Talk:Transnistria/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Archives

• /archive 1
• /archive 2
• /archive 3

Crime

We have to remove the reference to the "radioactive bombs" because its only source, an article in the The Times, has been discredited. It turned out that the reporter always knew the full name of who he was talking to, Dmitry Soin, and that the reporter (a freelancer) made up most of the article. Soin, who is the source of the article, has stated that about the only true item is the fact the fact that he drives a black BMW. The rest is made up. He is on the record, with photos, revealing the facts and fictions of the Times article. It has been impossible to find other sources apart from this single, erroneous Times article. All other research always point back to this article and no independent verification exists. - William Mauco 14:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Sources:

• http://www.tiras.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=854
• http://www.russkie.org/index.php?module=fullitem&id=9357

I agree that the Times article is dubious and can be excluded. However, I don't undertand why you removed the paragraph regarding the missiles that disappeared from Transnistria. That story is not connected to the Times article and has been validated by the appearence of some of the missile throughout Ossetia and Chechnya. TSO1D 16:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right. We just need to include citations (this can be done in the References section) so that wikipedia doesn't get the reputation of being a purveyor of propaganda for one side or the other. This is extremely important in such a hotly contested topic. -William Mauco 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dmitry Soin teaches at Tiraspol's university. He is also a buddhist. On his homemade Tibet-Transnistria website, he promotes vegetarianism and abstaining from alcohol. -William Mauco 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, everyone know that The Times is just a propaganda rag sheet which publishes everything. Random sites in Russian are soooo much more reliable and trustworthy. bogdan 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, Bogdan I had the same immediate thought when I saw the changes. Nevertheless, I did some research and found that independent and credible sources confirm the fact that the Times story has some dubious aspects. TSO1D 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Moldova's prime minister keeps calling Transnistria a weapons exporter, among other things recycling the claim that Transnistria supplies or supplied Chechnya. His claims were immediately refuted by those in the know; the official participants in the fighting in Chechnya: No arms from Transnistria or from the former Soviet stockpile have been found anywhere in Chechnya, ever. An official spokesperson in Chechnya called the Moldovan statements politically motivated. - Mauco 12:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Source: http://www.tiras.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=135

Crime: Missing missile launchers

Please help find sources for our claim that 70 surface-to-air missile launchers disappeared and our implication that they were sold. That these same launchers later appeared in Ossetia or Chechnya sounds like kompromat. Let's remove this information and add it back in when/if we obtain reliable citations. - William Mauco 22:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article from the washington post: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20040118-103519-5374r.htm TSO1D 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! However, it doesn't quite convince on the missile point. But we can use it as a reference and those who want to dig further can then determine for themselves to what extent they believe the writer's claims. I think it works - 85.214.29.234 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I politely disagree. For Wikipedia to be credible we need better references than Oazu Nantoi's say-so to The Washington Times. Nantoi is a Romanophile warmonger whose brief career as an advisor to Moldova's president ended because he was too radical. He has an axe to grind. These days, he makes a living as a "talking head" from a private Chisinau-based NGO (called IPP) stirring up hatred against Transnistria by consistently shooting down every settlement proposal from OSCE, from Ukraine, and everywhere else.
The Washington Times is only slightly more credible. Founded as the propaganda arm for fanatic cult leader Sun Myung Moon, it is a documented purveyor of planted misinformation. David Brock, author of Blinded by the Right, writes about his work for The Washington Times and how he "made up stories ... that could never be corroborated." This former employee is on the record for calling the Washington Times' journalistic ethics "close to nil". And from Wikipedia: Salon.com ([1], [2]) and The Daily Howler (examples: [3], [4], [5], [6]) have published scathing analyses of what they say are serious factual errors and examples of bias in the paper's news coverage.
The article we reference is classic smear: Almost every "fact" comes from unnamed sources speaking "on the condition of anonymity". Researching these claims just leads to more unnamed sources and sometimes to claims which official Moldova then refuses to back up, document, comment on, or share with journalists. Serious neutral research actually reveals the exact opposite. For instance, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty quotes western diplomats who call reports of massive arms and drug smuggling "wildly exaggerated." http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/05f3742a-1c2d-4e1a-a57f-0e9780549795.html - William Mauco 16:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Although you might disagree with the newspaper's stance on various issues, you cannot simply deny the validity of the missile article based on this. The author, George Jahn is accredited by the Associated Press. The information is also backed by other sources, I remember multiple credible sites acknowledging this, however I have not found those sources yet. In any case, you cannot remove the infomration simply because you don't like it. As for Nantoi, he is a respected analyst, and whatever disagreements you may have with his statements, your descpription of him is greatly exaggerated. TSO1D 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nantoi certainly has his fan club and I am obviously not part of it. I see his public statements as clearly biased and as rarely matching the available evidence. For non-English (internal and Romanian consumption) he is even more rabid. Ask OSCE officials what they think of his "contribution" to the Transnistrian settlement process. - William Mauco 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, I found another link detaling the incident, this time from NATO report: << The Ukraine manifests a more and more open interest for the North regions of Transnistria, which have a prevalent Ukrainian population. In an unexplained way there have been registered cases of shipping through the frontier and territory of the Ukraine armament produced in Transnistria and which has been sold in other conflict regions (for instance Grad type rocket launchers Abkhazia). In 1999 the mediators from the Ukraine proposed a bill that was going to be approved by Kishinau and Tiraspol. >> http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/99-01/mardarovici.pdf

I am glad to see that we can find more references, but this one is hardly a better one. Ion Mardarovici's report from Chisinau, Moldova makes allegations to weapons which were apparently produced in Transnistria, and not to the 70 missing missile launchers from an old Soviet stockpile which is the uncited claim that we are dealing with here. His claim of "registered cases" is not footnoted or referenced, nor are we told who registered these cases, when or where. Instead, half of the report consists of interviews with school children and pro-Moldovan nationalists while the Transnistrian POV is not given equal treatment. At least The Washington Times article was more objective because it included the true statement that officials in Transnistria denied the allegations. So to safeguard the quality standards of the encyclopedia, let's keep looking for more facts on which to base our claims, please. - William Mauco 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I have re-writted parts of the Crime section, removing statements that I could not back by credible sources and providing sources for the existing information. TSO1D 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is much better now. But if we include information that we can not fully source, then we need to at least preface it with the fact that these are the claims of analysts and that Transnistria maintains a consistent denial of such claims. - William Mauco 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier today, someone else rewrote the paragraph as follows:
"According to a former Moldovan official, a cache of 70 surface-to-air missile launchers disappeared from a former Soviet stockpile some years ago. Moldova's government declined comment. Officials in Transnistria denied the allegations."
That sums up the position of all sides: Nantoi, Moldova's government and Transnistria's government. It also matches the content of the reference from Washington Times, which is full of "anonymous sources" but which at least also allows Transnistria to state their side. It is a more accurate representation of the position of the involved parties than the current sentence: "Recently, a cache of surface-to-air missile launchers as well as other weapons disappeared from a former Soviet stockpile and officials are unable to account for their whereabouts."
- William Mauco 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Gas debts

It is misleading to state that Transnistria gets free gas from Russia while Moldova had to pay for it. The truth is that they both get gas on credit: Both Transnistria and Moldova are still supplied (neither country is currently cut off from Russian supplies) and both countries maintain a debt. Moreover, the paragraph previously recycled deliberately wrong facts circulated by Vladimir Socor and claimed that Transnistria's debt to Russian company Gazprom was "more than $1 billion" when it is in fact only half that. - William Mauco 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Sources: Official Gazprom press conferences, http://www.regnum.ru/english/615852.html

Discuss changes before making them

William Mauco, please motivate the removal of each paragraph.

For example, why did you removed this:

Since partition, Transnistria has served as a haven for smugglers and traffickers in fuels, arms, and other contraband, as well as trafficking in human beings. A recent report funded by the British Department for International Development named Transnistria "a smuggling company masquerading as a state".

It has (had?) a BBC reference. bogdan 18:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan - I am not sure that this was done by me. I also don't remember seeing a reference to the claim. But I agree with you that anyone who edits should use the Talk pages to explain their reasons and why he or she thinks that their edits are making the article better. That's what the disclaimer on the top of this page says: ...discuss substantial changes here before making them. - William Mauco 19:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Census ethnonyms

If both names, Moldovan and Romanian, are to be used it makes sense to keep them together. The census only had one choice for this ethnic group from what I gather, therefore they should be kept under one category. Saying Moldovan and Romanian implies that both were distinct choices that were presented to the populace and that they were combined in this presentation. I don't believe that is accurate, otherwise the "Romanians" would have been listed under other. The category should read Moldovan/Romanian. TSO1D 22:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get confirmation on this for you. I seem to recall that the form did distinguish between Moldavian (Moldovan) and Romanian. I know for a fact that it had fields for jews, Bulgarians, Gagauz, Poles, Tatars, etc. - William Mauco 00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, let's keep in mind that for many readers even the initial casing of the word means something. For instance, when I hear about "Romanians" I normally think of this a specific nationality (citizen of Romania) whereas "romanians" is a more generic terms; an ethnic group. Likewise: Moldovans (citizens of the Republic of Moldova) and moldavians (ethnic group). - William Mauco 00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If the form did in fact distinguish between Moldovan and Romanian, then the category Moldovan should not have Romanian next to it in any form as the Romanian data would be included in the "others" category. As for the case of the word, in the English language all proper nouns are capitalized regardless of their meaning. TSO1D 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree: "Romanian", in this context, would rank alongside Gagauz, Poles, etc. Please note that I don't yet have the form for you, though. - William Mauco 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I got the confirmation. In the 2004 population census of Transnistria in the column "nationality" there were no preset fields (what the government called "in advance set variants") of ethnic identification. Census workers wrote down whatever nationality was given by the inhabitants. A small number defined their nationality as "Romanian". For statistical purposes, this was then listed under "Other". The form itself did not have fields for Jews, Bulgarians, Gagauz, only the detailed analysis of the resulting output (the report) did, and in the summary these - like Romanian - were then put under other. There was a clear official distinction between Moldovan (called Moldavian in Transnistria) and Romanian, both by the inhabitants themselves and by the census takers. For comparison "Moldavian" in 2004 ranked 31.9% or 176,958 people. - Mauco 10:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Mauco for confirming this. In that case the current categories are logical TSO1D 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

