Talk:Union of Moldovans in Transnistria

Legitimate organization representating majority of Moldovans in PMR

This article is about the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie which is an umbrella- or federation-type organization which brings together a number of communities. These communities and local groups are very real, and perform a social function first and foremost (the political aspect of their work is secondary). It would be false to say that this is a paper organization or a fake organization which has been artifically manufactured to prop up the local leadership, and I will demonstrate below will this is not the case. - Mauco 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie is a puppet organisation created by the Tiraspol regime. The sentence in the article: "As stated in a 2004 OSCE-report[2], ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova" is only propaganda of Tiraspol, as the link given as a proof is not from OSCE, is only an article from pridnestrovie.net[1], a site that support Transnistrian independence. In that article only the title is claiming that OSCE and UN support separatist Transnistria, and the only evidence for it is that a moldavian politician, Oazu Nantoi, wrote a report prepared with the support of UNHCR Moldova about differences between Basarabia and Transnistria. This does not mean that what Oazu Nantoi wrote is the official point of view of OSCE or UN (Knowing Transnistrian propaganda, I am even not sure that Oazu Nantoi was quoted correctly in the article). I ask those who created this article to give a link to an OSCE or UN report, not to an article from pridnestrovie.net, to prove that "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". Else, I am going to delete that sentence. The official point of view of OSCE is against the separatist regime of Transnistria http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790 .Pridnestrovie.net is claiming the opposite, but this has nothing to do with the truth.--MariusM 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to doubt what you call "Transnistrian propaganda" because that is why we have Google. I spent a couple of seconds and found this link, from the US Department of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/13611.pdf which is a reprint of the OSCE report that mentions what the article itself purports to show. I checked the quote, and it checks out. You can do the same. It is factually correct. - Mauco 02:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the new link you gave. Is not a direct link of an OSCE report, but an unsigned document which is based on a background paper of "CSCE Conflict Prevention Center". In the document is written: "Many ethnic Moldovans living of the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the center, prefer to speak Russian and do not consider themselves as Bessarabians". This is quite different with "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". Many is not the same thing with overhelming, aversion against being governed directly from the center does not mean they want to be governed from the center of Tiraspol instead of the center of Kisinev. Also, nobody put the problem to consider transnistrians as bessarabians. In U.S.A., no Oklahoman want to be considered Washingtonian, but this does not mean that oklahomans want the independence of Oklahoma (even if exist a distinct feeling of being "oklahoman"). I add that in Bessarabia proper there are many ethnic moldavians which prefer to speak Russian (13% of Moldavians from urban areas, as shown by the 2004 census), effect of Russification policy, and that the actual president of the Republic of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, is himself a transnistrian (of mixed origin, Russian/Moldavian), contrary with the president of self-proclaimed Transnistria, Igor Smirnov, who was born in Russia and came in Transnistria only in 1987.

OSCE has the document, too, and it is widely quoted + referenced by Kolsto, Crowther, Charles King and other scholars. It is incredible that anyone would seem to doubt the authenticity of a document which is, after all, part of State.gov - the official location of the State Department of the United States of America. - Mauco 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Few more questions: Is there any other activities that this "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie" had, beside showing support of the separatist regime of Transnistria? Did they publish any book in Moldavian language, about Moldavian literature (in cyrillic, if they love cyrillic)? Did they ask for the opening of any school in Moldavian language in any of the villages with Moldavian population from Transnistria that don't have such schools (see Moldovan schools in Transnistria)? Give me one single example of an action that "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie" had, else than making statements that Republic of Moldova is the enemy of transnistrian Moldovans.--MariusM 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tulgar, the president of the Union, is quoted all the time in the press. It is a very active organization. In fact, they held a rally yesterday (18:00 pm, in Tiraspol, at the stadium) along with other organizations. You are welcome to do your own research, and whatever you find, please add it. The whole idea of a stub is that it should grow. Please, however, no original research as this violates Wikipedia policy. - Mauco 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OSCE document

As obviously in the OSCE document you quoted there is not such a statement as "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova", this sentence need to be deleted.--MariusM 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Read the report, and many others like it, and you will see that the statement is actually supported by most observers (except by the Moldovan government, obviously). Have you seen the Carnegie survey? It says the same thing. And, to give yet another example, the is a report today from the US-funded Radio Free Europe which concedes some of the same things. They admit that there is no good reason to believe that Moldovan peasants, joining the ranks of industrial workers in Tiraspol and their more successful, Russian-speaking urban milieu, cared very much about preserving their native tongue or nourished the idea of an independent Moldovan statehood. This means that today, even these ethnic Moldovans are not, for the most part, keen on Moldova. Radio Free Europe reports that "it is hard to imagine many Transdniestrians will hesitate on September 17 when it comes to choosing between "independence" with a rich Russia or "loss of independence" with a poor Moldova." Before you delete, please cite source material which gives you reason to believe that the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria are opposed to independent statehood for Transnistria. - Mauco 18:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell me at what page in the document you quoted is the sentence "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". We are not talking about any "pridnestrovian identity" here, the entire game is about Russia's expansionism. If this Union care about a "pridnestrovian identity", it will be against joining Russia, it will "have an aversion against being governed directly from the center", even if this center is Moscow--MariusM 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: Before you delete, please cite source material which gives you reason to believe that the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria are opposed to independent statehood for Transnistria. Since 1993, the date of the first OSCE background paper, most of the available documentation states the opposite. See, for instance, the OSCE selected bibliography of over 100 books and articles on the Transdniestrian conflict.[2] If you don't want to wade through that, you can also do the math: Oleg Serebrian, is quoted in the most recent Moldova report by the International Crisis Group as saying that 90% of the Transnistrians prefer independence. Now, seeing that 32% of them are ethnic Moldovans, and assuming that the other ethnic groups vote 100% in favor of independence, this means that only about one third of ethnic Moldovans (33% of the 32% of the population which they represent) are in favor of joining with Moldova, and that twice that number are opposed to it. And no one in their right mind would call Oleg Serebrian a propagandist for Transnistria. - Mauco 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I asked you to tell where in the OSCE document is the sentence "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova". You didn't answer to my question. I am not going to read hundreds of books about Transnistria, to see if somewhere is this sentence. I expect from you a link to an OSCE document where, if I make a search with the word "overhelmingly", I can find the sentence you put in the article. As I already explain, the official point of view of OSCE is against the separatist regime of Transnistria http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790. In the document you quote, the only sentence made is "Many ethnic Moldovans living of the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the center, prefer to speak Russian and do not consider themselves as Bessarabians". This is no the same as you wrote in the article. I consider this remark as a proof that transnistrians don't want to be governed from Moscow, as separatist regime want (see first question in the 17th September referendum), they want the autonomy offered to them by the government of the Republic of Moldova. Many Siberians have a distinct feeling of being Siberians, but this does not mean they want separation from Russia.--MariusM 07:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are confusing apples with oranges here. Nowhere in the article for Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie does it claim that most of the ethnic Moldovans want to be governed from Moscow. What it does say, however, is that they are averse to unification with Moldova. You might want to also get yourself a copy of the survey made by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which says the exact same thing, as the result of months of on-the-ground research and polling. It is not my job to do your research for you, or provide you with the reports, but if you delete something which there is general consensus among the expert community - and which has been mentioned repeatedly in scientific works from 1993 onwards - then it is you, not me, who must demonstrate that this fact is not true. - Mauco 07:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, just read what Oleg Serebrian says, and then do the math on the percentages. - Mauco 07:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see, is not anymore OSCE, is Oleg Serebrian and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. However, in the article you wrote that is an OSCE document. This is not accurate. Regarding Serebrian and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as you made the statement about their opinion, you should provide the link to prove it.

I never questioned the fact that "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie" is averse to unification with Moldova. I just want to change in the article "ethnic Moldavians in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova" with "The Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie represent those Moldavians who are averse the unification with Moldova". Are they "overhelmingly" or only a minority of the Moldavians in the region, this is a matter of debate.--MariusM 08:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, I agree with you. Now we are getting somewhere, and that is what the discussion is about. The main point is precisely what you say, namely whether it is a fact that an overwhelming majority of Moldovans in Transnistria prefer independence, or whether this sentiment is only shared by a minority. As for the reference and source citations: When building a stub, as I first did, I guess that it is normal to just slab the first reference in there, in the hope that someone else will add to it later (and not delete, please). In my case, I used the link which you object to, but there are several others who say the same thing. The Carnegie study, for instance, has been referenced by the International Crisis Group. Ditto for Oleg Serebrian's comments. Both of these reports are on the crisisgroup.com website, under Moldova. - Mauco 08:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I checked www.crisisgroup.com and the link didn't work.--MariusM 09:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another solution is to go to the International Crisis Group and then, from there, click on the link to their website. On the site, look at Moldova, and get the two reports in question (and any others which you think are interesting. It is worth the time to read up on this issue, so as to have a clearer picture of how the majority of the Moldovans in Transnistria feel about joining Moldova). - Mauco 10:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Look what recomandation is the International Crisis Group making in their last article about Moldova: "5. Call off the 17 September 2006 referendum on independence and work constructively with Moldova and the international mediators on reaching a settlement, and, more immediately, on customs and trade issues".http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4340&l=1. --MariusM 14:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ICG has many interesting suggestions. Please do not change the subject, however. The suggestion which you quoted has nothing to do with whether or not the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria are in favor of independence, which is the topic that we are discussing here. Based on sources, I am sure that we can reach consensus, but until this is done, I must remind you - as Mikka has already done, too - that you are not the sole editor of this and that your edits will not be accepted unless you able to demonstrate them with factually correct source material and the proper citations. - Mauco 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Amidst rever was between you two you are nonchalantly discarding edits of other editors. Either you remove your hands from the "revert" button, or the article will be protected. `'mikka (t) 08:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the sanity reminder. - Mauco 08:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for harsh tone. Too old to change myself. `'mikka (t) 08:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I checked the logs and both of us (new editor MariusM + myself) were guilty as charged. Besides, I like your style and have long admired it from other pages. And in Transnistria, 'your' flag is still there. - Mauco 08:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai intervention

Mikkalai, you only accept to delete the word "overhelmingly", but kept the asertion that Moldovans in Transnistria are against unification with Moldova. This happened just when I and Mauco seem to reach to a consensus, that we should not make statements about the opinion of the entire Moldovan community of Transnistria, but only to mention the opinion of the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie.--MariusM 09:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As the stub was first written, and I speak here as the original creator of this particular stub, the phrasing was meant to convey that the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie hold an opinion which is shared by the majority of the ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria and not just by a minority subset. While recognizing that there are of course exceptions, this majority is fairly large. How large? Depending on the source we use and the parameters we accept, it ranges from a low estimate of 67% to a high estimate of 90%. - Mauco 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai is an Anti-Romanian user. (added by 217.200.200.52)

Be that as it may. We also know that at least one other editor of this page is himself Anti-Transnistrian. Regardless of preferences, we can not let personal bias get in the way of good editing, and in this particular case, Mikka's edit is backed up by the available facts and statistics (namely that a majority of Moldovans in Transnistria are against unification with Moldova). The other editor who wants to delete this statement has as of yet failed to demonstrate the contrary, or show why the existing sources and data should not be trusted. - Mauco 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize and to end the dispute

In my opinion in the article should be written "Some Moldovans from Transnistria are oppose to unification with the Republic of Moldova. Their view is represented by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie". In Mauco's opinion we should keep the current phrasing "As stated in an OSCE-report [2], ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie".

It is clear that OSCE report doesn't contain such words like the article says. Mauco says that there are others sources, like comments of Oleg Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, that are proving the correctness of the actual article. Even if this is true, then in the article should be mentioned "As stated by Oleg Serebrian" or "As stated by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" and not "As stated in an OSCE report". I asked Mauco to show a source to prove what Oleg Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told. I receive the advice to check at International Crisis Group website to find those comments. I found at that webpage an article against Transnistria's referendum for separation, but not what Mauco told. Maybe I didn't looked enough, but as a matter of principle, as not me but Mauco was telling about Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace opinions, he should provide the source (exact link, not advices like "go to this website with houndreds of articles and dig"). We should keep the principle "the person who make an asertion has the duty to prove its correctness".--MariusM 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree, and - moreover - this is one of the main principles here in Wikipedia. If not sourced, it is grounds for deletion. I will find a number of different sources which, independently of each other, make the same point. Then we can add all of them and make a unified point. The statement should then be "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie". or, if you prefer, "Ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie".' Of some other interest to you, perhaps, although only marginally relevant: On Sunday, September 17, two-thirds of the voters of Dubăsari went to the polls versus a Transnistria-wide turnout of 77%. Dubăsari is of course the area with the highest concentration of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria. The difference in turnout between seems to indicate that about one of out every eight voters of Dubăsari followed the call from Moldova to boycot the referendum. We can also read it another way, in that seven of eight ignored Moldova's request and instead went to vote. When we couple that with preliminary results of probably 90%+ against unification (based on exit polls, due to the time of which I am writing this), it would seem to be YET ANOTHER indicator of the truthfulness of the statement that "the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova." It would of course fall under the category of original research, so we can't use it, which is why I will find the sources that you request. - Mauco 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The following sources as cited for a statement that not "some" but "most" (or "the majority") of Moldovans who live in Transnistria prefer independence over joining with Moldova. - Mauco 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1994 CSCE (OSCE) background paper

Background Paper "The Transdniestrian Conflict in Moldova: Origins and Main Issues", Vienna, 10 June 1994, CSCE Conflict Prevention Centre. A summary can be found in "Transdniestrian Conflict, Origins and Main Issues" at http://www.moldova.org/download/eng/275/ (PDF). This is a paper used by the US State Department as well. It was the first to identify that many ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria prefer independence and have an aversion to being ruled by Chisinau. See for instance the statements that " Many ethnic Moldovans living on the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the centre, prefer to speak Russian, and do not consider themselves as "Bessarabians". Several prominent political figures in the self-proclaimed PMR are ethnic Moldovans. " (It does not quantify as the other sources here do.)

