Jump to content

Talk:Transnistria/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Older archives

Protection

Protected the article. Please work it out through dispute resolution if necessary. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm Lost

I looked at all the changes trying to understand what happened but I was not able to keep track of all the changes and reverts. However, Node's edits appear particularly disquieting. He labeled them as "minor", however they were anything but that. He removed entire paragraphs (only retaining some sentences in each). Subsequent changes are simply cofusing. Most were only partial and so were the reverts, which makes understanding them extremely difficult. In any case, I suggest going back to the last version before Node and then the valid latter changes can be re-inserted. TSO1D 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't label them as minor. I said I was disentangling copyvio (which I did, and which you have now re-inserted), *as well as* making minor changes. --Node 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and, you guys have consistently removed a valid Interwiki link. That qualifies as vandalism, no questions asked. --Node 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Node, I do not intend to sound patronizing or something, but it would be helpful for the dispute if wou were more specific, ideally provide a diff of the edit you're refering to. Otherwise I've no idea what ar you talking about. --Lysy (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to the removal of valid interwiki links? *any* of your reversions of my edits qualify for that. You can't miss it - right at the end of the article. Consistently. Every time. You remove that link with no good reason... that qualifies as vandalism. It's to mo.wiki.
If you were referring to the post where I said "I didn't label ... minor", then the appropriate diff is [1]. All of the changes there are either: 1) Removal of copyvio or 2) Very minor such as fixing spelling, grammar, or wikisyntax. Note the "or" -- I never claimed all of those were minor changes. Removal of copyright violations is not a "minor" change. --Node
Looking at this diff, I believe that the current version is pretty close to the one before Node's and further confusing edits. I've requested the article to be protected until a consensus on its contents is reached, as the recent edits had been overwhelmingly confusing. I'd suggest that we start looking at it section by section, as below. --Lysy (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right, not too many significant changes exist between the two versions. I believe that the phrase: "and requiring proficiency in the Moldovan language for public servants" should be re-inserted, as well as this: " In the security zone controlled by the Russian peacekeeping forces, the MRT regime continued to deploy its troops illegally and to manufacture and sell weapons in breach of the agreement of 21 July 1992. In February 2003, the USA and EU imposed visa restrictions against the Transnistrian leadership." The other changes are negligible. TSO1D 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait and see what the others think. We need to slow down here a bit ... --Lysy (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing

Now, that the page is protected, can we discuss what's bothering whom, section by section ? --Lysy (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

Only content dispute in this section, please

General

I believe the article is in better shape than yesterday. Still there are many trivial problems that probably arrived due to the revert war:

Moldavian language vs Romanian language

I personally share the thought that Moldavian is an artificial language, created in 1920ies by Soviet ideologists, and that it is identical or very close to the Romanian language, but this is my personal opinion. The official language of Moldova and Transnistria is Moldavian. Until the legislators of these states officially accept that their language is Romanian, we have no rights to state that the official language of Transnistria is Romanian (see the infobox). It is misleading and false. What we can do somewhere in the article (probably in the Names section) specifically say that according to the most of linguists, Moldavian is an artificial language created by Soviets to facilitate the annexation of Bessarabia, that is de facto identical to Romanian. In the linked Moldavian language article an interested reader will find all the details. I think this will balance usage of the term Moldavian language through out the article (except the pre-1920 part) abakharev 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well according to Title I, Article 13 of the Moldovan Constitution, names it the "national language" (limba de stat) of the country. In the unrecognized state of Transnistria, it is co-official with Ukrainian and Russian. The 1989 law on language of the Moldavian SSR, which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution [2], asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity". [3] Bonaparte talk 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You want to say that according to Moldavan constitution the state languga is called Romaninan? It is new to me, please provide references abakharev 08:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I know is new for you but you have them above. And don't forget that was officially renamed in Romanian in 1989. Bonaparte talk 08:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the Moldovan constitution [4]

Article 13 The National Language, Use of Other Languages

(1) The national language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet...
I am affraid you owe me an appology abakharev 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What appology? You didn't read all I suppose. Read one more time. According to the laws that are still working Title I, Article 13 of the Moldovan Constitution, names it the "national language" (limba de stat) of the country. The 1989 law on language of the Moldavian SSR, which is still effective in Moldova according to the Constitution [5], asserts the real existence of "linguistical Moldo-Romanian identity". Bonaparte talk 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, According to the Title 1, Article 13 the State Language of Molova is named Moldavian Language Latin Script. Period. The day they change it to Romanian Language Latin Script we will change the state language in our articles, before this, the language is Moldavian. abakharev 11:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I think "according to most Romanian and Moldavian linguists" would be better. Seriously, most non-extremist-nationalist linguists don't touch "dialect/language" issues with a ten foot pole. :) - FrancisTyers 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Francis not only Romanian or Moldavian linguists, other as well from all over the world agreed that it's about Romanian with a another name. Bonaparte talk 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You have to stay in Tiraspol if you want to study the problem. --Vasile 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Vasile, I agree, although I would characterise this as more of a dispute than a problem. Bonaparte, you didn't read, or didn't understand what I wrote. - FrancisTyers 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It is for you, maybe, to study in Tiraspol whether is a dispute or a problem. --Vasile 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's not bring the [Talk:Moldovan language] here, otherwise we will get tired of typing :) --Just a tag 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha, true, I don't think wiser words have been said. ;) - FrancisTyers 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Copyrighted paragraph"

There is a paragraph based on Pavliuk's article, that is constantly inserted as relevant to the Aftermath and removed as a copyvio. I do not have my opinion on the copyright status of it as I have not seen the alleged original. According to my experience it is needed 15-20 minutes to completely retell a paragraph of such a size without any copyright problems. We can do it here while the article is protected. Alternatively we can put it as an attributed quote. I prefer the second way as the part about the common interests of Moldova and Ukraine is not a fact but an opinion and should be attributed. abakharev 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Theresa answered very well...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_a_tag#Copyvio_accusations and not only there. Bonaparte talk 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
As I understand, many disagree with you. Is the Pavliuk's article available online? abakharev 08:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's kind of strange that you reject a valid source as Pavliuk (Oleksandr Pavliuk,Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze) they are not romanians I suppose with those names, so they are more likely to be russians :) Their point of view is very neutral, so I see no problem. Who dissagree with me are more likely to diasgree with NPOV. Bonaparte talk 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Bonaparte, I'm not sure you get it. I agree with nearly everything your god-forsaken sources whose copyrights you have repeatedly violated have to say. I just don't agree with you copy-pasting what they have to say directly in giant chunks, or without putting it in quotes. --Node 09:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing against the source. Actually I want to put it verbatim and attributed. I jusy do not want to mix Facts and Opinions abakharev 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Node_ue put it very well The paragraph or two just before "The Kozak Memorandum" is the only one I can find with the diff engine. I thought there were more, but I can't seem to find them. then he added Also, the section containing the text "within the framework of Moldovan" was copyvio, when I reffered to the section with "within the framework", Theresa said: Node_Ue this doesn't look like a copyvio to me. Is this one of the paragraphs you are disputing? and Node_ue replied No -- it's not..

I mean really, is there anything else to add here ? :) --Just a tag 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Russian POV

As a representative of a Russian POV I have a following problems:

  • The legality or illegality of somebody's actions is decided in the Courts of Law, not in Wikipedia articles. I am not aware of any of such court descisions. Thus instead of Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally, I would like to have some attribution According to many political analysts (including Mr. Pavliuk) Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally.
this is the was President of Moldova declared. A Precidency of a country is an authority. So if he said that russian troups are illegal then is illegal.
Great suggestion: According to President of Moldova Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally. Thanks. If you could provide the dates and sources it would be even better.
What do you mean "according to president of Moldova" ? This is simply part of the country that is under occupation. How could this be "legal" ? --Lysy (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the phrase Ukraine and Moldova share common interest in removing the Russian Army is an opinion not a fact (quite possibly they share common interest in keeping the peace in the region without sending their own peacekeepers). Both phrases appear in the disputed Pavliuk's paragraph and the problem will simply disappear if we attribute the quote to Pavliuk.
Both countries had declared in written that wants russian troups out of the territory of Moldova. There are also many US declarations in this sense.
It is fine to say that both Ukraine and Moldova asked Russia to withdraw the forces. It is a good suggestion and I applaud it. It would be even better if we can provide the dates and sources, but I agree even on the unsourced versionabakharev 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Very good. --Lysy (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Many Russians believe that the 14th Army was a peacekeeping force that stopped the bloody war, not a participant in the war. I would like to see this opinion mentioned somewhere.abakharev 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually many believe that so called " peacekeeping force " are only occupation forces! Can you explain otherwise why US, Europe, China said that Russian go out? Bonaparte talk 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Peacekeeping is their official status, anyway I do not insist they will be called peacekeeping forces through out the article, still mentioning it once somewhere will be nice abakharev 08:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any official (non-Russian and non-Transnistrian of course) source confirming their peacekeeping status ? If not then they are simply occupation forces. --Lysy (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognised by only one country in the world, being Turkey. The rest of the world considers Mr. Denktash's government to be a fraud. Turkish support exists primarily because Turkey directly benefits from this region's bahaviour vis a vis the rest of Cyprus. It's also a way to stick it to their age-old enemies. the Greeks.

Similairly, Transdnistria is considered to be a part of Moldova by every country in the world, except Russia. Russia stands to benefit from this region's behaviour vis a vis Chisnau. You see, Russia is collapsing. After the admission of the Baltic States to the EU, along with the former Warsaw Pact countries, and after Ukraine's Orange Revolution, the lands which were parts of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union are leaving Moscow's orbit once and for all. Aside from Belarus, there aren't any countries in Eastern Europe that really want anything more to do with Moscow. Add this to skyrocketing alcoholism, suicide, an economy that functions well in major European cities like St Petersburg and Moscow, but poorly in the rural parts and barely (if at all) in the Asian part of the country, and you can see that the mighty Russian bear is not only dead, it's in decay. Vladamir Putin wants to rule and to save Russia, which I suppose are patriotic goals, in and of themselves. To these ends, he knows he must restore a sense of hope in the Russian people, and a faith in himself as a leader. His bold moves vis a vis Washington with regard to Iran are a signal to the Russian people that he is strong and bold, qualities that Russians look for ina leader. His proposal to reunite Belarus with Russia sends the signal to his people that he can halt the decay of Russia, if not restore her, at least partially. His behaviour in Chechnya is intended to show that he can control uprisings within his own country, the same kind of upsrisings that led Russia to her current (diminished) state.

By supporting Transdnistria, Putin is telling the Russian people that he is unafraid to commit troops to support the Russians, even those living overseas, and that he laments the loss of Soviet territory as much as they do. In a sense, he must do this, to preserve his own grip on political power. He knows Moldova is small, weak, and largely defenseless. It's only real champion/ally has a subconscious desire to reincorporate it as territory (Romania). Ukraine supports her, but only because she wants to win over the EU by winning over Bucharest (remember, Romania is to be admitted into the EU this year). Most Americans have never heard of Moldova, and the EU itself is only concerned inasmuch as Romania is. So, Putin has no qualms about attacking a largely friendless and defenseless country for political gain in his own country. Especially if he can stick it to one of the countries that has so eagerly thrown it's arms open to the West (Romania), silmultaneously turning it's back on Moscow. It also tells Kiev that Ukraine had better watch it's step, or Russia could invade them, too.

So, the lesson of this complicated little dance? The same one Poland learned during the Partitions. If you are an isolated country with few natural allies and no strong diplomatic relations with big powerful protectors, you're just bait for a neighboring country desperate to prove it's still relevant. It would do Mr. Voronin well to court allies in countries that can defend it, especially ones that don't want to eat it alive. Equally, it would do Ukraine well to cultivate stronger relations with the West. This is reflected by the fact that their current President can even get away with what he's doing so far, thanks to his warming up to Brussels. Full speed ahead, Mr. Yushchencko. Wandering Star 01:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're either a crazy Russian nationalist, or really have no clue about the situation over here. Considering the last part, I'd wager on the latter. Russia is currently in no position to invade anyone, what with the the international reaction on their war in Chechnya (their own territory). Imagine the outcry if they actually attack someone outside their borders. With her economy and reputation in the sad state you described, Russia simply can't afford it. Nowadays, only the US have sufficient media and economic resources to invade someone and get away with it.
All this is really off topic IMO... --Illythr 17:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, you obviously have no qualms about making personal attacks, since you've described me as either insane or stupid, so I guess I shouldn't really bother with social graces myself. Okay, asshole, you're either illiterate or just too stupid to look up my User page, where you would find that I am American, not Russian, and not even of Russian descent. As far as my estimation that Russia is willing to use militairy force, perhaps your idiocy is so strong that it has caused you to develop a blind spot so large that you cannot see a group of people as large as the entire Russian 14th Army Division, which IS in the Transdnistira region right now. That does constitute a militairy invasion of a foreign country, no?
No, it doesn't. You see, the 14th army was stationed in the region since WWII with its base of operations in Chisinau (moved to Tiraspol in the mid-'80s). The "group of people as large as the entire Russian 14th Army Division" is also currently down to about 1000 men, as compared to some 14,000 in 1992. Reducing your presence in the region 14 times isn't quite the right strategy if you intend to conquer it. War of Transnistria is the page you really *should have* read before advising the Moldovan government what it should do.
I actually intended to apologize for the "clueless" part - jumping to conclusions and all, but you just confirmed me in your own charming way... Illythr 19:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Speculating about the future of Moldova/Transdnistria is really spot on topic, IMO. That's kinda the big question here, "What's gonna happen next?". An analysis of the stakeholders and their motivations is essential if you want to project their possible next moves. Kinda like chess, but with a really big board and lots of pieces, you see. You have heard of chess, haven't you? Okay, so there's more diplomacy involved than that. But I guess diplomacy isn't your strong suit, is it? If it were, you wouldn't have made your very first line a personal insult. Wandering Star 04:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We are building an encyclopedia so our task is restricted to dealing only with verifiable facts. Speculating about the future of Moldova/Transdnistria is OK in private but it has no place in the article and as such has very little place in the Talk section as well. - William Mauco 12:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal comments and other rants

Please do not use this section for content dispute

Wholesale reversion by Lysy

OK take a look at this: "I have restored the unexplained wholesale reversions by an anon of TS01D, mine, Node ue and Phil Boswell edits, I do not think we deserve such a treatment by an anon abakharev 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)" (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transnistria/archive_2")

And of course, Abakharev's reversion of anon vandalism was instantly reverted by Lysy with no good explanation, especially considering that in doing so, Lysy:

  1. Re-inserted copyvio material
  2. Removed a perfectly-valid interwiki link
  3. Overwrote corrections to English grammar and usage

Please explain. --Node

Theresa already explained you once Node. See the discussions in the Archive. However now is important to discuss the issues not the grammar spelling. You can do that later. And don't pretend that you didn't remove valid references. You should explain why you did. Bonaparte talk 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
1) Theresa Knott never explained Lysy's reversion. Nobody is really discussing grammar or spelling here, we're talking about copyvio, removal of interwiki links, and reversion of perfectly valid corrections of poor English. 2) I never removed any valid references. I just removed copyright violations. --Node 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
She did. Check in the archive. Case closed. Bonaparte talk 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I checked. She didn't. Case not closed. --Node 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

stop talking in terms of russian POV

  1. This is my first suggestion. Bonaparte talk 07:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why not? Russia is a party to the conflict and according to WP:NPOV all points of view should be included. abakharev 08:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why not you ask? Because is better for you to try to be neutral I suppose. I know is hard for you but try it. We all here try to be neutral and in the moment when you position yourself as the representant of the russian POV looks not good, that's why. Try to be neutral and bring valid, neutral sources like we did. Bonaparte talk 08:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Bonaparte, how can you pretend that you are neutral? For humans to truly be neutral in a conflict is impossible, especially in a conflict which is close to them... and I must say, ever the Romanian nationalist, the issue of Transnistria is clearly very close to you. At least Alex Bakharev admits that he is not neutral, even though he tries. You, on the other hand, pretend that it is possible for you to be neutral, when it really isn't. --Node 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So, my opinion is that instead of self proclaiming the russian POV you should pay more care to the sources and facts that were presented here. Bonaparte talk 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately all the people who know enough about a given topic to write about it, have a point of view on the topic. I could say I'm pretty neutral right now - the closest I've been to romania, or transistrania for that matter, is Budapest. But what use is a person like me who doesn't know enough about this thing to even have a POV. We just have to live with the fact that there will be POV, but at least we should try to present all of the possbible points of view, making the article somewhat neutral. :) --HJV 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

US asks Russia to withdraw the troups from Transnistria

The article is here [[6]]. It is in romanian. Someone should translate this please.

SUA someaza Rusia sa se retraga din Transnistria
SUA au cerut din nou Rusiei sa isi retraga trupele din Moldova si s-au declarat dezamagite de faptul ca negocierile in dosarul transnistrean bat pasul pe loc, potrivit site-ului Departamentului de Stat, citat de Mediafax. „Practic, nu a a fost inregistrat nici un progres, mai ales din cauza atitudinii obstructive a partii transnistrene“, a declarat, joi, ambasadorul Julie Finley, reprezentantul permanent al Statelor Unite in cadrul Organizatiei pentru Securitate si Cooperare in Europa (OSCE), referindu-se la negocierile din perioada 15-16 decembrie. „Nimic nu ar ajuta mai mult procesul de reglementare decat incheierea retragerii trupelor Federatiei Ruse de pe teritoriul moldovean, asa cum prevad angajamentele asumate la summit-ul de la Istanbul din 1999“, a declarat Julie Finley.
Ea a cerut partilor sa demonstreze ca trateaza negocierile cu seriozitate, o ocazie fiind urmatoarea intalnire la masa verde, din 26-27 ianuarie, care va avea loc in Moldova. „Cerem in special partii transnistrene sa respecte atat spiritul, cat si termenii protocoalelor stabilite la cele doua runde in format cinci plus doi, care au avut loc anterior, si sa furnizeze OSCE informatii militare complete cat mai repede cu putinta“, a spus ambasadorul american. Statele Unite sprijina o solutionare pasnica a conflictului, care sa respecte suveranitatea, independenta si integritatea teritoriala a Republicii Moldova, a adaugat ea.
SUA si UE au statut de observatori la negocierile mediate de OSCE. Bonaparte talk 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We are attempting to build an encyclopaedia. Talk pages are to allow fellow encyclopaedia-builders exchange messages relating to a specific article. They are not for you to post large amounts of text from news articles. It should be sufficient to link to them. It is not only annoying, but bad Wikiquette, to copy the entire thing and paste it here. It takes up lots of space and makes talkpages hard to navigate. Because of you, there are over 10 archived pages on Talk:Moldovan language. You constantly posted news articles, pasted articles from books and webpages, and the like. It made it all much more confusing. Now please, please, please, stop posting full-text articles. --Node 09:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the 10 archived pages are due to Node_ue. --Just a tag 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
And remind me when you stepped in to that talk page? Around the time of Archive Page #9 or maybe #10? --Node 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Megalomanul Smirnov a ridicat un complex sportiv de 500.000.000 $

http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2006-01-05&id=14030 Bonaparte talk 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Someone should translate this also please.

This article [[7]] is about how the family of Smirnov controlls the economy. Bonaparte talk 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Sheriff (company) should also be updated. Two years ago, Washington Times estimated the cost of the completed parts of the complex to $200 million. bogdan
Some facts about Transnistria according to [[8]]:
  • -average wage is 35$/month (this is very poor)
    -average wage of a worker 20$/month (extremely poor)
    -average wage of a journalist 90$
    -average wage of a teacher 70$

Bonaparte talk 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Any article whose title starts with "megalomanul smirnov..." is clearly not neutral. --Node 09:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a fact that all Dictators like huge things. Look at Kim Jong-il(North Korea) or Sadam Hussein(Iraq). And is very neutral since it reflects reality... Bonaparte talk 09:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
To assert that Smirnov is a dictator is POV. While I certainly don't think that Transnistria is _truly_ democratic, it claims to be, and one must admit that they have presidential elections. And does the article Kim Jong-il say "Since he's a dictator, he likes huge things"?? No. --Node 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
According to dictionary.com:
megalomania: An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
Can you claim that building a $500 million stadium/sports complex/hotel in a very poor country is not something extravagant ? bogdan 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I can. Thus is the framework of NPOV. Everything is relative. You can't use such adjectives as "extravagant" because there are no objective criteria for measuring them. --Node 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You have to find more solide criteria of "neutral". --Vasile 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the sense of this "protected" tag applied on the article. Once again, with all sort of editorial and adminship special policies and tools, this article was "frozen". And this time I see no objective reason to that. With all due respect, I request the removing of the "protected" tag. --Vasile 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Bonaparte talk 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not until we have the dispute with Node settled one or the other way. I don't think we need to waste time on perpetual revert wars. --Lysy (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that we will be able to settle the main dispute with Node any time soon. However, the majority of contributors to this article have already agreed on a number of other changes and I believe it would be beneficial to act on those. As regards the larger dispute, I am sure we can all use self-restraint and refrain from making great changes in those volatile areas until a consensus is reached. In any case, it is not fair that one user should be able to freeze an entire article. TSO1D 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree on these alleged copyvios, then ? Firstly, which parts are supposed to be copyvios, specifically ? --Lysy (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If I understand well, the problem is located on a statement (opinion about a common interest Moldo-Ukrainian). While the statement doesn't say too much about that alleged "common interest" and nobody can say what the authors actually have thought about the matter, I suggest that the statement should be discarded and let's move on, unprotecting the article. --Vasile 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we can move on and add the things that I presented you below. Bonaparte talk 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean this statement of the article:
Also Moldovan and Ukrainian authorities share an interest in a resolution of the crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty and in the removal of Russian forces from the region.
makes a copyvio ? We have already agreed to change it into:
Both Ukraine and Moldova requested Russia to withdraw the forces,
so this one hopefully is solved. Are there any other copyright issues, or was this the only one left ? --Lysy (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I never read any Ukraine leader that formally requested Russia to withdraw its army from Moldova. --Vasile 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. TSO1D 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
They (Ukr. President and Md. President have agreed and met many times and have common declaration on the territorial integrity of Moldova, status of russian forces and so on..) especially after "orange revolution from Ukraine" when Ukraine left moscow for bruxell. Bonaparte talk 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any statement or other source to confirm it ? --Lysy (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

source no. 1

Yes! I put now the romanian request and later the US and so on.

President Traian Basescu declared yesterday in Kiev, that the first step to solve the transnistrian crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime. In the speech presented at the Forum of the Democratic Option Community, the president referd at the Romania's responsability as an NATO member and future UE member state, in the process of democratic transformation, showing that "Romania is ready to share its expreience, for that itself has benefited by the support of friends". At the reunion where presidents of Estonia, Georgia, Letonia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine have also took part, Basescu discussed the problem of the security and stability in the baltic-pontic-caspic region. In this context, the chief of state affirmed that the most important challange it is the existance in the area of conflict zones, such as the autoritarian regimes from the separatist entities of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Osetia. President Basescu showed that, for Romania, Transnistria represints the most close and the most clear example in this sense. "The first step to solving the crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and also the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime, on the basis of a precise callendar, with multilateral guarantees", has underlined the chef of state.

The source link is the newspaper Romania libera: (http://www.romanialibera.ro/editie/index.php?url=articol&tabel=z03122005&idx=10) also others Curierul National (http://www.curierulnational.ro/?page=articol&editie=1018&art=66680) Bonaparte talk 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

source no. 2 US State Dept.

Link: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=December&x=200512221225281CJsamohT0.2225305&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

The conflict was halted by Russian troops, who remain in the region despite Russian pledges at the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit to withdraw them.

Calls for Russia to fulfill its pledge to withdraw its troops from Moldova have accompanied U.S. statements on the conflict for years, and Finley’s statement December 22 was no exception. “Nothing,” she said, “would help the settlement process more tangibly than for the Russian Federation to resume the withdrawal of its forces from Moldovan territory in fulfillment of its 1999 Istanbul Summit commitment.”

The United States supports a peaceful settlement to the conflict that fully respects Moldova's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, Finley said. Bonaparte talk 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Allright. Do we have any other copyright issues in the article remaining, or was that all ? --Lysy (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, we're fine. Now let's re-open the page. TSO1D 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to, but I would also like to hear a statement of others, esp. Node and Alex on this. In the meantime, let's work on Bonaparte's list below. --Lysy (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Things that must be added

I made an incomplete list with the things that must be added to this article:

All the aspects from this list must be emphasized and accentuated in the article:

  1. Poor wages (20$-month) for workers and other categories of people
    • Poor is a relative term. What is the cost of living? -TK
    Yes, how does it compare to Ukraine or the rest of Moldova ? --Lysy (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    According to this (in Romanian), in Moldova, in November 2005, the monthly average salary was 1284 lei ($100) and the average wage in agriculture was 674 lei ($52). (converted with this) bogdan 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. about the meaning of Moldovan/Romanian identity which has led to political conflict and ultimately civil war
  3. russification process made by war, force, deportations, massacre, prison, etc.
  4. changing of the ethnic composition
  5. the cultural and ideological identity applied to create another nation
  6. political tactics like school closures (romanian language one)
  7. status of Transnistria
  8. factors that influence the status of Transnistria
  9. Romania's role in the region
  10. USA, European Union, China and other powers role in Transnistria
  11. border identity
  12. isolation of the regime at internationally level
  13. relations with other countries including Gov. of Moldova
  14. influences of the activities of the Popular Front (a pan-Romanian organization)
  15. Igor Smirnov's real identity - short CV, background
  16. opposition to democratization and conflict resolution of the current gov.
  17. identity formation and socialization by education (-->see closure of romanian langauge schools)
  18. OSCE's role in Transnistria
  19. opposition to latin script of Romanian language
  20. politicization of education and instruments for creating visions of Transnistrian indentity
  21. future status part, autonomy, federal?
  22. census results, illegal changing of the results
  23. elections in Transnistria
  24. political interference in education and culture
  25. teaching of history, "history of Romanians", "history of Moldovans", "history of Moldova"
  26. free press, mass-media
  27. schools closures in Transnistria, impact at the internationally level, impact on the civil society in Transnistria, Moldova and other countries
  28. the influence of the fact that there are more ukrainians then russians in Transnistria (28% vs. 25%)
  29. international comunity reaction
  30. maybe the last one impact of a future union of Moldova with Romania, or joining the EU.

I will complete the list with other issues later. Bonaparte talk 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is pretty long already. How about extracting History of Transnistria to a separate article ? This could also possibly help in keeping the edit conflicts away from the main article. What do you think ? --Lysy (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


List of Romanian bias in the article

"Romanian bias", you are already biased by bringing us such a nice new section name. --Just a tag 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Middle Ages to the 20th Century

  1. Russian Empire annexed rather than colonized Transnistria in the late 18th century , since it was not an independent nation at the time but Ottoman Empire's procession and in the context of time Russian Empire had legitimate claims to the regions (i.e. Orthodox Christian empire protecting its co-religionists, re-taking the lands of Kievan Rus and Byzantine Empire to whom Moscow traced its historic origin etc. )
    Hi Fisenko, long time no see. As regards the above-mentioned statement, I believe that the word colonization is more appropriate in this particular context. Though the region was in fact annexed by the Russian Empire, colonization refers to the settlement of the region by people not native to the region. This did in fact happen to some extent as people of different nationalities were brought to the region in order to develop the area. The word colonization here should not be viewed as bias as it does not necessarily have a negative connotation but merely reflects a reality. TSO1D 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Annexation is used too liberally all around to make a point that something bad was done rather than to use the right word. In fact, you cannot annex something through the treaty, even an unfair treaty forced by the stronger nation over the weaker one, because annexation is a unilateral act. "Forcing to cede", "expand", "drive out", etc. should ne used instead of annexation in such circumstances. --Irpen 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't I who proposed using the word annexation, but Fisenko. The current word used is colonization. TSO1D 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Moldova

  2. The Moldovian SSR became the subject of a systematic policy of Russification, even more so than in Tsarist times. Cyrillic was made the official script for Moldavian.

This is another biased statement. Especially the issue of Cyrillic alphabet which is not a simply Russian policy completely foreign to native people of Moldova but also a historic script used in the region even by Romanian-speakers. Latin alphabet was only introduced in Moldova in the 20th century unlike in Romania proper where switch from Cyrillic to Latin occurred almost century earlier.

Moldovan "Soviet-made" Cyrillic is not the same thing as Romanian Cyrillic. You can write English using the English Latin alphabet or you chen rait it iuzing Rumeiniăn Latin alphabet. :-) bogdan 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not horribly different. The only changes were to symbols for vowels. Well, that's originally -- later on (in the 1970s or 1980s I think?), they added the glyph of "zhe" with the little breve above it to signify the "dj" sound. Also, there are only a handful of changes to vowels, and some could be considered "standardisation" because that character was already used in some situations (such as character for î). In fact, as far as I know, the only 2 real differences were using "ь" instead of "й" for the palatalisation at the end of words, and using "э" instead of "ъ" for the short u sound. So ðat woud be like riting English like ðis I þink. Yes, it's different, but any language with a long written history undergoes some sort of reform at some point. I think the most major change was the switch from using Graiul Moldovenesc in writing (cf Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei) to using Bucharestian with only a few changes (пыне, кыне instead of пыине, кыине is the chief example), and in some situations trying to replace Gallicisms and Italianisms with Slavicisms or even to replace Romanian words with Slavicisms (амик -> приетен; тимп -> време). --Node 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Violation of human rights

  2. Text below election poster of Igor Smirnov should be instead "Pro Russian election propaganda during 2001 presidential election in Transnistria" changed to more neutral statement such as "Igor Smirnov poster during 2001 presidential election in Transnistria"
  3. Transnistrian point of view on conflict with Moldova should either be mentioned or the whole focus of the article which is currently basically states only Moldovan/Romanian view of Tiraspol should be modified.

For example virtually every problem (crime, corruption, lack of democracy, poverty, harsh prison conditions, women trafficking, religious intolerance etc.) exist elsewhere in Moldova on the same level (or worse) as in Transnistria but it is not a focus of the article about Republic of Moldova.

For example ? Reports given in the references indicate that the rate of corruption, crime is much bigger in that region, and your "for example" just doesn't work. --Just a tag 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2004 crisis

  1. The fact what arrested teachers and parents were released the same day within few hours should be mentioned.
Reference please. --Just a tag 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Economy

  1. The claim what Transnistria is "poorest region in Europe" is highly questionable. By article's own admission a large part of Transnistrian economy is shadow and thus official statistic provided here are of little relevance. Keep in mind as it stated in the article 1) Transnistria is the industrial region of Moldova, while the rest of country is agricultural. 2) A large part of national revenue everywhere in Moldova comes from income earned by its citizens working abroad.
Given the official reports and official data it is, if you have valid references proving them wrong, bring it on. --Just a tag 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. My information about a number of other large factories in Transnistria not mention in the current version of Economy section of the article and was repeatedly deleted in the past.
Cool, my neighbor's information, my neighbor's friend information. --Just a tag 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not constructive. Wikipedia has a Cite Sources policy. If he has relevant information from a credible source, he should be allowed to use it. Your neighbour and your neighbour's friend are not credible sources for information about Transnistria unless they should happen to be experts which I somehow doubt. --Node 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Bring citations. bogdan 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Overall Economy, Violation of human rights and Crime sections of the article contain most bias. Fisenko 23:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So you say. --Just a tag 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
...--Node 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Protection

I believe we have deliberated enough to warrant the removal of the current freeze on this page. We have reached several important decisions that should be implemented sooner rather than later, otherwise valid ideas will just stack up and be made irrelevant by other disputes. I mean we can sit here and talk until the cows go home but it's not as if we can achieve an ABSOLUTE reconociliation. The present situation is adequate to allow a re-opening of the page to permit futher work. TSO1D 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Although we should make agreed-upon changes ASAP, I think that an unprotection of the page would just start edit wars anew. --Node 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Node on this one.Constantzeanu 01:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Well, what do you propose then? TSO1D 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What I see no is that is no opposition to the proposed statement "Ukraine and Moldova against presence of Russian army". There will be more war-edit,Node just promised that. But the article should be unprotected now. --Vasile 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh-ho-ho... I "promised" it, did I? No, I said "I think". I don't really have much of a problem with the "Ukraine and Moldova against presence of Russian army" although I'm still a bit skeptical about claims that Ukraine opposes Russian presence (well, OK, obviously they oppose Russian presence just because the Ukrainian government is now pro-EU and anti-Russia, but I mean specific opposition rather than a generalised resentment of Russia). I don't think that will be an issue. I would expect revert wars to be over other things. --Node 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Node is obviously unable to prove his allegations of copyvio, and even not able to show which parts of the article are the supposed copyvios, I call for a consensus that each such edit of his based on unsupported copyvio allegations will be promptly reverted to avoid the confusion that we have experienced recently. --Lysy (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I proved my allegations, you just ignored it. --Node 08:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on, playing this kind of game is a waste of time both for me and you. I've asked you many times to show which specific part of the article is the alleged copyvio, but you never did and I'm sure there're many witnesses to confirm this. --Lysy (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I did. Please, don't pretend I didn't. Check the archives of this page, it's very clear. --Node 09:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Vasile 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Constantzeanu 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Just a tag 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. TSO1D 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. Bonaparte talk 16:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Lysy (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well what have we here... all "support" voters are Romanians... surprise? No. --Node 08:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on Node, have some sardines and be content. TSO1D 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I see that a consensus at least on this Node's allegation has been reached. I did not expect Node to support it, as he clearly has his own agenda here. I'm going to request the article being unblocked soon, and we'll see what happens. --Lysy (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page as it seems acceptable to most users here. Don't start edit-warring though. If you think that protection may be required again, you can post a request at WP:RPP. Izehar 16:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally. Hurrah! TSO1D 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiming in belatedly

Hi, Bonaparte asked me to take a look at this page. I don't have a lot to say at this time, but I do have three comments:

  1. If people can agree to unprotect the page, great!
  2. If not, any genuinely undisputed edits can be made by an admin, once identified and agreed upon.
  3. On a separate matter: when alleging copyright violation, it is important to be very specific what you feel is the problem. Keep in mind that there is precedent under fair use law for almost any amount of quotation of political statements by professional politicians. For example, newspapers routinely reproduce entire speeches, and even commercial works hostile to a politician have been published that consisted almost entirely of quotations from that politician (the Bushisms series, for example). A paragraph or two quoted from a political figure, especially if it comes from a speech or a newspaper article rather than a book, and as long as it is correctly attributed and used in a relevant context, is almost always fair use.

Jmabel | Talk 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies

It has come to my attention that someone is using open proxies to edit this article. This edit was made by an open proxy 212.50.186.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which I have indefinitely blocked. Editing Wikipedia through open proxies is not allowed and IMO is it a shame that there is no way to find out who is using them. Trolling in this manner is unacceptable in my opinion and I see it as a very cowardly approach; Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. (Message to whoever is using them): if you want your edits to be accepted, please use the talk page to justify them - IMO using open proxies rebuts WP:AGF. Izehar 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

restored information deleted by node ue

I restored information deleted by node ue. 83.220.143.18 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

83.220.143.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also an open proxy and has been indefinitely blocked. Izehar 17:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

why did u block him?Constantzeanu 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Because open proxys are not allowed. --Khoikhoi 07:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference

Why was this reference removed from the article:

Graeme Herd, Jennifer Moroney. Security Dynamics in the Former Soviet Bloc. ISBN 041529732X.

Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Image of map

Can someone add a legend to the map into the image page? (I am curious about the meaning of the solid blue area and the areas bounded bu blue lines). I'd also like to see Nistru there (and in other maps of Moldova), but I guess it is a different technical issue. mikka (t) 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

solid blue area is transnistria as an administrative division according to moldovan law, and the are bounded by the blue line represent territories that are administred by de facto independent transnistrian authorities (or at least what they claim to be, see map in population section)  : transnitria as teritorial unit + most of dubasari raion, municipality of tighina + part of causeni raion (gyska and kitskany regions). the dniester can be added, but the color of the selection should be changed, for contrast. if you want the dniester in all moldavian maps, it's easy to put it, but you'll have to reupload a lot of maps, some of them in commons. please suggest what should i say in a legend and what colour should i choos for the selection, if you want to add the dniester. Anonimu 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A reference request

Would the person who claimed that 90% of Moldovan industry is in the disputed Transnistrian region? I'm not trying to argue anything, I just think that source wil be useful in a paper for a class of mine.

No, it says 90% of its electricity production, not of the whole industry.
And the exact citation is:
John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (editors) Regional Peacekeepers. The paradox of Russian peacekeeping. (2003) United Nations University Press ISBN 9280810790, pp 135
bogdan 12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

These links are very neutral and fits very well with the current situation from Transnistria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.19.170 (talk • contribs)

The absence of neutrality and offencive character of the linked pages is obvious. 80.58.19.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please, stop adding spam to Wikipedia. --Zserghei 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, links are not required to be NPOV, but to be accepted they have to have enough quality content relevant to the article. bogdan 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that besides not being NPOV, which is of course not a demand for personal pages, these links don't have enough quality. If you visit one of them, you'll see it immediately. --Zserghei 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
For me they have enough quality. Quiet illustrated view on Transnistria.
Zserghei are you angry? Look Zserghei you have to accept opposition. I know that in Russia they closing NGOs but Wikipedia is not yet in your sphere of influence. Not many transnistrians are pro-Russians that is a fact, Zserghei stop living in a dream world, the only link that you accept are highly misinformation pro-Russian puppet sites- that is unfair, let show two sides of this issue.
EvilAlex 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't access the first one. The second does not look to me like a quality site. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the second one is perhaps a spoof site?

Visitors to Pridnestrovie report that unique among countries in South Eastern Europe, the paperwork process is clear, transparent and easy. There is no visa required and only a quick, hassle-free registration for longer stays. As a multi-ethnic country, Pridnestrovie welcomes foreign visitors with open arms. We hope that you'll visit and see the reality of what our country has accomplished.

The domain was registered in Mexico by the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty which is also registered in Mexico. - FrancisTyers 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification, I'm talking about this site as the "second one". - FrancisTyers 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

pridnestrovie.net 1

Thanks for the clarification, because Jmabel above is talking about this EvilAlex-created site when he refers to the second site above. Pridnestrovie.net is not a spoof site which is clear from reading their About page or the Russian section. It clearly has a Transnistrian POV. List it under the "Transnistrian side" links so it is clear that the information is biased towards presenting a positive image of Transnistria. The site itself, both in its Russian and English versions, does not attempt to hide that fact either. - William Mauco 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pridnestrovie.net should be added to the link section, clearly labelled as "Transnistrian side". As Bogdan says, links are not required to be NPOV but just to have enough quality content relevant to the article. Pridnestrovie.net seems to have around two hundred Transnistria photos and around one hundred Transnistria articles. See the site's quite extensive Article index so I think it qualifies. If anyone disagrees let us have a discussion about this, but IMHO it should be added back and stay under Transnistria-side links as a resource for those who want to understand the POV of the Transnistrian side and their opinions on how to solve the conflict. William Mauco 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Look this site is misinformational – it is nobody sites
It is not reliable
1-It says:” International observers call elections free, democratic” Whoever created that site didn’t want to tell you true abou real transnistria!
2- “Since independence in 1990, it has a free market economy, 200% growth, and a multi-party democracy with the opposition in control of parliament.”
Every opposition leader or fled the country or in jail.
There are many misinformational articles (note I am not talking about controversial, I am talking about completely misinformational)
EvilAlex 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
EvilAlex, I understand that you do not agree with the contents of a site. Your own biased POV is clear from the two sites which you yourself created, [9] and [10]. But we list Pridnestrovie.net under Transnistria POV. As for not being reliable, please provide sources for your blanket statements.
1 - In the last election there were 153 international observers. OSCE did not participate so OSCE does not regard the elections democratic. CIS-EMO did participate and did call them democratic. This is widely reported in the press, see Regnum.ru for instance. Among the observers were members of Parliament, for instance from the Polish Sejm. To say that there were no international observers (as you imply by calling Pridnestrovie.net's info wrong) is not true. Moreover, those observers who were present clearly said what they felt about the elections. If you do not agree, sorry. But the opinion of the 153 international observers are on the record. I am not advocating a point of view but just stating the facts.
2 - You dispute the economic figures or the fact that tere are multiple parties in Transnistria. Please provide objective data on alternative growth figures. Please provide objective source denying the existence of multiple political parties in Transnistria.
3 - Reference, please, for the statement "every opposition leader or fled the country or in jail". Alexander Radchenko lives in Transnistria and is often the subject of foreign interviews. Tom Zenovich still lives in Transnistria. They are not in jail, nor have they ever been. Yevgeny Shevchuk and Mikhail Burla not only still live in Transnistria, they are leaders of an opposition bloc in the Supreme Soviet. You may not agree with them as being opposition (because they do not support your views) but they are: The Council of Europe has recognized Yevgeny Shevchuk as the main Transnistrian opposition leader in a 2005 report. Also in 2005 he used his parliamentary bloc to drive sweeping changes to the electoral code. For instance, election station chairman are no longer appointed by the ruling party but have to meet objective legal criteria. The latest human rights report from the U.S. State Department, released yesterday, also notes that in July 2005 the opposition block in parliament succeeded in making changes to the election code to prohibit media controlled by the Transnistrian government authorities from publishing results of polls and forecasts related to elections which is an advance in order to prevent the government from influencing the way people would vote.
Main point to EvilAlex is that you can not just delete a link because you disagree with it. According to the page's history, this is now the third time you do so. This qualifies a vandalism. The link is clearly labelled "Transnistria side" and does not purport to be objective. However, you have yet to point out a single factual error or mistake. With hundreds of photos and articles it would appear to be a quality side even if those of us here do not agree with every opinion it has. I would like to discuss this more but unless a violation of Wikipedia policy (such as no relevance) can be shown, then it should be included and should stay included. William Mauco 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1- CIS-EMO organization (so-called “Elections Monitoring Organization”), is not recognized internationally as an independent election observer. This organization was proven to have poor records in Ukraine ,Kyrgyzstan .
"Soon after the CIS monitors declared the Kyrgyz vote was "free and transparent," large-scale and often violent demonstrations broke out throughout the country protesting what the opposition called a rigged parliamentary election. These protests culminated on 24 March when Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev fled the country and a new government was formed."
See CIS: Monitoring The Election Monitors.
"153 international observers" -- so many ??? 153 members of the circus... :))))
2- see Ilie Ilaşcu is a Moldovan and Romanian politician, famous for being sentenced to death by the separatist Transnistrian government.
EvilAlex 14:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

1- "Not recognized internationally" is another blanket statement. CIS-EMO is recognized by the countries and governments funding it. Among other accredited observers there were members of Parliaments (Poland, Russia), political leaders (Ukraine, Jordan) and human rights workers (Britain). A group from Chisinau, Patria Moldova, also sent observers. It is easy to discredit observers, but ultimately we are not arguing whether or not these observers have merit. Rather, Pridnestrovie.net states that there were international observers present (which there were) and that they deemed the elections free and fair (which they did). Pridnestrovie.net also clearly states that the OSCE did NOT participate and claims that the elections were not free and that the OSCE does not recognize the election. Even though the site is obviously Transnistrian in POV, I have yet to find anything untrue.
2- Ilie Ilaşcu left years ago to pursue a political career as a senator in Romania. He obviously could not get the required votes to be elected for anything in Transnistria. He is not relevant to the political situation in Transnistria today (2006). Bringing him into the debate hardly serves to reference your statement that "every opposition leader or fled the country or in jail". Former presidential opposition candidates Alexander Radchenko and Tom Zenovich still live Transnistria, as do Yevgeny Shevchuk and Mikhail Burla, leaders of an opposition bloc which today holds the majority in the Supreme Soviet.

I respect Alex Bakharev but I believe that in this particular case he has failed to make his point and vote that we should restore the link to pridnestrovie.net as being relevant and not in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. William Mauco 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ilascu did not left Tirspol by his own, he was forcibly expelled, personally by Mr. Antiufeev in May 2001. Ilascu might be very relevant for the future of Moldova (2006). --Vasile 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
>CIS-EMO is recognized by the countries and governments funding it.
By Russia :) Whatever, it have poor records, it is not well respected in international arena.

>Among other accredited observers there were members of Parliaments (Poland, Russia), political leaders (Ukraine, Jordan) and human rights workers (Britain). A group from Chisinau, Patria Moldova, also sent observers. It is easy to discredit observers, but ultimately we are not arguing whether or not these observers have merit. .
Ooo.. my friend that is very matter. They should be well respected in international arena, otherwise… :( no point.
.
>Rather, Pridnestrovie.net states that there were international observers present (which there were) and that they deemed the elections free and fair (which they did).
Look, it is misinformation. .
Then I can be an international observer too. Anybody who came from abroad will be an international observer. :)) .
.
>Pridnestrovie.net also clearly states that the OSCE did NOT participate and claims that the elections were not free and that the OSCE does not recognize the election. .
I didn’t see it small print probably. .
.
>Even though the site is obviously Transnistrian in POV
I am from Transnistria and my POV is diferrent from Pridnestrovie.net, so you cannot clime it as “Transnistrian POV”, our POV are different. .
.
If author of Pridnestrovie.net wants to contribute to Wikipedia with his articles and pictures and so on.., then I welcome it… .
But as a link this site is misinformational and is not reliable. .
EvilAlex 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just a visitor, the two of you are arguing over the content of a link, but that misses the point because links do not have to adhere to a neutral point of view, so they can be included when they have relevant content even if the content is not something that everyone agrees on, in fact that is the whole point of including different links like you have here, Russian side, Moldova side, Transnistrian side, and so on, so I give a second vote to William and say to include that link, there is no reason to not have it in there as far as policy guidelines are concerned. Sincerely, R. Gladchi

Link at list should reflect some reality. And not immerse visitor in to the word of fantasy. It is note reliable site. And it is note a government site- it is nobody site.
EvilAlex 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev has still not pointed out anything on the site that puts it into the world of fantasy. I have read about thirty of the site's articles so far and it has some interesting relevant background information, history of Transnistria, etc. I don't know who added the link, but the site is full of interesting info which reflects how the PMR government thinks. We may not agree with them but it is certainly relevant to know their position on the issues (and how they view themselves) as the conflict settlement talks are underway, so I am adding it back in. I am willing to continue the discussion about this, but you should not just remove the link before the editors of the page have completed the discussion. If you do so, it will be the fourth time you do so unilaterally. As Gladchi says above: the NPOV requirement does not apply to links. But to satisfy your concern, it will go be clearly marked as "Transnistria side", just as pro-Moldovan sites are labelled Moldova side etc. 206.49.165.171 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The link to www.pridnestrovie.net is good. It has the exact same point of view as the other links listed under Transnistria side: Olvia Press and PMR President's site. Leave pridnestrovie.net's link in the list or else delete all of the Transnistria side links once and for all. William Mauco 02:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

EvilAlex ALSO removed another link: Transdniestria.com: Aggregator of third party news stories on Transnistria (both sides) It is a site whose main content is a round-up of news. In the last 2 months and 9 days the site has published 72% pro-Moldova news, 21% pro-Transnistria, and the rest neutral. It is updated daily. It is not very pretty, design-wise, but as a news source it is the most complete "one stop" in English for Transnistria. Jim from moldova.org has posted a lot there. Why did you just delete this one, Alex, without prior discussion? Is it any worse than some of the other links? Or do you just not like the domain name? Please do not vandalise more without prior discussion.

pridnestrovie.net 2

whois says: 

pridnestrovie.net

Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (secretariat@icdiss.org)
c/o ICDISS
Paseo de la Reforma 124
Ciudad de Mexico, Codigo Postal 22
MX

I have little credigility for "pridnestrovians" from Mexico, and the link must be purged from the article. It is not, like, an official or semi-official country's portal, which would of course obligatory in the article about a country. Briefly looking thru webpage content my best guess it is Sheriff's spawn. 192.18.42.11 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To anonymous, re domain registration origin: Do you know what "c/o" stands for? Someone else registered the name for them and are hosting it. In what way does this affect the content? Or the relevancy of the content. At any rate, if this is now a criteria for deleting links ... then we also need to also delete the following Moldova.org link in order to be consistent. Otherwise the link must stand as being relevant (albeit biased to official Transnistria POV which is why we list it under 'Transnistria Side')
moldova.org

MOLDOVA.ORG
P.O. Box 796
Arlington, VA 22216
USA
Re "It is not, like, an official or semi-official country's portal". I would argue that it is. Read their About page: it was built following Ruling 2241, "On Adoption of the Foreign Policy Concept of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica", cites a presidential statement, has government endorsements (same page, second to last paragraph), and if you can read Russian then you can see that its mission statement is written by the state-owned Olvia Press news agency. As a country portal, it is also informative. Biased, of course, but with some interesting insight into how the official PMR sees itself vis-a-vis Moldova. The articles on international recognition are interesting, too. Oxford University staff collaborated on them and one of Condeleeza Rice's people did too as you can see from the site if you look at it a bit more than just "briefly". William Mauco 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


> then we also need to also delete the following Moldova.org link in order to be consistent.
Moldova.org was launched in February 1997 by Vlad Spanu (then a senior diplomat at the Moldovan embassy in Washington, DC, now the Executive Director of The Moldova Foundation ) and Sergey Chapkey (then the President of The Rule of Law Foundation, now the President and CEO of Alfa XP Web Software Company, LLC).
They are well known and respected that is why we can rely on this ste Moldova.org); pridnestrovie.net was written by nobody from nowhere, that is why it is not reliable.

>Otherwise the link must stand as being relevant (albeit biased to official Transnistria POV which is why we list it under 'Transnistria Side')
I am from Transnistria and my POV is diferrent from Pridnestrovie.net, so you cannot clime it as “Transnistrian POV”, our POV are different.
>Read their About page : it was built following Ruling 2241, "On Adoption of the Foreign Policy Concept of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica
Any references to nobody page are not reliable.
>if you can read Russian then you can see that its mission statement is written by the state-owned Olvia Press news agency.
Olvia Press didn’t say anything about creating this site..
And again you rely on nobody page, your references are not reliable.

Wikipedia is not a link library.
If author of Pridnestrovie.net wants to contribute to Wikipedia with his articles and pictures and so on.., then I welcome it… .
But as a link this site is misinformational and is not reliable. .
The same I can say about transdniestria.com – nobody page we cant link to it or base our references on it. EvilAlex 13:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, EvilAlex but several people here have politely asked you to NOT VANDALISE MORE without first exhausting the discussion. Nevertheless, you just remove the links off for the fifth time. You have used a variety of arguments but failed but back up every single one of them. The latest is that these are "nobody sites" although I do not know what you mean by that. If that is a test, please apply that test consistently to ALL links and do not just remove the two sides that show an official point of view from Transnistria that you do not personally agree with. EvilAlex, please do not remove these links again without the editors of this page reaching a consensus as to what constitutes a generally agreed upon link policy. The two links which you have removed for the fifth time should be added back in while the editors of this page participate in the future constructive discussion about this. I believe that our role here is to build a useful research tool and encyclopedia and not to fight an edit war. William Mauco 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
>Sorry, EvilAlex but several people here have politely asked you to NOT VANDALISE MORE
Sorry William Mauco but several people here have politely asked you to NOT TO SPAM ANY MORE

>without first exhausting the discussion. Nevertheless, you just remove the links off for the fifth time. You have used a variety of arguments but failed but back up every single one of them.
Sorry William Mauco but I didn’t hear even a single contra argument from you.

>The latest is that these are "nobody sites" although I do not know what you mean by that.
Sorry William Mauco but "nobody” is always nobody.

>If that is a test, please apply that test consistently to ALL links
If you have any doubt in others links then I will be happy to discus it with you.

>and do not just remove the two sides that show an official point of view from Transnistria that you do not personally agree with.
Sorry William Mauco but that is where I disagree “official point of view”, no, no, no –more like “personal point of view”, even more “nobody’s point of view”.

>EvilAlex, please do not remove these links again without the editors of this page reaching a consensus as to what constitutes a generally agreed upon link policy.
William Mauco please do not spam these links again without the editors of this page reaching a consensus as to what constitutes a generally agreed upon link policy.
EvilAlex 17:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Alex, "nobody" can't create sites and there's no such thing as "nobody’s point of view". Could you also show us what the official Transnistrian point of view is, then? To see what you are comparing the contested link with.
William Mauco has provided his reasons, but you've dismissed them all as references to "nobody's" sites. You really should clarify what do you mean by the term.
While your personal POV clearly differs from the official Transnistrian one, this doesn't enable you to remove a link to the site representing the latter. --Illythr 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
>Could you also show us what the official Transnistrian point of view is, then? To see what you are comparing the contested link with.
Yes of course Official Transnistrian point of view can be fully read here: [click here]
>William Mauco has provided his reasons, but you've dismissed them all as references to "nobody's" sites. You really should clarify what do you mean by the term.
In this contest nobody meant “not reliable”
>While your personal POV clearly differs from the official Transnistrian one, this doesn't enable you to remove a link to the site representing the latter
But it doesn’t disable me from trying to remove it…
EvilAlex 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi All!! I have followed this debate from the sidelines for the past 3 days. Was hoping you kids could resolve it amongs yourselves. Now I decided to chime in with my own comments. Leave the links alone, let them stay on the site so people like me can find them again because www.pridnestrovie.net and www.transdniestria.com are not spam. Spam is defined as putting irrelevant garbage on to a site (viagra, penis pills, etc). These two sites are relevant. They both deal with the subject at hand and they both have hundreds of pages of content each. Both are about Transnistria and I have enjoyed reading them even though I certainly don´t agree with everything that they say. There is no question on who is right here or who is wrong, those two links clearly belong on wiki´s Transnistria page for relevance. ConsultantJoe 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading this site is like looking true garbage (viagra, penis pills, etc).
It is a propaganda site. Definitely qualified as a spam. RightChoice 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion would be worth more if you could provide examples and references instead of just oversweeping blanket accusations. I have read probably about 35 articles so far on Pridnestrovie.net and most of what I found there is in-depth and documented; especially in the section dealing with international recognition. This is original content, not rehashed from other sites, and it is most certainly relevant to the subject of this page (Transnistria). I found no mention of Viagra or penis pills. As far as your claim that it is a propaganda site, that is in the eyes of the beholder. Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The site is clearly biased towards Transnistria's POV (read: PMR's POV) but they don't hide that, as you can tell from their About page and neither should we. We "solve" the problem of lack of NPOV by putting it under the clear heading of Transnistrian side and I haven't seen anyone here who has ever pretended to want to put it anywhere else. So what's the problem? In terms of content, it is no more "propaganda" than the PMR Presidency site or Olvia-press which we also list and have listed for well over a year here. So if the editors agree, after discussion of the merits, that we should to remove Pridnestrovie.net then we would also have to remove those other two links as well in order to be consistent. William Mauco 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Spam. Self and ideology promotion and increase of PageRanking for insignificant sites.
EvilAlex 11:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and I would like to explain why. The site is relevant since it is 100% about Transnistria. "Self" hardly applies because I am not a Transnistrian nor am I involved in any way with the work of the site. I am involved, however, in building a Wikipedia page and making it into a more useful resource for researchers who want to find relevant links and want to know all the sides of the issue, rather than just the side which EvilAlex personally favors. With regards to "ideology" this is inevitable in a controversial topic and when we deal with external links to sites espousing a viewpoint. We have already solved this problem by listing each "ideological" site under a subheading such as Moldovan side, Transnistrian side, etc. The solution is not to delete another user's contribution. Please read Wikipedia:Spam and you will see that it is wholly inappropriate to this case. Before you vandalize again, please see Wikipedia:External_links for guidance and policy on which external links should be included and which should not. Thank you. William Mauco 15:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
> The site is relevant since it is 100% about Transnistria.
It can be 200% Transnistrian but if it says that white is black it became about a personal view on Transnistria and not about factual view. And personal views can be different even between Transnistrians.
Regarding “Self”:
Self applies to a person whose view this site represent.
Regarding “ideology in controversial topics” and “ideology in external links to sites espousing a viewpoint”:We should rely on the official governments or on internationally recognized NGO’s or on well known and respected individuals, but not on personal points of insignificant people.
For more info see Wikipedia:Spam. Self and ideology promotion and increase of PageRanking for insignificant sites.
EvilAlex 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. User 'EvilAlex' obviously thinks that he owns this page: He deletes other people's contributions without discussing it first. He does this because he can not accept an opposing viewpoint. He is very biased as you can see if you visit his own webpages here and here. He is clearly not the kind of level-headed person who can accept both sides of the issue or who should be editing an encyclopedia. I am glad to see that the links have been restored although I wonder how long they will stay until he vandalizes the page again. William Mauco 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not a government site., it is not an NGO’s site. Self and ideology promotion. See Wikipedia:Spam. Andrey_ru 12:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Pridnestrovie.net is developed in collaboration with the PMR government (a direct quote from Pridnestrovie.net's own about page which also explains that the site was made following the PMR parliament's Ruling 2241, "On Adoption of the Foreign Policy Concept of Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica". It is hard to think of any page which can be more appropriate or more relevant to the subject of Wikipedia's Transnistria page. William Mauco 15:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single reliable prove that it is a government site. That is what I doubt. You can’t rely on that site for references! Your references are equal to zero. Give my more reliable references. I do note believe in TRANSNISTRIAN GOVERNMENT FROM MEXICO.
EvilAlex 16:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This argument is going in circles. EvilAlex, your yourself live in England, yet you claim to represent a Transnistrian view. I respect that. I also fully understand that in today's age of globalization and internet collaboration any company or any government is free to choose hosting companies and domain registrars from any other country (even from Mexico). It has been pointed out to you before that even Pridnestrovie.net's own record lists a "c/o", which means "care of", and does in any way detract from whatever merit that pridnestrovie.net or PMR's government has or does not have.
However, if you still doubt that pridnestrovie.net is not an official government website then the answer is not to vandalise by deleting the added content of other users but rather to research the issue further. For instance, you can write to the head of the Supreme Court of PMR or to the director of the PMR news agency Tiras.ru, both of whom are government employees and both of whom are listed as references on pridnestrovie.net, both of whom speak English, and whose email addresses are available from their web sites. This would qualify as actually adding something of value to the debate rather than the wholesale destruction which we have seen here so far. - William Mauco 18:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Transdniestria.com

Jonathanpops wrote: Mikkalai, why do you say blogs are not allowed on wikipedia regarding the addittions of www.transdniestria.com in the external links? It makes no sense to me, whether it's a blog or not - that's just semantics - it's a site about Transnistria and pretty much nothing else by the looks of it. This is a page about Transnistria is it not? I don't understand.

Actually, Mikkalai, transdniestria.com is not a blog. 99% of the content comes down to being a news aggregation site. 3 or 4 volunteer users add a couple of news articles every day. There is no original content, everything comes from other sites. All of the articles are in English. The site is made by an expatriate Transnistrian, Nicola, who is personally pro-PMR. However, his own pro-PMR view does not affect the selection of the articles and he does not use any sort of censorship. It seems that whenever he finds anything about Transnistria that it is in the news (and that he is aware of), then he posts it, regardless of pro- or con or viewpoint. I have been a regular reader of his site since last year and it is a good "one stop" place for news on Transnistria. Articles are 70%+ pro-Moldova news, around 20% pro-Transnistria, and the rest neutral. Since we are including a Moldovan news source, under external links, Moldovan side, I also think that we should include this one. In my personal opinion it should be included right under the BBC link (in order words, not with any clearly marked POV, since the content is a mixed bag of pro- and con- and neutral). - 01:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the content of transdniestria.com, having watched it now for quite a while I see you're right it is mostly news from 3rd parties, but there are people's opinions that are original, and a few articles here and there there can't be found anywhere else. It's a pity this whole page on wikipedia has had to be locked down because of abuse, I have to say though that I think it's very wrong that visitors to this page aren't allowed to be given the opportunity to see transdniestria.com and make up their own minds and add their own opinions. The site is there and there's no point not linking to it. I know there's no point in adding it now because someone who thinks they know better than me will just remove it again, it is a shame though.

off-topic

The official viewpoint of the PMR government is probably best articulated at the website of their MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs). It can be seen here: http://www.mfa-pmr.org/home/index.php?lang=eng
It is incorrect to claim that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is the representative of the official viewpoint of PMR because although PMR and Russia have overlapping opinions on many subjects but they also have differences, most importantly in relation to the issue of international recognition (Russia does not want to recognize the sovereignty of PMR whereas PMR wants Russia, and other countries, to recognize it as a sovereign entity). Sorry if this is off-topic, but users Illythr and EvilAlex touched on that above. William Mauco 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

>It is incorrect to claim that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is the representative of the official viewpoint of PMR because although PMR and Russia have overlapping opinions on many subjects but they also have differences
Differences!? I am sorry, what differences?
>Russia does not want to recognize the sovereignty of PMR, most importantly in relation to the issue of international recognition.
Wants but can’t. They can’t do it officially it will spark international criticism, but of course they do it unofficially, behind the scene.
Russian Fed treats Transnistrian border as it own.
Russian Fed maintains military presents in PMR in contradiction to Istanbul agreement.
EvilAlex 12:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You are entitled to your own opinion. However, if you have any official references from either the Russian Federation or the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic which in any way support your viewpoint that the official position of PMR is identical to that of Russia then please post them. Otherwise we, as editors, should base our decisions on the facts which are on the record and not on the opinion of a biased ideologist. I hate to repeat myself, but like I said above: They have overlapping opinions but they also have differences. Overlapping is not the same as identical. I will not dignify your statement that "Russian Fed treats Transnistrian border as it own" with even a comment, especially not in context of the current actions on the border with Ukraine which started on March 3 and which is causing grave hardship to PMR even as we speak. William Mauco 15:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ha-ha-ha “official references from either the Russian Federation or the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic” What do you think it is a circus? Official references from the Russian Federation and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic are in Lubianca Square headquarter of Russian KGB. The only reliable references are eye witness accounts from Transnistrian residents see:
eye witness accounts of Russian-Transnistrian collaboration
>I will not dignify your statement that "Russian Fed treats Transnistrian border as it own" with even a comment, especially not in context of the current actions on the border with Ukraine which started on March 3 and which is causing grave hardship to PMR even as we speak.
Hell man you are so far from reality
Russian 14’Th army shouldn’t occupy and enforce a Stalinist regime in a foreign country for 14 years.
EvilAlex 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Too many plain factual errors to even begin commenting on, especially since this is an off-topic subject and not dealing with any specific content portion of the article. - William Mauco 18:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions on the link section: It can be cleaned up somewhat by applying a policy as to which links are relevant and which links are not. As editor EvilAlex points out above, "Wikipedia is not a link library". I agree with him. Primarily, I suggest that in line with other Wikipedia articles our main link policy should be to first and foremost concentrate on including links of a "read more" type. By that I mean links which, when you are done reading the main Wikipedia article on Transnistria you can then branch out and focus in more detail on some of the subjects covered in the body of the article by following the external links. Moreover, since this is English Wikipedia, we should only include links to sites that are either completely in English or else have a significant amount of English language content. This is not a huge problem now but if we establish guidelines for which links to include in the future then this should be one of these guidelines.

Next, I propose the following changes of a "housecleaning" nature:
1. Move the link "Armed conflict in and around the city of Bendery" out of the sublabel Russian side and up under External links in general. There are several reasons. First, the text of the link does not in any way reflect or refer to official Russian policy on Transnistria. Nor does it promote Russian views. So the heading is misleading. Second, the author (Human Rights and Humanitarian Society "Memorial") has made a name for itself as anti-government in the countries it works in, Russia and elsewhere. It is very much in opposition and receives Western funding, among others from the George Soros foundation. Nothing wrong with that, but it shows that our claim on this page that their information represents the "Russian side" is just wrong and ought to be corrected in the interest of objectivity.
2. Remove sublabel Others or else rename it in line with the previous subcategories of links, to reflect the contents of the subcategory. As it stands now, what is there to distinguish Others from the main category of initial External links in general? Removing it or alternatively relabelling it will clean up the links section of the article and make it a tool which is easier to use. If the subcategory is to be renamed, in this case we could call it Romanian side because the contents is written from a Romanian POV and spells out why there is a Romanian claim or connection of sorts to Transnistria, which I do not personally agree with but which I am certainly willing to let stand as long as the article is labelled as such and as long as we apply a similar link policy to articles with other points of views. Current status: I have not made any changes to the article or moved/deleted/changed any links since I first wanted to hear the opinions of others on the above suggestions. -- William Mauco 16:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re 1. Move the link "Armed conflict in and around the city of Bendery" out of the sublabel Russian side and up under External links in general.
Memo.ru is a Russian based organization that looks after the rights of Russian citizens in CIS, hens => we have a one way story here.
In Russia there is a tighten controls on non-governmental organization. Russian based organizations doesn’t inspire much credibility. If it was based in Geneva or Helsinki that would be a different story.
I against your proposal.
EvilAlex 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, that is an interesting point. I am not sure that I agree but that is what the discussion is for. As it says on the very top of this page we all have to Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them so I am not removing, moving or renaming any links before there is a general consensus or at least until we exhaust a reasonable period of discussion. My point in wanting to move the link was not "political" but merely clean-up related in order to produce a more factually true Wikipage. If you go and actually read the contents of the link then you will see that it has nothing to do with the official Russian position, and that is the reason why I point out that our subcategory header is misleading to the reader who is unfamiliar with Transnistria and the positions of the different parties to the conflict. You would also not equate Memorial with anything officially Russian if you knew more about the organization. Memorial is an international society in memory and for rehabilitation of victims of political repression in the USSR and has always been at odds with the government there. Hope this helps. -- William Mauco 22:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan vs. Romanian

In the summer of 2004, the Transnistrian authorities forcibly closed six schools that taught Moldovan language using the Latin script.

Actually, the Transnistrian authorities name the schools that use Latin script "Romanian language" and the schools that use Cyrillic script "Moldovan language". :-) Er.. What term should we use here? Romanian, Moldovan, Romanian/Moldovan ? bogdan 10:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I can not answer your question. The language, of course, is Romanian, but neither Moldova nor Transnistria will call it that, so it would probably be wrong for the article to call it that also. Transnistria officially calls the language "Moldavian" when it is written with Cyrillic characters and "Romanian" when it is written with Latin characters. Republic of Moldova officially calls the language "Moldovan" regardless of the alphabet used (starting before independence, only Latin characters are used in schools and for any official purposes).
The insistence (by both) that Moldovan is somewhat different from Romanian is largely a fiction. I do not speak the language but I have been told that the difference is limited to a small difference in pronounciation and some words that are particular to each area. In other words, like the difference between English and American English. Romania held a "book drive" in early 2006 for books to schools in Transnistria which shows that any difference in the language is insignificant. Perhaps the best solution would be to say something like "Moldovan (similar to Romanian)" when you refer to the language. But that can be cumbersome. It would probably be a mistake to call it just plain out Romanian when none of the two governments do.William Mauco 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

standard of living

the average standard of living seems to be visibly higher in Transdnestr than in the rest of Moldova

I would like a reference for that. bogdan 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. Even if it is higher, it can't be "visibly" higher; I may be wrong of course. Either way, without a reference, that sentence is going. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand why the Transdniestrian government use communist symbolism for a non communist "state". --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You know, all across the ex-Soviet Union, there is quite a number of nostalgics and the Transnistrian government wants to make sure they don't know that the Soviet Union is history. That's why they have across the city billboards with the coat-of-arms, their parliament is called the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet, their newspapers have the same tone as the Soviet-era newspapers, etc. It's like Good bye, Lenin! for a whole country. :-) bogdan 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The average monthly salary in the breakaway region is $112 per month – higher than that in the rest of Moldova. Although some ordinary residents and visitors to Transnistria suggested that this official figure seemed exaggerated to them, claiming that the average salary of a Transnistrian does not exceed $20-$40, the average standard of living seems to be visibly higher in Transdnestr than in the rest of Moldova, helped by the presence of key Soviet-era factories on Transdnestrian soil.

I removed this until references are brought. bogdan 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan language

This article has a mistake: it's romanian language not moldovan language. --161.53.50.60 17:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether that was a nasty dig or an innocent remark. Moldovan and Romanian are essentially (some would say exactly) the same language, but the government of Moldova chooses to call the language Moldovan. It is not entirely clear whether this is a claim of a different language or (like Valencian vs. Catalan) just an insistence on using a different name for what is conceded to be the same language. Much of the article Moldovan language is about just this matter, or at least was the last time I looked. - Jmabel | Talk 00:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Cyrillic" as a language

I am just a visitor here trying to learn more history... but I found that article uses term "Moldovan Cyrillic" as a language. Judging from what I know about Cyrillic and the rest of the article, the name of the alphabet should not be included in the name of the language as the means used to record the language does not affect it - e.g. there is no "Latin English" vs. "Magnetic tape English" vs. "DVD English".

Am I wrong here?

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets deal with it here. We should be keeping the links to a bare minimum anyway. Please pay attention to Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers 15:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The link section is unwieldy and much longer than normally seen on other Wikipedia pages dealing with even much larger countries. This is probably in part due to the fact that PMR is not just a country (or de facto country, we should not be caught up in semantics) but also at the same time an international conflict with various attempts at settlement. Instead of merely deleting links, we could create a separate article dealing with Disputed_status_of_Transnistria which could serve as an umbrella for all issues of international status, lack of recognition, conflict settlement initiatives. This would be similar to the article War_of_Transnistria. The precedent of doing so is already established in several other Wikipedia country articles with territories of disputed status, see for instance Gibraltar and its related article Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar. In addition to better housekeeping in the main article, we also get the benefit of a cleaner Links section but without having to actually delete most of the links. Rather, we just move them into the article where they rightly belong and I am sure that their original contributors will understand the sanity of that rather than begin a pointless edit-war to reinstate them by force. William Mauco 15:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. - FrancisTyers 15:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A rough draft now is up at Disputed_status_of_Transnistria. Not much text added yet (and no text has been moved from the main article). I prefer that we work on cleaning up the link section first, as per FrancisTyers' initiative. William Mauco 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks like there's almost a consensus now, and no new votes coming in. So perhaps it is time to introduce the revised External Links section to the page. FrancisTyers, will you do that, since you were the one who took it out and also took the initiative of starting this discussion? As far as I can tell, a few of the links will be deleted and the rest will be distributed over 3 pages: Main article, Disputed status of Transnistria, and War of Transnistria. - William Mauco 23:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete doesn't add to the article, doesn't relate directly to Transnistria - FrancisTyers 15:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree, not enough relevance to conform with Wikipedia:External_links. William Mauco 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to War_of_Transnistria since it deals with the war only and not with Transnistrian society in general. - William Mauco 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move nice site, some great pics (maybe we could get some under GFDL? ;) - still should go in War of Transnistria. - FrancisTyers 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I just sent an email to ask about pictures under GFDL. If I get the OK then we can upload to Commons. William Mauco 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
move to War of Transnistria. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move - It's called Transnistrian war, after all. Illythr 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to the Ilie Ilaşcu article for appropriateness and relevancy, and also because (incredibly!) this particular link is missing from that article! - William Mauco 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move per William Mauco. - FrancisTyers 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
move to Ilie Ilaşcu. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move - a reference to Ilascu's page is enough, as long as this link is kept there. Illythr 18:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to Disputed_status_of_Transnistria since it deals with the settlement issue and not with Transnistrian society in general. Label it as Ukrainian POV since that is what it is. - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

::Move - a reference to Ilascu's page is enough, as long as this link is kept there. Illythr 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to Disputed_status_of_Transnistria. It should not be included in the main country article as this is not the praxis for any Wikipedia country profiles of other country where the OSCE has a presence. However, it is relevant in the dispute resolution article because the OSCE is the "engine" driving the talks. I propose that as we move it, we also change the link to point directly to OSCE's Transnistria page where there are some links and relevant content related to the agreements reached between the parties. William Mauco 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that references to Transnistria are also abundanly found elsewhere on that site. Also note that one particular article -"Assessment Visit to the Transdniestrian Region of the Republic of Moldova" - should be kept on this page as it is directly relevant to situation in Transnistria. And it's pretty much current, too. --Illythr 19:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete doesn't add to the article, doesn't relate directly to Transnistria - FrancisTyers 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Partly disagree. It is a site by a Moldova NGO, and it has a Transnistria section which occasionally (every few months or so) add a new article. The articles added all correspond wholly to a Moldova POV of settlement initiatives. If we decide to keep it, the link should be changed to point directly to their Transnistria section, and it should be moved to Moldovan side and should preferably be in a new article dealing with conflict resolution, Disputed_status_of_Transnistria. William Mauco 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
keep, label as "Moldovan side". --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Relevant only to the specific confines of the disputed resolution and conflict resolution article, and when pointed to the Transnistria section of Eurojournal.org's site. Also, the article has no original content but merely aggregates content from other sites, although this in and of itself is not an automatic disqualifier. William Mauco 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Link is old and just a summary of a conference 3 years ago with 4 photos from the conference. If we step on anyone's toes by deleting it, a compromise can be made by moving it to the new Dispute Resolution article but it is doubtful that the contents of this link is even relevant there. In fact, the Council of Europe itself has since produced much more relevant material, for instance a 2005 report which is much longer and detailed than the contents of this particular link. William Mauco 17:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep good link. - FrancisTyers 17:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree: Keep. William Mauco 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per users above. Illythr 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to Disputed Status of Transnistria for clarification of subject. Those who want general information on Transnistria will find the link of no use whatsoever. But those who want information on the disputed status and possible avenues to conflict settlement will find the link to be of some value. William Mauco 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to Disputed Status of Transnistria because that is the subject of the link, rather than Transnistria in general. - William Mauco 17:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan side

Keep Not exactly about Transnistria (the subject of this article), but it has relevant and regularly updated articles. - William Mauco 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, good site EvilAlex 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, if William Mauco and EvilAlex actually agree on something, it must be good! --Illythr 19:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete Less English content than Moldova Azi above, and mostly repeated content. - William Mauco 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, good site, enough info, pictures EvilAlex 18:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Do not mislead people, EvilAlex. The pictures are from Moldova. In fact 99% are from Chisinau alone. They are not from Transnistria (which is the subject of this Wikipedia page). For Transnistria-specific pictures go here instead. It has 300+ captioned photos which are all from Transnistria, exclusively. William Mauco 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Replace with this link - same site, transnistrian conflict section. --Illythr 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agreee with Illythr. Replace with a more precise link because the previous link is not about the subject of the article (Transnistria). And move to the new disputed conflict section. Moldova.org more or less reflects the official consensus view from Moldova and it does have a regularly updated roundup of articles related to the issues of the disputed status of Transnistria. Interestingly, it also sometimes follows events in Kosovo, Karabakh, etc so the site's focus as it relates to Transnistria is clearly on conflict settlement rather than on providing general information or Transnistria information as a whole. William Mauco 18:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It doesn't reflect any official Moldovan government position (in fact it is an 'extremist' view which is critical of the Moldovan government's signing of the 1997 settlement.) It is also not a quality link. HTML is badly formatted, few other sites use it as a reference, and it has spelling mistakes even in the headline! - William Mauco 16:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per William Mauco, low quality. - FrancisTyers 16:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Transnistrian side

keep, a lot of news about Transnistria. I hope they will add English version. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
keep. State-run news agency, so it is "official". There is an English section but it is not updated on a regularly basis. The main part of their site, however, has tons of articles. Updated several times a day. Interesting to read (in Russian, or translated via Babelfish) for insight into the official PMR point of view. William Mauco 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this link is mostly about the workings of the supreme court and has very little info relevant to the Transnistria in general. A much better link to include would be to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which has relevant, regularly updated content in three languages (including English) and actually articulates an official Transnistrian POV. William Mauco 18:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
keep, article about country should have a link to presidential website. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, of course. --Illythr 18:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
keep, good quality, dozens of pictures and articles under creative-commons license. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, in accordance with the very first requirement of Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. This is the only country portal which exists about Transnistria in English. The President's site covers some of the same territory, but much more limited with fewer articles and pictures. A simple look at the article index for pridnestrovie.net is enough to convince me of why this site should stay as a link. - William Mauco 18:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Not official government site, not a reliable site to link or to reference to.EvilAlex 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep of course or else take it to arbitration. ConsultantJoe 19:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian side

Move to War_of_Transnistria since it deals with the war only and not with Transnistrian society in general. In my opinion, it is also wrong to label it as Russian POV (but for a fuller discussion of this, see above under Links policy, link section cleanup - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to War of Transnistria. - FrancisTyers 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
move to War of Transnistria. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move, indeed, the article has more relevance there. Illythr 17:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Others

Delete because all of the text is repeated in the link immediately following (and because it is also not in a language which the readers of this page can understand. We should try to include mostly English links in order to make it accessible to readers.) - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete would be a good link for the Romanian Wikipedia article. - FrancisTyers 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Last time I looked, it was already there. William Mauco 17:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
delete, because we have English version. --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per users above. --Illythr 23:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to Disputed_status_of_Transnistria since it deals with territorial status and not with Transnistrian society in general. Label it as Romanian POV - William Mauco 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to Disputed status of Transnistria label it as "from a Romanian perspective" (see Nagorno-Karabakh for EL precedent) - FrancisTyers 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
move to Disputed status of Transnistria, label as "Romanian side". --Zserghei 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to always show POV of the links. This means sorting them into Moldovan side, Transnistrian side, etc. For an example (and template) of how it is done, see the External Links of Disputed_status_of_Transnistria. Basically, we have neutral links (first, not specifically labelled). Then we have the two main sides. Then we have "Other" with smaller subcategories. So: Four groups, and in the last group some subgroups (Russian, Ukraine, Romania, etc). - William Mauco 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversions / Anti-Romanian bias

Starting Sat 11 Mar 2006 and ongoing we have seen a number of back and forth reversions on the page, many of them from anon users. The big problem is that the article is being reverted to a very old version (which even has typos and spelling mistakes), and in the process several weeks of already discussed changes and improvements are lost.
In one of the latest reverts the reason is stated as being an alleged anti-romanian bias. If there is an anti-romanian tone to the article then please discuss it here, in talk, and suggest edits for making the article neutral. Whoever feels that there is an anti-romanian tone to the current article, please post the example here before making what amounts to a substantial reversion. Note the diclaimer on top this page: This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Thank you.
The most current version of the page which was worked on before the numerous reverts started is 43295860 by FrancisTyers.

These are the activity of permbanned user:Bonaparte who expresses his hatred to me via numerous open proxies now. mikka (t) 16:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, he certainly hates you. Earlier today he lodged an anonymous request with admin to have user:mikkalai permanently blocked. He based this on your alleged anti-romanian bias. If he feels this to be the case, then he should come here in Talk and document it for all to see + suggest how to make the article more NPOV, rather than just reverting as he/they have been doing dozens of times since Saturday.
He deleted the entire article today at 17:16 with a reference to you and the KGB. However, two minutes later user:Latinus restored it. Digging some more, it turns out that banned user:Bonaparte and user:EvilAlex are good friends and have supported each other in their various "search and destroy" missions in the past. Is anyone aware of these guys actually having added new, original Wikipedia articles to the encyclopedia or do they just damage the contributions of others? - William Mauco 20:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't assign any particular friendliness here. user:Bonaparte was very good at selective ass-kissing, please read this one. mikka (t) 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I would like to remind you guys that we're supposed to discuss Transnistria here, not an enmity between users... --Illythr 23:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting us back on focus. There'll always be some level of disagreement between users with such a loaded topic as this one, especially while the final status of PMR as a country is still in limbo. We deal with the friction, as joint custodians and editors of the page, and just move on. - William Mauco 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


This place is a sovietic propaganda page

Is this the place of anti-romanian here? So much soviet propaganda here.

Only sovietic names are writting here

Only sovietic names are writting here like: mikkalai, a russian? I guess so. Zserghei? russian of course. This is a place of anti-romanian propaganda.

I am not Soviet. I write here, too. I think we should all attempt to be as neutral as possible. - William Mauco 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
William, Don't feed trolls. Best response to inflammatory remarks is to ignore them. mikka (t) 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not Soviet, I'm an American of Polish descent. And for what it's worth, I'm not anti-Romanian, either. I don't consider myself anti-Russian or anti-Moldovan, either. I would like to think that I've got some degree of neutrality in this dispute. Aside from that, mikkalai is correct about one thing: E o idea foarte rau sa dar comida la "trolli". Dar, sunt noroconos. "Trolli" nu pot sa vorbit limba romaneste :) Wandering Star 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine blocked Transnistrian companies

Ukraine blocked Transnistrian companies to export in Ukraine as of 11 March 2006. In these days this political construction made by the former KGB and sovietic people lives its last days. It will further unite with Moldova and later on with Romania in a United Europe.

False. See Ukraine-Transnistria border customs conflict. mikka (t) 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Elections

I have changed the section regarding the Transnistrian text a bit in order to make it reflect the true situation more truthfully. The CIS statement is absolutely true and I have left that. However, I also introduced the opposing statement from the OSCE, citing the organization directly. The Mateusz Piskorski text I have removed completely, just a little research is sufficient to allow one to assess his true neutrality. In any case he is not associated with any international organizations involved in this field. TSO1D 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria/Archive_3&oldid=1080949855"