new english version of name

I see that the official website of the President now uses the name Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic on its English language page [7], rather than Trans-. Presumably this is the preferred official English version so I have added this and created a redirection page. If anyone knows when this usage began in official literature, please add the date. Jameswilson 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the name of the country should remain Transnistrian Moldovan Republic. I believe this is the preferred English variant. Others variations such as the "Moldovan Republic of Transnistria", the "Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic", or "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Repulbic" are used by less official sources. Only the Presidential site of the TRM uses the Pridnestrovian... version which simply is an incomplete translation from Russian. TSO1D 03:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert? Is the "official" name now PMR or not? Jameswilson 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We crossed - What about other official sites? Have they changed. BTW why does the President prefer Moldavian not Moldovan? Jameswilson 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen various contradictory versions on the TMR's official sites, however most are in Russian anyway so it is not possible to implement that information. As for the Moldavian question, he prefers using this as the term stemms directly from Russian (at least during Soviet times), which is not the currently internationally accepted version of the term. TSO1D 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'd better wait until they settle on one version then. I think de facto in the UK press, Moldavia(n} is used for Iaşi, etc and Moldova{n} for Chişinau, etc. The first time I saw the word Moldova in English was for a football match v England in the mid-90s. I think up till then both were called Moldavia here. But the distinction seems to have stuck. Jameswilson 03:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is moving in the direction of PMR in preference of all other names, but it is too early to call so we should not adopt the change yet in my opinion. Officially, as per the authorized English translation of the Constitution, the name is "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". This is also the name used in rulings of parliament (the Supreme Soviet). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is mixed: Officially they use "Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica", in Russian transliteration, and sometimes unofficially they use "Transdniestria". What is clear is that few official organs hardly ever use the word "Transnistria". It is considered Romanian. As long as there is still a conflict still going on they feel that to adopt the word of the "other side" is a sign a giving in. Likewise, the "other side" never calls Transnistria by the official name of its constitution. They either say Transnistria, or, very often, just "the left bank of the Dniester".
Apart from the constitution, another authorative source is the country's official "Atlas". It has this to say: In foreign sources, the name Transnistria is applied, meaning the region located across the Nistru River, which is not really used in the region itself. The official name of the region adopted by the regional state authorities is Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika or, in short, Pridnestrovie. Source: http://tdsu.idknet.com/region/english/ - William Mauco 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Update to the above: It's official. The longform name is Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica and the official shortform name is Pridnestrovie. See О ТPАНСЛИТЕPАЦИИ И ТОПОНИМИКЕ НАИМЕНОВАНИЙ available on both pridnestrovie.net and zakon-pmr and Pravo PMR - Mauco 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The page makes is look as though the TMR government was complying with a UN recommendation to standardize the name. This is of course ridiculous as the UN certainly does not recognize the Transnistrian government in any form. For this reason on official UN pages as well as those of other organizations, the TMR "law" will have no effect and I believe that the variant used by the government of Moldova will continue to be used in all international documents. TSO1D 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Within the territory of Transnistria, at least, it is a fact that the laws and edicts of the Transnistria's parliament and president are in force. Internationally, everyone else are of course free to do what they want. Official country name falls under the category of state symbols (like flag, coat of arms, etc.) If we take their flag edict at face value, at least as it concerns usage within the territory which is under the control of the Tiraspol authorities, then we must also give the same consideration to their name edict. Maybe they got carried away a bit in their phrasing but it is still the law there, whether we like it or not. - Mauco 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy for such situations is. Your argument makes sense, if that is their official name then it would be used by that form. However in my view the law is a bit bizare; I don't understand how they state that the English variant of the name is simply the transliteration of the Russian version. If I am not mistaken, Transnistria has three official languages and the English variation of the region has never been Pridnestrovia but usually Transdiester or Transnistria (not from Romanian but from Latin). For this reason I believe that although the TMR might translate official documents using this name, no international institutions will continue using Transnistria and I don't believe we should change the name yet (the Russian transliteration does currently correspond to their proposed version). TSO1D 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I will research this, as well as Wikipedia practices. I agree with you that it is not right to change the name, as least not yet. - Mauco 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Results of the research: Two apparently conflicting conclusions. On the one hand, the closest analogy seems to be Burma/Myanmar with Burma, rather than the official name Myanmar, being used by bodies and states who do not recognize the ruling military junta. Even so, Wikipedia prefers and consistently uses the official name given by the government currently in control of the region, disregarding the usage of some of the largest countries in the world (such as the United States) which for political reasons insist on using Burma. Taken to Transnistria, this would indicate that we should use Pridnestrovie rather than Transnistria since that is the official English language name for the country as per the decree of a government which, although not recognized by the U.S. and other countries, is recognized as being in control of the region. Then again, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. The truth is that the "majority of English speakers" recognize neither Transnistria nor Pridnestrovie but that between the two names, Transnistria is nevertheless the most widely used in English. This indicates that we should stick with Transnistria. - Mauco 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. TSO1D 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the twin conclusions means that we should stick with Transnistria (common English name) and that we should also mention Pridnestrovie (official shortform) / Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica (official longform) / PMR (official abbreviation). These, probably with Transnistria first, should be the dominant names used in the article. We should change other names (MRT, TMR, DMR, etc) since they are neither the most common English names nor are they official names, and therefore they fall into neither of the two naming conventions used for Wikipedia. We can keep them in a paragraph about "other names" but they should not appear elsewhere. - Mauco 13:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the other abbreviations should be changed to PMR. TSO1D 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's what I've done as a result of the above: Instead of just deleting a bunch of stuff, I have moved everything into a new article Names for Transnistria (not too happy with this name of the article, however, so feel free to change it). This allowed me to clean some of the auxiliary information from the main Transnistria article, so that it now only focuses on the two names that there is consensus on: Transnistria as the main name, and then the official names (long, short and abbreviation) mentioned prominently as well. - Mauco 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans and Romanians in Censuses

In Soviet census they were counted separately. CIA in their factbook denying existence of "moldovans" listed them all as "romanians", hence this 40% copied everywhere in internet. For Transnistrian census you see yourself at the picture the number is for Moldovans. Where are romanians I don't know. You find it out then correct the text. No guesses, please and no childish revert wars. I explained my changes in edit summaries. `'mikka (t) 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

well... A part of the people who are officially Moldovans identify themselves as Romanians. bogdan 17:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I could not find any convincing evidence regarding the methods used in the 1989 census. Assuming that Moldovans and Romanians were counted separately, logically the Romanians would have been classified under "others" not joined with the Moldovan category. However I am not sure of this. Nevertheless, if that were the case, then the category would read just Moldovans anyway, it would not mention Romanians in any form. Do you believe that the CIA factbook joined the Moldovan and Romanian categories and wrote that as Moldovan/Romanian? If that is how they did it and we are using their results it only makes sense to use the same categories. Of course if we would have the actual data from the census (which I am looking for across the web) then we could re-arrange the data as we would like. But I could not find any orginal sources, and virtually all presentations that I have found list the majority ethnic group as Moldovan/Romanian or simply ethnic Romanian. Nevertheless, as we are not fully aquainted with their methodology but are using their sources it is logical to render the data as it was found on that source.

In the Transnistrian census, it makes sense to only leave the Moldovan variant as we have direct access to the (preliminary?) results and that was the given category.

TSO1D 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source on this census:

“ The ethnic mix in the DMR consists of 40.1 per cent Moldovans, 28.3 per cent Ukrainians, 25.5 per cent Russians, and various other minor national groups. ”

John Mackinlay, Peter Cross (editors) Regional Peacekeepers, United Nations University Press. ISBN 9280810790.

bogdan 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is interesting and could be added to the article:

“ Until the 1960s Moldovans made up the absolute majority on the left bank, but their proportion declined as a result of the centrally promoted immigration of skilled labour, particularly from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), into the cities to man the factories. ”

same source.

bogdan 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, : in 1989 USSR Census Moldovans and Romanians were separate officially recognized nationalities. The whole current fuss with Moldovan language is based on this. I am totally surprized you are questioning this. CIA dismissed the notion of "Moldovans" for obvious political POV. Again, I am surprized that you don't know about this anti-Sovietism of CIA.

For Transnistria, you have a picture in the article. Unless you have information that says something different, the text and the picture must match. If you will find an additional info in reputable sources, you are welcome to make changes. `'mikka (t) 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As for "part of the people who are officially Moldovans identify themselves as Romanians", you are welcome to add a comment after the numbers. I am sure you can find plenty of reputable referencess to support this clarification. `'mikka (t) 18:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mikka I don't understand how the "Moldovan language" fuss is related to the 1989 census. Please enlighten me. As regards the separate categories, if that would have been the case then why are Romanians listed under the same category as Moldovans on this page. What I mean is the data was collected by the Soviet government, not the CIA, thus if we were to look at the original source we would expect to find the majority of the population under Moldovan. My question is was the original number for Moldovans 40? In that case we can assume that the number of Romanians was negligibly small and thus only leave the name Moldovan. Or, on the other hand, did the CIA combine data for Moldovans and Romanianas (which would probably have been under one percent) in order to come up with the 40%? TSO1D 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The "language fuss" is related to separate nationalities issue. Since CIA boldly called them "Romanians", it is only logical to assume that the combined "real" romanians and moldovans into one number. 1989 Soviet data may be purchased online on CD for $300 or looked up in Russian/Moldovan central libraries for free. The number "40" is rounded and I've seen slightly different numbers as well. The number of "Romanians" in the whole Moldova was reported 2.1% in 1989. It is very reasonable to assume that in the area of Transnistria the fraction was under 1%, and the number "40%" is as good as any other at the moment when we don't have exact official data. `'mikka (t) 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case shouldn't the category better read just "Moldovans" and not mention Romanians at all? TSO1D 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll become a mortal enemy for Romanian wikipedians, just like me. On a serious note, you obviosly don't understand how things worked in the Soviet Union. You did not "own" your ethnicity. Your nationality was written in your passport in the infamous "Fifth Record" ("pyataya grafa"; post-Soviet Jews remember this quite well), and saying otherwise was criminal offense: "forging of official data". Of course, 1989 was not 1970, but still people had habits of being cautious. `'mikka (t) 19:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"result of the centrally promoted immigration of skilled labour"

Now that we are here, allow me some more Sovietic rant. Today this immigration is protrayed as a vicious Russification of poor oppressed Baltic States, Ukrainians, Moldovans, etc.. In fact, it was a policy of industrialization of backwards rural periphery in a brainless bureaucratic way. Different places differ, let me tell you about Moldova. A famous winery for the whole Soviet Union. Endless vineyards. Despite total collectivization, people have private vineyards, also steal a little from kolkhoz/sovkhoz and have a great time. Now, a plant is being built. Can you find an idiot who would want to sweat in a greasy noisy place instead of tending sunny Feteasca? Of course, Soviets had to transfer workforce from Russia. `'mikka (t) 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool, Mikka found the Promised Land. It's Moldova. You should found a sect and earn some good money. And promote tourism to Moldova, too. :) Dpotop 21:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not Moldova. It was Moldavian SSR, and only in eyes of Soviet people. Just like it was Georgian SSR, where 7 orange trees and 3 lemon trees and a patch of roses would make a person rich (by Soviet standards). Instead of poking fun at me, you'd better try and understand what I was saying. But you probably already know what you need to know about all past, present and future. Good luck. `'mikka (t) 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As for promoting tourism in Moldova, do you happen to know that in Soviet times virtually all excellent sorts of grape were intentionally destroyed in the fight against alcoholism? I don't know hoiw the recovery goes, but what Moldovan wine I see imported into the USA today is all "ink", as we called it in Soviet times, despite all these old famous names. So I guess Moldova is not Napa Valley now. `'mikka (t) 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "innocent" arguments look very much like the racist arguments on Black Africa: "It's so hot there, that they need nothing, just pick some bananas and eat them. Europeans are needed to do the real work." This is why Soviet propaganda was so vicious, because it made decent individuals like you (and others) believe such nonsense. And this is why we have had those arguments in the past. Dpotop 12:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Colleague, each racist propaganda has a grain of truth. If you don't want a cell phone and a TV set, you can right-oh pick a banana and be happy. And surprisingly many people don't see anything bad in banana happiness. That is why Amercian propaganda is so vicious: you say "Soviet" and everything is propaganda and bullshit. The truth is that in different places land has different level of productivity. The Soviet problem was that people were not allowed to live off land, and on the other hand the Soviet state wasted the resource terribly. I completely fail to see what propaganda is in this. `'mikka (t) 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans are romanians and you don't have any evidence to prove that is not like that. The rest of your arguments are just cheap sovietic political arguments that may be well considered as anti-romanian remarks.--125.248.157.82 11:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag

From what I understand Mikka is right. The official flag (flown on state buildings) must include the hammer and sickle. However, by the Article 4 of Law on symbolism, the hammer and sickle can be ommited for most cases (except for state institutions). This is from http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/md-dnies.html and http://pridnestrovie.net/. TSO1D 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. De jure, I am looking into this here: http://zakon-pmr.com/index.php?adv - De facto, all PMR flags are now clean tri-bands with no hammer and sickle. This is even true in official use, as far as I know. So if the Transnistrians themselves have abandoned their hammer and sickle, I don't see why Wikipedia should reflect anything else than the reality ... even if their laws may yet have caught it with that. I know that this approach is more pragmatic than Sovietic. But let us discuss this some more, and if we want to get an inside view then someone (Mikka? TSO1D?) could also open a thread on http://forum.tiraspol.net asking about this issue. - Mauco 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is the most recent law relevant to the subject:

О ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ СИМВОЛИКЕ ПРИДНЕСТРОВСКОЙ МОЛДАВСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ (ТЕКУЩАЯ РЕДАКЦИЯ ПО СОСТОЯНИЮ НА 16 МАРТА 2005 ГОДА)

Статья 3

Государственный флаг Приднестровской Молдавской Республики представляет собой прямоугольное полотнище двухсторонне красного цвета. Посередине полотнища каждой стороны во всю его длину располагается полоса зеленого цвета. В левом углу верхней части полосы красного цвета располагается основной элемент герба Приднестровской Молдавской Республики - серп и молот золотистого цвета с красной пятиконечной звездой, обрамленной каймой золотистого цвета.

http://zakon-pmr.com/doc.php?docid=23848538&queryid=28896451 As you can see the hammer and sickle are listed as required elements of the official flag. TSO1D 18:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the existence of the Flag of Transnistria article? `'mikka (t) 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

LOl, actually I had not seen that page before. Well, I guess this discussion did not bring out any new information, but at least I believe the issue is settled. TSO1D 18:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What is still puzzling is that, with the 2000 law, why does government itself not even adhere to it? Look at photos from president-pmr.org, mfa-pmr.org, and any of the news services covering official events and national holidays of Transnistria: Sep 2, Feb 23, etc. All the flags are without star and without hammer and sickle. - Mauco 05:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

68.201.194.236 put the flag back up without hammer/sickle, I reverted him back, but it would be right to reopen this discussion: It is clear that Transnistria has two flags, the state flag (with hammer and sickle) and the civilian flag (without). The latter is by far the most widely used, as per all available photo evidence ... even to the point of some state organs disregarding their own law. We would not be wrong to display the civilian flag rather than the state flag since the civilian flag is the most common flag and the one that Transnistria is known under. This would even concur with other Wikipedia usage[8], so unless other editors strongly object (Mikka?) I would propose letting this most recent edit stand. Not to sound too schizophrenic, but I'm prepared to revert my own revert and give reasons why. - Mauco 00:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

After five days and no objections to the proposal above, the change has now been made accordingly. In summary: Between the two official flags (state and civil), which are both legal[9], we now show the one which is in common usage. This practice corresponds to other Wikipedia country entries, such as for instance Bolivia, and it also corresponds to the practise used for this particular article (Transnistria) in Wikipedias in most other languages [10],[11],[12],[13],etc. - Mauco 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an official infobox, hence the official flag as described in Constitution. Period. Not to say that its symbolics reflects the state of the state. `'mikka (t) 23:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure that these symbols actually reflect the current state of the state. But "Period" sounds like there's not much to argue, so ... period it is. It is not a big deal for me, either way, although we are allowed to show the most commonly used flag (rather than just state flag) in the official infobox. - Mauco 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans = Romanians

Can one explain me how come that Moldovans are not Romanians? It looks like a russian POV in the article. --220.65.247.178 06:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Salut bonaparte! :) - FrancisTyers 08:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The factory in Rîbniţa

I was going through the article and this sentence caught my eye: "One is a munitions factory in Tighina (Bender) while another important steel factory exists in Rîbniţa (Rybnitsa). The factory in Rîbniţa brings about 50% of the republic's revenue and is the main provider of jobs in that city." It seems strange that one factory would account for 50% of the region's revenue. Can anyone provide a source that can back that statement? Otherwise, it might be best to simply remove it. TSO1D 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the original author of this statement, and I agree with you that it sounds strange. I have no objection to removing it. But the statement may not necessarily be wrong. The factory is MMZ, on which more can be seen here and here. It is indeed that city's largest employer. When measured in sales, its $500+ million also makes it #1 in Transnistria. If the Transnistria GDP is only twice that, the 50% statement could be true unless we are comparing apples with oranges. -Mauco 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Did some more research on this subject and found the following: "The Moldova Steel Works in Rybnitsa, which employs close to four thousand workers, is the source of 40 to 50 percent of the de facto state's revenue." This is from page 66 of the book Engaging Eurasia's Separatist States by Dov Lynch, published by the United States Institute of Peace (a government organization), ISBN 1-929223-54-4. The corollorary to this is that as of yesterday, the factory just stopped working [14]. So right now, at least, it would be untrue to say that it brings in 50% of the revenue (or even 40%). Like TSO1D says, it might be best to simply remove the whole sentence altogether. - Mauco 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It got a 3 month temporary Moldovan registration and reopened last week. They are still having some trouble exporting, due to a railroad dispute which JCC (trilateral peacekeepers) tried to solve yesterday and today. But at least in terms of customs-issues and work, they seem to be back to normal. - Mauco 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

A new user, jonathanpops, added this comment to [Talk, Archive 3] on April 5 which I just stumbled upon by accident today, so I am moving it here:

Regarding the content of transdniestria.com, having watched it now for quite a while I see you're right it is mostly news from 3rd parties, but there are people's opinions that are original, and a few articles here and there there can't be found anywhere else. It's a pity this whole page on wikipedia has had to be locked down because of abuse, I have to say though that I think it's very wrong that visitors to this page aren't allowed to be given the opportunity to see transdniestria.com and make up their own minds and add their own opinions. The site is there and there's no point not linking to it. I know there's no point in adding it now because someone who thinks they know better than me will just remove it again, it is a shame though. (end, jonathanpops)

To Jonathanpops: First of all, please discuss here and not in archives. Second, article is now unprotected so you can edit again. Third, as you may have read, I happen to agree with you that this particular link is appropriate and that the content reflects all points of view. Be bold, add the link if you want. Don't become a discouraged ex-Wikipedian. If others disagree, we discuss (here, not in archives). - Mauco 05:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to William Mauco: Sorry I only put my last comment there because that's where the original discussion was moved to, my original comment was somewhere else and got moved. I didn't see that you had this bit down here, or just didn't realize that's how it worked. I don't think I've seen an article with as many edits as this one, not additions but people removing other people's work and other people re-adding it, or another version of it. It's kind of interesting but very confusing at the same time. I guess with me and this topic it's kind of a case of me being the new guy, like you say, and feeling that I don't have the same say as some of the others. For instance in this case where I added an external link that I thought would be useful to people interested in the topic and Mikkalai instantly deleting it with some derisive remark about Wikipedia being no place for blogs. I just assumed that Mikkalai is someone respected, he certainly has done a lot of edits here, and that adding the link again would get on someone's nerves and it would be simply deleted again. Anyway, that's why I voiced my opinion that it's a shame rather than just adding the link again - though it seems I did it in the wrong place. - jonathanpops

No need to apologize. All of us are newbies to a certain extent (well, maybe not Mikka). The problem you mention with all the edits, reversions, and deletions stems from the fact that this topic (Transnistria) is controversial. And I think it was Bogdan who pointed out that in this particular case, those who really know enough about the subject to add value as editors are people who are involved in this subject or follow it closely - and because of that, for better or worse, they have already formed an opinion one way or the other. So true neutrality is hard to achieve and thus often disputed. But go ahead and add your link. Mikka is indeed respected, but like me and everyone else he sometimes makes mistakes and as you can see from the Talk page and its archives, he too has received some criticism. In the case of the link you mention, it is not a blog and it is at least as relevant as the moldova.org link which is already present in our external link section; probably more so. Both of them are collections of third party news and your link to trandsdniestria.com is at least balanced and fair. It fairly presents all sides of the story, whereas moldova.org only shows one point of view. - Mauco 17:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I have some doubts regarding whether we should include transdniestria.org.com in the links section. I agree to some extent that it mirrors moldova.org by including credible third-party sources and thus establishing some balance. However, the page does not appear truly professional, there are actually numerous gramatical or orthographical errors on the first page alone. The page also resembles a blog to some extent as users can share their views and submit stories, a characteristic contrary to the Wikipedia policy on including sources. If you truly want to include this page, I will not oppose you, I just urge you to consider its merits on propriety for Wikipedia again. TSO1D 14:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone else originally added it a couple of months ago, it was up for quite a while, then EvilAlex took it away, and none of us here loved that site enough to add it back into until Jonathanpops showed up, put it in, and had it yanked in quick order by Mikka. Basically, the site aggregates English-language Transnistria news from other sources. It takes everything it gets and doesn't appear to enforce any censorship. I follow it daily so I know it well. It is not a blog. It has a comment option for each article but I've never seen anyone use it. As a community site, it is very poor. Its main (only) merit is that it provides a one-stop aggregation for English language news on Transnistria. No one other free site does that. It is updated daily. The owner is a Transnistrian who moved to England (like EvilAlex). His name is Nikola. From the intro on his frontpage, he sounds pro-Transnistria but he doesn't censor anything and the news is normally over 70% pro-Moldova. It is a decent resource for someone who has an interest in following Transnistria events and doesn't want to follow the Russian press. I visit it more often than ANY of the other external links that we have (Moldovan side or Transnistrian side), so that alone says something for the site being included. But I am not passionate either way. - Mauco 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to http://www.transdniestria.com/ again. I wasn't sure where it fits as the site seems to be on no particular side as far as I can tell, apart from the obvious in its name of course. Please can someone alter it if I did it wrong? jonathanpops

Oh my God, it was only up there for 5 minutes and Chisinau has removed it as 'link spam'. I even put a note to see discussion when I added it. I guess that discussions here are not related to the article after all, so what happens now? - Jonathanpops 12:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The user who removed your link has not participated in the discussion about this link (neither above, nor in [Talk, Archive 3]) so he is hardly justified in removing it. If he feels that it is link spam, then he should tell you and the rest of us his reasons here and give you a chance to resolve it and reach consensus. If he can't do that and keeps removing you then he's just vandalizing. - Mauco 14:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I researched and added the water surface area which was "N/A" before. In doing so, I used http://tdsu.idknet.com/region/english/atlas/dir14/relief_text.shtm as the source. I took the size of the Dubossary HPS reservoir 67.5 km2 and Lake Kuchurgan (Cuciurgan) 27.2 km2, and rounded up to the nearest total in order to factor in the Krasnoye Lake and a smaller lake formed by the Rybnitsa river near Kolbasna.
I also corrected land mass area size, as per the following sources in English http://www.mfa-pmr.org/republic/index.php?lang=eng&id=1, http://pridnestrovie.net/facts.html and in Russian http://www.tiraspol.net/republic.asp?info=geograf, http://www.olvia.idknet.com/overviewru.htm Note that these all include Bender (Tighina) which is the correct approach for this infobox since Bender is under Transnistria's political administrative control. - Mauco 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Language problems

A moldovan from Iaşi is a romanian. A moldovan from Moldova is also a romanian. What language does he speak? Romanian language of course.Iasi 10:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC).