We already discuss about this document. "Many" is not the same as "The majority". "Aversion of being governed directly from the centre" is not the same as "Oppose unification with Moldova". If you believe the data of last referendum (I don't), you should conclude that CSCE background paper is wrong, as referendum results show Transnistrians love to be governed from the centre, if this centre is Moscow.--MariusM 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is semantics. CSCE (OSCE) refers to "the" center, meaning Chisinau. Not "a" center. Sigh. Can't we spend our time more productively, please? - Mauco 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you should answer at my other comment: "Many" is not the same as "The majority".--MariusM 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor is "many" the same as a minority either. The "many" merely buttress a number of other sources which say much the same and then quantify. (And "I did not have sex with that woman".) - Mauco 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "minority" - is bad faith from you to claim this. From the begining, I advocated the use of the word "some" (without a statement if is a minority of majority). And you advocated the word "overhelmingly" (this was the first version of the page) or "majority". I think I answered at all your sources, at the best case you made original research to impose the word "overhelmingly" or "majority".--MariusM 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again and again with the personal attacks. Now I am accused of bad faith. There is no such case: If it is not 50%+1 (a majority), it is automatically less (= a minority). Either/or. It can not be both. Where is the bad faith in saying that? - Mauco 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you know better English than me, but it seems you really are not able to understand (I don't want to accuse you of bad faith). You quoted this source as a proof that Moldavians in Transnistria, either "overhelmingly" either "majority" support separation from Moldova. The source is talking about "many". "Many" is not the same as "the majority". Is so difficult the English language? Your source is not proving your claim. At best case, you made original research to show that your interpretation is correct. Indeed, is either majority (50% + 1), either not. My proposal - "some" - is covering all this possibilities. There can be many who appose reunification and, in the same time, many who want reunification.--MariusM 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this would be the case if we have for instance "40% oppose unification, 35% are in favor, and 25% don't care neither for nor against or are undecided." In that case, a "majority" would not oppose nor would a "majority" be in favor, and "some" would apply. But do we have any sources that suggest that this is the case? We don't, to my knowledge. Perhaps the best thing to do is to NOT make any blanket statement as if they are definitive statements by Wikipedia, but merely present a synopsis of the salient point from the relevant sources, attribute them to the sources, and then let the readers draw their own conclusions. What do you think? - Mauco 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Strategia / Carnegie survey

This is a detailed survey done in 1997 among 350 respondents in PMR, conducted by the Tiraspol polling firm “Strategia”, under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Foundation. The results of the survey are reported at length by Nikolai V. Babilunga in “Territorial Identity as a Factor in the Political Stability of Transniestria” which is a paper presented at the Conference on “National Identities and Territories”, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, May 14-16, 1998. This does not appear to be online, but it is referenced by other papers which are online. For instance, in "National Construction, Territorial Separatism and Post-Soviet Geopolitics: The Example of the Transdniester Moldovan Republic" by John O’Loughlin, Vladimir Kolossov and Andrei Tchepalyga, at http://www.colorado.edu/IBS/PEC/johno/pub/PsgeTMR.doc

Some main points:

• 82% were in favor of keeping the PMR and 83% want consolidation of PMR statehood (with no explanation given as to why these two numbers are not the same. This is how it was reported).
• In answer to the question, “do you consider yourself to be a citizen of the former Soviet Union?”, 70% of the Moldovans agreed.
• The survey suggests that opinion is unchanged since 1991.
• Only 15% support unity with Moldova.

Thank you for drawing my attention at this interesting study, but it can not be considered as a clear proof that the majority of Modavians in Pridnestrovie support separatism, as (i)is based on a "Tiraspol polling firm" (and I doubt the correctness of Tiraspol based institutions); (ii) Nikolai Babilunga, who report this survey is a well known separatist - he published in 1993 a book about 1992 War of Transnistria from separatist point of view - "Dubasari, a bleeding wound of Transnistria"; I didn't read his book but I read a pro-moldavian book about the war in which Babilunga is accused of forgery - if you know Romanian look at the link http://ro.altermedia.info/politica/conflictul-transnistrean-vzut-de-un-transnistrean_4421.html; (iii) The study is made among 350 respondents, but we don't know how many of them are Moldavians. If the respondents were from Tiraspol, which have around 15% Moldavians, the fact that 15% support unity with Moldova can mean exactly the opposite you concluded.--MariusM 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The study was Transnistria-wide, so you may assume 32% to be Moldovans. Then do the math on the numbers and you will see that the study actually supports the inclusion of a statement that "most ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria prefer independence and do not want to join Moldova". There is no need to question Babilunga in this regards as he is only reporting the results of an already existing study which he is not the author of and which he had no part in. I fail to see why we must automatically distrust anything which is made by a Tiraspol-based firm. The firm which carried it out acted on behalf of Carnegie and it was US-funded, by Carnegie. It took place according to the parameters of the client who paid for it. As for whether or not you personally believe a Tiraspol-based polling firm, this, frankly, has no relevance to the question. What matters in Wikipedia is not what you believe (or what I believe) but what we can show to be an established fact. In the case of this particular poll, it has been cited numerous times in a wide variety of studies. Not just by Babilunga, and by O’Loughlin, Kolossov, Tchepalyga. But also in lots of other places, including the reports by the International Crisis Group. Like it or not, it is authorative. - Mauco 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't assume anything if is not stated in the study. In Transnistrian conflict there are a lot of half-truths aimed to desinform, based exactly of the assumption that good-faith people are making when data are presented to them in a certain way. I didn't heard about this Tiraspol polling firm "Strategia", I don't know how scientific they choosed their respondents and how onnest are they. If Carnegie asked for the study, why is reported by Babilunga and not directly by Carnegie? O’Loughlin, Kolossov, Tchepalyga cited Babilunga, not directly the study. See page 27: "Babilunga (1998) reports the results of a recent survey of 350 respondents in the TMR, conducted by the Tiraspol polling firm “Strategia”, under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Foundation". Regarding Babilunga, when I will have time I will create an article in Wikipedia about him, maybe you can help (but not with edit wars, please). Regarding the other sources, please give me time to check them, you already gave me a 42 page document to read, I am not so quick.--MariusM 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is actually an excellent point. I can't help with Babilunga, because I don't know anything about him (except that he is cited here and there by several other papers.) - Mauco 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

International Crisis Group / Oleg Serebrian

Report titled "Moldova’s Uncertain Future" (Europe Report N°175 – 17 August 2006) from International Crisis Group on Moldova at http://www.conflictprevention.net/library/documents/europe/75_moldova_s_uncertain_future____cpp.doc quotes Oleg Serebrian, leader of the Social-Liberals, an opposition party in the Moldovan parliament, as saying: "If there was an independence referendum, 90 per cent of Transdniestrians would vote for independence."
He does not break it down into ethnic groups, but we can do that. With 90% for independence, 10% are in favour of joining Moldova. We can, for sake of argument, assign this 10% exclusively to ethnic Moldovan Transnistrians. Since 32% of the population are ethnic Moldovans (2004 census), this still leaves 22% of the ethnic Moldovans which are for independence.
In other words, among the ethnic Moldovans living in Transnistria, at best 31.25% would join Moldova versus 68.75% who prefer independence.

This statement of Oleg Serebrian is quoted from an interview with Serebrian made by this Crisis Group. The entire interview was never published and we don't know the context of those remarks, which was the question at which Serebrian answered. He explained the reason he believe such results will appear: "it’s because they have been manipulated by the regime, but it’s also because Moldova is a failed state". Oleg Serebrian is (in May 2006, when supposely he answers at interview) an opponent of actual Republic of Moldova president Vladimir Voronin, he has the political interest to show that Voronin failed in one of his main political goals: reintegration of Transnistria. Look at the wordings: "Moldova is a failed state", which is quite the type of the wordings politicians use against political opponents, is not an un-bias opinion. Serebrian is saying nothing about people who will not participate at referendum, which can be a higher number. We should not assume that persons who don't participate want reunification with Moldova or not. Maybe there are persons who just don't care about politics, or don't have a clear opinion, but you should not add them at the "opponents of reunification", in order to create a majority of Moldavians who oppose reunification. No mention was either made about hypothetic results of a referendum in democratic conditions, in which the reunification camp will have the right to explain its point of view. Even if you want to put Serebrian's remark in the article, it should be quoted "as stated by Oleg Serebrian", not "as stated by OSCE".--MariusM 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. The "OSCE" in the currently protected article refers to something else. However, I am OK with just adding the sources as references. - Mauco 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pal Kolsto

Report titled "Nation-building in Russia and Post-Soviet States" by University of Oslo (Norway) scholar and OSCE-researcher Pal Kolsto, published in Colorado by Westview Press, in the year 2000. Approximately thirty two percent of Transnistria’s population (as of November 2004) is Moldovan speaking, some being of Romanian origin and primarily residing in rural areas. They are among the “most vehement anti-Romanians in Transnistria” (quote from page 144). It can be added that they are also among the strongest supporters of separate statehood for Transnistria. Another commentator dryly noted that they “have not fled the so called Stalinist dictatorship to join their ethnic brothers in Moldova.” (Source: British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG), Report titled "Transnistria 2003: Eye in the Gathering Storm", page 3, available at http://www.bhhrg.org/ )

Again you give me a website with a lot of articles to dig. I want the exact article, I don't dig. However, the statements you quote are not relevant, as being "vehement anti-Romanian" is not the same as oppose reunification with Republic of Moldova. We are talking about reunification with Moldova, not about unification with Romania. President of the Republic of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, is himself an anti-Romanian (and a Transnistrian Moldovan, too). He labbeled the blue, yellow and red flag of Moldova (and of Romania) as "fascist flag". Source: British Helsinki Human Rights Group (I know you love this group): http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?ReportID=158&CountryID=16 (exact link, you should not dig, make a search with "flag" to find the statement: "He (Voronin) has repeatedly described the blue, yellow and red flag of Moldova as a “fascist flag,” and has generated an official statement of disapproval from the Romanian Foreign Ministry"). I made a search with google about "Voronin, fascist flag" and I founded 267 hits.--MariusM 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding people who “have not fled the so called Stalinist dictatorship to join their ethnic brothers in Moldova.”, again this is not the same as oppose reunification with Moldova. People have homes in this area, relatives, friends. Is not so easy to give up at what you created in a life time. And, anyway, a lot of people did fled the "Stalinist dictatorship". Just look at the census results of 2004, there are 18% persons less in Transnistria than in 1989. Is not a natural decrease.--MariusM 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no love for BHHRG, as you claim. However, their statement was a side-comment to the main point (as you can see from the subheader) is the Pal Kolsto paper where he calls the Moldovans who live in Transnistria “most vehement anti-Romanians in Transnistria” (quote from page 144). In case you are not familiar with Kolsto (or Kolstoe, as it is sometimes spelled, because the last "o" is a Norwegian letter), he is one of the more oft-quoted scholars in this particular field of academia. - Mauco 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is the relevance, as one of the most vehement anti-Romanians is the actual president of the Republic of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin? And you didn't give the link to Kosto work (is not anymore necesary, you convinced me about its irrelevance)--MariusM 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Kolsto's paper is online, thus no link, but the source has been given in detail, with page number. I would not agree that Voronin is more anti-Romanian than the Moldovans in Transnistria, but then again, I am not the author of the BHHRG report. - Mauco 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

17 September 2006 referendum data

Further lending support to the statement: the results of the 17 September 2006 referendum in Transnistria. We can easily do some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations based on avaialble data. Knowing that the most pro-Moldovan region in Transnistria is Dubăsari, home to the largest percentage concentration of ethnic Moldovans, it is no surprise to see that this had the lowest turnout of all districts: 66.85% as opposed to 78.63% Transnistria-wide. Assuming that all those who stayed at home did so to boycott the vote, we can for the sake of argument count abstention as a vote for joining Moldova. Even then, 66.85% turnout with 97.1% in favor still gives you approximately 65% for independence versus 35% against. The only way to argue with these numbers is to say "but there was fraud" or "there was voter intimidation," which would be somewhat credible ONLY IF the vote results were surprisingly different from what all other available sources tell us. But they are not. See above. If anything, the results merely correspond to what we already know from other sources and buttress the existing argument. - Mauco 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You know the statement of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Moldova (HCHRM), that you fight so much not to be included in the "Transnistria" article.

I would not put it that way. Please do not distort my position on this. If you read the Talk pages of that article and, especially, of Transnistrian referendum, 2006 you will see why I believe it is wholly inappropriate. - Mauco 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The HCHRM has zero credibility as an observer of this event. When pressed for evidence that they were even present, they declined to comment. Some 10 days after the event we now know that their statements are total fabrications, which is why other editors deleted all it from the Transnistria article, slashed most of it from the Transnistrian referendum, 2006 article and put serious reversions before and after the quote, noting that these were merely claims and that there is no evidence whatsoever to back it up.- Mauco 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just repeat: HCHRM claim to have observed a series of infringements at the referendumHCHRM press release such as: 1. Groups of “activists” were going into people’s homes, especially in Tiraspol and Bender districts, asking them why they didn't come to the referendum and threatening them that after the referendum they will be forced to find a home in Romania. 2. At some voting sections, agents dressed in civil or militia uniforms were forcing the observers from outside the sections to stay at a distance of 200-250 meters far from these places. 3. According to an important official of MGB, who works very close to the groups of “political technologists” from the Russian Federation, the results of the referendum were well known since Saturday. 4. According to HCHRM percentage of people who visited polling stating was less than 50%, in general it was between 10% and 30% [3] 5. The list of voters were "cleaned", excluding some citizens who previously boycotted Transnistrian electoral farces, even if they were born and always lived in the localities from the left side of Nistru. Indeed, I say "there was fraud" and "there was voter intimidation". But anyway, remember that we are talking here only about ethnic Moldavians (referendum results don't show breakdown of vote thru ethnic lines) and remember not to add people who didn't vote to the people who oppose reunification, in order to achieve a majority.--MariusM 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the official results of referendum, you can see in the Grigoriopol region (Moldavian majority) a higher turnout than in Tiraspol (only 15% Moldavians). Is this because the majority-Moldavian region of Grigoriopol is more enthusiastic for separation from Moldova than the overhelming slavic Tiraspol? No. Is because the political freedom in Grigoriopol is lower than in Tiraspol. There are several reasons for that, it can be a long discussion, but mainly is because in small comunities (as moldavian villages of Grigoriopol) a person who refuse to vote is more easy in the attention of authorities, and because in Tiraspol the separatist regime don't need so much to limit freedom, as it has a genuine support. But we are not talking here about Tiraspol, but about Moldavians (which are few in Tiraspol).--MariusM 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You can repeat the admittedly onesided opinion of HCHRM but there is no evidence of it being true, besides their say-so. In fact, there is no evidence that they were even there. This is best demonstrated in the 2006 referendum talk page, so as to keep the discussion on topic. The HCHRM press release does not detract from the referendum results. A vote of the inhabitants is certainly relevant as yet another indicator of how they stand on a particular issue, and a 94% or 97% vote is hard to argue with. - Mauco 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was born in a communist country. Ellection results were always 99% for government, but this had nothing to do with the real will of the people. In what country were you born? Only in democratic countries ellection results are rellevant. Why you want veto rights for everything related with Transnistria? My proposal - "Some Moldavians oppose unificaton" is quite a fair compromise--MariusM 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was born in India (a democratic country) and have lived at various times in my life in the United States and in Great Britain. With regards to the will of the people, if they did not want to vote, why was turnout nearly 80%? Transnistria is no longer communist. There are also reports of people dancing in the street, others with tears in their eyes, and lots of interviews and comments from ordinary people which have appeared over the weekend in the Western press. All of this is covered in about 800 news sources. In the interest of truth in research, the factually correct statement should be "Most Moldavians oppose unificaton" (or "The majority of", thus indicating more than 50%). The quoted sources indicate that this statement is correct, and give us no reason to believe that the statement is wrong, so the burden of proof lies on you to document that it is incorrect if you do not agree that it should be phrased in this manner. - Mauco 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you were born in a democratic country, it explains why you don't understand (ex-)Soviet politics. But, for the sake of argument, let's consider correct the referendum results. I do the math for you: 21.4% didn't vote + 5.4% vote for the possibility of Union with Moldova or were invalid votes = 26.8%. Moldovans are 31.9%. It remains the posibility of only 5.1% voting against unification. This is only 1/6 of Moldavians in Transnistria.

I remind that I did this calculation only for the sake of argument, the main argument is that referendum was not correct (as many democratic countries told).--MariusM 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting calculation as an attempt to support an otherwise unsupported hypothesis. It is also original research and none of the press reporting by 200+ journalists covering the recent referendum have given any indication that this is the case - in other words, that only ~25% of the Moldovans voted and that everyone else voted 100%. When you lack other parameters, it would be more scientifically correct to divide the abstention rate equally among all ethnic groups, in propertion to their share of the population. But doing so will of course not give you the number which you are looking for. - Mauco 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dividing abstention equally among ethnic groups is an assumption (and not a good one, I may add). Certainly is not a "scientifically correct" assumption. Assumption have no place in a good quality article. My point is: as we have no clear data about the part of Moldavian community in Pridnestrovie which support separatism, we should use the neutral term "some". And, as I never contested, include the opinion of Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie. Remember that this article is not about the Moldovan community of Transnistria, but about the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie--MariusM 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1993 CSCE (OSCE) Mission Report

This is the first of the reports from the OSCE mission. They spent six months in Transnistria, and wrote: "The Mission’s assessment is that the Transdniestrian feeling of identity is not primarily an ethnic one because it is obviously shared not only by Slavs but also by many ethnic Moldovans." There is no reason to believe that all ethnic Moldovans abstained from the referendum, or that they are in favour of unification and that others are not. "Even ethnic Moldovans there, thus, claim that they are not ‘Bessarabians’" and "In six months' work on the left bank, the Mission could not help but notice a deeply-rooted distrust of Chisinau in many unofficial Transdniestrians." When reporting upon feelings towards Chisinau, the OSCE-report DOES NOT distinguish between ethnic Moldovans and other ethnicities. On the contrary, in several parts of the report, it goes to some length to stress that ethnic Moldovans share the same feeling as their Ukrainian and Russian neighbors. Knowing, as we do, that the Ukrainians and Russians are strongly opposed to unification, there is no reason to say that this should be different in the case of the Moldovans. I base this not on one source, but on those presented here and others. - Mauco 05:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship as indicator of allegiance

Transnistria represents a unique situation where the acquiring of (or refusal of) a PMR citizenship can adequately be construed as a political gesture indicating allegiance. The Constitution permits double and triple citizenships. Since the local citizenship is worthless for international travel, why bother even getting it? Especially since most people already have Moldovan, Russian or Ukrainian citizenships anyway. MariusM brings up the fact that the act of also acquiring PMR citizenship should be taken as an indicator of a symbolic political stand, and in the context of the fact that a PMR passport is as valid for international travel as a piece of used toilet paper, I have to agree with him. He writes: "What about people who lives in Transnistria but, as result of opposing Transnistrian regime, refuse to take Transnistrian citizenship?"[4]
As per the 2004 census[5], those residents who hold PMR citizenship numbered 508,600 people (91.5%+ of the population). Assuming that the remaining 8.5% are all ethnic Moldovans, this means that 73.3% of all ethnic Moldovans have taken the symbolic step of acquiring PMR citizenship as a way to show their allegiance to Transnistria (23.4% out of the 31.9% of the population which are ethnic Moldovans.) 3 out of 4 is a majority. - Mauco 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not having PMR citizenship can be a reason for harassment from Transnistrian authorities, impossibility of being hired in some jobs.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Only hard-line opponents of PMR refuse to take PMR citizenship.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Some are afraid to show oppenly their disagreement with the regime.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Why not to look the other way around? Moldavian authorities claim that the majority of people in Transnistria took Moldova's citizenship - this can be an indicator that they want reunification.--MariusM 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there is a huge difference. There are many reasons for wanting Moldovan citizenship, and the main one has nothing to do with political preference. It is the fact that if you are stateless, eventually you will want to be able to travel. You can not do so on the toilet-paper-equivalent of a passport which PMR authorities issues. Moldovan citizenship offers that benefit, in comparison. Hey, I would take one, too. In comparison, this is not the case with a PMR citizenship. Also, your paragraph above starts with 3 unsourced statements in a row which I and other Transnistria-watchers strongly disagree with. Please remember that the whole purpose of OSTK was to fight against discrimination, and that PMR came about as a result of the language law which was at the time seen as meaning that minorities would face what you are claiming: The impossibility of being hired in some jobs. - Mauco 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize again

This is an article about the political organization "Union of Moldovans in Transnistria" (as the correct title of the article should be). As this organisation is against unification with Moldova, we should mention this in the article. However, we should not make statements about its genuine popular support. In Wikipedia, we don't make statements like "the Republican Party of USA represent the will of the majority of American people", even if there are democratic ellection results and good surveys that show this. In the case of the "Union of Moldavians", as far as I know (you may correct me, if I am wrong) this organisation never competed independently in the ellections, and there are many doubts about the real political freedom and correctness of ellections or referendums in Transnistria. In my opinion, no assumption should be made in Wikipedia about the popular support of any political organisation. If you find some ellection results where this Union competed independently, under its own name, those may be added, but with the warning that political freedom in Transnistria is questioned by many countries. Anyhow, data from 1993 are not any more relevant, those data even don't show what you claim they show, and we are in 2006.--MariusM 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not about the level of support for the organization. It is the opposite way around: This organization supports a position which our available sources, implicitly or explicitly, show to be shared by the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live on the left bank. - Mauco 01:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie organised participation in 2005 elections of Republic of Moldova

I believe this fact also should be included in the article. Look the facts: "Tiraspol’s mouthpiece Olvia-Press said in a news that the Union of Moldovans in Transnistria (UMT) has assumed the mission to organise the participation of Moldovan citizens from Transnistria in the parliamentary elections. UMT intends to solve the problems related to transportation of people who want to attend elections to polling stations. UMT leader Valerian Tulgara said that “Moldovans in Transnistria are offended that the Moldovan CEC has passed the decision on how Moldovan citizens who live in Transnistria will cast their ballots at eight polling stations in settlements near the Transnistrian region with only 12 days before elections. «In spite of violation of Transnistrians’ rights,» UMT invites the citizens in Transnistria to participate in scrutiny: «we have a historical opportunity to influence the structure of the future Moldovan parliament.» Tulgara invited the citizens who reside in Transnistria to vote the democratic forces of Moldova, which would resume the negotiations aimed to identify a compromise.” The electoral bodies of Moldova should be ready to see how many citizens from Transnistria would vote, unlike the precedent years, avoiding long queues and further accusations of incapacity to guarantee the right to vote." http://www.elections2005.md/electoralcourier/20050228/

I finded an indirect link, maybe you can help with original Olvia-Press headline.--MariusM 01:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Any article which starts with the words "Tiraspol’s mouthpiece Olvia-Press" sounds suspect. It would be good to find a better source, please. - Mauco 01:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Olvia Press is in Russian, I don't know Russian. But if you know, you may find the original Olvia Press headline, which is talking about the 2005 position of UMP. Is the interpretation of this fact that can differ, not the fact itself. I remember during 2005 election the Democratic Moldova Bloc (Oleg Serebrian was part of it) was accussed to be a puppet of Russia. Kind of accusation that appear in electoral campaigns and should not be taken seriously until proved.--MariusM 03:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean Olivia Press is not the official agency of the government? BBC says so: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2229639.stm bogdan 09:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I respect you a lot and I think that you've been around for long enough to know what I mean. The first two words, "Tiraspol's Mouthpiece", give away the game right from the start. Real news sources (like, ahem, the BBC) wouldn't start a serious article that way. It is the kind of phrasing seen in some angry guy's personal blog. - Mauco 16:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Real news sources (like, ahem, the BBC) wouldn't even reference to Olvia Press. ClockworkOrange 16:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction: they do. It is referenced in the BBC country profile page for Transnistria. - Mauco 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no credibility maucow... * plonk * as you and mikka would say... LOL

This unsigned comment is from the same anonymous IP who just vandalized my user page. I restored it to the previous version by Bogdangiusca (thanks, by the way, Bogdan, I agree with your color scheme improvements and just never got the chance to thank you for it before). - Mauco 16:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Contested statement

The contested statement is not "As stated in an OSCE-report, ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova". Both MariusM and myself are in agreement that it should go. Instead, I have proposed "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" which MariusM does not agree with, and he has proposed the more vague "Some ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" which I do not agree with. - Mauco 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You added this comentary after the request for mediation was made. In my understanding, after a request for mediation was made, all other discussions should be done in the mediation process. Actually, I am not supporting the formula "some moldavians oppose unification with Moldova", I believe we should not make any assumption about what Moldovans in Pridnestrovie want, as there are no reliable data, just to quote the statements of this political organisation we are talking about (and which, as far as I know, never competed separately in ellections). If you don't agree with the mediation please write "disagree" at the Request for Mediation page.--MariusM 13:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you and I agree to solve it here, or through easier avenues of dispute resolution, then we may do so. Your interpretation could be called WP:Wikilawyering which includes situations where the spirit of a policy or guideline is broken through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter thereof. Do I agree to mediation? Of course! But see below ... there are other avenues which you should explore first, and which you failed to do. This is not me saying so. This is WP:DR. Besides, you can not phrase the dispute as being "As stated in an OSCE-report, ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" because as you can see above, and as is clear from this Talk page, I am in agreement with you that this phrasing is not appropriate. - Mauco 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for incursion but actually I disagree with both of you:
Many ethnic Moldavians from Transnistria do wont to unite with Moldova ClockworkOrange 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most of this Talk page (now 57 kilobytes long and counting) deals with a contention of whether we should use the word "most", "many" or "some". This is not a vote. Whatever we decide upon, we must be able to source it. This doesn't mean we have to explain the sources. A succint summary is enough, and it can even be a one-sentence summary which is what we are both trying to get included. - Mauco 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Clockword that many Moldovans from Transnistria want reunification with the Republic of Moldova. If we can source this affirmation, we can include it in the article, else will be original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia guidelines. Mauco, you can add at the Request for mediation page as "aditional issue": "Should the article contain any mention about how much is the support for Transnistrian separatism between ethnic Moldovans of this region?". I don't know if I have the right to add aditional issues after I submit the RFM.--MariusM 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know either. I am not an expert on WP:Wikilawyering but on practical problem solving instead. Of course, the easiest way to solve the dispute is to just talk about the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie (the main subject of the article) and not mention the level of support or lack of support for unification (an auxiliary subject of the article). Still, I have provided six or seven sources for varying levels of indications that most Moldovans are opposed to unifications, and the opposite view (that the majority wants unification) does not have any convincing citations that I have seen so far. - Mauco 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We had enough talk from 14 September until now. I didn't convince you, you didn't convince me. The page was protected with the sentence that you wanted. If you agree to take out this sentence and not to mention the level of support or lack of support for unification is O.K. - we will ask for removal of the protection of this page. If you don't agree, let's go to Mediation, which is a Wikipedian way of practical problem solving.--MariusM 15:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to why you didn't follow the order of the suggested guidelines in WP:DR, like informal mediation or Wikipedia:Esperanza, or the seeking of a Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. - Mauco 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Please see WP:DR for recommendations of how to resolve a dispute. If Talk fails, we should try informal mediation or Wikipedia:Esperanza. We can also seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion since this is dispute involving only two editors, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. A poll or survey would not be appropriate, IMHO, due to the specialized nature of this subject. But some of the above needs to be explored before we burden the Mediation Committee with a formal Requests for Mediation. - Mauco 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

These are the avenues which should be explored at this point in time, in the correct order of dispute resolution as listed on WP:DR. - Mauco 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We already had very long discussions, you blocked this page with the propagandist pro-separatist sentence that you wanted. You refused to agree mediation in the 7 days when you should sign for agreement. In this situation I will request arbitration.--MariusM 07:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. I am amazed to the point of disbelief that you are blatantly ignoring the correct sequence of steps as outlined in WP:DR to the point of not exploring any of them. And may I point out that I did not block the page. Someone else did, in response to an edit war started "not by moi". Your qualification of the sentence itself also shows your inherent biased approach to Wikipedia editing. - Mauco 12:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We're back

Page is again open for editing now. This does not mean that we should go in circles. Please discuss any changes before making them and let us avoid pointless edit wars. If we can not reach agreement in talk, then follow the correct sequence of steps in WP:DR for recommendations of how to resolve a dispute. This includes informal mediation or Wikipedia:Esperanza. We can also seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion since this is dispute involving only two editors, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. In all cases, it goes without saying that the dispute must be presented honestly and in good faith. - Mauco 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your rephrasing. You took out "as stated by an OSCE document" but you still kept the claim that the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria oppose unification, which I believe is not true. As we are not allowed to make original research we should take out any assumption about the will of ethnic Moldovans from that region. In fact, this is standard Wiki policy for political organisations. However, if you find any election results in which this organisation competed separately, under its own name, I would agree to include those results in the article, together with the doubts expressed by international organisations and countries about the political freedom in Pridnestrovie.--MariusM 12:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you do not agree. This is the heart of our dispute (and the only one), as 95% of this Talk page makes clear. You agree to "Some" and I keep wanting "The majority" (or "Most") because I am convinced that this is the case, and because I believe that there is plenty of evidence to support this position. I do not agree that this is original research, as third parties - rightly or wrongly - have previously evaluated some of the evidence and reached the same conclusion.[6] I also do not agree that we can only include the statement if the Union becomes a political party and gets 50%+ of Moldovan votes. This would be holding this sentence to a much standard than we use for determinining whether or not other disputed statements should be included in Wikipedia. Besides, it is something which can never happen because in Transnistria (unlike Bosnia) votes are not cast or counted on the basis of ethnicity. What I do agree to, however, is to let the current sentence stand, discuss this more in Talk, and if I can still not convince you in the next day or two, then seek a third opinion or follow some of the other steps in WP:DR, in the order that they are listed. - Mauco 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

With "Tiraspol Times" you will never convince me. You know my opinion about it.--MariusM 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Is there any other way to convince you, that I haven't yet tried? Or are we ready for the next step in WP:DR, if we agree that this Talk page is not working? I am hoping that the sources which I've put forward will still convince you, of course, but I really can't think of any other arguments not already stated in this page. I will let you decide, and thanks in advance for being so civil about this. - Mauco 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've been notified that there's a dispute going on here, and a request for arbitration, and I really believe that the dispute is not major enough to go through all of these formal processes. I am not particularly well-acquainted with the disputation and edit warring which has taken place on Transnistria-related articles recently, but from what I can see, it seems that the only dispute on this page is about the idea of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria supporting or opposing Transnistrian independence or, respectively, reunification with Moldova. The dispute is particularly over this sentence: "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova." So, first of all, I think it's important to look at the facts that are agreed upon. Would it be agreeable to say that the UMP is opposed to Moldovan reunification? I would say "Yes", according to the sources given.

It seems the dispute, then, is about how representative the UMP is of ethnic Moldovan viewpoints in the country. Marius has argued that the UMP is not particularly representative of Moldovans, and thus that UMP = opposition to Moldovan unification does not equal to Moldovans = opposition to Moldovan unification. I believe a matter-of-fact statement such as "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" is somewhat broad, and needs to be sourced by a rather direct and NPOV reference.

The first source provided by William Mauco is acceptable, but I don't think it really provides an adequate reference to that statement. Plus, it's POV, as are all Tiraspol Times articles. The next source is the OECD report, provided as part of the TT article. It states that, "Many ethnic Moldovans living on the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the centre [...] and do not consider themselves as “Bessarabians”. This source is rather reliable in enabling us to state in the article that "Many ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova". Thus, we can support so far a statement that many ethnic Moldovans are opposed to unification. The UMP issue here becomes irrelevant: if we are to believe the OECD source, "many ethnic Moldovans in Tranistria are opposed to unification with Moldova."

The prickly word here is thus most. There is a source, as part of the TT article, which supports this view: John O'Loughlin, author of a study of Pridnestrovie, National Construction, Territorial Separatism, and Post-Soviet Geopolitics in the Transdniester Moldovan Republic. He states that "In PMR, most citizens do not want to rejoin the territory which is today the Republic of Moldova. Perhaps surprisingly to outsiders, this includes at least nine out of every ten of even the ethnic Moldovans who live in Pridnestrovie."

It is important to realise that the "most citizens" part of this source does not refer to ethnic Moldovans, but to Transnistrians in general, and in this way it can't be used to back up the statement (since Moldovans are a minority in Transnistria). It does, however, state that "at least 9/10... Moldovans [would oppose unification]". This part of the source can be used to back up Mauco's statement. The problem that remains, however, is how accurate/reliable the source is, and whether it can be cross-referenced.

