Talk:Transnistria/Archive 10

Conflict Resolution and and Unfreeze

I believe that this page has been frozen long enough and that it would be best if we could reach a series of compromises on the principal outstanding issues to finally allow a resumption of normal editing. Here I have summarized the current status of the multiple contentious issues presented by Jmbael. I am happy to see that most problems have been resolved, but a few critical ones are still being debated. Let us try to finalize these discussions as soon as possible and lift the freeze on the page. I have crossed out the sections that I believe we can put aside for the moment. And please, for God's sake try to be concise here; please keep your comments as short as necessary to get your points across, which by the way should only relate to the content of the article, not each others' characters. Although the KGB or CIA links of your opponent cannot be denied by any sane person with a feather's weight of intelligence, perhaps other forums would be more appropriate for their unmasking. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This section actually included multiple subsections but everyone seems to agree that we need credible sources that include facts! So I guess this is finished. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Population

The most accepted version seems to be: "Since the Soviet era, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Moldovans forming a plurality alongside Russians and Ukrainians." The only debate is whether the part about a Romanian pluarility should be kept, making this debate almost closed. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Recent history" would need to specifically state Soviet era, and the list start with the largest ethnic group, Romanians (not Moldovans). It's proper practice to list "ingredients" in descending, not ascending, order. Putting Russians first paints a false implication. Oh, and eliminate mentioning the largest ethnic component, Romanians, that's striving for factuality. Let's be serious here. Or did I misunderstand dry humor? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed the order. However I don't want to change the ethnic name to Romanians. Using the term Moldovan before the Soviet era would of course be non-sense, but here it is appropriate as that was the official designation of this group in Soviet documents. TSO1D 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Moldovans" is clearly the best choice. Identity is perception. If the vast majority of Moldovans say Moldovans, we should use Moldovans. jamason 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem, because the only reason "ethnic Moldovans" exist is because Stalin manufactured them. Are we saying that Moldovans consider themselves an ethnic group distinct and separate from Romanians? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's really not the point (but yes many do), but since that term was used in Soviet documents we should not change it here. The article Moldovans and Moldovenism explores this theory. Whenever this has come up, we have had a huge debate every time, so an important compromise was to only use Romanian before Soviet times, then keep Moldovan during Soviet times and later in censuses besides their corresponding numbers. TSO1D 15:01, 26 November 2006

Since we are slave to Soviet statistics for continuity, I would agree to using "Moldovans" as an ethnic term with a reference added that defines Moldovans as "ethnic Romanians historically inhabiting the territory of Moldavia and, later under the Russian empire, Moldavia and Bessarabia." Comments from the Moldovan contingent? Anyone really interested in all of this will just have to buckle down and learn what territory Bessarabia encompasses, I don't see any way around it. [Also, with reference to the discussion below] We're not talking J-Lo here--we're far enough away from the mainstream that's it's a reasonable assumption that to an interested party, the use of "Bessarabia" as a geographic term becomes clarifying, not confusing. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Or simply: "Since the Soviet era, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Moldovans (ethnic Romanians) forming a plurality alongside Russians and Ukrainians."

I would remove the "(ethnic Romanians)" part, simply for the fact that not all Moldovans identify as such. Khoikhoi 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

History and Economy

No real disputes are visible, just a desire on the part of some editors to expand the economy seciton, so these issues are resolved. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights

No general agreement has been reached on any of the issues, but no editor has emphasized his dislike of the present version. So could we keep the current version as it is, possibly adding a statment about press freedom for balance if a valid source can be presented. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would propose no indication of a "free press" until it is legal in the PMR to advocate union with Moldova. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is a bit moot, IMO. It is not so much that it is legal but merely that no politician wants to argue for union with Moldova. To do so would be political suicide. The concept is so "foreign" to voters (no pun intended) that it simply does not resonate. I base this on an interview which Yevgeny Shevchuk gave in spring of 2006 which was quoted by the International Crisis Group if I recall correctly. It can be found on the British Embassy's peacemaking site, from Chisinau. - Mauco 05:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it legal or not legal to advocate Moldovan union? It's not a moot point if it is illegal. No "politician" will argue for union if it lands them in jail. Shevchuk is part of the ballet to portray an "opposition"--whatever he said, wherever it was quoted, it does not change the fact that advocacy of a Moldovan union is illegal. Ergo, no press freedom, no political freedom. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was legal during the period that I study, but that is admittedly a while back at this point. Peters, can you please cite your source here? I have no doubt that you are basing this emphatic statement (and question at the same time?) on solid information. But, clearly, no changes would be made to the article until you share it with the rest of us. jamason 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamason, read second part of this study [1] "Human Rights in Transnistria", where are given concrete cases of political parties banned for advocating union with Moldova. May I know exactly what period are you studying? I thought you studied the 1992 War period, when situation was even worse, people were killed for advocating union with Moldova, without court procedure.--MariusM 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but your comment highlights my point exactly. The law isn't important. Even the Soviet Union guaranteed human rights in its constitution. jamason 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Jamason and Marius you are somehow not on the same wavelength. The constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed all sorts of rights, which the authorities then violated at a state level, it wasn't a question of not enforcing the law, the law was there for show. In the case of the PMR, advocating Moldovan union is a treasonous offense, and the bannings of parties that have already happened have made it clear the law is enforced (if not summarily executed) as well, completely different case. Did I miss something? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you are assigning yourself homework based on the above, let me share a few questions that I think might make the section stronger.

1) Is advocacy of union actually illegal? Marius's source implies that it is, but we would be well served by a reference to the actual legislation. (I'm still skeptical, but if I learn something from this debate, then, that's why I'm here in the first place.)

2) Is there harassment of dissidents regardless of the law? Specific, well-documented examples provided by good, non-partisan sources would be key. (This is what I was getting at above.)

3) What is the scope and regularity of government action? Are journalist and politicians the only targets, or is the average man on the street in danger? Also, how arbitrary is enforcement/harassment? In other words, is this an excuse to knock out dangerous opponents, or is it integral to PMR rule?

Obviously, this is more thorough than anyone would need to be for a wikipedia article. I'm just giving suggestions of what I think would make a better section since you seem keen on researching the issue. jamason 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The last example of harassment of dissidents was the arrest of 4 members of pro-Moldovan organisation "Dignitas", one month before the referendum. It was reported by azi.md and tiraspol times. Official version is that this arrest was not harassment of political opponents, but a normal police investigation of a terorist act (the bus explosion in Tiraspol), however I am not expecting PMR authorities to openly admit they harassed political opponents, just before the referendum. While our colleague Mark us Street, editor of Tiraspol Times, was editing Wikipedia under the name User:MarkStreet and I was still assuming good faith about him, I asked him to take an interview with "Dignitas" leader Ghenadie Taran, to clarify the issue [2]. Even User:William Mauco agreed with me and advised MarkStreet to take an interview with Taran [3]. This never happened. AFAIK nobody in PMR media allow people from Dignitas to tell their point of view in this story, which is quite strange, as, if not a pro-Moldovan oposition, at least the explosions which took 12 lives in Tiraspol should normally attract media atention. My conclusion is that not only pro-Moldovan activists are harassed, but also that PMR media is restricted (Tiraspol Times made a short mention about Dignitas with official PMR position, but this is only a website for foreigners, not a newspaper you can find on the streets of Tiraspol). In this particular case 4 arrests were made, in other cases probabily the fear of losing job is enough to silence people (not only in the state sector, but also in the private sector which is in the hands of supporters of PMR, many of them businessmen from Russia - "new pridnestrovians" how Vasily Yakovlev calls them - as any important business in the region was developed by people with conections at PMR authorities - see Sheriff case).--MariusM 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Transdniestrian mass-media, that didn’t want to write about the arrest of 4 members of pro-Moldovan organization "Dignitas" and furthermore to publish their interview. Transdniestrians are still afraid of recurrence of 1992. The members of Dignitas are those who made acts of terrorism and killed Transdniestrians in 1992. Any information on them would cause indignation of the population and could lead even to violence. In one town with members of Dignitas there lives Lyudmila Gusar which husband was burnt alive by members of terrorist group "Bujor". What would she feel, reading an interview of members of Dignitas? Till now she is afraid, that murderers of her husband will reach her children and grandsons. But for some reason nobody puts himself in a place of those who has perished in 1992.Helen28 11:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Helen to confirm that fear of terrorism is still present in Transnistria, that mean we should keep the word "terrorism" in the article. Regarding your afirmation "the members of Dignitas are those who made acts of terrorism and killed Transdniestrians in 1992", if this is the case I am wondering why PMR authorities freed them? Why Transnistrian press is not publishing articles criticising authorities for the fact that, after only few days in custody, members of "Dignitas" were freed? Either they are criminals and their arrest is justified but their release is not justified, either they are not criminals, and their arrest was not justified and your accusations also are not justified. Anyhow, you explained verry well the limits of "freedom" in Transnistria - the voice of people who oppose separatism is not allowed in mass-media, and even violence against them is possible if they insist to have their voice heard. Regarding Lyudmila Gusar, if she has acces to internet she can read about Dignitas anyhow; if she has not internet acces, anyhow she will not be able to read "Tiraspol Times", so, no reason for TT not to publish the point of view of Dignitas.--MariusM 00:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can answer your question: all the terrorists like Ilashku and others have serious protectors such as OSCE, the USA etc. If you know, the members of terrorist group “Bujor” were arrested, but then most of them were freed because of the pressure on the Transdniestrian president. Regarding “the voice of people who oppose separatism”, they are not political opponents of PMR, they are aggressors, who reckons with nobody and nothing. They can do everything to amuse the vanity and to feel the lives of other people in their hands.Helen28 11:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking here about Ilaşcu (about whom European Court of Human Rights had an other opinion than you) but about the group "Dignitas" lead by Ghenadie Ţăran. Everything you wrote is an excellent confirmation that no freedom of speech is allowed in Transnistria, those who oppose the existence of PMR don't have the right to tell openly their opinions, they are accused of being criminals and terrorists even if they didn't kill or hurt anybody (like the case of Ţăran). You told that aparition in Transnistrian mass-media of opinion of anti-separatists can lead to violence, that's an excellent caracterisation of the political climate in Transnistria, I believe you as I saw you used an IP from Tiraspol (just curious - are you working for Tiraspol Times?), you know what you are writing. In such a climate, considering the referendum as valid is a joke. As a comparison, in Montenegro was also a referendum for independence, but those who oppose independence were allowed to tell their opinion in mass-media, nobody arrested anti-independence activists and nobody try to present them as criminals or terrorists.--MariusM 12:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is legal to advocate unification. 3 examples should suffice:
1. Look at some of the Dignitas activists for instance. They are free, and are not in jail. If they were brought in for question, it was for something else, and when it was found out that they had nothing to do with it, they went home. Simple as that.
2. In the last election, one of the four presidential candidates advocated unification. He was not arrested, and campaigned to the very end. Why did he get a low number of votes? Because the idea has no traction. Face it: Very few people in Transnistria want to be part of Moldova.
3. The Ilaşcu group was not arrested for advocating unification. They were conficted (rightly? wrongly?) for two killings. In every country in the world, if you kill someone, you tend to go to jail for it. Before his arrest, I. Ilaşcu (the group's leader), gave interviews about how the best way forward was use of violence, violent overthrow, etc etc. He was inspired by ETA and IRA, and the latters' methods in attempting to achieve unification. Speaking about unification is legal. What is not legal: Blowing things up and killing people in order to achieve it. Same laws in Transnistria, Ireland, and most of the rest of the world.
Based on this, I will add the following edit: "Tolerated under the constitution's freedom of speech, advocating unification with Moldova is legal in Transnistria. However, most of the population disagree with the unification adherents and prefer independence." - Mauco 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please show us where the banned political parties heve been reinstated. One cannot state what law is based on examples. (I am still searching, it's taking time with minimal Russian skills.) If you can find the law (or court case setting a precedent which specifically says) that advocating union is now legal, you can certainly quote that and proceed. Or, should the previously banned parties be reinstated and their leadership rehabilitated.

   Nor are we here to interpret and communicate the will of the Transnistrian people (how most of the population feel about something). This is not an acceptable edit.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What parties? The ones from 5 years ago? Gimme a break... They dissolved. If they want to restart, they can of course do so. That is their decision. They are free to do so now. Just like the pro-unification advocate went on TV and campaigned freely and openly for his cause. Or better yet: Why don't you go there and start one that advocates the joy of uniting with Moldova? Anyone can do it, it is legal.

Please do not take an old case, from a previous election, and extrapolate it to somehow claim that NOW, TODAY, everything that was the case in the past is still the case. The United States used to put negroes in the back of the bus until Rosa Parks showed up. Today, no one will claim that they still do that.

Things change, and in Transnistria some of the things are finally changing for the better. They even got a human rights ombudsman this year. Instead of knocking it ("potemkin ombudsman" or whatever other smartalleck remarks you can invent), those who are truly interested in bettering the human rights situation there should a) monitor him and his staff, and b) help them along, by for instance organizing staff interchanges and interdepartmental training with other European ombudsman institutions. - Mauco 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As for how most of the population feel about something: I always support my edits with sources, and I will of course do so in this case too. If you do not want this edit to stay, then show how it is wrong (with sources, of course). - Mauco 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll be questioning your sources and interpretations.

   The U.S. Department of State 2005-2006 Europe/Eurasia report states: "The democratization and human rights record of the separatist-controlled Transnistria region remained very poor. December 11 [2005] elections to the Transnistrian "Supreme Soviet" were not considered free and fair and were not recognized by the OSCE, the Government of Moldova, or any other state. Authorities in the region reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention. Prison conditions remained harsh, and two members of the so-called Ilascu Group remained in prison despite a July 2004 ruling in their favor by the European Court for Human Rights. Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media and opposition lawmakers, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian speakers."

   Needless to say, I'll be working on tracking down details.

   As long as Smirnov and Antyfeyev are at the helm, you can't say things are improving where Transnistrian's freedoms are concerned.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the greatest respect for the U.S. State Department, but you do know that their comments are "politicized", don't you? They make it sound like Ilascu's group was convicted for thought crimes, and not for two murders, among other armed violence. But, please try to focus on the issue here: No one is claiming (except Mark Street) that Transnistria is a perfect democracy. All we need to say is simply that tolerated under the constitution's freedom of speech, advocating unification with Moldova is legal in Transnistria. That's all. We are debating one sentence, so please do not make this into a larger argument about overall human rights in Transnistria or we will never get any editing done, Peters. - Mauco 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Which of the four PMR presidential candidates was running on a unification platform? jamason 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

None, specifically. But one of them included it in his platform. It was Andrey Safonov and he tried to downplay it as much as he could (because it is political suicide). His pitch was that confederation was better than the status quo. I don't know if it is or not (I am not a "Transnistrian") but I do know that it was a hard sell. Nevertheless, the unification-vs-independence is such an important issue that everyone picked up on it immediately. Several items in the English language press mentioned it (BBC was one, and I also think that the Associated Press + International Herald Tribune had it), and it was carried in Russian, in a couple of places in Moldova, and here. - Mauco 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From the C.E.E.O.L. site: "Second, the standoff over customs was skillfully used by Mr. Smirnov to strengthen his grip on power, after his positions looked shakier than ever before in the wake of the December 2005 landslide victory of his political rivals from the moderate camp of the “Obnovlenie” Movement. In early 2006, following election of Mr. Shevchuk as the local speaker, there were realistic expectations that during the rest of the year the process of political diversification and deepening cracks in the erstwhile power monolith will gain strength, eventually leading to sidelining of Mr. Smirnov either as a result of “presidential” elections planned for December 2006, either through certain changes in the local constitution that would reduce his wide executive powers. There were also certain signs of moderation of the fledgling public debate as regards the future of relations with Moldova. Continuation of these feeble trends was perceived as a major risk to the chances of the current administration to maintain its full control of the region beyond 2006. Instead of this, seizing on the new opportunity to promote the image of Transnistria as the “fortress under the siege of an external enemy” and triggering the “rally around flag” effect, Mr. Smirnov skillfully sidelined moderates. Encouraging the radicalization of public debate in which any questionings of his course were immediately labeled as treason, he managing to crack down on any tentative discussions regarding possible merits of closer ties with Chisinau."

• Mauco, you had indicated at that time (mentioned above) that Smirnov was on the ropes, things were changing.
• Somehow Smirnov solidifies his postion, gets "overwhelmingly" reelected in 2006.
• Again, it's a ballet, a performance. We can begin discussing "change" when Smirnov and Antyufeyev are deposed.
• "Change" is when "change" happens at the top. You cannot state that the creation of an ombudsman position, for example, is evidence of change. You can only state that it is your wish/hope/aspiration that it is a sign of change.
• Another example of change would be the PMR adopting the Latin alphabet for Moldovan/Romanian.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of answering you, since this is not a social discussion forum on the merits of human rights in Transnistria. Please read the instructions on the infobox at the top of this page and focus on the edits to the main page. That's all. We are debating one sentence, so please do not make this into a larger argument about overall human rights in Transnistria or we will never get any editing done, Peters.
I want to add a sentence to the effect that tolerated under the constitution's freedom of speech, advocating unification with Moldova is legal in Transnistria. What, if anything, do you object to in that particular sentence? - Mauco 04:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography

I see a dispute between the usage of Transnistria "borders Moldova" versus "borders the rest of Moldova" with compromises such as "peaceline border" or "border" presented. This appears to be a minor issue and hopefully will be easily resolved. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

De jure, since Moldova considers the Transnistrian territory to still be part of Moldova, the proper term would be "borders the rest of Moldova." Or, just simply state the western border of the Transnistrian territory is the Dniester and avoid mentioning Moldova. Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But there are parts of Transnistria (the geographic region) that are controlled by the central government and parts of Bessarabia under PMR control, so you can't really say that the Dniester forms the eastern boundary. Actually how about "borders Bessarabia to the East"? In geographic terms that is probably the most accurate way of presenting this information. TSO1D 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bordering Bessarabia I believe would be a sufficiently descriptive and NPOV. Bessarabia as a territory is generally well understood. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be totally wrong here, so just tell me if I am, but isn't Bessarabia a bit of an antiquated term? Jonathanpops 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the term was used by the Russian authorities to denote the region, however that is not not the only period when the name applies. Many modern sources that I have read by both Western, Romanian, and Russian sources continue to use the word as a geographic term because it is the most specific descriptor for the landmass between the Prut and the Dniester. TSO1D 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bessarabia continues to be used in current scholarship for the land between the Prut and Dniester, with Moldavia bordering on its west [Moldova obviously being something different, just making it clear so folks know "Moldavia" not a typo]. Bessarabia is a very reliable geographic term. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I can see that now from what you say, and looking it up, but it's hardly common knowledge amongst everyday English-speaking people who this article is meant to be for. I just think the article is complicated enough as it is with all the different names etc, Bessarabia is just one more thing that readers have to look up when they see it. Perhaps that's all part of the joy of learning?Jonathanpops 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This region is still pretty obscure for most people, so much of the terminology or references used will be unfamiliar at first. But I still think Bessarabia is the best alternative. I mean the term is used very frequently in articles about the region and is common knowledge to some. I just don't see a better choice. TSO1D 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Crime

No real consensus has been reached here. The last version that was being worked upon looked like this:

Analysts and media outlets have expressed concern regarding potential threats posed by Transnistria's large deposits of weapons, and the potential of their unauthorized sale. Nevertheless, this view has been challanged in/from what year (so that one can see from what year things started to change) by other experts and organizations, as well as by the government of the PMR. Oxford scholar Mark Almond stated that accusations of state-sponsored weapons smuggling in the PMR appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts. Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations [links, references] say that the historically low levels of transperancy, and the continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime [sourse, page number], although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR.

No "Oxford scholar Mark Almond" —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to mention an 'expert' who says there are no underhand weapons deals going on, we must also include the name of an 'expert' who says that there is weapon smuggling taking place, seeing as that is both sides of the issue and there are differing opinions. Jonathanpops 11:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bergman interview also discusses the disappearance of arms, however, it would be less contentious to have a source other than the Latvian one (which I cited regarding Antyufeyev and the ambulance shooting incident). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this propganda, Transnistria has a very low crime rate and this section is political mudraking and borders on state propaganda. I will add my comments here in 24 hours Mark us street Nov 27th 2006.

Terrorism2

I see that the incidents that should be discussed are pretty much agreed upon:

• in May 2004, there was an attempt by a Russian neo-Nazi organization to set on fire a synagogue in Tiraspol, using a Molotov Cocktail and a flammable liquid near a gas pipe. [41]
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus. [42]
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten. [43]

Thus what remains to be decided is whether the term terrorism or "violent incidents" should be used. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been agreed that the word Terrorist and Terrorism will not be used. Mark us street Nov 25th

No, it hasn't been agreed upon by all users yet. The term "violent incidents" seems a little too vague and non-descriptive. Terrorism might be inflamatory, but if Antifuyev is quoted at least in regards to the explosions, that should pass. But maybe it would be best to forego all these descriptors. I suggest calling the section "Notable Incidents" (since it's in the crime section it will be clear that they are criminal in nature) and then just list the three events as mentioned above. TSO1D 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We had already discussion about terrorism (see archive 8). I fully understand the reason why suddenly Mauco and Mark want to delete the word terrorism from this article [4], but they are the only ones who asked that. The majority of editors involved here had an other opinion.--MariusM 00:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely a 'violent incident' is something like a public fight or even a riot, but putting a bomb on a trolley bus to kill and scare people is surely an act of terrorism. I know terrorism is a big buzzword these days and people don't want to use it because it has al qaeda-style connotations, but blowing up a bus is still terrorism even if it's just some school kid (example) who does it on his own for whatever mixed up reason. Jonathanpops 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed Terrorism is aganist Wihipedia rules. It was also agreed that violent incidents was the onlt factual description. Mark us street Nov 27th

"It was agreed..." = Using the passive tense to describe a decision without naming who or when is classic propaganda-speak. (I was just having this conversation yesterday with some folks over from Latvia about how Soviet-style usage of Latvian has remained in current usage.) Not agreed. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the ambulance incident as well. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Peters I didn't agree it, nor did Mauco, Wikipedia does not allow the use of the term 'terrorism' unless it is a terrorist organisation listed by United nations. That is why we, as in all of us, were not allowed to use it. See archives. Mark us street Nov27th 2006.

If we can't use the word terrorism, an opinion I'm sceptical about, then we must use words such as murder. People died here, that is NOT merely a violent incident.Jonathanpops 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The characterization regarding the use of the term terrorism on Wikipedia ("not allowed") is incorrect. One cannot label a particular individual a "terrorist" unless categorized as such by, say the U.N., a government, etc. (not blogs!). Terrorism as an instrument, however, can be described as such if so reported. For example, let's take a report in Regnum:

Transdnestr official: “Voronin inclined members of terrorist organizations in various countries to carry out terror acts in Transdnestr”

Special Envoy of the Supreme Council of the Transdnestr Moldavian Republic on Interparliamentary Relations Grigory Marakutsa has commented to a REGNUM correspondent the situation over terror act in Tiraspol on July 6:

“Somebody outside Transdnestr does not like that a calm situation has established in the republic for a long time. For 14 years of Russian peacekeeping mission in the Moldovan-Transdnestr conflict zone not a person died. Any time, Moldavia raised the question of changing the peacekeeping format, the fact was the main counter argument from our side. However, someone did not like our argument. Somebody did not like that the Russian peacekeepers went on so well with their duties. The terror act [a taxi minibus exploded in the center of Tiraspol on July 6 — REGNUM] is just an attempt to discredit the Russian peacekeepers before the summit of the G8 in Saint Petersburg in order to raise the question of their withdrawal from the conflict zone, change the peacekeeping format and satisfy ambitions of the Moldavian party.

”In my opinion, a definite trace of the Moldavian special services can be seen in the terror act. Recently, state officials and members of Moldavian special services have become regular visitors to some countries where terrorist organizations are present, particularly, to Albania. Voronin has met people who support terrorists in Chechnya and al-Qaeda. According to our data, President of Moldavia Vladimir Voronin and officials of Moldavian special services inclined members of terror organizations in various countries to carry out terror acts in Transdnestr. They seem to have succeeded in it.

• An official of the PMR calling it terrorism and linking Voronin to al-Qaeda (!) is wholly sufficient to keep the term "Terrorism." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia must use mainstream terminology, not a one-off pick and choose event where you decide who is the arbiter. We have New York Times as a source where the top official for this matter says it is not terrorism. Want more examples? As late as yesterday, OSCE-funded website "conflict.md" republished an article from Infotag which ended with the following: "As Infotag has already reported, last summer two explosions happened in a route taxi and in a trolleybus. At first the investigation did not rule out terrorist acts. However, in the course of the investigation this version was not confirmed." We really need to be serious here and get our act together, guys. If the Moldovan press (and New York Times) can do it, so can we. - Mauco 05:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but 'domestic violence' doesn't come anywhere near describing public murders.Jonathanpops 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please with the "top official," it's Antyufeyev. When I bring up he's the power behind the throne, you say, old news, not anymore, man, did you see the guy on TV, he's falling apart, he's had it, forget him. You take a 2x4 out and beat me to a pulp to discredit him. But when Antyufeyev is reprinted in a rag and it suits your purpose, he's the word of God. I tire of your two-faced sourcing. You've already discredited the guy yourself, so by your own testimony, inadmissable as unreliable. Or do you want to take back your comments about him when I quoted references he's the power behind Smirnov? It's "terrorism." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind that in archive 8 part 14 and 15 we discussed already the word "terrorism" and it was clear that the majority support it. I don't think is necesary to repeat all arguments again, only because Mark us Street want to reopen this discussion daily. Word terrorism was in this article for long time, before referendum the pro-PMR camp agreed with it, when I asked to include in the article facts about arrest of pro-Moldovan activists they told that arrest was normal as an investigation of a terrorist act. Now it seems that orders have changed.--MariusM 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons/Smuggling

No major disucussions have taken place in regards to this section, so are there any key disputes here that need to be addressed? TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned elsewhere is the Bergman interview which also talked about Russian weapons which "disappeared." I'm open to suggestions on how to handle this (which section is most appropriate). Another somewhat-forked same-page discussion, alas. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On the basis there is not a scapr of evidence to prove weapons smugglin ever took place I think we should class this as political mudslinging and delete the section. Next they will be claiming 'weapons of Mass destruction' Mark us street Nov 27thMark us street Nov 27th

Are you saying the commandant of Tiraspol, trusted lieutenant of Lebed, is a liar? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is the historian Charles King who is reported to have stated that the Macedonian liberation army got financing and arms via their connections with the PMR. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Charles King writes in THE MOLDOVANS of Smirnov bragging about arms production in the PMR: "Igor Smirnov frequently trumpeted the region's arms exports as an example of its [the PMR's] importance on the world stage..." (a source Mauco respects). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

King is a political scientist (Georgetown). Do you mind providing page numbers? I'm curious to see the context. jamason 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Page 206. For scholars, the book gives up some detail in support of readability and continuity, still an excellent source.

   Sadly, when I went looking for Kievan Rus bounding the historical Moldovan territory along the Dniester and Galician control over the course of centuries (different discussion elsewhere), he turned self-referencial (book on Ukranians authored by someone else but in a series of which he and someone else are editors). Alas, all historians are not geographers, more digging to do there. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

This is one section with almost complete agreement. PMR is the official name with Transnistria being the common English short form of the word. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Founding of Transnistria Factors

Jamason has expressed discontent with the presentation of these factors here especially in the political status section. No concensus has been reached. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My specific concerns are two-fold. First, there are no footnotes for the political status section. Who is providing the analysis here? Is it the opinion of wikipedia editors that Russia is central to the creation of the PMR or is this analysis published somewhere? Second, this not only contradicts the presentation farther down in the article, but I'm not sure how "Russian authorities" are meant to have "contributed" to the creation of the PMR in 1990. It's anachronistic and nonsensical. Are we talking about the RSFSR authorities? Or, do we mean all-union authorities? Also, "the authorities" are not exactly monolithic in their thoughts and actions in 1990. Who exactly is being indicated here? It at least makes sense to say that the PMR "survived by virtue" of Russian support, but I would still like to see this analysis attributed to some reputable source. jamason 06:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the information about Russia whether true or not (and most of it is inaccurate) should be in the political status section anyway. The political status should just say: "Transnistria is internationally considered to be part of the Republic of Moldova, although de facto control is excercised by a local separatist administration that declared independence from Moldova as the Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika or Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR), with Tiraspol as its capital. Although exercising marginal direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established an autonomous territorial unit in Transnistria within the Republic of Moldova with the right to conduct economic, scientific, and humanitarian activities independent of the central government." The text about the Russians should be taken out of this section. The establishment of the PMR is well discussed in the history section and any modern relations with Russia should be included in the International relations section. TSO1D 15:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why was moved in archive the discussion I started regarding the role of some forces from Moscow in the creation of PMR [5]. We should include info about this in the "history" section. Forces from Moscow should be named "Central Soviet authorities". I agree with Jamason that Soviet central authorities were not monolithic but around Lukianov and Soyuz bloc were developped forces that try to stop the dissolution of Soviet Union, those forces organised also the failed coup d'etat in August 1991, but before this they organised smaller actions, like PMR in Moldova and other actions in Baltic or Caucasian republics.--MariusM 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, please provide link to the law passed by Moldova regarding Transnistria's status.--MariusM 16:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In Romanian there are quite a few such as this or [6], but couldn't yet find an English one because I don't know how the exact translation would sound. TSO1D 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apparently the official English name is: "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of Dniester" but I couldn't find a good English link that discusses the issue in detail.

I've checked both sources you gave, nowhere is written about an autonomous republic in Transnistria. Word "republic" don't appear. We should not use wishfull thinking at Wikipedia. I agree with your sentence if word "republic" is changed with "region".--MariusM 17:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yea, I don't know why I wrote that. The best term is actually Autonomous territorial unit. TSO1D 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I also like the proposal written by TSO1D and fully agree that it should replace the current version. Regarding the debate surrounding the founding of the PMR, I am, of course, still uncomfortable with the suggestion that the article credit Soviet central authorities with "organizing" the PMR. I don't reject this theory out of hand, but I certainly can't accept it based on the evidence Marius has provided. I would again point out that the activities you described were inconsequential to enabling at most. Even fully accepting the accuracy of your source, there still seems to be a considerable amount of room left for agency of actors within Transnistria itself. If we present this interpretation in the article, it needs to be clear that many scholars (William Crowther, Charles King, Stuart Kaufman, Pal Kolsto) privilege the role of local actors over central authorities in Moscow. jamason 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We should present exactly the testimonies about the facts of Lukyanov and others and let readers to decide how important those facts are. Was anybody denying the facts mentioned by me in archived talk? Even currently, Smirnov is going to Moscow to establish his strategy (see meeting with Abkhaz and Ossetian presidents), I don't believe in 1990-1992 was an other situation.--MariusM 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be the easiest if you submitted a proposal. I am unclear as to what changes in the article you are suggesting. If you want to include the fact that Soviet MVD forces prevented Moldovan volunteers from disrupting voting in Gagauzia or Transnistria that's fine. Lukianov asking Izvestiia to publish a letter? Also fine. Changing the article to read: "Soviet leaders in Moscow organized the PMR"? Then I ask for a large caveat and inclusion of analysis by the scholars listed above. jamason 01:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If such a proposal is forthcoming, may I also suggest that it be added to a sub-article of Transnistria rather than the main one. The history section has become quite lengthy already and any analysis of the Soviet involvement in the foundation of the PMR would need a more generous amount of space for a nuanced view than is available here. So if possible, please continue this discussion at Talk:History of Transnistria so as to reserve this space for the finalization of the discussion about this specific aspect of the current version of the main Transnistria article. TSO1D 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's somewhat incorrect to say that the Soviet authorities organized the PMR. I've been reviewing the time-line for a response elsewhere, but very briefly, I see:

1. initial declaration rejected by Soviet authorities (June 2 declaration, there is indication of a Dniester Autonomous S.S.R. being declared, other sources mention only the meeting of representatives calling for autonomy)
2. the PMR redeclared and subsequently indentified as an opportunity by Soviet->Russian hard liners (September 2 declaration of the Trans-Dniester Moldovan S.S.R.)
3. hard-liners (Alksnis et al.) establishing support and control (Antyufeyev et al.) in the wake of the failure of Soviet suppression in the Baltics--Bergman also indicated the PMR authorities took their orders from Moscow
4. the PMR embraced by "mainstream" Russian geopolitics for a host of reasons (envisioned by the hard-liners)

This is my own grossly over-simplified reading at this point, as I said, I don't have a detailed enough (for my liking) time line constructed yet. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) [updated 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)]

On June 2, 1990 the First Congress of People’s Deputies from all levels of Transnistrian Government (I съезд народных депутатов всех уровней Приднестровья) created the “Transnistrian Free Economic Zone.” The second congress (September 2, 1990) established the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic (PMSSR). jamason 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yakovlev letter and Moldovan schools recent developments

I think is an agreement to include in the article a mention about Yakovlev's letter and about Moldovan schools recent development (see "Free press" section).--MariusM 16:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Marius Is Edit Waring

Agreed changes overseen by user Penambuco to the main page intro were reverted by MariusM, it was the exact same changes that got the page locked last time by Evilalex in October. It has been agreed by all following negotiation by outside editors that Transnistria be refered to as 'unrecognised country' as Wikipedia required it and also as a compromise between us all. Also the word 'terrorism' cannot be used on the page. . MariusM was part of the original discussion about the intro and at the time, see archive 8, Section 2. and he had his equal opportunity then. During his contributions user Penambuco said his suggestion for the intro was , and I quote, ' Does not sound very nuetral' he went on to say he would take the suggestions from the other four editors that included Bogdan, Jonathanpops, Muuco and myself that were more nuetral.. It was clearly explained to MariusM and all of us that Transnistria had to be refered to as a country to keep it in consistant with the rest of Wikipedia. User Penambuco insisted that compromise be used and he used the variant 'unrecognised country'. He gave two days for final imputs and even asked was it okay to go ahead, nobody objected and he went ahead. and MariusM and Evilalex stayed quiet. As soon as Penambuco made the edit Evilalex pounced and reverted him. Within hours Penambuco and others had the page locked. Today it reopened. I inserted Penambuco's edit and again MariusM reverted just as Evilalex had. Mark us street Nov 27 2006.

With all due respect, if you don't want to be reverted, then allow edits to be done by editors less obviously flamingly partisan and unobjective than yourself. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is you that is partisanb, also I only make agreed edits ,as all should do. Mark us street Nov 28

Stop with those plain fallacies. You know that your edits were not agreed.--MariusM 10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You were there see archive 8 Section 2. Paste it here if you like. Mark us street Nov 28th

Just for curiosity, I went back to look, the last entry was "I agree with Pernambuca and I support 'his' and the other editors negotiated decision to compromise and the agreed change. Its not ideal but its a much more accurate discription than currently there. Mark us street 7 November 2006", while Pernambuca's directly prior comment talked about what the discussion was about, not that any decision had been reached--nor did you document what decision you thought had been arrived at, which was obviously left open to various interpretations (made/not made/what if any). In any event, water under the bridge in view of the current consideration of various alternatives (including leaving as is). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth is coming out

Leafy lanes ... full of cafes and restaurants" ( BBC's Simon Reeve didn't pay heed to Moldova's scare tactics that tried to demonize Pridnestrovie in the eyes of the world. He came anyway, saw the truth for himself, and then wrote this — "Moldovans had warned me hungry armed men roam the streets, but although the border is tense, the leafy lanes of Tiraspol were full of cafes and restaurants."— BBC News, 2005.

The rest of the article is not quite as uniformly rosy. [7] —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quote from the article: "Guns from there have turned up in conflicts around the world. The border with Ukraine is porous, and it is easy for smugglers to traffic goods or arms to the Black Sea port of Odessa, and from there to the rest of the world". Maybe we should mention this in our article?--MariusM 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Moldovan warplanes Mark us street Nov 27th

I also tire of your two-faced sourcing, laud the source when it suits your purpose and then insult someone quoting not only the same source, but the very same article when you don't like what it says. And you want us to take you seriously? As a journalist, no less? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Intro

See Penambuco above. since the page reopened there have been three unapproved edits. This is the exact same edit that caused the page to be locked four weeks ago. . This is fair warning. Edit warriors will be blocked if this continues and the page may have to be locked again. Penambuco's negotiated intros is as followis; Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. Mark us street Nov 27th 2006.

Reverting to its prior state and relocking is fine, it will keep you from changing it to sound like the Tiraspol Times/pridnestrovie.net, citing agreements that were never made. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Independence Referendum

I have made minor edits to the 2006 referendum to ensure balance and for clarity. It made sense to put the percentage turnout after the result. Also if one side can state the the OSCE does not recognise the result, it is only fair and proper to state that Russia does recognise it. I hope there will be no objectors to it Mark us street Nov 27th.

Is a plain fallacy calling it independence referendum, as it was about joining Russia (even Yakovlev, the writer of PMR constitution, made this remark). Anyhow there is a separate article about it, here we should write only the summary, not all details.--MariusM 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This was an indeendence referendum firstly Mark us street Nov27th

Only Lock Intro

I suggest we lock the intro because it keeps geting changed by various edit warriors. Penambuco's original entry was the negotiated and agreed version. It is not my ideal but I agree he took the opinion of everyone. Mark us street Nov 27

I suggest you take Mauco's previous advice and refrain editing in the main space, as is a clear conflict of interest, as you are editor of "Tiraspol Times", a newspaper which has the purpose of making propaganda for international recognition of PMR.--MariusM 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain yourself from making highly annoying sensitive edits to the intro, an intro was negotiated and agreed by the other editors and is monitored by outside editors, You are desperately trying to get the page locked. You are reverting all the time against their and our wishes. You even went onto WIKI page for unrecognised countries and tried to have Transnistria deleted. The editors there overturned your arguement. They insist that Transnistria must be refered to as an unrecognised country. Now you return here with the only weapon you have and that is Edit Warring. Please discuss any edit changes you want on this page. I discuss all my changes here for weeks before advancing.Mark us street Nov 28

An other plain fallacy of you, Mark us streeet. I didn't try to delete Transnistria from list of unrecognized countries, but to move it from unrecognized countries with total control over their territorry to unrecognized countries with partial control over their teritorry [8], where it normally belongs (as Transnistria don't control some areas which are included in Transnistria's constitution - see our "border issues" section in current article).--MariusM 11:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, anyway,you were dismissed. Please stop the Edit War, we all negotiate things HERE first. Otherwise iwe cannot even get past the intro. Mark us street Nov 27th 2006

Stop The Edit War

all efforts to stop the Pro Moldovan edit warriors are failing user Greir hasn't been around for ages and he ploughed in with new sensitive sections that have been deleted Mark us street N 28

Pro Moldovan?? What in hell!!! do I have to do with those communists??? I doubt that you didn`t already knew, but the current Moldovan communist regime, doesn`t even recognise veterans of the Trns war, and says that they were "victims of Romanian fascist propaganda"... No big difference between Smirnov and Voronin. Both alogene colonists, both use polical ideology for personal benefits, both primitive, etc Greier 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: Voronin is not a colonist, he is a native-born transnistrian with mixed Russian-Moldovan ancestry (his father was Russian bolshevic, his mother was Moldovan).--MariusM 12:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought Voronin was a Bulgarian from Buceag, moved to Transdniester during the Soviets... My mistake... Greier 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark us street, you have only just show up here yourself in the last few months so you're hardly justified and saying Greir hasn't been around for ages then ploughs right in. And you seem to have gone on an editing frenzy as soon as the gates were opened, adding totally biased viewpoints along the way in my opinion. I am really not sure you should be allowed to make edits to this article considering your position. Jonathanpops 12:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You yourself are the most biased person here, EVERY edit I have made, whuch total TWO were EDITS other editors agreed after lopng debates here and I am just 'policing' the page from edit warriors, so please be civil. As the only person here that lives in Transistria and am a foriegn journalist there I am the perfect person to assist the editors here in an impartial and proper way, I ask all editors to discuss edits here FIRST to get agreement. Thanks all. Mark us street Nov 28th

Mark us street, you're doing it again, you can't just say stuff without qualifying it. How am I the most biased person here?Jonathanpops 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You expose yourself, you said it first. It is silly name calling. Lets stop this nonsense and work togther as a group to ensure proper editing Mark us street Nov 28 2006

Mark us street, while you edited still under the name MarkStreet, you recognized that you are not in Tiraspol a lot of the time [9]. Please don't pretend you live in Transnistria, you may be a tourist there sometimes. Nobody here, recognize you as an impartial person.--MariusM 14:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

. I said I was not in my OFFICE a lot of the time, please assume good faith. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006

Information needing to be inserted into the article

The translation needs to be continued and improved, and the result wikified and styled. Taken from here. Moved here because Markstreet reverted the article for the 15th time, and I already reverted two times. Also, others could argue for not including this info into the article.

Immediatelly prior to the 2006 Transnistrian referendum, several publications from Russia and Transdniester stressed the conclusions of a certain report “made by prestigious western experts”, a report which plead for the independence of the separatist region from eastern Moldova. The study was attributed to ICDISS and a certain "Euro-Atlantic Joint Forum Contact Group". Among the signatures were quoted several well-known Oxford, Stanford and Harvard somities (Stefan Talmon, Christopher Goebel, Nancy Furman, Paul Williams, Stephen Krasner, Andrew Lorenz, Michael Scharf, William Wood) as well as several other experts in international law, among which a high ranking official of the US State Department.

These were said to have participated in April 2006, at a conference at the Bacon Hotel in Washington, together with several other experts in international law, among which a high ranking official of the US State Department. They all concluded that “Transdniester has all the required criteria for it to be declared an independent state”, thus flagrantly contradicting the official position of all western governments. The Ziua reporters contacted the quoted professors. Astounded, they declared that they do not have any connection with the report mediatised in the Russian press. Stephen Krasner, professor of international relations at Stanford University declared that he didn`t even wrote about Transdniester ever. Michael Scharf, professor at Case Western University, transmitted to us that the authors of the so called report had done nothing else than to copy and adapt an older study of his and of Paul Williams, written over a decade ago, not about Transdniester, but about Nagorno Karabah. Stefan Talmon, professor an Oxford University declared: “I want to make it clear that I was not involved in the writing of this report. I suspect that the implication of the mentioned names was used to give a certain credibility to that report, and to deceive the public”. Ziuas investigation was taken over and continued by the The Economist. After studing the text of the report, the bitish journalist concluded that despite it`s academic language, certain expressions betrayed the fact that English was not the maternal language of the authors. For example, the use of the expression "telephone centrals" instead of "exchanges" is a very common error found in Russian to English translations.The surprises continued. The british journalists found that at the Bacon Hotel in Washington had not taken place any such conference. None of the mentioned personalities had passed through there. About the two organizations which created the study, the journalists came to the conclusion that they are very strange. From the so called Euro-Atlantic Joint Forum Contact Group it appears that there is nothing except the organizations label, informs the Economist in its 3rd August edition, in an article called "Propaganda Wars Returns". Greier 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Against insertion, propaganda mudraking mainly about US organisation. Please can I request more non politcal entries such as climate and weather etc. It is becoming OTT. Mark us street Nov 28

Pro insertion. However the last link is not working, Greier you should fix it.--MariusM 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don`t intent to introduce the part as it is right now, but to polish it up, add style and to copyedit it. You can help! Also, here is the broken link. Greier 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold it right there Edit Warriors, We have caught you ,see below. Nothing on this page is to be changed without full co-operation of all sides. There are many suggestions in progress, Please wait and we will deal with this. Do not edit anything. We are still trying to stop the Intro edit war. Mark us street Nov 28

Edit Warriors

Please contibute

to Transnistria#Propaganda_and_disinformation. Let`s add all those links to The Economist, Ziua, etc. Let`s turn this campaign against them. Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job... hahah haha Greier 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) You are so evil! Mauco has a familly to feed, think at this!--MariusM 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mark us street for monitoring my talk page and copying here what you find in it. I will consider Greier's suggestion about contributing to a section about "Propaganda and disinformation". In fact, this is why talk pages are here in Wikipedia: to facilitate editor's communication about the improvement of articles.--MariusM 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Its quite clear to all of us what you were discussing and your EDIT WAR is ruining this page for serious people with serious intents to make this a factual page not a PROPAGANDA page. Mark us street Nov 28th

A random sampling of "fact" from Mark's "paper": "Moldova, the poorest and most backward country in Europe, has a history of cracking down on freedom of speech and using violence against its enemies. In 1992 Moldova attempted to invade Transnistria to enforce its territorial claim. After a brief war causing the loss of approximately 1,000 lives, Moldova retreated and brokered a ceasefire which established a buffer zone along the Dniester river which for centuries has been the traditional international border between the two sides, interrupted only from 1944 to 1990 while the two were joined by Stalin in the MSSR, a Soviet Union republic." Credited to the staff of the (Tiraspol) Times. This is hardly a factual accounting. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro Edit War

There has been an ongoing Edit War on the Intro all day. U have had to revert this five times. I am asking for order here before a full edit war breaks out. The intro was agreed Archive 8 Section 2. Warning after Warning has been issued today Mark us street 28th 2006.

Mark, the version you are proposing has not been agreed upon by anyone. And why do you keep mentioning Pernambuco? He himself said: "The version that is now (09:37 1 November 2006), as I can see, is the original one. So it stays without change. If you have objections about it, I kindly ask everyone to first find a consensus in the talk page before doing changes." That's this version, so don't say that there is any sort of agreement on your version as you are the only one advocating its use. TSO1D 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read Archive 8 Section 2, Penambuco, You changed his edit today and I am repeatedly having to revert back. We may have to lock it. We debated the intro over due time and coonsideration. This was a compromise !!!! However, please refrain from your changes.This is very important to me. Mark us street Nov 28th

Mark, please refrain telling plain falacies about an agreement which was never done. In fact, this article stayed well with the word "region" in introduction for a long time and nobody had nothing against until you showed here.--MariusM 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mark us Street, why do you keep using language such as "Policing" when refering to your own actions and "We may have to lock it [the article]" as if you have any say in this. When you first came here you seemed like a pretty even-handed guy, but you seem to be getting worse by the day. It's almost like you're two different people sometimes; on the one hand you're level-headed and reasonable, then on the other you're all irrational and emotional. I just don't get it? Jonathanpops 16:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No emotion allowed, the matter has been resolved by Wiki. Lets assume good faith and work together Mark us street Nov 28th 2006

I refer you to Archive 8 Section 2 where you were party to an agreement between five editors including an external nuetral editor.It was noted by that external editor that your position was 'Not Nuetral' however, he took all of us into account and made the edit. This is a compromise position. We all would like to have our own intro but that is not how WIKI settles disputes. Today the page was locked and it was THIS archive 8 Section 2 intro edit that was re nserted. by Wiki management. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006.

Mark do you think that all the other editors are retarded and cannot go back to the talk page to see that there was no compromise. Pernambuco explicitly said keep the current intro (which is not your preferred version). TSO1D 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we are see archive 8 Section 2, also see Penambucos Intro 30 Oct at 14.08 hrs, it's the same as I am using. Also see Khaihoi revert to it, and warning to block users trying to change it. If you are unhappy discuss new intro here, please do not revert. This intro changes caused the first war when evilalex changed Penambucos Intro. Yesterday we get semi protected because you and others tried to change his Intro. This was a compromise intro. I don't like it beut I accept I too have to compromise. Please feel feel to reopen the talk on this and I support that but for now please leave the intro alone Mark us street Nov 29th

Don't misrepresent the truth. Khoikhoi has not taken your stance on this issue and certainly wouldn't block a user for choosing one side. And if you look, his last edit was to revert you. TSO1D 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not the case as I remember but please check that agaib Mark us street Dec 1st

Unresolved Items

While I have pre-filled not only for myself but for Mauco and Mark Street, I would nevertheless suggest if people find this a useful means of organization, we should each maintain our own section to indicate an issue which came up somewhere earlier to indicate we acknowledge we have an item to follow up on. Obviously, Mauco and Mark Street are welcome to indicate whether or not they agree with my characterization.

Russo-Skepticism

To recap, the "Russo-skeptic" view is that the Transnistrian situation is an orchestrated Russian power play. No impartial observer—and certainly no Russo-skeptic—will regard "dancing in the streets" as a true expression of the will of the people until such time as (and incorporating Dc76's clarifications):

1. after every Russian national (i.e., not a Russian of Moldovan citizenship) in the PMR authorities is out (as in out, and out of the country);
2. after the Russian troops and any other troops or para-military forces assisting are all out (as in out of the country, and their arms depots demolished)--and I don't mean Russian military/para-military retiring to become "citizens of the PMR and join the PMR army," either;
3. after it is legal for a political party to be pro-Moldovan (that currently being treason); and
4. after Romanian is once again taught in its proper Latin script, not in some Cyrillic Soviet-era utter bastardization created purely to support the Stalinist fiction that Moldovans are not Romanians—"31+ percent of population in 100+ localities should have the right to more than only 5 schools available in Latin script, 4 of which in Tighina, and all 5 under serious persecusions and threats; and that in the official language of the country."

When these conditions are met, we can seriously discuss the validity of any subsequent expressions of the will of the people. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Homework, Mauco

Mauco brought up: "a seminar in September in Chisinau (organized by the British Embassy) summed up that there is a good level of press freedom in Transnistria. It characterized it as a myth to claim that the media climate is restri[cti]ve." I have requested details (i.e., where and when) so I can confirm. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see Mauco has been active again. It's been a week since I asked [here, two weeks since the original question]... just wondering if there is any information by which one might verify the contention this event occured. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauco indicated (elsewhere) that had provided the citation previously, which I dutifully tracked down. Mauco indicated I haven't been sufficiently congenial toward him to merit his assistance. It's only his views that I dispute, but I can see where it might appear to get personal at some point.

The source is the Moldovan Russian-language newspaper "Vremea," an article in Russian here.

Mauco states (first time): "Besides, the recent seminar organized by the British Embassy in Chisinau does not agree with you: They say that media in Transnistria is a lot freer than what most people think. [link to Vremea]- Mauco 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)" here

Mauco states (second time): "Actually, a seminar in September in Chisinau (organized by the British Embassy) summed up that there is a good level of press freedom in Transnistria. It characterized it as a myth to claim that the media climate is restrive. - Mauco 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)" here

First, the seminar:

“European Unification process: Convergence and conflict resolution"

September 3-18, 2006, Chisinau, at Institutul Muncii

(IPSIR-DAAD-Summer School 2006 in Chisinau, German intro, English agenda here)

Now, the Vremea article. What did the seminar conclude about freedom of the press in the PMR? (Note it's not an agenda topic, the conference concerns Moldova's future unification into the EU.)

• The seminar was organized by the Association of Foreign Policy of Moldova (APE), founded in 2004, "executive director political scientist Andrei Pupov," along with the British Embassy.
• About fifty experts attended the conference from "both banks of the Dnestr"

The article then has a lengthy paragraph about the credentials of the Association of Foreign Policy of Moldova (name, rank, and serial number), far more than is really necessary. Being Vremea is a pro-Russian-stance paper, one (naturally) suspects this is a setup to lend credence to conclusions to be drawn later.

• British ambassador John Beyer opens the conference "confidently" stating that the "official position of the European Union" is that the integration of Moldova into Europe "cannot contradict friendly Moldovan-Russian relations." (tellingly, the only quote from him in the entire article)
• The Moldovan Minister for Re-integration, Vasile Sova, delivers an "impressive lecture" on the history of [European] negotiations (on day two).
• Sova indicates he has proposal packet regarding Transnistria; Valeri Litskai, the "foreign affairs minister" of the PMR, was invited but did not attend. Participants are apparently left guessing at what is and what might have been.

At this point, the article concludes its factual reporting of facts and moves on to the factual reporting of opinions of individuals and the personal opinion of the author-"analyst" (Dmitri Kavruk) and his characterizations and observations on discussions among those representing the press in Moldova and the PMR. It is (only) at this point that the article states "it proved to be that voices [of the press] exist [in the PMR] that are relatively free of the MGB and Igor Smirnov."

At best, this is the article's author's personal characterization, in no way authoritative, and furthermore, in no way associated with the APE or British Embassy. It's nothing more than the author of a pro-Russia pro-PMR newspaper rather obviously associating his comments with the venue to give them credibility. (As does Mauco.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Homework, Mark Street

First, on no human rights issues, Mark indicated I was uninformed when it came to the "language issue." Rather than take on all the contents of the pridnestrovie.net page explaining there is no problem or oppression, I suggested we address one or two points at a time, starting with the language:

1. Russian Cyrillic script is not (pre-mid-19th century) Romanian Cyrillic script any more than English Latin script is Romanian Latin script—pridnestrovie.net paints the picture they are the same.
2. Stalin manufactured "Moldovan." It's a bastardized transliteration of Latin-script Romanian—pridnestrovie.net skirts the issue by saying the PMR is returning the language to its "cultural (Cyrillic) roots."

Again, in the logical English equivalent of (PMR) Moldovan, I ask, Ду юу агри со фар, ор дисагри? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Second, do you really not have a list of the 153 observers and their affiliations? You claim it was released to the international press, yet is nowhere to be found in English. Rather odd for a journalist to insist someone "do their own homework" especially since you (and others) repeatedly point to "the 153" as proof the referendum wasn't a sham. Perhaps the list doesn't really exist. Perhaps it was just Alksnis and a couple of his buds on vacation. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Third, about my "old troll" and your denouncing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as propaganda (as documented "by the U.S. government"), and it turning out your claim of propaganda and fabrication regarding charges against your own paper was misinformed, I'm waiting to hear on your resolution of the matter with Mr. De Waal. Obviously his now being doubly outraged at the Tiraspol Times for the continued misuse of his work has not affected your website, I just checked as I typed this and the offending article is still there, unchanged, HERE. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A week later, just checked, still there. Of course, Mark might be having some access problems... —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, who pays the bills for the Tiraspol Times? Hiding behind Politkovskaya and Litvinenko is a disservice to their memory. If absolutely nothing can be revealed about these people, groups, or organizations, then the agenda of the Tiraspol Times remains equally hidden. You've already indicated you're not going splash your backers' names on the Internet. Is there ANY information you can offer ("Des Grant" does not qualify)? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, you were going to respond to the Russo-skeptic position when you had a chance. ("I appreciate the fact that you have a position and have at least an idea of how you envisage steps towards some resolution. I will come back to deal with your points. Currently snowed under work wise. Mark us street Nov 15th") —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Homework, Pēters J. Vecrumba

Jamason has requested sources for the expression of pro-Moldovan union being illegal. (That was the premise under which parties advocating such union were banned--as advocating Moldovan union requires the dissolution of the PMR, considered treasonous.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have not forgotten, unfortunately my searching is limited to English sources--which document the original suppression of political parties and the advocacy of Moldovan union being treasonous. Finding something current in English is more of a challenge--(my interpretation:) no change in the status quo means nothing new to report. Still looking. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you've already come across the US Department of State's country reports. If not, I would direct you to take a look. Not a "clean bill of health," but nothing specifically indicating that it is against the law to advocate unification with Moldova. jamason 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New censorship at Tiraspol Times

In archive we already discussed the censorship at Tiraspol Times regarding Yakovlev's letter. The problem of Moldovan schools using latin script in Transnistria rise up again this month, as European Court of Human Rights accepted an urgent examination of the claim submitted by 3 Moldovan schools regarding discrimination and the violation of right for education [10], and also as the head of OSCE mission asked Rybnitsa authorities to return the confiscated building of the Moldovan school [11]. In Tiraspol Times today appeared an article about the school issue [12], with usual propaganda of PMR authorities about the fact that everything is fine. Significantly, this article doesn't mention the court case filled at ECHR, neither the statement of the head of OSCE mission. OSCE is mentioned, but not any word about the confiscation of the building of Moldovan school in Rybnitsa, only about that "actions by the OSCE representatives in Moldova do not promote the development of a constructive dialogue or trust between the educational authorities of Pridnestrovie and Moldova". The bad thing that OSCE representatives did was to discuss with parents and teachers of one Moldovan school without the presence of PMR officialls. Mark us street, you can do better than that. Find a non-political explanation for the confiscation of Moldovan school building in Rybnitsa! What about "the building don't meet the sanitarry standards and PMR authorities are worried for the health of the kids"? (this is my suggestion). Anyhow, is good to have a confirmation that PMR don't recognize the legitimacy of the diplomas issued by Moldovan latin script schools.--MariusM 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is just a malicious comment from MariusM. He tries to present Tiraspol Times as a publication which enforces censorship, and which is a mouthpiece for propaganda, and as an example, he gives the article "Education ministry sees minority schools as pawns in political game".

But anyone who can read can see that the article is SPECIFICALLY about what the Ministry says, and what their view is. It reports that view accurately. It is NOT an article about the schools issue in general. It does not cover the items that MariusM refers to, simply because that was never the purpose of the article. Right from the headline, we know that this article is about reporting what the Education Ministry said, about a specific item, and the article does so accurately. MariusM is trying to put a spin on something which does not merit it, but fortunately we all know how to read English ... - Mauco 19:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But the Tiraspol Times is a mouthpiece for propaganda and therefore must censor the truth by definition. The article says much more, that it's all just Moldovan hysteria, people are quoted denouncing the OSCE, that "experts" all say a "two country solution" is the most likely resolution to the Moldovan-PMR situation, etc., etc. In typical propaganda form, the PMR blames Moldova for everything, after all, the PMR is bending over to accomodate, etc. Of course, things like denouncing the OSCE are done by quoting someone (typical mechanism used in propaganda) so it's simply being "factually reported." But lies and propaganda, no matter how factually reported, are still lies and propaganda, are they not? You would have us believe, for example, that Vladimir Antyufeyev quoted in the New York Times makes him a legitimate objective source of information. Give us a bit more credit here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Says you. I read Tiraspol Times often and I have found it to often be very critical and also to publish a plethora of views. Right now, they are pushing Andrey Safonov. He is the US-financed candidate who wants unification with Moldova. - Mauco 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact Safonov was one of the leading figure of Transnistrian separatism at begining. I doubt about the fact that he is founded by US, but this is a clasical propaganda tool to accuse political opponents of being founded from foreign countries.--MariusM 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that you are the expert on classic propaganda tricks. In this case, however, it is a fact. There is no need to doubt, just do your research. By law, the US federal government is obliged to publish lists of who gets grant, and Safonov's newspaper is on the recipient list. I will not do your work for you, but if we include it as an edit in any of the articles, I will of course source it. - Mauco 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is not my work, is your work as you claimed this.--MariusM 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don’t look for a political reasons in this problem. I talked with several mothers, whose children are pupils of Romanian schools (by Moldovan Latin script schools). They say that most of the classrooms look like ruins and insanitariness shocks. As far as the legitimacy of the diplomas is concerned, the children having such diplomas can enter the university or colleges. But most of teachers says that the level of these children is so low that they fail the entrance examination.Helen28 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that imput Helen, Mark us street Dec

For the record: User:Helen28 registered at Wikipedia in 30 November and only things (s)he did here was to write 2 comments in this talk page. In 30 November Mark us street was blocked for edit warring and was not able to answer himself. It smells like a meatpuppet. I am happy to see that my suggestion about sanitarry standards was picked up by PMR propagandists, is a confirmation of my ability to make good suggestions. This is your job, guys, finding non-political explanations for PMR actions against those who oppose PMR, I am happy I could help. Mark us street, in Tiraspol Times [13] is clearly written that PMR minister of education told that diplomas of Moldovan schools with latin script are not recognized in PMR, now Helen is saying the opposite. Who is lying - Helen or Tiraspol Times?--MariusM 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith mariua, were you not Blocked too and its your issue Mark us street Dec

Yes. Anyone if free to register in Wikipedia and participate in the discussion. We do not bite newcomers. We should appreciate alternative views, especially from someone who apparently knows about the situation first hand, without asking inquisatory questions about "who is lying" (like MariusM does, kneejerk style). - Mauco 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the law, diplomas of Moldovan schools with Latin script cannot be recognized because of different educational standards in PMR and Moldova. But directors of colleges and universities don’t want children to suffer from “games of adults”. So they allow pupils of Romanian school to enter their educational institutions.Helen28 12:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this insight, Helen. Please don't be scared away by some of the rude characters who hang out here. - Mauco 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro

OK, a few things need to occur to the introduction I think:

1. Expansion - its a very short intro for an article of this length. Perhaps more context about how long it has claimed to be independent for, what troops are in place etc. 2. Unrecognised country - I don't agree that we should come out with the phrase 'Transnistria is an unrecognised country' but I don't see why we can't note that the 'state' claims to be an unrecognised country.

Thoughts? --Robdurbar 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe introduction need to be short, later in article is explained with more details the political status, and we have even a separate article about it. Current introduction was stable for a long period, until Mark us street pushed to change it.--MariusM 00:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would have nothing against expanding the introduciton, except for the new conflicts it may bring. So far any major changes have only come after langthy debates, and I am afraid that attempting to reform the intro might open a new Pandora's box. TSO1D 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Qucik Note here, I will draft an intro for us using the orginal as a platform, W cannot claim thar the PMR goovernment claims to be an 'Unrecognised country', They claim to be a 'country. The 'unrecognised' is our intepretation. Mark us street Dec 4th

Transnistria is a country in South-East Europe seeking formal international diplomatic relations and recognition. Despite having de-facto control of Transnistria and a democratically elected government in place for sixteen years Its sovereignty is strongly disputed by The Republic of Moldova. An independence referendum in Sept 2006 resulted in 97.!% of Transnistrians voting for independence. Some countries such as Russia have recognised the referendum result while most counties currently still support Moldova's claim. Mark us street Dec 4th 2006.

Transnistria declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1990 but has always been refused recognition by the international community which considers it to be part of Moldova.82.13.31.249 10:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) MikeGale

The PMSSR declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR, not independence from the USSR, and was a strong supporter of the preservation of the USSR in the wake of the putsch which began the fall of the Soviet Union. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For an intro I suggest that using new 5 letter acronyms - PMSSR - is confusing to the casual observer. Pompey64 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree--if you take a look at versions 8 and 9 which I propose, I simply note that the September 2, 1990 declaration was one of a separate republic within the Soviet Union. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are losing your time, Mark. Transnistria is not a country, but, like actual intro is saying, a region of Moldova which declared its independence. Write whatever you want in your website "Tiraspol Times", but Wikipedia is not your propriety.--MariusM 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here with the propaganda again. I'm still waiting for your 153 observers. No 153 observers, no "97% voted..." etc. etc.. There is no democratic government--have I missed the news that Smirnov has been deposed? Is Antyufeyev high-tailing it to Moscow? How about: "Transnistria is a break-away territory of Moldova. While demonstrating elements which could be infered to be democratic, most recently the "independence" referendum of September 2006, the non-Transnistrian ruling elite have remained in power since the founding of the Transnistrian state and continue to be supported by the presence of Russian troops." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with TSO1D version that Transnistria "declared its independence on September 2, 1990 and has maintained de facto control over its claimed territory since then". In archive I had talks on this subject with Mauco and Jamason, I told that in my opinion Transnistria didn't control its entire teritorry in 2 September 1990. Declaration of independence and real control are different things. Even Jamason told that only at the autumn on 1991 prosecutor office in Tiraspol was subdue by separatists, In Dubăsari Moldovan police remained until 1992, so in Tighina. Things are more complicated. Was agreed to let only a short introduction and develop the details in history section. I didn't have time to develop the history section, but I see again were entered in introduction factually incorrect things.--MariusM 13:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

MariusM is right, the "control of territory since 1990" should not be handled in the intro. Leave it out, then deal with it later in the article and on the separate detailed articles (history, disputed status, etc). - Mauco 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

I reverted the information and Propaganda section for two reasons. Firstly this was not agreed to be a section. Transnistrian editors always flag their desire to create new sections and have to battle to get them in..The Romanian editors just plough in with sections of hatred unannounced. . Also the attack on the sites mention is legally libelous. Tiraspol Times only connection is a shared IP address which 800 others users that share the address too including half the businesses in PMR. Therefore, these claims of propaganda is propaganda in itself.t we can fully debate that section here before we can include as we do with every section.. Mark us street Dec 4th

I believe that this was added in my absense. There was no prior discussion and as I can see, here, there is no consensus either. Let us move it here (to Talk) and give the editors a chance to defend it. Besides, the proper place for a treatise like that is on Media in Transnistria. - Mauco 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: The word "Propaganda" is itself POV. One man's propaganda is another man's information. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... This is Wikipedia, we do not use loaded words lightly. - Mauco 22:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section when I first saw it as it hadn't been discussed on the talk page beforehand and it was clear that the addition would be controversial. I am not sure if the section should stay here, but the passage is well-sourced and is relevant to the foreign section. I am not pleased with its neutrality, however, because of the language used and the lack of balance. The title of the section will have to go for sure. Having a sectin called "Propaganda and disinformation" certainly contravenes Wikipedia policy. Also it would be nice to present ICDISS's response to the accusations as well as that of the Tiraspol Times. TSO1D 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We have already seen that anything calling pro-PMR sources into question is denounced as propaganda by Mark Street, even 100% factual reports regarding his own "paper." It was only after I tracked down the author whose materials were involved--who responded PERSONALLY in the discussion page, that Mr. Street's tone suddenly changed. ICDISS is yet another blatant pro-PMR propaganda factory. When someone vociferously denounces reputable (and completely factual) reports as "mudraking" and "propaganda" is it not fair to use the term "propaganda" in return to describe the act of denouncing? Mr. Street would have us believe it's all an unfortunate and completely unintentional misunderstanding among friends. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Peters, this is Wikipedia. Don't confuse the often-heated discussions on the Talk pages with the kind of wording that ought to stay in main namespace. - Mauco 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Street was being quite emphatic (not getting carried away in heated discussion) regarding "propaganda" attacking his paper. I suppose I could simply say Mark "lied" instead of using "propaganda"? "Propaganda" is being kind. I'm not the one confused here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say. I will let you have the last word, but we can all read English and check the DIFFs ... and draw our own conclusions. - Mauco 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

We have agreed to remove the word Terrorism Mark us street Dec 4

We is not me, nor I would venture, the majority. And not "Wiki admin." I was very clear in summing up prior Wiki discussions on the use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism." There is absolutely no ban on the use of the word "terrorism." Mark, unfortunately (and apparently intentionally) your interpretation of "agreement" is as follows:

1. "Unless I hear otherwise, then we are agreed that { insert propaganda statement here } ..."
2. people who have a life outside of Wikipedia and do not draw a full time salary spouting Transnistrian propaganda don't respond in vociferous denial within 5 minutes (I exagerate, a day or two)
3. "Since no one has objected, we are agreed that { insert propaganda statement here } ..."

I don't see that anyone has agreed to any of the overtly over-the-top pro-PMR language you are seeking to riddle this article with. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Jonathanpops 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Admin and it is not true anyway Mark us street Dec 4th

Mark us street, you are in minority here. Even from Helen28 interventions we can see that terrorism is a problem in Transnistria.--MariusM 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't make sense , she never mention terrorism and anyhow, you think she is me so make up your mind. Mark us street 4 dec 2006.

I told you Mark, don't use plain fallacies here. Helen mentioned word "terrorism" and was saying that even now some people in Transnistria are afraid of terrorism [14]. She wanted to help you, explaining the refusal of transnistrian media to report about pro-Moldovan transnistrians and labeling those as "terrorists", anyhow she used this word. I didn't told Helen is you, I told I suspect she is one of your meatpuppet (not sockpuppet), as she appeared here to support you exactly in the day you were blocked. How many employees you have at Tiraspol Times?--MariusM 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, there is no consensus on using violence instead of terrorism, in fact most editors here prefer the latter. TSO1D 12:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We cannot print untruths just because the Moldoans think it descredits Transnistria. So Thats That can we agree that the Terrorism word is truly improper. Mark us street Dec 6th

As I've commented on Mark's user page, I don't especially have the time to get caught up in this one but I would like to point out that at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words with controversial or multiple meanings we do have a whole section on "Terrorist/Terrorism". Now this is just a guideline and not a policy, but a few quotes from it that suggest we should avoid terrorism here include:

• It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person
• Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..."

So we don't even call Al-Qaeda terroists. Given that, I suggest that the best way to handle it neturally would be with 'violence'.

Equally, "There has been some domestic terrorism in Transnistria" does go against that guide. Looking at the sources for the three attacks: the first doesn't work, the second doesn't use the word terrorism and the third - though it appears to be a pro-Transnistrian site - actually states that the law-enforcement agencies don`t regard the incident as a terrorist action. If we add that, however, to what the British Embassy in Chisinau to say[15]:

Since July 2006, there have been two explosions on or near public transport in the regional capital Tiraspol. While the exact motives remain unclear, there is no evidence to suggest that these attacks were linked to any terrorist group or organisation

then there's little to support labeling these acts as terrorist. We need to re-title violence and say that there have been attacks that some (insert source) have suggested were terror-related but for which the exact motives remain unclear (source-british embassy). Robdurbar 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For me it's not so much that I want to include the word "terrorist", it's that Mark Street keeps trying to play it down and call it domestic violence, and claims we all agreed to this, which for a native English speaker means wife beating, husband bashing and child abuse. All of which are very serious things but are nothing like the same as bombing a trolleybus or blowing up a minibus. Now, unless you want to suggest that Transnistrians beat up their wives, I think we can come up with better phraseology than domestic violenceJonathanpops 19:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, it hadn't occured to me that. Civil violence? Or is that too close to civl war? 'Violent attacks'? I've changed it to 'violence and bombings' for now. --Robdurbar 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not fair, a grenade exploding is not a bomb, Please be fair Mark us street Dec 5th

Grenade 1. A small bomb or explosive missile that is detonated by a fuse and thrown by hand or shot from a rifle or launcher. Jonathanpops 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be realisitic, a grenade is not a bomb Mark us street 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Call a spade a spade. No serious person think of bombs when they hear the word grenade. "A grenade went off" is not the same as saying "a bomb exploded" and as editors we must keep that in mind. - Mauco 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a grenade go off? You may not be so sure of the difference between it and a bomb if you had. In fact some devices labelled "bomb" are often less explosive and destructive than a grenade. Still, it doesn't really matter, calling it a grenade is okay by me, but one of them actually was a bomb wasn't it, in the minibus? "A grenade went off" is NOT the same as "a bomb exploded", I agree. The first sounds like it might be an accident. So are we to word it - Violence Grenades and Bombs, to clarify that it's not just 'bombs', but grenades as well? Well, actually it's singular so far isn't it. What word/s can we use instead of "bombings" to show that one was a bomb and one was a grenade? Jonathanpops 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you already changed it. Jonathanpops 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Every edit I have ever made has been reverted

The Transnistria page is pure Romanian/ Moldova Secret Service Prpoganda. As a major voice of Transnistria here I have not been allowed a single edit here nor has an other Transnistrian editor. Frankly. it is a sad when they will not allow the Transnistrian voice to have a single word on the main page. Currently It is pure lies and propganda. They agree things and then delete the parts of the agreement they don't like. The link to tiraspoltimes was voted on and is always removed . TSOID removed it again today. We have proven the Terrorism word is not true. But the Romanian Secret Service types just flaunt the rules and plough in their edits and insert Terrorism even though it is clearly not true. . The Independence Referendum is always deleted and the section is deliberately written in a highly confusing manner. The first day I arrived in Transnistria I was told be a senior person that The Moldovans treat the Transnistrians like animals and this Transnistrian page on Wiki is an example of the pure bombastic nature of the Moldovan/Romanian people here that refuse to allow the Transnistrians have a say on there own site. There is three views possible; ours, yours, and how things are. Here thr page is currentlly entirely yours. We want to turn it not to ours but to how things really are. This we are denied. Sadly for you we are Free and will remain free, we are in a position of strenght and this you cannot see. The current tactic is to strangle and starve the Transnistrian people into submission. Treat them like animlas like the Americans treated the indians in the west in the 1850s. When this fails. How can we ever meet in the middle. One place we can currently co-operate togather is here. So far I have not been allowed to insert one single work on the main page as it is defended the the Romanian Sectret Service types. Until there is mutual respect we can abandon hope, Surely it is in your interest to work together, to find common threads? Or am I dealing with pure hatred here ? No effort is ever made to reach compromise. Perhaps I am wasting my time trying. Maybe we are never meant to work together and have respect. Does anyone have any idea how to reach out to the other side. I have tried so many times. Currently you have me. I can leave it if you want. Have your honourless proaganda site and I can go...... and what then. ...Mark us street Dec4th 2006.

Mark, you make serious accusations. Can you please explain which user of Wikipedia is working for Romanian or Moldovan Secret Service?--MariusM 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a true, i have my sources in Romania and i have been informed and I can prove a lot more than I am committed to write for other security reasons. Mark us street Dec 4th

I reverted one of your edits because I thought it was utter rubbish, very poorly written and not at all as lucid as what you just wrote here. Jonathanpops 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I see you have adopted a new strategy: "As a major voice of Transnistria here I have not been allowed a single edit here..." which is for your opposition to die of laughter. At least Mauco is creative in finding materials and sources, for which I must commend him as a worthy adversary although if he truly believes his position I would consider that incredibly naive. All you do is play the same PMR record over and over again like some mantra believing you will simply tire us out. "...democratically elected..." "...97%..." "...democratically elected..." "...97%..." "...democratically elected..." "...97%..." ...

Your definition of "compromise" is "let me insert my position on the matter here"--at best, it's an overt attempt to dilute fact with fiction and present that as a "neutral" position.

Regarding, "The first day I arrived in Transnistria I was told b[y] a senior person..." The only thing worse than the Tiraspol Times being a mouthpiece for the PMR would be the tragedy of you personally believing that you are actually engaged in some noble cause, because if so, you are as misguided and misinformed as the people who went to the Soviet Union to admire the great social experiment while millions were being buried in mass graves in Siberia.

And once again you play the "hate" card. Don't demean yourself by sinking so low. At least learn from the Russians to lie with pride and utter indignation and total disdain for the truth. You want to reach out? Spouting propaganda and asking us to take you seriously is not "reaching out." You have not answered any requests for information or sources. You are not the champion of the Transnistrians, you are the enabler of their victimizers. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you give Mark Street too much credit. This is unverifiable, of course, but his English errors don't seem typical of a native. Dpotop 08:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true that one of these propaganda outfits with people with British sounding names was actually tracked down to several secretaries in a back room in the PMR. If I had only bookmarked the reference... (from before getting involved here). Rather curious it's impossible to find anything on a journalist named Mark Street. (I've tried.) Perhaps Mark would like to tell us where he matriculated as proof of his existence. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear we have lost you forever Mark us street 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Referendum

Please do not introduce significant changes to this section wihtout discussing them here beforehand. The word indpendence should not be used in the title because the referendum wasn't about independence, it was about whether Transnistria preferred to set on a course to come closer to Russia or Moldova (the questions are pretty explicit about this). In any case any such descriptor would be subjective, so it's probably best to just call the section the "2006 Transnistrian Referendum". As for saying that Russia and many countries recognized the referendum, that wouldn't really be true. Even Putin said that officially Russia cannot recognize the referendum, and I can think of no other countries (except maybe for Abkhazia and Ossetia if you consider them to be such entities). TSO1D 12:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Russian Duma (lower house) recognized the referendum. This was widely reported in the Russian-language press but was suppressed by the English-language press (with a few notable exceptions [16]). This is NOT the same as saying that Russia did so. Officially, Russia's foreign policy is set by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the results should be respected and taken into account. This is implicit recognition, but not overtly. Many other countries (as we have listed in the article) went to great lengths to specifically announce that they did NOT recognize the referendum. This was not the case of Russia. - Mauco 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

_____________________

The section is badly put together and I firstly suggest a new order for the presenting of this section..

I suggest:

A referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters:

Part 1 -Do you support the course towards the independence of the PMR and the subsequent free association with the Russian Federation?

Part 2- Do you consider it possible to renounce the PMR's independent status and subsequently become part of the Republic of Moldova?

The results were;

97.1 percent of voters supported Part 1, while 2.3 percent did not support it.

3.4 percent of voters supported Part 2, while 94.6 percent did not support it.[11][12]

The referendum had a high voter turnout with 78.6 percent of the registered voters of Transnistria voting in the referendum

International Reaction.

Russia's Duma[13] recognized the vote but the OSCE and many countries[14] did not, dismissing the poll as illegitimate.[15]

____________________________

This is clearly an INDEPENDENCE Referendum with the inclusion of an added desire for subsequent free association with the Russian Federation. Countries can hold referendums about anything and the Romanian editors here always deleted the Independence word because they find the it hurtful. I understand that hurt but it does not change the facts, We have had enough misunderstandings here, The Independence Referendum has a huge point in Trasnistria's struggle for international recognition.

As for the part where some editors try to reduce the result by naming those countries and organisations that don't support the democratic will of Transnistria. I can accept that if we can be equal and agree to name those organisations and countries that DID recognise the referendum. Mark us street 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how this is a vote for independence. How is pursuing a course orientad towards Russia more conducive to independence than one towards re-integration into Moldova. It seems like both paths would lead to the loss of Transnistrian statality and many Transnistrian leaders have stated that that is their wish, in order to merge with Russia. TSO1D 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Russia won't have them, and both questions were very clumsily phrased, but they do both make reference to independence. In a way it could be called an independence referendum. But instead of re-inventing the wheel here, why not take a look at how the mainstream press referred to it? (Not Tiraspol Times or other Transnistria-based sources, but leading newspapers in Russian and English from around the world). Then whatever neutral description they give, we can use the same. Another option is to just say "referendum" and leave it at that, without a qualifier, and let the questions speak for themselves. - Mauco 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Mauco is onto a good idea calling it simply a "referendum" and including the voting choices to let the readers make up their own mind what the people were voting on. Most of the news articles I've read through call it this anyway, a referendum I mean. Jonathanpops 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think that Mark Street is blocked for 3RR right now, but let us keep it as just a "referendum" and NOT "independence referendum" please. I agree. - Mauco 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And "the PMR reported that..." (voter turnout, percentages on each vote, etc.) as there was no independent validation. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i.e., instead of "The results were:", "Officials reported the results as:" —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OSCE and numerous countries were invited as observers. If they declined to participate, this is hardly Transnistria's fault. Those observers who did participate are unanimous in that the results are correct, and that the voting process was held according to free and fair democratic standards. The only ones who think otherwise are the ones who weren't even there. And that stinks. - Mauco 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Only observers that were there can really comment so I will delete the OSCE comments Mark us street 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if I ask nicely we might find out who all these observers were? (Of course the OSCE was going to decline participating.) There's no reason to delete the OSCE comments as that's essentially an (alternate view) officical comment on the referendum and observers who did participate. Mark, declaring you're going to do something and then waiting for people to object/revert is not a method of reaching agreement. What the PMR reported and what the OSCE thinks are both relevent. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The list was published at the time in English and Russian. I have a hard copy but I haven't time to type it in but it is quite impressive, The OSCE were not even there , what can they say, its not right to quote them. Mark us street 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Region"= Official Moldova government POV

The use of the word "region" to describe Transnistria is being pushed by Moldovan government officials. This is despite the fact that it has not been used before in official documents, like the 1992 cease fire mandate signed by Mircea Snegur (then-president of Moldova).

Source: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol154-12-06.htm

Quote: делегация Республики Молдова стремится заменить название "Приднестровье" на "Приднестровский регион Республики Молдова", и это вызывает определенное беспокойство у приднестровской стороны. "Извините, если мы берем за основу действующую инструкцию, то должны использовать ту терминологию, которая в ней употребляется", - сказал Александр Порожан.

Rough translation: The delegation of the Republic of Moldova aims to replace the name "Pridnestrovie" with the "pridnestrovian region of the Republic of Moldova", and this causes certain uneasiness on the Transnistrian side. "Excuse me, but if we use the mandate as our basis, then we must use the terminology, which is used in it", said Aleksandr Porozhan.

Previous documents did not use this terminology. Real life shows that Transnistria is no longer a part of Moldova and that Moldova's government has, in reality, lost all control over Transnistria. The push for "region" is an attempt by Moldova's government to put something into the paperwork between the sides which is not the actual case, based on the evidence on the ground, and which has never been used before. - Mauco 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the names for the region and state are often used interchangeably. That is why the delegation states that it is referring specifically to the region (so that it won't seem that it implicitly recognizes the state). That is also why I urged to differentiate between them is these issues. --Illythr 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Illythr, the way that OSCE and most others have done it in the past is to call Moldova a republic, by spelling out the full name "Republic of Moldova", whereas Transnistria is never (ever) spelled out by its own constitutional name, "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". It is merely called Pridnestrovie. Not state, not republic, not region. Just the name. The OSCE has a bunch of the official documents on its site, and the Peacemaking project by the British Embassy has a lot of that, too.

My point is this: To call it a "region" is just as much POV as if we call it a "country". Moldova wants to call it a region, PMR wants to be called a country, but the mediators have long ago found an middle-ground that sort of satisfies both sides. - Mauco 03:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

intro

Nobody can have the intro they want here. We have to reach an accomodation Can we agree on one and leave it othrwise the edit wars will never stop Mark us street 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, the issue is simple: Use the same wording here that all the rest of Wikipedia does. If EvilAlex and his pals want to change that, then they can't just change it on the Transnistria page. They must first convince the rest of the editors on such list as List of countries and List of sovereign states to do so. The issue HAS been dealt with extensively, there, and all we need to do is to copy the phrasing used there. According to Wikipedia, Transnistria is a de facto unrecognized country and is de jure a region of Moldova. Period. - Mauco 18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the following: "Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in southeastern Europe that is internationally recognized as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova but declared its independence on September 2 1990 and has maintained de facto control over its claimed territory since then. Its independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention." TSO1D 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We have been laboring over this, on and off, for the better part of two months now. Pernambuco had a very neutral intro. You do need to include, somehow, the word "unrecognized country" because this is how the rest of Wikipedia lists Transnistria (with the notable exception of the Moldova page, of course). You can then also include the part that, de jure, it is a region of Moldova. - Mauco 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But look at other examples, for instance Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The word unrecognized country never appears there either although those two entities appear on the same lists as Transnistria. I just don't understand why it is so important that those specific words are used as long as the main ideas are presented in a neutral fashion. TSO1D 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is equally true that Transnistria is a part of Moldova (don't forget that this is also how Transnistria is listed on Wikipedia), and that it is true that it is an unrecognized country. However, my view is that avoiding both these terms might be best in order to preserve neutrality. TSO1D 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Abkhazia or South Ossetia articles have been the subjects of heavy whitewashing by pro-Georgian "nationalist trolls" so they are hardly good examples. The "region of Moldova" is incorrect in any meaningful sense of the word, and is - at best - just a legal fiction today (thus the "de jure" statement), as you surely know from observing the real situation on the ground. Without something to counterbalance it, it is misleading and POV. Sorry for the strong expression. - Mauco 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I agree that that assertion would be misleading, that's why am saying that it shouldn't be used just like unrecongnized country shouldn't be used. Though technically both are true (one de jure and the other de facto), the same information can be presented through a more neutral format. My fear is that using either of those two statements puts an emphasis on one aspect of Transnitria's political status, thus having an inherent POV. That's why I believe it is best to lay the facts down (1. Transnistria is a region in Eatern Europe; 2)formally it is part of Moldova; 3)de facto it is controlled by the PMR) and let readers draw their own conclusions. If you disagree, please write an alternative version for the introduction so that we can try to reconcile the two versions. TSO1D 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauco left a meggage on my talkpage about this, sorry for taking so long to reply. On this topic I think that "(de facto) country" wording is undue weight and legitimacy (this is just my POV of course). Look at what Britannica refers to it as though:

• "self-proclaimed territory of Transnistria" [17]
• "Moldova's breakaway Transnistria region" [18]
• "separatist enclave of Transnistria" [19]
• "the Transnistria region" (in the article about R. Moldova) [20]

In addition to the above, I don't think the words "unrecognized/unrecognised country" appear in Britannica at all. I have serious doubts that any of the above can seriously be considered POV considering Britannica's status. However, if everyone else agrees on a formulation, I certainly will not rock the boat.--Euthymios 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is doing a much, much better job than Britannica, at least on the Transnistria related articles. Britannica has a lot of sloppy errors. They even get the population figure wrong. We should not reference them; they should reference us if they want to get their facts straight. - Mauco 12:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My dear Mauco, you would disavow the word of God (insert religion here) if you personally considered it in error. "Breakaway territory/region" for example, is quite an appopriate description, I believe. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Encarta does exactly the same for Trans-dniester as they call it. TSO1D 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but this is Wikipedia and on ALL the major WP lists where Transnistria appears, it is referred to as an unrecognized country. There are many reasons for that. I am sure that the Encarta and Britannica editors, with all due respect to them, have not had the benefit of collaborative editing that Wikipedia offers. While we are in Wikipedia, let us stick to the established standards.

There are already two existing proposals (by others) which I agree with. Take your pick:

[1.] Transnistria' (officially Pridnestrovie) is a de facto unrecognized country and de jure region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2 1990. To date its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

or

[2.] Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

I am OK with either. If we remove the status altogether from the intro, that might also work since the issue is dealt with in deeper detail below (in the article body) and also on the separate Status page. In that case, it would be something like this:

[3.] Transnistria' (officially Pridnestrovie), located in southeastern Europe, declared its independence on September 2 1990. To date its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

It is less to my liking, but at least there is nothing controversial in this version for anyone to flame over. - Mauco 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But how can you talk about Transnistria without even mentioning Moldova in the intro? And you are not really removing all information on political status as it does state that Transnistria declared independence (though not from whom) and that its independence is an issue of contention (just not why). TSO1D 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Mauco. Just because something appears in Wikipedia ("unrecognized country") does not make it true. And machine replication ("appears on ALL the major lists") does not make something anymore true than typing something over and over yourself (thinking Mr. Street).

BTW, I found an entire Transnistrian article writting by yourself indicating your credentials as an authoritative source in DMOZ. All references must be to outside sources to maintain integrity, and not written/inserted by yourself (or Mr. Street). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How about: [4.] Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in Southeastern Europe that is internationally recognized as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova, however de facto functions as an unrecognized country having declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. TSO1D 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Close, I think. Let me try a slight improvement:

[5.] Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its independence has not been recognized and most countries consider it an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova. The sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

Sorry I'm confused whose proposal is this? TSO1D 12:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would do nicely (normally I like to include the word "separatist" in articles like this (often resulting in edit wars), but we can leave that out).--Euthymios 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I like TSO1D's version too, it's the best of the above. Do any countries at all recognise Transnistria as an independent country? I'm not sure if they do or not officially. If they do perhaps it could say "internationally recognized, with the exception of so-and-so-land, as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova... It's an interesting intro whatever we go with, very convoluted and wordy, but it does reflect the situation rather nicely I think. Jonathanpops

A lot of countries (most?) are hoping that the status settlement talks will yield some sort of a result, which is why they are holding back on declaring recognition of Transnistria; either for or against. Moldova is recognized by them, of course, but this, in diplomacy, is not the same as automatically giving appropal to Moldova's territorial claim on Transnistria. The situation is currently still undefined. By objective definitions, Transnistria is a country. The lack of formal recognition, except by other unrecognized states, makes it an unrecognized country. This is not a new invention: Wikipedia uses it on all its major lists, throughout the encyclopedia. - Mauco 12:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to disagree. Transnistria is internationally recognized as a de jure part of Moldova, period. They don't just recognize the Bessarabian part and sit on the fence in regards to Transnistria. There really is no question about this fact, almost every reference source will emphasize this point. Even the Russian government stated that directly and expclicitly. Saying that most but not all countries recognize Transnistria as part of Moldova is simply misleading. Furthermore, in most articles of this type the formal often comes before the actual so the de jure status should be mentioned before the de facto. I have to say that I am still advocating my last proposed version; I even used the unrecognized country part and made the text as neutral as it can be. TSO1D 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Like MariusM correctly says, the intro is not the place to get into ANY of this, really. We can deal with that (briefly) in the article body itself, and then (in even more detail) on the Disputed status of Transnistria page. You are partly right, TSO1D, but the issue is a great deal more complicated than this and goes to the root of how certain foreign ministries phrase their notes (letters) when they establish diplomatic relations. In a nutshell, diplomatic relations does not imply agreement of territorial claims, and an explicit recognition of existing borders would often merit a separate agreement, similar to the one that Moldova and Ukraine has already signed shortly after independence. Anyway, intro is not the place for dealing with any of that. - Mauco 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, what do you think the intro look like, the current version? TSO1D 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added some numbers to a couple of un-numbered ones. Of the ones above, 1, 2 or 5 work best. Either one is OK with me. - Mauco 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Explosion in Bendery

I've just read about an explosion in Bendery. I didn't want to put it under the terrorism discussion as the snippet I read on transdniestria.com doesn't say anything much about it. I guess this will go in the article though once we know more, unless it turns out to be an accident. Jonathanpops 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This source [21] (in Romanian) is telling that was negligence of some kids in a school, when they manipulate a grenade at the lesson of "militarry training".--MariusM 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"In school N13" not faraway from where i lived EvilAlex 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some wikieditors will start investigations to establish exactly where you lived, which is your exact identity and which members or your family are still living in Transnistria.--MariusM 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And then they will eat them all alive. Got ketchup? _{(Um, sorry 'bout that, couldn't resist)} --Illythr 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

From what is apparently known so far, an 11th grade had started some basic military training. Instead of dummies, one of the students (a Moldovan, it is said) brought with him a live grenade from Moldova instead of the dummies that are used for this sort of training. It blew out the windows of the school, apparently unintentionally. Needless to say, live grenades are NOT part of any training. Caution: This information is gathered from Internet forums, similar to Wikipedia talk pages, so we can not rely on it for factual accuracy until the JCC releases an official statement. Note: The area is part of the JCC buffer zone and they were on the scene immediately after the incident. - Mauco 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Yes Mauco - here is some more from the same forum Диверсию провели агенты спецслужб Молдовы,замаскированные под учеников школы №13: EvilAlex 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like bombs and terrorism to me Mark us street 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a bomb Mark, a grenade remember... Jonathanpops 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof that this was planned by Moldova. The fact that he was a Moldovan should not be used to draw conclusions. Maybe it was a prank by the teenager himself, who wanted to impress people by how "cool" he was that he could train with real, live ammo and not with the unloaded props. Anyway, no one died. He suffered some leg damage and is being treated at the local hospital. - Mauco 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambig page

As MariusM pointed in the voting section above, Transnistria means 2 different things: a geographical region, which fluctuated through time, and the current political entity. We should make this clear in the beginning of the article, and then make no confusions when treating the two subjects. Dpotop 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

May I point out that we are not voting. It is not a voting section. - Mauco 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, it's called "Poll". Is this different from voting? Dpotop 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote textually from the initiator of this initiative: "Well, I don't mean for this to be a vote" - Mauco 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a separate article Transnistria (World War II). Indeed, we need a disambiguization page.--MariusM 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a disambig page; maybe we can have a disambig line at the top saying this article is about the modern territory, for the World War II region see.... TSO1D 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, TSO1D, with all due respect, I think that you are misunderstanding the proposal of MariusM. He gives the WWII article merely as an existing example. Rather, what he wants to do is to separate the unrecognized country (or whatever you want to call it) with the geographical area, and have two articles. Similar to how Wikipedia does it for Western Sahara, for instance. This has actually been proposed in the past. - Mauco 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. I remember proposing that a few months ago Talk:Transnistria/archive_4#Two_Transnistria_Articles here, however it didn't seem like there was too much support for the move. Maybe things have changed. TSO1D 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I am glad that I could help clear that up, it seems like MariusM is offline but I wanted to explain his position so you (and others) could understand. - Mauco 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the few examples when Mauco explained correctly my position.--MariusM 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to thank me. But if you do, I will say that you're welcome. - Mauco 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards

Look at Wikipedia standards in other similar situations, regarding the intro discussion:

Abkhazia IPA: /æbˈkeɪʒə/ or /æbˈkɑziə/ (Abkhaz: Аҧсны Apsny, Georgian: აფხაზეთი Apkhazeti, or Abkhazeti, Russian: Абха́зия Abkhazia) is a region of 8,600 km² (3,300 sq mi.) in the Caucasus, which is de jure an autonomous republic of Georgia (Georgian: აფხაზეთის ავტონომიური რესპუბლიკა, Abkhaz: Аҧснытәи Автономтәи Республика), but which proclaimed independence after a war in the early 1990s. Although it is not recognized internationally as a separate nation, Abkhazia remains largely de facto independent of Georgia and maintains control over a large part of its territory, including the capital of Sukhumi on the Black Sea. The de jure Government of Abkhazia, the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia, is located in the Kodori Valley, part of Georgian-controlled Upper Abkhazia.

South Ossetia (Ossetian: Хуссар Ирыстон, Xussar Iryston; Georgian: სამხრეთ ოსეთი, Samkhret Oseti ; Russian: Южная Осетия, Yuzhnaya Osetiya) is a self-proclaimed republic within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia. Although this former Soviet autonomous oblast (region) has declared its independence and is in de facto control of significant part of the region, its separation from Georgia has not been recognized by any other country and is regarded a de jure part of the Georgian region (mkhare) of Shida Kartli. Georgia does not recognise the region as a distinct entity, instead referring to it by either the medieval name of Samachablo or, more recently, Tskhinvali region (after the republic's capital).

Of course, is not mandatory for us to abide at those standards, but is good to know for comparison.--MariusM 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Abkhazia or South Ossetia articles have been the subjects of heavy whitewashing by pro-Georgian "nationalist trolls" so they are hardly good examples. The "region of Moldova" is incorrect in any meaningful sense of the word, and is - at best - just a legal fiction today (thus the "de jure" statement), as anyone will know from realistically observing the actual, factual real situation on the ground. Without something to counterbalance it, it is misleading and POV. Sorry for the strong expression. - Mauco 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will say that Transnistria article was the subject of heavy withewashing by pro-Russian "nationalist trolls", and we need to improve the article. You like it or not, Transnistria is internationally recognized as a region of Moldova and a day will come when people from this region will be freed from Russian occupation. Why you changed words in my edits? Why my proposal for the introduction (see archive) was not even brought into discussion here? Russian support for separatist regime was and is crucial, we should mention it in the introduction.--MariusM 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF? "and a day will come when people from this region will be freed from Russian occupation" ... The majority of the population of Transnistria don't feel that they live under Russian occupation, as you say. And if it comes to a vote, they prefer Russia over Moldova. Many volunteers from Transnistria fought (and died) in 1992 to maintain their independence and fight off the Moldovan attackers. Remember who invaded who, and who attacked who... - Mauco 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be Transnistrian militia with Russian arms forcibly taking over facilities and buildings. The bloodshed in Bender, for example, was started by the Transnistrian forces, not Moldovans. Russian troops and their armaments are not transparent backdrops. When I was in Latvia after independence, I only needed to see one truck of Russian troops rumble by a day to be reminded who had been in control and who was still considered a threat. You can write about your interpretation of the Transnistrians' feelings for Mark's paper, but that is not appropriate here. (Speaking of which, did anyone ever find a printed copy of the Tiraspol Times? I had forgotten about that now-archived thread.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the disputed Falklands Islands on Wikipedia. The De-facto position is given dominance and de-jure secondary position. Here is how they present the section.

The Falkland Islands are an archipelago in the South Atlantic. The islands have been subject to rival sovereignty claims for more than two centuries with Spain, France, Argentina and the United Kingdom maintaining de facto control of the islands at some point. The islands are currently administered by the United Kingdom, a position recognised by many countries in the world. Argentina also claims the islands. The sovereignty dispute escalated in 1982, when the Falklands War was fought following an Argentine invasion of the islands. Mark us street 17:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The parallels are very interesting indeed. If we use Wikipedia's Falkland Islands format, then we have to add a second paragraph to the Transnistria article which reads as follows:

In 1992 Transnsistria was invaded by Moldova, precipitating the two-month-long undeclared War of Transnistria between Moldova and Transnistria, which resulted in the defeat and withdrawal of Moldovan forces. Since the war, both sides have worked to independently build their economies. The inhabitants of Trannistria, who are of mainly Slavic descent, are Transnistrian citizens, and support indepenence with free association to Russia. They reject unification with Moldova.

Factually correct, right? - Mauco 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, and Mark. On Trasnistria you say that "wikipedia is doing a much better job than Britannica". Then, wikipedia is no longer good on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. To me, it seems that you follow your own political agenda instead of some method or rule. You're referring to other articles when it arranges you, but follow no well-defined criteria except "Transnistria is super-nice". Dpotop 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Mark Street said that. I did. It was not a blanket statement. I was referring to the Transnistria article in particular, and a number of other articles (related to Transnistria). I was specifically not referring to the two that you mention, and I have publicly stated several times that they are sub-standard. Thank you for your input, Dpotop, but please do not put word in my mouths, or claim that I have a "political agenda." I do not. - Mauco 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that, I just found the way another disputed place is dealt with. I though everyone would welcome the entry.. Mark us street 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that everyone actually will welcome the entry, Mark Street. But it is nice to see that there are pages where more weight is given to the actual, factual reality (de facto) and not to a legal theory (de jure) which Moldova is unable or unwilling to enforce in the real world. The correct sort of editing is how the Falkland page is handled: First, explain the actual situation, the facts, the reality. Then - later - mention the legal status. - Mauco 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no political agenda, I am campaigning for a factual artical that presents the truthful facts, not Transnistria dreams, nor Moldovan dreams, just the facts as they stand. I am trying to wipe out the propaganda on all sides. Mark us street 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith

I want to highlight that MariusM deleted the Tiraspoltimes link on Dec 6th. This is an agreed link. Where is you pride and honour MariusM ? Is your word that cheap to you ? Have you not a scrap of honor ? Mark us street 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your comments related to an author's actions but not his character. Insults will get us nowhere. TSO1D 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mark. By now, we all know about MariusM's pride and honor. No need to rub it in. His actions speak for themselves, but I have now restored the links to what was actually agreed upon by all here. - Mauco 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I never agreed with the inclusion of the link to Tiraspol Times, I clearly stated my position several times on this talk page (see archives). Mark us street, while still editing with the name MarkStreet, used sockpuppetry to promote his website [22]. I don't consider neither Mark or Mauco as persons who can talk about my honor and don't need their recognition as a honorable man. The presence of Mark us street here is a permanent reminder about the misleading link we have in External links section.--MariusM 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Marius I think we know you are and where you are coming and we accept you have a place here, however, all we are asking is for you to behave with honour Mark us street 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You were party to an agreement between all the editors Mark us street 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that just because we voted for it, I myself voted in favour of including the Tiraspol Times website, this doesn't mean it has a right to stay there forever, unconditionally. LIke some of you keep saying, "voting is evil", and it shouldn't give us any extra rights to lord it over a page because we made a vote. We don't own Wikipedia or this page on Wikipedia, just edit it and try to obey it s rules. I'm not talking about the Tiraspol Times link here, or any link really. I'm just saying we can't have things set in stone just because we had a little vote, things change, situations change and new insights come to light that will alter our perceptions. Voting is an acceptable way to move forward in difficult times, but it's not a way to set specific uncompromising rules to a particular page. Basically I don't think we can keep using the argument, "it was voted on so shut up." I personally have doubts about needing three sites by the same people (just my thinking, may not be fact) in the links, but I'm happy top keep them there for as long as they aren't objectionable. Jonathanpops

There will always be objections, I don't like the Moldovan sites either but I have to accept they must be allowed to have a voice. What I oppose os censorship. I'm sure you'd agree. Mark us street 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is about Transnistria, for crying out loud. We are listing news sources from Moldova. It is CRAZY to not list the only single English language news source for Transnistria. I am amazed that we even have to have this arguement, it is so obvious that this link is more than appropriate. The editors who consistently remove it, and don't remove the other (much less relevant) links are clearly acting in very, very bad faith. - Mauco 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I don't understand how you can claim that Tiraspol Times is "the only single English language news source for Transnistria". Pridnestrovie.net or visitpmr.com are also in English. Are you not afraid of losing your credibility by claiming untrue facts which are so easy for anybody to check?--MariusM 22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Read. NEWS SOURCE. The sites which you mention are static. No reporting of daily news or regularly updated content. Your personal remarks are uncalled for. - Mauco 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Separatist

I see that the issue of using the word separatist is coming to the fore again. William labeled it as NPOV, however I don't believe that to be the case. In archive 4 I had a similar discussion with William and I thought we had come to the conclusion that usage of that term was justified. Although I know that some users have expressed doubts regarding Encarta, they do use that word as can be seen here and that is a valid and credible reference work. William, you yourself stated: "I agree with separatist (although if we really, really, really want to split hairs I can document why technically this is not the case. However, for ease-of-understanding it is probably the word that best describes Transnistria for outsiders who don't want to get bogged down in technicalities)." TSO1D 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but of course. You know that I agree, TSO1D. It is just that there is now huge difference between the context of when the word was used at the time that we had the discussion and the inference that the more recent edits by MariusM has now given to the usage of the word in a Transnistria-related setting. He is currently using it as a slur, to pepper a lot of his new edits. Back when we had this discussion, you and I, the limited usage of the word was in a very specific context and not as a general moniker tagged on to every mention of Transnistria for the purpose of denigration. If it helps the article, I will not be the one to split hairs. But if it is there to push a POV, it has to go. We can easily find neutral words. - Mauco 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the usage of the word should not be abused. It should only be written in order to add exactitude or variety to the text. If you have every other sentence using that word, then that would just be an annoyance. Nevertheless, in the latest version you reverted to, there were absolutely no instances of the word being used, even in places where it was appropriate. If you look at a compromise version from the good ol' days: here, you will see about nine appearances of the word. In [this edit] you removed all usages of the word "separatist" for concerns of neturality; this even includes cases not disputed between Marius and Mark. I guess what I'm trying to say is that moderation is the key, and although the word probably shouldn't appear more than about 4 times on an article of this size, completely removing it is not fully justified other. TSO1D 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the latest tag-team play by MariusM and EvilAlex, and see what you can do to moderate it. Your removal of two words is a start, but there is a lot more hidden behind the scenes than meets the eye. MariusM even gave it a misleading edit comment, here. Claming to merely restore just 'separatist', he also reverted a bunch of other edits, removed a link that he hates, changed the order of a POV link, and so on. He even unilaterally changed part of the intro, despite the fact that it is currently under discussion. - Mauco 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your latest work. Still, check this Diff and you'll see what they are up to; of course without any prior discussion on Talk (as usual). - Mauco 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

One change I'm not sure about is in the introduction where it used to say (officially:Pridnestrovie) but that was changed to (Russian:Pridnestrovie). Of course I don't like the Russian version, because by the PMR's statement Pridnestrovie is also the Enlgish shortform. However, should we say that it is the official name. It might be confusing to have that in the intro as it might not be clear official where in Moldova or the PMR. I think the name section does a better deal of explaining this dispute. For now I left it as Transnitria or Pridnestrovie in the intro, but I'm not sure what's best. TSO1D 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "separatist" as a slur, as Mauco pretends, but as a technical and accurate description. Actual usage of "transnistrian" i.o. "separatist" is misleading, it imply that all transnistrians are separatists (see "Transnistrian forces" opposed to "Moldovan forces"), which is not true. There are antiseparatist transnistrians, the article should not hide this. Is not correct Moldovan oppose Transnistrian but Separatist oppose Antiseparatist.--MariusM 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits stand for themselves, and we can all read how you used the word, thank you. Try to use more neutral language the next time. There are many other ways to describe the same sentences, as TSO1D has amply showed us. - Mauco 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Moldavian SSR constitution

There were above some discussions about Moldavian SSR right to secede from USSR. Mauco told this was illegal, TSO1D told it was legal, Mark us street pretend that Moldova didn't even exist before 1991 (he don't recognize Moldavian SSR as predecesor state of Moldova, is not the only case when Mark has an unique view which nobody else shares). Agreement was done about the fact that an expert view is needed, and I realized people were waiting for my advice. O.K., this is an article about Moldavian SSR constitution adopted in 1978. Few quotes for lazy editors who don't want to read the entire article:

• "The Preamble of the new Constitution of the Moldavian SSR, for example, is shorter than that of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, and there is no mention of "a new historic community of people (which) has been formed -- the Soviet people." The statement that the people of the republic recognized itself "an inalienable part of the whole Soviet people," which appears in the Constitutions of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, and of the Ukrainian and Azerbaijan SSRs -- thus seemingly making the legal right of each republic to secede null and void -- is also missing."
• "The Moldavian SSR is a sovereign state (Article 68) which enjoys -- at least in principle -- certain prerogatives of sovereignty. According to Article 73, it has the right to enter into relations with foreign states, to conduct negotiations with them, and to exchange diplomatic and consular representatives; finally, it has the right to join international organizations. The Moldavian Republic has not yet, however, begun to apply this article (corresponding to Article 15(a) of the old Constitution) in actual practice: it has not appointed diplomatic representatives to any foreign capital, nor has it joined any international organization".
• "Another right of sovereignty, the right to secede, contained in Article 69 (corresponding to the old Article 14), states that "the Moldavian SSR retains the right freely to withdraw from the Soviet Union."

