Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:21, 5 January 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.

Archive

• /archive 1
• /archive 2

Protection

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

I'm Lost

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

I didn't label them as minor. I said I was disentangling copyvio (which I did, and which you have now re-inserted), *as well as* making minor changes. --Node 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and, you guys have consistently removed a valid Interwiki link. That qualifies as vandalism, no questions asked. --Node 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Node, I do not intend to sound patronizing or something, but it would be helpful for the dispute if wou were more specific, ideally provide a diff of the edit you're refering to. Otherwise I've no idea what ar you talking about. --Wojsyl 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this diff, I believe that the current version is pretty close to the one before Node's and further confusing edits. I've requested the article to be protected until a consensus on its contents is reached, as the recent edits had been overwhelmingly confusing. I'd suggest that we start looking at it section by section, as below. --Wojsyl 20:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, not too many significant changes exist between the two versions. I believe that the phrase: "and requiring proficiency in the Moldovan language for public servants" should be re-inserted, as well as this: " In the security zone controlled by the Russian peacekeeping forces, the MRT regime continued to deploy its troops illegally and to manufacture and sell weapons in breach of the agreement of 21 July 1992. In February 2003, the USA and EU imposed visa restrictions against the Transnistrian leadership." The other changes are negligible. TSO1D 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what the others think. We need to slow down here a bit ... --Wojsyl 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing

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

Content dispute

Only content dispute in this section, please

General

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

• Transnistria#Aftermath section is completely illogical. We talk about the 1994 events, then about the present, than back to 1999, etc. I think the events should be in the chronological order.
• Ilascu's story is told twice, in the Transnistria#Political status and in Transnistria#Violation of human rights, not to mention that we refer to its own Ilie Ilaşcu article. Maybe we should move Violation of human rights into the Political status or next to it and deal with Ilascu only once?
• There are quite a number of wikilinks to Romania and Moldavia, maybe we should decrease the number. There are also a reference to Romanian that is a disambig, I believe there should be Romanians, there also a few of similar trivial issuesabakharev 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The lead

Firstly, is the lead all right ? --Wojsyl 13:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Names

What about the "Names" section ?

Moldavian language vs Romanian language

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

"Copyrighted paragraph"

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

Russian POV

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

• The legality or illegality of homebody's actions is decided in the Courts of Law, not in Misplaced Pages articles. I am not aware of any of such court descisions. Thus instead of Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally, I would like to have something attribution According to many political analysts (including Mr. Pavliuk) Russian army stays in Transnistria illegally.
• Similarly, the phrase Ukraine and Moldova share common interest in removing the Russian Army is an opinion not a fact (quite possibly they share common interest in keeping the peace in the region without sending their own peacekeepers). Both phrases appear in the disputed Pavliuk's paragraph and the problem will simply disappear if we attribute the quote to Pavliuk.
• Many Russians believe that the 14th Army was a peacekeeping force that stopped the bloody war, not a participant in the war. I would like to see this opinion mentioned somewhere.abakharev 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal comments and other rants

Please do not use this section for content dispute

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics