Talk:2006 Transnistrian independence referendum

Insinuation

Just a quick reminder on why Wikipedia must not tolerate the proposed paragraph which MariusM has tried to introduce, which has been reverted by at least four editors, and which is the reason why this article is now locked. The following is from Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation... - Mauco 14:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

While hinting or insinuating may feel weak, it is a powerful tool and abuse of it is a common way of introducing bias. Consider the example:

The minister of parliament has been accused of lacking backbone and of being unwilling to use the armed forces to defend our rights. He acknowledged last month that he is left-handed.

To mention the minister's left-handedness in this context is to imply that it is relevant. As a result, this juxtaposition of otherwise neutral statements has the effect of fostering prejudice, in particular the prejudice that all left-handers are wimps (i.e. also lacking backbone). Insinuations of this sort are guaranteed to prompt complaints. Do not use or tolerate them.

Mauco, I'm assuming you refer to MariusM's "political climate" section which stated that prior to the referendum, the PMR has intimidated and/or repressed individuals and organizations which espouse the "opposite" position, that is, joining Moldova and not Russia: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova. Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them ." Admittedly, it could have been written better; however, a statement on "political climate" and the degree to which opposing viewpoints have been let heard—or silenced—is certainly appropriate when the referendum is being touted as demonstrating remarkable unity in the voice of the people.

When it comes to intellectual honesty—since you have decided to create this whole new section in this discussion after the article was locked with no purpose but to berate MariusM—I noticed that on one of your reverts you also added yet another link to yet another citation of the pro-PMR press. When positions are so polarized (leaving moral, ethnic, historical and who is right/wrong factors out, just as an observation of fact), by citing non-impartial pro-PMR press at the same moment you revert statements that activities by those opposed to the "referendum" have been actively discouraged and/or banned by the PMR authorities, you engage in exactly the kind of "intellectual dishonesty" you go out of your way to accuse others of. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not helping at all. —Khoikhoi 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, if anyone here is going to go out of their way to "lecture" a specific contributor and admonish them to write fact and not insinuations, then their own scholarship and objectivity must be completely beyond reproach. Mauco can feel free to delete this entire section (or simply note its inappropriateness) and, instead, put in something more sensible stating his position why political climate is not applicable, or why he feels that MariusM's basic statement is false and should remain deleted. Or if the problem is simply sources cited or not, let's discuss it. If not, then my comments and observations stand. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

They can stand, but they only sidetrack the discussion and violate WP:NPA. —Khoikhoi 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco may well believe he was being informative, but that was not the result and it needed to be pointed out as such. Probably enough said on this here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, because as I said, this discussion is not about Mauco. —Khoikhoi 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Back "on topic" then

In that case, gladly back to the issues at hand (being mediated)...

• Should we include in the article the fact that: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova[1]".
• Should we include in the article the fact that: "Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them [2]".

As I mentioned, perhaps the writing style could be improved, that's a small issue. It would seem things boil down to the following:

• On the first: Whether or not to include that an opposition position to the referendum was not possible because any such position was treason ("against the state'). In particular, meaning, just because there aren't political parties espousing Moldovan unification it doesn't mean there isn't opposition.

On its own, at face value, that meaning/intent could be characterized as unsubstantiated insinuation. But while one can certainly infer the meaning, it's not what's being stated, all that's being stated is the absence of pro-Moldivan unification parties as the result of a ruling by the PMR Supreme Court banning such parties. However, let's also be realistic: as the Supreme Court (and PMR government) felt it necessary to take this extraordinary step, then it can only have been as a direct reaction to pro-Moldovan sentiment the government felt strongly compelled to quash.

• On the second: Whether or not to include that members of "Dignitas" were arrested by PMR authorities and later released with no permanent charges filed against them. How is this relevant to the referendum? If there is intimidation and/or coersion, then the vote can only be presented (at best) as "the PMR authorities reported that..." not that 97.2% voted "YES!" to independence and association with Russia.

Now, while labeled home brew original research, the question of reported personal experiences does also come into play in arriving at a judgement on balance. On the one hand, we have workers who are told to vote and how. (This is not permissible as it is hearsay and/or original research.) On the other hand, we have Viktors Alksnis presented as an accredited impartial believable observer when, based on his past conduct elsewhere, he is a criminal. (But his being quoted as the referendum was on the up-and-up is OK, just repeating what was reported in the press.) If we are to steer the middle course—indeed, if there is to even be a middle course—then the banning of opposition and the intimidation of pro-Moldovan groups is an essential counter-balance to the PMR government reporting a rapturous response of the masses overwhelmingly choosing the government's position.

It's at least a stake in the ground—let's see how the dialog develops. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful for mediation to include references for both claims. (Igny 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

It should be obvious that this is FAR from NPOV. Just read an excerpt from the conclusion (emphasis mine).

The so-called “PMR” that Moscow created 15 years ago in order to prevent the Republic of Moldova from uniting to Romania continues to be a source of instability in the region and an obstacle for the integration of the Republic of Moldova with Europe. It is also a regime stuck in the Soviet totalitarianism era where – just like in the times of the USSR – basic human rights are outrageously disregarded. Smirnov’s corrupt regime, propped by the Russian troops, does not easily accept political opposition and every party or NGO that is not under its control is perceived as a potential threat to the “PMR"’s integrity. The same alleged reason is employed to impose a drastic control over the mass media: the few independent newspapers are frequently harassed, their printed editions are confiscated and the journalists are intimidated.

In Smirnov’s “republic” children in the Moldovan schools suffer the most, especially the ones that use the Latin script. These children, their teachers and parents are regarded as the “fifth column” of the Republic of Moldova in the so-called “PMR”. and so on...

Again, what is the argument about? (Igny 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for that whiff of common sense reminder. One look at the title page would also suffice. It is only a shame that this is being quoted as a reliable source in the main Transnistria article and other related articles as well. The less of this pseudo babble we can have in this particular referendum article, the better. Did anyone here, besides me, follow the 800+ media stories about the referendum which appeared in English between 15 Sep and 21 Sep? More than 200 accredited journalists covered the referendum first hand. Their description of conditions in Transnistria in general and those of the referendum in particular sounded very, very different than what one could be led to believe by reading reports such as the one which Igny just quoted. - Mauco 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, we had almost a month of discussions about this article. Wikipedia is not your propriety and you should not ask veto rights for all Transnistria related articles. I don't believe further discussions in the talk page will help, it will be only a loss of time. The way the article looks now, with hiding of relevant information, is a shame for Wikipedia, but it seems you like it. If you work only in Transnistria related article, other will like to work on other topics as well, and being blocked one month for an article disturb them to bring other contributions at Wikipedia. A Request for Mediation was filed for this article, and was agreed by me, Vecrumba, int19h, Cedrins. Please accept the mediation, don't play with our time. Don't teach me Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, mediation is a normal step after almost one month of discussions, and the Mediation Comitee already accepted this case. All you have to do is to agree to mediation. All arguments should be told in the mediation process.--MariusM 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read this Talk page from start to bottom, you will see that my objections are based on objective criteria, citing Wikipedia guidelines and policy. I also strongly object to you (and your sympathizers') repeated attempts to steer the discussion away from valid Wikipedia criteria and instead turn it into a personal debate about Mauco. I am far from the only editor who has qualms about what you are attempting to do to this article, I am merely the most vocal. Note taht variations of your paragraph has been rejected or reverted by some 4 or 5 different editors, not just me, on what to all of them appears to be valid grounds. As for mediation, this is not a step that I can accept to participate in if you have not yet tried other dispute resolution methods first. I was also stunned that when you filed the request, you listed non-contributors to the page - merely because they had been sympathetic to your views in Talk - and failed to list anyone who reverted you, and would be parties to the dispute, apart from myself, thus slanting the odds in your favour. Unacceptable, and should not be tolerated as this makes a mockery of the institution of mediation. - Mauco 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true what you told, Mauco. I invited at mediation you and the Russian User:int19h who reverted me. I also invited Baltic User:Peteris Cedrins, to have a 2 against 2 mediation. You know very well that Pernambuco told that he don't want to deal with this article anymore [1] (anyway, he didn't revert me), Tzekai agreed with the paragraph, wanted only a small rephrasing and seems not very interested in Transnistria [2] and Mikalai told he has a break, and anyway, he was not against the paragraph, wanted only to provide sources (which I did meantime). Why you tell about the "mockery of the institution of mediation" as long as the Mediation Comitee accepted the mediation?--MariusM 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still interested in this article. I know less than the rest of you. This is why I declined to "edit war", but I am very interested. I have spent the last week learning. And I want to participate. - Pernambuco 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then please register your agreement for mediation in the case request page. Mediation Comitee already agreed to hear this case. Vecrumba also was not included in the mediation at the begining, but he included himself in the case. It will be better if all interested parties will participate in the mediation.--MariusM 11:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some more work on this, obviously, in the next couple of days. However, to the first point, the banning of pro-Moldovan parties, the reference currently cited ("The Policy of Linguistic Cleansing in Transistria") specifically deals with the banning of Radchencko's and Buceatskiy's parties because advocating Moldavian union would mean liquidation of the PMR state. The article contains appropriate references in support of its claims and findings. I would also mention that some of the more "inflamatory," shall we say, descriptions, are also in this article, appropriately attributed. (Brzezinski calls the PMR a "mafia" run (!) country.)

As to the parties, anyone who reverted, etc. and disagrees with the two statements specifically in mediation are completely welcome to comment here.

In reading through the currently at 35+ page (printed) Talk section and the editing history, it is clear to me at least that Marius, the main protagonist of the one side, has in fact annotated claims; but, it appears to me that because his English is not as polished as that of other contributors, his writing has been taken at times (a) to mean not exactly what was meant and/or (b) to be his personal ventings and histrionics against the PMR when, in fact, he was practically typing verbatim what has appeared elsewhere in print. Mauco--et al. but still the principle protagonist on the other side--is not an unreasonable person--only demanding citations, but in my own limited experience, far too eager to jump immediately to the words "unsubstantiated," "original research," "irresponsible," etc., viz. Talk:Vladimir Antyufeev: "Even on this page, to jump right in and label Antyufeev as a high ranking KGB officer was a bit irresponsible, if I may say so...," comment made a couple of days after I cited my source on the Talk page. I for one don't like being talked about as being "irresponsible," however, I am probably better able to defend myself (speaking only in terms of written English) if needed—though if I responded in kind, it would only make the Talk page longer.

As for stacking the deck, this isn't a shouting match, so whatever is decided here is not going to be based on "numbers" of people on each side. My particular interest is in post-Soviet policy, primarily as manifested in Latvia and the rest of the Baltics; however, given the particular cast of characters in the PMR including Black Berets (who killed Latvian freedom demonstrators)--and working on good references for that one--the PMR needs to be revealed for what it is (yes, that would be my POV), but only through incontrovertible and substantiated fact, that is, NPOV presentation. (For example, my personal feelings about the Soviet and Russian governments don't prevent me from working on a NPOV history of Russians in Latvia.) I think we have those facts at hand to support the two statements now in mediation (which, as I indicated earlier, should be judged on their content and not grammar). No one is out to "get Mauco."—Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was "what this is about" is the two statements under mediation. I fail to see what the point is of bringing up www.moldova.org, we're not arguing about its contents and it's not the source for the statements under mediation. We're not anti-PMR pro-Moldovan ultra-POV extremists here. No one is disputing the need to cite statements and claims appropriately.—Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction/clarification: the document cited for the first item under mediation is on the "Moldova" site, my apologies; however, its claims with regards to the first item in mediation are annotated. The observations it makes regarding Moldovan language repression are in line with those I have found on mainstream sites, including the U.N. and OSCE. I'll be looking for more backup this weekend. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.vremea.net/news/2006-09-19/15:20:03.html is a Moldovan article highly critical of the refendum. Nowhere does it give any credence to any of the wild claims from the Moldovan Helsinki guys. The article has other complaints, however, which are more believable. By omission, it shows how far removed from reality that the fantastic claims by Stefan U.'s group really are... - Mauco 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As we have an ongoing mediation, we should discuss arguments in the mediation process, not anymore in this talk page. Anyhow, I suggest you come with English language sources, as I don't know Russian and I don't trust you enough to blindly believe what you are saying.--MariusM 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

References

WP:REDFLAG

this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG )

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

* surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;

* surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media;

* claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

there are some things in the article that fall under this heading, let us move it out until someone can provide multiple reliable sources, especially politically charged issues that is the case here Pernambuco 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

it looks like no one is against my suggestion, so ive made the change, but is someone wants to move it back in that is fine but only after these red flag points are sorted out, otherwise i suggest paying attention to each of these red flag items first and dont revert unless they get solved Pernambuco 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis rephrasing

Alaexis rephrased the sentence regarding the arrest of pro-moldovan activists from Dignitas with "According to Moldovan sources...". Not only Moldovan sources told about the arrest of Dignitas guys, Tiraspol Times also [3] (of course, in a propagandistic way to justify the arrests). As TT is not meeting Wiki criteria for WP:RS, I would not mention in mainspace this article, but is clear the the arrest is an undeniable fact, recorded not only by Moldovan sources. With the exception of Tiraspol Times, no other transnistrian media was allow to mention this fact, as there is no press freedom in Transnistria. TT is a website for foreigners, they didn't have a printed edition with Dignitas arrest available in Tiraspol, this is why they were allowed to mention the fact.--MariusM 14:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Alaexis 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Transnistrian independence referendum, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721051118/http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_6257_en.htm to http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_6257_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005414/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1483 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1483

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Transnistrian independence referendum, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005621/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929040524/http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/216 to http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/216
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005258/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1443 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1443
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927182318/http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790 to http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008232925/http://www.azi.md/news?ID=40985 to http://www.azi.md/news?ID=40985
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150227003650/http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=en&ID=49678 to http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=en&ID=49678
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150909141956/http://www.osce.org/moldova/13427.html to http://www.osce.org/moldova/13427.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080924051225/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2006/09/17/news/moldova.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/17/news/moldova.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005343/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205211024/http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11589835 to http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11589835

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transnistrian independence referendum, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525065945/http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=220752&src=0 to http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=220752&src=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)