Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 23 May 2007

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Transnistria. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Transnistria at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8 /archive 9 /archive 10 /archive 11 /archive 12 /archive 13 /archive 14 /archive 15 /archive 16 /archive 17

14th Army source

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)

• I agree. The source says from Transdniester and that's it. Alæxis_¿question? 19:37, 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  :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). 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 ". 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 , Tudor Tabunscic (Transnistrian native) , Ion Isaicov, mayor of transnistrian village Cocieri , Valeriu Ciobanu , Mihai Speian , Domnica Croleivet , Eleonora Cecavschi 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)

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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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. A research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking. 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 and 85,000 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.

Another concern was raised that Transnistria might have produced and ilegally selled weapons{{cn} (at one time Moldova was rated in the top ten worldwide exporters of weapons{{cn}). In ..., a BBC team implemented a sting and all but bought two radioactive bombs from Transnistria. No reliable evidence of weapons trafficking within Transnistria was found up to date. A research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking. 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. Russia's Duma recognized the vote, but the OSCE and many countries did not, dismissing the poll as illegitimate.

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 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 called the organization of the referendum incorrect and dismissed the poll as illegitimate. .

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: 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 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)

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 asnwere depending who they asked in so and so village, or would most p

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists