Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Helen28 (talk | contribs) at 11:46, 30 November 2006 (→Human Rights: I've described the situiation from the point of view of a trasdniestrian.). 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.

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8 /archive 9

Conflict Resolution and and Unfreeze

I believe that this page has been frozen long enough and that it would be best if we could reach a series of compromises on the principal outstanding issues to finally allow a resumption of normal editing. Here I have summarized the current status of the multiple contentious issues presented by Jmbael. I am happy to see that most problems have been resolved, but a few critical ones are still being debated. Let us try to finalize these discussions as soon as possible and lift the freeze on the page. I have crossed out the sections that I believe we can put aside for the moment. And please, for God's sake try to be concise here; please keep your comments as short as necessary to get your points across, which by the way should only relate to the content of the article, not each others' characters. Although the KGB or CIA links of your opponent cannot be denied by any sane person with a feather's weight of intelligence, perhaps other forums would be more appropriate for their unmasking. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This section actually included multiple subsections but everyone seems to agree that we need credible sources that include facts! So I guess this is finished. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Population

The most accepted version seems to be: "Since the Soviet era, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Moldovans forming a plurality alongside Russians and Ukrainians." The only debate is whether the part about a Romanian pluarility should be kept, making this debate almost closed. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Recent history" would need to specifically state Soviet era, and the list start with the largest ethnic group, Romanians (not Moldovans). It's proper practice to list "ingredients" in descending, not ascending, order. Putting Russians first paints a false implication. Oh, and eliminate mentioning the largest ethnic component, Romanians, that's striving for factuality. Let's be serious here. Or did I misunderstand dry humor? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed the order. However I don't want to change the ethnic name to Romanians. Using the term Moldovan before the Soviet era would of course be non-sense, but here it is appropriate as that was the official designation of this group in Soviet documents. TSO1D 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Moldovans" is clearly the best choice. Identity is perception. If the vast majority of Moldovans say Moldovans, we should use Moldovans. jamason 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem, because the only reason "ethnic Moldovans" exist is because Stalin manufactured them. Are we saying that Moldovans consider themselves an ethnic group distinct and separate from Romanians? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's really not the point (but yes many do), but since that term was used in Soviet documents we should not change it here. The article Moldovans and Moldovenism explores this theory. Whenever this has come up, we have had a huge debate every time, so an important compromise was to only use Romanian before Soviet times, then keep Moldovan during Soviet times and later in censuses besides their corresponding numbers. TSO1D 15:01, 26 November 2006

Since we are slave to Soviet statistics for continuity, I would agree to using "Moldovans" as an ethnic term with a reference added that defines Moldovans as "ethnic Romanians historically inhabiting the territory of Moldavia and, later under the Russian empire, Moldavia and Bessarabia." Comments from the Moldovan contingent? Anyone really interested in all of this will just have to buckle down and learn what territory Bessarabia encompasses, I don't see any way around it. We're not talking J-Lo here--we're far enough away from the mainstream that's it's a reasonable assumption that to an interested party, the use of "Bessarabia" as a geographic term becomes clarifying, not confusing. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Or simply: "Since the Soviet era, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Moldovans (ethnic Romanians) forming a plurality alongside Russians and Ukrainians."

I would remove the "(ethnic Romanians)" part, simply for the fact that not all Moldovans identify as such. Khoikhoi 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

History and Economy

No real disputes are visible, just a desire on the part of some editors to expand the economy seciton, so these issues are resolved. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights

No general agreement has been reached on any of the issues, but no editor has emphasized his dislike of the present version. So could we keep the current version as it is, possibly adding a statment about press freedom for balance if a valid source can be presented. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would propose no indication of a "free press" until it is legal in the PMR to advocate union with Moldova. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is a bit moot, IMO. It is not so much that it is legal but merely that no politician wants to argue for union with Moldova. To do so would be political suicide. The concept is so "foreign" to voters (no pun intended) that it simply does not resonate. I base this on an interview which Yevgeny Shevchuk gave in spring of 2006 which was quoted by the International Crisis Group if I recall correctly. It can be found on the British Embassy's peacemaking site, from Chisinau. - Mauco 05:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it legal or not legal to advocate Moldovan union? It's not a moot point if it is illegal. No "politician" will argue for union if it lands them in jail. Shevchuk is part of the ballet to portray an "opposition"--whatever he said, wherever it was quoted, it does not change the fact that advocacy of a Moldovan union is illegal. Ergo, no press freedom, no political freedom. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was legal during the period that I study, but that is admittedly a while back at this point. Peters, can you please cite your source here? I have no doubt that you are basing this emphatic statement (and question at the same time?) on solid information. But, clearly, no changes would be made to the article until you share it with the rest of us. jamason 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jamason, read second part of this study "Human Rights in Transnistria", where are given concrete cases of political parties banned for advocating union with Moldova. May I know exactly what period are you studying? I thought you studied the 1992 War period, when situation was even worse, people were killed for advocating union with Moldova, without court procedure.--MariusM 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but your comment highlights my point exactly. The law isn't important. Even the Soviet Union guaranteed human rights in its constitution. jamason 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Jamason and Marius you are somehow not on the same wavelength. The constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed all sorts of rights, which the authorities then violated at a state level, it wasn't a question of not enforcing the law, the law was there for show. In the case of the PMR, advocating Moldovan union is a treasonous offense, and the bannings of parties that have already happened have made it clear the law is enforced (if not summarily executed) as well, completely different case. Did I miss something? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you are assigning yourself homework based on the above, let me share a few questions that I think might make the section stronger.

1) Is advocacy of union actually illegal? Marius's source implies that it is, but we would be well served by a reference to the actual legislation. (I'm still skeptical, but if I learn something from this debate, then, that's why I'm here in the first place.)

2) Is there harassment of dissidents regardless of the law? Specific, well-documented examples provided by good, non-partisan sources would be key. (This is what I was getting at above.)

3) What is the scope and regularity of government action? Are journalist and politicians the only targets, or is the average man on the street in danger? Also, how arbitrary is enforcement/harassment? In other words, is this an excuse to knock out dangerous opponents, or is it integral to PMR rule?

Obviously, this is more thorough than anyone would need to be for a wikipedia article. I'm just giving suggestions of what I think would make a better section since you seem keen on researching the issue. jamason 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The last example of harassment of dissidents was the arrest of 4 members of pro-Moldovan organisation "Dignitas", one month before the referendum. It was reported by azi.md and tiraspol times. Official version is that this arrest was not harassment of political opponents, but a normal police investigation of a terorist act (the bus explosion in Tiraspol), however I am not expecting PMR authorities to openly admit they harassed political opponents, just before the referendum. While our colleague Mark us Street, editor of Tiraspol Times, was editing Misplaced Pages under the name User:MarkStreet and I was still assuming good faith about him, I asked him to take an interview with "Dignitas" leader Ghenadie Taran, to clarify the issue . Even User:William Mauco agreed with me and advised MarkStreet to take an interview with Taran . This never happened. AFAIK nobody in PMR media allow people from Dignitas to tell their point of view in this story, which is quite strange, as, if not a pro-Moldovan oposition, at least the explosions which took 12 lives in Tiraspol should normally attract media atention. My conclusion is that not only pro-Moldovan activists are harassed, but also that PMR media is restricted (Tiraspol Times made a short mention about Dignitas with official PMR position, but this is only a website for foreigners, not a newspaper you can find on the streets of Tiraspol). In this particular case 4 arrests were made, in other cases probabily the fear of losing job is enough to silence people (not only in the state sector, but also in the private sector which is in the hands of supporters of PMR, many of them businessmen from Russia - "new pridnestrovians" how Vasily Yakovlev calls them - as any important business in the region was developed by people with conections at PMR authorities - see Sheriff case).--MariusM 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I agree with Transdniestrian mass-media, that didn’t want to write about the arrest of 4 members of pro-Moldovan organization "Dignitas" and furthermore to publish their interview. Transdniestrians are still afraid of recurrence of 1992. The members of Dignitas are those who made acts of terrorism and killed Transdniestrians in 1992. Any information on them would cause indignation of the population and could lead even to violence. In one town with members of Dignitas there lives Lyudmila Gusar which husband was burnt alive by members of terrorist group "Bujor". What would she feel, reading an interview of members of Dignitas? Till now she is afraid, that murderers of her husband will reach her children and grandsons. But for some reason nobody puts himself in a place of those who has perished in 1992.Helen28 11:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Geography

I see a dispute between the usage of Transnistria "borders Moldova" versus "borders the rest of Moldova" with compromises such as "peaceline border" or "border" presented. This appears to be a minor issue and hopefully will be easily resolved. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

De jure, since Moldova considers the Transnistrian territory to still be part of Moldova, the proper term would be "borders the rest of Moldova." Or, just simply state the western border of the Transnistrian territory is the Dniester and avoid mentioning Moldova. Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But there are parts of Transnistria (the geographic region) that are controlled by the central government and parts of Bessarabia under PMR control, so you can't really say that the Dniester forms the eastern boundary. Actually how about "borders Bessarabia to the East"? In geographic terms that is probably the most accurate way of presenting this information. TSO1D 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bordering Bessarabia I believe would be a sufficiently descriptive and NPOV. Bessarabia as a territory is generally well understood. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be totally wrong here, so just tell me if I am, but isn't Bessarabia a bit of an antiquated term? Jonathanpops 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the term was used by the Russian authorities to denote the region, however that is not not the only period when the name applies. Many modern sources that I have read by both Western, Romanian, and Russian sources continue to use the word as a geographic term because it is the most specific descriptor for the landmass between the Prut and the Dniester. TSO1D 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bessarabia continues to be used in current scholarship for the land between the Prut and Dniester, with Moldavia bordering on its west . Bessarabia is a very reliable geographic term. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I can see that now from what you say, and looking it up, but it's hardly common knowledge amongst everyday English-speaking people who this article is meant to be for. I just think the article is complicated enough as it is with all the different names etc, Bessarabia is just one more thing that readers have to look up when they see it. Perhaps that's all part of the joy of learning?Jonathanpops 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This region is still pretty obscure for most people, so much of the terminology or references used will be unfamiliar at first. But I still think Bessarabia is the best alternative. I mean the term is used very frequently in articles about the region and is common knowledge to some. I just don't see a better choice. TSO1D 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Crime

No real consensus has been reached here. The last version that was being worked upon looked like this:

Analysts and media outlets have expressed concern regarding potential threats posed by Transnistria's large deposits of weapons, and the potential of their unauthorized sale. Nevertheless, this view has been challanged in/from what year (so that one can see from what year things started to change) by other experts and organizations, as well as by the government of the PMR. Oxford scholar Mark Almond stated that accusations of state-sponsored weapons smuggling in the PMR appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts. Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that the historically low levels of transperancy, and the continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime , although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR.

