Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 18 September 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Number of accredited observers

There are some conflicting numbers as to the observers, with one source (which made it into this article) claiming 200. I think that this is wrong, and that it should be corrected. I looked into this at some detail. At best count it looks like 134 (others say 130) from various organizations, plus 40 from Nashi, for a total of 170 / 174. These were accredited election observers, with access to the International Press Center and the election process itself. However, Nashi sent 300 to 400 people, so possibly some of them are considered "election observers" by the press. This would be a mistake, however, as only 40 of them were accredited. The rest were just there for the tent-city, or whatever. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, if we talk about observers, we should ignore the 300+ plus Nashi's and only count the 40 Nashi-members who got accreditation. Add this to the other 134, and you get 174 total. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it useless to count the non-accredited observers? Because they can not be true observers if they have no access to such crucial parts of the referendum process as the vote counting which took place after polls closed, the data of the turnouts, and the central tallying of the results. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Observers, pro-independence

Let's remove also "200 observers from 14 international organizations declared the referendum to be democratic and conforming to international standards", as it can be POV and addition was not discussed here. (Tiraspol Times is talking about 174 observers http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/216, however their claim about "not a single report of fraud or any irregular occurences of any kind whatsoever" is not true, seeing the report of HCHRM). I agree that first time was copyvio, but the second time I put only a summary which is not a copyvio. But let's discuss. How you want to include in the article the position of HCHRM, which is a relevant one for this section of the article?--MariusM 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. I want to correct the factual inaccuracy of 200, and source with a more accurate source. However, you can still keep the sentence that "X number of observers say the vote is fair" and that does NOT exclude that you can ALSO have another sentence along the lines of "but Y number of observers later declared that it was not." If there are two groups, as it appears that there might be in this case, then each one still has a right to its own opinion and if we report this accurately, it is in no way POV. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Observers, anti-independence

Does anyone know if these observers actually exist? There are independently verifiable third party reports of them, except uncritical repeats based on their own statements with no attempt at verification or independent follow-up. Not a single one of the 215 accredited journalists has seen ANY of these HCHRM people in action, as observers, on election day. Nor did any of them apply for accredition, which is the first step if you want to pretend to actually do serious election observation work, because that is what gets you inside the door and gives you access to the voter lists, the ballots, and everything else that goes on behind the scenes. Finally, did any of the accredited observers talk to them? Or even see them? We have no record of their existence or the fact that they did any work in Transnistria on 17 September, besides their own claim. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If we analyze the strong statements which they make, one by one, they contradict everything that everyone else say and which we can gather from more than 100 different media sources published in the last 3 days (see news.google.com, for instance). We must determine what the truth is, and to help us to do, we have the numerous statements and reports from officially accredited observers and we have the journalists. In toto, they basically report muchb the opposite of what HCHRM say, even to the anectodal evidence that support the large turnout. Or should we just take HCHRM's word for it? Being Chisinau based and with anomosity towards Transnistria, they have a motive for fibbing. - Mauco 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is not our job to determine what the truth is in this case - that would be original research, a no-no. Our job is to accurately record all claims made by all involved sides, however POV they may be, and reference them. In case of HCHRM, we certainly have to include their claims in the article; however, if there is any relevant information on how they might be not impartial in this case, and there are sources for it, they can be included as well (and, of course, the same goes for all other observing parties). If they were not accredited observers, and there is a source that shows it, by all means, put that in. -- int19h 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true, but remember that NPOV is not the same as "equal time" when one view is prevalent and generally accepted and the other is, - ahem - shall we say, a bit homemade and not based on any verifiable facts or reality. - Mauco 20:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

User:MariusM, I have reverted your edit once again, as it is a clear copyright violation. It may omit a word or two, but it is still an obvious copy/paste of (in the latest edit) a whole paragraph from the source it gives, . Press-release or not, the text at the bottom of the page linked says: "Copyright © 2005-2006 Asociatia Moldova Europeana Unita". Because of all this, it is inacceptible as a contribution to Wikpedia as per the latter copyright policy. Note furthermore that another attempt to restore the reverted edit can be interpreted as a violation of the three-revert rule on your side.

You are of course welcome to rephrase the material contained in the source you have found, and then add that to the article. -- int19h 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, before this is added, let us get citations as to the accuracy of the organization's claim to have participated as observers in the referendum, as this is crucial for the credibility of their accusations. I raise this above, under "Observers, anti-independence". - Mauco 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph rephrased

In Transnistria article EvilAlex (a pridnestrovian himself) has done a good rephrasing of the paragraph regarding referendum. It was reverted by Mauco with the explanation that it should be discussed in this article first. Let discuss it (I made some changes in the original EvilAlex text).

NGO Results

OCSE, EU and USA had officially condemned referendum as illegal:

No, that is a misreprentation. Words like "condemn" and "illegal" are not in accordance with the facts. What they said was they would not recognize the results. This means that they would not consider themselves legally bound to let their actions be guided by the results. They warned voters of this in advance, and (some of them) reaffirmed it afterwards. - Mauco 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

“The EU does not recognize in any possible way the referendum or its results "http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/18/europe/EU_GEN_EU_Trans_Dniester.php According to the representatives of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Moldova, the committee had found major irregularities and infringements such as:

• 1. Groups of “activists” were going into people’s homes, especially in Tiraspol and Bender districts, asking theme why they did not come to the referendum and threatening them that after the referendum they will be forced to find a home in Romania. http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448
• 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. http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448
• 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. http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448
• 4. According to HCHRM percentage of people who visited polling stating was less than 50%, in general it was between 10% and 30% http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1452

This can not be included until we establish the bona fides of this groups presence. No one ever saw them, or heard of them, and their statements contradict what other journalists (even from the West, like BBC, UPI and AP) are reporting. For all we know, someone just invented the entire report and didn't even go to Transnistria. Are there any credible outside or third party sources confirming ANY of these four points? Or witnesses? We have already established that they were not accredited as observers in the process, so their claim to be observers ring hollow. At most, they were bystanders because they certainly did not participate in any kind of real or serious electioning monitoring mission or counting of the votes. - Mauco 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Official Transnistrian Results

According to official Transnistrian data, 78.6 percent of the registered voters of Transnistria voted in the referendum. 97.1 percent of voters supported the first point, while 2.3 percent did not support it. 3.4 percent of voters supported the second point, while 94.6 percent did not support it.More Accurate Results of Referendum for Regions Data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that the electorate shrunk by 7% within the last year.Transnistrian Electorate Shrinking Dramatically

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics