Jump to content

Talk:Sheriff (company)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]
  1. BBC article 1st April 2004 : "Organised crime experts in the UK suspect that Sheriff really belongs to the first family of the rogue republic, and claim the Smirnovs use it to launder money."
  2. Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika – Terra Incognita 1 July 2006 : “The symbols of president Smirnov and Sheriff, controlled by his family, are everywhere” (...) “The Sheriff Company controls almost everything has any relevance at all in the business environment. The company is controlled by the family of President Smirnov”
  3. “There is no Europe here” by Patti McCracken 1 February 2006 : “This renegade republic is runned mafia-style by president Igor Smirnov and his son Vladimir, who controls a consortium called Sheriff”
  4. E-democracy comentary 17 January 2006 : "Three more or less consolidated groupings are represented in the Supreme Soviet of the self-proclaimed Transnistrian republic after elections. They are: 1) the Obnovlenye (Renovation) movement that represents the interests of big business in Transnistria. The official leader of the movement, Mihail Burla, claims that this movement holds 23 out of 43 seats, it means the absolute majority; 2) the "Respublica" movement inspired by separatist leader Igor Smirnov that represents the interests of the "old guard" of "founding parents" of the separatist regime; 3) informal grouping of local security bodies supported by similar circles from Russia, which look for own niche in the local business, in relations with chauvinistic and revengeful circles from the Russian Federation, and "People's Volition" party, headed by deputy chairman of the State Duma Sergey Baburin. (...) The fact that interests of the "Smirnov clan" are represented in all three movements, including the victorious movement Obnovlenye is a proof in this regard. The famous firm "Sheriff" has among its leaders one of Smirnov's son, who has recently became lawmaker, supports the latter. Of course, no serious clan "keeps its eggs in one basket," and this thing also defines the Transnistrian pluralism that the so-called democratic elections in the region were based on. One can say the three heads of the same "separatist dragon" form the political pluralism in Transdniestria."
  5. San Francisco Chronicle 12 February 2006 : “This renegade republic is run mafia-style by President Igor Smirnov and his son, Vladimir, who controls a consortium called Sheriff”
  6. Washington Times 19 July 2004 : “Vladimir Smirnov, son of the Transnistria leader, leads the breakaway region's customs service. He is said to be the major silent partner in Sheriff”
  7. U.S. Institute of Peace 22 July 2004 : “Sheriff Company, run by the “President” of Transnistria, Igor Smirnov, and his son Vladimir”
  8. European Tribune 25 June 2005 : “It [Transnistria] is a harshly government "country", run by a man named Igor Smirnof, who uses a company called "Sheriff" to create a mafia monopoly on all the important aspects of industry (...) The TDR is a run by the Russian-backed Sheriff mafia/company, and it has no ethics or moral hang-ups”
  9. Sheriff - un kolhoz cu beneficiar privat (Romanian) 19 July 2006 : "The company Sheriff shows the way the rulling family managed to create a structure which is parallel with the state, which control the local economy and produce earnings for private persons using official power (...) The company was founded in 1993 and is ruled by two MGB officers: Victor Gusan and Ilie Cazmali. Those coordonated in 1992 the arrest of Ilaşcu group [see Wiki article about Ilaşcu for details - my note] and were trustmen of president Smirnov during the war. (...) The younger member of the family, Oleg Smirnov, new ellected MP and high functionarry of custom office, is one of Gusan's assistants" (my translation)
  10. Civic Media report 18 September 2006 : "One of Smirnov’s sons is head of custom office. The second is the owner of the company Sheriff" (my translation from Romanian)
  11. Ziarul de garda Chisinau 24 November 2005 : "The son, Vladimir (Smirnov), controls through the holding “Sheriff” an important part of the economy" (my translation from Romanian)
  12. Românii din Transnistria, uitaţi şi de Chişinău, şi de Bucureşti (Romanian)
The thing is: For all of these, there is at least one other which says the complete opposite. In fact, some of them are Romanian. Former presidential advisor Oazu Nantoi (who hates the PMR government in Transnistria) is among those who always point out the split between Sheriff and Smirnov. And, for good measure: Here is another source: http://www.moldovatoday.net/more_rus.php?id=71 which is the highly nationalistic news organization "MoldovaToday.net": It says that "their rivalry first of all bears the nature of fight for the benevolence of Moscow, and in so far as concerns relation to Moldove" and says that with regards to independence, they agree. Just like the two main parties in the United States: They agree on some issues (especially on foreign policy) and disagree on others (especially domestic). - Mauco 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your "highly nationalistic source" you gave is in Russian (as I don't speak Russian I can not know what is written in it). Is probabily a highly Russian-nationalistic source. Anyhow, we have reliable and unbiases sources like BBC, Washington TImes or San Francisco Chronicles, we don't need to rely on obscure websites.--MariusM 09:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad that you can not read Russian, since that is really necessary in order to get a grip on the reality of Transnistria. Otherwise you are forced to rely on what others filter for you, with their inherent bias. Anyway, Moldovatoday.net is a highly MOLDOVAN-nationalistic source, hence the name. They are strongly in favor of Moldova's sovereignty and is pro-Romanian + pro-EU. - Mauco 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that a source which is ONLY in Russian is highly Moldovan-nationalistic. Russian is not the language of Moldovan nationalists. Anyhow, you didn't tell anything about BBC, Washington Times or San Francisco Chronicles, are they also Moldovan nationalists?--MariusM 09:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From all those sources I like most the commentary of e-democracy: "interests of the "Smirnov clan" are represented in all three movements, including the victorious movement Obnovlenye is a proof in this regard. The famous firm "Sheriff" has among its leaders one of Smirnov's son, who has recently became lawmaker, supports the latter. Of course, no serious clan "keeps its eggs in one basket," and this thing also defines the Transnistrian pluralism that the so-called democratic elections in the region were based on. One can say the three heads of the same "separatist dragon" form the political pluralism in Transdniestria."--MariusM 09:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all these sources. I have struck out one which was a duplicate of another you mentioned, as well as the CRJI source which Mauco deems to be a bad source. The San Francisco Chronicle and Washington Post articles seemed to be the best to me, as they seem the most reliable. And they also say exactly what I'm trying to get across in the article. Smirnov is involved in the company, but silently. Like a mafia boss. All of these articles, as far as I can tell, show that Smirnov's involvement in Sheriff is not admitted. I have slightly editted my compromise piece using a few of these sources. -- Pepsi2786 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for hanging in there, Pepsi. I have several comments on these sources, and in fact have been in direct contact with two editors so far (BBC and one of the others) so I know what they base their research on. Again, I now defer to MariusM to go first with his comments on your latest compromise piece. I am the easy one here. So I will now let him comment, and if he is more or less good with what Pepsi has constructed now, then I will chip in as well afterwards. - Mauco 14:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment: The compromise piece talk to much about Renewal. This is not the article about Renewal but about Sheriff. We should mention that Sheriff has links with Renewal and also links with Smirnov family, but we should not analyse Renewal position in the political spectrum, is not the proper place here.--MariusM 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so I'm done. I firmly and completely give up on you compromising on anything. You never put forth an attempt at a compromise piece at all, other than to strike out the whole article and put back exactly what you want. This is pointless. -- Pepsi2786 17:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so, another one hits the dust... :-(
Honestly, I don't know what games MariusM is playing or if he gets some kind of sadistic pleasure out of this. Or maybe he just sincerely thinks that he is right (although he has never visited Transnistria, and admits to not being able to read or understand the main language of the area). The true believers who won't admit to being wrong are often the worst kind.
I have been going in circles with him over this, and the other admin, Firstfron, gave up too (it looks like). Now you, Pepsi. Well, we always have the next step is WP:DR... I knew what I was doing when I asked him to comment first, of course. - Mauco 02:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That troublesome third sentence

[edit]

Alright, folks. I'm aware Pepsi is making a valiant effort to rework the article, and if the results are agreeable to both parties, so be it. However, I have looked at Marius' links, which he provided on my talk page, and have read the material, and would like to propose a simple change to the third sentence.

Some of the links are outdated, and some don't appear particularly reliable. However, I cannot disregard all of these links.

Might I suggest a compromise along the lines of:

In recent years, however, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov and pursues a confrontational policy towards his government.[1]Moldova.org Other sources dispute there was ever a serious dispute between Sheriff and Smirnov, and that there are still strong ties between Smirnov and Sheriff. [refs]

It does seem as though there are lingering doubts amongst some about the "clash", and in the interest of a NPOV article, it would be advisable to include commentary on both positions without giving undue weight. Comments? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back Firsfron, I thought that you, too, had given up since we hadn't seen you around for a while. I will let the other editor go first with his comments on your latest article, and then I will add mine. So: What say you, Marius Mioc...? - Mauco 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome back, Mauco. I was very afraid you would strongly object to the above, so it's a bit of a relief that you haven't (yet). I do wonder what Marius thinks, and I hope something along these lines will pass muster. I guess I'm not giving up. I really would like to iron out a compromise. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should add: Oleg Smirnov, president's son, recently elected MP, is in the leadership of Sheriff, being the assistant of founder Gushan. As we mention the 2 MPs from Sheriff which are members of Renewal we should mention the 3rd MP from Sheriff which is not member of Renewal, to have the full picture: Sheriff have ties with all important political forces in Transnistria (they don't keep all eggs in the same basket, as one commentary told). Also, I would like not to mention pridnestrovie.net, a propaganda site of Transnistrian regime and not a real source of information. For the links between Sheriff and Renewal, which I never denied, we have other sources of informations. Mauco, Marius Mioc is a person from Romania who write articles about politics but why you believe is me? Regarding your comments in previous section about my "sadistic pleasure" I refrain making any comment--MariusM 10:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. We shouldn't add that Oleg Smirnov is Gushan's assistant. Has Oleg Smirnov said that? No. Has Gushan said that? No. Is there ANYWHERE on record where we know this to be true? No. Let me put the record straight: It is one of those malicious rumors cooked up in a political spin-tank somewhere, in order to draw some dots (like Osama and Saddam and their WMDs) which aren't there.
Now, for those who do not know the facts in Transnistria: Oleg Smirnov is head of Gazprombank and one of the founders of the PPP, Patriotic Party of Pridnestrovie. His bank - Gazprombank - is the MAIN COMPETITOR to Agroprombank, which is owned by Sheriff. They are in direct competition for clients. Likewise, in politics, PPP is in direct competition with Renewal for votes. Gushan belongs to Renewal, and supports Shevchuk. Smirnov is with PPP, which supports his dad.
They are fierce political competitors. They are also commercial rivals, in the bank business. Gazprombank is owned by Russian capital. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that they would allow their CEO to be the personal assistant to the #1 competitor. I don't want you to take this as a personal comment, please, but this is getting sillier every day and I just need to know what kind of fantasy world we are living in if we take these "sources" seriously? Use common sense to sort between reliable sources and those who clearly aren't... - Mauco 13:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is only the propagandistic picture of Transnistria you want to show to Wikipedia readers, in order to mislead them. I gave 11 (eleven) sources to show the strong links between Smirnov and Sheriff and you still claim there are "clashes" between them. Between those links - BBC, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle. Most of those links are articles from 2006. Against those sources, you came only with Russian sources or sources controlled by Transnistrian authorities, which of course want to clean the image of the boss. All important business in Transnistria can survived only with acceptance of Smirnov familly, this is a fact confirmed through many sources.--MariusM 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From this edit of Mauco I understood he is denying only Vladimir Smirnov's ownership of Sheriff in 2006, he is not denying Oleg Smirnov employment at Sheriff as assistant of founder Gushan and also he is not denying previus ownership of Sheriff by Vladimir Smirnov. This is why, in order to achieve a compromise (I don't have the "sadistic pleasure" that Mauco suspects me) I didn't insist to mention Vladimir Smirnov, I focused only at Oleg Smirnov. Now I see that Mauco want to deny even Oleg Smirnov links with Sheriff. Indeed Oleg is a founder of Patriotic Party of Pridnestrovie, but I told from the begining that Sheriff is not keeping all eggs in the same basket - it has links with all important political movements in Transnistria and definitelly is not in oposition with Smirnov. Denying the obvious, this is Mauco's position.--MariusM 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered for a long time whether or not it is even worthwhile to respond to the above rant.
But I will do so, short and to the point:
For the record, yes, I am denying both the claims of employment and ownership by Oleg and Vladimir in Sheriff. And, so I am not alone in this: I doubt that any serious Transnistria-watcher or analyst exists who does not agree with me on this point.
Smirnov is from the Patriotic Party of Pridnestrovie. Gushan is from Renewal. They are both members of parliament, and they are rivals in the political field. They compete for votes.
Smirnov is CEO of Gazprombank in Transnistria. Gushan owns Agroprombank. They are rivals and competitors.
To say that Smirnov is the assistant of Gushan is ludicrous. Let's get real here. - Mauco 17:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary, all serious Transnistria-watchers or analysts knows the links between Smirnov familly and Sheriff. Those links are proved by reliable sources like BBC, San Francisco Chronicles, Washington Times. Those are more reliable sources than Mauco or his propaganda sites of Transnistrian regime, like pridnestrovie.net, tiraspoltimes.com, visitpmr, BHHRG or Russian newspapers with pro-Russian expansionism agenda.--MariusM 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to be clear, are we adding or not adding In recent years, however, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov and pursues a confrontational policy towards his government.[42]Moldova.org Other sources dispute there was ever a serious dispute between Sheriff and Smirnov, and that there are still strong ties between Smirnov and Sheriff. [refs]  ? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, first sentence of this paragraph is already in the article and I think is misleading the readers. Until we reach consensus we should take it out. For a compromise I propose the following: According [refs], in recent years, Sheriff and the Smirnov-led government has clashed and the company now supports Renewal, a political party which is in opposition to Igor Smirnov.[42]Moldova.org Other sources dispute there was ever a serious dispute between Sheriff and Smirnov, and that there are still strong ties between Smirnov and Sheriff. According [ref] Oleg Smirnov, president's son and recently elected MP, is in the leadership of Sheriff, being the assistant of founder Gushan.[refs]--MariusM 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may take the sentence out, since the page is no longer protected. Mauco may object to the last sentence, but the other parts seem reasonable. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key to what is going on internally in Transnistria right now is the power struggle between different groups, each with political representation and with economic interests behind it. Sheriff is a part of that, but the current version of the article has been chopped and misedited to a degree where it is not clear to the average reader of the article now. - Mauco 14:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you two are unblocked

[edit]

When you two are unblocked, do we want to discuss this article rationally? I'm disapointed this has happened; I was hoping when the page was unprotected that we could come with some sort of concord, but it seems my efforts have been entirely futile. And now you will both have "black marks" on your records, which is really unfortunate. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and Ukrainian citizenship

[edit]

In this article, Ilya Kazmaly and Vicor Gushan were reffered as Russian and Ukrainian citizens until 28 October, when MaGioZal changed the expression in Russo-Transnistrian and Ukrainian-Transnistrian [2]. Recently, Mauco eliminated the Russo and Ukrainian part, and want to push for "Moldovan" for Kazmaly. In fact this is part of wider propagandistic campaign "Transnistrian regime has support also from Moldovans". Kazmaly is not Moldovan, he is an ethnic gagauz born in Moldova (not in Transnistria) who probabily don't have Moldovan citizenship, as he fought against Moldova. He has Russian citizenship, as was written long time ago in this article (not by me), and MaGioZal change was not to deny the citizenship, but to make the sentence shorter.--MariusM 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, get real. I am not "part of wider propagandistic campaign" as you would have it. But merely found the correct biography for Kazmaly (which we didn't have access to before). As new facts are uncovered, we correct previous errors. That is what happened here. This time, unlike before, the new and correct information is sourced. Get off the high horse, and get real. - Mauco 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sheriff logo.gif

[edit]

Image:Sheriff logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]