No "Oxford scholar Mark Almond" —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to mention an 'expert' who says there are no underhand weapons deals going on, we must also include the name of an 'expert' who says that there is weapon smuggling taking place, seeing as that is both sides of the issue and there are differing opinions. Jonathanpops 11:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bergman interview also discusses the disappearance of arms, however, it would be less contentious to have a source other than the Latvian one (which I cited regarding Antyufeyev and the ambulance shooting incident). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this propganda, Transnistria has a very low crime rate and this section is political mudraking and borders on state propaganda. I will add my comments here in 24 hours Mark us street Nov 27th 2006.

Terrorism2

I see that the incidents that should be discussed are pretty much agreed upon:

• in May 2004, there was an attempt by a Russian neo-Nazi organization to set on fire a synagogue in Tiraspol, using a Molotov Cocktail and a flammable liquid near a gas pipe.
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus.
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten.

Thus what remains to be decided is whether the term terrorism or "violent incidents" should be used. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been agreed that the word Terrorist and Terrorism will not be used. Mark us street Nov 25th

No, it hasn't been agreed upon by all users yet. The term "violent incidents" seems a little too vague and non-descriptive. Terrorism might be inflamatory, but if Antifuyev is quoted at least in regards to the explosions, that should pass. But maybe it would be best to forego all these descriptors. I suggest calling the section "Notable Incidents" (since it's in the crime section it will be clear that they are criminal in nature) and then just list the three events as mentioned above. TSO1D 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We had already discussion about terrorism (see archive 8). I fully understand the reason why suddenly Mauco and Mark want to delete the word terrorism from this article , but they are the only ones who asked that. The majority of editors involved here had an other opinion.--MariusM 00:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely a 'violent incident' is something like a public fight or even a riot, but putting a bomb on a trolley bus to kill and scare people is surely an act of terrorism. I know terrorism is a big buzzword these days and people don't want to use it because it has al qaeda-style connotations, but blowing up a bus is still terrorism even if it's just some school kid (example) who does it on his own for whatever mixed up reason. Jonathanpops 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed Terrorism is aganist Wihipedia rules. It was also agreed that violent incidents was the onlt factual description. Mark us street Nov 27th

"It was agreed..." = Using the passive tense to describe a decision without naming who or when is classic propaganda-speak. (I was just having this conversation yesterday with some folks over from Latvia about how Soviet-style usage of Latvian has remained in current usage.) Not agreed. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the ambulance incident as well. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Peters I didn't agree it, nor did Mauco, Misplaced Pages does not allow the use of the term 'terrorism' unless it is a terrorist organisation listed by United nations. That is why we, as in all of us, were not allowed to use it. See archives. Mark us street Nov27th 2006.

If we can't use the word terrorism, an opinion I'm sceptical about, then we must use words such as murder. People died here, that is NOT merely a violent incident.Jonathanpops 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The characterization regarding the use of the term terrorism on Misplaced Pages ("not allowed") is incorrect. One cannot label a particular individual a "terrorist" unless categorized as such by, say the U.N., a government, etc. (not blogs!). Terrorism as an instrument, however, can be described as such if so reported. For example, let's take a report in Regnum:

Transdnestr official: “Voronin inclined members of terrorist organizations in various countries to carry out terror acts in Transdnestr”

Special Envoy of the Supreme Council of the Transdnestr Moldavian Republic on Interparliamentary Relations Grigory Marakutsa has commented to a REGNUM correspondent the situation over terror act in Tiraspol on July 6:

“Somebody outside Transdnestr does not like that a calm situation has established in the republic for a long time. For 14 years of Russian peacekeeping mission in the Moldovan-Transdnestr conflict zone not a person died. Any time, Moldavia raised the question of changing the peacekeeping format, the fact was the main counter argument from our side. However, someone did not like our argument. Somebody did not like that the Russian peacekeepers went on so well with their duties. The terror act is just an attempt to discredit the Russian peacekeepers before the summit of the G8 in Saint Petersburg in order to raise the question of their withdrawal from the conflict zone, change the peacekeeping format and satisfy ambitions of the Moldavian party.

”In my opinion, a definite trace of the Moldavian special services can be seen in the terror act. Recently, state officials and members of Moldavian special services have become regular visitors to some countries where terrorist organizations are present, particularly, to Albania. Voronin has met people who support terrorists in Chechnya and al-Qaeda. According to our data, President of Moldavia Vladimir Voronin and officials of Moldavian special services inclined members of terror organizations in various countries to carry out terror acts in Transdnestr. They seem to have succeeded in it.

