Talk:Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

Socialism High‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Still to do for this article..

~~I will add the references shortly. I am beginning to do that now in my sandbox where I wrote the rough draft of this article.~~
~~It also needs pictures if anyone has anything appropriate. I have many, but I don't have permission to use them here.~~ I found one on Pridnestrovie.net which has an open source / Creative Commons license, so I uploaded it and included it now. - Mauco 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!—that one is great. It would like to be able to give it a complete caption, but there are a few faces I don't recognize: From left to right: [unknown], [unknown], Emel’ianov (?), Maracutsa, Skripnichenko, Voevodin, Shtefan, Akulov (?), Volkova, Denisenko, Ryliakov, [unknown], Popov, Zaigriadskii, and Zalozhlkov.
Mauco, are you able to identify the unknowns? jamason 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~wiki links.~~
~~It might also be cool to add an SSR Infobox.~~

After that, it should just be tinkering and typos. jamason 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raion soviets

Jamason, in this article, as in your thesis, you miss to show exactly the situation of rayonal soviets after 1990 elections, with the exception of Dubăsari rayon. While I don't have exact refference, info that I received from some Moldovans (this is original research, I know) shows that not only at Dubăsari, but also in Grigoriopol, Slobozia and Camenca rayons OSTK was not able to win elections, and only with pressure and intimidation PMSSR was able to take control in those areas. Actual article creates the impression that everywhere OSTK-backed politicians won and support for PMSSR was around 97%. Not real, in my opinion. I think I wrote to you also in e-mail about this subject--MariusM 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pressure and intimidation". Yes, that does sound like original research. Quite original, indeed. Pal Kolstoe has some commentary on this, for those of us who prefer peer reviewed academic papers over hearsay. - Mauco 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, is that I don't have much information about the raion soviets of Grigoriopol, Slobozia and Kamenka. Here is what I do know:

After the elections in 1990:

S. Popa, chairman of the Dubossary raion soviet, and I. Mitskul, chairman of the Dubossary raion ispolkom, were both active opponents of the Transnistrian separatist movement.
F. Nirian, chairman of the Slobozia raion soviet was an active opponent of the Transnistria separatist movement.
P. Poian, Secretary of the Grigoriopol raikom and the Chairman of the raion sovet was not an OSTK supporter, but not an active opponent either. Igor Smirnov says of him: “although he did not come out against us openly, he secretly insulted us.”
I do not know who became chairman of the Kamenka raisovet in 1990.

I can make this more clear in the article.

Also, I clearly do not give the impression that "support for PMSSR was around 97%." I have no reliable indicators to gauge exact support or opposition, and I didn't guess. jamason 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You give it, through yor footnote 13. Is not your impression, but is the impression of many Wikipedia readers after they will read this article in actual form.--MariusM 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should explain this more clearly, maybe in a section about oposition to PMSSR. The entire article is based on pro-PMSSR sources, no Romanian-language sources were used. I will add a NPOV tag until this is solved.--MariusM 10:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're using spurious tagging as blackmail. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. - Mauco 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the referendum results organised by separatists and listing only those results of legitimate elections where separatists won (with the exception of Dubăsari rayon) is POV. Why not explaining that separatists lost 1990 elections in the majority of PMSSR teritorry, they won only in cities? Is true that in cities is concentrated the political and economical power.--MariusM 10:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only someone who accepts the referenda as a reliable gauge of popular opinion would see listing them as POV. In fact, most Americans see "98.6%" (let alone repeated three times) and think it must have been fixed. I'm not taking a stand on their reliability in the article, I merely list them (in a footnote).
I'm not hiding pro-Chisinau electoral victories. If I didn't tell you who won, you wouldn't have known. So it seems that neither of us have much information on the three raion soviets at issue. The problem, of course, is sources. Nothing happened in Kamenka, Slobozia and Grigoriopol. (I will go ahead and point out that the last sentence was hyperbole, since I know you were planning on taking issue.) As neither of us have been to Transnistria to do archival research (in-shallah this summer), we are restricted to: memoirs, newspapers and NGO reports (roughly). None of these types of sources typically talk about places were nothing happens. Therefore, no evil agenda, just no information.
Finally, you have, yet again, not given me anything to work with. If you want to add something--you mention an anti-PMSSR section--write one and we will discuss it. If you think I'm "listing only those results of legitimate elections where separatists won," than list the others (or at least tell me how they turned out so that I can list them). If you want more sources, tell me which. etc., etc., etc. I'm happy to hear your suggestions, so make them. jamason 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM has his own very personal take on what happened in Transnistria. He tried to impose it in the Transnistria articles's introduction, but the facts showed something else. Then he went to War of Transnistria, and tried the same. No go. Now he is busy doing edit warring in History of Transnistria where at least three editors removed his POV-pushing (myself, Pernambuco and Bogdaniusca). He is quick to accuse the other side of not being neutral. But in the end, it always turns out to be a spurious charge. - Mauco 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have my own views on Transnistria and other subjects, what is wrong with this? Worse is to only repeat what others are telling your view should be.--MariusM 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely trying to be polite when I said that "Marius has his own personal take" on this situation. I guess that it didn't translate too well, but hopefully others got the drift... - Mauco 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To jamason: You don't have too much information about the elections where OSTK supporters lost because your sources of informations are only pro-OSTK, and those sources are not talking too much on subjects which are not good for OSTK cause. However, even those sources shows that in rural areas OSTK didn't have support from people. Is excellent that even Smirnov recognized that some democratically elected leaders were against separatism, and what I asked you is to include in the article also what your sources tell about such situations. With the exception of Dubossary rayon, you didn't include in the article those situations, while you included (in a footnote) all referendum results favourable to OSTK, but organised by OSTK itself (which is raising doubts about the correctness of those referendums. You included such doubts in your thesis, not in this article).--MariusM 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say "Results were uncanny in their near identity." How much more POV do you want? jamason 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several Western scholars who comment on this, throughout the 1990s. The consensus is that the "Soviet style" results raise some eyebrows but that there is no reason to suspect that less than the majority was in favor of independence. In the same breath, may I also note that Ukraine had similar results, for instance. The key to reading the results lie in an understanding of Soviet voter attitudes. In that context, turnout tells a lot more than actual results, so fraud is not necessarily a factor. - Mauco 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM, do I understand that if I include in the article something that says that the Grigoriopol, Slobozia, and Dubossary raion soviets were not taken by OSTK activists in the, as you say, democratic elections of 1990, and that in Dubossary and Slobozia, the raion soviets actively supported the government in Chisinau, you will agree not to restore the NPOV tag (unless something else changes)? jamason 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With this correction and with the correction of the number of strikers NPOV tag could be removed. I will add in future some more data at this article, when I will have time to look for sources. However, don't use "democratic elections" to describe 1990 elections. Those were the most democratic elections in the entire history of Transnistria, and never after was achieved again the 1990 level of democracy, however I will object considering those elections as 100% democratic.--MariusM 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you object? And, just for kicks, in your opinion, were they more or less democratic than elections in the rest of the MSSR in the same year? - Mauco 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elections in the rest of MSSR were also not 100% democratic. Democracy was at the begining in this region at that time.--MariusM 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am forced to repeat my question. On what GROUNDS do you object? And do you believe that they were MORE or LESS democratic? - Mauco 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike

100000 strikers and other 200000 wanted to strike. The entire working class of PMSSR was less than 300000 people (maybe some of them strike several times?). For the exact number of participants in the strike movement we should not rely only on what strikers supporters wrote. We should not count on the number of strikers in PMSSR the strikers from the rest of Moldova (as strikes were also in other cities).--MariusM 10:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article: 100,000 + 200 STKs [about 100,000] = 200,000. jamason 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a Supreme Soviet of the USSR report:

"According to information provided by the Soviet of Ministers of the MSSR, 172 STKs with a general membership of about 100,000 people took part in it [the strike]. According to the information of the Republican Strike Committee, it was, respectively, 191 collectives and more than 200,000 people."

This was written on 7 September (a week before the end of the strike). Together with the (partisan) source I quoted in the article I conclude:

The number of workers that actually stopped working during the strike was close to 100,000.
They comprised a little under 200 STKs (172 or perhaps a few more by the end of the strike).
An unknown (and possibly substantial number) of STKs supported the strike but could not participate (e.g. hospitals, meat and vegetable distributors, primary schools, etc.)

Therefore I am willing to take out, "approximately another 200 expressing support but unable to actively participate." if that is satisfactory to you. Finally, the "strike movement" section of the article is not talking about just Transnsitria (let alone the PMSSR since it didn't exist). I think it would be a mistake to mention only the strikers in that region; this was an ideological battle that divided people on both sides of the Dniester. jamason 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union Supreme Soviet was lead by Anatoly Lukianov, who was a supporter of Transnistria's separatism. It can not be a neutral source. Moldovan Supreme Soviet data can be used. However I saw you quoted Volkova (an ideologue of separatism), which is not a reliable source for me. Also, those strikers were not only from PMSSR. In Kishinev and Balti were also strikes, don't count the strikers on those cities on behalf of Transnistrian separatism.--MariusM 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not discard Volkova without having read a single word that she's written. - Mauco 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luk'ianov wasn't actually the chairman of the Supreme Soviet until 1990. He was also not part of the Supreme Soviet Commission that visited the MSSR in September 1989. But either way, even the MSSR Soviet of Ministers said 100,000 participants in the strike. What did you think of my compromise suggested above? I couldn't tell from your response. jamason 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of strikers in the article should be acording what MSSR Soviet of Ministers told, excluding those outside Transnistria. At that moment MSSR had a communist government who considered as main enemy the Moldovan Popular Front. Few months later violent conflicts, including putting fire on the building of Moldovan Ministry of Interior lead by Vladimir Voronin, showed the intensity of conflict between MPF and MSSR Communist government. Strikers were an help for Communist party, in its fight against Moldovan Popular Front. Moldovan Communist government was against strikers, but only half-convinced. Only in November 1989 Communist party changed its atitude, when Grosu was replaced with Lucinschi. However, I believe MSSR Soviet of Ministers have reliable data. Can you provide source about MSSR Soviet of Ministers statement?--MariusM 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is where it is hard to take the work seriously. You are trying to paint this as a black and white issue. Communist Party against Popular Front, and vice versa. It was not that straight forward. There was a lot of overlap and a bunch of nuances. The Communist Party had to "officially" appear opposed to the more radical Popular Front demands. This was because the central Soviet authorities were still in place. But please do not insult our intelligence with statements like "MSSR had a communist government who considered as main enemy the Moldovan Popular Front". If you do, we are just all wasting our time here. - Mauco 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of whom Moldovan Comunist leader Simion Grosu, lost his position in November 1989? Because of Moldovan Popular Front supporters, who first stopped the November 7th millitary parade in Kishinev, and after some of them were arrested by police lead by actual Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin, attacked the building of the Ministry of Interior. While Moldovan Popular Front suporters were arrested, none of strikers were arrested as long Grosu was still in power. If you don't know the developments of late eighties - early nineties history of Moldova, do some more research. Moldovan Popular Front wanted independence from Soviet Union (while not always openly claimed). Moldovan Communist Party (including actual Moldovan president Voronin) wanted to keep the Soviet Union, exactly what strikers want. There were differences between Communists and strikers, but for the keeping of Soviet Union they were allied.--MariusM 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A taunt is not required here, please. I am comfortable with my knowledge of the history of the late MSSR and the events leading to its demise. Likewise, I am also very well aware of the nuances and power plays within the local Communist Party at the time. You are entitled to believe in a clearcut dichotomy as long as you keep this belief only in Talk. - Mauco 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you mr. Mauco that you allow me the right of free expression (limited for talk page), you will have forever my gratitude. I didn't talk about a clearcut dichotomy. In fact I believe there were nuances and differences inside the Communist party between people like Simion Grosu or Vladimir Voronin who wanted to keep the Soviet Union and opportunistic assholes like Mircea Snegur who don't have any political belief but just wanted to keep political power.--MariusM 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

The draft compromise is as follows:

1. On the strike movement:
"Upwards of 200 enterprises, comprising around 100,000 employees, stopped working throughout the republic with approximately another 200 expressing support but unable to actively participate." will be replaced with:
"Upwards of 180 enterprises, comprising around 100,000 employees, stopped working thoughtout the republic."

I have no data to object on this sentence, but I will be more happy if you can find an other source than Volkova. Didn't MSSR Government published some data on strike movement?--MariusM 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} to the sentence when I change it rather than use Volkova as a reference. The Supreme Soviet Commission conclusions are cited in her book which is compilation of primary sources. I need to go to the library to get a different citation (through FBIS), but this might take a while since I am out of town starting tomorrow and then I go back to class on Monday. jamason 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number of 100000 strikers included those outside PMSSR. In Kishinev, Bălţi, Comrat there were also strikers. It will be great if we will find a source which is telling the number only for PMSSR.--MariusM 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is for all of the MSSR, but the strike affected the entire republic. Unfortunately, I don't know how many were striking in just Transnistria. Alternatively, we could just get rid of the number altogether and wait until one of us can find statistics that the other will accept. jamason 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. On the elections:
"This was especially true after the elections of 1990 when the OSTK essentially took control of the city soviets of Tiraspol, Bendery, and Rybnitsa, the Rybnitsa raion soviet.' However, even in 1989 these city and..." [...]
"Even so, the chairmen of Transnistrian city and raion soviets in and city and raion executive committees (ispolkoms) in Tiraspol, Bendery and Rybnitsa were demoted or voted out of office completely with the elections of 1990.
"This was not the case in several of the other raion soviets. The new leadership of the Grigoriopol raion soviet did not support the separatist movement and the new Dubossary and Slobozia raion soviets actively supported the government in Chisinau." jamason 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further reasearch need to be made for Camenca raion, for the time being is O.K. Put Smirnov at refference also, as you have it.--MariusM 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the changes and include Smirnov's statement about Poian. I'm glad we got this settled. jamason 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ousting persons unsympathetic to PMR cause

While in the article is written about a case when a director unsympathetic to OSTK cause was ousted, there were even more situations when ordinary workers unsympathetic to PMR cause were ousted, which are not mentioned. For example, Ilie Ilaşcu was ousted from his job because of his political convictions (see "Moldova" nr. 1/1990, is not clearly explained when it happen). While Ilaşcu was able to defend himself and received back the job after he legally contested the decision, a lot of other persons didn't have the capacity to defend and were not even mentioned in the press. Not participating at strike movement was more dangerous than participating at it, and the usage of the overt or hided threat of losing job (which can mean also losing the apartment where you live) was a way of enforcing loyality for PMR. THis should be more clearly explained in the article (actually is only a hint about this).--MariusM 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Ah, yes. And so, once again, the notorious "chief economist" is trotted out. Mauco 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe is true? If was possible to oust a director (as jamason gave example), you don't believe simple workers were ousted?--MariusM 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the Chisinau-spin is that this was a movement imposed from the outside with little popular support, and that the popular support was orchestrated at gunpoint or via threats such as firings. Please source that this was widespread. They are trotting out this same tired old story every year. They did it twice this year alone: The old saw about how people were forced to vote, and that if they didn't, they would be fired. But it doesn't square with reality. For once in your life, talk to someone who lives in Transnistria. Or better yet, go there yourself. Try to find out just exactly how oppressed and cowering they are there. - Mauco 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I disscussed already with EvilAlex. Not in person, but through Wikipedia, which is good enough.--MariusM 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware that he lived in Transnistria, or that he represented the majority view of the citizens there. - Mauco 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist background of PMR leaders

