Jump to content

Talk:Transnistria/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 22

14th Army source

File:14tharmy ref.png

Here you go.--Hadžija 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"from Transnistria" or "residents of Transnistria"

This should be a simple and quick one. Could everyone, please, express his/her oppionion about which of the two expressions, "from" or "residents of" is better here:

  • "residents of" b/c IMO "from" suggests they were in Transnistria before being employed by the Soviet Army, while in fact they arrived in Transnistria to be employed by the 14th Army and were given residence there. :Dc76 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There is also a math problem there. Let O=the number of officers, S=the number of solders, C=the number of civil personel, T=number of those that reside in Transnistria. Then according to the sourse, O+S=6000, C=230, T=0.51*O+0.79*S+n*C, T=0,80*(O+S+C), where n is the proportion of local resident among C. From these 4 equations, one gets 0.28*O=0.79*(O+S)-(0.51*O+0.79*S)=0.79*6000-T+n*C=0.79*6000-0,80*(O+S+C)+n*230=0.79*6000-0,80*(6000+230)+n*230=4740-4984+230*n=230*n-244. So, even if all C are locals, i.e. in n=1, 230*n-244 is a negative number, hence so is O. In fact, if n<=1, then 230*n-244<=-14, and hence O<=-14/0,28=-50. You need to add 50 officers to get 0. The sourse contradicts itself, or averages too much.:Dc76 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong point - what part of "6,000 soldiers and officers" says 6,500? From the structure of the sentence, it's not even clear whether that refers to the whole 14th Army or not, though one would assume it does.--Hadžija 19:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to memorize all number, after that to check. i've corrected now.:Dc76 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • While possible, that is unlikely - it says 79% of draftees came from Transnistria i.e. they lived in Transnistria before entering the army. Anyway, what you're doing is original research - just read the source, yeah? "The majority of these inhabitants were indigenous Slavs" (my note: the minority were not Slavs, but Moldovans). So putting "residents of" goes against the source, and I see no reason to avoid "from Transdniester", which is all we can source.--Hadžija 19:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"these inhabitants" in the sourse means IMO "employees of the Army that come from Transnistria". Of these 0,8*6230=4984 people, I do not doubt that the majority were ethnic Slavs. But, I am saying soemthing completely different: many of these 4984 people became residents of Transnistria after, not before they became employees of the Army. IMO, only for those that were born in Transnistria one can say "are from Transnistria":Dc76 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the source says "come from Transnistria", not "are from Transnistria". I am currently in Denmark. So, if I go to Germany, I come from Denmark, but I am not from Denmark. :Dc76 19:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. 'Come from' means 'originate/descend from' in English. Check the dictionary. Alæxis¿question? 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
regarding your calculations it seems to me that (civil personnel)!=(administrative structure). Alæxis¿question? 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, we need more specific data. At any rate, the sourse does not say "are born in Transnistria", as you are trying to convince. And with all due respect, "come from" as used in the text means exactly as in the example I gave with Denmark and Germany: when I go to a conference in Germany, I come from a university in Denmark, and that is what will be written on my badge. If you insist, we can ask some native English speakers. Appart from that, these are 1994 figures, not 1992!:Dc76 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect I AM right here. See this. We don't say they were born in the Transnistria either. We're just putting in the article exactly what's written in the source. Alæxis¿question? 19:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How about this compromize, we just cite the sourse, and do not coment a single word [1] :Dc76 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"1. originate or arise: to have a particular place of origin or source. She came from Ohio." In my example, I would come to conference from Denmark. My "sourse", or university I would go to that conf from, would be in Denmark. Anyway, all this would be avoided with a direct citation without comments. What do you think?:Dc76 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After my edit it's still written exactly the same what's written in the source. Alæxis¿question? 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Except for transdniester->transnistria change, that is. Alæxis¿question? 20:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to be picky on transdniester->transnistria change for this detail. But I corrected "whose" to "its" and put the quotation marks.:Dc76 20:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's just take a step back and look as our discussion above. Wow. Imagine now the discussion between diplomats, which have to cover 1000 times more important topics, with relevance not only for the record, but also for the fate of 550,000 people. Wow! And that assuming civilized discussion and no dirty tricks as there are in politics!:Dc76 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not so important, as the attitude: after the edit was discussed, agrued, and compromised, waiting several hours till the other 2 editors leave, and doing this, is a sign of bad faith on purpose. :Dc76 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You're being quite paranoid, you know that? I've been perfectly civil and patient with you, despite you making a mountain out of a molehill and your creative liberties with the source, and you accuse me of "bad faith"? Because of what exactly? Because I objected to poor style when I saw it, and improved the wording while retaining the same meaning? Give me a break...--Hadžija 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
non-constructive rethorics, imo :Dc76 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
2Dc76. The article has 99 refs now and some of them are not more reliable than this one (imho). Imagine what would happen if we used "your style" of quoting them all the time. Alæxis¿question? 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
2Alaexis. 1) The ref was misplaced. 2) the sourse does not say were born in T as an edit without quotation clearly suggests to me 3) the statement is in the introduction - a non-ref statement there is very heavy 4) as I said, this sourse is unreliable, esp. for intro. We will eventually need to review this edit with more reliable and detailed info sourse, when such would become available. Direct citation with a ref is IMHO the only way to avoid edit conflict, which BTW is WP style, not mine. Outside WP I do not write like this. Do not put me in the situation of defending WP conventions, please, I did not create them, and not always agree with them. But I have to respect them. dura lex sed lex :Dc76 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ICDISS as a source in the Economy/Current section

I find it a bit weird that ICDISS is given as first source for the current economic situation of Transnistria, despite being uncovered as a disinformation tribune by The Economist. Furthermore, the information is not put in perspective, ICDISS being treated as just another source. One may say that the actual characterization is given in Astroturfing#Recent examples, but the reader is still disinformed.

I see two solutions:

  1. If ICDISS is used because no other sources exist, then it must be put in perspective by explaining that The Ecnomist considers it a disinformation tribune.
  2. If ICDISS is not the only source, it should be removed, or used as a secondary source.

Dpotop 08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The first two sentences of that subsection don't give any useful info about PMR's economics imho so I removed them. Alæxis¿question? 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that stuff wasn't deleted back then. Meh, I should've be more attentive. Dpotop, see above. --Illythr 11:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I just want to help, not accuse someone. Anyway, it's done. Dpotop 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GDP figures

We should clearly state whether the GDP figures are PPP or market exchange rate, or that we don't really know. I don't know Russian, so I don't have access to the sources. Can someone get this info? Dpotop 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, do they give some hints on how this GDP was computed? Does it include Moldovan-controlled areas? If these areas are included, then what does it corresponds to? Dpotop 12:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

They count what they control, I think. Here's what's written in the source:


I've bolded the numbers that are included in the article. Alæxis¿question? 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed here some month ago, that if possible, we should try to use GDP figures from some international organization, e.g. IMF, WB or OECD. Unfortunately non of them as data about Transnistria. These GDP figures from Transnistria's statistical service were more prefereable compared with some non-standard figures from some Russian news agency inserted originally by Mauco. However, there is no information, which methodology is is used by the Transnistria's statistical service, so it should be clearly mentioned that these are figures from Transnistrian authorities.Beagel 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to rephrase some sections to make them more NPOV. For instance, by clearly marking who said what. Do you agree with my transformations of the "External Trade" section? Dpotop 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost. Alæxis¿question? 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with your revert there. Mentioning who says what is essential here, because we use single sources, and that even the best sources are not super-reliable (IMHO). :) But be it as you wish, I won't change it. Dpotop 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the debt size need to be checked out. Right now it states the debt is $1.2 billion. At the same time some sources say that only the debt for gas was 1.3 billion. I think it's worth to mention that the debt is mainly for natural gas and that Gazprom sold the debt last year to Alisher Usmanov, the owner of MMZ plant. According to the Kommersant, Smirnov refuses to recognize. Unfortunately I didn't find original Kommersant article and I have only this link form conflict.md, which I understand is a debated source. What you think, could we use this information or not? Beagel 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original, I believe. It's not Kommersant but Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Alæxis¿question? 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Another article about these issues, this time from Kommersant. You must've read this one on the conflict.md. Alæxis¿question? 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But if the debt for gas is $1.3 billion, the current sentence "Transnistria has debt of $1.2 billion (two thirds of which are with Russia)" seems to be out of date. Do we have any source saying how big is the current debt? To avoid a controversy, the information about the gas debt and Smirnov's statement should be added after updating overall debt figure.Beagel 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The good solution is to provide both figures, saying: According to source X the debt is Y, and according to source Z, the debt for gas alone is T. All information in this article should be guarded with its source. Dpotop 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The info about $1.3 bln debt comes originally from the Centre for Strategic Studies and Reforms, Research Paper on Transnistria, Chisinau, November 2003, p.28; available at: http://www.cisr-md.org. See p. 12 of the document to which the 62nd reference is given.
So in 2003 PMR had only $1.1 bln debt and by Apr. 06, 2007 (when Kommersant article was published) it has risen so only the debt to Gazprom is $1.3 bln Alæxis¿question? 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like this?: In 2004, Transnistria had debt of $1.2 billion (two thirds of which are with Russia), which is per capita approximately 6 times higher than in Moldova (without Transnistria).[1] In March 2007, the debt to Gazprom for the natural gas has increased to $1.3 billion. On 22 March 2007 Gazprom sold Transnistria's gas debt to the Russian businessman Alisher Usmanov, who controls Moldova Steel Works, the largest enterprise in Transnistria. Transnistria's president Igor Smirnov has announced that Transnistria will not be paying off its gas debt because "Transdnistria has no legal debt [to Gazprom]".[2][3] Beagel 19:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I hope you won't mind a couple of my corrections ) Alæxis¿question? 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all :-) That's fine for me, but I think we should wait an opinion of other active editors.Beagel 19:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

transnistria.md

Why was it labelled as Transnistrian source? It's written there that Administration, hosting and copyright - "IMCO". IMCO is a Moldovan company with the office in Chisinau so I think that transnistria.md should be in the Moldovan sources subsection. Alæxis¿question? 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the transnistrian antiseparatist point of view. Like "Tiraspol Times" was labeled as "transnistrian", while it is from Ireland. Transnistrian authorities don't allow antiseparatist sites to be registered on Transnistrian teritorry.--MariusM 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Who says that this site from Kishinev represents the view of Pridnestrovie? I live in Pridnestrovie and I know what most of the people here want. I don't think MariusM has ever been to Pridnestrovie. Antiseparatist opinions are allowed here, too.

Show me a Transnistrian antiseparatist site registered in Pridnestrovie.--MariusM 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering the arrest of people who are antiseparatists (like Corjova's mayor, recently, Dignitas group before the referendum) I doubt you affirmation.--MariusM 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Dikarka and Alaexis, your reasonment is fallacious and you know it. It's obvious that "pro-Transdnistrean" is a political notion, not a geographical one. Dpotop 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, many people interviewed in transnistria.md are from Transnistria.--MariusM 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

transnistria.md was labelled as "Transnistrian anti-separatist". What does the word 'Transnistrian' mean here? Alæxis¿question? 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Is a site which show opinions of Transnistrian people.--MariusM 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What was wrong with the old sectionising, if such word exists, btw? Neutral, pro-PMR, pro-Moldovan sites. Isn't it logical? Alæxis¿question? 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
See archived talk. I was against the "transnistrian" heading for long time, as is denying the existence of antiseparatist transnistrians.--MariusM 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Where's the evidence that this represents the view from Pridnestrovie? www.transnistria.md is registered in Moldova and made by a Moldovan commercial company. Everything on the site is a copy of the official Moldovan government propaganda. It is very misleading. MariusM and Dpotop need to come to Pridnestrovie and see the reality.

Look at the people who appear in their interviews: Angela Chiper [2], Tudor Tabunscic (Transnistrian native) [3], Ion Isaicov, mayor of transnistrian village Cocieri [4], Valeriu Ciobanu [5], Mihai Speian [6], Domnica Croleivet [7], Eleonora Cecavschi [8] etc. All, people from Transnistria.--MariusM 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
So you call it Transnistrian because some of their interviewees were from PMR? I think that's not enough. Alæxis¿question? 05:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I think is enough. Is the voice of antiseparatist Transnistrians, which are not allowed to register such a site in Transnistrian teritorry. As a comparison, during communism, a media of Russian emigree was still a Russian media, even if it was not printed in Soviet Union.--MariusM 06:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis is right and it is not enough. This transnistria.md is a Moldavian site, it is registered in Republic of Moldova and shows the official Moldavian view. Also it doesn't say that they are prohibited from registering such a site in PMR if they want to - so don't be misleading. Dikarka 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

transnistria.md is a POV source on the Moldovan side. Mcarling 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser, again :)

Discussion on Dikarka's persona moved to user talk:Dikarka.

Okay folks, I think we've all had enough fun with this little conversation and everybody should get back to work on the article (or if they want to continue working out who is whose sockpuppet, do it elsewhere). Anything important that personally relates to Dikarka can be directed to her talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Future Perfect, you are a born diplomat. Dikarka in Russian means Sălbateca in Romanian or [she] [the] savage in English. Takeda Shingen and Uesugi Kensin were two famous Japanese feodal warriors from 16th century, who fought each other for about 20 years, yet learned to deeply respect the other (see Kawanakajima 1 through 5, Oda Nobunaga - whom Uesugi later fought, and Tokugawa Ieyasu - whom Takeda later fought, turned Japanese warring into bloodbaths, not the honorable and noble ones, as were weiged over Shinano). Ninjas' covert face-less attacks were considered below the dignity of a samurai. As for the article, could anyone, please, read it and list the problems that he/she sees. I do not have the intension of fighting over every word (unless in the introduction), so let's see/identigy what problems do we have. I don't see anything supermajor... D'ya? And yes, Fut.Perf. is right, we are like small kids, we find any mean to turn everything into humour. At least we don't into Kalashnikovs.:Dc76 21:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The more probable translation of Dikarka is "the shy one". Mcarling 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like someone to checkuser for the IP addresses 89.137.109.169 and 76.110.23.245, which have been vandalizing my user page since I started editing Transnistria, against MariusM and Dpotop. The former address is in Romania and the latter is in Florida. Mcarling 12:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The proper place for this is WP:RCU, not this talk. Alæxis¿question? 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone here was complaining about MariusM's checkusers? :)) Upto now, only Mauco and this new guy checkusered me. Good start, Mr. Mcarling. Dpotop 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, it's just Bonaparte, our resident banned pet troll. You'll get used to him, Mcarling. He always edits through open proxies, so it's not much use asking for checkusering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the article

  • Geography section. There was a suggestion to move some of the material of this section, content-unrelated to the rest of that article into the section geography of the main article. To state clear what is Transnistria geographically (left bank), politically (under the control of PMR), historically (Dniester-bug area). I have created this template, which can help navigate (at least so I hope). Template:Transnistria/Territory :Dc76 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "blacklist problem". The current "Human rights" and "Crime" sections are bloated and are mostly lists of bad things done in Transnistria. They need to be reformed into much shorter, contiguous pieces. Compare: Quebec, Gagauzia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, North Korea, Abkhasia, Chechnya, Somalia. In fact, it would appear that Transnistria is the only article about a place that has a separate "Crime" section in it. --Illythr 01:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    You can not compare Quebec with Transnistria, in Quebec there are no human rights problems, even if separatists took control of local government antiseparatists are free to express their opinions and referendums are correct. As result of pushing in the article propaganda about political freedom in Transnistria, was necessary to add info about concrete cases of Human Rights infringements. North Korean government don't care about internet, there was no attempt in Wikipedia to deny human right infringements in North Korea, this is why was not necessary to give specific examples. The paragraph "Arms control and disarmament" can be shortened but written more balanced. For a sentence like "There is often talk about sale of armaments from Transnistria, but there is no convincing evidence." I would prefer an on-line refference, else is unverifiable. There is no policy about against off-line refferences, but in the particular case of this article, knowing the habit of misquoting, I don't trust what I can not verify.--MariusM 06:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Why can't you verify an off-line reference? Alæxis¿question? 07:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    The source is "Jurnal de Chişinău" which is not available in the city where I live. This newspaper has an online edition http://jurnal.md .--MariusM 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I provided the articles not to compare the places, but article layouts on similarly controversial areas. I doubt that the situation with human rights and crime is so much better in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, that those articles don't have more than one or two sentences on that. Conversely, the murder of Anna Politkovskaia in Russia and the desecration of the war memorial in Estonia have generated far more public acclaim than the events mentioned here, but only the latter is mentioned in the country article, and even there it's brief and given as an example of worsening of relations with Russia.
    The armaments section should be shrunk to about 3-4 sentences, explaining that there is a massive stockpile of Soviet-era weapons in Trasnistria (Kolbasnoe), that belongs to Russia and is guarded by the 14th army (1), that Russia undertook an obligation to evacuate those weapons, but failed to withdraw them completely (1-2, some numbers). Due to the volatile nature of the conflict, it seems likely, that weapons stolen from this depot may have been trafficked abroad in the past, but there is no evidence that this has taken place (1, refs 82 and 85). The rest can be moved to the crime in Transnistria (already there) and, perhaps, disputed status (political parts) articles.
    The human rights section can be shortened accordingly (a short summary), with some of the examples used as footnotes.
    The Human rights in Transnistria and Crime in Transnistria articles can (already do) hold the individual details for those who care. --Illythr 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Recent events are worth staying in the article, especially if in the article are still pieces of TT propaganda about political freedom. Regarding armaments section, come with a proposal for shortening.--MariusM 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I support shortening Crime, as long as it is mentioned clear that OSCE does not have access to control the trafic of arms. As for Human Rights, I don't think the length, but the clearness and informativeness should be the criterion, whatever the length. How about writing better and shorter (the same of even more info/facts, but with 20-30% fewer words). :Dc76 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • An other section which need shortening is 2006 referendum. As this is already an old and irrelevant event, one sentence with a refference at main article is enough.--MariusM 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    If it remains mentioned in the article, at least 1 sentence, then it's ok from what i see.:Dc76 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This sentence from Politics section
A list published by the European Union bans travel to the EU of some members of the leadership of Transnistria.[14]

should be in the Human Rights section! The ban was imposed by EU because they wanted the Transnistrian autorities to respect human rights.:Dc76 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Arms control and disarmament

Following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, around 40,000 tonnes of weaponry and ammunition remained in the Colbasna military depot, guarded by the Russian 14th Army. In the subsequent years concerns were raised that the Transnistrian authorities may try to sell weapons acquired from this stockpile internationally, and intense pressure was applied to the Russian Federation to have these weapons removed.

A significant part of those munitions was since withdrawn. However, no further withdrawal activities have taken place since March 2004 and a further 20,000 tonnes of ammunition, as well as some remaining military equipment, are still to be removed.

No reliable evidence of weapons trafficking within Transnistria was found up to date.[85] A research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking.[82] The United Nations says that the evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, and affirms that although the production and trafficking of light weapons is likely to have occurred before 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs.

The rest should be removed to Crime in Transnistria, and the Crime section be renamed to Arms control and disarmament. Note that a part of the info is redundant with the Russian military presence in Transnistria section. Perhaps the above can me merged with it instead. Specific details can go into the Disputed status of Transnistria article. --Illythr 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, between 40,000‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] and 85,000‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] tonnes of weaponry and ammunition remained in the Cobasna military depot, guarded by the Russian 14th Army, one of the largest military depos in Europe. In the subsequent years analysts have expressed concern regarding potential threats posed by this large deposit of weapons, and the potential of their unauthorized sale, and intense pressure was applied to the Russian Federation to have these weapons removed. A significant part of those munitions was since been withdrawn. However, no further withdrawal activities have taken place since March 2004 and a further 22,000 tonnes of ammunition, as well as some remaining military equipment, are still to be removed. OSCE does not have full access to inspect the depot.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

Another concern was raised that Transnistria might have produced and ilegally selled weapons{{Fact} (at one time Moldova was rated in the top ten worldwide exporters of weapons{{Fact}). In ..., a BBC team implemented a sting and all but bought two radioactive bombs from Transnistria.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] No reliable evidence of weapons trafficking within Transnistria was found up to date.[85] A research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking.[82] The United Nations says that the evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, and affirms that although the production and trafficking of light weapons is likely to have occurred before 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs.

Agree in principle with Illythr. I suggest two paragraphs: one about absence of supervision over Soviet army munitions, the other about traphiking of arms per se. My edit is obviously a rough one. I just listed the facts that I would like the edit to mention.:Dc76 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

2006 independence referendum

An independence referendum was held on 17 September 2006 asking voters, whether they support the course towards the independence of the PMR and subsequent free association with the Russian Federation, and whether they consider it possible to renounce the PMR's independent status and subsequently become part of the Republic of Moldova. 78.6 percent of the registered voters of Transnistria voted in the referendum. 97.1 percent of voters supported the first point, while 94.6 percent opposed the second.[18][19] Russia's Duma[20] recognized the vote, but the OSCE and many countries[21] did not, dismissing the poll as illegitimate.[22]

See also: +Transnistrian referendum, 2006

The sub-subsection can be eliminated and the above merged with the politics section. --Illythr 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Illythr, no subsection title, and perhaps even this is somewhat too long, but whatever.:Dc76 12:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This was an older discussion (see archives). If we keep the percentages, then we need to have also the doubts about their correctness (not only the unrecognition). Also, no "independence" referendum, it was about joining Russia. Best is not to have the percentages, just a sentence like:

A referendum was organised in September 2006 where, according Transnistrian authorities, people voted for "free association" with Russia. Main article: Transnistrian referendum, 2006.

In the main article thare are all the details.--MariusM 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Illythr's variant here. The doubts about the correctness of the numbers are written about in the final sentence - OSCE and many countries[21] did not, dismissing the poll as illegitimate. Alæxis¿question? 11:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I support finding a middle edit, simultaneously addressing both issues - correctness and recognition - as MariusM points out, and present more info, as in Illythr variant. It doesn't have to be long, but informative. How about this:
A referendum was organised in September 17, 2006 by the PMR authorities, and according to them people have supported "independence from Moldova and free association with Russia". OSCE and many countries[21] called the organization of the referendum incorrect and dismissed the poll as illegitimate. [Main article: Transnistrian referendum, 2006].
As you see, there are two major diffs with Illithr's version:
  • (1)no adjective "independence" for referendum, for even according tpo PMR there were two not one question, and independece referendum is something that OSCE or UN can do, not me and you.
  • (2)Russia's duma is not mentioned, for it is not the official position of the Russian government expressed through its foreign ministry. The duma does not have legal powers in foreign policy, only consultative ones. Mantioning it on the same footing with OSCE and official US position is at least ridiculous.
There are two major diffs with MariusM's version:
  • (3)"independence from Moldova and free association with Russia", not just the later
  • (4)introduction of the second sentence instead of "according to PMR authorities people have voted" with nothing else, which IMO could suggest that maybe nothing was even organized. It was not correctly organized, and afterwards was not recognized, but it was organized. :Dc76 12:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
(2)Not quite. Here's our foreign ministry reaction:
translation of the bolded part: [The elections were] transparent and there were no major violations during the voting. Alæxis¿question? 13:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you want to add a sentence that Russia considered the organization "transparent, without major violations". I do support the inclusion of this official reaction of Russia in the article Referndum. Whether it is notable enough to be included in the two sentences that we retain for the main article - I am inclined to say no. For Russia still considers it without legal implication. :Dc76 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As Illythr made a comparison with North Korea: In that article is not mentioned that Kim Jong Il received 99% of votes and the turnover was 99% at last elections. Dc76 variant seem good for me, but we can further reduce it eliminating the unrecognition sentence, as this is anyway mentioned in the detailed article.--MariusM 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It may have something to do with the fact that no elections in North Korea were held for Kim Jong-il. ;-) Besides, I'd say that the political situation in Transnistria is somewhat better, no? --Illythr 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

the current sentence is much too short for such an important event and either the original paragraph has to be restored, or else at least Illythr's version should be used. Dikarka 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But, Dikarka, this is not about sheer quantity, but about content. What precisely is missing in the current version, in your opinion? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Even though I'm not Dikarka I'd say that I like Illythr's variant better also. The referendum is quite an important event, one of the most important ones in the history of PMR probably, and deserves to be written about in more than one sentence. This is especially true since the facts of unobvious significance (like the PMR MPs' birthplaces) are described in great detail elsewhere in the article. Alæxis¿question? 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you overstate referendum importance. It had no consequences (we can already tell this) and it is an old event. Giving details about referendum results without the doubts about corectness of data mean misleading the readers. In the detailed article we give all explanations, in this article is enough a sentence. BTW, there were many previous "independence" referendums in PMR history, and those are not even mentioned in the article. Birthplace of MP is important as it is showing that the leadership of Transnistrian separatism came here from outside Transnistria. We had long discussions with Mauco on this subject (see archives). Both origin of Transnistrian separatism and under-representation of ethnic Moldovans in the leadership are current problems, and current problems deserve a place in the article. See this analysis from Eurasia Daily Monitor for a characterisation of Transnistrian leadership: "power is concentrated in Russian hands; and within this category, non-native Russians hold sway over the locally born Russians and Russified Ukrainians". If things will change, of course we will change the article. Referendum is not anymore a current problem.--MariusM 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The two questions are redundant to the point of being mutually exclusive (as demonstrated by the symmetric result), so I don't oppose merging them into one statement. Did any of the varians not provide the doubts part? Mine, specifically?
The MP birthplace information, in its current state must be removed. It may be useful to point out the MPs who came to Transnistria in the late '80s - early 90s, but lumping them together with those who moved to the place when they were kids is useless and POV. I understand that was Mauco's point in those discussions you had with him as well. --Illythr 20:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between current problems and old and irrelevant problems? Mauco wanted to include in the article statements like "ethnic Moldovans are well represented in Transnistrian leadership" and that the majority of leadership is composed by locals, and nothing else than his own source proved the contrary. Looked at "Tiraspol Times", when they talk about Yevgeny Shevchuk, they always mention "native-born", or "local born". Shevchuk is one of the few native-born leaders of PMR, and this is used by PMR propaganda to create the fake impression of a leadership composed of natives. I am using "Tiraspol Times" as an indicator of what is relevant for this article. Mauco gave one or two examples of non-natives people who came in Transnistria as kids, that is not relevant and is not changing the general picture: Even after 17 years, Transnistrian separatist leadership is composed mainly by outsiders (who are not ashamed of talking about hundreds of years of history to justify separatism). Fact that native Transnistrians have only few positions in Transnistrian leadership is a serious, current and relevant problem.--MariusM 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support MariusM argument in this instance. While irrelevant for an ordinary person, for a businessman, for a scientist or an artist, birthplace is highly important for a politician. In most countries of the world brithplace guarantees citizenship. Practically all have laws about people who did not reside ten or more years not being allowed to hold public offices, and for higher offices - requirement to be born inside the country. Politicians are a very exceptional breed. All so-called MPs enter this category, IMO. :Dc76 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps I can rephrase it. Fact is, there is a source lising all the MPs' birthplaces. There are no sources indicating that they arrived less than, say, 15 years before the whole thing started (to justify their "foreign occupant" status), right? Fact is, some are known to have arrived rather late, like Smirnov. Fact is, some are known to have arrived very early. So, based on what facts do we conjecture that ALL of them are late arrivals (which is apparently the purpose of the listing)? --Illythr 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, if you will avoid straw man arguments your credibility will increase. Who used the word ALL?--MariusM 07:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Say, Marius, what is your criterion for assessing an event's relevance to inclusion? Could you perhaps specify how the unsuccessful pipe bombing of the synagogue six years ago deserves mention in the main (as well as two more) article, whereas a PMR-wide poll asking the populace a fundamental question deserves none? Speaking of which, since no objections were raised to removal of that part, I'll do it now. A link to Crime in Transnistria is enough. --Illythr 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My criterium is: current and unsolved problems should stay in article. It was not me who added the synagogue pipe bombing, why are you blaming me for everything you don't like in this article? Use DIFFs if you want to accuse me of "tendentious editing". The poll is mentioned in the article, I shortened but not eliminated the paragraph, don't use again straw man arguments.--MariusM 07:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What is fact - that has to be stated, what is not - not. An expression "all of them are late arrivals" has no place. But to list where they were born - is legitimate. To say that this this and this are late arrival - also. And that's it, facts, not many words. :Dc76 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've counted them and found out that 15 out of 25 non-local-born mps had moved to Transnistria 10 years or more before the war started. Alæxis¿question? 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Source, please.--MariusM 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? It's all written here. Alæxis¿question? 10:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In previous discussions on this subject [9], [10], each immigrant separatist leader was mentioned by his name. It will be a courtesy towards other editors to keep the same standards and to show exactly the names of those 15 who moved in the region 10 years before the war started.--MariusM 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Easily: Антюфеева, Бабенко, Баев, Боднар, Бурла, Каминский, Коваль, Онуфриенко, Ордин, Пасютин, Рыбяк, Сипченко, Томайлы, Усанов, Хохлов + Леонтьев, who did not specify his birthplace. Alæxis¿question? 11:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In the cases of Kaminski and Koval they arrived in the region only 9 years before the war, but it is not a significant difference.--MariusM 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Alæxis¿question? 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The names of the localities...

Eh, 1. "cyrillic Russian" is kinda strange. 2. Beltsy is the Russian name, Bǎlṭi is the Moldovan. (etc) Is there a reason for the long and convoluted way to explain that? It's pretty obvious that none of them is the "original" English one. --Illythr 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know, there is no "original" English in non-English countries, except for very few cities (ex Rome, not Roma). English takes the name in all the cases we are concerned with from the official name in the country they are situated. 1. it's no longer "cyrillic Russian" but "from Russian language (cyrillic)". If you want, i'll add "(see/see also cyrillic)". 2. Beltsy is a transliteration from Russian, not the Russian name which is in cyrillic. And there is a second Russian name, equally in use as the furst: Baelts'. A name is what we write, not a series of frequences that produce the sounds - diff people produce slightly diff sounds.:Dc76 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, no. "Baelts'" is a Latin transliteration of the Cyrillic (Moldovan) transliteration of the Moldovan/Romanian name "Bǎlṭi", a creepy monster of the "Bolohovenians" strain. First, the is no Latin Russian, or Katakana Russian, or whatever, so "Cyrillic Russian" is as redundant as "Latin English". Second, Moskva is also a Russian name. There is no need to say that it's a transliterated Russian, as that's pretty obvious anyway. --Illythr 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's a place that was hitherto unheard of English takes the name used now by the locals, well England does anyway, but often uses it's own version for a lot of places where there is a history between the two countries (England and whatever country that is) - i.e. Germany = Deutschland, Belgrade = Beograd, Moscow = Moskva, Japan = Nippon. If a BBC news reporter went to Transnistria they would call a town or village whatever they were told it was called when they got there, if they didn't have a name for it already. Do you think they would get a different answer depending who they asked in so and so village, or would most people agree on what their place was called? I don't know. Jonathanpops 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the authorities in Moldova will tell you one thing, the Transnsitrian (non-recognized) authorities will tell you differently. If you'll ask the name in Romanian or in Russian, for 95% or more of the localities chances are they won't contradict each other (some localities were renamed back after the fall of communism accounting for the remaining 5%, and i'm disregarding where both y and i endings in Russian are ok), but in English - they will. Asking a local - depends exactly whom. In every locality there will be at least one person saying one thing and one saying the other. The safest way for an Englishman is to know both names, guess beforehand whose asking, and be sure people know where you go. Said otherwise, walk softly, and carry a big stick.:Dc76 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It may depend on the language the reporter will use. :-) The only strange exception is Bender, which is named Tighina despite the fact that Bender is the official Moldovan name. --Illythr 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
We are using the Romanian official name (of Slavic origin) instead of Moldovan official name (of Turkic origin) just because we like more Slavic names. Bender is reminding the times when the Turks cut this region from Moldova.--MariusM 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is the reason people use it more often in newspapers, etc. We can not judge, we can only observe that both names are used and the article could be named Tighina and Bender with 50% for each. To tip the balance, I, Dc76 :-), choose one of them, Tighina. :-) We can also ask Jimbo Wales to do the same, but then then I'd ask him to trade some "stakes" with me :-) :Dc76 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
An interesting little fact is that during the last Russo-Turkish war, the imperial administration from Moscow wanted to change the town's name to Тигина, for precisely that reason. The local administration refused, saying that the name's been around for so long that everyone's used to it. Or so I heard... --Illythr 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because the local administration was Turkish. The fortress was in Turkish hands since 1538, and together with Cetatea Alba and Ismail were used more or less like Transnistria is today.:Dc76 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The territory was conquered from the Turks for some 70 years by then. I think even the name of the mayor was mentioned... --Illythr 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Бэлць is used in Russian texts thoughout the city, all official inscriptions by the city administration use this one. Just go and see it! I fail to see any relation with Bolohoveni, which is the latinization of "voloki" or similar from some old-slavonic text. :Dc76 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. So is "Baelts'" - a double latinization. Бэлць is the Moldovan Cyrillic name. --Illythr 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I only wrote Baelts b/c it is hard to search Russian letters. Objective reasons, not related to Dc76's keyboard? :-)
Бэлць was the Moldovan Cyrillic name, that script is no longer in use. Бэлць is also one of the two names of the city in Russian. (please, do go to the city and see!) The second one is Бeльцы. Both can be used for the title of the article in Russian.:Dc76 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is very weird. I suppose it would be easier for the city administration to call the old Moldovan Cyrillic name "Russian" instead of ripping out every plaque with it, but I have never ever heard anyone climing that it's actually Russian. The regional buses to the city have only Бельцы and Bǎlṭi shields on them... Perhaps I can ask someone from there, but what makes you so sure the name is Russian? --Illythr 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Within Russian text, whole sentances and pages written in Russian with Бэлць. :Dc76 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, i even found one online. Check this:Dc76 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Write him a letter, and ask! :Dc76 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I finally get it! Бэлць is as Russian a name for Bǎlṭi, as Молдова is for Moldova. Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika is the English name for Transnistria for the same reason - the local government declared it to be one. --Illythr 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In Romania, we had a similar issue with the names of places in other languages. Timişoara is Temesvar in Hungarian, Cluj is Kolozvar in Hungarian. Nicolae Ceauşescu had the idea that minorities should use also the Romanian names and he forbitten the usage of Hungarian names for cities in Hungarian-language texts published in Romania. When the law allowing the usage of minorities name where minorities are over 20% was adopted, Cluj's mayor Gheorghe Funar told that the law will have no effect as Hungarian name for "Cluj" is also "Cluj". It was necesarry to print in the Romania's Official Buletin a list of alternate names in other languages. As in latest census in Cluj Hungarians were 19,6% (bellow the 20% limit), I don't know how the story ended in Cluj, if the Hungarians had their long desired "Kolozsvar" plaques. I think Moldovans are taking a Funar's style approach.--MariusM 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it is the Russians from the city who use it: esp. the mayor, 2/3 of the councilmen, 3/4 of administration. They want to be regarded as "moderates" vs "extremists", so they prefer it, otherwise, given the fact that they still make a lot of documentation in Russian (which is ilegal to do), people would voice more loudly "look, it's like before 1989, nothing changed -down with them". With Balts and other such things, they make attempts at being seen what they like to call "moderates" (unfortunately politics is still not very distinct from ethnicity). For WP:ru, both names are, IMO, like Tighina and Bender here, and I'd tip the balance to Beltsy, while mentioning Balts just like Bender is mentioned for Tighina in WP:en. :Dc76 17:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Not only Moldovans, rusophones from Moldova also are accepting this approach.--MariusM 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back, MariusM. Dpotop 17:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dc's revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=134274155&oldid=134184562

  1. the population of which refused to accept the separtist government in 1992, - it's not geographical info
  2. Conflict often errupted when the separatist authorities prevented the villagers from reaching their farmland east of the road. erupted, not errupted; not really geographical info; no source Alæxis¿question? 08:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. I put "geographical" in paranthesis (!) for the first item. But it is info. And it is not POV, it is just a fact that even the Transnistria authorities acknowledge. Please, note that I did not use the other editors' formulation "have rebelled" etc, which btw is absolutely true, but I tried to use the most neutral one I can think of to say the same thing: "refused to accept". If you don't like "separatist", let's use "breakaway", etc. I obviously won't oppose such reformulations.
  2. sorry about "erupted". The reason this sentense is included here is b/c it explains how geography generates conflict. Sourses: [11] (Deutsche Welle in Romanian; I don't know German to do a proper search, but I'm sure you can find the same article in the German DW) about an incident in 2005, [12] (RIA Novosti) about another one in January 2007, [13] (OSCE website) about another one in 2005, just to tell about three incidents generated by the same thing: farmland + 1 village on the other side of the road.:Dc76 09:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
if you added these refs when reverting Jd's edits I'd have no questions.
ps. In fact I understand Romanian much better than German since it's a Romance language with some Slavic loanwords. Alæxis¿question? 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
ok, I should have referenced those right away. I hope you understand that the point I am trying to make is the relation between geography and conflict. This kind of edit is a totally different story. My "the" were there b/c 9 are the only localities controlled by Chisinau on the eastern bank, and 7 are the only one controlled by Tiraspol on the western one, but if you think that is already clear - ok.
I can not find now more refs for the bigining of the war, in order to sourse that the villagers in the 9 localities opposed the breakaway regime. It's needed to ref the remaining commented out sentence. If someone knows it, please help, otherwise I'll waste a whole hour until I find. I'll leave it commented out for now.
ps. that's true. just currious, have you even been in moldova? (i don't want to ask something personal, so feel free not to answer it if you can not do it in a way that won't reveal anything personal) :Dc76 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Look here. Alæxis¿question? 10:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OIC, thanks. :Dc76 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Jd2718 now reintroduced my "the" :-):-):-) you know what, whatever! :-):-) :Dc76 09:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The more political stuff I will leave to you guys to hammer out. The "the"s and the "in addition" are just problems for readability. Jd2718 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
look, whatever :-) we are capable to start an edit war about "the" and "in addition" :-) that's a lot of distrust! well, whatever you think it's more readable, it is absolutely fine with me! :-) If fact, you know, there are some users who enjoy to correct English in WP articles. We can ask on of them to review the article one day. Of course, provided that edit skirmishes end, otherwise they would work in vain.:Dc76 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria (geographic region)

Proposal: Creating Transnistria (geographic region). It would include some of the Geography and History sections from the article, namely the history section up to the creation of the breakaway regime. Geography section would elaborate on the usages of the term Transnistria.

Transnistria (geographic region) would be the main geography article. The Geography section in Transnistria would stay mostly as it is, since except 1-2 sentenses I don't see how we can shorten it. As for History, we can think more. Up to 20th century the word transnistria and the region it meant was something differnt from today. There is more to discuss, I believe. Maybe a sketch would be in place to show how the new article would look like, and then we'll see if it is needed. Anyone want to work on the sketch? :Dc76 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone wrote an article about the geography of Transnistria first. Then we could discuss adding historical information there. Alæxis¿question?`
I was going to say the same thing, but you took my word :-) Don't expect anything from me about this in the near future - too many things to do. Eventually... :Dc76 14:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Against. This name was used as description of a geographical region only recently, starting with WW2. We have already an article about Transnistria (WW2), actual region of Transnistria is not the same as the region named so in the short period of WW2. The disambiguisation line at the begining of article is enough.--MariusM 15:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the name Transnistria dates from the 20th century. However, different authors apply it to different things (I mean when they write now). If I'll get to write a disambig for this, I will propose it first before creating. :Dc76 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mauco is back with socks

Mauco is back with socks, on Transnistrian articles. See categ


Incidents at eliberation of hero Andrei Ivantok (Andrei Ivanţoc)

Current event: Romanian patriot Andrei Ivantok (Andrei Ivanţoc) was beaten at the border of Transnistria. He was set "free" today.--134.76.126.172 08:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, criminal regime of Transnistria beats a human being for the simple reason that he's a Romanian.

http://www.realitatea.net/playlive2.php?file=/media/video/video_001_00065841_1180791294_00.flv video

That's not exactly right according to the Propagandapol TimesJonathanpops 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On the list of Human Rights abuses of Transnistrian authorities we should add forced deportation of people who oppose separatist regime. Ivantoc wanted to remain in Transnistria, it is his right, he served his prison sentence and no mention exist in his sentence that he is not allowed to remain in Transnistria after he served the jail term. Normally he should have been released at the gate of the prison and he should decide alone where he want to go. The separatist regime don't have any law that forbid former prisoners who served their term in jail to continue their life in Transnistria, but lawlessness is the only real law in the region.--MariusM 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't foreign terrorists normally declared persona non-grata in case they serve their terms full? I wonder why he didn't want to want to return to Moldova, where his family was?
Anyhow, this section belongs to its own article. I think it should be moved. --Illythr 11:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, let me correct you: Ivantoc is not "foreign" in Transnistria, he lived there and Transnistria is part of Moldova. You can not be foreign in your own country. Considering European Court of Human Rights Decision, he is not even a terrorist and juridical system in Transnistria is not reliable to prove what he did. Anyhow, his sentence didn't include his declaration of "persona non-grata". The fact that his family was deported earlier by transnistrian authorities and his apartment confiscated is just an other example of abuse. This section belong to this talk page as we have to include forced deportation of opponents of separatist regime in Human Right section (not only in Ivantoc, but also in Lesco and Ilascu cases; Ivantoc was the first who clearly wanted to remain in Transnistria). Why Ivantoc wanted to stay in Transnistria? I don't know and I don't care. He is not obliged to give any explanation regarding this (maybe he was scared by his wife).--MariusM 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about Transnistrian POV. For them he's an agent of a foreign power apprehended for terrorism. Isn't "confiscation of property" one of the possible punishments provided by law for terrorism? (I understand that the ECHR didn't even consider the terrorism/murder charges, as they don't recognize the Transnistrian court). Did Ilascu, being a Romanian MP, really want to remain in Transnistria? --Illythr 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to go for today. Here is an article. It is expected that Tudor Petrov-Popa will also be released in a few days. Clarifying this situation would deserve 1 sentence in the article, IMO (there is already a short paragraph there needing rewriting in view of these developments), with details to Ivantoc's article. IMO. In case of Ivantoc, it was a nervous breakdown: he asked to be taken to his mother's village, and realized he might become a puppet in a PR show ... well, I don't vouch for my reaction after 15 days, not 15 years... Anyway, i wouldn't trust anyone, and just think of the PR if they don't catch! so, if you have feet, run! remember movies with POWs? if you can-run! if they catch you-try not to get too much hurt, and ... run again. :Dc76

Dc76, do you know about the existence of this article? Consider adding the info there and leaving only summary here. Alæxis¿question? 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You are right. I should have done it first there, I forgot about that article, sorry. I only wanted to end this issue and cross it out, and forgot that I still will have to do this in the other article. Look, Alaexis, what I did is a proposed edit - it is up for discussion and copyedit, and by that I mean first of all you. Anyway, thank you for reminding me about Human rights in Transnistria, uuu, I'm lazyyyyyyy... :-) :Dc76 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of independence of Transnistria from the USSR?

I removed the reference to it, because it was unsourced. Dpotop 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You should've reverted the article to last normal version (mine) and not to Dc76's version. Alæxis¿question? 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad, sorry. Dpotop 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's a source: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/17_years_since_pridnestrovies_founding_fathers_first_meeting.html M Carling 06:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The source doesn't support a "declaration". --Illythr 11:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, what are you talking about? How does "Declaration of Autonomy" not support a declaration? Did you even read the source I provided? Mcarling 14:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
From MSSR yes. But you are using in to support "Declaration of independence from USSR", something entirely different.
PS: I missed the --> thing. You edit summaries were not fake, but somewhat misleading. --Illythr 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is the sequence of events: Pridnestrovie declared autonomy within the MSSR; Pridnestrovie declared independence from the MSSR but remained within the USSR; Pridnestrovie declared independence from the USSR; Moldova declared independence from the USSR; the UN recognized Moldova; Moldova invaded Pridnestrovie. Confusing the timeline is not helpful.
PS: My summaries were not misleading. Mcarling 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Very well, then please provide a source for:Pridnestrovie declared independence from the USSR. As I recall, there was overwhelming support for continued existence of the USSR there, so a declaration of independence from USSR, especially before that of the MSSR seems unlikely. --Illythr 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1) Alaexis's is right: whenever one reverts something, please be careful not to revert legitimate work. And don't forget, we need to properly list the biblio (you can help!).
2) To Mcarling: it would be nice if you'd not try to overwhelm the infobox with all imaginable dates. Only need to list the most important events. Of course, there are 100 declarations, but we can not fit all those in the infobox. In this case, the most important one was chosen: Sept 2, 1990. If you want to add smth in the text - I see no problem with that if you give us a source we can check. Simmultaneously adding TT in the biblio hardly helps. :Dc76 14:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There was an event (recognition) in the list of dated events that hasn't even happened yet. It's already amply mentioned in the text and there is no reason for something that hasn't happened yet to be listed in the infobox. I added two events (not 100) which are of central importance to understanding the timeline. I'll try to find another source, but I don't see what's wrong with the source I cited. All the publications on both sides are biased. TT at least presents both sides while making their biases clear. Mcarling 15:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Did we not decide Tiraspol Times is not a reputable source? Dpotop 15:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding? The Tiraspol Times is biased, but less biased than anything in the list of "pro-separatist" or "anti-separatist" sources. Mcarling 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And I'm certain your 15 contributions on the subject in the last 5 days make you a real expert on the matter, Mr. Self-Declared-Politics-Expert. Dpotop 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you making an effort to be offensive? Or is it accidental? For whatever it's worth, I've never been to Pridnestrovie, but I have been to Moldova. I've lived six years in the former Soviet Union and have a good familiarity with Soviet history, including graduate studies. I have neither Romanian nor Russian heritage, so I have no dog in this fight. I've also been a Wikipedia contributer a wee bit (3 years) longer than you have, so your condescension is not appreciated. Mcarling 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
And I am the Pope in Rome, incognito. :):) Dpotop 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm a public figure, it's very easy to verify who I am. Mcarling 17:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You can be whoever you want. It does not matter. Reliable sources do. Dpotop 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Why then your personal attacks and challenges as to who I am? Mcarling 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
No personal attack. I just pointed to the fact that you are new in this discussion about Tiraspol Times. This source has been a contentious issue for more than 1 year now, and existing editors have a common understanding of existing sources. Now, you simply come here and bring no new source, but ask us to change our interpretation of it. If you try to do this in 5 days, the only result will be another revert war. Dpotop 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Factual, now: I saw that your point is that Transnistria declared independence from USSR before Moldova. Now, for a fact of this importance, you should be able to find another source than Tiraspol Times. If the fact is real, that is. There are editors here (originally) from Transnistria. Did you hear something about this declaration? Dpotop 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
However, don't take this post very bad. The problem is that on Transnistria-related articles we did have to deal with self-declared experts that proved to be political operatives. This is why remaining editors have a very conservative editing approach, with very few additions and lots of discussions and references. The acceptability of some sources, including TT has already been discussed. As a rule of the thumb, discuss proposed changes on the talk page **prior** to making them, especially when touching pivotal data. Dpotop 16:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Status section in the infobox

I can't see what criterion has been used for selecting the current historical dates/events included here. My impression is that the current setting tries to give the impression that the current statal organization has deep historical roots going back to 1792 (some form of continuity is implied). I don't think this is true. Let's discuss. Dpotop 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to follow the example of existing independent states, for which at most 2 dates are retained: establishment/declaration of independence and recognition. Dpotop 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The information currently part of the infobox exists anyways in the history section (it does not disappear). The difference being that in that section it is presented in perspective, not just like that, as a fact. Dpotop 16:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to remove everything that pre-dates declaration of independence of September 2, 1990? Alæxis¿question? 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This is my proposal, yes, unless some other notable Transnistria existed before. AFAIK, none existed. Dpotop 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • support. (as I see from the discution obove) unfortunately the 3 lines pre-1992 instead of simply being informative can be perceived to give political interpretation. I must admit that until now I thought they were simply informative, but if there is even a latent doubt that instead of informative one can see them as political statements, then let's remove them. :Dc76 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • support. After examining infoboxes of some independent states and sub-national entities it looks like this is the standard in Wikipedia. Alæxis¿question? 14:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • support. Per Alaexis. I don't really care, but since the 1992 moves from sub-national level to independence, it's probably wrong to bunch them all together like that. --Illythr 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it, feel free to improve. Dpotop 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing from the article?

Given the fact that there are several recent edits to the talk page about issues "not covered", as well as 100 other reasons we have to do this, I suggest to make a list:

We need a reference, and obviously if it is credible, it can go to Economy section.:Dc76 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
There is an article Human rights in Transnistria, which has a link from this page, and which would need assistance. Consider helping editting rather than simply pointing out missing stuff.:Dc76 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Read this: Human right in Transnistria, Ilie Ilaşcu, Human rights section here. Help copyedit them. If you have some additional sourses and would like to expand, please be our guest, we will help.:Dc76 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...


Statement by President George W. Bush

An interesting quote:

Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Voronin on U.S.-Moldovan Relations, December 17, 2002

We welcome the positive development and expansion of U.S.-Moldovan relations over the last 11 years. The relationship of our two countries is based on a shared commitment to promoting prosperity, freedom, and security in Moldova and throughout the region.

Together, we reaffirm our support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, and underscore our determination to bring the Transnistrian separatist conflict to a peaceful resolution. We stress our continued commitment to the ongoing OSCE-led Transnistria talks and, in particular, to the Kiev Document as the basis for negotiation of a lasting settlement.

We note and welcome the Russian Federation’s intention to implement fully its commitments undertaken at the OSCE’s Istanbul Summit by completing the withdrawal of its forces from the territory of Moldova by December 31, 2003. We urge Transnistria’s authorities to support unconditionally this process. If the Transnistrian authorities continue systematically to create obstacles for the disposal or withdrawal of Russian ammunition and military equipment, we are prepared to consider together with other concerned [p. 2174] countries targeted measures directed at the Tiraspol regime.

We recognize the progress that Moldova has made in transforming its economy in a free market direction, most notably in the agricultural sector. At the same time, we are cognizant of the economic challenges currently facing Moldova, including Moldova’s particularly difficult debt situation. We are in complete accord that Moldova must strengthen its reform efforts, especially in the areas of privatization and the energy sector, and improve its investment climate. We agreed that with strong and clearly demonstrated performance under Moldova’s IMF program, the United States would consider participating in a comprehensive plan to stabilize Moldova’s debt outlook in the medium term.

We note and welcome Moldova’s positive record since independence in conducting free and fair elections and in implementing democratic reforms. We pledge our commitment to upholding the principles of democracy and human rights and to observing them in practice. To this end, we underscore the vital importance of further progress in meeting OSCE election standards and in strengthening free and independent media in Moldova.

Finally, we reaffirm the importance of continued cooperation between the United States and Moldova in promoting regional security, including through our common efforts at combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; transnational crime; and trafficking in persons. We will deepen our cooperation to combat international terrorist threats to world peace both in our own countries and internationally. The United States appreciates Moldova’s support in the global war on terrorism.

Secure M 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


United States-European Union Summit Statement on Ukraine, June 21, 1999

  • Document: United States-European Union Summit Statement on Ukraine, June 21, 1999
  • Author: William Jefferson Clinton
  • Date: June 21, 1999

"We welcome Ukraine’s commitment to regional cooperation as well as its contributions to find solutions to the conflicts in Transnistria and Kosovo."

2LionKing

Please propose such a lot of changes here first. Alæxis¿question? 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV --ze lione kingo 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


my changes are proposed here. --ze lione kingo 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, they aren't. Alæxis¿question? 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

why not Cisnistria? "country nearside the Nister River"" NPOV is Transnistria.--ze lione kingo 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's "Cis-"? --Illythr 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The opposite of "trans". Alæxis¿question? 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Too rare. Simply "Dniester MR" would be NPOV, but alas, "Transnistria" is more known in English. So it stays. --Illythr 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request?

This dumb user "LionKing" is doing very stupid things that can only be seen as a manipulation attempt at this point. I want to ask a checkuser LionKing vs Mauco and MarkStreet. How can this be done? Dpotop 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He's already banned btw. Alæxis¿question? 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Who is banned? Dpotop 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
LionKing ([14]). Alæxis¿question? 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This is of no importance. What is important is who LionKing is. If he is a sock of Mauco or MarkStreet, then it's a clear manipulation against MariusM and EvilAlex. Dpotop 07:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And if he's a sock of Bonaparte, is it a clear manipulation against Mauco or MarkStreet? :-) --Illythr 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, Bonny is just Bonny. True to himself. I sure hope he at least listens to you, Dpotop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If he's a sock of Bonaparte, then it's not a manipulation by MariusM or EvilAlex. That's all. :) Anyway, Jpgordon confirmed it's Bonny. Dpotop 18:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you don't know, but in the arbitration case over Transnistria they plan to ban Mauco, MarkStreet, and... EvilAlex. :) I find this a bit outrageous: EvilAlex indeed fought many guys here, but he did it properly, and already got punished for it. OTOH, Mauco and MarkStreet were rarely blocked before their massive sockpuppeteering was discovered. All the time, there was a Mikka or equivalent to protect them. These two guys are also known to be professional manipulators, which is bad. Dpotop 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Are the ethnicity-based insults proper in Wikipedia?
I'd also advise you to add to me to the word known in your last sentence. Alæxis¿question? 18:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Alaexis, is the second time I saw you claiming "insults" when nobody make any insult, and neither your name or any ethnicity was mentioned. I wonder how long will take for you to complain about inexistent "hate-speeches" (Illythr is the expert in this area of complaining, you should ask his advice)?--MariusM 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh, did Dc76 not translate that part for you yet? As for insults, this section looks like one big insult to me, to name just one. The hate part is covered on my talk page, don't thing there more to add to that here.
Anyways, the "topic" of this section is "closed", there is no need to discuss Bonaparte's socks more than it's necessary to discover and ban them. I suggest archiving it now. --Illythr 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Er... Don't get it. I already heard ElC saying you don't agree... Really? I mean, sockpuppeteering is factual (you don't contest it, I hope). And the relation with the TT/ICDISS bunch is obvious. You may not like MariusM, but what he wrote here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence is factual. Dpotop 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the guy that pushes for maximum penalties for MariusM and EvilAlex is ElC. The guy did nothing against the real culprits here, he seems mainly interested in punishing the ones that did his job. Dpotop 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bonny did cooperate with many of the locals here in addition to nearly getting Mauco banned by skillful sockpuppet use. Well, maybe not so skillful, but oh well. I'm amazed with you ability to ignore the political motivations of one group, while clearly seeing those of the other (a large part of the article remains a bullet list of bad things done in the region, eagerly maintained and expanded virtually on the fly). As for EvilAlex, I suppose "fighting" is the keyword. --Illythr 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I never said MariusM and EvilAlex are angels or so. What I'm saying here is that there are various degrees of guilt. Bonaparte was banned from Wikipedia for good long before having the sockpuppeteering record of Mauco. And that, let alone his manipulation attempts.
OTOH, you fighting EvilAlex is usual wikipedia business, and it's manageable by any admin. Simple: The guy breaches 3RR, you block him. But we need 1 year to uncover the TT bunch. One year of fights, of "you are not assuming good faith", "we have a majority", etc. Dpotop 18:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I am an angel, but incognito ;-).--MariusM 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither are Mauco and Mark Street demons. The latter was a kind of "black PR" really, discrediting himself and his newspaper better than anyone else. Mauco's positive contributions were also quite extensive. Bonny was banned for trying to rig his ArbCom case, AFAIR. His blatant POV, incessant warring etc only got him blocked once in a while (he even managed to become a mediator  :) ). IMO, they (Alex, Mark, Mauco) shouldn't've been banned, only limited to talk namespace, so that people like Dc76 and Alaexis could do the editing. Even Alex had some good suggestions and contributions here. --Illythr 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
AFAIR Bonny was banned first on Moldova-related business. For extensive edit warring **and** sockpuppeteering after being blocked several times, courtesy Khoikhoi or Mikka, I don't really remember. Dpotop 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

Coming along nicely since I last tagged it. Well done Alaexis and DC76. El_C 08:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't prase before it's done. Noone will work after the prase :-) :Dc76 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of Russian Troops

The article indicates 2500 Russian troops, which hasn't been true for years. The current number is 1200. I trust that Reuters is an acceptable source. Is there any objection to updating this? Mcarling 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reuters is an acceptable source.--MariusM 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Beating of Corjova councilor Iurie Cotofana

During Moldovan elections, Transnistrian police was send to Corjova village to forbid participation of locals at voting. One person, Iurie Cotofana, member in the village council, was beaten and hospitalized. Source: http://transnistria.md/en/news//259/ . in Romanian language: http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2581 , http://flux.md/p/index.php?action=show&idu=21019&cat=Cotidian%20National&rub=Social&num=69 --MariusM 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

These are POV sources. Either find a neutral source or a source on the other side to balance it. Mcarling 15:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
At any event, we need an English translation of key parts. Because the rest of us can't tell what's what. El_C 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation from the last source (Flux): The candidate at the Corjova local council and member in the rayonal (district) Dubasari council, Iurie Cotofana, arrrested Sunday, in the day of local elections, by Transnistrian forces, was freed in the night of Sunday to Monday. Because of the beating endured he was hospitalized at the Emergency Hospital in Chisinau. Iurie Cotofana was arrested in front of the polling station in Corjova, located in the village gymnasium. He told us that Sunday morning he was, together with other locals, in front of the polling station. "It seemed that many people will participate at elections. Until 9:00 already 80 people voted. Then came separatist forces and asked people who waited to vote to go home. Those who refused were pushed and some were beaten. They tried to enter in the gymnasium but we didn't allow them. Then they make a line of policemen in front of the gymnasium and didn't allow voters to come. My mother just voted, I saw outside my father. I tried to help him entering in the polling station. Then several policemen caught me trying to force me to enter in the police car. I resisted and they asked enforcement (in total around 20 policemen), and then I gave up", Cotofana told us. His arms were torn at back, he was thrown at the earth and hitted at head and abdomen with kicks and punch. After was boarded in the police car he was brought to the rayonal police station. (...) He was asked to sign a note where was mentioned that he agressed several policemen. He refused. "At 01:00 I was freed and received a citation to go to a trial at 09:00, without explanations about the reason of the trial", told Cotofana, who refused to go in front of an illegal court. In 1 June, when he wanted to give presents for International Day of Childrens to Corjova kids, Transnistrian police also forbid this and Cotofana received an other citation. (...) After the illegal arrest of Cotofana, Valeriu Mitul, candidate for mayoral office in Corjova, was threatened with death (for n-th time!) by Transnistrian police.--MariusM 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The first person account makes clear that this is POV. Either a neutral source needs to be found or a source on the other side needs to be found for balance. Mcarling 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I gave three sources. I am not responsible for the censorship of Transnistrian press, which is not allowed to write about such events.--MariusM 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think that only Moldovan/Romanian and Transnistrian press exist in the whole world? Alæxis¿question? 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Alaexis, if you find a Russian source you are welcome to show it (with translation, please).--MariusM 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I rather meant English or American sources. Alæxis¿question? 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Meh, Flux is about as neutral as Tiraspol Times here. I fully expect the latter to publish an article describing how an angry mob attacked police officers peacefully overseeing the voting process. Hmph, go figure. --Illythr 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Corjova is the native village of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin.--MariusM 16:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, MariusM. I appreciate it. El_C 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up of this case: Moldovan Prosecutor office started proceedings in Corjova case: English language source.--MariusM 02:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's in English and so what? It's still a Moldovan site that cannot be considered neutral. Besides you should add the individual incidents first to the Human rights in Transnistria article and write a brief summary here if the event is really really important. Alæxis¿question? 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Human rights section should contain most important events (like Ilascu, Chitcan, schools, media, maybe a couple more). Then it should be written that there have been some other human rights violations. Alæxis¿question? 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In 26 April I stated my position regarding what should be included in this article: recent events (from this year), unsolved issues (right of Moldovans to use latin script, for example), overviews about Human Rights in Transnistria made by reliable organisations - not Moldovan or Russian government, but U.S. Department of State, for example. For example, I don't push for the inclusion of the arrest of the members of Dignitas organisation, which happened in 2006, but arrests from 2007 are relevant.--MariusM 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is the following included in the article then?
(The ref is to the interview with Stefan Uritu). Alæxis¿question? 15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Is an unsolved issue. If the criminals will be prosecuted we will delete this paragraph, until then we should keep it.--MariusM 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think at least neutral sources should be brought proving all this happened in the first place. Alæxis¿question? 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
When I told my opinion that Tiraspol Times is not a reliable source I gave also specific examples about how Tiraspol Times is misleading. You didn't give specific examples to prove the unreliability of the sources you are opposing.--MariusM 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is this village on the map? Why was he taken to a hospital in Chisinau, this bit sounds a little suspicious to me. I'm not saying it is, but it just reads as odd in my mind. Jonathanpops 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

North of Dubasari, it was considered a suburb of the city until 1991, when Moldovan parliament approved the request of local inhabitants and the village received a separate administration. I think Cotofana preffered the hospital in Chisinau than the hospital from Dubasari, which is in the separatist-controlled area (not to mention the better equipment which is certainly available in Chisinau).--MariusM 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's right.
If you are in Corjova and have to go to hospital, the question is, where you will cross the Dniester. If you cross at the Dubăsari dam, or at the bridge south of Dubăsari, then you have the option to go to Criuleni. But in both cases, you will have to pass through Transnistrian control (they have posts both on the dam and on the bridge), and they can hold you for an hour or two at their discretion (not something you wish to do when going to a hospital). Even then you have the option of driving 30 more minutes to get to a better hospital in Chisinau than to a God-forgotten one in Criuleni (Moldova's local medical facilities are the envy of only Zimbabwe), where you might not even find an emergency doctor but have to wait for one. If you cross by ferry at Molovata Nouă, then don't waste time, Criuleni, Orhei and Chisinau are about the same distance by car, so go to Chisinau. There should be some medical facilities in Cocieri, too, but resort to them only if you have a minor injury. In general, if you need antiseptic or antibiotics or a quick first look by a qualified medic, you can get it locally. But if you need a CAT scan or even a good X-ray, go to Chisinau - it's less than 1 hour away. Also, if someone's looking for you, they'll try first in Chisinau and then go down the ladder.
You can locate Corjova at Google maps. Type in "Dubasari". Make "hybrid" to see the satelitte image as well. The arrow mistakenly points you to the village of Ustia, which is just on the opposite bank from Dubasari. Locate on the map:
  • E577. That's the road to Chisinau (on the right bank) and around Dubasari (to its south and east) on the left bank ("left" and "right" are w.r.t. the flow of the river), after which it crosses into Ukraine
  • Dubasari dam (the only dam there - you can see by the shape of the river). North and east of the Dam is Corjova. Between Corjova and E577 is Dubasari. North of Corjova is Cocieri, which is bigger than Corjova. (At the boundary between lower and higher resolution maps is already Cocieri.) North of Cocieri, at the tip of the land is Molovata Noua. East of Cocieri and of Molovata Noua is Righi
  • It also might be helpful to locate the road that leaves Dubasari to the north in the direction of Ribnita. It leaves all the villages I just mentioned to its left, and to the right are just fields. Mark approximately the point where this road leaves/enters the inhabitted area. Mark about 2.5km west of it the end of the Dubasari dam. This imaginary line is said to cut the village of Corjova into half (I don't know exactly, I haven't been there). And this imaginary line plus/minus 1km north and south was one of the places that sought military action in 1992. I hope this helps. :Dc76 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for multinational peacekeeping force

New info: [15] Soon NATO troups [[16] Presedintele George W. Bush a criticat ieri de la Praga "deraierea" democratiei din Rusia, iar SUA au avansat un plan pentru Basarabia [etc.]

Hello, anonymous editor. Could you please try to limit yourself to English translation of that text you cited. I don't know what it meant. El_C 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello registered editor. A source is reliable even if it's written in Romanian ...:)
Hello again. That might be fine for the Romanian Wikipedia, but here on the English Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you were to ensure that the material can be immediately udnerstood in English. Many thanks in advance. El_C 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I tell you what it means, soon NATO will kick out russians from there :) that's democratic action in action! :)

I think that it's unlikely the Euro-American — Sino-Russian imperialist rivalry will significantly change over Transnistria, and of course, no nulcear powers have ever entered open conflict, for obvious reasons. Which dosen't preclude a regime change, of course. Either way, democracy has little to do with it. But all of this is speculative and goes beyond the scope of this talk page's usage, so let's stick to that. El_C 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
the source that anon editor gave is telling about a proposal made by G.W. Bush about a multinational peace force, including Russia, for Transnistria. Is not about NATO, I believe this is wishfull thinking of the anon. Anyhow, in the article we should include known events, not speculations about the future.--MariusM 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for translating, again. Agreed. El_C 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation you are directing at Mcarling, do you have proof? Also, please cease from unrefractoring items I move or remove. Thx. El_C 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion, the above was directed to 194.xx as per the comments s/he made here. El_C 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I found an English-language source about the American proposal: [17]. Is not a proposal of G.W. Bush but of "a U.S. defence official".--MariusM 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks once again; I'll try to review it closely soon. El_C 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1200, 2500

Where do the figures for Russian troops come from? I noticed it when Mcarling changed it from 2500 to 1200. But without citing sources, as usual. Mcarling, MariusM, can you point us to actual sources? Dpotop 12:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See above on this talk page: Number of Russian Troops. Mcarling 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I cited it properly. Dpotop 13:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Alexander Radchenko

This man from Transnistria is supporting unification with Moldova and abandon of so called "PMR". --199.89.182.5 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposition candidate Alexander Radchenko, leader of the Social Democratic party, is in favor of unification with Moldova and the end to PMR's so called fiasco independence.

TV from PMR refused to put on TV speech of Alexander Radchenko, the Supreme Council deputy candidate, because there is no free press in Transnistria.

The situation of the independent media is very difficult, with different methods of pressure applied on those few journalists who do not follow the official line.

The general media climate in the region can be described as restrictive, although short of open harassment of the few media outlets that proclaim themselves as independent.

There are two prominent local opposition leaders, Alexander Radchenko and Nikolai Buchatskii.

To be accurate: according "Tiraspol Times", Radchenko is a pro-Moldova leader. I have my doubts, like in the case of Safonov, former member of the separatist government. Butchatski fought against Moldova in the War of Transnistria. I remember an article from Olvia press against him (he was accused of selling himself for Moldovan lei and Israeli shekels), but I don't have right now the link.--MariusM 15:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Alexander said that he will support unification with Moldova, abandon the so called currency etc.

Nikolai Buchatskii

Another Pro-Moldova leader.--199.89.182.5 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Harassment of Alexander Radchenko and Nikolai Buchatskii from Chelovek i Ego Prava

The only human rights newspaper in the region is under constant pressure; a campaign of both physical and psychological intimidation has been organized against the newspaper’s two co-founders, Alexander Radchenko and Nikolai Buchatskii. The authorities should cease this campaign immediately. International donors should look for a possibility to fund this newspaper.


Buchatskii provided extensive details to the Office concerning the campaign against him and Radchenko. Several local newspapers close to the region’s leadership ran smear campaigns against these journalists. For example, the local newspaper Novii Dnestrovskii Kurier (told by several interlocutors to be associated with MGB, the local security service) accused Buchatskii of being a “Satanist” and of involving his underage granddaughter in “satanic activities.” Novii Dnestrovskii Kurier has been conducting a smear campaign of both editors. It even editorialised that to criticize Transdniestria because of wide-spread corruption was “intolerable”.

Olvia Press, the official Transdniestrian agency, published a number of articles accusing Radchenko of treason, in particular of collaborating with Chisinau and various western countries. Buchatskii was described to Ivanko by the editor of “State”radio as a “drunk and a traitor.”

The Office’s Senior Adviser visited the office of Chelovek i Ego Prava and saw that the building where they were renting space, and only that building in the neighbourhood, had been defaced with obscene graffiti, and most of its windows had been broken. Buchatskii and Radchenko were physically attacked on several occasions. The office is located next to the headquarters of the local leadership, and this area is heavily patrolled by security forces, none of which took any action to prevent assaults against persons and property of the paper.


Background Information on This Case

Several Transdniestrian “patriotic” organizations during the week of 13-17 December 2004 launched a campaign of defamation and physical attacks against Aleksander Radchenko, the sole opposition deputy in the Transdniestrian Supreme Soviet. The action came on the eve of a government-inspired recall vote on 19 December, aimed at removing the sole independent voice from the left bank legislature.

Aleksandr Radchenko, a former Soviet army officer and government publicist in the early days of the Transdniestrian regime, was elected to the “Supreme Soviet” in December 2000 from a Tiraspol district as the leader of the opposition Party of Peoples’ Power. Radchenko and Buchatskii also regularly publish critical commentary on the situation in Transdniestria in Chisinau newspapers.

For a long time authorities in Tiraspol tolerated Radchenko’s opposition activities. However, with the marked deterioration of relations between Chisinau and Tiraspol during 2004, Transdniestrian security forces clearly began to move against Radchenko.

After a failed gathering of left and right bank human rights NGOs in Tiraspol in early July, unknown persons scrawled crude obscenities and poured acid on the entrances to Radchenko’s and Buchatskii’ s residences. By late summer, Transdniestrian authorities collected some 200 signatures from voters in Radchenko’s district calling for his recall as a “Supreme Soviet” Deputy. Radchenko challenged both the validity of the action and the signatures in Transdniestrian courts, but lost on all counts. The recall election was scheduled for 19 December, with five polling places in his Tiraspol district. For Radcheko to be removed, opponents needed to obtain one more than the 1325 votes he received in 2000. The necessary quorum of 25 percent of eligible voters was not reached. Less than 10 percent of voters in his electoral district participated, and, as a result, the recall failed.

On 16 December activists from two officially sponsored Transdniestrian “NGOs” – the League of Transdniestrian Youth and “Tiraspolchanka,” a patriotic organization of women pensioners – picketed Radchenko’s newspaper office in Tiraspol. The demonstrators burned Moldovan flags and portraits of Radchenko and Voronin. When Radchenko arrived at his office, demonstrators pelted him with water, plastic bottles, and debris. Radchenko suffered slight bruises. A lengthy, laudatory account of the events, with several pictures, appeared immediately on the Olvia-Press website.

At the same time, activists distributed and posted derogatory leaflets in the building in which Radchenko resides. “Attention – Danger,” the leaflet read, “In apartment 129 in our building lives a maniac!” The flyer accused Radchenko of writing obscenities on the walls himself, and warned residents to protect their children. “Think how to isolate this monster in human form,” the leaflet concludes. “Say NO to the maniac. Say YES to a peaceful and happy life.”

A movement will overthrow Igor Smirnov in Russia very soon

Nikolai Buchatskii and Alexander Radchenko are making the peace with Moldova.

The Senior Adviser visited the offices of Dobrii Den’ in Ribnitsa in the north of the region. This was his second visit to this newspaper in two years. Previously, the newspaper was sued for libel for 30,000 USD. In the end the newspaper lost the lawsuit but paid a much smaller sum and did not go bankrupt. Dobrii Den’ extensively covers corruption, especially concerning privatization schemes.

Dobrii Den’ is involved in several joint projects with Moldovan newspapers, mostly dealing with social issues. The owner of this newspaper, Svetlana Kotovskaya, informed the Office that the newspaper was not really under any serious pressure. “Of course, after you leave, I will be visited by the MGB [“state” security], but that happens so often I don’t even consider it as a form of pressure,” Kotovskaya told Senior Adviser Ivanko.

She considered the lack of access to information a much bigger problem. “We usually don’t get any answers when we ask the authorities for information, they just ignore us,” said Kotovskaya, “In a way that is also a form of pressure since we lose out to other publications, mostly state-controlled.”

Please provide source and please sign your postings.--MariusM 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OSCE is good? [18] --199.89.182.5 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan Law on Transnistria’s Status: Transnistria is a part of Moldova

The United States is committed to supporting the search for a solution to the Transnistria conflict: a solution which is peaceful and which strengthens Moldova's sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic institutions. http://www.osce.org/documents/pc/2005/07/15932_en.pdf 199.89.182.5 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The United States supports the objectives of democratization and demilitarization of Transnistria, and we call once again on the Russian Federation to complete the withdrawal of its troops and munitions from Moldovan territory as it pledged to do at Istanbul six years ago.

Freedom of Movement in Moldova: Transnistrian authorities block free movement (March 22, 2007)

Diplomatic personnel accredited to the U.S. Embassy in Chisinau attempted to pay a routine visit to the OSCE branch office in Tiraspol, but were blocked from entering the region at two separate checkpoints manned by Transnistrian authorities. http://www.osce.org/documents/pc/2007/03/23898_en.pdf --199.89.182.5 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Transnistrian region does not have the right to block access to diplomats; it is not a sovereign state and there is no international border for anyone crossing from one bank of the Nistru River to the other. The actions are in contravention of the 1992 ceasefire agreement, which calls for the elimination of impediments to the movement of goods, services and people in the region.

The United States Embassy is for all of Moldova, and that includes the Transnistrian region. Such incidents hinder the ability of our accredited personnel to conduct diplomacy.

We discussed this incident in archive 17 [19]. I was just giving this incident as an example that not every single incident is in the article, as some editors were complaining.--MariusM 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tighina military cemetery

Here is the sourse. I will only translate certain portions, so that you can feel the journalism of the authors. Feel free to translate other portions if you have time.

Title: Зависть Графа Дракулы. Румынские пиарщики взялись за имидж ПМР (Envy of Count Dracula. Romanian PR-managers have taken isuues with the image of PMR)

Бендерчане хорошо знают, что на городских погостах, особенно старых, рядом и вперемешку стоят надгробные плиты иудея, православного, мусульманина... Да, по-другому и не могло быть в многонациональной и многоконфессиональной России. По надписям на этих плитах – на русском, молдавском, румынском, немецком языках – прослеживается история нашего края, и города Бендеры в частности, порой трагическая и героическая. Обильно человеческой кровушкой политы берега Днестра.

The people of Tighina (Bender) know well that in the city cemeteries, especially in the old ones, there can be found one near the other the graves of Jews, Orthodox, Muslims... It couldn't even be otherwise in multinational and multiconfetional Russia. According to the writings on these graves - in Russian, Moldovan, Romanian, German - one can follow the history of our land, and of the city Bender in particular, sometimes tragic and heroic. There is a lot of human blood spelt in the banks of the Dniester.

Ведущее румынское печатное издание «ZIUA» разразилось «сенсационным» материалом о том, что Бендерские власти, якобы, занимаются гробокопательством и осквернением могил румынских солдат, погибших на захваченной ими земле. Причем подача информации осуществляется таким образом, чтобы создалось впечатление, что приднестровские власти делают это нарочито из соображений ксенофобии. Понятно, что кроме антироссийской составляющей, налицо и очередная попытка дискредитировать нашу республику в лице мирового сообщества. Не очень тревожит румынское издание то факт, что эта «утка» - пустой пшик для населения Приднестровья, где проживают десятки национальностей.

The leading Romanian publication "Ziua" have cried with a "sensational" material that the authorities of Bender, presumably, dig graves and profane the graves of Romanian solders that died on the territory that they have occupied. [legally Romanian territory at that time - Note by Dc76] Moreover, the information is given in such a way as to create the impression that the Transnistrian authorities do this on purpose by reasons of xenophobia. It is clear that appart from an anti-Russian component, it is also obvious here the n-th attempt to discredit our republic in the eyes of the international ocmmunity. The Romanian publication is not warried very much that this is a "duck" - an empty sound for the population of Transnistria, where tens of nationalities live.

Один из древнейших городов приграничья Российской Империи – Бендеры, всегда был небольшим населенным пунктом. В советский же период он пережил значительный строительный бум, разросся вширь, став современным красавцем-городом. Кладбища и погосты, некогда находившиеся на окраинах, за несколько лет оказались в черте города. Некоторые из них (как, например, называемое населением «румынское») уже нельзя назвать кладбищами. Заброшенные кресты и надгробные плиты поросли кустарником и травой, нет оград и заборов.

One of the oldest cities of Russian Empire's borderland - Bender, always was a small settlement. But in the Soviet period he has gone through an important boom of construction, has grown in size, becoming a beautiful he-city. Cemeteries, which at some point were outside the city limits, during several years have found themselves inside the city limits. Some of them (as for example the one so-called "Romanian" by the population) can not be any longer called cemetery. The crosses and gravestones for which noone cared have grown with wead and grass, there are no fences.

Приднестровцы уже давно привыкли к распространению множества шокирующих западного обывателя небылиц о своей маленькой стране. На основе басен, изложенных в европейских и американских СМИ за последние 15 лет, о Приднестровье можно снять сериал ужасов. Вероятно, одной из последних серий станут «Зловещие мертвецы» с Бендерского кладбища, которые сожмут костяной клешней гениталии незадачливого румынского журналиста, отвинтят голову и выпьют всю его кровь. Граф Дракула и прочие вампиры позавидуют приднестровцам.

The Transnistrians have long since become familiar with the divulgation of many shocking for the western consumer unbelievable stories about their little country. On the bases of fabulas, narated in European and American mass-media during the last 15 years, one can film a horror show [in the sense of "movie series" or "sitcom" -Dc76]. Probably, one of the last episods will become "Evilish dead" from the Tighina cemetery, which will strangle in bonny tongs the genitals of the incapable Romanian journalist, will unscrew the head and will drink all his blood. Count Dracula and other vampires will envy Transnistrians.

Похоже, румынские пиарщики, исполняя политический заказ, своим мифотворчеством добавляют Приднестровью славы самого страшного места на планете Земля.

It seems that the Romanian PR-managers, executing a political order, with their invention of myths add to Transnistria a fame of the most dreadful place on the planet Earth.

[The last paragraph:]

Все достаточно просто. Стараниями голливудских кинорежиссеров и европейских хранителей доисторических преданий именно Румыния является сегодня самым "страшным" местом на планете Земля. Похоже, столь умопомрачительным способом румыны пытаются подарить свой зловещий имидж Приднестровью. Посмотрим теперь, как скоро подхватят новую горячую утку их европейские соседи. А там, глядишь, и мэтры Голливуда замелькают в окрестностях Бендер. Интересно, что напишет по данному поводу Стивен Кинг?

It is all very simple. With the effort of Holliwood directors and European preservers of pre-historical tales particularly Romania is today the most "dreadful" place on the planet Earth. It seems, that in such mind-blackening way the Romanians try to give their evilish image to Transnistria. Let us look now, how soon will the new hot duck be taken by their European neighbors. And there, you'll see, the masters of Holliwood will start coming around Tighina (Bender). Interestingly, what will Steven King write about this?

My question is: how professional and news-informative is such a publication? :Dc76 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you call Romanian пиарщики(PR-managers) scribes? Otherwise your translation is quite good, I should say.
It's their style of writing. What do you mean by news-informative? Alæxis¿question? 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OIC, Pi-aR !! I completely misunderstood the word. Sorry. I corrected myself.
By news informative I mean for example the style of NYT, or USA Today, or Times, or IHT, or FT, or le Monde, or Figaro, or Zuddeutche Zeitung: 3 paragraphs of cold news + 1 paragraph of interpretation (usually anti-Bush or anti-their preferred target, even if the issue has nothing to do with Bush), and that's it. No "Here, everything is very simple, just listen to us and don't believe anything the rest tell you", no "stangling the genitals", no "multinational and multiconfessional Russia" (in Tighina!) "Ziua" is far better in this respect: 3 paragraphs of cold news + 2 of comments (one anti-communist, and one anti-Vadim, even if the issue has nothing to do with Vadim). Even if Vadim has used all curses he ever new agaist them, they still never use "genitals" or "screew heads", they simply refer delicately to his mental state, which usually has much better effect. :Dc76 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not even counting the listing of Moldovan and Romanian as two different languages. :Dc76 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I mean, in 15-paragraph there is not a simple one with crude news. It sounds like a column, when everyone knows very well the issue, and the columnist expresses and summarizes the public oppinion (which btw still everyone will regard as an oppnion, NYT columns are not considered news articles). Starting the news with the comments and in between giving bits of info is a style that is not acceptable in the world. After this article, absolutely nothing can be attributed to anyone: they only talk about theoretical posibilities and their understanding of someone comments which in turn are based on someone's declarations. Question: where are the facts? Where do they say: here, on this date, the remains have been moved from this place to this place? (especially given that it's not 15 remains as in Tallinn, but several thousand) They never even negate that the graves were leveled, they only justify it: "it's time to make order! how can "criminals" and "liberators" be buried in the same city?" :Dc76 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that the topic of that article is not the desecration of the graveyard, but the reaction of the Romanian press to it, i.e, the Ziua article.
As for the language issue, well, what do you want, it's the official POV there. At least it's a bit closer to the truth than Moldovan official POV. Heh, Ziua goes even further and calls Bender "eastern Romania"[20]! A bit unfactual for a "Western Ukraine" based newspaper, I'd say... :-)
Huh, what the hell? Do you see what I see? --Illythr 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew that :) Alæxis¿question? 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, you got a version of the article that was translated with mistakes, and abreviated a lot. You can find the original article here. You know the language, so you can read it. We can translate also to those who don't speak Romanian. The original article is much longer, and HAS PHOTOS (!!!)
About "eastern Romania" - it is a mistake in translation: "Dinspre estul Romaniei vin o serie de provocari directe in ultima perioada." (In the last period, from the east of Romania come a series of direct provocations). Note, it says not "din estul Romaniei" ("from eastern Romania") but "dinspre estul Romaniei" ("from the direction of the east of Romania"). It's like "Dinspre nordul si estul Imperiului Roman au navalit barbarii", "Dinspre sudul Statelor Unite vin multi imigranti ilegali". They are not coming from the northern and eastern part of the Roman Empire or from southern part of USA, but from north/east of the RE and from south of the USA. Anyway, you know the language, so you understand, I don't have to explain you. Whoever translated does not even know that Tiraspol is written in English with "i" not "y".
Ok, so the topic of the article in lenta-PMR is not the event, but the reaction of Romanian press to it. Well, for the Transnistria article I don't really care who in what press got what reaction and reaction to that reaction. I care about the facts, and in one case I see photos, in the other I see rambling that nothing has happened, that it's all a theoretical possibility. They say "What is wrong to move the graves? Last year some Russian graves were moved and an obelisk was put." Fine, where is the photo of the new obelisk for the Romanian solders? Instead we have photos of desecrated gravestones with buldozers. And it looks much worse than written.
Last, sorry I don't understand what you mean, what is the official Moldovan POV about the language? According to lenta-PMR, Moldovan and Romanian are two different languages. To be further away from the truth than this, one whould have to state that Moldovan is a dialect of Chinese or something like that. The official Moldovan POV (if we are refering to the same thing) is that the language is the same, but it is politically correct to sometimes call it Moldovan. That is substantially closer to the truth than listing them as separate languages.
BTW, what "western Ukraine"? where did you find that?:Dc76 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed a couple times that conflict.md and transnistria.md often simply reproduce articles from well-known papers in Chisinau and Bucharest, or news from news agencies, apart from excerpts from OSCE documents. The issue of copyright apart, why not using the original article as source instead of the reproduction when such is available?:Dc76 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm, one pretty dangerous mistake it is, then. :-) Romania as "Western Ukraine" was just me playing on the idea of "Transnistria (or Moldova) as eastern Romania". BTW, I saw the "Tyraspol" spelling a few times too. Could it be stemming from the original Greek name for the colony? Or just plain ignorance?
Yes, I would be interested in seeing the new place and whether the queries to Romania etc have really been sent. I suspect no response was received, as that would be the best argument in rebutting the "PR" from Romania.
Well, the Moldovan constitution states the language's name as "Moldovan". Transnistrian authorities call it "Romanian". They call "Moldovan" the old Cyrillic version.
Usage of original sources is preferred. I suppose the person who inserted that "second-hand" source decided not to look for the original. --Illythr 22:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Could it be stemming from the original Greek name for the colony? Or just plain ignorance?" I think both: he/she 1) did not read in English about Tiraspol, otherwise would know, (or alternatively) 2) read, but has short memory, which (does not decrease, but) does not improve the intelligence (either), but 3) thinks he/she knows English (no comment), 4) vaguely remembers something from history about Tyras (by the way, name of the river, not of the colony, which was the future Cetatea Alba, 100km from Tiraspol), hence 5) thinks of him/herself being smart and knowledgeble (how can someone remebering that in anticity one wrote "y" for Tyras think of him/herself in less than superexcellent mood), therefore 6) would not do a simple google search to check him/herself. Result: 7) did not even read the first sentence of the article to properly translate "dinspre estul". Conclusion: 8) perhaps is paid by the number of words translated, parhaps not at very good rate, and "who (the h#%&) will frist read this news from Ziua in English?" slept throught the translator's mind. (this is one scenario)
The body of the Moldovan law calls it both Moldovan, Romanian, and "Moldovan with Moldo-Romanian linguistic entity", depending under which governances the respective acts were addopted. The constitution is the prime example of the first type. The Moldovan political correctness creates confusion only, but would never (for the exception of V.Stati) ever mention two languages. In alternative to this, from what I understand from you, in Transnistria they prefer the other (b#$% s&@#) political correctness - a la Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin with additional possibilties of Bosniak, Shtokavian, Yugoslav, Slavonian. So we can also have Romanian, Moldovan, Moldavian, Moldovian, Bessarabian, Transnistrian, Pridnestrovian, Transylvanian, Ardelenian, Banatian, Oltenian, Muntenian, Wallachian, not to mention the Bucharest dialect "Mitica" :-) That's why English is better: they have American, Australian, British dialect, but not American language. (Somehow Australians do not feel any animosity towards British even when sharply disagreeing on Iraq) Isolation always produces "miracles" like Moldovan in this usage (eg constitution), but Romanian in another one (eg in schools). Isolation is not good for Moldova, staring at a lemon tree. :-) :Dc76 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • shrugs* What can I say? It's politics. At least in the Transnistrian version there *is* a visible difference. I don't think it's due to isolation, rather, someone feels insecure and wants to cement his claim to the seat in the Government (as opposed to a local council). --Illythr 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
exactly. isolation only makes possible someone's wish to become reality. Need both fuel (individual desire to cling to power) and oil (society's indeference to one's over-clinging).:Dc76 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crime