For this reason, I think that the best way to solve the current dispute is to actually quote that source, and attribute it to John O'Loughlin. I don't think it's entirely correct to make a broad statement such as "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" based on just one source (or are there more?). I think a better version would be "[Perhaps surprisingly], many ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to reunification with Moldova. In fact, according to John O'Loughlin, "at least nine out of every ten [of even the] ethnic Moldovans who live in Pridnestrovie" are opposed to unification" and then something like "even though Moldovan unification is supported by significant amounts of the population in Moldovan-majority localities such as ABC".

Hopefully this dispute can be solved, Ronline ✉ 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, you and I have run into each other before, and we have not always agreed on everything, but I respect you as a responsible Wikipedian who has always put good faith assumptions before any personal opinions, pro or con. Arbitration is way out of proportion to this, which is why I didn't even accept mediation, seeing that not even the most basic steps in the dispute resolution process have been tried. I like your initiative at providing a third opinion. Your understanding of the dispute is also accurate. I still believe that several sources have been presented, and that the Sept 17 voting record combined with turnout is also a solid indicator, but I am certainly willing to work with you and everyone else on solving this one. - Mauco 14:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, we had a long discussion on this page and you probabily didn't have the time to read it carefully. Mauco provided many sources and I answered at all of them, proving their irrelevance. Regarding John O'Loughlin, he quote from Babilunga, one of top falsifiers of Transnistria's history (author of the book "Dubossary, a bleeding wound of Transnistria"). A western scholar like John O'Loughlin made the mistake to believe Babilunga, but we should not include this in the article. John O'Loughlin didn't make his own research, he just took data from Babilunga. Regarding Transnistrian referendum, 2006, there is an other request for mediation on this topic, the Mediation Comitee accepted the case, only Mauco claims that mediation is inappropiate. I don't believe that in Transnistria there is political freedom that allow people to express their will, and is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many countries.--MariusM 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What language is used by Union of Moldavians?

I saw Russian language sources about this Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie. I wonder if this organisation is using at all Moldavian language. Did they publish their statements in Moldavian? What language is used in their meetings? Do we have any source about this?--MariusM 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Largest association of Moldovans

MariusM twice deleted the following statement: " It is the largest group of its kind in Transnistria." Before doing so the next time, please explain why this statement is untrue. If there is a larger group of this kind, please create a stub for it and please include a "See also" link in this article as it would - in that case - be a very important new development that no one else in the world has ever heard of. Otherwise, may I politely request that we please let this very important and defining fact of the organization stay in its entry. - Mauco 15:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are bigger groups of this kind (supporters of separatist regime from Transnistria) which already had wiki articles. See Respublika, for example.--MariusM 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will clarify the article now. - Mauco 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does someone participate in an election?

To have its voice heard. There is no other obvious reason. Do not delete the obvious. - Mauco 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, but don't pretend this voice is the voice of Moldovans in Transnistria. Is the voice of an organisation with unknown popularity (it never participated alone in elections and no surveys were made about it, AFAIK).--MariusM 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly a valid point. - Mauco 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Union of Moldovans membership

For a person born in a democratic country, who always assume good faith and a little bit naive (now, I am assuming good faith) is a stupid question: Which is the ethnicity of the membership of Union of Moldovans in Transnistria?

For a person like me, who was born in a communist country and has a different life experience, the question is not stupid, considering all the activities of this particular organisation. Is a credible possibility, for my point of view, that this organisation is a creation of Transnistrian MGB, with Tulgar as a face, and when congresses are made authorities to take care to bring people in the room (not necesarily of Moldovan ethnicity) in order to create the impression that this is a living organisation.

In this talk page I asked, much time ago, a question: what language is used by this "Union of Moldovans"? Nobody answered. Do we have any proofs that this organisation did use Moldovan language in its meetings and congresses? Did they publish something in Moldavian language (not only press release in "Adevărul Nistrean"). If not, I doubt that the membership of the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie is composed only by ethnic Moldovans.--MariusM 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have any sources or references that indicate that this organization is a hoax, then post them. Otherwise, don't engage in original research. Tulgar is a well-respected political leader. Lots of people don't agree with him, but they respect his work and see his as a true representative of his community. Send an email to William Hill (former OSCE head) to find out more. - Mauco 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Hill's e-mail. I am sure that any sources I will found claiming that this organisation is a hoax, you will labeled them as POV.--MariusM 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Try me. Find the sources ... if they exist. Otherwise, stop this ridiculous attemtp at WP:OR right now. - Mauco 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If I would find a source I would pretend to include in the article the fact that this organisation is a hoax made by PMR. Meantime, we should only removed the unsourced affirmation that the membership of the Union of Moldovans is composed by ethnic Moldovans, as long no proofs exist that this organisation use Moldovan language.--MariusM 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, don't remove it. There are loads and loads of sources which state that the Union of Moldovans is composed by ethnic Moldovans. Via Google alone, the Union is mentioned over 23,000 times and, in many of these cases, with a clear reference to who is part of its membership.[7] - Mauco 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian language links. Can you prove me that this Union is using Moldovan language, at least in its cyrillic version?--MariusM 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that we were discussing the membership? Guess not. I already proved my point. - Mauco 23:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Valerian Tulgar, not a Transnistrian Moldovan

You wrote in the article about "Its membership of Transnistrian Moldovans". But its leader, Tulgar, is not a transnistrian, is a basarabian. So, article is not correct.--MariusM 00:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

He is certainly a Transnistrian citizen, or else he would not be able to hold a seat in PMR's parliament. That makes him a Transnistrian. But you can change it to Moldovan, if you prefer. It is always good to make the article more precise. I do not know if he has a Moldovan citizenship but I would suppose so, as most ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria do (and even quite a few who are not ethnic Moldovans, too). - Mauco 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Complaint valid; only rejected on a technicality

The Committee against Torture had to decide whether or not a communication was admissible under its rules that it could not already be heard elsewhere. It was rejected because the Committee has verified and assured itself that a complaint from the author was in fact registered by the European Court on 3 May 1999 which is, and I quote, an "already pending examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement." In other words, they rejected it because it had been accepted elsewhere. Not because it was invalid. Are we splitting hairs now? - Mauco 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, it was not accepted elsewhere. It was "under another procedure of international investigation or settlement". Are you really of good faith? People seeking refuge in Western countries often tell lies in order to obtain asylum. Sometimes, it works. I don't know in this particular case which was the outcome.--MariusM 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't either, and I agree with you on the lies. In the States, that is a common trick to circumvent immigration. Needless to say, the outcome of the ECHR case would determine whether or not the torture claims in this particular case were bogus or not. Unfortunately, I have no further information to add but it would be very interesting to get a copy of the ruling in the 1999 case. - Mauco 02:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union of Moldavians in Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nr2.ru%2fpmr%2f65522.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nr2.ru%2fpmr%2f65541.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313092533/http://www.elections2005.md:80/electoralcourier/20050228/ to http://www.elections2005.md/electoralcourier/20050228/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)