I don't see anymore Yakovlev's comments, about which I discussed long time ago in this talk page (now archived), nobody expressed any opposition to include them in the article, were included afterwards in the article and nobody reverted that. However, our friend Mauco took the opportunity that I was not active in Wikipedia few days and removed those comments without any disscussion here. A quick look at the article shows other changes, like a ‹The templateTalkfact is being considered for merging.›[citation needed] added near the mention about ban of political parties, while this is sourced few sentences bellow, removal of a paragraph about Moldovan schools etc.--MariusM23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to remind you that you don't have veto rights on this article. Yakovlev comments (good or bad, is not our job to be for or against Yakovlev) were part of the article for long time, nobody expressed oposition against this paragraph. You are defying all other editors removing this part.--MariusM09:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In 16 November 03:34 Mauco told: "Go ahead and mention Yakovlev if he is notable". Why did you changed your mind, Mauco? Full disscusion about Yakovlev in archive 9 [1]--MariusM09:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Yakovlev comment referred to what he claimed was supposedly a deterioting economic situation. When we added the latest info (GDP per capita up 17% year-on-year) it was clear that Yakovlev was wrong misleadingly wrong. Just sour grapes from an old communist who doesn't even live there. Time proved him wrong, and Wikipedia is not written in stone. The idea, over time, is to try to make each article better. - Mauco03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For GDP increase you have an unrealiable source: Tiraspol Times. Mark Street, editor of Tiraspol Times, who edited Wikipedia, is the same person who wrote that children are dying in Transnistria (because some bad Wikipedians). He is not even consistent with his propaganda, or he adjust it considering the audience. Anyhow, Yakovlev is telling about very specific things - his village of Mikhailovka, and nobody denied what he wrote. I suggested to Mark Street to make a reportage in Mikhailovka village, to check if Yakovlev is not lying. He didn't followed my advice.--MariusM16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about something that you do not know about, can you show me where I did this? My only work is to restore the page, I have only made one single edit that changed it, and it was on 23 december, and it was not a deletion, it was a move where I took a paragraph and moved it into a different place, I never delete anything like you do, so stop accusing everyone of everything, I will keep my eye on you from now on, you are not a really good Wikipedian when you act like this against others. Pernambuco16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This revert by you included the deletion of Yakovlev opinions. I understand that you reverted blindly this paragraph, without being aware exactly what you are reverting. I understand the situation but in future please look with atention what you are reverting. It is not a situation of "me against others", I just re-added paragraphs which were part of the article for long time and silently removed without discussion in talk page. I think is a situation "Mauco against others", and you were caught in this dispute not being fully aware about the history of the page (you should check also the talks in archives). I don't mind if you keep an eye on me, I am proud of my editing record.--MariusM17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An other paragraph which was part of the article for long time - "Border issues" - was removed by Mauco during my short wikibreak. This is linked with the article List of unrecognized countries, where Mauco want to move Transnistria in the section with unrecognized countries with "full" control over their territorry, while I want to keep it in the section "partial" control over territorry, based exactly on information about border issues. Mauco censored the border issues section in this article, in order to remove the arguments against his position on the other article (I was reffering at Transnistria article in the disputes on the other article). I re-added back this section and I hope Mauco will refrain to start a new edit war about it.--MariusM09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Border issues paragraph was added by me in 4 September [2]. During 3 1/2 months nobody objected in this talk page against this paragraph, but was silently removed by Mauco during my short Christmas wikibreak.--MariusM10:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not removed be me. Please assume good faith. I made some other edits, just like a lot of other people did (and keep doing every day), but not this particular one. Anyway, the border detail section is now located where it belongs (in the detailed article on Disputed status of Transnistria) and a summary line is included here, and I fully agree with the editor who did this that it is the correct approach. Remember the golden rule: "Details there, summary here." - Mauco13:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I saw that border issues section was removed by User:Pernambuco. Apologies for my mistake. Anyhow, Pernambuco should first explain in talk his edits, especially when he remove something that was stable in this unstable article for 3 1/2 months and nobody objected to it.--MariusM18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is already there (it says Transnistria). Want more? The details can be seen with one mouseclick. That is right approach. It is done that way in the other parts, too (history, internal politics, human rights, referendum, the Ukraine border dispute, and so on). - Mauco16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Border issues are an ongoing problem - are necesarry. Only section which is not necesarry according your golden rule "Details there, summarry here" is the referendum section.--MariusM17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are necessary, but do we need all details on this page. I think it makes more sense to just keep one sentence mentioning their existence here, with details available in the subpage. TSO1D17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are necesarry. They were in the article from 4 September, why suddenly they are not necesarry? What is your opinion about referendum section?--MariusM17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be mentioned but not in great detail. One line summarizing the results and a link to the main article should suffice in my view. TSO1D19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the archives, and it was added without any discussion, and then it was duplicated in another article, it is bad that someone says "he should explain" when my edit line did explain this, and I just moved it into the right article where it belongs. I did not remove any information but just ordered it, sorted it out the right way.This is on the rule that all of you have here, where you decide on the details in one place, and the summary in the main space, and so on. I am not taking sides, but I have to do a good job, and all this edit war stuff between the two camps, I have to say, honest, it is not helping the article Pernambuco21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is not upheld in practice. Take a look at the human rights section, or internal politics, for instance. - Mauco03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it. Pernambuco15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding border issues, is you, Pernambuco who started the edit war. Is amazing to see the person who stated the edit war asking others to stop it. Border issues section was part of the article for 3 and a half months, there were thousand edits in Transnistria article during that time, nobody was against border issues section (not even in the other thousands edits in talk page). COntrary, some other editors added more details at this section. Suddenly, Pernambuco deleted the section without any discussion in talk.--MariusM16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an edit warrior and I never take sides, I did one single move, it is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=96140706, and I explained it on the 23 december, with my edit log comment. There was no information removed, it was moved into the right place, and every one else liked it, then you show up here, and complain, but it was one single move and it was not an edit war. I do not edit this article a lot, the rest that I have done since is just to revert the p.o.v. changes, so do not accuse me of edit warrior, I ask Pernambuco16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not every one else liked your move, as you can see in the last 2 days that you were reverted not only by me, but by Dlgoe and Diana Teodorescu as well. Don't take it personally, it happens in Wikipedia that other editors don't agree with some of your edits. People don't want to look in tens articles to find information about Transnistria, important information should be in the main article also.--MariusM17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides.
I find it unacceptable. When the reader clicks border issues he expects to find an explanation on what border issues means; not an article referring to Transnistria border issues. This way the information is hidden and no one will find it.
I do not understand this edit remark: "please provide reference if you want to enter the word isolated" with regards to "violent incidents." The incidents are listed in the article (with references). There are very few, and they are spread out over a long period of time. They also did not happen in the whole country, but just in a few, specific points. If there were more, and if they happened all the time, all over the place, they would not be isolated. But they are precisely isolated because they are NOT frequent. Maybe English is not your first language, but please understand the difference between isolated and non-isolated, frequent, common, routine, etc. - Mauco17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word isolated implies a judgment and is a point of view. Can one draw a line between isolated and non-isolated? Which is this line? The violent incidents are listed, and so is the size of the region. The reader should judge whether they are isolated or not. I think NPOV includes presenting the facts without judging them.Dl.goe17:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, using the word isolated makes a judgment that shouldn't be added. I think the same for goes for the crime sections, where the word allegations has been added before smuggling and weapons trade. Yes, many of the claims are unsubstantiated allegations, others are claims supported by evidence, and all of this is explained within the paragraphs. I don't think it's necessary to add a descriptor in the title of the section. TSO1D17:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until proven, they are nothing but allegations. The POV is to state "Weapons trade" - definitive - as a headline, if no such trade ever took place. And as for "isolated", the simple question is: Did these acts take place on a persistent basis, all over Transnistria? In regards to Kosovo, the term "isolated incidents" is the phrase used by most of the press, although in Kosovo, killings take place weekly, if not daily. - Mauco02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the press uses the term doesn't mean that it doesn't include a judgment behind it. Personally I agree that the incidents of domestic terrorism in Transnistria are isolated, however I still think it's best to lay out the facts without any qualifications. As for allegations of... I don't really care too much but see what you mean; without the word it could be interpreted that a statement is made. TSO1D03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know that the press is using POV-judgment when they refer to the Kosovo mess as "isolated incidents". I am not that naive, TSO1D, and maybe I was being provocative with that particular example. But I think (well, hope) that over time we will see that in the case of Transnistria, these incidents ARE indeed isolated. So far, it doesn't look like there is a concerted campaign of bombings or violence, and certainly no specific purpose or pattern to it either. "Isolated" is not so much a value judgment, in my eyes, as it is merely the most accurate description that we can come up with to quickly explain to the reader what is actually going on. And that, as you know, must be our overriding concern as editors. - Mauco03:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the last months 2 explosions in Tiraspol (described as "terrorist" by authorities and used for arresting pro-Moldovan activists before the referendum) and also one explosion in Tighina (which is not listed in our article). Seems not isolated for me. Anyhow, is best only to list them and let the reader to decide.--MariusM13:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The activists were brought in for questioning, then released. Two explosions in one year is hardly a crime wave or a terrorist wave. Of course these acts were "isolated", and to pretend that they were not (as EvilAlex wants, and you seem to want too) is highly biased POV. The simple question is: Did these acts take place on a persistent basis, all over Transnistria? No, they did not. - Mauco13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should not pretend incidents are isolated or are not isolated. We should just list the incidents and let the readers to decide.--MariusM16:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that "isolated" in the heading sounds a little POV, and agree with MariusM's last opinion that we should let the readers decide and just lay out the facts. Also, this is my point of view and should not be in the article, I think that the incedents aren't very isolated anyway. They maybe few if you look at statistics since 1990, but they are quite a lot for just one year for one very small region/country. Jonathanpops17:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is an export oriented economy? What other countries are export oriented? Who states that Transnistria is an open economy? Who states that Transnistria is a free market?Dl.goe
Please. I thought that we were past that. EUBAM has been on the border for a year now, and there are no serious signs of any significant smuggling activity. - Mauco02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, to get back on track - Export oriented means: Transnistria trades with nearly 100 countries. The second largest textile company in Europe is located in Transnistria. Sells to Quelle, Aldi, etc. One of the largest steel companies in Europe is there, and among the most modern in the world. Listed by Lloyds of London. These are heavy, serious businesses. They do not exist to cater to a market of 500,000 low income people. Open economy and free market principles: Click on the wikilinks, read what the descriptions say, and then use common sense to decide if that applies or not to accurately describe Transnistria in the econony section of this article. - Mauco02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at Economy of the United States but I haven't seen any terms like export -oriented,free market or open market; maybe Transnistria has a better economy than USA...
I cannot Click on the wikilinks, read what the descriptions say, and then use common sense to decide if that applies or not to accurately describe Transnistria in the econony section of this article.. Not because I do not have common sense, but because
No criteria to decide which countries have open market, free market and export oriented economy are provided in this articles.
I do not have information about the economy of Transnistria.
it would surely be a judgement, and not an objective statement.
You are admitting that you have no information about the economy of Transnistria, so please do not remove the edits made by those of us who actually DO know about this subject matter. - Mauco13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you removed the information box? I am not sure that other people will agree with this, why did you not discuss this before you did it, now I am forced to restore the page again .........Pernambuco16:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait to see other people's opinion. In the case that people agree to remove it, we will do in accordance with it. If not, infobox will stay. And I don't understand why you revert all the text since only infobox was the challenge to you.--Diana Teodorescu18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Pernambuco. This is a permabanned user who is Bonaparte. He showed up on the 23rd as well. He will be back. Every time he comes here, MariusM gets happy and supports him. On Friday, he claimed to be a female. He is the master of disguise, but his editing gives him away. - Mauco01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph was reverted by both Mauco and Pernambuco: In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted.[...]Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media and opposition lawmakers, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian-speakers.[...]Transnistrian authorities regularly harassed and often detained persons suspected of being critical of the regime for periods of up to several months.U.S. Department of State referring to year 2005. May I asked those editors why they consider irrelevant the position of US Department of State?--MariusM16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No that was not removed by me, if you accuse me of something that I did not do, then please show me the link. I have only made one single edit to this page in the many recent weeks, and it was on 23 of december, and since then, I have not done anything except restoring from when you and your friends went crazy on the page and undid a lot of the work of the other users, so please do not accuse me like that without showing me the proof, mr Marius. Pernambuco17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example from yesterday when you removed not only "border issues" sections, but also US Department of State position and the paragraph with Yakovlev position. Also, you removed Travel warnings.--MariusM17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not removed, this is a revert of some radical changes by you and your friends, if you look at the log you will see that all I did was to restore to an earlier version. I dont know who removed it from the earlier version, but I know it was not me, I know my work and I am very carefull when I make my edits because I know that some of you people here are hot heads that likes to fight with every body.. and I refuse to take sides, so do not accuse me of things that I have never done Pernambuco17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats something the others must figure out, I take no sides, and remember, each editor must defend his edits, so the person who added it must explain why it has to stay and the person who deleted it must explain why it has to be deleted, and someone who does not want to take sides can not be forced to take sides, but you have a side, and it is obvious, it is even obvious to someone who is a newcomer like me . Pernambuco17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., I explain my position: US is an important country, it is not directly involved in Transnistrian conflict. US is monitoring Human rights issues in many countries, and I believe the reports of US Department of State have valuable and reliable information. Point of view of U.S. Department of State need to be mentioned in this article.--MariusM17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that you are not against this paragraph (you are not for it as well), I hope you will not delete it in the future only because you don't like me. Those who want to delete the paragraph should give a valid explanation here (fact that never happened untill now).--MariusM17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but you are so fast when you accuse others, did you see who added it? the person that did it, did not talk about it here, and did not explain it, so that counts as the same kind of behavior. I am not taking a side, but both of you are guilty of the same thing, you are guilty of what you accuse the other person of. Pernambuco18:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Transnistria: the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted.[...]Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media and opposition lawmakers, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian-speakers.[...]Transnistrian authorities regularly harassed and often detained persons suspected of being critical of the regime for periods of up to several months.[...]In Transnistria, homosexuality was illegal, and gays and lesbians were subject to governmental and societal discrimination.U.S. Department of State referring to year 2005
to Human Rights chapter.
We say critics claim... we should provide a quote.
2. I added templates to all content under discussion
3. Suggested Transnistrian separatist side / Moldovan antiseparatist side for external links section. I find it a good compromise.
My edit summary was:I added templates before all content under discussion. Please don't rv this edit as it contains many changes that deserve to be treated separately.
You reverted: rv POV hijack.
I feel insulted by the way you don't need to comment my edits before reverting them. You remove even the templates that announce discussions. This is like saying that my opinion is completely negligible to you.Dl.goe17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pernambuco, you deleted important paragraphs without a valid explanation. Diana is not a vandal, she mainly restored deleted information. Same with me and Dl.goe. You are the one who creates a mess here.--MariusM18:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you look at the link, just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=97140358&oldid=97134870 and then see what went wrong, and do not accuse me of making a mess, like I said, I have made one single edit to the page, and that was on 23 of december, and all the rest of the time, I have only saved it from extremists who went and changed it without making a discussion first, if you want to defend these changes, then discuss them first, otherwise I will keep doing my job. I almost never edit here and I never take sides, but i have to defend Wikipedia, that comes first, so please review these two versions and tell me which one is best. You and Diana and DI.goe will not even allow Trasnistria to have each own links, what is that all about, I thought that this was already voted on? Where are the links now? Pernambuco18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Permabanned Bonaparte removed)
That is crazy, this is English wikipedia, you should use english names, see this article here Nistru, it reverts to Dniester so you can not just change the names like that, you should ask for permission first. I do not want to take sides but I have to stop this extremism, please ask one of the administrators what they think of this, and who is making a complete mess ...... Pernambuco18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Permabanned Bonaparte removed)
Nobody should take this personally. Is not really important if we call Dniester or Nistru, we have more important content issues in this article.--MariusM19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in my opinion it is important, this is English wikipedia, use English names, or I will edit in Brazilian (Portuguese) wikipedia and you can edit in Romanian or Russian, or what it is, but in English, use the names that are used in English... Pernambuco19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Permabanned Bonaparte removed)
I admit that I am new, but so are you, and we are not the experts, it is best to wait until some of the more experienced users appear again, and let us hear their opinion, but my impression from what I read in the news is that Transnistria is Russian speaking, that most of the people in that region of Moldova speak russian and not romanian or moldavian. But it does not matter, this is English wikipedia so please use the English names Pernambuco19:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, though, does it? As Pernambuco already stated, this is an English-language article and "Dniester" is English standard. jamason19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to wait, take my advice as a long-time editor of this article: use Dniester if you like but let the other paragraphs stay. Removing them without disscussion is vandalism.--MariusM19:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding, who is the vandal, I need to know if it is me who is being called a vandal? because I never deleted a single paragraph from the article, I just took your border section and moved it into the right place. The other edits that you complain about was done by other people, for instance, this new user Diana who registered yesterday, she has removed half of the article without any discussion, and I agree with you, like you say, this is vandalism, we have to revert it to save the article. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pernambuco (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Pernambuco, MariusM will not answer you. He accused you of being a vandal and then defended Bonaparte, the worst vandal of all. - Mauco01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mauco, you made new misleading comments. I didn't defend Diana - allegedly Bonaparte - I defended MY OWN EDITS. I was the one who added Border issues section on this article in 4 September, nobody was against it in 3 1/2 months but this section was removed without any discussion in 23 December. Also, I was the one who added the paragraph about Yakovlev's opinions, after general agreement in talk page, and I saw you (and after you, Pernambuco) reverted the paragraph, again without explanation in talk page. I was the one who initially added the paragraph about US Department of State position which was also reverted. Also, I expressed in talk page my opinion for keeping paragraph with travel warnings, which was removed without general agreement. Fact that Diana - allegedly Bonaparte - has the same opinions with me is not a disqualification for my opinions. A lot of persons agree with me for a lot of things, I am not responsible for who they are. You can not remove paragraphs in this article only because Bonaparte was for keeping them.--MariusM20:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why lie? Of course you defended the edits of Bonaparte's sockpuppet "Diana". When the others (Pernambuco, Jonathanpops and Illythr) were busy and kept preventing this vandal from destroying the article, you even changed right back to it. Proof here. A version with a picture of Mihai Eminescu instead of Suvorov? Yes, "defending your own edits" indeed. - Mauco20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't revert, when users disagree about neutrality, it is normal for the article to have a POV tag until the differences are worked out as long as the differences are being worked out. The tag simply shows that there is a serious disagreement on article's neutrality and users are working on it. The discussion on the talk page shows the work in process. Here we have the work in process, neutrality is disputed in a very clear way and yet you and other users are in denial and persist in attempts to hide the dispute from Wikipedians by removing the text. My goal is not lecturize and even less so "impress" you. I call on you to respect the disagreement and stop trying to sweep it under the rug by hiding the POV text. All I said is that there's a mechanism in the policy and if this continues, I will have to use it (file report). I think you have a great knowledge and I admire your perseverance for trying to redeem the image of the otherwise quite dubious, illegal criminal Transnistrian government but you have to understand that some facts are just there to stay and that real facts are very hard to manipulate and you should give it up right now. However, if you are sincerely trying to commit to this article, then I think we can work something out. Which is why I ask you to stop pushing your POV or maybe is better not to edit this article for a while.--Diana Teodorescu22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
( The above comment is from permabanned user Bonaparte. See User:Diana Teodorescu. It could be removed, but I decided "just" to strike it. It shows how the pot is often the first to call the kettle black, here on Wikipedia. - Mauco01:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
One of the five pillars of Wikipedia, the Wikiquette includes a guideline of how to work towards NPOV. You have ignored that guideline and introduced your changes without any prior discussion. That is why I and other editors reverted you. The fact that Pernambuco got blocked for it is a shame. --Illythr23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that. It was the contribution of our fellow collaborator MariusM.[4] But as far as I can tell, Pernambuco was just reverting a sockpuppet of a banned user. That should not be grounds for blocking. MariusM is way too fast to report others for 3RR. I can not see how Pernambuco will be happy about this from now on. - Mauco01:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will it be possible to reach a gentlemen's agreement on some basic understanding and ground rules, so we can unprotect the article and lower the incidents of future edit warring? Here are some thoughts to get the ball rolling. It is a start. If we can at least agree on this, we can move on and handle the tougher issues. The point is to not get bogged down in trivialities. Feel free to add more suggestions. - Mauco02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some trivialities though are important. For example, proper format for the citations. I know this isn't the most exciting task, but it is necessary. I got to about one third of them, but I cannot finish now as I'm too distracted by the FA nomination of Germany. TSO1D02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and you can't finish it now because the page is locked. But we have agreement on the main items now, it seems. If MariusM can confirm this, just as almost everyone else has done, then we can request unprotection. Hopefully with some certainty that new changes will be dealt with on the Talk page and not by the usual back and forth warring. - Mauco13:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that the actual text should not be amended until an agreement is reached on the talk page, I don't believe that a complete moratorium is needed. There are several points which I would like to bring up and you also mentioned some. Hopefully we can slowly reach a consensus on those issues as well. The introduction in the current state is far from satisfying Wikipedia guidelines as set out in WP:LEAD. After all, quality is more important than stability. TSO1D02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, and I agree. I also noted that you included it in your to-do list (which was largely ignored while everyone else battled about Yakovlev sections and travel warnings and what not). I was not looking for a moratorium but so maybe the wording "for the foreseeable future" was too strong. My main intention was just to get an idea of where all of us are more or less in agreement, so we don't let minor issues become hurdles. - Mauco02:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support this compromise: keep without any changes the way that it is now, then later change it after there has been the slow reaching of consensus with agreement reached on the talk page that User:TSO1D says Pernambuco20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it is likely impossible to attain more than a single paragraph we all agree on. I believe the best approach is to resolve/agree to the contents of each section, at which time the introduction can then be made into a more complete synopsis of the article. (Especially as even the current one was cut down from a more complete version because it was too cluttered.) — Pēters J. Vecrumba17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deal. In that case, please stand up for the current intro and restore it if/when Bonaparte+EvilAlex+MariusM attempts to change it (as they did repeatedly in the last week of December, leading to the current full page protection). - Mauco13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. (We worked hard on that already). Try to not remove links, add links, change link headers, link location. - Mauco02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That I can definitely agree with. Although I don't like some of the sources there, that section has brought enough conflict already. Better let it go for now. TSO1D02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mauco wants to keep the links unchanged but Jonathanpops want to have Olvia in there and I agree with that, I also agree with transdniesteria.com, and I am neutral with regarding transdniester.com Pernambuco20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olvia is the official press organ of the PMR regime and should be/remain noted as such. As for transdniester.com and transdniestria.com, they are both registered to the same U.K. address for York Interweb (Jonathan Malory and Nikola Makarovskyi, respectively). They both run off the same web server, as do 50+ other web sites, so a regular web business. There was some wailing and gnashing of teeth a while back that Jonathanpops might be Jonathan Malory, but that's neither here nor there, just that I'm aware of it and ignoring it with reference to the following... Viewing the "language" question as a barometer, transdniester.com reports mainly about the ubiquitousness of Russian, every other language is in second place--neither objective nor informative. Viewing its "Transnistria Poll" which shows 58% vote yes on should the world acknowledge Transnistria, 16% no--with the very first "Yes" vote registered to pridnestrovie.net, the official government site. I would classify transdniestria.com as biased toward the PMR. These sites appear to be attempts to generate ad revenue off of Transnistria (for example, Tiraspol Times google ads appear on Transdniester.com). — Pēters J. Vecrumba21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is ongoing debate on the external links section. The main issue for MariusM was whether or not the link to http://www.tiraspoltimes.com should be removed, and that has been settled now. It stays (see section below). Now, we can either decide on a temporary moratorium on not touching the current list of external links, or we discuss this further. I initially suggested leaving well enough alone, in the interest of minimizing the number of controversial areas that we have to deal with, and thus getting the page back to an unprotected status again sooner. But there are some interesting suggestions for links (from D1.goe, Pernambuco, Jonathanpops) which are not intended to disrupt but to make the page better. Should we review the entire link section now? Or is it better to leave that for later? - Mauco13:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MariusM has a proposal for shortening the section or removing it altogether. I don't know why he added at the end of the page, instead of bringing it here and discussing it here. - Mauco20:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sentence which touches on border disputes ("Tighina (Bender) and its surrounding area on the river's west bank is controlled by Transnistria, while some villages near Dubăsari on the east bank are under Moldovan control") and in the next section, below, there is also a sentence about that ("There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides.").
My proposal. Unify the two. Bring the second sentence up, and place it right before the first. Then it will flow nice. It will thus read: "There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides. Tighina (Bender) and its surrounding area on the river's west bank is controlled by Transnistria, while some villages near Dubăsari on the east bank are under Moldovan control." This is a nice and full-bodied summary, which then links to the detail which can be found in Disputed status of Transnistria. - Mauco02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, but move the sentence on border disputes up to 'Geography', and give it prominence by making it the first of two. - Mauco02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean with "the first of two" but the section can stay with no changes, I like the current formulation, it is very neutral, and I will also agree with the border dispute sentence to be moved higher up but do not delete it, just move it to another place that is earlier in the same page Pernambuco20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have anything that indicates an encyclopedic-type reference (not the Concise PMR Encyclopedia) has stated that the PMR satisfies the Montevideo Convention criteria for sovereignty? If not, then that statement qualifies as original research and is neither appropriate nor neutral. If so, then the refernce needs to be added. — Pēters J. Vecrumba17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original sentence came verbatim from List of countries. On that page, it was been part of the intro/criteria-explanation for the better part of the past year. It was a stable version, and uncontroversial. I am sure that the editors there will give you sources. They will also defend why they consider it both neutral and appropriate. However, if you do not like the inclusion, please go to Talk:List of countries and seek consensus with them as to why you consider it wrong or inappropriate.
The only way that I can think of to make the sentence more precise is to change it to the more closely adhere to the current textual statement from List of countries. They did not change the meaning, but on January 4 of this year, they clarified it by including the words "customary international law" which we do not have here.[5] It would then be as follows: "Transnistria is sovereign according to customary international law, drawing on the precedent of the Montevideo Convention." Please let me know if you like this better. If not, I have already agreed to leave this section untouched. I wrote on Dec 30: "Keep as is" and my main concern is to deal with the other items quickly, get consensus on the controversial items, and get the page protection lifted. - Mauco13:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember who started this, but please stop calling each other's reverts/edits "vandalism". Clearly, none of the regulars here (except, perhaps, Boni) participate by deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Obviously, what we have here is a POV conflict, instead. I'm asking this because I noticed that when an editor reverts something with a strong edit summary (like "reverting idiotic bullshit KGB/CIA propaganda/vandalism"), they are usually not helping to improve the NPOV of the article, themselves. Here, however, nearly everyone accuses their opposition of vandalism, thus jamming my simple POV sensor. Sorry for being so egotistic/obvious, but, eh, I think that had to be said. :-) --Illythr10:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: Before we begin on possible controversial subjects, can we get the easy ones behind us first? See section above. I am asking for a gentlemen's agreement and some ground rules. TSO1D has already replied, and so should MariusM and anyone else who feels that consensus is important. Then, once we know that at least SOME of the items have been dealt with, we can move on to the more contentious items which MariusM is listing here. - Mauco20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Border issues paragraph was added by me in 4 September [6]. During 3 1/2 months (and more than a thousands edits in main space, other thousands in talk page) nobody objected against this paragraph. Contrary, some editors even developped the paragraph. In 23 December Pernambuco removed tha paragraph without explanation in talk page, and after that Mauco agreed with Pernambuco's position (while before he didn't have the idea of removing this paragraph and never complained about it). Pernambuco's justification is that we have an other article where this paragraph is appropiate - Disputed status of Transnistria. However, I consider not valid this argument, as (i)"Disputed status of Transnistria" is not about border issues (yes, we can mention the issues there as well, but are not the main subject of the article); (ii)Border issues is an important and on-going problem; (iii)Usually, Wikipedia readers don't make thoroughfull research on 100+ Wiki articles we have about Transnistria, they look only at main article, from where they should be able to understand all the main issues.--MariusM20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be added also that many of border issues are not known by general public (at least in Romania) and is a potential for future conflicts here, which is increasing the relevance of information.--MariusM23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?! What are you trying to pull? This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Besides, it does not reflect positively on you, MariusM, that you are jumping right into this, without first commenting on our polite request for a gentlemen's agreement on some ground rules. - Mauco21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I chalanged Tiraspol Times link you replied "it pass the vote". Voting is evil only when you don't like the results?--MariusM23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Whatever you say, my friend. You ALWAYS challenge Tiraspol Times. If I didn't know any better, I would think that you had a clinical fixation on it. It even required admin intervention.[7] - Mauco23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage. I don't deny that the information presented in the paragraph is relevant or valuable. My only concern is that it is too specific. I believe that a brief summary of the disputes on this page will suffice. You say that most visitors don't want to look through many subarticles to make their research. But is not a counterargument. The reason many do this is that they only want a general picture of the situation without minute details, such as what village in Moldova is claimed by Transnistria, or what cow pasture in Bessarabia is in separatist hands. TSO1D21:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in addition, we are going to have a longer joint statement which reads as such: "There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides. Tighina (Bender) and its surrounding area on the river's west bank is controlled by Transnistria, while some villages near Dubăsari on the east bank are under Moldovan control." But we will never get the article unlocked if we don't handle the easy items first, and some of what MariusM is proposing is bound to be controversial. I am wondering why he jumps right into the deep end, and didn't share his views with us on the "ground rules" above first. - Mauco21:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who didn't shared my views? This section was added in September, resisted thousands of edits without comments and suddenly is controversial, for adding it back I was accused of vandalism. Other users expanded this section (I remember Khoikhoi adding Russian names for each village) and suddenly trying to keep a stable section, with accurate and sourced information is controversial.--MariusM23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why you didn't share your views on the less controversial ground rules and the request for a gentlemen's agreement. It is one paragraph above this one. Just scroll up and let us hear what you have to say. - Mauco23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Border issues section was not controversial in 3 and a half months. It became so only after Pernambuco's edit, but I think only for you and Pernambuco, not for the vast majority of editors. We have a "Political status" section despite the fact that we have a separate article about this.--MariusM18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still not controversial. It never was. But some other editor took the correct initiative to move it into the right place, and some of the rest of us just happen agree with him/her. Now it is located where it belongs. - Mauco00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of the silent majority. :-) I didn't want to start (yet another) edit war, so I refrained from editing it. But in my opinion, the issues should indeed be only summarized here, because their status remains frozen, that is, there were no major political (and, thankfully, military) conflicts about them for years. Also note that the Georgraphy section provides a short overview as well. --Illythr12:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello, this is Pernambuco, I am the person who made this move, so of course I defend my own edit, you can add my name to the list of the people who defend this position. Like I have already said before on this page, I never deleted anything, I just put it in the right section in the right article, so why do I have to repeat it and why is it a big deal Pernambuco14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also section 9.4 above (subheaded "Geography") where this is discussed, and more support is given. - Mauco16:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should look at existing Wikipedia standards. At both Abkhazia and South Ossetia articles border issues are explained. In Abkhazia article is explained what part of Abkhazia is controlled by Georgia and in South Ossetia article is even a map where all Georgian-controlled villages are shown. We should keep the same standards.--MariusM11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to notice the "Border issues" sections in either of those two articles. I also couldn't find "Crime" and "Human Rights" sections there. Does that mean we should remove them here as well? Also note that in South Ossetia, the Georgian-controlled villages are numerous and are situated all over the region, whereas in Transnistria they form the suburbs of two districts. I think that a short mention is enough. The full list can be moved to Disputed status of Transnistria (oh, it's alredy there) and, perhaps into the Administrative Region of Dubăsari. Could you also pinpoint where the Georgian-controlled territory/villages is/are listen in the Abkhazia article? --Illythr12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check here. The section is not called "border issues, is called "De jure government of Abkhazia" but it is an entire section explaining that not the entire Abkhazia territorry is controlled by separatists. Adding the fact that Kodori region is mentioned on the map, the reader has an overview about who control what from the main article. Same about South Ossetia, where the map is very informative. Do you want to change the section name from "Border issues" to something like "Territory controlled by de jure government"? I preferr border issues because is shorter, but I would not mind for a name change. Main issue is that info about unsettled disputes about Transnistria's territorry should stay in the main article. Those disputes are hot points, even in 2006 was a conflict in Varniţa, in 2005 in Doroţcaia. Those border issues can be the start for new conflicts, info is important.--MariusM13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. MariusM is wrong. The Doroţcaia incident was solved in early 2006, with a signed agreement between the two sides that was brokered by the OSCE. Varnitsa was quelled later in 2006, thanks to Russian intervention. Oh, and Russia sided with Moldova. We never hear that. It was reported widely in Russian, but no one took the time to translate it to English or Romanian. (Except one source: "Russia sides with Moldova in Varnitsa standoff"). From the Moldovan side, we always hear how "Russia supports the separatists", etc etc. In reality, it is not so clear cut. The chauvenists are quick to blame Russia for all ills, but will never mention it when the shoe is on the other foot. - Mauco13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has but one sentence on the territory issue. But if you click the 2006 Kodori crisis or Upper Abkhazia links - you get the info. Still, I'd support the inclusion of a more detailed map, that clearly shows who's controlling what, in this article. --Illythr13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the main Abkhazia artcle has just one sentence, then we should have none. In Abkhazia, the territory which is not controlled by Abkhazia is much, much larger than the two small border pockets which are not controlled by the PMR government in Transnistria. The situation is also not comparable AT ALL to the patchwork of South Ossetia. Please don't overplay your hand here, MariusM. There is nothing wrong with pushing for your border info. But in the right place, please. - Mauco13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How you tell: "if". But there is an entire subsection - "De jure government of Abkhazia". If they have a subsection, we can have a subsection too. Anyhow, it was not a long section.--MariusM12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We disscussed the adition long time ago in this talk page (now archived), nobody expressed any opposition to include them in the article. In 16 November 03:34 Mauco told: "Go ahead and mention Yakovlev if he is notable". Full disscusion about Yakovlev in archive 9 [8]. Nobody reverted the comments until my short wikibreak at Christmas, when Mauco took the opportunity, silently.--MariusM22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Yakovlev information was mildly interesting and maybe marginally relevant at the time. There was an election campaign going on. As a former Transnistrian politician, and a diehard communist, Yakovlev was trying to mount a letter writing campaign against one candidate (Smirnov) and in favor of another (Bondarenko). But then it fizzled out. He got his main points published in various places (including Tiraspol Times) and it was fun for a few days, but what significance did it really have? The world is full of disgruntled ex-politicians who write letters to the newspapers criticizing their opponents. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia is forced to give all of these letters a prominence which they don't deserve. Other encyclopedias (Britannica, Encarta, etc) would never give him as much as even a footnote. - Mauco22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to shorten the article we have a lot of other sentences, less relevant, to remove. For example, In the central square of Tiraspol there is a statue of Alexander Suvorov, who in 1792 founded modern Tiraspol as a Russian border fortress, is relevant for Tiraspol, not for this article (at "internal politics" section).--MariusM18:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we are not discussing those. Discuss this separately, if you want. Not under the Yakovlev heading. His letter to the editor is old news, and never made in impact anywhere. It is simply not information which is relevant for an encyclopedia. - Mauco00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions of Vasily Yakovlev, that is not notable, Vasily Yakovlev does not even have a Wikipedia article, he is not notable, why should his opinions be notable, I agree, this can not be in the Transnistria article Pernambuco20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable because he was one of the "founding fathers" of Transnistrian Republic, was the man who wrote Transnistrian Constitution. His letter give an accurate description of actual economic situation in Transnistria (more accurate than sources like pridnestrovie.net or Tiraspol Times). This is why the proper place for his opinions is the economy section. See also archived talk when general agreement was obtained for inclusion of Yakovlev's opinions.--MariusM13:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable at all. His status as "founding father" is not mentioned anywhere in Pridnestrovian_Moldavian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic. And the constitution which he supposedly cowrote is the old 1991 version. It was discarded in 1995. The electorate held a referendum and voted for a new one. Yakovlev left politics and left the country. He has been a nobody for more than ten years. There is no good reason why we should give MORE weight to his opinions than to the similar opinions of hundreds of other has-beens, numerous disgruntled expoliticians and assorted nobodies about Transnistria. - Mauco14:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, Mauco, according to you, anyone who is (rightfully) disaffected with the situation in Transnistria and leaves (and therefore has an opinion of the situation which is different from yours) is a worthless nobody and a worthless source. You appear to practice the censorship you accuse me of. — Pēters J. Vecrumba14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a mischaracterization. I thought that his opinion was mildly interesting and maybe marginally relevant during the election campaign, but it has lost its relevance today and is not any more appropriate to the article than the scores of similar people who also hold opinions and write similar letters to the editor to their local newspapers. It has nothing to do with censorship, but is merely an attempt to apply some minimum content relevancy standards to Wikipedia. - Mauco14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, all: is this issue now closed? Or will Yakovlev mysteriously re-appear, in spite of consensus, as soon as page protection is lifted? Whoever has an opinion on the matter ought to let the rest of us know, please. It is unhealthy to start 2007 with a page which is under continuous bouts of lockdown. - Mauco14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the paragraph to be added at Human Rights section, as a quotation from US Department of State, immediatelly after "Critics claim ..."
In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted.[...]Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media and opposition lawmakers, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian-speakers.[...]Transnistrian authorities regularly harassed and often detained persons suspected of being critical of the regime for periods of up to several months.[...]In Transnistria, homosexuality was illegal, and gays and lesbians were subject to governmental and societal discrimination.
Funny, there is a gay group of MPs from the European Union parliament which disagrees. Not 2005, but 2006. December 2006, to be exact. - Mauco23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is the official website of these EU MPs. If I want to include it as an edit, I will of course defend the edit and will of course provide the full sourcing which conform to WP:RS. However, I am not proposing any new edits for now. At this point in time, we should all merely try to deal with the existing can of worms, without adding anything new and controversial. - Mauco23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have read my general position on this subject, and other controversial subjects: I do not feel that substantial paragraphs of contentious new material should be added before we have cleared our plate of the editing which is required to already-existing content. Deal with the existing issues first, then we handle new suggestions later. For instance, I want to include what the European Union thinks about gay rights. But I am not doing so yet, because it is clear that we have lots of other work to deal with first. You have still not commented on my request for a gentlemen's agreement. But without a modicum of consensus, or at least some ground rules, it will be harder for everyone to collaborate. - Mauco03:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the gay part contentious? O.K., I agree not to mention it, but let the other things from US Department of State in the article. If you object, just explain why.--MariusM03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I think that would be great to comment on the human rights situation for gays in late 2004 and early 2005, from the U.S. report. And then add the latest information, from the European Union, about how the situation has improved as of December 2006. It shows the progress. The world turns, in Transnistria just like everywhere else. I am glad that there is improvement in this field because Transnistria had a lot of human rights problems in the past. We can also add that there is now an independent Human Rights Ombudsman in Transnistria, and that his department has had international training, and collaborates with colleagues from other countries. This is another new development which is not in the 2005 report, since it only happened this year. But right now, let us not bite off more than we can chew. My advice is that we concentrate on the existing work first, and leave all this new stuff for later. - Mauco03:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, we should include US Department of State position. When you will come with sources about other positions we can disscussed the inclusion as well. If you come with a position of European Union, well-sourced, I will agree to include it as well (generally speaking, Eu position is relevant, as US position; those are big players in international politics). But we can not refuse to include US position only because you tell us that in an uncertain future you will be able to show us an other position from EU.--MariusM18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have quite a lot of existing items on the plate. Again, may I request that before we add new items, please deal with the existing topics first. This is not an "uncertain future." Get to work, and it can be dealt with a.s.a.p. However, I note that you have still not commented on the request for some ground rules and a very basic gentlemen's agreement. Why not? - Mauco00:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion to both of you, put the new information in the human rights article, it is here, it is Human rights in Transnistria, write about gays and all that, and then when both of you have an agreement, and you like the article, you can make a summary of it, and put the summary into the main page. The reason is: in the main page, the summary is a version of the most important things from the detailed article, the small version is just a section, and there can not be something is the small version that is not in the full article already. Instead of putting it here, put it over there first, and then get an agreement on what the top parts are, the most important parts, and make a quick short summary of them, and put it here Pernambuco21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All facts that are showing that is no democracy in Transnistria should be hided from the main article and written in secondary article, this is your position, isn't it? While when we are talking about propaganda of Transnistria's regime, secondary articles are not enough, we should include it also in the main article. You are far from neutral Pernambuco. When are you going to state your position in the open mediation you have with me [10]? Mediation comitee agreed to hear the case, disscussions started in 13 November 2006 and you still didn't explained your position.--MariusM21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
put the new information in the human rights article, then make a summary of it, and put the summary into the main page. This is not to hide anything from the main article, it is the same principle that every kind of these pages on wikipedia uses, there is a main article with the overview and then another article with a lot more detail Pernambuco21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are stating the obvious. Not everyone understands this, however. Now you will be told that you are "not neutral" again. But the rest of Wikipedia functions on this principle, too. Don't allow any radical extremists, of either camp, to turn the Transnistria page into an exception from established good practice. I think that we can consider this matter closed, as well. - Mauco13:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you naming "radical extremists"? Asking to include the opinion of US Department of State is extremism? You are not being constructive with this way of labeling your opponents.--MariusM14:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you must have felt alluded to. I agree with including the info. In the right place, of course. Look at how other parts of Wikipedia handle this. I do not agree with inventing special rules and exceptions for Transnistria. THAT, my friend, would be extreme. In fact, it would be radically extreme. Follow well-established Wikipedia rules, guidelines and practices used in other articles, and we can get along just fine. If you can not follow these rules, then expect me to revert you. - Mauco14:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The right place for inclusion is, in my opinion, THIS article. Majority of Wikipedia readers don't follow the 100+ secondary articles about Transnistria, we should give them the information about main facts in this article. US Department of State position is important and it qualify for main article. Position of smaller and less important countries are O.K. to remain only in the secondary article about Human Rights. I don't have the feeling that this article is too long and that is an important task to shorten it, but anyhow, there are a lot of other less important things in the article which can be removed if really is necessarry to remove some parts.--MariusM17:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that US Department of State position will make it into this (the main) article. But do this the right way, and through consensus. You first develop Human rights in Transnistria. Then, if you are certain that it is an accurate, complete article, and that all content disputes have been solved, you write an accurate summary of that article and bring it here. The summary of the human right article should include the US Department of State position, to the extent that it is a notable part of that article. You should not give it undue weight. Present it fairly and balanced, and put it into the main article. The summary in the main article should be an accurate synthesis of the more detailed human rights article. It should be an overview of the key highlights from there. Not more, not less. If you agree to work like that, please say so. This will help us get this article unprotected. - Mauco18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed a 3 lines summary of the document. Just read the source - is a long document, my proposal is already a summary. You never explained what is unfair and unbalbanced in my proposal. In fact, we are mentioning that this represent the position of US Department of State, we are not claiming that everything what US says is The Truth, what you want more balanced than that? I am expecting to see your proposal, if this is not O.K.--MariusM12:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed this endlessly already. Why do we have to rehash the same arguments? If it is not important in places that are far more dangerous, then it shouldn't be important here either. - Mauco22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said they don't need "bigging up", just my silly way of saying they don't need to be given any importance, i.e.e they don't need their own heading, but there may be no harm in a short mention or reference somewhere. Jonathanpops18:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is how we have them in the article now. They are actually in the right place, too. Right under the explosions and all that, so it has a nice "flow" to it. First all the bad stuff, and then a mention that several countries, including these particular 3, have issued warnings. Followed by the included source references with a link to each warning. Check it out (below Violent Incidents). - Mauco19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then do we have consensus now on this, too? Continued obstructionism will just result in an extended lockdown of the page, and in resumed revert warring when it returns to editable status. That won't help anyone, and least of all Wikipedia. Mauco15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping 2006 Referendum as a section, or keep only summary?
Right now it is already a summary, with a link to the main article. We can shorten it even more, of course. But in that case, an equal argument can be made for shortening a lot of other sections in the article which are far, far longer than the current referendum summary section. - Mauco23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Difference between border issues and referendum is that border issues are an on-going problem, while referendum is past tense. I expressed my opinion long time ago that we should keep the referendum section only one month after the referendum, after that a short mention with link to main article is enough. Now, we are more than 3 months after it.--MariusM01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you consider that the opinion of 97% of the voters is less important than border issues. A whopping 97% of the voters want to continue their independence. 94% rejected unification with Moldova. And you don't want this in the article? It is already a very short summary, I fail to see how we can make it much shorter than it currently is. The importance of such a vote is clearly worth mentioning. Especially since we are giving much more space to things which are, comparatively, of far less importance (like the 2001 presidential election, for instance). Mauco01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want to create this wrong impression for Wikipedia readers. Data issued by Transnistrian authorities don't represent the truth. Of course is no place to explain this in this article, this is why we have a separate article. In this article we should have only a short sentence with a link to the separate article. Interested persons will be able to read the full story. We should not give the fake impression that 97% of Transnistrians are happy with separatist regime. The majority of readers will not look at the separate article.--MariusM01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. I don't think it's necessary to keep the two options in their entirety. One or two summary sentences should suffice. For instance, this is how the Kosovo page coveres a similar event: "Two years later, in 1992, the parliament organized an unofficial referendum which was observed by international organizations but was not recognized internationally. With an 80% turnout, 98% voted for Kosovo to be independent." Although I agree that other sections may be too long, this was only one event in Transnistria's history and should be treated as such in that section (history). I don't believe that a separate section is needed at all. TSO1D01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, the two questions are not needed in their entirety, but how short is the summary, the last time Mr Marius deleted it, he almost deleted the whole section, and just left a link, and this is not right. Make a summary for the questions, let the rest stay. The best size is four sentences. Pernambuco14:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a similar thing that you did in "border issues" section. The difference is that I stated long time ago in talk page my position that the referendum section is needed only as long is a recent event, and after one month we should remove the section and let only a link to main article (however, I've let this section for 3 months). You didn't explained your position in talk page before you removed information.--MariusM00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MariusM, why are you unwilling to comment on the request for some basic ground rules and an informal gentlemen's agreement? This has been requested of you almost daily now, for most of the past week. I will assume good faith with you, but it is getting harder and harder as you consistently keep ignoring the olive branches of others. - Mauco00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to shorten this article, you must shorten all, maybe in such a way: “Yakovlev’s comments existed”, “US Department of State position exists”, “Romania will exist” and it’s enough. I understand that somebody is afraid of such events as referendum, because it shows the unwillingness of Transdniestrians to unit with Moldova. It also shows the unity of Transdniestria’s people, their love to Russia and a firm to defend their independence till the victory. Helen2810:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helen, there is a double-standard at work here. Anything that puts Transnistria in a fair light has to be "shortened" and ideally removed, according to a couple of highly biased POV pushers. But at the same time, we have to add a lot of irrelevant information - at length - that other country articles never include: Such as detailed travel warnings, newspaper letters from an angry ex-politician, and so on. Personally, I think that it is very important to show that the population of Transnistria is firmly opposed to unification with Moldova. It shows that the decision to keep pursuing independence is not imposed top-down, but a widely held wish among large segments of the population AND among all ethnic groups; including the native-born Moldovans. Unlike Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, there is ethnic peace in Transnistria, and this is something very important which the Moldovan press never reports. - Mauco14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that we should give undue weight to that section. Look at how the matter is treated in other articles. I agree with Pernambuco, four sentences should suffice. And I don't want it to seem as though I don't assume good faith, but Helen kind of reminds me of an old mutual friend of ours. TSO1D14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot show the importance of the referendum in 4 sentences. It’s not an ordinary event. It’s the first step towards the solving of Transdniestrian problem and the possibility to live in peace. I took part in referendum myself and I want my future and my homeland’s future to be connected with Russia. But you are afraid of Russia power. Be honest and don’t deprive Transdniestrians of the right to tell the world about their life.Helen2815:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helen, there's some give-and-take involved in Wikipedia. Sometimes one side tries to take too much, but TSO1D has a good point here: We need to look at how each section is dealt with in similar country/entity-articles in the rest of Wikipedia, and then adopt the same approach. Pernambuco suggested four sentences. That is enough size to deal with the issue. Explain it, summarize it, and cover the basics. Summarize the questions, but don't spell them out entirely. Suggestion: Focus on what won. - Mauco15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To TSO1D: I thought the same thing, initially, but EssJay already looked into the issue of our old mutual friend[11] (at the request of, guess who) and the conclusion was: "Unrelated. Coming from different countries, no sign of any proxying." I guess that Helen just gets her shorts in a bind because, coming from Transnistria, she sees the current article as NOT objective and NOT reflecting the reality of Transnistria. Up to a certain point, she is unfortunately right. - Mauco15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters in Transnistria what course they favored for the future. Voters voted on two points: 1)whether they supported Transnistrian independence from Moldova and a subsequent free association with the Russian Federation, or 2) if they wished to renounce the territory's independence and unite with Moldova. An overwhelming majority of voters answered yes to the first point (97.1%), and no to the second (94.6%). The Russian Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not, dismissing the poll as illegitimate.[12]" And I believe this should be added to the history section. TSO1D16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that, but it should stay in the internal politics section. It is referred to, if not daily, then at least weekly in contemporary politics of Transnistria. Some of the other stuff in the internal politics section can and should be moved into history, however. For instance, the old 2001 political ban. It is old, and certainly does not reflect the current reality of "Internal politics" (the section heading). As of today, no political party is banned and no newspaper or other publications are being prevented from publishing. - Mauco16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess it can stay there. I think it's relevant to both sections, so it's hard to decide where to put it. I just thought than since it dealt more with the international than the domestic aspect of Transnistrian politics, that another section might be a better place for it. TSO1D16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, the suggestion by User:TSO1D is good, that is the right size, not too long and not too short. I do not worry if it is in History or Internal Politics, I am neutral with that Pernambuco21:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only article I know of on Wikipedia that has such a tit for tat style of editing, i.e. people saying I took this out because you took that out, you can't add this bit if I can't add that bit. It's all very strange. From what I can tell there isn't all that much that happens in Transnistria but the referendum is certainly a highlight in it's history, at least it's recent history since 1990 onward, so not including at least a mention of it is plain rediculous in my opinion. We can't just put stuff in or not put stuff in willy nilly because of whether we like it or not, it's supposed to be factual, isn't it? Jonathanpops16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All too true. But at the same time, we ARE making progress. Look, we just solved the referendum issue by a TSO1D-proposed compromise. The tit-for-tat tendency can also be solved, or at least mitigated. We can look to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and we can look at how various other issues are dealt with in other country articles. That will keep one side or the other from, hopefully, tilting the article towards too much bias. Like TSO1D rightly points out, even undue weight is in itself an inherent bias. - Mauco16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we didn't solved the issue. Actually, in the article is written:
A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters: Do you support the course towards the independence of the PMR and the subsequent free association with the Russian Federation? Do you consider it possible to renounce the PMR's independent status and subsequently become part of the Republic of Moldova? According to the Transnistrian government, 78.6 percent of the registered voters of Transnistria voted in the referendum. 97.1 percent of voters supported the first point, while 2.3 percent did not support it. 3.4 percent of voters supported the second point, while 94.6 percent did not support it.[8][9] Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not, dismissing the poll as illegitimate.[12]
TSO1D "compromise" proposal is:
"A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters in Transnistria what course they favored for the future. Voters voted on two points: 1)whether they supported Transnistrian independence from Moldova and a subsequent free association with the Russian Federation, or 2) if they wished to renounce the territory's independence and unite with Moldova. An overwhelming majority of voters answered yes to the first point (97.1%), and no to the second (94.6%). The Russian Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not, dismissing the poll as illegitimate.[12]"
The "compromise" proposal is almost the same lenght as actual paragraph, difference is: (i)eliminating "according to transnistrian government", that mean implying that there are no doubts about the fact that results are correct; (ii)adding the word "overwhelmingly" in adition to the exact percentages. Both those differences make the article worse. We should remember that we have a main article at which we link, where all the issues about referendum are explained in details. Either we give only a short mention about the referendum with link to all details, either we should bring all the details about the doubts about referendum results here.--MariusM21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a suggestion from me: "A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether they supported Transnistrian independence and closer ties to Russia or wished to unite with Moldova. 97.1% voted yes to independence, and 94.6% rejected unification with Moldova. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not." If it is made even shorter then the meaning is removed Pernambuco21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this version. It's probably the most compact way of presenting the information without sacrificing content. TSO1D21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion:
A referendum was held on 17 September 2006, in which, according Transnistrian authorities, the population voted against reunification with Moldova and for association with Russia. Main article: Transnistrian referendum, 2006
Just a reminder: We can not use "independence" as characterisation of referendum because it was about Transnistria joining Russia. The entire political game in Transnistria is about Russian expansionism.--MariusM21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But why can we not use word independence, it was part of the two text of the two questions that the people voted on, I think. In the first question it said "independence of the PMR" and in the second question it said "renounce the PMR's independent status" ..... your version is too short, it has just one line, but my suggestion version has three lines, and User:Mauco and User:TSO1D said that they agree with four lines, I hope they will agree with mine but other-wise I also agree with the suggestion from User:TSO1D. Pernambuco21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept Pernambuco's shorter three-sentence version, although I prefer the more detailed proposal from TSO1D. Even so, either one is OK. If the majority prefer the shorter one, fine with me. I am willing to compromise in order to get this resolved, so we can move on to other subjects. Let us start working, for a change. - Mauco15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether 1) they supported Transnistrian independence and a future free association with Russia or 2) wished to unite with Moldova. According to official results, 97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% rejected unification with Moldova. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not.""TSO1D14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is another proposal, mainly based on Pernambuco's version, with some alterations. The phrase "According to Transnistrian authorities" was inserted before the results, as some users believe that that is the only way of presenting the information without implicitly fully acknowledging the validity of the results. Then, instead of "voted on independence" I stated voted on the first point (oh and I marked the points). I think this is important, because the question was composed on two parts, independence, and "free association" with Russia, so we should mention both when presenting the result, because we do not know which part appealed to all voters most. TSO1D14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of an aside, but this is a really odd way of presenting the information. In a way continued independence is equated to stronger relations with Russia, and on the other hand union with Moldova is presented as loss of independence. Also, it is important to note, that the referendum had read: "свободное присоединение Приднестровья к Российской Федерации" which could mean "free association" but literally means "free (as in having the liberty to do so) union". TSO1D14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to this if you change two words. Replace "According to Transnistrian authorities" with "According to official results" since the Transnistian CEC is the official organizers of the referendum and the institution which published the results. Otherwise I prefer Pernambuco's latest version. And yes, the questions were formualated odd. We critique this in detail in the main referendum article and mention that this no doubt affected the vote preferences. - Mauco15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view is not acceptable to include the exact results of referendum without including the doubts about the correctness of those results. We should add also "According Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights, referendum results were falsified", or we should limit ourself to the shorter version I proposed, letting the interested reader to see the details in the main article. Also we should use "association with Russia" instead of the vague "closer ties with Russia" (ties are already close). If the others don't agree with this I think we should follow next step on WP:DR.--MariusM17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the free association part and changed it. But including the sentence about the Helsinki group kind of defeats the purpose of reducing the size in the first place. If we are to reduce the length, we must reduce everything in proportion to its importance to the whole. Besides, there is already a sentence that no country recognized the vote. The reasons for that, such as the lack of legal basis for the referendum and the unfavorable circumstances surrounding the event are discussed in the subarticle. TSO1D18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our main purpose should not be reducing the size of the article, but giving an accurate overview to Wikipedia readers. If we agree that referendum is an important event, one sentence more is not important, anyhow is a summarry compared with what we have in the specialized article Transnistrian referendum, 2006. We are not telling about the arrest of pro-Moldovan activists before the referendum, we are not telling the entire list of countries which refused to recognized the referendum, we are not telling about the criticism regarding referendum questions. There are a lot of things we don't tell in this article, for which we have specialized article. If we add the opinion of HCHRM, is not necessary anymore to add "according official results" as the doubts about the results are included. This is my problem - we should explain that there are doubts about the results even in this article, not only in the secondary article. I made necessary changes in the summary proposal. The other option, if we don't agree to give such importance to referendum, is my original proposal which is shorter, mentioning that referendum was against unification with Moldova and association with Russia and leting all the details for secondary article.--MariusM18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone should change his own proposal, it should be TSO1D. I have just deleted the sentence which you smuggled in without his OK and with a misleading edit commentary. MariusM, you have a glaring double standard. First, you basically wanted the whole section to go. You told us that people could look up the details in the referendum article. Now, you want the details here. You don't think that they can find the referendum article. Which of the two is it? I support either of Pernambuco's and TSO1D's proposals, but not if you keep changing them. It is this sort of behavior that causes the article to get locked, and prevents it from becoming unlocked. - Mauco18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My second proposal: "A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether 1) they supported Transnistrian independence and a future free association with Russia or 2) wished to unite with Moldova. 97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% voted no at second point. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not. According Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights, referendum results were falsified.". That's 3 lines, is an acceptable lenght. If you don't consider referendum enough important to have 3 lines in main article, there is still my first shorter proposal.--MariusM12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why you don't like last sentence? Is factually correct, it was their statement. We are not supporting or rejecting the statement, only we report it. Not reporting is censorship.--MariusM14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it was tacked on the end as if it were some kind of childish point scoring device, and I don't think the source of the statement, which is missing anyway, is all that reliable. Plus the paragraph already says that most countries didn't recognise the referendum, so the last sentence is superfluous. Jonathanpops14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source [12] and we will link on it. Source of the statement is more reliable than "Tiraspol Times" for example, is an OSCE-sponsored site. Fact that some countries don't recognize the referendum is not automatically equal with the fact that referendum results were falsified. There can be 100% democratic elections for separatism which are not recognized by other countries, for example because those countries support the principle of territorial integrity and are afraid about creating precedents. Doubts about the correctness of results exist and should be explained to Wikipedia readers, if we show those results. Not only doubts about the opportunity of international recognition.--MariusM14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict.md just reported on some unsubstantiated claims by the Moldovan group, and did not make any value judgment. But yes, absolutely: Of course get rid of the last sentence. TSO1D also gave his view on that, as did I, and now Jonathan. The double mention of point is also not good. "97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% voted no at second point". Instead, use the latest revised version of the proposal from TSO1D. It flows much better. Here it is again, in case you forgotten it:
A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters whether 1) they supported Transnistrian independence and a future free association with Russia or 2) wished to unite with Moldova. According to official results, 97.1% voted yes on the first point, and 94.6% rejected unification with Moldova. Russia's Duma[10] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[11] did not.
(This is not my own preferred version, but it was TSO1D's proposal, and I will support in since we need to get consensus and get the page unlocked again, please). - Mauco17:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like TSO1D's version too. The word "official" rankles a bit, it might be less of a sore point if we just replaced "official" with "the". Jonathanpops19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually fine with me, too. But since it is TSO1D's version, perhaps we should let him decide. We can also leave out the four words "According to official results" if that is OK with MariusM and others. - Mauco20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my favorite, but we can use it. Besides you, Helen, many others (including TSO1D, Pernambuco, Jonathan) also seem to like it. So I am willing to compromise and use this one instead of the longer one that I personally prefer. - Mauco22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder what MarkStreet told while he was a newbie in Wikipedia: "We don't publicise our address and phone numbers because we operate online and to be frank we simply are not there a lot of the time". [13]. After all the disscussions here, he realized that for Tiraspol Times credibility he need to play the game "we are a real newspaper with printed edition and we are really in Tiraspol". They recently even published a photo with their printed edition on their webpage [14], but not in a street of Tiraspol, as Illythr asked, you can not tell where it is taken. Maybe they started this month a printed edition as result of disscussions at Wikipedia, but I am still not convinced the paper is available at Tiraspol. I am still waiting for somebody trustfull to confirm he was able to find in a public place in Tiraspol available for anyone interested a paper copy of Tiraspol Times. Independent of this, I am against this link, as I prefer links which openly admit their support for Transnistrian regime, to show PMR side, instead of links falsely claiming independence.--MariusM23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, MariusM, we all know your hang-up with Tiraspol Times and how you have harped on this in the past. Even with all of those wasted words, you have still not been able to get the link removed. In addition to the past arguments, is there anything new to add to the debate to convince us why the Transnistria page should have links to Moldovan news sources, but no link to http://www.tiraspoltimes.com ? Please tell us if you want the link removed, and give us a good reason. Otherwise I am afraid that it stays. - Mauco02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with Holocaust denial? You are upset that User:Illythr corected your edit in which you claimed that "Romania's treatment of Jews was worse than Nazi Germany"? Everybody knows that Romanians are not first, but only second in The list of most evil nations in the Universe. Romanian dictator Antonescu refused to accept Hitler's pressure and to send Jews to Auschwitz, he sent them to Transnistria, this is why most of them survived and you can find in Israel a big Romanian Jewish community.--MariusM01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Antonescu stood up to Hitler. He sent the Jews to Transnistria so that they could survive. If you say so. ;-/ - Mauco02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Tiraspol Times, I feel that with all our comments here in Wikipedia we obliged PMR government to spent some aditional money with a printed edition. How Mark told, some Transnistrian kids are dying because of our comments here. Not sure if this printed edition is available in Tiraspol, or only in a room in Dublin, and it is an on-going bussiness, or only one print with limited purpose of proving TT existence on paper.--MariusM01:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? May I remind you that there is an official Wikipedia request to not use this page as a discussion forum. See talk page guidelines. To get the discussion back on topic: 1. Do you want the link to Tiraspol Times removed? 2. If affirmative, then: On which grounds? Just cut to the chase. Tell us why, in one or two sentences. - Mauco02:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I want it to be deleted, as a misleading source about Transnistria, who falsely claims being independent. We had the opportunity to know the chief editor of this publication here in Wikipedia and even some users (like Jonathanpops) who were at the begining for the inclusion of TT are now against. We can replace TT link with Olvia press, in order to keep the number of links from the separatist side.--MariusM02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So in answer to 1. You want it deleted, and in answer to 2. You want it deleted because you think that it is misleading. In particular, you deny that Transnistria claims to be independent. Have you read the PMR Constitution? Olvia Press takes the same line, but in Russian. - Mauco02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, read WP:LINKS and you will see why English-language language links are generally to be preferred over links in foreign languages. I quote from WP:LINKS: "English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia." You may add Olvia Press, if you want to, but you may not substitute an English language link with a link in Russian. - Mauco03:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My paranoid self suspects all three links in the Transnistria side are owned by the same person, but that's kind by thye wayside. I do have a lot less respect for this source though after getting to know it better from our interactions with it's "editor".Jonathanpops21:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly feel the same. Too many details about the site are just so sketchy. I mean it presents itself as an independent Transnistrian organization, however it is operated from Ireland and the editor as you said seems to be a little to biased in favor of Transnistria from what I would expect. Now, I understand that people can have different views across the world, however it still seems very strange how the entire editorial staff could be have such views. Besides, the Economist peace, and our own little original research that proved that the paper isn't sold in Transnistria make you wonder further. Nevertheless, even if the website is organized by the government, it still provides arguments on numerous important events. The fact is there are virtually no independent Transnistrian sources, and we do need balance here, so for that purpose we might keep it. Besides, as I said above, we have already spent so much time discussing this issue that I just want to see it disappear, at least for some time. TSO1D21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure that it is operated from Ireland. I know that this would be original research, but for what it is worth: I got two emails from them because I was approached and invited to submit an opinion column which was published back in October which no censorship whatsoever. The IP of the header showed 86.106.248.28 which is in Moldova and/or Transnistria. Maybe one or more of them are in Ireland, but not the person that wrote to me ("Jason Cooper"). Maybe Illythr can confirm the same, since he also got an email from the same person. - Mauco22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My original reasearch: Mark us street surely used an IP from Ireland (even when he claimed he is in Los Angeles), however his meatpuppet User:Helen28 used an IP from Tiraspol. Probabily, while most of the time Mark is not there, he has some contacts in Tiraspol.--MariusM23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why you feel that we should remove the link to the only news source in English which gives daily information from a Transnistrian point of view? Please give us some better arguments to bolster your position. - Mauco23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. "the only news source in English which gives DAILY INFORMATION from a Transnistrian point of view? (emphasis added). - Mauco23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy. Both pridnestrovie.net and visitpmr.com have links for the most recent articles about Transnistria, and articles from "Tiraspol Times" are always between those links. I even doubt that pridnestrovie.net missed any article from Tiraspol Times. I admit I didn't made a thoroughfull research on this subject, I only checked today's version of pridnestrovie.net: all recent articles of Tiraspol Times are there.--MariusM12:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens when you click on those links? Aha... You see, WP:LINKS is specific on this particular point. It says: "Do not use URL redirection sites in external links." Please find a better argument if you still insist on censoring the http://www.tiraspoltimes.com from the external links section. - Mauco13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pridnestrovie.net is not a redirection site. It has his own articles and also provide links at almos ALL the articles from Tiraspol Times. We don't need two sites with the same content.--MariusM00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman argument. You wanted to censor the link to Tiraspol Times, despite the fact that it passed voting. As an example, you said that Pridnestrovie.net reprints those articles. This is a fallacy. Pridnestrovie.net links to some of them (not all). But immedietely when you click on the headlines for the Tiraspol Times articles, you are redirected. Not a single article from Tiraspol Times is hosted on Pridnestrovie.net. I have checked this for the past 3 days in a row. - Mauco00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are using strawman argument, because I didn't told that pridnestrovie.net reprints articles from TT (how can it reprint as is not a printed newspaper?), or that it hosted those articles, I told it provides LINKS to the articles from Tiraspol Times, which is factually correct. So, one link is enough. Regarding passing the vote, why you don't follow the voting rule when you don't like the the results, like in the poll about introduction? You can ask others to accept some rules only when yourself accept the rules. Your only rule is to hide inconvenient information for Tiraspol regime and to push PMR point of view.--MariusM00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to get angry, and less need to get personal. [20]] does link to some (but certainly not all, and not even "almost all" as you claim) of the articles in Tiraspol Times. The articles are not on Pridnestrovie.net, however. When you click on the link, you are redirected to [21]. For this reason, if we want this link at all, we must link directly to [22]. This is set forth in Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. - Mauco00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should take in consideration that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. One link is better than two, especially if the second link (Tiraspol Times) is not having aditional information comparing with first link.--MariusM01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you are also right on the "not a linkfarm". Thanks for raising the very valid point that "Wikipedia is not a linkfarm" because you probably ought to consider removing some of the Moldovan links, in that case. They really don't deal with Transnistria except very occasionally. Most days when I have checked, there is no new Transnistria-related information whatsoever in three out of the four. One of the four sites (transnistria.md) is rarely ever updated, and two others (Moldova Azi and Moldova.org) deal primarily with Moldova. Not with Transnistria. Sometimes, weeks can go by between mentions of Transnistria, so how appropriate are those links really? If we should weed some of the links out, based on your argument that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, then let us weed those out that do not primarily deal with the subject of the article: Transnistria. - Mauco01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as a theme is concerned, I consider that we shouldn’t remove the link to Tiraspol Times. We must have as much information about Transdniestria as possible. Moldavian resources give us one-side information, and TT allows getting to know about Transdniestria from the Transdniestrians’ point of view. More over I support the offer to add a link to Olvia-press (though it is in Russian) without excluding TT. And maybe soon, we’ll include one more link – to www.tiras.ru/en, which is creating an English-language page.
And some words to you, MariusM. You criticize Transdniestria and try to discover a plot of the participants of the discussion too actively. So I want to ask you if you are a paranoiac or Moldavian spy.Helen2809:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helen28 is the same person who gave us an excellent taste of transnistrian democracy. At my question why Transnistrian press didn't write about the arrest of pro-Moldovan activists from Dignitas and allow those persons to voice their opinion, She wrote: "I agree with Transdniestrian mass-media, that didn’t want to write about the arrest of 4 members of pro-Moldovan organization "Dignitas" and furthermore to publish their interview. Transdniestrians are still afraid of recurrence of 1992. The members of Dignitas are those who made acts of terrorism and killed Transdniestrians in 1992. Any information on them would cause indignation of the population and could lead even to violence"[23]. Excellent confirmation that pro-Moldovan activism is not allow in Transnistria, people with pro-Moldova feelings are accused without proofs of being criminals and threatened with violence. Adding that Helen28 has an IP from Tiraspol [24], her statement is coming from a well informed person. Is also a good indicator about the kind of person Helen is, she consider censorship of pro-Moldovan point of view normal.--MariusM20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helen, the last paragraph is not needed. We try not to question the personal motives of anyone here. The best way forward is to just concentrate on the article. I have worked closely (sometimes too closely, and we both got blocked) with MariusM for several months now. His main problem with editing this subject is that he has never actually been to Transnistria and he does not speak Russian. So he is disadvantages a priori because forced to get his information from either Moldovan/Romanian-language sources or English-language sources. The ones in Romanian are hopelessly biased, and constantly pushing their government's political agenda. I don't think that there is even a single one which represents the situation objectively and balanced (if there is, I haven't seen it. I can read Romanian at a basic level). The ones in English are spotty: Some are more objective, but most of them leave out large gaps, too. They focus only on the big picture and big news, like explosions or elections. For detailed, day-to-day info on the entity, there is really no way around it: You have to know Russian. Some of the Russian-language sources are of course biased too, but there is so much more information available in Russian that it becomes possible to sort the wheat from the chaff and form a truer picture. This is especially the case when you need to do reference running or need to fact check some of the wilder claims in the Romanian press. But MariusM relies on this one-sided version, and is either unable or unwilling to a) visit Transnistria, and b) learn Russian, and therein lies his handicap. He is not a spy. - Mauco13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
after all this talk about the link, I can see that it stays in the external links section under the headline that is 'Transnistrian side' and that is fine, do not waste more time on it, begin to concentrate on some other part of the conflict, we need everyone to agree and to get the article delocked Pernambuco21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually going to respond to Mauco's comments about MariusM's one-sidedness, but there's nothing constructive to be said. Having re-read through all this section I would sadly have to say it is better to leave the tiraspoltimes.com link and indicate it's pro-PMR than to argue over removing it, given thata nyone using google will find it anyway (type in "Transnistria" and there pops up the single solitary Transnistria ad, that of the Tiraspol Times), so this way at least the first web page listing (the Wikipedia article here) can inform the reader regarding the ad they just saw. Since we can't will the Tiraspol Times away, we need to deal with it appropriately and informatively.
They're paying 5 cents a click (minimum) to generate traffic to their site and I can guarantee their monthly volume is not capped, this is not about a business held hostage to normal profit and loss considerations. Since we're at the top of the google list, for free (which is why Mark Street was so keen on making this a propaganda site), we need to make that presence count. — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Labeling links: Transnistrian side or Separatist side?
Maybe "Transnistrian (separatist) Side"? I'm not really sure about this, probably just Transnistrian side is better. Perhaps if there were a Transnistrian Anti Seperatist side as well, just to show it exists. Unfortunately the only site I know for this is Evil Alex's, isn't it? Jonathanpops21:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you were here in the beginning of 2006, when he was pushing like crazy to get it included? Of course, he never admitted that it was his, at the time. But it was fairly obvious to see. I was not an active editor, but I visited the page often and followed his antics from the sidelines. - Mauco22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mauco what are you talking about? I never tried to push my site. Site was included by some anonymous editors. I only joined the war that was between you and those editors. And Isn't you the one who brought http://www.icdiss.org/ to wiki? Arent you the one who pushed it like crazy dog into Transnistrian articles? EvilAlex23:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone remind me why they are labeled at all? I would make the radical suggestion that forcing the links into imperfect categories creates little benefit and has caused a considerable amount of conflict. jamason22:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathanpops, it is because Wikipedia's guidelines for external links includes a recommendation that when a link is biased, it ought to be labelled as such. In this context, we are labelling each "side" as someone who more or less espouses the official government position. In the case of Transnistria, that means give prominence to the independence view. In the case of Moldova, when they report on the issue, it means that they give prominence to unification. The homemade hate-site by EvilAlex (transnistria.ru.ru) would go under "Moldovan site" if we could include it (which we can't, for other reasons - see WP:LINKS.) - Mauco22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might have to change my handle--it looks too much like Jonathanpops's (we been confused several times at this point)! Regarding the comment, if we continue labeling links, how about "External links" and "Critics of the PMR" (or something like that). It transcends both the argument about whether all Transnistrians/Moldovans are for/against the PMR and the need to include such loaded words as "separatist." jamason22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry 'bout confusing the two of you. Your suggestion is good, but probably not needed, because the proposal for "separatist" can not pass either. There are basically two approaches: We can have one large link section, with 5 to 10 links or so, and not classify them. Or we can use the current approach. Those are the only two options. If we go to one section, with no classification, then we still have to state the bias in the form of a parenthesis or other notice next to each link. This is required as per WP:LINKS for links which are biased towards one side or the other. It is not required for all links. For instance, the BBC link would not need such a label. - Mauco23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which idea? Changing his handle? ;-) The problem with labelling a section "Critics of PMR" is that some of the news sources, like AZI and conflict.md, are not on specific a mission to criticize PMR. They merely report the Moldovan government position favorably and suppress or partially censor the other view (just like the PMR sources do too, in reverse). - Mauco23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep the links in the three parts that they have now, one for each side and one for neutral, it has been like that every since I first found this page, it is fine, it is not very important really Pernambuco21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we are keeping the label "Transnistrian side", we should show also an anti-separatist Transnistrian link. Not all Transnistrians are separatists, we should not create this wrong impresion.--MariusM22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be more or less obvious. Perhaps this is one of the best reasons for my suggestion above to forget about labeling links altogether. We don't need an unimportant link to justify a flawed system of categorization. jamason22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't deny that I like the site for personal enjoyment, however that mostly reflects my own biases. Nevertheless, I don't believe that it should be included here. The website has very little information and is more biased than Olvia Press :). TSO1D21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why EvilAlex is anything more than just some guy with an opinion on this one. Even state-controlled media is the mouthpiece for an important character in our drama. What redeeming value does this site have? jamason22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of OlviaPress, why is Olvia not included? I REALLY do not want to open up this can of worms, and I think that MariusM is making a huge mistake by forcing us to deal with controversial themes before we even get the easy ones settled. This is why I think that we need to just let the links section stay unchanged, for now. But since he wants to include new links, I have a couple of suggestions of my own: Olvia Press on the Transnistrian side. State owned news agency. Site is http://www.olvia.idknet.com and in addition, one more: Since the presidential site is down, replace it with the parliament. Parliament has a nice, informative, regularly updated ENGLISH LANGUAGE website. It is http://www.vspmr.org/?Lang=Eng and it is official. Something which EvilAlex's homemade hate-site is not. - Mauco22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Olvia than Tiraspol Times, as Olvia is honestly telling it's an official agency of Tiraspol regime. Don't label Evil's work as hate-site. He is just a well-informed guy.--MariusM22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
transnistria.ru.ru have an honest Transnistrian opinion on the current situation. There is no pre-formated agenda like in Tiraspol times EvilAlex23:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I agree Olvia should definitely be included being the main and official press organ of the PMR. I'm not sure how it ever got removed. TSO1D00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I am inclined to agree with you, TSO1D, I also feel that it would be best to "leave good enough alone" (at least for now). As you can see from the lively discussion, we already have a lot of other things on the plate. If we add the links to the mix, I fear that we will be bogged down in talk, talk and then some more talk. Which means that we'll never reach agreement on this or anything else. Could we at least agree to leave the links alone, for a while longer, while we deal with the other issues? This means vetoing transnistria.ru.ru, link headings changes, the introduction of OlviaPress, removal of Tiraspol Times, and any other ideas involving links. Not permanently, but until after we've gotten other work done. - Mauco00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was never agreed (see archived talk). I didn't bother to revert this, in order to achieve a compromise, but I think it was a mistake, as I see that others, after terorism was changed with violent incidents, they want to change now in "isolated violent incidents" and in future probabily only in "incidents". Let's use the correct description for explosions in buses which are killing and wounding people: terrorism. Violent incidents can be beatings, hooliganism.--MariusM00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep adding new objections, there will never be agreement and the page will never be unlocked. Is that smart? You can not use the word "terrorism" and an admin has already explained why. It runs counter to Wikipedia's policies. See the archive. The admin gave us the full explanation and the link to the rules. If you will not abide by Wikipedia norms then perhaps you should find another site to edit. - Mauco00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, out of the five incidents listed, one is (anti-Semitic) vandalism, two are (anti-Semitic) hooliganism, and only two can be classified as terrorism, with some uncertainty about the first one. --Illythr12:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We might be able to do two sections instead of one. Let us see what other editors say. But why do you persist with wanting the highly biased "terrorism" moniker? It is POV. You know this already, because you have been told so before, on this page. It has already been explained to us in detail, here, by an admin why this word is not acceptable for Wikipedia-use in headers. Even al-Queda is referred to by Wikipedia as merely "a militant Sunni Islamist organization" and not a terrorism group. The T-word is used by others, as citations, and never by Wikipedia. In this context, the only way you can include it is as a header along the lines of "Incidents described as 'terrorism' by some". - Mauco00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed with your capacity of telling plain fallacies which anybody can discover through a simple click. In al-Queda article in Wikipedia the word "terrorism" is used. Quote from actual version: "Al-Qaeda has committed multiple acts of terrorism". When you are telling plain fallacies here, at least take care not to use some which are so easy to discover.--MariusM00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why you feel that this word should be used to describe the two acts (which you don't think are isolated either) that transpired in Transnistria prior to the their vote in the referendum? You have had an admin tell you already why this is inappropriate, so please give it a rest. It will not happen, because it can not happen. This is Wikipedia and you must learn to follow the rules, please. - Mauco00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not illegal, I just gave you an example where word "terrorism" is used in a Wikipedia article. Explosions in a troleybus or minbus which killed and wounded many people are terrorism.--MariusM19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the difference. It is wrong for us to describe an act as terrorism, or a group as terrorist, unless a lot of decent sources back this up. For example, the Omagh bombing or the 9/11 attacks have been described repeatedly by a number of news agencies and governments as 'terrorism'. The attacks in we're discussing on this page have NOT been described as terrorism by a notable amount of people - certainly we have a source for one person and it is reasonable to note this. But with other groups not calling this terrorism ("The threat from terrorism is low. But you should be aware of the global risk of indiscriminate terrorist attacks, which could be against civilian targets, including places frequented by tourists " - British government on Transnistria), then we cannot unequivacolly label them as such. And to take your exmaple - no an explosion on a minibus is not necessairily terrorism, if we do not know the motive --Robdurbar20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have an agreement to split the "violent incidents" in "antisemitic incidents" and "Explosions with losses of human lifes"? In the last section we will explain that some are labeling the explosions as "terrorism".--MariusM20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there areCrime-related articles for other countries. For instance, Crime in the United States and Crime in Japan, and Crime in Australia, to name just a few. I am glad that we have settled that we can NOT use the word "terrorism" in a heading. With regards to making two headers, "Anti-semitism" and "Explosions" would be OK. I am also fine with keeping the existing "Violent incidents" heading if others prefer that instead. - Mauco13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the most accurate way to describe them. The opposite of "isolated" is not true. At least not until more bombs go off and there is a pattern to it. Or did it cover the entire Transnistria? I will not agree to a page which is not accurate. If we can not describe it the way it is, it is best to remove the entire section. - Mauco22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this:
Over the past few years, there have been four violent incidents in Tiraspol...
This way, plain facts are presented and the readers can judge by themselves. I'm not sure that vandalizing the Jewish cemetery counts as a "violent incident". This kind of crap also happens here in Chisinau from time to time (although it ceased lately) as well as anywhere where neo-Nazis are present. Tiraspol, unfortunately, is no exception. I think that the incidents should also be given in detail on the Tiraspol page, with a short summary here. --Illythr23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it five incidents? If you quantify these incidents, then also quantify the time span. Like so: "Since 2001, there have been five violent incidents in Tiraspol..." - Mauco23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only saying "Since 2001, there have been five violent incidents in Tiraspol..." fogs over the fact the worst ones, two explosions, were this year. And just because I say I don't like "isolated" doesn't mean I want to put the opposite in there, I'm not really sure why you said that Mauco. Why can't they just be "violent incidents" with a complete list of them, allowing readers to decide whether they are big, small, isolated or whatever?Jonathanpops00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As violent incident is a vague description (a man beating his wife can be considered "violent incident"), we can not tell the number of such incidents and we can not say those are isolated.--MariusM00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. The page can not include all "violent incidents" indiscriminately. We need to define where to draw the line. A better approach is to look at other Wikipedia country pages and learn from the criteria which they use for inclusion. An explosion might be merited for a mention, but a group of pranksters defacing a cemetery is not. Lots of worse things happen every day in a bunch of other countries, and never make it into Wikipedia's main country pages. A couple of examples: Denmark and Germany routinely have neo nazi incidents which are ten times worse, and a hundred times more frequent. - Mauco00:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that we have solved this now, too? Guys, we seriously need to work on this consensus-thing. The idea is to use this Talk page constructively and get some closure on these items. Once we have that, we can ask for page protection to be lifted, without returning to a repetition of the same revert wars. - Mauco17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are eleven open issues here, you don't want to make concessions in any of them, but you are still talking about working constructively. Strange.--MariusM00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this whole talk page twice, or maybe three times, so you get a fuller understanding of what is actually going on here. We simply apply best common practices. We make a good faith attempt to follow the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If anything is proposed which runs counter to this then you are right: There is no need to yield an inch. Why should any editor make "concessions" to edits which are not improving the article or not appropriate? But where an edit makes sense, I can guarantee you that I will be the first to support it. I think that I speak for the majority here when I say that this is how we should edit Wikipedia. - Mauco01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Periodicity approximately once a year cannot be described as often or regularly. Therefore I support the offer to use a word "isolated". More over I shouldn’t name the explosion in trolleybus last summer “a violent incident”, because as far as I know it was much like an accident.Helen2814:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is too happy with it. But if we make it "better" in my opinion, then we make it "worse" for another editor. And vice versa. We already spent weeks trying to hash out a more-or-less universally acceptable compromise version. We finally settled on a proposal by Vecrumba. It must have been the Christmas season which brought me, at least, into the "spirit of giving," and both myself and Vecrumba ignored the protests of Mark us street and EvilAlex. Most importantly, Vecrumba was the person who introduced it to the page (it was his proposal). I did not revert him, and I have since reverted others who tried to change it. If we want to deal with some of the other issues, my recommendation as a longtime editor here is to leave well enough alone for the time being. Who was it that said "perfection is the enemy of the good?" - Mauco22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had a poll about introduction - see above at this talk page, and former current introduction (with "region of Moldova which declared its independence") received the majority of acceptance (7 against 1). It was a stable version, realized after compromises, which was chalanged by Mark us street. However, without seeking consensus other editors changed the introduction, telling that the poll was not a vote, voting is evil etc. Same editors always want to keep voting results when they like - as the situation of "Tiraspol Times" link. My opinion: go back to the former "current introduction".--MariusM23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to get past deadlock was to decide on a compromise version which was more or less acceptable to both sides. Vecrumba realized that, and he proposed such a compromise version. I realized the same. It is a shame that you don't see it that way. - Mauco23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If any admin would like to participate in development of Transnistrian article then he should join the talking page and participate in discussion like everyone else. EvilAlex00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using words like "shame". I have nothing to be shame of. Everybody, except you and Mark us street, considered O.K. former version. We are disscussing here the removal of important information like "border issues" because the article is too long, but we are making longer the introduction and using complicated expressions, without any real and valuable new information for the article, only for not hurting your or Mark us street sensibility. However, nothing offensive was in former introduction, if you look with cool head. Problem is: do we have or not a problem with article lenght? Of yes, we should keep intro short as it was. If not, stop asking the removal of different paragraphs, and I will agree with a longer introduction.--MariusM00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, are you talking about the introduction, or are you just fighting again? there is another section earlier above which is also about the introduction, and the agreement is to leave it without changes at this point in time, and then later, like User:TSO1D says, make some slow consensus, but not change anything without a formal agreement on the talk page first. The persons who cant understand that must just be prepared to get reverted again, and I will do it the same way that I did several times in December Pernambuco21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is too happy with the introduction (including myself), then it is a good compromise. I'm not going "soft" because Mauco and I reached an accomodation (aided greatly by the departure of Mark Street). The goals were:
improve the historical accuracy of the circumstances of the PMR coming into existence, that is, properly describing its initial declaration and circumstances of that declaration--the old introduction indicated the PMR was simply one day declared as a fully sovereign country, which was totally inaccurate;
indicate "Pridnestrovie" is "official" according to whom--one can now interpret "Pridnestrovie" only as as "official" a term as one interprets the PMR an "official" regime;
state that it is the PMR that claims sovereignty over Transnistria, clarifying the distinction between the territory and the controlling entity and that it is the controlling entity that is not recognized; and
then deal with the role of Russian troops at the top of the article.
To the "region of Moldova" versus "territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova" issue:
the new introduction states that international recognition of the (sovereign) Republic of Moldova and its (sovereign) territory includes Transnistria as part of that territory--the old introduction said nothing about what is internationally recognized (and which is in favor of the Moldovan position), so I don't see how going back to the old "region of Moldova" text in any way improves the case for those who believe Moldova is in the right (MariusM, EvilAlex,...<- and INCLUDING myself); hopefully this explains that change to everyone's satisfaction--it in no way back-pedals or weakens the "region of Moldova" position--it strengthens it.
I had hoped that we could consider the introduction settled for the time being and move ahead to go through sections one at a time to see what we can do to make them more informative and accurate. For example, two sections down in Political Status, I consider the stated analysis/conclusion that Transnistria is "sovereign according to the Montevideo Convention" to constitute original research (unless someone can cite a published encyclopedia, and not one from the PMR, and not some statement by some think tank). That's just one example of a much bigger "problem" than the current state of the introduction.
Reverting to the old introduction will only weaken the position of those who are advocating for its return. Anyone who wants to discuss this offline is welcome, my Email has always been accessible from my user page. — Pēters J. Vecrumba15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. No one (including me) is overly happy with the introduction as it stands now, so it is a good compromise. With so much more on our to-do list, I would like to see this taken off the list of contentious issues. At least for now. Then deal with other items, and not have to worry about random reverts and unauthorized changes to the introduction. From either side. I am glad to see that there are others who agree, too. - Mauco15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just looked over the discussion and the current intro which seems fine. As I've noted before, it could probably do with a paragraph or two added to it, but that's a good start and there are probably more pressing problems. I highly agree with the "territory within the internationally recognised borders..." bit - this is a perfect example of expalining the facts neutrally! Robdurbar13:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can thank Vecrumba for that. If he hadn't thought of it, I think that we would not have been able to get this issue behind us. We would have been forced to take it to further dispute resolution elsewhere. Thankfully, we avoided that. - Mauco14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observation graciously accepted. As I've noted, expanding the intro content will have to wait for closure on other sections. (I've been busy building a new PC, cleaning up/migrating data... my time has been limited the past week or so.) — Pēters J. Vecrumba19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least we should take out the word "Officially" from the introduction. Transnistria (Pridnestrovie per PMR Constitution) is enough. As PMR is not recognized, Pridnestrovie is not "official", but is a name per PMR Constitution, and those who recognize PMR can consider it official.--MariusM23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of us have things that we want to add and things that we want to delete from the intro. But please read Vecrumba's advice: We can tinker with the current introduction only AFTER there is closure on the other open sections. - Mauco01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MariusM on this and think the word "officially" or "official" should not appear in the introduction or anywhere else in the article, no matter whose point of view we are talking about. I don't think thewre is anything "official" about the situation in Tranistria as yet, and if there was the word probably would never appear anyway naturally. "Official" seems very point of view to me, it adds wieght to whomever's side you attach it to. Jonathanpops09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This word was part of the previous intro, too. It has been in a stable version for most of 2006. This, too, was a compromise version. If we begin to change anything in the latest intro, then I have some important changes of my own that I need to introduce as well. But right now, I prefer to follow Vecrumba's advice and not change anything in the current introduction until after after there is closure on the other sections. - Mauco14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but even if it's been there since the neolithic period, I still believe the word "official" is too provocative to be in this article. It definately suggests a point of view to me. Jonathanpops17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is official according to the PMR constitution which represents the only effective authority in the territory. It is also official to the inhabitants there. In fact, any one of them can equally claim that our use of the word "Transnistria" is in itself a POV (but TSO1D and myself worked hard on that in early 2006 and agreed that it should stay nevertheless). At the same time, the article is also quite clear that PMR is NOT internationally recognized. This is even stated in the intro. So, almost immediately, the word which MariusM wants to chop is offset by our nonrecognition explanation. - Mauco17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know who it is "official" to or what, the PMR constitution, and I'm not really interested in what MariusM wants to chop off. "our nonrecognition explanation" is offset by the word "official", that is the problem as I see it.Jonathanpops23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Footnote #1 on List of countries. It says: "In some cases the government of a country adopts an official country name in English which is different from the name used conventionally in the Anglophone world. In that case the name preferred by the government is used in the list. This concerns Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast, Macao/Macau, Myanmar/Burma, Pridnestrovie/Transnistria and Timor-Leste/East Timor" (emphasis mine). The same article also says, in its intro: "The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute." Even if it is not recognized internationally, the truth is that there is still only one government which is effectively ruling Transnistria today. Wikipedia has noted this elsewhere, as is clear from List of countries and many other lists. The least we can do here is to follow the existing Wikiwide convention, please. - Mauco05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know all that, I just don't happen to think it applies here. I don't agree with the need to use the word "official" in relation to Smirnov's leadership. Jonathanpops13:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As "officially" had previously been in the original wording, this was a compromise edit to say Pridnestrovie is only "official" according to the PMR regime and no one else. Even the most illegitimate governments have official things and official people.
On another note, again, we have no "rule" that we must be "consistent" with the "rest of Wikipedia"--people who put in that information could be less informed and saying Wikipedia "says" there's only one government diminishes the level of discussion, or worse, we could be practicing referencing ourselves. Let's please stick to external, credible references. — Pēters J. Vecrumba00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's there to contrast the Transnistrian economy with socialist economics. Or, perhaps it's there, mentioning the obvious, because with all the "black hole of Europe" "information" circulating, people may be lead to believe that it's all shadow economy or no economy at all.
BTW, is it protected because of Diana? I noticed that it took much longer for someone block this incarnation of Bonaparte. It seems that it takes more for a girl to be blocked. :-) bogdan13:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I though export-oriented economies are countries like Japan, Germany, China and the rest. I doubt that Transnistria even has a positive balance of payments. bogdan13:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is all relative to the size of the place, of course. But let us put it this way: the companies in Transnistria (be it energy, steel, textiles, or Kvint) are certainly not geared to the domestic market. They have large markets in Germany, CIS and the United States. There is a semi-permanent trade representation in Germany, which covers the EU. And it was no coincidence that EUBAM arrived in 2005, or that the move in March by Moldova & Ukraine came in the form of tighter customs regulations. It was (and is) widely believed that without exports, PMR dies. - Mauco13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaa.. Illythr you still angry that Romania joined European Union. Take a rest, Wikipedia could negatively affect your health. Best regards.. EvilAlex23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let us keep the personal comments to a minimum, shall we? If the econmy is open and export oriented, then we can say so. If it is closed and doesn't export, we say that. It all depends on what the facts are, and of course to the extent that we can source these facts. I thought it was so obvious (to anyone with a knowledge of the situation), but if anyone wants sources, I will be glad to provide them. For instance a report by the European Union which says that Transnistria has "a very open economy with a high degree of trade with the EU and the US." It was written in 2005 by a Moldovan who works for the EU in Brussels. - Mauco00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It always the same with you Mauco, you want us to believe in your words. How about some sources? I mean reliable one (not Tiraspol Times of course). You can give us a source which says that Transnisria has "open economy", well in this case i could find a source which will say that Transnistria have a shadow and black economy. EvilAlex12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it is always the same with you, EvilAlex: You want to question and revert every single edit, even the basic ones that are obvious to everyone else. The article currently says: "Transnistria has a capitalist mixed economy" with links to the definition. It is sort of like saying: "Transnistria has snow in the winter" ... it is very, very easy for anyone to verify. Of course, if you want those official European Union sources, I will gladly give them to you. You can download the information straight from their server in Brussels and verify the export information for yourself. - Mauco14:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he has offered you a source, do you want it? if he gives a source, then it is not him that says it, it is the European Union, why do you make fun of that, you can either say that you agree or you can say that you want his sources, but the tone that you set here is not nice, and how would you like it if we start to behave that way with you......... Pernambuco21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this is a person who has a history of belittling others and of never contributing a single positive edit to the Transnistria page (at least not one which wasn't reverted right away). - Mauco13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to create an article for the PMSSR. Unfortunately, this means deciding how to translate the name. In my own work, I've always used Dniester Moldovan and Dniester Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic. But, I know we don't do that here. Pridnestrovian Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic is also an option, but I don't see how we could use anything beginning in "Pridnestrovskaia" of "Trans-Dniester." So that leaves one choice, right? Pridnestrovian Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic. Let me know if there is disagreement. The article will be up later today. Happy New Year! jamason16:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official name in English is: "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic" because Moldavian was the term always used in English, until Moldova declared independence and "ethnified" it to Moldova. That act happened on the Moldovan side of the Dniester, and as we all know, Transnistria did not accompany Moldova in this endeavor. That is why they still use "Moldavian" and not "Moldovan" when they write this word in English. Here is the source: http://www.vspmr.org/?Part=5&Lang=Eng But I think that there is already a stub somewhere. Let me take a look. - Mauco16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My condolences to MariusM, as well. :-) Wait, did you say Mauco? And what has Romania to do with this page anyway? --Illythr16:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice article. It's fairly neutral, almost completely factual and covers a lot. I think that it should be included as well. --Illythr20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can go in the general links section (not Moldovan side, not Transnistrian side) instead of the RFE/RL link. But the article is not 100% neutral. For instance, it says that the manufacturing sector "is run by corrupt officials" - but, on balance, it is at least better informed than the BBC overview, which we also link to. - Mauco00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no one is perfect, you are not perfect either, I agree with User:D1.goe that the article is well documented, maybe it has flaws, but it is a good resource Pernambuco21:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to reject ALL links, good or bad, for now. This is a suggestion for a temporary moratorium on changes to the external links section, while we are working out the controversial parts of the other sections. But if others think that we ought to discuss new links, we can of course do that. I will not impose myself and block a discussion if there is a desire for one. I just think we could handle it better later. - Mauco18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise I propose to keep the actual External Links, but to change the headings from "Transnistrian side" to "Separatist side" or "Transnistrian separatist side".--MariusM19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What rejected? I saw Jonathanpops and Illythr accepting my idea or changing the name of the label of the link and Pernambuco rejecting it. Jamason had the proposal to took out all the labels.. The majority agreed to change the label, it was not done an agreement about the new label.--MariusM20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I don't remember agreeing to the "(Anti)-Separatist" labels... Maybe "official Moldovan/Transnistrian" or something like that... :-\ --Illythr21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually agree to anything, only suggested a couple of possibilities. And seeing as we aren't going to add the only non-seperatist Transnistrian site in the world, Evil Alex's, I don't see the point in changing the labels in the external links. I do however see a point in mentioning the Transnistirans (in the article) who prefer to lean towards Romania, acknowledge that they exist. Jonathanpops21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. With regards to the links, there are none, so we can keep the existing subheadings. We have had the current classification (3 groups, with the current labelling) for most of 2006. Why the rush now to change it? We have now looked into alternatives. All were worse, for a number of reasons. Now, the only thing we need is for MariusM to assure us that he will not unilaterally keep changing them without prior consensus in Talk first. He kept doing that before [25][26][27] which was part of a pattern of events that led to the current full protection. Will you agree to stop this, MariusM? - Mauco21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. A reminder: The pattern of events that lead to the current protection started when you and your friend Pernambuco decided to remove generally agreed paragraphs like Yakovlev's comments and border issues, without any prior disscussion in Talk. Regarding the changing of links label, I did discuss it in talk starting with 19 December [28], and many others, including Illythr, agreed that a label change is necessary (see archive 11). I would accept current label if we add an anti-separatist Transnistrian site like transnistria.ru.ru. Else, a label change is necessary, in order not to confuse readers. We should not create the impression for Wikipedia readers that all transnistrians are separatists. "Separatist side" and "Antiseparatist side" looks the more accurate descriptions for me, but I am open to other suggestions which avoid the impression that "transnistrian" and "separatist" are the same.--MariusM13:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that was all I needed to know. Thank you. I asked if you would agree to stop edit warring / revert warring, and you gave us your view on who's to blame, and why you feel justified in unilaterally "restoring" your version when the page gets unlocked again. I was rather hoping for a simple yes or no as to whether you will attempt to work out the differences here, in Talk, through consensus. Or if they will again be dealt with through the resumption of editwarring and continuous reverts. Mauco14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that we have had this discussion for more than a year now, but no clear consensus has emerged. The question is, should we have a separate article for Transnistria, the region, and PMR, the political entity. Today I discovered the article Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic as a result of its being linked to Jamason's article on its predecessor. I believe that either we move the text about the state to that article, or we blank that one and make it redirect here. So is anyone willing to revisit this question? TSO1D21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected it here. Its talk page failed to convince me that there should be two articles:
"Greetings. This page takes no stand for or against the legal status of the PMR; it is simply there to disginguish between the region Transnistria, and the quasi-legal entity (quasi-state) that is the PMR. That's all. Thanks."
In our discussions here (and as reflected in the updated introduction) I think we had all agreed to be more careful to make the distinction between the territory and the controlling authority, so, for example, Transnistria's inhabitants "voted" in a "poll" whose "results" were "reported by the PMR authorities." There's no need for yet another article. — Pēters J. Vecrumba15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and we all agree. Although I am sure that we also "get" the "message" even without the POV "scare quotes." - Mauco15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I'd prefer to not touch the external links section since we have a lot more on our plate to deal with first. But once we do decide to change the links, I propose the following site for inclusion as well: http://www.transdniester.com/
I just found it, and it gives a nice overview for an outsider. It also links back to Wikipedia. :-) - Mauco14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the site a lot. It is very informative and I think it's pretty objective. However, my only worry is that it's unclear who's behind the site. But although that might disqualify it for in-line citations, it's still better than some of the other external links we have now, so I would support its inclusion. TSO1D16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral, if you want to add it, it is fine with me, if not, that is also fine. It is not a site that is made in Tiraspol because would they put the big hammer and sickle on the first page, I dont think so. Pernambuco20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean, we are talking about www.transdniester.com, it was the link that Mauco suggested and TSO1D liked it, and I am neutral on it, but it does not have a link to Tiraspol Times at each page, I think that you are confusing this with another site. Please look at it again and tell us what you think, if we should include it or not Pernambuco21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We are talking about www.transdniester.com. At the left-bottom part of each page of www.transdniester.com is a link to Tiraspol Times. Is dificult for me to assume good faith for you if you are deniyng the obvious, which anybody can check with a mouse click. My opinion about this link is NO.--MariusM21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
are you sure about this, does anybody else see this in their computer? I do not have it. In my browser, when I look at www.transdniester.com there is a box on the right hand side in the lower right hand side, it is a graphical advertisement, but it has various messages depending on each page, and never Tiraspol Times (not right and not left), can someone else confirm this ? Pernambuco21:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser. Turn it on, and most likely they will appear. At the same time, there is no indication that the site (Transdniester.com) consciously has put a link to Tiraspol Times on every page. Simply put, Tiraspol Times is a Google Ads client. Transdniester.com displays Google Ads. They are keywords-based. So it is logical that the TT ad will appear on every Transdniester.com, even without Transdniester.com specifically wanting it. - Mauco15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already discused this link - see archive 6 [29]. It was voted for deletion, but the "neutral" Pernambuco defend voting when the result is to keep a pro-transnistrian site and consider "voting is evil" when the result is against such a site.--MariusM21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral, I just don't remember this link, maybe it is because it was never included, and they had a lot of links that we voted on, I dont think that I ever said that voting was evil, or anything else was evil. This sort of wording is not in my vocabulary, maybe you confuse me with someone else, but I apologise if I submitted a link that is not relevant Pernambuco21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to transdniester.com/transdniestria.com above where it was also being discussed. I don't think they add anything. With respect to the google ads, there are two separate points:
the sites in question receive revenue on click-throughs based on ads displayed keyed off the word "Transnistria"--that's neither inherently good or bad, only that the web sites are vehicles for making money off of instances of people looking for Transnistria information
that Tiraspol Times is placing google ads is an indication they have money to burn to spread their pro-PMR POV (my POV); those who are concerned about the spread of (well-financed) PMR propaganda should view this as the far more serious threat
You are reading WAY too much into it. There is no conspiracy theory to uncover and no "far more serious threat" as you want us to believe. Facts are simply: It is a brand new business. They started it in mid-2006. It is not even a year old. That Tiraspol Times is placing google ads is an indication that they are trying to make themselves known. That is normal. Most new companies have to do that within the first year of their business, in order to bring in customers and revenue. It is Business 101. Anyone in Moldova can do the same, if they want to. That is the beauty of a free press and of capitalism. - Mauco13:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is right and it is wrong. There are two flags in use. See Flag of Transnistria. We have chosen to use the state flag in this article, rather than the flag which is more commonly in use in Transnistria. - Mauco13:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of discussion - much of which seems very productive - and the article has been protected for a week? I can unprotect if you think its ready for it? --Robdurbar13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're almost there. We just need one or two of the folks who caused the editwarring in the first place to come to this page and tell us that they understand what we have done here. In other words, agreement to the general consensus reached on intro, geography, political status, economy, Yakovlev comments, links, human rights, referendum summary, terrorism/violent incidents, and so on. Give it a day or two. If there is still obstruction, then it is too early to make your move. - Mauco14:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we still have issues to deal with. See the history of the latest day of day. Best to wait a bit more, until we at least have a firm pledge that these issues will be worked out here - in talk - rather than through edit warring and continuous reverts, as happened before. - Mauco14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bonaparte (BTW, he says "hi" and that he has too little free time to troll right now) has sent me an interesting link about Tiraspol Times (in Italian). Here's the translation:
It's a site created by an Irishman, a certain Des Grant, with money from the Tiraspol government. The articles are all written by him, although he likes to sign as names such as Jason Cooper and Karen Ryan, to give the impression that there is a staff. Actually, the articles are flimsy papers (?) of the Transnistrian government, either news published in other medias and often modified with additions or cuts (removals) to be adapted to the wishes of Smirnov.
Initially, Michael Garner signed, too, but then a mess happened: he published an article by a real person, Tom de Waal, journalist and author, adapting that it appeared that the article wanted the independence of Transnistria, which he didn't even touched. Naturally, without announcing the author.
When de Waal found that, he got mad and he has threaten to sue. It seem that then Michael Garner disappeared, being replaced by Jason Cooper and Karen Ryan, which are the same person, which is Des Grant.
Naturally, these things are known in the international journalist environment and nobody gives any prominence to Tiraspol Times. I'm happy that it exists, because this way the government wastes some money for nothing, since the only who believe in this newspaper are those who are already convinced.
Grant is also the founder of the "Tiraspol Times," an online newspaper that professes to be "committed to the truth.
and further down the google results, is a link to an Irish newspaper (Drogheda independent) -- you may need a free account or use BugMeNot:
SINN FEIN TD, Arthur Morgan, received a donation of €800 from Mr Des Grant, one of the Managing Partners of the Drogheda Leader freesheet newspaper, at the time of the general elections last year, it emerged this week. Mr Grant was the editor of the newspaper at the time he made the donation.
Interesting ...And? There are several errors in the Bonaparte-forward, all patently wrong. In fact, the Italian www.Moldweb.info site is significantly more biased than www.Tiraspoltimes.com so apparently this is a game that both sides can play. - Mauco20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I was almost sure that Karen Ryan is a pen name of William Mauco, as part of the article Igor Smirnov, Pridnestrovie's Khozyain president from "Tiraspol Times" is copied word-by-word from the article Khozyain from Wikipedia, which was writen by William Mauco. Only after that was discovered started Mauco to write "officially" in TIraspol Times with the name William Maurice. Comparison:
Wikipedia's Khozyain, stub written by Mauco 21 July 2006: Khozyain is a Russian term often used to describe a certain type of political leader. It is rich term which traditionally refers to a leader of a given social domain, a home, a village, an enterprise, or a country. The khozyain of a household is usually the oldest male and is entrusted with the welfare of the group. For someone to merit the title of a real khozyain he must take care of those in his domain. Russians tend to judge leaders, including politicians, on whether they are (or give the impression of being) a real khozyain. They are sometimes hard to classify in a classical political sense since their overriding concerns are not a leftist or rightist political agenda, but the welfare of the group where ideology is less important than pragmatism, strength of character and problem solving skills. A person who displays talents in this direction is called a khozyaistvennik. A khozyain politician can easily be seen as authoritarian in a Western political context. A more accurate description would be to classify him as a father figure. Examples of khozyain politicians: Yuri Luzhkov and Igor Smirnov.
article in Tiraspol Times by Karen Ryan, 11 September 2006, part "The Khozyain president": Khozyain is a Russian term often used to describe a certain type of political leader; the prototype of the style of Igor Smirnov, Pridnestrovie's own "Khozyain" head of state. It is a rich term which traditionally refers to a leader of a given social domain, a home, a village, an enterprise, or a country. The khozyain of a household is usually the oldest male and is entrusted with the welfare of the group. For someone to merit the title of a real khozyain he must take care of those in his domain. Russian voters judge leaders, including politicians, on whether they are (or give the impression of being) a real khozyain. They are sometimes hard to classify in a classical political sense since their overriding concerns are not a leftist or rightist political agenda, but the welfare of the group where ideology is less important than pragmatism, strength of character and problem solving skills. Igor Smirnov and the other founding fathers of the republic have declared on many occasions, from the earliest day of the independence struggle, that what they wanted to create was a society free of "isms." A khozyain politician can easily be seen as authoritarian in a Western political context, and, true to form, Igor Smirnov has been called both a "strongman" and, by the more radical Smirnov-haters in Moldova, a "dictator". A more accurate description, for those who understand the true meaning of the word khozyain, would be to classify him as a father figure.
What is sure is that Mauco is pushing everywhere in Wikipedia Tiraspol Times, not only here but in any Transnistria-related page. In an other article he was against the linking to a Russian press agency, he started edit war to include his beloved TT. Probabily he has good reasons for loving it, but I'm still confused: who is William Mauco, William Maurice or Karen Ryan?--MariusM 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Bogdan, there are a lot of open issues in this article, your input will be helpfull.--MariusM 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not Karen Ryan, or Des Grant, or anyone else. But I am of course very flattered that some of our work here on Wikipedia is considered good enough to be reprinted elsewhere. Anyone can do that freely and without asking permission. Wikipedia material is open source. And, as we know from the multiple appearances of Mark Street, they are very much aware of our work. There's really no inherent harm in that. - Mauco 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that Tiraspol Times is licenced under GFDL? I found no note about this on the newspaper's site. Dpotop 10:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Then try a search: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/search/node/GFDL (although I was "implying" the opposite, if you compare the dates of our work here with Karen Ryan's article). - Mauco 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I can imagine that it is run by an Irishman, and I've suspected all along that it's just another website. I don't see that it has to be all that sinister though. He's probably just some guy who's visited the place a few times and decided he likes it enough to make a website. I doubt that it's funded by the government also, I mean what funds would you need to have a website on your own? Unless he's been paid to write those articles, but I just don't think it's all that sinister like I said. Jonathanpops 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is great, and the conspiracy theories are laughable -- to say the least. The more information, the better. I hope that we will see lots and lots more websites, and newspapers, and reports and analysis, throughout all of 2007. From BOTH sides. Moldova can and should do the same. If Transnistria is supposed to be a "black hole" then it won't stay that way if everyone reports on it, both good and bad. Keeping it under a microscope. Exposing what there is to expose, and setting the record straight about democracy or lack of same. About weapons smuggling or lack of same. About human trafficking or lack of same. Etc, etc, etc. - Mauco 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, people on the internet and especially this wikipedia page seem to love the idea of conspiracies. I just don't think there are any really, there's just a bunch of websites out there about Tansnistria with no real goal other than writing about Transnistria because they want to. And, like Mauco says, whatever their reason it's all exposure for the place anyway. Even if you believe that Tansnistria and Smirnov is a dictatorship pretending to be a democracy it will end up being a democracy anyway because they keep telling everyone it is, websites keep repeating it and people read the websites so they will eventually demand a democracy if there isn't one already. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this but it make perfect sense in my head. Jonathanpops 09:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and Alexander Litvinenko ate polonium by mistake, he confused it with salt. Eastern European people are inclined to believe in conspiracies, because of detailed knowledge about Eastern European politics. Very original thoughts about democracy coming just because people are reading websites in which is told that a democratic society exist already in the region. Unfortunately, few people in Transnistria have acces to internet, and only a minority is speaking English.--MariusM 14:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
MariusM, Jonathanpops does have a point. This is totally irrelevant to this page (and thus contravenes the talk page guidelines), so I will not explain it in too much detail. Suffice to say that the same policy is being applied by the State Department in relation to Kyrgyzstan. They often make reference to democratic credentials, in spite of a less-satisfactory reality. It has been admitted that this is mostly to shame Kyrgyzstan leadership to follow through with the expected reforms. - Mauco 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Following a link given by Mauco, I landed on this page of TiraspolTimes http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/newsroom.html. Look at the 3 pictures of the editors. I presume you would agree with me that either the 3 of them were beaten and burned, or that the 3 photos are gross fakes, created using a software like that used by the police (they are called facial composites, like here. If the images change, I can provide them, I made copies (tell me how to upload them). Dpotop 10:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It is too bad that Mark us street isn't around (or one of his puppets) so we could get his opinion. I agree that the two guys are ugly, and Karen Ryan DOES look like a battered wife. Maybe that was how she ended up in Tiraspol. ;-) But the talk about police software is a bit overblown. Why is it that Romanian editors always jump to conspiracy theories and sinister dealings whenever Transnistria is involved? And I don't know what this has to do with edits to the Transnistria page either, since the link section is no longer being discussed (and that is the only place we mention Tiraspol Times). - Mauco 14:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I am exaggerating, why was the "photo" of that women changed (grossly edited) from the one of this morning? Just take a look. The first thumb is the one I copied from the site this morning. The second was copied in the evening (we are on 10-01-2007):
Image from TiraspolTimes, before I added the previous commentThe same, 7 hours later
The altered photo actually looks worse, like she's had a tattoo removed with laser treatment or something, it doesn't match the other side of her face. It looks as though their photo editing skills are just as bad as their text.... never mind. Jonathanpops 17:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my words exactly. She actually looks severely battered in BOTH of them. I can't really tell the difference that much. Maybe Dpotop changed them. And, more to the point: Why should we even care? (Unless this somehow has anything to do with an actual edit proposal to the Transnistria article itself, which you haven't stated yet). Otherwise, please focus on the edits and find a blog or some other place to post unsourced speculation and theories, like Bonaparte has done. With all due respect: A kind reminder of the talk page guidelines posted on top of this page so we can all get back to work. - Mauco 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am talking here about the credibility of a source, which some other editors promote. What I'm saying is that TiraspolTimesCredibility=0. Dpotop 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, according to your own original research and your own conclusions. To me, they just have some awfully ugly people working for them. The girl (Karen) actually looks like a man in drag. Again, however, I fail to see how this has any bearing on our Wikipedia article. The artcile does not mention Tiraspol Times in any way (apart from including it as an external link among a dozen others, and duly noting the bias of the link by keeping it under the heading "Transnistrian side"). Lets get back on topic. - Mauco 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There is an opinion (not mine) that we need to make shorter this article, this was the explanation for removing some paragraphs. I've looked at the article, I think there are indeed some paragraphs which can be removed if shortening the article is really a priority:
Names of Transnistria. I know that Mauco and TSO1D worked hard for this paragraph, but we really don't need it, as we have a separate article on this subject. A link imediately after the introduction to the secondary article will be enough.
The name section has to stay. Most other similar articles have an etymology section, and considering the vast range of terminology used to refer to Transnistria, there can only be few places where one is more needed. TSO1D 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The official short form of the name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье"). - This can be removed, as it repeats what is said in the lead section. --Illythr 14:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Transnistria in popular culture. Is not really relevant.
That I agree with. That section is pure trivia, and no similar structure exists in any other article in this encyclopedia. TSO1D 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning of the statue of Suvorov in Tiraspol is relevant for article Tiraspol, not for this article.--MariusM 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't understand why the sentence about Suvorov is the first one in the internal politics section. A brief explanation in the caption of the image should be enough. 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Good, but: Please confirm that we have solved the other pending/open issues before you add new items to the mix. Let us do this step by step, please. We can discuss your suggestions, and I am sure that we can reach agreement on your new ideas. But we FIRST need to deal with what is already on the plate. Otherwise we will never finish. - Mauco 01:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't get further into discussions to find the solution, rather we start and restart discussions. For exemple, we have more than one discussion about (isolated) violent incidents or border issues; editors are stating their oppinion about same subject at different chapters.
I propose we make sepparate pages for all topics. In this way, all oppinions will be taken into consideration(not only the ones stated at the latest discussion).
I've added some of the discussions form talk page; some even from archives.Dl.goe
(proposal)Please discuss changes to the article at the appropriate page.
This is very confusing, I do not understand a single thing, please keep the normal style of the talking page Pernambuco 01:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we have separate pages for discussions about each chapter of the article. Currently, all discussions regarding Transnistria article are on the same page. This has led to many archives, and even some discussions about current issues are archived. I think one should not post his opinion ∞ times, at ∞ chapters on the same subject. This initiative is also meant to prevent users from restarting discussions that already received solutions.Dl.goe 10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Introduction: We keep current introduction, with elimination of word "official". Explanation that name "Pridnestrovie" is according PMR Constitution is already implying official for all those who accept PMR.
This is NOT the compromise proposal. The compromise proposal was submitted by Vecrumba. He added it, and most of the rest of us agreed upon it. Do not start adding words or deleting words from what Vecrumba entered into the page. If you do, then the fragile consensus falls apart, and it becomes a free for all. We basically start from scratch, and there will be many other changes to this intro. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree on removing the word "official", I think it does not belong. Jonathanpops 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The version is a compromise version which was added by Vecrumba in order to break a deadlock that lasted a month. If we change it now, then the compromise breaks. In that case, I want to make some changes, too. Jonathanpops, I know that you don't like this tit-for-tat, but it was VERY hard to find acceptance on both sides for the current intro and right now, the best we can do is to stay with what we have. Everyone has some pet issues that they want to see gone and that they want to see added. In this round of discussion, I have not mentioned my own. That would be disruptive. But equally disruptive is the proposal to change it now, before we deal with all the rest. - Mauco 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Your comment is untrue. We had an other stable introduction for many months, you and Mark us Street chalanged it. A poll was done and former current introduction was preffered with 7 votes against 1 [30]. After that you engaged in some disscussions with Vecrumba and made an other introduction which you imposed against the will of the majority of editors. I will agree with this new introduction if you accept to take out only one word - "officialy", when you reffer at name Pridnestrovie. Anyhow we are saying that Pridnestrovie is "according to PMR Constitution". As Jonathanpops tell, this is a fair compromise, and you are the only one who don't accept it. Why you want veto rights in all Transnistria-related articles?--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
External links: We keep current links, but we change the heading "Transnistrian side" to "Transnistrian separatist side"
Says who? See the discussion above. We have had the current link headers for most of 2006. We have discussed it on and off, but no better choice. The whole debate is on this page. Please read it. You will see that there is NOT a consensus behind your idea for change, MariusM. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I am indifferent to the link headings, it makes no difference as far as I can see. Jonathanpops 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are indifferent, then we keep the ones that we have. They are part of the stable version and they are about as neutral and "equal-weighted" as we can be. - Mauco 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I already explained my concern: "Transnistrian side" label is giving the fake impression that all transnistrian agree with separatist government. Either we change the label, either we include an anti-separatist Transnistrian site like transnistria.ru.ru. Those 2 problems are linked.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Link to transnistria.ru.ru: We don't add it, as we changed the heading in external link section.
Of course not. EvilAlex's hate site was first attempted in January 2006, a full year ago. It was discarded then, and it will be discarded every time you or him try to push again. Now and in the future. It is simply not appropriate. See the guidelines for external links. - 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps it shouldn't be there, but wouldn't mind at all if it was, in the spirit of free speech and all that. Jonathanpops 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It does not meet the criteria for WP:LINKS so it is a very quick discussion. - Mauco 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Tiraspol Times also is not meeting the criteria for WP:LINKS, but I wanted to mak a compromise. It seems I don't have with whom.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
US Department of State position on Human Rights: The 4 sentences summary proposed above is added.
I propose a complete rewrite of the human rights section. First, get rid of all the content forking that you have done. More than half of the section has been added by MariusM within the past 2 months, without ANY prior discussion or debate on this talk page. The right way to do it has been explained four times to you already: Develop the detailed page first, then make the summary here. Not the other way around. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Your proposal is rejected. I know that you want to blank from this article relevant information about Human rights problems in Transnistria, but this information is important. Is not really a priority to shorten this article, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedy and we don't have the limitations of printed encyclopedias regarding space.--MariusM 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know enough about this to really give a full comment. If there is enough reliable information there could be a separate page on the subject, with s summery on this page. If not it may as well stay here, and perhaps be cleaned up a bit if there are any errors. Jonathanpops 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. I fully agree with Jonathanpops. We take ALL of the reliable information (including U.S. State Department) and develop the separate page just on human rights. Then, when done, we make a summary of THAT page and bring it here, on THIS page. A summary, along with a See Also link for those who want more details. This is not censorship. It is how the rest of Wikipedia works. Why is this so hard to do? - Mauco 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
All information currently in the article is reliable. If you want to take it out (I know you want this, as you don't like truth), you will start an edit war. Please refrain taking out info which was long time part in this article.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Travel warnings: no separate paragraph needed, keep current situation.
That is the consensus. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Jonathanpops 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I made this proposal in order to show goodwill and achieve compromise. I see no compromise from other side.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Border issues section: Added back, per my and Dl.goe proposal.
Sorry, but read this page. The section is in the right article now. We have a proposal for two quite detailed lines and a link. More editors agree on that than just you and D1.goe. Besides being a majority, it fits better with how similar subjects are dealt with in other articles. This, again, is explained here on this Talk page. Please read why. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Last incident in Cocieri is showing the importance of border issues section.--MariusM 21:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yakovlev comments: added back.
Just like that? Then why not add every other comment from every other non-notable expolitician who writes a letter to a newspaper as part of an election campaign? That is not how an encyclopia chooses its content. Sorry. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Referendum section: The 3 lines paragraph which include both results of referendum and allegations that results are not correct is included.
Please see above. You do not have the wide support for changing this. I can support every proposal that has been put forward so far, except yours. The reasons are stated above. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
We should follow NPOV rule. We can not tell official referendum results without reporting allegations about frauds.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Violent incidents: We split them in "Antisemitic incidents" and "Deadly explosions".
That could work. But please see what Helen has to say as well. Why not comment on her point? - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Not worth to comment Helen28 - the person who told that people in Transnistria are still afraid of terrorism, and allowing pro-Moldovan activists to voice their opinion in Transnistrian press can lead to violence. Her words are relevant for political climate in Transnistria more than her proposals for this article.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this compromise proposal O.K.?--MariusM 03:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not. This is not a compromise. This is 90% ignoring what is more than ten days of hard work and discussion on this page. A more sensible compromise would be for you to agree to the basic ground rules, and say that you will adhere to the gentlemen's agreement (posted above) so we can lift page protection without fear of a new revert war. - Mauco 03:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I accepted compromise in introduction, in keeping link to Tiraspol Times, in elimination of travel warnings, in inclusion of detailed results of referendum, elimination of link to transnistria.ru.ru. I just ask to add back paragraphs which were long time part of article without negative comments, like Yakovlev and border issues. Regarding US Department of State you agreed to include a summary, and this is already a summary what I proposed.--MariusM 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I again repeat: A more sensible compromise would be for you to agree to the basic ground rules, and say that you will adhere to the gentlemen's agreement (posted above) so we can lift page protection without fear of a new revert war. Why will you not commit to stop the threat of edit warring which brought the page to its current full protection in the first place? This stubbornness is making it very hard for the rest of us to get work done. I almost feel as if the page is currently being held hostage. - Mauco 05:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What basic rules? What gentlemen's agreement? I thought we are on wikipedia, not in some Swashbuckler story. There are rules here, you know? You pushing POV content does not make the content appropriate. Dpotop 11:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
maybe you didnt read his proposal, it is in a section that is called "Ground rules" and it is a good idea, he is not suggesting anything outrageous, and you should not pick on him so much and these accusations. I dont know why you attack him, he did not attack you, and let us all just get along Pernambuco 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What I see here is one person actually accepting compromise to reach NPOV (MariusM), and another (Mauco) coming with "gentleman's agreement" references every 2 lines, but never actually making a compromise. There are enough rules already on wikipedia, we should use them. Dpotop 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont want to take sides in this, but when I read this page, of the talk, the perception that i have is the opposite, and I do not understand your comment of "pushing POV content" because the reversios that was made was not from POV content from the other user (Mauco) but some things that User:MariusM added Pernambuco 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You always tell that you don't want to take sides, but you always take Mauco's side. I was just re-adding paragraphs which were part of the article for long time, you deleted the paragraphs and you didn't even recognized that you deleted.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Dpotop, I am absolutely not pushing POV. Don't be uncivil. We are making a better article, and we are doing it through consensus. Sometimes that involves saying no to excess. But when I do, I am explaining why. And I am not seeking to introduce new stuff, but just to keep the page from being tilted too much in an extreme direction. The edits must be fair, NPOV, and completely balanced. This is what my work on this page is about. - Mauco 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are making a worse article.--MariusM 00:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to congratulate again Mauco, as his work at Wikipedia is highly apreciated in Tiraspol Times and again reproduced word-by-word. Wikipedia article Media in Transnistria is saying: Several opposition newspapers exist in Transnistria. They include “Novoe Vremya” (The New Time), Rybnitsa-based “Dobryi Deni”, “Celovek i ego prava” (Man and His Rights), “Novaya Gazeta” from Bender, “Profsoiuznyie Vesti” and “Glas Naroda.” The newspaper “Dnestrovskaya Pravda”, while not an opposition newspaper, also publishes editorials highly critical of the government. Its editor, Nadesha Bondarenko, is an opposition candidate in Transnistria's December 10, 2006, presidential election.
Tiraspol Times, in an article signed Jason Cooper[31] is telling: Several opposition newspapers exist in Pridnestrovie. They include “Novoe Vremya” (The New Time), Rybnitsa-based “Dobryi Deni”, “Celovek i ego prava” (Man and His Rights), “Novaya Gazeta” from Bender, “Profsoiuznyie Vesti” and “Glas Naroda.” Moreover, the newspaper “Dnestrovskaya Pravda”, while not an opposition newspaper, also publishes editorials highly critical of the government. Its editor, Nadesha Bondarenko, stood as an opposition candidate in the country's 10 December 2006, presidential election and finished second in a field of four candidates.
The only difference is that TT put at past tense the candidature of Bondarenko. Mauco, I envy you. In the same Wikipedia article Media in Transnistria I've added a paragraph: According U.S. Department of State, separatist authorities harassed the independent newspapers when they criticized the Transnistrian regime. Most Moldovan newspapers did not circulate widely in Transnistria, although they were available in Tiraspol[2]. My paragraph didn't meet TT standards for inclusion. On contrary, TT claim: "Pridnestrovie has a fairly free media climate. No newspapers are currently banned or closed, and there is no government censorship". I know you are flatered.--MariusM 13:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Mauco must be happy: The Tiraspol Times has at last one reader. :) Dpotop 14:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's OK. The implication is that I am either a KGB agent (the old hat) or Karen Ryan / Jason Cooper (whatever). But the datelines gives it away. The paragraph cited above was written here in Wikipedia by me last year. Anyone is free to copy from Wikipedia. It is not the first time this happened, and probably won't be the last. I am not the only one that this has happened to. In the case of http://www.tiraspoltimes.com it has happened to work done here by me and by Mikkalai, that I know of. Nor is TIRASPOL TIMES alone in doing this. Wikipedia material is used (often cut-and-paste) in media worldwide on a daily basis. It would be nice if they would acknowledge Wikipedia. Since we know that the editors of Tiraspol Times follow these pages, maybe they will read this request. The next time, please add a byline stating that some of the material was used courtesy of Wikipedia. - Mauco 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe they should reffer directly at you, as only your work is copied in Tiraspol Times. I did also a lot of work here in Transnistria-related topics, but my work is not noticed :-(. Probabily, because of lower quality. As I told, I envy you. Regarding Mikkalai, his work was not copied. He made some comments on talk page, and afterwards an article from Tiraspol Times was quoting his words in Wikipedia's discussions telling "as a political analyst is saying...". Mikka was very proud for being named "political analyst".--MariusM 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If you knew Russian people, you wouldn’t blame Mauco. The basic feature of Russian character is laziness and journalists are not exception. It is easier for them to copy somebody’s article, than to write their own one. Plagiarism in many mass-media is norm.Helen28 10:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but doesn't the previous text qualify as racist speech? I mean, I've had my problems with Russian editors on wikipedia, and I think Russia and the Soviets did a lot of bad to my country, but I wouldn't say they are lazy as a people. Qualifying an entire ethnos as lazy is racist. If you want, talk about bad things the Russians and Russian/Soviet governments actually did. This is factual. BTW: I have met more hard-working Russians than lazy ones. :) Dpotop 09:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
They all are claimed to be non-Slav Westerners. Well, at least we can now be sure that you are not one of them. ;-) --Illythr 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There are no so real publication "Tiraspol Time" in Tiraspol!!!
George SIMA,
Tiraspol
Breaking news: clashes between Moldovan and Transnistria forces near Dubasari
As Dl.goe told, "The article can't do without Border issues". A confirmation of the importance of border issues are the recent clashes between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces near Dubasari. Here is the BBC report (in Romanian) and here Russian press agency Novosti report. As BBC corectly observed, Dubasari is the hotest point in the region, as near this city there are main border issues. My opinion is that from those border issues a new war can start and is important to explain to our readers about them. I want to add back the border issues section and include in it the breaking news regarding last conflict at Dubasari.--MariusM 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW: I like Russian agency Novosti definition of Transnistria: "Moldova's breakaway region". As result of some POV-pushers, Wikipedia is more pro-PMR than this Russian press agency.--MariusM 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Damn, just read this. Any casualties? Gotta make a call in the morning... --Illythr 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No fatalities. Except truth and ethics in Romanian journalism. The real "story behind the story" reveals a case of neo-Stalinism (removal of webpages and articles from the press) which happened just two hours ago. Romania’s largest news agency initially reported accurately on the incident. This was before Vasile Sova got a chance to kick into gear and mobilize Moldovan NGOs (or quasi-"NGOs", depending on your point on view) to put a politically correct spin on the event. When he did, the Romanians simply removed all the previous reporting. However, by then it was already too late and the original story had been distributed by Google News and sent to approximately 90% of Romania’s mainstream media earlier in the day (today). I won't go into detail because it is clearly off-topic, and not appropriate for this talk page. See talk page guidelines: This talk should deal with edits to the article, and this page is not a social discussion forum. But if anyone wants to know the full details, just either send me email or ask me on my userpage's Talk. - Mauco 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody told about fatalities and I don't know what kind of neo-Stalinist Romanian journalism Mauco was talking. I was reffering at a BBC report (in Romanian, indeed, but is still a BBC report, is British journalism not Romanian journalism) and a Russian agency report. We have also an other source conflict.md, which, despite being labeled in Wikipedia as "Moldovan side" is reporting also the position of Transnistrian ministry of foreign affairs. We are disscussing edits in the article here as the incident show how important border issues are and I made a proposal to include this incident in the article.--MariusM 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, send me email or go to my talk page if you want to know about the neo-Stalinist removal of webpages which happened Monday and involved the largest news agency in Romania. I saved the screenshots, just in case. But this is not the place, due to talk page guidelines. Stick to topic. - Mauco 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Pernambuco summarized border issues:
There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides.
I find it unacceptable. When the reader clicks border issues he expects to find an explanation on what border issues means; not an article referring to Transnistria border issues. This way the information is hidden and no one will find it.
Also, summary does not mean one line link. Would you like an article:
Transnistria has Geography Transnistria has Economy Transnistria has HistoryDl.goe 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Dl.Goe, but this text qualifies at best as Dada prose. I understood nothing. Dpotop 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The correct way to put a link to the main article is {{main|Border issues of Transnistria}}. Links like There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides. are used to link to border article.Dl.goe 13:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This topic has been the topic of a long debate on this page already, however, due to the inability to reach a consensus on the subject among all users, and the obstacle that this issue represents to the unfreezing of the page, I want to bring this dispute to the front again, in the hopes that we can resolve it once and for all. The current form of the text, reads:
"There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides." However, I believe that this presentation is too brief relative to the importance of the topic.
On the other side, some users favor including a more detailed sketch of the topic, in this form: "During the 1992 War of Transnistria some villages from the Dubăsari district, which geographically belong to Transnistria, rebelled against the separatist government and since then have been under the control of the central government of Moldova. Those villages are: Cocieri (Kochiyery), Molovata Nouă (Novaya Malovata), Roghi (Rogi), Vasilievca (Vasilyevka), Coşniţa (Cosnita, Koshnitsa), Pîrîta (Pârâta, Pyryta), Pohrebea (Pogrebya), and Doroţcaia (Dorotskoye). Also, the village of Corjova (birthplace of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin) is divided between Transnistrian and Moldovan areas of control. In 2005 Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, which is located over the strategic road linking Tiraspol and Rîbniţa, but withdrew after a few days[1] At the same time, some areas which are geographically part of Basarabia and not Transnistria are controlled by the authorities from Tiraspol. These areas consist of the city Tighina (Bendery in Russian), and the villages of Gîsca, Protiagailovca, Chiţcani, Mereneşti, Zagornoe, Cremenciug. Transnistrian authorities also claim the villages of Varniţa, a suburb of Tighina, and Copanca, south of Tighina, in the Cauşeni district, but these villages remain under control of the Republic of Moldova." This text currently appears in the article Disputed status of Transnistria.
A compromise version has been put forward that in my view addresses the excessive brevity of the first version without becoming bogged down in the minute details of the latter. This version reads: "There are unsettled border issues with conflicting claims on both sides. Tighina (Bender) and its surrounding area on the river's west bank is controlled by Transnistria, while some villages near Dubăsari on the east bank are under Moldovan control." This is the version that I like the most, and I believe that if it is found inadequate by some, it is still the best starting point for further improvement (though hopefully with limited expansion). TSO1D 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see that I hadn't fully understood Mauco's proposal. Yes, I see that the basic form of the sentence exists in another part, the idea is to combine the two sentences with a small addition in the form that is here presented as #3. TSO1D 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
During the 1992 War of Transnistria some villages from the Dubăsari district, which geographically belong to Transnistria rebelled against the separatist government and since then have been under the control of the central government of Moldova. In 2005 Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, which is located over the strategic road linking Tiraspol and Rîbniţa, but withdrew after a few days[2] In present, there are many border issues in this region. For example, the village of Corjova (birthplace of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin) is divided between Transnistrian and Moldovan areas of control.
Hm, if you talk about Dubasari, you must also talk about Tighina. Each side has territory that is geographically on the other side. Dpotop 10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The full chapter is best.Dl.goe 11:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I also think that the full chapter is best. We can shorten it eliminating different variations of names, but we should add the recent events. Is not so important to make the article shorter, and there are other parts less important in the article which we can eliminate if we really want to make it shorter.--MariusM 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Revised proposal: "During the 1992 War of Transnistria some villages from the Dubăsari district, which geographically belong to Transnistria, rebelled against the separatist government and since then have been under the control of the central government of Moldova. Those villages are: Cocieri, Molovata Nouă, Roghi, Vasilievca, Coşniţa, Pîrîta, Pohrebea and Doroţcaia. Also, the village of Corjova (birthplace of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin) is divided between Transnistrian and Moldovan areas of control. At the same time, some areas which are geographically part of Basarabia and not Transnistria are controlled by the authorities from Tiraspol. These areas consist of the city Tighina and the villages of Gîsca, Protiagailovca, Chiţcani, Mereneşti, Zagornoe, Cremenciug. Transnistrian authorities also claim the villages of Varniţa, a suburb of Tighina, and Copanca, south of Tighina, but these villages remain under control of the Republic of Moldova. Tense situations appeared frequentlly around those border issues, for example in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, which is located over the strategic road linking Tiraspol and Rîbniţa, but withdrew after a few days[3], in 2006 around Varniţa and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when clashes between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, without casualities."--MariusM 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not surprising that purely Romanian editors agree with each other. How about applying some basic copy edit standards, and good Wikipedia practices? At least TSO1D does not let the fact that he is Romanian stand in the way of trying to make a decent article. - Mauco 15:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What is against Wikipedia practices in my proposal?--MariusM 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The way we structure large articles is to keep the main overview here, in an overview article, in the form of a summary, and then list details in the specific article devoted to the subject. In this case, all your villages are for Disputed status of Transnistria. - Mauco 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that refference at ethnic background of other editors is appropiate here. In my case is also inaccurate. While I am from Romania and Romanian is my first language, I am not "purely Romanian". I don't consider theories about "pure blood" have any scientific value.--MariusM 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"Purely" refers to the fact that all the editors who've been pushing for this so far have been 100% from Romania. Why? The mind boggles. - Mauco 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Apart from that, it is of course not appropriate to assume bad faith just because of where someone is from. I myself am dark-skinned so I have often been at the receiving end of racism. And I can see that you yourself, MariusM, have a history of complaining about people here on Wikipedia just because the are Russian. For instance, this little gem of yours: "a Russian admin (not coincidentally Russian) protected the respective articles"[32] That sort of commentary is inappropriate anywhere. And when you posted it on Administrators' Noticeboard, I can only imagine what the other admins must have thought at your attempt to smear a fellow admin of theirs by referring to his ethnicity. - Mauco 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it was a Russian admin who allowed you to break repeatedly the 3RR and I reported that at ANI. You should not imagine what other admins had thought, because I received a written answer: "Marius, I believe that you should take this to WP:RFC as I believe that it is a serious matter. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)"[33]. However, I didn't start a RFC as I am at Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia, not to fight with Mauco. Unfortunatelly, is impossible to write a good encyclopedia without fighting with misleadings propagandists.--MariusM 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the situation again, and I believe that it might be best to separate geographic inconsistencies from political ones. All versions that have so far presented make the implicit argument that it is natural for Moldova to include of all Bessarabia and the PMR authorities to control Transnistria. As a result, Tighina's control by the separatists and the control of certain villages on the left bank of the Dniester by the Moldovan government are treated as examples of territorial disputes. I believe that the information regarding the discrepancy between geographic and political boundaries should be restricted to the geography section in the way it is now. However, the section detailing territorial disputes should be restricted to those areas under the control of Moldovan forces that are claimed by the PMR. In the opposite direction, there is no need to discuss anything in that light, because it is already stated that Moldova claims all of Transnistria, and Tighina's case does not have any different legal state regardless of its not even being a part of Transnistria geographically. As a result, I believe that the text describing territorial disputes should follow a form closer to:
"Some villages from the Dubăsari district, including Cocieri and Doroţcaia which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of Moldova after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the War of Transnistria. These villages along with Varniţa, a suburb of Tighina, and Copanca, south of Tighina, continue to be claimed by the PMR although they remain under the control of the Republic of Moldova. Tense situations have frequently surfaced due to these territorial disputes, for example in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca, but withdrew after a few days[4], in 2006 around Varniţa and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when clashes between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, without casualities."TSO1D 02:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, I agree. TSO1D 12:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
While mentioning all the villages is increasing the size of article only with few words (our readers will not be bored from those few aditional words), in order to reach a compromise I agree with TSO1D proposal.--MariusM 13:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
TSO1D, your proposal needs to be tweaked before it can be considered truly neutral. It can also be shortened since the longer version will be in Disputed status of Transnistria anyway. You repeat "under the control of the Republic of Moldova" in two sentences right after each other. Use of word "clashes" is an exaggeration. Fighting occured in neither of these incidents. They were very short-duration standoffs. - Mauco 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's the shorter, more neutral version:
"Some villages from the Dubăsari district, including Cocieri and Doroţcaia which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of Moldova after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the War of Transnistria. These villages along with Varniţa and Copanca, near Tighina, continue to be claimed by the government of Transnistria. Tense situations occasionally surface due to these territorial disputes, but always without casualities."—Preceding unsigned comment added by William Mauco (talk • contribs)
We don't need to make the paragraph shorter, as it is not a long paragraph and info is important. Word "clash" was used by Russian press agency Novosti and by BBC ("ciocnire").--MariusM 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And when you juxtapose "clash" right next to the word "casualties" you introduce POV which is unjustified and has nothing to do with reality. These are infrequent (once a year), fairly peaceful incidents which are always solved quickly (in a matter of days) by the JCC who sometimes sides with Moldova and sometimes with Transnistria, depending on whose committing the infraction. - Mauco 14:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Clash was used by both BBC and Novosti, you can not deny it was a clash. I made a clear mention that no casualities occured to make things clear. Do you want to take out this mention? Why you reverted also the split of "violent incidents" in "antisemitic incidents" and "deadly explosions", which was agreed? Mauco, there are 4 editors which agreed on this section (me, TSO1D, Dl.Goe and Dpotop), you can not have veto rights on this article.--MariusM 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Read, please, what I wrote. So I save myself from the endless going-in-circles with you. 'Clash' is OK. Putting 'clash' next to 'casualties' in the same breath is not OK. Novosti or BBC didn't do that. If we do it, it is POV because it is making a mount out of a molehill. - Mauco 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
How about this then. To be honest, I don't think the word "clash" is unacceptable here, but I replaced it with confrontation, and as that does not alter the meaning of the sentence, I hope it will be agreed to. Also, I removed a repetitive phrase, and made some other minor changes:
"Some villages from the Dubăsari district, including Cocieri and Doroţcaia which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of Moldova after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the War of Transnistria. These villages along with Varniţa, a suburb of Tighina, and Copanca, south of Tighina, are claimed by the PMR. Tense situations have frequently surfaced due to these territorial disputes, for example in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca,[5], in 2006 around Varniţa, and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when a confrontation between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, however without any casualities."TSO1D 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The "continue to be claimed" can be replaced with the much simpler "are". My problem is not with the old word 'clash' or the new word 'confrontation', but the use of casualties in the sentence. They were just staring each other down until the JCC came and sorted it out. There was never any fighting. Not in 2005, not in 2006, not in 2007, and not in any earlier years since 1992. - Mauco 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I introduced those changes. Do you agree with the text in its current form? TSO1D 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel bad about nitpicking, but there is also listing issue of "frequently." Frequently is the mess that is happening in Kosovo. One event per year, lasting on average one or two days, is more like "infrequently." Please see what you can do with this version, which is based on yours:
"Some villages from the Dubăsari district, including Cocieri and Doroţcaia which geographically belong to Transnistria, have been under the control of the central government of Moldova after the involvement of local inhabitants on the side of Moldovan forces during the War of Transnistria. These villages along with Varniţa and Copanca, near Tighina, are claimed by the government of Transnistria. Tense situations occasionally surface due to these territorial disputes, however without any casualities." - Mauco 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Mauco's version is imprecise. I prefer TSO1D's.Dl.goe 11:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
![[14]](http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/images/tiraspoltimesnewsprint.jpg){kind=link}