamentary record in 2004). - Mauco 07:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is utterly wrong. Compare to the source. If you want to rephrase it give a shot. EvilAlex 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We disagree on that. I checked the source. It is not 'utterly wrong' that they emphasized the good levels of co-operation with Transnistria on SALW (true) and that this was included under the heading Transparency (also true). - Mauco 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are TROLL. EvilAlex 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And now compare what you said to the source:
Transparency
While the Transdnieslrian authorities have a history of low transparency on SALW issues', attitudes may be changing, as evidenced by good levels of co-operation in some areas during the research for this report. High levels of secrecy on arms and security issues in the past have however had negative repercussions. For example, the denial of full access to international monitors wishing to investigate allegations of illidt SALW production by the Transdnieslrian authorities has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transdniestrian regime.
EvilAlex 13:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, the source is not the summary, but the report itself. You really ought to read the full report. It is quite clear that the U.N. report has no reason to believe that Transnistria is involved in the manufacture/production or export/smuggling of weapons of any kind, and this is what the report says. If you have a similar report from a similar credible organization (like the United Nations) which says otherwise, then please post it. Until then, there are no credible indications of any kind, whatsoever, that Transnistria produces weapons or exports weapons. It just does not exist. Is that so hard to understand? - 17:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The source which I gave you is from 5th page of Executive summary of SALW Survey. Now compare it to what you wrote:
However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control.[35].
this paragraph should be deleted. Do you agree? EvilAlex 19:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because if you can get past the summary and read the full report (which is the bulk of the work of the foreign experts) then you will hopefully see that the sentence which you just quoted is a fairly accurate summary of one of the findings of the research which they did. I read it, and that was the conclusion which I was left with. Others who read might come away with different interpretations or conclusions. But you can't say that till you read it. Basically, after you finish it, you have to ask yourself: "What did I just learn?" And in my case, the main impression which stuck with me the most was a feeling that there was a paradigm shift in how the foreign weapons control people now sees Transnistria. Until recently (2003-2004) the general consensus was that it was a black hole. Now, the consensus has shifted, and it is more of a feeling that "wow, we can really work with these people, and the government of Transnistria is serious about opening up and collaborating with us." Again, I really urge you to read the full thing and I honestly believe that you will reach the same conclusion that I did. - Mauco 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen by my latest statement above, there is obviously no consensus yet for a phrasing of how to include the summary of the findings of the U.N. report. Before other editors continue to change the current version present in the page, I respectfully request that they please continue our joint efforts to seek some common ground here. I mean it. None of us gain anything from another pointless and childish revert war. - Mauco 17:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You using all possible means to disrupt or postop progress on this page. For more info see WP:TROLL. EvilAlex 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. I am merely seeking consensus on a content dispute. However, if you or any other users feel that this is a case of trolling, then I would very much welcome an RfC in the matter. This is now the third time that I am stating this publicly. Instead of these personal attacks, accusing me of "trollery", do this: 1. Work with me on seeking a mutually agreeable phrasing, and 2. Let the other issue be evaluated in an RfC. Thank you. - Mauco 17:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How can i work with you if your position doesnt allow any compromises or consensus. You stick to your phrase and not moving nor forwards nor backward. You didnt make any suggestions... Only continues Trolling is going on. Your discussion is not about subject but about the nature of discussion. EvilAlex 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is, obviously, my edit (which you continually delete, without prior consensus). How could it be anything else? I have referred to the full report, which I do not believe that you have read, for verification that this is not a malicious interpretation but an edit with corresponds to the conclusions of the report. If you feel that you are not able to reach agreement here in Talk, then the solution IS NOT TO DELETE material which you do not agree with. Instead, the solution is to follow the next step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Please consider doing so and do not engage in further deletes. - Mauco 17:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, please see WP:V: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If something can be backed-up with reliable sources, then it can be included in the article. This is not a matter of what's correct and what isn't. There is no Wikipedia policy called Wikipedia:Truth. This is why it's not a good idea to remove sourced information. Khoikhoi 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoi, EvilAlex is not disputing that point (I think). Rather, his beef with me is that he thinks that I am misquoting when I paraphrased the conclusions of this particular United Nations report. I do not think so. It is simply a content dispute, that is all (but, of course, it is NOT solved by just deleting the material which he does not like). - Mauco 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Khoikhoi, but did you notice that the version proposed by Mauco is actually a misinterpretation of the actual text in the UN report? Based on a classical logical fallacy? I, for one, am for the inclusion of the actual citation. Dpotop 18:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about we include the *actual quote* from the UN report? See Azerbaijani people for some examples of how we can do this. Khoikhoi 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finally bringing some sanity to this debate, Khoi. All the claims, counterclaims and overall mudslinging (much of which is totally inappropriate and has to do with personal attacks) can easily be settled if we focus on the facts and the edits. But: No selective quoting, please. Whatever we quote must represent the overall tone of the report. This is a contentious matter, so I urge everyone to discuss the proposals here first and not make random edits in mainspace until there is a level of overall agreement. - Mauco 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Finally bringing some sanity"?!?!?! So, how is Khoikhoi's proposal to include exact citations different from mine?

Anyway, it's nice to see Khoikhoi agrees with me on this point. Dpotop 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

there's a small difference. Your comment was part of a larger entry which also including claims of misinterpretation on my part. I obviously (as I have made abundantly clear on this Talk page, over and over again) disagree with that assessment. Khoi's comment, which avoided this sort of criticism and focused on an edit suggestion, was clearly the better of the two; IMHO. Feel free to disagree; that is your constitutional right. - Mauco 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry—I hadn't noticed you had already proposed it. I was wondering, how long would this actual quote be? We should also keep in mind that this is not Wikisource. I think two paragraphs should be the limit. Khoikhoi 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. To start, we should simply take Mauco's misleading text:

"However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control."

and change it into:

"Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in some fields of weapons control."

Why: There is no "confirmation", they are the first credible sources to say it. And they talk of "some fields" and not some overall confirmation or support. This is consistent with the full report, where it is clearly said that few information was actually available from Transnistria (read the first pages of the Transnistria section of the full report, if you don't believe me). Dpotop 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

good step but it is misleading... we should try to include both sides. We should add that Transnistrian authority denied the full access to international monitors to investigate allegations of iledit SALW
EvilAlex 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Was there a request from international monitors to investigate allegations of illegal SALW? Who made this request? And when? Transnistria can not "deny full access" if the request was never made. If it was made, do we know when and by who? You may not be aware of the international weapons monitor visit which took place in February and where the foreign inspectors got full access to everywhere they wanted to go. - Mauco 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

O no.. Didnt you read the full UNDP report? There report clearly says that!!! How strange that you didnt see that. Did you again apply selective reading and selective quotations? Survey clearly says LOW TRANSPARENCY, denial of full access to international monitors wishing to investigate allegations of illidt SALW. You again pushing only your side of the story, how about to apply some NPOV rules? EvilAlex 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What denial is that? I again ask: Was there EVER a request from international monitors to investigate allegations of illegal SALW? Who made this request? And when? There is proof of an international visit by a foreign team of weapons inspectors which took place in February, with a public and written report as a result, and no one was denied any kind of access whatsoever. To say that there has been denial of full access to international monitors is false, when we know for a fact that the opposite is true and monitors visited earlier this year and gave good marks to Transnistria, confirming a complete absense of any weapons production facilities. To speak of a denied request, give details. Otherwise, it didn't happen. Ever. - Mauco

Are you questioning trustfulness of UNDP survey? I repeat again the survey clearly says: denial of full access to international monitors wishing to investigate allegations of illidt SALW. Whatever i included can be backed and verified by refs to UNDP survey. If you disagree with this then you are in breach of WP:V. My advise to you to stop pushing your POV and to compromise for the sake of Transnistrian article.
Re:when we know for a fact that the opposite is true
Facts !? any refs to prove your position? i dont see facts here only your words against UNDP survey
EvilAlex 13:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from the SALW report: High levels of secrecy on arms and security issues in the past have however had negative repercussions. For example, the denial of full access to international monitors whishing to investigate allegation of illicit SALW production by the Transdniestrian authorities has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transdniestrian regime. (from page 10)

In the absence of any concrete evidence to demonstrate the orchestrated movement of SALW from Transdniestria, the Survey team was unable to substantiate these claims. (that of weapon smuggling) However, a number of factors serve to perpetuate perpetuate these concerns, including the high incidence of Russian enquiries about weapons to the Moldovan office of Interpol, the continued weak capacity of border controls on the Ukraine-Moldovan border, the proximity of the Odessa Illchiovsk ports, and the historically low levels of transparency of the Transdniestrian authorities regarding production facilities and the security services. (from page 40)

The report does say that there are no proves of smuggling, but it not as simple as Mauco attepts to put it... He is simply using only the parts that suits him... Greier 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. The above quotes are equally selective, if not more so. They specifically refer to the usual past concerns. The new developments are much more worthwhile to highlight: That as of lately (2005-2006), Transnistria has been very co-operative. This is not just documented in the U.N. report, but also by others - including the international weapons monitors who visited a number of suspected factories in February. - Mauco 18:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than criticize why dont you try yourself? Show as which quotes are not selective.. EvilAlex 19:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. This work is easy, but it is better done by a neutral third party who has no part in the edits and no part in the reversions of the edits. The task is straightforward: Read the report and then summarize, in a couple of sentences, the main conclusions which best represent the overall sentiment of what the foreign experts are stating. Where direct quotes are needed, they should only represent these main conclusions and not a selective subset of the conclusions as that would be bias. - Mauco 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A good policy is to keep the disputed sentences out of a controversial article while ongoing discussion is still underway in Talk, where there are attemtps to reach consensus. Some other users said the same thing. Mauco i am going to keep disputed source out till consensus have been reached. EvilAlex 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is illuminating to read the above sentence, posted just 2 days ago, in light of the more recent behavior of EvilAlex on the page dated 31 October[16] and 1 November.[17][18] []. This, by the way, from the same editor who (below) says, about me, and I quote: "Mauco it is true your position is changing like a wind" - Mauco 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco When are you going to play be rules? Stop Trolling i will always welcome constructive and productive discussion. So please stop trolling and return to the dialog table. EvilAlex 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that Pernambuco included your additions next to mine. I am not in agreement with that. As I have pointed out on this page, you are including the obvious (that the area is militarized) as well as an unproven statement (that a visit of arms inspectors was denied, when in fact the opposite is the case and we have documents showing that it took place in February of 2006). Surely you can't be seriously insisting that these additions deserve to stay in the article. They do not serve the readers, who deserve facts and not this kind of treatment. - Mauco 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We should include both sides of the story the statement that "that the area is militarized" are good in describing current situation in Transnistria. If UNDP survey noted and highlighted this statement then it is good for readers. if you disagree the it is your personal position. The question would be why would you try to hide it?
Re:unproven statement
the statements can be verified by UNDP survey see WP:V
Re: Pernambuco
it is not perfect but i could compromise for the sake of Transnistrian article.
Re: when in fact the opposite is the case
i dont see facts i see your words against UNDP survey.
EvilAlex 13:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still don't agree. Of course the area is militarized. It is a frozen conflict. This is why there is a multinational peacekeeping force in place and a demilitarized buffer zone which separates the people in Transnistria from the people who attacked them and tried to take over the area in 1992. As for the rest, well, EvilAlex and Pernambuco can agree but I would still like an answer to my concerns. - Mauco 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all your representation of History of Transnistria is completely wrong. I can testify as a eye witness in contradiction to your clime. As i said before i was in 1992 in Transnistria in Bendery. Moldavian forces DID not attack innocent people. Moldova is not an aggressor in that war. Russian 14th army attacked my small country and my small town. And the locals defended their land. Do you want to know what russian military have done when they first entered Bendery? Well the first thing they had robed jewelry store in center of the city and then attacked local police station, because of your glorious Russian army my town was engulfed in a bloody anarch. Moldavian forces entered the city trying to restore the law and order. It is my testimony as an eye witness. EvilAlex 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Of course the area is militarized
well if you agree that the area is militarized then we shouldnt hide it.
Re:the multinational peacekeeping force
Moldova didnt agree on presents of Russian military forces on its Territory. They located on Moldavian soil in breach of Istanbul commitments: Stationing Russian troops including “peacekeepers” in conflict areas without “host-country consent” [19]
EvilAlex 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The peacekeepers are not just Russian, but consists of participants from 3 nations (4 if you count Transnistria as a nation). They are stationed there with Moldova's full consent. In fact, there are more Moldovan troops than Russians in the JCC. Please note very clearly that the ceasefire decree which is the foundation for the stationing of these troops was signed by then-Moldovan president Mircea Snegur. It is still in force, and has not been rescinded by Moldova, so they are NOT in the conflict area withoiut "host-country consent" as you say. Bringing the Istanbul commitments into a discussion of the Joint Control Commission or the peacekeeping force is wholly irrelevant. The JCC is simply not mentioned in the Istanbul deal, and your source is, unfortunately, either willfully misleading or just ignorant of this fact. - Mauco 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though both Pernambuco and EvilAlex agreed (and I did not), user MariusM just did a wholesale revert (rvv) of everything that was added from both sides by Pernambuco AND some of my work, fully sourced. See this diff [20]. He did not discuss it here, on this talk page, but just reverted it all the way back to a version from 2 days ago, without an explanation to anyone involved. Sorry: That sort of behavior is unacceptable. - Mauco 05:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not entirely relevant what the PMR authorities say or do regarding arms, it's the Russians' arms after all. Do we have any verification that Russian arms depots within the PMR territory are independently inspected and monitored? (Not just statements by the Russian Defense Minstry that of course they inspect their own depots.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are setting the bar a bit high, Vecrumba. What do you mean by "independently"? For instance, would the United States agree to let foreign forces from another country arrive to inspect and monitor their weapons storage depots? Who would? In general, military facilities which belong to a specific country are not places where all other countries can just come and go, at will. But if it is any consolation to you, I have some friends at OSCE and one of them is going to be part of an inspection mission next week. They will spend four days in Transnistria and will be at the Kolbasna arms dump, among other places. - Mauco 00:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility, trolling, spinning, and the current conflict

I have been accused at several occasions of being uncivil, and I think it is time to react. The ones who accused me are User:Mauco and User:MarkStreet. They do not agree with the current data in the article, or with edits of other users which include me. This is, of course, their right, but my impression is that they largely overstep Wikipedia rules through creative trolling. What they label as insults are in fact documented remarks saying exactly (and only) this. For instance, I said that User:Mauco is spinning information. When I saw he continues, I called him a spin doctor, to represent the fact that:

1. he is selectively presenting facts and quotes,
2. he edits and phrases text in a way that assumes unproven truths.

These are two of the main actions defining spinning. To conclude, here is what the two users are doing to make me believe they are malicious:

• Repeated malicious editing of citations, which change the meaning of the citations. The last example is a fragment from a UN report, which User:Mauco would not accept unless edited (User:MarkStreet took a more reasonable position here).
• Calls to wikipedia policies (such as WP:COPYVIO) that do not apply in order to justify the malicious editing of citations. Of course, given the size of these citations, we can assume fair use, so there is no copyright problem. As an experienced wikipedia user, User:Mauco knows it, as he well acknowledged when I confronted him.
• Repeated redundant calls to assuming good faith while we are not here in the beginning in the editing process, and when the named users have completely ignored logical arguments presented here.
• Archiving too often, and usually when a subject is not yet closed, and when information in the archived sections is used in current arguments. I find this particularly disruptive, because it spreads information into many repositories, and makes referencing difficult.
• In a clear 2-side editing conflict, User:Mauco and User:MarkStreet (which form one side) often engage in verbous exchanges on the talk page, comforting each other's position, but not at all asking for the opinion of other. They seem to be trying to flood the talk page with one-sided information, without attempts to negotiate a NPOV.

Dpotop 20:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to provide citations for each point, especially about "completely ignored logical arguments" part. Assuming good faith is a good thing - it makes later RfCs easier. As for archiving - it's not irreversible, you can move the topics that you feel are in need of attention back to discussion (like I already did). Mentioning the misbehavior of the "home team" might be a good idea as well. --Illythr 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done: take a look at edits on the Transnistria page from 15:50, 29 October 2006 to 17:23, 29 October 2006. You will see that Mauco pushes the following text:

"However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control."

I have cited on the talk page the exact version from the UN report, which talks about "good levels of co-operation in some areas during the writing of the report". Unspecified areas, and clearly not all areas concerning weapons control. And I'm not getting here into details (you should all read more details in the "Transnistria" section of the full report).

Note that I have already pointed out, on this talk page, and at several occasions, the logical fallacy involved in his editing. Dpotop 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW: In the spirit of non-partiality, I also believe that EvilAlex should promote both sources, not just RFE/RL. EvilAlex, read the UN report, Transnistria section. Dpotop 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading this discussion too. I did not want to jump in. But some of the claims against User:Mauco and User:MarkStreet are very hard and I agree with User:Illythr that it is better for User:Dpotop if she or he gave The actual links for cite of these claims. - Pernambuco 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the charge that "Archiving too often, and usually when a subject is not yet closed" I just took a quick look at the seven archives. All of them average around 150 Kb and It is a normal size for archiving. The exception is the last one (Archive #7) . .. Seems like The User:Mauco waited more than usual before he archived. It is nearly twice the standard size. It is 245 Kb long. He also asked first and kept the open topics on the current page.[21] - Pernambuco 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. In fact, we could all get a lot more work done, and better, if these Romanian users who MariusM solicited and brought over here recently onto this page could simply just concentrate on the work at hand: Discussing edits to the article, without letting the discussion degenerate into criticism or even personal attacks. Does it really matter who is a KGB agent, or who is paid by the Transnistrian government? Does it matter who was born where, or who is doing trolling (or creative trolling, or whatever)? Focus on the edits. It was the endless bickering and lack of focus which drove MarkStreet away. This was a shame because he had an "inside view" on the issues that none of the rest of us here are sharing. With regards to the edits, if you don't like what is there, propose others for debate. I will debate them, from my own view of the issues and will of course continue to bring my own knowledge and research to the discussion. If there are personal issues between me and another editor, deal with it on the personal User Talk pages or start an RFC. I would very much welcome that, and it would make for a cleaner, more productive work environment on this particular Talk page. - Mauco 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that trolling is defined and banned on wikipedia means that it hampers constructive editing, just like in this article. You ask me now:

"Does it really matter who is a KGB agent, or who is paid by the Transnistrian government?"

When talking of sources, yes. Especially when discussing which sources are trustworthy and can be cited. And especially when User:Bogdangiusca managed to uncover here an astroturfing campaign later relayed by The Economist. And this is a logical argument anyone should understand. Dpotop 08:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, Dpotop are now talking about sources. Here, we agree. However, before this, it was all about me (and not about sources). His personal attacks and accustaions could, objectively, be seen as an infringement of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You are welcome to ask for an RfC and we can move the personal discussion there. Meanwhile, please add something constructively to the Talk page and help us make a better article. - Mauco 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the last edits on the Transnistria page, it still is about you, because you still try to misinterpret that UN report istead of providing the actual citation. Dpotop 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While banned practices should be reported and punished, it seems to me a tad disingenuous for this notoriously polemic group to focus on Mauco for behavior that seems endemic to these articles. Perhaps concerned editors might lead by example? Jamason 15:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Notoriously polemic group? I mean, Mauco, like yourself, never really edited articles outside the "Moldovan/Transnistrean" topic, which has been polemic from its inception. Both of you wouldn't know what non-polemic editing is. In the entire edit list of Mauco (>1000 edits in the "main" space) there are less than a dozen articles that do not contain the word "Transnistria" or "Dniestr". And among them only one is edited several times: "Dollar diplomacy". And you accuse me of being polemic? Dpotop 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, when using the word "polemic" he was referring to all of us (not just to you) or rather to the subject matter in general. As for my edit record, and that of Jamason, it reflects our specialties. Anyone who is clearly interested in having good content should be pleased, not annoyed, that people who know so much detailed information about Transnistria - even experts, as in the case of Jamason - are active on Wikipedia and are willing to help by adding these details and their factual knowledge to the articles. - Mauco 17:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Another logical fallacy. So, you say that "Jamason wa referring to all of us" when talking about "the group that focuses on Mauco". So, you are focusing your criticism on yourself? Cool! Dpotop 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, is your "speciality" the misinterpretation through logical fallacies of UN reports? Dpotop 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever. I am certain that all of us here have reading and comprehension skills and do not need my interpretation or your interpretation of what Jamason wanted to say. I am less sure what this discussion is doing to help the edits of the article, and it might be timely to post a reminder that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum. Could we all try to act our age, please? - Mauco 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Illogical Mauco. So, my editing here serves no purpose. Why, then, do you add text, if you see this as useless? What you are doing is called misleading vividness, a main tool of spin doctors. Dpotop 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say. But might I, please, call your attention to the fact that my quote was not "misleading vividness", however much you want to think so ... it was simply a word by word restatement of the disclaimer which sits on top of this page. Verbatim: "Article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum."' Your complaint of spindoctorism should not be levelled at me, but at whoever wrote that template instruction which I just repeated and which you might have overlooked. It sits at top of this page, just scroll up. - Mauco 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages can and should be used to uncover trolls. Especially creative trolls, who use the rules and manipulate the public. And your systematic call to inapplicable rules is specific to creative trolls. Just count your number of citations of WP:CIVIL, done while you tried to manipulate text. Nasty... Dpotop 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just insulting people, can we try to get back on topic? Khoikhoi 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I too curious in asking (Khoikhoi, not Mauco) why he believes I am insulting someone? Dpotop 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, they were more like accusations rather than insults, but regardless, they get nothing accomplished. Khoikhoi 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jamason, for having said similar reasonable things in the past, have already been accused by an ultra-nationalist Romanian POV pusher of being my sockpuppet. With this level of debate defining our current work environment, it is no wonder that MarkStreet left and that Jamason is not as active as I am suspect that he otherwise would be. - Mauco 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't cry, Mauco. I'd be surprised if Mark Street and Jamason do not appear when they are needed to push some argument with illogical arguments. Dpotop 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

MarkStreet won't. He was chasen away by MariusM (the same used who invited your participation on this page, as a way to more Romanians and bolster his support here). As for Jamason, I will let him answer the thinly veiled accusation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. All I can say is that it is uncalled for, and that it has nothing to do with any edits to the main article. It especially has no place in a section whose heading starts with the word "Civility". - Mauco 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop you took this conversation to a personal level that I didn't expect. You also didn't quite get my comment. Neither are particularly auspicious signs for a productive future working relationship. My point is that almost all of the editors currently involved with the Transnistria articles are (by self admission) emotionally invested in either proving the PMR's legitimacy or lack there of. Also, I wish I had more self-control, but speaking of illogical and irrelevant let's look at your response to my comment. You say Mauco, like yourself, never really edited articles outside the "Moldovan/Transnistrean" topic, which has been polemic from its inception. And, conclude: Both of you wouldn't know what non-polemic editing is. Of course, I can know what non-polemic editing is because I know what is and is not polemic. The two statements are not logically connected. Furthermore, to be a relevant response, you should have addressed my concern that since most editors are making polemic edits, singling out Mauco in this respect is unfair. Instead, you make an irrelevant observation about my own editing habits. What's more, you argument is centered on an ad hominem attack on myself, as if this makes up for your own argument's weakness. Argue the point, not my qualifications! To sum up: illogical, irrelevant and ad hominem. Jamason 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As Mauco made some personal attacks on me I want to reply: (1) I didn't chase away MarkStreet, I don't have this power on Wikipedia. Indeed, I told him that he is not "the only voice of Transnistria" as he claims, but this is not "chasing away". (2) Mauco is not understanding Romanian as well as he claim - obviously he don't understand the relations between me and Dpotop, he only saw that I wrote to him. In my message [22] I strongly criticised Dpotop for what I believed was a bad edit in this article. Using personal messages instead of edit wars is an acceptable Wikipedia behaviour.--MariusM 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To all: It would be huge shame (and our loss) if we disgust Jamason so much with the current level of behavior that he decides to leave, or to help us less with our work. User:Dpotop only came here because his participation was publicly solicited[23][24], along with that of a number of other hardline Romanian users, by User:MariusM. This type of action is defined as "canvassing" in WP:SPAM and it is frowned upon. In a previous arbitration case, it was stated that "the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." While Dpotop is certainly welcome as a newcomer here, especially if he can contribute something positive to the article and to the working environment, the unrequested solicitation of partisan editors which has been carried out by MariusM on individual User Talk pages and on the Talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board[25] is beyond the pale and run counter to Wikipedia community-wide norms. Personally, I would prefer to see the return of an intensified involvement of some of the old Top 10 leading contributors to this page from the past, rather than newcomers who have been specifically solicited and brought in simply because their views are known in advance to favor one of the sides in an ongoing series of content disputes. The more people we can have here who are familiar with the subject, the better it is for everyone. - Mauco 01:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally wrong the idea that I knew Dpotop view in advance. I had also disagreements with him. All who knows Romanian can see that is nothing wrong in my message. And I repeat: Mauco himself asked outside support, including suport from a 16 years old kid and claiming that this is "wisdom of the elders".--MariusM 02:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you leave out your original solicitation of Dpotop's involvement, which was not critical of him or his edits at all, but mentioned me in negative terms and requested his involvement directly?[26] And why did you leave out the solicitation of his (knowingly pro-Romanian) vote?[27] - Mauco 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why you believe Romanians have no right to speak about Transnistria? Dpotop was active comenting the links, I told him not to limit himself to comment but to vote, without telling him how to. Asking others to vote I learnt from Mauco. He asked, for example (is not the only one) votes from User:Node ue [28], well known for starting the Moldovan Wikipedia, now blocked and voted for deletion, while himself is speaking badly Moldovan (self-declared Mo-2). You asked his votes because you trust his anti-Romanian bias (Romanians were the most actives in asking the deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia), and you called it "asking the wisdom of the elders". In fact, Node Ue, who registered also at Romanian Wikipedia, is a 16 year old kid Node UE presentation page in Romanian Wikipedia. I have to admit that for a 16 years old kid, starting a new Wikipedia was quite a remarkable achievement. Mauco, are you not ashamed asking support from a 16 years old kid and claiming that this mean bringing in Transnistria article the "wisdom of the elders"? You will not improve the quality of Wikipedia behaving in this way.--MariusM 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if Node is 16 years old, but he is one of the top past contributors to Transnistria and that is what matters here. Wikipedia has a tool which lets you see who the leading past contributors to a page is. When there is a contentious issue (such as a vote) it is GOOD PRACTICE to ask for the participation, without stating vote preferences, of past top contributors. Node was one of these. I also asked the rest, as you know. This is in line with Wikipedia norms for participation. In sharp contrast, it is OUT OF LINE is to selectively solicit votes only from those who you know will vote a certain way, such as the targeted vote-soliciting by MariusM among only the Romanian Wikipedia users. This sort of vote shopping is called canvassing and is frowned upon as per WP:SPAM. Since this practice started, we have had many more disruptions than usual on this page, and the level of uncivility on this page has gone through the roof. Read the archives; this is merely a statement of fact. No barnstar deserved. - Mauco 02:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reviewing the facts. On Friday, 27 Oct, MarkStreet posted a comment which - in his eyes - was a fair comment on the current state of the article.

Almost immediately, User:MariusM told him: "MarkStreet, please refrain adding plain fallacies in this page."

He then decided to leave. This was the last message which he posted here: "My comments even on this page are constantly being edited out, It's very frustrating not having a voice on this page never mind on the main page.......every agreed edit never took place. Its a complete waste of time. I have lost all faith that Transnistria can have a voice on this. If higher people in Wiki want me back in the future fine but for now I am leaving these pages."

I have asked him to return but he told me that he felt like he was being chased away by MariusM and his posse. Now, this is MarkStreet's opinion. Obviously, MariusM feels different (as we can see above). But the fact is that MarkStreet feels that he was bullied and treated badly, and I have to agree with him that the atmosphere around here has been increasingly uncivil as of late. The namecalling by a handful of Romanians is becoming constant. - Mauco 01:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

When reviewing the facts, please give full citations. MarkStreet told: "I am the only Transnistrian voice on here" and indeed I replied to him that this is a plain fallacy, as he is not born in Transnistria and is not living in that place. The only transnistrian voice here is EvilAlex, who was born in Transnistria (Bender) and has his familly still living there. The same EvilAlex Mauco wanted to block through fake 3RR report [29]. Removing plain fallacies from Wikipedia is one of the things I try, and I am proud to do this work. I expect my contribution to be appreciated. Barnstar, please!--MariusM 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to give you a Barnstar. And we have already been over the issue of whether or not EvilAlex represents the voice of Transnistria on this page. He does not. But if you insist on this unproductive and, some would say, "childish" claim, then we can of course always have a vote on it... - Mauco 01:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, but that'd be eeeevil... ;-) --Illythr 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It was said in jest. I can just imagine the poll now: "Is EvilAlex representative as a voice of Transnistria?" ("Yes"/"No"/"Dunno"/"Only if he removes the Auschwitz badge") - Mauco 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

O man i will be laughing if you will lose. Lets think logicality i can only win or nothing and you can only lose or nothing. EvilAlex 11:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If he is the voice of Transnistria does that mean that he gets to have bigger say in the article than other editors? That is not a Wikipedia rule so what does it even better if someone is from Transnistria or not. On his talk page he says that he is a Moldovan. - Pernambuco 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont be angry. I could give you a better inside picture. I read many articles and i knew that some of them can be very misleading. I dont try to be above anyone here. I am only happy that my small country attracts so much interest in you guys. Welcome
Regarding my nationality :Transnistrian identity does not exist. Yes I am Transnistrian because i was born there,i came from that region, because my parents lived there but as a nation Transnistria doe not exist. Do you want to know what they write in Transnistrian passport? They write USSR, guess what does it mean. It would be strange if i will say that my nationality is USSREvilAlex 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Can someone point me to some information on how exactly you decide on naming conventions. For instance, this article is under Transnistria and not Pridnestrovie. Compare that with Côte d'Ivoire, or Myanmar, or Republic of China, or Democratic Republic of the Congo. All of them have the countries' preferred name as the name of the page. I know there are instances where this isn't the case, like East Timor, and Japan, and possibly some others. In both those cases, however, the name of the page is the only that is more popularly known, and changing the name would lead to extreme confusion. I'm not sure if that's the case with this one. Anyone who has heard of the country is probably familiar with both names. Zhinz 06:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of us worked in detail of this earlier in the year. The most active editors on this issue were myself and a Romanian user, TSOD1. There is a history of this in the archives. Names of Transnistria reflect our findings. With regards to the priority name in use, it is not the name preferred by the government (which is "Pridnestrovie") but the most common name in English (which is "Transnistria"). We did look into the Burma/Myanmar situation in particular, as well as some of the other countries which you mention. The main reason why we did not choose Pridnestrovie over Transnistria is because of the lack of international recognition of the area's government. If it becomes recognized, we would obviously be using the Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar examples as the article naming policy specifies in Wikipedia. - Mauco 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

When we decided to use the name Transnistria, it was because we felt that that name was more popular in English than Pridnestrovie. If you check the number of Google hits for Pridnestrovie and Transnistria, you will see that the currently used version is much more frequently seen. Even the government's website http://pridnestrovie.net accepts this fact: "Although "Transnistria" is the name most commonly used to describe Pridnestrovie in English [...]." TSO1D 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this clarification. Needless to say, I agree with TSO1D (on this matter, not necessarily on everything else, as he well knows). I can add that the naming situation is unlikely to change unless the formal status of Transnistria changes. - Mauco 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While looking at the Pridnestrovie article on the name, I found something interesting. The full sentence I abridged was: "Although "Transnistria" is the name most commonly used to describe Pridnestrovie in English, the name is wrong on two counts: It is not from our language, and it doesn't even describe the territory of our country accurately." What do they mean, the name is not from our language. What happened to there being three equal official languages of Transnistria, including what they call Moldovan. They say the term is Romanian, as though "Moldovan" sources hadn't also traditionally used that word during Soviet times. This isn't directly related to the original question, but I just found it comical how the authors allowed their real opinions to seep into the article (i.e. it's clear what they mean by "our language"). TSO1D 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I hadn't even noticed that, and this was one of the sources which I used when we worked on the naming issue and the Names for Transnistria article back then. Of course Moldovan is one of their languages (one of three). If you read the more extreme Transnistrian views, such as some of the authors on Olvia Press, they also love to get the occasional stab in at Moldova regarding the language issue. It usually goes something like this (paraphrasing): "PMR is the only place in the world were people speak Moldovan. In Moldova, they speak Romanian. Here in PMR we have Moldovan as the official language. In Moldova, they have no official language." The latter is because Moldova simply talks about "state language" but does not name it, so no one (says Olvia) is quite sure whether it is called Moldovan or Romanian. Not sure how this is useful for editing the article, so I apologize for straying off topic. - Mauco 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, who coined this name, Transnistria? The earliest use I found is in the title of a newspaper published in Chişinău, "Tribuna Românilor Transnistrieni", in 1927. bogdan 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I am VERY interested in any light that you can shed on this, please. The "common wisdom", which even made it into a couple of books in English, is that it was a term which saw the light at the outset of World War II, and that it was introduced by Romania when their troops stationed themselves in Odessa. I have always been suspicious of this. Your 1927 reference, and any earlier references (if they exist), would disprove that. - Mauco 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The right place to continue this thread is not here, but Talk:Names of Transnistria to avoid content forking. - Mauco 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I continued the thread in there. bogdan 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As have I. See you there! - Mauco 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

spellings

Illytr and 69.138.254.22, thank you for your help. I was and am really sleepy, sorry for so many spelling mistakes. BTW some of them were there before me, I just did not correct everything, or my eyes did not pbserved them. good night! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 October 2006.

Hi and welcome to the Transnistra page!

1. It'd be best to place your (extensive) comments on the talk page here instead of the mainspace - this way it's easier to find and discuss them.
2. The history section is currently rather bloated, I think that further expansions to it should be done in the History of Transnistria article or even in Operation Barbarossa-related WWII ones. The section here should only contain a summary of the most important stuff from those.
3. Operation Barbarossa was started by crossing the Prut (among other places), so it certainly was an invasion.
4. Now that you mentioned it, I think that Lebed' should be included into the article as well.
5. There is no need to insert a wikilink to the same article more than once or twice. It's usually done only on the first mention.

Otherwise, thanks for your contribution! --Illythr 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already talked to DC on his own page, and said some of the same things (plus thanking him for his contribution, of course). My only serious concern is the same as Illythr's: Much of this level of detail is better added to History of Transnistria. We need to prevent content forking, and also to maintain just a summary of the key events here on the main Transnistria page. - Mauco 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My answers to the 5 questions:

1. I just wantted the "waring parties" not to wage wars on me as well :)) so i put the remarks. But they obviously must be removed after a day or two when these guys have seen them. Indeed move then on the talk page, so that if the issue comes again, we can remember what was originally the argument.
2. I agree with you. William Mauco has raised the same question on my User talk:Dc76. I think this section size by now is about 99,9% of what it can be. The key events must be mentioned. But as I see it know, there is nothing I can recall that can be added. So if it can bear as it is now in size... then the section is done and we shake hands, and go to the next. anyway, something along these lines
3. In 1941, after Axis forces invaded Bessarabia in the course of the Second World War, they cut-off the Soviet troops around Odessa... You want to say they invaded Soviet Union. Because Odessa and Transnistria are surely ont in Bessarabia. :) The point that Romanian historians draw here is that the army was ordered initially to go only till Dniester. they never thought they would fight along Germans in Russia proper. When they crossed Dniester, everyone who was supposed to participate in the new to be formed civilian government of romania said "no". Therefore Antonescu was alone leader of Romania, and he could not have a normal government. In the eyes of Romanians and Moldovans, Bassarabia was not really an invasion. Like Finland when it took over lands that USSR took in 1939-1940 war. It was an invasion of the USSR as a whole, that is absolutely true. When they crossed the river Dniester, that was invasion by all standards. On the same tokken, the western countries protested when USSR crossed in 1944 to Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia. they expected Soviets to stop (ideally) at their border. being invaded is not a reason to invade. It is very difficult to stop to take more than it's yours when you see you can. Not everyone has principiality, and nations are seldom led by the best human qualities.

In fact, the reason Antonescu did that is partially because his plan for Bessarabia, coincidently his diploma paper when he finished the military academy, was a failure. His plans costed thousands more lifes of his solders, not counting civilians caught in the fire and Soviet solders. The troops that did not act accoring to his plan were able to fight off Belov's kavkorpus! The troops that did follow, faced ordinary solders, and got killed by hundreds a day. Antonescu did not want his main military contribution to be a failure. He needed one more action. Then the siege of Odessa, there was no plan for it, was a blunder that must be taught in military schools. Soviets had only half of his numbers, and he managed to loose in one month more than romania did in the previous 100 years. So he needed more action again... He justified himself by comparing with his predecessors: King Caroll II, who was banned to enter Romanian again (!) when forced to abdicate and Horia Sima (second leader of the Iron Guard), who's intelligence, was not very bright, to say the least. It is a pitty Romania did not find a force to stop in July 1941 as Finland more or less did. By the same token, if Romania would, then like Finland it would have fought in June 1940, as expected. There were big problems with the Romanian political class at that time. The best people could not reach high to power and influence, and whose who reached high were idiots or more.

4. agree

5. I thought we should add everywhere we see that word. Ok, I'll know now. Of course if the article takes 10 pages, then it makes sense to add on pages 1,3,5,etc one time each Perhaps:Dc76 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the introduction

The way the introduction was before was lame b/c the word "independence" was repeated in two consecutive sentances without new info being added, and it somehow suggested that "sovereignty" and "independence" are treated differently when comes to Transnistria, which is not the case: Transnistria wants both, and Moldova refuses both. Neither side cares about one but not the other.

But the new formulation is even worse - it will obviously generate polemics. You don't expect EvelAlex to swallow this, do you?

I am going to refrain from changing, because I don't want to be part of edit war. I just want to see the issues that can be agreed done, and then the remaining 2-3 things, you can just go on with your war to infinity. I think you guys enjoy waring more than actually writting. At some point it stops being a "war" over issues, but "war" because of "war". There is a good example like that in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn". Have you guys read it? If you did, you surely don't remember, since it is you in the mirror!

Nevertheless, I don't want to object wothout being constructive. So I look at the list of "unrecognized countries", which is a wiki page, and hence can not be a sourse. But nevertheless, below I see partially recognized countries: PR of China, Israel, Vatican. Sorry guys, but no way close can Transnistria be to Israel, don't even suggest half way. Israel is subject to international law, Transnistria is not. The fact that some countries like Iran want to destroy Israel speaks about the very long path Iran has still to make. The fact that not a single country recognizes Transnistria speaks about the long path that Transnistria, not the rest of the world, has to make.

To me Transnistria is like Kosovo. So I look at its wiki entry:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë or Kosova; Serbian: Косово и Метохија or Kosovo i Metohija, also Космет or Kosmet) is a province in southern Serbia which has been under United Nations administration since 1999. While Serbia's nominal sovereignty is recognised by the international community, in practice Serbian governance in the province is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Kosovo). The province is governed by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the local Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security provided by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR).

So, just copying that, how about this:

Transnistria (Russian: cyrillic or Pridnestrovie; Romanian: Transnistria) is a region in the eastern Moldova which has been de facto independent since the War of Transnistria in 1992. While Moldova's nominal sovereignty is recognised by the international community, in practice Moldovan governance in the region is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Transnistria). Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the presence of the three-party Russian-Moldovan-Transnistrian peacekeepers, established at the end of the war in 1992.

How about that? You guys fight, go ahead, you like it. I will just suggest, but YOU go ahead and change. I don't want to edit the introduction.:Dc76 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither this article nor History of Transnistria say a word about peacekeepers. I guess you are talking about Joint Control Commission. Must be mentioned somewhere in the txt. `'mikkanarxi 16:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the JCC administers everything, which is the 1,000-2,000 or so (I don;t remember the numbers, must search to find exactly) peacekeepers and about a hundred observers. Observers are non-military professional stuff. But yes, that is exactly what I mean, and yes, you are right, it should be mentioned somewhere. It is JCC that plays exactly the same role in Tighina/Bender and Dubasari/Cocieri/Cosnita, as UN adimistration does in Kosovo. Now, these two sentances from above:

Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the presence of the three-party Russian-Moldovan-Transnistrian peacekeepers, established at the end of the war in 1992.

They are not identical as in the case of Kosovo, because no two conflicts are the same. And besides, I had to put somewhere the sentance Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Otherwise William Mauco will not swallow it. So I just moved it there. I don't mind changing "peacekeepers" to "JCC", or something along these lines. My point was about the bigining. We can do very well to look at examples such as Kosovo, Chechnya or the like in the future and just use similar frazing, since probably there were "edit wars" there at some point too, and things got more or less settled.

Do you know that when William Mauco and EvelAlex faught about weapons, they managed to forget to mention Lebed and Kozak Memorandum altogether? Now, I'm not a fun of Lebed', but it is historic fact: without him maybe there would still be more war. Kozak memorandum deserves a short article, I believe. The events in November 2003 did change a lot, whither someone likes or not what was proposed and what happened is another thing, but ignoring it is like history of USSR and USA in 20th century would forget the Cuba issue. It was sort of imporatant, they almost started a nuclear war. :Dc76 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

sound good, also i prefer not use the word "peacekeepers", rather i would change it to "JCC"
EvilAlex 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the person who says that these are not identical with Kosovo. - Pernambuco 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the proposal. It a mix of what the suggestions from bogdan said and what Jonathanpops said and also from my own original suggestion. Now it matches with the same wording of what the various lists and templates on Wikipedia all say. It is:

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

I am sorry if I did something wrong but this was discussed a lot from the top of this talking page. - Pernambuco 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pernambuco. I do agree that this was discussed a lot but we didnt reached a conclusion. We still stuck on four proposals - "region", "territory", "unrecognized state", and "unrecognized country". EvilAlex 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to let the introduction as it is. It was a consensus achieved after discussion, we should not open the discussion again. See archive - I had a discussion with Mauco and Jamason regarding this paragraph, I didn't agree that de facto independence was achieved imediatelly after it was proclaimed, it was a period of "dual power". Agreement was that we will develop those details in the history section, but I didn't have time to work on it.--MariusM 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not agreeable. Several others (including Bogdan, Pernambuco, MarkStreet, myself, etc) have discussed changing it. I have had some run-ins with some of them but I don't see how on earth the change by Pernambuco can be considered controversial. It is as bland and neutral as can possibly be, in fact it is clear that it uses the same phrasing as the rest of Wikipedia uses towards Transnistria. The only change that I will propose is a syntax change: As DC pointed out, it does not sound very good to repeat the word "independence" in two consecutive sentences. Change the last sentence to: Its statehood has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. - Mauco 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not see the two "independence" in a row. Yes, it is best to remove the last and change as this suggestion. I agree. - Pernambuco 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, you all read what I write, but you all understand different things, because you select what you like and forget the rest. I am VERY GLAD that Mikkalai and EvelAlex had identical suggetions towards my proposition: change peacekeepers to JCC. This is a good step on the path of consensus. So, my proposition now looks:

Transnistria (Russian: cyrillic or Pridnestrovie; Romanian: Transnistria) is a region in the eastern Moldova which has been de facto independent since the War of Transnistria in 1992. While Moldova's nominal sovereignty is recognised by the international community, in practice Moldovan governance in the region is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Transnistria). Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the Joint Control Commission (formed in 1992), charged with ensuring observance of the ceasefire and security arrangements.

Several observations are due here:

• Southeastern Europe is unnecessary. Only independent and fully recognized countries' position are given that way. In case of unrecognized authorities, it is imporatent to point not the location, but why it is unrecognized. In this case, because by law it is part of Moldova. It has nothing to do with what's de facto, and does not mean that in the future the legal status can not change. But we must say what is now, not what is posible, likely or probably to be in the future.
• The person who proposed yesterday the formulation a la Kosovo and who pointed out that no two conflicts are identical is a single person - me.
• There is a lot of similarity between Transnistria and Kosovo, especially when it comes to their international status. In fact they have IDENTICAL INTERNATIONAL STATUS IN THE EYES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. This is recognized by both Russia and the West. So I am not inventing anything here. It DOES NOT MEAN that their status and fate is somehow LINKED. It is how they are regarded from the point of view of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Therefore I suggested to use a formulation simmilar to the one used on Wikipedia for Kosovo.
• But I did not suggest a formulation 100% similar. Although they are similar from the point of view of law, they are NOT SIMILAR in the events that ocured, and forces involved. No military block bombed Moldova, as NATO bombed Serbia, and USA did not go to Kosovo alone, as Russia did in Transnistria. Also Kosovo has an administration who's decisions can be overruled by the UN (recently EU) administrator, while only Transnistria's decisions related to the localities subject to the 1992 war can be overruled by JCC. Also JCC and UN/UE are sort of different, I don't think anyone doubts all these facts. Therefore the last two sentances are different from Kosovo:

Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the Joint Control Commission (formed in 1992), charged with ensuring observance of the ceasefire and security arrangements.

The last part charged with ensuring observance of the ceasefire and security arrangements I coppied from the JCC wikipedia entry.:Dc76 15:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the situation of Transnistria is identical with Kosovo, and the West also don't agree. Only Russia is claiming that precedent of Kosovo should be taken in consideration when talking about the fate of Transnistria, Abkhazia and Ossetia. I keep my proposal to let the introduction unchanged, or to change it as I told in 25 October: "Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova under Russian military occupation".--MariusM 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The other users thought that this was a joke ("said in jest"). My suggestion is more neutral. It would be nice to see everyone get along. - Pernambuco 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a complete joke. The only two people here who take it seriously is MariusM and his sidekick, EvilAlex. Of course your suggestion was neutral, and that is what we should strive for in the beginning of the article. All the Russian info is fleshed out later in the article, and in other articles as well (on 14th army's involvement, the disputed status, and so on). Meanwhile, NPOV is the fundamental Wikipedia principle and even more-so in the summing up which is used in the introduction statement. I am willing to accept your proposal, in the interest of having everyone get along like you say. - Mauco 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You will defenetely have my support for this one :))
Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova UNDER DE FACTO CONTROL OF RUSSIA, due to stationing of russian troops on its territory
or
Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova UNDER DE FACTO military occupation of Russia.
EvilAlex 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your adition "de facto": "Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova under de facto Russian military occupation"--MariusM 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding comparison Kosovo - Transnistria, for Romanian speakers an usefull article: [30]--MariusM 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. More info:
Accordingly to Eurasia daily monitor Russia remains in breach of the original and adapted treaty and the Istanbul Commitments on the following counts:
*Troops unlawfully stationed in Moldova despite those same Commitments;
*Stationing Russian troops including “peacekeepers” in conflict areas without “host-country consent,” such consent being fundamental to both the existing and the adapted CFE Treaty.
*Treaty-banned weaponry (“unaccounted-for treaty-limited equipment”) handed over by the Russian military to their local allies in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Karabakh (including occupied territory in Azerbaijan beyond Karabakh); [31]
EvilAlex 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Before we go overboard quoting Vladimir Socor in the article, may I add that Russia has a completely different view of this situation. According to official statements, it believes that it has completed with its Istanbul commitments. It is also wholly incorrect to say that the troops are "unlawfully" stationed. They are there with the consent of the host country, as evidenced by the 1992 ceasefire agreement which also created the Joint Control Commission. This agreement was signed by Moldova's president and it is still in force. As long as Moldova does not revoke this agreement, there is a valid and legal basis for the presence of the Russian security forces in Transnistria. They carry out two functions: Guarding the arsenal, which is being removed with OSCE co-operation, and guarding the buffer zone, as part of a multinational peacekeeping force along with Moldova, Transnistria and Ukrainian observers. - Mauco 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Given the fact that my proposition for introduction (to use formulation similar to Kosovo, etc) has not find but circumstancial and limited support, I am withdrawing it. The version that is now (09:37 1 November 2006), as I can see, is the original one. So it stays without change. If you have objections about it, I kindly ask everyone to first find a consensus in the talk page before doing changes.
2. Although the info provided in the Jamestown foundation article is signed by Vladimir Socor, it would have not been published if it were considered by the foundation in breach with factual reality. It is the right of Socor to introduce the comments he likes, and we should not quote his oppinions, but he is bind to state only truthful facts - reproduction of facts is not Socor's oppinion. The sentance:
   Stationing Russian troops including “peacekeepers” in conflict areas without “host-country consent,” such consent being fundamental to both the existing and the adapted CFE Treaty.
   is a fact, is not an oppinion. If Socor comments on this - then it is his oppinion, but as it is - it is not an oppinion.
3. Russia has a completely different view of this situation... According to official statements, it believes that it has completed with its Istanbul commitments. Absolutely true. Only problem, that is an oppinion, and when mentioned it must be clear that that is an oppionion, not an established fact. According to OSCE, Russia has not complied with Istanbul commitments, because 1) not all weapons were withdrawn 2) there are Russian solders in Transnistria beyond those with peacekeeping status. To comply with Istanbul commitments, Russia had to finish this withdrawl in 2002, and it did not even in 2006. This is a fact. It is however possible to mention that Russia see other interpretations of Istanbul commitments than literaly ones, but that is Russia's oppinion, not an established fact.
4. I agree that the article, should, in addition to facts, state the oppinions of the important players, so that the reader can understand the debates preceding the events. That prior to 2001 expressing political oppinions in contradiction to the official one could get someone in serious trouble, is a fact. What happened after 2001, must be seriously substanciated to be a fact. The sourses I have seen so far appear to me more like oppionions... Maybe I am wrong, but I am not convinced those are facts.:Dc76 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are so many opinions. No one has the monopoly on the truth. - Pernambuco 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you withdrew your proposal, the choice is either keep the current intro or use my version. My version is a combination of what "Jonathanpops" and "Bogdaniusca" said. I even did not use my own phrase that I proposed first. The main change is that the word independence is also removed in the second sentence. - Pernambuco 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Geography

The first thing I wondered about when I saw the map was the geography. To my high surprise not a word on it. How can you discuss politics, economy, infrastructure, ... anything about a country of this shape without discussing its geography first? Of course I looked it up in an atlas and it turns out that, as I suspected, it consists of a river valley. I will add a note in the intro, hoping someone else will pick this up and expand on that. DirkvdM 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague original research. What you see in a map may be your mistake. Are you sure it is just river valley? No hills at all? On the other hand, you pinpointed the problem, thanks. Geography section is missing indeed. `'mikkanarxi 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a good section it should stay and it is neutral. - Pernambuco 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

The following paragraph deleted as unreferenced:

There has been some domestic terrorism in Transnistria:

• in May 2004, there was an attempt by a Russian neo-Nazi organization to set on fire a synagogue in Tiraspol, using a Molotov Cocktail and a flammable liquid near a gas pipe.
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus.
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten.

BTW, is it terrorism or hooliganism or negligience? I.e., references needed. `'mikkanarxi 19:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Transnistrian government accused Moldova of terrorism on the July explosion: "Atentatul din Transnistria: Tiraspolul acuza Chisinaul de terorism". bogdan 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think they should be mentioned in the article. Three such attacks in three years in a small region is something noteworthy. bogdan 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok whith ref:

• in May 2004, there was an attempt by a Russian neo-Nazi organization to set on fire a synagogue in Tiraspol, using a Molotov Cocktail and a flammable liquid near a gas pipe. [32]
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus. [33]
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten. [34]

EvilAlex 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These are "violent incidents". There is no evidence of terrorists or any terrorism activity and the subheading is misleading in the extreme. - Mauco 06:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are listed on Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Khoikhoi 06:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should do the word-change, then? I would do it, but lately I have had a couple of overly enthusiatic followers who like to follow my edits closely and "clean up" after me, as one of them calls it. - Mauco 06:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what word we should change it to. Perhaps "violent incidents" as you suggested? Or would that be whitewashing? Khoikhoi 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the incidents was later termed a freak accident, and the other two are not comparable, so whatever you change it to, find a broad heading because there is nothing in common except for the violence (and in two cases out of three, fatalies). I would do "violent incidents" but keep it open for a day or two and let other editors get a chance to comment. If someone calls it whitewashing, they should explain how this is so. Likewise, the editor(s) who want "domestic terrorism" to stay should then be ready to back up this choice of wording.- Mauco 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see by the refference given by Bogdan, the wording "terrorism" is backed up by Transnistrian authorities. They even arrested 4 antiseparatist transnistrians for a short period (the "Dignitas" case, Mauco you know it, is the case you fight so hard not to be mentioned in Wikipedia), and the arrest was explained as a necesary step in investigating those "terrorist" acts. Are you claiming that Transnistrian authorities lied when they make all the accusations against Moldovan government and pro-Moldovan transnistrians? That's impossible, you know that Transnistrian authorities can do no wrong.--MariusM 09:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Irony appreciated, but wrong. So because Transnistria's news sources use one kind of language, we are obligated to use the same kind of language here? I am sorry, but why? Wikipedia is not Olvia Press. We use different words, in order to achieve neutrality, and we have vastly different inclusion criteria. - Mauco 14:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Words Terror, Terrorism, Teract.. are widely used by official Transnistrian agency Olvia Pres also ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ head of Transnistrian MGB says that it was Terrorism. Mauco are you disagree with him too?:
“С чувством глубокого прискорбия воспринял известие о террористическом акте, совершенном 6 июля в Тирасполе.”
“ротив любых форм и проявлений терроризма,”
“о происшедшем в Тирасполе террористическом акте.”
“осуждают эту варварскую вылазку террористов”
“ОБА ВЗРЫВА, 6 ИЮЛЯ В МАРШРУТНОМ ТАКСИ И 13 АВГУСТА В ТРОЛЛЕЙБУСЕ, КВАЛИФИЦИРУЮТСЯ КАК ТЕРРОРИСТИЧЕСКИЕ АКТЫ - ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ”
“Случайности не было, 13 августа имел место террористический акт”
“ПРЕСТУПНИК, СОВЕРШИВШИЙ ТЕРАКТ 13 АВГУСТА, ВЗЯТ ПОД СТРАЖУ- ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ”
And so on …
Mauco I knew that you like Olvia
http://www.olvia.idknet.com/july-2006.htm
http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol70-08-06.htm
EvilAlex 11:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Olvia Press (state owned news agency) is valid as a source which helps us determine on the official position of Transnistria. It is of course biased. Surely you are not seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should model itself on Olvia Press? And even if you do mean this, then the place to start is not here. First, change some of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines which are currently in place to ensure neutral and accurate language (policies which are certainly not in place at the content site which you use for comparison, Olvia Press). - Mauco 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked refferences, you received refferences.--MariusM 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for references. I merely requested that the editor(s) who want "domestic terrorism" to stay should back up this choice of wording. In a comparison between Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the wording chosen by Transnistria's news agency, Wikipedia wins. - Mauco 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We can not but abide by Wikipedia policies here. Even if all of us agree, it would not be all right to contradict them. Even if we don't like them. Now, In Khoikhoi's reference (above) I find:

Standard Wikipedia form: X says Y

Encyclopedic:

X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.

X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies].

Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...]

Not encyclopedic:

X is a terrorist group.

Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...

After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

How about this:

• in May 2004, there was an attempt by a Russian neo-Nazi organization to set on fire a synagogue in Tiraspol, using a Molotov Cocktail and a flammable liquid near a gas pipe. [35]
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus. [36]
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten. [37]

ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ, head of Transnistrian MGB, qualified these acts as terrorism.

:Dc76 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the guy's name should not be in cyrillic, and he didn't call all 3 acts terrorism, but it is a good start. The header must of course still be "Violent incidents" because Vladimir Antyufeev was wrong and we do not let him dictate how to phrase Wikipedia. He was trying to whip up hysteria and hold on to his job which was being heavily criticized at the same time that he gave his speech. - Mauco 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: because Vladimir Antyufeev was wrong.
That is the case of АНТЮФЕЕВ vs Mauco. i dont think you have any chances
EvilAlex 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take my chances, thank you. Antyufeev is a has-been and more wrong than right. - Mauco 18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

in this case you will need some serious contra arguments backed by reliable refs. Otherwise your post will be like previous ones - just a words :) EvilAlex 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know how to spell correctly Antyufeev in English, so I coppied it in Russian. I did not mean it to stay in cyrillic.

I am very glad you think it is a good start, William Mauco, what's your next proposition? Actually, which of the three acts did he characterized as terrorism? The last two? If so, replace "these acts" with "the last two acts". Although setting fire on a synagogue by all standads is terrorism. But I agree, if Antyufeev did not use "terrorism" in reference to that act, it should just stay "set on fire a synagogue" in that case - every normal person understands what kind of act it is, even if we don't call it by name.

Whether Antyufeev is generally right or wrong, we can perhaps even agree. But what counts, is what he said as chief of Transnistria's security. Just as with George Bush - many poeple agree that Bush is wrong in different situations, but it is important what Bush said as president of USA. If that is wrong or right, everyone is free to debate, but we can not say that the president of US did not say that. That's way many people in US complain about Bush, because his declarations are recorded as those of PRESIDENT OF US, as Antyufeev's - as those of CHIEF OF TRANSNISTRIA'S MGB, and as Voronin's - as those of president of Moldova. If you are American, but believe bin Laden is not terrorist, I don't think they will let you claim on bin Laden's Wikipedia's entry that he only caused "violent incidents". One can go down 100 steps below bin Laden, and still "violent incidents" would just put the person who suggests such term in the category of supporting terrorism. None of us here supports terrorism. It is not we who arrived at this term, it is an official in Transnistria's administration. In fact, a key official.

William Mauco, with all due respect, do you really believe that putting a bomb in a bus is not terrorism? You don't. The fact that that happened does not say that the people of Transnistria are terrorists. On the contrary, it says that people of Transnistria live in an environment where terrorist acts take place. Regardless of people's political oppinion about the future of Transnistria!

The article does not address at all this problem: the inherent difficulties caused to the inhabitants of Transnistria because of the present status-quo:

• they do not travel as normal people do, they have to have other passports;
• they can not do business with foreign countries with their transnistria- registered companies, but have to go at lengths to be both regarded well inside, and able to do business with external pertners
• they live in a environment that is much less secure than any other place in europe. if a crime is committed in a "border" village and both militsia and police come, it can be additional confrontation instead of solving the crime.
• they do not enjoy the same freedom of speech and assembly as people nearby in Moldova, and in neighboring Ukraine do - There maybe more rights than during the time of Stalin, but europe has evolved a long way from there.
• etc. You guys should address this:Dc76 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I like you idea. Actually you have good points - feel free to contribute it to the main article. If we will be in disagreement we will discuses it on a talk page.
Re:William Mauco, with all due respect, do you really believe that putting a bomb in a bus is not terrorism?
Aaaaaa Mauco Mauco.. tell us once again that it was an incident EvilAlex 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I wish that we could address this, but we are far too busy fighting our lame edit wars and reverting each other. I will not point fingers at anyone, but shall just note that I have been one of the more active editors on Transnistria-related subjects for most of 2006 and that the current "flame war" situation only deteriorated to this low level within the last month and a half, appproximately. - Mauco 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Think about this: you two personally did not shoot in each other in 1992, you do not hold official positions that you two can loose, hopefully noone pays anyone of you to edit Wiipedia, doubtfully anyone of you has anything to win financially from selling arms to certain "very civilized" regimes. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong, to me this is a lot in common. Suggestion: list the 3-4 things that you two disagree on, and finish the edit of the rest of the article, then ask for mediation of those 3-4 sentances. I don;t want to give judgements on who's right, and who's wrong, at least for the reason that i don;t want to read so many pages of talk this article has, and try to understand the un-understandable. So, the only way any other person can help is after you have put aside those 3-4 sentances that you disagree on. finish the rest of the article first.

To the person who wrote this (I do not know who because it wasnt signed): I agree. They should knock it off. I have been starting to learn more about this issue so I can participate more but only if these persons will stop to fight so much. - Pernambuco 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that there is no more fighting over this. Does this means that everyone now agrees with the change in the headline as it was proposed? - Pernambuco 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to change it now, because I see that no one objected, but I just discovered that the article is edit protected so I have to wait for that to lift. - Pernambuco 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What EvilAlex didn't understand

EvilAlex, if you want to understand Mauco, you should study more dialectical materialism. What is true today, can be wrong tommorow, this is what this wonderfull phylosophy is teaching.

Let's take the case of Transnistria: Before referendum, it was necesary to acuse Moldovan government and pro-moldovan transnistrians of terrorist acts, in order to frighten the population, to keep fresh the image of enemy and to show the evilness of Moldova. Also, good reason to make some arrest of pro-Moldova activists, in order to create proper conditions for the referendum. Even here in Wikipedia, when I tried to include info about the arrests, opposition was raised with the argument: this is not intimidation of political opponents, this is a normal police investigation in a terrorist case. After the referendum, there is an other priority: obtain international recognition. In order to obtain that, a new image is needed: Transnistria is a quiet place, with a wonderfull democracy. No terrorism can take place in Transnistria, I repeat: is a QUIET place. Those are the new orders.--MariusM 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice rant. It gives some interesting insight into the personality of the person who wrote it. Not sure what specific edit he is proposing to the article, however... - Mauco 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha I have noticed it too. Mauco it is true your position is changing like a wind. Before you supported Olvia you even had given me few refs too [38]. But when we pointed something critical to your position – then you started remembering how reliable the source is. Double standards, Trolling, spinning. Like a little girl who says no but meant yes :)
EvilAlex 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It didn't take you long to show up and post your full agreement with MariusM. I will let your own words stand in all their glory, and let anyone else draw their own conclusions. - Mauco 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco be trustful at list to yourself. And once again thank you for this moment of glory. EvilAlex 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatching you two is a free theatre :):):):):) I enjoy it, especiallt b/c I don't have to pay for it.:User:Dc76 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

At list some one having fun here :) That is what life should be like - Fun and politics. Best regards. EvilAlex 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A final touch might be unprotecting the page allowing Bonaparte to provide our little theatre with Bon and Onny, so that we can start performing for real! :-) --Illythr 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, indeed. I sometimes think the same. But since you enjoy it, check out this "prime performance": His persistent effort at a Bonaparte fanclub which got reverted by until an admin finally had to lock the page[39], following this[40] - Mauco 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk is going on regarding Bonaparte. lets them see his userpage. Why do yu hate him so much? EvilAlex 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, thanks for pointing to WP:LAME! I must admit, it is funnier to read the short versions than the long one on this talk. :):) I came to Wikipedia because I like reading encyclopedias, but I did not expect I would get free fun. I am glad that a Moldova related article will get featured on that page, and maybe, if you keep up the good job, in New York Times. But as I said, you must concentrate your "war" on 3-4 issues at most. Otherwise it's not funny. So, one issue is "Are certain "violent acts", such as blowing up a bus terrorism or not?". Another one, "The international community stongly believes that are or there are not illegal weapon activities in TRansnistria" Need one more, any suggestions? :):):) :Dc76 20:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anatoli Lukianov, "founding father" of Transnistria?

From the book of Anatolie Muntean and Nicolae Ciubotaru - "Razboiul de pe Nistru" (The War on the Dniester), AGER-Economistul publishing House, Bucharest 2002:

• In the foreword written by Nicolae Dabija is claimed: "In 21 December 1989, during the works of Soviet Union Supreme Soviet, the president of the Supreme Soviet, Anatoli Lukianov, warn us, the MPs from Moldova, that if we want independence Moscow will create from Moldavian SSR a federation with 5 republics: Gagauz, Transnistrian, Ukrainian, Russian and Moldovan" (page 15). Dabija was a member of Soviet Union Supreme Soviet, he is relating this as an eye witness. Other MPs from Moldova should be able to confirm Dabija testimony, as he clearly states he was not alone when Lukianov made those threats, other Moldovan MPs were also present. Dabija's testimony was mentioned before in the press, but I don’t have data exactly where.
• Same Dabija is claiming that in 12 April 1991 Lukianov issued a document with clear indications about how to destroy the legal bodies in the Eastern part of Moldova and to creates new legal bodies (page 16). The document is not presented in the book.
• Lukianov is credited also of asking the 14th Army to occupy Transnistria and Gagauzia in 1990, when in those region was organised the referendum for keeping the Soviet Union (page 289) – the rest of Moldova didn’t organized the referendum, and of
• asking well known Moscow newspaper “Izvestia”, in 15th July 1990, to publish a letter from Maracutsa and gagauz Kindighelean about the fact that if Moldova refuse to sign the new Union Treaty, Gagauz and Dniestrian Republic will sign the treaty on their own (page 313-314).

Maybe Lukianov should be considered a "founding father" of Transnistria? In fact, the role of some forces in Moscow (especially "Soyuz" group) in the aparition of Transnistria is not mentioned in the article, I believe this is a weakness.--MariusM 23:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean Anatoly Lukyanov, who was the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR? (see President of the Soviet Union) bogdan 23:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I wrote "president of the Supreme Soviet", but "Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR" is probabily better English.--MariusM 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see from Wikipedia article President of the Soviet Union that Lukyanov became chairman only in March 1990. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, however it will be usefull to check the exact position of Lukyanov in 21 December 1989 (it was during Romanian Revolution of 1989). Dabija is reffering at Lukyanov as Chairman of Supreme Soviet of USSR ("preşedinte" in Romanian), probabily he is giving him a function he later aquired (like some are talking today about "president Gorbatchev", while the man is no longer president).--MariusM 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is telling that other historians, including all known Western sources, don't mention Lukyanov in any 1989-1990 context whatsoever. Thus, if he had a role at all in the birth of PMR, it was clearly of negligible importance in comparison to such OSTK notables as Smirnov, Karaman, Marakutsa, etc. We should also note: At the time, the liaisons between Moscow and Tiraspol were deputies of the “Soiuz” group of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, headed by Iuri Blohin. - Mauco 01:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Which historians denied the 4 concrete facts which are mentioned that were done by Lukyanov?--MariusM 01:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM, what makes you think that a historian would need to deny something, especially something which they don't even find of enough importance to even waste five words on? Like I already said, they simply don't mention Lukyanov. He is a non-entity in this context. The role of Lukyanov is fun to speculate about, but it borders on a conspiracy theory that is supported by any serious scholar in the field. - Mauco 01:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting question, but, as MariusM knows because we have corresponded via email, I have a few thoughts about this question that I would like to raise before specific edits are proposed based on this evidence.

First, nothing of what is cited here seems to me to be a “smoking gun.” Of course, both Lukianov and Gorbachev opposed Moldovan independence, but I see very little evidence here to suggest that they actually did much about it, especially anything effective. To my mind the most important issue raised might be the moving of Soviet army personnel into Transnistria and Gagauzia to prevent disruption of referenda. But then again, like most the evidence above this is mostly reactive or enabling behavior. It doesn’t necessarily give Lukianov much agency in actually creating the PMR.

This brings me to my second point. For me to accept that Lukianov (presumably working for Gorbachev or Ligachev?) is a “founding father” of the PMR, I would need to see other types of evidence. For instance, how did they orchestrate PMR secession? He may have asked a newspaper to publish a document or threatened Moldovan SS USSR deputies that he would create a 5-republic federation out of the MSSR, but this says very little about the actual mechanics. The letter wasn't even written by him. Not only are republics not built on letters, but I would suggest that here again we see enabling behavior and not much initiative.

Finally, regarding that threat. Why didn’t he create a 5-republic federation out of the MSSR? Why didn’t he prevent the MSSR from seceding altogether? He either didn’t want to, or couldn’t. I would suggest the latter is more likely and so the question becomes why? If these conspirators in Moscow are as competent as they are portrayed here why only stop a small part of Moldova from seceding? Why not keep other republics in the union? Put another way, what allowed pro-Soviet forces to win in Transnistria and (almost) nowhere else? This is the question of real interest to me. I suspect that the answer is that whatever the role of these Soviet leaders was, it was largely confined to enabling and not necessarily as active as Dabija believes.

In summary, MariusM, you raise an interesting question. But you do not provide evidence that leads to any real conclusions. Let’s leave the question open, but I would like to see more evidence. Jamason 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer for some of Jamason questions is the difference between willing and being able. Lukyanov and other political leaders from Moscow wanted to stop national movement not only in Moldova but also in other republics, but not everywhere they were able to obtain what they want. There were similar attempts in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia. Pro-Soviet forces won not only in Transnistria, there are at least other 2 similar cases: Abkhazia and South Osetia. Is an old "divide and conquer" rule to use ethnic differences in order to keep the power of a multi-ethnic state. As an indication of a centralised plot I would see the role of Vladimir Antyufeyev, who was active in Latvia against national movement and, after he failed in that place he moved in Transnistria (where he was more succesful). It was an attempt for a secesionist movement in Narva region of Estonia. Why pro-Soviet movements failed in Baltics and gained in Moldova? - that is an interesting question. I believe that a paradox of Moldova is: here was one of the strongest national movement in Soviet Union but in the same time one of the strongest anti-national movement. Communist Party of Moldova, as long as was leaded by Simion Grosu (until november 1989) considered the national movement the main enemy. In 1987 or 1988 an official document of Moldovan Communist Party regarding the national problem, which was sent for discussion in all party organisations (that mean all working places) described the national movement and its demands (official language, latins script and Moldovan/Romanian identity recognition) as extremist. The entire propaganda machinery of Moldovan Communist Party worked against national movement in 1987, 1988 and begining of 1989. In January 1989 Grosu was hoot away by participants at a Moldovan Popular Front meeting (most newspapers kept silence about this), this is the turning point when some Communist officials started to look for a compromise with national movement. Finally Grosu was overthrown in November 1989 after members of Moldovan Popular Front stoped the military parade scheduled for 7 November and (believe in 10 November) set in fire the building of Interior Ministry from Kishinev. Moldovan Communist party was not able to stop the national movement but opposing this movement, using its porpaganda machine to describe its demands as "extremist", was able only to increase the conflict and strenghten the pro-Soviet forces. Baltic Communist Parties were more friendly to national movement - this is one of the differences. My conclusion is that conspirators in Moscow were not very competent, they failed in most places of the USSR, but in Moldova they received a smaller resistance as authorities were not determined with whom to fight most: with separatists or with Romanian nationalists? I would add that today is the same situation - Communist government of Vladimir Voronin is anti-Romanian, and is not determined with whom to fight most.--MariusM 03:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding flippant, perhaps it time to remind certain editors of what Wikipedia is NOT: WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please focus discussion on specific edits for mainspace of the Transnistria article. If you want something specific included, please just include it or, preferably, propose the sentence here first for discussion. - Mauco 04:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You knew Wikipedia is not a soapbox? That's a surprise. Then, why are you making propaganda for Transnistrian regime here?--MariusM 04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not. Facts are facts, and all edits are fully sourced and cited as per WP:CITE. Please do not continue to vandalize or remove sourced statements from the article, as in this latest blanking by you and reversal of the work of at least two other editors on the page.[41]. - Mauco 05:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

British Helsinki Human Rights Group - a non reliable source?

Facts are facts, and all edits are fully sourced and cited as per WP:CITE. Please do not continue to vandalize or remove sourced statements from the article, as in this latest blanking by you and reversal of the work of at least two other editors on the page.[42]. - Mauco 05:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Following the mechanics of good Wiki citation does nothing to indicate whether or not what you are citing is credible. Do not confuse that something is published with the notion that it might be true. Properly citing the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, for example, in editing the article to then denigrate as "politically motivated" the charges of arms smuggling is no less getting on a "soapbox." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting comment, and it raises some food for thought. You will surely understand that the whole point of Oxford-historian Mark Almond's article, which was published by his British Helsinki Human Rights Group, was exactly that the accusations against Transnistria are politically motivated rather than based on fact, and that they completely lack any truthful basis in reality. Instead of looking at WHO says this, please read WHAT they say and then attempt, with an open mind, to analyze the arguments rather than the source.[43] - Mauco 15:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reindenting for the next round...) Finally, we're getting somewhere. I think we've achieved a "what's wrong with this page" microcosm of critical mass. It is precisely that we are citing WHATEVER anyone says that's of any particular viewpoint with total disregard as to WHO (that is, POV pro-PMR, POV anti-PMR, or POV accepted as objective non-participant) is saying it in the first place. One cannot quote a biased source regarding "no arms smuggling," then use it to ascribe "political motivations" to all those who do report arms smuggling, and then say "dispute the statement not the source."

Put another way, continuing the food metaphor... let us say that I, Peters, publish that "the moon is made of cheese." Coincidentally, I am the chairman of "The Helsinki Cheese-Mooner Rights Watch" foundation. One would then update the article Moon stating that, "Although it has been maintained that the moon is composed primarily of rock aggregated from interstellar materials, that is an attempt by scientifically-motivated non-creationists to quash the opposing viewpoint that the moon is made of cheese (ref. Peters' article in "Cheese Moon Quarterly"). Now, dispute what Peters says, never mind his bias, alleged, actual, or otherwise. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to be rude but this is a really dumb comment. The source for the User Mauco was written by a professor at Oxford University and you are comparing it to a man who says that the moon is made out of cheese. I can read, thank you, I do not need this kind of Vecrumba interpretation. Do you think we are stupid? - Pernambuco 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My hyperbole was to make the point that a biased source is still a biased source. Professor or not, Mark Almond is the chairman of a blatantly POV organization. Inserting his viewpoint as fact into the article, citing him as an objective source, and then challenging the other editors to dispute is totally inappropriate. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Vecrumba made a valid comment here. I didn't knew that British Helsinki Group is not affiliated with International Helsinki Federation, one of the good things at Wikipedia is that I am learning new facts. I remember Mauco strongly opposing the inclusion in Transnistria related articles of the statements of Moldovan Helsinki Human Rights group, which is recognized by IHF. Of course, those statements are not in favour of Russian expansionism, this was the reason Mauco oppose them.--MariusM 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it really? Please do not put words in my mouth. You know better, since you were a party to that particular content dispute. You know EXACTLY what my problem was with that particular press release, and I will not allow you to misinterpret this issue. For anyone else, who is not aware of the kind of flim-flam that MariusM is trying to pull, the facts are on the record and can be seen [Talk:Transnistrian referendum, 2006 here]. Do not put words in my mouth which I have never said, MariusM. You only discredit yourself by doing that. - Mauco 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The last edit by Mauco

I cite the last edit by Mauco, changed by MariusM to a more decent version:

Although analysts have identified dangers presented by Transnistria due to its large deposits of weapons and the potential of their unauthorized sale, such fears appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts.

Given reference: http://www.bhhrg.org/LatestNews.asp?ArticleID=66 Mark Almond: Kafka and the Arms Smugglers

So, let's see a bit what the sources of Mr. Mauco are. The unique source for such a controversial statement is www.bhhrg.org, the site of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, a self-styled "Helsinki" NGO that is in no way affiliated with the British Helsinki Subcommitee. This British Helsinki Human Rights Group of uncertain membership and funding was very active at a time when it supported Mr. Milosevic, and disapproved "Western meddling" in Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Dpotop 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight:

• You do not agree to including the sentence: "such fears appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts". Correct?
• However, you do not disagree with the contents of the sentence itself, but your objection is based on WP:RS because you do not believe that the publisher (the British Helsinki Human Rights Committee) is a reputable source.
• Please confirm this, so I can understand what your objection is based on.
• Or do you believe that such fears are NOT groundless and NOT politically motivated, AND that they are based on VERIFIED facts? If so, please support your sources for this. Surely, by now, you are aware that there is no evidence that Transnistria has ever manufactured weapons or exported weapons, legally or illegally, and this is what Oxford professor Mark Almond on points out in his analysis. - Mauco 14:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is dubious to say the least. And you, experienced user, citing it, is suspect. In saying this, I am considering your history of pushing unreliable sources and spinning information from reliable ones an all topics related to Transnistria. Dpotop 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Helloooooo! (Apologies, been busy with chores.) I've researched the British Helsinki Human Rights Group before, as they have cropped up on the Latvian scene. They have nothing to do with any real human rights group, they are a front for Russian interests. As blatantly POV as Olvia (more so, actually, as they masquerade as something they're not). I dispute as an unreliable and completely biased source. It's the BHHRG that's "politically motivated" in all of this. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As "historian Mark Almond" is also the chairman of the BHHRG, I also categorically dispute as unreliable and completely biased anything he writes. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both Dpotop and Vecrumba for this quick reply. That was exactly the clarification which I asking for. I just needed to make sure that what you are disputing here is not the actual content of the sentence (which would be a content dispute), but rather the source (a dispute based on Wikipedia's reliable sources rule), and that the argument against using it is that it is unreliable because it is biased. - Mauco 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't get it (or don't want to). On wikipedia, there is no difference between a statement and its content. So, yes, I dispute its content. Remember, wikipedia is not about truth, but about sources and POVs. No original research, and therefore no such thing as "actual content". Dpotop 14:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of this, and I see that you (and all others) are not disputing the content of Mark Almond's analysis, but the source (based on the organization which published him and the involvement of Almond in that organization). WP:RS are valid grounds for refusal of an edit's inclusion, but I just wanted it clarified, which you have now done and which I thank you for. - Mauco 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia, it's forbidden to express personal views in articles. So, I cannot dispute content, including Mark Almond's, unless I find a reliable source saying it's crap. Maybe the others will find it. Dpotop 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He does make some valid points but the argument for removing my edit is based on the source (BHHRG), and whether or not we can use it as a reliable source to make the sort of blanket statement which my proposed edit purports to do (namely "such fears appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts"). - Mauco 15:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

noway another propaganda site. BHHR is highly unreliable as much as ICDISS. Where did you find it? The IHF and the OSCE, among others, accuse the BHHRG of approaching elections with a pre-determined political agenda, of conducting political campaigning rather than human-rights monitoring, and of being used for propaganda purposes by undemocratic governments [44] EvilAlex 14:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that all editors here object to the use of this particular source. It is, in their opinion, politically biased. Based on this feedback, I shall either rephrase the statement, or find additional sources, or else leave it out altogether. - Mauco 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think with these sort of things it's better to say that so and so organisation/people believe these reports to be groundless based on so and so evidence - rather than stating outright that the claims are groundless. THe same goes the other way around of course, i.e. so and so organisation/people believe gun smuggling (or whatever) takes place in Transnistria , but make it clear that these are certain opinions not abosultely agreed on by everyone. A bit like the existance of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a few years ago for example.--Jonathanpops 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this user (Jonathanpops). Both sides of the argument must be shown but both of the sides must be attributed. If one side has evidence and the other side does not, then that has to be mentioned in the text, too. It is important to distinguish. Do not forget in Iraq the whole war started because they thought that the dictator had WMD but in the end it was just a bluff. - Pernambuco 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course these oppinions are not "absolutely agreed by everyone". What matters, however, in stat the EU, OSCE, and the UN are rather reliable, as sources, while the "Transnistrian government", ICDISS, and BHHRG are not. Dpotop 20:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As concerns your comparison with the war in Iraq, don't you think you are a bit exaggerating? Nobody wants Transnistria's petroleum. The only things Transnistria has in abundance is borders and corruption, and the EU has enough of both already. Transnistria is probably the most lawless region in Europe (and therefore a heaven for trafficking and tax evasion). If the EU is interested in something here, it's security and tax issues. Dpotop 20:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I never compared the war in Iraq to Transnistria, in fact I never even mentioned the war in Iraq. I gave an example where there were two factions of belief, it could have been anything. I only used the WMD argument as an example because I thought everyone would be familiar with it.--Jonathanpops 22:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And so did Mark Almond, in his article[45]. He points out that there is a campaign of smear against Transnistria, but that there is so far not ANY evidence whatsoever to back up the outrageous claims that Transnistria produces weapons or exports weapons. The only thing he fails to mention is that Transnistria is landlocked. In order to export weapons, the weapons have to go through Moldova or Ukraine first. Hmmm... - Mauco

Mark Almond

I did some background checking into Mark Almond. He is a reliable source which we can cite, according to WP:RS. For instance:

• Mark Almond is a professor at Oxford.
  
• His bio lists him as a fellow which means that he forms part of the governing body of the college.
  
• He has written several books on European history and about Eastern Europe. They have been published by some of the world's largest and most reputable publishers, such as Heinemann.
  
• He writes for New Statesman, a leading weekly magazine which was founded in Britain in 1913.
  
• He writes for National Review, a famous publication and the oldest conservative magazine in the United States.
  
• He writes for The Daily Mail, a right-wing newspaper which is the second-most popular newspaper in Britain.
  
• He wrote his latest opinion comment as an individual, signing it with his own byline, and not on behalf of the BHHRG, with no indication that the article represents the views of BHHRG. It should be analyzed fully on the basis of who the author is, since that is all we know from the article. To focus on BHHRG in this context is spurious, to say the least.
  

Mark Almond is a serious heavy-weight, and not a loony who says that moon is made of cheese (as Vecrumba hints). When he says something, we can disagree with him. Fair enough. We can even call him biased (and which political analyst isn't?). That is all good and well. But we CAN NOT offhandedly discard him on the basis of WP:RS, as EvilAlex, Dpotop and Vecrumba wants to do.
When he says that the dangers presented by Transnistria appear to be groundless and to be politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts, his opinion should not be censored by us. It is just as valid as those who have the opposite bias (whose opinion we also include). - Mauco 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your refs point to BHHRG site. The site is unreliable. It could say that the author of this article is S. Freud , how do you know if it is true? EvilAlex 01:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you doubting that the article is written by Mark Almond? Are you saying that BHHRG used the name of Mark Almond, but that Mark Almond is not the author of the article? I am not sure that I follow this sort of drowning-man argument, so please explain what you mean. - Mauco 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am just saying what everyone said your refs are unreliable. BHHRG has no reputation what soever. EvilAlex 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take my chances and assume good faith here. If the article has a byline on it which says that it is written by Mark Almond, and if it appears on a website which Mark Almond is affiliated with, then there is a darn good chance that it is written by Mark Almond. There comes a point when arguing just for the sake of arguing becomes lame, EvilAlex. - Mauco 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is reputable but his opinion is his and you can not use it to state a generalized opinion, you have to give him credit for it so the source is him, and then the readers themselves can decide if they will believe him or not but it is not our work to do this for them. - Pernambuco 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, Mark Almond is a biased POV source whose main venue, the BHHRG is a front for special interests. As I recall there was some furory a ways back when the BHHRG rushed to the defense of Milosovic. I first ran into the BHHRG because of they agreed with the Soviet, and now Russian, position that Latvia was not occupied (as per their site). They never did acknowledge or respond to any of my inquiries. All the credentials you cite for Almond are fine on the surface, except the BHHRG renders them null and void with respect to Almond's POV and bias, making Almond an unreliable source. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him. But one thing that I have a question for is for Vecrumba, it is when he says that Mark Almond is an unreliable source, I just want to ask if he means that Almond is an unreliable source according to Vecrumba's own personal opinion, in his eyes, or if Almond is an unreliable source according to the Wikipedia rules on using reliable sources. - Pernambuco 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vecrumba is going overboard. Mark Almond is not an unreliable source just because Vecrumba doesn´t agree with him. His credentials are valid. I have no indication that BHHRG is a "front for special interests" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean). But even if that was true, which we don't know, what does it matter? We use information from the CIA World Factbook all the time, and reference to it widely here in Wikipedia as a reliable source, even though we all know that CIA is of course a front for special interests and is, in many cases, openly biased towards one set of politics. Vecrumba wants censorship of views that he does not agree with, and that is counter to Wikipedia's policies. It is only in the eyes of biased, censorship-happy editors that Mark Almond is not a reliable source. For Wikipedia, he is more than qualified and his views are needed to counterbalance the onesided views of the other side. Otherwise the article shows bias. -

In response to Mauco, author of the above... BHHRG gushes rapturously over Lukashenko, reveres Putin, and denigrates every democratic movement in the former Soviet Union as a sinister conspiracy orchestrated by the West. It is a POV source. By his chairmanship of the BHHRG, a POV NGO, Almond is a POV source. Mauco, you have a history of dredging up items favorable to the PMR and then challenging others to disprove them (at a minimum prove it's not POV), for example, Rabbi Shmulevitch (at least there you asked for comments before just sticking it into the article, which is one of my primary objections here). As it turned out he was as pro-PMR as they come, a self-proclaimed friend of the PMR; and another person in his organization (I believe it was the organization's secretary) was publishing a "reality based" novel talking about anti-Transnistrian neo-fascist youth groups organized by the Moldovans (the book published by an Israel-based publishing house owned by Transnistrians)—launch and book signings in Tiraspol. All one had to do was read Shmulevitch's web site.

If you want to "balance" sources you feel are POV biased in favor of Moldova, feel free to quote Almond and/or the BHHRG, just not as a NPOV source. I've only found one peer review of anything he's written, which will necessitate a trip to the library. I'll post those results—whatever they are, whether or not they support my position on Almond—when I have them.

You can't refute my argument that Almond is a POV source by saying, well, everything is POV after all and I'm just being a "censor." If you want to speak of intellectual honesty—as you have done—the high road is not an easy one. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think anybody arguing re Almond should see Mauco's earlier comments on how truth doesn't matter and how the use of a source means this or that. Almond is the chair of a group that has devoted itself to defending Russian imperialist entities, and Almond's group is as at least as bizarre and foggy as ICDISS. --Pēteris Cedriņš 21:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed: I DO think that anyone arguing about this SHOULD see my earlier comments on this, so that they can see for themselves how you are quoting me completely out of context. Please provide the link to the appropriate DIFF, so we can all see for ourselves just where I stand on the issue. And since you are back now, will you also be kind enough to confirm that you agree to a voluntary CheckUser in order to make certain that you are not using sockpuppets (as you claim on this very page). You unfortunately disappeared for a long time after that question was put to you. Thank you. - Mauco 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice the question before, sorry -- but of course I agree. I don't know what a CheckUser entails, but if it is an IP check you should know that I once signed in under her account because I was teaching her to use Wiki. You are welcome to call me -- my number is listed in the directory, but here is my mobile -- (+371) 28633979. You are welcome to visit me. You are welcome to confirm her existence. Got a problem? I disappeared for a long time? When? Sorry, I don't take you very seriously, but I use my real name, which is attached to a real address and is very easily confirmed. I do not ever use sockpuppets. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original issue, discussion of sockpuppetries aside... I did make it over to the main branch of the public library to look up a review of "The Rise and Fall of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. By Mark Almond", 1992, reviewed by Charles King (who appears to be esteemed rather highly here). To summarize, Almond did a whole series of interviews but does nothing but pretty much confirm what's been said before. It's novel in its underscoring of Elena Ceausescu's influence on Romanian daily life, but sloppy in its Romanian references, from random diacriticals to confusion over names of prominent Romanian leaders. "Odd" mistakes for a "Romanian specialist." There are some short-lived attempts at psycho-historical analysis (Nicolae versus Hitler and Stalin, Saddam Hussein), but nothing that could be called "considered analysis." (quoting King) "Interesting" and "readable" for the the "general audience."

My own interpretation is it was good excuse for Almond to chat with all those he admired, after which he produced a book most interesting for its cult of Elena angle, but which, for a Romanian specialist was rather sloppy. I don't see acclamation for Almond's scholarship on the part of King. (And King said it looked like Almond never read the page proofs.) If we're going to have intelligent discourse about opposing viewpoints, let's try and stick to folks known for being admired by the academic community for their scholarship, not known for their leadership of dubious NGOs. My objection to Almond—his organization and the professor—as being POV remains unchanged. I should also mention that this "consider the words not the source" thing that is going on is very disturbing. It's precisely the reputation of the source that lends credence (and a basis for inclusion in an encyclopedic article). Otherwise we waste valuable time tracking down hyper-Zionist radically pro-PMR crackpots, as an example. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

low transparency

EvilAlex, please let me know where in the UN report they say that there is currently low transparency in Transnistria. Their usage of the wording "low transparency" refers to the past. They currently state that there is openness and co-operation. The next time you revert this, I will have to report you for 3RR edit warring and ask that you be blocked. - Mauco 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

read the bloody source and dont ask stupid questions EvilAlex 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and do not swear at me. I read the source, which is why I insist that the usage of the word is in past tense. The report says "While the Transdnistrean authorities have a history of low transparency on SALW issues, attitudes may be changing, as evidenced by the good levels of cooperations in some areas during the research for this report." They are saying that the low transparency is HISTORIC and that this has CHANGED due to GOOD LEVELS OF COOPERATIONS. Difference is between: Before and now. - Mauco 23:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that somewhere along the way, the good levels of cooperation in SOME areas became just plain "good levels of cooperation" as if in all areas. Hope of a positive trend, as expressed, does not confer actuality, as you maintain. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Transparency among the Transdniestrian security services responsible for SALW control is in general very low, particularly with respect to SALW transfers. The Survey team was not provided with any information about the structure of the Transdniestrian security services, their manpoweror SALW holdings. Neither was any information provided on the type and number of SALW produced, imported and exported since the Transdniestrian authorities broke away from the rest of Moldova. While the general lachof access to security-related information isa common symptom of conflict situations, in the case of the Transdniestrian authorities it helps to perpetuate and reinforce accusations of SALW production and trafficking. The lack of transparency on the part of the Transdniestrian authorities also ensures that tensions with the Moldovan Government are kept at an elevated level.
EvilAlex 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you both want me to put a compromise forward, like I did before? I can try if you think it can maybe help but I just have to read that whole report first - Pernambuco 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my sugestions

1. Transparency -> Low Transparency or Transparency -> Lack of Transparency
2. indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking (delete)
   This one is Mauco POV, it indicates to him, it is hie personal opinion. Of course it is interesting to know what you think, but it shouldn't be in the main article. If we will take in to account that everyone here have the same right then everyone who wished to add they opinion regarding UNDP survey should be allowed to do so. In this case i will add my POV you will add yours POV and so on.. At the end we will have a Blog not a wikipedia. That is why i wont to remove this sentence. Also i said many times before: lets use the citations from the source; and the source UNDP does not have that citation "Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking". Mauco again and again - dont put your words into UNDP mouth.
3. These findings echo previous declarations by Transnistria that it is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons. -> Some of these findings echo previous declarations by Transnistria that it is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons. (or deleted)
   UNDP critesised Transnistrian authority pridnestrovie.net did not. this sentence is wrong.

EvilAlex 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to read this report and then I can let you know, that will be about the two first items, with "transparency" and with "indicates not involved in", these two areas. I think that he says that he rephrased or paraphrased the report to shorten or to avoid copyright violation, it is on this talk page, but the point is just to make sure that when he did this, the overall meaning stays the same. I will let you know later. - Pernambuco 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco calls to Wikipedia policies (such as WP:COPYVIO) that do not apply in order to justify the malicious editing of citations. Given the size of these citations, we can assume fair use, so there is no copyright problem. EvilAlex 13:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The last part (3) can stay because they said that and there is a source for it to the official website, maybe the sentence is wrong but it is their opinion and we need to include the official opinion, right, because it gives their response to the critics. - Pernambuco 17:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

EvilAlex is wrong, again, but that is no surprise. He is picking and choosing his own interpretation of a report which was overwhelmingly positive towards the efforts of Transnistria in transparency and weapons control efforts, and which makes it clear that there is no conclusive evidence that Transnistria has ever produced weapons or trafficked in weapons. Thanks to Pernambuco for the initiative on trying to bring consensus. I can not say if I agree with the result yet, until I see what is being proposed. - Mauco 19:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:He is picking and choosing his own interpretation
if you yourself are picking and choosing your own interpretation then following your logic - you are wrong.
Your position is clear to me: you included only citations that only support you position and removing those others that criticized it. As I said before use citations not your words and we will not have any problem. As simple as that, as long as citation supported by the source then i will not have any objectives. I dont need your opinion in the article, if you disagree then i have the same right as you have to include my own. EvilAlex 13:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to apologize for my delay, but it is a long report and I wanted to do a perfect job, actually it is 169 pages long and very technical so this explains why I am not finished with it yet, and I have been away from wiki-pedia for two days because of this reason. It is a very good source and there are some quotes in the report that Evilalex will like and some quotes in the report that Mauco will like, and I`ll present the findings as soon as I get it finished. -Pernambuco 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please find some compromise instead of edit warring. Say something like some transparency or while transparency is low it improves Alex Bakharev 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the need for compromise. Another user already helped with a compromise on this same section of the article, by including both sides of the issue. EvilAlex said that he agreed with it. - Mauco 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That is good. When you have some agreement just let me know and I will unlock the article Alex Bakharev 01:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just offered to help. - Pernambuco 03:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Almond and wikipedia policies

Since I'm not paid to support (or criticise) Transnistria on wikipedia, I missed the previous discussion on Mark Almond. I believe that some people here are continuing either their misunderstanding of wikipedia policies, or disinformation campaign.

Just consider the first post in Talk:Transnistria#Mark Almond. There's one editor there that tells us that "he did some background checks", to make sure that Mark Almond is a decent guy, so that its oppinion is trustworthy as a source here.

Should I see this as a public image manipulation? Because the edit tries to work around the existing NPOV criterion of Wikipedia by saying "this guy is good, we should give him more weight, regardless of what the public perception is". Second, we are told "this guy is noteworthy, his oppinion is certainly good". This is a stupid statement (another logical fallacy, in the tradition of Mauco). Any smart guy is stupid sometimes, and many decent persons have weird oppinions in some areas. Dpotop 22:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see there's so much love here on Wikipedia... Khoikhoi 22:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that you should also love Bonaparte, and let him edit the pages of the Romanian noticeboard? I believe not, since you don't let him, and you do well. In my understanding of WP:LOVE, I am able to learn new things from editors that do not show a clear and systematic bias in editing. I mean, you assume good faith the first 2-3 times where you see weird edits and crooked arguments. Dpotop 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a policy called WP:BAN, which states that "any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban". There is also a policy called WP:CIVIL, which states that "we cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect one another. But we have every right to demand civility". That's why I'm asking you to hold-off of the nasty sarcasms. Khoikhoi 22:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I've been saying here. You, an administrator, are asking me to "love" a guy that does not respect wikipedia policies, and this is weird. So I wanted to check whether you comply with your recommendations. Obviously, not, which is OK. 87.91.12.204 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I am interrupting but I was just reading this page and I am more and more confused now. Who is the person that does not respect wikipedia policies, are you referring to Khoikhoi or to Vecrumba or to Mauco or to someone else? Can you please name the person and also provide some references (links) that show that this person, whoever it is, does not respect wikipedia policies because then we can pursue the case and make a ban or something, whatever is needed. But what Khoikhoi is saying (at least this is the way that I read it) is that he is just requesting more civility, and I really agree with him on that. From all of you, it does not really cost any money to be less nasty, so please just try and see how it goes. I am one of these people who want to get more involved but I am having second thoughts because I see how you treat each other on this page. - Pernambuco 01:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this thread? I presume not, because otherwise you would not ask for clarifications.

And, BTW, I see that Pernambuco and Khoikhoi are concerned about "nasty" behavior, and not loving your neighbor. How about worrying about factual accuracy? Then, you critique will not be concentrated on one side only. Dpotop 10:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And I need to add: If you read my posts carefully, you will see that the harsh wording is justified. You cannot say that someone has a weird editing behavior without being a bit harsh. In other words, you have to break eggs to make an omelet. Dpotop 12:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that sometimes the disputes are heated and personal attacks were done. Apologies for my mistakes. However, those disputes are in talk pages and what is important for Wikipedia are the articles. And for the articles, I agree with Dpotop that factual accuracy is the main thing.--MariusM 11:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It must be a cold day in hell, but I actually agree with MariusM. I also accept his apology (if it was directed at me, which I think it was, because he has called me a troll and a vandal in his edit log summaries more times than I can remember). To Dpotop: I don´t get your ´´breaking eggs´´ analogy at all. We are writing an encyclopedia, not making an omelet, and we can do that while being civil. Content disputes happen every minute of every day on Wikipedia, and this Transnistria page is not unique, so don´t get fired up about it but try to listen to the experienced voice of Khoikhoi who is now (congrats, Khoi!) an admin, no less. I will of course continue to stand my ground, at least in the cases where I firmly believe that I am right and the Romanians are wrong, but there is no need to see this as an "us versus them" or "breaking eggs" kind of way. - Mauco 20:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming: move to Pridnestrovie?

I suggest this page be moved to Pridnestrovie, to stay in accordance with the policy to list a page of a country under the name that the government wants as its name in English. Analogous to the Ivory Coast -> Côte d'Ivoir, Birma -> Myanmar, and Taiwan -> Republic of China. Sephia karta 13:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Transnistria#Naming Convention. TSO1D 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that link. I don't agree, where do I protest, here or there? Sephia karta 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, but right now please don't expect a fair hearing if you are proposing something that even remotely resembles Transnistria's right to exist (or to choose what it prefers to be called). - Mauco 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Smuggling Section

I was very busy over the course of the past few weeks in real life, and wasn't able to contribute much the discussions here, however I did follow the arguments of other editors and wish to briefly state my views on the smuggling section. I believe that the current version of the text is not fully neutral due to the choice of language and the unequal weight given to different views.

The opening sentence reads: "Although analysts have identified dangers presented by Transnistria due to its large deposits of weapons and the potential of their unauthorized sale, Oxford scholar Mark Almond points out that such fears appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts." This sentence sets the tone of the paragraph, however it does not follow NPOV guidelines. First of all, fears of the security of weapons caches, not just accusations of Transnitrian smuggling is labeled as politically motivated. I do not see how anyone can feel fully secure with the existence of such vast deposits of weapons in the hands of any power, let alone the rather secretive and unrecognized PMR. Secondly, it presents one dominating viewpoint by stating that although some might accuse the PMR of smuggling, it has been "pointed out" that these fears are not based on verified facts. The choice of the word points out has a connotation that the statement refers to a fact, although the charge of potential political motivation behind the accusations cannot be anything but an opinion. Secondly, this is the belief of only one expert (and a rather biased one at that), and there are others who disagree with him.

Later in the paragraph: "Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in some fields of weapons control, although they also say that the goverment refused to allow an official OSCE mission to check this issue." The report never states that there are good levels of transperency in Transnistria, nor does it emphasize good relations with PMR authorities. Rather, it states that Transnistria has had a history of low transperancy and still does not allow international monitors to conduct open investigations, although there has been some progress and cooperation in some domains.

My proposed version of the first sentences of that part of the paragraph would read as follows:

Numerous analysts and media outlets have identified dangers presented by Transnistria due to its large deposits of weapons and the potential of their unauthorized sale. Nevertheless, this view has been challanged by other experts and organizations as well as by the government of the PMR. Oxford scholar Mark Almond stated that accusations of state-sponsored weapons smuggling in the PMR appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts.[35]. Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that the historically low levels of transperancy and continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime, although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR. TSO1D 16:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, you will have my support with this one. Also i would prefer not to include Mark Almond opinion. He is unknown, nobody.. do we need him here? How about to include my POV in article along side with Mark Almond? Do we need to include everyones opinion who have university degree? Or maybe we should stick to Government officials and well respected international organization? EvilAlex 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Like EvilAlex, I support TSO1D's version without the mention of Mark Almond. Or, if we mention Mark Almond, his affiliation with the controversial organization BHHRH should be mentioned. User:Dpotop 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just popping in to agree with TSO1D. I also think that Almond's affiliation should be briefly mentioned, but in a neutral way like "...M.A., the chairman of BHHRG points out..."; but not "...the chairman of a group that has defended pretty much every pro-Russian dictator..." (That part is implied in the "controversial issues" section on the group's page anyway ;-)).

That Mark Almond is a controversial figure is not controversial. We can simply say "Mark Almond, the controversial chairman of the controversial BHHRG". With this, we say there's a controversy. Dpotop 09:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: If TSO1D's proposal manages to get everyone's agreement on this issue, he deserves a barnstar. Named "the Order of Solomon" or somesuch... :-) --Illythr 04:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Almond is hardly an unknown -- he is quite prominent in the BHHRG. Quite funny, how so many so very recognizable people keep turning up on these Transnistria pages, along with such suspicious unrecognizable people, eh? Maybe it isn't so funny at all? --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria is already a very controversial subject. If we start adding conspiracy theories to the mix, it will get even worse. Please, Cedrins, it will help if we all make an effort to keep speculation about motives (mine, yours, Almond´s, anyones) away from these pages and discuss the arguments based on what we know. Not on what we think that we know, or what might be. Everyone has motives and usually we don´t know them. It is no coincidence that the cornerstone of Wikipedia is that we must simply assume good faith. - Mauco 20:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

BHHRG, ICDISS, User:William Mauco... , i smell a rat here EvilAlex 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Mauco, darling -- I have no intention of adding any conspiracy theories, and I'm hardly a conspiracy theorist. Should I be? Dunno nuthin' 'bout your motives, neither. The trouble is that I do not contribute to Transnistria articles (because I write about what I know, have access to information to, can debate, etc.) and I just happened to pop in -- and yet I see such familar faces, don't I? Why might that be? Oh, now, I wouldn't want to encourage any shadows to be thrown upon your efforts, would I? Funny, when I questioned the use of Alksnis as a quotable figure, you leapt to his defense by saying that his views are well-known. Now Almond gets brought in? These people happen to belong to very questionable organizations, no? Sorry, but this is like quoting David Duke about racism, were he not known. I think I will continue to pop in, sorry -- something stinks here, methinks. Something stinks when you are evasive about your identity, too, Mauco -- I returned here because Edward Lucas praised you, y'know, as I said anent the mediation you rejected. Your motives don't matter very much when you refer to facts -- but that's not what you do. You twist facts, and your rape of the line about weapons from the UN report was proof positive of that, and final as far as I am concerned. You lost any and all assumption of good faith at that point -- from my POV. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a statement from someone who claims that that no smuggling takes place is needed in the paragraph, and Almond does have good credentials. Although I might not agree with his views, I believe that citing him in the article is logical. TSO1D 18:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just copy and paste the same thing I said earlier: I think with these sort of things it's better to say that so and so organisation/people believe these reports to be groundless based on so and so evidence - rather than stating outright that the claims are groundless. The same goes the other way around of course, i.e. so and so organisation/people believe gun smuggling (or whatever) takes place in Transnistria , but make it clear that these are certain opinions not abosultely agreed on by everyone. --Jonathanpops 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, that is what TSO1D is proposing, more or less. We can make it more explicit, if you want. That will show who says what, precisely (and not just Almond will be listed). -

Almond's credentials are "good"? Hmm. So Alksnis, the "Black Colonel" from the radical pro-Soviet faction behind Transnistria's existence, discredited in 1991, will vouch for the fairness of elections -- and Almond, the chairman of a group that has defended pretty much every pro-Russian dictator and a couple of strongmen in Africa, will give testimony about arms sales. This "NPOV" gets more impressive by the day. William Maurice ("Mauco") will doubtless offer an objective imprimatur. Sail on! --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I did say that I don't agree with his views and statements, but he is a fellow at Oxford and is somewhat influential. In any case, it both sides of the debate should be represented. TSO1D 20:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, this is why I like working with you. We usually do not agree on much, but you´re not a fanatic and you never resort to the sort of namecalling that the 19:27, 5 November 2006 poster indulges in with more than half of his posts (yes, 50%+). In the case of Almond, you can read his article and analyze his arguments. Any reasonable person would be able to make the same case that Almond does. It doesn´t really matter what his personal political convictions are (and I don´t care): The article is simply an indepth critique of a Deutsche Welle TV program on Transnistrian smuggling and he offers a solid set of arguments for why the whole case is built on clay. Apart from being an Oxford historian, he does write for some of the largest politican magazines in both the United States and Europe, on both the left AND the right of the political spectrum. - Mauco 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi William. Could you please tell me what your opinion is on the changes I proposed? TSO1D 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am actually leaning on the side of Mikka, who said that the whole Crime section needs a serious overhaul. I proposed working with Bogdan on that, and then you, because both of you are "hardcore Romanians" - no offense - but also good Wikipedia editors at the same time, and can put Wikipedia first. And I still think that we should do this. When we have a comprehensive proposal that hopefully both the Romanians and the Russians can agree upon, then we can present it, and if it was raised in the greenhouse with consensus then I think it will be easy to also find consensus in the broader community of Wikipedia editors. This means that it can become a stable part of a stable version of the article, and I feel that this is important since it is one of the most controversial parts of Transnistria. This is also why I do not agree with MarkStreet who wanted it removed altogether (on the basis of the argument that USA, Moldova, Ukraine and other country pages do not have a "Crime" section). But, narrowly speaking and not focusing on the need for the general rewrite, as regards your proposed changes I am 95% in agreement. But: I do want to point out that another user, Pernambuco, has agreed with EvilAlex to propose a suggestion for the United Nations part and we are currently all waiting for that, so it will be interesting to see that too. - Mauco 21:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Another message of support: The only people here offering ostensible "objectivity" are those continually savaging the other editors. I think most of us realize that there can be a dialogue between well-informed voices on this question. I don't necessarily agree with Almond's opinions either, but he has published numerous peer-reviewed books and articles. These are credentials worth considering. Thanks to TSO1D for his well-considered proposal and continued efforts to transcend the continual bickering. Jamason 21:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Most anybody with a University degree writing about anything can point to "numerous peer-reviewed books and articles" most of the time, no? What about when the person runs an org that continually produces reports that run contrary to what everybody else says, in a particular direction against a specific grain? That qualifies as "dialogue"? --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is my proposal based on EvilAlex's one. I simply made obvious the controversy around Mark Almond and his BHHRG.

Numerous analysts and media outlets have identified dangers presented by Transnistria due to its large deposits of weapons and the potential of their unauthorized sale. Nevertheless, this view has been challanged by other experts and organizations as well as by the government of the PMR. Mark Almond, an Oxford scholar and chair of the controversial organization self-styled British Helsinki Group stated that accusations of state-sponsored weapons smuggling in the PMR appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts.[35]. Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that the historically low levels of transperancy and continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime, although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR.

Dpotop 09:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. We could say that. If there is no serious contra arguments then agreement is reached. lets unlock the page. EvilAlex 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the Almond reference is nearly adequate. But the bulk of the paragraph now seems to be taken up with who Mark Almond is, and isn't... scholarly? controversial? usurping and prostituting "Helsinki"? I would suggest simply removing the whole reference. Really, if you're going to put a positive spin on the PMR, do you really want to be quoting someone associated with the BHHRG? In the interest of progress, nevertheless, we should unlock and move ahead. I would ask Mauco to work on a better reference to replace this one, and if he can't identify a less (blatantly) POV source within, say, two weeks, we consider striking the Almond reference. (And someone republishing the Almond reference does not count as "less POV." After all, I can read unadulterated Правда newstories in local Minnesota newspapers—reprinting does not indicate a vote of confidence.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mark Almond
I have been reading WP:NOR and it seems to me that there is a violation of this policy:
Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.
1.It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
2.It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;.
EvilAlex 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a second proposal, which makes things even more clearer and simpler:

Numerous analysts and media outlets have identified dangers presented by Transnistria due to its large deposits of weapons and the potential of their unauthorized sale. Comparatively few organizations and individuals have expressed disagreement with this position, mostly claiming that accusations of state-sponsored weapons smuggling in the PMR appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts. Among them:

• Authorities of the PMR
• Mark Almond, an Oxford scholar and chair of the controversial organization self-styled British Helsinki Group

A recent report by foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that the historically low levels of transperancy and continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime, although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR.

Dpotop 15:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your firs sugestion is much better. Keep it simple EvilAlex 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but a complete rewrite of this section is required, in light of what we know now. This suggestion is not mine, but was initially suggested here by Mikka. In particular, we must distinguish between old sources and new ones, specifically those after the EUBAM mission started. Dpotop will need to accept that there has been significant development in this field lately, and that it is not just Mark Almond and the PMR authorities who sow doubt about how real the alleged smuggling and weapons activities are. This view is shared by OSCE, EU diplomats, UNDP and EUBAM, all of which I will of course be happy to fully source for a proposal that I would like to see included in the article. In fact, even Moldpres (official Moldovan state news agency) now assures us that the issue is "fully controlled". But a reader of the current version of the article, or a reader of Dpotop's proposal, would not be aware of this because it is currently left out of Wikipedia. - Mauco 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco dont mix everything here we suppose to discuses UNDP survey. You wont to add statements from others organizations lets do it in the next sentence dont mix everything here. Keep it simple. EvilAlex 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we'll consider the whole Mark Almond and BHHRG being a citable resource dead? And indicating "it's not just the PMR authorities and Mark Almond..." who say-so is progress. Let's see some reputable sources we can agree are non-"pro-PMR POV." (So-called "Moldovan" associations based in the PMR would be considered to be on the "pro-PMR POV" list.) Moreover, there's no reason to not put in the UNDP survey until we have a verified and substantive change to what the UNDP survey stated, which I thought was what we all agreed to in order to unfreeze the article. Now that we've achieved consensus which includes painting a (relatively, as far as possible here) accurate picture of Mark Almond as POV source, now Mauco exclaims, NO WAIT! LET'S REWRITE EVERYTHING BASED ON INFORMATION HOT OFF THE PRESSES! I move that:

• the summary of the UNDP survey go in as originally agreed
• any new reputable non-"pro-PMR POV" information be subsequently reflected after the UNDP summary/citation without removing the UNDP survey summary
• the UNDP survey summary/citation be added to (NOT deleted) with appropriate changes if and only when the SAME authority issues an official statement modifying its prior findings/assessment

Anything else is just churning the article contents on a daily if not hourly basis on the part of some as they try and paint as positive a picture of the PMR as possible (IMHO, in support of their POV). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We ALL have an interest in developing a stable version of this section which becomes part of the article based on consensus. From what I have seen so far from EvilAlex and Dpotop, their proposals don't cut it. I realize that some of my suggestions are contentious to certain other users, too, which is why I decline to unilaterally submit my own proposal. I don't know what happened to Pernambuco (who said above that he/she would return with some suggestions), but I would like to see that proposal which was promosed to EvilAlex. I also definitely think that either TSO1D or Bogdan ought to take a lead in working out a proposal that all, or most, can agree upon. Both of them are knowledgeable about Wikipedia and good at consensus building. Vecrumba, in trying to make his point, should not be sarcastic about new, "hot-off-the-presses" information, as he calls it. Fact is that the current crime/smuggling section of article reflects common wisdom circa 2003 and that informed Transnistria watchers now know a lot more (mostly unveiled in the last half of 2005 and all of 2006) which is not yet reflected in the article. All of that, good and bad, should be included when it is relevant and can be adequately sourced. - Mauco 19:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was being emphatic, not sarcastic. An encyclopedic article involving current issues will evolve over time. That evolution is reflected in citing reputable sources indicating what the situation is/was at a certain point in time, then building upon that and developing a history over time (more succinctly here, in more depth in "History of..."). Mauco, you would prefer to rip the house down and rebuild it every time you believe the wallpaper needs to change. I believe we've established that such an approach will never get us anywhere. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, any rewrite will of course be based on the existing text. TSO1D and Bogdan both know this, as I have discussed such as proposal with them. No one is going to rip down the house here, but we do need editors who are willing to accept consensus and willing to accept that, over time, some preconceived notions will inevitably be proven wrong by history. - Mauco 19:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I think that it is quite hard to make a consensus between russians and romanians on Transnistria; so I propose to ask an american to work on this article, without any interference from either part. I also want to stress that the voting on this article is not fair as one can find 7 times more russians than romanians.

Mark Street here, It's an idea worth looking at, but as a nuetral working as a journalist there I can assure you that both sides will not agree to this and within a day the Russians will object , and likewise if the yank concedes a single reasonable demand to PMR the Moldovans will say he is a Kremlin Propagandist , like they called me for pleading to only include factual information. I am currently in L.A. on vacation but will be back soon Also will be glad for some nuetral assistance on these pages193.120.95.11 Nov 8th

Apologies for sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I think I have been assimilated! :-) ... 193.120.95.11 is a long way from Los Angeles. Of course, it's far more likely you're just signed into your EUnet Ireland DSL broadband account from L.A. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... born in Brooklyn, raised in Brooklyn, went to college in "the city" (Manhattan), dated Jewish and Italian girls from Bensonhurst all through high school and college... well, I certainly qualify as "American." I can feel Mauco cringe as I write. :-) Unfortunately, surveys seem to indicate that a majority of Americans have problems naming their own state capital and knowing what continent Brazil is on, let alone being even aware of the existence of Moldova and the Transnistrian issue. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not cringe. I, myself, am as international and multiethnic as they come. MarkStreet wanted an outside view from someone impartial, and he suggested an American. You may "feel American", but you are not impartial and you have said as much in our recent mediation run-up. - Mauco 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alas my attempt at subtle humor seems to have been lost on its primary intended recipient... as to the rest of my comment, let's keep muddling along. If the article is lacking at times, Talk:Transnistria is quite illuminating. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi to Brooklyn, Dear Friend, a panel of journalists from the European Parliment was offered and the rejected so good luck trying to get these guys to agree to an un-named American doing the editing but a draft proposal may help. Mark Street 193.120.95.11 Nov 2006.

No Terrorists In Transnistria

I want to congratulate all of the editors for the progress made over the last week in many key areas. The main reason I stopped contributing was but I felt it was not being dealt with in a factual or professional way. I will continue to monitor things and make some contributions to help keep it factual..

All I ask is for all 'sides' to only use entries based on proven fsct.

One area that is a complete propaganda stunt is the 'Domestic Terrorism' section.

There are a few points to this. 1- There is no terrorist organisations in PMR. 2, There are no outside Terrorist organisations targeting PMR.3 The three incidents referenced were never proven to be acts of terrorism and in the later cases the casuse may even be an accident. Using the word 'Terrorism' is pure mud slinging.

When the bus tragedy happened there was immeadiate speculation that Moldovan terrorists could have done it. Thats not fair to either party in hindsight. It seems the person had some mental health issues. Terrorism is the wrong word to describe what happened.

The section should have a name change to ' Violent Incidents' or be removed193.120.95.11 Nov 8th [[User:1193.120.95.11 , Nov 8

Am I missing something?

While reading a recent post of Mauco I falled onto a list of organizations that supposedly say Transnistria is a nice place to live. Mauco was talking about "OSCE, EU diplomats, UNDP and EUBAM". Did I miss something? Did someone post here references from "OSCE, EU diplomats, UNDP and EUBAM" that Transnistria is OK? And how did all this happen in the last 5 days? BTW, I've been on the EUBAM site, and I couldn't find much data on Transnistria, except that the situation on chicken smuggling is getting better since this summer. Dpotop 19:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Did these people say that Transnistria is a nice place to live? Or that Transnistria is OK? Did I ever claim this? Dpotop, we are all trying to work here, and to get the article whipped into decent shape, but you are not helping by distorting my position and by putting words in my mouth. This is the same tactic that EvilAlex and MariusM use, and with your editing record and fame on Wikipedia, I had frankly not expected that you would stoop to the same low. - Mauco 19:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a rephrased paragraph, and you said "Sorry, but a complete rewrite of this section is required, in light of what we know now." What do you know now in addition to what my paragraph contains? You also say that all the aforementioned organizations "sow doubt about how real the alleged smuggling and weapons activities are". I say you are a liar, and a manipulator. And whoever dares calling me uncivil, read first the last edits of this disinformation organization called User:William Mauco. It's easy: just search the citations I gave here, and you'll find his edits. Dpotop 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, anyone with a modicum of English can read this page and judge for themselves. I specifically noted that the need for a rewrite was not proposed by me (the "liar" and "manipulator", as you would have it) but by another veteran editor. In fact, it was proposed in response to a user who felt that the whole section should just be deleted. So before you claim that that Mauco's work, please check your sources. I furthermore certainly stand by my statement that OSCE, EU diplomats, UNDP and EUBAM all sow doubt about how real the alleged smuggling and weapons activities are and will be glad to support this with reputable sources for whatever proposal makes it into the final edit for the article. - Mauco 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, The tone you are taking there is quite sharp. Dpotop was only asking for factual evidence to support what is being edited and I am in full support of Dpotop's right to insist on this However, I do recognise Mauco as one of the few editors commited to negotiated change and this may explain your over-zelous reply. Regardless of all that the main article is still in a crazy state despite genuine efforts to resolve it. The main introduction paragraph is the first thing we all need to agree on. Its current format is completely unacceptable. Perhaps the three of us can decide what we think needs to be done and then try to gain some agreement with others on this important issue Mark us street Nov 7th 2006

Suggested Change to Polticial Status

In the section under poltical status it has already been pointed out that the part where it says that Transnistria is under the 'Effective Authority' of Russia' be removed as this is badly inaccurate. The only concerned voice against the change was under the illusion that Russia has an army of occupation in Transnistria holding its people agaianst their will. It has been explained that this is infact a peace keeping force that part of an international peacekeeping operation that includes the Moldovan and Ukrainian armies. The factual sittuation is that the country is independently governed by its leadership in Tiraspol. As soon as the page unlocks I request the edit to this Mark us street Oct 7th 2006

No To Communism

One of the main points made by Transnistrians in regard to Moldova is their fear and indeed hatred of Communism and the Communist government that controls Moldova. Transnistrians never, ever want to go back to the dark days. Transnistrians want to be part of the modern international world and have no desire to join its EVEN MORE poverty stricken communist neighbour, Moldova.. Most Transnistrians look to the west for their future but this can be reached through Russia and not Communist Moldova. 97% of the Transnistrian people said NO to Communism and YES to Independence and democracy. Once again I am asking for a' Communism' section to be created and agreed before we enter it to mainspace. Mark us street Oct 7th

Hi, what is the relation between you and User:MarkStreet? Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of multiple accounts by a single individual. Dpotop 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the history of their contribuitons I guess Mark Street simply forgot his password and got a new login :-) BTW multiple accounts are OK as long as not abused. I've seen people specifically create aliases, e.g., for votes for deletion and for editing, in order not to clutter their watch lists and edit histories. `'mikkanarxi 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, when I first saw this author's comments I thought it was Bonnie trying to discredit Mark Street. I mean would a Western reporter really say: "Most Transnistrians look to the west for their future but this can be reached through Russia and not Communist Moldova. 97% of the Transnistrian people said NO to Communism and YES to Independence and democracy." It just seems a bit odd. TSO1D 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A good point. I didn't read his posts. Looks like you are right. `'mikkanarxi 20:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, nice to see that the hatred of communism in Transnistria materialized in the preservation of the soviet-era coat of arms. Dpotop 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I look it in another way: this COA was first step to independence and hence memorable despite its symbolism. Hasty toppling of historical momuments is a trait of vandalism, not of political maturity. It immensely amused me when in 1992 all former staunch communists from Russian government all rushed into church. It clearly demonstrates that for a certain category of people the labels "communism"/"capitalism"/"anyotherism" don't matter as long as they can be on top. So I'd suggest to simply read this anti-communist rhetorics and chuckle. `'mikkanarxi 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the same Mark Street, for some reason I was unable to log in so I was forced to create a new account, so I won't be using the old one. It is true, Transnistrians are very western looking, they are big into western music, as any visit to Plasma Night Club will reveal. They eat western food styles and the Manchester United are the order of the day along with Chelsea of course. The soviet coat of arms is rapidily disappearing even on government issued flags, expect it to removed in the short future, the Transnistrians originally saw it as a link to Russia rather than a link to communism. This is even more the case now, As for the oft mentioned statue of Lenin, the Transnistrians have a few old statues , some of from much older periods in history,these are renevated not Lenin. Just like the statue of Nelson in London nobody is really suggesting that England is harbours a dream to rule the world with naval power...like Lenin its history. Government officials say the statue has an historical interest, like Nelson in London, and such statues remain in many post soviet countries. Hungary built a special park to display theirs and its very popular with the tourists, Transnistria is keen not to miss out on such tourism also. However, given the abuse Tiraspol gets one ponders the wisdom of such statues. Mark us street Nov 7th