I've checked, no right for secession for Transnistria. Based on its Constitution, Moldavian SSR was a sovereign state.--MariusM 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are simply utterly wrong. Sorry. Selective quotations of generalities are like the old Soviet constitutions which proclaimed that the USSR was the most democratic place in the world. What really matters here is the actual law in question, which was curent for MSSR at the time, and Moldova did not follow it. Neither did Transnistria. Read it for yourself. Although at least when it came to the 1991 all-Union referendum, Transnistria was more law abiding than Moldova. The leaders of Moldova, as you probably know, was afraid to ask the people for their opinion in the referendum and it was never held. It took until 1994 before Moldova was able to have a democratic referendum, so its independence declaration (unlike that of Transnistria) was not preceeded by a referendum asking the will of the people. Anyway, the relevant law is here and Moldova broke it. Moldova did not hold the required referendum, and did not have the right to secession in the undemocratic way that it was carried out. - Mauco 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Moldavian SSR, as a sovereign state (see its Constitution) never delegated to the All-Union Supreme Soviet the right to establish the procedure of secession. I think Russian Federation also didn't had a referendum when declared its independence from Soviet Union.--MariusM 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Novel legal concept. Never heard that one before. So, are you saying that Soviet laws did not apply in Soviet times for the Moldavian SSR? Face it, neither Transnistria nor Moldova followed the law when they declared independence. If you compare the two, however, the method chosen by Transnistria was more democratic and closer to the existing Soviet law because they, at least, had a referendum before. Moldova didn't. - Mauco 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Moldova had a (truly) freely and fairly elected representative government that had recently taken office. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism- USA reaction

I added to Terrorism chapter:

U.S.A reaction was:

the U.S. Embassy urges all U.S. Citizens to exercise additional caution for their travel to or through Transnistria.[...]Throughout Transnistria, drivers should observe caution and avoid confrontations with local authoritiesRection of USA Embassy.

It was removed by Mauco :"(rv to MariusM - travel warnings are normal for over half of the countries in the world, but they are not included on most other country pages either)"

This is an objective statement about the actual situation in Transnistria, and how safe it is. It comes Due to the recent trolley bus explosion in Tiraspol. If we accept that trolley bus explosions are not common, then the subsequent warnings are not common. This special warning contains avoid confrontations with local authorities, which is a very special warning, if we accept that the job of the authorities is to help. It also has implications on tourism, so on the economy. We shouldn't invoke the imperfections of other pages; Wikipedia develops.Dl.goe 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We are all aware there is a Romanian/Moldovan Secret Service influence at play here and much of the calls for edits to blacken Transnistria are led by this. There is hardly a country in Europe where explosions haven't taken place. Also we don't have a terrorism chapter. We agreed the use of the word is not admissible. The latest insert comes after the Transnistrians suggested including a tourism/travel section that would be of interest. The Romanian contribution to assist this was to insert ' a travel warning' . You have to admire their inventivness if not the mentality. Mark us street 09:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

With that "we" again. Please explain to me how I, for example, am under Romanian and Moldovan Secret Service influence. I ask you for the 153 observers so you can bolster your case that the referendum was observed by neutral parties and was democratic. Nothing. I ask you who backs the Tiraspol Times so you can bolster your case that you are an objective and reliable source. You compare yourself to martyred journalists and hide behind their deaths, again, nothing (emphatically). And following on to that, since you have been unable to provide any information of any value, you suggest you cannot contribute information you are aware of because you fear for your personal safety under threat from Romanian and Moldovan operatives.

   You decry the lack of honor and integrity in others. You denounce factual reports about your "paper." You now conjure plots against you. You're a mess. (Perhaps "terrorism" is appropriate even for you to use--a word "we" never agreed is inadmissible.) What's the real problem here, Mark? Did you confidently promise your employers that you'd make "quick work" of transforming Wikipedia into a PMR propaganda portal? And you can't come up with a more plausible excuse for your failure than to invoke dark forces?—Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and please focus on actual edits to the Transnistria article instead of these trademark personal attacks. - Mauco 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

   The only dark forces at work in Transnistria are the OMON Black Berets (Antyufeyev and his buddies who have attacked Transnistrians and blamed it on Moldovans) and likely your employers. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I think you are only grazing the top of the iceberg. A child could see how the Moldovan SIS and the Romanian SIE are trying to manipulate the information about Transnistria that the public is exposed to, but have you ever asked yourself where the money for these operations is coming from. I mean it's certainly not as if any amateur with access to a computer can come here and begin editing. No, the sophistication of these edits suggests a much vaster operation and one that could only have been funded by the CIA. Doesn't it strike you as odd how easility Robert Gates, the former director of the CIA has been accepted as Defence Secretary by the Senate committee? You can be sure that this goes all the way to the top, and it's probably not just the US. This must be a full NATO operation, maybe with support from Switzerland. TSO1D 12:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and 48 birds that need to be shifted Mark us street 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that both Mark and TSO1D are getting into basic conspiracy theory here. I mean, I'm Romanian, I follow the news, I can imagine what Romania's secret services might do, but frankly I couldn't say that a child could see how the Moldovan SIS and the Romanian SIE are trying to manipulate the information about Transnistria. Maybe I'm missing something, please enlighten me. Dpotop 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol! TSO1D

The travel warnings of the US embassy are important. Especially when they concern caution in the relation with authorities. This is not some virus, the danger comes from the Transnistrian authorities. Dpotop 12:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the travel warnings of the US embassy are important. We should keep it. EvilAlex 13:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this usual Wikipedia practice? See other country pages. - Mauco 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria i not a usual country like others. EvilAlex 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is. It meets all the requirements for statehood under international law: It has a defined and permanent population, a defined territory under its control, a government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. It is listed as a country (albeit unrecognized country) in Wikipedia. All lists. Until it is removed, we will treat it as a country and the same criteria must apply. You may introduce selective travel warnings from other countries if this is appropriate material in Wikipedia and if this is standard practice elsewhere, on other Country pages. Thank you. - Mauco 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Firs of all chill out little bit. We are not here to decide who should have a statehood status and who should not. Leave this to experts. Lets them make a special commission from well respected people in that filed and if the decide to give Transnistria a country status then we will call it a COUNTRY. Until now if every one call it a REGION then we will do the same and call it a REGION! We are here to write chronology of events. We are not here to make the history. EvilAlex 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am merely saying that you are wrong. That is all. It is perfectly chilled here. Transnistria is featured on List of countries and List of sovereign states (and numerous other country lists on Wikipedia) so our format, of the article, naturally looks to follow the format of other places that are on these same lists. If travel advisories from foreign states are appropriate there, then they are appropriate here, too. Otherwise, don't spam the article with them. - Mauco 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

These information are important and relevant. These are information about the safeness of this region. Warnings such as "avoid confrontations with local authorities." and "The security situation in that region is unpredictable as it is not under government control." are unusual and are to be mentioned. We should not invoke other pages, as Wikipedia is developing. There is a Wikipedia policy that between content and form, we shall always prefer content. Dl.goe 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not the way to resolve the conflict: "IF no one has a travel advice then we will not have it here to". Every country(article) needs to be looked on individually. It would be silly to add travel warnings to Sweden or Norway page. But in the case of Transnistria it is a differed story, Norway doesn't have the same problem as Transnistria thy dont blow up buses in the center of Oslo, there is no unauthorized presence of foreign army on its territory, there is no stockpiles of weapons for the futures WW3. As i say before each country should be looked individually. In case of Transnistria i do believe that Travel warnings are necessary. Surly you dont want to argue that US and Ozzy government issued wrong travel warnings? EvilAlex 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are no travel warnings for Norway or Sweden. That is a straw man argument. Here is the real argument: There are places in the world which are much more dangerous to the average traveller than Transnistria, but even there, Wikipedia does not reprint the official embassy travel warnings. Why don't you try adding them there, first, and then see what the reaction will be? I am not being unreasonable, dear colleagues. We all just want to make a great encyclopedia. - Mauco 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, the ones involved with editing other pages would say start with Transnistria and we will be in quite a dilemma. Everyone is free to introduce relevant information to any page.Dl.goe 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and free to remove what is not relevant. The Internet is very big and we do not include every single word that every single person writes about Transnistria. There are criteria in place, and you are not following them in this case. - Mauco 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Each case should be looked individually. If you think that some other places need travel warnings then be my guest and add them. Currently i am only interested in TD related articles. And once again you try to hide something. US and Ozzy sources are reliable. We definitely should include them. It seems to me that only you in disagreement. EvilAlex 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, like you, I am editing mostly Transnistria pages. You are trying to claim that we should somehow ignore Wikipedia policy for Transnistria, so you can paint it as a place which is more dangerous than the other places in the world (which it is not). That is POV. You will not get special treatment for Transnistria, which is not afforded to other pages in Wikipedia. Follow the existing policy, please, and do not complain if you get reverted when you don't. - Mauco 17:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bla bla bla - bla bla bla and not a single contra argument. By the way which Wikipedia policy i am broke or ignored? I do respect all of Wiki policies and it is you the one who tries to paint a Transnistrian article in rainbow colors. Lets be real it is a dangerous place otherwise it wouldn't be a travel warning.EvilAlex 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. That's one. If you can start by doing that, then maybe we can reach agreement. But your POV pushing will not be allowed, just as it is not allowed on other country pages. And the excuse that "I do not care about other pages, I only edit Transnistria" is not a valid excuse here, sorry. - Mauco 17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. There is no my POV in this article. I always use citations from reliable sources. And you should agree that US and OZZy sources are reliable. By removing travel warnings you pushing your POV, making TD look more like rainbow like.. Your edits are not neutral, please follow NPOV rules and life for us will be much easier. EvilAlex 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you that there are also articles with unique chapters? North Korea has a chapter Military with 4 subchapters (Nuclear weapon production and testing being sub-sub-chapter). USA has a subchapter Foreign relations and military, and Iran has no military chapter or subchapter although it has a nuclear program. As Wikipedia develops, the format of it's articles will develop, and it must start somewhere.Dl.goe 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not this way, and not if the majority of other pages on Wikipedia do not think that this is a good idea either. Please put the travel warnings into Moldova, Romania, etc and of course a slew of dangerous countries, too. Do not single out Transnistria which is, in all fairness, not a particularly dangerous place to travel to. - Mauco 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If U.S. Embassy will issue a travel warning about Romania, I will suport its inclusion in Romania article. But problem with U.S. Embassies is they don't issue travel warnings everywheres, only few places received this attention.--MariusM 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide what is dangerous and what is not. I dont have time to look after Romanians and Moldavians articles, if you have plenty of time and wish to add some travel advise ionfo be my guest. Each country should be looked individually. EvilAlex 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous text. What I want to say is that no matter if Transnistria is dangerous or not, these official warnings are tough. The text avoid confrontations with local authorities may imply that authorities are not always helpful. The other The security situation in that region is unpredictable as it is not under government control. is also very serious. As this information is given to tourists for their safety, they are as objective as these countries have. They are not directed by foreign policy, but for the safety of their own citizens.Dl.goe 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

dont apologize he is pushing his POV. EvilAlex 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am trying to make sure that this page conforms to existing standards of any other similar page on Wikipedia. You have a pet cause, and you are trying to push it down the throat of the rest of us. It will not stand. - Mauco 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand you better now (no need to apologize, just a need to clarify, so thanks). How about starting a section here (on Talk, so as to avoid revert warring) where you do an overall section on tourism and include the most important bits about travel safety. You can then use the two travel advisories as sources, to substantiate what you include. This will give the other editors a chance to add content as well. When there is general consensus that it is fair, balanced, and not biased, then move it into main namespace. If you do it that way, then the likelihood that anyone will revert you is very little. - Mauco 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have this section in main article if you disagree then give as some valuable contra arguments on why should we remove it? EvilAlex 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not appropriate for this page, nor are similar travel advisories used on other pages. EvilAlex, you are a self-confessed edit warrior. In your own words, you have already told us here, on Talk, how you enjoy your little wars. You have explained to us that if you don't edit war, life would not be fun for you. If this is your approach to Wikipedia, I can understand why you are being so obstinate. It is not helpful to the quality of the encyclopedia, however. - Mauco 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re"Because it is not appropriate for this". - That is not an argument, it is your POV, so keep it to yourself.
Re:"edit war" - Move on, dont live i a past. EvilAlex 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are a self-confessed edit warrior. In this case, you have not demonstrated relevancy, or told us why we should include this only for Transnistria when similar content is not included on far more dangerous places. - Mauco 21:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i said many times before each case should be looked individually, if you think that any other article needs travel warnings, then be my guest and add it, lets the editors of that page discuss it. I dont have time for other articles currently i am interested in TD.
Re"self-confessed edit warrior" move on, dont live in a past EvilAlex 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, but you have not yet replied to my criticism of this edit, and it is not appropriate to include it in Wikipedia. Your recent edits demonstrate that you are still an edit warrior, and you have expressed to us before how you enjoy to "get your war on" because otherwise life is boring for you. I can imagine that you are having a lot of fun right now. - Mauco 22:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt notes even a single contra argument from your side. What criticism? You dont like it - is your choose.. it is your POV. Where is a counterargument?
Re:"I can imagine that you are having a lot of fun right now" -No, you are wrong. I am just trying to create a better article about TD, i just try to make a valuable contribution to Great Open source protect. And here is a Mauco who constantly unhappy with my edits :((, What is going on? Maybe it is personal for you Mauco? EvilAlex 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits show something else, entirely, than what you claim. You are liable for a 3RR block based on your "work" on the Transnistria page alone today, the majority of which have not been discussed prior in this Talk page. Please read the statement on top of this page and discuss similar substantial changes before making them, especially if you expect them to stay and not be reverted by other editors. - Mauco 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think that i am liable for a 3RR, then you should be liable for a 3 3RR. You dont have even a small respect towards Wiki rules and polices. And in contradiction to your statements all of my changes have been discussed long time before the actual edits - see archives. EvilAlex 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is designed to prevent edit-warring, my friend. Please do not hold yourself out as something which you are not. - Mauco 00:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's resume and do our best to find a solution. Please do not introduce in the discussion war-editor accuses, as this can only lead to a longer discussion. Dl.goe

If Transnistria appears in the "Countries" and "Sovereign Nations" list then it has to be removed. Mauco, you agreed on good sources earlier (sources external to Wikipedia), now you use something clearly put in as propaganda to justify your "facts." You're pulling circular reasoning here, give us a break. — —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Let's separate the discussion in two sections:

1. about the relevance of the information in the chapter

it was not contested.

1. assuming the relevance of the information, whether the article should include a chapter that isn't yet included in other articles.

Arguments for including the chapter:

There are also other articles with unique chapters.

if such information is relevant, it shall be included in other articles too.

Arguments against including the chapter:

Mauco: Do not single out Transnistria which is, in all fairness, not a particularly dangerous place to travel to.

There was a suggestion "How about starting a section here (on Talk, so as to avoid revert warring)". There is already a section : here. But it will soon be on an archive page.

My counter-arguments for Mauco: Transnistria in not a particularly dangerous place to travel to is your point of view, and we shall write the article on the evidence we've got. Second, other articles are under-developed. We should develop them, not prevent this one from being more developed. Endeed, travel warnings should be included in other region articles too.Dl.goe 09:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone suggested a while back that we have a tourism section, which I think I thought was a little laughable. But we could have a travel section I guess, and put the US warning in there. Or does Transnistria have an entry in wikitravel (is that right?), if so someone could put the warning on there? I don't see a problem myself with at least giving this a little mention in the article, just a few words in the violence section or somewhere perhaps - even just a one ot two word link to the warning article. Jonathanpops 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism or Violent incidents?

We had this discution before see [Archive 8] according to Official Transnistrian source it is a terrorism: Words Terror, Terrorism, Teract.. are widely used by official Transnistrian agency Olvia Pres also ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ head of Transnistrian MGB says that it was Terrorism:
“С чувством глубокого прискорбия воспринял известие о террористическом акте, совершенном 6 июля в Тирасполе.”
“ротив любых форм и проявлений терроризма,”
“о происшедшем в Тирасполе террористическом акте.”
“осуждают эту варварскую вылазку террористов”
“ОБА ВЗРЫВА, 6 ИЮЛЯ В МАРШРУТНОМ ТАКСИ И 13 АВГУСТА В ТРОЛЛЕЙБУСЕ, КВАЛИФИЦИРУЮТСЯ КАК ТЕРРОРИСТИЧЕСКИЕ АКТЫ - ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ”
“Случайности не было, 13 августа имел место террористический акт”
“ПРЕСТУПНИК, СОВЕРШИВШИЙ ТЕРАКТ 13 АВГУСТА, ВЗЯТ ПОД СТРАЖУ- ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ”
And so on …
http://www.olvia.idknet.com/july-2006.htm
http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol70-08-06.htm
EvilAlex 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else can call it terrorism, but this just happens to be one of the words which are on the Wikipedia "no fly" list. Besides, who are the terrorists? What are their demands? It is not terrorism, so don't push a word which is not appropriate to this case. - Mauco 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to discuses the nature of a nature. Antiuviev call it an act of terrorism, Transnistrian Offisials call it terrorism and so do we. Dont try to change the history. EvilAlex 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will request that we also use the descriptions by Antiuviev and Transnistrian Officials for the intro. Please remove "region" and any mention of Moldova a.s.a.p., thank you. - Mauco 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Antiuviev description only good to show official Transnistrian view on security situation. Remember he is a head of MGB. And that is what we are doing. If you would like to apply his views to an area where he has no knowledge and no expertise then we could hardly take his opinion as an expert. EvilAlex 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since that is the case, will you agree that we edit the WHOLE Crime/Weapons/Smuggling security section to conform strictly to the views of Antiuviev? And that we throw Wikipedia's standards out the door, which is what you want to do by pushing inappropriate use of the word "terrorism"? Let us try that. - Mauco 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let us do that. After all, he is the expert. You said so yourself. None of the rest of us have a say in this, only you and Antiuviev. - Mauco 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't said that we need to base an article only on a view of only one person (in this case Antiufiev). What i said is that we need to present both sides. And in my view Crime section already have Transnistrian side of the story. If you would like to add something extra lets discuss it. EvilAlex 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I always do. But right now, we are discussing a section heading. If it comes to a contest between Antiufiev and Transnistria's view of things, and Wikipedia's rules, Wikipedia wins. Sorry, but if you will not abide by the policies and the guidelines, Evil, then you should not be editing here. - Mauco 16:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why you always try to hide something? Are you afraid of something? It is Transnistrian POV and lets keep it, after all i didnt delete your Transnistrian links. EvilAlex 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The section heading can not be terrorism is there is not a case of terrorism. Besides, it is a word that Wikipedia editors are refrained to not use lightly. - Mauco 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems we have to explain things ten times here. . The official Transnistrian position is the case is still under investigation and no statement on the responsibility can made by anyone. 2, Terrorism is not a word we use on Wiki.. 3 No terror organisation made a claim and it could well have be a tragic accident. Please accept this honest and factual reality and move on . Mark us street 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the move at the moment, I will away for several days between flights and things. Mark us street 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont get you, you wonted link here it is. Antiufief call it Terrorism and that should be included even if you dont like it. EvilAlex 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As a section heading, no less? Making his voice the voice of Wikipedia? I don't think so... - Mauco 17:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are picking and choosing what suit you best. Mauco follow the rules of NPOV policy and life would be much easier for all others editors. EvilAlex 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just answer the question, please: Will we let the voice of Transnistria's MGB chief become a section heading and stand as the voice of Wikipedia? We are not quoting him, you know. We are using his words as ours, even though we know -- and you know this full well, too, EvilAlex -- that there is not a single terrorist group who operates in Transnistria and that this is NOT a case of terrorism. - Mauco 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were a MGB chief i would quot you too, but your are just simple Mauco. And whatever you know or think you know is not worth mentioning in the article - because you are not the MGB chief. Antiufiev is a different case. If Antiufiev say that it was a terrorism then he knows better and it is worth mentioning. EvilAlex 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not just "mentioning" it, as you falsely claim. Do not lie. You want to take his words and make them Wikipedia's, and even turn them into a section heading which there is no factual justifications for, apart from the statements of this guy whose opinions and Transnistrian point of view you have already told us that you will not accept in the rest of the page. You only want him for this single word. Unacceptable.- Mauco 21:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:"Do not lie." No i am not. I am honest with you. I am committed to the true. EvilAlex 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then please tell us if there is a terrorist organization in Transnistria who has claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks, and what their goals are, or their demands. There is no such thing, and these were not terrorist incidents. Be honest. - Mauco 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who am i to tell you that. I am not a government Official, i am not represent any NGO... My personal point of view will be with me, i am not keen to discuss what i know and think on a wiki talk page - it is just a waist of time. Lets look on Official government explanation: "TERRO,.. TERRORISM, TERRORIST..." and on Antiufiev explanation:"TERRO,.. TERRORISM, TERRORIST..." [23][24] EvilAlex 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are, again, evading the real issue and not answering the question. - Mauco 23:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I told you as striate as possible: My POV shouldn't be in the article, I am not a Government official!!! EvilAlex 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So, only the official government explanations of the officials from Transnistria are now valid, according to you? In that case, please un-do your last 12 edits right now. None of them adhere to the official point of view of Transnistria. - Mauco 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont play with words! according to me - in the Main article we should include: Government Official(Any country) , Well respected and well Known NGO, Individuals who have long standing reputation, Well known and respected international organizations. That is according to me - Your POV shouldnt be in the article, unless you can prove that you some one from above. EvilAlex 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent>I'm away for a few days after this so won't be able to follow this up, but:

• Wikipedia describes evetns and opinions, it does not make value judgements
• So with 'terrorism', we shouldn't say 'x is a terrorist' or 'y was terrorism'. Look at Al Qaeda: they are an "an armed Sunni Islamist organization", not "terrorists".

• • This is a very bad example. For one organisations never call themselves terrorists. One only becomes a terrorist when one commits an act of terrorism, you don't have to be part of a group to be a terrorist, but it helps. And anyway, if you took the time to read even a little way into the Al Qaeda article you will see that it say: Due to its actions, the group is officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States,[1] the United Kingdom,[2] Canada,[3] Australia,[4] Saudi Arabia, NATO,[5] and the United Nations.[6].... Jonathanpops 15:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• What we can say is "there have been incidents that have been considered terrorism by x (source here)
• However, at the moment there are few English language sources that call the acts terrorism. Indeed, the British Embassy in Chinisau states "the motives are unclear"

To call these acts terrorism thus contravenes our guidelines on the use of the word and goes against most available sources. As a section heading, then, it is unacceptable. --Robdurbar 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well how about to call 9/11 terror attack just an violent incident?
I wonder if you change your position if you were siting in a church and some one will trow a Molotov cocktail or how about a live grenade in a public bus where you travel? By Calling it a Violent incidents you already made value judgments and downplayed the huge importance of this act. And one huge point you ignored the Antiuvef (Head of Transnistrian MGB) called it the terror acts. Lets use his words and not our "value judgments" after all he may know much more than we do. EvilAlex 14:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if even the Transnistrian MGB calls these acts "terrorism", we must at least mention it. Dpotop 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar just wanted to change it as a section heading, he already explained the technical reasons for it and why he thinks that it is unacceptable, Pernambuco 14:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

These were not the acts of Terrorists, There is no terrorist organisation or terrorists in Transnistria. This is just Romanian/ Moldovan Propaganda to rub mud in the face of the Transnistrian people. Its nonsense.

Antiufiev call it a terrorism. Is he Romanian ? EvilAlex 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not the case, the current official position is that it is under investigation and any speculation is to be avoided until the police have concluded investigations. We should also take that advice and lets not jump to our own conclusions. Nobody even knows if it was deliberate or an accident, Mark us street 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No speculation, here is current official position exact word: «Случайности не было, 13 августа имел место террористический акт», - об этом заявил сегодня министр госбезопасности ПМР Владимир Антюфеев; Владимир Антюфеев также заявил, что взрыв маршрутного такси, происшедший в Тирасполе 6 июля, также является терактом. По его словам, специалисты ФСБ России, прибывшие вчера в Тирасполь, привезли с собой результаты экспертиз материалов, относящихся к взрыву 6 июля. «Мы получили обстоятельное и квалифицированное заключение по факту взрыва. На их основании мы обязаны заявить, что и в первом, и во втором случае имел место теракт», - заявил Владимир Антюфеев.
Doesnt exactly fit into your position, it clearly say tha after expertise, specialists from Russian FSB gave a final conclusion that it was a terrorism [25] EvilAlex 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful for those who can speak Russian. But that's not the point. We can say 'it is considered terrorism by x'. We can also note that other sources have not called it terrorism. The British Embassy, for example, does not call it terrorism. See my full reasonsing here. Entitling it terrorism is making the value judgement. Terrorism is an unacceptable header by Wikipedia poilcy. Robdurbar 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Russian

Hello Mark, EvilAlex, Mauco. I understand that all of you are fluent in Russian. But could you, please, translate russian excerpts into English? Dpotop 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In my case, I wouldn't say "fluent" but I read it. Anyway, I very rarely post anything in Russian. If I do, I'll be sure to add a translation for you. - Mauco 21:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Same as William Mark us street 14:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BHHRG Redux

We've got the article peppered with BHHRG as a reputable source for citations. "(Some)..." is a totally insufficient disclaimer.
   I don't mind pridnestrovie.net, president-pmr.org--even 5 minutes of reading the Tiraspol Times tells any objective reader what it is. BHHRG blatantly misuses the term "Helsinki" to intentionally confuse itself with a legitimate human rights organization--to the point where that legitimate organization on its own website has to deny any association with the BHHRG. The BHHRG is not acceptable as a reference under any circumstances. We can discuss what they say here, but their bias and intentional characterization of themselves as something they are not makes them totally unacceptable as a reference for an encyclopedia article. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right I agree with you, but also in this case it can be said "some" because of the reason that it is not just "BHHRG" that says this, but also several other people, we would be better off by using a reference to them instead of only giving the prominence to "BHHRG", however, so I will try to find these links and add them instead. The two others that say the same are Andrei Popov and Damien Helly, I got this information from the summary that I worked on of that old United Nations report, Pernambuco 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes associated with a specific individual would be much clearer; those can be associated with the organization or interests that individual represents. (That said, I'll grind the old axe once more on associating "Mark Almond" = "Oxford University" without mention of his heading up the BHHRG: everyone associated with the BHHRG must be considered equally biased with reference to Moldova/Transnistria.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes i agree BHHRG is unreliable and highly controversial; we should delete it or at list we should mention who they are EvilAlex 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that BHHRG is unreliable. Dpotop 15:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly the way the page is going there are many organisations that are considered unreliable, even the OSCE has nailed its colors to the Moldovan flag and lost a lot of credibility by refusing to monitor the elections in Pridnestrovie, yet we use them a source here to question democracy in Tiraspol. The main page is a propaganda mess that serves nobody except the Romanian Secret Service. It does not present an accurate picture but rather a cartoon like image of 'Banditland' and this further deepens the divide between Transnistrians and Moldovans. It is an irony that we call a British human rights group unreliable while 'our' own page here is a work of fiction. Mark us street 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: It is an irony that we call a British human rights group unreliable
Did you noted this statement on International Helsinki Federation (IHF) web site: "PLEASE NOTE that the so-called British Helsinki Group is NOT affiliated with the IHF" [26]
There is no much to say. EvilAlex 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You're exaggerating, Mark. Nobody here said Transnistria is banditland. We're simply reporting here that the general perception (that is the NPOV) is that standards of democracy and rule of law are lower there than everywhere else in Europe. That's all. Dpotop 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As concerns your "British human rights group", I'll stick with its wikipedia definition, which states that it's unreliable, and that's not clear who pays them, who's a member, etc. Nothing to do with NGO's like the Amnesty International, MSF, or even the true Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. In other words, a sort of rogue NGO. Dpotop 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As has been made absolutely and abundantly clear on numerous occassions, the BHHRG is not a human rights group. Have you identified my Romanian employers yet? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets not engage in small talk regarding your employers, If you have them all I'd wish is that someone from a higher level would take a look because this nonsense serves nobody and it serves Moldova least. Mark us street 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully all this listening to yourself vent is relieving the pressure. BHHRG will be removed and where more reputable individuals can be identified, they can certainly be quoted/referenced as Pernambuco indicated. We can leave the BHHRG (and Mark Almond) on as a pro-PMR web site in the reference section. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Can we please settle the intro issue, Mark us street 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please consider Version 9, above, as I know you would not support Version 8, which is my much stronger preference over Version 9. This, I believe, is the most NPOV text possible which accurately portrays the context of the declaration of the PMR. For example, some people--not you, actually--have written (elsewhere) that on September 2, 1990, the PMR declared itself an independent country, which is not the case.

   (I should mention that I did consider "within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova" as an alternative to "in the Republic of Moldova", however, that just doubly makes the point it's not internationally recognized, and the intro already concludes with the statement that the PMR's sovereignty is an issue. Also, "international" borders came later in any event.)

   We can then merrily thrash over individual items ("independence", "referendum", etc.) in the body of the article.

   Should you accept Version 9, there is no need to abrogate our informal agreement to (otherwise) disagree on everything.

   —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria is a free country. by saying it is a region is not correct. Mark us street 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Photos of tank and Lenin

I do agree we neeed some photos but the use of photos of the tank and statue of Lenin are propaganda photos to try to associate PMR with communism. I want them deleted and replaced with non sensitive photos, can I have a seconder. Mark us street 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I will second that. It is just lazy and predictable to use Lenin and the tank images ad infinitumPompey64 14:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the motion's "first" says he has departed. Be that as it may...

All the former Soviet states which gained independence and desired no Soviet associations ripped down their monuments of Soviet personalities. More monuments would be ripped down except for mutual agreements between the successor states and Russia to (generally) not tear down war memorials.

Similarly, streets named for Soviet dictators, personalities, agitants,... have been renamed to their pre-Soviet names.

In Tiraspol, however, "Lenin Street" is still alive and well. [27] Lenin's statue stands today in front of the PMR parliament. The Tiraspol Times writes of Lenin's lessons for today's Transnistrians (complete with picture of statue). There is even elected-yet-again Smirnov's goatee—his personal homage to Lenin.

It's unfortunate that the picture can be interpreted as a "predictable" slur upon the PMR, but there's no intent to disparage the Transnistrians in any way, only to reflect the PMR as it currently exists.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Take down the statue of Lenin, then. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:)) EvilAlex 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe these things are of interest to people but lets give the real and full story and not just the propaganda.The real stroy is that the tank is part of Glory Memorial Complex which is home to the graves of the brave ones killed by Moldovan soilders during the war for independence and where the eternal flame burns in their memory. It is a really beautiful and special place and much loved by Transnistrians. So tranquil and peaceful. I'll do the edit if nobody objects ? Mark us street 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont lie This Tank was here long before 1992. This tank had been there since approximately 1970 in memory of Russian soldier who occupied my land after Germans. Also there are few tombstones for those soldier who died in 1944 and those who fought in Afghanistan during Soviet invasion. And maybe some from 1992. EvilAlex 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, yours may well be the version of the story taught to Transnistrian kindergarteners. As long as you're rewriting what monuments were built for, perhaps you'd like to revive the one about Latvia's freedom monument being built to thank Stalin for liberating the Baltic states. Yet another case of your "real story" being obvious manufactured propaganda. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is Transnistria not Latvia. I can confirm the Glory Memorial does hold the soilders from 1992 and the other brave ones you mentioned. I never lied. I am struggling to have the non propaganda truth told here. Mark us street 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The parallels to the Soviet era are, even for a Russo-skeptic like myself, truly remarkable, especially considering how similar the "awakening" was in the Moldovan S.S.R. as compared to the Baltic States. Transnistria is what Latvia would have been if the OMON had succeeded--which OMON continue to be in power in Transnistria. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

These symbols provide comfort far in excess of our superficial reading of them as communist icons. I wonder whether our western societies would have toppled its cherished effigies if Darwin’s Origins of the Species had crushed our belief in a deity, if evolution had won out over creationism?Pompey64 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not a photo of the Lenin statue, it's a photo of the Transnistrian parliament, which happens to have a statue of Lenin in front of it. How can we get a photo of that parliament building without Lenin? Should we photoshop it? :-) bogdan 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point of my remark, Lenin is not the font of all evil as you appear to imply. Christianity is most likely a belief structure, no more no less,it provides comfort to its adherants.

Why on earth would you suggest removing said symbols of comfort and familiarity from non academic citizens who have more on their plate than mere semantics?82.20.25.29 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Memorial of Tighina/Bender

BTW, why do we have to put only images from Tiraspol? There are plenty of monuments depicting tanks in Transnistria! ;-) bogdan 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

The page has been overtaken by propaganda. Needs an overhaul Mark us street 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific, here we go again with you calling the whole page intellectual swill. I'm assuming you don't consider the BHHRG references to be removed to be part of the propaganda you speak of. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

To be specific.It starts with the intro which is pure nonsense. Then, as you make your way through the articles you quickly realise it is an all out 'information war' propaganda attack. The Crime, Terrorism, Weapons, Smuggling sections are sensationalist and hype things in an obvious manner that's beyond belief. In truth, they should be completely deleted.. I am not allowed to edit. If I try I am reverted and if I re-enter there is enough Romanians to keep my edits out. I can say there is not a single line on that page that is mine. It has got so crazy the Romanians have outdone themselves and the entire page will backfire and drive a deeper wedge between the peoples of both PMR and Moldova. That's the irony. Just like the customs blockade, it drove the Transnistrians even more against Moldova. I am not in a position to help Wikipedia as the page is defended by pro Moldovan / Romanian promoters, The Transnistria page has been violated and bears little resemblance to reality. It is now a tool for propaganda and aimed at unwary masses because no government agency can take it seriously anymore. I don't expect the current editors here to react in a positive way because they see it as a current policy to rub Pridnestrovie's face in the mud. Maybe someday a wise one will appear.Mark us street 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Transnistrian face was in the mud since 1992. Re: "Propoganda" have you ever read this sites: tiraspoltimes.com pridnestrovie.net visitpmr.com tiras.ru regnum.ru ? You dont know what is Propaganda. You need to live in Transnistria to see what is going on in real life there. EvilAlex 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do, and the dirt you write about these people does little to help them or your cause Mark us street 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought you work from your "office" which is not there, as you've stated, and when you've forgotten to log on, you've shown up with an Irish broadband IP address (even when you say you were in Los Angeles). No one is writing dirt about the Transnistrians, we all have the deepest and most profound sympathy for their living in a Soviet time capsule. It's the government (and the whole ballet to make it look legitimate) that is the issue. Stop saying we "hate" the Transnistrians or we "treat them like dirt", etc., etc., etc. If you keep this up I'm sure someone will have the sense to ban you permanently. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i am writing only the true. You cant just hide it, now or later the true will come out anyway. You will not help Transnistrians buy hiding their problems, only in free and open discussion we could help them. EvilAlex 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)\

Alex, there are some problems, not as bad as Moldova to be fair, but yes, things can be hard, Things have changed , are changing, this is what the people want. they have that right. Mark us street 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I see how things changing: population decreases like in a war time. What do you wont me to write a fairytale? EvilAlex 21:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And as soon as independence is recognised the economy will grow and people will return. Mark us street 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I feel that's not going to happen. It would set a dangerous precedent; first Transnistria, then... Chechnya! //Dirak 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Transnistria

Hey guys; one of the editors emailed me about this flag so I wanted to let yall know this: the ratio is officially 1:2, so I am not sure why that one website uses a 2:3 ratio. I think they got the colors right, so I will try and fix those as much as possible. But to use the plain flag or the hammer and sickle flag, I do not know what would be good to use. It is true that the hammer and sickle flag is used officially by the Gov't, but since we are not owned by them, we could use whatever flag. However, most of the official PMR websites are down, so I cannot see what flag is used the most. If you have any questions, see me please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I changed the colors to match http://pridnestrovie.net/flag_pmr.html, but kept the ratio at 1:2. I checked the MFA, they used the plain flag. The only website that I saw the hammer and sickle flag was the constitutional court in a possibly outdated photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'n not one hundred percent what's right. http://pridnestrovie.net/flag_pmr.html which is an official site shows the dimensions to be 2 by 3. However the actual law says that "Отношение ширины флага к ее длине - 1/2" the ratio of the width to the length is 1 to 2. But I guess the law is right, so it would be 1 to 2. TSO1D 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there is an article called Flag of Transnistria that you could also edit if you are interested. TSO1D 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll make some edits there eventually, but I just wanted to let you know what I got in email. The other issue that was brought up to me was what flag to use on Wikipedia. I am leaning towards the one without the hammer and sickle, based on useage issues, not I am not sure if "State" flags are used more in the infoboxes than the "civil" ones, but I want to discuss this with yall before anything gets changed. I would have done it by email, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy last night mostly tending to a Latvian web site (on top of a 5 hour daily work commute). My orignal inquiry was, are the flag icons in use supposed to mirror the actual flag? The PMR law states all governmental use must have the hammer and sickle--we should reflect that until such time it changes. The "plain stripe" version, if you read the actual law, is intended to allow people to use the flag colors, etc. for their own use, without hammer and sickle, in any aspect ratio or form they choose. While there are photos which show parliament with a flag symbol on the wall without said hammer and sickle, that's not the official flag, it's mererly a flag-like decoration (if we don't want to accuse the PMR parliament of breaking its own laws). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For the flag icons, it doesn't matter what we pick. For example, the State Flag of Venezuela is used on articles and some tags. But for the stub tags, articles for sports events, etc., is used by the Civil flag without the arms. For the sake of viewing, I would pick the plain flag for stub tags, and the state flag for the infoboxes and all of that stuff. Plus, I do not believe that we are endorsing a specific flag if we choose the plain one over the hammer and sickle flag. Both flags are legal, both are used by government organs, so it is matter of choice of what looks better, and to me, the plain flag will work for the icons (due to the small size of it). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept your use, though, again, use without the hammer and sickle by any government organ is illegal. We can simply update the full size SVG file descriptions with the actual rules surrounding the use of the official and unofficial versions. Thanks for your help! —— Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be left to our article on the PMR flag. Plus, as I mentioned before, we are not an organ of the PMR Government, so we pick which flag we use. I'll make the changes later, food is calling my name very sweetly and softly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bon appétit! — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

thousands take to the streets

File:Poster08.jpg

"Beloved Smirnov-good fortune of the people!"

