Talk:Transnistria/Archive 19

It's Pridnestrovie NOT Transnistria

How thick can you people be? "Transnistria" is widely used by foreigners to describe the country, but it is an incorrect term, it is not used locally and it should be avoided.

Here, take it from the horses mouth: http://pridnestrovie.net/name.html

Either do the article right or DON'T do it at all.

-G

"TRANSNISTRIA was an artificial name used by Romanian fascists and Nazi Germany for the largest killing field in the Holocaust. Never a real name, it is not in use locally."

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.138.79 (talk) 06:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may be artificial, but it's the name most people outside are using to identify it. Most peoples/nations have external names different than what they are using inside (e.g. Hungary's internal name is Magyarország, China's is Jhongguó, as written in latin script) Transnistria is easier to pronounce by non-russian speakers, imagine if you would have to call Hungary or China by its internal name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeru (talk • contribs) 13:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria is the name most used in current scholarship on the topic. This was extensively debated at the founding of the article when information such as what you cite was available and included in the process. (In fact agreed to by people representing PMR interests who were later banned for their abuses.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tighina military cemetery (again)

I copied it b/c I could not see it up, I hope you won't miind.:Dc76 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Say, does "militieni inarmate" really mean "armed forces", that is, something closer to a regular army, or is it more like a "police force"? --Illythr 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Solved :Dc76 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"the article in ZIUA says so in " ", i.e. citation"

We are not obliged to quote the whole text as long as the result retains the information we want to convey.

see my commented out explaination:Dc76 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"citation; of course we are not obliged to site everything, but this part is imho important, since if you cut, you have to cut in the original text, not in the translation, b/c in the translation the order of the words is rearrnged, and no part of the romanian text says without the last part, in fact the cut changes the meaning of the original formulation, imho"

Please put your comments here, not in the mainspace.

The information we want to add is that the Romanian government had offered to help with the process, if it is done properly and with respect to the fallen. That is all. I do not see any meaning lost in this translation. --Illythr 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"as of yet" means there are plans to relocate. there are no such plans, and the bones have been spread all over the place (according the sourses)"

"...были подняты все имеющиеся в Бендерах и республике архивные документы для идентификации останков на тех кладбищах, откуда будут производиться перезахоронения..." (...on those cemeteries, from which relocations will be conducted...)

"relocations will be conducted" ? the graves have already been leveled. What will happen in the future is plan, declaration, what happened in the past is fact. Let's see it happen before calling it fact. Until then it is a declaration to one outlet by one person who is not known for an exemplary record of fulfilling his word.:Dc76 03:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put that into the article, did I? I merely stated the fact, that no relocation had currently taken place. We can add this as well, if you want, saying that the the Tr authorities claimed to relocate the bones. --Illythr 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"there are no "fallen Solders" in that part of the cemetery, they are in the other part, and they do have monument"

tv-pmr.com,Tiras.ru, Olvia (all in Russian) Actually, I was wrong as well, the monument is in fact a cross and a Christian Orthodox chapel dedicated to all the fallen soldiers, mostly Russian but Tr officials say that they will try to include the names of all identified soldiers buried there. The reconstruction is scheduled to complete by 2008. --Illythr 01:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

the cross was put up at the end of the cemetery that is called Borisov. that is indeed to fallen solders, most of whom are not Soviet but Russian, Swedish, and also many civilians from the city, only few are Soviet. At the other end, that is called Dragalina, nothing was put up, but bones scattered all over the place.

Actually, the part about bones scattered seems to come from some anonymous source and is not supported by the photos available (or did I miss some?). Considering that Gandul had decided to include this unverified info, I think it's there for the scare effect. --Illythr 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

from the first source: "но и погибших в годы Великой Отечественной войны солдат вермахта и фашистской Румынии." What fascist Romania?! The legionary movement was destroyed in January 1941. It was Antonescu dictatorship, and it was a bad and wrong regime. It did a lot of bad things, like the Petain regime in France. It was pro-german, it persecuted Jews, but had not fascist ideology. Anyway, the point is the source distortions the reality and calls solders who fought and died for a city in their own country fascist. this is hypocrisy.

Soviet sources like to call all Axis allies "fascist". Antonescu's rule seems to satisfy most, if not all points listed in the Fascism article, but this is irrelevant to the developments around the cemetery. If you'd like to discuss this further, I suggest moving to another talk page. --Illythr 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

from the third sourse: "Здесь же захоронены солдаты и офицеры румынских оккупационных войск, которые находились здесь в период 1941-1944 годов. «Мы идем по пути восстановления их могил, установления их имен и численности, - сказал Вадим Красносельский. - Мы не смотрим, что это были оккупационные войска, солдаты выполняли свой долг, многие из них вероятно даже не знали, за что воюют. Люди погибли и они имеют право, чтобы их имена были увековечены на этом мемориале»." Again, what "occupation troops", occupied was Transnistria (WWII), not Tighina. They knew very well what they fought for, many there were officers. The source is highly POV by calling such things. Imagine someone calling Kiev's conquest in 1943 occupation not liberation, when all the world knows that Germany occupied it in 1941, not the Soviets. The Soviets liberated it in 1943. The same here, the conquest in July 1941 of the city is a re-taking, an end of occupation (who wants can call it liberation), since all the world knows that Tighina was occupied by the Soviets in 1940. That does not mean that what Romania did east of the Dniester after taking a month break was not invasion and occupation - it was. Just as in Tighina it was liberation.

The official Soviet and (AFAIK) Russian POV is that Bessarabia was under illegal Romanian occupation since 1918. But we have another article to discuss this. ;-) --Illythr 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet POV was also that they liberated the Baltics in 1940. And current Putin's POV is just sentimentalism, they won't think the same 10 years from now, when oil revenue will go down. Anyway, be it called whatever, rolling with buldosers over graves I would consider blasphemy even if Hitler or Lenin are buried there. That's what distinguishes humans from sadists, imo.:Dc76 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

anyway, let's leave the interpretation aside, and separate clearly facts from declarations of future intentions.:Dc76 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And there you go adding "Transnistrian authorities plan to build a monument to Soviet solders". ;-) I wonder where Ziua has got that info - I couldn't find a mention of the Soviet monument in any of the ru ua or trn sources I read. --Illythr 10:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to erase all comments from that section of the article. sorry about putting them in the first place. Of course, I'm absolutely open to discussion of all aspects. In fact, I am pritty sure we can easily find an acceptable formulation.:Dc76 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

the convention is clearly broken by going over bones with buldosers. Responsibility for public information ahead of everything lies on the acting side - so the convention says. What they plan to do with the monument is one thing, what they did with the bones in another, so let's use separate sentences, otherwise too many weasel words.

Also something about declar. of the Trans aut to relocate. But this is declaration, so it has to be called so, there is no reports by world wide media with photos of the relocation being shown. And agian, let's not mix monuments and bones.

These were mine and commented out, and I removed them.:Dc76 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

European Parliament position

A decision adopted by the European parliament condemns the “strict and frequent” violation of human rights by the Transnistrian separatist authorities. Details here. As European Parliament is an important institution, I think we should mention this in the article.--MariusM 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The ref should be not to azi.md though. Alæxis_¿question? 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Moldova Azi is a News Portal that reproduces news by info agencies. It can not create news of its own. Maybe you think about conflict.md ? That is a different story. This piece of news is reported by Deca-press here, which is a news agency. The link is provided at the bottom of the article in azi.md. You surely don't sugest us to repel everything from Infotag or everything ending in .ru (Azi=Today):Dc76 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the ref to europarliament decision. It's always better to have the original ) Alæxis_¿question? 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No sweat (You are welcome).:Dc76 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Transnistria rubla.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Media classification

Why do you think that tiras.ru is related to PMR authorities? I'd also like to know whether you consider tiraspol.info and pridnestrovie.info related to PMR authorities. Alæxis_¿question? 17:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry, I did not mean to bring this up for discution today, but I saw arecent edit removing a link, and I corrected, and one thing led to another. The are 4 links in question:

• www.pridnestrovie.net has up front "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica" and "Ten things you didn't know about Europe's newest country". In "Contact", it says "Send an email to Pridnestrovie! We'd love to hear from you and look forward to answering all your questions about our country. If you wish to contact a specific department or government ministry, please specify that in your message and we will immediately forward it to the appropriate person." The conclusion is obvioous, they say it themselves.
• VisitPMR.com http://www.visitpmr.com/links.html Appart from the same begining as before, "Contact the team of VisitPMR - we will be glad to hear from you, answer your questions, listen to your suggestions, and (if you need it) we can also help you plan your trip to our little country. When you submit this form, you will be returned to the frontpage of this site. If you prefer to contact us by phone or by snail mail, click here." When you click, "The Spectrum Travel Company in Tiraspol, PMR, can help with your travel arrangements in Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica. Here's how to contact them. Main office, Tiraspol: Spectrum Travel Company str. Manoilov, 23 3300 Tiraspol Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica". As no post office outside the territory controlled by PMR (and perhaps Russia) would be able to receive any letter ending in "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica", what else do you want?
• http://www.vspmr.org/?Lang=Eng is the official site of the "Supreme Council of PMR"
• PMRNews From the website:
  • Director Roman Konoplev ([1])
  • "Роман Коноплев, газета "Русский Прорыв!"" ([2]);
  • "Partners: 1. International Youth Corporation “PRORIV!” 2. International coalition “For the sovereignty and recognition PMR” " ("http://tiras.ru/en/part.php");
  • "“PRORIV!”: “The Day of Russia should become a national Pridnestrovian holiday” Leaders of Pridnestrovian “PRORIV!” appealed to PMR President with an initiative to declare the Day of Russia a national Pridnestrovian holiday." ([3]);
  • "Leaders of the movement “Our” and of International Youth Corporation “PRORIV!” met in Moscow Vasiliy Yakemenko, the leader of movement “OUR” (“Nashi” in Russian”), and Alena Arshinova, leader of “PRORIV!”, met today in Moscow. During the meeting they were discussing the perspectives of the cooperation of Youth organizations in such directions as education, students’ exchange, common meetings, struggle against fascism in the countries of former Soviet Union. [...] In accordance with Alena Arshinova, the executive director of International Youth Corporation “PRORIV!”, “during our meeting we found lots of things in common and we will make efforts together to work for good of Russia and Pridnestrovie. PMR is a pro-Russian republic and members of “PRORIV!” are mostly citizens of Russia. That’s why it is obvious that we have good friendly relationship with anti-fascist movement “OUR”."([4]) Now, read who Nashi, the partners of the director of the "news agency" are.
  • subaction=showfull&id=1179334622&archive=&start_from=&ucat=25&]) From a "news report" of this "agency": "Moldovan Authorities logically finished political punishment. Moldovan Fascist regime represented by Vladimir Voronin and Mark Tkachuk, Moldova’s Ministry of Internal Affairs will be responsible for everything they did sooner or later." ([5]). That's a piece of news?
  • And also read everything throught the site, its the same "recognition of PMR" as aim. Do I consider them related to the PMR leadership? Yes. Do I have proof of that right now? No.

Let me say that I am totally open to suggestions, asp about the last one.:Dc76 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that not all the sites in that section are related to PMR autorities and such relation is almost impossible to prove anyway. Therefore I propose to return Transnistrian sources heading. It is rather obvious that the website of Transnistrian parliament is related to PMR authorities.

Regarding transnistria.md why do you think that it's a Transnistrian site? It's written there that administration, hosting and copyright belongs to IMCO company which is located in 51a Alexandru cel Bun St., Chisinau, MD-2012, Republica Moldova. Alæxis_¿question? 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that the first 3 sourse are related to PMR. The forth one is just a site of a political activist. But it calls itself a news agency.

About transnistria.md, see for example in section interviews and in other - from people from the region. It is also a Transnistrian sourse. If within "Transnistrian sourses" there isn't a single one presenting the POV of other people from the region, that is not a neutral presentation. Both pro-separatist and anti-separatist Transnistrian sourses have to be present. Or at least sourses refelecting those views.:Dc76 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I've added Человек и его права newspaper. Transnistria.md is (according to your description) a Moldovan site focussing on Transnistria. Alæxis_¿question? 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with DC76. Let's not start this discussion again.--MariusM 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? It was Dc76 who had changed the stable version so naturally the discussion on the merit of this change followed.

Back to Transnistria.md. I don't even see them claiming they are from Transnistria whatever it means. On the other hand they've written that administration, hosting and copyright belongs to Moldovan IMCO company. What are the reasons behind including in into Transnistrian sources section then? Alæxis_¿question? 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Человек и его права" newspaper is a good addition as a sourse. In my oppinion "Transnistrian sourses" should contain sourses that explain/express all viewpoints: PMR administration, "pro-autonomy anti-separatist opposition", and "PMR-persecuted villagers". We can further subdivide the section into three subsections: pro-separatist, pro-autonomy anti-separatist, and anti-separatist. I just thought the reader can see this him/herself or from explanations.

About Transnistria.md. That is the only sourse that reports the third Transnistrian viewpoint. (Not presenting this viewpoint at all would be not fair.) About 1/2 of the articles there report that, the others are general news. About IMCO, I have no idea who this is. The link says "Firma presteaza un spectru larg de servicii Internet, precum: inregistrare domene .md, Web design, hosting si administrare domen." So, it is just an internet provider. I do not understand what they mean by copyright. My point is only this: it is the only sourse we have that represents that viewpoint. Moldovan sourses only present official position of the central government and of OSCE/Russia/Ukraine/EU/USA. It is a difference between official information, and interviews with locals. :Dc76\^talk 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever viewpoint they represent I strongly object to calling a site Transnistrian if even they themselves don't do it. I'm open to proposals on how to resolve this issue and I'm also willing to use other Wikipedia's means of conflict resolution. Alæxis_¿question? 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on your explanations yesterday, I slept on it, and today I removed "Transnistrian sourses" from the title. Pro-separatist & Anti-separatist is better. But we also have this newspaper you added, that I called pro-autonomy (am I wrong? that is what I knew about Radchenko and Bucharski until yesterday, and the newpaper only confirmed it, at least as I understand it), and Moldovan general sourses (the country portal, the Azi news portal). I do not know about conflict.md, do you think it should be moved to anti-separatist?

About conflict resolution, obviously you are welcome to seek any means. But personally I do not feel any conflict at all. To me it is a small disagrement on a technical issue, and not all arguments and possibilities have been tried yet. And Future Perfect was here today too. Maybe we can ask his oppinion, too? But do not be hindered to apeal to other people if you like so.:Dc76\^talk 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan citizenship

400000 transnistrians, which mean the big majority of the population in the region, took Moldovan citizenship [6]. We should include this information in the article, is relevant.--MariusM 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely. Alæxis_¿question? 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The information it's very relevant. --Tighinian 12:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Romania helping Transnistrian economy

An article in the Romanian newspaper "Adevărul" is telling that Romania started to import electricity from Transnistria (Cuciurgan) [7]. Imports started yesterday and will be almost half of the total imports of electricity of Romania in the last year.--MariusM 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad about it )) Alæxis_¿question? 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you were able to read the article (do you speak Romanian?). The reason why transnistrian electricity is cheap is that it use "cheap Russian gas". In Romania we have "expensive Russian gas". Romania will reduce its expensive imports from Russia. In fact, Transnistria is using "free Russian gas", as it doesn't have seriously the intent to pay for gas, it need the money to pay pensions, as Supreme Soviet website is explaining The amendments to the 2007 republican budget approved in two readings. Russia made a good deal: it will supply gas for free, making Transnistrian government able to pay pensions for the population and Romanian economy to receive cheap electricity. Not to mention the profits which will be made by some oligarchs in both Transnistria and Romania.--MariusM 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice of you two: one gets profit by making electricity with free gas, the other gets to buy at a cheeper price, and Moldovans get to pay for this. Nice of you. You keep Moldova underdeveloped b/c it has to pay these debts of PMR authorities or otherwise not be able to export anything to Russia. :Dc76 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification: I, personally, have no involvement in the decision of importing transnistrian electricity in Romania. Don't know about Alaexis.--MariusM 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

:-) Here is 100% proof that whatever a discussion would be about on WP, the frase "personal atack" will be mentioned. :-) Obviously, I am not accusing you or Alaexis. I was just remarking in a ironical tone, who is discussing, and made a comment about the sad reality: the bigger always wins. :Dc76 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times

Why appeared the link of Tiraspol Times in the article? --Tighinian 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC) because it is one of the links which says the truth about Pridnestrovie..why should there be then Moldovan links if they hate us...these are Moldovan links which can be called propaganda..

We have 4 pro-PMR links, including pridnestrovie.net which is featuring ALL articles from "Tiraspol Times". At least pridnestrovie.net is officially recognizing that it is a website of PMR government. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.--MariusM 15:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC) did anyone agree on links like "Man and his rights", if Wikipedia is not a link farm. It is not an influential newspaper. Meanwhile, NR2.ru and Olvia Press are not there...

Uh-oh... look who's revert-warring again... Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC) you don't like me?:-)

Apparently I am the only one from Moldova here. We do NOT hate you, we only hate the PMR leadership, which as far as I remember last time were 17 people. Are you one of those 17? If yes, I do hate you. If not - I don't. Honestly.

"Man and his rights" expresses a political doctrine that I personally disagree with, but it is supported by a big chunk of the local population, unlike PMR authorities (who are based on MGB power). If I were to dismiss them, it would be like a social-democrat dismissing a christian-democrat or vice-versa. Not presenting even (one single!) sourse for that viewpoint wouldn't be fair, to my understanding.:Dc76\^talk 16:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The current groping is worse than any previous one - we haven't really decided how to classify transnistria.md and now I see Man and his Rights called pro-autonomy. Have you reviewed enough of its articles to call it this way? Have you found it called this way in reliable source? Alæxis_¿question? 17:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But you surely do not want to call it pro-separatist, since they advocate a Transnistria inside Moldova, but with large autonomy. How would you call then?:Dc76\^talk 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that sure they advocate anything. What makes you think so? Alæxis_¿question? 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, this: Alexander Radchenko. (Note, I did not introduce info there, and in his party article, it was Mauco):Dc76\^talk 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here are the actual changes of the last 2 days.:Dc76\^talk 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another idea. Since the question seems to be not about the inclusion of a sourse, but about thier classification, we can just lump all 4 current categories together into "Local sourses" to cover all sourses from Moldova, inlcuding those from Transnistria, of all viewpoints. (just an idea):Dc76\^talk 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And which one would come first? :))) Alæxis_¿question? 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean which ones (links)? Shoot, I knew it would be some problem! :-) I don't know.:Dc76\^talk 18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My dear Dikarka, did we not have this discussion long ago that according to you there is a cadre of Transnistria-haters out here that are only seeking to besmirch Transnistria and the Transnistrians? Please don't confuse the contention that the PMR authorities are completely illegitimate with what anyone here thinks of Transnistria's inhabitants. When the cadre in charge, including those responsible for murdering individuals, are gone, then we can talk more kindly of the PMR regime. As for the Tiraspol Times, it is a proven propaganda front for the PMR regime. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

14th army military equipement

This is obviously not true, since the war started on 2 March, while the first military equipement Moldova got was in the second half of April. The process lasted for about 1 year, while the war ended in July. Also, some of it was from units nothing to do with 14th Amry.:Dc76\^talk 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence a bit. Alæxis_¿question? 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know of other regiments transferring their equipment to Moldova please add it (if it was notable enough). Alæxis_¿question? 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read par tof your sourse, and now I understand what you mean: it is the military base of the 14 army in the village of Cocieri, which saw fighting in March 1992, starting from the 3rd day of the conflict. I don't really understand what decree you mean. Moldova's Defense Ministry was formed on 17 April 1992 in response to the start of the war and only from that moment any military units started to be turned to Moldova in accordance with the agreements negociated by the 15 republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If I miss something, please be more specific. It might be that I am talking about one thing and you about a different one. Could you, please, copy the relevant portion from the text. thanx. I will make a slight adjastment to the text, which you can obviously edit further. I suggest to make shorter sentences, b/c longer ones are often confusing and soursing a long sentence - is not clear which part is being soursed.:Dc76\^talk 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Voronin and pressure from the OSCE and US

Could we get more information in the article as to the motivation why Voronin would get pressured by the OSCE and the US not to sign a peace plan. I find this interesting. Pocopocopocopoco 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would refrain including such information in the article until we don't have reliable sources for it.--MariusM 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Defacto Independent Country is POV?

Wikipedia already uses such terminology such as List of unrecognized countries why is it inappropriate for this article? Pocopocopocopoco 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to old versions

Wholesale reverts to old versions are inadmissible. If you don't like recent changes in the intro, restore it, but to pull old garbage from the whole big article after a month of edits is inadmissible. `'Míkka 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored to the version of 24 July morning, 3 days ago (before the edits by Ursul pacalit de vulpe), not one month ago. I would prefer if Ursul pacalit de vulpe and you would both abstain from rv this article.

In the edit comment is was "21 june". And I would prefer you abstain from rv as well, which killed my reasonable edits. I reverted only because some dormant sockpuppet out of the blue popped with changed intro. And then you here trigger-happy. `'Míkka 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not discussed a single bit about the content of the article in the talk page. Up to now you, along with Future Perfect and someone else have been supervizing the article without editting it. This was very nice of you, and it lead to a good atmosphere in the talk page and in editting. Why it is not possible to continue the good work? If there is a controversial edit by Ursul pacalit de vulpe, why are you assuming that others won't revert it as well? I can revert it, too. I am not upholding a controversial and POV version b/c I'd like what it says, nor does Alaexis when there appears one he'd like what it says. Don't be provoked by a controversial edit by one user to push it in the other extreme.

There were no discussions to change the intro. Why the sudden change of the last 3 and 1/2 days without discussing every word here, without prior anouncing others? These are not edits to some detail, these are edits to the intro. Why can't you kindly supervize as you successfully did until 24 July?:Dc76\^talk 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did this latest edit of mine, b/c my editing of a section interfed with your rv. This way, others can see the difference, i.e. the issues changed wihtout discussion since the controversial edits appeared. Without it, there was a mixture with my latest edit in one section. :Dc76\^talk 17:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I restored my edits without reverting. I urge you to do the same. Otherwise I will have no other appeal as only to ask protection of this article. I don't really care which version as long as various trolls will not edit it. `'Míkka 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dc76 restored previous version, but you mikkalai continue to push yours. No respect what so ever. ClockworkOrange 13:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at how other similar entities are treated in Wikipedia

Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Somaliland are all called defacto independent republics. There is no reason why this article should have different wording, so I am changing it to the same wording. Pocopocopocopoco 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to make wikilinks to meanings of the used words, not to artcles with different content. `'Míkka 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just following the same linking used in the wiki articles above. See for yourself, they use the same linking:
[[List of unrecognized countries|defacto independent]]
see Somaliland or Nagorno Karabakh or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Pocopocopocopoco 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This linking will be corretced as well. Wikipedia is not a puzzle to solve and not a computer game. YOu click a link to read about the meaning of the used word. Besides, it is quite clueless to link to a list. `'Míkka 16:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because an illegitimate POV is pushed that the frozen conflict zone states are republics elsewhere in Wikipedia does not mean that justifies its being done here. There has been a veritable cottage industry of now banned editors pushing the legitimacy of the authorities self-installed in those territories. As was discussed long (many talk archives) ago, the only NPOV reputable references which should be used in the article are external to Wikipedia. Not a republic. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria isn't a state

The article has recently been protected due to complaints made by the user Míkka. In all honesty, it seems more like the very user is trying to impose his own interpretation while most others object to it and I find it hard to justify his complaints. Transnistria isn't a Slavic-speaking state, as part of the conflict is about, for the simple reason that it isn't even a state. It's a part of the Republic of Moldova. Not one country in the world recognises Transnistria as an independent state, not even Russia. According to every country, every global organisation and international law, Tranistria is simply a part of Moldova. Neither does Transnistria fit the definition by Weber imployed in the article state that Míkka encourages us to read. According to this definition, a state has the "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". That is not the case in Transnistria as its institution are no legitimate according to international law and are not recognised. JdeJ 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the notions of the state and diplomatic recognition of a state. Weber may have his opinion, as well as Karl Marx and Groucho Marx. Befor you start speaking about "most others" you have to know what has long been happening here, rathter than to jump in after a compaint of a vicious troll on your talk page. `'Míkka 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, both your arguments disappoint. First you encourage reading the page state, now you suddenly no longer agree with it. That page builds on Weber's views and containts the general definition of state; it doesn't fit Transnistria, which is legaly a part of Moldova. JdeJ 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view it is not part of Moldova: What is NPOV, is that Moldova has an irredentist claim on Transnistria. -- Petri Krohn 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Knowing you since a long time, Petri, I find your comment a bit unexpected. Surely you are aware that according to the UN, the EU and every country or international organisation there is, Transnistria is a part of Moldvoa. Would you be so kind as to explain whose guidelines Wikipedia are following, if not those of international law and established institutions? JdeJ 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, considering inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory still vote in Moldovan elections. Transnistria = not part of Moldova is WP:OR at best. It's really quite amazing how you can go off and make over the top POV claims citing "neutral point of view." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say so, but you fail to understand what weber says. I am no longer commenting on your lack of knowledge in the area. `'Míkka 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This far, you have not made one single argument in favour of your case. First you revise other contributions, then you complain that people should read what a state is, then you no longer accept that definition and call for protection, then you move on to personal attacks. Quite a long list of actions, but not one single argument in favour of your view. If Transnistria is a state, where's the evidence for it. JdeJ 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.36.155.161&redirect=no

You know, my IVP assign address at random... so I never edited this article before. You've got the wrong guy.--66.36.155.161 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Míkka POV too. We cannot writhe that nonsense:de facto independent republic. It is a POV. Míkka you should try to give as some facts to support this bizarre climes. ClockworkOrange 11:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF?? transnistria is a state?...again? Catarcostica 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like most agree that Transnistria isn't a state. What is more, those who think it is a state has to date not managed to produce a single argument in favour of their view, except their constant "Transnistria is a state because I say so". If not a single argument can be made for the area being a state, the article should reflect that. JdeJ 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And I explained that you did not present any arguments, only your opinion, which is irrelevant, just like mine. `'Míkka 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's trolling. You didn't present any arguments.--ŞtefanIaşi 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is completely irrelevant, I agree about that. What is relevant is that Transnistria hasn't been recognised as a state by any country or any organisation. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. JdeJ 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid argument to say it's a state. Moreover it's highly forced to say it's a state. It's a fact that it isn't a state no argue about this fact.--ŞtefanIaşi 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Legally, it´s a simple matter of de jure versus de facto. An exact parallel is, for instance, the Confederate States of America (CSA) between 1861 and 1865. As we know, the CSA was formed as a secessionist entity in 1861 and ceased to exist in 1865, when the USA at last managed to reassert its authority over its territory and population after four years of war (which was basically the equivalent of what Moldova tried to do in 1992). It´s important to note that the CSA was never recognized by any country, although both Britain and France, whose governments more or less sympathized with the Confederacy, considered for a while recognizing it in 1862. We have here a parallel with the Russian attitude. Russia has in fact through her military presence and by other means guaranteed the existence of the PMR as a de facto independent country but has refrained from recognizing it diplomatically, mostly because Moscow´s priority in this region has been to try to influence Moldova to move closer to the Russian orbit and an official recognition of the little breakaway republic would jeopardize relations with Chişinău. There have been some speculation associated with the possible UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) of Kosovo. As you know, Russia will veto any Security Council resolution in favour of an independent Kosovo. In these conditions, it´s entirely possible that the Albanian majority in Kosovo will sooner or later go for a UDI. According to international law, Kosovo is still de jure a part of Serbia exactly in the same way that the area under effective PMR control is de jure a part of Moldova. If Kosovo goes UDI, it will be, in terms of international law, exactly in the same position in which the PMR is now, unless it is recognized by some other state, for instance the USA. There has been some speculation that if the USA does recognize Kosovo´s independence against Serbia´s and Russia´s will, Russia might well retaliate by recognizing the PMR. For now, of course, this is only speculation. Time will tell. Another parallel to the PMR is, of course, Rhodesia between 1965 and 1979. Rhodesia was de facto an independent country but was never recognized by any state, not even South Africa and Portugal who in actual fact backed it more or less openly. The reason was obvious: Rhodesia was still de jure a British colony and any state recognizing it before Britain did so would risk a diplomatic crisis with London. The bottom line here is that historiography treats both the CSA and Rhodesia as de facto states in spite of the fact that no other country ever recognized them, just as no internationally recognized state recognizes the PMR (just Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh do so). The CSA and Rhodesia had and the PMR has all the attributes of an independent state save international recognition: effective military control over its territory, a constitution, a government, a parliament etc, in short a state apparatus. The fact that the PMR is de jure an organized act of of perpetual rebellion against Moldova is irrelevant from the de facto perspective: Moldova has absolutely no actual control over the territory administered by PMR authorities (just as Britain lacked control over Rhodesia and the USA lacked control over the South until the Confederacy was defeated militarily). The PMR fits to 100% the definition of a de facto state, for which there are many other historical examples as well apart from the CSA and Rhodesia, for instance the USA which was born as an act of rebellion against the British crown and gained international recognition many years after its UDI in 1776. To sum up: it's only a question of de jure versus de facto. Nothing more, nothing less. Monegasque 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid edit war

Regardless of our opinions, I hope we can all use the talk page to argue for our respective views. I've motivated quite extensively why I don't think Transnistria is a state (not recognised as such by any country or organisation) but I'm fully prepared to discuss any argument contrary to that view. JdeJ 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And I motivated that your motivations are invalid because they are your opinions, which don't matter, just like mine. And since it is you who wants to change the established version, you have to provide proof of your point in the form of quotations from reputable sources (rather than your speculations) which clearly say that transnistria is not state. `'Míkka 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

His motivations are very valid. What it matters it that it is not recognized by anybody. What are your arguments that is a state? --ŞtefanIaşi 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

reputable sources

1.State Department of USA

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_972.html "The separatist regime in control of the Transnistria region is not recognized by the United States"

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/86344.htm "breakaway Transnistria region"

2.United Nations

http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#t not even a small trace of Transnistria. Nobody heard of it so far.

These reputable sources are already enough. You can't find better and authorized sources than these 2 ones. --ŞtefanIaşi 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A sourced version might be:

Version 1.

Transnistria, is the easternmost part of Moldova . Transnistria's sepparatist regime is not recognised by any state or international organisation, and it is de jure part of Moldova.

OK! no mention of de facto independent republic. no mention of a state. that could be preaty neutral. ClockworkOrange 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed de facto independent republic is a nocence there is no references that could suport that. CDRW80 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How so? There are many and it seems self-evident. El_C 03:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's used all the time in the media for these types of states. Example, see description of Nagorno Karabakh here Let's stay consistant with all the other articles of similar entities described in Wikipedia that I've mentioned above. Pocopocopocopoco 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is one for transnistria. "Acknowledging that a number of difficulties and human rights violations were already widely reported and in the process of being redressed, the Commissioner restricted his observations on the situation in Moldova to less well publicised problems - widespread abuses by an impoverished police force and the lack of judicial supervision; the abuse of administrative detentions; the conditions prevailing in a number of prisons; discrimination against minority languages in schools and in dealings with public officials, resulting from the aggressive assertion of Moldavian as the only official language and a number of analogous problems in the de facto independent Republic of Transnistria." Pocopocopocopoco 03:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately "de facto independent Republic" is not an official position of Canadian government. The link that you gave as points to the non governmental organization. The opinion of that organization does not reflects official views of the Canadian government. We would be interested to see a link that reflect official state position or official UN position on Transnistria. The Human Rights Internet group would be great in articles about human rights but unfortunately it doesn't have much weight in the degree of international recognition of Transnistria. ClockworkOrange 11:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy breezy lemon squeezy ;) the UN country report on Moldova says on page 274 "If anything, the Transnistrians have strengthened their position as a de facto independent state, by concluding economic agreements with international investors and by receiving the vocal support of politicians in Russia and other de facto states such as Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh." Pocopocopocopoco 17:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The report does not say that Transnistria is a state it just says that Transnistria climes to be one. That is not an official UN position, that is Transnistrian position (Transnistrian climes to be..). Also Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh it doesn't have much weight in the degree of international recognition of Transnistria, simply becase they are not recognized as a stats by international community. ClockworkOrange 11:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that we're not trying to determine whether Transnitria has official recognition as an independent republic but that it is a de facto independent republic (emphasis on de facto) which it clearly is. Pocopocopocopoco 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

which it clearly NOT. Transnistria climes to be a de facto independent republic - that is Transnistrian position. But that is not a UN position. Transnistria exercise some degree of of control over the some parts of Transnistrian region, but that is not enough to declare it a independent Republic. ClockworkOrange 17:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your mistaking an officially recognized state with a de facto state. For a de facto state, the UN won't come up with a position other than affirming the territorial integrity of the parent state and make statements hoping for a peaceful solution to the conflict. That doesn't make the state any less a de facto state. Pocopocopocopoco 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in this case if UN won't come up with a position that could support so called de facto states. Then entire phrase of de facto state of de facto independent is a pure POV. And in this case how could we distinguish between the territory or region that exercise some degree of de facto control over the aria and so called de facto states. The question is: Where can we draw the line between one and other? You see, now we talking about POVs not facts! ClockworkOrange 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is de facto independent republic POV? Just because the UN hasn't come up with a resolution that uses those terms to describe Transnistria? The UN also hasn't come up with a resolution describing an orange as a type of fruit so is it POV to describe an orange as a type of fruit? Pocopocopocopoco 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We had som many times this discussion. Transnistria is not a state or a country, is a region of Moldova which unilatterally proclaimed its independence with the help of Russia. Don't confuse reality with wishfull thinking. During Soviet Union it didn't have any status, contrary with Abkhazia or South Ossetia for example.--MariusM 09:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is status during the Soviet Union of any relevence as to whether it can be considered a 'de facto' independent republic today? Besides, law that I think you are referring to referred to compactly settled minorities, not just Autonomous Republics and Oblasts.

are you proposing to erase the entire history and start from a scratch? ClockworkOrange 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

History doesn't make a difference as to whether or not Transnistria today is considered a de facto independent state. Remember that by calling it a de facto independent state, we aren't making any claim that their de facto independence is justified. Pocopocopocopoco 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about justification we talking about POVs. "considered a de facto independent state" By who? 1 By you? You want us to include in the article your point of view. In that case we should assume that everybody have the same rights and everybody could add their POVs to the article. At the end we will have a blog not an encyclopedia.
2 if it consider a de facto independent state by UN then i very much would like to see the references. ClockworkOrange 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you are going on about here but basically in this part of the discussion you asked me if we should ignore history when determining whether transnistria is a de facto independent republic and I responded that yes history has nothing to do with whether Transnitria today can be called a de facto independent republic. Pocopocopocopoco 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to fully understand what the problem is with de facto independent republic

I'm all ears. I don't think you have a problem with de facto. You may have a problem with independent because you think that it's a puppet state of Russia, however, this is a POV. We should just call it independent as it appears independent and lay out the facts for the reader to decide. It's a Republic as it calls itself a Republic and the article describes that it is a republic with a semi-presidential system. Hence it's a de facto independent republic. Pocopocopocopoco 01:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can proclaim myself Mickey Mouse and say that thousands voted for me for president in the last U.S. election. What I say about myself does not translate into that being true (that thousands voted for me and I have some sort of mandate).

     We can call Transnistsria a "self-proclaimed" republic. That does not equal "republic" or "state". It functions largely as a de facto independent territory, that is as much as can be said, NPOV. Transnistrians are still Moldovan citizens and still vote in Moldovan elections. Moldova is still the de iure authority, even by Russia's standards. "State" and "republic" ascribe qualities to the Pridenstrovian regime's control of Transnistrian territory which that authority categorically does not possess. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What ascribes what is only your opinion. The words 'self-proclaimed' could be used to describe most of the modern states so there's no logic to call PMR and not to call, say, US like this. Alæxis_¿question? 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Self-proclaimed" implies lack of external validation, which is not the case for most of the modern states, under the accepted practice of international recognition of foreign states and governments. If you want to state that in a clearer way, you could use "Unrecognised state". Digwuren 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly how it is described now (see the intro). Alæxis_¿question? 13:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

In an effort to compromise on a non-issue, the current version of the opening sentence is run on and reads poorly. Pocopocopocopoco 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It shoud be read it better as poco*4 ??? Catarcostica 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring again?

Guys, I hope you all realise that the informal article revert parole on this page can still be invoked, right? I haven't really got the time now to check who has been revert-warring again, but a lot of reverts is definitely what I seem to be seeing. Please be warned, it's still the case that blocks can and will be handed out over this article, against all sides, well below the 3RR level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Overview, opening sentence

It's been so long, but the first sentence's wording and reference cited certainly appear to have come from Mauco. Given his predilection for quoting only the parts of sentences which make his case, then sticking in the ever so scholarly citation, I rather thought the opening sentence: "Although the PMR does not have such legal status within Moldova, it functions like a state, and is organized as a republic.<ref>{{cite book |author=Barry Bartmann, Tozun. Bahcheli |title=De Facto States: The Quest for Soverignty |publisher=Routledge |isbn=0714654760 |year=2004}}</ref>" was probably far less accurate than it purported to be.
     I'm sure that (assumed) Mauco thought no one would be (a) motivated enough to track down a copy of an obscure text and be (b) demented enough to pay $150 for the chance to catch him quoting out of context. After some soul and wallet searching, I resolved to achieve the bliss of motivated dementia. The cited book arrived today.
     The source says NOTHING about Transnistria being a republic whatsoever--the word "Republic" is used only where refering to it as it refers to itself. With regard to "de facto state"--that phrase is mentioned only once (and "de facto sovereigny" once) in the entire book with reference to Transnistria--it it does so in the most tentative fashion, that is:

1. As long as Russia itself remains divided as to whether to really push for Transnistria to be independent or to be federated back into Moldova... "Transnistria will remain a de facto state"
2. "Of all the cases in this volume [10 in all], Transnistria is the weakest example of de facto sovereignty and is the one least likely to survive."

A de facto state barely hanging on in a sort of Never-Never Land while Russia figures out if there's any point to keeping it on life support. Not exactly what the opening sentence currently describes. So, "fair warning" I'll be working on a new opening sentence--of course, still citing the same source out of deference to the prior author's acknowledgment of its authority on the subject matter. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the UN country report on Moldova that calls Transnistria a de facto independent state on page 74? Pocopocopocopoco 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How about UN report in .......MOLDOVA. page whatever. (Did you bother to read the title?)(page 74?) Catarcostica 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

""Similarly, a nation with de facto independence, like Somaliland, is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory."" This is not the case for Transnistria...they claim a little bit more then that. Catarcostica 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

page 274 not 74 Pocopocopocopoco 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Somaliland also doesn't control all the territory it claims (look here). So I think they didn't mean to imply that if the country claims 1 sq. metre it doesn't control it's no more de facto independent. Anyway, PMR is called de facto independent in a lot of sources, some of which are cited in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New changes

The added info is from the paper (published in the Western journal) by the Andrei Panici, who works in the American Institute in Bulgaria. The removal of this info cannot possibly be justified. Alæxis_¿question? 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb. Can you please place a link somewhere in this page? Thanks. Catarcostica 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? See the article's 61st note. Alæxis_¿question? 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem...

Clockwork and Alaexis, to you both, last warning. Renewed flaring up of edit-warring will not be tolerated. My suggestion for good rules of conduct: maintain a moratorium of reverts. slow it down:

1. In principle, Clockwork, like anybody else, is free to be WP:BOLD and make changes; they are not under any obligation to get approval first.
2. However, nobody should be making undiscussed edits that significantly shift the POV balance to one side in such a way that they must know in advance that their edit will be unacceptable to other editors.
3. When contentious edits are nevertheless made, they must not be reverted immediately. Rather, allow at least a few hours for discussion before reverting (if you must).

Okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Have you checked his contribs? It's he, not me who's done a huge edit and doesn't want to explain it first at the talk as I asked him. I don't see how do I deserve ANY warning for doing what I've done and have already brought this issue up at the AN. Alæxis_¿question? 20:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "please discuss before you edit" cuts both ways, that's the point. Probably he ought to have discussed before he edited. Certainly you ought to have discussed before you reverted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Chatting with Bonnie? I have some other ideas what to do in my spare time. Alæxis_¿question? 20:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, for being Bonnie he has been quiet for a remarkably long time... ;-) Are you certain? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I can't see users' ips I can't be certain (and if it's he he uses proxies anyway). As I've written elsewhere 'certain suspicions arise' )). Alæxis_¿question? 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I'm kinda bored right now, why not actually discuss those edits? 1. and 2. The Jon Boonstra document (de facto independence) has been moved and is now available here

3. Needs a "however" instead.

4. That was a reference right there

6. Eh, the multiple parties are discussed in the "Politics" section, for instance

7. There was a reference there as well. IT was from olvia-press, though...

10. I'm not aware of any Russian troops on the right bank of the Dniester.

The last two seem to bes some kind of grammar/format problem. The rest can probably stay. --Illythr 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 1. and 2. even if some document is no longer available online it doesn't mean we can't use it as a reference.

I agree about 3-6 and 8.

About 7. If someone feels it's not referenced properly s/he should put {{verification needed}} there rather than deleting it altogether. Even if no other sources support it it shouldn't be deleted but rather attributed to its author, so that we know whose pov it is. Alæxis_¿question? 06:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot about it... Alæxis_¿question? 17:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Is it clear now who wants to discuss something here and who doesn't? Alæxis_¿question? 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Clockwork's edits

1 Adding unsourced info

2 The ref is there. Maybe we should attribute this to Transnistrian authorities.

3 Adding irrelevant info.

4 I've reworded this passage so there's no such word as 'summed up'. The change of the order of these two paragraphs is unjustified. Alæxis_¿question? 06:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:

1. refs for 1: Ukraine plugging a porous border (Herald Tribune)

2. your refs does not support sentence: Moldovan/Ukrainian block remains in place i placed the fact tag

3. the sentence was misleading lets use full citation from the source.

4. the sentence was misleading too lets use full citation from the source. regarding the order i placed the paragraph next to the OSCE statement because Claus Neukirch is an OSCE mission spokesman. ClockworkOrange 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)