I know that jamason has the revisionist opinion that PMR leadership raised against Moldovan Communist Party. While situation has some nuances (main difference being Communist party under Grosu and after Grosu), I want to draw atention that conections between PMR leadership and MCP is bigger than jamason's impression. Not only Mărăcuţă had communist backgroung. In "Moldova" nr. 12/1990 (I hope jamason will receive this magazine) is an interview with Alexander Caraman, former vice-president of PMR. Is clearly stated that Caraman was the ideologue of Slobozia county comitee of Moldovan Communist party, and was delegate at 17th conference of Moldovan Communist Party. In this magazine are mentioned 3 place-tenants of Igor Smirnov: Ana Volkova (described as "born in Kamtchatka"), Vitalii Glebov (mentioned: "God knows from where is he from", former communist party leader at Kotovsk and Taraclia) and Caraman, party leader in Slobozia. About Leonid Ţurcan, party leader from Tiraspol is mentioned that he lost his political position, however is clearly mentioned as a defender of separatist's interests. Conflict between Ţurcan and Smirnov was because both wanted to have political power in Tiraspol, but this doesn't necesary mean that Ţurcan was a fighter against separatism.--MariusM 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to call Jamason "revisionist" -- at least not unless you want to hear a story about a pot and a kettle. - Mauco 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the official site of PMR Supreme Soviet (sorry, Supreme Council, my English is bad): In the fisrt Supreme Council "there were 52 CPSU members among the deputies, 11 – non-Party men" [1]. It seems that big majority of PMR leaders were Communists. This new propagandistic trend of "anti-Communist" PMR is not sustained by the historical facts. Or you don't trust official Transnistrian site like vspmr.org?--MariusM 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding national representation, same source is telling that out of 63 deputies, only 12 were Moldovans. That mean 19%, while at that time proportion of Moldovans in the population was 38%. Underrepresentation of Moldovans proved, hope this will stop remarks like "Ethnic moldovans were well represented in Transnistrian leadership". Did Pal Kolstoe wrote this, that mean only that Kolstoe is wrong.--MariusM 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the source before you criticize it. Do not take it out of context. Find out how Kolstoe defines leadership, and you will see that he is right. Hint: He does not just look at parliament. He includes the cabinet, too. - Mauco

He pick up from the leadership only what can back his claim. This is not the way to make scientific research. Kolstoe is a wrong source, he made a lot of errors. I didn't pick up few examples from PMR Soviet, I took the entire list of MPs, without any bias selection.--MariusM 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the data from an OFFICIAL PMR site like vspmr.com, I changed the wordings of the article which suggest that PMR activists were mainly anti-communists. Also, I deleted a sentence like "There are no published statistics, but the belief that the OSTK had “cleansed” the “political organs of inert, passive representatives from the ‘time of stagnation [i.e. from the time of Brezhnev’s policy of “stability of cadres”]’” in Transnistria has been often expressed.". If there are not published statistics we should not make assumptions based only on Babilunga's propaganda. Jamason should do his own research, he may find that Babilunga and other sources are simply lying. There are published statistics like at vspmr.com which show exactly the contrary - the majority of political leaders which created the PMR were from Communist Party. People like Alexander Caraman (vice-president), Vitali Glebov (vice president), Grigore Mărăcuţă (chairman of Supreme Soviet) were Communist party leaders during the "time of stagnation". Don't invent untrue things for this article, which is based only on pro-PMR books of propaganda. Reality check is necesary.--MariusM 10:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM:
1). Is your argument that since many of the deputies to the first PMSSR Supreme Soviet were Communist Party members, than the PMSSR must itself have been a pro-communist state? The absurdity of this logic should be readily apparent to anyone familiar with post-communist Central and East Europe. Do you, for example, consider Romania pro-communist because all of its post-communist presidents (Ion Iliescu, Emil Constantinescu and Traian Băsescu) are former Communist Party members?
2). While you chide me to "do my own research" since, supposedly, the facts "show exactly the contrary" of what I'm arguing, you seem to have completely misunderstood my argument. The latter is, namely, that the party apparatus was not the institutional basis of opposition in Transnistria. Incidentally, you claimed to have read my thesis, but there I repeatedly state that much of the OSTK leadership were former Party members. If you would like to check, see: 1). Page 7, "Many were party members"; 2) page 10, "...Smirnov, heretofore a content communist party member...together with a cohort of factory directors..."; 3) page 85, "The backbone of OSTK support came from just such a Transnistrian group...the 'Outer Part' communists in the words of Martin Malia..." jamason 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not disscussing here your thesis, we are disscussing this Wikipedia article. Some things which are explained in your thesis are not explained in this article. As you started this article I was forced to comment publicly on it, before disscussing in private with you through e-mails. Also, I object for sentences like "There are no published statistics, but the belief that ...". If you publish your thesis, you sign it and is your right to express whatever beliefs you want. In Wikipedia there are other rules. As articles are anonimous, we can not include beliefs in them, only verifiable facts. See WP:V. This is why I proposed to take out the sentence with the beliefs, I hope you will agree with me. Regarding Romania, is not the subject of our debates here, we can disscuss in private this subject if you want. To keep shortly, I would say that imediately after 1989 Ion Iliescu had a pro-Communist orientation. He changed in time, like communist Vladimir Voronin seems to change in time. I hope you received meantime "Moldova" nr. 12/1990 and you can confirm that Caraman and Glebov (2 vicepresidents of Smirnov at early stage of PMR) were not only Communist party members but they had functions in the Communist Party local leadership (Caraman in Slobozia, in that interview he is criticising the fact that the party allows the usage of printing facilities by anti-communist press - anybody can understand what kind of "democracy" Caraman support; Glebov was party leader in Kotovsk and Taraclia - why is he cleansed from the history of PMR?). This confirmation is needed especially for Mauco, who seems to believe that Mărăcuţă was the only Communist leader supporting the PMR - interesting that Mărăcuţă is not mentioned in that number of "Moldova". I don't doubt that he had an important role, but perception about who was more or less important can be different. Also, perception of Leonid Ţurcan in Moldovan press, including the mentioned "Moldova" nr. 12/1990, was as a supporter of strikers, and in the debates in Moldovan Supreme Soviet regarding language laws in August 1989 he definitely supported OSTK demands. Please look at the changes I wanted to add in the article, which were reverted by Mauco. I believe all the changes were accurate, if you have other opinion please tell and explain.--MariusM 12:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were reverted because they changed the whole meaning of an important part of the article. In potentially disputed subjects, we generally try to avoid doing this without any prior discussion of the proposed changes. But of course, you already know this very well. - Mauco 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vspmr.com deals with who were elected to the first parliament. It does not tell you the composition of the general OSTK members. We have other sources for that, and Jamason has given several. Why do you say that "a reality check is necessary" if we have the sources? Do you have better sources that contradict the ones we work with? - Mauco 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellections were organised by OSTK and only OSTK supporters were elected, following the Soviet rule "is not important who vote, is important who count the votes". In fact, the deputies ellected in first PMR parliament are a good indication about the composition of the leadership of separatist movement. Vspmr.com is a better source than Jamason's sources because is exhaustive regarding parliament composition and is not altered by subjectivism or desire to paint a "political corect" picture of PMR leadership. In adition of vspmr.com, I mentioned the magazine "Moldova" nr. 12/1990 and also the well known Communist symbolic used by PMR at begining. Fact that actually started a new trend in PMR propaganda for international recognition which is claiming that PMR was anti-communist is not a reason for us to falsify the history. Wikipedia should not be the place for propaganda, we should stick at factual accuracy.--MariusM 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"is not important who vote, is important who count the votes" is from Stalin. This was what the OSTK was trying to get away from. They wanted to build a new model for interaction in society. - Mauco 20:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know is from Stalin. OSTK learned Stalin's policies.--MariusM 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. They were consciously aiming to get past all of that. You will see from their statements (or would be able to, if you ever learn Russian) that they had a very different vision for the future. Their fight may have been reactionary vis-a-vis the unification advocated by the Popular Front, but it had a new take on how to map out the future. - Mauco 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the immortal words of my president, "He misunderestimated me."