The propaganda war against the Transnistrian people is collapsing by the minute. On Monday 15,000 flag waving people entered the city centre to celebrate the election of their President. Can we now agree to delete all the rubbish about elections not being fair and free, it's pure nonsense. Mark us street 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely... //Dirak 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! TSO1D 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Chimps Mark us street 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean, like in the following image? Dpotop 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Whose flag were they waving?Jonathanpops 15:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A parade in the Red Square

pictures of the demonstration and the flags. jamason 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting pictures. I can see transnistrean flags, russian ones, but cannot identify the yellow ones. Do you know what they represent? Dpotop 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Proriv? TSO1D 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the yellow ones with Che are proryv (more here). I also see a pennant or two for individual Transnistrian factories. One in the penultimate photo says "elektromash." jamason 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone recognize the one vaguely similar to the Estonian or Latvian SSR, but with a green band on the bottom? jamason 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The denial of the recognition and the ecomonic strangle associated with this continues to cause strain in areas such Pridnestrovie's health service. Children are dying because of you. I have learned in Tiraspol that an economic war and propaganda war cost many lives just as a military war. However the victims are the old and the sick. You gentlemen are at the frontline of this propganda war to destroy the Transnistrian people. This is not a game. On Mnday the Transnistrian people took to the streets to call out for their freedom. LOL ! Maybe you need to be dragged into a hospital by the scruff of the next and be shown a child dying because of you actions here in the propaganda war to deny Transnistria her rightful freedom and self determined independence, Mark us street 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ромыний дин Транснистрия сынт де акорд ку тине сау дореск унификаре ку Република Молдова, ши дупэ ачея ку Ромыния (Ilie Ilaşcu)? //Dirak 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And so it goes on, never a hand of friendship, just more bashing and pain, and somehow you think this will bring everyone together in the end. it is insane !!!! Mark us street 16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, who do you think is the cause of this mess? I say it's Russia. //Dirak 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We here are responsible for the deaths of innocent children in Transnistria? Russia and its Smirnov/Antyufeyev thug-puppets are the problem there. That's at least #5 from you accusing people here of hatred and malice towards the inhabitants of Transnistria. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually did want to know whose flags they were waving, didn't recognise a few of them? Jonathanpops 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Deutsche Presse Agentur reported on the election in an article "Polls certain to confirm one-man rule in Transnistria," stating: "Smirnov, a welder by training who likes to see himself photographed in true Soviet style as a benevolent ruler against an azure-blue backdrop, has ruled over this pro-Russian region for the past 16 years." [28]. The only thing missing is the Papa-Stalin baby pictures. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No joy in Smirnovtown?

Alas, Mark, I see this following edit of yours reverted: "There is no longer any doubt that elections are fair and free, this has been confirmed by international election monitors. The last election for President Smirnov in December 2006 saw an outpouring of support for his victory when 15,000 flag-waving people rallied in the city centre in support of the President and of Independence."
   I must say I had a good laugh, so if I'm laughing then there must be no joy in Smirnovtown tonight.
   P.S. If you let me know where you got your observers list hardcopy perhaps I can contact them for a scan/fax. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Elections

Tiraspol Times is saying (what a surprise!) Presidential candidates agree that voting was free and fair; transparent, however, it seems that at least one of the candidates, Andrey Safonov, raised doubts about the results see last paragraph. A strange thing for me was the "early voting" procedure - people were able to cast their votes starting with 5 December “VOTUL ANTICIPAT”, INVENŢIE TRANSNISTREANA. I had a small edit war about the early voting procedure with Mauco, at Politics of Transnistria article, few days before the elections. I considered relevant to include a mention about it in that article, Mauco doubted the relevance. My question is what observer can be sure that ballot boxes are not changed during the night? Were the observers permanently at polling stations from 5 to 10 december, 24h/24?--MariusM 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the ballot boxes were tampered with, but my views don't really matter. I believe that unless you can find a credible source suggesting that illegal manipulation has taken place, this information remains pure speculation and Original Research that shouldn't be included in the article. TSO1D 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was explaining some divergences I had with Mauco at an other article. You can look in the history of that article, I didn't introduce original research, I wanted only to mention that this procedure of early voting exist in Transnistria, but I was reverted.--MariusM 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The current article is an out of control work of propaganda defended by an army of edit warriors that will not allow a single word be altered on the page. The Intro is long subject to change but the issue is ignored. Every day it gets worse and worse and is deepening the divide between Moldovans and Transnistrians. It is sheer propaganda. It is how Romanian Secret Services types would like the world to see Pridnestrovie but its all crazed propaganda. Transnistrian people are not allowed to edit there own page here because its pointless. There is an army of Romanian editors waiting to revert. Somehow, they think this blackening of Transnistria will bring these peoples together, The page is a hate filled falsehood used to drive a wegde between these countries in dispute, It serves nobody other than those who want an extreme solution to a old dispute,. Mark us street 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, as you have seen, we currently do have a discussion about how to change the introduction. Also I wouldn't say that the current intro has been deteriorating, it has remained the same for a weeks now. However the version you inserted: "Transnistria' or Pridnestrovie is a new country] in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2 1990. The country is currently the target of a massive information propaganda war that depicts it as a 'Banditland' territory." is simply not acceptable and you cannot just introduce it without discussing it first. TSO1D 12:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I won't reinsert it, I was just trying to highlight the sheer lobsidedness of the entire page. It is frustrating to read what is pure fantasy and nonsensical passages about a place that has no resemblence to the real Transnistria. It is so Anti Transnistria it is overkill and has become self-defeating and even Moldovan politicians must be looking at it and thinking ' this being used against us elsewhere ? Think about this, the Transnistrians have no voice here, I'm the closest thing to it, yet I have never been allowed to insert a single word on the main page, So in effect the entire article is Moldovan/ Romanian POV backed by various sources, often clutching a straws to legitimise a point. For an anti Transnistria site its the very best on the web. Does it assist in conflict resolution or deeper understanding. No, it has basically made muck of the Transnistrian people and the Moldovans will get the blame. Anything that causes division between the Transnistrian and Moldovan people is a bad thing. This site is 'shooting oneself in the foot'. Overkill propaganda fuelled with hatred. It is a position that serves nobody. Mark us street 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you are the propagandist here, bent on portraying Transnistria as a flowering cradle of freedom beset by ruthless Moldovans "starving them" and now "Romanian secret services" spreading lies and putting your very life at risk. Transnistria will improve only when the cabal that has coopted the territory and government as their own fiefdom is tossed out--meanwhile they are only solidifying their position.
   Mauco chastized me when I quoted sources saying Antyufeyev is the power behind the throne because his original research indicated Antyufeyev was not long for the political world. When I wanted to indicate it's a one man show, Mauco indicated Smirnov is not long for the political world, look at the "opposition," the place is democratic! (A position you share.)
   But, LO! It's a miraculous recovery for beloved Smirnov! Miraculous in a pig's eye.
   It's all a choreographed pack of lies whose true victims are Transnistria's inhabitants:

• Moldovans (LARGEST group) who risk their lives crossing the Dniester to vote in Moldovan elections,
• Ukrainians (NEXT LARGEST group) who were mostly bystanders whose plight has been largely ignored by the Ukraine--fortunately a situation which is changing, and
• Russians (LEAST POPULOUS group)
  • some of whom in the hierarchy (like retired military, the Moldovan S.S.R. was nearly as popular a retirement spot as Latvia) resented losing their spot as top-dog ethnicity;
  • most of whom, the common person, simply feared what would happen when Moldovans assumed control (and had that fear nurtured and channeled in ways completely contradictory to serving their interests).
    

   Gagauz is an excellent example of where things go well when the issue is about the people and all sides work to solve it.
   Transnistria is an excellent example of where things go bad when an issue about the people is coopted by power-hungry thugs sporting Lenin beards bolstered by Russian-imported OMON murderous thugs to take over a once relatively prosperous industrial region and then exploit it to serve every interest imaginable EXCEPT that of the people.
   You've said you want to debate and discuss, but your interchanges here have degenerated into repeatedly proposing or simply making outlandish changes and then accusing us of hate-mongering and infanticide when you don't have your way.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You solution of simply overthrowing the government borders on anarchy but you have your right to express it, The forceful throwing out a democratic government chosen by the people is not the way forward to peace and reconciliation.. Accepting that others have differing views is the way forward and here is an ideal platform to work to present a fair and honest picture of Transnistria, A place for you to build goodwill. Kicking the doors of the castle while locked outside is not advantagous. Measured negotiation and respect for others is the only way forward. The current page is damaging relations and I urge you to reconsider your position Mark us street 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alas, you keep insisting Smirnov, Antyufeyev, and company are democratically installed. I'm afraid that we'll never arrive on an accomodation where that is concerned. The ballet is orchestrated from the top— which has not changed since day one.

    Perhaps we can discuss specifics of why you believe the September 2006 referendum, for example, was democratic by posting the full list of observers so we can see for ourselves whether these are people with an agenda (Alksnsis et al.) or people whose opinion is worth objective consideration. So far, I've seen "130", "over 130", and the latest "153" mentioned, pretty much only on your website with one mention by the BHHRG (the masquerading as a human rights organization objectivity-anti-Christ).

   You claim to have hard copy of the list of observers. Surely with all the time you are spending typing here (and getting your outlandish claims shot down), perhaps you could instead expend some of that effort on providing information as opposed to suggesting a communally edited page on the Internet is (by my latest tabulation):

• a global geopolitical threat
  • masterminded by sinister life-threatening Moldovan and Romanian secret services
    • supporting anti-Transnistrian hate-mongers who by their collusion with the aforementioned are conducting a disinformation campaign that would make Stalin and Goebbels weep with joyous envy, with the effect of
      • wreaking economic havoc upon Transnistria, which in its wake is
        • killing innocent Transnistrian children.

Application of Occam's razor would suggest this infinitely far more likely scenario:

• one need not look beyond Tiraspol and Moscow for the sources of Transnistria's woes.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And not even a glimpse towards Chisinau? Absolutely innocent?

PS: Occam's Razor is a sharp and dangerous toy, you know. The "simplest solution" is quite often in the eye of the beholder... --Illythr 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One only has to look to Gagauz for an example where autonomy was worked out to the benefit of all. The Gagauz now have direct relations with Turkey; the first ever books in Gagauz ahve been published--being part of Moldova has been, in the end, an enhancement not a hindrance.

There is no reason to believe that a similar agreement could not work to the benefit of both sides in Transnistria--once the Russia-supported/Russia-infested cabal is expunged. (Note I did not say ethnic "Russian.")

Even a pro-Russian position partisan would have to admit that Mark's increasingly Rube Goldbergerian constructs of the source of Transnistria's woes are untenable. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Gagauzia had neither weapon stockpiles to arm itself, nor an army to back it up. No war was waged against it (because of that). There were also no anti-Gagauz sentiments in Moldova (well, only relatively minor ones) etc. --Illythr 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason is the War of Transnistria. Make no mistake, I am not opposed to the idea of Transnistria becoming an autonomy of Moldova; that's what they initially wanted back in 1989, after all (when their deputies got kicked out of the Moldovan Parliament instead). After the nationalist hysteria has died down, and the "cleansing of Moldovan soil of Russian occupants" never happened, Moldova could've integrated Transnistria without bloodshed and pain, like it did Gagauzia. Unfortunately, Snegur messed it all up by authorizing military action against Transnistria instead of compromising with them early on (he was probably pushed to it by his Popular Front supporters, but it doesn't really matter now), making the Gagausian scenario totally impossible. I am sure that, as long as Smirnov's clique, as well as Voronin's, remain in power, no compromise is possible, because there are people on both sides of the Dniester that have an economic interest in the current status quo, however.

PS: I'm glad that you swapped out the "you" part in your last sentence. :-) --Illythr 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Without the industry located east of the Dniester river would anyone really care in Moldova about this matter? Surely Bessarabia is a clearly defined by both history and geography, and thus the legitimate aspirations of many contributors?Pompey64 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

De Waal

BTW, Mark, since you haven't responded above (as my "tone" has likely offended you the same way it did Mauco), I see the article referencing Tom De Waal (which he as requested you to remove as a misuse of his name, reputation, and work) is still on your website [29]. Having problems finding the delete key?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that you are not the one who is representing De Waal, Vecrumba? And what does that in any way have to do with edits to the Transnistria article? Please read the info box on the very top of this page. Maybe THAT explains why sometimes we all don't answer your tirades: We try to follow the rules around this place. - Mauco 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a reference about De Waal expressing his annoyance over the adaptation somewhere around... --Illythr 11:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in the Wikipedia Transnistria-article, which is what this page is supposed to discussed. Here, we aim to not discuss Transnistria in general, unless it is in some way related to the edits. - Mauco 11:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Tom De Waal discussion (now in archive "9") was in reference to the integrity as an information source of the tiraspoltimes.com and of Mark, as its representative. Mark characterized the report about his paper as ".its was mudraking.". When I asked if that meant that De Waal had agreed to the use of his work, Mark responded "its all propaganda." If Mark had simply responded that he would double-check (and would have done so), it would have ended there.

Mauco, please cease and desist on the conspiracy theories. "De Waal" is no longer an issue here with reference to Mark and his various contentions; however, the issue regarding the journalistic integrity of the tiraspoltimes.com web site remains.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cease and desist with the bad faith. I edit here in good faith and I urge others to assume good faith, too, Peters. You are the latecomer to Transnistria related articles, so you probably don't know the full story on the De Waal issue. In this case, I am the only editor here to have factchecked the RFL/RL article, and it was surprising, to say the least. The result was posted on Sept 20 on this page and can be seen in archive "5" but for your benefit, let me just run it for you again:
I did the research to help determine who is indeed a reliable source or not. There is only one instance of a "Tom de Waal" in the archives (here: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/search/node/Tom+de+Waal) and it looks like he is being quoted in a fair and accurate way[30]. It certainly doesn't give him reason to claim to be outraged, based on how he is portrayed or how his name is used.
My analysis: He is just quoted twice in generic terms on unrecognized conflicts and not on anything related to Transnistria directly. The first quote is halfway into the article: "war is unacceptable: it would destroy thousands of lives and all the fragile progress that has been made and Russia would inevitably be dragged in." The second quote is at the end: "the Kosovo process is useful because it challenges those assumptions. Surely, now that the precedent has been set, the debate has to be about democracy and minority rights more than about territorial integrity." Then, to verify if the quotes were correct, I searched for them and came up with other instances where the same two quotes appear under his name, both here[31](OpenDemocracy) and here[32](UNPO.org). It all looks good. It does not give me reason for concern on grounds of accuracy.
You should be aware that there are people, Peters, who consider the US government funded RFE/RL to be a dubious source of information. I am not in that group, but I do note that in this case, their claim did not check out based on the above fact checking. It is also interesting that as a source, Wikipedia lists this organization under 'United States government propaganda organisations', so in light of this, it may be advisable to perhaps double-check and get independendent verification of any of their claims before we use them in a Wikipedia article.
I do not know what any of this has to do with a main edit to the Transnistria article, however, so in the future I will probably not respond to postings like these where you accuse me (and others that you don't agree with) of peddling conspiracy theories. I will most likely just let your accusations stand unanswered, as eloquent testimony of your own somewhat unique approach to collaborative editing. - Mauco 14:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Towns and villages in Transnistria

Has anyone a complete list of towns and villages in Transnistria? That would be useful. :-) bogdan 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this map have them all? --Illythr 08:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here they are. Feel free to add in the article, as I am very busy in real life now. Cheers to everyone.

Total number of localities: 147

Divided into: municipalities: 3 cities without municipality status: 7 Communes: 69

The 3 municipalities:

• Dubăsari
• Rîbniţa
• Tiraspol

The 7 cities:

• Camenca
  • contains village Solnecinoe
• Crasnoe
• Dnestrovsc
• Grigoriopol
  • contains village Crasnoe
• Maiac
• Slobozia
• Tiraspolul Nou

Communes with villages they contain:

• Andreevca
  • Andreevca
  • Pîcalova
  • Şmalena
• Beloci
• Bîcioc
  • Bîcioc
  • Novovladimirovca
• Blijnii Hutor
• Broşteni
• Butor
  • Butor
  • India
• Butuceni
• Caragaş
• Caterinovca
  • Caterinovca
  • Sadchi
• Carmanova
  • Carmanova
  • Cotovca
  • Fedoseevca
  • Mocearovca
• Cioburciu
• Cobasna
  • Cobasna
  • Suhaia Rîbniţa
  • Cobasna loc.c.f.
• Colosova
  • Colosova
  • Crasnaia Besarabia
  • Pobeda
• Comisarovca Nouă
  • Comisarovca Nouă
  • Bosca
  • Coşniţa Nouă
  • Pohrebea Nouă
• Corotna
• Crasnencoe
  • Crasnencoe
  • Dimitrova
  • Ivanovca
• Crasnîi Octeabri
  • Crasnîi Octeabri
  • Alexandrovca
• Crasnîi Vinogradari
  • Crasnîi Vinogradari
  • Afanasievca
  • Alexandrovca Nouă
  • Calinovca
  • Lunga Nouă
• Crasnogorca
• Cuzmin
  • Cuzmin
  • Voitovca
• Delacău
  • Delacău
  • Crasnaia Gorca
• Doibani I
  • Doibani I
  • Doibani II
  • Coicova
• Dubău
  • Dubău
  • Goianul Nou
• Dzerjinscoe
• Frunză
  • Frunză
  • Andriaşevca Nouă
  • Andriaşevca Veche
  • Novocotovsc
  • Priozernoe
  • Uiutnoe
  • Novosaviţcaia loc.c.f.
• Ghidirim
• Goian
  • Goian
  • Iagorlîc
• Haraba
• Harmaţca
• Hîrjău
  • Hîrjău
  • Mihailovca Nouă
  • Sărăţei
• Hîrtop
  • Hîrtop
  • Bruslachi
  • Marian
  • Mocreachi
• Hlinaia (Grigoriopol raion)
• Hlinaia (Slobozia raion)
• Hristovaia
• Hruşca
  • Hruşca
  • Frunzăuca
• Jura
• Lenin
  • Lenin
  • Pervomaisc
  • Pobeda
  • Stanislavca
• Lunga (originally, i.e. until the middle of the century, Lunca)
• Mălăieşti
  • Mălăieşti
  • Cerniţa
• Mihailovca
• Mocra
  • Mocra
  • Basarabca
  • Şevcenco
  • Zaporojeţ
• Molochişul Mare
• Nezavertailovca
• Ocniţa
• Ofatinţi
  • Ofatinţi
  • Novaia Jizni
• Parcani
• Pervomaisc
• Plopi
• Podoima
  • Podoima
  • Podoimiţa
• Popencu
  • Popencu
  • Chirov
  • Vladimirovca
  • Zăzuleni
• Raşcov
  • Raşcov
  • Iantarnoe
• Rotari
  • Rotari
  • Bodeni
  • Socolovca
• Severinovca
• Slobozia-Raşcov
• Sovetscoe
  • Sovetscoe
  • Vasilievca
• Speia
• Stroieşti
• Sucleia
• Şipca
  • Şipca
  • Vesioloe
• Taşlîc
• Teiu
  • Teiu
  • Tocmagiu
• Tîrnauca
• Ţîbuleuca
• Ulmu
  • Ulmu
  • Ulmul Mic
  • Lîsaia Gora
• Vadul Turcului
  • Vadul Turcului
  • Molochişul Mic
• Valea Adîncă
  • Valea Adîncă
  • Constantinovca
• Vărăncău
  • Vărăncău
  • Buschi
  • Gherşunovca
• Vinogradnoe
• Vladimirovca
  • Vladimirovca
  • Constantinovca
  • Nicolscoe

Source: Annex 5 of Law 292-XIV of 19.02.99 of RM. This list does not include the localities in the Dubasari raion, nor those on the right bank of Dniester in the Causeni raion and in the Tighina municipality. But I think the article already contains the list of all those.:Dc76 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! :-) bogdan 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, likewise! --Illythr 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a nice bit of work. I've seen the new page too, now all the names need a page or explanation to go with them. Jonathanpops 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work, but I hate to be a naysayer: Could we get the Russian names as well? After all, 99% of the inhabitants in Transnistria speak Russian and only about 30% speak Romanian. - Mauco 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A list could be compiled from the map up there. But what are all these names for, anyway? --Illythr 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the Russian names would be useful. Maybe also the original names of some villages which had their changed names (I suspect that at least part of the villages with names ending with -scoe and -ovca have changed names). bogdan 12:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye Black Propaganda Farce

The Wiki Transnistria page has decended into a propaganda farce, Transnistrians are not allowed to edit their own page and unless you are a Romanian or Moldovan editor with a passionate hatred of the Transnistrian people you will not be allowed enter a single word on the page. I want no part of this hate-filled campaign on a new country trying to find her place at the international table. This pages serves nobody and Moldova least of all. I am washing my hands of you as I believe this page is only causing more hurt, hate and division between Transnistria and Moldova . Above all it shows there is absolutely no concept of mediation, accomodation and negotiation on the Moldovan side. Mark us street 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good bye. But note that many wikipedians have left only to come back. Bogdan did it once, I left some subjects, etc. If you are truly addicted, you'll come back. :) Dpotop 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, did you leave, or just changed your name [33] ? Dpotop 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)