Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by William Mauco (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 27 December 2006 (→Lack of activity in the mediation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Positions of mikkalai

• Item 1 (parties): deserves elaboration.

What kind of elaboration? In your edit you told that the ban of parties is a serious and notable thing, but need refference. Here is the refference (page 25-27).--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Item 2 (arrest): irrelevant (it was not "before referendum" it was "long before", and not only Dignitas were arrested).

The arrest was not "long before" the refferendum, it was only one month before. See this refference.--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Item 3: whoever these Helsinki are, proofless accusations have no place in wikipedia: it is not a gossip board.

`'mikkanarxi 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is your opinion that the accusation are proofless. Moldovan Helsinki Comitee is a respectable organisation with international recognition which was founded in Tiraspol in 1990. Its leader, Ştefan Urîtu, has a good knowledge about Transnistria. I note that Moldovan Helsinki Comitee opinion is not a singular one, OSCE also told that referendum results in Transnistria were falsified. "Electoral tourism" is a plausible way of falsification, as many people in Transnistria have more than one ID document (Moldovan passport, Ukrainian passport, Russian passport, Old Soviet passport) and is easy for anybody to vote at different polling station, at each one with a different ID, especially when you know that authorities are not interested to find a fraud. Is very difficult for a foreign observer to find such fraud, especially because, as result of lacking of a political party which support unification with Moldova, election comitees in each polling station will be composed only by persons who support the regime and are not interested to show frauds. Foreign observers were mainly from CIS and Russia, organisations with pro-Russian biases which can not be considered neutral observers. (Referendum was about Transnistria joining Russia). I add that the lack of verification about who can vote in Transnistrian elections was an old issue showed by MHCHR (see page 28), but Transnistrian authorities did nothing to solve it.--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of my rebuttals to the above (MariusM is wrong, and he is being misleading, and I will be glad to explain why) will basically repeat what is on Talk:Transnistrian referendum, 2006. How do we go about this? Should we ask the mediator to take control at this point, or? - Mauco 22:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder of what one of involved part in this mediation, Russian user:int19h, told in the talk page of article: With all due respect, it is not our job to determine what the truth is in this case - that would be original research, a no-no. Our job is to accurately record all claims made by all involved sides, however POV they may be, and reference them. In case of HCHRM, we certainly have to include their claims in the article; however, if there is any relevant information on how they might be not impartial in this case, and there are sources for it, they can be included as well (and, of course, the same goes for all other observing parties). If they were not accredited observers, and there is a source that shows it, by all means, put that in. -- int19h 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC) --MariusM 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and here is the diff for that post of mine. And Mauco did agree with me on that, but he objected to the prominence given to HCHRM claims in the article, considering their fringe nature (i.e. the fact that they were the only ones to claim any significant violations, and that they did not offer evidence for their claims). -- int19h 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Positions of MariusM

I am for inclusion of all 3 sentences (as in current article) as all 3 sentences are sourced. Anything else will mean blanking relevant information.--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding aditional issue 2 which I added today as result of new dispute with Mauco: current article tell that media climate is restrictive on both sides of Dniester (that mean both in Transnistria and in Moldova, from which Transnistria want to separate), based on an OSCE report. However, the report states, regarding the government of the Republic of Moldova : "In the last few years, the Mission has noted several cases when transmissions by broadcasters critical of the Moldovan government were blocked. Some of these issues, relating to First Romanian TV, TV Romania 2, Vocea Basarabia, Antena-C and Euro-TV Chisinau, were subsequently solved, but concerns remained". All those situations regard pro-Romanian TVs. First Romanian TV and TV Romania 2 are state-owned Romanian television chanells. Vocea Basarabiei, Antena-C and Euro TV are Romanian language chanells with pro-Romanian attitude. This is why I want to include a mention about the fact that those chanells which were persecuted were pro-Romanian chanells. None of those TV chanells are favourable to Transnistrian separatism. Situation is the same in Transnistria and rest of Moldova: the pro-Romanian side face restrictions and pro-Russian side is encouraged by government, while the degree of restriction is different. However, I feel that a good solution is to concentrate only about media climate in Transnistria, as the subject of our article is "Transnistrian referendum, 2006", and to take out comments about media climate in the rest of Moldova, as irrelevant. I consider irrelevant those informations about Moldova as at the time of referendum the mentioned restriction were not anymore effective, it was an old issue. Removing such irrelevant information is the best solution, however, if Mauco insist on inclusion we should give the full picture about who was the subject of restrictions.--MariusM 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Restrictive media is already mentioned in the article. OSCE (and there are other sources, too) state that both sides are at it: Moldova and Transnistria are both restrictive. For more details, you can add the degrees etc etc into the Media in Transnistria article which deals with the media climate. This is the referendum article, so don't content-fork. Besides, the recent seminar organized by the British Embassy in Chisinau does not agree with you: They say that media in Transnistria is a lot freer than what most people think. - Mauco 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is in Russian language source and I don't speak Russian. If the seminar was organised by British Embassy, why there is no English language source?--MariusM 21:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How you want to include in Media in Transnistria problems of media outside Transnistria? This is the problem: is relevant the media climate outside Transnistria for the article "Transnistrian referendum, 2006"? Do you agree that is not relevant, only the media climate inside Transnistria is relevant?--MariusM 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of activity in the mediation

I stated my positions and answered to all replies of others, but it seems that those who oppose my view simply don't have any arguments except their desire to hide problems that exist in Transnistria. They didn't explained their position. However, with Mauco at least, I had a lot of other disputes in other articles (he even declared himself once "disgusted through the bones" by me ), but not in this mediation. I think the conclusion should be that the claims of HCHRM should stay in the article (as they remained during this entire period).--MariusM 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the claims by the HCHRM are completely unsupported and too fantastic to be taken seriously. They are fabricated, have no credible source confirming them, and lack any basis in reality. This was what brought the article to mediation in the first place. The only reason that the article has remained stable in its current highly-POV biased state is because some of us have refrained from correcting it in the meantime, out of respect for the ongoing mediation process. - Mauco 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)