Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonathanpops (talk | contribs) at 09:16, 4 May 2007 (→14th Army tag). 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

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)

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)

1. European Court of Human Rights: Template:Ro iconHotararea Marii Camere in afacerea Ilaşcu şi alţii contra Moldova şi Rusia

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