• An official of the PMR calling it terrorism and linking Voronin to al-Qaeda (!) is wholly sufficient to keep the term "Terrorism." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Misplaced Pages must use mainstream terminology, not a one-off pick and choose event where you decide who is the arbiter. We have New York Times as a source where the top official for this matter says it is not terrorism. Want more examples? As late as yesterday, OSCE-funded website "conflict.md" republished an article from Infotag which ended with the following: "As Infotag has already reported, last summer two explosions happened in a route taxi and in a trolleybus. At first the investigation did not rule out terrorist acts. However, in the course of the investigation this version was not confirmed." We really need to be serious here and get our act together, guys. If the Moldovan press (and New York Times) can do it, so can we. - Mauco 05:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but 'domestic violence' doesn't come anywhere near describing public murders.Jonathanpops 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please with the "top official," it's Antyufeyev. When I bring up he's the power behind the throne, you say, old news, not anymore, man, did you see the guy on TV, he's falling apart, he's had it, forget him. You take a 2x4 out and beat me to a pulp to discredit him. But when Antyufeyev is reprinted in a rag and it suits your purpose, he's the word of God. I tire of your two-faced sourcing. You've already discredited the guy yourself, so by your own testimony, inadmissable as unreliable. Or do you want to take back your comments about him when I quoted references he's the power behind Smirnov? It's "terrorism." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind that in archive 8 part 14 and 15 we discussed already the word "terrorism" and it was clear that the majority support it. I don't think is necesary to repeat all arguments again, only because Mark us Street want to reopen this discussion daily. Word terrorism was in this article for long time, before referendum the pro-PMR camp agreed with it, when I asked to include in the article facts about arrest of pro-Moldovan activists they told that arrest was normal as an investigation of a terrorist act. Now it seems that orders have changed.--MariusM 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons/Smuggling

No major disucussions have taken place in regards to this section, so are there any key disputes here that need to be addressed? TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned elsewhere is the Bergman interview which also talked about Russian weapons which "disappeared." I'm open to suggestions on how to handle this (which section is most appropriate). Another somewhat-forked same-page discussion, alas. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On the basis there is not a scapr of evidence to prove weapons smugglin ever took place I think we should class this as political mudslinging and delete the section. Next they will be claiming 'weapons of Mass destruction' Mark us street Nov 27thMark us street Nov 27th

Are you saying the commandant of Tiraspol, trusted lieutenant of Lebed, is a liar? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there is the historian Charles King who is reported to have stated that the Macedonian liberation army got financing and arms via their connections with the PMR. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

This is one section with almost complete agreement. PMR is the official name with Transnistria being the common English short form of the word. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Founding of Transnistria Factors

Jamason has expressed discontent with the presentation of these factors here especially in the political status section. No concensus has been reached. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My specific concerns are two-fold. First, there are no footnotes for the political status section. Who is providing the analysis here? Is it the opinion of wikipedia editors that Russia is central to the creation of the PMR or is this analysis published somewhere? Second, this not only contradicts the presentation farther down in the article, but I'm not sure how "Russian authorities" are meant to have "contributed" to the creation of the PMR in 1990. It's anachronistic and nonsensical. Are we talking about the RSFSR authorities? Or, do we mean all-union authorities? Also, "the authorities" are not exactly monolithic in their thoughts and actions in 1990. Who exactly is being indicated here? It at least makes sense to say that the PMR "survived by virtue" of Russian support, but I would still like to see this analysis attributed to some reputable source. jamason 06:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the information about Russia whether true or not (and most of it is inaccurate) should be in the political status section anyway. The political status should just say: "Transnistria is internationally considered to be part of the Republic of Moldova, although de facto control is excercised by a local separatist administration that declared independence from Moldova as the Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika or Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR), with Tiraspol as its capital. Although exercising marginal direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established an autonomous territorial unit in Transnistria within the Republic of Moldova with the right to conduct economic, scientific, and humanitarian activities independent of the central government." The text about the Russians should be taken out of this section. The establishment of the PMR is well discussed in the history section and any modern relations with Russia should be included in the International relations section. TSO1D 15:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why was moved in archive the discussion I started regarding the role of some forces from Moscow in the creation of PMR . We should include info about this in the "history" section. Forces from Moscow should be named "Central Soviet authorities". I agree with Jamason that Soviet central authorities were not monolithic but around Lukianov and Soyuz bloc were developped forces that try to stop the dissolution of Soviet Union, those forces organised also the failed coup d'etat in August 1991, but before this they organised smaller actions, like PMR in Moldova and other actions in Baltic or Caucasian republics.--MariusM 16:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, please provide link to the law passed by Moldova regarding Transnistria's status.--MariusM 16:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In Romanian there are quite a few such as this or , but couldn't yet find an English one because I don't know how the exact translation would sound. TSO1D 16:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apparently the official English name is: "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of Dniester" but I couldn't find a good English link that discusses the issue in detail.

