Talk:Transnistria

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8

Discussion on Jmabel's list: Sources

This discussion is about: the usage of sources in the article to support the statements

One way out of this dispute is to use only peer-reviewed, academic sources (and possibly the United States Government). This cuts us off from a large amount of (possibly dubious) information, but transcends most of the controversy. For example, Mark Almond's books and articles would be fair game, but BHHRG reports would not. This might also forestall some of the long-winded speculative rants that we all know are coming. We clearly all have our ideas on how and by who the PMR was founded, etc., but let's introduce a little academic rigor into this debate. jamason 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitevely, agree. Other sourses can be used only to say: "x said this" or "y considers that", without words "however", "dispite" and especially without the word most often in the article: "although". But even so such sourses must be used with restraint. Anyway, no analysis from non-academic sourses.:Dc76 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What sources are mutually agreed upon as acceptable?

No Tiraspol Times, pridnestrovie.net, visitpmr (see archived discussion regarding Astroturfing). Official webpage of the regime is acceptable, but astroturfing sources who claim independence not.--MariusM 02:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I say we must include all credible media and governmental sources on BOTH sides, we have been through the attempts to delete and silence the other sides news organisations. I suggest we ask people to suggest what they would like to see included and refrain from calling for media organisations that don't match your political views to be deleted. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

Links to all media and governmental sourses, credible and non-credible - to "external links". If you want to sourse a phrase in the article with such a link, we discuss it case by case, every sentence. If Tiraspol Times says: "on 32 december the parliament of Transnistria met for 4 hours" - that's ok with me. But analysis - only from peer-reviewed sourses.:Dc76 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dc76, I meant to delete 'credible' becuase it will only end in a debate of what is and is not , good point. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

Would that not exclude most of what the rest of Wikipedia use as reliable sources, as per WP:RS? For instance, how about a the recent weapons report published by the United Nations? Or an article on OSCE's website about the weapons inspections (which started today)? - Mauco 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

These are covered under governmental status as they command diplomatic status, so yes they are included as above Mark us street Nov 19th

We can use analysis from here, I read from above: peer-reviewed, academic sources (and possibly the United States Government). Since we are not diplomats, lets' not command anyone any status. Nevertheless, UN and OSCE reports can be included in the following very easy way: According to the UN/OSCE report (and identify the report, if posible give the date, who commissioned it, who conducted it; the more such info, the better), ... and cite exactly from the main conclusions of the report. If someone brings up the issue that the report does not say what is concluded, then we can ask someone to arbitrate this particular 1-2 sentances. Fair enough?:Dc76 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't totally agree with the astroturfing argument, I do agree that these sites, Tiraspol Times, pridnestrovie.net, visitpmr, should not be used as sources for this wikipedia article, but there's no harm in someone reading something from those websites that leads to further research based on their findings - for verification et cetera.--Jonathanpops 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

fair enough:Dc76 03:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What sources does someone believe should be used, but someone else views them as insufficiently notable?

Sources from organisations that do not cover TD on a constant regular basis are often outdated and their references used not as information but to propagandaise a point. Regular Moldovan and TD news media orgs are better sources coupled with govermental sources. Mark us street Nov 10 2006

What sources does someone believe should be used, but someone else views them as insufficiently trustworthy?

Simple. If your are from TD all Moldovan sources are not trustworthy, And if you take the Romanian/ Moldovan side they will say all TD sites are untrustworthy. Mark us street Nov 10th

Noone has a problem if a sourse reports a fact. The problem is when one takes comments of the facts from such sourses. I take confidence in Tiraspol sourses when they say the referendum was on this date and not on a different one, but when they say "the free will of transnistrian people was expressed in ..." - that's a commment. The same events can be reported without "enthusiastic" words.:Dc76 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement we really need to push for factual edits. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006.

Discussion on Jmabel's list: Less disputed and non-disputed sections

This discussion is about: Sections of the article. Are there sections of the article that we can all agree are not a problem?

Changing the order of some sections to a more logicl one?

Proposition: I suggest to move the sections History and Population right after Political Status. Then, also reverse the order of the sections Economy with International Relations.:Dc76 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Motivation: This order seems to me more logical, also Economics after International Relations, which talks about customs issues with Ukraine, is like "oh, and we forgot to tell you about Economics" :) A simple yes/no from each of the main editors would suffice. If all except a 1-2 agree, we change, othewise - not. The change in the article itself will take place at the very end, when all discussion will be finished and the page unprotected. So even if we agree on reordering of sections, the discussions will continue on the article in the present format. :Dc76 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Population

Proposition: Subsection "Ethnicity" contains: Throughout most of its modern history, Transnistria was home to three major groups, roughly equal in numbers: Russians and Ukrainians as well as a Moldovan plurality. Below it is a table that suggests very clear that the words roughly equal in numbers do not represnt what is throughout most of its modern history. To avoid this self-contradiction, I suggest to formulate the sentance as this: Throughout most of its modern history, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Russians and Ukrainians as well as a Moldovan plurality. without going into details, which anyway are in the table just below it.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Better still: Throughout most of its modern history, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Russians, Ukrainians and Moldovans and then, like you say, let the stats speak for themselves. - Mauco 18:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

what's wrong with plurality, is it not true?:Dc76 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am taking your own suggestion to its logical conclusion: Just keep it as simple as possible, and let the numbers speak for themselves. Besides, many non-native speakers of English are not immediately aware of what the word "plurality" means. It is a bit technical, whereas the numbers themselves are easy to grasp. - Mauco 14:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's simple... home to and absolute majority of Romanians for hundreds of years as the primary ethnic inhabitants. "Roughly equal numbers" paints a heterogenity that absolutely did not exist. — Pēters J. Vecrumba active talk 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Section History

Proposition: In the text one can find this: In 1941, after Axis forces invaded Bessarabia in the course of the Second World War, they cut-off the Soviet troops around Odessa.... Replace Bessarabia by Soviet Union, since there was no country Bessarabia in 1941, and Odessa is not in Bessarabia.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Economy

Proposition: In the text one can find: GDP per capita, based on the exchange rate, is $756, which is slightly lower than Moldova, the poorest country in Europe. I propose to reformulate: Nominal GDP per capita (2005), i.e. based on the exchange rate, is $756, which is slightly lower than the rest of Moldova, the poorest country in Europe. In fact based on the exchange rate is a very non-professional formulation, in economics one uses nominal as opposed to PPP:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition: In the text one can find: An important company in the republic is Sheriff. I propose to reformulate: An important company in the republic is Sheriff, indirectly owned by the president of PMR Igor Smirnov.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as long as his name is listed as a director/ shareholder in the companies registration office in Tiraspol. We can only print facts on the main page, If we can show factual evidence I agree to this otherwise we will be pulled up for it Mark us street Nov 10th 2006.

There has been debate on this before, both in this article and in the specific Sheriff article. The myth of Smirnov ownership has already been disproven, and not even Moldova uses it anymore. Before another round of hammer-and-slammer against me for saying this, please go to the Talk page of Sheriff and discuss it there. If/when there is concensus for any change, then come back here and add it into the article. - Mauco 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Human Rights

Proposition: In the text one can find: The Republic of Moldova, as well as other foreign states and non-governmental organizations claim.... I propose to replace with The Republic of Moldova, as well as other countries and non-governmental organizations claim...:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference to Media infringment and censorship in this section. The Transnistrian authorities allow complete press freedom and despite being their sharpest critic I can not label them with censorship.. In fact they make it quite clear that the media are given carte blanc. Having regular chats with fellow editors in TD they are all in agreement on this. Also it is worth mentioning the Moldovan papers sell freely on the streets of TD. TD papers are banned in Moldova which is the only censorship we face. Once again we should delete this reference unless someone can find a media org in TD to ratify this claim. I'm sure you won't find any. If censorship existed they would surely ban Moldovan papers first, the fact they don't really is proof of press freedom.

Mark us street Nov 10 2006

The 1st paragraph of the section says X claim Y. It does not say Y is the absolute truth. Are you objecting that X claim Y is not neutral, or are you objecting to Y?

The 2nd paragraph: It is also alleged that ... is a serious problem, although ... denies this, pointing to a lack of solid evidence. Are you objecting to the formulation or to the words that stand in lieu of the dots?

The 3rd paragraph: According to OSCE the media climate in Transnistria is ... [24] The same question, is the formulation your objection, or the conclusion of OSCE?

The 4th, last paragraph talks about the restriction on using the Latin script in the Moldovan schools in 2004. Are you saying there were no restrictions on using the latin script in Moldovan schools in 2004?

Honestly, why should I believe that you are their sharpest critic? Do you claim out of 6+ billion people you are the sharpest? With whom exactly do you compare yourself? Maybe in a certain group of people you are indeed the sharpest critic, I can certainly believe that. But how large is that group? But if they did not censor that group you can not conclude they did not censor anyone. Just read OSCE's report [24].

My original suggestion was simply to replace foreign state with country. Moldova is not a foreign state to Transnistria, it's the state from which Transnistria wants to brake.:Dc76 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I will come to these many points soon. It is important to realise that the sovereignty of the territory commonly refered to as Transnistria is under dispute. What is best for the main page is to explain this dispute as clearly as possible at the begining because it is a large part of what Transnistria is. There is no need for either side to continue to drive home their politics in every section. Lets us all refrain from this. Lets be respectful to everyones hopes dreams and political beliefs by keeping the sensitive stuff to a minimun...... After that there is so much more to the place, its landscape, famous cognacs and wines, river life. environment, people. music, festivals, argiculture. Maybe someday we will have a Moldovan leader who will say "Pridnestrovie is fantastic and I recognise the people there do not want to be with us 'yet' but I say we want them and believe that a union between us would be for the betterment of both regions on both side of the river'. But alas for now Ecomomic blockade to try to stave them into submission is the approach. one that has caused even more hurt and pain and division. Mark us street Nov 13th

Yes, please. I agree: There is no need for either side to continue to drive home their politics in every section. Lets us all refrain from this. Just the facts, please. - Mauco 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion about who started blockading whom in the first place and why. The visceral image of a Pridnestrovian Eden being besmirched and beset by ruthless Moldovans "starving them into submission" conclusively betrays Mark us street as a pro-PMR über-partisan more than anything I could possible say. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Geography

Proposition: In the text one can find: Transnistria is landlocked and borders Moldova (for 411 km) to the West and Ukraine (for 405 km) to the East. I propose to reformulate: Transnistria is landlocked, and borders the rest of Moldova (for 411 km) to the West, and Ukraine (for 405 km) to the East.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This inplies a strongly biased political point of view that suggests that TD is part of the 'rest' of Moldova. This is the conflict we are trying to avoid here. I am against this change, perhaps you can consider wording it a different way to appease both sides. Likewise I am opposed to the Transnistrians trying to say Moldova borders the Rest of Transnistria Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

My point is, that Transnistria is legally part of Moldova, while Moldoava is not legally part of Transnistria. Until it legaly brakes away, i.e. until there is a treaty that says so, we can only state what is today a legal fact. The fact that Transnistrians do not want to be part of Moldova, you have it in referendum subsection. But they did not yet achieve this. I might want many things, but until I achieve them, I can at most say I want, although I should also be modest and not say things I can not do. You want to call a thing done before it's done? The conflict is not about what is the status now, but what it will be in the future. Right now- Transnistria is de facto independent, but legally part of Moldova. In the future - that's a different discussion, but only God can tell in an encyclopedia what will happen in the future. How else do you see this sentance refrased? :Dc76 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you may come up with it, Two points here. Firstly Moldovans do not recognise the border, and transnistrians will object to the use of the word 'rest'. Perhaps you could say 'peaceline border' and delete 'rest'. That could keep everyone happy., Or use border in inverted commas. Over to you Mark us street Nov 10th

Minor edits in other sections which are not the highlights of the dispute

Proposition: To add either in the International Relations or Human Rights sections: In February 2003, the European Union has imposed travel restrictions against 17 members of the leadership in Transnistria, "in response to the unwillingness of the leadership in Transnistria to engage fully in efforts to reach a peaceful and comprehensive solution to the Transnistrian conflict". In August 2004, restrictive measures were imposed against additional 10 persons "responsible for the widespread campaign of intimidation against teachers, parents and students of Latin-script Moldovan schools in the Transnistrian region". Following a review of the situation in November 2005, EU Member States agreed that restrictions against eight of the ten persons should be lifted, as the schools have re-opened as from 1 September, and the situation for teachers, parents and students has improved considerably. The restrictions remain in place against two persons in Ribniţa, where the Latin-script Moldovan school is forced to continue operating from temporary premises. Of the 19 persons with travel ban, 10 are reported as having Russian passports, and 3 - old Soviet passports, while the other 6 - unreported. [1] :Dc76 01:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with international relations of Transnistria, so no. Does it have to do with Human Rights? Not really, either. The human rights problem is the school issue, which is already dealt with. If anything, any violation of human rights as it relates to the travel ban is that the European Union is violating the right of these 17 individuals to freely travel, but I doubt that this was the implication that you had in mind. My opinion: Let us please focus on dealing with the current content disputes, so we can unlock the page quickly, and not invent new issues to bicker over. - Mauco 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then in which section this should go? I see you do not onject to the formulations or to introducing it, only where and when. Is that correct? I thought of Human Rights because, because the issue of Moldovan schools in 2004 is there. I thought of International Relations because it is sort of important that the leadership can not travel to EU. Also all the content of that section is contained in its unique subsection, not really the most logical thing. If you know of a better place where to introduce this, please share it with me.:Dc76 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Jmabel's list: Most disputed sections

This discussion is about: Sections of the article. Can we confine the 'disputes to particular parts of the article?

Section Crime

Clearly the Crime section is at issue.

This discussion is about: generalities about crime section

Proposition: Rename this section Security and crime:Dc76 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition: An outside reader, after reading this section should understand that there is clear difference between the general population of Transnisria, which is subject to much greater insecurity than all neightboring regions and countries, and the authorities of Transnistria, which sometimes supported or support some of the activities leading to this athmosphere, such as for example, but not limitted to, uncontrolled sell of weapons.:Dc76 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever changes we will decide to make to the crime section, it will probably tale a long period to arrive at some form of consensus. However, I wish to remove the protection on this page as soon as possbile, and I would suggest to provisionally insert the version I proposed a few days earlier as the crime section, pending future modifications. The changes I introduced were relatively minor, and I think that most users were willing to accept that version, so if possible I would like to put that in, unfreeze the page, and continue the discussion here. Of course editors will have to pledge not to make any major changes to the text until a broad agreement is reached. TSO1D 03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

May I remind editors that we are not trying to build a page that paints TD in a good or bad way but rather a scientific analyses of the region/country. I have always felt that the Crime section has been used as a tool to discredit the TD law enforcement agencies. I accept that other editors want to so I agree we should keep it. I also agree it should be called security and crime. However it seem you may prefer to call it insecurity and crime. My own experience is that TD is well policed and crime is not an issue.Comments about the insecurity of the genreal population are just comments. May I again ask all editors to ONLY deal with fact and not POV where possible, I will examine TSOID proposal and get back Mark us street Nov 10th

TSO1D, I for once can not find you proposal (this talk page is enormous! :) ), could you put a link to it here, please, or cut-and-paste it here. :Dc76 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is found in Talk:Transnistria#Smuggling Section. It is:

Numerous analysts and media outlets [links, references] 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 in/from what year (so that one can see from what year things started to change) by other experts and organizations [links, references], 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, pages]. Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations [links, references] say that the historically low levels of transperancy, and the continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime [sourse, page number], although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR [sourse, page number]. TSO1D 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Above, I have added in italic my suggestions, but I did not erase anything. I don't like the word nevertheless. I also have a problem with the last word although. Why not just say The same expects/report says that... Also, is it not possible to say more specifically than Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations? Something like (A) report(s) in year , commissioned by the UN agency name of the agency says that...:Dc76 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What would you use in the place of nevertheless? That statement is left specifically vague due to the vast number of organizations and entities mentioned in it. For instance, the PMR of course challanged this statement from the beginning, whereas others had fluctuating attitudes. As goes for sources, finding one from the PMR government is easy as well as finding some from individual organizations, but which ones, if any should be added here? The UN report is sourced (see the source in the current article), and it is in PDF format, so page numbers are not needed. TSO1D 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it all right that I editted directly in your text?:Dc76 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. TSO1D 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I would like to reserve the right to some comments after this paragraph is soursed. I hope that they will be minor, yet I obviously can not say anything before reading all of them. I hope you understand.:Dc76 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really of too much use to this particular issue, but I think it would be better if you kept calling it Transnistria and not switch back and forth between that and PMR. It's a bit confusing for people who have just looked up the place and found the article. I know the article does mention Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic higher up, and has (PMR) written also, but it's still a bit confusing and forcing people to reference back up the page. I just think it makes the paragraph look uncertain, a bit like if you wrote about the UK but switched back and forth between UK and GB (Great Britain) (which is almost the same thing but not quite) three or four times in the same paragraph.

I see what you mean, however wouldn't using PMR all the time be a little tiring. I think using Transnistria in some places and PMR in others just makes the text a little more varied, but that is just a stylistic concern. But if you think that using more than one name might make it confusing for some people, I have no problem with just sticking to Transnistria. TSO1D 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The two terms are not always coterminous if we understand one to be a region and the other to be an unrecognized state (which, admittedly, the article itself does not encourage). Let's make people learn the acronym. They might need it if they go read anything else. jamason 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While there was much debate around what to name the article, even Transnistria is not the best alternative (as that has not always referred to the same area, though always left bank. I would use Transnistria in the article to speak more of the geographical area, and then PMR for the entity. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that also works. But wouldn't the word Transnistria be better for the first sentence, as the threat is mainly presented by the existence of the stockpiles in the region rather than potential actions of the PMR? TSO1D 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. But elsewhere, e.g. sentence two, I would favor "PMR" over "Transnistria." ———jamason 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also it might sound a bit more neutral if this bit - analysts and media outlets [links, references] have identified dangers - said 'believe they have identified dangers...'Jonathanpops 11:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe "Analysts and media outlets have expressed concern regarding potential threats posed by Transnistria's large deposits of weapons, [...]. TSO1D 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Transnistria have large deposits of weapons? If it definately does then that sounds okay. Jonathanpops 20:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea, there is a huge cache left over from the 14th army. Although most of the weapons are obsolete, they are still operative. TSO1D 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Every country has weapons so to say their are fears over these weapons is just propaganda. Transnistria has an army to defend itself as its international right. Clearly Transnistria is no military match for Ukraine so the only other neighbour is Moildova and Moldova's army is equal if not bigger than transnistrias and equally well equipped. Also recent weapons inspections have resulted in glowing reports for the Transnistrians obligations to manage the stockpiles. Mark us street Nov 13 2006

The problem is not that Transnistria will attack Moldova, but rather that the weapons could either fall into the wrong hands or cause great environmental damage. The sheer size of the stockpiles is immense and such a agglomeration of war materiel would be dangerous anywhere, let alone in the relative instability that still exists in Transnistria to an extent. The fact that the weapons are dangerous isn't really challanged by any part in the conflict, it's what should be done with them that is a point of contention. TSO1D 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the section title, crime/security around weapons is one thing, crime around smuggling in general would be another thing. Calling it a Crime/Security section and then getting lost in just talking about arms, no arms, PMR arms, Russian arms... doesn't discuss any of the more mundane situations at the border. For example, from vlasti.net... admittedly about three years old but it was just the first one I happened to come upon... Flour and mixed feeds were being imported into Moldova illegally through Transnistria. The wheat came from Russia and the Ukraine, was then passed through phantom companies to legalize the product as being of Moldovan origin. Then there was the production of bread at the Bendery bakery which was being smuggled into Moldova with false papers.

That's scary. Bread smuggling. Vecrumba, I am normally never sarcastic, you know that, but in regards your bread-smuggling accusation I just couldn't help myself. Sorry, but this is getting to be too much. I can just see the headline now: "No weapons, but Transnistria is Europe's black hole of bread production..." - Mauco 12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In relation to weapons, there's been much ado in the we're really not pro-PMR, we're just objective camp about there not being weapons factories producing/selling/smuggling arms. Well, the problem is Russian arms and arms produced elsewhere. I have not seen a clean bill of health declared there by anyone--any references on that?
— Pēters J. Vecrumba active talk 04:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you are asking for. If there is NOT a problem, then are we inventing another problem and saying that "well, since no one addressed that before, then maybe it exists"??! If by Russian arms, you are referring to the WWII-era weapons storage depots which have been dismantled on an on-and-off basis with OSCE supervision, then there has continuously been bill after bill after bill of clean health. The latest confirmation came just hours ago regarding this: "«На складах ничего не хранится под открытым небом, нет химического оружия, нет старых боеприпасов, которые могли бы самопроизвольно взорваться», – подчеркнул Якимов."[2] Sure, weapons everywhere represent risks, but in the Kolbasna facility it can safely be said that it is a managed, controlled and well supervised situation.[3] Unlike other places (Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc) where tens of thousands of weapons have gone missing or disappeared into the black market in the last year alone. - Mauco 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here. It is official: "Дипломаты, что называется, «на месте» убедились, как хранятся вооружения. И, судя по всему, были удовлетворены. Глава делегации ОБСЕ Бертран де Кромбрюгге, беседуя с журналистами в Колбасне, признал, что в плане хранения российские склады не представляют опасности. На пресс-конференции бельгийский дипломат выразился еще более определенно: «В Колбасне мы увидели хорошо охраняемые склады и хорошо охраняемое вооружение. Это очень благодарный визит»."[4] Now, mind you, this is not Olvia Press saying this. It is OSCE's highest ranking diplomat. His statements are merely reproduced verbatim. Check with OSCE press service: He said the same thing on TV, word for word, but it was only picked up in Russian language news media. On the other side of the Dniester, a complete information blackout. Why am I not surprised that the Moldovan press ignored it? Why will I be even less surprised if the Romanian brigade on Wikipedia will not accept to include this statement in the article? - Mauco 12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My reaction to Vecrumba's comment above is two-fold.

First, since there are very few editors here claiming "objectivity," another way to divide "the camps" might be between those on the one hand (Mauco, Marius, TSO1D) who generally participate in mainspace, conduct extensive research, and largely spend their time contributing positive suggestions. On the other hand, we see another camp that exists mostly on the discussion page and seems to live to insult the "real" editors (with whom I by no means count myself, since I largely exist here too).

Second, let's take a look at these camps in action: Vercumba insults Mauco and, rather than displaying any independent research that indicates a problem, asks him to prove that an issue—that no one has raised yet—doesn't exist, implying that it's because of bias that this hasn't been done already. Perhaps people would take this more seriously if you actually got out and found some source that raised this concern. If you don't like Mauco's sources, find some that back you up. As is, your comment is poorly sourced and unnecessarily rude. — jamason 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [But, not to fork the discussion...]

To jamason, how was I rude? I indicated that to rename the Crime section to Crime and Security would incorrectly focus completely on the issue of arms smuggling. Since Mauco disaproves of even the OSCE as an anti-PMR partisan (when critical of the PMR), I took some time to find an example of non-arms smuggling from a non-POV where Mauco is concerned (i.e., Russian reported) source. On the contrary, I find myself bending over backwards to provide Mauco with proper citations.

   If no one has discussed smuggling outside of the arms context before, I'm surprised, I did not go through to check. If you're suggesting I find a bunch of reports regarding non-arms-related smuggling cited in sources Mauco won't dispute, that's obviously possible.

  Finally, I have in no way insulted Mauco. I have, however, challenged his methods of taking facts ABC and transmorgrifying them into incontrovertible evidence of XYZ when one does not necessarily follow the other. Mauco has chided others for intellectual dishonesty, I am only holding him to his own standard. If jamason believes I am somehow being intellectually dishonest and insulting, please show me where. Don't confuse the lack of respect I show Mauco's position at times with any lack of respect for Mauco. If I didn't respect Mauco I wouldn't be bothered debating him in the first place. That would be an utter waste of my time. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your response to Mauco below is more convincing than the above, but than again, you still don't address the more interesting claim that Russian is manufacturing weapons and suggling them through Transnistria. The point is this: you raised some (possibly) interesting positive contributions to the article without giving anyone any way of assessing the material. — jamason 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding... Дипломаты, что называется, «на месте» убедились, как хранятся вооружения. И, судя по всему, были удовлетворены. Глава делегации ОБСЕ Бертран де Кромбрюгге, беседуя с журналистами в Колбасне, признал, что в плане хранения российские склады не представляют опасности. На пресс-конференции бельгийский дипломат выразился еще более определенно: «В Колбасне мы увидели хорошо охраняемые склады и хорошо охраняемое вооружение. Это очень благодарный визит ... all that emphasis is rather like Americans going abroad and thinking if they talk really slowly and really loudly that the natives will suddenly comprehend English.

   Mauco, it's easy for you to laugh about grain and bread smuggling (elsewhere recently), but food and food-stuffs smuggling is a huge and lucrative business in Eastern Europe. You demand respect but feel compelled to laugh to dismiss items for discussion--you'll note I took care there to reference a Russian source so it can't be characterized as partisan propaganda.

   As to the OSCE, from their site, Karel de Gucht did welcome the visit, saying: "Further initiatives should be built on this until the complete withdrawal of all ammunition, as provided for by the 1999 Istanbul commitments" (under which the Russians should also be gone). There is no press release (yet) of comments by de Crombrugghe, those currently appear only on tirsaspoltimes.com and pridenstrovie.net.

   Once again, you take some facts and leap to paint a conclusively positive picture: weapons secure = no arms smuggling = clean bill of health for PMR, the OSCE even says so. Perhaps a metaphor might clarify... The OSCE "thanked the wolves for the first opportunity to inspect their chicken coop since 2004. The chicken coop was surrounded by many wolves with procedures in place to insure no chickens are stolen. The chickens are secure." Please don't patronize us with the notion that the wolves are vegetarians. This wasn't exactly a surprise visit either. As reported in interfax, the head of the OSCE mission to Moldova, Louis F. O'Neill, attempted to visit the arms depot in Kolbasna in August, 2006. However, the ambassador was denied entry to the breakaway republic.

   I don't know what Moldovan sites you read, but the OSCE visit and hopeful statements (and that's what diplomats do after all) regarding arms do appear to be reported there. Now you're saying there's a conspiracy to hide the fact wolves are closet vegetarians? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There also seem to be issues over the handling of what at least some call "terrorism"

This discussion is about: subsection #3 in the current format of the article

Adter a call for it to be deleted this section is to stay. It was dealt with in detail and it was decided we are going to keep it but under Wiki ruling we have to alter the heading. It has been agreed that Violent Incidents' be used instead, some have suggested it be moved to the history achive. I disagree, in time perhaps.Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

I agree with you for the subsection to stay. I agree that "domestic terorrism" is not a good title. But I am not convinced that "violent incidents" is much better. Any other suggestions? So far, I reserve my oppinion for later.:Dc76 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition: Based on the continuous contradictory discussion between William Mauco and EvelAlex, and on their sourses and edits, I suggested this form, and I did not receive an answer. I am recalling it:

• 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. [41]
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus. [42]
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten. [43]

Vladimir Antyufeev, head of Transnistrian MGB, qualified these acts as terrorism. [5], [6] How's that?:Dc76 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons subsection

This discussion is about: subsection #1 in the current format of the article

Proposition: This subsection should list all "activities" and declarations in the cronological order, such that a reader can see not only what happened and happens, but also in what order. Telling first about 1992, then about 2006, then back to 1997, is confusing already for me. When someone makes a declaration or a finding, say when this report was released, and to what period it refers to, or that it refers to in general. List who and what found and said, without words like "dispite the fact that x said this, it is generally accepted" or "y, a very famous scholar has/such a world-wide organization strongly claims". :Dc76 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The request that only proven factual information be used makes sense Mark us street Nov10th 2006

This would mean that for every accusation of weapons, we need the facts. Not hear-say, innuendo, or malicious rumors. If any editor here knows something that the rest of us don't, regarding any sort of weapons problems involving Transnistria, then please provide the evidence. So far, we have not seen a single weapons factory, a single instance of weapons smuggling, no weapons on the black market, no weapons trafficking (legal or illegal), no missing weapons from storage, in short: nada. And the old excuse about a supposed lack of inspections won't fly either. This year alone, three different international teams have visited on three different occasions and came away happy, in all three cases. The latest was the high-level OSCE inspection team this weekend, as published in both Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty as well as by the much-hated Tiraspol Times.[7] - Mauco 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Jmabel's list: English-language name for the region

Can we agree on the most common English-language name of the region being "Transnistria", and all use that consistently as the normal name in article and discussions?

We had a long discussion on this topic in the past, and I believe there was general agreement on the topic. TSO1D 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The same oppinion as TSO1D:Dc76 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

Mark Street, if you agree to something, please be consistent with yourself, and don't use any longer "TD". Please. One can not die from typing 12 letters.:Dc76 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not used in main space, but TD and MD are accepted even in diplomatic email Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

The question above was: Can we agree on the most common English-language name of the region being "Transnistria", and all use that consistently as the normal name IN ARTICLE AND DISCUSSIONS? You answered above: Agreed. So, why did you say Yes, and then you do just the opposite? I am forced to tell a joke :Dc76 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (as I promissed I move the joke in section 41)::Dc76 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it makes perfect sense and will be cleareer to readers who, by the way, this article is for. I also agree that MuS should stop using TD, or say that he/she disagrees with this question.--Jonathanpops 11:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dc76 is now using PMR, pots and kettles ? Mark us street Nov 13th

Can we agree that Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (PMR) is official and should also be prominent in the article?

The other official title would be Transnistrian Autonomous Moldovan Region, however this article mainly discusses the unrecognized administration of Transnistria, rather than it's de jure status, and in that case PMR is the only correct version as that is what PMR documents stipulate. TSO1D 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I see this already at the very begining of the article, on the right side, beneath flag and coat of arms. And I see it again in the Names section. So, I don't understand the question. Can someone explain this question, what exactly and where do you want to change? I don't say neither yes, nor no, I don't understand the question, and so perhaps will other users.:Dc76 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The offical title is as you have it , often shortened to PMR. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

What other names deserve a mention early on, either in the lead or in the naming discussion?

Pridnestrovie?

Transdniester?

We could briefly state that those other terms are used alongside Transnistria and PMR, but for the sake of consistency, they should not be used anywhere but in the names section. TSO1D 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with TSO1D. Additonally suggest that the begining instead of simply Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is... should be Transnistria (officially in Russian: Pridnestrovie) is...:Dc76 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the PMR claims that Pridnestrovie is also the official name in English. However, I don't really see why it's necessary to have this shorthand in the introduction, if the full offitial name is later used in other sections. Personally I would favor removing the word Pridnestrovie entirely from the intro, but I don't really have a problem with the way it is now. TSO1D i03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not very qualified to answer this, but personally I've only ever seen the word Pridnestrovie on the internet. But on the rare occasaions I've seen the place mentioned on TV documentaries, including that BBC one (HOLIDAYS IN THE DANGER ZONE: PLACES THAT DON'T EXIST with Simon Reeve), it's always called Transnistria. Actually in my local TV listings it was spelled it Transdnistria, but I'm sure the people on TV were actually saying Transnistria - including all the people being interviewed. Having said that when he was interviewed after his visit the BBC spell it differently again -

SR: There were a few times when filming became dangerous. The countries we were in are inherently lawless by their very nature. They exist in a vacuum of their own. There is no British embassy you can turn to. You take somewhere like Trans-Dniester, which is quite clearly functioning as a country, but the international community does not operate there and there's no one to turn to if you get into trouble. So you are entirely dependent and at the mercy of the local government and the local security people or secret police. You do have to be responsible and careful. If someone points a gun at you, you point your camera the other way, and if they tell you to stop filming, then you have to make a judgement on whether you are going to get into a lot of trouble if you do carry on.

So I guess no one is really sure. For me Transnistria makes the most sense as it's the most well-known.--Jonathanpops 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. They say Pridnestrovie is the Russian word, but all the Russian websites I've seen seem to call it Transdniestria, at least in the English version they do. --Jonathanpops 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This section has been laboured over more than most and it has been agreed that Transnistria is the most common name, however in oder to keep sensitivity we have argeed to keep its offical name there as well. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006

Leave the whole thing the way it is, for now. TSO1D and myself, with some input from others, worked on this earlier. We reached a stable version that everyone seemed to be happy with. There has been no flames or revert wars on the naming issue since then. We have plenty of other disputes to deal with and there is no need to handle another one. in this round. - Mauco 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay Mark us street Nov 10 2006

Am I right about this?: The full name in Russian of the entity is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública, abreviated Pridnestrovie, or PMR. Sometimes, when writting in English, Russian media uses also (mostly, only?) Transdniestria. Obviously, these names are also translated in Ukrainian, Romanian, and English: Transnistrian Moldovan Republic. It is PMR in Russian and Ukrainian, RMN in Romanian, and TMR in English. That's about Transnistrian sourses and authorities. Moldovan sourses and government use the name of the region, Transnistria, or they use Stînga Nistrului, or raioanele din stînga Nistrului, or auto-proclamata Republicǎ Moldoveneascǎ Nistreanǎ, which, when they write in English, are also translated into English: Left-bank of Dniester, districts from the left bank of the Dniester, respectively the self-proclamed Transnistrian Moldovan Republic. So which of these do you want to include in the Names section?

I agree with TSO1D's suggestion to remove the word Pridnestrovie from the intro altogether, and move it to the Names section. The reason is that Pridnestrovie is (1) the short form, and (2) is the form in Russian, only one of the three official languages of the entity. Logically it will be to put everything in paranthesis: all short and long forms, in all three languages, but then what is left for the Names section, only one sentence?

(My hope is to deal now with ALL the existing or potential disputes, and obviously without slammer and hummer anyone. We "hummer and slammer" each sentence. I hope we don't need to start a second round of discussions just after we finish this.):Dc76 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We have already labored extensively over why we should use Transnistria, but at the same time include Pridnestrovie very prominently. Only those two, nothing else. Why Pridnestrovie and not any of the others? Because it is the only official shortform name, as per PMR's own naming decree. See it here. No need to guess or reinvent the wheel, it is just a matter of knowing the sources. - Mauco 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Smirnov's decree says how the Russian name should be used by the PMR authorities when writting with the latin alphabet. So you agree with this: Transnistria (Russian short official: Pridnestrovie) is... ?:Dc76 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Colleague Dc76 you were pretty sharp with me for using the shortened version of Transnistria (TD), While here you use a similar version 'PMR'. However , I'm not one to pick at things. Are we to agree that PMR is Okay but TD is not. I'm fine with that Mark us street Nov 13

Other issues about the usage of names

Place your yes/no/comments, pointwise, please

1. The article should use the official country name for the localities, i.e. Tighina, not Bender, and Dubăsari, not Dubossary.:Dc76 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been gathering reference which, unfortunately, uses the common Westernized names. On principle, I have no issue, but we would need to have a table somewhere which does the cross-reference. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Whenever more than 4 localities are listed, either use a geographic north-south order, or an alphabetical one. If not, some read will eventually look at the map, and it will be headacke for him.:Dc76 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This will always be problematic, there's also trying to name them in the order they most appear to be in on the map. And if something happened in 5 places in a specific order, then the places should be named in the order of occurence, not location. Well intended, but I don't think it will help resolve any confusion. Better might simply be a cross reference of place names to eliminate confusion. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

3. The offical script of the Moldovan language is Latin, and that one must be used. If Cyrillic has to be used, the form with standard script must also be provided. For one, it will ensure that the cyrillic script of Moldovan does not contain mistakes, as is often the case in wikipedia.:Dc76 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only say that the Latvian names I've seen transliterated to Russian and then transliterated back to Latin script (by people who know Russian and English, but not Latvian) are a total mess. Just because the PMR authorities are enforcing the Soviet ways regarding the Moldovan language does not mean that should be the accepted standard here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Jmabel's list: characterizations of Transnistria

This discussion is about: Which of the following characterizations of Transnistria are to be mentioned (and whom can each be cited to):

• Region of Moldova
• Unrecognized country
• Other?

Discussion on Jmabel's list: factors in the founding of Transnistria

This discussion is about: Degree to which we mention as factors in the founding of Transnistria:

• Communist power-players
• Pro-Moscow but non-communist or anti-communist players
• Communist nostalgists in the general populace
• People (presumably Slavs) who feared Moldovan nationalism ?

Proposition: In the previous discussion, Mauco suggested that this sentance looks rediculous in formulation, and must be changed. I suggested to reformulate the same thing in normal language. Mauco did not say yet neither yes, nor no. So, the proposition is, to replace 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. by Russia gave and gives PMR political, economic, financial, and military support, without which PMR leadership would not have survived. This is in the section Political Status.:Dc76 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we know for a fact that without Russian help, PMR leadership wouldn't have survived? Please explain. There are many (including PMR leadership) who are eager to point out that they are able to survive on their own and don't need anyone else. Are they right? We don't know. But to say that they wouldn't have survived without Russian support is also a bit in the "don't know" category, and certainly in the "not proven" category... - Mauco 23:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean PMR leadership, not Transnistria. I doubt anyone here believes that Transnistria would not have obtained a large degree of autonomy anyway.:Dc76 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC) People like Alexander Radchenko would have definitevely survived, and they, not Smirnov and Co would be now the leaders of the region.:Dc76 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hammer and slammer your pal here. :) Don't add it in the point by point discussion.

Please, continue the general discussion here, but include in the previous 7 sections only very precise suggestions/observations. General non-sense stuff goes here:

Here is a joke:

• (in Romania, during communist times) Comrade Lenin said this, comrade Stalin said that, comrade Marx said this!
• All right, we see that you know them. But do you have your own oppionion?
• Yes, I do, but I don't agree with it! :-) :Dc76 03:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag

I'm not sure the one with the hammer and sickle really is the official state flag. This page makes no mention of it. In addition, this image of parliament in session (where the official state flag would have to be displayed) does not show it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Officaly it is, but it is seldom seen even in governmental offices these days, it could be removed in the near future as TD tries to take a place as a nation of the world. Mark us street Nov 10th

Well, do you know if the dimensions are right, then? Pridnestrovie.net says 2:3, but the version displayed here is 1:2. The website the official description is supposed to be on, according to the flag article: [8], doesn't work. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Official source: The current flag law[9] specifies 1:2, but at the same time permits other dimensions. It also allows for the flag to be displayed without hammer and sickle, which is the most common version in current use. - Mauco 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, User:Osgoodelawyer. The hammer and sickle are part of the coat of arms of Pridnestrovie, which may, or may not, be put on the flag, according to the "laws of Pridnestrovie". Still, as you can see here the coat of arms does contain the hammer and the sickle. Dpotop 16:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship at Tiraspol Times

One of the founding fathers of Transnistria, Vasily Yakovlev, published a letter against Smirnov. I saw this letter published in Tiraspol Times and in Puls.md. I see some differences between the two variants of the letter: in puls.md variant of the letter there are 7 parts, while in Tiraspol Times there are only 4 parts. In puls.md Yakovlev is reffering to UNACKNOWLEDGED Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, while in Tiraspol Times variant the word unaknowledged dissappeared. In puls.md Yakovlev is criticising the referendum: "The declared purpose of referendum - accession to Russia - is neither politically nor is legally founded". You can not find this sentence in Tiraspol Times. Missing from Tiraspol Times are also sentences like: "I accuse I.Smirnov and his political regime for transforming Transnistria into a political-psychological testing-polygon for zombie-influence on the population. For more than 10 years, precisely you gentlemen with the aid of your means of mass disinformation tie to Transnistrians the feeling of antipathy and hostility to the working people of Moldova, who are united with us". Everybody can enjoy comparing the 2 variants of Yakovlev's letter. The author is one of the founders and ideologists of the Transnistrian regime. He is the author of the first constitution of secessionist Transnistria (1991), creator and first rector of Transnistrian state university, former legislator in the Transnistrian supreme soviet. In 1995 I.Smirnov displaced him from the position of rector and he started to be in the opposition to the regional authority. Now is living in Russia. His letter has some parts which describes well the actual situation of PMR, is interesting to read, keeping in mind that the author is one of the criminals responsible for the situation he describes. We should have a part in the article about desilusions which some of the founders of PMR feel about the outcome of their actions, with refference at Yakovlev's letter (the uncensored puls.md variant). Tiraspol Times is using this letter to highlight the "anticommunist" politics of PMR (old guard - communists, are criticising Smirnov, that mean Smirnov is anticommunist).--MariusM 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pure nonsense mixed with malice. There is a difference between editing and censorship, but you amaze me how you read into things and form your own ideas. Mark us street Nov 13

No, MariusM is right, I checked it. I don't know who edited the letter, Tiraspol Times or puls.md, but all reference to the referendum disappears in the Tiraspol Times. Dpotop 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So instead of being happy that a headline like "Down with Smirnov and his ruling regime" appears in the press of Transnistria, the Romanian users here are agreeing with themselves that something is wrong and that there is (gulp!) CENSORSHIP in Transnistria. Sorry, guys: It is normal for all publications, everywhere the world, to shorten letters to the editor and even to edit them. If you don't believe me, try to send a letter to the The Economist, The Washington Post or to Time and see what happens... - Mauco 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the "anti-Smirnov" articles on the Tiraspol Times website after someone mentioned them the other day. I found that a lot of them are fairly cleverly worded so that the title seems to be anti-governemt but when you read through the whole thing they're not as biting as you might imagine they would be. I guess it could be that they take out some of the 'sting' from their articles because of where they are situated, like they don't want to tread on too many toes. I haven't looked at puls.md too much, but what I have seen is no better and sometimes a lot worse, that is they seem to be adding articles full of venom for the sake of doing so. Also remember the title of our discussion higher up the page; [Tiraspol Times = Not ONLY propaganda], the Freudian slip 'ONLY' suggesting there is 'SOME' propaganda was later edited out by someone? Still, one has to expect a ceretain degree of this kind of behaviour from both sides considering the situation. It's why most prefer to use the BBC, or similar, for sourcing information I guess. Jonathanpops 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The BBC is fine but it's not in Tiraspol. Regardless, we are supposed to be dealing with issues for the main page and Tiraspol Times articles are not on the list of areas in our remit.Mark us street Nov 13th 2006.

Yeah, right! :) Let me take an analogy: A thief (TiraspolTimes) knows better the houses where he commited theft (Tiraspol). However, the thief should not be believed, because he would probably lie when asked about the subject. Dpotop 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Such words are not the way forward for us all. Civility should be shown by all sides here. You are entitled to your own views but I ask you to be graceful in your comments Mark us street Nov 13th

I agree with Jonathan that puls.md include also some propaganda, I think they are a pro-communist site (pro-Communist Party of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin). You can see that they defined the Romanian variant of their site as "Moldavian", thing that few Moldovan sites are doing on the internet (usually only government founded sites). However, in this particular case we are discussing only about Yakovlev's letter - is the opinion of this particular person, a very important person for the begining of Transnistrian separatism. Mark us street already told that Tiraspol Times version of the letter was "edited". No reason to believe that in puls.md version was written something which was not written by Yakovlev himself (else, I guess Yakovlev will protest). We can agree or disagree with Yakovlev (I don't like him and I told I consider him a criminal), however the accurate version of his letter is in puls.md. Differences between the 2 versions shows the limit of freedom that Tiraspol Times enjoys - they are allowed to publish critics against Smirnov (I would say, they are even encouraged to do this, is part of the PR campaign "we have true democracy in Transnistria" - anyhow critics are harmless as long as TT is targeted for foreigners, not for transnistrians), but they are not allowed to question the existence of PMR and the goal of Russian expansionism of anexing this region (this is why they took out exactly those parts of Yakovlev's letter where he talk about unity with working people of Moldova and about illegality of referendum question about joining Russia).--MariusM 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I can say that the Transnistrian Government allows complete press freedom to all publications. This is something all journalists here agree on. More proof of this is by virtue of the fact the government allows Moldovan newspapers to be sold here. However, the Moldovan government has a ban on the sale of Transnistrian newspapers in Moldova. So Transnistrians make informed opinions and have both sides of the story. Sadly the people in Moldova are unable to read the Transnistrian newspapers..The reason why the Moldovan people cannot be allowed or trusted to read newspapers from both sides of the divide, It is because people in Transnistria enjoy a higher standard of living, pensioners get paid more, it's because of the happy colourful festivals, it's because of the sense of pride and independence that young reporters fill the columns with, it's because the Transnistrian love there homeland in a way few people do, its beacuse Tiraspol has energy that shines in sporting areas such as the best football team and stadium, it's because of the modern open style of government, it's because young reporters fill the pages of the newspapers with a sense of pride on every page that cannot be disgused or faked, it's because they know that if the vast majority of Moldovans knew that 97% of Transnistrians voted for independence they may have to drop the territorial claim. Or perhaps they don't want the Moldovan people to read how the customs blockade hurts the Transnistrian hearts more than their pockets.or how it failed and only served the transnistrians to look even more to Russia and not Moldova. Perhaps its because the Transnistrians are truly happy, proud, and cheerful in difficult times and such sentiment is evident in the words the journalists use. Marius talks about press freedom and censorship and it is really a shame that he has no idea of the truth here. . I can tell you journalists in Tiraspol are free to write. Our press is pro-democracy and pro-independence that are openminded free and truly liberated. Marius can write all he likes here to blacken the Transnistrian press , media and the Transnistrian people and their struggle for freedom. We can fill these pages forever but you and I cannot change the will of a people and their determination never to be part of Moldova. What part of 97% of Transnistrians voted for independence can you not accept.? . What's printed on the main page is propaganda based nonsense and does not reflect what life is like in Tiraspol or Transnistria. it's sad to read it, all the nonsence about 'terrorism' amd 'weapons' and 'crime'. The past is the past but it is time to face reality and move on to the future and I hope for all Moldovans it will be a future where they are allowed the Freedom to read whatever newspaper they choose, a freedom we currently enjoy and cherish in Transnistria. This is a wakeup call. In the words. of Hemingway ' For Whom the Bell Tolls'.Mark us street Nov 13th 2006

MariusM is at it again. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is a "criminal." Listen, MariusM, it may come as a surprise to you, but ALL newspapers (including Tiraspol Times, I would assume) reserve the right to edit and shorten letters which are sent to them for publishing, as part of their Opinion pages or Letters to The Editor section. You can keep blackening Tiraspol Times, and by implication also blacken Transnistria, but why don't you post the same kind of criticism against New York Times and, by implication, against the USA? It is the same policy all over the world, for reasons of readability... - Mauco 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Again straw man argument, mr. Mauco. We had many disagreements here, but I never accused you as being a "criminal". Factual accuracy is important to me. Read carefully my writings. What do you think about my proposal of including in the article a paragraph with desilusions that some of the firsts leaders of Transnistria feel regarding the outcome of their actions?--MariusM 22:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The man wanted independence. You don't agree with him, and you think that Transnistria should belong to Moldova. So he is a criminal. Your words. Read them. Above. - Mauco 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You told that I labeled as criminal "anyone" who doesn't agree with me. I just gave you example of a person with whom I have disagreements but I never labeled as criminal: you. Regarding Yakovlev, he is one of the responsible for 1992 war, where almost 1000 people died, the "criminal" label is accurate. Now he changed his mind, he want Smirnov and Mărăcuţă to go to jail (read his letter), he talk about the poverty and lack of oportunities for Transnistrian people brought by Smirnov's regime (and he is not blaming Moldova for those issues, is blaming Tiraspol's government). He talk also about unity with the working people in Moldova and about desinformation carried by transnistrian regime in a kind of language I saw only at EvilAlex (I always appreciated EvilAlex's in-depth knowledge about Transnistria). While most of the facts from Yakovlev letter are true, I just wanted to remind his past. I am glad you didn't object about a paragraph regarding desilusions of some first leaders.--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Marius why don't you write an artical on democracy and the fact that 97% of Transnistrians are calling for their freedom and independence.Mark us street Nov 13th 2006

You are paid for this kind of job, not me. I saw elections in Romania with 99% votes going to Communist Party, but those results have nothing to do with reality. After you finish with Transnistria, go to North Koreea, people are starving but are verry happy there, and if you ask them they will tell you they have a true democracy, 100% vote for Communist party (don't know if is called Communist or Worker's Party).--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard enough about people being "told" to go vote and how. I'm sorry, the same cadre is still in power. And what about all those political parties that mushroomed right before there were elections? It would seem someone was in a hurry to construct a facsimile of democracy. Far more likely is an analysis that there are lot of orchestrated trappings of seemingly good things, but it's still all the same underneath. — Pēters J. Vecrumba active talk 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria was never part of Moldova in the past. Moldova was forced into the Soviet system by Stalin, and the secret pact with Hitler, in the MSSR with Transnistria. Moldova did not want that. As soon as they could, they denounced the pact. This was the only time in history when they were together in anything even resembling a state entity (and MSSR was not a sovereign country). The "marriage" was broken by Moldova. Read Moldova's own declaration of independence, if you are in doubt. Needless to say, Transnistria did not want this marriage either. They were never part of Moldova in the past, so why would they want to be part of Moldova in the future? It simply does not make sense. - Mauco 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that now that Transnistria was/is there, and was most of Moldova's industry (now being lucratively privatized), and was still inhabited, majority-wise, by Romanians as it had been for the past hundreds of years, I can argue equally persuasively that it makes perfectly good sense for the marriage initially borne of untoward circumstances to continue. — Pēters J. Vecrumba active talk 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are showing your true colors with these misleading statements, Vecrumba. A majority is more than 50%. Please tell us when, in any time in history, Transnistria EVER had more than fifty percent Romanians or Moldovans? You may go back a hundred years, or five hundred, or even a thousand. You won't find it. But please try, and then back it with sources. Otherwise, do not use the word "majority" like that. - Mauco 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria as defined by the territory of the current PMR almost exactly parallels the Trans-Dniestran (i.e., left bank) boundary of ethnic Romanian settlement into the 20th century, per the Magocsi reference I have cited elsewhere.

I've done some digging to find a good (i.e., academic, not popular, reference) atlas which we might consider unbiased to see what it says, so hopefully some more information there in a week or so.

To User:Jamason, if not only spending my time but also hard earned money on debating Mauco is not a sign of respect, frankly, I don't know what is. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We need some Soviet statistics from early 20's. In entire Moldavian ASSR (14 rayons) were 32% Moldovans but in actual Transnistria (6 out of 14 rayons) Moldovans were in majority. Even today Moldovans are in majority in the villages, only in cities where population increase with newcommers from outside the region Slavs are in majority. Even Yakovlev, one of the founding fathers of PMR, is complaining about newcomers in his latest letter. We didn't forget your attempts, Mauco, to include plain falacies in WIkipedia claiming that the majority of leadership is composed by natives.--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

People are NOT told to vote, people want to vote as is shown by the massive percentage turnouts, there is no argument left unless one is willing to ignore the fact that 97% of people do not agree with Marius et-al. and it's a secret ballot. Can anyone else argue 97% vote off the page Mark us street 14 Nov 2006.

Entire civilized world, except Russia and some pro-russian forces in Ukraine, told that referendum results were not trustfull.We should not start this discussion again.--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How dare you ?...... Where exactly is the place you call the 'civilized world'? Your suggestion that Transnistria and the Transnistrian people are not civilised is pure racism, it is vile and disgusting !!!!. What century are we living in here? So the reason you refuse to accept the 97% vote for independence is because you consider Transnistria and its citizens not part of your 'civilised world'. Mark us street Nov 13th 2006

The 97% vote sounds almost too good to be true, Mark, and it is a very "Sovietsque" number. Here is why I believe that it is true, however: No one else has credibly been able to demonstrate fraud of any kind, and the observers all say the opposite. The closest believable accusation of any misdeed which I saw was in fact in Tiraspol Times, no less.[10] I did note that your publication had a fair and balanced article on the run-up and that you accused both sides of being disruptive and failing to hold themselves to high democratic standards. Here is the article which I am referring to: "Disinformation and dirty tricks in referendum campaign" - Mauco 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The independent international referendum monitors were very professional and oversaw the entire voting system and afterwards there was a press conference and over 150 international observers signed a declaration to state the referendum was genuine and the international media present were in broad agreement. Now the arguement being used to wash away democracy is that the Transnistrians are NOT civilized. Mark us street November 14th

I have no issue with the "PMR authorities reported...97%...", that is fact. But to state without such a disclaimer is to impart a veracity to the results which most countries have decided (and we're not going to debate the validity of their reasoning here) not to bestow upon them.

If we can get statements to reference this fine but the entire issue here is the denial of democracy.Mark us street Nov 14th 2006

   "People are not told to vote, they want to vote, just look at the turnout." Again, ABC does not imply XYZ. A high turnout has nothing to do with the wants of the people. Fear is an equally good motivator--and we only have to look to the history of "high voter turnout" in the Soviet Union (Mauco's "Sovietsque" being entirely appropriate). Hmm... Vote? or the Gulags? or losing one's job and being blacklisted and having your family starve? My answer would be, and how exactly would you like me to vote?

   If we're going to state facts, let's stick to who said what. Please leave blanket interpretations of the will of the people for the reader. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that 97% of the people voted for Transnistrian independence in a recent referendum that was overseen

independently by over 150 representatives from the international community, The only organisation that cast doubt on the manner in whuch elections are organised and did not dispute the result was the OSCE, a pro Moldovan organisation that didn't send an observation team despite been asked and invited to do so. The real reason they didn't send a team of monitors was because they would have been obliged to recognise the result. It was much easier to ignore the vote but then issue a statement saying that they don't recognise it at a later date. Mark us street Nov 13th