Talk:2006 Transnistrian independence referendum

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yobot (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 7 October 2014 (Tagging for WikiProject Elections and Referendums using AWB (10476)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:00, 7 October 2014 by Yobot (talk | contribs) (Tagging for WikiProject Elections and Referendums using AWB (10476))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Elections and Referendums Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Karen Ryan (September 2, 2006). "OSCE cries fraud but did not observe vote". The Tiraspol Times.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

"Political climate"

I have already suggested to EvilAlex to write an article Internal politics of Transnistria, where you can have a detailed, referenced section about criticism. In this article you cannot collect arbitrary episode of political harassment `'mikka (t) 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the colleague has already added all of that to Politics of Transnistria and most of it he then furthermore added to the main Transnistria article as well. In this page, we have links to both of these, of course. To highlight it even more, I furthermore added a "See Also" section with the link. In my opinion, we are already overdoing it without the need to repeat everything we know about Transnistria in every single article (and especially not such a narrowly focused article as this one, which does not deal with politics or human rights in general, but merely with one single event that took place on a specific date in September 2006). - Mauco 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, in the main Transnistria article you took out the refference at Dignitas members arrest on the ground that we have already a separate article about referendum, now you want to take out this fact even in this article. Is it related with referendum? I believe yes, but I didn't put my belief in the article, just tell the facts and readers will think for themselves. Only a small part of the people who read Misplaced Pages will make a reasearch trough all Transnistria articles, so, we can repeat some informations.--MariusM 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you are trying to do here, friend, is obvious to anyone who knows about the subject. You are trying to distort the truth by taking an old and unrelated event and mixing it into a current event, so as to make it seem as though the two are related. By doing so, you want people to believe that the referendum was rigged because no one was allowed to campaign for Moldova and to have the readers think that somehow people got arrested for having an opposing view. But none of this happened or you would be able to present more compelling evidence. So please do not persist in your attempt to smuggle intellectual dishonesty into what is currently a fairly good and relatively objective article which many of us here have worked hard on. - Mauco 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is not an old event,

(sorry for interrupting. Just to clarify: I referred to the 2001 ban). - Mauco 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

it was less than one month before the referendum. The fact that the political climate in Transnistria don't allow the free expression of the will of the people is not only my opinion, is the opinion of international comunity (see Ukrainian foreign ministry opinion, for example). So, don't try to push your POV that referendum in Transnistria was fair. Intelectual dishonesty is to cover true facts and to dismiss any criticism as biased. I was not even claiming to state in the article that it was a connection between the arrest and the referendum, but the facts should be presented in Misplaced Pages--MariusM 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We disagree on what you call "true facts". Since you can't even read the language of Transnistria, your view is tainted by Moldovan/Romanian press. I am sorry, but they do not report the full picture, and please don't retort with "Mauco says so". This is not my own opinion, but it is a known and documented fact. I can quote half a dozen reputable sources on this, including the Saferworld survey from the United Kingdom. - Mauco 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mika, I added reference, as you wanted.--MariusM 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add reference, and the fact may be true, or it may not (as you know, this was hotly contested among the different courts of law at the time)... but that still doesn't make it relevant. It happened in 2001, in a different context. No parties are banned in 2006 and no one was prevented for campaigning for what they wanted in this election. Will you stay on topic, please? - Mauco 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In 2001, as in 2006, still Smirnov is in power. So, is not different context. Don't try to fool Misplaced Pages readers claiming that anybody in Transnistria can openly ask for unification with Moldova, even smaller requests (like using latin script for Moldovan language) were met with repression.--MariusM 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they can. The situation has changed enormously since 2001. Did you read the latest report from United Nations Development Programme? They laud the openness and transparency, and the co-operation that Transnistria gave to its representatives. They also note that this was not the case before 2001. - Mauco 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can put a link to this report if you have. But I wonder if their work is about the rights to ask for reunification.--MariusM 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have a new approach: whatever facts shows that political freedom is missing in Transnistria, those are old facts (even if are from this year, like "Dignitas" case). What political change can be if same people are in power? Only after Brejnev/Andropov/Chernenko died a political change occur in Soviet Union. Political change with same persons in power is nonsense.--MariusM 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please assume good faith'? The Dignitas much-ado-about-nothing is unrelated to the referendum. Period. The ban is old and also unrelated. See above. Stay on topic. - Mauco 15:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If Transnistria would be a normal democratic country the arrest of Dignitas members will be discussed by Transnistrian media, not only by Chişinău's media. Even if the arrest is related only with the bus explosion (don't you think the bus explosion is an interesting case for media?). Why is not discussed in Transnistrian media (except media targeted on foreigners, to deny any wrongdoing of authorities)? Because is not allowed.--MariusM 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And why do you assume that it wasn't discussed by the local media? You do not live in Transnistria, so you have no access to the papers that are sold in the street. Nor do you speak or read Russian, so even if you got the press you wouldn't be able to read it. Remember that there are six opposition newspapers which are not banned and not controlled in any way. They write what they want (including about the bombings and the arrests). Until this issue is settled, please refrain from changing the article again. It is not considered good Wiki Etiquette to do so until other editors get a chance to weigh in. - Mauco 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You should give an example of Dignitas NGO being able to express its position in Transnistrian media (not the position of authorities which justify Dignitas members arrest).--MariusM 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dignitas NGO does not seem to an active organization. Taran is active in the Social Democratic party in Moldova and his Dignitas is just a piece of paper in a desk drawer in his bedroom. In fact, I was even surprised that they could find 4 members to bring in for questioning. Before that happened, I didn't think that they had that large a membership. Have they ever made a press release? Or organized an event? They seem to exist merely so that they can obtain funding and they don't rank among leading opposition NGOs in the survey of Transnistrian civil society which was published earlier this year (an independent survey made with Western funds). If Dignitas does an event or puts out a press release, it is very likely that state media will ignore it, but I can guarantee you that the opposition media will pick it up and print it. Like any valid news source, however, they will give it coverage proportional to the notability. This principle means that if the president of Romania says that Moldova and Romania should be united, then it is front page news and gets a lot of coverage, whereas if an unknown 4-member organizations says the same thing, then it gets a one paragraph mention on page 5. All newspapers operate this way. Supporters of the organization in question will of course not like it (because they think that their opinion matters as much as that of the president of Romania), but it is the principle of notability and it drives all professional news coverage. It is not an indication of bias but merely the application of common sense. Anyone who reads this Talk page can see that this is what drives most of my editing, too. - Mauco 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that Dignitas has only 4 members? You assume Smirnov's KGB is so efficient that will not let a single pro-moldovan activist unarested? Dignitas made press release and Chişinău media mentioned, Transnistria's media didn't (not even pre-approved opposition, which should be a Russian-only opposition). Why? Because is not allowed. But I don't understand why is not allowed to mention Dignitas on Misplaced Pages.--MariusM 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your questions: 1. I follow Transnistria closely. 2. Newspapers everywhere in the world, and not just in Transnistria, assign column space based on notability. An almost-nonexisting astroturf group with no traction is not notable to readers, so they still get mentioned, just not on the front page. It is not censorship. A similar group in England or USA would find the same problem in getting free press. 3. You are allowed to mention Dignitas in Misplaced Pages where it is appropriate and relevant, and in most articles (except possibly human rights) Dignitas would fail WP:NN blatantly. - Mauco 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The term "Smirnov's KGB" is a term used by Romanian/Moldovan yellow press. There is no KGB in Transnistria. There is State Security, just like in Romania and Moldova. It is called MGB (sure, a bad choice of acronym but only lazy thinkers would equate this with KGB without checking the facts first). It is not "Smirnov's", but Transnistria's. It is under parliamentary oversight. In fact, the local mass media covered the parliamentary oversight committee quite a bit last week. Why? Because unlike your nonchalant characterization of MGB as "so efficient", it is actually quite the opposite. Parliament was concerned about this and complaining about the way that organization uses its budget and its manpower. I realize that Transnistria must be hard for you to get a grip on since you don't know the main language of the local press, but before you make sweeping characterizations of something which you apparently know too little about, feel free to ask from those of us who are actually up to speed on the subject. I am sure that I am not the only one here who has shown a willingness to help out and share my knowledge of the situation on the ground. - Mauco 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer to my question: how you know that Dignitas has only 4 members? You made original research or this is what MGB told you? (I recognize, I made a mistake, is not KGB, is MGB, however, I don't believe is a big difference). The problem with Dignitas is that their members were arrested - this should be a reason for local media reports. What I see is that only media from Chisinau made reports about this, Transnistrian media kept silence. This is not normal for a democratic country (but nobody in the world, except Abhazia, Russia, you and few hard-line Russian nationalists in Misplaced Pages claim Transnistria is democratic). Suppose that is no conection between referendum and the arrests, everything is only about the bus explosion case (which inefficient MGB was not able to solve, as I know). Even in this case, 4 arrests conected with the explosion should attract media interest (isn't the explosion a good story for local press?).--MariusM 07:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... So now, it seems, I am an agent of the MGB. These kinds of personal accusations are not productive to a good editing environment, friend. And besides, I did answer your question. - Mauco 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelectual dishonesty

Mauco, when censored the paragraph he don't like, tell that I was reverted by 4 different editors, suggesting that his position has a large agreement. In fact: one editor is Mauco himself, second Tzekai which agreed that paragraph should stay but wanted a small change in phrasing, third Permabuco who didn't revert me but Tzekai and in fact didn't express any opinion for or against the disputed paragraph and forth Mikkalai who had doubts about a part of the paragraph and asked for a refference, and meantime I added refference. Mauco, please stop with those misleadings comments.--MariusM 09:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that paragraph at least once as well. -- int19h 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a disinterested editor will also jump in to revert things just because he or she wants to stop an edit war and force the two sides to seek agreement in Talk instead. FrancisTyers (who is not active on this page, but sometimes joins the main Transnistria article) is one of those. The reason they do this is not to take sides but just because they realize that disagreement carried out in main namespace is disproductive and takes time away from productive editing. - Mauco 13:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The charge of censorship is unjustified, as are ad hominen attacks. - Mauco 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your behavior unjustified, Mauco -- this is a bad article, and you're the reason why this is so. An "innocent" person wandering in (i.e., most readers, for whom this will come up in a search) would get no sense of what this referendum actually was. The opening lines should clearly state that the referendum was illegitimate according to most entities, etc. The rest of the article is heavily slanted. "Both banks of the Dniester" are not equally democratic, and the persistent attempts to exclude information on just how anti-democratic the PMR is are led by you. --Pēteris Cedriņš 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please - this discussion is not about Mauco, but about the article. Let's stick to just that. —Khoi khoi 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is awful. It wouldn't appear in any decent encyclopedia. Why is that? --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it would help if you gave specific examples on why it's awful, rather than blaming users. If there's a problem, try fixing it. —Khoi khoi 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't -- it's locked. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't stop you from giving suggestions on how to fix it... —Khoi khoi 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation was asked in order to fix the article. Khoikhoi, you may join the mediation dispute, and maybe you can convince Mauco to agree to mediation. I asked for mediation also in the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie article, and Mauco didn't sign for agreement in 7 days (this is why that case is actually on arbitration).--MariusM 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did MariusM not follow the recommended sequence of steps in WP:DR? Mediation is uncalled for when we have not attempted dispute resolution in the proper order first. This was the same modus operandi employed in the "Union"-article, and I pointed out the error of this several times in a polite fashion, just as I am doing now. - Mauco 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, we had very long discussions in this an other Transnistria-related articles. I made attempts to make a compromise with you, but your goal is only to keep in Misplaced Pages's articles your POV. As the article is blocked in the way you like, it seems you don't want mediation, just to gain time. Please agree to mediation, is not a problem with only us two. We will see if the Mediation comitee will reject the request, I believe it will not be the case. It seems you have plenty of time, but I have other things to do that engaging in very long discussion. Please keep your arguments for the mediation case, not need to add them here.--MariusM 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Insinuation

Just a quick reminder on why Misplaced Pages must not tolerate the proposed paragraph which MariusM has tried to introduce, which has been reverted by at least four editors, and which is the reason why this article is now locked. The following is from Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation... - Mauco 14:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

While hinting or insinuating may feel weak, it is a powerful tool and abuse of it is a common way of introducing bias. Consider the example:

The minister of parliament has been accused of lacking backbone and of being unwilling to use the armed forces to defend our rights. He acknowledged last month that he is left-handed.

To mention the minister's left-handedness in this context is to imply that it is relevant. As a result, this juxtaposition of otherwise neutral statements has the effect of fostering prejudice, in particular the prejudice that all left-handers are wimps (i.e. also lacking backbone). Insinuations of this sort are guaranteed to prompt complaints. Do not use or tolerate them.

Mauco, I'm assuming you refer to MariusM's "political climate" section which stated that prior to the referendum, the PMR has intimidated and/or repressed individuals and organizations which espouse the "opposite" position, that is, joining Moldova and not Russia: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova. Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them ." Admittedly, it could have been written better; however, a statement on "political climate" and the degree to which opposing viewpoints have been let heard—or silenced—is certainly appropriate when the referendum is being touted as demonstrating remarkable unity in the voice of the people.

When it comes to intellectual honesty—since you have decided to create this whole new section in this discussion after the article was locked with no purpose but to berate MariusM—I noticed that on one of your reverts you also added yet another link to yet another citation of the pro-PMR press. When positions are so polarized (leaving moral, ethnic, historical and who is right/wrong factors out, just as an observation of fact), by citing non-impartial pro-PMR press at the same moment you revert statements that activities by those opposed to the "referendum" have been actively discouraged and/or banned by the PMR authorities, you engage in exactly the kind of "intellectual dishonesty" you go out of your way to accuse others of. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not helping at all. —Khoi khoi 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, if anyone here is going to go out of their way to "lecture" a specific contributor and admonish them to write fact and not insinuations, then their own scholarship and objectivity must be completely beyond reproach. Mauco can feel free to delete this entire section (or simply note its inappropriateness) and, instead, put in something more sensible stating his position why political climate is not applicable, or why he feels that MariusM's basic statement is false and should remain deleted. Or if the problem is simply sources cited or not, let's discuss it. If not, then my comments and observations stand. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

They can stand, but they only sidetrack the discussion and violate WP:NPA. —Khoi khoi 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco may well believe he was being informative, but that was not the result and it needed to be pointed out as such. Probably enough said on this here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, because as I said, this discussion is not about Mauco. —Khoi khoi 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Back "on topic" then

In that case, gladly back to the issues at hand (being mediated)...

Should we include in the article the fact that: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova".
Should we include in the article the fact that: "Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them ".

As I mentioned, perhaps the writing style could be improved, that's a small issue. It would seem things boil down to the following:

On the first: Whether or not to include that an opposition position to the referendum was not possible because any such position was treason ("against the state'). In particular, meaning, just because there aren't political parties espousing Moldovan unification it doesn't mean there isn't opposition.

On its own, at face value, that meaning/intent could be characterized as unsubstantiated insinuation. But while one can certainly infer the meaning, it's not what's being stated, all that's being stated is the absence of pro-Moldivan unification parties as the result of a ruling by the PMR Supreme Court banning such parties. However, let's also be realistic: as the Supreme Court (and PMR government) felt it necessary to take this extraordinary step, then it can only have been as a direct reaction to pro-Moldovan sentiment the government felt strongly compelled to quash.

On the second: Whether or not to include that members of "Dignitas" were arrested by PMR authorities and later released with no permanent charges filed against them. How is this relevant to the referendum? If there is intimidation and/or coersion, then the vote can only be presented (at best) as "the PMR authorities reported that..." not that 97.2% voted "YES!" to independence and association with Russia.

Now, while labeled home brew original research, the question of reported personal experiences does also come into play in arriving at a judgement on balance. On the one hand, we have workers who are told to vote and how. (This is not permissible as it is hearsay and/or original research.) On the other hand, we have Viktors Alksnis presented as an accredited impartial believable observer when, based on his past conduct elsewhere, he is a criminal. (But his being quoted as the referendum was on the up-and-up is OK, just repeating what was reported in the press.) If we are to steer the middle course—indeed, if there is to even be a middle course—then the banning of opposition and the intimidation of pro-Moldovan groups is an essential counter-balance to the PMR government reporting a rapturous response of the masses overwhelmingly choosing the government's position.

It's at least a stake in the ground—let's see how the dialog develops. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful for mediation to include references for both claims. (Igny 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

It should be obvious that this is FAR from NPOV. Just read an excerpt from the conclusion (emphasis mine).

The so-called “PMR” that Moscow created 15 years ago in order to prevent the Republic of Moldova from uniting to Romania continues to be a source of instability in the region and an obstacle for the integration of the Republic of Moldova with Europe. It is also a regime stuck in the Soviet totalitarianism era where – just like in the times of the USSR – basic human rights are outrageously disregarded. Smirnov’s corrupt regime, propped by the Russian troops, does not easily accept political opposition and every party or NGO that is not under its control is perceived as a potential threat to the “PMR"’s integrity. The same alleged reason is employed to impose a drastic control over the mass media: the few independent newspapers are frequently harassed, their printed editions are confiscated and the journalists are intimidated.

In Smirnov’s “republic” children in the Moldovan schools suffer the most, especially the ones that use the Latin script. These children, their teachers and parents are regarded as the “fifth column” of the Republic of Moldova in the so-called “PMR”. and so on...

Again, what is the argument about? (Igny 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for that whiff of common sense reminder. One look at the title page would also suffice. It is only a shame that this is being quoted as a reliable source in the main Transnistria article and other related articles as well. The less of this pseudo babble we can have in this particular referendum article, the better. Did anyone here, besides me, follow the 800+ media stories about the referendum which appeared in English between 15 Sep and 21 Sep? More than 200 accredited journalists covered the referendum first hand. Their description of conditions in Transnistria in general and those of the referendum in particular sounded very, very different than what one could be led to believe by reading reports such as the one which Igny just quoted. - Mauco 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, we had almost a month of discussions about this article. Misplaced Pages is not your propriety and you should not ask veto rights for all Transnistria related articles. I don't believe further discussions in the talk page will help, it will be only a loss of time. The way the article looks now, with hiding of relevant information, is a shame for Misplaced Pages, but it seems you like it. If you work only in Transnistria related article, other will like to work on other topics as well, and being blocked one month for an article disturb them to bring other contributions at Misplaced Pages. A Request for Mediation was filed for this article, and was agreed by me, Vecrumba, int19h, Cedrins. Please accept the mediation, don't play with our time. Don't teach me Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process, mediation is a normal step after almost one month of discussions, and the Mediation Comitee already accepted this case. All you have to do is to agree to mediation. All arguments should be told in the mediation process.--MariusM 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read this Talk page from start to bottom, you will see that my objections are based on objective criteria, citing Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy. I also strongly object to you (and your sympathizers') repeated attempts to steer the discussion away from valid Misplaced Pages criteria and instead turn it into a personal debate about Mauco. I am far from the only editor who has qualms about what you are attempting to do to this article, I am merely the most vocal. Note taht variations of your paragraph has been rejected or reverted by some 4 or 5 different editors, not just me, on what to all of them appears to be valid grounds. As for mediation, this is not a step that I can accept to participate in if you have not yet tried other dispute resolution methods first. I was also stunned that when you filed the request, you listed non-contributors to the page - merely because they had been sympathetic to your views in Talk - and failed to list anyone who reverted you, and would be parties to the dispute, apart from myself, thus slanting the odds in your favour. Unacceptable, and should not be tolerated as this makes a mockery of the institution of mediation. - Mauco 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true what you told, Mauco. I invited at mediation you and the Russian User:int19h who reverted me. I also invited Baltic User:Peteris Cedrins, to have a 2 against 2 mediation. You know very well that Pernambuco told that he don't want to deal with this article anymore (anyway, he didn't revert me), Tzekai agreed with the paragraph, wanted only a small rephrasing and seems not very interested in Transnistria and Mikalai told he has a break, and anyway, he was not against the paragraph, wanted only to provide sources (which I did meantime). Why you tell about the "mockery of the institution of mediation" as long as the Mediation Comitee accepted the mediation?--MariusM 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still interested in this article. I know less than the rest of you. This is why I declined to "edit war", but I am very interested. I have spent the last week learning. And I want to participate. - Pernambuco 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then please register your agreement for mediation in the case request page. Mediation Comitee already agreed to hear this case. Vecrumba also was not included in the mediation at the begining, but he included himself in the case. It will be better if all interested parties will participate in the mediation.--MariusM 11:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some more work on this, obviously, in the next couple of days. However, to the first point, the banning of pro-Moldovan parties, the reference currently cited ("The Policy of Linguistic Cleansing in Transistria") specifically deals with the banning of Radchencko's and Buceatskiy's parties because advocating Moldavian union would mean liquidation of the PMR state. The article contains appropriate references in support of its claims and findings. I would also mention that some of the more "inflamatory," shall we say, descriptions, are also in this article, appropriately attributed. (Brzezinski calls the PMR a "mafia" run (!) country.)

As to the parties, anyone who reverted, etc. and disagrees with the two statements specifically in mediation are completely welcome to comment here.

In reading through the currently at 35+ page (printed) Talk section and the editing history, it is clear to me at least that Marius, the main protagonist of the one side, has in fact annotated claims; but, it appears to me that because his English is not as polished as that of other contributors, his writing has been taken at times (a) to mean not exactly what was meant and/or (b) to be his personal ventings and histrionics against the PMR when, in fact, he was practically typing verbatim what has appeared elsewhere in print. Mauco--et al. but still the principle protagonist on the other side--is not an unreasonable person--only demanding citations, but in my own limited experience, far too eager to jump immediately to the words "unsubstantiated," "original research," "irresponsible," etc., viz. Talk:Vladimir Antyufeev: "Even on this page, to jump right in and label Antyufeev as a high ranking KGB officer was a bit irresponsible, if I may say so...," comment made a couple of days after I cited my source on the Talk page. I for one don't like being talked about as being "irresponsible," however, I am probably better able to defend myself (speaking only in terms of written English) if needed—though if I responded in kind, it would only make the Talk page longer.

As for stacking the deck, this isn't a shouting match, so whatever is decided here is not going to be based on "numbers" of people on each side. My particular interest is in post-Soviet policy, primarily as manifested in Latvia and the rest of the Baltics; however, given the particular cast of characters in the PMR including Black Berets (who killed Latvian freedom demonstrators)--and working on good references for that one--the PMR needs to be revealed for what it is (yes, that would be my POV), but only through incontrovertible and substantiated fact, that is, NPOV presentation. (For example, my personal feelings about the Soviet and Russian governments don't prevent me from working on a NPOV history of Russians in Latvia.) I think we have those facts at hand to support the two statements now in mediation (which, as I indicated earlier, should be judged on their content and not grammar). No one is out to "get Mauco."—Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was "what this is about" is the two statements under mediation. I fail to see what the point is of bringing up www.moldova.org, we're not arguing about its contents and it's not the source for the statements under mediation. We're not anti-PMR pro-Moldovan ultra-POV extremists here. No one is disputing the need to cite statements and claims appropriately.—Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction/clarification: the document cited for the first item under mediation is on the "Moldova" site, my apologies; however, its claims with regards to the first item in mediation are annotated. The observations it makes regarding Moldovan language repression are in line with those I have found on mainstream sites, including the U.N. and OSCE. I'll be looking for more backup this weekend. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.vremea.net/news/2006-09-19/15:20:03.html is a Moldovan article highly critical of the refendum. Nowhere does it give any credence to any of the wild claims from the Moldovan Helsinki guys. The article has other complaints, however, which are more believable. By omission, it shows how far removed from reality that the fantastic claims by Stefan U.'s group really are... - Mauco 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As we have an ongoing mediation, we should discuss arguments in the mediation process, not anymore in this talk page. Anyhow, I suggest you come with English language sources, as I don't know Russian and I don't trust you enough to blindly believe what you are saying.--MariusM 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG

this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG )

See also: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

* surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;

* surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media;

* claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

there are some things in the article that fall under this heading, let us move it out until someone can provide multiple reliable sources, especially politically charged issues that is the case here Pernambuco 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

it looks like no one is against my suggestion, so ive made the change, but is someone wants to move it back in that is fine but only after these red flag points are sorted out, otherwise i suggest paying attention to each of these red flag items first and dont revert unless they get solved Pernambuco 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alaexis rephrasing

Alaexis rephrased the sentence regarding the arrest of pro-moldovan activists from Dignitas with "According to Moldovan sources...". Not only Moldovan sources told about the arrest of Dignitas guys, Tiraspol Times also (of course, in a propagandistic way to justify the arrests). As TT is not meeting Wiki criteria for WP:RS, I would not mention in mainspace this article, but is clear the the arrest is an undeniable fact, recorded not only by Moldovan sources. With the exception of Tiraspol Times, no other transnistrian media was allow to mention this fact, as there is no press freedom in Transnistria. TT is a website for foreigners, they didn't have a printed edition with Dignitas arrest available in Tiraspol, this is why they were allowed to mention the fact.--MariusM 14:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Alaexis 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: