Talk:Transnistria/Archive 14

New Changes

can somebody explain why is alaexis keep undo my posting on the mainpage? if there is no link about investigative stories about Transnistria, why was my post deleted? I understand that a russian doesen't want critical posts about transdniester but this wkipedia section is for international use - is not even the russian version of wikipedia.

You should've noted that not only I have reverted your contributions. They are highly pov imo, besides in wikipedia you don't just put links in the article and say that all the interesting info is there. Alaexis 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

define "pov imo" . they are journalistic articles. so, please be so kind and tell me where to post links to an interesting serie of investigative stories on transdnniester. done on the field by journalists living in the area. could you give me similar examples to those articles, russian boy? or could you give me an example of a similar investigation into transdniester?

It isnt nice to call someone "Russian boy", the editor has a name, you can use that if you want to address him directly, but he is right, you should read about wiki-pedias rules for links, they are here: WP:EL Pernambuco 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks in future. If these links deserve to be put in the article (which I doubt) they should go to the 'External Links: Romanian Sources' section. Regards. Alaexis 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulation Mauco

Please join me on congratulation to Mauco for his new article on http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/670 Viva Highland!!! Catarcostica 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Almond on Weapons

In his article via link 54 it says "...Despite admitting that Iraqi WMD in 2003 were an invention of febrile conspiracy theorists in the US government and their willing propagandists,". Who admitted to this, I don't recall that happening and it doesn't say in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanpops (talk • contribs) 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Recognition

I believe that if a sovereign country exists and functions independently and possesses all the modern virtues of a state,it is not right to just say that such a country does not exist. In the time before the middle ages, a country would be proclaimed and be sovereign and it would not need any "recognition" by another country, so Transnistria is in fact a sovereign, independent nation, only not recognised because of politics. I also believe that if a region or a people of a region wish to become independent,then independence is a fundamental right of their and no one can surpress this in any way. New Babylon 17:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the time before the middle ages the notion of sovereignty did not exist. Sovereignty, as it exists today, is a modern concept. Dpotop 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria is not sovereign. The PMR has de facto control. That's what it is. There is no such thing as "de facto sovereign." And please explain to me how the PMR is an expression of the people of the region when the authorities record who voted and for whom and the authority in place is supported by the presence of Russian troops. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the middle ages they used to burn people for being witches and claim countries by going to live there and building castles and telling everyone else to get lost... things have moved on a bit since then, in most parts of the world at least. I do agree though that if a country and its people want to be independent, and are running their system independently, then what other countries think shouldn't really matter too much. The only thing is that lots of people have doubts about the people controlling Transnistria, their motives, and how many people are just toeing the line for fear of gaining difavour from their superiors, govererners and police etc. In out modern world of mass media, air travel and the Global Community a lot of the more developed countries like to care (some may say, stick their noses in) about the affairs of other, lesser developed countries. Jonathanpops 09:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW: nobody has doubts about who's ruling Transnistria. It's Russia. But Russia is a great country, and few governments dare criticize it on such a minor subject as Transnistria. Dpotop 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as Russian troops continue their presence, nothing in Transnistria can be objectively represented as the will of the people. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on, get real. There is a multilateral peacekeeping force. It is not just Russian. Troops are also supplied by Moldova, Transnistria and Ukraine. And the OSCE participates in the management of this peacekeeping force. If Moldova hadn't attacked with MIGs, carpet bombing residential neighborhoods, none of this would have been necessary and the international troops would most likely have left a long time ago. - Mauco 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba's probably referring to the 14th army and Socor's articles. I understand that the MiGs were used only about once or twice with minimal results (bombs missed and fell into the Dniester). --Illythr 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, you misread my intent. As long as Russian troops remain... is exactly what I meant. I was not referring to any aspect of multilateralism. I meant Russian troops (and all related Russian presence) in particular. And you "get real" about troops otherwise leaving "a long time ago."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps elaborate how exactly do the ~1500 Russian troops strangle the free will of the people? A link to the corresponding Socor's (I'd wager) article will do. --Illythr 11:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been itching to ask the same thing for a while, but I restrained myself. Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use this page as a discussion forum. Vecrumba is from the Baltics where, for better or worse, they here a very special phobia involving Russians in uniform. His comments are par for the course for Baltic political discourse, but they are rarely shared with the same level of zeal by non-Balts. - Mauco 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And are we forgetting the head of the PMR armed forces left the Russian army to take over after the Russian army appeared in Transnistria? And all those that retired from the Russian military and joined the PMR armed forces? Please, itch away. As long as Russia is in the PMR it's clear who is who. One Russian tank a day is sufficient to make the point. After all this is a territory which has never seen post-Soviet freedom. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fresh off the BBC news site, March 7, 2007 update: "The ongoing presence of Russian troops has been a stumbling block in peace talks and the West is concerned about the Soviet-era arsenal in the territory. A pull-out began in 2001 but was halted when Trans-Dniester blocked the dispatch of weapons. Subsequent agreements to resume failed to reach fruition. ... In 2004 a Russian-brokered plan, which would have made the presence of Russian troops permanent, sparked mass protests in Moldova and was shelved. Ukraine has since come up with settlement proposals but these too have stalled." Multilateral peace keepers? Unilateral stumbling block. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, would you mind pointing out the Russian army that appeared in Transnistria? More on your talk page. --Illythr 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro change

I think I haven't added anything new with this changes. Does anyone disagree that Transnistria is a republic? If it's not DFI it must be de-facto part of some other country and it has to be proven. Alaexis 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the change? Maybe I missed it or someone else reverted you? To answer your question: Transnistria is de-facto like an independent republic but it is part of Moldova in the eyes of the international system. It is not clear from the introduction but that is actually the current situation. Ştefan44 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was indeed reverted but I'm going to change it back in a few minutes. The only change is 'breakaway territory'->'de-facto independent republic'. The words 'within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Eastern Europe' remain and make it clear for anyone that Transnistria is considered part of Moldova by other countries and international organisations. The wording proposed by me is kind of unofficial standard on wikipedia - it has been adopted for almost all other unrecognised states. Alaexis 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"de-facto independent republic" is a POV how about "under de-facto military occupation". Pleace read WP:NPOV EvilAlex 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "de-facto independent republic" is POV. Look at the de-facto article. It's written there that:

A de facto government is one that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.

ps. This definition is taken from the Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504. Alaexis 12:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a disagreement whether Transnistrai is an independent republic. Transnistria curently is under de-facto military control of Russian 14-th army. Vast majority of transnistrian government officials are not native born transnistrians. Smirnov itself was born in Kamchatka. If you insist on including your POV in the main article then everyone should be able to include their opinion too. EvilAlex 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have statistics about the birthplaces of Transnistrian officials? Yevgeni Shevchuk, the speaker, was born in Rybnitsa, for example. Anyway the fact that Igor Smirnov was born in Kamchatka does not prove that Transnistria is ruled by Russia.Alaexis 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found these statistics in the Parliament of Transnistria article. It's a bit weird but it's not a direct proof of total Russian control over Transnistria. After all only 9 of 43 mps were born in Russia. Most of those who were born outside of Transnistria moved there dozens of years before the war as a result of the industrialisation of Transnistria. Some were born in the areas of Ukraine adjacent to Moldova (like Chernovtsy or western Odessa region) so it's no wonder they came to Transnistria. Alaexis 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

who cares if you are Russian who was born in Eastern occupied Germany or in Kazakhstan and then migrated to Transnistria. What i am saying is that i seriously dough that Transnistria is a Independent Republic. When natives will be represented in the government only the i will belive. Only 15%+ of government officials where born in Transnistria. All others are emigrants, the nation have been ruled by forefingers. Look at Smirnov and sons, litskai... EvilAlex 17:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

no, it is more than 15%. Even so, would you say that the governor of California is a representative of an occupying force because he was born in Europe, and not in the USA? Get real. These people were elected. If Moldova won't recognize the election, that is Moldova's problem. They are recognized by the people who live there, and that is what matters. Anyone is free to vote for whom they want. - Mauco 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between California and Transnistria: In California people are free to choose their leaders. In Transnistrian people are ruled by dictator for 15 years now. 172.207.17.95 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, lots of these folks came to Transnistria when they were kids. It strains credibility to think that Moscow would send two-year olds to Tiraspol twenty years in advance of a planned takeover, in order to maintain control of Moldova. Oops, I take that back: Historically, Transnistria was never part of Moldova. But it was populated by South Slavs, and it part of Kievan Rus, more than a thousand years ago. And it has been a formal part of the Russian empire since 1792. Compare this to Moldova: A traditional part of Romania. The Dniester river was the border. - Mauco 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the definition of de facto, it fits. The question now is: Can anyone document how Transnistria is NOT a de facto independent republic within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova? - Mauco 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple: Government officials does not represent the nativ population. that is the formula for occupation. EvilAlex 17:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. They are recognized by the population as valid, legal representatives of the will of the people. If you do not want to agree that Transnistria is a de facto independent republic within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova, then you must state how this is not so. Document with reputable sources, please. - Mauco 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts says the opposite: Not a single country recognize Transnistria as an independent country. The reality is quiet opposite: many countries (including Russia) stated that they recognize territorial integrity of Moldova. EvilAlex 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the intro change, but it wouldve been better if Mauco and Vecrumba could tell is they agree too, well Mauco said yes, what does Vecrumbas say? the reason I ask is because these two made the original compromise, but of course I can see that the compromise already has been forgotten, because the compromise between them did never include the word 'breakaway' and it also had the word 'officially', and that word is left now, so maybe it doesnt matter and we just need to forget about the compromise and instead put in the article what is the best and most accurate description. Like I said, I support the intro change, it is the same way all the other unrecognized countries have it in the articles Pernambuco 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the original compromise proposal broke down a long time ago and Vecrumba never did much to defend it. Go ahead and use the factually accurate Aalexis version instead. - Mauco 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No i dont support the intro changes. EvilAlex 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When you reverted the article you've also reverted the valid changes Ştefan44 had made. Besides you haven't answered to the arguments raised on the talkpage. Alaexis 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont see arguments i see POV. There is no agreement on removing this line:Its independence has not been recognized, and its legal status continues to be an issue of contention. EvilAlex 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This line is still in the article. It has never been removed, and nor should it. However, you are trying to remove nearly a whole month worth of work by a dozen other editors without any prior discussion here in Talk. Please don't do this, EvilAlex. - Mauco 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We had an agreement: between region, territory, state, republic,... we choose territory. Now you try to change it. Be a man of your word, stick to the previously achieved agreement.EvilAlex 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As part of a much larger compromise on the intro, which we all know is no longer observed by anyone anymore.

Short reality check:

In early 2006, TSO1D and I developed a convention on the naming issue, starting with the following words:

* "Transnistria, officially Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR (short form: Pridnestrovie), is ..."

This was respected for most of the year, until MariusM / EvilAlex / others objected.

In late 2006, Vecrumba and I instead developed an alternative compromise, starting with these words:

* "Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution) is ..."

If no one can even respect something as basic as conceding that Transnistria officially calls itself Pridnestrovie in its own constitution, we had better start off from scratch. In doing so, it is admirable that several other editors (including Alaexis and Stefan44 who is not pro-Transnistria) looked to other Wikipedia articles to find out how these issues are dealt with. Meanwhile, it is clear that "the previously achieved agreement" is only invoked by EvilAlex when it suits his own purposes. - Mauco 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't agreed to anything with you guys :). De facto independence has nothing to do with formal recognition by other states. Alaexis 21:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alaexis, we are not here to make make new states and republics. We are here to write the chronology of the history. EvilAlex 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that EvilAlex was referring to me with his "be a man of your word" comment. However, as I just pointed out, the so called "previously achieved agreement" that he refers to (which you weren't part of) is no longer in force and should not be a barrier to factual accuracy in Wikipedia. If he wants to invoke it, the first thing he could do is to start the article with the words "Transnistria, officially Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR (short form: Pridnestrovie), is" ... but somehow I think he won't do that. - Mauco 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maco is a lier. Shame on you. How easily you withdrew your words and promises. EvilAlex 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is abusive behavior, besides being wholly incorrect. It would be more credible if supported by DIFFs. - Mauco 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Reindented) The PMR is a de facto independent TERRITORY. Republic is beyond POV. The word "republic" absolutely must be stricken from the intro. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And P.S., I did defend the compromise. Ironically it was the editors on my side that thought I had gone too far in compromising. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So far only you have the problem with the word 'republic' (afaik). What are your arguments? Alaexis 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the word "republic". Contrary of Abkhazia, which was an autonomous republic during Soviet Union recognized even by Georgian (Soviet) authorities, the status of "republic" for Transnistria is only self-declared.--MariusM 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument. The United States was also "only" self-declared, and it is a republic too. In fact, unilateral declarations of independence are the most common method in the world for creation of new states. In this context, any former or historical status has very little bearing on the legitimacy of statehood. - Mauco 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a republic does not require recognition by the international community. Consider the following definition:

Republic (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president.

It's from Webster's dictionary - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary . Alaexis 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And, at the risk of bursting someone's bubble, may I also point out that even the USA, a separatist movement par excellence, was itself an unrecognized country for many years. - Mauco 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Mauco, how I've missed our spirited exchanges as I have been tending other Wiki-fires. The United States was de facto independent until the Peace Treaty of 1783 with England in which England ceded sovereignty over American-held territory. Republic, just like "country," signifies a level of recognition by the international community which does not exist. "Republic" is wholly unacceptable. Making a case for "republic" can't be based on the endless uninformed comparisons to "America declared itself free" or the simplest web-available definition one can find and interpret to their individual POV. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've presented a definition from the most widely known (American) English Dictionary. Transnistria clearly fits in it. Since wikipedia does not have a special policy about which countries should be called republics the standard definition could be used. Alaexis 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation of republic. Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.[1]. Now according to official PMR data, only 15 members of the parliament out of 43 were born on the territory of Transnistria. Now we have a state that does not represent the Transnistrian people. We have a state that represent the will of foreign power - majority of government officials are foreigners - not natives. It is not a republic it is an enclave. EvilAlex 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex, check the 3rd meaning of the word 'republic' in your own reference. Transnistria is surely a republic in this meaning. Alaexis 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! To understand What is a republic you will have to look much dipper that few line sentence interpretation. I will advize to read (and if possible to understand) the interpretation of republic that was given by Niccolò Machiavelli. The 1st meaning much closer to Machiavelli interpretation of the republic. The rule by many... EvilAlex 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice book, the best book of his imo. However it's not very relevant. The word is now used as it's used and the dictionaries confirm it. Alaexis 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong answer. Parliament elected by the people. All members of parliament are Transnistrian citizens. And among the foreign-born component, you are forgetting something: When they were born, they were born in the same country. It was called the Soviet Union back then. They are not foreigners. - Mauco 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"Parliament elected by the people" - Are you sure? Is there a freedom of speech? is there an opposition newspaper? is there an independent opposition MPs? - NO,NO,NO... pro Smirnov left OR pro Smirnov right. They are not Transnistrians they dont share our common culture and values. They dont share our problems and fear they support Mother Russia. When the members of parliament will represented the people of Transnistria, then and only then it will be a republic. But for now it is an enclave. EvilAlex 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria, where the authorities produce lists of voters' names and who they voted for in order to "prove" they are a "democracy." No election can be considered democratic until the Russians leave. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see what real encyclopedias call Transnistria, see this [2].--Tiraspolitan 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed!!! Citation from Britannica:
Transnistria (secessionist territory)[3];
Moldova's breakaway Transnistria region[4];
the separatist enclave of Transnistria[5]
EvilAlex 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by EvilAlex

Did anyone see what EvilAlex did today, he showed up and undid a whole month of work, and it is something like 25 reverts on the page, does anyone mind if I restore the page to the normal version? This is similar to the bonaparte-person, why can these people not propose their changes and discuss them first???? Pernambuco 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone else apparently already restored to the pre-EvilAlex version, but if EvilAlex insists, just go ahead and restore the page again. Meanwhile, he will be blocked for 3RR.[6] He was warned (twice) but decided to ignore it. He never discussed any of his changes here, or sought consensus in any way, shape or form. - Mauco 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not exactly a great fan of Alex' work, a few of his (reverted) changes were actually valid, if made in a rather aggressive way. For example, did some EU countries really send humanitarian aid to Transnistria? And if yes, then what countries? I am only aware of the aid that came from Russia. --Illythr 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

yes i agree but in that case why dont he ask about it, for instance check with the person who introduced it (not me), or put a fact-tagging request, and then if there is no source for it, delete it later as unsourced Pernambuco 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Illythr. The fact that EvilAlex reverts idiocies in a blunt manner does not mean he is not entitled to do it. I am sincerely happy he is here, because I don't have the time myself to undo all the pro-Transnistrean propaganda of some of you, guys. It's disgusting, frankly. Dpotop 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fighting fire with fire, eh? Unfortunately, if Alex keeps doing this in such a way, he'll discredit his cause just as Mark Street did his own. --Illythr 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex was blocked only because he tried to show you the factual errors in article. That is what i call injustice. --TraliValy 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you used and open proxy for this one. Circumventing a block is a punishable endeavour. Anyhow, I think that presenting your issues with the text on the talk page instead of constantly reverting to your preferred version would've been a much better idea. --Illythr 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

I added a POV tag. The article does not follows wikipedian guidance on WP:NPOV.
Here is my proposal to make it neutral: [7]. EvilAlex 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking a quick glance at it, it actually looks even more POV. For starters, you open with the words "breakaway territory". None of the other unrecognized countries are described this way in their respective Wikipedia articles. Shouldn't the Transnistria article follow the NPOV standards used in the rest of Wikipedia? - Mauco 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV standard reflects those like you who insist only they are "neutral." I thought we agreed a long time ago that because of the so-called controversy over the so-call legitimacy of the so-called democratic regime of the self-called PMR we would source only externally to Wiki. There has been a veritable Wiki-cottage-industry seeking to impart legitimacy to breakaway territories within the former U.S.S.R. Please leave those POV contentions in those articles. PMR = territory or region, not republic, in intro. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

we could change that to:
Pridnestrovie) is a region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Eastern Europe.
How is that? EvilAlex 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The last version could be applied to, say, Gagauzia, as it's a region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova without any doubt. The important thing is that Moldova has no control over this territory currently and that it (Transnistria) considers itself to be independent. This should be reflected in the first sentence of the intro imho. Alaexis 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have that line:
Transnistria declared itself a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on 1990-09-02 (as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) and subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has exercised de facto control over most of the Transnistria region
EvilAlex 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear that EvilAlex may be missing the point: The current intro is simply standardization to match how other unrecognized countries are dealt with in their respective Wikipedia articles. Alaexis said as much in his edit summary when he first introduced the change. See the logs. - Mauco 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't push POV "standardization" in other articles into this article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That IS actually a GOOD point. Each case must be decided on its individual merits. Now, I happen to believe this one has merit, but I also understand the need for open debate and why it is good that we reach a compromise that everyone here can live with. You are making some sense here, Vecrumba. I am listening. - Mauco 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a disagreement whether Transnistria is an independent republic or under the foreign military occupation. We simply cannot call it a country or independent republic. we can call it a region, territory, whatever.. EvilAlex 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Alaexis. Insofar as the same phrasing is used on other Wikipedia articles dealing with unrecognized countries, I fail to see how it can be POV to do the same (not more, not less) when it comes to Transnistria. There is nothing wrong with EvilAlex adding a POV tag in good faith, providing he does not do so to be disruptive and is in fact willing to discuss his concerns in order to make the article better. - Mauco 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Temporary protection

Temp protection has been applied to stop edit war, expiry 48 hours, at 0200 UTC 6 March 2007. You can still edit this talk page.Rlevse 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I personally have an issue with the graveyard information, which I find poorly sourced, from one side only, and thus biased. It frankly does not reflect reality, based on my knowledge of the nearly one year development of the events related to this Bender cemetery. But I will look for more sources before I bring it up here. I believe the issue of international relations (and lack thereof) ought to be covered with three or four sentences. I will propose them here to get feedback from others before they are incorporated into the article. I also support TSO1D's desire for a copy edit, but none of that is urgent. I can't see how an edit war could develop as long as others remember that deep reverts, such as the serial attacks by EvilAlex blanking and overwriting the past 100+ edits, should not be done without prior discussion and a semblance of consensus. - Mauco 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what could happened if Maucos dirty hands get hold on Transnistrian page. The article now reflects the Maucos personal views. Wikipedian policies? What Wikipedian policies? Mauco has truly showed his intention to continue long lasting tradition of a true Soviet NKVD followers to: disrupt, to lie and to deceive ordinary readers in order to enforce his ideology on entire Wiki community. Bravo comrade Mauco! Bravo! EvilAlex 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not inclined to respond to ad hominem argumentum ad personam by EvilAlex or anyone else. Most of my edits to the page this year have been very minor. And unlike EvilAlex et al, I usually discuss major changes first. If there is anything factually incorrect in the article, it should of course be fixed. - Mauco 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex, you're really discrediting yourself with this kind of rhetoric. Drop the personal attacks and stick to the facts, sources and diffs if you want to further your point. --Illythr 14:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! Peace. EvilAlex 14:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Mauco is using unfair methods of editing Transnistria related articles. He said I usually discuss major changes first false. He didn't discuss the changes in which he removed human rights content. Further more, he removes Romanian sources based on Transnistrian ones, giving full credit to Transnistrian and no credit to Romanian ones. I would say Mauco has an insulting and inhuman conduct. I note here how he responded when I added the paragraph about Transnistrian authorities destroying and profaning a cemetery: Emotional outbursts are uncalled for in an encyclopedia.. The context is here:[8]. Personally, I don't want peace, and I am less and less willing to speak to Mauco.Dl.goe 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposition parties or publications banned?

I propose to change this :

No opposition parties or publications are banned. Political candidates in favor of unification with Moldova are allowed to stand in elections,In Transdniester, presidential candidates disagree on common state with Moldova Tiraspol Times. Dec. 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 although they rarely achieve more than 5% of the votes from the electorate.Transdnestr Central Election Commission announces final results on presidential election Regnum News Agency. Dec 13, 2006. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 Likewise, unionist political partiesTransnistria: New Social Democratic party wants union with Moldova Tiraspol Times. Feb. 6, 2007. Retrieved 2007, 2-19 and newspapers are legally registered and operating freely.Man and His Rights (in Russian)

to this:

n November 2006, the Moldovan press reported that the offices of the Rîbniţa district committee of the Communist Party in Transnistria were closed by the local Transnistrian authorities.PCRM indignant at Tiraspol’s decision to hinder Transdniestrian Communist Party’s work. The Communist Party of Moldova condemned the act and claims it was closed under false pretenses.Transnistria.md report of Communist office closure

Some parties and publications were banned. People's Power Party led by Supreme Soviet member Alexander Radchenko was banned in May 2001; after an appeal the ban was lifted but was reintroduced in December 2001, again the ban was lifted to be reintroduced in August 2002 and confirmed by the "Supreme Court" in December 2002.Mihai Grecu, Anatol Ţăranu - The policy of linguistic cleansning in Transnistria, page 26-27.

"Power to the People" Party led by Nicolae Butchatsky was banned in February 2002 Mihai Grecu, Anatol Ţăranu - The policy of linguistic cleansning in Transnistria, page 27.

On November 14, 2001, the Transnistrian customs service banned the distribution of the publication "Glas Naroda", as it contained Radchenko's electoral platform. Radchenko said in a press conference that "Glas Naroda" has been published outside Transnistria because all the printing houses had refused to print it after having discussed the issue with representatives of the Ministry of State Security Mihai Grecu, Anatol Ţăranu - The policy of linguistic cleansing in Transnistria, page 27.

EvilAlex 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The first line correctly summarizes actuality. The proposed replacement does not. Besides being old and outdated, and not relevant to the current political reality of Transnistria today in 2007, the proposed information is one-sided and highly biased. All of this comes from only two sources. Both are pro-government Moldovan. A cursory look reveals that both of them are full of numerous factual errors and highly misleading. Can you find any independent sources that confirm the same? Maybe something oppositionist or from outside Moldova? And, more importantly, why should the article remove a brief, snappy summary of the current status (2007) with a longwinded essay on past misdeeds which have since been corrected? Unless drastically improved to qualify for Wikipedia's standards, I for one must reject your suggestion. Sorry. - Mauco 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So if i understood you correctly: you would like to erase entire Transnistrian history and start from the scratch. In your case the references point to a highly controversial portals as regnum and tiraspoltimes. EvilAlex 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not understand me correctly. You misunderstood me. Please read my response again. It states my position and my requests quite clearly. - Mauco 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it state that:No opposition parties or publications are banned where in fact the opposite is happened. This line is a clear POV. You just closed your eyes. "snappy summary of the current status (2007)" - you erased the past. You started from the scratch! That is not the way how wiki should be written. EvilAlex 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's true there's no reason to ignore the facts listed by EvilAlex. However the references should be to more neutral sources since Moldovan ones are likely to be biased. Alaexis 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets compare the references:
My references - Moldova.org: Moldova.org is a non-political, non-governmental and non-commercial portal that provides Moldova's and international news. Moldova.org was launched in February 1997 (and sustained by their volunteer efforts through 2003) by Vlad Spânu (then a senior diplomat at the Moldovan embassy in Washington, DC). It became the best and most comprehensive information source about Moldova in English language. In 2003-2006[9]
Mauco References - tiraspoltimes.com: Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website.
The article, which the site says was "adapted" by a journalist named Michael Garner, appears to support Transdniester's claim to independence.
"I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says.[10].
Conclusion Refs provided by me are more reliable than Maucos. EvilAlex 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never written I'm a great fan of Tiraspol Times. It could be useful sometimes but it ceratainly is not an example of ideal objectivity. Nevertheless the references to Moldovan sites (even to non-governmental ones) are not any better. Alaexis 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to let the argument get sidetracked. It is not about any particular source (in this case, the Tiraspol Times) but about a very basic question: Are there any banned parties in Transnistria today? The answer is no. Earlier this year, the Social Democratic party was legally registered and its candidates are allowed to stand in any election despite the fact that the party advocates unification with Moldova. Are any publications banned, closed down or prohibited in any way? The answer is no. There is a strong opposition press, some of it even partly funded with money from Chisinau. The opposition has both an online presence and full, legal distributions at newsstands in Tiraspol, Bender and some of the other major cities. - Mauco 16:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Great speech! The only things that are missing are references. EvilAlex 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times is only one out of a number of references. It was chosen because it is in English. Dozens of other sources back up the same claims, but most of them are non-English. EvilAlex is arguing that just because something is published in a Transnistria newspaper, it is automatically untrue. I am surprised that I need to say this, but the mere fact that something appears in Tiraspol Times does not mean it is not factually correct. Barring evidence to the contrary, I stand by the following statement of fact: There are no banned publications in Transnistria at this point in time, and no banned political parties. - Mauco 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reputation is everything! Basic physiology: if someone lied ones - there is a great chance that this will happened again! There is a huge black spot on the face of Tiraspoltimes. Tiraspoltimes is not reliable anymore. EvilAlex 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reality-check: There are no banned political parties in Transnistria today and opposition parties are allowed, even parties which advocate unification with Moldova. No publications are banned either, and an active opposition press exists. End of story. You are referring to an outdated 2001 incident which was later overturned (twice, no less). And if you introduce factual, non-biased sources you will discover that the situation - even back then - was a lot more nuanced than EvilAlex's proposal makes it out to be. - Mauco 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki should be build on a history brick by brick. Not the way you want - start from the scratch. EvilAlex 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are attributing wrong motives to me. Please focus on the edit, and stop with the ad hominem. May I kindly ask that current, factual and fully sourced information be allowed to stay in the article. Do not remove it, only to overwrite with a long tirade of dubiously sourced, outdated information which no longer presents an accurate picture of the current political reality of Transnistria. - Mauco 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Transnistria may be a better place for this (upd: Oh, it's already there!). I see no reason not to mention a short summary here as well. I mean, a banned party no longer officially exists, so you can't really say that there are any banned parties today. And it doesn't overrule the fact that some of those parties were banned. --Illythr 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but before this happens, EvilAlex is obliged to provide better sources than the Grecu book. From my own knowledge of the situation, the case always centered on just one single party. It slightly changed its name to circumvent the on-and-off ban (from 2001 to 2002), similar to what Kommersant did in Moldova when it was outlawed and instead became Kommersant Plus. Note also that a banned party can still exist even after a ban: Some Communist Parties were banned in parts of Eastern Europe for some years in the 1990s, but existed illegally as underground parties. In this case, it was much less draconian. The "banned" politicians have been active in politics throughout, with no restraints. One was a full member of parliament until 11 December 2005, when he failed to get enough votes for reelection. He since relaunched his political career with a new come-back initiative, the PMR Social Democratic Party. It is pro-Moldova, is legally registered, and plans to field candidates in the next election. - Mauco 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"EvilAlex is obliged to provide better sources than the Grecu book"
All of the sources that have been provided by me - meet Wikipedian standards.
Re:"Note also that a banned party can still exist even after a ban"
Mauco you are trolling... It is a rubbish you talking now.
Re:"From my own knowledge"
Bla-bla-bla... We need sources, we need citations. We dont need your fairy tales.
EvilAlex 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I know it's really hard, but do try to stay civil. You seem to have some success in this, don't give up the effort!

Grecu's and Ţăranu's research is very POV and includes a lot of weird claims. It's may be a useful source at times, but stating anything in it as fact requires further scrutiny and, preferably, direct attribution.

A banned party can indeed exist, just not "officially", as I stated before.

The names of the two parties look pretty much the same indeed... --Illythr 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Grecu's and Ţăranu's research is very POV - could you point their errors? Could you discredit their reputation (the same way as Tom de Waal did to Tiraspoltimes). If not then they are reliable. EvilAlex 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

POV is not necessarily false. In this particular case, the report defines its goal quite clearly: to show how abhorrently evil Transnistria is. To that end, it does not employ lies. Instead, it picks up all sources, no matter how questionable, that have (or can be interpreted to have) something bad to say about the region and its authorities. I'm kinda surprised they didn't include your site a source as well. This basically means that information provided in that report should be attributed directly to whoever provided it, otherwise you can just as well state that Al-Quaeda has got training camps in Transnistria and the republic is providing every terrorist group in the world with weapons (page 20). Here I pointed out some more issues with it. --Illythr 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond further to EvilAlex if he can not respect the most basic talk page guidelines. This, effectively, handicaps him - not any of the rest of us - as it means that he can no longer justify any of his edits by claiming that they were discussed in Talk first.

But be that as it may. Before EvilAlex introduces the proposed change, more appropriate sourcing and a fuller understanding of the actual events at the time would be required. Mauco 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please do the same? In particular i would like to see replacements of all Tiraspoltimes references in this article. Lets fallow the steps of your logic and apply it to your sources too, after all i have more prove in unreliability of your references[11].
EvilAlex 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

For me is looks like this. Its is true that I did something to your mother, like 2-3 years ago, but now I'm a good guy. OK, I did that also 1 year ago...but I'm a good guy now. So, why your mother don't want to come to my party? She's afraid of something? (mother=opposition, guy=smirnov)Catarcostica 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute

I would like to add some statistic data on "blockade":
According to the data of Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration , during the two days of the partial border de-blocking by Tiraspol, various companies had managed to import nearly 1,400 tons of chicken meat into the Transnistrian region. And since the beginning of the year, Transnistria has already imported 12,600 tons of foodstuffs, including 9,700 tons of meat, 890 tons of fish, over a thousand tons of sugar, 18 tons of medicines.Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration statistic on food import in Transnistria Despite that in the following months Russia desided to send a humanitarian cargo's "to uphold vital sectors of society".
EvilAlex 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my own impression, too. The "economic blockade" argument rings a bit hollow, at least compared to REAL trade blockades and economic sanctions like those imposed on Iraq before the second Gulf War. "Border customs dispute" is a more accurate term, which is what Wikipedia quite correctly calls it. At the same time, there is no denying that the move did have an effect on the economy. Exports dropped massively from both Transnistria and Moldova in 2006. (In the case of Transnistria, because of Moldova's and Ukraine's move. In the case of Moldova, because of Russia's retaliation - which of course a direct result of the move). So in retrospect, the March 3, 2006, customs rules didn't do anything good for anyone. To declare a winner here is wholly inappropriate. - Mauco 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"In the case of Transnistria, because of Moldova's and Ukraine's move"
This one is a POV. How do you know that the vine embargo on Moldova didnt had the negative impact on Transnistria? EvilAlex 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Such POV does not appear in main article space. POV is of course allowed in Talk pages, as you yourself have amply showed us. - Mauco 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that Alex' version is any better than the current one. The latter should stay imho. Alaexis 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and notwithstanding another somewhat important detail. When Mikkalai (who is not Russian) developed this section, he added a note in the source which is still in place and which includes the following instructions: "Please do not expand this section beyond the very basic summary. Edit the "main article" instead". - Mauco 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The article wrongly mislead readers. It used such words as "economic blockade", Ukraine declared, Ukraine imposed. falsely misleading reader about the true state of affairs. In reality negotiation on normalization of the border crossing procedures have been discussed a few ears in advance. And Transnistrian government have been fully aware of that. (5tv.com.ua interview with Valeri litskaia)

The current version is not at all misleading. EvilAlex's summary of it, however, is quite so. To clarify: The article states that "Transnistria and Russia termed the act an "economic blockade". " Note the scare quotes around "economic blockade" and note that the article correctly attributes this to Transnistria's and Russia's definitition of the event. Wikipedia does not call it that, but merely reports, with sources, the term used by these two. This is not misleading in any way, shape or form. As for the use of the words "imposed" and "declared" they are also correct in the context of the article and the events that the article deals with. - Mauco 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It sound like Ukraine is some kind of aggressor. That is a POV. What is Ukrainians have done to you now? Where is your slav solidarity?. Mauco remember article should be written in NPOV - it should be neutral. We should categorically avoid use of that words. instead of imposed we should say introduced. instead of blockade or rules we could say "border crossing procedures" EvilAlex 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rules" (or the equivalent word "regulations", which is the one that appears in the article) is the most neutral word. And as for me, I am not Slav. - Mauco 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mauco ...he is not a slave. Catarcostica 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kozak memorandum

I would like to add this line:
On 21 November Sergei Ivanov (First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia) stated that "as guarantee for an independent intended federation, Russian troops would remain in Transnistria for the next 20 years." Moldavian President Vladimir Voronin refused to sign it.Netherlands Institute of International Relations - The OSCE Moldova and Russian diplomacy

EvilAlex 13:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Please spellcheck it and then add it to Kozak memorandum (an article to which the main article already links). Transnistria is merely an overview article and not to be clogged down in minutiae, least of all about a memorandum which never made it past the discussion stage. Remember the golden rule: "Summary here, details there." - Mauco 14:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that a detail of Kozak's memorandum (that never got implemented) hardly deserves to be put in the main article. Overall this is quite a minor issue imho. Alaexis 15:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand that this was presented as one of the main reasons of why Voronin refused to sign it, so it may be worth a mention somewhere. But what is a "guarantee for independent federation"? Sounds weird. --Illythr 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re"Sounds weird." Welcome to realty. EvilAlex 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Sounds weird" as in "Where did the word "indepedent" come from? Could you provide the source of the quote?" Maybe the original word was "neutral"?

sorry misspelled page 109. indepedent -> intended. EvilAlex 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read the report and it says that it was Transnistria, that demanded the "guarantee", as well as many other interesting details (I liked the the "don't do it" part most :-) ).

Based on the report, I'd suggest "Vladimir Voronin was initially supportive of the plan, but he refused to sign it after Russia had endorsed the Transnistrian demand to maintain a Russian military presence for the next 20 years as a guarantor of the intended federation, as well as due to pressure from the OSCE and US." --Illythr 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

we could include this citation in that article too. EvilAlex 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the whole "Secession to the present" section is already longer than it ought to be. At some point in the future, EvilAlex or someone else might want to try to trim it a bit, and then leave the deeper level of detail for the main History of Transnistria article. - Mauco 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Kozak Memorandum is the closest they came to a resolution, I think it should therefore be mentioned together with the reasons of why it failed. --Illythr 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That does make sense. I am not against adding it, but just concerned about the length of the section compared to the others in the History part. But later someone will hopefully find a way to trim the section by doing copy-edit in a way that just removes unneeded words without taking away any of the meaning. I took a look at the current four paragraphs in that section, and they are all good/useful. Removing one or more would do damage to the article, but careful copy-editing could probably shorten it by about a fifth without losing any meaning. - Mauco 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

International aid

There's currently a citation request on the following sentence: "In the months following the regulations exports from Transnistria nosedived and cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia and some EU countries to uphold vital sectors of society." From the editsummary by EvilAlex, only the last part seems to be in dispute. I believe we all know that exports nosedived and Russia sent aid, so the issue is if EU countries did the same.

Even though the edit wasn't mine, I did some research into this and found that it is somewhat true, but only a half-truth. Apart from Russia, aid in the period following the March 3, 2006, was received from OSCE (made up mostly of European countries) and from USA (not a EU country!), as well as from a few individual NGOs in EU countries, most notably Ireland. But here's the rub: An NGO is not a country. Thus, a more correct formulation would be "were sent from Russia and from NGOs in the United States and in the European Union to uphold vital sectors of society."

There is also some official involvement in the U.S. part of the aid, with the deliveries to Tiraspol having been organized by the U.S. State Department. However, I am not sure how we can include this in the article since I have no source for this information apart from internal State Department documents which are not public and can not be used for Wikipedia purposes. In view of WP:OR, it might be best to leave out any mention of this until such time it can be better sourced.

Finally, I also propose removing the words "to uphold vital sectors of society." While this was indeed the stated reason for much of the Russian aid, such reason is less clear in reference to the aid from OSCE, the USA and the NGOs in Europe. In fact, in the case of the OSCE aid, the purpose had to do with health and with prison conditions, and at least the latter is hardly a "vital sector of society."

If there are no objections, I would like to make these edits when the article gets unlocked. - Mauco 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My version:
In the following months cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russian Federation.
Regarding "aid from OSCE, the USA and the NGOs in Europe" i would like to see references, surely you dont expect me to believe in your words?! EvilAlex 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means that you agree... :-) --Illythr 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I write only the true! Yes cargos from Russia were send but: there wasnt a Ukraine imposed blockade, there wasnt a humanitarian catastrophe. Why did Russia sent this cargos? The answer - lets look at timing. At there same time there was an election in Ukraine and if any of you guys watched Russian TVs then you know that it was a show time!. EvilAlex 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources state that the Russian aid was sent in response to the hardship caused by the customs rules. No sources indicate that it had anything to do with "show time". But the "uphold vital sectors" bit should be left out anyway, IMHO. Just to make it clear: I am proposing to modify the disputed sentence to instead read as follows: "In the months following the regulations, exports from Transnistria nosedived and cargos of humanitarian aid were sent from Russia and from NGOs in the United States and the European Union."

This will of course be fully sourced. If the sources do not meet Wikipedia standards, feel free to point it out so I can either provide more or remove the content thus insufficiently sourced. - Mauco 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"hardship caused by the customs rules"
during the two days of the partial border de-blocking various companies had managed to import nearly 1,400 tons of chicken meat into the Transnistrian region[12] hardship? What hardship? Do you know what is 1,400 tons of chicken meat per small Transnistrian population? Well it approximately 2 kilo per person per day. Do you know what will happened if you will it so much meat? (Pardon me just scientific data) You will have a hemorrhoids.
Re:"from NGOs in the United States and the European Union" This one is not good. We need refs to support this statement.
EvilAlex 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, how importing foodstuffs is supposed to show that Transnistrian heavy industry is doing fine? Mauco agrees that "uphold vital sectors" should be removed and I see no "humanitarian catastrophe" in the article either. Although I think that the "humanitarian aid versus PR action" part could be expanded - in the respective article --Illythr 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! then following your logic let me ask you the opposite question: How humanitarian aid is supposed to help Transnistrian heavy industry? EvilAlex 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good point. By feeding the workers, I suppose. :-) Then again, maybe they were stockpiling it or something? Anyhow, here are the facts: exports did drop, a humanitarian catastrophe was declared and aid was sent. The Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration qualified this whole event as a planned PR action. --Illythr 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the great 'Chicken Smuggle of 2006': http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/search/node/frozen+chicken - Mauco 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, this was a lot of debate over just one sentence. I am not surprised that other editors are staying out of this one. Anyway, I don't see major opposition to my proposed changing and trimming of the disputed sentence (apart from EvilAlex's request for sources, which of course will be present in mainspace as promised by me and as required by Wikipedia). For expansion of the summary, I again remind everyone of Mikkalai's posted request: "Please do not expand this section beyond the very basic summary. Edit the "main article" instead". - - Mauco 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:"from NGOs in the United States and the European Union" - no agreement on this! OK regarding your refs:cmi.homestead.com does not support your statements. Also your refs to TiraspolTimes are questionable too[13] Could you provide alternative references? EvilAlex 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The CMI ref is ok. Look here. Alaexis 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont have anything against CMI. But in this particular case the link doesnt say that because of economic blockade CIM group decided to sand medical aid. No. As i understood it is a Christian group that helps prisoners, children, unfortunates people... it is nothing to do with "blockade". how Mauco wants to present. EvilAlex 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex wants to say that because something appears in http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/ it is by definition untrue. He has tried to do the same with references from Olvia Press, and anything else from Transnistria. He is wrong. - Mauco 13:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, reputation is everything! tiraspoltimes has damaged reputation.[14] EvilAlex 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to me. It is the most complete source for updated news from Transnistria which exists in the English language. Your mileage my vary, but I have already done independent factchecking on www.tiraspoltimes.com (including on the item that you keep dragging up). My conclusion is that, while somewhat biased, I find it to be more correct and accurate than the opposite side in the debate. TT often prints articles critical of the PMR government as well. As for your own link, please note that it is produced by an outfit which is funded by the American government and which Wikipedia lists under the following two categories: "United States government propaganda organisations" and "CIA front organizations" - Mauco 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

From my POV tiraspoltimes is just propaganda. Correct and accurate ?????? Can somebody move this paper under "Comic book" category ?? Catarcostica 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

weapons trade

This section should really be removed. Yes it had its place in a moment of time many years ago. Fears and allegations are no longer enough to support such a section. There are much more important articles such as Russian privatisation of Transnistrian industry and Offical Corruption and Russian political influence.Buffadren 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Official corruption? If you have the sources, go ahead and post them. I don't think there is more corruption in Transnistria than in Moldova (or in Ukraine for that matter), yet that word - corruption - is not given much space in either article. Mauco 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No offence but I can assure you I know quite a lot about this weapons area, When the curtain fell there was wholesale grey market weapons sales much of it went tfrough Ukraine. There was real fears back then that Transnistria was involved and this would cause disruption , not to mention that it would hurt legitimate American arms sales. It is only now we know that the only region that didn't sell weapons was Transnistria, They had a paranoid fear of Moldova and clung onto theor stockpiles like a vice grip. Everything they had , they still have, it seems they wouldn't sell a bullet. . Buffadren 11:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But it has serious corruption problems, that is a proper issue for the region now Buffadren 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the administrators a while back suggested that crime should be dealt with in the Crime in Transnistria article. That article can have a section on corruption, if the sources merit it. If we then use the same principle that we do for other content, this means that we still ought to have a summary in the main article. Along the lines of: Summary here, details there. - Mauco 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, get rid of the weapons article because doesn't hold water. The crime section is a bit weak too. However corruption does exist and is a much more serious problem. Also how Russian 'investment depletes Transnistria and how the Transnistrians are being turned to the Russians by outsiders. Look at this http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2 . Buffadren 12:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I against removing weapons trade section. Wiki should be build on a history brick by brick. If you have something new to add be my guest, but erasing it - it the same as to erase history.EvilAlex 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we understand each other. Do remember Transnistria is a changing place. We all need to change how we view it. What do other editors here think ? Buffadren 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also against the removal of 'weapons smuggling' section. It's well referenced and relevant. Btw the report on the CRJI site (http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2) is definitely POV imo. We should remember it's a Romanian site. Alaexis 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be Romanian, so what ? It is true.The weapons section is not a fair portrayal. Buffadren 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us not remove anything drastical for now. I suggest that anyone who has new information to add can do so on Crime in Transnistria. As that page grows, we can then re-visit the issue of perhaps including a more representative summary in the main Transnistria article. But for now, I support EvilAlex and his position on this issue: Let it stay. - Mauco 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine by meBuffadren 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Of EvilAlex

Mauco, I've seen your message saying that I should not help EvilAlex because doing so is turning him into a bad boy. I find your suggestion quite immoral. Somehow, you ask me to give up my oppinions and let you and your pro-Transnistrean propaganda group just to keep EvilAlex out of trouble. As if he were not smart enough not to overstep the rules. I remind you that you were grounded, too, on Transnistria-related subjects. You have 4 blocks, whereas EvilAlex has 5. And this difference is probably due to the fact that he is a bit loner than you are. Dpotop 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, my edits are prompted by the simple remark that EvilAlex's version is better (clearer, more NPOV) than yours. Dpotop 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are Mauco's group. I am no part of his group, indeed Mauco had reverted me more times than anyone here and even reported me for 3RR with a request to have me blocked. Evilalex is one person the really cares about Transnistria and is respected here. Buffadren 13:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted EvilAlex' last edit because (contrary to what he claims) the consensus about the first sentence had not been reached. Alaexis 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop: Edit warring is of course bad, whether engaged in by EvilAlex, by me, or by anyone else (including you). But "His version", as you call it, is basically a page where he overwrites and undoes a month full of edits and the work by a dozen people on the page, as the edit log of the past month shows. I was not the first to point this out, but if we are discussing what is "immoral", then such blatant disregard for the procedures of Wikipedia would fit the bill. I am not imposing a version, but merely - as others have also done - restoring the page from what I see as blatant, undiscussed blanking which is bordering on vandalism.

There should of course be an open, valid debate of POV and NPOV, and which intro is better. And this can naturally not be limited to the intro. But please note: The place for such a debate is here, in Talk. Nothing is achieved by seeing who can revert the most (and get blocked first) in mainspace. - Mauco 13:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

you have introduced the changes that haven't been agreed in the talk page. EvilAlex 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please seek consenus here first, but Mauco you have to give others the right to edit too. Evilalex behaves like this because he feels he is not listened to. Do I understand you Alex? Buffadren 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits are OK. Overwriting / blanking the improvements made by a dozen editors during the past month? That is hardly the same. When I and others have reverted, we have not undone any new work but merely restored the integrity of the page. - Mauco 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just pointed few factual error in the article. The article does not follow NPOV guidelines. Just read it: Ukraine imposed; Ukraine declared; Economic blockade,... author - Mauco! EvilAlex 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not write this. Mikkalai did. Anyway, it seems that Illythr is addressing your concerns. Personally, I believe "imposed" is a correct, descriptive word because the move was certainly introduced without any OK from the Transnistrian side. - Mauco 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Customs dispute trimming

This section is getting "longish". I propose a couple of small trims.
1. Change "The Moldovan Ministry of Reintegration had expressed concern over this declaration and called it "deliberate misinformation"." to "Moldova called the declaration "deliberate misinformation"." Half the size, and no meaning is lost.
2. Change "Of the major mediators of the conflict in the region, the United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the Ukrainian move" to "The United States, the European Union and OSCE approved the move" since EU and US are not mediators. They only have observer status. - Mauco 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This sentences just have been added and already you want to remove it on a false pretends! EvilAlex 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not remove, trim. In a way that makes the article shorter, more readable, and still preserves the full meaning. No context is lost. See copy-edit if you do not understand the concept, and please tone down the personal attacks. - Mauco 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I have no objection to that, except that "had expressed concern over this" should stay, IMO, as without it, the Moldovan statement looks kinda bad.

2. Perhaps a mention should be made, that they're in fact observers and not just some interfering foreign entities? --Illythr 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Has that ever stopped the United States from expressing its opinion anywhere? Oops, sorry - this page is not a political discussion forum. I agree with you, Illythr, but I try to keep the "summary here, details there" principle in mind. I have a lot of respect for what Mikkalai has done for Wikipedia over the years. - Mauco 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Its o.k. to "trim" but not take away meaning Pernambuco 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK dude, I'm in USA. And I will ignore you this time. But don't push your luck!!! Catarcostica 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey alex

Evilalex, I am rverting your last edit. There is a potential libel and its only inter media stuff. Buffadren 14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did it for you. Some of this is covered in the archives as well, and in the edit log. Besides, now we have a later, more updated and fuller link from the same source, which gives the complete background to the conflict. - Mauco 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco I see you deleted my text again removing 'separatist' Can we agree to practice what we are preaching.?Buffadren 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is really only one context where the word "separatist" is appropriate: During the time of the separatist struggle. Anything after that reflects the point of view of one side to the conflict, since the official Transnistrian position does not consider itself separatist. - Mauco 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea! Self-restraint.

Since everyone here claims to be of good faith, I have an idea to reduce edit warring on this page. We can all exercise self-restraint by:

1. Making at most one edit per user every day (including minor changes).
2. Making an edit after describing it on the talk page and then having at least 3 other editors agree upon it.

Of course, the agreement would fail the first time one editor does not respect it (but then, we would know who is the bad guy). As a token of good faith, I would ask we start from EvilAlex's version. :) Dpotop 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the moment of your proposal, EvilAlex was the only one to edit the article more than once, so he's the first one to violate it. :-P --Illythr 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That could have been by mistake Buffadren 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

His unrestrained actions today show otherwise. - Mauco 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want, Im fine with just one per day, in fact I am sometimes not online every day, but can others limit? there has to be the same rules for everyone, if someone can make ten edits in one day, someone else can do the same....... Pernambuco 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

war changes

The edits I made were only made to make the paragrapgh more easy to understand. Mauco reverted me and inserted his own extra twists Then Alex blasts off calling the Transnistrians 'rebels'. I feel like reverting the two of you.Buffadren 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

At that point Transnistrian side was a 'rebels' site. And after reading that paragraph i've got an impression that Moldova is an aggressor where in fact the opposite is happened. The rebel forces have been attacking police stations in Dubosary and in Bendery. Moldova responded by attacking rebels with Moldavian police and volontiry force (at that time Moldova didnt even had its own army - an aggressor without n army, interesting!!). EvilAlex 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I was doing, and it is wrong to call or infer that either side were Rebels or Aggressors when dealing with the Civil War. Buffadren 09:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference. I am not changing your meaning, Buffadren, but making your edits easier to read by doing copy-edit. In contrast, EvilAlex added a big section of non-encyclopedic language talking about one sided attacks by rebel forces, and re-adding - twice - a part which has no place in a summary and which is already present in the detailed article on the customs conflict. - Mauco 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling edit summary. EvilAlex 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where?

Alex, if you want the part about the chickens to stay, you should at least link it up with the rest of the section somehow. The current version looks strange, jumping from one thing to another like that. --Illythr 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. EvilAlex 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

no, i have to say, it is out of place, it is something very detailed, and the part in this article is just a summary. So really, the details need to be in the article that deals with the customs thing, and I checked, and it is already there, so it can go from the overview Transnistria article, dont repeat all the details both place, if people want details they go to the second one Pernambuco 05:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Alaexis 08:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article: "in work"

I will spend a lot of time for improving this article. --Verynever 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'll have to revert your changes.

Looks like something familiar, btw. Alaexis 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Fake Photo at Tiraspol Times Website?

Is it just me or does this photo of "Anatoly Semerenko, the country's #1 bodybuilder, stands in front of Pridnestrovie's parliament" look totally fake? http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 Jonathanpops 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It, uh, looks like a painting, actually. Or at least heavily Photoshop'd. Shouldn't you be posting this over there? --Illythr 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Illythr is right. This page (here) is for dealing with edits to the article. But since the thread is already open, my own 2 Купон's: Scroll down to the end of the text of http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 and look for a link which says "On the web: » Anatoly Semerenko photo gallery" and links to http://fbb.land.ru/foto/index_p3.htm, then scroll down to the end of that page, and the same photo appears. Click on it to see a VERY large version. Then look for Photoshop artifacts. I am no expert, so I'll not venture to give a verdict. But Illythr or anyone else with time could also write to Anatoliy Semerenko and ask him, since he just happens to be president of the federation whose site his picture appears on. - Mauco 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

well, the Tiraspol Times page already suggests that the content may be dubious, but this pages uses the website as a reliable source - it has a badge that says "Get the Facts", clearly "The new Arnold: Anatoly Semerenko, the country's #1 bodybuilder, stands in front of Pridnestrovie's parliament" is not a fact. I guess I'm just adding to the list of false claims found at Tiraspol Times in a attempt to discredit the site as a useful external link, or perhaps hoping we may one day label it as having some dubious content? Jonathanpops 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it quite as harshly. It is a photo caption, and if it is falsified in any way, then clearly Tiraspol Times did not do the falsification. The photo is from Semerenko's own site, and they make no attempt to hide the link which leads directly to it. Besides, the background IS the PMR parliament building. It could be a painting, as Illythr suggests, or it could just be that it is out of focus due to the photographer focusing on Semerenko. If this is a concern to anyone (it isn't a concern to me), then why not just ask Semerenko himself instead of double guessing? I have both his email and his work and home phone numbers, for anyone who wants. They are from the "Kontakt" page on his website. - Mauco 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't really call it a major concern, just another example of dodgy reporting. It is NOT a picture of him in front of the parliament building, like it says, but a picture of him in front of a picture of the parliament building. I'm not interested in Semerenko, he has no control over what a website writes about one of his pictures I'm sure. Jonathanpops 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't WHAT it is (or if is a painting) until someone asks Semerenko. - Mauco 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a bid deal. I agree with Mauco this time. Catarcostica 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnathanpops claims this is a fake photo and then it is then proven the photo came from the politician's own website. The Tiraspol Times clearly lifted it from the site as any paper would do and do. Johnathanpops is the one reporting false information to discredit Tiraspol newspapers. The question is why? Perhaps he has his own media interests. Johmathanpops who is very concerned about press transperancy should state clearly now if he has any connection with any publishing outlet. Scrapersky 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Mark. I must admit I didn't realise that it was leeched from another website until Mauco pointed it out. Still, it's patently obvious, to me at least, that's it's not a photo of somone in front of a building but rather a photo of someone in front of a picture of a building (behind some trees, way in the background). So I think it's just bad reporting rather than bad reporting and photo manipulation on the part of the website called Tiraspol Times. I already stated my reasons pretty clearly in my last message. I'm not comparing the Tiraspol Times to any other website, I'm just saying I think the content is of a highly dubious nature. I don't have any other websites to offer up as being any better. Jonathanpops 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Referendum

This article on Portalul ONG-Moldova talks of "a national referendum on independence". An official statement by the United States Dept of State talks of an "independence referendum" in headline and body text. And, of course, the site we all love to hate has something like a hundred references to the same term (some are quotes from neutral third parties).

Looking inhouse, we even use the term for a similar event in a very similar setting. - Mauco 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no "transdnistia" nation. You can use " independence referendum". Catarcostica 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Independence

Now, really, how should we go about PMR's independence? It declared itself a separate SSR, so it's certainly not "from the USSR". During the declaration there was no Republic of Moldova, so, technically, it's not "from Moldova" either. Maybe from MSSR? Uhh, *confused*. ---Illythr 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

September 2, 1990, is the official date. On that date, they declared independence from the Moldavian SSR. Not Moldova, not Soviet Union either. However, it is easy to get confused. They keep declaring independence all the time. They have done it in 1991 again, in 1995, and in 2005 with the new foreign policy objectives. Arguably, the referendum of 2006 could also be seen as an independence declaration since it was followed up with an official request by the PMR Supreme Council to a number of CIS parliaments for statehood recognition. It is sort of like a Monty Python skit: They keep declaring independence, again and again, but no one cares... They also declared independence from the Soviet Union (in 1991) but never from the Republic of Moldova since they don't consider themselves to have been part of Republic of Moldova in the first place. Remember that today's Republic of Moldova only came into being on August 27, 1991. - Mauco 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference between the Moldavian SSR, THE USSR and how the USSR is structured to begin with, in practice and principal. I just thought you might as well list the USSR since 1, Transnistria succeeded from Moldavia without permission and 2, USSR did not recognize it becoming a Soviet Socialist Republic or even remaining in the USSR SO Transnistria effectively left the USSR since its aim was independence and that was in conflict with the Russians/Soviets yet they maintain it. You should probally list its independence as coming from the USSR and Moldavian SSR and that Transnistria is the succesor state to the rogue PMSSR. What do you know about whats stated on the President of Transnistria page in terms of past leaders? - Vital Component 4:40am 3/13/07

First time I hear USSR didn't recognize Pridnestrovie as its part (via MSSR)... --Illythr 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Viktor Neumoyin Assassination

I guess we should add this http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13136774.htm to the violent incidents, or somewhere in the article? Jonathanpops 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. It is also here and here, with his photo. But please add it to Crime in Transnistria or else the main page will grow unwieldy over time. - Mauco 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that page existed, I'll move my section on the Border Corruption into that. Buffadren 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you added that a while back. It is good, but it is better in the detailed part. You didn't know it existed? It has been around for a while now. But I guess we forgot the 'See also' line. - Mauco 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does his name have different spellings, is it a language thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanpops (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

New site suggestion

I found this site http://www.transdniestria.com It is very informative. It should be included ? Buffadren 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes.For moment its just a bit better than tiraspol.com Catarcostica 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly better.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Recognition?

How can Russia recognize PMSSR as a a part of its territory yet recognize the Moldavian SSR's succesion?

The PMSSR was within the Moldovan SSR, so not part of either the Russian SSR now Federation nor of the Ukrainian SSR now the Ukraine. The PMSSR (whether it existed or not--its declaration was rejected by central Soviet authorities) would have ceased to exist with the demise of the Soviet Union, so there is nothing there for Russia to now recognize. Nor does Russia recognize sovereignty of the current PMR (Duma declarations supporting the "democratic aspirations" of the Transnistrians notwithstanding). ... unless there's new news? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragalina cemetery

I think this should be included in the article:

According to the Moldavian and Romanian press, in February 2007, Transnistrian authorities destroyed and profaned the Dragalina cemetery in Tighina (also known as The Romanian cemetery), thus violating the Geneva Convention. The Transnistrian authorities did not exhume the bodies; they only removed the crosses and leveled the terrain with bulldozers.319 identified Romanian and 14 unidentified soldiers, as well as 13 Soviet prisoners were buried at this cemetery.

References

Mauco removed the content writing: "This analysis puts the Ziua article into perspective."[15]

I don't understand Russian, and I don't know what the analysis he found contains. Ziua was not the only newspaper to publish this news: [16][17][18][19][20]...Dl.goe 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

can anyone read Russian and maybe just put a quick summary here or something, like D1.goe I have the same problem, cant read Russian but it would be nice to know, just the main points. The other item, about the geneva convention, well that is something you can delete at least, the reason is this, how can Transnistria violate a convention that it is not part of, or did it sign this convention, probably not because how can it sign a convention when it is just an unrecognized country and has not yet membership of the International organizations Pernambuco 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The gist of the article is that:

• The authorities in B/T are to reinter the exhumed soldiers outside of the city.
• Authorities have take steps so that the identities of exhumed soldiers are not lost.
• Another graveyard was moved recently as well, this one comprised of mainly ethnically Russian soldiers.

jamason 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I assume that Transnistria authorities didn't think they went against the Geneva Convension, but we aren't talking about what Transnistria authorities think are we? I think the main question is, is Moldova covered by the Geneva Convention, as Transnistria is part of Moldova in the eyes of other countries involved, the same countries that no doubt would see this as a violation, if it's true. Jonathanpops 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been some questions wether profaning a cemetery is violating human rights[21][22]. I think refering to Geneva Convention as international law is appropriate.Dl.goe 10:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we add this to the previous text:

"While according to the Romanian edition of Deutsche Welle, the Transnistrian authorities announced that the crosses will be smashed up with explosives and, in a mixture with asphalt will be used to repair the roads of the city[23], according to PMR News, the authorities in Transnistria are to reenter the exhumed soldiers outside of the city, authorities have taken steps so that the identities of exhumed soldiers are not lost.[24]"

Dl.goe 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've introduced the new paragraph in the article. I will remove the content template if no one opposes.Dl.goe 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont oppose Pernambuco 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Pernambuco. I do oppose. But since I wasn't here, and in fact didn't make an edit to the article in nearly 2 weeks, I will let the active editors decide. Personally, I feel that this level of detail belongs in the detailed article Human rights in Transnistria. If it then merits an inclusion here, it should be a oneliner overview with a wikilink for those who want to see the full story. Details here, summary there. - Mauco 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PMSSR recognition

Russia could have not recognized the PMSSR as sovereign of the Moldovan SSR yet as territory that did not want to leave. Any SSR that did not leave would probally be attacked to the Russian SFSR anyways so they could recognize the internal succesion then not recognize the PMR's since that would be like leaving after they went thru the trouble to join. Check out my presidential graph. Vital Component

I added a headline because i dont think this comment was about the graveyard, also theres an article about it, it is Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic ......Pernambuco 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)