Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MariusM (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 18 May 2007 (restoring section for archiving purpose). 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

Will I be blocked again?

Someone has removed a whole section on the Tiraspol page regarding Jews in Tiraspol, will I be blocked again if I try to restore it? Jonathanpops 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. How could you possibly be blocked for reverting simple vandalism? Alaexis 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, genuine vandalism reverts are always legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexis, the last time I did what I thought was a "genuine vandalism revert" I got a warning that I would be blocked if I did it again, or maybe that was just my rubbish label I attached to my revert? Then I was actually blocked for edit warring when I removed a link to Tiraspol Times that I thought wasn't supposed to be there, which was kind of odd to me (being accused of edit warring) as I hardly ever edit the main page. I don't really know what I'm allowed to do anymore, I feel I might be better to just ask and let someone else do the editing. Jonathanpops 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Current economic situation in Transnistria

From a website registered by PMR government and ICDISS, we already know that the standard of living in Transnistria is "visibly higher" than in Moldova, compared to Moldova, Transnistria is "like the Riviera", it is "Europe's hidden jewel" where "kids are playing computer games". However, it seems that recently there are some troubles in paradise. I already pointed above at an article about Moscow being fed up with Smirnov's consumer moods. It seems the problem is serious, just some quotes from Evgheni Şevciuc, speaker of Transnistrian Supreme Soviet: "Pridnestrovie is in a difficult economic situation"; "We initiated in fact a 30% increase in the tax rate for all companies. (...) even after that the Pension fund lacked 10 million US dollars"; "emergency measures must be taken to stabilize the economic situation, first of all, to fund pensions, salaries and social programs"; "I don’t regard the current situation as an economic crisis. It is not hopeless. (...) Salaries, pensions, etc are currently paid (...) A crisis, to me, means three-month arrears". Full press conference of Şevciuc at official website of Transnistrian parliament. Me and EvilAlex explained for months in this talk page the benefits that separatist regime brought to the people of Transnistria, it seems that Şevciuc agree with us regarding the main results. I will try to include in the mainspace something from Şevciuc's conference in the best NPOV manner I can, I hope I will not be labeled again as "anti-transnistrian".--MariusM 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: if PMR government will not be able to pay salaries in time, edit-wars on this subject in Misplaced Pages will stop. Some editors can do a christian act, donating their hat to the hungry people of Transnistria.--MariusM 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of this talkpage for you or anybody else to be "explainging" "the benefits that separatist regime brought to the people of Transnistria". It is not the purpose of the article or any other place in Misplaced Pages either. If you want to explain your opinion about Transnistria anywhere, go and get yourself a blog. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't need to get a blog, the website of Transnistrian Supreme Soviet is explaining the situation better than I will ever can do. This talkpage is for explaining edits in the article, what I just did, providing also sources. I still believe that Misplaced Pages should show a true picture of Transnistria, maybe I am naive. Mauco teached me that there is no WP:TRUTH, but meantime I saw this policy was implemented!--MariusM 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Marius, as a devout Opposer of The Truth, I ask you to revert your last "NPOV" edit to the article yourself and keep such jokes (it's a joke, right?) to your "sandbox". --Illythr 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, is not a joke. I gave refferences for all claims, and all are serious. Visitpmr.com is very seriously explaining to their readers that Transnistria is like the Riviera, this is not a humouristic site. Shevchuk also was serious explaining the economic situation. There are different opinions on the subject, all sourced, we should show both of them. Glad to see that you noticed that my sandbox is usefull for Misplaced Pages articles. If you want to make changes in the article, explain them here. I believe Shevchuk opinions are notable.--MariusM 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering what part of my edit you consider a joke? The claims that standard of living in Transnistria is higher than in Moldova or the comments of Shevchuk?--MariusM 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit () was clearly designed not so much to provide relevant facts about the economic situation in Transnistria, but to expose what you perceive as propagandistic distortions by those pro-Transnistrian sources, by way of juxtaposing them. This is tendentious editing. Of course, you could use some of the material more properly, e.g. the fact that a they had a 30% tax increase and that a government spokesman talked of difficulties in paying pensions etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Juxtaposing "exposes" nothing unusual, only different views, unless peppered with innocent conjunctions, like, "contrary to", "despite", "nevertheless". How else you can present different views? `'mikka 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I propose to make the following changess in order to have more clarity in the introduction, according to the following order: to say

• what is de jure
• de facto
• when first declared
• when got it de facto
• on what territory
• seeks recongnition
• current legal status
• functions separately

I would appreciate any comments. If possible, please keep them directly to the issue and to the portion of the text dicussed. :Dc76 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems logical. `'mikka 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy edits. I conceed to the changes you made, except a small one, which I would like more people to say which word is better: "However, it functions as a sovereign state, organized as a presidential republic, with its own postal system...". You changed separate to soveregn. In my understanding, "soveregn" means having statehood, being a state. Trasnistiria does not have that legal status. Ironically, that is perhaps as far as Moldova's current president Voronin would be prepared to go in negociations (state but not independent) if there were any. :Dc76 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just click "sovereign state" `'mikka 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically you just changed the order of the 'de jure' and 'de facto' statements about the status of Transnistria. What's the point in it? For instance, all the other unrecognised countries articles use the wording 'de facto independent republic within the int'ly recognised borders of xxx', where the first part tells about the factual situation and the second part about the legal one. I think it'd be better if similar things were called the same all over Misplaced Pages. Alaexis 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Things are not exactly similar. There is hardly any confusion. The first sentence is quite simple. By my order of logic, de jure usually goes first. Any more serious arguments other than "others are doing so"? For example, was there any discussion about the universality of this particular phraseing? `'mikka 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious, why does 'de jure' come first by your order of logic?

This order issue is quite minor imho but if such change is made here it would lead to the similar changes in the articles about other unrecognised countries. The 'old' version has been stable for quite a long time in those articles so I just fail to see a point in changing it. These matters are naturally quite sensitive so these changes won't come easy, I suspect. Alaexis 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, any two situations are different. What does make things "similar"? Our personal assesments is not the best criterion. International legal status of countries and territories is a measure uniform for everyone, it is not subject to interpretation, but to recognition. "de facto simmilar"' is something that historians will be qualified to make judgements 100 years from now. For that one needs to be a recongnized scholar, and the event or issue to pass the treshold of contemporanity. Neither we are scholars (at least we do not edit WP as such, if some of us maybe are in their fileds), nor the entity is historical. It is a surprise to me that my edit can be regarded as reversal of the order de jure/de facto. I wanted just to separate them into different sentences. 'de facto independent republic within the int'ly recognised borders of xxx' mixes together de facto/de jure/type of govn't. IMO, it is better to write shorter sentences that can be checked one by one, rather than to write "universal" formulas that bring additional sense to a the text depending on the order of some words. An ideal sentence would be such that, when one lists its words, the reader can from him/herself the sentence uniquely. Therefore we need shorter sentences, exprecing clearly, not ones changing meaning depending one how we tilt our heads. There is no max limit on the number of preriods/full stops we can use. :Dc76 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, Mikka brings roughly the same point. There is no UN standard or something like that. If China-Taiwan issue would be started again because of Moldova-Transnistria, that to me would be quite ilogical, actually totally non-sense. Maybe they are similar, maybe they are not, that is for historians to decide, not for WP editors to extrapolate. :Dc76 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I understand the sourse of some theoretical "fears". If Chechnya would got independence in 1994, that would have been somehow an incentive for Tatarstan, etc. The similarity one could make I guess was that both had the same original status inside the same country. In case of Transnistria, I know of no other breakaway teritorries within Moldova. "Similarity" to anything alse is a big stretch. Please, let me know if you see some issue developing somewhere b/c of this article, I would like to bring my argument again there: treat each case, unless some ultra-accepted sourse (even a UN's standard could be questioned!) tell you to treat two political entities with disputed status just the same.:Dc76 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is Alaexis's modification for easy refernce

IMO, what you did is 1) you reversed the order de jure/de facto, which I think should be the other way around as explained by mikka and me above. 2) you have introduced "republic" again, and this is a form of government, that is repeated again in the 3 paragraph, and you have introduced the redundant "in Eastern Europe", which instead of facilitating a geographic location, makes the understanding of political status more cumbersome. At minimum, you should correct 2) :Dc76 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Mr Dc76 introduction proposal is effective and more reliable. I think it also should be used on Abkhazia. Mr Mikha is correct in his assessment, de jure should come first as it is legal, and accepted status in terms of international law and UN resolutions. And overall it’s fair and well balances introduction in terms of NPOV. Ldingley 22:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do for the article Abkhazia, please be sure you do it because of the logic there, not by comparison. The fact that in both cases Russia supports the separatist movements is not enough to make them "similar". There are a lot of non-similar things, just a few examples: 1) the war in Transnistria only lasted 5 months 2) there were much fewere internal migrants, mainly from Tiraspol and Tighina to Chisinau 3) unlike Abkhazia, Transnistria did not have any legal status within MSSR, 4) there is no ethnicity "transnistrians", etc The way to compare Abkhazia would be to Adjaria and South Osetia, not to something else. Of course one can get inspiration from here (as from anywhere else), but ultimately everything should be logically, not comparatively sound. :Dc76 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please do read what you write in the article, don't just be rush to make changes. Compare these versions. The quality is degrading with every 20 minutes! What "generally regarded"? What "autonomy"? Does anyone understand anything from the first centence now? What "republic"?It is completely confused! I will come back tomorrow. If the editor who made these last changes (El_C) won't make efforts to write more logically, I have no choice but to rv to some good, still readable version:Dc76 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is poor grammar to write "independence" over and over again, "autonomy" is a perfectly acceptable synonym. What "republic" (which I didn't add) — the republic that Transnistria self-proclaims to be. Anyway, we need a readable intro and the one I attended to was filled with redundancies, repetitions, fragmanted sentences, and generally, bad grammar. Please put your seemingly instintcive objections aside and try to approach this logically (outlining somewhat more specific items), so that we do not digress backwards due to a mere appearence of bias or confusion. This entry targets English-speaking readers who are not necessarily familiar with the subject. Please keep that in mind. El_C 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a small correction, "independence" and "autonomy" are not the same thing when it comes to states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in isolation, clearly, but for a sentence immediately following the frmer, there should be little confusion as to what was meant. El_C 05:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Although, I suppose that concern can be raised in terms of Autonomous territorial unit. At any event, this is no longer an issue. El_C 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The current form of the introduction contains the following mistakes:

• ia a de facto independent republic

incorrect, it is a territory that functions as an independent state. it's form of government is a republic

• situated between the eastern bank of the Dniester River and Ukraine, and includes several localities on the west bank of the river

incorrect, it does not contain 9 localities on the east bank. The edit should not be specific in one regard (west bank) and vague in another (east bank)

• declared independence from the Moldavian SSR

incorrect, independent means not to be part of any state. in that case Transnistria declared separation from Moldova, but declared to remain within USSR, it wanted to be another USSR republic

• Transnistria has exercised de facto control over most of the Transnistrian region whose status remains disputed

this formulation puts the reader to think, whose status remains disputed, of the geographic region or of the political entity? <-- unnecessary mind puzzling for the reader. It is much more logical to write "Transnistria has exercised de facto control over most of the Transnistrian region." and "Transnistria's status remains disputed." two separate sentences.

• Transnistria is most commonly known ... by its Romanian name Transnistria

John is most commonly known by its English name John :):):)

• once the words de facto are present, de jure have also to be present

Because these mistakes in the introduction frankly speaking distortion the reality, we must change them. Mikka and Ldingley support the earlier, more logical form. Alaexis' sugestion to exchange the order of de facto/de jure is worth discussion. Also worth (also needs) discussion is soveregn/separate (see above), which I think I'll also change so see how it reads. Grammatical improvements are more than welcome. Reformulation a la Alaexis, but without the introduction of the words "republic" and "authonomuous", are also absolutely ok. Anything that improves the style is ok, and greatly appreciated. Anything that twists the information - is not.

P.S. The 1-sentence article Autonomous territorial unit is vague. IN fact only Gagauzia has it.According to the legislation of Moldova, Transnistria "can be given a status of large authonomy". It does not formally have any autonomuous status, which is logical: why give status to something you don't control. In negociations and political rethoric (but those are not legally bounded, at lest in theory), if Transnistria would accept the same or similar status as Gagauzia, the central government would agree right away. It is possible to get even more if know how to negociate. But without any settlement, the only de jure status it has is a separate teritorrial unit that can be given a status of large autonomy. Also, autonomuous territorial unit is not a pre-defined term. It is the term used in the Law that established the authonomy of Gagauzia, and only applies to it. We can not assume that the same term would be used for Transnistria. If fact, I would argue that it is more likely, a different term would be used. Puting Gagauzia and Transnistria in the same bowl without any legal backing is, sorry, original research. :Dc76 11:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, by Spetember 1990, Moldova has already changed the name RSSM. :Dc76 11:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Soverneign/separate has been avoided.:Dc76 12:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So the Transnistrian Declaration of Independence was actually a declaration of separation (now governmentless, but with a capital city in the lead paragraph)... Gotcha. Anyway, I'll revisit this in a week and see where everyone's at (it seems I only have weekly energy for this entry). El_C 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All this without touching on two most pressing issues, the laughably uneven and longwinded Crime and Human rights sections. Oh well. El_C 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to scare you away. I also have a little energy for this 1-2 days and then see you next month. :)

Transnistria did not declare cecession from USSR, it only wanted to leave Moldova. Independent is a very strong word. Capital cities have all the US states, and all territories in many parts of the world. "Capital of the county", even that, is also a phrase in use. Transnistria is not governmentless, it has authorities. Separatist, rough, whatever, but that still is a government. (Somalia is governmentless.) Whether in the future it will function legally as a local, autonomuous, independent or whatever else instead of unrecognized, only the future will show. But now it is simply a de jure unrecognized government which made the region de facto independent (well, we will not talk now about how independent is Transnistria from Russia, that's a different issue).

On an explanatory note, Moldova and the international community do not wish to go away with Transnistria's self-governance, simply to democratize it. Democratization, really-honestly free elections under the supervision of OSCE, without the particpation of the current leaders, and especially without their watchful eye, then the population of Transnistria would have its say, and everyone would listen to it. I am affraid you read Transnistria portraied not so bright and you think someone portrayed the people, while in fact it's the authorities who are so portrayd. 550,000 people are simply hijacked by the top 200 influential guys. They have nothing to say. Those 200 however would not go so easy, they loose everything if they loose power, they know they have blood on their hands, it is dangerous for them to loose power. While the 550,000 leave worse than you and me, b/c 200 watch carefully the population for any discent, they are afraid of any discent.

Back to the article, I am not tireless to tough all sections, I have my limits. I try to solve the easier problems. 1-2 months ago I contributed to the Human Rights section, and it was somewhat improved I remember. I don't know what it became now, I forgot what it was then. As for the Crime section, it never went above edit warring. I avoided that one. If you can help clear it, be my guest.:Dc76 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand but the article is called Transnistrian Declaration of Independence not separation. Not to boast, but I have written the intros to many tens of country articles as well as territories (this one makes the NKR and TRNC look easy), cities and so on. You can't delink government when the article exists in potential in {{Politics of Transnistria}} and having the capital (city) mentioned in the first paragraph (or the intro itself) is simply poor form and is something you will not find in establised articles. I'm not arguing about the facts so much about the readability and logical flow and, it is my opinion, that you introduction reads more poorly. Sorry. El_C 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed the link in Transnistrian Declaration of Independence. I don't find any exact text there, just the following:

<quote> On September 2, 1990, the second Extraordinary congress of People's Deputies of all levels of Pridnestrovie «expressing the will of the multinational population of Pridnestrovie expressed at the referendums and meetings of citizens» between 1989 and 1990, respecting and recognizing the rights to sovereignty and self-determination of all peoples of Pridnestrovie, understanding the historical responsibility for the fate of the Pridnestrovian people with their historical culture and traditions and with a view to creating conditions for preserving the Moldavian nation being guided by the article 2 of the Constitution of the USSR establishing sovereignty of the people the Second Extraordinary congress of people’s deputies of all levels of Pridnestrovie proclaimed the formation of a sovereign state of Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic as a part of the renewed Union.

Since then (the 2nd of September, 1990) the process of creation of the state machinery has begun. The authority was transferred to the Tiraspol city administration. </quote>

• According to this, it declared statehood (sovereignty), not independence. We will never know for sure before we see the actual text. It would be also nice to see the exact text of the Gorbachov's decree - I am sure it is well preserved in archives.
• I am sorry, did I delink something not red? Sorry, if i did so, I would restore. What was it?
• "having the capital (city) mentioned" It was alread in the introduction, all I did is not to erase it. If you want to put it in a sixth, separate 1-sentence paragraph, or something,ike that, be my guest. I simply couldn't find a good place for it.:Dc76 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be no mention of the capital in the intro; you removed a useful redlink; the article is called Declaration of Independence; the grammar and logical flow reads more poorly. I'm not sure I am able to state the aforementioned any more clear. El_C 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "de facto independent" is not NPOV. I changed it to "breakaway territory", per and many other. Dpotop 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, NPOV usage of that author Barry Bartmann would be "according to Barry Bartmann, Transnistria is a de facto independent state". Dpotop 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You should seek consensus first. Misplaced Pages is not obliged to use bbc wording (btw, do you agree to change the name of the article to Trans-Dniester like bbc calls it?); Transnistria is described as 'de facto independent' quite often, i. e. in the following articles - , , . Alaexis 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with "de facto independent" to come first, however I would like to point that the current form can be read (in fact, maybe even suggests) that Transnistria is de jure a state, but de jure not independent. In reality, its status is undetermined. It is, if I remember correctly the formulation, "a teritorrial unit that can have large autonomy". There is no mention of the word "state" or equivalent within Moldova's legislation. (What could be the result of possible negociations, if such were held, is a different question, worth discussing at Disputed status of Transnistria. Do you understand what I am saying, the difference between

"is a de facto independent state within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova"

as opposed to

"functions as a de facto independent state" ?

I do not insist on the order de jure/de facto. But then there should be "funtions", not "is". Otherwise, one reads "de facto" to refer to "independent" only, while it should refer to "state" as well.:Dc76 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is something better. It solves all problems:

"is a de facto independent territory "

What do you think? :Dc76 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it was you who introduced the word 'state' here first and now you're objecting to it )).

Before your edit the intro read 'de facto independent republic'; 'republic' is both 1. a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president and 2. a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government (). Transnistria is a political unit imho and its government fits the 1st definition therefore we could call PMR de facto independent republic (here the word republic is used in the second sense). So the old version is at least technically true. What about returning to it? Alaexis 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This definition is technically correct as shown as well as more descriptive than state.--Britlawyer 04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I introduced "is de jure a ..., and de facto an independent state". If we say so, then there is no ambiguity - everyone understands that de jure it is not a state. However, with the changed order, which was something you, not me did, we have "is de facto an independent state within the internationally recognised borders". This reads as if it were de jure a state, but that de facto that state is independent. That is false - it is NOT de jure a state. What you said next shows exactly that you are a reasonable person that has been misinformed. Namely, you say that in your oppinion it is a political unit (and then draw your conclusions from there). That is a statement that I guess you read or heard somewhere, which however is a misinformation. Transnistria is an administrative, not political unit. Comepletely different from the case of Abkhazia, Adjaria, South Osetia, Karabakh, which were political units at the moment when they tried (with foreign involvement, but that's a different question) to become independent. Transnistria was simply a set of 5 raions and 1 city, which never have been grouped together, until in 1998 Moldova adopted a law about territorial organization, that created Stanga Nistrului as a territorial unit "which can receive by an organic law a status of autonomy". In 2003, a new Moldovan law on territorial organization has made one change - calling it Transnistria, and no longer Stanga Nistrului. Another law addopted recently provides for the "basis" of a possible lartge autonomy. (Those are legal basis for possible negociations which Transnistrian leadership refuse); it does not mention anywhere statehood or sovereignty. (although I am sure Moldovan negociators would be willing to listen to any proposition as long as the Transnistrian leadership, hijacking the population of Transnistria, would stop refusing dialog.) The status is the leverage that Moldova has upon Transnistria, the only way to influence the thing, therefore the Moldovan law did not conceed anything more than territorial unit untill there are negociations.

With all due respect, you can not create a state where there is none. Please, do not get angre on me, I am not your enemy, this is an "academic" discussion, and it would be nice to keep it as "academic" as possible. The word "territory" reflects a state of facts. Whether we like or not the current situation is a different question, and perhaps worth addressing in a section or in a separate article. The situation in Transnistria is abnormal, but that does not justify us to try making it normal with our words, we can only refelct what is. :Dc76 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

republic: a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic> (for reference, from your sourse):Dc76 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Moldova's legislation, there is no territorial or political unit called "republic" inside it. Transnistria is not de jure a nation. To use the word "republic", one would need to find a legal sourse using it. Which does not exist. The word "republic", unlike the word "apple" has juridical conotations, and I object to its usage when no other country but the former USSR understood by "republic" a territorial unit. Moldova does not!!

Whether it should be a state, what different parties and actors say about this - let's write a section about that! :Dc76 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, besides this point (which IMO doesn't make sense to continue arguing, b/c we simply say again and again the same things, and it is legally so obvious), you do a great job in this page and in other Transnistria related articles. Let us colaborate from a positive basis. Continuing this discussion would only generate mistrust in palces we can otherwise automatically understand each other. Rather than making our comments worthless (practicall) here, let us be pragmatical and make them useful in Disputed status of Transnistria - everything you said has place there, and which is more, needs your attention there. If you want a section in this article with the same title - that is also fine with me.:Dc76 14:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The words 'political unit' have no legal meaning afaik, therefore some common sense should be used. And PMR is called republic sometimes (). Alaexis 07:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good referrence you found. May I introduce it in the bibliography? The first time this seven-page article refers to Transnistria other than by its name is in line 5 on page 2, as "break-away region". I did not read everything yet, but as far as I have, I can not find the word "republic". At any rate, we (all the editors here) do not "forbid" the usage of this word, but simply say that its usage must be accompanied by a context from which one should undoubtably understand who uses this term. If "republic" is presented as a fact - that is not good, if "republic" is presented as the desire, what Transnistrian leadership or its sympaphyzers want as a fact in the future - that's ok. Also it is ok to say "the self-proclaimed republic", which is BTW the term more often used within Moldova when refering to authorities rather than Transnistria as a geographic territory. From the context of the scholar sources, as opposed to non-scholar or propaganda, one immediately understands that the status "republic" is not a fact, but a self-proclaimed thing. (It is not just called, it is clear who calls it so.) I am only saying to keep the same thing in mind when we edit the article.:Dc76 14:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I've made a mistake... I wanted to give a ref to the FRIDE's home page where the paper to which I gave a link earlier is described like this:

Moldova, Transnistria and European Democracy Policies by Jos Boonstra.

Moldova has made only limited progress towards consolidating democracy and settling the internal separatist Transnistrian conflict. What are the EU and US doing to assist solving the conflict and how can democracy find its way to the break-away republic Transnistria?

It's just an example of PMR being called a republic in the non-partisan source. You could answer that the word 'break-away' is added but 'de facto independent de jure part of Moldova' is the same thing imho. Alaexis 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The sourse is more than non-partisan, but also scholarly. There could be many non-partisan and non-scholarly sources who may or may not use incorrectly some term - simply because unlike a scholarly work they were concerned only with informing, without considering carefully all details. There was never in my mind an idea to doubt the quality of your sourse. I took the liberty and already included it into the article.

I am not sure i know all WP abreviation, what does "h" in the imho stands for?

Obviously, you understand my argument "de facto independent self-proclaimed republic..." And I do get yours. But imho, adding later "de jure part of Moldova" is not quite the same thing as "self-proclaimed" adjective to the noun "republic", b/c there is a second adjective to the word "republic", namely "independent", and one is lead to believe that only this first adjective is contested, while it is the noun "republic" that is contested as well. In other words, you could say "de facto independent republic, and de jure part of Moldova and not a republic". "part of Moldova" contradicts "independent", and "not a republic" contradicts "a republic". As many de facto's, so many de jure's. :Dc76 16:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When discuss about introduction please look also in archives, where we had long discussions and many editors gave their input. The majority opinion was that no description as "country" or "state" is acceptable, I would say same is with "republic". We should use either "region which declared its independence..." either "territory which declared its independence...". I am tired to repeat the same arguments each time a new user appear on this page. Look also at Britanica or other prestigious enciclopedias, they don't use "state", "country" or "republic".--MariusM 17:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

14th Army tag

To whomever added that tag, what information do you claim is missing? El_C 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As explained here, I removed the missing information tag since, in the context of this editorial dispute, it almost appears to take the form of an editorial statement (one which is overemphasized by virtue of being placed at the top of the article, with a flashy frame, image, and so on). Simply put, if information about the role of the former 14th Soviet Army is missing, just add it directly to the article. We cannot, however, expect to have such a tag in place indefinitely, especially considering that the tag instructions did not appear to have been followed in that we were not made aware as to what the editor who entered it expects, specifically. El_C 03:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, one can only tag for a few days without giving supersolid reasons. It is time to write into the article, not to tag. Well, if one has something controversial, add the controversial portions first here. We may be able to helf reformulate for neutrality.:Dc76 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The information was added in the meantime. I expanded it :

Dl.goe 08:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Tones" means different colours, sounds or moods by the way. A small point but it makes all the difference to the meaning. Jonathanpops 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:-) :Dc76 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage of admin powers in content disputes

I disagree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's way of using his admin power in content disputes - I am reffering at the new 2 weeks block of EvilAlex . There are several users who expressed disagreement with Alaexis proposals about introduction (Dl.goe, DC76, Ldingley, me) and the EvilAlex variant of introduction was discussed long time ago in talkpage. Alaexis added POV word "state" in introduction with misleading edit summary "restore compromise intro". Some time ago we were discussing between "region" and "territorry" . The big majority was against any usage of "country". Now you want us to accept the description "state"? Of course, Future Perfect at Sunrise has the right of its own opinions but blocking those who disagree with him is not fair. Ye, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but is not a dictatorship either, we are still allowed to express our opinions about article improvements, I hope. Building consensus through eliminating opposition is an usual transnistrian way, but not a wikipedian way. Intimidating users with other opinions is not the purpose of admin tools. I see the block of EvilAlex as an intimidation attempt for all those who will be inclined to support similar views. For the record: the intro Evil was putting was almost the same "compromise intro", to which even Mauco agreed, and for which sockpuppet Pernambuco fighted so much (against me).--MariusM 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record it was Dc76 who added unredognised state . I've changed it to ...state within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova. Transnistria's independence is not recognised by any state or international organisation. Alaexis 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be so fussed about the word "state" if it was used in the context of being part of Moldova, which means switching the sentence around like this: "Transnistria, also known as Pridnestrovie, is internationally recognised as a state of Moldova, but operates as a de facto independent state after breaking away from Moldova in 1990. Transnistria's independence is not recognised by any state or international organisation and it is de jure part of Moldova." Though this means, I think, that the word "state" is overused so perhaps "region" is better after all.

I do however agree with Marius that the recent blocks have been too heavy-handed. I would complain about Future Perfect's blocking of me (and the way El_C warned me for reverting vandalism, and that warning was used as a means to accuse me of continued edit warring, when even a cursory glance and the history should show that I hardly ever edit the main page) if I thought it would do any good and I would be dealt with fairly, but I do not believe this would happen. Jonathanpops 09:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has been informed about all the blocks. If you want a review, ask them to review it. A charge of "Admin abuse" has already been registered on the evidence page there; if you're unhappy, you can ask the Arbcom for a temporary injunction against me doing blocks in this case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just want to mention my personal impression from months past that Jonathanpops is IMO one of the most (if not the most) rational and neutral editors of this article and in the discussions here. Moreover, he is very patient to other people's arguments, and only when there is a clear breach of logic he contradicts you. I never found myself in a position to argue with him on something he said about my arguments. B/c everytime he made observations to me, regardless of what my oppionion about the point was, I knew very well that it was a reaction to an argument of mine that was a clear stretch. So, to hear that Jonathanpops reverted something that was not clear POV or vandalism can have only two explanations:

• it was a POV or vandalism, and whoever says it wasn't is wrong
• Jonathanpops was sleepy and meant to edit a diffent article

There is simply no other alternative.:Dc76 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

croatian?

there is croatian article, please put it transnistria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.139.175 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, not sure what you mean. An Misplaced Pages:Interwiki link to hr:Transnistria? It seems it's already there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because I've already added it))))) Alaexis 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I have created 7 templates in order to facilitate browsing through the articles related to Transnistria. I simply looked at the articles in the category Transnistria and its subcategories, and have grouped them. I suggest to use them in the correcponding articles. And every time there is an new article, please include it both into the template, and in the apropriate subcategory. :Dc76 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

articles go to ], ], ] Template:Transnistria/Conflict articles go to ]

articles go to ] Template:Transnistria/Politics

also see Template:Transnistria

forget these:

Template:Transnistria/Economy Template:Transnistria/People Template:Transnistria/Press Template:Transnistria/History

I object about the template "People". The number of people from Transnistria with Misplaced Pages articles can increase very much and such a template will become too loaded. I don't know any other region or country to have a template in Misplaced Pages with its people. A category - yes, but we had already the category "People from Transnistria", no need for an other category.--MariusM 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, for once I agree with MariusM! :-) I'm generally not enthusiastic about the way the template links to subpages. These are pages that look like templates and live in template space, but don't really function as templates but as standalone list pages when you click on them. That's rather unorthodox, I'd say. And Marius is right, an open-ended set of topics such as "people from..." is catered for best by a category, possibly by a list page, but not by a navbox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Then I trust you guys to remove from the template People all except the few that are really relevant. Or, do you want to go away with the template? I don't mind that, either. As I said, my whole purpose was to account for the existing pages on the topic, which rather looked disorganized in the categories. However now I realize that "People" are an exception - the only logical way to classify people is alphabetically. :Dc76 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I must mention the amount of pages about the "Transnistrian politicians" that Mauco created. Very much like writing articles about family members... :Dc76 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Economy and Society" template also seems an open-ended one (thinking also at "Miscelaneous" line). The territorial template is a good idea, but I'm not sure if we need one single template with all villages or a template only with the administrative regions, and for each region a separate template with all its villages.--MariusM 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this link while trying to find additional information about Transdniestria for research into its statehood issues: http://www.travel-journal.org/europe/trans-dniester-republic/ . It is only one page so probably not suitable for the External links. --Britlawyer 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To MariusM - I agree to arase "Economy and Society" as well, provided the following 5 articles are mentioned in some other template:

• Demographic history of Transnistria
• 2004 Census in Transnistria
• Moldovan schools in Transnistria (actually, this one was already present)
• Transnistrian Republican Bank (e.g Politics --> Institutions)
• Transnistrian ruble (e.g. Politics --> Symbils)

To Britlawyer - I think a list of links to different tourist guides, like the one you give, is something this article misses and needs. Would you like creating one, please? As for the content, I would rather not base on someone personal's impretion, which is excellent as a travel recommendation, but frankly speaking does not have legal weight. What he/she says is what he/she saw there on the ground, that Transnistria functions as if it were a separate state. Noone doubts that. He/she him/herself makes this point again when warning about visas and gives recommendation to bribe if there are problems. The best phrase i like is "A stay of a few days is enough." :-) Said in other way, don't overtry your luck, otherwise "the police and border guards will love to separate you from your passport, your belongings, and your money" It is worth IMO that the readers of this WP article have travel guides links at one click - they are great in practice. :Dc76 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To MariusM again - according to both 1998 and 2003 Moldovan laws, the cities and communes of Transnistria are not grouped into raions. Transnistrian autorities simply keep the old Soviet division and boundaries of the raions (with the exceptions of the villages on the right bank from 3 of the raions) - e.g. Camenca had prior to 1989 some 10 villages on the west bank of Dniester which are now in Floresti district, etc. Well, I don't mind if you group them, if you think that is so necessary. But I have no list from some sourse (it would have to be a Transnistrian or an old Soviet one) - you have to look them up on the map. I can double check you if you do this, to make sure there is no mistake. :Dc76 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I modified accoding to your suggestions. Only 3 templates + the main one. I have already introduced the 2nd template in all geography articles. We will have to do the same with "Conflict" and "Politics" articles one day.:Dc76 17:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just Back from PMR

I've just returned from a fact finding mission in PMR. I don't have time to edit much here but I'm happy to assist. . Leave question on my page. Buffadren 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

crossed out as sockpupetry to avoid blocks.:Dc76 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong, he is different from Mauco.:Dc76 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No Moldovans in Transnistrian government

While Moldovans are a third of Transnistrian population (32% based on Transnistrian 2004 data, but they were 38% based on 1989 census data, don't know if Transnistrian data are reliable), in the last Transnistrian government, no ethnic Moldovans take part. Source: . We should include this in the article, ethnic intolerance against Moldovans is a serious problem in the Pridnestrovian "Moldovan" Republic. What the schoolteacher told to the french journalist team: "Moldavian here means something humiliating. It's as we are an inferior race. You can tell imediatelly. It's the way they say it: You, Moldavian. It immediatelly tells you, you're the lowest of the low in the region", is true. In the last time PMR regime gave up the last efforts to save appearances.--MariusM 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

97 refferences

We have 97 refferences in our article, a little more effort and we will reach 100! This is a good result of the fact that debates here forced everybody to cite refferences for each sentence they add in the article.--MariusM 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I re-read the current intro and "Geography" section and I find that a major ambiguity still exist. Don't you feel we should to differentiate:

1. Transnistria, the de facto independent territory fro
2. Transnistria, the part of the Republic of Moldova from the left bank of the Dniestr?

For instance, the "geography" secction corresponds to the second, whereas the intro corresponds to the first. :) Dpotop 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I know. The problem is, what is this article about, the territory controlled by the separatist government, or a geographic region of Moldova? The difference between the two is "to get the first from the second, take 9 localities out, and add 7 other". Together with 3 other localities, that makes the 19 disputed ones, which comprise the security zone. (In fact, except for sniper fire at bridges situated elsewhere, the 1992 war never exceded the administrative limits of these 19 localities.) Does it make sence to have two different articles, one about Transnistria the breakaway territory, and other about Transnistria the left bank? If not, we should describe very clear what is this difference. You are absolutely welcome to edit the article to ensure the understanding of this difference. In fact, if you feel the ambiguity and edit to avoid it - it is better than me editting b/c I know a priori which village is where, so I'm clearly not the best to spot an ambiguity in the presentation.:Dc76 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We've had this sort of discussion before. The best approach might be Transnistria as referring to the left-bank territory while using PMR to indicate controlling authority and associated boundaries of control and buffer zones. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Who's against? Dpotop 07:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Before I cast my vote for or against this proposal I'd like to know what exactly do you want to do. What do you mean by, for example, "differentiating"? Alaexis 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vercrumba here had a good idea. Create an article "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" and put all info referring to the political entity there. Then, the article "Transnistria_(geography)" covers the geography of the region inside Moldova, and "Transnistria_WWII" the politics of WWII. An then, Transnistria is a disambig page. Dpotop 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To create an article "Transnistria_(geography)" is obviously a very good idea. On the other hand, don't you think that the article about PMR (no matter how it's called) should contain a short overview of the republic's geography? The articles about most of the world's entities (both sovereign and non-sovereign) contain at least an outline of their geography (see Tatarstan#Geography, Galicia (Spain)#Geography etc). Alaexis 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, things like these

ro:Transnistria, ro:Republica Moldovenească Nistreană
and
ru:Приднестровье, ru:Приднестровская Молдавская Республика

are meant, I believe. --Illythr 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but "the devil is in the details". Perhaps, as Alaexis says, we must first be sure what goes where and takes what form. This article is bigger than the ones in ro and ru WP. If we admit that Transnistria becomes a disambig page, then what exactly articles it will disambig to, and which sections would go where? Again, so far I only regard this as a theoretical question.:Dc76 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

some organizations, such as CIS-EMO

CIS-EMO is one, controversial as stated in CIS-EMO, any others?Xx236 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, only CIS-EMO. All others dismissed the elections. Reason: OSCE proposed to organize them one year later under its tight supervision, and imediately following this proposal by OSCE, PMR authorities said the want to do early elections. :Dc76 13:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic incidents

I fail to see why these are included on the page. They're just a laundry list of three crimes from the last ten years.--Nydas 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Crime, Human rights, and Politics sections. "Laundry list" you say? Heh... --Illythr 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

War of independence?

I consider the expression "war of independence" as POV, we should use War of Transnistria instead, this is the name of corresponding Misplaced Pages article. We can use also the expression "Russian-Moldovan war", which is accurate in my opinion, considering the involvement of Russian Army.--MariusM 13:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Russian-Moldovan" would be incorrect, as the 14th Army had directly participated only in the very last stage of the war, ending it. "Transnistria fought the War of Transnistria" is rather redundant. Do you have any more name suggestions? --Illythr 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then let's name it "war of Transnistria".--MariusM 14:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reread my second sentence above, please. Perhaps other regulars here can make more proposals as well. --Illythr 14:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I propose "Separatist forces fought in the war of Transnistria backed by 14th Russian (former Soviet) Army". One of my old concerns is the usage of word "transnistrian" only related to pro-separatist groups.--MariusM 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That'd be only more POV. It's difficult to discern between Transnistrians who joined the war because they wanted to secede and those who just wanded to stop the "visiting" volunteers and later shellings from the right bank. Perhaps something like this:

"...tensions between the central Moldovan government and local authorities had culminated into the ((War of Transnistria)) in ((1992)). After the war was ended, due to the ((involvement of the Russian 14th army)), the pre-war status-quo of de-facto Transnistrian independence was preserved. Since then, the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika (differentiation with Transnistria here) has exercised de-facto control over..." --Illythr 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If they achieved independence as a result of this war why can't it be called "war for independence"? Alæxis_¿question? 15:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Illythr, You forget one category of Transnistrians: Those who were against separatist regime. Some of them participated in the War of Transnistria against the separatists in favour of the moldovan government, some of them didn't participate at all at the war, they were just victims.--MariusM 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis: Because independence is not recognized. We can not be sure if this temporary status-quo will become permanent or will disappear (see Găgăuzia case).--MariusM 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marius, even recognised independent countries sometimes disappear. PMR's independence has lasted 15 years so the war that had led to it has all the rights to b called 'war for independence'. Alæxis_¿question? 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Telegraph has named it a war of independence. If the war was fought to maintain or to achieve independence, or to defend a de facto independence, then it was a war of independence. End of story.--Britlawyer 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You should present refference. Anyhow, while The Sunday Telegraph is a good source, is not the only source and certainly we are not considering "end of story" everything where this newspaper expressed an opinion.--MariusM 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Our war was fought for independence. It was a war of independence, don't call it anything else to hide that fact.

The population of Moldova viewed it as a war of Russian agression, especially given the fact that its was started on the day Moldova became an UN member, March 2, 1992. For them it was a war to prevent Moldova's departing Moscow's sphere of influence. The biggest achievement of Russia in the war was not the independence of Smirnov's regime, but the appointment of a new government in Chisinau, replacing the mildly reformist Muravschi government with pro-Russia pro-CIS Sangheli one. The war was not about Transnistria, but about Moldova as a whole, as it was fought not only on the left side of Diester, and as it had major consequences for Moldova first. Transnistria's de facto independence was a by-product. Therefore, IMO it is correct to call it War of Transnistria, not war of independence. For it was in fact about the independence of Moldova from Russia's interference, and the result was non-independence.:Dc76 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Snegur was indeed quick to call all remaining 14th Army personnel that refused to join the Moldovan Army an illegal presence (I think only the frontists used the term "occupation force" at the time). He made sure to do this AFTER Russia handed the Army's right-bank equipment over to Moldova on 23 March AND put the 14th Army under its jurisdiction on 12 April, though. So you say that the Russian aggression began on 2 March? <heavy_sarcasm>It must be one of the inexplicable aspects of the Russian soul, then - to provide those you are currently invading with heavy military equipment...</heavy_sarcasm> Hey, Dc76, you can read Russian, right? Here, this book should provide an interesting perspective for you. Read at least the "Хаос как средство обогащения" and "Создание армии ПМР" chapters, if you don't have the time for the whole book. --Illythr 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)You are not reading the text. Before you changed the text it said: "Transnistria fought a war of independence" so it is clear WHO fought it (Transnistria) and for Transnistria it was and it is a war of independence. The line says nothing about Moldova, so change it back.

Buffadren is MarkStreet's sock (Des Grant, Drogheda)

An other sockpuppetry case discovered . In the same time, it seems that newbies Soonpush and Showninner, while sockpuppets one for an other, are not related with Buffadren/MarkStreet/Mark us street/Henco/Esgert/Truli (or was it just because Mark made a trip in Transnistria and didn't edit from his usual computer?). The tactic of Mark is to throw away the accounts on which he accumulate blocks, before receiving a permanent ban. Is a good tactic, somebody suggested me to use it, but I am proud of my editing history in Misplaced Pages and I don't want to lose it. Illythr and Alaexis, I hope you are not angry on me because of my habit to ask checkuser against opponents.--MariusM 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Illythr but I myself haven't ever been angry with any actions of yours. Alæxis_¿question? 15:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear that. Life is fun, have a nice day. I was under this impression after you added in the arbitration case as an "evidence" against me the fact that I was asking checkuser for some of my opponents.--MariusM 15:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Mark bears the responsibility of carrying over his mistakes into his new wiki-career himself. There is nothing wrong in creating a new account to shake off old prejudices, but using it in the same manner as the previous ones, is prone to, well, people eventually making the connection with all the bad consequences. --Illythr 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, as far as Showninner/Soonpush is concerned, I was taking it for granted that they were operated through open proxies just like all the other incarnations of the Transnistria troll we've seen over the last few weeks. I don't know who is behind it. Probably the identification with Bonnie was a bit premature - in fact, Bonnie has contacted me in private and claimed (plausibly) it's not him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was pretty obvious that Buffadren is MarkStreet's sockpuppet for quite a while when he kept insisting on the link to his website be included, which I got blocked for removing by the way, and his recent announcement on his "fact finding mission to Transnistria" was so transparent a 10 year old child could see through it. Jonathanpops 18:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This person posted something on the Discussion page of "List of sovereign states" where he said that he was a legal expert on international law. This was after I posted a request here for advice, but no one else answered me and I was disappointed that none of you from this page found it in your hearts to help. My request was posted in good faith.--Britlawyer 23:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Britlawyer, I have been active in Transnistria for quite some time, though not as much of late as things have been in better hands (from my frame of reference) with the enforced departure of editor Mauco. It is probably fair to say that I represent the viewpoint of a fair number of the editors here.

My desire for rigor on the "List of sovereign states" is based on non-sovereign until proven truly sovereign, both in theory and in practice--not sovereign according to some theoretical "bar" applied in willful ignorance of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the controlling authorities being WP:OR deemed sovereign. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sock for anyone, nor am i opponent of anyone here, I'm here to help all of you keep the peace. The edit J-pops refers to was agreed by others I was just protecting that as I would if a Moldovan link was removed. If you check my history you will see my edits are for both sides Buffadren 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but sockpuppetry does not automatically imply some punishment, such as a block? I did not expect Buffadren around for quite a few days. Aren't there any admins around to enforce rules? Dpotop 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, "Mark Street" and "Buffadren" didn't edit simultaneously, or did they? Unless that was the case, there's probably no case to be made for "abusive sockpuppetry". We don't normally prohibit people silently giving up one account and creating a new one. The similarity with Britlawyer is still suggestive, I must say, but they were checked and came out apparently unrelated. (Which doesn't mean they couldn't still be the same, we just can't prove it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth my IP number is the exact same as countless other people, so what ? that does not make me a sock. Buffadren 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work that way. Mark Street has a broadband connection (from checking before). Although technically it is assigned a "dynamic" address by a DHCP server, in fact, to reduce overhead, the DHCP server will remember who connected from where and will always reassign the same address over a pre-defined span of time. (Some service provider IP address re-assignments are even more permanent than at the DHCP level.) So, if you turn everything off at night and turn everything on in the morning, you'll still receive the same IP address as the day before. Furthermore, given the algorithms used for assigning out IP addresses and how address ranges are pre-assigned out to network segments to insure availability of addresses for all registered users, the odds of two completely different people showing up here on one Misplaced Pages page with the same IP address are, sadly for you, Buffadren, quite nil.

    Expert in "international law"? You clearly mislead and misrepresent (and as a total aside, commit the same kinds of typos as Mark Street).

    If you're not banned, we can now simply ignore you. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Future Performance, I find your position blatantly biased, for the following reasons:

1. Buffadren, Showninner, and Soonpush edited Transnistria simultaneously, and they are confirmed socks of Mark Street, as you can read in the initial link posted by MariusM .
2. A user does have the right to change his/her name, and Mark Street did mark this on his page. But he left us to believe he is a new editor. Therefore, I don't see how his behavior falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Furthermore, I think this falls under Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors, which is explicitly forbidden.

It is not acceptable from you, as an admin, to enforce Zero tolerance with some users and allow other users to blatantly infringe on wikipedia policy. Dpotop 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have to correct you, but Showninner/Soonpush were not shown to be the same as Buffadren, look at the checkuser case. Whether the Mark Street = Buffadren change deserves sanctions is a question I'd leave to the ongoing Arbcom case; it is certainly nothing that requires immediate blocking at this point. And I'd be curious to hear where you think I'd applied different standards in a comparable case elsewhere; all my Transnistria blocks were about edit-warring, and I have in fact enforced zero tolerance in that respect against Buffadren like against all the rest. Also, please stop messing around with my username. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to correct you, Future Perfect at Sunrise, but you didn't enforced the same standards for everybody. You blocked Buffadren for 4 days for edit-warring, while you gave to EvilAlex 2 weeks. Was it because you thought Buffadren's previous block log was shorter? Then you should reconsider, as Buffadren = MarkStreet = Mark us street and you should add at the block log of Buffadren previous blocks received under the names MarkStreet and Mark us street. Creating the new sock Buffadren was certainly with the intention of avoiding scrutiny from other editors, you know very well his fake statement "This user has voluntarily retired" . MarkStreet/Mark us street/Henco/Esgert/Truli/Buffadren is not an "involved part" in the arbcom case. You are not working in a profesional way here, you already showed your bias dissmissing opinion of all people who share similar views like me as being "my political allies" . I don't know if it was or not your intention, but the effect of your actions is to intimidate people who have similar opinions like me, especially as you showed your willingness to block users without clear rules. I'm still expecting apologies for the block you gave me in 17 April, when I had only one edit in mainspace but 11 edits in talkpage, and you considered this as "edit-warring". You added this block as an "evidence" against me in arbcom case, I don't know if you realise that this is not an evidence against me, it is an evidence against you. Stop labeling me "POV warrior" or "propagandist".--MariusM 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am asking everyone to refrain from talking with sockpupets avoiding bans, please. :Dc76 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results need no be confirmed. Will update:Dc76 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong, he is different from Mauco.:Dc76 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro needs shortening

The intro is way too long and I suggest we move the final paragrapgh into the Russian Military in Transnistria section. It is not really needed in the intro.

Here is the paragrapgh I refer to.

A 2,500-strong Russian military contingent(14th Army), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. Moldova and OSCE demand their withdrawal. According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria is "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia". Buffadren 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal, because Russian military presence in Transnistria is core and esential to the conflct and its resolution. The absence of this (such a) paragraph was (as I understand) one of the reasona why the article had a {{NPOV}} tag before. The introduction is however indeed too long, as the previous (3rd) paragraph mostly repeats stuff from the first. A good idea would be to shorten it to one sentence. But I don't know how to do it without breaching coverage of all facts and POVs.:Dc76 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not correct to single out the Russian peacekeeping force. Ukrainian troops are there too but they are not mentioned in the introduction, nor are the Transnistrian or Moldovan peacekeepers. It is better to say that an multinational peacekeeping force protects the border.. Buffadren 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is very correct to single out Russian peacekeeping force, as the presence of Russian 14th Army was considered illegal by European Court of Human Rights. Russian Army was actively involved in the War of Transnistria and its presence there contradicts international law, and Russia's own commitments to take out the troops.--MariusM 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia's presence there is enshrined by Moldova, PMR, OSCE and Ukraine. Their involvment in the conflict should be inserted in that section. Buffadren 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet's comments crossed out. :Dc76 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PLease reinsert my text, I am not a sock, I have one account, I also should have a voice here. Buffadren 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments above on the nature of IP address assignment. Mark Street insisted Wikipedians not agreeing with him on the Transnistria page were killing Transnistrian children. He lied about the content of his own paper. (Tom De Waal incident.) Hardly someone who was/is here to contribute objectively. (Apologies, don't have the time to find the diff's right now--if needed to enforce a ban, I'm sure they can be provided.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser results need no be confirmed. Will update:Dc76 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong, he is different from Mauco.:Dc76 20:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins vital role

I want to highlight the vital role the admins have played on this page in recent weeks, even though I got blocked for inserting a link agrred by all. The admins should however be aware of the following.

There is an intensive campaign to collapse the Transnistrian economy by

1- International Economic Blockade

2- An Information propaganda war designed to present Transnistria as a crime ridden, human rights black hole.

This wiki page is a significant part of point 2 above.

There are a few serious editors here that think the propaganda war is wrong and try to present the situation as it really is and there are those that work as full time employees of a certain Ministry of Foreign Affairs and they will never write one single line here that even mildly presents the truth or normality in Transnistria. Their mission is to blacken Transnistria's face so badly. I am not a sock of anyone and only edit under this name, my crime here is I entered edits that were good and bad about Transnistria, the problem was that these editors only wanted the bad stuff I could give them. I am not a Transnistrian but I know Transnistria and I think it is wrong that Wiki should be used with malice to hurt those that have suffered a war and are trying to survive it consequences. For some the war is still not over and they cannot leave the Transnistrians alone and in peace, for them Wiki represents a new way to attack Transnistria while the peacekeepers keep the armies apart on the border. Thankfully the Admins have it sussed at last. I don't have the time to edit here much but I do feel compelled to assist where injustice exists. Buffadren 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark, and I can call you that with complete confidence, you neglected your prior saw of myself and others killing Transnistrian children. I'll have to go off and find your original accusation. Perhaps in the next day or two, if you are still here. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Transnistrian government is not responsible for the economic difficulties in Transnistria, the entire resaponsibility belong to some editors from Misplaced Pages. This is reminding me a post of Mark us street: "Your campaign onthese pages is keeping Moldovans and Transnistrians in a economic quagmire". Admins in Misplaced Pages are sympatetic to you cause, dear Buffadren/MarkStreet/Mark us street/Esgert/Truli/Henco. EvilAlex (a transnistrian himself, but an evil transnistrian, or an "anti-transnistrian" transnistrian, to use a characterisation of Future Perfect at Sunrise, is already blocked for two weeks, admins are involved in adding evidence against both me and EvilAlex in the arbitration case (the only one who is not adding evidence against me is the involved part User:William Mauco), hopefully we will both be banned and Mauco will return from his block, then a new life will start in Transnistria, wikipedia page will look like "Tiraspol Times" and transnistrian economy will flourish. Is allways usefull for any government to have somebody to blame for economic difficulties.--MariusM 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are not blocked, Some people want to work on the issue, to resolve things and work in a constructive way to reach an understanding that respects the cultures, traditions and aspriationss of all sides. If you are barred we lose that.However, the current version that serves only to blacken Transnistria is not an acceptable version either. Buffadren 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice from you that you changed your attitude about me. I still remember "Marius is in breach of Misplaced Pages rules and I request he be restricted from editing the main page".--MariusM 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpupet's comments crossed out. MariusM, please refrain from talking with sockpupets. :Dc76 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. I have one account. Everyone should have the right to speak here.Buffadren 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dc76, what are you doing? Banning Buffadren is up to admins and you are not one of them, right? Reverting his edits just because he's a sockpuppet is unacceptable also. Alæxis_¿question? 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, current state of affairs is, Buffadren is a reincarnation of Mark Street. Not more and not less. Neither Mark Street nor Buffadren are currently blocked or banned. Other sockpuppet allegations linking either of these to Mauco or any other currently active account have not been confirmed by checkuser. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dc, I must ask you to revert yourself, you have no rights to unilaterally declare Buff a persona non grata on this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Mark Street and Mauco the same? I believe I saw this very clearly in checkuser reports. Can not find it now, I am not so good at browsing WP. Could you, please, help. If I am mistaken, then obviously I will revert myself.

I knew nothing personal about the editors of this article, except two cases (before finding out about Mauco's sockpupetry), in which the two editors claimed it openly:

• EvelAlex is originally from Tighina, according to EvelAlex
• Mark Street is an employe of Tiraspol Times, according to Marc Street

Tiraspol Times is a propaganda newspaper, and it has been long discussed and agreed (even the accounts Mauco and Pernambuco agreed to this) that such sites could not be used as sources (from both sides of the conflict). Tiraspol Times was specifically mentioned.

If Mark Street is not Mauco, then I will restore everything - even if he is an editor of TT, if he is not banned, I will welcome him here. But, no usage of propaganda from TT, please. Fut.Perf., could you, please, advise:Dc76 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is we have to treat Mark and Mauco as different, according to the current checkuser results. As for TT links, I'm not here as a content arbitrator, but I'd personally find it reasonable to exclude them. And, if Britlawyer now takes over the role of rallying for the inclusion of that link, I'm beginning do hear ducks quacking somewhere in the background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a link to those checkuser results, I would sincerely apprecite. That should settle it. As for TT and ducks, I am not sure I know the full meaning of the expression, so rather than misunderstanding something it was not meant, let me just add that there could be 100 webpages about Transnistria linked here in see also. To not include TT was the result of discussion about including only the most important and reliable ones. I am glad you share the same POV. Otherwise, I am sure the other side will also come with 10 other simmilar sites. We would object to including in the article Fascism a link to some Goebels-like sites. And I see no bias if in the same article is included a link to Holocaust. Holocaust-POV and Goebels-POV are not equal. The first has the characteristic of being truth, because there are scolarly sources there (note, I am not even saying b/c it is the historical truth); the second of being propaganda. As I said somewhere before, BBC and TT can not stand on the same level. :Dc76 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)\

Since my crosses have been already undone now, I guess there is no harm if I say godbye for today, and check tomorrow. If M=MS, I will add them back tomorrow, if M=/=MS, then I will pute notes to my notes during crossing.:Dc76 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong, he is different from Mauco.:Dc76 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just as a clarification what I meant with the duck, a reference to a duck test, in the context of sockpuppetry on Misplaced Pages, means that we can sometimes determine somebody is a sockpuppet even if we don't have checkuser proof, simply on the basis of identical behaviour. "If it quacks like a duck (sock), swims like a duck (sock), and walks like a duck (sock), it is a duck (sock)". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks:Dc76 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetting of Mauco Marc Street, confusion

Dear Mauco, if you are banned for sockpuppetting for 2 months, why are you not civilized and wait it out? Remember how much you deceived us with Pernambuco - I thought for months he was a true editor trying to bring a discussion between me and you. I have had enough now - I have tried hard to tolerate you here, even if you constantly edit wared, just for the sake of learning your side's voice, but this behavior exceeds all limits. I would like this on the public record: from this moment on I would like to see Mauco/Mark Street/Pernambuco/Buffadren/etc/etc permanently blocked for sockpupetting. We have had enough of you! :Dc76 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buffadren&diff=130541396&oldid=130535541, I understand:

 Confirmed. 193.120.95.11 = MarkStreet = Mark us street = Henco = Esgert = Truli = Buffadren = DES GRANT (DUBLIN, IRELAND)

Dc76 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NOT Confirmed MORE Propaganda. Here is what it says,  Confirmed. Buffadren = 193.120.95.11 = Mark us street. The checkuser log shows that 193.120.95.11 is in fact Mark (the edit was true). Soonpush = Showninner, which are not related to the others.Voice-of-All 14:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This has already been explained that I use a muti IP account shared with many others...end of investigation. Buffadren 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your on about, I am nothing to do with Mauco as Admin will tell you. Now back to the programme please and lets agree to take the anti Transnistria propaganda out. Buffadren 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Buffadren, if it turns out you are not Mauco, I will restore everything I crossed out, and correct myself - I have verticality. However, note, that even you are a sockpupet of another account etc, all I did was cross out several comments. I did not erase any of your comment, as you did with mine. I restored them, please do not erase them. Edit your comments, not mine, please. :Dc76 19:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I got the link, they are different from Mauco. I am sorry for confusion. I left a message in all places I've modified. :Dc76 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, Mauco typed too well to be confused with Mark Street. :-) But the fact remains, Buffadren is banned user Mark Street.

    As "Mark Street" claims to represent the "Tiraspol Times" and "Mauco" (aka William Maurice aka someone who failed to prove themselves as legitimate to journalist Edward Lucas after having Lucas jump through hoops to prove his legitimacy/existence) admits to attending IDCISS "conventions," there is no doubt that the campaign to paint the PMR regime as legitimate is well financed and well staffed. As the most likely place to be directed by a google search, and at zero additional cost to have their content broadcast on the Internet, Misplaced Pages is now the prime target for those seeking to sow disinformation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is so true.:Dc76 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

I've seen a couple of people bring up that Mark us street was banned and I have found no evidence on that. He may have reneged on his retirement promise but there's no policy on Misplaced Pages would circumvent that really... He's already been blocked for 3RR violations and will continue to do so regardless of his past really. This would only be an issue if he used his other account to circumvent policy which I haven't really seen yet. Sasquatch t|c 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You should read Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Mark street did exactly that. Dpotop 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with tolerating Marc Street if he is not banned. I would also prefer to know when a "new" editor turns out to be a "very old" one. One can use different accounts in different pages, even diff acc in the same page if he/she has a good reason. But changing your account every 2-3 weeks - that is itchy, that is sign not of good reason, but of bad intention. :Dc76 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark us street was not banned, I believe exactly because he changed often his name and each time he was caught with disruptive behaviour he received only blocks of short-duration. I have a problem with admins tolerating sockpuppetry and I believe that each user should be allowed only one active account. Actually, Mark has 3 active account (MarkStreet, Mark us street, Buffadren). Normally, only the older account should remain active, all other accounts should be blocked. This is the standard procedure of sockpuppets.--MariusM 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I too agree Buffadren

Wait a second Buff. You're saying this is a shared IP. Are you therefore still claiming you are actually not "Mark Street"? In that case, I think we deserve a bit more of an explanation. Two people behind the same IP, who just happen to share the exact same interests and opinions, would suggest you might be colleagues working in the same organisation and sharing a professional interest in the matter. Your talking about a "fact-finding mission" you went to also seems to suggest that lobbying about Transnistria is part of a paid job you're doing. So, if you are not "Mark Street", I think you do owe us an explanation about exactly what kind of organisation it is behind whose shared IP address you're sitting, so we can evaluate claims of meatpuppetry and conflict of interest. In what relation to you stand to "Mark Street"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In the IP report that links Mark Street to my IP number Mark Strett clearly states that he is overseas and is not using his IP number. He deliberately didn't sign in - Perhaps it's his idea of a joke Buffadren 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying. What edit are you talking of? Are you or aren't you "Mark Street", and if not, in what relation do you stand to him? Clear answers please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP check that linked Mark Street to me was made from one edit only, not his normal IP. He stated in that very edit that he was overseas in transit. The reason he left Wiki was because the Moldovan editors would not allow him make even one edit on main page even if it was non political. On wiki he was a peace maker that was trying to stop the trouble rakers. . Read his history. I am not connected to him. Buffadren 10:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the IP's contributions. He made mostly Transnistria-related edits in several days, and he also edited the userpage of Mark us street and some of his confirmed sockpuppets (to hide the sockpuppetry and claim that the user retired from Misplaced Pages). Dear MarkStreet/Mark us street/Esgert/Truli/Henco/Buffadren, you are sinking in your own lies.--MariusM 10:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did check, these accounts are dead and not in use, what is your issue now? Buffadren 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it looks like a confirmed sockpuppeteer, sounds like a confirmed sockpuppeteer, behaves like a confirmed sockpuppeteer, supports the same POV as a confirmed sockpuppeteer and has the same IP as a confirmed sockpupeteer, then it's probably a sockpuppet (along the lines of WP:DUCK). Also, you seem a little nervous Buff (forgetting to sign etc), why's that?--Ploutarchos 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, It is a not issue, I explained its a shared IP, and also these editors never edited at the same time, so there is no sockpuppetry here. Ask Admin for opinion, they wil agree with me. Chill Buffadren 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Link

With all this talk about Mark Street and "Tiraspol Times" someone forgot to add the link to the article. It is http://www.tiraspoltimes.com. Something called "PMR News" is there but this one is missing.--Britlawyer 19:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has long been agreed that we can not use propaganda sites from both sides for this WP article. Please, ask Johnatanpops, Jmabel, Vercumba, etc, etc, or simply look in the archiv. Let me add from myself, we can not put BBC and Tiraspol Times on the same level. BBC is anything but propaganda! :Dc76 19:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand it - why is conflict.md ok for you while TT is not? There should be one approach to both sides. Alæxis_¿question? 20:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have never read conflict.md, so I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, I was refering to BBC, not to conflict.md.:Dc76 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The external links section contains not only neutral links (like BBC) but also partisan ones (both pro-Moldovan and pro-PMR). That's why it's divided into three subsections. Alæxis_¿question? 20:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict.md is a website made with the support of a neutral and reliable organisation like OSCE. Never on this talk page was proved that information from conflict.md is unreliable, while about Tiraspol Times we had long discussions and I believe was proved with specific examples, beyond reasonable doubt. that it is not a reliable source.--MariusM 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, if conflict.md is supported by OSCE, then it must be reliable. I mean, we still should read what it says and double check, but it can not be dismissed as propaganda. OSCE is not a propaganda-supporting organization, obviously I don't doubt that. Nevertheless, there are many pages by different individuals, pages of similar "jurnalistic" quality as TT. Those, like TT should not be ever included in the article. I don't care if they support or oppose my POV, which is totally irrelevant for the article, they are not reliable. :Dc76 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. You could check it yourself. This is what's written on the conflict.md:

This web-page was created with the support of OSCE Moldova. The opinions expressed on this web-page are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of OSCE Moldova who takes no responsibility with regard to the content of this site.

So OSCE takes no responsibility whatever with regard to conflict.md's content. Alæxis_¿question? 08:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times is Transnistria's only real news agency provider, It also feeds the BBC , so if the BBC considers it a reliable feed . Also the UN uses it as a feed and quotes from it as do most major western news organisations. Whats more it has a higher readership than Mold Press . Buffadren 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only times I've seen the Tiraspol Times quotes on the websites you mention is to highlight the propaganda it produces. Jonathanpops 09:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps TT owns these sites too Buffadren 09:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As for "conflict.md", has anybody ever checked how real that link to OSCE is? Apparently, conflict.md is the outlet of an organisation called "Moldova Europeana Unita", run by a person called Roman Mihăeş. It is clearly just as politically biased as TT, from the looks of it. Why would OSCE support such a site? Has anybody contacted the real OSCE Mission to Moldova and asked if they ever heard of that site? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sent a letter to OSCE itself about this issue but so far they haven't responded. Alæxis_¿question? 09:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Future, conflict.md mentioned that it is supported by OSCE for long time. If until now OSCE didn't complaint about this, we should consider this as a reliable fact. We have no reason not to assume good faith about conflict.md and not to rely on it, nobody showed here any proofs of misinformation from them (contrary with TT). I don't trust Alaexis original research regarding the relations between conflict.md and OSCE, if OSCE deny the claims of support from conflict.md this should be publicly denied, not in private letters to Alaexis. Alaexis, you remind me Mauco's claims having contact with OSCE.--MariusM 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marius, please re-read what I've written above. I sent a letter to OSCE but they didn't respond. Where did you find OR or claims that I had contact with OSCE? Alæxis_¿question? 09:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Moldovan supporting editors have included their links, I think that those that believe Transnistria is entitled to a voice should be allowed to include Tiraspoltimes too. Can we agree on this ? Buffadren 10:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop pretending that you are a voice of Transnistria. I told this to you even when you edited with the name MarkStreet. There are links to official Transnistrian separatist side in the article.--MariusM 10:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop pretending you care about Transnistria, you have made 1,000s of edits but all of them negative and political anti Transnistrian, you have the agenda not me. Buffadren 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis, if you get an answer from OSCE, please scan it and give us a link or smth. It would of course be nice if there would be a public claim by OSCE mission in Moldova, not just in a private letter. But a letter is better than nothing, and I guess they won't shy from making the same info available for general public. Personally, I am inclined to treat conflict.md as a sourse without any adjectives "biased" or "neutral". Just like interfax or azi, which are press agencies or newspapers, which although presenting things sometimes in POV, will not do propaganda. For example, BBC's reports, interviews. etc about Zimbabwe, although highly POV by Mugabe, are not propaganda. Every sourse must be treated with a small "academic" grain of doubt, and approached with common sense. If an info in confirmed from a second sourse - perfect, if a retractment follows - well, sorry. :Dc76 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New censorship

Alaexis deleted an information I added about a recent event claiming that is a "little event". No, the arrest of the mayor of Corjova village (who don't want to obey Transnistria's separatist authorities and is loyal to Chişinău) is not a little event - there is an ongoning tense situation in the region with intimidation of persons who are loyal to the government from Chişinău. As this is a recent event (it happened in 13 May), we need to have it in the article. If some things in this article are not belonging here, there are the details about 2006 referendum, which are anyhow written in a misleading manner (the doubts about the correctness of referendum are not mentioned), for which we have a separate article, and which is an old and not anymore relevant event.--MariusM 06:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how ineffectiveness of peace keeping mechanism (the title of the article added at refference) can be considered a "little" issue. Also, how can be a little issue the fact that people who support Moldovan government are arrested? See previous discussion with El_C about the sense of having in the article recent events. Not surprisingly, "Tiraspol Times" is not writing (until now, at least) about the arrest of Corjova's mayor. I will restore the info. Explanation for admins who labeled me as "propagandist" (and I am still expecting apologies for that): introducing correct and sourced info in Misplaced Pages is not propaganda; contrary, claiming that political freedom exist in Transnistria (and as consequence, deleting any info which is showing the opposite) is propaganda.--MariusM 07:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marius, why do you label this as censorship? Removal of info you like doesn't automatically amount to censorship.

One event doesn't get more significant than another one just because it happened recently.

Another issue with your contribution is that it's based only on Moldovan source so it should (at least) be labelled as 'according to Moldovan sources' and (ideally) neutral sources should be brought. Alæxis_¿question? 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times is Transnistria's only real English language news agency provider, It also feeds the western media and the much loved BBC , so if the BBC considers it a reliable feed . Also the UN uses it as a feed and quotes from it as do most major western news organisations. What is more it has a higher readership than Mold Press . Buffadren 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC). The reason the spooks don't like it is because it is a top class news provider giving the world an inside view good and bad. But of course the external ministry only wants the bad news so Tiraspol Times should be silenced. No, I have to insist the Transnistrians deserve an independent voice here. Buffadren 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I will be glad to dig up the diff's proving you lie about your own paper. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you do realise don't you that even if your site wasn't a load of rubbish, which it is, that all links on Misplaced Pages have a command "no follow" attached so that search engines give them no importance whatsoever? So, even if we did all lose our minds and decide to add your website, it would not increase it's search ranking by being here. So the only extra exposure you would get would be from the die hard readers who make it all the way to the bottom of the article where the links are, which is about 6 of us in the world. Jonathanpops 09:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an archived discussion I had with admin El_C about the relevance of recent events, especially as I saw often in this talkpage as an argument for removal of unpleasant info for Transnistrian regime the fact that those are old facts. I didn't had the time to check all Transnistrian press (and I have the disadvantage of not knowing Russian - EvilAlex, who is a native Russian speaker, is unfortunately blocked), I've checked only "Tiraspol Times" which is not mentioning the event - my opinion is that Transnistrian media is not allowed to talk about it. Tiraspol Times is the first place where an official position of PMR authorities will be available, as it is targeted for foreigners, not for local population. The significance of this event is that there is a current tense situation, unfortunately the Transnistrian conflict is not only a history page. Also, there is current intimidation against those who are against separatism, like the mayor of Corjova (BTW, this is the native village of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin). I label removal attempts as censorship as this is sourced and relevant information, without serious reasons for removal. Is the kind of behaviour I saw in my wikilife from Mauco & MarkStreet and now from you, after you came here from your usual Caucasus topics (also related with Russian expansionism, like Transnistria). I believe that http://conflict.md is a neutral source, supported by OSCE (not by Moldovan government). However, in order to achieve a compromise, I am keen to add "according to Moldovan sources" untill an other source will be found.--MariusM 09:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to cite the OSCE as a nuetral source, even the OSCE would not claim to be nuetral, it has a stated position siding with Moldova. Buffadren 09:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You also brand the RFE/RL as an anti-PMR propaganda organization, and facts it prints as smear campaigns against the Tiraspol Times. You just really want me to waste my time doing those diff's, don't you? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Other sources about the same incident: politicom.moldova.org, azi.md, transnistria.md.--MariusM 10:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They're also Moldovan ones and are likely to be biased.

Do you think every incident that happens between Moldova and PMR deserves to be put in the main article? Alæxis_¿question? 13:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is not every incident in this article. Recent and relevant incidents for the climate in the region need to be presented. BTW, an other source: Moldpress.--MariusM 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One recent incident which is not in the article: U. S. Embassy indignant at detention of diplomats at entry to Transnistria.--MariusM 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they forgot their passports, really that's what happened! But they thought that being in a car with diplomatic plates they should be allow through anyway. They were not detained they refused to turn back to fetch their passports . Err No , sorry but that's not how things work on borders Buffadren 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I can't follow my own sage advice to ignore you. The operative phrase would be "checkpoint" not "border." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Evil Alex not From Transnistria

Guys, we have been fooled. Alex is not from Transnistria. Or Bendary for that matter. He cannot even write in Russian properly nor does he use local expressions. Buffadren 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Check Transnistrian constitution: Bender is claimed by Transnistria and is currently under Transnistrian occupation. You gave us a new proof of your bad faith.--MariusM 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether EA is from PMR or not. Alæxis_¿question? 09:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It matter, as EvilAlex was accused (in an arbitration case) as being "antitransnistrian", and we know (see archives) the pretention of MarkStreet that he is the only transnistrian voice on these pages of Misplaced Pages.--MariusM 09:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles and photos from "Tiraspol Times" claiming that Bender is in Transnistria: Pridnestrovie pothole patrols in action in Bender, At a public clinic in Bender, Pridnestrovie's second largest city, local doctors using medical equipment donated by an aid group, One of the 3 opposition candidates, Andrey Safonov, voted in Bender and found it in line with European democratic standards.--MariusM 09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not confuse the issue. Alex does not consider himself a Transnistrian. I challange him to produce his PMR passport name and number covered if he likes . He won't. Why? because he is not from Transnistria, look at his Russian. That is not Transnistrian standard Russian. He is Moldovan. Buffadren 10:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He has no reason to disclose his real identity to you, especially as his familly is still living in Transnistria and can be subject of persecution. Look what happened to Corjova's mayor, and he is in an area suposedly under Moldovan control. I am worried about the attempts to disclose my real identity, but at least I don't live in Transnistria and don't have members of my family there.--MariusM 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

EA claims to be from PMR and it could be true and could be false. However I don't see how can this affect his position as a Misplaced Pages editor. Being native Transnistrian (or Russian, German etc) doesn't give one any privileges or penalties in editing articles about Transnistria (Russia, Germany, etc) Alæxis_¿question? 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is important because he presents himself as a Transnistrian. He is not and he won't show his passport because he is not from Transnistria and doesn't have a Transnistrian passport. You guys had the editors here fooled for a long time. Then Alaexis and I arrived and Evilalex made the error of writing here in Russian. I knew straight away his Russian was highly suspect. If Alex is not prepared to produce his passport I want an independent native Russian speaker to give an opinion. I believe an attempt was made to fool the arbitration case and the editors here. What we have have is a Moldovan anti Transnistria editor pretending to be a Transnistrian. I want an independent Russian speaker to confirm what I believe , that Evil Alex is not a Russian speaker as a person from Bendery would be. Buffadren 11:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He says he is originally from Tighina. I understand that as in he was born there, but doesn't live there now. IMO that's good thing too: if the Transnistrian regime knew what he was saying about them here and how he is causing them to waste money on internet propagandists such as the ICDISS in vain, he'd probably be given a free session in the Transnistrian torture chambers in typical russian style .--Ploutarchos 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please withdraw that racist anti Russian comment Buffadren 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, only God knows how much the Transnistrian regime has spent on propagandists to make Misplaced Pages articles propagandistic. EvilAlex has been undermining their attempts to do so - very risky business IMO. If I were he, you wouldn't find me anywhere near Transnistria.--Ploutarchos 11:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish ! Please withdraw you racist comments and sorry to burst your bubble , we have outted Alex, He is not a Transnistrian. Pity. Buffadren 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya would appear to disagree with you. I feel sorry for Russians having to live under such conditions you know.--Ploutarchos 11:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you know who killed Buffadren

Buff, stop it. Alex' identity is not at issue here; and besides you haven't even presented that evidence you keep trumpeting on about. But I don't really think anybody wants to see that evidence anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Buff, you claimed to be native speaker of croatian language and never boasted a knowledge of russian . Unless that was a front to sockpuppetry (like Bonny did with User:Mr. Sure Entry, User:Zhangshou etc... etc...), how could you possibly know how good his russian is. I think confirmed native speakers should evaluate that; we have no shortage of them.--Ploutarchos 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1) I think there should be a rule prescribing to delete talk page sections containing a username on sight (except "_date_ edits of _username_")

2) While EvilAlex's command of Russian isn't exactly top-level, there is no clear evidence that he's a non-native, either. His Russian seems to be on a level of a person who spoke it on a native level as a kid, but stopped developing the language further after his departure from a Russian-speaking environment. His hatred of the PMR and Russians, whom he considers responsible for its creation (the stream of ethnic slurs in broken Russian still sits proudly on his talk page, and the :"Transnstria=Auschwitz" slogan was deleted by admins only relatively recently), doesn't help his Russian, as well.

3) Can we move the section somewhere else, now?

PS: Buff, Russians are not a race. Ploutarchos' comment was not racist, but Russophobic - a fine difference there. --Illythr 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Illythr, you should restrain being involved in smear campaign against EvilAlex. "Transnistria = Auschwitz" is not a proof that he hates Russians. Is his legitimate political opinion that he expressed in his own userpage, not in Misplaced Pages articles. Hating the PMR regime is not the same thing as hating Russians. Actually EvilAlex is blocked, he can not answer at accusations against him.--MariusM 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, wasn't this section deleted just now? Marius, please ready my posts more carefully before starting to throw accusations at me. EvilAlex has throughly smeared himself, without any outside effort.

I intend to delete this section as proposed (not exactly in line with a "smear campaign", eh?), as it is completely irrelevant to this article. If you would like to continue this discussion, please do so on my or Evil's talkpage. --Illythr 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not russophobic either, but rather anti-KGB/Putin/Smirnov/Bush (yes, he does it too)-methods. With Russia's resources if, for the first time in their history they were fortunate enough to have a decent government, they would be the undisputed superpower. America is on its way down, what with the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and so on, which really makes them no better than Putin, their so-called "American Ideal" seems to be a forgotten dream.--Ploutarchos 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you do the classic Stalinist tactic: deflect being caught lying--and still lying, the sock-puppet evidence against you is irrefutable--by accusing other editors (who have been a thorn in your self-demonstrated duplicitous POV side) of deception. You can't counter their facts, so now you launch a smear campaign to attempt to discredit them. This sort of conduct cannot be tolerated.
    People, why are we still responding to this proven liar's provocations?
    Why has Mark Street (Buffadren) not been banned? His "contributions" have degenerated into completely disruptive and defamatory behavior, proving he will stop at nothing to push his POV. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

I have two proposals.

The first is, please don't bite the newcomers. I made a serious suggestion here on this page yesterday, and I expected to be taken seriously. Instead all of you just started to fight over who is the puppet of who, and who has the worst bias. Please be more welcoming to other people if they want to help you with efforts to make the page better.

My second proposal is that there is nothing to prevent The Tiraspol Times from being excluded if you already have PMR News as a link. Imho, they can both be there, but if there is only room for one, then "Tiraspol Times" is best of these two. I noticed they are biased, but "PMR News" is also biased, and so are some of the other external links.

When compared to "PMR News" its more frequently updated and each article gives more info. Here's the comparison: I checked both of them today, and the last article from "PMR News" is 5 days ago (from 10-May). It is this, an article about Victory Day and then I went to "Tiraspol Times", their last story is from today (15-May), and since 10-May they have lots of other articles. I went to look at Victory Day, and on "The Tiraspol Times" I found these two articles: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/821 and http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/823

The first one from "PMR News" is short and no photos. The other two from "The Tiraspol Times" are longer, have interviews with politicians, historical background statistics, more information, and lots and lots of photos. This is a serious proposal and I've explained my reason.---Britlawyer 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts, we don't need two PMR new sites, and Tiraspol Times is not better than PMR News. The article about the memorial day is longer on Tiraspol Times because it's stuffed with propaganda crap, such as "Flowers to remember the victims killed by Moldova in the 1992 invasion", and PMR News just tells the basic story without the rhetorical timmings, which is much more in line with Misplaced Pages. Jonathanpops 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why can't there be 2 pro-PMR sources?

Btw, how does including TT violate Wiki-policy regarding external links? Alæxis_¿question? 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not all about policy, there are plenty of sites that don't violate wikipedia policy that also aren't included, having said that it is generally frowned upon to add your own links to your own site I think. I'm not sure what you mean "Why can't there be 2 pro-PMR sources?", there is already 4 pro PMR sources. The thing, for me, is that Tirapol Times Website and PMR News Website are both pretty much the same thing, apart from the latter isn't filled with propaganda quite so blatently, so we don't need two sites linked to that, obstensibly at least, do exactly the same thing. Jonathanpops 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They should both be there, and they are not so bad as you say. Under "Moldovan sources" there are two news websites (conflict.md and Moldova Azi) so Transnistria can have both "Tiraspol Times" and "PMR News" imho. Actually they compliment each other, here's how: the newest article right now on http://www.tiras.ru/en/ is about Ivan Burgudji but Tiraspol Times doesn't have that article, and the newest article right now on http://www.tiraspoltimes.com is about "Transnistrian Idol" but PMR News doesn't have that story. As a reader I prefer to have both. ---Britlawyer 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your proposals are inacceptable, the reputation of Tiraspol Times is damaged. We have already 4 links in the "Transnistrian side" (not a good wording) section, including pridnestrovie.net who is featuring each single recent article from Tiraspol Times.--MariusM 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Both proposals are inacceptable? Including the first one (about being nice to others)? But the arguments just don't convince me. If this article is about Transnistria, shouldn't there be more links with their viewpoint? Does Misplaced Pages have limits on the amount of links showing the Transnistrian side? Probably most readers would prefer both, and get a variety of viewpoints but if there's a limit to four links then please explain it. I also went to "pridnestrovie.net" like you said and couldn't find a single article so that's wrong too.--Britlawyer 02:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the The Economist articles prove the propagandisticness of TT. If we include TT (= MarkStreet/Mark us street/Henco/Esgert/Truli/Buffadren's personal website), then we should include EvilAlex's websites too. In my opinion, none of them belong here.--Ploutarchos 08:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, What you object to is Transnistria having a voice, or its Media having a voice, . Buffadren 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider TT legitimate media, nor the voice of the people of Transnistria - it's only the voice of the Smirnovite regime masquerading as "independent" media . If one wanted to find legitimate media for Kosovo, it can be found here, however BBC does not seem to think highly of TT . Perhaps BBC shares my "agenda" also.--Ploutarchos 08:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the Tiraspol Times Website is even the voice of the "Smirnovite regime", I thought it was more the voice of some delusional Irish man with terrible grammar and a couple of Russian friends. He's certainly not very clever, which is why he's so easy to spot on here no matter what he calls himself... always using the same tired argument, that we don't want to show Transnistria's side when we already have a bunch of website links doing exactly that. He just wants us to add his website and cares little for honesty and Transnistira one way or the other. Jonathanpops 08:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it is the voice of Smirnov regime specially designed for foreigners. Look how quickly has Buffadren answered at the incident with American diplomats. Should he be just a simple Irish man he would not be able to come with explanations so quickly.--MariusM 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone has serious proposals? I would like to bring up again the question raised by Vercumba and Illythr, of whether it makes sense to have two articles: Transnistria and PMR as ro and ru WPs have. The first one would talk about the Georgraphy, the History up to 1990, about Russian military presence, and would contain a section Disputed political status. The second would talk about the PMR regime, how it is structured and how it works (a list of its "institutions"), how it was created, would contain most of History after 1990, as well as the sections International relations (customs issues on the border with Ukraine) and Human rights. This is just a rough idea. I, myslef, am not completely convinced it is wise to split. But, what if the split is done logically and carefully to avoid overlapping of matterial? As a general rule, if the other article would contain a whole section about something, the other should at most contain 1 short paragraph about the same, with see also link. :Dc76 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good comparison, IMO, Manchuria and Manchukuo. See there what issues, and where are they treated.:Dc76 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Transnistria is the name most used for the unrecognized country PMR. PMR is more accurate, but most of people are not aware of PMR, they use only the name Transnistria. If we split the article, we will have an ongoing problem with editors adding in Transnistria article info which belong to PMR (look at rowiki example), not to mention the confusions for the majority of Misplaced Pages readers. Actual situation is better in my opinion, but we need a geography section which explains in detail which is the teritorry of PMR. We had previously a "border issues" paragraph which Mauco fought hard to remove, at the end it remained a shorter version. Maybe we should reintroduce the longer version of "border issues" paragraph, in order to avoid ambiguity and to make clear the subject of this article. Transnistria as only a geographical unity is not making sense, as there is only a project on paper to create such an administrative unit of Moldova, in fact Transnistria is divided in many districts.--MariusM 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)I was the person who added PMR News as link but it was not to substitute Tiraspol Times. There's room for both of them. Both PMR News and Tiraspol Times give Pridnestrovie's position accurately, from the point of view of someone from Pridnestrovie.

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:-)

1. European Court of Human Rights: Template:Ro iconHotararea Marii Camere in afacerea Ilaşcu şi alţii contra Moldova şi Rusia
2. Democracy in Secessionism: Transnistria and Abkhazia’s Domestic Policies, by Nicu Popescu, International Policy Fellowship Program 2005/2006
3. Moscow's Hand Tired of Giving, Kommersant 6 Aprill 2007
4. «Газпром» передал Приднестровье Алишеру Усманову, Nezavisimaya Gazeta 23 March 2007

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