I've checked both sources you gave, nowhere is written about an autonomous republic in Transnistria. Word "republic" don't appear. We should not use wishfull thinking at Misplaced Pages. I agree with your sentence if word "republic" is changed with "region".--MariusM 17:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yea, I don't know why I wrote that. The best term is actually Autonomous territorial unit. TSO1D 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I also like the proposal written by TSO1D and fully agree that it should replace the current version. Regarding the debate surrounding the founding of the PMR, I am, of course, still uncomfortable with the suggestion that the article credit Soviet central authorities with "organizing" the PMR. I don't reject this theory out of hand, but I certainly can't accept it based on the evidence Marius has provided. I would again point out that the activities you described were inconsequential to enabling at most. Even fully accepting the accuracy of your source, there still seems to be a considerable amount of room left for agency of actors within Transnistria itself. If we present this interpretation in the article, it needs to be clear that many scholars (William Crowther, Charles King, Stuart Kaufman, Pal Kolsto) privilege the role of local actors over central authorities in Moscow. jamason 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We should present exactly the testimonies about the facts of Lukyanov and others and let readers to decide how important those facts are. Was anybody denying the facts mentioned by me in archived talk? Even currently, Smirnov is going to Moscow to establish his strategy (see meeting with Abkhaz and Ossetian presidents), I don't believe in 1990-1992 was an other situation.--MariusM 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be the easiest if you submitted a proposal. I am unclear as to what changes in the article you are suggesting. If you want to include the fact that Soviet MVD forces prevented Moldovan volunteers from disrupting voting in Gagauzia or Transnistria that's fine. Lukianov asking Izvestiia to publish a letter? Also fine. Changing the article to read: "Soviet leaders in Moscow organized the PMR"? Then I ask for a large caveat and inclusion of analysis by the scholars listed above. jamason 01:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If such a proposal is forthcoming, may I also suggest that it be added to a sub-article of Transnistria rather than the main one. The history section has become quite lengthy already and any analysis of the Soviet involvement in the foundation of the PMR would need a more generous amount of space for a nuanced view than is available here. So if possible, please continue this discussion at Talk:History of Transnistria so as to reserve this space for the finalization of the discussion about this specific aspect of the current version of the main Transnistria article. TSO1D 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's somewhat incorrect to say that the Soviet authorities organized the PMR. I've been reviewing the time-line for a response elsewhere, but very briefly, I see:

1. initial declaration rejected by Soviet authorities
2. the PMR redeclared and subsequently indentified as an opportunity by Soviet->Russian hard liners
3. hard-liners (Alksnis et al.) establishing support and control (Antyufeyev et al.) in the wake of the failure of Soviet suppression in the Baltics--Bergman also indicated the PMR authorities took their orders from Moscow
4. the PMR embraced by "mainstream" Russian geopolitics for a host of reasons (envisioned by the hard-liners)

This is my own grossly over-simplified reading at this point, as I said, I don't have a detailed enough (for my liking) time line constructed yet. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yakovlev letter and Moldovan schools recent developments

I think is an agreement to include in the article a mention about Yakovlev's letter and about Moldovan schools recent development (see "Free press" section).--MariusM 16:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Marius Is Edit Waring

Agreed changes overseen by user Penambuco to the main page intro were reverted by MariusM, it was the exact same changes that got the page locked last time by Evilalex in October. It has been agreed by all following negotiation by outside editors that Transnistria be refered to as 'unrecognised country' as Misplaced Pages required it and also as a compromise between us all. Also the word 'terrorism' cannot be used on the page. . MariusM was part of the original discussion about the intro and at the time, see archive 8, Section 2. and he had his equal opportunity then. During his contributions user Penambuco said his suggestion for the intro was , and I quote, ' Does not sound very nuetral' he went on to say he would take the suggestions from the other four editors that included Bogdan, Jonathanpops, Muuco and myself that were more nuetral.. It was clearly explained to MariusM and all of us that Transnistria had to be refered to as a country to keep it in consistant with the rest of Misplaced Pages. User Penambuco insisted that compromise be used and he used the variant 'unrecognised country'. He gave two days for final imputs and even asked was it okay to go ahead, nobody objected and he went ahead. and MariusM and Evilalex stayed quiet. As soon as Penambuco made the edit Evilalex pounced and reverted him. Within hours Penambuco and others had the page locked. Today it reopened. I inserted Penambuco's edit and again MariusM reverted just as Evilalex had. Mark us street Nov 27 2006.

With all due respect, if you don't want to be reverted, then allow edits to be done by editors less obviously flamingly partisan and unobjective than yourself. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is you that is partisanb, also I only make agreed edits ,as all should do. Mark us street Nov 28

Stop with those plain fallacies. You know that your edits were not agreed.--MariusM 10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You were there see archive 8 Section 2. Paste it here if you like.Mark us street Nov 28th

The truth is coming out

Leafy lanes ... full of cafes and restaurants" ( BBC's Simon Reeve didn't pay heed to Moldova's scare tactics that tried to demonize Pridnestrovie in the eyes of the world. He came anyway, saw the truth for himself, and then wrote this — "Moldovans had warned me hungry armed men roam the streets, but although the border is tense, the leafy lanes of Tiraspol were full of cafes and restaurants."— BBC News, 2005.

The rest of the article is not quite as uniformly rosy. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quote from the article: "Guns from there have turned up in conflicts around the world. The border with Ukraine is porous, and it is easy for smugglers to traffic goods or arms to the Black Sea port of Odessa, and from there to the rest of the world". Maybe we should mention this in our article?--MariusM 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Moldovan warplanes Mark us street Nov 27th

I also tire of your two-faced sourcing, laud the source when it suits your purpose and then insult someone quoting not only the same source, but the very same article when you don't like what it says. And you want us to take you seriously? As a journalist, no less? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Intro

See Penambuco above. since the page reopened there have been three unapproved edits. This is the exact same edit that caused the page to be locked four weeks ago. . This is fair warning. Edit warriors will be blocked if this continues and the page may have to be locked again. Penambuco's negotiated intros is as followis; Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. Mark us street Nov 27th 2006.

Reverting to its prior state and relocking is fine, it will keep you from changing it to sound like the Tiraspol Times/pridnestrovie.net, citing agreements that were never made. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Independence Referendum

I have made minor edits to the 2006 referendum to ensure balance and for clarity. It made sense to put the percentage turnout after the result. Also if one side can state the the OSCE does not recognise the result, it is only fair and proper to state that Russia does recognise it. I hope there will be no objectors to it Mark us street Nov 27th.

