Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jonathanpops (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 13 May 2007 (→Buffadren is MarkStreet's sock). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Buffadren is MarkStreet's sock

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)

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