Again, I suggest removing the list altogether (except maybe for the travel warnings). I doubt that even the Crime in Transnistria article is place for individual criminal incidents, unless they have some profound effect on the situation in general. --Illythr 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no more "Crime" section. Shere is "Security concerns" one, with "11.1 Arms control and disarmament" (which are sort of important, being an issue of contention) and "11.2 Personal security" (which is very short, and restricted to travel warnings, the last 3 years bombs and profanations, and the the last 12 months assassinations). I don't mind to rewriting 11.1 and/or moving some of it somewhere else (e.g. to a different section?). But the issue is different from Russian military presence. Russian solders can not possibly use unaccounted or dirty weapons without Russian being immediately blamed. The situation is different in the case of Transnistria forces, which have acquired an unknown and unaccounted quantity of weapons from the Russian depots during the years, including a couple dirty radioactive bombs, one of which was all but bought by some western journalist a couple years ago. Second is the situation with locally producing weapons, and selling these to international conflicts or selling or trying to sell to rough regimes. These issues have to be mentioned, IMO. Where, how, that's a different question. What are the suggestions? :Dc76 01:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Crime in Transnisria" can become "Security concerns in Transnistria" as well.:Dc76 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a complex discussion, because we group under the same title two loosely-related things. "Insecurity" should go with the human rights section. OTOH, the arms smuggling should go in the discussion concerning the international status of Transnistria. Dpotop 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh, sorry, I meant 11.2 - the assassinations and bombs. The arms stuff must stay, as it's the main security concern in the region. --Illythr 12:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The bombings and assasinations also should stay, they are relevant for the climate of the region. The arms control section can be shortened.--MariusM 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Criminal incidents are not normally mentioned in a article about a country or territory, unless the have a profound longterm effect on the region in general. The Ilascu case in such an example. The others are not. --Illythr 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In a region of half million inhabitants we had in the last year 2 bombings and 2 individual assasinations. It's equivalent of 400 bombings and 400 assasinations of political leaders in a country like Russia. Relevant for the actual climate.--MariusM 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, let's compare the Swiss "invasion" of Liechtenstein with 30000 Chinese soldiers moving into Mongolia, shall we? Anyhow, if not even Afghanistan has such a list, neither should Transnistria. --Illythr 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Drăgalina?

Wouldn't the correct name of the destroyed cemetery be Dragalina, after the Romanian general Ion Dragalina who died during WWI? Dpotop 10:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it. --Illythr 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You were right. ...in cimitirul de razboi "General Dragalina" din Tighina... --Illythr 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The cemetery: Consistency problem?

Following the edit of Icar and the revert of Alaexis, something struck me:

  • On one hand, you say that "The Romanian press claims that ..."
  • On the other, you say (with sources) that the Transnistrian authorities claim that the cemetery was destroyed.

So, it's not just the Romanians and Moldovans claiming it. So, we don't really need to start the paragraph with "According to Romanian press". Am I missing something? Dpotop 18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the whole sentence:
So according to Romanian sources the cemetery was destroyed and profaned and according to Transnistrian ones it was relocated (or is going to be relocated) is being reconstructed with all due respect to the remains. Alæxis¿question? 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Here'sanother source about it. It's written more clearly there what are they going to do with the cemetery. Alæxis¿question? 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's the Romanian source, the Russian one comments on. It seems Romania would be willing to aid the relocation financially, if it's performed properly. --Illythr 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so the current cemetery is demolished, but the Transnistrians say they want to re-build it elsewhere. The fact that it is currently demolished is not disputed. Dpotop 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The key word we should use is "demolished". It's not simply destroyed, and does not necessarily imply bad faith (it's neutral). The assumption of bad faith comes from Moldovan and Romanian sources, and the assumption of good faith from the Transnistrian government. Dpotop 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Demolished is more NPOV than destroyed and profaned. However it also has some negative connotations imho. Alæxis¿question? 09:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, so is it Borisovskoe or Dragalina? --Illythr 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Does anyone have a soviet-era map of Tighina? Depending on this, the name could be "Borisovskoe (called Dragalina in Romanian sources)". Dpotop 08:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
First, let me point out that nowhere, in neither sourse the Transnistrian side has ever declared that it would relocate or have relocated the cemetery! On the other hand, we have reports and photos of gravestones taken down and gathered, and buldozers roling over former graves. So, it is clearly destroyed and profanned with a Transnistriana rhetoric or PR-stunt about the posibility of relocation. It is the Romanian officials that say they'd like to contribute to relocation if such would be done. That's the only official talk or declaration about relocation. If Kogut said "relocating wouldn't be crime" doesn't mean he has relocated or intends to relocate anything, it simply means a theoretical posibility (for Austrian solders in Italy) with no practical relation to Transnistria.
Second, compare the sourse in Romanian, given by Illythr, and the one in Russian given by Alaexis. See the deleted (or censured out) part from the latter.
Third, have you ever heard of cemeteries being expanded, with new parts being given new names. You have the Borisov cemetery, and in continuation the Dragalina cemetery. But if they were to install an obelisk in the Borisov cemetery, one would imediately note the nearby cemetery. Hence, IMO, they decided to role the latter down and put the obelisk where Dragalina was, with no PR-embarasment when someone comes to photo it. Noone is going to relocate anything. Guys, you have lived in former communist countries, don't you know of examples of road or other stuff build right over graves, it won't be the first example. It doesn't mater what is under, only what's on the surface meets the eye. Unless given the exact location where the gravestones could be relocated and photos of graves in non-profaned state, after the ones we have already seen, there is only one conclusion: profanation and destruction.:Dc76 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

False statements deleted: Moldovan is Romanian

Why is still so much desinformation in Wikipedia?--Vlachos 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting new sources

As a matter of fact I do agree that Transnistria is "de facto independent", from Moldova at least. Therefore, removing the tag does not bother me. Dpotop 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The new sources proposed on User_talk:Aristovoul0s, namely:

are really interesting. For instance, does the Transnistria article mention the fact that some reports claim that Russian troops in Chechnya used arms that were illegally produced in Transnistria? If the new sources are accepted by all as non-partisan, then we should include this information. Dpotop 10:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Which source of these 4 mentions this? Alæxis¿question? 10:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The first. You should read these sources before using them. Dpotop 11:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should I read the whole article? I've brought it as a source supporting the de facto independence of PMR. I've also checked the neutrality of the sources.
Besides it's already written in the article that the evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, that although the trafficking of light weapons is likely to have occurred before 2001. Alæxis¿question? 11:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Which article? In the source there's no such mention. And I intend to use it to clearly mention Chechnya. Dpotop 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Transnistria#Arms_control_and_disarmament. Alæxis¿question? 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
These is a single phrase there concerning illegal production and export of weapons, and it's full of ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] marks. Now, we can precise, based on this new source you brought. :) Dpotop 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I ignored Mark Almond and the BHHRG are again cited in this section. When did you re-introduce them? Dpotop 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea who introduced it in the first place and who re-introduced them. Please abstain from arbitrary accusations of other editors.]
?! Which accusations? Where do I accuse someone? You start sounding a lot like Mauco, with his baseless calls to policy. Dpotop 12:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Asking when I had done something implied that I indeed had done it. If you knew that I had done it you wouldn't ask such question, would you? Alæxis¿question? 13:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that. In English, "you" is both a singular and a plural. I did not add the text, so it's obviously a plural "you" who added it. :) Dpotop 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, never mind. Alæxis¿question? 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you consider the 90th and 91st sources non-neutral?

Alæxis¿question? 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how these sources contradict what I intend to add (I presume this is why you cited them, to show that I am somehow wrong). Dpotop 13:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also use the 3rd source to state that Transnistria is a creation of Russian post-Soviet policies. It's clearly stated. Dpotop 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what is written there. Besides the role of Russia is also already mentioned in the article many times. Alæxis¿question? 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we don't read the same source. It's this one. It takes a lot of bad faith to say that this article does not clearly say Transnistria is a creation of Russian policy. BTW, this does not mean it's not "de facto independent". Dpotop 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Accusing others of bad faith won't get you very far as well. The article says:
This is not the same as stating that state that Transnistria is a creation of Russian post-Soviet policies. Alæxis¿question? 12:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we will simply quote what the source says. We'll let readers to decide what the quotation means. :) Dpotop 12:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you propose? Alæxis¿question? 13:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Directly quote the source. The paragraph you cited above. I'll do it when I have some time. Dpotop 14:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Which section are you going to paste this paragraph to? Alæxis¿question? 14:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


In the meantime, I have found another source I would consider reputable:

Another interesting one is:

Don't know what to do with it, yet. Dpotop 14:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

The lead section should list Transnistria along with Abkhazia and South Ossetia as one of the Russia-backed separatist regions in the former USSR republics. There is a universally accepted similarity between these cases. Icar 10:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a source on this, cited by Alaexis above. Dpotop 11:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Russian military presence is already mentioned in the intro. Why do you want to mention it another time there? Alæxis¿question? 13:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is significant. Icar 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't significant it wouldn't deserve to be in the intro at all. Even significant things need not be mentioned more than once. Alæxis¿question? 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning the presence of regular Russian army twice is redundant, IMO. Similarity with Abkhazia and South Ossetia is a different thing. If you want to introduce it, I suggest the edit that I just did. :Dc76 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is what I thought for the moment. I don't have time to think about it more than 2 minutes. sorry. :Dc76 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem with mentioning Karabakh? The conflict in Ossetia also started in 1989 and there had been ethnic tensions (to put it mildly) in 1918-1920. Alæxis¿question? 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Are we claiming any direct relation? Otherwise, I'm not sure that's suitable for the lead. El_C 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It was Icar who mentioned Abkhazia and SO in the article. I'm not sure it's needed in the intro but I don't have anything against it. Alæxis¿question? 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not that familiar with the earlier origin of the conflicts in the Caucasus. My thought was about the fact that in 1988 in Karabakh was war, all out war with thousands of deaths, like in Bosnia, only less known. In Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, during the same time there were tensions, generally mirroring the behavior of Georgia and Moldova with respect to the former Soviet Union, there were incidents even with 3 or 5 deads, etc, incidents involving police and certain individuals even sometimes organized in groups of 20-30, but no military action as such, no command center, no sectors, no field commanders, no battles, to cities taken or retaken. War started in these in 1992. I guess the relation that is attributed, is that in Transnistria, as well as in Abkhazia and Ossetia there was clear support from Russia of one side, there were volonteers and regulars from Russia on one side only, and that the movements towards separatism were mirroring those of M and G towards establishing independence from SU and their international recognition. In Moldova and Georgia the wars were viewed largely as wars against Russia, while in Karabakh, Azerbaijan was fighting Armenia. How should this be explained in the article? - I'm obviously open to suggestions. My point was - if you want this in the intro, this is how I think it should. :Dc76 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point - you take as a criterion more or less apparent involvement of Russia. Then the question is why should we use this criterion but not some other one. Alæxis¿question? 15:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) Because this "criterion" is the explanation why Tr, SO and Abk resisted for so long. Without Russian support, they would not exist today as "de facto independent" entities. Karabach is different, there you have mostly Armenian support. Is is widely considered that Russia did actually provoke the rebellions in Tr, SO and Abk, but this needs to be documented. Icar 06:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, we first have to agree on what would go in such a synthesis, then we can see whether the intro can (or to what extent) encompass it. El_C 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead is (again) too long

The lead has again inflated to an unacceptable size. This is not urgent, we let's all think about it. Dpotop 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Corjova villagers ask Voronin to visit them

In Corjova the elctions of 3 june were not held as result of the actions of Transnistrian authorities (discussed above in this talk page). The electoral comission established that election will be repeated in 17 june and Corjova villagers are asking president Voronin to visit them during this elections: Corjova villagers demanding president Voronin to come to them next sunday.

Corjova residents have sent an appeal to Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin in which they demanded from the head of state to come to their village on the election day of June 17. Valeriu Ciobanu, the Corjova mayor's press secretary and a Transnistrian armed conflict veteran, stated at a news conference in Infotag today that the general atmosphere in Corjova now is extremely tense. Mayor Valeriu Mitul was not able to come to Chisinau today because the village is surrounded with Transnistrian militiamen, so he preferred to remain together with the residents of the village - nearly 9 thousand people. Ciobanu remarked that although Corjova is the President Voronin's birthplace, it is the poorest and negligent-most locality in the region. "We would like Voronin to come to us on June 17, accompanied by the police, in order to back us, guarantee our right of voting, for this is the only possibility for us to elect a mayor and a village council", Ciobanu said. "If Voronin does not come, I reserve the right to think anything of the President", the man stated. Last several years, Vladimir Voronin made several attempts to come to the Transnistrian region - not even as a president but as a usual human who was born there, and whose very old mother is very ill, and asked her son to come home to see him. However, he was not let to even cross the administrative border between the mainland Moldova and its Transnistrian region.--MariusM 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnecesary or dubious info in the article

The fact that 80% of the personel of 14th Army was from Transnistria is based on a source not on-line (impossible to check for me), not neutral (Russian) and self-contradictory, as discussed above by DC76. As we have a separate article about 14th Army involvement in Transnistria, we should keep there all the details (we should search also for other sources on this issue), we don't need this detail of dubious accuracy in this article. Also, I believe we don't need all the details regarding the latest political assasination (Emelianov), the fact that the victim irrigated his flower is not really relevant, is enough if we tell he was killed. I suggest also a changing of the subsection name "Personal security" in "Political violence".--MariusM 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Maybe is the other way ...80% from CCCP (other than Moldova).Catarcostica 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the source is not self-contradictory. (civil personnel) may not equal to (administrative structure) - we don't know whether it is or not while Dc76 presumed that it is. Secondly it's not Russian - it has been published in British peer-reviewed journal and thus cannot be dismissed right away. Alæxis¿question? 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Source told that 51% of officers and 79% of soldiers were from Transnistria, and afterward that 80% of personel is from Transnistria, which is self-contradictory unless civil personel is counted, and it was a massive number of civil personel 100% from Transnistria. The author is Russian, some possible bias can occur. I am not dismissing this source, I am telling that we should use it only in the main article about 14th Army involvement in Transnistria, and even in this article we should give all details (the 51% and 79% numbers also) and we should compare with other sources. AFAIK, the soviet army didn't have a policy of local recruitment. I wonder what does it mean 51% local officers - born in Transnistria or only that they received an apartment in Transnistria? It can be a longer debate on this subject, my suggestion is to have this debate at the 14th Army article, and to keep only a short mention of the 14th Army involvement in this article, with links to the detailed article. Regarding Emelianov, I consider even the caliber of the bullet who killed him irrelevant for this article, maybe we should mention it in Crime in Transnistria.--MariusM 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing unnatural that the civil personnel employed by the army came mostly from Transnistria. Even if one doesn't take into account the civil personnel the majority of soldiers and officers (together) also came from Transnistria according to the source. If you know of any other numbers please tell us about them and if they contradict what's written in the article we'll correct the article. Alæxis¿question? 10:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
But is unnatural that civil personnel to be more numerous than military personnel.--MariusM 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found few information about Edward Ozhiganov: I've found out "Edward Ozhiganov is Head of the Division for Ethnopolitical Research at the Analytical Center of the Federation Council in Russia"[21]. Another source states: he seems to envisage an inherent right for Russia to intervene to aid the aspirations of identified ethnic Russians in other republics, that is, a unilateral protectorate of fellow ethnics in the "near abroad,"[22]. And a third also presents him as subjective in this matter[23]Dl.goe 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty International: Arrest of Valentin Besleag from Corjova and mention of Cotofana case

I was criticised for using only Moldovan sources, here is a report from Amnesty international website. I hope Alaexis is happy with this source (his happiness being one of my goals)

URGENT ACTION

Moldova (Self-proclaimed Dnestr Moldavian Republic): Possible prisoner of conscience/ health concern/ legal concern: Valentin Besleag (m) PUBLIC AI Index: EUR 59/001/2007 11 June 2007

UA 145/07 Possible prisoner of conscience/ health concern/ legal concern MOLDOVA Valentin Besleag (m), aged 59 (SELF-PROCLAIMED DNESTR MOLDAVIAN REPUBLIC)

Valentin Besleag, from Corjova village in the Dubasari region of the self-proclaimed Dnestr Moldavian Republic (DMR), has been detained at the police station in Dubasari since 2 June. He and his family have not been informed of the reasons for his arrest; nor have they been allowed to see the court order for his detention. His family has not been allowed to pass on necessary medication to him via the prison authorities. He may be being detained for legitimately exercising his right to freedom of expression, and thus may be a prisoner of conscience.

Valentin Besleag had been a candidate for mayor of Corjova in local elections which were due to be held on 3 June. Corjova is one of nine villages in the self-governing territory of the DMR which are the focus of an ongoing dispute with Moldova. The nine villages are located geographically in the DMR, but are under the control of the central government of Moldova as the local inhabitants sided with the Moldovan forces during the civil war in 1990 – 1992. The DMR is not internationally recognized. Russia maintains a military presence and deploys peace-keeping forces in the territory. Local elections were held throughout Moldova on 3 June, and in the DMR, they were only held in the villages under the control of the central government.

Valentin Besleag was returning from Moldova with election materials in his car at 11pm on 1 June when traffic police stopped him, confiscated his driving licence and asked him to go to the police station in the town of Dubasari. He refused to go to the police station that night, but went at 8am the following day to reclaim his driving licence. He did not return home and his family were unable to contact him by mobile phone. At 2pm on 2 June, Valentin Besleag's daughter went to the police station to find out what had happened. She saw her father through a half-opened door when she was handed his belt, shoe laces and mobile phone, and was able to see that his hands were tied behind his back. Police officers refused to explain to her why Valentin Besleag was detained. When she asked the officers why his family had not been informed of his detention, she was told she should have asked the judge. Therefore, Valentin Besleag's family believe that he has been formally charged and brought before a judge, in accordance with legal procedure in the DMR. They do not know what he has been charged with, but suspect that it is connected with the fact that he was carrying election materials with him in the car. According to the laws of the DMR, it is illegal to bring election materials from abroad (including Moldova).

Although Valentin Besleag was suffering chest pains before his detention and was taking medication for this condition, his family has been forbidden to take any food or medication to him.

Valentin Besleag’s family have tried to hire a lawyer to take on his case, but because of the likely political nature of the charge against him, no one has been willing to take on his case and he remains without legal representation. Lawyers from Moldova who have asked to represent him have been refused.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In Moldova and in the DMR conditions in police detention are extremely poor. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) described conditions in places of detention run by the Ministry of the Interior of Moldova as "disastrous". The CPT stated that in many cases the conditions amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. The food provided for detainees is of very low quality and for this reason food parcels from family and friends are essential for the health and wellbeing of those held. Reportedly, the conditions in DMR prisons are similar, if not worse.

DMR police prevented elections from taking place in Corjova on 3 June. Iurie Cotofan, who tried to cast his vote was allegedly beaten by DMR police. He was taken away from the voting station by several DMR police officers who then dragged him behind a car, pushed him face down to the ground and started to beat and kick him. One officer knelt on his back while another held him down with his foot while others beat him. He was then taken to the Dubasari police station, where he was held until midnight on 3 June before being released with no explanation or charge. Iurie Cotofan is currently being treated in the Emergency Hospital in Chisinau for his injuries.--MariusM 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Moldovan press didn't mention, AFAIK, the Besleag's case. I wonder at which party he belong that nobody care about him. He seem to be a competitor of Valeriu Mitul, current Corjova mayor, who was also subject of harassment (death threats) from Transnistrian authorities.--MariusM 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No Moldovans in government?

The statement about no Moldovans being in the government is an outright lie. Perhaps the representation is not proportional, but it is there. --Node 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be reformulated because here 'government' means only the council of ministers. There are ethnic Moldovans in parliament and in other institutions. Alæxis¿question? 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Source was provided for this afirmation. Node is the well known 16 year old American kid who started the Wikipedia in Moldovan language, Wikipedia which was stoped after a discussion on metawiki. Government usualy mean council of ministers.--MariusM 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Have fun making your personal attacks MariusM. Perhaps you didn't read the mailing list, but the Moldovan Wikipedia isn't closed permanently, it is temporary. See the official ruling of the Language Committee please. Also, I'm not 16, I am 17. And this discussion is not about me, it is about this page. Please refrain from talking about me here, that belongs on my User_talk: page. --Node 09:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have lot of fun in Wikipedia, but I didn't made personal attacks. "16 year old kid" is not personal attack, neither is the accurate info that you are the proud father of a brand new Wikipedia. Congratulations for your 17th birthday, I was not aware that you turned 17th. Anyhow, the underrepresentation of Moldovans in the leadership of Transnistria is a well documented fact, you should not deny it.--MariusM 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I turn 18 very soon. --Node 10:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Dpotop, why have you removed Node's message? Removing {{RPA}} is one thing, removing others' text is another and it isn't very nice imo. Alæxis¿question? 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I change government with council of ministers, to make Alaexis happy and to have more accuracy.--MariusM 05:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to provide figures also for the proportion of Moldovans in the Transnistrian "parliament" and among mayors, for instance. Are such figures available? Icar 07:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Look here. Some info is there although you'll have to count 'em yourself. Alæxis¿question? 08:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian puppet state

I have modified the synopsis as follows:

  • Transnistria, also known as Trans-Dniester and Pridnestrovie, is a de facto independent territory within the internationally recognised borders of the former Soviet republic of Moldova. Transnistria's independence is not recognised by any state or international organisation, and it is de jure part of Moldova. Transnistria functions like a puppet state sponsored by Russia, and calls itself a republic.

Then Anonimu reverted me without explanation. However it is common knowledge that Transnistria is a puppet state sponsored economically and militarily by Russia, and this sums up well the situation. I propose to include "Russian puppet state" in the synthesis.Icar 07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's POV wording. Russian military involvement is amply described in the overview. Alæxis¿question? 07:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexis, it is the normal name for an entity like Transnistria. See [24] for an expert opinion. And read this for an explanation of the term. I think that refusing to acknowledge Russia's crucial role in maintaining Transnistria's existence is POV. Icar 08:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first reference is to the article by OAZU NANTOY, Program Director of the Institute of Public Policy, Chisinau, Moldova and so it cannot be considered neutral.
The second ref is to the site that takes its contents from Wikipedia (compare it with the Puppet state article here). Alæxis¿question? 08:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The first source is an official person. I do not understand why you would suppose he is not neutral, and why he should be neutral in the first place. This is an official source.

I'm not sure that the Program Director of the Institute of Public Policy could be considered official person but it does not matter. Actually if he's Moldovan official he's even less likely to be non-biased as Moldova is one of the sides of the conflict. Alæxis¿question? 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The second reference is for your information only. You may take the same info from WP if you wish. It contains the definition of a puppet state. Icar 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest another version of the introduction (see here). What do you say?Dl.goe 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Before everything else, why is your version better than the current one? What's the purpose of the change, in other words? Alæxis¿question? 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your version does not mention the decisive role Russia played in establishing and maintaining Transnistria. Icar 11:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


1. The current version defines Transnistria as a de facto independent territory within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova. First of all, de facto is defined as de facto government, we extended to de facto country; but de facto territory has no sense to me. Second, territory within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova tells nothing.
2. Than, Transnistria's independence is not recognised sounds as a Middle Ages problem of vassality, when, in fact, Transnistria is not recognised as state.
The new version of the intro is intended to be just a presentation of Transnistria, locating it, informing about the dispute, and presenting both sides. Something different form the current, which I would compare to a verdict:de facto qualifies Transnistrian separatist regime as illegal while suggesting the only thing Transnistria needs is recognition.

3. Regarding the Overview chapter, according to the few sources about Edward Ozhiganov on the net, [25][26][27], he is not objective in this matter. I removed the reference to him also for being ambiguous (what does came from Transnistria mean, does it mean they were born there? Did they come there as civilians? Were they recruited recently?) and irrelevant (an army fights as commanded. Did Russia arm and command civilians from a foreign territory?)

4. I rephrased

"Transnistria fought the War of Transnistria in 1992, backed by Russian volunteers (cossacks) and the Russian (former Soviet) 14th Army, (majority of its personnel coming from Transnistria according to some sources[3]; mid-1994 data) and since then (1992) has exercised de facto control over most of the Transnistrian region, located on the eastern bank between the Dniester River and Ukraine, and over several localities on the west bank of the river."

into

"The Russian (former Soviet) 14th Army interfered in this conflict on separatist side and since then Moldova has no control or influence on Transnistrian local authorities."

The word interfered better describes the situation than backed, because Russian Army faught in the conflict. Second, I doubt control can be devided into de facto control and de jure control. (BTW: the phrasing was Transnistria ... has exercised de facto control over most of the Transnistrian region)

5. I shortened the next paragraph, and removed However, it has not been recognised by any state or international organization, who regard it as part of Moldova. as it has already been stated in the intro.Dl.goe 16:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1

Here de facto is the adverb that explains the word independent, not the word territory. Alæxis¿question? 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Than, what is the difference between a de facto independent territory within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova. and "an autonomous teritorial unit of Moldova". I think the new intro better explaines the position of both sidesDl.goe 19:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Autonomous territorial units of other countries aren't described as de facto independent. Remember also that the next sentence will be about PMR being unrecognised. Alæxis¿question? 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • weak support. That means, I support if: 1) better English 2) "East", not "North-East" 3) "considered"-->"de jure considered" 4) the last sentence, instead of being erased is moved to Overview 5) "Moldova" wikified :Dc76 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it isn't North-East :) I accept these changes, but I would prefer legally instead of de jureDl.goe 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
legally=de jure to me. I'm fine with "legally".:Dc76 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

2

I've never thought about the problem you mentioned here. If you think that it's not recognised as a state by ... is better than its independence is not recognised by... you could change it. Alæxis¿question? 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

3

Alaexis, me, and someone third had a long contradictory discution about it. "what does came from Transnistria mean, does it mean they were born there?" No, only a small portion were born there. The rest had residence (domiciliul) there. "Did they come there as civilians?" only those that occupied/occupy civilian, i.e. auxiliary positions. "Were they recruited recently?" don't know. "an army fights as commanded. Did Russia arm and command civilians from a foreign territory?" Those that fought on Transnistrian side in 1992 were of several types:

  • local residents that wanted return to the Soviet Union, that refused Moldovan/Romanian language as official, and that saw the return to the Latin alphabet as a ultra-nationalist act, fringing fascism (why they came to believe this is a diff question). Generally organized as "gvardeitsy".
  • locals oblidged to fight on Transnistrian side. Ex: Transnistrian "gvardeitsy" and cossacs would come en force to a village, gather the inhabitants and announce that the village must contribute 50 people to fight against Moldova. If the village would not provide the required number, it was threatened that human rights abuses would happen (rapes, beatings, stealing).
  • volonteers or "de facto volonteers" from Russia: cossacs, military-adventure-seeking people. Also a small number of criminals released on parole (deep in Russia) under the condition that within 7 days they report to Tiraspol and serve as "gvardeitsy" for a number of months. Ex: someone convicted for 7 years for a criminal offence is released 2 years prior under the condition that he serves 6 months in Tiraspol as "gvardeets"
I heard about this happening in Georgia on the verge of the war with Abkhazia. It may have happened here also. Do you have sources? Alæxis¿question? 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • a number of 14th army officers [in rank of approx. captains-majors] were openly pro-separatist, and on their own took small number of troops under their command to the frintline. Because of the general situation in the former Soviet army, the most they could fear was oral reprimand and threat to be fired if repeat, but noone was actually ever fired. This has barely acount for 500 solders in total, but despite this small number, the weapons they contributed were essential: arrmored carriers, tanks, helicopters, "Grad" istallations (bundles of 20-30 RPGs that can fly as much as 1-2 km; imprecise, but very damaging if they hit your house), mines and mine-putting machines, mostly anti-personal mines, now internationally banned). And of course ammunition. :Dc76 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice summary (even though I don't agree with some facts and wordings). Alæxis¿question? 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

4

Why did you remove the info about Russian volunteers? Btw why isn't the transfer of weapons to Moldova mentioned? Alæxis¿question? 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thaught the information about Russian volunteers was based on Edward Ozhiganov book. At 14th Army involvement in Transnistria it is written that "many soldiers of the 14th Army had defected to the PMR armed forces and actively participated in the fighting". Does Russian volunteers reffer to these 14th Army soldiers? If so it should be mentioned. It should also be mentioned the punishment they received for deserting the Russian Army.Dl.goe 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What transfer of weapons to Moldova?Dl.goe 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

About volunteers: [28], [29]. Alæxis¿question? 06:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations from the first source: (it's written from Moldovan perspective but there are some interesting facts)


So Russia gave quite a lot of equipment to Moldova in the early spring of 1992, just before the war. Alæxis¿question? 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Here is what I would suggest:
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in 1992 a war started in the region between Moldova and Transnistrian separatist forces. Volunteers came from Russia and Ukraine to help separatist side("Cossack Companies"). There were also cases of deserters from the Russian Army who joined Transnistrian separatist side. Moldova, after the dissolution of the USSR, was entitled to a part of USSR armament; but Russia gave the armament to Moldova only when the war in Transnistria was almost finished. However, Russia gave armament to the separatist forces and the 14th Russian Army interfered the conflict, opening fire against Moldovan forces. Since this war, Moldova has no control or influence on Transnistrian local authorities.Dl.goe 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, my source reads and only in the early spring of 1992 was some equipment given over to the Republic of Moldova. That is before the war, not after it, isn't it? Otherwise your version isn't bad. Alæxis¿question? 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
At War of Transnistria it is written the war lasted from 1990 till June 1992. Let's say"Russia gave the armament to Moldova only in early spring of 1992"Dl.goe 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The two citations provided by Alaexis are quite thorough. But the interpretation that both of you give to them is incorrect. The citations are much better written and better thought, and factual. Your comments are vague, and denote that the author either did not understand everything or pretends not to understand something. Here is only one example: Russia did not give Moldova any weapon. At the dissolution of the USSR, the representatives of the 15 republics negociated for about half a year how the property and the military equipement was to be divided. Moldova only got the share that it had according to these agreements. Russia gave nothing to Moldova. Russia received just as Moldova received, but much more (about 55-60% of the Soviet land forces, the vast majority of Siviet navy and air force, 100% of the Soviet nuclear force). According to these agreements, Moldova got some small arms in April 1992, and the military airport in Mărculeşti in June 1992. Russia got among other things 1 brigade in Chişinău, 1 brigade in Tighina (in the fortress), 2 divisions (1 understaffed) in Tiraspol and surroundings, the headquaters of the Soviet 14th Army (in Tiraspol), the weapons depot in Cobasna (one of the largest if not the largest in Europe), etc. The understanding was that Russia would withdraw this. It did so with the units in Chişinău and Tighina in September 1992-January 1993. The ones in Transnistria were partially withdrawn afterwards (mostly during 2001-2003). The remainder is still in Transnistria. The War of Transnistria lasted March-July 1992.
My suggestion is to use citations from the two paragraphs.:Dc76 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The armed conflict really happened between March and July, 1992. Before there had been some incidents but they hadn't amounted to the real war.
Dc's suggestion is ok with me if the words like Of course, the Russians did their best to postpone the delivery of anything, and only are not included. I've already said it's written from Moldovan perspective (one of the authors was Moldova's official) so we should treat facts and opinions differently. Alæxis¿question? 06:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

5 - other overview edits

PMR not just claims to have parliament, militia, flag, etc. - it really has it. So I can't support your changes to that paragrph. Alæxis¿question? 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Let's change local authorities claim Transnistria has it's own President, government to local authorities have organised in Transnistria a government,...Dl.goe 19:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These institutions are not recognised, and we have no hint they really work. All sources refer to them as self-styled parliament, self-styled government,etc.Dl.goe 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If you type "Transnistrian parliament" in Google you'll see that it's sometimes (at least) called as such without any further adjectives. I also don't quite understand how should a flag work. Regarding the militia MariusM has brought quite a lot of evidence proving their existence. Alæxis¿question? 06:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that at first sight, this article looks like a self-glorifying page written by the separatists. No need to make them apper as having any sort of legitimity. Transnistria does not have a parliament, only a self-styled, so-called parliament. It is telling that ethnic discrimination seems to be the rule in this so-called parliament (the largest ethnic group is unrepresented). Icar 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, to me most of the article looks like a list of bad things done in Transnistria. Can you pinpoint a single "self-glorifying" part? About the parliament, note that MariusM himself has admitted above that this particular interpretation of facts is somewhat off. --Illythr 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Than what about:
"Seeking recognition, local authorities have addopted a constitution, flag, a national anthem, and a coat of arms. They organised a military and police (militia) force and they claim they have a postal system and stamps, although it is not internationally recognised and their stamps are only for collectors.[4] Transnistrian institutiones are called "presidency", "government" and "parliament". These institutions are not recognised, and often reffered to as self-styled or self-proclaimed president/minister/etc."

Dl.goe 15:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • support the version by Dc76: it is more clear although surely more work is needed. I think one should be blunt about the facts: Transnistria is a unrecognized breakaway region of a recognized state. Now one can differ on whether it is "right" or "wrong" to want to secede (and to want to unite with another distant state), but this should not lead to cluttering the introduction to the point of making it incomprehensible. Icar 17:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the current version, but I suppose it can be modified like this (beginning with the second sentence):
...Its authorities have adopted a constitution, flag, a national anthem, and a coat of arms. They organised a military and a police force (militsya). They have a postal system and stamps, although it is not internationally recognised and outside Transnistria, their stamps are of value only to collectors.[5] Transnistrian institutions, like the state itself, have no international recognition.

1) Some of these institutions may have been indeed created specifically to seek recognition, but I think that most were founded with a purely fuctional goal in mind. I don't think we can judge them just like that.
2) I don't think it's necessary to state that every institution is not recognized. The fact that the state of PMR is not recognized itself means that all of its regulations and institutions are not recognized by default. Stating it at every mention looks like some kind of POV enforcement to me. Non-recognition also has no effect on the institutions' existence. --Illythr 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Moldova OSCE Mission Head Condemns Forced Closure of Corjova Polling Station

In 17 May again Transnistrian authorities stopped the election in Corjova village. Details here (English) and here (Romanian).--MariusM 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, anybody knows how many people live in Corjova? El_C 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
around 2,000 :Dc76 11:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Please add it there if you have a source. El_C 11:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome. This was simply out of my head. When I'll find a sourse, I'll put it into the article of Corjova. Until then, I'd rather not put things that I simply heard. :Dc76 11:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Read this as well.:Dc76 11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some video materials regarding the events in Corjova can be founded here (in Romanian language).--MariusM 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Slavic countries

64.2% of the population belongs to some ethnic Slav group (Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Poles, Belorussians), it allows to consider Transnistria as a Slavic country. --Daniil naumoff 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. There are no exclusively Slavic countries in the world so if such a category exists the countries with Slavic majority should be in it. Alæxis¿question? 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. If you look in that category, you will see only independent countries. You will not find Republica Srpska. Nor will you find Siberia or Far East of Russia, or portions of it in Chinese countries. If Transnistria were an independent country, it were a different thing. But to carve up regions of countries by ethnic composition is POV. Also, Transnistria is not historically Slavic. Slavs are majority in the cities of Tiraspol and Ribnita, which togethere are 60% of population, but the countryside is romanic. Puttin it in a category "Slavic countries" is thus a triple POV:
  • not historically slavic
  • not an independent country
  • only mentions one side (there is no mention of the fact that it was and remains a romanic region of a romanic country)
Why is it not historically Slavic? The Ukrainians of Rybnitsa and Kamenka districts are no less indigenous than Moldovans.
It's de facto independent.
Btw, I wouldn't mind adding PMR to Romance countries as well since a large portion of its population is Romance people. Alæxis¿question? 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: if you find an independent sourse that calls Transnistria a "Slavic country" - it would be a differnet story. Otherwise, please do not pretend not to observe that it is in the category "Russian-speaking countries and territories".:Dc76 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is with the word "country". There is no agreement that Transnistria is a country. I had no opposition to include it in the category "Russian speaking countries and territories", as this category is not pushing the POV description "country".--MariusM 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rîbniţa, not Rybnitsa, and Camenca, not Kamenka, please. Because you are sub-partitioning sub-regions. ON the same tokken one can find dosens of Romanian-speaking territories in other countries and list them in category Romance countries. Noone denies that those 15 or 20 villages are indigeneous. But stating upfront that the region is slavic is very strange. If there was a category "Countries and territories with slavic elements or slavic heritage" that would be a different story, that could be discussed. Please, also not that I do not find a category "Gernamic countries", "Romanis countries", "Indian countries", "Persian countries", "Semitic countries", "Gaelic countries"... Somehow, everyone else manages without a shot of nationalism, because including Trasnistria in "Slavic countries" is in my oppinion strong nationalism. And again, the most important argument : no sourse! :Dc76 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me call PMR cities the way I want to. There are many Ukrainian villages all across PMR so it's historically no less Slavic than Romance.
Btw, Italy is in the German-speaking and French-speaking countries categories, although there are far less Germans or French there than there are Slavs in PMR. Yes, it's a bit another thing (language and not ethnic group) but it's still a good example. Alæxis¿question? 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This entry shouldn't appear in a country category, Slavic or otherwise. Those are used for nations whose independence has been recognized. El_C 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I just lost a comment b/c of edit conflict (my bad, forgot to ctrl+c it). Sorry, Alaexis, I don;t have time to repeat my lost answer today. If short, I agree with what El C just said.:Dc76 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you entered in into "Slavic-speaking states". Can you rename it "Slavic-speaking countries and territories". Because, otherwise Republica Srpska is a slavic speaking state (so what if it is part of another). You'd avoid all this with "countries and territories" b/c these are more lax terms, unlike "state", which has a legal meaning and gets us into where we don't want to get with the discussion. Also, maybe (just a suggestion), you can add "This is a list of countries and territories where a Slavic language is used as official." or smth like that. what do you think? :Dc76 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We should not include Transnistria in any category of "countries", I agree with El_C.--MariusM 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

KGB (MGB) officers from Transnistria will received increased pensions

While there are economic problems, for MGB (KGB) officers Transnistrian government has enough money for a pension increase, as shown by a law proposal publicized on Transnistrian Supreme Soviet site. They are discussing increases in pensions only for former intelligence personel, not for everybody. Tipical for a police state.--MariusM 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote Mikhail Burla, Transnistrian Supreme Soviet's Chairperson of the Committee for economic policy, budget and finance: "The state really doesn’t have opportunities for raising salaries and pensions" [30]. But, to quote George Orwell, some are more equals than others.--MariusM 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
:-) I would have been surprized if it had been otherwise. But this is natural reaction of people in power in Transnistria: help your own power base by all means possible.:Dc76 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, what is the meaning of the result of arbitration: can the three banned users contribute to articles outside the subject of Transnistria? :Dc76 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Consulate

How do you know Moldova didn't agree with that? If you know the source proving it please add it to the article. Alæxis¿question? 16:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dc already told you: "when you open a dipl repr, you make an agreement with host country" --Tones benefit 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Medals

Basescu (President of Romania) awarded the state medals for heroism for Ilascu Group.--Tones benefit 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Croatia supports Moldova in Transnistria's case

Vladimir Voronin said that there is a continuous dialogue between Moldova and Croatia [31] and that the two countries are mutually supporting each other in the international bodies. --Tones benefit 14:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Alexis is right. In my quest to get what is written to be right, I did not give a careful thought to be consistent with the titles of the items in the infobox. Thanx for correcting.

IMHO, government_type refers more to de facto situation, and sovereignty_type refers more to de jure one. Therefore, for my last edit, I used noun to describe de facto and adjective to describe de jure for the former, and noun to describe de jure and explicative to describe de facto for the latter. So, I get:

For the latter, we can replace "de facto broke away" with "de facto independent" or "de facto broke away and is independent", or similar. Of course, we can also use adjective instead of explicative to get "De facto independent autonomous territory of the Republic of Moldova", but there is something strange in its sound, don't you think.

For the former, we can also use explicative semi-presidential republic that is internationally unrecognized. Adjective here sounds more grammatical than explicative, but is equal in sense. :Dc76 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that all the unrecognised/broke away/de facto independent stuff should go to sovereignty status. The government type is another thing and the absence of recognition shouldn't be repeated there imo. I propose the following wording:
I agree with the latter, in fact I just modified it to be so.
About the former, I believe "internationally unrecognized" should be there b/c without it de fact/de jure in the infobox would be unbalanced.
Although legally it is only an autonomous territoty of Moldova, we also added "is de facto independent" to show that this sovereinty status is being disputed, i.e. it wants more, namely to be independent. Similarly, although de facto the government is a presidential republic, it is a disputed government.
To keep only "semi-presidential republic" without "intenationally unrecognized" would make sence if the government would be recongnized internationally but as a local autonomous unit (and be legally a republic). However as is, not only the status (independent/autonomous/special autonomy) is being disputed, but also the fate of the de facto government: Moldova does not recognize it as the legal local authority that simply wants for the teritory to be more sovereign. Moldova and the international community do not recognize the legality of the establishment of this government. Moreover, if the rethoric on both sides gets more accute, Moldova calls it "puppet government".
If OSCE and the international communisty would monitor the elections, would recognize them and the elected as the representatives of the population, and the only problem of contention would be that they would ask more repsponsibilities than what Moldovan law gives them, then indeed the government would not be disputed, and only the problem of status would remain. However, this is not the case. Quite on contrary, it is very likely that once a governemnt is elected in the region by free elections (recognized as free by Moldova and the international community), then it is likely that the problem of status would be solved.
In fact, as I see the conflict reported and described in different sourses, 90% of the difficulty of the problem is about the governemnt that administers the territory, and only 10% of the difficulty is about status. :Dc76 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Headache...

Alaexis, Dc76, your way of formatting this discussion is giving me a blistering headache. Is it so difficult to correctly use the indenting operators provided by wikipedia? I understand that from time to time it's useful to remove some indenting, but not indenting at all (Dc76) or badly (Alaexis) is not a good solution. So, PLEASE, could you indent correctly in the future? Unless, of course, if you want to keep this discussion to yourselves. Dpotop 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am simply ignorant of indenting. What do you want me to indent, my talk messages, something in the article? Just tell me, I am not opposed to it. when you say "x does not do y at all" consider the possibility that "x have never thought of doing y or has not idea what is y". Now, I am guessing, do you want me to add more ::? Ok, no problem! Is that it? :Dc76 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
ok, I'll think about it )) Alæxis¿question? 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

New aspects

We should introduce the fact that President Basescu gave medals to the Romanian heroes from Transnistria. Eventually even a nice picture with all 4 together. They were kept in Transnistria, after all, for more than 15 years.--Tones benefit 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit in neutral tone. What you say is not equivalent ot how you say. Also, be sure that what you say (exact words) be reproduction of what sourses say. Remember, it is an encyclopedia. :Dc76 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Putin fears of the soon eventual union of Moldova with Romania and he asked Voronin: "Ce garantii exista ca Moldova unificata nu se va alipi a doua zi la Romania?" --Tones benefit 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Romania - the way it should be (c)
ps. except for Tighina, that is. Alæxis¿question? 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I rather think that now evolution is toward with full Moldova. Even Putin fears that he can't stop this. It's on this topic while after Smirnov will be changed (less than 2 years is expected) the rest will negociate with Moldova for being together.--Tones benefit 17:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you two are worse than Molotov and Ribbentrop here :-).
1) wishful thinking =/= what will happen
2) what does "full Moldova" mean?
3) how do you know "2 years"? are you a profet?
4) the map
  • Cuadrilater (the two counties now in Bulgaria), I don't think will belong to Romania again. It is like Germany asking Alsace from France when you can freely cross the border, you have the same rules (EU), local (municipal) autonomy, Bulgarian language, etc.
  • Chernivtsi oblast - I don't know. Let's be realistic, a condominum or a split could be possible, but I would be surprised to see it all within Romania. In addition, eventually Ukraine will join EU and will turn away from eastern influence.
  • The latter event in Ukraine will also solve the Transnistrian conflict. How exactly, I don't know - I am not a profet or a politician.
  • Alexis, you might not realize how much the local population of the localities where there was war in 1992 was affected - those people would die but never give up their homes. We [from the other localities of Moldova] can hardly keep them from abstaining when there are provocations. So forget Tighina and the 9 villages near Dubasari if you want to avoid WWIII. :-) :Dc76 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Funny discussion. I remind you that Russia is getting stronger by the day (...the sound of inevitability...). And, in the end, Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine will have little to say about Transnistria. BTW, isn't Tighina currently in the hands of Tiraspol? Dpotop 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
How about getting back to the article? All this discussion is very nice, but WP:OR and completely out of our hands (given that the FSB liaison guys - Mauco and Mark - are now gone). Dpotop 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot to say: It seems that Romania, too, is going to get screwed by Russia, given the way Putin treated Basescu. :( Don't know how, yet, but it will come... Dpotop 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism, serious problem in Transnistria

Previously we listed in this article explosions in public transportation in Tiraspol under a "terrorist" name. At the begining there was no opposition on that but afterward we changed that as results of presure from topic-banned sockpuppeteers User:William Mauco and User:MarkStreet. See archives for previous discussions Terrorism, What EvilAlex didn't understand, No Terrorists in Transnistria, Terrorist Deletion, Terrorism, Terrorism2, Terrorism - USA reaction, Terrorism or violent incidents?, Usage of violent incidents instead of terrorism.

From the website of the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet I can see that transnistrian authorities are considering terrorism as a serious problem, they are debating a package of bills for combating terrorism and extremism Government agencies should cooperate efficiently in the course of a counter-terrorism operation and terrorism prevention. As even Transnistrian authorities are considering terrorism a serious problem, we should show this in the article, especially as we have some hard facts to sustain this: deadly explosions in public transportation, politicians killed. I would say even the arrest of some opponents, even if it was not ended with a kill, is terrorism, as is aimed to terrorize people with "incorrect" political beliefs.--MariusM 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a routine update to local legislation. It's somewhat suspicious, like the one passed in Russia some time ago, but I don't get how it can be used to prove that PMR terrorized its own people or that terrorism currently is a serious problem there.
I suppose this can be stuffed into Politics of Transnistria, but I don't think that it's notable enough for now. --Illythr 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there free press, free movement, freedom and democracy in PMR? ...No. There isn't.--Tones benefit 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And? --Illythr 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Marius (+ Tones): There is the section "Security concerns". Terrorism naturally falls within its realm. Either consider editing "Personal security" subsection, or, if there are issues affecting more than separate persons, start a separate subsection. Whatever edits you do, cite the proper sources, and say no more and no less that has happened or and been declared. Also judge the notability:
    • if a particular incident is not notable, mention it only in Crime in Transnistria (maybe rename it Security and Crime in Transnistria, b/c of security concerns regarding weapon disappearance, production and smuggling which are also there);
    • if there are more "smaller" incidents that make a pattern, mention only the pattern in the Transnistria article, giving only 1-2 examples, not all of them;
    • if it is a major incident - a different story;
    • if a policy outline - only the outline + the details in the specialized article

(obviously, you know these very well, you don't need me to remind you anything; consider this a remind for newer users)

  • Illythr: what "local legislation"? Current (de facto) Transnistrian authorities do not have legal right to issue any regulations, let aside laws. Only a democratically elected local government, with legal authority, can. The specialized article is not Politics of Transnistria, but Crime in Transnistria (maybe to rename it Security and Crime in Transnistria; see above). (As for Putin, good luck with him. As long as people like Khodorkovski are in jail, what do you want. You think ordinary Russians will getter better treatment if they open their mouth against the government?)
  • Tones: what you say is for a different, "Human rights" section, and the respective specialized articles. :Dc76 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
PMR does employ its own legislation system. That it is not internationally recognized is another matter. The original piece of news proposed by Marius was a batch of bills proposed to the PMR govt. The rest belongs, of course into the crime article (and out of the main article). --Illythr 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If a thousand years PMR's "laws" will not be recognized. WP stands more chance. You and me can also make "laws", and it will also be a "different matter" that they are not internationally recognized. How can one make laws, if such power was not delegated upon you? I do not see Moldova's consititution allowing them this. My point was that "Politics of Transnistria" is about politics, not about legal issues.:Dc76 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't understand the first two sentences, sorry. Yes, you and I can create laws of our own, and if we get half a million people to obey them, we'll be entitled to our own article in Wikipedia (at least, although I'd rather prefer another way to get my name blue linked). :-) Whether anyone else will recognize our laws will be indeed a different matter. The last sentence is correct. Did I claim otherwise? --Illythr 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ya, people get a WP articles for much less than that (Sealand), and you are right, we should worry about something else. I agree with you.
Without relevance to the article editing: I am only saying that 500,000 obey those authorities (not their "laws") b/c they have no other choice. But if someone's rights are violated, he/she legally is entitled to seek them from Moldova, which is then obliged by its laws to somehow intervene. What PMR does is just a piece of paper, and illegal issuing of state-reserved attributes is criminally persecutable. (That of course goes nowhere against the right of the people of the region to autonomy. In fact it is also their right of representation that is being violated.):Dc76 23:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, theory and practice tend to diverge quite a bit in these matters.
PS: Oh, yeah articles can be created for MUCH less important things than that. Check this out! ;) --Illythr 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:-) It's late here. till another day!:Dc76 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Democracy in Secessionism: Transnistria and Abkhazia’s Domestic Policies, by Nicu Popescu, International Policy Fellowship Program 2005/2006
  2. ^ Moscow's Hand Tired of Giving, Kommersant 6 Aprill 2007
  3. ^ «Газпром» передал Приднестровье Алишеру Усманову, Nezavisimaya Gazeta 23 March 2007
  4. ^ Universal Postal Union: list of airmail services
  5. ^ Universal Postal Union: list of airmail services
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria/Archive_18&oldid=950118907"