Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonathanpops (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 18 May 2007 (→Checkuser, again :)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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)

Checkuser, again :)

I was wondering. All of us here have been checked at least once. Now, Dikarka is a single-use account (Transnistria-related edits alone) created exactly when other users were blocked. So, could he be checked against William Mauco and Mark Street? Or maybe he already was checked, and I missed it (I don't know, this is why I did not submit a B-class checkuser request). :) Dpotop 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See this. Alæxis_¿question? 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it means too much time passed since the puppet masters have been blocked. How about their puppets? Buffadren, Britlawyer, etc. These ones have recent edits (1 week old). Dpotop 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? In the end WM and Dikarka were found to be unrelated (checkuser by --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)). Alæxis_¿question? 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)I am not a he, I am a she. I am a Pridnestrovian girl. What are you?

As I already told a fellow editor making similar inquiries, I am the Pope in Rome, incognito, talking to Pridnestrovian girls. :) Dpotop 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A Pridnestrovian girl? That's nice. :-) Maybe we'll nevertheless see another surprise soon?

Sorry, Dikarka, couldn't resist. I actually think you are not Mauco... (I looked into sockpuppetry a lot lately, I can tell you that...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's twisted, FutPerf! Are you suggesting the girls of Proriv are not quite girls? :) You must be really stuffed by all this Transnistrian business to come up with such a hypothesis. Dpotop 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, if you're sure Dikarka is not Mauco, then it must be Mark. Dpotop 20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Marius and an anon have cleared that up for you as well there. He doesn't take any chances. :-) --Illythr 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC) actually i don't care whether you believe that i'm a girl from Pridnestrovie or not.I'm expressing here my point of view and that's it..but i'm a girl, undoubtedly:-)

That Alena girl from the link under the picture is the same girl from this video I think, about 3 minutes 20 seconds in. I wonder if that's our Dikarka? :-) Jonathanpops 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Democracy in Secessionism: Transnistria and Abkhazia’s Domestic Policies, by Nicu Popescu, International Policy Fellowship Program 2005/2006
2. Moscow's Hand Tired of Giving, Kommersant 6 Aprill 2007
3. «Газпром» передал Приднестровье Алишеру Усманову, Nezavisimaya Gazeta 23 March 2007

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