Is a plain fallacy calling it independence referendum, as it was about joining Russia (even Yakovlev, the writer of PMR constitution, made this remark). Anyhow there is a separate article about it, here we should write only the summary, not all details.--MariusM 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This was an indeendence referendum firstly Mark us street Nov27th

Only Lock Intro

I suggest we lock the intro because it keeps geting changed by various edit warriors. Penambuco's original entry was the negotiated and agreed version. It is not my ideal but I agree he took the opinion of everyone. Mark us street Nov 27

I suggest you take Mauco's previous advice and refrain editing in the main space, as is a clear conflict of interest, as you are editor of "Tiraspol Times", a newspaper which has the purpose of making propaganda for international recognition of PMR.--MariusM 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain yourself from making highly annoying sensitive edits to the intro, an intro was negotiated and agreed by the other editors and is monitored by outside editors, You are desperately trying to get the page locked. You are reverting all the time against their and our wishes. You even went onto WIKI page for unrecognised countries and tried to have Transnistria deleted. The editors there overturned your arguement. They insist that Transnistria must be refered to as an unrecognised country. Now you return here with the only weapon you have and that is Edit Warring. Please discuss any edit changes you want on this page. I discuss all my changes here for weeks before advancing.Mark us street Nov 28

An other plain fallacy of you, Mark us streeet. I didn't try to delete Transnistria from list of unrecognized countries, but to move it from unrecognized countries with total control over their territorry to unrecognized countries with partial control over their teritorry , where it normally belongs (as Transnistria don't control some areas which are included in Transnistria's constitution - see our "border issues" section in current article).--MariusM 11:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, anyway,you were dismissed. Please stop the Edit War, we all negotiate things HERE first. Otherwise iwe cannot even get past the intro. Mark us street Nov 27th 2006

Stop The Edit War

all efforts to stop the Pro Moldovan edit warriors are failing user Greir hasn't been around for ages and he ploughed in with new sensitive sections that have been deleted Mark us street N 28

Pro Moldovan?? What in hell!!! do I have to do with those communists??? I doubt that you didn`t already knew, but the current Moldovan communist regime, doesn`t even recognise veterans of the Trns war, and says that they were "victims of Romanian fascist propaganda"... No big difference between Smirnov and Voronin. Both alogene colonists, both use polical ideology for personal benefits, both primitive, etc Greier 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: Voronin is not a colonist, he is a native-born transnistrian with mixed Russian-Moldovan ancestry (his father was Russian bolshevic, his mother was Moldovan).--MariusM 12:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought Voronin was a Bulgarian from Buceag, moved to Transdniester during the Soviets... My mistake... Greier 13:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark us street, you have only just show up here yourself in the last few months so you're hardly justified and saying Greir hasn't been around for ages then ploughs right in. And you seem to have gone on an editing frenzy as soon as the gates were opened, adding totally biased viewpoints along the way in my opinion. I am really not sure you should be allowed to make edits to this article considering your position. Jonathanpops 12:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You yourself are the most biased person here, EVERY edit I have made, whuch total TWO were EDITS other editors agreed after lopng debates here and I am just 'policing' the page from edit warriors, so please be civil. As the only person here that lives in Transistria and am a foriegn journalist there I am the perfect person to assist the editors here in an impartial and proper way, I ask all editors to discuss edits here FIRST to get agreement. Thanks all. Mark us street Nov 28th

Mark us street, you're doing it again, you can't just say stuff without qualifying it. How am I the most biased person here?Jonathanpops 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You expose yourself, you said it first. It is silly name calling. Lets stop this nonsense and work togther as a group to ensure proper editing Mark us street Nov 28 2006

Mark us street, while you edited still under the name MarkStreet, you recognized that you are not in Tiraspol a lot of the time . Please don't pretend you live in Transnistria, you may be a tourist there sometimes. Nobody here, recognize you as an impartial person.--MariusM 14:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

. I said I was not in my OFFICE a lot of the time, please assume good faith. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006

Information needing to be inserted into the article

The translation needs to be continued and improved, and the result wikified and styled. Taken from here. Moved here because Markstreet reverted the article for the 15th time, and I already reverted two times. Also, others could argue for not including this info into the article.

Immediatelly prior to the 2006 Transnistrian referendum, several publications from Russia and Transdniester stressed the conclusions of a certain report “made by prestigious western experts”, a report which plead for the independence of the separatist region from eastern Moldova. The study was attributed to ICDISS and a certain "Euro-Atlantic Joint Forum Contact Group". Among the signatures were quoted several well-known Oxford, Stanford and Harvard somities (Stefan Talmon, Christopher Goebel, Nancy Furman, Paul Williams, Stephen Krasner, Andrew Lorenz, Michael Scharf, William Wood) as well as several other experts in international law, among which a high ranking official of the US State Department.

These were said to have participated in April 2006, at a conference at the Bacon Hotel in Washington, together with several other experts in international law, among which a high ranking official of the US State Department. They all concluded that “Transdniester has all the required criteria for it to be declared an independent state”, thus flagrantly contradicting the official position of all western governments. The Ziua reporters contacted the quoted professors. Astounded, they declared that they do not have any connection with the report mediatised in the Russian press. Stephen Krasner, professor of international relations at Stanford University declared that he didn`t even wrote about Transdniester ever. Michael Scharf, professor at Case Western University, transmitted to us that the authors of the so called report had done nothing else than to copy and adapt an older study of his and of Paul Williams, written over a decade ago, not about Transdniester, but about Nagorno Karabah. Stefan Talmon, professor an Oxford University declared: “I want to make it clear that I was not involved in the writing of this report. I suspect that the implication of the mentioned names was used to give a certain credibility to that report, and to deceive the public”. Ziuas investigation was taken over and continued by the The Economist. After studing the text of the report, the bitish journalist concluded that despite it`s academic language, certain expressions betrayed the fact that English was not the maternal language of the authors. For example, the use of the expression "telephone centrals" instead of "exchanges" is a very common error found in Russian to English translations.The surprises continued. The british journalists found that at the Bacon Hotel in Washington had not taken place any such conference. None of the mentioned personalities had passed through there. About the two organizations which created the study, the journalists came to the conclusion that they are very strange. From the so called Euro-Atlantic Joint Forum Contact Group it appears that there is nothing except the organizations label, informs the Economist in its 3rd August edition, in an article called "Propaganda Wars Returns". Greier 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Against insertion, propaganda mudraking mainly about US organisation. Please can I request more non politcal entries such as climate and weather etc. It is becoming OTT. Mark us street Nov 28

Pro insertion. However the last link is not working, Greier you should fix it.--MariusM 13:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don`t intent to introduce the part as it is right now, but to polish it up, add style and to copyedit it. You can help! Also, here is the broken link. Greier 13:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold it right there Edit Warriors, We have caught you ,see below. Nothing on this page is to be changed without full co-operation of all sides. There are many suggestions in progress, Please wait and we will deal with this. Do not edit anything. We are still trying to stop the Intro edit war. Mark us street Nov 28

Edit Warriors

Please contibute

to Transnistria#Propaganda_and_disinformation. Let`s add all those links to The Economist, Ziua, etc. Let`s turn this campaign against them. Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job... hahah haha Greier 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) You are so evil! Mauco has a familly to feed, think at this!--MariusM 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mark us street for monitoring my talk page and copying here what you find in it. I will consider Greier's suggestion about contributing to a section about "Propaganda and disinformation". In fact, this is why talk pages are here in Misplaced Pages: to facilitate editor's communication about the improvement of articles.--MariusM 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Its quite clear to all of us what you were discussing and your EDIT WAR is ruining this page for serious people with serious intents to make this a factual page not a PROPAGANDA page. Mark us street Nov 28th

Intro Edit War

There has been an ongoing Edit War on the Intro all day. U have had to revert this five times. I am asking for order here before a full edit war breaks out. The intro was agreed Archive 8 Section 2. Warning after Warning has been issued today Mark us street 28th 2006.

Mark, the version you are proposing has not been agreed upon by anyone. And why do you keep mentioning Pernambuco? He himself said: "The version that is now (09:37 1 November 2006), as I can see, is the original one. So it stays without change. If you have objections about it, I kindly ask everyone to first find a consensus in the talk page before doing changes." That's this version, so don't say that there is any sort of agreement on your version as you are the only one advocating its use. TSO1D 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read Archive 8 Section 2, Penambuco, You changed his edit today and I am repeatedly having to revert back. We may have to lock it. We debated the intro over due time and coonsideration. This was a compromise !!!! However, please refrain from your changes.This is very important to me. Mark us street Nov 28th

Mark, please refrain telling plain falacies about an agreement which was never done. In fact, this article stayed well with the word "region" in introduction for a long time and nobody had nothing against until you showed here.--MariusM 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mark us Street, why do you keep using language such as "Policing" when refering to your own actions and "We may have to lock it " as if you have any say in this. When you first came here you seemed like a pretty even-handed guy, but you seem to be getting worse by the day. It's almost like you're two different people sometimes; on the one hand you're level-headed and reasonable, then on the other you're all irrational and emotional. I just don't get it? Jonathanpops 16:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No emotion allowed, the matter has been resolved by Wiki. Lets assume good faith and work together Mark us street Nov 28th 2006

I refer you to Archive 8 Section 2 where you were party to an agreement between five editors including an external nuetral editor.It was noted by that external editor that your position was 'Not Nuetral' however, he took all of us into account and made the edit. This is a compromise position. We all would like to have our own intro but that is not how WIKI settles disputes. Today the page was locked and it was THIS archive 8 Section 2 intro edit that was re nserted. by Wiki management. Mark us street Nov 28th 2006.

Mark do you think that all the other editors are retarded and cannot go back to the talk page to see that there was no compromise. Pernambuco explicitly said keep the current intro (which is not your preferred version). TSO1D 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we are see archive 8 Section 2, also see Penambucos Intro 30 Oct at 14.08 hrs, it's the same as I am using. Also see Khaihoi revert to it, and warning to block users trying to change it. If you are unhappy discuss new intro here, please do not revert. This intro changes caused the first war when evilalex changed Penambucos Intro. Yesterday we get semi protected because you and others tried to change his Intro. This was a compromise intro. I don't like it beut I accept I too have to compromise. Please feel feel to reopen the talk on this and I support that but for now please leave the intro alone Mark us street Nov 29th

Don't misrepresent the truth. Khoikhoi has not taken your stance on this issue and certainly wouldn't block a user for choosing one side. And if you look, his last edit was to revert you. TSO1D 18:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved Items

While I have pre-filled not only for myself but for Mauco and Mark Street, I would nevertheless suggest if people find this a useful means of organization, we should each maintain our own section to indicate an issue which came up somewhere earlier to indicate we acknowledge we have an item to follow up on. Obviously, Mauco and Mark Street are welcome to indicate whether or not they agree with my characterization.

Russo-Skepticism

To recap, the "Russo-skeptic" view is that the Transnistrian situation is an orchestrated Russian power play. No impartial observer—and certainly no Russo-skeptic—will regard "dancing in the streets" as a true expression of the will of the people until such time as (and incorporating Dc76's clarifications):

1. after every Russian national (i.e., not a Russian of Moldovan citizenship) in the PMR authorities is out (as in out, and out of the country);
2. after the Russian troops and any other troops or para-military forces assisting are all out (as in out of the country, and their arms depots demolished)--and I don't mean Russian military/para-military retiring to become "citizens of the PMR and join the PMR army," either;
3. after it is legal for a political party to be pro-Moldovan (that currently being treason); and
4. after Romanian is once again taught in its proper Latin script, not in some Cyrillic Soviet-era utter bastardization created purely to support the Stalinist fiction that Moldovans are not Romanians—"31+ percent of population in 100+ localities should have the right to more than only 5 schools available in Latin script, 4 of which in Tighina, and all 5 under serious persecusions and threats; and that in the official language of the country."

When these conditions are met, we can seriously discuss the validity of any subsequent expressions of the will of the people. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Homework, Mauco

Mauco brought up: "a seminar in September in Chisinau (organized by the British Embassy) summed up that there is a good level of press freedom in Transnistria. It characterized it as a myth to claim that the media climate is restrive." I have requested details (i.e., where and when) so I can confirm. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Homework, Mark Street

First, on no human rights issues, Mark indicated I was uninformed when it came to the "language issue." Rather than take on all the contents of the pridnestrovie.net page explaining there is no problem or oppression, I suggested we address one or two points at a time, starting with the language:

1. Russian Cyrillic script is not (pre-mid-19th century) Romanian Cyrillic script any more than English Latin script is Romanian Latin script—pridnestrovie.net paints the picture they are the same.
2. Stalin manufactured "Moldovan." It's a bastardized transliteration of Latin-script Romanian—pridnestrovie.net skirts the issue by saying the PMR is returning the language to its "cultural (Cyrillic) roots."

Again, in the logical English equivalent of (PMR) Moldovan, I ask, Ду юу агри со фар, ор дисагри? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Second, do you really not have a list of the 153 observers and their affiliations? You claim it was released to the international press, yet is nowhere to be found in English. Rather odd for a journalist to insist someone "do their own homework" especially since you (and others) repeatedly point to "the 153" as proof the referendum wasn't a sham. Perhaps the list doesn't really exist. Perhaps it was just Alksnis and a couple of his buds on vacation. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Third, about my "old troll" and your denouncing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty as propaganda (as documented "by the U.S. government"), and it turning out your claim of propaganda and fabrication regarding charges against your own paper was misinformed, I'm waiting to hear on your resolution of the matter with Mr. De Waal. Obviously his now being doubly outraged at the Tiraspol Times for the continued misuse of his work has not affected your website, I just checked as I typed this and the offending article is still there, unchanged, HERE. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, who pays the bills for the Tiraspol Times? Hiding behind Politkovskaya and Litvinenko is a disservice to their memory. If absolutely nothing can be revealed about these people, groups, or organizations, then the agenda of the Tiraspol Times remains equally hidden. You've already indicated you're not going splash your backers' names on the Internet. Is there ANY information you can offer ("Des Grant" does not qualify)? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, you were going to respond to the Russo-skeptic position when you had a chance. ("I appreciate the fact that you have a position and have at least an idea of how you envisage steps towards some resolution. I will come back to deal with your points. Currently snowed under work wise. Mark us street Nov 15th") —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Homework, Pēters J. Vecrumba

Jamason has requested sources for the expression of pro-Moldovan union being illegal. (That was the premise under which parties advocating such union were banned--as advocating Moldovan union requires the dissolution of the PMR, considered treasonous.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New censorship at Tiraspol Times

In archive we already discussed the censorship at Tiraspol Times regarding Yakovlev's letter. The problem of Moldovan schools using latin script in Transnistria rise up again this month, as European Court of Human Rights accepted an urgent examination of the claim submitted by 3 Moldovan schools regarding discrimination and the violation of right for education , and also as the head of OSCE mission asked Rybnitsa authorities to return the confiscated building of the Moldovan school . In Tiraspol Times today appeared an article about the school issue , with usual propaganda of PMR authorities about the fact that everything is fine. Significantly, this article doesn't mention the court case filled at ECHR, neither the statement of the head of OSCE mission. OSCE is mentioned, but not any word about the confiscation of the building of Moldovan school in Rybnitsa, only about that "actions by the OSCE representatives in Moldova do not promote the development of a constructive dialogue or trust between the educational authorities of Pridnestrovie and Moldova". The bad thing that OSCE representatives did was to discuss with parents and teachers of one Moldovan school without the presence of PMR officialls. Mark us street, you can do better than that. Find a non-political explanation for the confiscation of Moldovan school building in Rybnitsa! What about "the building don't meet the sanitarry standards and PMR authorities are worried for the health of the kids"? (this is my suggestion). Anyhow, is good to have a confirmation that PMR don't recognize the legitimacy of the diplomas issued by Moldovan latin script schools.--MariusM 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics