Jump to content

Talk:Transnistria/Archive 13

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

Is Transnistria a sovereign state?

[edit]

I would also like to say something about Political status chapter: Mauco, introduced:

Transnistria is sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. It has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states.[1]

just before he blocked the page. His edit summary was:m (→Political status - sentence on sovereignty. Uncontroversial: Moved textually from List of sovereign states's existing definition of Transnistria) The text he moved textually is:

Five states, neither UN members nor recognised by any states that are, but sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

I find it unacceptable: at List of sovereign states it is written clearly:The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute. Mauco also introduced unsourced and biased material at Economy chapter.Dl.goe 10:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dl.goe. i still have to see which other state entered in relations with Transnistria. Dpotop 10:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check: Montevideo does not require relations with foreign states. It merely requires the "capacity" to enter into relations with foreign states. - Mauco 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? Montevideo convention was signed only by some countries from America. No European country signed Montevideo convention, and Moldova also didn't sign it. Montevideo is only one of hundreds obsolete treaties of history. As a general rule, Mauco, don't introduce changes not agreed by other editors and not disscussed here.--MariusM 16:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume good faith, but it is a fact that you know better. Because you appear as one of the editors of Montevideo Convention in that page's edit history, so I know for a fact that you are familiar with the convention or at least with Wikipedia's article on the convention. But here is a reminder, just in case: As a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles therefore do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole. In other words: Worldwide. - Mauco 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereignty means a legally internationally-recognized (but not necessarily independent) state. Transnistria is not legally a sovereign state. Moldova's legislation, for exmaple, gives to Gagauzia autonomy, and the right to claim sovereignty should the sovereignity of Moldova be changed. Moldova's legislation gives to Transnistia the right to claim large autonomy, subject to agreement on the closing of the conflict: 1) enter the legality, 2) democratization, and 3) the withdrowal of foreign troops. There is oppinion inside Moldova whether Trasnistria could be given even sovereignty (but not independence), should there be agreement. The majority believes that that would be too much, but there are those who think that if that brings a complete end to the conflict, it could be accepted. Transnistrian self-proclaimed autorities do not agree to any solution that leaves open the posibility that their leadership could be challenged (by free ellections).
While there is a notion of "de-facto independent", noone has yet introduced the notion "de-facto sovereign". This would be like a person which does not hold a driver license claiming that he has a "de-facto right to drive". Of course, until is cought.
Examples of sovereign, but not independent states: former USSR republics, former Yugoslavia republics, Bavaria (the only land in Germany that is sovereign), Athos Mountain in Greece, the states of USA. I don't know if all Canadian provinces, but Quebec - yes. All these are/were recognized in the legislation of the bigger state. Transnistria is obviously not in this category. :Dc76 18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is of course what the Disputed status of Transnistria is all about, and a big reason why we have frequent edit wars over this highly contentious page. So I will cut to the chase: Is there anything in the current article which is incorrect in how it describes Transnistria's sovereignty or lack of same? If so, what? And what are the grounds on which it should be removed or changed? - Mauco 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is incorrect info in this article: Transnistria is not sovereign according to the Montevideo convention. At best, no reliable source says it, so that anyway saying it here qualifies as original research. Dpotop 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We'll just add a source or two, then, and that is that. Do not remove the statement just because you don't agree with reality. I also notice that your attempts [2] within the last few hours[3], with help[4] from MariusM, to erase[5] all mention of Transnistria from Wikipedia's long-standing stable version of List of sovereign states have ended in constant, repeated reverts from the established editors of that article. - Mauco 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert on international law, and cannot give my view on what exactly the status of the territory is in international law. Nevertheless, I have seen diverse publications with radically different takes on the subject, all of which claimed the support of reputable sources. I believe that the sentence regarding sovereignty in its current form, does indeed constitute original research by Wikipedia standards as no source is currently provided to support this information. However, I would not object to the inclusion of this information provided that an independent and reputable source can be found (i.e. not from Olvia or Pridnestrovie.net), and provided that the opposing viewpoint is also mentioned to ensure balance. TSO1D 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about bringing in some experts on international law to set the record straight? User:Osgoodelawyer has sometimes participated in this talk page, and he is active on List of countries and List of sovereign states. Likewise Electionworld, if I recall correctly. The contested statement is very simple and straightforward. It merely says: "Transnistria is sovereign according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. It has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states." All of these four facts can of course be fully sourced. - Mauco 13:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please put the sources, and I agree with the outside expert opinion, this is a complex field international law, it is good to hear from the experts from the two lists, List of countries and List of sovereign states first Pernambuco 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osgoodlawyer is an well-known POV-pusher from List of countries and List of sovereign states. Why you nominate him as "expert of international law"? You often like to pick a mediator, while you are reluctant to accept transparent WP:DR procedures. I have an open mediation with you where you are not active, probabily because the mediator was not selected by you, he was a neutral mediator from Mediation Comitee.--MariusM 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the controversed paragraph.Dl.goe

discuss it first, mauco has offered to give sources and I like the suggest of an international law expert opinion, maybe not osgoodlawyer if he is a POV pusher (I do not know if it is true) but instead someone else. Why, becuase Transnistria is already in List of countries and List of sovereign states, this is something which both Mariusm and Mauco agrees on, it is not something you can just remove if you dont remove Transnistria from those two lists also I think........ Pernambuco 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia is meant to inform, not decide. An expert opinion would be useless, as long as we are speaking about a Wikipedia editor. If sources are found, we can write: "X considers Transnistria a sovereign state", or "According to X Transnistria is a sovereign state". The status of Transnistria is disputed; some say that Transnistria is a region of Moldova, some say it is a state. Claiming it is a sovereign state is POV. At List of countries and List of sovereign states, it is clearly written:The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute. I understand both lists contain all countries which may be sovereign/ all territories which may be countries, including the ones with uncertain status. In my opinion, if we remove Transnistria from these lists, it is taking side.Dl.goe 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you will think this meaningful or not, but this is a snippet from the Guardian (a veryy well respected UK newspaper): "The breakaway British region of Scotland could be among the beneficiaries of this week's expected UN recommendation that Kosovo be granted provisional independence from Serbia, leading in time to full sovereign status...." Full Article. So, going by this viewpoint, if Kosovo or even Scotland is not a sovereign state, how on Earth can Transnistria be? Jonathanpops 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I left the source in my briefcase at work ("light" reading), but I can provide a reference (from the first critical comparative analysis of the "frozen zone" conflicts) that specifically speaks to this point and says that meeting the first three Montevideo criteria does not confer the fourth (ability to conduct foreign relations--clearly the PMR can't if it's not recognized by the world community), nor does meeting them confer legitimacy--which is clearly what is/was intended by the presence of the paragraph.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transnistria is not sovereign. Statements which use Montevideo as a basis to explicitly or implicitly state Transnistria is sovereign are simply not acceptable. Their only purpose is to push original research (what "fully sourced" really means in Mauco's context, sorry about that) that the PMR is a legitimate country which languishes unfairly awaiting recognition by the international community.
    I have posted the above mentioned reference in Montevideo and the so-called "frozen conflict" zones.
    I have also suggested there that a solution to this issue is to simply list what de facto/de jure authorities have international recognition as being legitimate and which don't. If there is any member of the U.N., for example, that recognizes the PMR as the legitimate authority over the Transnistrian territory, that can certainly be introduced as factual.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

I would like to get the page protection lifted but it is obvious that we are not ready yet. What can be done to speed things up and get resolution on some of the key issues? Mind you, not all. Just as many as possible, so that we avoid a renewal of the tiresome revert warring in the main article.

Who wants to take the initiative to perhaps wrap up some of the conclusions we have reached, and try to find closure on some of the others? Maybe Vecrumba? - Mauco 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or TSO1D? - Mauco 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or Pernambuco? Anyone? I don't want to be the one to add new things, and I certainly don't want to be the one to revert others. But in view of the history of the page, it is important that we don't slide into the same bad old habits. Please just summarize some of what we have agreed on so far, and only add or delete those things. Then let us constructively discuss the rest. - Mauco 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that my request here is in vain. User:MariusM took advantage of the lift of the page protection just now. He was nearly absent from this Talk page for the past week. But as soon as the page got unlocked, he made 9 edits within 7 hours [6] (with hardly any Talk page participation). This is edit warring. Uncool. - Mauco 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been PC (personal computer, not political correctness) building, still straightening out years of files/backups/etc. I'll put my thinking cap on over the next few days.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think that it was generally agreed that this section could just go. Both myself and MariusM agree on this.[7] Is that OK with everyone? Or is there somewhere we can move it to? I thought of moving it and turning it into a 'See also' stub but I fail to see how it would meet notability criteria at this point in time.- Mauco 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, there is no need to have such a section full of trivia. TSO1D 20:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now gone, since we are in agreement with MariusM on this. I wish we could get the same level of consensus on other issues (adding as well as deleting). Let us try. - Mauco 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suvorov

[edit]

At Internal Politics section is writen: In the central square of Tiraspol there is a statue of Alexander Suvorov, who in 1792 founded modern Tiraspol as a Russian border fortress. As I previously told, I consider irrelevant for this article, is relevant for Tiraspol article. If we want to make the article shorter we can take out this kind of sentences.--MariusM 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but before you rush quickly onto the page to remove it (as you did here[8]) it would be nicer to please wait for some of the rest of us to chip in. That is what the talk page is for. So the question is: Is a one-sentence mention of Suvorov relevant to this article? I have my own opinion, but maybe we should give other a chance to have a say, too, before we start mutilating the article... - Mauco 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I first raised the issue of Suvorov in 1st January [9]. I don't think I rushed quickly to remove, I gave enough time for others to comment. The idea of removal came as i see a desire from other editors to shorten this article, to concentrate only in relevant things.--MariusM 22:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think we should ask others to comment, then at least give me a chance to put in my own 2 Kopeks:
* Suvorov's statue is on the uniforms of the armed forces
* Suvorov's statute is given official flower tributes on at least five different occasions each year
* No single item has been the subject of more Transnistrian postage stamps than the Suvorov statue [10]
* The Suvorov statue is the logo of the main TV station (First Republic channel, formerly TV PMR) [11]
* Suvorov's statue is the main part of the Olvia Press ID [12] (state news agency)
* Suvorov is on the money, the PMR ruble[13]
In short, the Suvorov statue is practically the official image of Transnistria. He is much, much more prevalent than Lenin or the Soviet tank (which you insist on mentioning). Why does Suvorov not merit at least one single line in the Transnistria article? Why is an anonymous Soviet tank more important? Explain, but do not delete. - Mauco 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against mentioning Suvorov, but I don't believe that the second sentence in the internal politics section should describe the monuments of Tiraspol. I believe that a brief summary in the caption of the photo should be enough, or if not, the information should be moved to another place. TSO1D 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big photo of Soviet tank in the article. Why is this more relevant than Suvorov? I am not pushing to remove the tank, but I respectfully request that we keep everything in perspective. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Transnistria knows that Suvorov is the most important symbol. Forget Lenin, tanks, etc. The statue is important symbolism. Please keep the one single little puny sentence. MariusM has removed it twice today. I wish that he would discuss and seek consensus first, before dismembering the article unilaterally. - Mauco 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why that image was deleted. I believe that the picture of Suvorov should be added to the history section, by the "Russian Empire" section, and the caption can give a brief explanation of who he was. He is also mentioned in the cap of the Ruble picture. Nevertheless, I don't believe that the presence of the statue should be mentioned in the internal politics section. I just don't understand how that monument fits into that section. Maybe the information could be presented elsewhere, and maybe the cap will be enough, I don't know. TSO1D 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was deleted by MariusM. Twice today. I am very sorry, but I had to revert him. I do not like this constant revert warring. I wish that we could work this out in Talk, as I am trying to do. My point is that if we have a picture of a Soviet tank, and we claim that this is an important monument, then we must at least also have a picture of the Suvorov statue, which is a much, much more important monument. Please help me restore it if he deletes it again. - Mauco 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the placement of the sentence, it can be moved. But read the preceding sentence. The two sentences should be moved together. I propose that they be moved into the geography section. - Mauco 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the part about Tiraspol as the capital, the logical place is in Geography, also that it is landlocked and so on Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statue of Suvorov belongs in there: he is the man who conquered Transnistria for Russia during the wars with the Ottomans and that's an important part in this region's history. But I think that the caption is not relevant here, as this is not the article about Tirapsol. bogdan 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bogdangusca about this, but the change is already made, and also i moved the part about Tiraspol into ¨geography¨ and the sentence of Suvorov is deleted already now Pernambuco 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Why did this or similar stuff got erased? :Dc76 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is an user who want to apply censorship here. Other 5 users: Me, Dpotop, Dl.goe, DC76 and TSO1D wanted the paragraph "border issues" to be part of the article, Mauco want it deleted. In my opinion the best solution would be to keep the entire paragraph in the article, for the purpose of achieving a compromise I accepted to have a shorter variant. I don't think the shorter variant is better (for example, it talk about Varnitsa but is missing Tighina from "border issues"), I just wanted to achive a compromise. We have a lot of other disputes regarding the article, I propose to have a poll, as a practical way to achieve compromise.--MariusM 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the paragraph should be re-introduced as in the previous link. Then, we can discuss changes. But it is absolutely necessary because it shows Transnistria does not have a clear territory, simply claims that go beyond its geographical area, and no control over parts of it. Dpotop 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies to Moldova, you know. Except that the disputed villages constitute, like, 1% of the Transnistrian territory, whereas Transnistria itself is a relatively much bigger part of Moldova. If you drop the "control" part, that'll leave both Transnistria and Moldova with a "clearly defined territory".
In my opinion, the first paragraph (slightly reworded) of that section should be inserted here, with the village listings presented somewhere like Disputed status of Transnistria.

Poll

[edit]
Note that User:William Mauco has been blocked for 10 days whilst this poll has been running; his opinions will not be reflected in it.

Border issues

[edit]

I've changed "clashes" with "confrontation" and I added Tighina at one point of border issues, however through rephrasing the total lenght of the paragraph remained the same. Proposed paragraph:

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. In the same time, some areas which geografically belong to Bessarabia, not to Transnistria, including the city of Tighina, are controlled by Transnistrian authorities. 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[1], in 2006 around Varniţa (a suburb of Tighina under Moldovan control) and in 2007 in Dubăsari-Cocieri area, when confrontation between Moldovan and Transnistrian forces occured, without casualities[2].--MariusM 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only part about this paragraph that I don't like is the emphasis on geography. It implies that the PMR should have all Transnistrian territories, and Moldova all of Bessarabia. As I said before, I believe that this paragraph should focus on Transnistrian claims to land they do not control. The other way around, Moldova claims all of the land in the hands of the PMR, so we shouldn't single out only some locations because they are on the left bank. Besides, the lack of complete correlation between geography and political status is already mentioned in that paragraph. I believe that a version like the following might be better:

"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 PMR. Tense situations have periodically surfaced due to these territorial disputes, for example in 2005, when Transnistrian forces entered Vasilievca,[3], 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 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I inserted the text. I took some of the former stuff and part of Marius's text and added that to geography, and the other paragraph to political status. Is everyone ok with this? TSO1D 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is fine . Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MariusM proposal, as more cleanup grammatically than mine. I understand Pernambuco's observation, but given the fact that Transnistria is both a geographical region and a political entity, I favour keeping all info from MariusM's proposal. How about changing "not to Transnistria" to "not geographically in Transnistria"? Further proposals (from Pernambuco) about this detail, now or later, would be absolutely ok with me. As for TSO1D proposal, I only see two additional changes: "Varnita and Copanca" was added, and at the very end "however" was added. I agree with TSO1D' second proposal (adding "however"). But I prefer "Varnita and Copanca" in MariusM's form. The reason is that the paragraph would otherwise state from Tighina area only villages under Moldova's control and claimed by Transnistrian autorities, but not vice-versa. I think that all 5(+1)+4+9=18(19) localities from all three buffer zones must be mensioned somewhere, maybe in the geography section or in the article Localities of Transnistria. So I'll make the respective proposals at those respective places. :Dc76 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MariusM, Except for spelling :-) I like the original proposal better. Much has been made by the PMR of the natural dividing line/barrier of the Dniester. The territorial distinctions of what is on which side of the Dniester (and who controls) are very relevant and should be kept for clarity. "Left bank" and "right bank" would work as well, but then we would be adding yet another set of territorial terminology.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Department position regarding Human Rights

[edit]

The proposed paragraph added imediately after "critics claim..." is:

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

I mention that Mauco agree that we can have a summary of US Department position, the proposal is already a summary, however it was still deleted. I don't understand what can be sumarized more from a quite long document.--MariusM 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of word "officially" regarding the name Pridnestrovie

[edit]

Based also on JonathanPops opinion, I removed the word "officially" from the introduction. We already are saying that the name Pridnestrovie is according PMR Constitution, we should not present it more official than that. But let's see what other editors think.--MariusM 11:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but this was part of the compromise version and I remember from the last archive both Vecrumba and Mauco made an agreement, not to change anything now, because then it is not the cmpromise version any more, and then they wanted to change other things,and then it never stops, so it will be a big mistake to change it Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed this bit. I say Remove because I don't think it fits. I do think it has a point of view feeling, but if the majority insist on keeping it I will go with that. Jonathanpops 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Jonathanpops.:Dc76 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer without the word officially, the compromise was that Mauco insisted that since the word had been in there so long, prior agreement, etc. that it must be kept; if so, then I insisted that we indicate exactly whose "official" term it is, hence, according to the PMR constitution. Of course, that's now just a longer way of saying official according to whom, so I would completely agree the presence of the term "official" is redundant in this context and it can be removed--and without changing the intended nature of the "officialness" of the Pridnestrovie name.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Transnistria is independent, you just haven't realised it yet! ;-) --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly: we had a consensus on the given problem in 4 + 10 + Mauco, TSO1D, Jonathanpops... Is there any necessity to repeat the opinions once more? Secondly: we cannot blink at the existence of PMR. And we must agree that Pridnestrovie is the OFFICIALn short varian of PMR.Helen28 13:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder for Helen, it was never a consensus about the word "officially". We don't blink the existence of PMR, PMR is the subject of our article, but we can not present PMR else than it is.--MariusM 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it but you can not vote on these things, if the compromise falls apart, then the whole introduction will go back to edit warring again, it is like Helens says, it is like Groundhog Day. Every time MariusM comes back from being blocked, he starts the same thing over again, and a new round of edit war begins, and it is Groundhog day, and why is he so quick to change it, why does he not wait for mauco to return, and get a chance to say something about this, after all, the compromise was settled between him and Vecrumbas Pernambuco 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop using plain fallacies here, there was no compromise, as you can see from above opinions, the majority of editors (me, EvilAlex, Jonathanpops, Dl.goe, DC76 and even Vecrumba) want the word "official" to be removed. Common sense is telling that you can not use "official" for an unrecognized country.--MariusM 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    every time some-one disagrees with this man, he accuses the other of Plain Fallacies and of Strawman Arguments, what is the problem, the word is clearly in context, it shows that the word is official according to the constitution and I am not an expert on this, but I think that there is only one valid constitution that the people in Transnistria respect, and that the courts of Transnistria rule by, so it is officially within Transnistria, and the subject of the page is Transnistria. Stop being an edit warrior, and stop going in circles, why is this so important, a lot of people are neutral so just relax Pernambuco 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. There are more important things to argue about in the article. "Official according to the PMR constitution" is a factual statement where "official" becomes redundant because it is directly ascribed to a single source (the PMR itself). In no sense does it say official according to the world community, the U.N., or even according to Mauco or the "departed" Mark Street. I don't care for the presence of the word, but the bottom line is that its presence or absence changes absolutely nothing in the meaning of the description of Pridnestrovie. If its presence achieves a compromise where it's totally clear that it's "official" ONLY according to the PMR, then it would seem to be time to move on to other issues and revisit this once those other issues are dealt with. Regardless of whether we believe it was ever agreed to in the first place. The word has been rendered impotent. And sorry to disappoint user Node, but the word implies absolutely nothing about the PMR being "independent" or legitimate.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to apologize for mixed signals. MariusM is correct, I don't like the word "officially". Pernambuco is correct, I'm neutral as I arrived at the compromise with Mauco. (And the "officially" word had been there for quite some time, so I was simply looking to neutralize it.) The compromise proposal was sitting out there for a bit, and just as I prepared to make the edit I think it was Illythr said no (so no longer unanimous or unanimous + neutral) but I felt the compromise was as best as was possible. So, neutral. If the "officially" word goes back in (it's out now), it changes nothing in the meaning.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this word still in use when more people agree that it shouldn't be then should be? The current sentence, "officially per its authorities Pridnestrovie", is worse than ever. It sounds like someone who recently learned English from a fifty year old text book wrote it. Surely "known locally as Pridnestrovie" or "Pridnestrovie, according to the Constitution of Transnistria"? There's no nead to make this sentence into a political statement, fiddling about trying to squeeze "officially" in there for the sake of it. Why does this page need it when others don't? Jonathanpops 10:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence and photo about Suvorov

[edit]

The sentence about the presence of Suvorov's statue in Tiraspol is not relevant for this article, I believe. It is relevant for the article Tiraspol. Same person who want to shorten the article in other parts is pushing his POV that Suvorov is the most important symbol of Transnistria and need to stay in the article. As a compromise, I propose to keep the photo with an explanation beneath it and remove the sentence.--MariusM 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me the way Tso1d made it. Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep photo and Move sentence (to the article History of Transnistria) and Remove sentence from here, per TSO1D: there is text below, there shouldn't be repetition.:Dc76 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove both, Suvorov already features (appropriately) on the Tiraspol page. (This picture looks better actually, I'd suggest replacing the Tiraspol article picture.) Also, at least one article, either Transnistria or Tiraspol, should feature the parliament building where you can actually see the statue of Lenin--both now seem to have the bucolic panoramic version where there's just an ever so slight hint by reference that Lenin is down there somewhere. I know it's been voted on before, but seeing the picture where Lenin is totally obscured twice really is rather like intentionally avoiding putting in a picture that matches the facts.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep photo, move sentence. --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i dont understand, if almost everyone said "keep photo and move sentence" then can evilAlex explain why he removed the photo? He voted for keeping it, but today he removed it, he blanked it, I had to restore it. What is going on, why does he do this? you can see his vote above, the sentence has already been taken away, now all that is left is the photo. I do not understand these people ..... Pernambuco 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for keeping the photo, however I understand Evil's edit. The problem is the following: you don't acept poll results when you don't like it (word "official" in introduction), then others will not accept poll results in other areas. By your behaviour, Pernambuco, you started a new edit war.--MariusM 09:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alex had actually acted against his own vote. If he thinks that such immature behavior - "teaching someone a lesson" - is okay to illustrate a point, he should read WP:POINT and reconsider. This was probably the first conscious act of vandalism on the page, excluding Bonaparte and Mark Street. --Illythr 13:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum section

[edit]

My proposal is: "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.".

Paragraph is short and is including all relevant info. In the same time we will have a link to the secondary article, where everything is better explained.--MariusM 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accept above paragraph.--MariusM 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject I am sorry, but I cannot accept that. I still support the version reading: "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." The sentence about the Helisinki Committee is not included on the current page, and we are trying to find an acceptable synthesis of that information. The Helsinki statement reflects a minority view, and giving it such prominence in a three line paragraph would violate WP:Undue Weight. Besides, the version the version I put forward already states that many countries did not accept the referendum and called it illegitimate. TSO1D 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe HCHRM statement is a minority view. According "Tiraspol Times", OSCE also claimed fraud at referendum [14]. Calling referendum "illegitimate" is not the same thing as claiming fraud. If we keep in the article the results with 97%, we should also have the opinion that those results were falsified, not only the fact that some countries don't recognize the referendum. Non-recognition can have different reasons than fraud (for example, comitment at the principle of not modifying current borders).--MariusM 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The remarks of TSO1D are pertinent, but the Helsinki committee must be put somewhere in the paragraph (maybe in a shorter version). Dpotop 15:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, per TSO1D. --Illythr 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Tsk tsk. --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Helsinki, please look at the discussion we have had above, I don't want to repeat all arguments that were already mentioned there. Most active contributors at that time, including Johnathan, Mauco, Pernambuco, and Jamason, and Illythr stated that the Helsinki sentence shuould not be included here. The referendum has had many critics, but most organizations, such as the OSCE emphasized the unfavorable circumstances and the flawed way in which the questions were formulated, rather than direct falsifications. I don't deny that the Helsinki statement is not relevant, however it is more of a fringe view and should be added to a subarticle, but shouldn't compose one fourth of a summary of the topic. 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Illythr—Preceding unsigned comment added by TSO1D (talk • contribs)

To be mentioned that not all people listed above expressed their opinion against the inclusion of HCHRM claims. I tried for the very begining to include HCHRM statement, it was rejected on the ground that we have a separate article about referendum with details and I thought anyhow this section about referendum would stay only one month, as long as it is a recent event. If it will become a permanent part of the article and it will include the results with 97%, we should include also the claims of fraud.--MariusM 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. It was the Illythr proposal. the most important statement is OSCE Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, did you confuse me with Mauco? I don't believe I'm deranged enough to refer to myself in third person yet. I also kind of wonder, how the HCHR acquired such definite results without sending anyone in there? --Illythr 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why you believe they didn't send anyone to watch the results? Is this your original research or you chose to believe Transnistrian propaganda, for which Urîtu (chairman of HCHRM) is one of main enemies?--MariusM 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you meant its Moldovan department. Ok. BTW, I choose to believe neither of them. --Illythr 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with modification the referendum was held in a flawed way instead of referendum results were falsified. I don't agree that Helsinki Commeette brings undue weight WP:Undue Weight. This is after all, the most renouned international ONG, that is known for not compromizing truth for political stability. OSCE, on the other hand, being an organization that acts by unanimity is known to often do exactly this. Not mentioning OSCE would also be wrong, since it's the most autoritary international organization in Transnistria. So keep both OSCE and Helsinki Commeette. :Dc76 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but our discussions resemble the film "The Marmot's day". We had an agreement on this question, that the version without mentioning Helsinki Committee was the best. We must have the short summary of the theme, but not the enumeration of opinions.Helen28 13:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Soviet autorities were also very itchy when they were hearing the words Helsinki Commeette, and also claimed they had an agreement in 1975 that would have somehow stated there never were, are none, nor will ever be any human right breaches in USSR. Verticality is most important, above any agreement, about which, by the way, I was never aware, and never subscribed to. :Dc76 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject for reasons I already stated earlier, ie the last sentence sounds tacked on, and grammatically incorrect. It could perhaps be added in the article with a list of other organisations that doubt the validity of the referendum, but I think it looks silly where it is in this proposal. Anyway, isn't that HCHR thing supposed to be a bit dodgy itself, or am I thinking of a similarly named organisation? Jonathanpops 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject because the current words give the impression of 100% fraud; or accept with Dc76's modification. Alaexis 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any mention of helsinki comittee position until there is a valid reference (not from a site like transnistria.md) Alaexis 14:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our refference is conflict.md, a site sponsored by OSCE.--MariusM 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote from conflict.md: The opinions expressed on this web-page are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of OSCE Moldova who takes no responsibility with regard to the content of this site.. Why should we write here the opinions of some 'authors'? The appropriate reference should be to OSCE or Helksinki Comittee official site imho. Alaexis 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, all this is the opinion of Moldovan branch of Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (you were correct to add the explanation "Moldovan" in the article), as we clearly state in the article. HCHRM made a press conference and several sources reported their claims (unfortunately, Transnistrian press ignored this report, as there is no real press freedom in Transnistria), conflict.md is one of them. Is not the opinion of conflict.md, is the opinion of HCHRM. OSCE has a similar opinion, as Tiraspol Times told [15], however is enough to mention one example of organisation who raised doubts about referendum results, we have a link to the secondary article where more details are given.--MariusM 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to search for this info on helsinki committee offcial site ([16], they put all statements and reports there) because in that case it would give more credibility to the claims of fraud. At the very least the reference should be made to helsinki committee in Moldova (I've checked that they indeed have an internet site - [17]). I don't believe they wouldn't put so important information if they wanted. Alternatively we can omit HCHR's opinion altogether and put OSCE's one if it's indeed similar (of course with the reference to primary source). Alaexis 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject because: if this was so important, did the official Helsinki mother committee include it in their annual report, no, why not, so this is a minor thing for them , quite clearly and it has to be minor for us. MariusM there is no consensus and you have to work by consensus or maybe i think you can get another big block or ban for ten days again Pernambuco 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if Helsinki mother comitee included in their annual report the situation about Transnistrian referendum, I doubt anual report for 2006 was yet issued. Can you provide a link? Else, I will accuse you of telling again plain falacies. Anyhow, we are allowed in Wikipedia to make refference to statements not included in Helsinki mother comitee reports. For example, Mauco often proposed refferences at British Helsinki Human Rights Group, an organisation with no relations with International Helsinki Human Rights Comitee.--MariusM 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"vote" count

[edit]

6 rejects and 3 accepts. It looks like this has been rejected, the edit of MariusM here [18] is not accepted, it must be reverted Pernambuco 16:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is difficult to assume good faith on you if you fakely accuse me. In the moment I made the edit there were 5 votes for the rephrasing of the section: me, EvilAlex, Dpotop (for my initial variant), DC76 and Alaexis (for a variant with small difference) and 5 for rejecting the proposal (TSO1D, Illythr, Node, Helen28 and JonathanPops). From those 5 reject votes, 2 were in fact for a different rephrasing, and one (Helen28) is making refference to a compromise which never existed (I believed she learned from Pernambuco this style). I've done the edit according DC76 and Alaexis proposal, in a compromise variant (not all who voted against knew this compromise variant when they voted). After my edit, Alaexis changed his vote [19] with the explanation that he want a valid refference, not like transnistria.md. His concern was answered - we had a valid refference - conflict.md. I am still expecting Pernambuco to prove that International Helsinki Comitee issued an anual report for 2006 where the findings of their Moldovan branch regarding Transnistrian referendum are not included.--MariusM 16:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just count the votes, you dont have support for this edit, compare the number of Rejects with the number of Accepts, how hard is that, and consider the case closed if you cant bring new reasons why this is so important for you....... I showed the decency of waiting for a response for some time before making any more changes to the article, a practice that I hope will be generally adapted in the future, but in 24 hours there are still more people who prefer the original version than yours, so case closed . Take care Pernambuco
Illythir's point is succinct. Pompey64 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject TS1OD has made fair comment. Pompey64 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wow !! look at my first edit on this page. If the majority of you don't liked please remove my link. But in this case can you please add some comment about this "referendum" with the conclusion of the Jameston Fundation ( http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=414&issue_id=3832&article_id=2371375 ). Thanks !!! Catarcostica 08:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Yakovlev's opinions

[edit]

This generally-agreed (in November) sentence was removed in December by Mauco as not relevant. Disscussions above were inconclusive. I believe the opinions are relevant for the actual economical situation in Transnistria (more relevant than Tiraspol Times, IMHO) and if we are considering relevant the statue of Suvorov, why we should not consider relevant the actual economic situation?--MariusM 11:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in discussion is: The extreme worsening of economic situation of ordinary people in Transnistria was in November 2006 the subject of an open letter of one of the founders and ideologists of Transnistrian Republic, author of the first PMR constitution, Vasily Yakovlev. In his letter he is asking penal persecution for PMR president Igor Smirnov and is calling for unity with the working people of Moldova.[4]

This is already a summary, we are providing link to the entire letter.--MariusM 12:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i forget, who is Yakovlev and why is his quotation so important.? Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can someone tell me this, why it is required......... Pernambuco 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vasily Yakovlev is one of the founders of PMR, perhaps the main ideological founder, while Smirnov was the practical one. If you read the whole letter, you'll see it is very critical of Smirnov, whom he calls criminal in reference to economic degradation of the villages in Transnistria. He critisizes the failure of the economy due to lack of care of government for people's daily life in general (not just villages), but in reference to villages he is very harsh. The letter was published in Triaspol media with significant deletions, which generated a surge of wondering, and Chisinau press, who was generally critical of people like Yakovlev published it in full, and without much comments, as the text speaks for itself as no comment can do. The fact puts into evidence, although not clearly to first-time readers, the crizis in Transnistrian govenrment, its search for new people and new ideological basis, as the old ones start leaving the boat. :Dc76 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the conclusions that Dc76 makes, is this his own opinion or is it is a source, because I looked at the page history and also talk archivals, and the reason it was deleted was because it was just wrong and misleading information: the man's quote is about economic failure, and later the newest source is that the economy instead rose 17 per cent at the same time Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The economic growth is 17 per cent according to what PRM officials said. Let's see other facts: In 1990, Transnistria had a per capita GDP 2.35 times Moldova's; now only 1.15 times; quite a decline... The debt of PRM is 285% of GDP, the highest in the world. Dl.goe 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17 per cent for which period exactly? According to the statistical service of the Ministry of Economy of PMR, during the first half of 2006 the economy decreased 11.5% and industrial output decrease even 32.8%. For population engaged in industrial sector that kind of decrease is quite hard. I am not sure if the statistics reliable, but this official information from the Transnistrian authorities. Probably this explains the Yakovlev's letter. Beagel 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In absolute terms, the economy is still abysmal for the average Transnistrian. Unfortunately, quoting the "latest news" (for example, Mauco at various times insisting Smirnov and Antyufeyev were has-beens on their way out) is not a reliable indicator of the situation, so I would keep as it is (a) recent and (b) pertains to someone who has been in power continuously to the current day.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links: TT and transnistria.ru.ru

[edit]

While I don't consider Tiraspol Times as the kind of links we should accept in Wikipedia, in order to achieve a compromise and understading that this is a sentimental problem for Mauco (he loves TT and TT loves Mauco; he contributed with so many articles at TT, under different names) I am ready to accept TT link. However, considering the refusal of changing the headline of External links section, I believe is necessary to include also a link to transnistria.ru.ru, to show also the voice of anti-separatist transnistrians, not only the voice of Tiraspol regime. Is a problem of having balanced info.--MariusM 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Don't include link to Tiraspol Times and keep link to transnistria.ru.ru.--MariusM 12:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Change opinion about TT as I see other people don't agree with compromise proposal to include both sides. We should focus on having balanced info.--MariusM 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include link to Tiraspol Times and keep link to transnistria.ru.ru EvilAlex 13:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A little conflict of interest in the latter half of the vote here, no? ;-) Shall we invite Mark Street to vote here as well? --Illythr 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep link to Tiraspol Times but don't include link to transnistria.ru.ru. I am not the biggest fan of TT, but it does have daily news, and not many similar periodicals exist in Transnsitria. As for t.ru.ru, I'm sorry but I think the inclusion of that page contravenes Wikipedia policy on external sources. As for the titles of the categories, I wouldn't mind changing it to pro-Moldova and pro-PMR, or removing such descriptors altogether if there would be consensus to do so. TSO1D 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    agree to the external links titles suggested by TSO1D:pro-Moldova and pro-PMR.Dl.goe 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, good call, I agree to these title names as well. Hmm, if voting is evil, then voting within voting must be evil squared! :-) --Illythr 13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TT as a news site, don't include transnistria.ru.ru as a hate site. DNS domain spoofing is nasty. --Illythr 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include either of them. bogdan 18:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    why not, to hear the reasons....... Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure, the Tiraspol Times looks good at a glance but is actually pretty rubbish when you dig into it (in my opinion). Having said that I always think there is way too much obssessing over external links on this page, like some people believe that these links on wikipedia will somehow sway the political status of Transnistria outside of the internet, which I believe to be ludicrous. I don't mind zdub.hostrocket.com, which is the actuall address of the 'spoofed' (as someone here puts it) transnistria.ru.ru, because for one thing it doesn't pretend to be anything it is not (ignoring the name redirect of course). You can see by looking at it that it's a blatant anti-Russian site and it doesn't claim to be anything else really. Still, even though i do like it, I have to admit it is very poor as a website and wouldn't do much in terms of further info other than highlight that not everyone in Transnistria in pro-Russian. In short I think we should probably not include either of them, but don't really care that much either way. Jonathanpops 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It pretends to be a part of .ru, for some strange reason. --Illythr 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It don't pretends, it really is part of .ru. Is a misconception that everything on .ru should be pro-PMR. I agree that tr.ru.ru don't have much information, is a private website without support of governments or other organisations, the reason for inclusion is to highlight exactly what Jonathan told: not everyone in Transnistria is pro-Russian.--MariusM 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it was moved from Hostrocket to zenon.net in the meantime, I see. I still don't understand the need to mask the fact that it's hosted on a free hosting server. I also think that representing the, uh, "Russo-sceptic" position in Transnistria with a hate site is not a good idea. --Illythr 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • transnistria.ru.ru link is broken, at least from my computer. In general I favour absolute freedom of speach, provided the sourse is named for what it is. So, include TT with comment "Tiraspol Times (Transnistrian propaganda site in English)". Sub-list "Pro-Transnistrian sourses" sounds ok for TT, except that then it will bring again the discussion of what is pro-Moldovan. I don't think that 100% of sourses from Moldova should be called pro-Moldovan just b/c they don't publish from abroad. I disagree with most of Moldovan press' comments, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. The only sites that I would object (provided they are informative about Transnistria, not about rasing mashrooms on the moon) would be forum sites, i.e sites, which contain 99% only forum discussion. :Dc76 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TT, it is a news site. nix TRR - aside from being totally unprofessional looking, it is a hate site against Russians, and while they really are dirty whorebags of a nationality, we love them anyways. (kidding, of course) --Node 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TT. Don't include transnistria.ru.ru, becase it looks like a pitiful parody, but not a news site. But we can include the link to the English version of Lenta PMR: http://www.tiras.ru/en/index.phpHelen28 13:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the tiras.ru site at first, in fact I was going to suggest we replace Tiraspol Times with it, but it has a link to a porn site on its links page so I'm not sure it's appropriate anymore. Jonathanpops 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marius/Mauco

[edit]

Having watched this page for a while, its clear that the cycle of proteciton/revert warring/protection is not working. The discussion page is being used well, but we're still not getting anywhere.

Anyway, rather than protection, I've instead blocked Marius and Mauco for a period of 10 days. The idea is that you guys all keep working on teh article and hopefully it can develop without edit warring.

If this fails (i.e. if edit wars continue or no discussion keeps taking place) then I'll re-protect the article and unblock Marius and Mauco after three days, as NishKid64 had left it.

The idea behind this is to allow the article to develop without edit wars. I don't blame M/M for the revert wars themselves, but they've gotten too far into it and some off-wiki cooling off time wiill do them good.

If this attempt to sort the problem fails then you need mediation. --Robdurbar 13:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but is there a Wikipedia rule allowing the blocking of users that cannot support each other? I throught the Wikipedia approach is based on mediation and arbitration, not blocking... Dpotop 15:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of Wikipedia rules but almost all of them allow admins to use their judgement if they want to. I am blocking M/M because I want to see if the Transnistria page can be settled but developing in their absence. As I've said, if it fails I'll unblock them. If people think my actions - which I agree are fairly unusual - are wrong then I won't revert any admin who undoes them (if anyone's unhappy, report this at WP:ANI). But I feel I've explained my logic. Robdurbar 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are aware that Mauco and MariusM will be back in 10 days. :) I hope you are going to be here to police the article after that date. :) Dpotop 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robdurar already explained, it is a ban for educational purposes, he wants them to learn from it, so after, the police work is not needed. It was very ugly to see what they did yesterday, Mariusm was addding and deleting a lot of things again and again, and there was no agreement or no consensus, and Mauco was just reverting him, and finally they both got reported for 3-RR. So one of them has to learn to work with consensus and the other has to learn to stop revert, this is what Robdurar already explained as his purpose: Educational Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

There are several problems with this section:

  • The term of "capitalist mixed economy" is controversial and means everything and at the same time nothing. I think that more correct and logical could be just "mixed economy" (it's not very "capitalist" if local gas company has to distribute natural gas by fixed price, which is lower than a price of purchased gas).
  • Second problem is related to the term "export-oriented". Is there any statistics, which is the export ratio to the GDP? Is there any statistics about export (and import) at all?
  • Also, the GDP is counted by the Economy Ministry, but which standards they use? No statiscal office at all?
  • Estimated deficit - this is not a current account deficit (which is also very important economic indicator), but budget deficit. Current account and budget are different things.
  • The article claims, that Gazprom owns Tiraspoltransgas, as well as Gazprombank (Tiraspol). However, as of 1 January 2007, these companies are not included in the list of Gazprom's affiliated companies and there is no reliable information about ownership of these companies.

Beagel 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Transnistria has a capitalist‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] mixed economy. Following a large scale privatization process, most of the companies in Transnistria are now privately owned. The economy is export-oriented‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] and based on a mix of heavy industry and manufacturing." should be deleted.
  2. I think it is GDP(nominal), not PPP.
  3. Companies subchapter should be removed. Useless information about companies would be described as propaganda.Dl.goe 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose following text for this section:
"Transnistria has a mixed economy. Following a large scale privatization process, most of the companies in Transnistria are now privately owned. The economy bases on a mix of heavy industry (steel production), electricity production and manufacturing (textile production), which together accounts about 80% of the total industrial output.[5]
===Economic development====
After WWII, Transnistria was heavily industrialized, to the point that in 1990, it was responsible for 40% of Moldova's GDP and 90% of its electricity[6] despite the fact that it accounted for only 17% of Moldova's population. After its declaration of independence, Transnistria wanted to return to a "Brezhnev-style planned economy"[7], however, several years later, it decided to head toward a market economy.
File:Transnistria rubla.jpg
The Transnistrian ruble shows Alexander Suvorov, founder of modern Tiraspol.
===Current situation===
In 2005, the GDP was about $420 million.[8] GDP per capita is $990, which is somewhat higher than Moldova.[9] Transnistria's state budget for 2007 is US$246 million, with an estimated deficit of approximately US$100 million.[10]. Transnistria has debt of $1.2 billion (two thirds of which are with Russia), which is per capita approximately 6 times higher than in Moldova (without Transnistria).[11]
The trade deficit reached $270 million in 2005. Over 50% of export goes to the CIS, mainly to Russia. The main exports are steel, textile and mineral products. The CIS accounts for over 60% of the imports, while the share of the EU is about 23%. The main imports are non-precious metals, food products and electricity.[5]
Leading industry is a steel industry, due the steel factory of Rîbniţa (Rybnitsa), which gives about 50% of the budget revenue of Transnistria. Leading company in the textile industry is Tirotex, which claimed to be the second largest textile company in Europe.[12] The energy sector is dominated by the Russian companies: the largest power company ZAO Moldavskaya GRES, locating in Dnestrovsk, is owned by ZAO Inter RAO UES, the subsidiary of RAO UES and Rosenergoatom[13], and the gas transmission and distributing company Tiraspoltransgas is probably controlled by Gazprom, althoughit has not confirmed officially the ownership. The banking sector of Transnistria consists 8 commercial banks, including Gazprombank."
Beagel 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o.k., it is perfect, very nice job Pernambuco 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice job indeed!Dl.goe
Nice to know that an economist writes that portion. Very goo job, indeed.
Your questions 1-5 are rhetorical, as you realize. Go ahead and boldly remove non-sense where you see it:
  • The terms "capitalist" and "export-oriented" are, as you perhaps know, often used by economies that do not like to be called "a few years ago was state-owned in communist style, now ambiguously-owned". Every economy is capitalist (uses money and investment) and "export-oriented" (the last self-sufficient economy of earch was Japan before Meiji era). The fact that someone needs to emphasize that suggests he/she wants to deemphasize (hide) something else.
  • Establishing a running statistical bureau requires working relationship at the legal level with the world economy, which is a problem, as Transnistria is un-recognized. So companies register in Chisinau if want to do business with anyone but Russia, or do it through intermediaries (proper Moldovan, Ukrainian or Russian, for example). Subordination to Ministry of Economics is simply b/c the autorities want to be able to exercise direct control in case they would need it: you don't want to be critisized for your policies based on data provided by an institution you stuff and pay. Without working legal relationship with world economy, the autorities do indeed believe that.
  • to understand the diference between balance deficit and budget deficit needs that the economy cares who pays the debt. As the debt is acquired in form of aid from a single sourse, and forgiven or "forgotten" to be collected under proper political circumstances, they don't get to see the difference in practical terms, so they think there is none other than for researchers' use.
  • Sometimes high-ranking employees of a company would run parallel private businesses, in appearance unconnected with the "mother" company. Could it be the case here? :Dc76 20:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice a small problem. You might want to replace "After its declaration of independence" with "After 1990" or "1992", since technically it only declared sovereinty away from Moldova but within USSR in 1990, is de facto independent since 1992, and only now tries to declare independence (this is the 2006 referendum). Don't get into legal stuff here. This section is too nice after your proposal. Just say somehow else without the word "declaration of independence" ("de-facto idependent" is not wrong).  :Dc76 20:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations. Actually I don't knew much about Transnistria, so I just tried to make the economy section more understandable and at the same time keep as much original text as possible. I see the problem with wording "After its declaration of independence" (which was original wording), so I have nothing against if anybody would like to replace this.Beagel 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to replace "After 1992" with "After the collapse of the Soviet Union".Beagel 17:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :Dc76 23:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Transnistria sovereign?

[edit]

There's currently a discussion on Talk:List of sovereign states concerning Transnistria. It would be interesting for you to drop by and say what you think. Dpotop 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o.k., thank you, good idea Pernambuco 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except that you answered without reading the question, which made you look dumb uninformed. Dpotop 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be more civil. Even if you disagree with him, he has shown respect to you, and by insulting him, you are not likely to achieve anything. TSO1D 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official and Officially

[edit]

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I noticed this edit by Mauco: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=101879123&oldid=101875322 where he says in his edit description "as per talk", and I just wanted to know what talk this was? I know I talked about this and didn't agree that we should use the word "official" anywhere in this article and that Mauco disagreed with me. Is this the talk he is referring to or was there another?

Anyway seeing as Maruis and Mauco are blocked can I ask other's opinions on the word "official", should we use it or not? Am I wrong to oppose its use? Am I wrong in thinking the word has a point of view attached and that it's provocative? If I am wrong I don't mind, I just want to know, and I will shut up about it. Jonathanpops 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes maybe just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say, if it was a compromise version then all the parts have to respect that, else the compromise falls apart and the page is locked and all that, but the version was from P.Vecrumba and is he also blocked, if not, he can explain why it is there Pernambuco 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the word officially. 3 editors voted for it's removal 3 are neutral and none voted for it's maintenance.Dl.goe 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i said that it was part of the compromise, I think, and want Vecrumba to tell us because he made it, and you are too fast because this will cause a lot of trouble, if we break the compromise then just imagine what it will become like when the two Ms (maurco and marius) return, you have not considered this or heard from Vecrumba about this, but I think he said something in Talk, can we check the archives ? I will restore it because it is safest Pernambuco 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it was. The discussion is here. MariusM wasn't part of this agreement, and probably, that's why he asked the question.

But I don't agree to the chapter Name. I think:"Although most commonly known in English as Transnistria, its official name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública " is POV: we say Transnistria has a disputed status, but we name it... Republic.

I suggest

The name Transnistria is most commonly used, and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state.
The name used in the Constitution of Transnistria is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (Moldovan: Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР). This is abbreviated PMR.A short form of the name is Pridnestrovie (transliteration of the Russian "Приднестровье").[14]

Dl.goe 08:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dl.goe's version, with "Romanian Cyrilic" instead of "Moldovan". "Official" is not wrong as a word, as long as it is clear from who's POV it is official: legal/international/official Moldovan or per PMR legislation. To me it is clear that "ooficially Pridnestrovie" is PMR POV, but an outside reader who does not know Romanian, Russian, and perhaps not perfectly English could equaly well assume that this is how Moldova calls the region. The article is not for me and you, but, say for someone from Holland, Brasil, India or Japan. Dl.goe's version sounds much better, since it avoids this discussion, without damagind the info.:Dc76 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is very clear from how the text is, we do not say that it is official, it is not Wiki-pedia who decides this, and this is not doubted, if you read the text. It says "Official according to their PMR constiution" this means not official in general, or official according to anything else, I am neutral in this and it is very clear, there is not misunderstanding in the original version Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people might think it's very clear, but I think it would be lot clearer still if "official" was not there at all. If I, and all my family and friends say that I am the stongest man in the world it doesn't make it official in this way: Jonathanpops, officially per his friends and family "Strongest Man in the World" in not recognised as the strongest man in the world by anyone else in the world. Jonathanpops 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If some editors agree with me, one is neutral , and none opposes, I will add back the new version of chapter Names. Not only the word official bothered me in the old version, but also Although, which suggested that Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública is the real, accepted name. But it is not, it is not accepted by those that claim Transnistria is a region of Moldova.Dl.goe 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, this was why i reverted, but I agree with you on 'although', just dont change it so much like you did. the "official' part is in the right context, it says where it is from, so do not make a big deal of it, but if you want, change the although word but not the rest Pernambuco 07:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is wrong, officially just shouldn't be there. Especially when more people agree that it shouldn't than people agree that it should. All we have is "officially" followed by an extremely long sentence with per Constitution of Transnistria stuck on the end. Has everyone here actually read the page Constitution of Transnistria? To me it's a sham of a page with no real information in it at all. It tells us the kinds of things this "Constitution of Transnistria" says inside without actually showing us the Constitution of Transnistria, like it's some mythical text. Where is the actual text? Why isn't it on the page Constitution of Transnistria. If it's a legitimate document why doesn't the page look something like this: United States Constitution (its obvious namesake)? Oh wait, it's in the external links at the bottom. Don't know why the English link is to pridnestrovie.net though when the first site has it in English too? Jonathanpops 10:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jonathanpops. Removing officially would avoid controversy and would not send the reader to a sourse he should somehow know but never heard about. I only said it is clear to me, and I said that the text must be clear not to me, but to people who never heard about Transnistria. So, is Dl.goe's version above the one to be? (Just making sure we are talking about the same thing) :Dc76 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no consensus, and it is in context, you can see that we say "officially according to the constitution" and not just "officially", there is a big big big difference Pernambuco 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be kept as the word official is in the words of the constitution and thus not ours to vote on Pompey64 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I've noticed there were some edits regarding this image and this one. We had a poll at Tiraspol regarding which one is better. The result was 5 to 5. What about having at Transnistria the other image than the one we have at Tiraspol?Dl.goe 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no doubt at all, keep the prettiest one, not the ugly one, why does everyone want to show the ugly side of everything ...... Pernambuco 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Pretty" is a matter of personal opinion, personally I think the second one is only marginally worse. Because the first one is too small and taken from too far away which means you can't see the details. Though having said that... I really don't care which one is used. Mathmo Talk 05:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my oppinion articles on Wikipeida are ment to inform, not be pretty. I would like to keep the most informing picture on both articles. But, as there were 6 edits in the same day that changed this picture,(you made 3 rv.), I ask a compromise. Dl.goe 08:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the stature of Lenin and the building itself not the trees!

172.203.65.52 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the tree-ful picture is prettiest, but you can't see the statue at all so it makes the caption kind of meaningless. Can't we use both of them, with a caption under the tree one mentioning the park? Jonathanpops 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The picture is about the "Government building in Tiraspol", not some nice park. The tree-less picture looks more government-like. Dpotop 08:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, which one is pritier? :-) Stalin would certainly love the second. And it is as clean as the first. Use both. Usually the problem is the absense of images in articles, not their abundence. If you find 10 more, please, by all means, put all of them. :Dc76 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find more but I put back a picture that D1.goe deleted, and if you can find 10 more, I agree. I also thought of a compromise for the government building, if it is really a big deal that some one wants to fight over. if it is so important, just find another image completely. A third one, I mean, which has the big Lenin, trees and also is pretty at the same time Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete support for Jonathonpops and Dc76 on this one. Rather than continuing a sterile debate on which is "prettier or "government-like," let's just include both pictures. Pictures are nice. "Better fewer, but better" was Lenin's motto. It doesn't have to be ours. jamason 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log of changes to the article

[edit]
  • I have re-ordered several sections. If these moves seem to you ilogical, I have nothing against undoing them.
  • I have not done any of the changes that are being discussed above in the voting.
  • In the History section: have introduced a link, have removed something commented out, have removed some incorrectness (Tyras is not Tiraspol)
  • In Economy section have changed according to the above discussion in the talk page. Feel free to find other formulations, if I was too hasty to change.
  • External links: added 3 sourses found with google, renamed "side" as "sourses" :Dc76 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should add in another Transnistria Source, or remove one Moldova source, as it looks a little under-represented to me. Jonathanpops 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. You want to have the same number of Moldovan and Transnistrian sourses, or is it that some sourses are unreliable? I would prefer to have as many sourses as available from whatever places we can get (except those that just repeat other sourses). I don't feel comfortable erasing an item introduced by someone else. But on the same tokken, I won't oppose a sound and specific argument for excluding a sourse. Could you, please, be more specific. Or just do the change in the article, so we can understand what you want. If you find an objection to some of the sourses I introduced (I have not read them, just looked over, they seemed quite sound at first glance, but of course I might be mistaken), just erase.:Dc76 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o.k., I will do that, it is best to erase them because if you didnt read the links, why did you add them ... from my time what I have seen on this page, everyone fights over the links and you need to read them before you add them. there are also two links now to Radio Europe and I closely read them both, there is no comparison. the first is about media in Transnistria in cyberspace and not really about Transnistria, the other is about Transnistria in general, it is much much better, it gives a lot of information and background, and it is balanced, neutral, it shows real pictures from Transnistria. It is: "Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making" (Radio Free Europe). Link:[20] It is full of information that is relevant to the article, this is the one that needs to stay, and the other one for the Media article or the Human rights article ..... Pernambuco 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the removal of Transnistria in Cyberspace external link. If I remember well, it was part of the compromise: if we keep a link to Tiraspol Times, a very controversal newspaper, we keep this article too.
Transdniester Conflict Was Long In The Making is about 2006 referendum; i've put it there. if you want it here too, very well, but please don't remove Transnistria in Cyberspace.Dl.goe 07:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "strong oppose", listen, the other link is not just about the referendum, if you read it you will see, it has the history and background about the conflict and information about the people, and it is neutral. but the 'cyberspace' is just about some websites, it has no real information about Transnistria, and is Wiki-pedia written in stone? you just added some links that you did not even read, so do not pretend that others can not add links or remove links. in my case, I found one from the same place. The same source, but it is just a newer date and it has much more background and information, it is a better link for this article, and everyone will agree if you read these two and just compare them Pernambuco 07:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can have two articles from Radio Free Europe. Do you accept keeping both articles?Dl.goe 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make a couple citations from the article [21]:
  • the Soviet period was marked by an inflow of mostly Russian and Ukrainian migrants, primarily well-educated managers, skilled industrial workers, and party functionaries. Ethnic Romanians (Moldovans) during the Soviet era remained overwhelmingly rural and agricultural. They were also socially less mobile and had less formal education than Russians and Ukrainians. These were 10%. Where is the average, hunger-fleeing Russian worker that acquired all his skills already in Moldova? That is 85% And where is the criminal element (5%)? Then A is so well-educated, and B is so backward. Very nice, was the author pickpocketed when he traveled to Moldova or what?
Pickpocketed? You are the one to mention the criminal element... ;-) The situation of Moldovans is also portrayed accurately, until the late '70ies, that is. Where are the sources for your numbers, so that they can be compared to RFE? 85% is an awful lot... --Illythr 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to a local census in 2004, Transdniester had 555,000 inhabitants (31.9 percent Moldovans, 30.3 percent Russians, and 28.8 percent Ukrainians). The percentage of Moldovans remained virtually the same as it was in the Moldovan Autonomous SSR, but the percentage of Ukrainians considerably decreased and that of Russians considerably increased. So, we compare how many Republicans/Democrats are in Washington DC now with how many were in Washington DC and Virginia 20 years ago. First of all, they compare different territories (1924 and present day), then there is no even a word about Moldovan population of Transnistria dropping from 39.9 to 31.9 in just 12 years.
  • Economic considerations also seem to play an important role in the Transdniestrans' desire to break away from Moldova. The Republic of Moldova has actually failed to introduce any meaningful economic reforms in the post-Soviet period and is the poorest country in Europe, with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) estimated at $900. Ukraine's GDP, by comparison, is $1,700; Lithuania's is $7,500; and Poland's is $13,000. Mixture of GDP nominal with GDP PPP, data for different countries for different years. I can show this way that Moldova now is even reacher than USA (...in 1850 in dollars that I don't say how much they mean now) Moldova failed to introduce reforms, that's something who did introduce can say, not Transnistria, who did not even 1/4 of what Moldova did, which I agree is not meaningfull.
I think that the author's point is that were Moldova to become an economic paradise in these years, then Transnistrians would be far less likely to support continuos independence. --Illythr 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sourses I introduced are:
  • Michael Emerson, Should the Transnistrian tail wag the Bessarabian dog?
  • Pamela Hyde Smith, Moldova Matters: Why Progress is Still Possible on Ukraine Southwester Flank
  • Nicu Popescu, EU in Moldova - Settling conflicts in the neighbourhood
The second one is the former US ambassador to Moldova. The other two appear to be reputable scholars, it's not the first time I hear these names. Sincerely, I would reather give more weight to an official report by a US diplomat than to a journalist that must have been pick-pocketted. I do not say not to include the other sourse, but just say what it is: an article written by a journalist - he wrote how he understood it from his experience. :Dc76 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Until what day/time are the 6 questions in the poll, and when do we make those changes in the article? I made only minor, stilistic changes, and people after me, with a couple exceptions, also did minor things. But the 6 issues raised must be settled before Marius and Mauco come back, otherwise how can we compare if their educational block worked?:Dc76 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 7 poll questions, the results from items 1,3 and 4 have already been introduced. The others are pretty much decided, too, although Mauco will most likely contest a few points. Actually, I'm not sure the poll was really necessary, as the proposed changes are a compromise themselves (Marius initially wanted full sections for points 1,2 and 6 and the other changes were also more drastic). --Illythr 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic script

[edit]

I'M SURE WE WILL AGREE ON ONE THING, DESPITE ALL THE DIFFERENCES REGARDING TRANSNISTRIA

. . . and that is: to call the Cyrillic script "Soviet-originated", as this article does in the sixth paragraph of its "Human Rights" section, is fairly absurd, is it not? What must the originators of that script (Saints Cyril and Methodius, the original Orthodox Christian missionaries to the Slavs) think of such a statement, assuming that they can hear it from whatever world they now inhabit? When they invented the Cyrillic writing system, there was not yet a Tsar or a Russian Empire, let alone a Soviet.129.93.17.14 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referring to the Moldovan version of the script, but the sentence doesn't clarify this and is indeed kinda awkward. I think it needs to be completely reformed. --Illythr 02:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to take a look at the current sentence. As Illythr indicates, the original Romanian Cyrillic (pre-Latinization)--which does not match Russian Cyrillic--is one thing, while the PMR's return of Romanian to its Cyrillic "roots" is a blatant lie ("Moldovan" being the the Russian-alphabet Romanian constructed at Stalin's behest). 129.93.17.14's comments are nothing but PMR propaganda. If it's an exhortation that we can surely agree on one thing, and what's presented is a blatant lie, then it must be the return of Mark Street.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
University of Nebraska-Lincoln! (IP address) Hopefully Mark was just passing through!  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Romanian script had at least 4 orthographies before the present one:
  • old Slavonic (late 14th-early 19th century)
  • Transylvanian latin (18th century-1860)
  • old Kingdom latin (early 19th century-1860)
  • Soviet cyrillic (1924-1932, 1938-1989), the years prior to 1940 indicate MASSR within Ukrainian SSR, and in 1932-1938 latin, not cyrillic was used there, as Stalin wanted to make communist all Romania, then in 1938 decided Bessarabia should be first (Germany would object to all Romania)
1 and 4 have nothing in common. Reading old Slavonic just because you know cyrillic is very hard, writting - impossible. You need to know letters and sound that do not exist for 400-500 years, and you have to know the medieval language, without the influx of mordern words. The comparison is like English 14 century and English today. Therefore I agree with Vercumba and Illythr. The IP address user simply does not know these details. A little reformulation for clarity is ok, but not saying cyrillic was Soviet is hiding facts.:Dc76 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "little in common", rather then "nothing", as the modern Cyrillic does originate from the old one. The anon's concern was specifically about the Cyrillic script being called "Soviet-originated", which, in its previous ambiguous form looked weird. I just removed the "Soviet-originated" part, because I believe that "modern Cyrillic" is implied by default. Feel free to improve the current sentence. --Illythr 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrillic script for Russian language, of course. All Russian literature of 19th century is written in it. For Romanian/Moldavian it was introduced in MASSR, and is Soviet-originated. I personally like the formulation you gave to the sentence, as long as the article Moldovan language says the script is Soviet originated. Last comment for tonight (it's late :-)): both latin and cyrillic alphabets originate from greek, which originates from fenician or aramaic (don't remember which one), and all in the end originate from babilonian cuneiform. :-) I think the only really orriginal others were/are ancient Egyptians, Chinese and Maya, all three of which are picture-based (in the origin). :Dc76 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified this further. Shouldn't be a problem now. BTW: I don't think the EU ban to 10 Transnistrian education officials was the deciding measure, as the ban wasn't lifted after the problem was solved. And, uh, source? --Illythr 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About "Soviet-originated". I don't care, it's the same to me. See if others have anything to object. :Dc76 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU ban to 10 Transnistrian education officials

[edit]

The ban was initially on 17 high officals (none of them education), and those are still banned. Then the 10 were added when the school issue came up. After the issue was solved, for 8 of the 10 the ban was lifted (the 2 from Ribnita, as far as I know are still banned, because there the newly built school was confiscated).:Dc76 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I hadn't known about this... I think this may be classified as original research, though... --Illythr 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this link confirms information on visa restrictions [22]Beagel 08:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, pp17-18. Current situation of visa bans: 17+10-8 Beagel 08:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty weak to me (did anyone of those 10 officials actually travel to the EU?), but I added it in the article about the school crisis. --Illythr 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Talk Page, and idea for a subpage.

[edit]

Every time I come to look at this page it is always so very very long, you could get better contribution to this article if the talk page wasn't so intimidatingly long and unwieldy to use. Voting is a very good way to help reach clear consensus, and I'm pleased to see that the more frequent contributors to this article have been using this. However at the same time voting is a quick way for a page to easily become much longer, but it is also something we could with ease compartmentalise and put on a separate sup page of talk. So long as we keep a clearly identifiable link at the top of the page that is big and easy to find nobody should be able to make claims against us of "hiding it away". So to start this off.... I'm creating the page now, and we can vote on if this is a good idea to use for future disputes or not. Here you go, Talk:Transnistria/voting Mathmo Talk 05:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Mark Street Alert

[edit]
  1. (cur) (last) 18:18, January 30, 2007 Dfoooh (Talk | contribs) (→Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute)
  2. (cur) (last) 18:17, January 30, 2007 Dfoooh (Talk | contribs) (historical correction)

The one on top added "blockade?" and the one on bottom deleted that Transnistria originally declared itself separate within the Soviet Union. Given that Mark Street was just on today as himself and Truli indicating he's retired (again) from Wikipedia (this was around 13:00), I wouldn't be surprised if he's back again--these were this user's first contributions. I suppose I could ask for an IP check but why ruin a potentially perfectly good welcome back party. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a problem , he was reverted ten minutes after he made his change, we will not accept that kind of work, but I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems Pernambuco 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fairness, I myself would have a bit of an issue where you (elsewhere state that you) are now satisfied regarding quoted sources that the PMR is sovereign. I for one welcome back both MariusM and Mauco.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pernambuco

[edit]

Indeed Pernambuco, is a "plain fallacy" to claim it was a consensus about the inclusion of word "officially", as you did. As you can see from the poll result above, the majority of editors don't agree with this word. You reverted me, as you always do in Transnistria-related articles. Normally, I should ask a mediation, but I have the experience of a mediation with you and Mauco [23] at Transnistrian referendum, 2006, where, after you agreed to participate, you refused to state your opinion and arguments on the issue. Currently, your only argument is that Mauco made a deal with Vecrumba. The other editors were not part of this deal (I for sure was not part) and we are more than 10 editors participating at this article, you can not claim a deal made by 2 editors as a rule that anybody else should obey. Anyhow, one of the participants of the deal, Vecrumba, stated he don't consider the word "officially" as apropiate. If we don't accept poll result for word "official", why we should accept poll result for external links or other issues? I started the poll as a way to achieve consensus, but it seems with your disruptive behaviour you work against consensus.--MariusM 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we should have a poll to see if my behavior is disruptive, as you say, I dont think so, the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia because one of the administrators decided that you had been edit warring, and he wanted to teach you a lesson, and educate you. But I can see now that you have not learned a thing, and you keep edit warring, and you keep calling other people names, and even start a whole section here with my name in the headline. I will give you some free advice and maybe you can avoid being blocked and banned again. It is this: stop going in circles, this is like Groundhog Day, and I dont think that I am the only one here on this page who is tired of it Pernambuco 04:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I see, you are the only one who refused to accept poll result on word "officially". In other sections of the poll, when you liked the results, you ask anybody else to accept them. Why this double-standard?--MariusM 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being polemic, and at the same time you say that I am disruptive, strange........ - Pernambuco 04:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The PMR constitution is official only for PMR side. Internationally, the constitution is not recognised. What does offically mean in this context?
I still do not understand what objection do you have against my version of the chapter names.Dl.goe 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
discuss substantial changes first, the word officially is put in context, it says "officially according to the PMR constitution" and it can not be any clearer than that. "MariusM" had a long block for this sort of behavior, and immediately he returns he immediately starts it again, the block was supposed to be Educational but he did not learn anything Pernambuco 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pernambuco, I am discussing changes, am I not? Why do you reprove me for not discussing?Dl.goe 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its de-jure official name (Stinga Nistrului) ought to be mentioned al least once around here... --Illythr 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all of the web-sites that Ive seen from the Moldova government, they call it Transnistria, at least the version in english, if you want Stinga Nistruli then this is for Romanian language wiki-pedia, or put it in the detail page about the Names Pernambuco 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart, is that what we want? Pernambuco 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being honest I agree with Marius and others, which I know I would obviously because I don't like "officially" either, but I don't see the point anymore in our discussions and polls if we aren't going to go along with the majority opinion on something as small as one little word. Pēters J. Vecrumba's opinion was your main reason for keeping it, Pernambuco, was it not? So it seems a bit silly to me to keep by that decisions even after Pēters J. Vecrumba says he doesn't like the word "official" in the article either, and when most of the other agree. Jonathanpops 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pernambuco's point is/was that Vecrumba agreed to the form containing "officially" in the spirit of compromise. Now that compromise has been replaced with majority opinion and the opposing party is absent, supporting one's own concessions is no longer necessary.
Now, I don't care much about the word, but I don't like Dl Goe's replacement either. "and does not imply the status of Transnistria: region of Moldova or independent state." - what's that supposed to mean? I get the feeling that it tries to justify something that doesn't need any justification at all. "Transnistria" is just a name. So is "Pridnestrovie". I suggest the following:

Most commonly known in English as Transnistria, its local name is Pridnestrovie.

According to the Constitution of Transnistria, Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (Moldovan: Republica Moldovenească Nistreană, Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, Ukrainian: Придністровська Молдавська Республіка, ПМР) is the long official name of the unrecognized state. This is abbreviated PMR. <ref>[http://www.pridnestrovie.net/name.html Pridnestrovie.net: "Pridnestrovie" vs "Transnistria"] Pridnestrovie.net. Retrieved [[2006]], [[December 26|12-26]]</ref>
(use either "According to the Constitution of..." or ...of the unrecognized state)--Illythr 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) This is a good compromise proposal. I will restore to Illythr's version now. The original compromise in the introduction also has to be respected.Pompey64 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm on a sort of wikibreak, but it is nice to see a bit of common sense prevail. The intro was a source of conflict for months. I agreed to the current version with Vecrumba after it looked like there was no other outcome. If we allow other editors to remove words at will, then that long-sought compromise falls apart. In that case, I will also remove words that I don't like, and we can start all over again. Mauco 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how Pompey64, a newbie with only 13 edits in Wikipedia (11 of them related with Transnistria, 1 with Moldova and 1 at his own userpage) [24] is drawing the conclusions of this debate. Is misleading the idea that it was a compromise. In fact it was only a discussion between Mauco and Vecrumba. Is not the most important thing in this article, but is showing a trend to ignore the opinion of the majority of other editors. illythr proposal also include the word "official".--MariusM 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have only made 13 edits but for the past month but at least they have not been knee-jerk reactions, I'd always suggest quality over quantity.
I apologise for neglecting to add my signature to the above comment, I am after a;; a 'newbie'. Pompey64 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(*Shrugs*) I think that there is nothing wrong with mentioning that "TMR"/"PMR" is official in Transnistria. I'm only concerned about the second occurence of the word. --Illythr 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am not interested in "likes" and "dislikes", but trying to point out that the word "officially/official" is NOT needed. The introduction doesn't make any less sense if you simply remove that word. We don't need to replace it with anything at all, just get rid of it. I'm speaking about the English language here and Wikipedia, not of some personal feeling about Transnistria. The word "officially" definately conveys a meaning that I believe should NOT be there, an undertone of point of view no matter who you say the point of view is attached to. The fact that anti-separatists are so vehement about removing it, and Mauco, our resident pro separatist is equally vehemant about keeping it is, in my opinion, a perfect demonstration to me of just how point of view the word is, which is why I say we should remove it and leave it at that. Jonathanpops 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest replacing the one in the lead with "(self name: Pridnestrovie)" - this probably can't get any more neutral. --Illythr 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illythr last proposal seems O.K. for me.--MariusM 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a long time. All considerations on whether the government in Transnistria is legitimate or not aside, since it is the group in control of Transnistria, and since it says that the official name is Pridnestrovie, then the official name is Pridnestrovie. "Anti-separatists", suck it up and live with the reality. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


-Illythr, that sounds all right but I don't see why it needs a replacement, what's wrong with just: "Transnistria (Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution)..."? This seems perfectly fine to me. Jonathanpops 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "per the Constitution" part sounds kinda forced. It was strapped on to clarify according to what the name is official. Without the word "official" it makes little sense, because the place was called "Pridnestrovie" all along anyway. I believe that the "local officialness" should be mentioned somewhere, though. --Illythr 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral, but the only reason why I defend the word "official" so much is because it was after all the compromise that they made, dont you remember the long long time when everyone was fighing over seven different ideas, and combinations, and it seemed like it would never end. yes, the the Per The Constitution sounds like bad english, but it is important, this is how it is official, it is only official by the constitution, and not by anything else 01:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
and one more thing: i am not the only one who says this, I have support from the Osgoodlawyer, and today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word, and a lot of others have said they are neutral, so there is no consensus for removing it and this is why I restore it, o.k. Like the Lawyer said: "Anti-separatists", suck it up and live with the reality. Pernambuco 01:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but isn't Osgoodlawyer someone who just signed up like 3 or 4 days ago, possibly another Mark Street incarnation? Not many people would say something as phoney as "suck it up" in this context. Not that it's relevant, but just to clarify, Mauco came back from a 10 day ban, same as Marius, he wasn't on a vacation.

Edit: sorry I was confusing Osgoodlawyer with someone else, Osgoodlawyer is not a new user, just a bit rude. Jonathanpops 09:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Transnistria they call the region Pridnestrovie. It is not just the official name of the 'government'. Wikipedia is full of similar examples for other countries and regions and the local name is always inserted. Pernambuco has made a valid edit Buffadren 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was against inserting the name Pridnestrovie, is just a problem with labeling this name as "official".--MariusM 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is official... in Pridnestrovie. --Illythr 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are going in circles here. We are saying in the article "Pridnestrovie, according PMR Constitution". Isn't it enough? How much more should we debate in this talk page for one single word in the mainspace? (I believe we have a Wikipedia-wide record on this subject)--MariusM 13:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you could edit warring and quote a poll, but the poll is worthless, many people did not participate in the poll, like the Osgoodlawyer, Mauco, Pompey64, User:Buffadren, all of them agree to keep the word. many other users said that they are neutral. the users who say 'delete it', they are a minority when you compare to these two groups, so why do we have to spend so much time just because Marius-M does not like the word. The word is true, It is official according to the constitution that they have, so i dont know why Mariusm wants to remove something that is true. Pernambuco 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the old versions, it was part of the article for 2006, it was not a problem before, why is that a problem now Pernambuco 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people use Somaliland as a comparitive example a few times in the past for other purposes, I'm using it now to point out that they don't need the word "officially" in this context on their page either, nor do they have it. Jonathanpops 14:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it rather petty of Pernambuco to go and edit Somaliland http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somaliland&diff=105096514&oldid=105046646 to undermine my above example and add the word "officially" to there too.Jonathanpops 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cossacks in Transnistria, invited "over the past 2 years"

[edit]

Here is a source which is telling that cossacks (volonteers who came from Russia) are still present in Transnistria. It seems that PMR government don't trust local population for jobs as border guards. Interesting that those cossacks were invited "over the past two years".--MariusM 12:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret that many Cossacks have settled in Transnistria after the war. The article's concern is that they're present in the Security Zone as border guards and are being paid for it. Interesting. --Illythr 12:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is 'BASA-general' and what is 'transnistria.md', are these two biased sources, are they one sided or are they neutral? Pernambuco 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BASA-press is, of course, Moldovan. [25] But that doesn't immediately mean they're lying. The news piece is fairly neutral with only the last paragraph demonstrating any POV. For now, the issue is minor, let's see how it develops.
BTW: Marius, what is the purpose of placing that particular news here? I don't see an expansion possibility there yet. --Illythr 18:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for such a late response to this post. I only just noticed it.
First of all, these Cossacks were probably not volunteers from Russia as MariusM has assumed (this was not in the linked article). There are about 10,000 Cossacks of the Black Sea Host (BSH) living in Transnistria. These have been resident in the area from before the collapse of the Union. There were Cossack volunteers from Russia during the war and some have settled in the PMR, but no where near 10,000.
Second, I don't know whether the BSH has taken on more state-contracted duties in recent years, but they have been employed as border guards since 1992. It's in Russian, but here is an Olivia Press article on the BSH and some of its activities [26]. jamason 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this Black See Host really existed or is an invention of Transnistria propaganda. What evidence exist about BSH prior to 1989, when conflict in Transnistria started? In the middle ages, there were evidence of Moldovans participating in cossack units (like Danylo Apostol - but according Wikipedia he acted in left-bank Ukraine). I believe transnistrian cossacks were invented by PMR propaganda. The number of 10000 also need refferences.--MariusM 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good question on something I don't know much about. There is a stub for the Black Sea Cossack Host, but it has almost no information. The BSH is part of the Russian Union of Cossacks (recognition by other Cossack groups), but I don't know if you will accept that as proof that these Cossacks have a legitimate claim on the mantle of the historic BSH. Also, anecdotally, BSH Cossacks that I know of who participated in the 1992 War were living in Transnistria as part of the 14th Army. The number, 10,000, comes from the Olivia Press article above. I have no way of verifying this number. Also, I should have clarified earlier: 10,000 is not of the number of Cossacks registered in the BSH, but rather the BSH community in Transnistria and includes both active Cossacks and their families. I will let you know if I ever come across anything more precise. jamason 15:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian Encyclopedia has an article on the historical BSH: [27]. Judging from the info there you could as well go and ask user:Kuban kazak whether he really exists or is an invention of Transnistria propaganda. The question of how the modern BSH relates to the old one remains open, however. --Illythr 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent refference, Illythr. I quote: "in 1792 it [Russian government] resettled the Black Sea Cossacks in the Kuban region". So, as of 1792, Black Sea Cossacks were ressetled in Kuban region of Russia, no native Transnistrian cossacks could exist at the end of 20th century. In Kuban region there is no doubt that some people consider themselves as cossacks.--MariusM 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "original" Cossack Hosts ware disbanded by the Soviet Union after WW2. There has been a lot of movement during the 20th century. Hard to tell who settled where. I know that a lot of Cossacks have fought in the WW2 within the Red Army ranks. It is possible that some of them had settled in the MSSR, where the 14th Army was quartered.
Still, what do you propose to change in the actual article with this section? --Illythr 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

I'm going to be away for the weekend, so I won't likely be able to contribute, but I think the entire intro needs a rewrite. It's okay for introductions to have up two three short paragraphs, and it would probably be acceptable to give this article at least two leader paragraphs. The first can discuss the basics and the second the independence from the MSSR and the declaration of the PMR. It would make the status clearer for all reading the article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction should be a summation of the article. Since we have not even made a single pass through the entire article to reach any sort of consensus--the next thing we were stuck on was Montevideo being quoted to state the PMR was sovereign (which ruckus has also spilled over into the sovereign states page)--expanding the introduction at this point, quite honestly, will only lead to calamity. (If you go through the talk archives you can see there was a prior attempt by myself and some others to more accurately paint the sequence of events leading to the current de facto administration of the Transnistrian territory by the PMR in the introduction, and that was cut down to what you see currently.)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with Vecrumbas, it was a big mess in the past, try to do other things first Pernambuco 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

There have been a lot of reverts today. Why?Pompey64 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is because mariusM made a poll and now he thinks that he can change the reality and the facts because his poll says he can....
I just want to say this, pompey : There are some things which a poll is perfect for, like which picture is nicest, so on, because there are personal opinions where some the different opinions of different people can decide the outcome. Compare: it is impossible to settle the facts with a poll, like for instance, what is the name used in the constitution, is that the official name according to that constitution, so on, these are simply facts. It is like having a poll about "Is the Earth Flat" and then if enough people vote that it is, then we have to change wiki-pedia? Ha ha , dont be silly, if you want a poll then it must be about things that can be decided with a poll.
Conclusions are sometimes polls are o.k. like when you decide on a picture, sometimes not, in case of the introduction Pernambuco 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On wiki-pedia they explained this more, it is a link that says "Voting is evil" but I can not find it right now, I just want to say that this is not my opinion, it is actually the rules of the wiki-pedia Pernambuco 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, try it. Start a poll called "Is the Earth Flat" (not really meaning that... WP:POINT etc.. but you should get the gist from what I'm saying). And I'll bet above a certain threshold of voters you will not get people saying the earth is flat. So guess what, a poll is useable for that example too! Mathmo Talk 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the flat earth remark was to be taken quite so literally ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pompey64 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed, I realised that. Likewise my disclaimer about not taking literally my suggestion to really create the poll! Mathmo Talk 13:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" poll results

[edit]

the word "official' can not be sorted by poll results, but mariusM thinks so, it is because he hates the word, and he will not accept how wiki-pedia works, that sometimes there are things which are not decided by voting on it, they tried it on the Swedish wiki-pedia and it became a big, big mess. The problem we have here, all the edit war, is because mariusM can not understand that part, wiki-pedia works by the consensus and not by the majority rule, and I have already told him that there is no consensus for his removals and deletions.

There are five who agree with him, including himself, and five who oppose him, in addition there are four who are neutral. The ones who are neutral, it means that they are o.k. with the Status Quo, which is: include the word and stop this edit war once and for all.

That means nine for keeping the word and only five for removing it, so stop removing it marius M and learn to work by consensus, I thought that he was banned for ten days for educational purposes, but he didnt learn anything at all Pernambuco 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to recognize poll results, and now you tell fake things about poll. You didn't count correctly and you can not add the persons which were neutral at those who want to keep word "official".--MariusM 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is incredible, you keep edit warring over one single word, and it has been in the article for a long time, even before i started here, and before you started here. just check the history of the page, well, to stop this once and for all I request that an Admin counts and decides. you do not agree with my count, it is 5 in favor, 4 neutral, and 5 against, and you accuse me of lying, I dont think you have heard of the rule "to be civil in wiki-pedia" So this is very sad and it is best to have someone else see who is right Pernambuco 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ correction ] - - it is not 5 against removing, it is 6 now, I was working on this page and I had an edit conflict, and it was with this user who said that the word needs to stay in the intro [28]
[ Remove ] - - the page is hard to read and it is a mess, but to me it looks like the following 5 are in favor of removing: MariusM, Dpotop, EvilAlex, Dl.goe, Jonathanpop
[ Neutral ] - - the following 4 are neutral and o.k. with the Status Quo: TSO1D, Illythr, Node, Vecrumbas (read all what he says not just the part you like)
[ Keep ] - - these 6 say keep the word in the context (it is official according to the PMR constitution not according to anything else): Pernambuco, Helen28, Mauco, OzLawyer, Buffadren, Pompey64
[ Conclusion ] - - how can a person mariusM say there is consensus, there is not. can you stop edit warring over this silly one word ? Pernambuco 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute over using "official" in intro is funny and stupid. After intro we have section "Names", which gives perfect solution to the dispute. It says: Most commonly known in English as Transnistria, its constitutional long name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública. And that true that according to the PMR constitution the official name is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública, not Pridnestrovie. So, saying that "officially Pridnestrovie per the PMR constitution" is actually false statement. Morehower, if according to the constitution the name is Pridnestrovie, you don't have to say "officially", because the constitution is the basis of any legal system and most official document ever. You need that kind of peacock term only in case if you think that the constitution is not legitimate.Beagel 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it Beagel. Like I said Somaliland doesn't need the word so why should Transnistria? Either a. some editors are worried that the constitution is not legal, or seen as not legal, and want to bolster it with the word "official", which it shouldn't need if it is legal. or b. it really isn't legal and shouldn't have "official" attached to it anyway. Jonathanpops 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am worried about breaking the compromise, thats all, and then the consensus breaks and everyone does their reverts wars. I posted messages to Vecrumbas to clarify and also to Mauco to come back and defend, I will not defend their compromise, this is their job..... but the people who want to remove are in minority, only 4 or 5 votes. The others that want to keep or are fine with the current version, they are a total of 10. Pernambuco 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but does any of what I am saying make sense to you, or anyone, regardless of polls, or am I wasting my time? I have not edited anything to do with this myself, even though I think "official" is not needed, I am just trying to point something out which, to me and editors of other articles like Somaliland, just does not need to be there. I am far more perplexed at the fight to keep it there than I am by those who want to be rid of it. It clearly is not simply a dumb argument, as someone else rather rudely put it, or pointless going by the silly amount of topics people keep creating because of this one word. Jonathanpops 13:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refering to the constitution in the intro is a bad idea for several reasons, not the least of which is that you refer to it as the "PMR constitution" without defining "PMR". All non-obvious abreviations must be spelled out the first time they appear in a text, and that's not done here.
As for Beagel's argument that "Pridnestrovie" is not official because the consitution says "Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública", I thought the constitution gave both the official long forms and short forms in Moldovan, Russian, and English? If the constitution does not give the official short form in English (or other languages), then there is, of course, no basis for referring to either the officialness or the constitutionality of the term.

└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's mentioned once... See for yourself. --Illythr 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. My two kopeks: The name "Pridnestrovie" is in the constitution.[29] As far as I know, this is the only constitution which is enforced in Transnistria. On that basis alone, the current word and qualifier has meaning. Why is this an edit war now? It was never an issue in the past. See older versions, like this one for instance: [30] May I kindly suggest that everyone moves on to more productive pursuits, such as discussing new edits which might add actual informational value to the article. I am on a sort of a wikibreak, and besides, this discussion is highly unproductive. - Mauco 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mauco, if you agree the word is "controversial" why do you insist on having it in there? Surely it's better not to have it if the word causes so much tension? Jonathanpops 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "self proclaimed country" was a good idea, with "republic" instead of "country". --Illythr 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-proclaimed" is a useless term. The United States is as much self-proclaimed as Transnistria. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um...no. Please consult a dictionary [31]. jamason 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... yes. The United States declared itself independent of the United Kingdom (and therefore declared itself a "country"). Recognition came afterward. The same will eventually happen with Transnistria if there is no reincorporation into Moldova (or some other entity). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the PMR will warrant the descriptor "self-proclaimed" until it is recognized. As I pointed out, "self-proclaimed" implies that lack of recognition. jamason 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"American Heritage Dictionary: self-pro·claimed (sělf'prō-klāmd', -prə-) adj. So called by oneself; self-styled. "
This definition fails to make the linkage to recognition, and even lacks an implicit indication that if a country is diplomatically recognized, this changes. Moreover, as it stands, the name "Pridnestrovie" is not an artificial or self-styled name which was willed into creation with the proclamations of PMSSR and PMR in 1990. The name existed before that time, and is the name used for the region by the majority of its inhabitants. It is also not just a name "so called by oneself" but the name which is used by others as well throughout the CIS, as "Transnistria watchers" with a working knowledge of Russian will know. - Mauco 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue is the "republic" part, not the "Pridnestrov'e" part. As in "self-proclaimed republic." (As Illythr suggested above.) jamason 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "self-proclaimed" description, let see what other editors think.--MariusM 12:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jamason, that the PMR will warrant the descriptor "self-proclaimed" until it is recognized. Jonathanpops 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's not written in articles about Moldova (or Russia, Mexico...) although these countries are certainly self-proclaimed. If you want to make everyone know Transnistria is not recognised write Transnistria is not recognised by any other country or international organisation. Alaexis 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no linkage between the word "self-proclaimed" and international diplomatic recognition, or lack thereof. I think that anybody living a public life – and I think an academic does lead a public life, at least to a certain degree – is forced to consider their words carefully, and it has nothing to do with Transnistria, it has to do with being a responsible adult. I think we are all conscious of that. You say things and they take on a life of their own, no matter what you are commenting on. One can make very clear choices about one’s life. This particular item is primarily a matter of the state creation process as it pertains to international law. Historians have different job descriptions. - Mauco 02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil attacks of Pernambuco against MariusM

[edit]

I am very very sad, I log on to my computer some minutes ago, and I am being publicly called "a person who understands with dificulty" this is like saying that I am deranged or mentally slow, it is here, [32] and the offender is MariusM. I want him to be civil, there are people who do not disagree with me, that is fine, but not this behavior, it is not fine. I want him to understand 3 rules from the wiki-pedia:

1. work with consensus,

2. be civilized,

3 no edit warring

they are the three things that marisM had to learn when he were blocked for 10 days, Robdurar already explained, he got his ban for educational purposes, to learn from it, please learn to work with consensus, this is what Robdurar already explained as his purpose: Educational Pernambuco 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation is flawed: Nobody said in that edit that you understand with difficulty. As to your educative approach, it would be acceptable if you were not a part in this edit war. Dpotop 11:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<hint> Read the edit summary. ;-) </hint> --Illythr 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pernambuco, who are you that you want to educate me? Are you my mother? First, you should learn those rules, including "no edit warring". You started the edit war in this article last year, by removing "border issue" section, Yakovlev's comments and US Department of State position. As you can see trough above poll, all your edits were against the will of the majority of the contributors of this article, and all my edits were in agreement with the majority opinion.--MariusM 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no I am not your mother, the person who said that your long ban was for education reasons was not me, it was an admin by the name of Robdurar .... all I say is, I ask you to be civilized, and not incivil, and I can see that you refuse, why ? I can count fine and there is no consensus. 5 in favor, 4 neutral, and 5 against, so dont pretend that you have a majority for your minority views Pernambuco 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is increasingly difficult to assume good faith for you as you don't count correctly poll results: There were 6 for removal: me, EvilAlex, Dl.goe, JonathanPops, DC76 and Vecrumba (he told "I prefer without the word "official" this mean he favour removal). For keeping I see only 3: You, Helen28 and Node.--MariusM 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask Vecrumba if this is right, I counted his vote as neutral, but is it true that he prefers to delete the word? i remember it was part of his compromise, and if the word goes away, then the compromise is going away, and he is not defending his compromise so the whole edit war over the rest begins again Pernambuco 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see both sides but I am in slight favout of keeping the word, removing it could be considered some sort of geo-political ethnic cleansing, at least that's how it willl be presented. Bad ! Buffadren 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am against keeping the word. Dpotop 11:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about putting "self-name" in the lead and explaining that it is official along with "PMR" in the PMR somewhere in the name section? (Per my suggestion above) --Illythr 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because "self-name" is terrible English? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Is there a single word synonym for "The name by which the government and populace call the place", that is not "Russian" or "official"? --Illythr 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, maybe "local name"? --Illythr 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English term for an assumed non-recognized title is "self-styled". This probably applies to the "Republic" bit. But I don't know if this applies to the "Pridnestrovie" part of the name. Maybe "Transnistria identifies itself as the PMR, or Pridnestrovie". Dpotop 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are only 5 votes for removal, 6 for keeping, and 4 are neutral. in fact, Vecrumba just explained that he is neutral, i asked him, and he clarified, it is in the vote section and he says it Pernambuco 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Dpotop changed his vote from "neutral" to "remove", according his comment from 5 February 11:12, there are 7 votes for removal. According this edit Osgoodlawyer, who Pernambuco counted as being for keeping the "official" word, is in fact against it. It seems for me that Pernambuco is a counting-chalanged person (my English is bad, I hope this is a politically corect description). I don't know who are the 6 who want to keep the word.--MariusM 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So can we please remove this highly contentious word then? Jonathanpops 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer official over "self-named", "self-styled" or other similar terms. The word is used in the constitution, but it isn't mentioned as the "proper" name. I think my edit of a simple also is best, however. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just remove that word and finish with this nonsense. Catarcostica 09:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the map

[edit]

The map shows all three demilitarized zones, including the two northern entirely controlled by the central government, as belonging to Transnistria. The map is supposed to represent the cituation on the ground, not the claims of the PMR leadership. I suggest to add the three zones in red. Also, the map should show the internal division of Moldova, so as to give the outsider reader more information about the disputted issues - it will be clear what one sides wants and what the other does not want.:Dc76 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Election results

[edit]

I reverted this edit of Mauco, where he changed Election results are suspicious, as in 2001 in one region it was reported that Igor Smirnov collected 103.6% of the votes with The 2001 election results of one region were suspicious as it was reported that Igor Smirnov collected 103.6% of the votes. International organisations had suspicious about elections results not only in one region, but in entire Transnistria. The example with 103% of votes in Camenca was given to show some of the reasons of suspicions, however this does not mean that results with 97% in other regions or in other elections are credible.--MariusM 10:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

his edit was better, if you read it, he explains what the proof is, also i have a question, this should be more like in the 'history of Transnistria' section, one single area in an election 6 years ago, that is very old, and there are no other examples since then, at least not in the article Pernambuco 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For recent elections also there are doubts about their fairness, for example the referendum from 2006, where both of you are strugling to take out from the article those doubts. Afterwards, you claim that all doubts are old. This is a reminder we need to include recent doubts about referendum fairness, in order not to allow interpretations that democratic rights infringements are only an old story in Transnistria. Pernambuco, the fact that you prefer an edit is not enough to have this edit in the article.--MariusM 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did ANY of the people or organizations who raise doubts about the fairness of recent elections actually go there? Did they send observers? Were they even in Transnistria? Or had they already made up their mind in advance, before the elections even happened? It seems to me that in order to pass judgment, it would be helpful to actually go there and observe what was going on. In 2005, there were two elections, and in 2006 there were also two. During both of them, hundreds of foreign journalists and international elections observers were present. None of the journalists reported any irregularities. The observers all concluded that the elections were free and fair. The only ones who complained were outside groups who refused to go there, and who never sought to be accredited in order to see first hand what was really going on. There is no reason why such biased, ill-informed "opinions" should be taken more seriously than the real first hand accounts of hundreds of Western journalists and observers who were actually there. - Mauco 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mauco, please stop with your original research about the fact that those who raised doubts were not in Transnistria. Moldovan Helsinki Comitee has a lot of collaborators in Transnistria. I told MarkStreet, editor of Tiraspol Times and wikipedian himself, to take an interview with Ştefan Urîtu, head of HCHRM, and corner him with his difficult questions. Neither TT or other transnistrian media accepted a dialogue with Urîtu, which is a sign that free media don't exist in Transnistria. Instead, TT wrote the totally fake claim that nobody raised doubts about Transnistrian referendum (and you still claim that TT care about truth). I remember also Vecrumba asking MarkStreet the list of the observers at Transnistrian referendum, but he didn't receive an answer.--MariusM 10:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elections were badly organised and open to abuse in the past and people were wary of the results. The Smirnov vote of 103.6% shows how sloppy the elections were there.But this is apoor example because the % figure of 103.6% is not significant because the opposition candidates also recorded increases in their votes in that regions count and that eliminated accusations of fraud. Votes from one region got mixed with another which is absolute stupidity on behalf of Transnistrian election workers. In recent years elections they were very strictly watched over by foriegn election experts. I suggest saying that in the past elections were sloppy but in recent years they now match international standards. Buffadren 09:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously elections don't match international standards not even today. We discussed those issued many times (see archives). Recent year elections were watched only by "experts" from groups with a Russian-expansionism political agenda, international organisations refused to watch them. For example, a report issued in 2006 by US Department of State tell: "In Transnistria, the right of citizens to change their government was severily restricted" [33].--MariusM 09:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Mauco's question. These organisations refuse to monitor the elections because they are deemed to be invalid internationally. but you have a point in this question. - Can they really cast negative comments and raise suspicions on results when they themselves refuse to attend the elections as monitors?. Buffadren 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some foreign organisations like OSCE are monitoring the situation in Transnistria for several years. There are no suspicions, there is a proven fact that democratic climate necesarry for free elections is missing. Arrests and harassement of anti-separatist Transnistrians, which is not even reported in Transnistrian media, lack of press freedom (for anti-separatists, pro-PMR activists enjoy freedom) are reasons why international organisations refused to monitor the elections. You can compare with the situation in Montenegro, where an independence referendum was monitored by international comunity, however a democratic climate existed and both sides were able to campaign for their point of view. About HCHRM I believe they have people who report to them but don't want to be known by Transnistrian authorities. Is a pity that nobody want to make a journalistic investigation about HCHRM claims, in Transnistria is allowed only to throw mud on Helsinki Comitee without any checking of the facts and in Moldova they just reprint HCHRM claims without asking more evidence.--MariusM 10:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way the OSCE are monitoring these illegal elections. I don't believe that is right Buffadren 12:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mauco, your logic is: the votes are legitimate, it's only that legitimate parties have not observed in person that the votes are legitimate. The fact that legitimate parties regard the regime a priori as illegitimate does not matter. The fact that said unrecognized regime has produced lists of voters and who they voted for to prove they are a democracy is (I'm sure you'll say) old news, look, the PMR are acting legitimately now. All WP:OR. No vote held in Transnistria can be characterized as free and democractic under the current circumstances there--and let's not forget Russian troops still there to insure the continuance of the regime that keeps track of who voted for whom.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Regarding "...than the real first hand accounts of hundreds of Western journalists and observers..."--don't confuse PMR theater staged for our benefit with reality. Your apparently complete lack of skepticism in this regard lacks a solid foundation.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Soviet or Supreme Council?

[edit]

Mauco changed, not only in this article but in all Transnistria-related Wiki-articles, the expression Supreme Soviet with Supreme Council. In fact, in Russian (the official language of Transnistra) is called "Soviet" and this is how everybody reffered to the "parliament" from Tiraspol. In the propagandistic effort to de-sovietize their image, Tiraspol authorities issued an English translation with "Council" instead of "Soviet" and Mauco is following this trend. We should discuss if this change is apropiate.--MariusM 10:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and do not ascribe my edits to "propagandistic effort to de-sovietize their image." MariusM is well aware of the reasons for my edits, as they have been explained extensively to him here. I am copying that below to remind him of the rationale. - Mauco 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard it called Soviet too MariusM you are correct, but is it still called Supreme Soviet or have they changed it Buffadren 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think both variants are pretty much equivalent. The word 'совет' (transliterated as 'soviet') indeed means no more than 'council'. Alaexis 13:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no immediate connection with the Soviet Union (and since the Soviet Union is dead, there is not), then the word should be translated into English, and should, in fact, be "council". └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the same exact words are used before and after, then "Supreme Soviet", the same translation as before, is still the appropriate translation. If they change it to something less "supreme," then certainly that would trigger revisting the English version. The hammer and sickle is still required, "officially," on the flag.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have an English language website now. Please see http://www.vspmr.org/?Part=5&Lang=Eng - They refer to themselves under two names: "Supreme Council of Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic" seems to be the most prominent. In the text, they also call themselves "Parliament of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic." The phrase "Supreme Soviet" is not used anywhere in English. - Mauco 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official name is NOT Soviet. See the source: http://www.vspmr.org/?Part=5&Lang=Eng and note that this is an OFFICIAL source. "Soviet" is merely a Russian word. It means "Council" and it is being translated correctly. In English Wikipedia, we use English words. This is even true for names. The opposite is considered vandalism. See[34] for an example. The previous article was in error, and I fixed it. More importantly, I fixed it with an official source. We have rules here that 1) English words have preference over foreign words, and 2) Official names should be used whenever possible. In this case, BOTH of these conditions are met. Please do not change it back to the old, wrong version. - Mauco 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we source when the PMR decided to change the English version? As I indicated, the hammer and sickle are still there.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article

[edit]

"Rusia nu poate abandona depozitele de muniţii din Transnistria din considerente de securitate" at this link http://www.newsmoldova.md/news.html?nws_id=602827 I can translate it if anyone wants. It is about Transnistria. Ştefan44 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You better find the original RIA Novosti link.--MariusM 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it. I can't read Russian, and RIA Novosti is Russian. Ştefan44 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convertibility

[edit]

William Mauco is suggesting that Transnistrian ruble is freely convertible. It could be or could be not so, but adding lot of links to banks daily rates says actually not so much about convertibility. Possibility to change your $100 at bank doesn't make currency freely convertible. To say if currency freely convertible or not, you need look the currency regulations and how they implemented, if they appllies also for accounts, if there any amount restrictions etc. Unfortunately, there is no Transnistrian regulations avaible, even not at the central bank website. Also, there is no non-Transnistrian source, which says that Transnistrian rouble is freely convertible. Therefore, I will restore specification "according to the Transnistrian central bank". If there will be any neutral source proving this claim, I will be glad to go forward with Mauco's suggestion. Also, there is no need for references to the banks' exchange rates. Concerning reference to the article at Pridnestrovie.net, this article includes also some other unprooved claims. Beagel 14:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Transnistrian currency regulations are available here (The fourth document "On currency regulation and control"), unfortunately, in Russian only. I've put the relevant clauses through translate.ru and posted them here directly:

Article 4, clause 1:
1. Residents have the right to buy a foreign currency in internal currency market Pridnestrovskoj of the Moldavian Republic by way of and on the purposes defined Приднестровским by republican bank.

Article 8, clause 2:
2. Non-residents have the right to sell and buy a foreign currency for currency Приднестровской of the Moldavian Republic by way of, established Приднестровским republican bank.

The "by way of" part means the procedure and is pretty standard: authorized dealers only, receipts, etc. I have no idea what "purposes" for residents can mean. --Illythr 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, "By way of", means that you must exchange through banks, exchange houses, etc. Basically anyone who is authorized as a licensed money exchange place by the Central Bank. Just like in any other country. This cuts down on illegal black market scams where people take advantage of tourists in the street. Now, reality is this: Anyone can go to Transnistria and exchange money with any bank, Western Union, etc. You can send and receive money freely. There are at least seven international payment systems. You can pay in PMR rubles and receive funds in dollars or euros abroad, or vice versa. So is is: "according to the Transnistrian central bank and anyone else who has ever come into contact with the PMR Ruble, including local and foreign banks, Western Union and six other payment systems". - Mauco 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Thank you for finding currency act. Based on this I agree that we use term convertible, although as I said also some outside of Transnistria source needed to confirm the fact of convertibility.
  2. Secondly, I removed references to the banks daily exchange rates, because these references are irrelevant in context of convertibility. Putting all these references to exchange rates is actually link spamming.
  3. Thirdly, please don't mess with free use of the word "freely". Pridnestrovie.net states that "The Pridnestrovian currency is convertible with US dollars, Euros, and other currencies at a freely floating exchange rates,...". So, the exchange rate is a freely floating (that means it's not limited by exchange corridor like ERM II in the EU, which gives possibility for limited floating). At the same time it states that currency is convertible, not freely convertible. So I think that current version is more correct as the citation is more correct. Beagel 07:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum section again

[edit]

The poll regarding referendum section didn't help us to achieve consensus, some editors even changed their vote during poll. According discussion in archive 12, I propose an other variant of this section:

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

My point is: is incorrect to have in the article the results with 97% without explaining also that there are some doubts about the correctness of those results. If there is no consensus for keeping both detailed results and doubts about them, is better to eliminate both, keeping link to the secondary article where there are better explanations. Any interested person can look at the detailed article for further explanations, through a mouse click. Let see what other editors think about this version.--MariusM 11:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Accept.--MariusM 11:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I am going to be very rude here. I believe that we should strike this proposal, and I apologize, but let me explain. This is spurious and disruptive, and thus runs counter to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. MariusM has been bringing this up three times already. It is all over the archives. For months and months, you have tested our patience. We have already voted on it and discussed it endlessly. In the end, the current phrasing won the day. Just as it did before, and then before that again. Please stop beating a dead horse. - Mauco 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I also ask: Why did MariusM unilaterally remove 'officially'[35] if the previous poll showed that there was a roughly even split between 3 camps: Those who are for, those who are against, and those who simply don't care either way and are OK with keeping the word. With only a third in favor of removal, this is NOT consensus and NOT a majority of editors, however much MariusM would like to claim it. - Mauco 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need to be rude, let alone very rude. And I happen to think Marius's suggestion isn't half bad. Furthermore people against the use of "officially" are in a majority, other similar pages don't use it so why do we need to? Jonathanpops 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Jonathanpops, but I did temper my extreme rudeness by at the same time apologizing. MariusM is severely testing our patience by proposing over and over and over and over again something which we have discussed endlessly and which has already been settled not once, not twice, but three times. What is this? Just because he doesn't get his way, he can keep beating the same already-settled issue endlessly? - Mauco 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's your view, but you should not put thoughts into other people's heads. He might be testing your patience, but he isn't testing mine and I don't think you should speak for others that way. If people don't agree on something then it isn't "already-settled", is it? And besides, it's only another page on a user-edited encyclopedia. Something that is fluid and open to change, just because you see it as already-settled doesn't mean that it can not be changed or discussed again. It's not as if this is a legal document we're writing here, or something where people's livelihood relies on how the page is written. Jonathanpops 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is already settled to the point that he tried and tried and tried, and failed to convince the majority here of why the most important event of the year should be reduced to a single line. Check the archives if in doubt. - Mauco 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't think it excuses being rude. And I don't think apologising for being rude in the same breath as actually being rude excuses much either. If you think Marius is testing your patience, and you're sure the matter is settled and the majority agree with you, then why don't you just ignore him? Jonathanpops 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a joke, the referendum section has already been discussed till we are blue in the face, MariusM stop it now, it is not funny anymore, if I have to be rude like mauco then it is ok, the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page when the outcome is not how he likes it Pernambuco 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mauco, reading your comments I have the strange impression that you don't like me. Anyhow, my first option was not to reduce the referendum section but to explain it better, but I see oposition to better explanations with fake arguments like "International Helsinki Comitee didn't include Moldovan Helsinki Comitee statement in their anual report" (Pernambuco), while the anual report for 2006 was not yet issued.--MariusM 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a new member of Wikipedia. If you want to count my opinion on any pool, and to simplify the process...please add one vote against anything that is proposed by Mauco. Thanks !! -- Catarcostica 02:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catarcostica, if that really is your attitude I think it's clear that we should ignore any input by you. Jonathanpops 11:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes. - Kertu3 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above coment of Kertu3 is a totally unjustified personal attack. As Kertu3 registered only a little time before writing this comment I believe he is a sockpuppet [36]. I discovered previously sockpuppetry of pro-PMR MarkStreet - Mark us street - Henco - Truli - Esgert, this is the reason of the hate some editors have against me. Looking at the polls done on this page, usually the majority of the old editors agreed with me. It will be better instead of throwing with accusation of sockpuppetry (from whom? an editor with 2 edits in Wikipedia?) to ask a RCU in the situations when there is a doubt. Only after the case is confirmed to show the accusations (as I did in Mark Street case). I will favour a poll with some conditions for participating to avoid sockpuppetry - like at least 100 Wikipedia edits and 2 months Wikipedia activity.--MariusM 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finally read the rules of Wikipedia...sorry for my last post...it look like a personal attack on Mauco. I did not intend that. Also I dont want to edit anything on this page...I don't have your experience. But some of Mauco edits are far,far away from reality and I consider them as an attack on human dignity and democracy. It his right to have an opinion, but the same right I have also. Catarcostica 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have the right to identify, with sources, where I am factually wrong. I appreciate corrections to my work, which I take seriously. However, you do not have the right to vote if you are a sockpuppet (as someone on this page points out). - Mauco 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Mauco: Unfortunately for you I am not sockpuppet, I am actually new on wiki... unfortunately for you, I just find out your IP, your ISP and your true identity.....unfortunately for me I can't pay you a visit soon...but expect me please ... I will invite you to drink votka with me and to talk like friend. Maybe is better to talk in private about this. Sorry about all comments!! Catarcostica
Lies and tasteless personal threats aside, Catarcostica has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Bonaparte. Although his edits were defended by MariusM (who reverted to them twice [37][38] , and overwrote other editors in the process), the main page is now restored to its Bonaparte-free version. - Mauco 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce human rights section to one single line, just like the referendum section

[edit]

MariusM wants to have just a one-liner on the referendum, which was arguably THE most important event in Transnistria in 2006, and one that will have repurcussions on the status settlement outcome for years to come. In the same vein, I propose a simply oneliner to replace the whole human rights section:

The human rights record of the PMR has been criticised by several democratic governments, international organizations, and NGOs, and according to the OSCE, the media climate in Transnistria is restrictive. Main article: Human rights in Transnistria

My point is: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Like MariusM says, any interested person can look at the detailed article for further explanations, through a mouse click. Or why should human rights somehow be elevated to a larger space than the referendum? This is called undue weight, since in the objective view, the referendum is arguably THE most important event for years, and it will have a bearing on the outcome of the final status settlement. - Mauco 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with both being one-liners, it's more fittingly encyclopedic I think. I do wish some editors would stop opening discussion sections with somebody's name though, it's getting a bit tedius. Jonathanpops 17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is all about weight, and there is such a thing here as undue weight. The right article makes a fair and objective analysis of what it most important, then gives appropriate weight to each subject in matter of importance. Holding a referendum and asking people's opinion on their future is arguably as important, if not more so, than what outside organizations (some of whom have never been to Transnistria) think about human rights. - Mauco 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the human rights section should stay but it needs to be pruned back.Buffadren 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely making a point in answer to the oneliner-cutback proposal immediately above. What the human rights section needs is a syncronization with the main Human rights in Transnistria article. First, everything that is here needs to be there, too (which is currently not the case). Second, the section here must be an accurate synopsis summing up all the most important points of the detailed article. That way, the section here will accurately serve as an overview and introduction to the subject there. - Mauco 23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High level of succesfull criminal investigation?

[edit]

I see another edit war started with a paragraph pretending "high level of succesfull criminal investigation" [39]. What succesfull criminal investigation is in Transnistria where clear results about who is guilty for the deadly explosions in Tiraspol last year are still expected (some people were arested, released, other were arested but still nothing was yet proved)? Explosions were used only as a oportunity to accuse again Moldova and intimidate pro-Moldovan activists.--MariusM 19:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already removed before you complained, MariusM. What is your point? Unless the editor in question wants to defend his now-deleted edit, I see no reason to waste everyone's time here and discuss a part of the article which does not exist. - Mauco 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to MariusM. I now notice (from today's edit log) that the editor in question persists in including the sentence. Others, including myself, have removed it. If this is not defended here, I see no reason to include it. If it is defended here, let us discuss it and see how we can find a phrasing that everyone will be happy with. Meanwhile, I support MariusM, Bogdangiusca, and others who feel it is better to keep the sentence out of the article. - Mauco 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
. I entered the article. You reverted it. You asked for citations. I provided Six independent news sites to support my entry. Please explain this ? Buffadren 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your references unreliable. EvilAlex 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be a cold day in hell, but I am actually with Evil & friends on this one. If the editor insists nevertheless, then please propose something here and let us work on phrasing that can be acceptable to all. But please: based on real sources (not a blog). When there is a semblance of consensus, we can add whatever the outcome is. Until then, please don't add the disputed paragraph because that will just create more revert warring. - Mauco 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the blog, The wording I propose is as is, you paste your suggestions here and we can make a match. Buffadren 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki Comitee of Human Rights in Moldova

[edit]

Some editors don't trust this organisation. Tiraspol authorities hate it and its leader Ştefan Urîtu, is for long time the subject of attacks of Transnistrian authorities. From the International Helsinki Federation website I founded an article "Attack on Moldovan Human Rights defenders which describes an episode happened in 2004, when Tiraspol authorities forbid a seminar about human rights and arrested Urîtu and one other person for a short time. It was not the first time when Urîtu was arrested by Transnistrian authorities, I guess he don't like very much those authorities. However, we should not ignore what he says about Transnistria only because he was several times arrested by Tiraspol authorities - is like ignoring Nelson Mandela because he was arrested by apartheid regime and is not a neutral source about it. Neutrality in Wikipedia is not ignoring facts and opinions but presenting both sides of a story.--MariusM 20:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The seminar was held. Comparing Urîtu (who is on the payroll of Moldova's Secret Service) with Nelson Mandela takes guts. But is this about an edit to this article? Or to the Human rights in Transnistria article (if so, post there, not here)? And if not an edit to this article, what is the purpose of the post? Please focus your discussions on actual edits to the main page article. - Mauco 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some source for your "Secret Service Connection"? I presume not. On the other hand, the helsinki Committee is a well-established NGO, which qualifies as a reputable source, whether you like it or not. By consequence, its Moldovan branch and its leader qualify, too. Dpotop 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The international Helsinki is a federation. The local organizations are independent. They are not branches. They affiliate with the federation, but the federation has nothing to do with the work of the locals, no interference, and no responsibility. Work done by one is independent of the other, and there is no cross-endorsement of any kind. If you evaluate the output by Urîtu over a period of several years, you will be able to correctly form a true picture of the nature of his activities. - Mauco 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why MariusM opened this discussion. Urîtu's homemade Helsinki-group is not mentioned in the article, so why are we even discussing this? - Mauco 12:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem. We should mention this group in the article (its comments about referendum), it is not a home-made group but a reliable group, affiliated at International Helsinki Federation. I gave the link to the International Helsinki Federation website in order to prove that this group is recognized by International Helsinki federation. Urîtu was often critic with the Moldovan government from Chişinău, is not something that an employee of this government is likely to do. BTW, I suspect many sources used in this article as being at the payroll of Transnistrian government.--MariusM 09:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International relations

[edit]

This section needs to be expanded. It currently only has a subsection about the customs conflict. - Mauco 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the international relations of Transnistria should first exist. Otherwise, you'll just make fiction prose here. Dpotop 09:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fair overview of Transnistria's international relations, as well as lack of international relations, are in order. I am not asking for anything more than a true, factual picture of the extent of their international relations, such as they currently exist at this point in time. - Mauco 12:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide, I dont want to take sides but if the information is true it has to be in the article Pernambuco 12:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do. - Mauco 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia and they are supported by Russia, which still don't recognited Transnistria.--MariusM 09:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section don't need to be expanded. There are no relations. Catarcostica 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tank photo unjustified, unfair and undue weight

[edit]

I would like to remove the photo of the tank from this article. I think it is irrelevant, especially since the text of the article does not mention it. Tank monuments are fairly common throughout the post-Soviet sphere, and thus not particularly representative of Transnistria. There is no reason to single Transnistria out unless such tank monuments are also highlighted in other articles, which they are not. I cite, for instance, Zhytomyr which has a similar monument (as can be seen here), yet said monument is not shown or mentioned in Wikipedia's Zhytomyr-article. - Mauco 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense...

Why are you so upset by this photo? Transnistrian authorities love this monument.--MariusM 09:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care either way, I think it looks quite nice actually. If you think it has any negative of positive effect on the ambience of Transnistria I think you are wrong, both of you. To me it's just another picture, but I know it isn't that way to others. It is already on the Tiraspol page, which it definately should be, so maybe we could lose it on the Tansnistria page but what would we have their instead? What are the iconic pictures of Transnistria, a river and a building with some trees in front of it? I think we should be increasing the photo count, not reducing it. Jonathanpops 17:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, what happeded to the person who said there should be more photos and not less, this was a month ago (????) I think, not sure of the date. and then nothing happened with that, I agree with him and with jonathanpops, it makes a nicer page with many pictures please add more. Photo of Sheriff football team please, and they have players from my country on the team Pernambuco 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crime

[edit]

Due to its tiny size Transnistria is very tightly and easily controlled by its police and has low crime rates. what is so wrong with stating that ? Buffadren 09:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, you need to read WP:NPOV.
For example, this is one the problems (see the article):
"20 people were killed in the village of Chiţcani, 5 km south of Tiraspol, between 1996 and 2000. No government authority investigated these deaths. Moldova declared that it has no access to the village, and Transnistrian authorities do not wish to investigate.[44]"

bogdan 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I am not taking Buffadren's side in this. I am with you, Bogdaniusca (and yesterday reverted to your version of the page). However, you gave a particularly bad example. There is no evidence that the 20 people were killed, and that the statement which you quoted (added by MariusM without proposal or prior discussion) are true. We only have one man's word for it, from a self-published webpage which purports to be an interview. However, the interview doesn't appear anywhere else, has no sources, and is not published by the "interviewer". Besides, it is badly formatted and full of typos / spelling mistakes. I propose moving it here, to talk, until the editor can substantiate the statement according to accepted Wikipedia practice. - Mauco 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no other sources have been provided in the past 4 days since I made the request, the highly dubious information has been moved. It can be reinstated if MariusM provides a serious source or evidence that the killing of these 20 people actually took place and that Transnistria covered it up or refused to investigate. A United Nations or OSCE report, or a mention by the US State Department, might be a good start. - Mauco 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Buffadren: See above. You can make a proposal, here on this page. Then let us work on it here to see if an acceptable phrasing can be developed which there is general consensus on. Don't expect everyone to agree, as some people will always oppose everything, no matter what it is. But if 3/4th of the recently active editors on this page are in disagreement with you, that should tell you something. - Mauco 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this - Transnistrian authorities have a fixation with internal security and this is evident in the policing there. Ordinary everyday criminal activity is very low because of this zealous policing and also due to the region's compact size.making it easy to control. Transnistrian authorities are quick to point to this low level of ordinary crimiinality. True as this may be it still does not take away from its reputation for being a centre for smuggling and has faced allegations of manufacturing weapons for trade but its citizens day to day lives are not affected by this alleged organised crime. Buffadren 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, doesn't work that way. Protecting from the citizens and protecting the citizens are two different things. You can see an extreme case in Irak. BTW, Transnistria does not control all the territory it claims, there are non-right zones, etc. Dpotop 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And from a Wikipedia POV: You can't use those sources, they are not reputable. Dpotop 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, okay I'll leave it with you then, I'm not that bothered Buffadren 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I remove the following part on allegations on weapons trade ? "Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control.[56]. Recent weapons inspections permitted by Transnistria and conducted by the OSCE reflect this transparency and co-operation[57][58]" .
The first source "http://www.saferworld.org.uk/publications.php?id=211" is actually state the contrary on page 143 "Transparency among the Transdniestrian security services responsible for SALW control is in general very low, particularly with respect to SALW transfers. The Survey team was not provided with any information about the structure of the Transdniestrian security services, their manpower or SALW holdings. Neither was any information provided on the type and number of SALW produced, imported and exported since the Transdniestrian authorities broke away from the rest of Moldova. While the general lack of access to security-related information is a common symptom of conflict situations, in the case of the Transdniestrian authorities it helps to perpetuate and reinforce accusations of SALW production and trafficking. The lack of transparency on the part of the Transdniestrian authorities also ensures that tensions with the Moldovan Government are kept at an elevated level."
This sources [57][58] are actually talking about this report. They should be removed, we already have the primary source and we don't need the non-neutral of a secondary source derived from the first one.
In conclusion we should reinstate the pre-02:06, 21 February 2007
Mauco, there is no previous post on the talk page about your edit. Why you don't first ask about our opinions? Catarcostica 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that remain or surface again

[edit]
1 current version of the map by Mauco
2 a previous version of the map by some user (see map history; I saved & upoaded a copy b/c I don't know how to link to it)
3 a map I have just created
  • This contains 3 issues that have not been dealt with, or have, but resurface:
    • Is Mark Almond's characterisation of Transnistrian regime that of an Oxford scholar or that of a BHHRG chief?
      I think everything that Mark Almond say about Transnistria he is saying as the chief of British Helsinki Human Rights Group (which, contrary of Moldovan Helsinki Comitee of Stefan Urîtu, is not affiliated at International Helsinki Federation). If we quote Almond we need to tell at which group he belongs, and BHHRG is relevant, as this group published several articles about Transnistria.--MariusM 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, original research. Unless Mark Almond specifically issues a statement in the name of the organization which he heads, he is speaking as an individual. - Mauco 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is saying what organization a person is the head of construed as original research? This is pertinent information. Then you cannot mention he is any kind of scholar either, that's then original research too because you are associating his comments with the reputation of the institution. You can have both or none. Oxford AND BHHRG or none. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      MariusM engaged in original research by claiming that "I think everything that Mark Almond say about Transnistria he is saying as the chief of British Helsinki Human Rights Group" and I merely answered that unless this is specifically noted in the text, we can not make the automatic assumption that this is the case. Unless Mark Almond specifically issues a statement in the name of the organization which he heads, he is speaking as an individual. - Mauco 03:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdenting, getting squished next to maps...) On the contrary, if you are going to cite an individual and include his credentials (Oxford scholar) then you are lying by ommission by intentionally presenting an incomplete accounting of his credentials. Please explain to me what I am missing. The BHHRG reference to Almond did not say that "Mark Almond, speaking for the BHHRG, stated...", however, Mark Almond, "Oxford scholar and head of the BBHRG," is entirely appropriate and absolutely required. Listing a person's credentials is now WP:OR? If you wish, we can take to dispute resolution.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the text: Kafka and the arms smugglers. It does not appear to be an official BHHRG statement, nor issued by Oxford. However, Oxford is mentioned in the intro summary and overview. BHHRG is not. - Mauco 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the problems of crime, human right violations, restrictions of media, etc due to the Transnistrian regime or to the Transnistrian population? Does anyone blame the ordinary people for that? I have never seen such a source.
    • The map of Transnistria is incorrect, as it shows the neutral zone areas, including those under Chisinau control and part of different administrative unit, in Transnistria. These areas are not properly cited in the article (there is no reference to some other article where these localities would at least be listed)
Dc76 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE, choose the map for the article:

the first one, without a doubt, i mean the current one, it is the one that has the name that the article has, and you can read it, the last one is also good but you cant read it, and the green stuff is confusing Pernambuco 04:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last one is good, but needs to be worked upon. I suggest to simply take everything from the first one (colors, big names) and add eveything new from the third one (likewise in readable fonts). PS: Who's in control of the southern regions? --Illythr 11:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, the thrid one looks all right. Maybe it could be trimmed a bit then resized so that Transnistria is bigger and you can read the text easier, with a label for Moldova and Ukraine so you can tell where it is. Jonathanpops 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the third one is a mess, if you use it make it smaller (Crop), so Transnistria is bigger, and label everything, like the first map has it, it can be seen. also what do the colors mean, what is the green stuff, and who controls the green? Pernambuco 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Green are the areas under the jurisdiction of the Joint Control Commission, the peacekeepers. I know for sure that the Bender area is under de facto control of Transnistria. Dunno about the rest. --Illythr 23:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Map 2 is a start, but add the Moldova and Transnistria labels and put a legend in there somewhere to explain the outlined areas. Map 3 is not only hard to read, adding less than useful labels, but it also over-emphasizes the "Moldovanness" of Transnistria by showing internal divisions of Moldova (including the capital). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just noticed that Map 2 has internal divisions of Moldova as well. They should be removed. It puts the emphasis on Moldova. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that we don't need to see the whole of Moldova, only the whole of Transnistria expanded with a bit of Moldova and Ukraine either side with labels so you know which part of Europe Transnistria is in. Or something like this: http://www.transdniestria.com/Sections-article5-p1.phtml only better looking with Transnistria bigger but have the little Europe map in a corner. Jonathanpops 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why is Tighina in Transnistria? At last news, Tighina was on the right bank of the Dniestr? Dpotop 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC) As for the maps, I believe the last two ones are OK. People should be aware that the PMR is not controlling the territory it claims, and that it controls territory outside geographical Transnistria. Dpotop 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like Moldova controls territory which was never historically part of Moldova, and never part of Romania either? And like how they want to control even more (as witnessed by the claim to want Transnistria, even though it has never been part of Moldova). - Mauco 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are discrediting yourself claiming that Transnistria was never part of Moldova. It was part of Moldova from 1924, when Soviet Union created the Moldovan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and also part of MSSR after 1940. It is still part of Moldova, even if you don't like it.--MariusM 16:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, "It was part of Moldova from 1924"? What Moldova are you talking about? In 1924, Moldova was part of Romania. Transnistria was part of the Soviet Union. The Republic of Moldova did not exist until 1991. The Dniester river was the border between Romania and the Soviet Union. Within the Soviet Union, Transnistria was a separate autonomous entity, the MASSR, with Tiraspol as its capital. Although not a separate country, it was more comparatively sovereign than Moldova was at the same time. Moldova was never even an autonomous republic within Romania. And to make it clear for you: Transnistria was never part of an independent Moldovan state, and was never part of Moldova. Likewise, the first-ever independent Moldovan state, the Principality of Moldavia, also never included Transnistria. By the time Moldova declared independence, the Transnistrians had already made it clear that they had no intention to be part of that arrangement. They had left the MSSR a year before. Transnistria has no historical belonging to Moldova (nor to Romania) and it clearly doesn't want to be part of Moldova in the future either. - Mauco 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Map #1 is the right one, for the simple reason that it corresponds to how all WP:RS display Transnistria: RFE/RL, BBC, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, and other top news agencies worldwide. If Dc76 or another Romanian wants a homemade map, then first show us which reliable source displays Transnistria that same way. - Mauco 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the webpage of Dubăsari district under Moldovan control [40]. You can see in white areas under Moldovan control and in green areas under Transnistrian control. Areas under Moldovan control corespond with the 3rd map.--MariusM 16:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Map#3 is the right one. It the reality even if I don't liked. What everybody else seem to not understand is this: in the first map is all the land that PMR claims, but not the land that is actually controlled by them. From the neutral point of view #3 look better. Answer to Mauco:( daca esti bonaparte si ai ceva interese pe care nu le inteleg acu ..te rog trimite un mesaj ca altfel mori cu mine de gat)...... WP:RS display a map of land not controlled by Moldova's government which is not the same as transnistrian(PMR) controlled territory. There is a "buffer" zone between them. Reliable source? This one is as reliable as anyone other : http://www.russiablog.org/Transnistria-map.jpg or this one to make pro-russian guys fell better: http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/md/Moldova_map_flag_geography.htm

Catarcostica 06:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The "Bonaparte"-touch from a user who showed up here less than 3 days ago, and hardly edited anything else than Transnistria since then. - Mauco 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the map #3 but it should be a little changed. 3 of the green areas are teritories claimed by Transnistria but controlled by Moldovan government, the southern 4th green area is a teritorry in Bessarabia controlled by Transnistria - maybe it need a different color. Explanation bellow the map is also needed.--MariusM 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer a couple questions:

  • The southern area - which is in fact a single area; in the thinest part it is just a couple hundred meters wide; and it is exactly the area on the right bank of Dniester claimed by Transnistrian regime (no denigratory meaning here, William Mauco, although you know very well how much I "love" Smirnov, Antyufeev et Co) - consists of 8 villages (2 under Moldovan central authorities control, both big, and 6 under Transnistrian authorities control, 3 big and 3 small) plus the city of Tighina. The local authorities of the later recognize the Transnistrian regime as their supperior, but the security is shared (in formal responsibility, by far not in practical cooperation) by both Moldovan police and Transnistrian militsia.
  • Of course the maps can be adjusted accoring to what Illythr and Johanthanpops suggest. Problem is, I have pretty bad image editors for maps, i.e. they were not desined for maps, but for other kinds of images (technical nature mostly). Of course, it is always possible to do pixel by pixel, but believe me, sometimes that is simply too much effort. Anyone can assist? (you can download the image directly from wikipedia to your computer)
  • I don't care if there is or not the internal division of Moldova. Erasing is always easier than introducing. I only thought that that could be of some informational value, as it points out what is the Moldovan side's suggested solution to the conflict. Therefore I did not erase it.
  • Obviously we'd say under the picture what the colors mean, no question in that (e.g. see the wording by Illythr above)
  • When you think, everyone has seen this "poll", can anyone, please, do the count and summarize the result of this debate, so we can plan what to do next.:Dc76 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, this is a good explanation, and if you want I have an image editor, and I can change the maps for you pixel by pixel after theres an agreement, of course only after everyone has a chance to decide Pernambuco 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, for the first. And thank you, you are also welcome, for the second. Can you do better than pixel by pixel? I can only if we start the image from scratch with one of the editors I use (Mayura), which I really don't want to spend a whole day with. You see, I am trying to, sort of, you know, volonteer someone else, so I don't have to do it. :-) :Dc76 20:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you can "volunteer me" I use Adobe Photoshop it is a very powerful program, I am not an expert in it but I will do the changes you say, just give me the instructions when youre ready to change and I can work from these original images. Just one thing I want to say, I will post it here first so you can approve it, I will not put it on the main page just like that first, without all of you here getting to see it first and say O.k. Pernambuco 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before you get too far ahead of yourself, can we get some sources for the first three (northernmost) green areas. It goes without saying, of course, that he sources must adhere to Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. No reliable sources that I have ever seen is showing this, in green, blue, red, or any other color. Map #3 vastly overstates the amount of left bank territory which is under effective Moldovan jurisdiction. - Mauco 00:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moldova controls on the left bank 8 1/2 villages: once - Cocieri, Molovata Noua, Roghi, Vasilevca and 1/2 of Corjova; twice - Cosnita, Pirita, Pohrebea and Dorotcaia. That's it, no more land. The boundary of the lands of each village has not been changed for generations. The only thing one needs to do, is to go along the administrative boundary between villages. The same on the right hand side, near Tighina. There, of course, we should include Varnita and Copanca, which although controled by Moldova solely, are claimed by Tiraspol. One sourse can be the website of the Dubasari raional council. Another sourse can be any Soviet era map that has the boundary between the lands of localities. (On the same tokken on should mention that when a solution to the conflict would be found, the boundary issue will be reviewed, and some adjustments could be made, but untill then, just like Transnistria's separation from Moldova - is in total flux. The only thing we show is who controls/claims what. Or rather, what is the authority of the Joint Control Commission, which to be correct goes over all of Corjova then. - not sure about the city Dubasari, but seems not):Dc76 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDP comparison Transnistria - Moldova

[edit]

Pernambuco changed in the "Macroeconomics" section the former explanation GDP per capita in Transnistria is lower than in Moldova with the explanation GDP per capita is higher than in Moldova, and also removed the source CIS fact book about Moldova https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/md.html , in which is written tan Moldovan GDP per capita is 2000 USD. Instead, we have now an explanation that GDP of Transnistria is 420$millions or 990 USD/capita, which is higher than in Moldova, with a source which is telling that GDP of Transnistria is 405 $millions and which make no comparison with Moldova. Questions Pernambuco and his friends:

  • How can be 990 higher than 2000?
  • Why you removed CIA factbook about Moldova refference, why you believe this refference is not valid?
  • Why you are using a source which is conflicting with the article (see 405 vs. 420 $ millions GDP; also the source is reffering at year 2006, while the article at 2005)?
  • Why you claimed that Transnistrian GDP is higher than Moldova's without any source to back this claim?

Is very difficult for me to assume good faith with such "neutral" plain falacies included in the article.--MariusM 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM: Please don't be so trigger happy when accusing everyone else of being wrong, and thinking that you are the only one on a Mission For Truth™. This time around at least, you're the one with the fallacies. But apparently by now someone has explained the difference to you between nominal GDP and PPP GDP. - Mauco 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no that wasn't me, i just restored the page after one of the new suspected sockpuppets changed the source from what was already in teh article, if he or she wants to change the source and the meaning then talk about it here, I make no claims, my only claim is that I dont allow a new user who registered two days ago to change the article all by his himself, so like I always do, i just restore it to the version that all the users agreed on. The dont know who made the original version, it wasnt me so stop with those accusations, wh dont you go and ask the sockpuppets about their sources Pernambuco 22:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted me [41] (twice today) and now you claim that you reverted a sockpuppet. Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Is difficult to assume good faith on you. If you don't know the subject of your edits (Transnistria, in this case) you should refrain editing (including reverting other editors).--MariusM 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MariusM, in defense of Pernambuco: He/she restored the page to its original version after an unknown user (who, from the looks of the user's edit record is quite obviously someone's sockpuppet) removed original information and replaced it with data which this page's discussion has shown to be false and misleading. I took a look at the history of the page, and Pernambuco did not revert an edit of yours. Rather, Pernambuco defended the integrity of the original page after MariusM reverted to the undiscussed anon/sockpuppet version. This is not the first time that MariusM does this. I am glad that someone is looking out for the page. The last time, Pernambuco got a block after he reverted some serious damage that MariusM and Bonaparte did jointly. Bonaparte wrecked the page, and MariusM kept supporting it with reverts to the damaged version. An editor then lifted the block after deciding that the only thing Pernambuco had done was vandal control. If I had been around that day, I would have done the same. - Mauco 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chime in, that $2000 GDP per capita for Moldova likely includes Transnistria, so it can't be directly compared to the $990 figure. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but you know it just cant be compared at all, Mariusm is trying to compare nominal GDP with PPP GDP and thats not how it is done, ever never. Because the Fact-book source from CIA says nominal that GDP for Moldova is under $700 when it is divided by inhabitants, and when you do the other source, for Transnistria it is higher of course. But I dont think that Mariusm knows the difference between nominal GDP and PPP GDP, he just likes to attack everyone that doesnt agree with him, he always does that with me, but he doesnt know that I am neutral, and really don't take sides, I just want a page that shows the real data. If they are larger, show that, if they are smaller, show that, and show the right maps. That is all I want Pernambuco 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last census of 2002: Transnistria's population was 555347, at a 404.5 $million GDP as our source (which don't explain if it is PPP or nominal) it gives a $728 GDP per capita. The same source is telling a 990 $ GDP per capita, which is showing how unreliable is this source (but I know Wikipedia editors likes Russian sources, as they show the great successes of Transnistria). Nominal GDP for Moldova, according CIA factbook is 2588 $millions and population at 2002 census was 3383332. Nominal GDP per capita is $765 which is higher than Transnistria's. It's exactly what our article showed until Pernambuco appeared to defend neutrality.--MariusM 22:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If MariusM wants to quote a source, at least he ought to be consistent. His own source (the CIA) puts Moldova's population at 4,466,706 here:[42]. It also gives the GDP for the same year as $2.588 billion. Grab a pocket calculator and do the math: $597.
As for Transnistria, I honestly don't think he read the source. He calls it unreliable, uses "Russian" as if it was a dirty word, and in the same breath attempts to have us believe that it "don't explain if it is PPP or nominal." Sorry. It does. And I quote from it directly: "nominal GDP amounted to $404.5m."
Please don't continue to revert sourced information until you fully read the sources and understand what they mean. - Mauco 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this PPP/nominal issue is sorted out now. But I think we should to agree how to use a GDP data from different sources. As for statistics, the primary sources (statistical organizations and offices) are more preferable than secondary sources (news agencies, newspapers etc). The most reliable data could be from the World Bank, IMF, OECD or Eurostat. Different GDP lists in Wikipedia (e.g. List of countries by GDP (nominal)) use IMF's data. Unfortunately, non of these organizations provide GDP data for Transnistria. Second option could be using data from national statistical offices. Although there is no independent statistical office in Transnistria, there is a statistical service of the Ministry of Economy, so I think we could take their statistics as Transnistrian official. The credibility of this statistical service was raised before and I agree that it's not clear how and which methodology they use, but this is probably the best we could find, definitely better than widely not well-known Russian news portal. According to the statistical service, the GDP in 2005 was $517.5 million and the GDP per capita was $844.[43] As these data are different from the data provided by RosBusiness, I tried to check out and found that RosBusiness data not about annual 2005 data, but most likely for some non-standard period (like from October 2005 to September 2006 or something like this - this is really unclear). These data also not confirmed at the website of statistical service of the Ministry of Economy. Therefore, I propose to use an official data for 2005 and after publication of 2006 data (at the end of March or beginning of April) to update data accordingly to 2006. I also propose to remove from this sentence any comparison with Moldova and just keep pure data. So, the proposed sentence is: In 2005, the GDP of Transnistria was about $517.5 million and the GDP per capita was $844. It will be updated approximately after 1.5-2 month when data for 2006 will be available. Beagel 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beagel to remove the comparation with Moldova. If is not removed at least updated from time to time. Its was my edit that make all this trouble. Sorry for that!!! Catarcostica 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comparisons with Moldova needs to be removed from everything, not just from the GDP, this is not an article about Moldova, if people want to find out about Moldova, just click on the link Moldova it is already in the article, Pernambuco 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such comparisons cannot be entirely avoided - readers will want to know what's the big difference between them so as to cause (and keep) a split. --Illythr 12:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should explain my reason proposing to remove comparison from this sentence. As it was stated by the statistical service of the Transnistrian Ministry of Economy, the GDP per capita in 2005 was $844. In Moldova the GDP per capita in 2005 was $861 (see List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita). These figures a practically same, and they always consists some statistical mistake. Also, as it was mentioned before, we don't knew how and which methodology is used by the Transnistrian statistical service. In these conditions it's not correct to say, if Moldova or Transnistria has higher GDP per capita.Beagel 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with your edit. I objected to Pernambuco's statement. --Illythr 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google video

[edit]

Aww, the video was kind of nice... It's a bit biased and contains a couple of pretty bad factual errors ("banned Moldovan language"? Uh-uh), but most of the footage is good, IMO. --Illythr 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually like it too (except for the serious factual error on weapons smuggling, which is rehash of the old hearsay and which has never been proven by anyone). My removal was due to longstanding practice of reverting edits by permanently banned users. If you want to include it, or at least discuss it first, then I can assure you that my reaction will be completely different. - Mauco 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather have it in. I don't recall the reporter actually addressing the smuggling as fact. He does mention it a lot, but I think it's not some malicious effort on his part, but rather, he's just repeating what is being said about it all the time. The two factual errors I noted were "banned Moldovan language, leaving only Russian" and "secret Russian base" (yeah, very secret). --Illythr 13:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a few years old now. I watched it myself on TV quite a long time ago. It is good footage though. The only problem I can see is that it's on Google video and I'm not sure if it's all right legally for it to be on there, belonging to the BBC and all that. Jonathanpops 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yesterday i was forced to revert Bonaparte and mariusM cause they were damaging the page with changes that hadnt been discussing, and overwriting, and so on, but the thing that I left in place was that video, cause I liked it, even if it was from Bonaparte it was a good addition, if you want to keep it or include it for the page thats fine and I support that of course. its from a reliable source, from BBC . . ...... but some of the other links need to be looked at, there are two from the same source RFERL.org and please pick just one, not two are needed, one is enough from each source Pernambuco 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the video's back in now. --Illythr 19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet ban

[edit]

As mentioned above, obvious sockpuppet User:Catarcostica has now been blocked for good. He was another sockpuppet of permabanned User:Bonaparte.

He of course also made some undiscussed mainspace edits[44], which no one took seriously except for User:MariusM who twice in one day attempted to restore them[45][46] after other editors had already correctly reverted them.

MariusM then got upset when User:Pernambuco, among others, rv'ed the article back to a non-Bonaparte version. Nevertheless, rather than lashing into Pernambuco and criticizing in public like MariusM did, here on this Talk page, I think we should instead say thank you for a good job of patrolling the page and watching out for POV pushers, vandals, and sockpuppets of banned users.

The only edit which was halfway good and which no one reverted (until now) was the inclusion of the Google video. Pernambuco was probably right in letting it stand, since we didn't know at the time that we were dealing with Bonaparte. User:Catarcostica (a.k.a. Bonaparte) just got banned now. - Mauco 02:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not a sockpuppet, and I'm not!!! But I learn my lesson... so from now I will express my view only with arguments. Catarcostica 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit]

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards Buffadren 13:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Transnistria

[edit]

According to the website pridnestrovie.net(which by no means should be taken as official), the current Transnistrian flag does *not* have the golden hammer, sickle and star emblem on it: http://pridnestrovie.net/flag_pmr.html.

What does everyone make of this? Canadian popcan 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flag of Transnistria deals with this issue. Alaexis 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has a link that doesn't work: http://president-pmr.org/symbol/flag.htm
In similar cases, can I remove the link? Just leave it in? Notify someone? Or what? Ştefan44 08:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works fine for me. Alaexis 09:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

I've made some "minor" changes. --Criterium 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. 'Native name' is for native (Russian, Moldavian, Ukrainian) names. You should've noted the English name is also present.
2. capital of Transnistria is Tiraspol; it does not have to do anything with recognition
False. For Moldova, Tiraspol is only the capital of the Tiraspol raion (or whatever its name). RSSM did not have a Transnistria region. Dpotop 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The de-facto independent PMR considers Tiraspol to be its capital. This should be reflected in the article.Alaexis 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Dpotop here. The article is clear that Transnistria is a breakaway territory and not internationally recognized. However, that does not mean that the Transnistria cannot have a 'capital' in the meaning "center of government". Regards Osli73 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 times FALSE. --Criterium 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PMR exists in spite of your hatred against it, and Tiraspol is its cultural, political and economic center. So we have the right to it - the capital of our State.Helen28 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. leader of the de-facto PMR is called president; again it does not have to do anything with recognition
False. Dpotop 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. Alaexis 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise solution might be to call him 'president' rather than President. Again, it is quite clear from the intro that Transnistria is not recognized by the intl. community. CheersOsli73 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 times FALSE. --Criterium 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The President of PMR is elected by the people i.e democratically. Compare: the head of Moldova is elected by a small gang regardless of whether people want it or not. So PMR has a President and Moldova has only a chieftain. Helen28 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The date of de-facto indpendence is relevant info and should be included; it's written in the next line that PMR's independence is not recognised
False. What is important is the date where they declared it. Dpotop 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand you (especially the 'date where they declared it' words). Alaexis 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 times FALSE. --Criterium 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dpotop, it would be neutral to just state "...declared independence on...". Cheers Osli73 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. PMR is an unrecognised country state and Transnistria article should be in the corresponding list.
Cool. Do you have decent sources calling Transnistria an unrecognized country? Dpotop 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is such a Wikipedia list as "Unrecognized states" then Transnistria would certainly belong there. I don't see any reason to have to source this since it is a given if you accept that it is not internationally recognized (which, since it doesn't have a seat in the UN or is recognized by the Council of Europe). Osli73 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of arguing about the 'unrecognised state' term. It is accepted in the wikipedia for such situations as far as I know. Alaexis 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no "state" now but only "region".--Criterium 14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. There is no reason to remove the pictures of the House of Parliament and of Suvorov. The first one is undoubtedly relevant; there was a dispute about the second one and it was decided to keep that image(iirc)
7. Human rights issues in PMR do not amount to russification. Alaexis 13:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's slavization plus separatism. Dpotop 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will make all the changes according to this. --Criterium 14:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a controversial page, everyone here is always fighting, you can see the message on the top of the page and you can also see how many archives there are, it is not a good idea to make changes if others dont agree or if you dont discuss first, at least not big changes, so maybe it is best to wait until the others have a chance, otherwise it is vandalism o.k. and like Ive done in the past Im forced to revert you, sorry.
but the problem is that you say ' 'I will make all the changes according to this' ' and dont wait for others or their opinion, you maybe dont know this, but the page is the work of dozens of people over dozens of months Pernambuco 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's see what do you have against my changes? Point our your issues. before revert..--Criterium 15:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is this: You should propose your changes here, then see what others think, let a discussion develop, and wait some days, then if a people mostly agree and dont disagree, make the changes. you dont do this, and we have seen this before, it is a man called Bonaparte who also goes under other names, such as Pirates of the Pacific. Every time he comes, he acts like you, then we revert him, and one time I even got blocked for this because Mariusm reported me. Here, among the editors, Mariusm is the only one who supports this kind of behavior, everyone else thinks it is vandalism to act so agressive like this. but the administrators found out that it was vandalism and then the rule for 3-RR doesnt apply, and my block was immediately lifted. If you cant discuss your changes I must just revert you, and Im willing to risk a block for that, because it is the same kind of behavior as before Pernambuco 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're funny Pernambuco. Listen to yourself: I've been blocked, but it's the other who were guilty. And the Bonaparte the Pirate bit is quite epic. :):):) Dpotop 15:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what happened... 'Buco was fighting the "BonnieGirl" and got reported by Marius. [47]. It's really a shame that Marius works better in tandem with Bonaparte, than with most of the other regulars here. --Illythr 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you, I'm french. I'm not Romanian. --Criterium 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And I'm Mother Teresa. Dpotop 15:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you are engaging in a dispute over yet another bunch of "Corsican" edits. Bad idea, that. A routine block report is all that is necessary in this case. --Illythr 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "Corsican" bit. Where does it come from? :) I got it. Dpotop 15:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon --Criterium 15:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The town's Ajaccio, Crit. ;-) --Illythr 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy, Criterium. I made the same mistake on start editing. Even if I have almost the same opinion with you, here are some experienced guys with a lot of editing. We should first agree about the subject. But..let me protest again about Mauco changes from 02:06, 21 February 2007. Anyway...Welcome!! -Catarcostica 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unrecognized

[edit]

Let us not forget this word: "unrecognized". --Criterium 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let us clean up this article. --Criterium 15:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post your complaints here...if you have some..--Criterium 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there aren't any complaints..so everything it's OK--Criterium 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal User

[edit]

-Criterium You are vandalising the main page and are now warned. Buffadren 16:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post your issues step by step if you have any. --Criterium 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of your issues, so stop laming about it. You cry like a baby. Post your fucking issues if you have any. --Criterium 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criterium...just stop !!! This is not helping nobody. With just one click all your changes are gone be reverted. This is not the way... -Catarcostica 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAO Criterium

[edit]

Stop editing your crap into this page, I don't care if it is recognized or not. Many people refuse to recognize Israel, so should that page be vandalized in the way that you are doing? Knock it off. Johnx4

Like this had ever stopped anyone... :(
PS: Please, add new topics to the bottom of the page. --Illythr 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Transnistria rubla.jpg

[edit]

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Moldova AZI, Transnistrian Militia Withdrew Its Posts from Vasilievca, Accessed 2006-10-18
  2. ^ Novosti Russian press agency report about 2007 clashes
  3. ^ Moldova AZI, Transnistrian Militia Withdrew Its Posts from Vasilievca, Accessed 2006-10-18
  4. ^ Vasily Yakovlev - Accusatory statement
  5. ^ a b Transnistria, Center for Economic Polices of IDIS “Viitorul”
  6. ^ John Mackinlay and Peter Cross (editors), Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, United Nations University Press, 2003, ISBN 92-808-1079-0 p. 135
  7. ^ John B. Dunlop, "Will a Large-Scale Migration of Russians to the Russian Republic Take Place over the Current Decade?", in International Migration Review, Vol. 27, No. 3. (Autumn, 1993), pp. 605-629, citing Russian Radio, September 21, 1992 in Rusia and CIS Today, WPS, September 21, 1992, p. 976/16.
  8. ^ RosBusiness: Transnistria announces GDP forecast
  9. ^ RosBusiness: Transnistria posts higher GDP
  10. ^ Transnistrian parliament adopts region's budget for 2007
  11. ^ [48]
  12. ^ Tirotex official website
  13. ^ Annual Report of Inter RAO UES
  14. ^ Pridnestrovie.net: "Pridnestrovie" vs "Transnistria" Pridnestrovie.net. Retrieved 2006, 12-26
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria/Archive_13&oldid=1255383394"