MariusM: You do not need to mischaracterize my work to make edit suggestions. "It seems that big majority of PMR leaders were Communists" is not new insight into the movement and it does not contradict my own writing. I am, of course, well aware that most of the OSTK leaders were Party members in the Soviet period. You don't become the manager of a factory if you are not a member of the party. But, does that necessarily mean that the OSTK was a communist front? If you said yes--and from the argument you make above, I would guess that you did--maybe you should look at the leadership of the Popular Front of Moldova. Perhaps you think that the Union of Writers was a persecuted group of dissidents ever since 1944? jamason 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered above at some of your comments. It seems we have an agreement that the majority of PMR leadership was composed by Communist Party members, we should include this in the article. Of course is not new insight, but for this article is new, Wikipedia readers will not understand this. We are disscussing here this article, not your thesis. It seems you are not aware of the tensions between Writers Union, which published "Literatura şi Arta" (leaders: Nicolae Dabija, Grigore Vieru) with a strategy to compromise with Communist party, and Moldovan Popular Front, which unfortunatelly didn't had in 1989 and 1990 a newspaper on its own (only later MPF managed to publish his own newspaper - "Ţara", which had also a Russian-language edition). Example: in December 1991 "Literatura şi Arta" group supported the election of Mircea Snegur, with a rethoric that those who are against Snegur are traitors of the national interests (Stalin would use "enemies of the people"), while Moldovan Popular Front opposed it and asked for boycotting the ellection (same position like OSTK). Snegur was ellected in 1991 with an Transnistrian-style 98%. Later "Literatura şi Arta" group developped the "Congress of Paysans and Intellectuals" and Democratic Forces Party, which finished being absorbed in current Social-Liberal Party or supporting Renaissance Party of Snegur (actually "Our Moldova Alliance"), while Moldovan Popular Front developped Cristian-Democratic Popular Party. For understanding of the split between MPF and "Literatura şi Arta" group I suggest you read the book of Iurie Roşca - "Ieşirea din întuneric", Chişinău 1995. Some relevance had also the second book of Iurie Roşca - "Exerciţii de luciditate", Chişinău, 2000. Relevant is also the collection of the newspaper "Ţara".--MariusM 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. When the shoe is on the other foot, everything changes. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If Wikipedia aims to become an encyclopedia, we need to be a bit more objective, please. - Mauco 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New comment of Mauco without any relation with what we were talking here.--MariusM 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, interesting. I always thought they're more or less the same nationalist group. What did they disagree on? --Illythr 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that because the "big majority of PMR leaders were Communists" then therefore "This new propagandistic trend of "anti-Communist" PMR is not sustained by the historical facts" is absurd. That is the question you should address in your comments. "I changed the wordings of the article which suggest that PMR activists were mainly anti-communists" is not supported by the evidence you have provided to date (which has consisted entirely of the fact that most OSTK activists had been communist party members). If you would like to include that most of the OSTK and PMSSR leaders were former communist party members in the article, that is fine. But if that's all you want to do, maybe in the future you will just submit a draft of the proposed addition so the rest of us know exactly what you are suggesting. jamason 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to make assumptions about what changes I wanted to made in the article. Look here and you see all my changes which were reverted by Mauco. I took out the part with "There are no published statistics..." (if there are not, we should not make assumptions) and Volkova's POV, I mentioned that OSTK activists mostly had Communist background (in fact, even a factory director is not only a simple member of Communist party; depending how big the factory is, the director is also a political leader), and also I added some biographical accurate data at Caraman (Communist background) and Volkova (born in Kamtcheatka). PMR movement was against Gorbatchev's policy of perestroika, a movement of hard-liners who wanted to keep Moscow's control in MSSR. This is not only my view, is the mainstream view of the studies about Transnistria. Revisionist views are O.K. for a study, but not for Wikipedia, at least those should not be the main view in the article. Actually, because you based your research only on Russian-language sources, you are like a judge who heared only one part in a dispute, he can not give the verdict before listening the other part.--MariusM 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just revert you because your edits significantly changed the meaning of a part of the original article. I did so, also, because you changed the text without any prior Talk page discussion. Instead of criticizing Jamason's work, let us focus on your own. He has asked you to please submit a draft of the proposed addition. - Mauco 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you reverted me just because you saw my name, Pavlov-type reaction. My draft proposal (not only adition but also some deletion) is exactly the edit I did [2]. I am waiting also to see Jamason's comments, also about the "creeping putsch" part which is disscussed bellow.--MariusM 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By thinking this, you are not following the most basic Wikipedia principle: Assume Good Faith. Your use of "creeping putsch" is a POV term which, in itself, is grounds for the move which I made of the section to this talk page, for further work and discussion. - Mauco 19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM, if this is the only edit you want to make, then why are you making the argument that the PMSSR must have been a pro-communist state because its founders had been communist party members on the discussion page? Don't waste my time and the time of other editors. jamason 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you agree with my edit, I will do it again. I believe Mauco wasted the time of all other editors reverting blindly my edit, without analizing what it is about. We have also to discuss further the "creeping putsch" part, but for the time being I will change in the article only the part which you agreed.--MariusM 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Creeping putsch"

MariusM added a new section without any prior talk or consensus. I have moved this section here for discussion -

===="Creeping putch" winter 1991/1992====

With tacit support on Russian 14th Army, in the winter of 1991/1992 a "creeping putch" was done to oust Moldovans in rural areas, which remained largelly loyal to central government in Chişinău.

His source for this is an International Crisis Group backgrounder which does not give any further details or sources. Do we have any further information on this? Does ICG? If so, please add what this "creeping putsch" was about. How many people were involved, what was the purpose, did it work or not, what is meant by "tacit support", and so on. It is very interesting and I think that we need to include this. But not on this basis of a one-liner which has no futher references and is not supported elsewhere. This is a call for more research and for help in developing the creeping putsch section. - Mauco 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to include it. An other source Marius Vahl and Michael Emerson: Paramilitary ‘worker’s attachments’ had been created on the left bank from late 1990, and were the core of the Transnistrian ‘Republican Guard’ which was established in 1991. These were aided by Cossack volunteers, whose support later became an important part of the power-base of the Transnistrian authorities. Towards the end of 1991, the so-called ‘creeping putch’ of gradually taking control over public institutions such as municipal and local administrative buildings, police stations, schools, newspapers and radio stations in towns and villages on the left bank was stepped up. Wanting to avoid violence and escalation, and fearing that the untrained and ill-equipped Moldovan forces would be unable to match the superior Transnistrian forces, Chisinau did at first not interfere with force. On 13 December, however, the Moldovan police returned fire for the first time while defending the regional government building in Dubasari.--MariusM 19:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH BETTER! But shouldn't it be "creeping putsch" (correct spelling)? I would also like to hear what Jamason thinks of how we can write this. The "tacit support" of the Russians sounds, to me, like a gratuious comment on the part of ICG. What should the Russians have done, exactly? They stood back. That was all that they could do, in the circumstances. - Mauco 19:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not arming separatists, not taking part in battles later in 1992, I guess.--MariusM 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they gave arms to the pro-independence Transnistrians or took part in battles to support them, then we can not describe that as tacit support. This is active support. The "creeping putsch" period refers to something earlier. By the way, in the context of Transnistria, the phrase was invented by Vladimir Socor. Jamason can no doubt help us find a more academic way to describe the same events, since "putsch" is POV. - Mauco 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other source Country watch Moldova/Transnistria: "Trans-Dniestrian paramilitary forces and militias soon after began a “creeping putsch” in which they attacked several Moldovan police stations in Trans-Dniestr and tried to overthrow local authorities in the mainly ethnic-Moldovan rural areas, whose loyalty belonged to the Moldovan government. The Soviet 14th Army, already stationed in Trans-Dniestr and composed of mainly ethnic Russian natives from the region, played a critical role in supporting Trans-Dniestrn forces during the “creping putsch.”--MariusM 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is actually based in a paper which Socor wrote. It is not entirely supported by the facts. - Mauco 19:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And an other one Wim van Meurs - Moldova ante portas: "In a "creeping putsch" in the first half of 1992, the communist nomenclature led by "President" Igor Smirnov established itself on the entire left bank and drove the central authorities out with the help of the Russian 14th Army".--MariusM 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they all use Vladimir Socor's RFE/RL paper as their background. Even his phrase. - Mauco 19:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socor was "peer-reviewed".--MariusM 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Mauco. I heard about Socor's work and I looked for it, but was not able to find it on the net. Do you know a link to it? I founded only a lot of other studies quoting Socor.--MariusM 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other source with some details about Russian involvement Ciubotaru - NATO fellowship programme - Moldovan security concerns: The “Dniester Republic” established a “Directorate for Defense and Security”, headed by Lt-GenGennadiy Yakovlev, the commander of the 14 Army, in December 1991. 14 Army continues to providetraining and weapons to the “Dniester” Guard and supports their continuing takeover of the left bankadministrative bodies and their establishment of a bridgehead in Bendery on the right bank. The Sovietmilitary high command is slow to react, and slower still to discipline and condemn. Yakovlev’s support of the “creeping putsch” is said to be “his own business”, and Moldovans are cautioned to “very carefully distinguish between the Soviet Army and people merely dressed in the uniform of the Soviet Army and carrying weapons”. Cossaks irregulars arrive in Tiraspol (“capital city of PMR”) to protect “the Slavs”.--MariusM 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other source Paul Benton - Ravishing light: "Soviet hard-liners in Trans-Dniestria began what has been called a “creeping putsch” of militia violence that eventually escalated into ethnic war by the spring of 1992 (...) significant was the ideological component for many extremely conservative Russians wistful for the glory days of communism, who portrayed the Trans-Dniestrian breakaway republic as the “last bastion of healthy communist order…as a heroic community of besieged ethnic brethren, or both.” (13) Indeed, in a newspaper interview published in May 1992, one General Makashov called on Moscow to defend ethnic Russians in the region, saying 'If we are defeated here, we'll be defeated everywhere in the borderlands adjacent to great Russia.'"--MariusM 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addition

I am not opposed to the reintroduction of this section. Here is what I think:

The title should include a footnote to one of the sources above so that the potentially POV phrasing is attributed to some analyst (which is implied in the quotes). E.g.:===="Creeping putsch" winter 1991/1992^[1]====
I would like to suggest changing the wording of the section since no one can provide statistics on whether or not Moldovans "remained largelly loyal to central government in Chişinău." I would also point out that this was not done only in rural areas.
- How about: Once deputies to local soviets in Transnistria, (particularly Tiraspol, Bendery and Rybnitsa) had established the PMSSR they began a campaign to oust institutions and individuals sympathetic to Moldovan territorial integrity. Large numbers from the Transnistrian civil service, including the police, public prosecutors' offices and the courts remained loyal to the government in Chisinau and these were targeted particularly energetically. As the separatists were the beneficiaries of weapons provided by sympathetic 14th Army personnel they were thus increasingly better armed than then pro-Moldovan police they were displacing.
This would need a footnote with examples. These are readily found in the book Razboiul de pe Nistru by Muntean and Ciubotaru. Multiple examples could be used, but here is one of the arrest of a public prosecutor on page 299 (but I'm open to suggestions):"In data de 8 decembrie 1991, gardistii l-au arestat pe procurorul-sef al orasului Tighina, L. Toderas, l-au dus si interogat la Statul Major al OSTK."^[2]
Either I or someone else could find more examples if needed, but I would like someone who speaks Romanian to translate them. If I do it, the translations might not be exact. jamason 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamason, I disagree. First of all, creeping putsch can not be the title. Although not overt, it evokes POV. And if we go back in the literature, we find that the phrase was invented by Socor. Everyone who has used it ever since has referenced to him. A googlecheck is enough to tell us this.

Next, what we are dealing with are events which are also covered in History of Transnistria and War of Transnistria. In some cases, with more detail than here. So a "See also" with some wikilinks will do a lot.

I will stress this same point some more. This article is relatively narrow. It covers only the short-lived Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. It does not cover history of Transnistria in general, or the war of Transnistria, or even a broader set of events leading up to the war. We already have other articles for that.

But, to the extent that SOME of these "putsch" events have a direct bearing on the PMSSR, mention them here. Then use Wikilinks and add sentences like "for more information, see main article: xyz"

Please do not accuse me of censorship, but feel free to accuse me of wanting to enforce some content standards on information which is best covered in detail (and to some extent is already covered) elsewhere on Wikipedia. - Mauco 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little too much redundancy with the existing section "consolidation and collapse." How about this:

The paragraph of the existing section "consolidation and collapse" will read:
- "Once the PMSSR had been created, the incipient government in Tiraspol fought an increasingly violent battle for sovereignty with the Moldovan government in Chisinau. This process has been famously characterized by analyst of the conflict as a "creeping putsch" on the part of the separatist leadership." [ref: See: Vladimir Socor, "Creeping Putsch in Eastern Moldova", RFE/RL Research Report, 17 January 1992.]
To the second paragraph will be added:
- "Large numbers from the Transnistrian civil service, including the police, public prosecutors' offices and the courts remained loyal to the government in Chisinau and these were targeted particularly energetically."
To this sentence will be attached the example I mention above or more/different examples proposed by other editors (provided they take place within the period of September 1990-December 1991) in footnote.
We can add "see also" with links to any relevant articles. jamason 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ XXX
^ Anatolie Muntean and Nicolae Ciubotaru, Românii de la Est--Razboiul de pe Nistru--(1990-1992) (Bucuresti: Ager-Economistul, 2004), 299.

Russian Army involvement

Institute for National Strategic Studies: William C. Bodie - Moscow's near abroad: East of the Dniester, where one quarter of the population is Russian, a separatist cabal of old-line Russian Communists holds sway with the help of the remnants of the 14th Russian Army. 4° Also in this mix are roughly 600,000 Ukrainians -- yet another of Stalin's numerous cartographic be- quests--and 800,000 ethnic Romanians who fear the tender mercies of a Russian force that sports slogans such as "Death to Romanians" on its armored vehicles. What distinguishes this conflict is the remarkable degree of political involvement by the Russian military commander, General Aleksandr Lebed, and the proximity of Russia and Ukraine. Lebed, who has called Moldova a "fascist" state and continued to make political speeches ignoring a ban on such statements by Russian officers, fancies himself the guarantor of the self-styled Dniester Republic, itself a kind of redoubt for paleo-Communists in the former USSR. Former KGB officers and ex-Soviet special forces (OMON) officers have been identified as serving in the "Dniester Republic" security services. However, even putative Russian liberals such as Yeltsin adviser Sergei Stankevich support the actions of the 14th Army as protecting legitimate Russian interests.. BTW, 600000 Ukrainians were in the entire Republic of Moldova, not only in Transnistria.--MariusM 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

800000 ethnic Romanians? That's about 1.3 of the entire population of Transnistria and much less than Moldovan/Romanian population of Moldova. Overall, that's an interesting...text. I see that propaganda is not limited to Transnistria and Moldova... --Illythr 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did draw attention that the text is not accurate regarding numbers, is not very clear about which territorry is speaking when is giving the numbers of ethnic groups. However, is accurate regarding Lebed's comments and about the presence of OMON and former KGB officers serving in Dniester Republic security services.--MariusM 13:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the text is not accurate regarding something as basic as numbers, don't use it for anything else either. Find better sources if you want to push for the inclusion of a biased edit. - Mauco 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if carefully reworded, the passage may find its place in the article, but it'll be a near total conversion... --Illythr 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan Popular Front - relation with Communist Party

I open this new section as result of disscussions above, regarding the differences between MPF and "Literatura si Arta" group. While both groups were in favour of thew national awakening of Moldovans, there was a significant difference in the relation with Communist party. "Literatura si Arta" favoured a more carefull aproach and tried to convince Communist party leaders to accept the ideas of Moldovan national awakening movement. MPF was overtly anticommunist, however, it lack an own newspaper in 1989 (I don't remember exact date when they started their own newspaper, I will come later with data if I would find). From official site of Christian-Democratic Party of Moldova [3]: "30 Iunie-1 Iulie 1990. În sala Palatului Octombrie isi desfasoara lucrarile cel de-al II –lea Congres al FPM care adopta un program anticomunist si antisovietic, militind pentru: scoaterea Partidului Comunist in afara legii, retragerea trupelor sovietice de ocupatie si desfiintarea KGB-ului, proclamarea independentei Republicii Moldova fata de URSS, admiterea ei in cadrul structurilor ONU si in alte organisme internationale, iesirea Bisericii Nationale de sub tutela Patriarhiei Ruse, repunerea in drepturi a etnonimului "popor romin" si a glotonimului "limba romina". Printr-o prevedere statutara (punctul 3.2.), Congresul interzice aderarea membrilor Partidului Comunist la Frontul Popular". Translation: 30 June - 1 July 1990 (this was after March 1990 elections), the Second Congress of MPF adopted a new political program which is asking: outlying Communist party, Soviet Army go home, dissolution of KGB (as consequence many KGB agents were worried about their future and supported Transnistrian separatism, even some KGB agents of Moldovan origin or from Basarabia, which are used now in Wikipedia as examples of Moldovans supporting Transnistrian separatism), independence of Moldova. Point 3.2. of the statute forbid to Communist party member to become members of MPF. Each Communist Party member needed to make a choice - if he wanted to remain member of MPF he needed to resign from Communist Party.--MariusM 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MPF and "Literatura si Arta"

Illythr expressed interest about early differences between MPF and "Literatura si Arta" about which he seems not being aware, even if he lives in Kishinev (but he read Romanian with difficulty, I guess he is not ussually reading Romanian-language press). For him and others interested, probabily many Russians from Kishinev used to consider MPF and Writers Union as being the same political force: Quote from Iurie Roşca - "Ieşirea din întuneric", Chişinău 1995, page 119, the article "Amicii FPCD şi marea politică" reprinted from "Ţara" 6 September 1994, about the journalist Nicolae Negru: "That N. Negru was a dedicated fighter against MPF even from 1990 any reader of "Literatura şi Arta" is knowing. (...) We quote only some of "not-laudative" observations of this feared journalist: (...) "is the time to take out from the political arena of the Republic the dead body of Popular Front". I add that Nicolae Negru is still busy taking out from the political arena of Moldova the dead body of Popular Front (actually Christian-Democratic Popular Party), now as a journalist at "Jurnal de Chişinău". Main issue is that in early 90's "Literatura şi Arta" did publish articles considering MPF a "dead body". Unfortunately, is not mentioned exactly which number of "Literatura şi Arta" those quotes are, and I don't have the collection of 1990. Not only with Negru did Roşca polemize, but also with Nicolae Dabija or Grigore Vieru.--MariusM 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, After Rosca and his party had "suddenly" sided with PCRM, there's no need to "kill" them. Still, what did they disagree on? Except for the above, that is. --Illythr 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon

There are other comments about this article I will make, but let's deal with the issues we have now on plate and than move forward.--MariusM 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

Given the lack of activity on this page in the last week, it seems that we might be approaching a stable, more or less accepted version.
Since its creation, three proposed changes have been discussed and made:

[4] Adjustment in the characterization of the results of the elections of 1990 (specifically mentioning the victories of non- and anti-OSTK candidates)
[5] adjustment in the reported numbers involved in the strikes
[6] making explicit the large number of Communist Party members in the leadership of the PMSSR.

And, one change could be made (at least based on the discussion above) with the agreement of the user on whose initiative the edit was originally discussed (and the participation of any interested users who have not yet expressed an opinion).

[7] introduction of the phrase, "creeping putsch," with attribution to the author that coined the term, together with example(s) of what this term entails taken from the period September 1990-December 1991.

If this is not a more or less acceptable version (i.e. still needs the NPOV tag) let's settle the issues and finish the article. jamason 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you can safely go ahead and take out the NPOV tag at this point in time. The fact that "creeping putsch" is currently lacking is not in itself justification for the tag, since NPOV refers to the actual, current content that is in the version of the article NOW and can never relate to anything that could be added into it at a later date. - Mauco 03:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should add the creeping putsch part. I don't have right now the time to work on it, but jamason proposal sounds good. I don't have Socor's study, I know it was considered by many as an important study but it seems is not on the internet. We can also add some events which we are already discussing on War of Transnistria article. Other concerns I have:

Key participants. I remember from jamason's study that Bolshakov was a key participant, later erased from official history of PMR. This is in line with some Romanian-language sources which are mentioning Bolshakov. We should not follow official history of PMR in Wikipedia, we should independently establish the list of key participants. Bolshakov is one of them. In Moldova nr. 12/1990, Glebov is mentioned as vice-president at early stage, and this is confirmed by vspmr.com. I'm not sure if he really deserve the title of key participant, probabily jamason knows better, I want just to draw attention at the danger to accept as key participant or "founding father" only what actual PMR propaganda tells. We should rely mainly on sources from 1989-1991 for this issue.
Referendum results. We are mentioning in details in a footnote all referendum results for PMR. In Jamason's study a doubt about corectness of referendums is mentioned, but not here, which is misleading in my point. In fact, only few time before some referendums with around 97% for PMR, pro-PMR activists were unable to win elections in Grigoriopol, Dubasari and Slobozia rayons, such a dramatic swift in political prefference of inhabitants is raising doubts, as well as the Soviet-style +95% results. We should rephrase the footnote, in something like: "In many referendums held all over Transnistria, Soviet-style results were anounced with people aproving PMR with over 97%. Corectness of those results is debatable".--MariusM 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, the characterization "Soviet-style" is POV slur and not worthy of an encyclopedia. The exact same "Soviet-style" results were present in Ukraine's December 1991 independence referendum. I don't hear anyone sowing doubts about those. - Mauco 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's also the Moldovan independence referendum. 95.4% of Moldovans voted "Yes." There was a lot of criticism about the undemocratic nature of this referendum, but it mostly centered on the phrasing of the question. No one used the word "Soviet-style" to describe its results. It was held in 1994. Supposedly a more democratic time, says common wisdom, than 1990 (Transnistria) or 1991 (Ukraine). - Mauco 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unional factories and local factories

Factories in MSSR were divided in Unional factories (the bigger ones), which were directly subordinated to the unional government from Moscow, and local factories, which were subordinated to government of Kishinev. I wonder if the subordination of the factories played a role in the strike movement, my guess is that strike movement was widespread mainly in the factories subordinated to the central government from Moscow. I am not aware about any scientific study on this subject, if there is any we should check it, if there is not, is worth to be done.--MariusM 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an interesting study. I do know that Igor Smirnov's factory, "Elektromash," was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Heavy Industry (you probably noticed this too on a website you cite above [8]), but I have never seen anything about other Transnsitrian factories. If you ever find any stats, I would be interested to see them. jamason 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source who might be able to help with finding the information. His name is Mihail Georgiev Kichev. In Soviet times, he was a "red director" of ZAE – Plovdiv, in Bulgaria. His factory worked closely with Electromash in Tiraspol, at the same time that Igor Smirnov was director of Electromash. The two men had a strong business relationship and were also close personal friends. What would you like me to ask him? - Mauco 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best way of making this study is not asking a Smirnov friend but: (i)find a list of factories which entered in strike; (ii) find a list of Moldovan factories which in 1989 had an Unional subordination and (iii)compare the two lists.--MariusM 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In that case, I won't ask him, and I can not help. - Mauco 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Take Two

Regarding the “creeping putsch”: I would add what I suggested above with the example from Muntean and Ciubotaru. MariusM (or other interested users) can add more examples at his convenience.
I don’t necessarily have anything against adding Bol’shakov to the “Key Participants” section. He played a more important role in the strike movement than he did in the creation of the PMSSR, but the same could be said of Manoilov and Zalozhnikov, both of whom I did include. Glebov seems less important to me. He was an agronomist that moved from Chisinau to Tiraspol in 1990 and later headed the PMR Ministry of Agriculture. I would rather keep the list more exclusive.
I suggest just removing the last two sentences of the footnote on referenda altogether. They are unnecessary for the article—this is by no means a complete list, just a few examples—and I would rather get rid of them than include an un-attributed disclaimer.
- This would taken out: “Results were uncanny in their near identity in each election. 97% “for” in the city of Dubossary, 97.2% in Slobodzei raion, 97.5% in Suklei, 98% in Blizhnii Khutor, 98.1% Pervomaisk, 98.6% in Parkany, 98.6% in Gysk, 98.6% in the Rybnitsa raion and so forth. Indeed, the lowest showing for the question of independence was in the original referendum in Rybnitsa held the previous year.”

Is this generally acceptable? Can we proceed from here without the NPOV tag? jamason 21:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No use of "putsch" anywhere is acceptable. When Socor, whom I assume we both know, wrote this for RFE/RL in January 1992, he deliberately picked the word to taint the Transnistrian independence leaders. The memory of the "putschists" of Moscow was still fresh in everyone's mind. Socor used guilt by association, but the association was a fabrication. This was even admitted by Valeriu Muravski, Prime Minister of Moldova at the time. I will be glad to provide sources. In the same report, Socor characterized Transnistria as a stronghold of communism (for the same reasons). The truth is that Transnistria moved toward a market economy no less quickly than Moldova. - Mauco 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this:

The section "consolidation and collapse" would keep its current name. Rather than adding a sentence which includes the words "creeping putsch," we simply add Vladimir Socor as a reference to the existing sentence. This would look like so:
- "Once the PMSSR had been created, the incipient government in Tiraspol fought an increasingly violent ~~battle~~ struggle for sovereignty with the Moldovan government in Chisinau." [ref: See: Vladimir Socor, "Creeping Putsch in Eastern Moldova", RFE/RL Research Report, 17 January 1992.]
To the second paragraph will still be added the sentence I outline above and include one or more examples of attacks on pro-Moldovan civil servants.

Acceptable? jamason 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But is "battle" the right word? If it is, I can live with it. It just conjures up images of cannons, smoke, gunpowder and explosions. - Mauco 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? I like "battle" well enough (or maybe "conflict"), but I don't mind changing it if we can think of something better. jamason 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Struggle" or "conflict", your choice. - Mauco 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. I like "struggle," too. I'll wait to see if MariusM has any comments and then make the change. jamason 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change of "battle" with "struggle" is O.K. Regarding the usage of "creeping putsch", I think jamason's original proposal was O.K., as it clearly indicated that this expression was used by Socor and indeed Socor's study is widely reffered by others. Is not an inappropiate expression as PMR leadership supported the coup and at least one coup leader, A. Lukianov, supported PMR. The putchists in Moscow saw the danger of desintegration of Soviet Union and same concerns had PMR leadership. Even later, some Russian political leaders like Viktor Alksnis told that "Transnistria is the place from where the restoration of Soviet Union will begin" (John Mackinlay and Peter Cross (editors), Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, United Nations University Press, 2003, ISBN 92-808-1079-0 p. 137). This is usefull to understand the political game behind Transnistria. Alksniss also proposed the dismissal of Gorbatchev (I believe Alksniss was the first to make such proposal). Is not my opinion, is a wide opinion that Socor's caracterization "creeping putsch" was apropiate.--MariusM 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did the PMR leadership support the unsuccessful coup attempt of August 19, 1991, in Moscow? Those who were arrested had done nothing to support the coup. According to Valeriu Muravski, Prime Minister of Moldova, the support of the leaders of Pridnestrovie for the coup supposedly consisted of having sent congratulary telegrams. They did not provide any material assistance to the putschists by sending weapons or other forms of support. And by merely sending telegrams, they violated no existing law. - Mauco 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the comments from Alknis: Any extremists can of course say whatever he wants. This does not mean that restoration of the Soviet Union is (or was) the official state policy of Transnistria. There are plenty of crazies in the U.S. who mouth off every chance they are given. The White House listens to some of them, some of the time, but not to all of them all the time. - Mauco 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco, you are using again straw man argument. I didn't tell and didn't try to include in the article a statement regarding suplying weapons to putschists in Moscow. Support can be moral, like a telegram to help putschist to show that Soviet people support the coup. They surely violated the Soviet law by founding PMSSR. After this violation, the telegam is only a small thing. Regarding Alsniss, he is one of the source quoted in Wikipedia article Transnistrian referendum, 2006 as a witness that Transnistrian referendum meet democratic standards. When I tried to include in that article a sentence regarding the political views of Alksniss you reverted me [9]. I am glad to see that you agree Alksniss is an extremist, do you agree also to explain this at Wikipedia readers in the article where Alksniss is quoted as a reliable source to prove democracy of Transnistria? My opinion is that Putin is listening at people like Alksniss a lot of the time.--MariusM 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a straw man argument. I asked you how they supported the coup. Fact: All they did was to send a telegram. Remember that the pretext for their arrest was alleged support of the coup. They most certainly did not get arrested for declaring independence. - Mauco 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"creeping putsch" negotiations

Sorry to be so goal oriented lately (I usually quite enjoy our digressions. And please keep going around this proposal - if that happens, I can just section it off again). Mauco, would you be satisfied if instead of saying "famously characterized" by Socor, we wrote "pejoratively characterized"? This would make it very clear that Socor's work explicitly censures one side of the conflict and is not an attempt at what we in the wikiworld would describe as neutrality. (Which isn't a criticism of his work which I dislike for other reasons. It took me time to grow accustomed to the NPOV style of wikipedia since all of my academic writting is necessarily thesis-driven.) jamason 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about "characterized"? Not famously, not pejoratively. We report Socor's caracterization without labeling it.--MariusM 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mauco is going to have the same problem with that as he did "famously." Namely, that "creeping putsch" is used in the body of the article. jamason 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The word "putsch" or "creeping putsch" is an invention by Socor, in order to sensationalize what was going on in Transnistria at the time and piggy-backing it on an event which was fresh in everyone's mind in January of 1992. Surely we can write the encyclopedia with a better choice of words. Just portray the events and don't quote Socor's phrasing (unless the PHRASE itself is a notable part of history. Which we know that it isn't.) So, please stick to the topic: Report what happened in and around the time of the war. - Mauco 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we left Socor as a footnote, but changed the sentence I suggested above to make it more explicit that pro-Moldovan civil servants were often subject to violence? How about: "Many Transnistrian civil service, including the police, employees of the public prosecutor's, and employees of the court system remained loyal to the government in Chisinau. These were often the targets of violence and intimidation as Transnistrian authorities attempted to take control of loyalist governmental institutions." To this we could add one or more examples. Comments? jamason 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work for MariusM? I am afraid of giving it the kiss of death, if you get my drift... - Mauco 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of activity for the past three days, I'm going to assume that this is OK and make the edit. jamason 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

http://priznanie.tiras.ru/page.php?18 gives the date of the change of the name of PMSSR to PMR as 5 November 1990 ("Временный Верховный Совет ПМССР переименовывает самопровозглашённое государство в Приднестровскую Молдавскую Республику (ПМР)"). Just two months and three days after the 2 Sept declaration. - Mauco 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've never seen the actual resolution and I'm surprised that it's listed as happening so early. Elsewhere (such as the Верховный Совет website cited above [10]) "PMSSR" is clearly used after that, but then inconsistently and interchangeably with PMR (or at least if there is pattern, I missed it). jamason 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more comfortable if we could find a second source for the Nov 5 date. I can easily see it happening in 1991, but in late 1990 there were still many (at least in Transnistria) who thought that the Soviet Union would survive. - Mauco 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I can also easily see how, by November 5, the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet could have known that they would not be admitted as an SSR or even ASSR. Maybe this was not clear to the population at the time, but the leaders surely knew. Vadim Bakatin, Soviet Minister of Internal Affairs, had refused to grant the request of the Transnistrian authorities to create a new post of Minister of Internal Affairs for the PMSSR. The Soviet Union Ministry of Internal Affairs considered the 2 September 1990 declaration of PMSSR to be anti-constitutional. In view of this, all-out independence, or at least a name change to prepare for it, would have been the next logical step for them to take, especially since this was the step taken by Moldova, too. - Mauco 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to PMSSR

The new paragraph seems largely redundant to me.

Sentences one & two: "While, as shown from election results of 1990, in the cities pro-PMSSR feelings prevailed, this was not the case in rural areas of Transnistria. Rayonal soviets of Dubăsari, Slobozia and Grigoriopol didn't support separatism."

This has little new information. There is this from above it (regarding electoral victories for separatists in Transnistrian cities): "This was not the case in several of the other raion soviets. The new leadership of the Grigoriopol raion soviet did not support the separatist movement[12] and the new Dubossary and Slobozia raion soviets actively supported the government in Chişinău."
The only thing added is that the raions in question represented rural constituencies. Plus the original is more precise and has a footnote.

Sentences five & six: "Many governamental institutions - the police, public prosecutors, judges, remained loyal to Moldovan government. The procesus of PMSSR taking control over state institutions, took more than one year, and it was finished after the War of Transnistria."

This has no new information. See below: "Many Transnistrian civil servants, including the police, employees of the public prosecutor's, and employees of the court system remained loyal to the government in Chisinau. These were often the targets of violence and intimidation as Transnistrian authorities attempted to take control of loyalist governmental institutions.[20]" [...] "Throughout the first half of 1992 the violence continued to escalate and culminated in a short, but bloody, war in late June 1992."
Again, the addition is less precise and has no citation.

Sentence three is good.
Sentence four: "In 17 September the Moldovan government held its meeting in Dubăsari, in the building of rayonal soviet which was loyal to the central authorities from Chişinău."

It seems like the section is really talking about opposition by actors within Transnistria. In that case this is irrelevant. If the section really was intended to include opposition to the PMSSR by the authorities in Chisinau, then why just this one, ambiguous example? Surely we can find better examples of opposition on the part of Chisinau. It also needs a footnote.
I suggest we yank the redundant material and add specific examples of Transnistrian opposition to the PMSSR. Ilie Ilascu's September 1990 "Resolution No.6" and that kind of stuff. jamason 08:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right telling that some info is repeated. I believe is good to have a separate paragraph with "Opposition to PMSSR" and take out from the other paragraphs what exist in this new paragraph (keeping all references). The 4th sentence is a symbolic act of Moldovan government after 2 weeks of PMSSR proclamation, to show it had control over region (I read somewhere, but I need to find exactly where, that Druc had even the idea to move the capital of Moldova from Chişinău to Dubăsari). However, with the fact that rayonal soviet of Dubăsari provided the building for Moldovan government is a specific example of resistence against PMSSR within Transnistria. We can further expand this section.--MariusM 10:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the article a little but I kept all of the information you added. I will add more examples of opposition when I have some more time. jamason 15:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Smirnov or Maracuta

At the bottom Igor Smirnov is listed as a leader in that section. They say he was Chair of Supreme Soviet yet they state Maracura was chair also and also provisional chair. Which is it? What was the top office in the PMSSR and who heald it? and were its powers transfered to the PMR Presidency? Vital Component 6:16 PM EST 3/16/07

According to a biography written by one of Igor Smirnov's close associates, Anna Volkova, [11] Smirnov was elected Chairman of the Provisional Supreme Soviet of the PMSSR upon its creation in September 1990. In November 1990 there were elections to the PMSSR Supreme Soviet and at its first session (November 27) Igor Smirnov was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the PMSSR. However, at the second session soon after, the deputies created a new post, the Chairman of the Republic, and elected Smirnov. Smirnov served as Chairman of the Republic of the PMSSR until he was elected President of the PMR in December 1991. This means that Igor Smirnov has been the chief executive of the Dniester state since its creation. After Smirnov vacated the chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet, it was filled by a assistant until Maracuta was elected to the position in January 1991. I will correct this article which contains mistakes. Thanks for pointing these out. jamason 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic led that state from the time of its creation until the government was reorganized in late 1991."

First that article on the PMSSR presidency says he was president then another supreme soviet. which is it?its also stating that was the power possetion. Vital Component

Fair use rationale for Image:SovMoldSept6,1989.JPG

Image:SovMoldSept6,1989.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 08:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sovetskaia Moldaviia 2-9-89.JPG

Image:Sovetskaia Moldaviia 2-9-89.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 08:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

soviet apparatus vs. soviet industrial workers

I believe the latter is a better description for the men listed in that section of the article. While these categories are admittedly fuzzy, I don't see any members of the Soviet apparatus (if this is being seen as distinct from the Communist Party apparatus) and I do see several factory workers (e.g. Zalozhkov, Ryliakov, and Emel'ianov). jamason (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I trust you know better than me. Dc76\^talk 03:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] XXX

[2] Anatolie Muntean and Nicolae Ciubotaru, Românii de la Est--Razboiul de pe Nistru--(1990-1992) (Bucuresti: Ager-Economistul, 2004), 299.

[1]

[2]