An Austrian speaks German. It doesn't make him a German. Now, Bonaparte, this is all repetitive, discussed already multiple times. I feel bad that among the usernames you compromised is the name of this great city. May I suggest that you come back under yet a new name and, first, make to that name some good reputation by writing some articles. Some good articles, not the nonsense entries like Romania's potential masterpiece. After that join the hotter debates. If you just wait until this username follows others in getting blocked, you will just waste yours and other people's time. And, finally, never edit through open proxies! Either directly, or through a new user name. Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits the usage of open proxies. --Irpen 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't read too well Irpen. A moldovan from Iaşi is a romanian. A moldovan from Moldova is also a romanian. What language does he speaks? Romanian language of course. Iasi 05:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about the issue (for or against), the frequent reverts are disruptive to the article. To anonymous: State your case, convince the other editors, and then go ahead with changes. See also archives. This has been covered amply in the past. - Mauco 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan (Romanian) is a romance language that uses latin alphabet. No need to give Transnistria's Moldovan official name using cyrillic alphabet. Unfortunately, I don't know how to spell it in Moldovan as I don't speak it, but it would be nice and helpful if someone could correct this (Ukrainian and Russian official names should stay unchanged). 198.51.251.205 13:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not the view of the PMR government. They believe that Moldovan is different from Romanian, and that the main difference is the fact that it is spelled with cyrillic letters. This position is supported by the historical fact that ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria have used the cyrillic alphabet for their own language since the 14th century, with the exception of 15 years in the interwar period. (Source: [15]) Transnistria calls the language Moldavian (Moldovan) and differentiates it from Romanian mainly by using cyrillic. They call the same language Romanian when it is written in the latin alphabet.[16] Contrast this with the official position of the government of the Republic of Moldova which calls the language Moldovan even when written with latin alphabet. In this article, we are using two names: The common English name (Transnistria) and then the official name(s). For the latter, we are displaying the official name as determined by the government of PMR, in all three official languages, so we must adhere to their choice both in naming and in spelling it in each of these languages. - Mauco 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Separatist regime

I believe that the word separatist should continue to be used in the article. I remember there was a debate regarding its use about a year ago but it was decided to maintian it for numerous region. Most international organizations such as the EU and OSCE refer to the regime as such. Calling it an independent government is a euphemism. Others encycopedias such as Encarta also use the term separatist and secessionist. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566942_2/Moldova.html TSO1D 20:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with separatist (although if we really, really, really want to split hairs I can document why technically this is not the case. However, for ease-of-understanding it is probably the word that best describes Transnistria for outsiders who don't want to get bogged down in technicalities). I am more concerned about the word regime. It is a "loaded" word which carries an implied POV. A neutral word would be "government". It has no value judgment since it can be used equally well for dictatorial authoritarian governments as for democratic governments. The word government does not even imply recognition of Transnistria as a separate country, as "government" is used at the local level too (city government, regional government). - Mauco 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should stay separatist. Actually it is an illegal entity. 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read more closely: I am concerned about the word regime, not the word separatist. The former is best replaced with the neutral word government (while separatist can stay as far as I am concerned). - Mauco 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not government since no state has recognize it. If it's not a state or government that means it's a regime. Actually is an illegal regime. 195.245.224.138 14:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd hate to bait a troll, but for what it is worth: Government in English can refer to any kind of government, be it state, local, regional, city government etc. Even "illegal governments" (such as governments which obtain power through a coup) are governments. It is a neutral word whereas regime is value-laden. - Mauco 14:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As you said it already. A Government is...Well in this case there is no Government. It's just an illegal regime. Which is also separatist. 195.245.224.138 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

perverse edit. Under the name Motto he constantly deleted everything related to Romania. Reverted. --195.245.224.138 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not care if the word government is used instead of regime. It might even be a better term to describe the situation. I just don't believe that the word separatist should be removed. TSO1D 20:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will do the edits. - Mauco 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to do edits, so as to adopt neutral POV, but we have an anonymous troll who's currently disrupting. Please take a look. - Mauco 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It might make sense to request semi-protection for this page if this continues. TSO1D 21:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The IP is an open proxy BTW. --Khoikhoi 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Will Moldova join Romania?

Yes. What will be the future of Transnistria? Well... Transnistria will become a part of Romania.195.245.224.138 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of this comment? seriously? do you think that it will serve at all to our discussion here? As a Romanian, I can tell you that if by any chance Moldova and Romania agree to join into one state, I would really not want Transnistria to be included in it.Constantzeanu 08:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore anonymous comments. And you're right: If Moldova and Romania ever unify, then Romania will absolutely insist on solving the issue with Transnistria first. They don't want to be saddled with a potential Northern Ireland problem beyond the border of what has historically always been considered the extreme East of Greater Romania. - Mauco 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Partly you're right but also it is EU who wants to have a free Moldova with EU oriented foreign policy. It may sooner or later unite with Romania but that's another topic. --Chisinau 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

sprotect

from user talk:RHaworth#Request

Hi Roger, Would you be able to semi-protect the Transnistria page? It's under attack by an open proxy IP, most likely a sock of the banned User:Bonaparte. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We might be able to take this off now. It looks quiet around here for the past couple of weeks. - Mauco 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping: History of Transnistria

As originally discussed a month ago, we now have a separate History of Transnistria article. This is in part to match overall Wikipedia practice and in part so that the main article conforms with Wikipedia's article size parameters. Please note that no text has been changed: The entire History section from the main article merely got moved into History of Transnistria, lock stock and barrel. In its place is now a shorter summary which is merely a condensed version of the article, using key sentences drawn from the original article. All original text is kept "as is" with not a single edit/change, and can be seen here. - Mauco 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian troops

I am concerned about possible POV in our mention of Russian military involvement, in particular the following statement which does not tell the full story:

Despite the Istanbul Agreement of 1999 Russia did not withdraw its military troops from Transnistria.

The original 14th Army numbered 12,000 men at the time of PMR's independence declaration (1990) and the War of Transnistria (1992). The number of Russian troops has been progressively lowered over the years. Today it is at its lowest level, with the most recent figure numbering just 600 men and women. (Source: [17] of 05.05.06 13:53). In other words, 95% are gone. That amounts to an effective withdrawal by anyone's measure. The remaining forces are there to comply with Russia's obligations as part of the Joint Control Commission which was created on the basis of an agreement signed between the presidents of Moldova and Russia. I propose rewriting the paragraph - Mauco 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Related: Most of the Soviet-era ammunition and military hardware in Kolbasna has also either been removed or destroyed in recent years. This is recognized by both the U.S. State Department and OSCE. In fact, OSCE specifically states that this is a result of the Istanbul Summit.[18] It's OK to be hard on PMR for lots of reasons, but not at the expense of telling the truth. - Mauco 13:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not in the exact number of troops and munitions that remain, but rather in the continuing Russian military presence. I remember reading a few months ago that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the rest of the troops will not be withdrawn because some armament remains. A few weeks later, the Ministry stated that the armament cannot be removed as the PRM government did not give its permission, etc. The fact is that Russia is not interested in a full withdrawal, and that is the main demand of the Moldovan government. Russia has been criticized repeatedly for not complying with the Istanbul Agreement in completely withdrawing all military personel. Here is a statement from the U.S. State Department: "Resumption of Russian military withdrawal from Moldova in accordance with the Istanbul commitments would also send a very important signal that Russia, a key player in the talks and in the region, does not regard the status quo as permanent or acceptable. It has now been six years since Istanbul, and this commitment remains unfulfilled.We reject the notion that fulfillment of the withdrawal commitment is dependent upon a political settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. No such condition was agreed to at Istanbul." [19] TSO1D 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly one of the more controversial topics of the whole Transnistria imbroglio. It'll be easy for us to fight over it here, too, if we want. Each side has its arguments, and I am not too keen on butting heads with you or anyone else over it. In fairness to the Russians it could be said that if their last 600 men and women leave, then who will take over the Joint Control Commission? Just Moldova and Transnistria? And how might that end? But I don't think it would serve us (as Wikipedia editors) to fight over this. Rather, I would merely advocate that we stick to the facts. As it reads now, a newcomer to the article will think that the Russians are still there in full force, when in fact 95% of them have left and the majority of the Kolbasna ammo and stored military hardware has also been either shipped back to Russia or destoyed in situ by now. Note: It is also an area where PMR and Russia disagree vehemently; showing that although the two parties coincide on a most issues they are in fact individual actors with their own sometimes differing agendas. PMR is currently petitioning Kremlin to increase the troop strength to 2,400 and add a helicopter division. - Mauco 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, it is not the size of the force but its very presence that is the issue of contention. Although a greater force could present a greater immediate threat to Republic of Moldova, the fact that any Russian soldiers are stationed in the region protecting 20,000 tons of weaponry (albeit archaic) exerts almost as great an influence on the geopolitical reality of the conflict as an augmentation of the number might. It is important to understand that the Moldovan government does not view the troops as neutral peace-keepers, but rather as partisans of the Transnistrian side. During the war, the 14th Army supported the separatist forces by providing them with war matériel and on several instances by using their contingent against the national forces. By the end of the military conflict, it became clear that Moldova could not possibly defeat the Russian-backed Transnistrian forces and a ceasefire was declared, however the status of the Russian has never been acknowledged by Moldova as being of a necessary peace-keeping nature, but rather as it declared on various occasions as occupiers. The size of the contingent might present a more immediate threat to the Moldovan state, however this has a negligible effect considering that in any potential conflict between Moldovan and Russian forces the entire Russian Army would be ready to respond in force. Recent incidents such as the occupation of the Port of Varniţa, emphasize the fact that the Russian forces do not represent a veritable peacekeeping force. http://www.azi.md/news?ID=39017 In any case, this discussion is irrelevant, because the sentence reflects a true statement. Russian officials acknowledge the fact that they do not wish to fully withdraw the military forces and thus they are violating the terms of the Istanbul accords. TSO1D 23:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the semantics, of course, but we're splitting hairs. Most reasonable outsiders would see the Russians as having complied 95% with the Istanbul agreement, and that the reason they are still there is to keep the situation from getting worse. They call themselves peacekeepers now (and see themselves as peacekeepers), and we can agree or not with that moniker. But even if we don't agree, it doesn't take a genius to predict that if they withdraw their last 600 folks and let PMR and Moldova alone in the Joint Control Commission then the situation could easily go from fair ("no military deaths since 1992") to probably a whole lot more unstable. Calling them occupiers is just a label. Both sides use all kinds of label for political reasons and we, as editors, should try not to fall into that trap. Let's just call a spade and spade and not advocate anyone's pet point of view. Moldova has signed onto the agreement creating JCC which is the reason given for why the Russians are still there. So Moldova knows what they are there for. Since its creation, in 1992, Moldova has participated on and off in the JCC, both in its leadership and planning and with troops as well. Of the tree sides, it has the second largest participation. So both de jure (by signing and creating the JCC) and de facto (by providing management and manpower) the JCC is supported and acknowledged by Moldova. Do they do their job well? Probably not, at all times, if Varnitsa is anything to go by. But that is a different discussion, and as a result of Varnitsa the OSCE persuaded Moldova to involve itself more than before in JCC, with the next meeting scheduled for 11 May, so someone somewhere understands that Varnitsa was in part caused by a lack of active engagement by Moldova in the JCC. Getting back to the article, though. I still think this particular section should be updated. I'd be willing to give it a try, and then you (and anyone else) can of course revert me - since this is Wikipedia - if you don't agree that the new version is better than what is currently there. - Mauco 12:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that I fully understood your original comment, I appologize for that. Yes, the statement can be improved and I have attempted to expand it by explaining that a drastic reduction took place in the Russian contingent. As for the statement about occupiers, I did not use that word anywhere in the article and only placed it here because Mr. Voronin employed the word on several occasions. As for Moldova's not participating fully in the JCC, whatever the reasons for this lack of interest may be on the part of Moldova, by no means does this justify the military occupation of the port by the Transnistrian forces. And about the absence of military deaths in the recent past, that is true, but the hostilities ended when the Russian forces themselves stopped fighting so in my view the lack of direct hostilities is due more to Russia's non-aggression rather than its peacekeeping efforts. Of course, this is just my opinion. TSO1D 16:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, I like it better now. Regarding Varnitsa, I am not clear on the situation. But if Moldova had been more active in JCC, then this incident probably wouldn't have played out the same way. So it is good (for all sides) that Moldova is now taking a more active role. - Mauco 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I clarified that the last Russians are there for JCC duties. Instead of getting into a discussion of whether they are peacekeepers or occupiers, I merely took the phrasing from this OSCE document [20] which is a current part of the U.S. State Department's website. - Mauco 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that all of the Russian soldiers are on peacekeeping duties. I believe that a fraction (though I am not certain how great) of the troops are employed to safeguard what remains of the 14 Army's base and its remaining munitions. As a result I added part of in you latest change. As for their status, I don't think you understood me, I have never advocated using the name occupier in the article and have no objections towards the usage of "peacekeeping forces", I was just making a point by providing a statemnt from Voronin. TSO1D 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your edit. It would be interesting to find out how many are JCC-personnel and what the rest are doing (if not all are JCC). Another item worthy of research would be Kolbasna: Is the remaining ammo there guarded by JCC (all three sides together) or only by the Russians? I don't have the answer but would like to find out. - Mauco 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update to the above: You were right that not all Russian soldiers are on peacekeeping duties. If you believe Olvia Press (I do, sometimes) then the number is 349 for JCC which leaves approximately 251 soldiers to guard the remnants of the base of the 14th Army and its ammo, including whatever still remains at Kolbasna. Source: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol49-05-06.htm - Mauco 12:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that seems like a plausible distribution of the personnel. By the way good job for finding that information, I spent a great deal of time trying to locate it with no success.TSO1D 19:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Exact number of troops. Mauco, I looked at the link that you provided at the beginning of the discussion [21] (I neglected to look at it when you first posted it), and I discovered that the article did not directly state that only 600 Russian troops were located in the region, but rather that 600 peacekeeping troops of the Russian Federation were stationed there. "600 российских миротворцев охраняют мир на берегах Днестра после кровавого вооруженного конфликта между Молдовой и Приднестровьем 1992 года." On the other hand, in another source that I visited today that number was estimated at 1500. [22] "Now in Transnistria there are about 1,500 active militaries of the Russian Federation." Do you think that the number in the article be changed to 1500? TSO1D 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[off_topic]You two currenlty represent a model group of wikipedians, bringing NPOV to what was previously an almost hopeless article with reasonable dialogue, while approaching the issue from opposite sides - something I thought as impossible without bickering and pointless revert wars - you know that? :) [/off_topic]

Thanks for the cudos, maybe it is because both TSO1D and myself are not directly involved (he is not in Moldova proper and I am not in PMR) so we can keep our cool and see things from a distance. This doesn't mean that we can always claim to be objective, of course, because as Bogdan pointed out anyone who knows enough about such a subject to be able to really write about it in an informed way is probably swayed by one opinion or another. - Mauco 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I'd suggest the following: "..although the Russian contingent has been reduced to approximately 600-1500, according to various sources([23],[24]), part of whom..." --Illythr 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Such a wide range is too imprecise for my liking. We ought to be able to do better. A lot of the .md sites have a vested interest in overstating the real number, it is part of the whole "black hole" campaign. At the same time, Olvia Press is stateowned Transnistria, and Transnistria is currently lobbying to get the number of troops up to 2400. What we need is a Russian source and let us be clear that any number given for peacekeeping troops (JCC) wouldn't be the same as the total number of troops (others needed to guard Kolbasna, etc). Maybe http://www.peacekeeper.ru is a good place to start? - Mauco 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the best source would be either an official Russian site (perhaps the Ministry of External affairs [mid.ru]) or data from an international organization such as the UN or OSCE. I am not exactly sure what http://www.peacekeeper.ru is. It doesn't seem to be an official website, but it does have articles and links where this information might be found. TSO1D 01:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mid.ru would give the true number. Try to look for a press release issued at or around 15 Dec 2005 where this issue was discussed with the president of Ukraine. Meanwhile, I started looking for numbers from other sources but they are all over the map. For instance, [25] gives the figure of 1300 but the Russian source which they quote is [26] and it does not have this info, so it is not clear if they just pulled it out of a hat or whether the figure is authoritative. Let's keep looking and see if collaborative intelligence can find the real data... - Mauco 02:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also found this: [27] and they put the number at 1500, among whom there are 360 peacekeepers: "Между тем 14-я воздушная, которой командовал генерал Лебедь, давно расформирована. Нынешнее российское военное присутствие, невыносимое для Кишинева, - это 1500 солдат и офицеров. Из них 360 - "голубые каски"." This was published in late 2005 and I don't believe the situation has changed drastically since then. However I still hope to find a more official source. TSO1D 02:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

1500 seems to be the correct number (either exact or approximate). Since you wrote the above sentence 2 weeks ago, I have seen it mentioned 3 times elsewhere. The latest, yesterday: http://www.nr2.ru/pmr/69406.html The 360 number for peacekeepers is also OK. I have seen it stated lately as 349, 360 and as "around 300". - Mauco 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

1200 is the number quoted yesterday by ISN Security Watch http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=16087 but since it is the only one giving this figure, let us not take it as authoritative. 1500 is quoted more often elsewhere, or at least it has been until now, and there has been no word that 300 Russian troops suddenly left. - Mauco 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai's deletion

Mikkalai had deleted an important text:

The trafficking of women is a serious problem in the territory, with both women from Moldova and Transnistria and women transported through from other countries. [28] [29] [30] [31] --213.186.49.115 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then re-add it without doing a wholesale revert of the article. —Khoikhoi 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very good as it was presented. No need for russian extremism here. --213.186.49.115 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted please learn to read. `'mikka (t) 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

region not state

It's a region not state unrecognised region --213.186.49.115 18:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't edit Bonaparte, you're banned. —Khoikhoi 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily {sprotected} this article, to stop, or at least slow dowb, the running battles involving IP address sockpuppets/open proxies. -- Karada 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. —Khoikhoi 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there's no such thing as an "unrecognized region", anyway... --Illythr 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So that would mean that "unrecognized region" is an "unrecognized term"? :-) - Mauco 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there isn't any "unrecognized region"? Well that's the actual status of Transnistria. But you should read more to find it out....Exactly my view, since it is not a state, but a region and has no official recognition: that's an unrecognized region! But you russians like mikkalai would like to have from Transnistria something like the second Kaliningrad. Well, that won't happen I assure you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=56262680&oldid=56172605 what the heck is that? Mauco? or node? --200.109.38.53 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my edit. Factory reopened, see talk comment above under the appropriate section. - Mauco 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

William, please refrain from feeding the trolls. ;) Just ignore him. —Khoikhoi 00:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Still learning ... - Mauco 11:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of Troops

I see that we still have not discovered an accurate official figure regarding the number of Russian troops stationed in Transnistria. However, I am certain that the number should be higher than 600. A few days ago, the Russian defence minister, Ivanov stated: “Well, fine. Let’s say, this isn’t a real military presence, but you know then they demand that Russia remove its peacekeepers from Trans-Dniester, where there are only 1,500 peacekeepers ... who have prevented a war.” Thus he puts the number of peacekeepers at 1500 which means that there are probably more soldiers in the region on other duties. Vox Populi (TSO) 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we did the research and there is no disagreement on the numbers. It is 1500 total, and 350 - 360 of them are part of the Joint Control Commission. It could also be argued that the other 1150 are doing "peacekeeping" work because they are guarding the Colbasna/Kolbasna ammo dump, but they are not officially referred to as peacekeepers by any of the three parties involved (as far as I know), so let us not use that definition here either. The problem you refer to above, Vox, is that even though we found the numbers we never got around to updating the main article. I will do that now. - Mauco 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Mauco 11:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Census contested?

The article has a sentence which reads:
"At the census of 1989, the population was 546,400. At the time of the 2004 census, whose results are contested, the population was 555,500" (emphasis mine).
Contested by who? Or why? I can not find anything on this, so it is safer if we just remove those four words. But: If, however, there is a real issue of contention, then it would be interesting to add a few words on that, too: Is it contested because of the numbers? Or the ethnic percentages? Or just because Moldova does not agree that Transnistria should be allowed to freely conduct its own census without managers from Chisinau running the process (the "unrecognized elections" argument)? - Mauco 12:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence refers less to the total number of inhabitants than to the ethnic distribution of the region. However, I am not aware of any direct criticism of specific aspects of that census (or actually any commentary whatsoever) from official sources or NGO's, so it might be best just to remove the sentence. Vox Populi (TSO) 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I commented out the same line from the German page about 2 months ago, requesting links to those contesting the census. No response was given as of yet. Who added that line here anyway? --Illythr 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I went back into the archive and I saw that technically it was I who added the line. Before the census results were made official and were only found on some bank's website, I added the numbers with the following caveat: "These numbers represent an estimate utilized by various sources. The results from the 2004 Transnistrian census have not yet been released by the PMR officially. The validity of these numbers is disputed, as they cannot be confirmed by an official source." I removed the warning after the results appeared on Olvia Press but then a few days later somebody put it back in and than reduced it to "the results are disputed", which was later changed to "the results are contested". In any case it is safe to remove it now unless someone finds some evidence of an actual dispute.Vox Populi (TSO) 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I suspect that part was carried over into the German section as well. I think I'll pay it a visit...--Illythr 16:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The international organizations were not allowed to monitor it. BBC says: http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2004/11/041111_transnistria_census.shtml
"Valabilitatea recensământului organizat de un regim nerecunoscut este pusă la îndoială de autorităţile moldovene, dar şi de instituţiile internaţionale de profil, care nu vor putea monitoriza modul în care va fi chestionată populaţia şi vor fi sistematizate datele acestei chestionări. "
"The validity of the census organized by a unrecognized regime is doubted by the Moldovan authorities, but also by the international institutions, who will not be able to monitor the way the people will be questioned and the way the resulted data will be processed." bogdan 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bogdan. That was exactly the information I was looking for! But that was then, in 2004 ... do you know if the results are still contested? Because there will always be complaints over methodology as long as they two sides are still at each others throats; how could we expect otherwise. But what matters for us, here, is to what extent we can consider the numbers reliable. So, does anyone currently (2006) doubt that there are 555,500 inhabitants, or that the ethnic makeup is misleadingly reported? That is the essence of what would constitute wrong census data. I am personally inclined to believe the numbers because of a) the lack of any subsequent dispute, after the official numbers were released and until now, and b) because the dataset is very detailed, given the exact number of inhabitants and the ethnic makeup of every single village. It would be easy for a census authority to put a slant on numbers when they are broad overall tallies, but harder to fudge them with such a deep, detailed level of small subsets. - Mauco 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have or know of a site that shows the final results of the census, or at least more detailed results such as population by nationality (including the "others") or population by raion or cities?? Constantzeanu 18:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw a site like that a while back. I used it for an essay I wrote about Tighina. I think it's at Olvia-Press or some other PMR official site. --Node 21:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a site in Russian. I remember it too, but not the URL. Very detailed: has the full breakdown and the latest numbers (those from the 2004 census). Meanwhile, in English there is only http://tdsu.idknet.com/region/english/atlas/dir22/chisl_text.shtm (text, which only opens well in Internet Explorer) and http://tdsu.idknet.com/region/english/atlas/dir22/chisl_k.jpg (the general census map). - Mauco 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

is it this site [32] ?Dapiks 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A much more detailed set of census results has just been released, and local press has been commenting on it all day. [[33]], [[34]], [[35]] and lots more. Overall, it looks like we don't need to change anything major because the facts in the article match the census results as far as I can tell. However, there is a difference in the data on the number of inhabitants of Tiraspol. See http://www.nr2.ru/pmr/71822.html71813.html - Mauco 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also this page: "2004 Census: PMR urban, multilingual, multicultural" which has a good level of detail and which is in English. - Mauco 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The following paragraph should be reworked: "Until the 1960s, the Moldovans made up the absolute majority in the region, but the ethnic proportions changed due to industrialization and the immigration of Russian and Ukrainian workers, encouraged by the Soviets. The trend continued after 1991, too, as the Moldovan population decreased between 1989 and 2004 from 41% to 32% of the total population. However, the Moldovans are still the largest single group of the region."

The main problem is the first sentence. See http://pridnestrovie.net/images/historicpopulation.gif which lists 41.8% in 1936, then 39.9% in 1989; thus not supporting a jump to an absolute majority (51%+) in the interim years. The above paragraph also doesn't match what History of Transnistria has to say: "Even prior to Russian rule, however, the area was already predominantly Slavic: The largest group on the left bank of the Dniester in the 18th century was made up of Ukrainian peasants." (source is Pal Kolstoe, University of Oslo [36])

It would be accurate, and also match the history article, if we emphasize that the area has traditionally been predominantly Slavic but with a large Moldovan minority. - Mauco 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, I do not know who added the sentence but it is obvious that Moldovans never made up the majority in the region at any point. TSO1D 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If we take out that sentence then the rest of the paragraph doesn't make sense. It needs a slight rewrite, overall. - Mauco 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You forget that the borders of Soviet "Transnistria" changed several times. Dpotop 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Naturally. This is why it is important to view all prior census data through that prism. As far as this article is concerned, we are only interested in the numbers for present-day Transnistria (the territory claimed by the PMR government), which includes Tighina. The comparison table which I linked to above gives Charles King as it source, with reference to "data compiled by N. A. Troinitskii". King is author of the book "The Moldovans" and also several scholarly articles on the history of the region. I don't know why Tronitskii is but if King uses him or her as a source then the numbers ought to be somewhat reliable. At any rate, we are not in need of detailed data but just enough to be able to say, with a broad brush, that Moldovans have always been the largest minority in Transnistria but have never been an absolute majority. - Mauco 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

...No excuse for claiming not to know "NA Troinitskii" because we can just Google him. I did, and 6 results came up, as a source for very interesting and detailed historic census data! - Mauco 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D just rewrote the paragraph. Good job, so: case closed. - Mauco 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See above for info from Oslo on how Ukrainians outnumbered Moldovans in the 18th century. Another quote from http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm which refers to the 1920's is: "only some 30 percent of them were Romanians." Either way, TSO1D's phrasing using the word "significant" is the safest, because if we become more precise, we must also ask him to define his use of the word "modern history" to a more precise time frame. Since we are giving two sets of census data just a few lines below, in the very same section, everyone can see what "significant" means; at least in the very modern phase of recent history (last 17 years). - Mauco 02:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilaşcu case and the ECHR

The official press release from the ECHR states that "The Court further held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release." This is exactly what the text repeated. TSO1D 14:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it makes sense then. I was getting my info from the case itself. Judge Casadevall expressed a partly dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Ress, Tulkens, Bîrsan and Fura-Sandström. Judges Ress and Loucaides each expressed a partly dissenting opinion. Judge Bratza expressed a partly dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Rozakis, Hedigan, Thomassen and Panţiru. Judge Kovler expressed a dissenting opinion. On the basis of this, I thought that the word "unanimously" didn't fit.
And: As far as "arbitrary" is concerned, this is in the eye of the beholder. It probably seemed arbitrary to those who were arrested, but not to the prosecutor or to the other authorities in the courtroom at the time. In fact, even Ilascu's own people concede that the court went to great lengths to established its legitimacy. In http://www.ivantoc.org/white.htm there is an excerpt from paragraph 3 of the indictment: "(3)(*)...after the proclamation, on September 2, 1990, of the NMSSR (later on called the NMR), which is the legitimate successor of MASSR and MSSR, formed as a consequence of the violation of the human rights in the Republic of Moldavia, and of the statement of the Supreme Soviet of Moldavia, on June 23 1990, that the foundation of the MSSR, on August 2 1940, was illegal, and in keeping with the documents of the international law that confirm the right of the peoples to self-determination: the UN Charter, [here follows a long list of documents of international law], in keeping with the will of the people of the NMR, made manifest in referendums, citizens' meetings, decisions of the 2nd Congress of the People's Deputies at all levels, followed by free elections for the Supreme Soviet of the NMSSR (NMR), and when the Supreme Soviets adopted the Declaration of Sovereignty of the NMSSR [here follows a long list of references to events and domestic "legal" documents]..." - Mauco 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the judges were not unanimous in criticizing Moldova and Russia for their past actions but were unanimous in recommending that they try to end the imprisonment of the other men. As for the arbitrariness of the arrest, the term was used in the press release, although it can justly be contested. I myself believe that the men were involved in some, if not all of the actions that they were accused of by the Transnistrian forces. TSO1D 16:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Intenational law still recognizes Moldovan sovereignty over Transnistria. The imprisonment of these guys is arbitrary because the Transnistrean sovereignty is not recognized. If you reject this criterion, then any extremist action can be considered "non-arbitrary", because you can always find some group of wackos to support it. Dpotop 17:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I certainly don't accept the legitimacy of the Transnistrian authorities or their right to try the men in court. Nevertheless, I do believe that the Ilaşcu group was intent on "eliminating" some of the higher-rank rebels, which is what they have been accused of. TSO1D 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In their defense (although they didn't use that particular defense in court) there was a low-level civil war going on. Ilascu and his men probably felt justified in doing what they did. The Ilascu group represented one end of the extreme, in fact so extremist that the Popular Front in Transnistria split in two and most Popular Front supporters at the time didn't support Ilascu's Resolution #6. Those who arrested him and his men represented the other extreme. - Mauco 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: "Arbitrary" is synonymous with "random" in English, right? An "I don't like the way he is looking at me so let's grab him" kind of arrest? Well, I'd say that was certainly not the case... --Illythr 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, the more exact meaning used here is closer to "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by standards, rules, or law" or "based on preference, bias, prejudice, or convenience rather than on reason or fact". (These are from dictionary.com btw). The court wanted to say that the decision to punish the men was not rather subjective and that the law was enforced irregularily to their detriment. TSO1D 01:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC):::

... Perhaps you meant "not rather objective", then? ... Ehh, whoops, sorry, didn't quite see the phrase the first time - it's "detention", not "arrest"! No further questions. --Illythr 05:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In the main Human Rights section, we should give a summary of the main facts (like we do for History, Politics, War, Names, Dispute, etc) and then move the details into a subarticle, in accordance with how other articles of this type are done. - Mauco 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, the section is not that long and I don't know whether we need an entire article just to detail it. I agree that it could be downsized a bit, but I think the best way to do this is to move some of the Ilaşcu information. I mean that forms the bulk of the section, whereas other similarly important events are described in only one sentence. Perhaps it would be possible to create an Ilaşcu Case article or something of the sort and only leave a sentence about it in the article with a link to that page. TSO1D 14:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see this example: Human rights of Transnistria. The text has been moved verbatim and intact, with no changes. The reason why I prefer a separate article is because A) it is an interesting subject, which should be given more coverage, and B) having a separate article allows us to develop it more without the size constraints inherent in a main overview article. For instance: One of the things that I would like to see is how their new ombudsman post will work out: Will he actually claim independent powers and rule against the executive (as the PMR Constitutional Court often does) or is it just a "sham" post which will become a mouthpiece for the government and not perform the true rule of a real ombudsman? Either way, it has relevance to an article dealing with human rights of Transnistria. - Mauco 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that looks fine. I agree that the text is long enough as it is, and if that section is expanded it definitely needs to be moved to a separate article. TSO1D 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I just moved a couple of paragraphs around (but didn't change the text) in order to give Human rights of Transnistria a separate section on the Ilie Ilaşcu Group. Over time, we can add similar sub-sections on other human rights violations, such as religious freedom or press freedom, and a section on the ombudsman (which I would personally like because it is a new and very interesting development, although it is still way to early to evaluate his performance and it could just be a sham). - Mauco 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian interest in Transnistria

What is Russian interest in Transnistria ? It does not even border with Russia. Can this be explained in the article along with appropriate sources cited ? --Lysy^talk 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that it is due to the fact that there are a lot of ethnic Russians living there (25%). I'm sure William would know more however. —Khoikhoi 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking that I would know more. Actually, this is an encyclopedia so we must go with the established view and be able to source it, with no original research. The official Russian position (of their Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is that their interest is due to the 30.4% ethnic Russians who live in Transnistria, or more precisely, the 56,000 people (10,1%) who are direct citizens of the Russian Federation. Unofficially, there is also a moral dimension in that Transnistria has been Russian land since the late 1700's and has never, historically, been part of Moldova proper. This is sometimes heard by members of the Duma, speaking on their own and not on behalf of the state. It is not the official state position of Russia and therefore, in my opinion, should not be included in the article. There is also a third angle, which is sometimes claimed by Moldova. According to that, Russia's interest in Transnistria is a sort of replay of how the Soviet Union created MASSR in order to use as a beachhead to take over Bessarabia and bring it under its sway. Moldova, according to this theory, claims that Russia has an interest in an independent Transnistria in order to prevent Moldova from a) becoming strong economically, or b) integrating with Europe. Needless to say, this is also not the official Russian position and in my opinion it should not be included in the article. - Mauco 22:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah hahhaha haha ha.... hahah hahaha... That`s a good one... Maucov "knows more".... lol... Maucov is an ignorant... I really suggest finding yourself a new hobby... greier 10:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

With this kind of personal attacks you are discrediting your position, whatever it may be, greier. "Maucov" is not a Russian name, either. ;) --Illythr 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view Russia's interest stemms from two basic roots, an ethnical/ideological one and a geopolitical one. On one side the region's largely pro-Russian populace (including even a great proportion of the ethnic non-Russians) found sympathizers in Russia's poltical circles and press. On the other hand, Russia believes that maintaining a military presence in the region can consolidate its position in this part of Europe and preserving the "frozen" conflicts (not only in Moldova but Georgia also) would give them more influence over in the ex-Soviet spage. TSO1D 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The "more influence over ex-Soviet space" is of course a perfectly valid goal for Russia's own foreign policy, and not by any means unique to Russia. In fact, most countries usually strive to get some sort of leverage in their near-abroad. But the interesting analysis is to which extent Transnistria was created for this specific purpose by Russia (which it wasn't) or if Russia is using its pull in Transnistria as a way to influence Moldova (which is much more likely, although officially denied). - Mauco 23:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D is also correct in identifying that the pro-Russian populace is not limited just to ethnic Russians. I am always surprised that some of the most vocal proponents of independent statehood for Transnistria are Grigorii Marakutsa and Valerianus Tulgar, both ethnic Moldovans. Why is that? - Mauco 23:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the majority of the region's population has traditionally had a more pro-Russian and more "conservative" mentality than other areas in that part. I believe that this mentality was shaped in different groups by different causes. The earlier Russians living there tended to view the region as an outpost of the Empire and tended to be more appreciative of the need for Russia to protect them from the alien and often hostile states surrounding them. The region has a large urban population, where the non-Russian inhabitants were more rapidly assimilated into Russian society and culture. Transnistria has never been part of Romania and for most of its modern history it has been part of Russia in its various forms. During the interbellic period, numerous Romanians fled there who were rather anti-Romania and helped establish the Moldovenist infrastructure of the MASSR. In conclusion, all of these factors converged and ethnic lines were blurred as the majority of the population, especially the more politically active urban sector gained a sense of loyalty to Russia and acceptance of Russian culture. TSO1D 01:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You sometimes see the same thing in Central America, vis-a-vis the United States. It would be patronizing to say that those politicians have been brainwashed or that it is a Stockholm syndrome mentality. - Mauco 13:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that they have been brainwashed as others claim. I believe that due to the distinct demographic structure of the region and its history distinct from Moldova and Romania, the local population formed its own identity during the Russian Empire and USSR which tends to be more pro-Russian. Even during the USSR, when the MSSR was still intact, there was a certain degree of tensions between professionals from Transnistria and Bessarabia as in the early history of the Soviet Republic, Transnistrians were favored in receiving higher positions (especially political) as they were seen more trustworthy than the Bessarabians who had been part of Romania for 20 years. Transnistria also was more industrialized than Moldova and attracted people from other parts of the Union, who were more loyal to the Union as a whole than Moldova. In a way Transnistria tended to be more "cosmopolitan" and the natural lingua franca was Russian and Russian culture was the medium that united people of various nationalities. TSO1D 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

TSO1D, my deepest apologies to you if you thought that my mention of "brainwash" was directed at you. It was very clear from your comment that you have a much more nuanced, realistic view of this. The brainwash-argument is way too simple an explanation, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It is condescending, as if those who don't agree with us are less intelligent than we are. Take someone like Grigore Mărăcuţă who was born in Grigoriopol and who is an ethnic Moldovan, clearly mature, knowledgeable about politics, educated, intelligent, yet a staunch ally of Igor Smirnov and for the past 15 years one of the leading architects of PMR. It would be patronizing to call him brainwashed, and his position is apparently shared by the majority of the ethnic group which he represents. According to Swedish-Danish Slavist researcher Martha-Lisa Magnusson, 70% of Transnistrian-born ethnic Moldovans supported the independence of Transnistria and voted in favor. - Mauco 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. I understand that the primary interest is the geo-political doctrine of military presence in the region. This good faith but still original research cannot make it into the article of course (unless supported by some external studies). As for the ethnic agrument, it would probably be in place in 1st half of 20th century but not today. Anyway, how did the 10,1% Russian citizens end up in Transnistria ? --Lysy^talk 15:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a classic border area. The census lists as many as 35 nationalities in the small stretch of land which is Transnistria. Most of them are not recent immigrants, but have roots that go back centuries. In the case of the Russians, a lot of them came during Soviet rule (just like with all other former USSR republics), but some of them have deeper, more historical roots. In the tenth century the territory of present day Transnistria was part of Kiev Russia. Thus, Russians regard it as having Slavic origins. - Mauco 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The Russian citizens probably requested citizenship right after the fall of the USSR based on their Russian nationality, which was still possible at that point (but much more problematic today). TSO1D 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if I recall well, ethnic Russians from Transnistria asking for Russian Federation citizenship were granted it pretty easily. It's the same for the ethnic Romanians/Moldovans from Moldova, which were granted Romanian citizenship pretty easily (upon request, of course). Dpotop 18:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Those 10.1% are not newcomers to Transnistria. If anything, the net migration flow has been of people leaving Transnistria and going to Russian. I have seen a research paper from San Francisco which claims that approximately 100,000 Transnistrians were internally displaced or became refugees as a result of the war of Transnistria in 1992, and that most of them settled in Russia, not Moldova. It would be interesting to source this or to get independent confirmation of this. In addition, while speaking of citizenship, there are still classified ads in Transnistria from lawyers who offer to arrange Russian citizenships. And at least one member of Transnistria's Supreme Soviet, Galina Antyufeeva, has openly campaigned on a platform whose main point is that it should be made easier for Transnistrians to get Russian citizenship. Officially, of course, the Russian position is that Transnistria is part of Moldova so that makes it very hard today even for the ethnic Russians who want to be citizens of the Russian Federation. - Mauco 16:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the difficulties for Russians to obtain Russian citizenship are directly or exclussively linked to the recogniztion of Transnistria as part of Moldova. By the second half of the 90's Russia implemented more selective repatriation laws for all ethnic Russians, regardless of where they lived. Romania did the same. In the beginning after the fall of Communists there, they allowed virtually anyone of Romanian ethnicity to rapidly acquire Romanian citizenship but then severly limited this policy. TSO1D 17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

These laws (or their application) have since changed, I believe. Dpotop 18:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Two Transnistria Articles

I was recently looking at articles about Transnistria in other languages on Wikipedia, and I saw that most of the major versions have two separate articles for Transnistria, one for the region and one for the unrecognized state. I wonder if we should do the same here. I see that the same thing is done for Ireland/Republic of Ireland and other similar siutatoins. TSO1D 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this on the Romanian Wikipedia, as one would expect, but not on the German or Japanese Wikipedias. --Node 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, the territory controlled by the Republic of Ireland is vastly different from the geographical concept of Ireland. This is not so with Transnistria.

The Germans actually have two articles de:Transnistria und de:Transnistrien, although the difference is not directly between the historical region and the state but rather Transnistrien is the state and Transnistria talks about the region between the Dnister and the Bug, especially in WWII.

That is not the example I was going after though, I meant the Romanian and Russian articles. In Romanian as you noticed there is ro:Transnistria for the historical region and ro:Republica Moldovenească Nistreană. In Russian there is an article called ru:Приднестровье about the region and ru:Приднестровская Молдавская Республика about the state. Also now I see that this also exists in French fr:Transnistrie historique and fr:République de Transnistrie moldave. In my view this is a more logical organization. TSO1D 19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We have an equivalent to de:Transnistrien and fr:Transnistrie historique, that is Transnistria (WWII). Didn't you see the disambig link at the top of this page? --Node 23:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually didn't and it's strange that that page doesn't have a link to the German page (and that's the Transnistria one, not the Transnistrien one). Anyway, the French, Russian and Romanian historical versions have no English equivalent at the moment. TSO1D 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Russian articles are currently rather underdeveloped. ru:Приднестровье is basically covered by History of Transnistria, whereas ru:Приднестровская Молдавская Республика mostly concerns itself with the chronology of the conflict (partially covered by War of Transnistria, Conflict in Transnistria and Gagauzia and Transnistria itself) and contains very little information about the unrecognised state. The splitting is a remnant of the Rovoam wars over there. I believe that splitting this article here the way it's done in those wikis will create a redundancy with the history article we already have. And without the history and the current state, there won't anything left to put into it. I'm sure this mess will cause quite a headache or three to the poor person trying to unify all the article names throughout the wikis... eventually. :-) --Illythr 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry

My edit summary should have read:

(+ SIMPLE)

I apologise, because I always use summaries while editing articles. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with map

It's not clear on the map that Transnistria is the blue part and Moldova is the light yellow part. Without a description, the blue part looks like some kind of lake. Badagnani 23:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very minimum, the map needs to have the words "Transnistria" on the blue part and "Moldova" and the pale yellow. But there are also some other problems with this current map. For instance: The weird indent at Dubăsari, which cuts Transnistria in half just below its narrowest point and seems to stop just a few hundred meters before Ukraine. What on earth is that? And what does it represent? Then there is the fact that the rest of the blue part doesn't correspond fully to the territory claimed by the government of Transnistria in its constitution, Article 14 [37]. We can no doubt do a better map here. If we do, it ought to represent the territory under the de facto control of Transnistria's government. That would mean all of the left bank, except for the villages Dorotcaia, Cosnita, Cocieri, Malovata, Pohrebea and Pirita (all in the Administrative Region of Dubăsari), and it would also mean including part of the right bank, specifically Tighina and the villages of Chiţcani, Mereneshti and Gîsca. - Mauco 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

what about varnitsa and protagaylovka? are there under de facto control of transnitria, or only claimed by them? Anonimu 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can not comment on Protagaylovka, but Varnitsa is claimed by Transnistria (in the Constitution), however, it is under the control of the Joint Control Commission (peacekeeping forces or "peacekeeping" forces, depending on your point of view) and it has a mayor who is pro-Moldovan and very loyal to Moldova. He keeps the Moldovan flag and the state insignia of Moldova on the wall in his office. Varnitsa is generally considered to be a Moldovan suburb to Bendery (which is Transnistrian) because it is not under the control of Transnistria. - Mauco 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

http://www.evenimentulzilei.ro/article.php?artid=264887 Transnistria, singura tara "teoretic inexistenta" 11 Iulie 2006 Stefan Candea, Sorin Ozon

PREMIERA IN PRESA ROMANEASCA. Intreaga poveste, in serial, a republicii separatiste, care se afla la doar 170 de kilometri de Romania.

Referendum

The sentence "On 17th of September 2006, the breakaway republic announced it will hold a referendum asking it's citizens:" is confusing and bad English. It first reading, it sounds like the announcement was made on 17 September (which is of course impossible, since that is a future date). A better phrasing would be "A referendum is planned for 17 September 2006 asking voters:" - Mauco 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the original was confusing. I hadn't checked the first version, I just changed the two questions. In any case I fixed it now using your wording. TSO1D 16:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Mauco 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The first question is about a "free association" with Russia. See the English translation of the question here http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/100 and, more importantly, the explanation by Yevgeny Shevchuk here: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol102-07-06.htm where he refers to examples from USA, New Zealand, France, etc. These examples of "free association" are Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands (USA), Cook Islands and Niue (New Zealand), and Monaco and Andorra (France). There are also others. - Mauco 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I looked at the original on Olvia: "«1. Поддерживаете ли Вы курс на независимость Приднестровской Молдавской Республики и последующее свободное присоединение Приднестровья к Российской Федерации?" and thought that присоединение refered to Transnistria's becoming part of the RF. Free association makes more sense though. TSO1D 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the context. But - if I can be frank - none of it makes much sense. Assuming PMR comes to them with the proposal afterwards, Russia won't be able to accept that sort of a free association (and much less still a union) without Moldova's consent. Even with the best of will on both parts, there's that little matter of customary international law. - Mauco 17:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I mean this is obviously has more to do with PR than with actual action. I am sure that the PMR authorities are not naive and they understand that a potential union with Russia will be difficult to realize in the near future, but they want to show that most Transnistrians would favor this move as opposed to reintegration in Moldova (as I'm pretty sure they do). This time they'll probably try to get some international organizations to show that the referendum was carried out democratically (though CIS-EMO will probably be the only ones to participate). This follows their declarations on the right to self-determination similar to Montenegro and especially Kosovo, although the OSCE, EU, NATO, and even Russia stated that these parallels cannot be drawn. TSO1D 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The "right to self-determination" is very ambigious, especially in this case. Transnistria claims it (of course), and Moldova doesn't recognize it (of course), but the general rule of thumb seems to be that there is no general right to self-determination which would support secession, except in cases of grave human rights violations, genocide, etc, which can not be redressed by any other means (and most people outside Transnistra consider this to not be the case in regards to Transnistria). The Oxford Monographs in International Law did a good study on this, "Self determination and national minorities" by Thomas D. Musgrave, and Canada's Supreme Court also studied this in great detail. None of them deal directly with Transnistria, but the general principles are universal. - Mauco 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and recent statements by the OSCE, EU, and NATO emphasize this point. The territorial inegrity of existing states and in the case of the former USSR and Yugoslavia, of their constituent republics (but not autonomous subdivisions) represents a more influential critereon in international law. I have seen the case of Montenegro cited as an analogy for Transnistria, although this is clearly misleading as Montenegro had the status of a Yugoslav Republic, whereas Transnistria did not even have a special status within the MSSR. Nevertheless, despite of the strong indications that current international law would does not recognize the PMR's right to independence through self-determination, one cannot expect the people there to be content, either. Although I do not personally favor Transnistria's independence (as you might have guessed), I cannot find their request too unreasonable. The vast majority there do not feel any loyalty to Moldova, culturally and politically they feel closer to Russia, and they believe that the West is using double standards when it comes to them and instances like Kosovo.

Cases like Kosovo are in my view a grave mistake as they can lead to a dangerous precedent. Although I can clearly understand that there was a certain level of oppression and ethnic cleansing, I don't believe it was by any means unilateral and should not pave the way for full independence for the region. If Kosovo does ultimately acquire complete separation from Serbia, in large part to the activities of a recognized terrorist group, then this could eventually rally other separatists, regardless of how similar the situation is to Kosovo, causing futher instability. TSO1D 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you would say that, being a serb and all. :-) LOL. No, seriously.... If Kosovo gets recognized, this will open a whole can of worms. Changing borders is a big no-no. This is why everyone is always trying to look for "exceptional situations" where there is no risk of setting a precedent. Montenegro fits, for the reasons you state. Then, for instance, the International Crisis Group wants recognition for Somaliland, and they went to great lengths in their latest report[38] to point out why this case is so special (for historical reasons) that it would not open up a Pandora's box of copycat attempts elsewhere. For Russia, a Kosovo-precedent would no doubt cause even more political destabilization in Daghestan, Chechnya, Ingushetii, Kabardino-Balkarii, Adygeye, and as a whole in the south of Russia. - Mauco 17:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes of references

A lot of these don't have any text on them, and some of them are also "orphaned" now from last year's version of the article, so let us clean that up. I think it will make the article more useful, especially for researchers so they actually know where these footnotes lead to for more information. - Mauco 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, none of the notes are cited correctly according to Wikipedia policy. About the orphaned items, I assume you mean just the sources presented in the "references" section, not the footnotes? TSO1D 15:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am working on it now (hope I won't get reverted). Several issues which are all related to housekeeping and cleanup. We need to cite the notes correctly, as per policy. Then, basically, by "orphaned" I am referring to references which were forgotten and left to litter in the main article when we created specialized articles on other subjects. We have several of these now, such as Human rights in Transnistria, History of Transnistria, Disputed status of Transnistria, and many more, and the references to what was previously part of the main article should have of course been moved when we moved the content over there, too. It didn't happen because they weren't referenced with the "ref" tag, but I am working on all of that now. And will also add the correct titles to the footnotes. Only one single, solitary out of a total of 8 has this currently. - Mauco 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Moldovan schools

Node, no offense meant, but in your latest edit you sound a bit too much like an apologist for Transnistria. Isn't there a better way that we can present the whole thing more objectively, in just one or two sentences? By the way, we have a article on this as well: See Moldovan schools in Transnistria (and let us add that to the 'See also' under human rights subsection of the article. - Mauco 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made some edits as the original wording was rather strange. Alternatively, we could just place an additional "see also" dot for the whole issue. Actually, that thing with accreditation was the official (Transnistrian) reason for the closings. I'm surprised in wasn't mentioned anywhere before. --Illythr 17:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added the "See also" link. I would not object if you decide to remove the whole paragraph as you suggest, considering that a) it is solved and it has been a non-issue for two years now, and b) the See also link is in place, under the appropriate section heading ("Violation of human rights"). - Mauco 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the first part of the paragraph refers to the (apparent) inability of ethnic Moldovans to study using the Latin script and can't be removed for as long as that issue remains. Node has probably confused it with the one about the schools when he added that sentece. That issue with the schools appears to have been solved, however, so I left but a small sentence about it. Although I'd say it still needs some sort of retouche... --Illythr 21:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This article has been fully protected, primarily due to the few reversions at the top of the page. I expect to lift this soon. --HappyCamper 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The present conflict revolves around the issue of keeping the phrase "with the aid of Russian forces" at the end of the introduction. That part has remained part of the introduction for prolonged period and has remained undisputed until recently. I believe it refers to the presence of Russian troops (and not only the peacekeeping contingent) which are widely seen as guaranteeing that state's de facto independence (by all sides). This does not imply that the forces are responsible for daily security in the region, I realize that that is provided by the PMR's interior ministry. TSO1D 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What is best for the article is probably best left to the regulars who edit this page to decide. I'll lift the protection for now. If reversions start creeping in regarding that particular phrase, I'll be inclined to protect again. The intensity of the reversions suggests to me that a rewording might be necessary (but not necessarily so). For something like this, providing a reason for reverting only in the edit summary is insufficient. If the phrase should really be there, I would suggest that a post regarding that phrase should be made on this talk page - this is just another way of reaching out to the anoymous user. As suggested below, if that particular editor is sincere, they would participate in rational discussion here. Otherwise, I suppose the edits can be treated as you did before. I hope this helps moving forward. --HappyCamper 05:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Aid of Russian forces"

It would be interesting to hear the anonymous editor's arguments for why the "aid of Russian forces" sentence should be removed. Personally, I might be somewhat inclined to agree with him or her, depending on the argument. This is not because TSO1D is wrong (indeed, the troops are widely seen by all sides as guaranteeing the state's de facto independence) but just because I can see how the current phrasing could be misinterpreted easily, especially by a casual reader who is unfamiliar with the nuances of the situation.- Mauco 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase can be avoided by combining the last two sentences. Instead of: "The sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. Transnistria continues to claim independence and maintains sovereignty over its territory with the aid of Russian forces." we could write "Although the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention, the PMR continues to claim independence and is able to exercise control over its territory." TSO1D 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in some rationales for the apparent Russian support for sovereignty, both as stated by the Russian government and theorized by people who watch this sort of thing. -Easytoremember 08:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Disputed status of Transnistria is probably the best place to start your research. There is also Four_Pillars_of_Transnistria but this is featured much less prominently. - Mauco 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unimportant nitpicking

I am going to revert the recent edits from anon (80.126.190.198) and MaGioZal which weren't discussed first here. These are very minor, so it may sound like I am nitpicking over some small and relatively unimportant details, and I'd like to explain my reasons. First, 80.126.190.198 changed the spelling of the official name, while it may be the correct Russian (I am not the expert), if we are stating something and claiming that it is the official name, then we need to back it up (verifiability) and we can only do that by pointing to the official decree on the Latinized version of the name. It can be seen here: http://www.pridnestrovie.net/name-edict.html and it has our old spelling, thus the revert. Likewise, MaGioZal unified a number of See Also's from subcategories, deleted them, and made one single See Also at the end. This, to me, is more confusing than helpful because now it appears as if the wikilinks in See Also apply to the whole article, rather than, as before to specific subjects such as Human Rights or History, where they were much more appropriate. Oh, and he also lost some of the best 3, now nowhere to be found. - Mauco 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done now. By the way, MaGioZal just created an interesting list today called Post-Soviet frozen conflicts. We are already linking to it, from the words frozen conflict in the main article's intro. - Mauco 23:39, 5 August 2006

I am confused, the Russian word for republic is республика, not република, this cannot possible be a matter of contention. The transliteration is another matter, and I agree with you we should keep the version posted on the pridnestrovie link. What about the introduction, do you agree with my proposal given above to combine the last two senteces to remove some redundancy? TSO1D 00:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Illythr already beat us to it and fixed that. My concern was solely about the transliteration. On the other issue, I have no preference other than wanting to hear from the anonymous editor who made the change. But it seems like he is not reading this talk page or doesn't care either. - Mauco 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff

Moldpres News Agency, the state news agency of the Republic of Moldova, wrote an article[39] which analyzes the friction between Yevgeny Shevchuk (whom they see as the representative or "puppet" of Sheriff) on one hand, and Igor Smirnov on the other. It includes the following sentence: "They have a very big business, which is vulnerable to the region’s executive power. If it is to take into consideration that Shevchuk has no political biography of his own, then it is obvious that Smirnov, Vladimir Antyufeyev and the entire executive power do not struggle with the speaker, but with Sheriff’s economic power and political ambitions."
This seems to contradict our article's claims that Sheriff is owned by one of Igor Smirnov's sons. In the same article: "Sheriff realizes that if the power ... will push hard on it, nobody physically will be able to help it" (emphasis mine) and "the attack against the centre started by discrediting Sheriff’s potential candidate to the presidential seat". One possible explanation (which Moldpres does not attempt) could be that the younger Smirnov had a fallout with his father and instead wants Yevgeny Shevchuk to be President. But Oleg Smirnov, the second of the two sons, as recently as two days ago held a meeting in front of nearly 300 leaders and public figures and stated that he supports his father, Igor Smirnov, for reelection.[40] - Mauco 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)