Talk:Transnistria/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

What will happen if Moldova joins Romania?

Map thumbnail

Really? I highly dought romania would want a slavic populated area just outside it's historical area.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zazaban (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The proper page for that is Movement for unification of Romania and Moldova and there are several proposals, one of which does not include Transnistria. - Mauco 04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sheriff

Moldpres (Moldova's state owned news agency) has highlighted the friction between Smirnov and Sheriff, and this would not be the case if Sheriff was "owned by president Smirnov's eldest son" as we claim in the main namespace. See http://www.moldpres.md/default.asp?Lang=ru&ID=46774.
I propose removing those six words. - Mauco 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections? Done. - Mauco 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

GDP

The 2005 GDP per capita was wrong so I corrected that by dividing with population figure. The source we give has it in the context of a 5% increase but the actual number is only 1% higher than the 2004 amount ($756 vs $748). In 2004, GDP per capita was $720 in Moldova and $748 in PMR. Source: "Transdnistrian Market and Its Impact on Policy and Economy of the Republic of Moldova" by CISR (published in Chisinau, July 2005), available at Centrul de Investigatii Strategice si Reforme website www.cisr-md.org - Mauco 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Population

Pretty hard to see how the 1989 population changes from 546,400 to 679,000 without citation or comment. Can anyone explain what is going on here? - Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. User:MariusM (who made the change) should at least give a source. Meanwhile, an anon user bumped the figure up to 780,660 [1] in a related article, and left the original reference in place. The problem is that this reference was for the previous figure and does not support the new, higher number. - Mauco 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the refference: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm (Olvia Press - which represents the view of separatist government of Transnistria). Those are official data of the separatist government. Other sources talk about 739700 people in 1989, but this figure include some areas which are not controlled by the separatist government from Tiraspol, but by Republic of Moldova. I think we should compare only the area which is currently under the control of separatist government. --MariusM 16:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We must be careful to not compare apples with oranges. In our 1989-figures, we exclude Bender. Our text says: "Total population on the left bank of the Dniester river (minus Tighina)" whereas Olvia Press and the rest of the Transnistrian government always includes Bender, seeing it as part of Transnistria. The numbers in the Olvia article (679,000 for 1989 and 555,000 for 2004) clearly INCLUDEs Bender/Tighina as well. - Mauco 21:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a line with total population in 1989 including Tighina. Correct comparation is between 679000 people in 1989 vs. 555000 people in 2004 - those are data for the actual Tiraspol-controlled area (include Tighina and other few villages from Basarabia, exclude some villages from Dubăsari district which are not controlled by Tiraspol), and a good measure of the practical results of the separatist government.--MariusM 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Referendum

I moved the section about referendum from "Politicall status" to "Internal Politics" and added info about the latest arrests of political oponents of Tiraspol regime.--MariusM 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The move to "Internal Politics" is OK, but I had to remove your addition. It had bad grammer and was partly misspelt, but more importantly was not factually correct. Ghenadie Ţăran was released after questioning, then went to PSDM in Chisinau where he spent ten days, and he is now back home normally, with his whereabouts known. You may want to read the article "Disinformation and dirty tricks in referendum campaign" for some background info on how two news agencies even contradicted themselves in August to make the Transnistrian authorities look bad. - Mauco 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to find that the fate of Ghenadie Ţăran is known and his dissapearance was only because he left home for few days. I hope the pro-separatist source you quote is correct. However, even your source confirm that Ghenadie Ţăran and other activists of NGO "Dignitas" were arrested by transnistrian authorities and that, as I wrote in my addition, persons and organisations that are against separation from Moldova "are harassed by Transnistrian authorities and not allowed to campaign for their point of view in the referendum". The fact that those activists were arrested for only few days is not a reason not to mention this fact in Wikipedia. Is confirmed, even by "Tiraspol Times", that no charges were made against "Dignitas" activists regarding criminal activities. I consider their arrests as a relevant fact regarding the political climate in Transnistria during the preparation of referendum. I added back my comment, without the sentence regarding Ghenadie Ţăran.--MariusM 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The group was brought in for question 3 days after a bus explosion killed two people. Fact: They were released after questioning due to lack of evidence. Fact: They never produced a single bit of election material or campaign material, not even as much as a letter to the editor in a newspaper. Fact: They were not and are not active in any way in the current election campaign. Therefore, to tie one thing to the other, and make it an example of a "political arrest", would be wrong, and we must not include it. Furthermore, it is cited as one example (leading the reader to presume that there are others), but no such other examples have been cited either. I posted a citation request in main namespace last week but no further sources have been posted to prove the statement's accuracy. - Mauco 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fact: The pro-moldovan side in Transnistria will not participate in the referendum and will not recognize its outcome. Fact: In order to report a higher participation at the referendum, the transnistrian authorities already started the falsification of results, diminishing the total number of voters [2]. Fact: is no reason for a pro-moldovan organisation in Transnistria to write letters to Transnistrian newspapers, as newspapers in Transnistria will not publish such letters. Fact: Ghenadie Ţăran, leader of the NGO "Dignitas" is called "pro-moldovan NGO activist" by "Tiraspol Times", in the article you quote. You don't see the conection between his opinions and his arrest, but I see. The fact that is no conection between NGO Dignitas and the bus explosion was confirmed even by transnistrian authorities.--MariusM 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place to debate political positions for- or against. The more narrow purpose of this Talk page is for the editors of the article to specifically discuss new additions and changes to the article. In doing this, we must adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines (as opposed to our personal opinions of the subject, which both you and I and most of the other editors here certainly have). As you have pointed out, this is a controversial topic. At various times it has been under dispute. For this reason, this page urges all of us to please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. - Mauco 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, you reverted an entire paragraph that I added, and you marked this as a "minor" edit - I don't consider this in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Bellow is the paragraph I want to add, let's disscuss it:

Pro-moldovan organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.Apelul reprezentanţilor societăţii civile privind “referendumul” neconstituţional din regiunea transnistreană a Republicii MoldovaMOLDOVAN NGOs REGARD TRANSNISTRIAN REFERENDUM AS A FARCE. The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year), fact considered by pro-moldovan NGOs as an artificial way to increase the percentage of people who participate in the referendum. Other opinion on this subject is that transnistrians are voting with their feets, leaving the heaven of Transnistria.--MariusM 05:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Moldovan organizations in Moldova proper have refused the referendum, as would be expected. If any such organizations within Transnistria have taken this stand, it would be of much more relevance to the article. However, the largest pro-Moldovan organization takes the opposite position. See http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol73-09-06.htm This is most likely related to the fact that most Moldovans are in favour of independence, something which has been recognized by the OSCE and by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. There is a summary of that here http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/179 - Mauco 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the percentage shrinkage of the electoral roll, it would be an interesting bit of data for the Politics of Transnistria article but we should abstain from speculation or conjecture, especially polemics of the "leaving the heaven of Transnistria / voting with their feet" kind. Even if this argument is true, it has probably more to do with economics than politics; seeing how a similar situation has taken place in Moldova proper. (If I am not mistaken, Moldova holds the European record for the highest percentage of gastarbeiters abroad.) - Mauco 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that the puppet organisation of Moldovans created by the separatist regime in Transnistria is "the largest pro-moldovan organisation". It did not reflect the will of the majority of Moldovans in that region (what "Tiraspol Times" is saying is not true) and is not pro-moldovan but pro-separatist. Between the organisations that signed the appeal for boycot are some composed by transnistrians as "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex". The leader of Moldavian Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (Ştefan Urîtu) is also from Transnistria, even if his organisation include also basarabians. Instead of "pro-moldovan organisations" I will use "anti-separatist organisations", which is a better description, as not all anti-separatists are ethnic Moldovans. As long in the article "Transnistria" is included the problem of referendum it should be mentioned the appeal of boycot and the doubts about the corectness of the referendum. The shrinkage of the electoral roll in Transnistria can not be compared with that in Moldova. Census showed a 6% populaton decrease in Republic of Moldova and 18% decrease in Transnistria between 1989-2004 http://ro.altermedia.info/cealalta-romanie/recensamintul-din-transnistria_2927.html. Between 2005 and 2006 Transnistrian authorities anounced an other 7% shrinkage of electoral roll, this is not a normal situation even by East European standards, and rise concerns about the falsification of data in the referendum (the efforts to report a higher presence).--MariusM 06:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I add that there is no pro-moldovan organisation that appeal to voters: "participate in the referendum and vote for reunification with Moldova". In the reunification camp, all appeals are against participation and recognition of the referendum.--MariusM 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that we disagree on this. However, until there is a semblance of consensus, please do not impose your views on the article. As for Tiraspol Times, I read the article and they are not saying anything other than repeating claims already made by UN, OSCE, a pro-Moldova politician and former spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. As for statement of "puppet organisation", you may know that the same claim is being made against the specific groups that you cite. See http://www.regnum.ru/english/704387.html for instance. - Mauco 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course that the head of the Russian-Transdnestr Information-Analytical Center is supporting Transnistrian independence and future integration in Russia. Is no doubt about the expansionist policy of Russia in Transnistria, Russia gave even armed support in 1992 War of Transnistria. (However, in the article you quote doesn't exist the expression "puppet organisation"). The fact that appeals to boycot the referendum exists from the anti-separatist side is not my view, is a fact. You may consider that those who made such appeals are bad boys, their point of view is wrong, but you can not deny the fact that those appeals were made. I consider necesary to include this fact in the article.--MariusM 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, we can not attack the messenger just because we don't like the message. The head of the Analytical Center has an accusation far more serious than "puppet": He ties the anti-separatist organizations to Moldova's secret services, ex-KGB, and he names them with their names. It is hard to be clearer than that and the argument that civil society is a farce then becomes a case of the pot calling the kettle black. - Mauco 02:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, in the Transnistrian conflict, a Russian organisation is not an un-biases one. Remember that one of the question of the referendum is about the union with Russia (independence of Transnistria seems forgetten). No proves were shown by this Russian organisation that those antiseparatist organisations are indeed linked with ex-KGB. They have KGB archives in Moscow, why they don't show the documents? Libelling the political oponnents as ex-KGB is common in ex-Soviet space, but as long as proofs were not shown is only propaganda. If you want to add the comment of this Russian organisation in the article, I have nothing against, but please don't delete the fact that appeals were made to boycot the referendum, even if you don't like those appeals.

No one ever claimed that a pro-Russian organization would be unbiased. But in this conflict, neither are the Moldovan organizations which you insist on citing. The fact that they are directly tied to the Secret Service of Moldova has not been refuted by the directors, who are fully identified by name and affiliation. - Mauco 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I added info about the fact that from 46 countries represented in the council of Europe, only one (Russia) want the recognition of the referendum's results http://www.azi.md/news?ID=40985. Also, some info about OSCE position (you seem to ignore it) http://www.azi.md/news?ID=38790 --MariusM 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that you, as a new editor here, don't seem to be heeding the statement at the very top of the header of this Talk page. In the past, we have had a lot of "revert wars" and to avoid that, now we try to debate changes first, before making them. Because of adherence to this policy the flamewars and edit wars of the past don't exist anymore. Your edits are very welcome, and as you know, I have welcomed them and supported them on some other pages, like the schools. But it would be a shame if they cause this page to become a battleground like in the past, where for long periods of time it was even locked down, so I ask again - for the third time - for consensus to be reached here first, please. - Mauco 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I always gave the source of my statements. What consensus to be made about indiscutable facts? 45 of the 46 countries represented in the Council of Europe wanted a resolution against recognition of Transnistrian referendum and Russia had an other opinion. This is a fact, why you deleted it?

I reverted it because you did not give any of the other editors of this page a chance to discuss your changes here before you included them, as we normally do on hotly disputed topics in order to avoid precisely what you complain about (namely, reversion). Apart from the that, your addition is not factually true but merely perpetuating Moldovan spin. If you look at Thursday's voting record, the motion was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Russia opposed and the rest abstained. So even though it wasn't a majority, it was not exactly 45 out of 46. In contrast, a less confrontational statement, which did pass (and which you do not mention) had the support of all. Why should our main namespace article concern itself with a Council of Europe statement which did not pass, while not mention the contents of the one which actually got passed and which was officially issued? It smells of POV-"spin" and that is not worthy of an encyclopedia. - Mauco 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am merely asking new editors to follow the guidelines which are clearly posted on the top of this page, and which have been extremely useful in the recent past to help lower edit wars and generally bring consensus to the article. To wit: This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. The purpose of doing so is to allow us to present a clear picture which is free of spin (pro-Moldova and pro-Transnistria alike). - Mauco 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Instead of answering the above, the content was almost immediately reposted. May I request, now for the fourth time, that we follow the norms of this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. I am sure that I, and hopefully other editors as well, will be able to reach consensus which is free of spin or blatant POV from any of the two sides, just as we have been able to do in the past as well. - Mauco 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I already put in the talk page all the arguments for the inclusion of the paragraph about the appeals to boycot the referendum, and about some foreign countries and organisation point of view regarding the referendum, but you are deaf on this topic. You also deleted some addition made by EvilAlex, without disscusing them in the talk page. You are not a neutral person on this topic, Mauco, you just want to delete the facts that you don't like.--MariusM 06:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? The instructions on the top of this page are fairly easy to understand, but you have chosen to not heed them. That's all. If you can please follow the guidelines, then I am sure that we can collaborate and develop some great, balanced, neutral, and factually correct additions together. I will start a thread for this now, right below your attempt at personal attacks on my person. - Mauco 07:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is William Mauco?

Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) [3] Mauco, look what Edward Lucas wrote about you: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

...And the point is? Actually, for the record, I have collaborated somewhat with Edward Lucas since then. I like him a lot, and we had intelligent discussions and full agreement on what we talked about. I have been able to provide him with some material which he asked for in relation to a follow-up article and he and I have been in contact since then, back and forth a bit on this and some other subjects. I also corrected him on some minor items (like the mistaken fact that I have never been at a sort of conference in Mexico City with anyone, for instance). In addition he knows that I am not affiliated with ICDISS, and at one point commented that he would do the same as me, in such a case. He valued the new information that I could provide for his work, and told me so, and I stand ready to work with him again in the future whenever he needs my help with anything. - Mauco 22:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that unlike a MariusM, William Mauco speaks under his name. `'mikka (t) 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did someone mention that personal character attacks against someone else is totally UNCOOL? - 84.73.243.158 14:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For some people, truth is UNCOOL, dear anonimous user.--MariusM 15:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the truth", but I have to agree with IP 84.73.243.158 that personal character attacks are uncalled for. I have not asked who you are, and don't care as long as you can bring good and constructive edits to the article. However, not that it matters, another use here already wrote me in private to tell me that he thinks you are permabanned Bonaparte. There is nothing wrong with debating an edit proposal on its merits, but there is everything wrong with attempting to change the debate into a personal attack when you can't convince others solely on the basis of the facts. In my case, as you can see above 22:09, 15 September 2006, your mud won't stick. - Mauco 15:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: I am not Bonaparte, I don't know him. You have a problem with the selection of information if you consider reliable information what "another user" wrote to you in private. In the same way you select informations for your articles? I don't know personally any user of Wikipedia.--MariusM 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not have a "problem with information" and I welcome feedback and collaboration from everyone on this site. I prefer to have it posted publicly, on my Talk page, but this particular user - who is a well known Wikipedia editor - probably thought that it was more polite to just email me in private, so he wouldn't step on anyone's toes by "outing" a newbie (in this case, you) in public without any evidence of his suspicions against you. I accept private emails as well, of course, and there is a link on my User page for emailing me. - Mauco 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed section, referendum

Moved from main namespace, proposed by MariusM, and submitted here for discussion:

" :Anti-separatist organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.. "

If we include this, we should include the fact that these organisations are based in Moldova, and that they do not speak for any of the voters, be they the Moldovan residents of Transnistria and other residents of Transnistria in general. In other words, they are considered outsiders and not primary participacing organizations or organizations with a direct relevance to the referendum. Those organizations which are directly relevant are civil society groups based within Transnistria, and they have taken the exact opposite viewpoint. This must be mentioned in order to not present a one-sided view. It may also be of note to include what Transnistria's response was to the petition by Moldova's anti-separatist organizations. Why might this relevant? Because if we give the opinion of Moldova, but if the article is about Transnistria, then at the very least we deserve to also give a fair hearing to Transnistria's response.
It may also be interesting to mention the political organizations within Moldova who actually support or understand why Transnistria is holding a referendum, and have gone on the record in recent days to publicly say so, rather than only present the negative viewpoint.
Finally, while we mention organizations who claim to speak on behalf of Moldovans, we must not omit a mention of the largest such group within Transnistria and their viewpoint. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I already told, between the organisations that signed the appeal for boycot are some composed by transnistrians as "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex". The leader of Moldavian Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights (Ştefan Urîtu) is also from Transnistria, even if his organisation include people from the entire Republic of Moldova. About the "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie", in the talk page of that article I presented my view, that is a puppet organisation created by separatist regime, which is not representative for Moldavians in the region and which has no other activity that to show support of separatist regime (they didn't publish a single book of Moldavian literature, they didn't make anything else than telling that Republic of Moldova is the enemy of Transnistrian Moldovans)--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Like you correctly said, this is 'your view. Need I say more? A very solid case can be made (and has been made, since 1993 in numerous respected studies) for the argument that the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are actually opposed to unification with Moldova. One of our fellow Wikipedia editors, Jamason, even based his thesis on that (which he was kind enough to send me a copy of). - Mauco 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And your view is opposite. Why should be your view included in the article? Of course there are a lot of Russian-propaganda studies which told that ethnic Moldovans are against Moldova, but those studies are biases. You insist of including pro-Russian opinion and delete all antiseparatist opinions.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My view has no right to be included in the article either. I know that you haven't been an editor for very long, but please save all of us some time and read up on the guidelines for this encyclopedia. Meanwhile, I am not sure what studies you call "biased", but Wikis guidelines cover those situations quite clearly. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

" : The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year). "

This can certainly be included, provided we can source it. It ought to also be added to the Politics of Transnistria series, in that case. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I already gave the link that prove this fact http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392 --MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We should include also the opinion of antiseparatist organisation, that the shrinkage of electorate is an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum. This argument was removed from the article by user Mikkalai. It may be a speculation, however is their point of view, and 7% decrease of population in only one year is something odd anyway.--MariusM 07:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no rule on Wikipedia that we have to include the point of view of a third party organization unless it is specifically relevant to the article. In this case, I am not sure that it is, seeing that the organizations don't represent the voters and are, at best, just outside commentators and, at worst, in the employ of Moldova's secret service, as Transnistria has apparently documented (by naming names and specifying the relationships of the spokesmen). The actual shrinkage of the electorate is relevant, possibly in this article and especially in the Politics of Transnistria article. - Mauco 08:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Antiseparatist organisations point of view is relevant when we are talking about this referendum. As I already explained, those organisation are not outside commentators and nobody proved that are in the service of Moldova's secret service. Some will say that the entire separatist regime of Tiraspol was created by Russian secret service. Why is, for example, Stefan Urîtu an outside commentator as he is a Tiraspol resident?--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Urîtu does not live in Tiraspol, and the rest is original research which has no place in Wikipedia. You can always start a blog or something, if you want to have an outlet for these opinions. - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Urîtu has a flat in Tiraspol, he was resident of the city even before the 1992 War of Transnistria. He is known as a fierce critic of the Human right abuses not only of Smirnov's regime, but also of Republic of Moldova president Vladimir Voronin's regime. Here is an example how he protested against some arrests made in Chişinău http://www.curaj.net/?p=1043. Calling Urîtu an employee of Moldova's secret service is like calling the leader of Hezbolah an employee of Mossad or the president of Israel an employee of Iranian secret service (he was born in Iran). And remember there is not only Urîtu who signed that protest. What about "Pro Europa", Transnistrian Student Asociation, "Transnistria" Asociation, "Promolex"?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

" : International organisations, as OSCE , the European Union and 45 of the 46 countries represented in the Council of Europe were against the recognition of the referendum's results, the only country which support this referendum is Russia . "

A statement of the countries that will not recognize the results of the referendum, along with OSCE stating the same position, certainly ought to be included in the article. As for the rest ("45 of the 46"), this is misleading and a Moldovan "spin" on a story which actually happened somewhat different, as an examination of Thursday's chain of events and the facts about both the original statement and the Finland-issued statement will show. It would be best to drop it altogether, because it is of marginal relevance. But if it has to be included, at least get the facts straight and don't present a misleading picture. If we can take the above points into account, I will be very happy to vote for inclusion of these new additions. - Mauco 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Council of Europe you need an unanimity to pass a resolution, this is why the resolution could not pass without Russia's aproval. I gave the link about 45 of 46 countries supporting the resolution, you didn't gave any link to prove that things happened somewhat different.--MariusM 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just count. The data is on this page. I quote from above: "If you look at Thursday's voting record, the motion was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Russia opposed and the rest abstained." Even conflict.md, which you cite as a source, has this info so there is no need to "spin" the story as something which it isn't. I am not sure that is relevant, however, it is certainly relevant to mention the countries which won't recognize the outcome of the referendum (starting with Moldova, of course). - Mauco 08:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just give the exact link from where you took the quotation.--MariusM 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The quote is from this page (above) and the source for the data can be found in at least 10 different places on the web (which you can easily find with a couple of seconds of Googling). One of the sources even include a site which you yourself cite, namely http://www.conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1414 - Mauco 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I qoute from the link you gave: "The document’s project was supported by the European Union member countries, GUAM, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey. Of the 46 member countries of the Council of Europe, only the Russian Federation rejected the declaration, without motivating its official position on the document". I think is exactly what I told. From 46 members only Russia was against the declaration. 46-1 = 45. Nowhere in the link you gave is any mention about countries which abstained. Can you tell which are the countries which abstained?--MariusM 14:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In favour: European Union (25) + GUAM (4) + Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, and Turkey makes 33, not 45. This is called "putting a spin" on a non-story about a statement which did not pass and therefore, as per the rules of that body, does not exist as an official Council of Europe document. - Mauco 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, now for the fifth time here in two days, a reminder must be posted that substantial changes has to be discussed here first before making them. Ignoring the statement posted in the box at the very top of this page will merely lead to more reverts, and the waste of everyone's time which could be spent more productively on improving other parts of Wikipedia. - Mauco 15:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: By not heeding this reminder, we all just managed to get ourselves a full protection for the first time in, what, some eight or nine months... - Mauco 18:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize and to end the dispute

- Mauco, you told: "A statement of the countries that will not recognize the results of the referendum, along with OSCE stating the same position, certainly ought to be included in the article".16 September 7:28

Do you agree to put in the article the following phrase: "International organisation, as OSCE, European Union, GUAM, and some countries (Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, Turkey) anounced they will not recognize the referendum?"

Mild YES. The sentence can be made to sound better by phrasing it as "The OSCE and most European countries announced in advance that they would not recognize the results of the referendum." - Mauco 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

- Do you agree to mention "The data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that transnistrian electorate is shrinking dramatically (7% in one year)."?

YES, especially in Politics of Transnistria. The relevance here is probably also OK, if other editors don't object. Moreover, shorten it. And since we don't doubt the data of Transnistrian authorities, you can just say "The number of registrered voters shrank by 7% in a year" or, if you prefer to give a bit more information and put the whole thing in perspective, "Of the 555,500 inhabitants, a total of 390,000 were registered to vote, down 7% from a year earlier." - Mauco 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is exactly this: some people have doubts about the data issued by Transnistrian authorities, and consider the shrinkage an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You told "This can certainly be included, provided we can source it".16 September 7:28

Source is here http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1392 or here http://www.infotag.md/inews/61219/

- Do you agree to mention that "Anti-separatist organisations asked the voters who want reunification with the Republic of Moldova not to participate in the referendum and refuse the recognition of the outcome of the referendum.."

MAYBE, but try to make it less POV. If it is to be included, let us also include the argument of the other side. Not to discredit, but to give the official position stated by the titular subject of this particular article (Transnistria). Another option is to look at what the practice is for inclusion criteria on other country articles, in particularly the ones which I mention in my request for all of us to hold ourselves to the established standards. If you want me to, I can do a little look-around like I did in the past for TSDO1 and others, or you can visit the pages yourself and then report back to all of us here with your findings. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is the "official position stated by the titular subject of this particular article (Transnistria)"? I don't know any. I don't understand why Transnistrian authorities should have a position regarding this NGO's appeal. If you find an official position of Transnistrian authorities on this subject, please let me know (with source) and include it in the article.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You told that "maybe" you agree to include this fact, but to put also the position of Transnistrian authorities. I answer to you to find such a position (because I don't know if exist any) and include it in the article. Instead of showing the position of Transnistrian authorities and add it in the article, you just delete my paragraph. Is not fair. Why you hate so much the idea of including in the article the fact that some organisations asked to boycot the referendum?--MariusM 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick correction, if I didn't make myself clear already: I do not "hate" your inclusion. You got reverted because of changes to this page which initially had not been discussed here, and which we already pointed out some problems with (fortunately, problems which for the most part have now been resolved through the discussion on this page). The request for prior discussion is placed prominently on this page - not by me, I might add. As a frequent editor here, I know why this policy is in place, and I agree with it. Not following it will lead to the trouble that we find ourselves in now, when someone else decided to fully protect the page. This is unfortunate because the page has an excellent track record dating back to January of not having had the need to do that. - Mauco 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, to answer your comment: I will be glad to propose a rewrite of the disputed information that would be appropriate for the article. I will not include it in the article, as you suggest that I should, but I will place it here so you and others can comment on it and discuss it first. - Mauco 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe your goal is to avoid the inclusion of the information about boycot in the article in those days, when the referendum in Transnistria take place, and people will look for information about it. You will not come with any rewrite proposal as there is no official position of Transnistrian authorities regarding the appeal to boycot the referendum.--MariusM 13:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the case, as I have explained to you several times already. The person who is showing ill-will here is not me, but the person who repeatedly refused to follow the instructions on the top of this page and, as a result, forced it into lockdown. As for the rewrite of your sentence, I am in the process of doing my research right now, so I can provide the appropriate sources. And I have already discovered that you are wrong on that count, too: there is indeed quite an extensive number of sources citing the official position of the Transnistrian authorities vis-a-vis the statements from outsiders to not recognize and boycot the referendum. - Mauco 17:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is the point of even bothering to follow any of the rules? As soon as protection was lifted, as the logs from 17 September show, everyone else just rushed in to make their own preferred changes anyway ... including MariusM with the referendum, and our permabanned friend from the past with his Romanian language issue. Needless to say, not a single one of these changes was accompanied by any sort of prior discussion or even a single comment on this Talk page. So much for observing the guidelines (sigh). But if we all just do what we feel like, we'll be back in the mess of the past, and this page has suffered a lot from that sort of behaviour (as a look at the logs from all throughout 2005 will show). Mauco 06:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As I told, there are different opinions about those organisations, some are considering them "good guys" and some are considering "bad guys", we should not judge who is good and who is bad in this conflict, but to give the information that there exist an appeal to boycot the referendum.

Yes, this is certainly fair. Please review the two approaches which I suggest here, and then let us know which is best. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

- Do you agree to mention the opinion of antiseparatist organisation, that the shrinkage of electorate is an artificial one, in order to increase the percentage of presence in the referendum?

Is not a problem to consider those opinions correct or not, just to mention one of the reason some people don't believe the correctness of the referendum.--MariusM 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this would almost fall under the category of original research. Another longtime editor, Mikkalai, removed it and cited it is speculation. At any rate, a good way to settle this would not be to just depend on what editors like myself or Mikkalai think, but, as I suggest above, visit other disputed country pages and see what their policy on inclusion criteria is for these types of statements or opinions. - Mauco 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the opinion should be mentioned in order to explain (at least partially) why some people don't believe in the corectness of referendum. It may explain also the opinion of some international organisation, even if those organisation didn't mention in details the reasons why they don't recognize the referendum.--MariusM 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK to quote an opinion of "some international organisation", but it absolutely iadmissible to quote it throug the third mouth of a press that hates Transnistria. You are welcome to find the original quotation. OSCE, GUAM, etc. are big guns, and they surely publish their statements themselves, without the help of Moldova Azi. `'mikka (t) 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Holding ourselves to established standards

In the past, when editors of this page have had discussions about criteria for inclusion or substantial changes, it has been helpful to look at how editors of Wikipedia pages for other countries approach the same set of issues. As the 4 archives for Transnistria (link at top) can show, this approach has helped us to succesfully resolve previously contentious issue such as the name and the flag, to name just two out of several. When we examine edit criteria for other country pages, two groups of countries will be particularly instructive: On one hand, the ones which are by nature highly contentious (USA, Iran, Venezuela, to name just a few) and, on the other, the List of unrecognized countries. Please spend a bit of time visiting those pages to see what they deem as relevant to include and not include. Wiki-wide accepted practice there, and established standards of these other pages, can serve as useful yardsticks for how we approach the same sort of choices on this particular page. I would like to see newcomers to Wikipedia, such as MariusM, learn from this approach instead of stooping to personal attacks against other editors. - Mauco 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Referendum article

May I humbly suggest that someone creates one? I wrote a similar one about South Ossetia. Óðinn 06:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I started a stub called 2006 referendum in Transnistria by just copying the existing referendum text from the main article. The idea of a stub is that others should add to it, please. Ideally, we can flesh out a really good article and then use the most salient points from that for including as a summary of the referendum issue in the main Transnistria article. That is how we have done it with other subjects (human rights, the 1992 war, history, etc.) - Mauco 07:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could our page protectors remove their POV from that section and at least mention referendum results, which are already known [4] ? Or OSCE & Co. does have the sole right to decide the fatum of Transnistrian people? And what about 200 foreign observers, who said the referendum was "democratic and conforming to international standards"? [5] Cmapm 11:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not protected from editing. Be bold and make the edits you think are fit abakharev 11:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've added some new official data. Cmapm 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I also took Alex Bakharev advice to be bold, and added the findings of The Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights - one of the organisations which send observers for the referendum.--MariusM 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear copyright at that website, but you copy-pasted almost the whole article (three but one paragraphs) from there. And you call this "being bold". Cmapm 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has to go immediately on the grounds of Copyvio alone. But there is a bigger issue, which is this: How bold do we really want to be, considering that the past history of this page? I, for one, would hate to have to spend my productive editing time doing edit wars, revert wars and going in and out of protections. This is easily avoided if we discuss any major changes first, as this page says (top) and as I keep suggesting because I honestly think that it would save everyone a lot of pain. - Mauco 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, if you don't want to lose time with edit wars, don't start them.--MariusM 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I am too frank, but: That is a bit rich coming from someone who "shoots first, asks questions later." My sole request, some six or seven times now (I lost count) is that we all please follow the instructions on top of this page and talk about non-minor edits first because this is a controversial topic. - Mauco 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, instead of working here, don't we focus on first adding a lot of information to the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub? If we do that, the stub can become a larger article. We can include more relevant information there and in more detail than would be appropriate for the main Transnistria article itself. Then as soon as we have a good and balanced article on the referendum, which is factually corrrect and sourced, we can take the key points and build a summary paragraph for inclusion in this page (the main Transnistria article). - Mauco 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, we should do so, if the previous summary was not biased. I see it to have contained only a "foreign" opinion on the referendum with no neither official results, nor any opinion of officially registered observers. As far as the short summary is balanced, we could work on the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub. Cmapm 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw that in the 2006 referendum in Transnistria stub, the findings of HCHRM were also deleted, without any explanation. How can we reach a consensus in this way?--MariusM 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Check the logs. I did. It clearly states the reason: "Copyvio". I know that you are new here, so we try not to bite you, but it would help us all if you would please learn a bit more on the do's and don'ts of how Wikipedia works. Another editor, Khoikhoi (who I think might be my meatpuppet), already posted some very useful links for that. They are on your personal talk page. - Mauco 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Three large paragraphs, copied word in word from the copyright-protected source, are not acceptable in any article of Wikipedia, not just in this one. Cmapm 16:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cmapm, he just added it back in but this time he didn't copy as much as before. It is still verbatim copy-paste, however, and has some questionable POV (such as the word "farce" to describe the referendum). It should be moved, for copyvio alone, and I still keep wishing that this particular editor would discuss his changes before making them which is the best policy for avoiding reverts on this page since he is not the sole editor here. - Mauco 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it has been removed temporarily now until the problem is fixed. I am sure that he will think that we are deleting his additions because we don't like them. That is not the case. The concerns center on 1) Copyvio, 2) Possible POV ("farce", etc), and 3) the fact that none of these changes are discussed first. This is disruptive and disregards the request on top of this page. If we can add factually correct information which is sourced as being true and which is relevant to the article, then it has to be added (of course, no copyright violations either, but that goes without saying). - Mauco 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then let's remove also "200 observers from 14 international organizations declared the referendum to be democratic and conforming to international standards", as it can be POV and addition was not discussed here. (Tiraspol Times is talking about 174 observers http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/216, however their claim about "not a single report of fraud or any irregular occurences of any kind whatsoever" is not true, seeing the report of HCHRM). I agree that first time was copyvio, but the second time I put only a summary which is not a copyvio. But let's discuss. How you want to include in the article the position of HCHRM, which is a relevant one for this section of the article?--MariusM 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, if you ask for my opinion, I would prefer that we do all the work on 2006 referendum in Transnistria first and NO EDITING here, for the time being. Then as soon as a we have a solid article there, we identify the key points and shorten them for a brief summary paragraph or two which can go into Transnistria itself. This is how we do it with most of the other subjects and it is good for editors and readers alike. - Mauco 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, a good structure for the article (2006 referendum in Transnistria, with detail) would be some background to the referendum and the shrinkage in voters, then the results including turnout, a section of recognition or lack thereof, a section on statements of observers (pro and con), and ... anything else? - Mauco 18:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your other points are answered in detail at Talk:2006 referendum in Transnistria - Mauco 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We are in the process of building a good article on the 2006 referendum in Transnistria so anyone who has new information to add to the referendum section, please go there first and participate in the editing and its related talk. - Mauco 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I lookes at the actual sentence of the article: "Moldova and the West said they would not recognize the referendum" - is copied word-by-word from "Tiraspol Times" http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/130_international_observers_declare_independence_referendum_free_and_fair.html (capitle "A clean bill of health"). I know Mauco loves "Tiraspol Times", but should Wikipedia use the exact phrase of this newspaper? In previous (reverted) versions, we told the names of the countries and organisations that don't recognize the referendum--MariusM 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, I don't know what you are trying to imply here. I guess it is an attempt at a personal smear (like your posting of the "Who is William Mauco" on this page). I will not bait you. But I want to set the record straight on a couple of points: 1. The sentence is from CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/ap/world/mainD8K7BBU04.shtml I had not seen it at Tiraspol Times, but I am not surprised if they have it, too, because it has been used by dozens of news sources in recent days.[6] 2. You also say that I love Tiraspol Times. I don't know what this pissing match is about, but I have never claimed to love them. It covers Transnistria news in English, so obviously an editor of this page has to be aware of it, just as I also use lots of other sites for research. I fail to get the point, sorry. - Mauco 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As referendum is a current event, it makes sense to keep a more detailed explanation about it in the main article. After a month, we can restrain and keep details only in the article 2006 Referendum in Transnistria.--MariusM 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a vote on this, please? I personally think that I have posted some constructive suggestions but they have been ignored by two editors with a declared anti-Transnistrian bias. The way this is going is becoming disruptive to everyone's work, and there is also the little issue of the 3 revert rule. - Mauco 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times

When one publishes in an area of dispute like Transnistria there will always be the people whispering gossip in the wings. It goes with the territory. Regardless of that Informed opinion makers will make their own assesment..

Tiraspol Times is officialy one of only three news organisations that the major western news agencies take their news feeds from for their Transnistria/Moldova political news. It is the only news source within Transnistria, the other two being Moldovan news agencies.

All the major news agencies have accounts

All the internet discussion cannot change that financial situ.

The reality is Tiraspol Times is also the western governments sole source of news and info. It is the informed source for the western eurocrats

Note, not one western governmental source has made a critical comment about Tiraspol Times and every western government and major org uses it for inward and outward information.

Its written by westerners for westerners.

As impartial news goes in Transnistria, its by far the best available.

It is the only

Edward Lucas wrote recently (15 September) an article about "Tiraspol Times". Mauco, as you told that you know personnaly Lucas and discuss with him (and even agreed with him), just look how Lucas claim they make their propaganda: "Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website. The article, which the site says was "adapted" by a journalist named Michael Garner, appears to support Transdniester's claim to independence. "I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says." [7] Maybe we should not consider "Tiraspol Times" as a reliable sources.--MariusM 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same Edward Lucas ,my old pal, that used to live beside Putin in Moscow. The plot thickens, check out his personal blogg page and you will see where he is coming from ...don't expect Eddie to be pro Transnistria, his articles are amusing though not to be taken seriously.

Possibly not. Although - by the way - Edward didn't write the above. It was published by an organization which he does not work for or write for, and which is funded by the US federal government for the specific purpose of public diplomacy, in other words, to advance the interest of the American government through the use of propaganda. So even though I don't want to defend Tiraspol Times, I do want to keep an open mind because possibly this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". It is interesting to read this page http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/getthefacts.html and then go to the http://www.rferl.org website where no similar pledge or promise can be found. - Mauco 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed a pen for hire.

Somebody is lying. Maybe is the American-founded evil organisation, maybe is "Tiraspol Times". Mauco believes is the americans, which are writing only propaganda. Of course, Tiraspol Times can not be wrong. Probabily we have just to put a link to "Tiraspol Times" in Wikipedia and stop the querell.

Difference between me and Mauco is that I was never against to include in Transnistria-related articles the point of view of "Tiraspol Times" and other such sources, Mauco always object the inclusion of everything is against Transnistrian government.--MariusM 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it with all these insinuations and personal attacks? "Somebody is lying" ... Please, play fair. You say Edward Lucas wrote it, I say he didn't. That is easy to solve without the need to be nasty about it. The byline says Luke Allnutt. Edward, in contrast, works for The Economist. He has no affiliation with RFERL or any other media which is funded by the United States government for PR purposes. - Mauco 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem ... speaking of lying: I did some more research now, in order to determine if this is indeed a reliable source or not. There is only one instance of a "Tom de Waal" in the archives (here: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/search/node/Tom+de+Waal) and it looks like he is being quoted in a fair and accurate way[8]. It certainly doesn't give him reason to claim to be outraged, I think. My analysis: He is just quoted twice in generic terms on unrecognized conflicts and not on anything related to Transnistria directly. The first quote is halfway into the article: "war is unacceptable: it would destroy thousands of lives and all the fragile progress that has been made and Russia would inevitably be dragged in." The second quote is at the end: "the Kosovo process is useful because it challenges those assumptions. Surely, now that the precedent has been set, the debate has to be about democracy and minority rights more than about territorial integrity." Then, to verify if the quotes were correct, I searched for them and came up with other instances where the same two quotes appear under his name, both here[9](OpenDemocracy) and here[10](UNPO.org). It all looks good. It does not give me reason for concern on grounds of accuracy. - Mauco 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

THANKS, GREAT WORK - 85.25.4.93 04:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is basic research really, and I think that someone was maybe mislead into drawing the wrong conclusions because when you start going back, verifying the sources, finding the facts and so on, then it actually all checks out, despite what MariusM posted (which implies that Tiraspol Times is an unreliable source). I am not blaming MariusM because I realize of course that few people are willing to do this kind of work and most readers just read RFERL without knowing its Cold War history, or where the money comes from, or what the purpose is of this operation. - Mauco 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is possible that, after the scandal with Tom de Waal appeared, "Tiraspol Times" took out from its on-line archive the articles with discovered problems. Is this newspaper only on-line, or it is also print on paper?--MariusM 11:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is the same article. If you study the full text of the rest of the RFERL article and compare the phrasings, there are two or three other key identifiers and unique turns of phrasing which show that they are talking about the same article. It is just that no one else bothered to actually fact-check in depth and go back to the original sources, like I did. - Mauco 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE KNOWS "RFERL" HAS A DIRTY HISTORY BASED ON CIA MONEY. THEIR WORK WAS PART OF SECRET CIA PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE CAMPAIGN IN EASTERN EUROPE. FROM: "RFERL" - 85.25.4.93 15:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. The same people are listed under Category: United States government propaganda organisations and they also operate Radio Free Afghanistan. I have nothing against the United States, and I believe it is their right to promote these messages, but I also think that those of us who do research and fact-checking for Wikipedia have to keep in mind where this information is coming from and that it probably is tainted due to the public diplomacy aspect. Naturally, if the US government is against Transnistria's referendum, then it would make sense that the same government uses its propaganda-wing to discredit those who support the opposite view, and the timing of the article is certainly suspicious, just a couple of days before the weekend-referendum. Don't want to draw any conclusions, but it is an information war after all, and like MariusM said: "Somebody is lying". - Mauco 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all to make a conclusion you will have to visit Transnistria and then compare your experience with “Tiraspol Times” article and “Radio Free Europe” article. Carefully reading thru those articles. I came to a conclusion: “Radio Free Europe” is close to the true.
EvilAlex 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, aren't you the same Alex who made http://zdub.hostrocket.com/ ? Hardly an objective judge, if I may be so frank... Besides, I did more than just "carefully read thru"; I spent time and actually did the background research which everyone else can do, too. - Mauco 17:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: zdub.hostrocket.com Love heaving fun
Tell me how can your position are always on the side of Transnistrian government? Maybe you should research some more..?.EvilAlex 17:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I am always glad to do more research. I am sorry if you think that I am some sort of an apologist for the Transnistrians, as that is not the case. But seeing the views that you put forward on zdub.hostrocket.com I get a feel for your sense of "objectivity". So we must respectfully agree to disagree. - Mauco 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to describe you my sense of objectivity:
I saw how Transnistrian government brainwashing ordinary people. Jamming radio and TV frequencies so that no one could access neighbouring Ukrainian or Moldavian stations. The only sours of information there is a Transnistrian TV and radio. Who constantly glorify the government and Russian feds. Transnistrian doesn’t have hot water, there is no jobs. There is only desperation, population decreases like in a war time. How for heaven sake you expect me to say something nice about Transnistrian Government. People are in deep shit there, open your eyes. And now let’s read “Tiraspol Times” and you will get a sense that there is a paradise. Best regards.EvilAlex 18:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the country that I am familiar with, sorry. We must respectfully agree to disagree, but I recognize your right to hold your own opinion. Just try not to let it color your edits in Wikipedia too much, please. - Mauco 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

>Not the country that I am familiar with, sorry.
Then why did you leave Transnistria? Why don’t you live in a paradise? Why did you run for England?

>Just try not to let it color your edits in Wikipedia too much, please.
Don’t worry about that, whatever I write it is going to be the TRUE the only TRUE.EvilAlex 19:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. - Mauco 22:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

NO HOT WATER In TIRASPOL......THATS A LIE..........NEXT YOU WILL CLAIM THERE IS NO BREAD.....GET REAL I LIVE HERE

Mark Street

NPOV

The paragraph on the 2006 referendum, under internal politics, currently has NPOV-problems due to bad faith edits - not discussed in advance - which are in violation of WP:NPOV. I have no interest in getting into an edit war but just want to point out that:

• All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.
• In comparison with Transnistrian referendum, 2006 the current bias is blatant.

Solution is NOT to just add more, in hopes of balancing opposing views, since for the main Transnistria article we just need a main summary and then the details in the specific referendum article. Of course, it goes without saying that this summary should be neutral or, at the very minimum, be an accurate synopsis of the main points of the detailed article. This is currently not the case, due to selective editing by these two users. - Mauco 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all POV. It currently includes the basic information about the referendum:

1. the question
2. the results
3. international reaction

I don't see your point. bogdan 18:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see the problem with this section. Could you outline how you would improve it here? - FrancisTyers · 18:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not immediately apparent unless you are familiar with the various observers' reports on the referendum. Transnistrian referendum, 2006 covers a broad variety of reactions, from all the sides. It has a disclaimer on the most negative of the opinions (vote fraud), noting that no evidence was ever presented to substantiate any of the group's accusations and that no other sources expressed similar accusations or gave any indications to believe that the claims are true. In our current summary, here in Transnistria we are mentioning this criticism - which is a minority held view - without the disclaimer, and we also fail to show opposing views and to show in any way, not even with a single word, the majority view. Yes, we could add the opposing views, but I prefer to just keep the summary short and then keep ALL views - pro and con - in the specialized article, for reasons of space and relevance to the overall subject matter. This would be in line with how individual referenda and elections are generally treated on other main country-pages in Wikipedia. - Mauco 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the HCHRM didn't ask for accreditation for referendum? SOme other sources than Tiraspol Times?--MariusM 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just notice that in that article it says "Italian observers Stefanio Vernole and Alberto Askari called the voting process "democratic and transparent.".

Are those observers associated with any major international human rights organization? If not, then their opinion are more or less worthless. It might as well say:

"Romanian observer Bogdan Giuşcă and British observer Francis Tyers of the Independent Made-Up Organization called the voting process democratic, the only notable problem encountered being the fleas found in one ballot box."

If each opinion has exactly the same weight, then why not add this, too? bogdan 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a great point, but the sentence which you refer to is not from this page. It is from Transnistrian referendum, 2006 so the appropriate place to discuss it would be over there, in order for the people who work on that page to partake. - Mauco 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By removing the unsubstantiated minority-held opinion from the summary, I am OK with NPOV-concerns. The summary here should be similar to the "above the fold" in the actual referendum article, and we would not include such an opinion there unless it represented the commonly held majority view or general consensus of fact. - Mauco 22:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you did not understood what I was saying. Not every opinion has the same weight. The opinion of "two Italian guys" is not the same as the opinion of the "Helsinki Committee for Human Rights". bogdan 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have the opinion of any respected international human rights organization which says otherwise, then put it in there. bogdan 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point is to put everything on the other page (including discussion of Italian guys, etc). Then, when done, bring the "above the fold" summary back here to Transnistria because that's all we need for the main country page. See how elections and referenda are handled at pages for other countries, and you will see what we strive to do. - Mauco 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Soviet propaganda

....--211.115.69.104 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another IP which is Greier. He got banned by the admins, now he is cycling through this range of IP addresses so his edits will be harder to block. - Mauco 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans or Romanians?

Moldovans or Romanians? There isn't any difference between Moldovans and Romanians. --211.115.69.105 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a good reference for that please? Why do you say that? Can you explain? --Rednblu 20:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm Moldovan/Romanian. Read here: Romanians/Moldovans. --211.115.69.108 20:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rednblu 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This IP is Greier. He got banned by the admins, so now he is back using IP addresses. Vandalism fighter User:Luna_Santin just spent chunk of his time cleaning up after the mess that Greier left in various Transnistria- and Moldova-related pages. - Mauco 22:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's more likely that it's Bonaparte, it fits his style better. TSO1D 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He says he is Greier (here [11], but I agree with you. However, the two sometimes get confused. If you see Greier's block log, you will see that he even got banned at one time for being a Bonaparte-sock. - Mauco 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dialects and regional varieties

Main article: Varieties of Romanian language

The term "Romanian" in a general sense envelops four hardly mutually intelligible speech varieties commonly regarded as independent languages. For more on these, please see the article "Eastern Romance languages".

It is thought that the Romanian language appeared north and south of the Danube. All the four dialects are offsprings of the Romance language spoken both in the North and South Danube, before the settlement of the Slavonian tribes south of the river - Daco-Romanian in the North, and the other three dialects in the south.

However, this article deals primarily with Daco-Romanian, and thus the regional variations of that will be discussed here instead. The differences between these varieties are usually very small, usually consisting in a few dozen regional words and some phonetic changes.

Romanian varieties (graiuri)
Blue: Southern varieties
Red: Northern varieties

Like all other languages, Romanian can be regarded as a dialect continuum. However, such a formulation tends to obscure the high homogeneity and uniformity of the language. The Romanian language cannot be neatly divided into separate dialects and Romanians themselves speak of the differences as accents or "speeches" (in Romanian: "accent" or "grai"). This correctly conveys the linguistics notion of accent, as language variants that only feature slight pronunciation differences (Romanian accents are fully mutually intelligible). Several accents are usually distinguished:

• Muntenian accent (Graiul muntenesc), spoken mainly in Wallachia and southern parts of Dobruja.
• Moldavian accent (Graiul moldovenesc), spoken mainly in Moldavia, northern parts of Dobruja and the Republic of Moldova. Written <p> is realised as /k/; written <c> before front vowels is realised as /ʃ/. Written <ă>, in final position, is palatalized.
• Maramureşian accent (Graiul maramureşean), spoken mainly in Maramureş.
• Transylvanian accent (Graiul ardealean), spoken mainly in Ardeal.
• Banatian accent (Graiul bănăţean), spoken mainly in Banat. Written <t> before front vowels is realised as /ʧ/.
• Oltenian accent (Graiul oltenesc), spoken mainly in Oltenia and by the Romanian minority in Timok region of Serbia. Notable feature of this dialect is the usage of the Simple perfect tense rather than the Complex perfect which is used in other dialects.

Over the last century, however, regional accents have been weakened due to mass communications and greater mobility.

De facto independence

Mauco, I don't rewrite history. Declaration of independence it may be in 1990, but the facto independence was achieved only after the war, in 1992. At least in some parts of Transnistria, only after the war Tiraspol took control. In the city of Dubăsari, Moldovan police was there in 1992.--MariusM 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Transnistria declared independence on September 2, 1990, in an act which also declared laws originating from Chisinau to be "without legal force". The war fought in 1992 was in response to Chisinau's attempt at re-imposing the sovereign control lost on 2 September 1990. It was not a "war of liberation" by Transnistria, and it was not the war which gave Transnistria its de facto independence. The independence was obtained by the declaration of independence and by declaring Moldovan laws without validity, and that act took place in 1990, not in 1992.

I will save you time: The holdouts in the Dubossary police station can not be used as an example of Moldovan sovereign control so there is no need to split hairs. In matters such as these, we are lucky to have an authority here in Wikipedia whom we can consult. He is fellow editor User:Jamason (real life name: John Allan Mason) whose dissertation is written on the history of Transnistria. He is the only US historian in this field, just as Charles King is the only US historian specialized in the history of Moldova. Your edits are welcome, MariusM, but you are a bit out of your depth on this one. - Mauco 22:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of independence is not the same thing as achieving de facto independence. At least at Dubosary untill 1992 there was Moldovan police. Tiraspol didn't took control imediately in the all area. I can provide a link only in Romanian http://ro.altermedia.info/politica/conflictul-transnistrean-vzut-de-un-transnistrean_4421.html. Is User:Jamason denying that? If yes, he is wrong, but let not assume what this user tell, he can join our discussion.--MariusM 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Charles King wrote a good book, but there are still mistakes in it (is not our current topic, later we can discuss about King also).--MariusM 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Knowing Jamason, I doubt he would enjoy joining the non-academic level of this discussion. Have you read his thesis? If not, email him and I am sure he will share it. I have read it. He is the only US historian specializing in Transnistria and his work is top notch. By the way, before you start slinging mud at him, too: His is NOT pro-Transnistria. You can read his work and see that for yourself. - Mauco 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course I didn't assume anything about Jamason before reading his work (what "slinging mud" you saw? You prepare gaining his support for the eventuality he join the discussion?). I know your habbit of claiming that some sources support your point of view, but, if you look in details what those sources wrote, is not like that. Jamason should tell himself his point of view, if he want. I will send him a message. If his work is on-line, you can give links to support your affirmations. If Jamason knows Romanian (he should know if he want to study Transnistria's history, else his work will be one-sided) I can provide him some sources that will help his work. I never claimed that in 1992 it was a war of liberation of Transnistria - it was a war of conquering foreign land, done by Tiraspol authorities with the help of cossacks and Russian Army. In Dubăsari, the surender of the Moldovan police was done in 1992 and the so-called Transnistrian forces which attacked the police were cossacks from Rostov on Don. Remember the main topic of the discussion: When was Moldovan police in Dubăsari leaving the city? I talk only about Dubăsari because only about this region I have info (a book of Vlad Grecu, a dubăsarian himself, participant at the 1992 War - "O viziune din focarul conflictului de la Dubăsari", published in 2005. On line is only a comment on this book - the link I already gave) - my habbit is don't talk if you don't know. Probabily there are diferences in each region of Transnistria about the date when it fall under the rule of Tiraspol.--MariusM 09:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The "slinging mud" comment was in reference to your personal attacks on me, some of which are on the record on this very Talk page, above. Jamason will, if he joins the discussion, simply set the record straight and he will not be as overbearing with your snide comments and frequent POV-pushing as I have been. He is a serious scholar and I doubt that he has the time or the inclination to engage in these daily pissing matches. - Mauco 17:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The police and other institutions such as the public prosecutor's office and court system did remain under the jurisdiction of the government in Chisinau after the PMR declaration of independence not only in Dubăsari, but even in Tiraspol, Bendery (Tigina) and Rybnitsa. Indeed, the police of Rybnitsa were the first to place themselves under the authority of the PMR government and that was only in September 1991, one year after the declaration of independence. But I disagree that the PMR only achieved its de facto independence after the war. The local government (city and raion soviets) were almost completely under the control of OSTK activists--the main exceptions being the Dubăsari and Slobozei raion soviets--and they ran local affairs with near impunity. The analytical stake of this point should be clear: the deleted phrasing suggests that Russian soldiers and Cossack volunteers imposed PMR rule in Transnistria, a suggestion with which I emphatically disagree. Jamason 01:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Things are a bit hectic around here right now, John, because we have a couple of POV-pushers who see things their own way and that is taking some energy away from other things we could've done. But when the dust settles, it would be great to have you back here in order to help us make a more factually accurate article. And I know that I speak for many (well at least two, myself and TSO1D) when I say that we really value your expertise a lot. - Mauco 01:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Jamason for joining our discussion. I will apreciate an advice about the appropiate wording for the begining of this article. Actually is: "The unrecognised state has been de facto independent from Moldova since September 2, 1990, when it made a declaration of independence and defeated Moldovan forces with the aid of Russian 14th Army (formerly Soviet), contingents of Russian Cossack and Ukrainian volunteers in the War of Transnistria".--MariusM 01:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The other version of the sentence (now deleted) was: "The unrecognised state made its declaration of independence from Moldova in September 2, 1990, and obtained de facto independence in 1992, after it defeated Moldovan forces with the aid of the Soviet 14th Army (later Russian), contingents of Russian Cossack and Ukrainian volunteers in the War of Transnistria".--MariusM 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that actual version is not accurate, it was not in the moment of Declaration of independence that PMR achieve the facto independence, and in each region of Transnistria was a different situation. I would compare the situation with Russia between February and October 1917 - dual power (Provisional Government of Kerenski and Soviets) and a kind of anarchy. In some local governments I suppose OSTK activists had control even before September 2, 1990, but in others, as Dubăsari and probabily (as you mentioned) Slobozia, only in 1992 War of Transnistria, PMR enforced control. In Dubăsari, as is written in the source I mentioned, Moldovan police surrended in 1st March 1992 and the cossacks from Rostov on Don, lead by ataman Rateev, were those who attacked the police. In my opinion, both cossacks and Russian 14th Army had a crucial role in achieving PMR de facto independence, through both moral support and direct involvement.--MariusM 01:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This was not official policy of the 14th Army. The Nixon Center[12] published an interesting book which in part deals with this, and with Lebed's role too. As regards to the Cossacks, PMR leadership was ambivalent about their role. If it had not been for the Moldovan threat, they would just as well have turned the Cossacks away. - Mauco 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about official policy? The only things that matter is de facto policy. 14th Army tanks were involved in the War, is a fact. But we can discuss this in the War of Transnistria article (I didn't have yet time to look at it)--MariusM 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and actually, some also went over to the Moldovan side in that same war. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MID) and the Department of Defense were also at loggerheads. Their main problem was to avoid the creation of "warlords". They had limited control over the units in early 1992, which was why Lebed showed up. If you can keep an open mind then I will be glad to help you with the research. - Mauco 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the main issue discussed here is "when de facto independence of PMR was achieved?". It seems, even from Jamason intervention, that the truth is more complicated than is stated in our article.--MariusM 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the dust settle on yours and Evil's pet issues first, and then I am sure we can do a good job. Yes, the article needs to be improved on this point. It is really not as complicated as you think, but Jamason is just being extremely polite to you. - Mauco 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Two points. First, it is absolutely correct that the truth is more complicated and, indeed, participants themselves recognized the parallels between the situation in Transnistria and the existence of "dual power" in revolutionary Russia--particularly in Dubăsari and Slobozia where the city soviets were controlled by the OSTK and the raion soviets remained loyal to the government in Chisinau. That many professional civil servants temporarily--and some permanently--remained under the jurisdiction of the government in Chisinau, however, does not necessarily mean that PMR authorities did not have de facto control of the major cities. Mobs of separatists were able to evict loyalist civil servants from their offices (as in Dubăsari in November 1990), PMR parallel police units were able to occupy police offices when the police did not voluntarily go over to PMR jurisdiction, police were decidedly unable to restore order in rioting cities (witness the October standoff in Dubăsari in 1991) and the PMR controlled the region's finances and collected the region's taxes. True, the PMR government did not have a "monopoly of legitimate violence,” but that is an issue for the body of the article. Again, the importance of this point is that in problematizing PMR control over Transnistria you give the impression that its rule was imposed by the 14th Army and Cossack revivalists. Your point that PMR authority was contested could--and should--be made, but in another way. In my own analysis (up for debate obviously), OSTK activists did not need 14th Army and Cossack help to take de facto control of (most of) Transnistria, but rather it needed the help to maintain this control when the government in Chisinau attempted to reassert its sovereignty in the area. Put another way, I don't entirely agree with your analysis, but I do think that the point you are trying to make (and the information you are trying to add) should be included in the article.

Second, official policy of the RF in regards to participation in the conflict in Moldova is very important. What is not in dispute is that 14th Army materiel was used by the PMR forces and that soliders of the 14th Army participated in the battles of 1992. However, whether this is evidence of Russian government intent to support the PMR is a question at the heart of most interpretations of the conflict. For me, it is important to make the point that many of the 14th Army soldiers were locals from Transnistria and that many, including its commanding officer, G. I. Iakovlev, wanted to or did join the PMR armed forces after the collapse of the Soviet Union, just as elements of the Red Army became the foundation of the armed forces for all of the union republics. This, as well, undercuts the arguement that PMR authority was established in Transnistria by Russian soldiers. Jamason 14:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In the book of Vlad Grecu is confirmed the situation told by Jamason: Dubăsari city soviet was controlled by separatists, but Dubăsari raion soviet was controlled by antiseparatists. As Grecu claim, from 20 localities of Dubăsari district, only 2 accepted the separatist rule until 1992 (this would mean Dubăsari city + 1 village, but the name of the village is not told). The main way how separatists imposed their rule (at least in Dubăsari district) was intimidation of Chişinău's loyalists (I would add, based on Grecu's books - even murders). I had an other discussion with Mauco - in the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie talk page - he stated that Moldavians from Pridnestrovie "overhelmingly" or "mostly" support separatist regime (fact that I disagree), maybe Jamason can help us to reach a consensus in that page also (which is currently protected). Regarding cossacks, Grecu, who spoke directly with former Dubăsari policemen, states that they were the ones who attacked and obtained the surrender of Moldovan police in Dubăsari.--MariusM 15:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To all: I suggest that starting a stub on 14th Army involvement in Transnistria and then flesh out the topic in article and its appropriate Talk page. If we want to include the Cossacks, we should of course call the article something else. Then when done, we can decide whether or not it is notable enough to stand on its own or whether it should be merged into either War of Transnistria or History of Transnistria. Either way, a synopsis of that article with the major points will then be included as a separate paragraph here (in main Transnistria article), and the contents of that paragraph will provide help for us in how to rephrase the above-the-fold intro para of this main article (Transnistria). If we can get Jamason involved, all of us should consider ourselves very fortunate and please don't scare him off with pointless edit warring of his contributions. - Mauco 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am eager to read Grecu's recent book--I will try to locate a copy. If you are interested and read Russian, there is also another detailed (and highly partisan) first-hand account written by a former member of the Dubăsari city soviet, Viktor Diukarev: _Pridnestrov’e—proshloe, nastoiashchee, budushchee, za kulisami politiki. Dubossary 1989-1992 gg_. Also, there were indeed politically motivated murders both by PMR supporters and of PMR supporters including two leaders of the OSTK in Slobozia raion--another region with relatively more support for the government in Chisinau. As to the actual levels of support for the PMR among ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria this a very tricky issue. I have not seen any serious attempts to answer this question. Based on at least one survey I have seen, not many Transnistrian Moldovans claimed to have actively supported the government in Chisinau. It is clear however that many Russians fought on the side of the Moldovan government and many Moldovans fought on the side of the PMR. Any statistics would be very controversial.

I will check out the 14th Army stub. Jamason 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Local census, 1793

After the Russian Empire annexed the territory between the Dnister and the Southern Bug (which included Transnitria) in 1792, they made a local census in 1793, to see what population they have in their new territory. A certain source claims that "out of 67 villages, 49 were exclusively Romanian", but I'd like a verification of this claim.

So, anyone knows were can the exact results of that census can be found? bogdan 10:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't have info, unfortunately in 1793 they didn't publish on internet the results. Just to draw attention that the teritory between Dnister and Bug (which was also named Transnistria in WW2) is much higher than the actual Transnistria we are talking here (the separatist region of Moldova).--MariusM 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a reference to that census somewhere. I haven't seen it directly, but a book was published in Moscow in 1903, if I remember correctly, which listed older census data for a lot of areas, including the Dniester to Bug. What I found online was a reference to the book, but not the book itself. I remember finding it in July when I was doing clean-up work after Greier, but I don't have the details handy right now, sorry. Meanwhile, you should take a look at http://folk.uio.no/palk/Dniestria.htm which makes a mention of the demographics on the left bank of the Dniester in the 1780 - 1795 period. It says that the largest group was made up of Ukrainian peasants. - Mauco 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Border issues

At the section "Border issues" I would add Roghi and Vasilievca as villages controlled by central Republic of Moldova government, as it is show at Dubăsari distric (Republic of Moldova) web page http://curaj.net/dubasari/. Roghi is shown even in the school map published by Transnistrian authorities as having a "Romanian"-language school http://tdsu.idknet.com/region/english/atlas/dir10/scools.jpg. This is a clear indication that, indeed, Roghi is under Chişinău control. Vasilievca too was administrated from Cocieri before the war, is over the strategic road that link Tiraspol with Rîbniţa. From the web page of Dubăsari district is claimed that is under Chişinău control (in the map, white is Chişinău control, green in Tiraspol control), however I would like a double-check before listing Vasilievca as a Chişinău-controlled village. I know that in Doroţcaia is a permanent problem - part of the agricultural land of the village is over the road, and Tiraspol authorities made several attempts to forbit the villagers to reach their land which is over the road. This issue may also been included in the "Border issues" section.--MariusM 10:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The OSCE, which has worked heavily on the Doroţcaia situation, does not list these as Moldovan controlled villages. Why should we? A school itself is not "clear indication" - there are two Japanese schools in Washington DC but this does not mean that Washington DC is under Tokyo's control. Also, you should get the updated info from OSCE on Doroţcaia because a settlement was reached in February on access. - Mauco 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Transnistrian areas under Moldovan control: Dorotcaia, Cosnita, Cocieri, Malovata, Pohrebea, Pirita (all left bank).
Moldovan areas undr Transnistrian control: Bendery (Tighina), Kitskani, Mereneshti, Gyska (all right bank).
(Sorry about the Russian spelling, I know that not everyone here likes that.) - Mauco 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A clear indication is the website of Moldova's Dubăsari district, where Roghi and Vasilievca are listed as being under Chişinău control. Both are considered as being administrated toghether with Cocieri, and in the Cocieri website http://curaj.net/dubasari/cocieri.htm is mentioned that the locals were forbiden by the separatist regime to work 700 ha of their land and some of their crops were confiscated. The fact that the school in Roghi is listed as "Romanian" by Tiraspol (that mean is using latin script) is a clear indication, as separatist regime has a state policy against schools in latin script. Is a difference in USA, where there is no state policy agains Japanese schools. When the problem of Moldovan schools in Transnistria emerged, no one mentioned Roghi. Tiraspol regime tried to close schools in Tighina, Tiraspol, Rîbniţa, but not in Roghi - this is an indication that it don't control Roghi. It may have the ambition to control it, mainly because of strategical road that link Tiraspol and Rîbniţa. Regarding your version about the borders, I gave sources (links), if you want to contradict me, please give other sources to show the contrary (until now you just made unsourced afirmations).--MariusM 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Vasilievca, it was an attempt in 2005 by Transnistrian forces to occupy that village and it seems at the end they give up http://www.azi.md/news?ID=33404. I suppose the devastation of the telecomunication center is linked with the efforts of Transnistrian authorities against receiving radio or TV programes from Moldova. OSCE itself was involved in the problems in Vasilievca - you are just ignorant denying that http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/omri/1996/96-11-27.omri.html#12. Because of the fact that Vasilievca is over the main road from Tiraspol to Rîbniţa, I believe that Tiraspol's authorities will keep trying to subdue this village - this (as Doroţcaia) can be a starting point for future conflicts.--MariusM 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia list both Roghi and Vasilievca as being under Chişinău control http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD.--MariusM 00:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Two questions: 1. Does the OSCE agree with you..? (Hint: They don't). 2. And: Is this kind of tone called for "you are just ignorant" ...? (Tip: You can disagree and still be polite at the same time). Anyway, draw the borders any which way you want. The real issue is de facto control, and if you consult with the Joint ControlCommission, they can let you know who controls what and exactly what the disputed areas are. Right now, they are really only dealing with Varnitsa. - Mauco 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was polite, I was calling you ignorant as I give you the benefit of the doubt assuming good faith. You just make statements about OSCE and Joint Control Commision, without any source, while I gave many links to support my opinion. Of course, it will be better if somebody will go there for reality-check, but this will be original research.--MariusM 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying this with a straight face? That you are being polite by calling one of your fellow editors ignorant? That is a new one ... The last time someone called me an ignorant, it was now-banned user Greier. But at least he didn't claim to be polite while doing so. - Mauco 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Referendum section

This is not the place to list all the countries that didn't recognize the referendum or go into details about it—we have a separate article for that. —Khoikhoi 18:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As referendum is a current event, it makes sense to have more detailed info in the main article. After one or two months, we may even delete completely this section and let only one sentence with link to the main article, but for the time being I believe is good to have more detailed info.--MariusM 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just that I think listing all the countries sounds really awkward and bad in English—will a footnote do? —Khoikhoi 23:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need the countries. That would be text forking. This is the article about Transnistria. We have a main article about the referendum. Details there, summary here. Ukraine's position is also not needed, as if somehow that was more important that any of the other statements and opinions (including that of the OSCE chairman) which is listed in the referendum article. Details there, summary here, and no favoritism in picking opinions. - Mauco 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, to build on Khoikhoi's statement, this is also not the place to list all the different opinions for and against the referendum and go into any level of detail, as we have a separate article for that already. The statement by Ukraine is neither more noteworthy or less noteworthy than a number of other statements in included in the referendum article and can not be given special treatment or undue prominence. - Mauco 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In particular, MariusM, please do not revert my changes. You said, in changelog: "Ukraine, big player in the region". Before you persist in reverting again, answer the why you think that the following is not true: The statement by Ukraine is neither more noteworthy or less noteworthy than a number of other statements in included in the referendum article and can not be given special treatment or undue prominence. - Mauco 03:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But I explained already! "Ukraine, big player in the region". Is more important Ukraine position than Norway position, for example.--MariusM 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Ukraine's position more important than the position of Transnistria? Which we are not including, despite the fact that this is the Transnistria article. Is it more important than any of the positions of international observers (pro or con)? Is it more important than similar statement of the metropolitan state (Moldova)? Don't do text forking. Details there, summary here, don't cherry-pick just the parts you like. - Mauco 04:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Marius is going to agree to Mauco's version (not including it at all) and Mauco is going to agree to Marius' version (including it). I think a compromise would be in addition to Ukraine, we can add an opposite view from another country or organization, to balance the text out. I think by showing these two views it's still a summary of the article per se, which goes into more details on what the different countries and organizations say. To build on Mauco's statement "no favoritism in picking opinions", we should include views by both sides. Any thoughts? —Khoikhoi 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A better compromise would be to not focus on what Mauco agrees to (because Mauco does not "own" this page) nor what MariusM agrees to (he doesn't either), but to look at the bigger picture: We are currently working on building a really good main article for the referendum which looks like it is shaping up to become useful and informative. Here, on Transnistria, all we need is an "above the fold"-type summary of that. If we are to include any opinions at all, it should be a SUMMARY opinion, and as such, the one or two opinions which best represent the general synopsis of the main referendum article. This is not necessarily the same as picking "views of both sides", although it may be, but it isn't always. However, either way you look it is, Ukraine can hardly be said to of outstanding importance compared to some of the other sentences which some of us could've included but didn't for reasons of brevity. - Mauco 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, as referendum is a current event, it makes sense to have more detailed info in the main article. After one or two months, we may even delete completely this section and let only one sentence with link to the main article. I propose to include the position of Abkhazia, which recognize the referendum and an official position of Russia.--MariusM 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia would be extremely weak. It is not recognized by any country in the world. —Khoikhoi 05:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The referendum is not a current event. It ended on Sunday, the result was announced on Monday, and world reaction tricled in until approximately first half of the week. There is no reason to include Abkhazia. All we need here is a summary, the way that we treat other summaries and intros to main articles. If in doubt, see how other country articles do it. Use common sense and stop nursing your pet issues (such as what Ukraine says). Besides, we are not even including the Transnistrian position which, ahem, does have some relevance after all if we should include these things at all. - Mauco 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is William, I just don't think that you're going to convince Marius. That's all. I think our best option right now is a compromise. —Khoikhoi 06:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

At the expense of good editing? I realize that it is a very minor issue, but it would set a bad precedent. In fact, if anything Transnistria-hater Marius should be happy because even after removing the irrelevant Ukraine statement, we still have the statement of OSCE and EU and the word "illegitimate" (which I added along with the BBC report as proper source), and no counter statement to balance it from Transnistria itself. Why not? Because the OSCE/EU/Moldova position is the one defining feature that is seen in all press reports, and thus a major characteristic of how the summary ought to be reported. In contrast, the Ukraine-fluke hardly even registers and is basically just a "me, too" statement by their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It does not add anything new. Please take it out. - Mauco 07:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is to keep the section neutral for now, while we work on completing the referendum article. Then when that is done, we can once again edit the summary here, and it should reflect an accurate ... preferably just in two or three sentences. - Mauco 07:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, please address the points that Khoikhoi and I make here if you do not agree with my conclusions. - Mauco 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is to keep Ukraine's position and to add Transnistrian official position (I don't know if they issue one). We are writing in the article, at internal politics, "A 2005 report from the European Union's Institute for Security Studies sees democratic advances and states that "Unlike others authoritarian entities like Belarus, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe and Cuba.. Transnistrian politics is moving towards more pluralism." Is this relevant, as we have more recent position of EU? I am not a Transnistria-hater, I am a Transnistria-lover, I love people from Transnistria and wish them the best.--MariusM 17:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that we can remove that particular sentence now. It was fresh when it was added but it has been surpassed by more recent EU statements. I still don't agree that Ukraine should be included, but that is because I don't think ANY position should be included because we just need a brief summary and all the opinions (without favoritism) are then available on the main article. - Mauco 19:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I am in favor of removing the statement by the Ukraine. When I read the section about the referendum, the line about Ukraine's reaction seemed extremely random as that country is given special preferance for no apparent reason. Why should Ukraine be the only state whose opinion is stated, although it coincides with that of numerous other countries. It's not that I don't believe that Ukraine's view is important, I am just baffled as to why this is the only one presented. I would rather see a concise sentence like: "Various international organizations such as the OSCE as well as numerous foreign countries refused to recognize the results of the referendum and cast doubt upon its validity, although Transnistria has insisted that it was conducted in a free and democratic manner." TSO1D 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then please remove it or rephrase as proposed, so we can get on with discussing how to make the section better. Basically, the point is not to play favorites, but also not really to display all points of view equally if they are not equally-held majoritarian views of the referendum. This is something which I can help with, since I followed many of the 850+ press reports of the referendum quite closely. The absolute majority "theme" which is present in almost all reports on the referendum is that it was not recognized by Moldova, OSCE, etc. We are including that. The next point, also majority but not as emphasized, was the overwhelming rejection of unification with Moldova. We are also including that (not specifically, but by showing the results so that's OK). The third point, in descending order, was on the high turnout which was reported by lots of news organizations. The fourth point was on the peaceful, festive atmosphere and smiling voters. Then, from there on, there were several minor points. For instance, the statements by the international observers were reported widely in the Russian press but got very little play in English. I am basing this rundown of the five main points on an analysis of the English news agencies since this is Wikipedia in English. In impact, importance and coverrage, the me-too statement by Ukraine, which we are giving prominence to, registered even less than any of these other minor points. - Mauco 21:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Population figure

I changed the explanation in the table with population figure. 601660 was in 1989 the population of the "raions" Slobozia, Tiraspol, Grigoriopol, Dubăsari, Rîbniţa, Camenca. Some of this raions (Slobozia, Dubăsari, Camenca) had some areas that geografically belongs to Basarabia, not to Transnistria. This is why confusions are made regarding population figures. My source is "Republica Moldova" by Vasile Nedelciuc, Universitas Publishing Company, Chişinău 1992 (not online). It's worth to mention that separatist authorities claim the Basarabian area of Slobozia raion, but it seems they don't claim anymore the Basarabian area of former Dubăsari and Camenca raions. (as shown in their maps about separatist republic).--MariusM 23:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You can not say "seems" when there are formal ways to determine what they claim and don't claim. Just looking at their maps and then drawing your own conclusion is not good research. Why don't you ASK HERE FIRST before you start making changes. Some of us are knowledgeable and can help you so that you don't have to guess. In this case, Transnistria's formal territorial claim is stated in the PMR constitution. It is online in a total of four languages; the 3 official languages of PMR plus English. Here is a link: Transnistria's Constitution I am sure that if you ask first, many people who know more than you do will be glad to help you, and may I respectfully request that you try to find authoritative sources before you make changes. "Seems" from looking at a map is not the right away of doing it. - Mauco 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see, you have no comments about the changes I made in the table with population figure.--MariusM 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the other comments, please let me know at which article of Transnistrian Constitution is mentioned Transnistria's formal teritorial claims.--MariusM 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria's formal territorial claim is in Article 14.[13] This is what Transnistria lays claim to, not more not less. For comparison purposes, Moldova's formal territorial claim is the entire territory of the former MSSR. Of particular interest is that they mention Varnitsa in their Constitution, but if you go to the office of the mayor there, he will tell you otherwise (in no uncertain terms). - Mauco 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article 14: The Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica consists of: the following towns - Bendery (with villages - Varnitsa, Ghyska, Protyagailovka), Dubossary, Rybnitsa, Tiraspol; and Grigoriopol, Dubossary, Kamenka, Slobodzea, Rybnitsa regions. Borders and territory of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica are determined by law. The problem is: what are we suppose to understand by the regions of Kamenka, Slobozia and Dubossary? The 1989 borders of those districts? "Borders are determined by law" is a very open statement, that mean borders can change very easy. I was pointing at the fact that, even if in their Constitution is written that they claim Kamenka and Dubossary region, in the maps published regarding PMR the basarabian part of former Kamenka or Dubossary region is not shown as being part of PMR. Do you have info about any plan of Transnistrian authorities to obtain control on those areas?--MariusM 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember that we talked about that 16 days ago, with regards to the Transnistrian administrative raion and the Moldovan raion of Dubasari which are two different things User Constantzeanu could help here, too. - Mauco 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

Please discuss criteria for relevance of inclusion of links and criteria for deletion. We had this discussion earlier this year, and settled on clear rules (see archives), but a refresher would be good for everyone. - Mauco 19:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a separate article regarding 2006 Referendum, we don't need in this article all the links about the referendum. Summary here, details there.--MariusM 22:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. Other links, not related to referendum ... what are the criteria for inclusion and criteria for removal? Please also see my entry "Holding ourselves to established standards" [14] of 16 Sep. - Mauco 01:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

MariusM, like I said, I agree. And you then deleted some links, but failed to address my main point. I am now asking for the third time, all: Which criteria should we apply? I know perfectly well the answer, but when I tried to apply the proper criteria, your friend EvilAlex began a small revert war which I had neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in. So I am now trying to get the answer this way, instead, and please do not let your declared personal bias guide the two of you. Try to be less disruptive and apply Wikipedia's guidelines as they refer to external links, and also try to hold yourselves to established standards.[15] If we do it that way, we can save all of ourselves a lot of time and get on with the business at hand. - Mauco 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: EvilAlex is not my friend, I don't know him. For me is only a nickname I found in Wikipedia. However, I appreciate his commitment for truth and knowledge regarding Transnistria. The refferences links must be keeped, to show that there are not unsourced info in the article. Regarding external links, I would not keep links about one particular event in Transnistria, but I would keep links that are talking about the general situation in the region, or links to sites with many articles about this subject.--MariusM 03:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Not a friend, then. More like meatpuppet. [16], [17], [18] (vote stalking) and deleted entries from your Talk pages which show collusion. - Mauco 03:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I am glad that you have now publicly stated your position on external links, which make a lot of sense. There are some other rules also, but at least your stance don't contradict any of those. - Mauco 03:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Links that should be included:
Official government sites, official opposition sites, Well known and respected news agencies: BBC, RFE, Times, Economist, Guardian, DWT,… so on..
Links that shouldn’t be included:
Blogs, broken links, unknown or insignificant sites.
EvilAlex 09:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

* plonk * EvilAlex has zero credibility in matters of links, due to behavior like this[19] and this[20]. If more examples are needed, I can provide a dozen more of his bias, suppression of valid/relevant links and promotion of links to POV sites owned and created by himself. Mauco 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For a more constructive comment to add value to this discussion, I recommend everyone else to take a look at how the editors of the Finland page organize their links and the criteria they apply for inclusion. - Mauco 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

* plonk * all these russians are using such a low debate level...look at mikka and now maucow.ish.. except plonk do you have anything else to say?....

Hi troll. - Mauco 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I don't agree with the fact that you are in the position to tell who has and who hasn't credibility in Transnistria-related issues. EvilAlex is a pridnestrovian himself, he can give an inside look about Transnistria and a better knowledge of facts. His site may be POV, but no more than other sites like pridnestrovie.net or Tiraspol Times that we included in the article.--MariusM 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to be in a position to tell anyone that. I merely make a note of that, based on facts like [21] and and [22]. We just judge him on his record which speaks loud and clear for everyone to see. As regards Tiraspol Times, I did work which no one else here did and spent hours on fact-running, and their credibility checks out. In fact, more so than the CIA-funded propaganda source which tries to throw mud at them. - Mauco 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You start to use Cold War rethoric. I didn't receive any money from CIA, do you believe me? And I'm still saying that Tiraspol Times is POV.--MariusM 17:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The CIA comment was not aimed at you (although it is telling that you felt targeted). It was a reference to the article in RFE/RL which aimed to undermine the credibility of Transnistria's main English-language newspaper just two days before their referendum. I am not using Cold War rhetoric, but merely stating a fact which is available in Wikipedia article on this propaganda organization and which is well known to historians. In view of the fact that it contains wrong+misleading information, and since it is really not relevant to the main article, I will remove it. Before you object or revert, you may want to go to other country pages such as Finland, USA and approximately 200 others where you can learn that this is merely in line with accepted practice for external links. From my reference library, I can easily come up with at least three hundred over links to Transnistria which are easily more relevant to the subject of this article, yet I am not including those either (in line with accepted practice for links). - Mauco 17:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And we firmly agree that Tiraspol Times represents the Transnistrian Point Of View. That is why we clearly label it as such. - Mauco 17:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

>In view of the fact that it contains wrong+misleading information, and since it is really not relevant to the main article, I will remove it.
Well in this case I should follow the steps of your twisted logic and apply your criteria to every link. How about Tiraspol times “wrong+misleading”++, pridnestrovie.net “wrong+misleading”++ and so on..
> As regards Tiraspol Times, .. In fact, more so than the CIA-funded propaganda source which tries to throw mud at them.
”Tiraspol times” floating in the mud from beginning, you just need to have eyes to see it. I see many sites as Kremlin-funded propaganda in Transnistrian site section and I don’t remove them. Give reader a chance to decide what is right and what is wrong. Don’t judge for everyone.
Regarding those (William Mauco)links – that was from a time of war, as I said before “Love having fun”. Just imagine how boring will be here in Wikipedia without those small wars. And if you look closer on the link section and compare them to Finland link section you will be surprise how clean and tidy was Transnistrian link section before William Mauco arrival.
EvilAlex 18:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone who likes edit wars because it would be "boring" without them?! * double plonk * ... - Mauco

No seriously Maco are u on drugs today? EvilAlex 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss EvilAlex's attitude to links in particular, and to Wiki-editing in general, including his wish to provoke edit wars for the fun of it, please do so here or on his talk page. As for me, I prefer to spend my own available editing time more productively, I have plonked him and have already documented, with links of his edits, the reason why. I will still be glad to discuss link policies with anyone who has a serious approach to the subject and can abide by Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and this was why I started this thread in the first place. - Mauco 20:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

with this link: Disinformation The Economist Transdniester in Cyberspace Radio Free Europe Covering tracks The Economist I broke down the fundament of your position
No much to say? Still plonking?
EvilAlex 20:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to debate EvilAlex on his commitment to NPOV, go ahead, but I am done. All I can say (not to him but for the record) is that these are great articles, and that I personally helped the author of them with more information for one of his follow-up articles (which was published in Brussels earlier this month, in European Voice). I am of course not against these articles, but they are just not relevant to the main Transnistria article, and that is my objection: They are not about Transnistria directly, but about an organization which supports Transnistria, and this is how the get to bear on the Transnsitria subject. If the criteria is that anyone who writes an article about something which is related to Transnistria then we will have between four hundred and five hundred links. Some will be pro, and some will be contra (like these), and some will be in between. But what is clear is that if we start applying that level of criteria, then we will get a link farm and not an encyclopedia. I can think of at least two hundred Transnistria-related articles (from RFE/RL, Economist, BBC, Times, and many other places) which are much, much more relevant to the main subject of this article ... yet I am not including them, because I am aware of Wikipedia's policy on external links. - Mauco 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you are singing! What happened just a minute ago, did you get high?
Regarding NPOV - I do follow NPOV policy, and that is why I would like to keep both sides of the story.
> they are just not relevant to the main Transnistria article
Lets reader to decide what is relevant.
The fundament of the main article is based on the sites whose reputation have been damaged beyond repar.You yourself heavily reference on “Tiraspol times” Lets the reader make they own choice; don’t try to push only your side of the story. What I see is that everything is so interconnected that you can’t divide one from another.
> They are not about Transnistria directly, but about an organization which supports Transnistria
Not only about that – they shows an entire Transnistrian policy of Disinformation. You have one view I have another. We will include both (NPOV). Lets reader to decide.

When a pis of text is so powerful and so persuasive against your own position then you beginning remembering NPOV and all of the Wikipedian policy. Be at list honest to yourself.
Best regards. br>EvilAlex 22:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

evilalex is a vandal. he has never made a useful edit to wikipedia. block him. then revert him. WP:Vandalism. - 81.169.183.122 17:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe an anonimous user has no right to tell who is vandal and who is not. Sign if you want your comments to be taken in account. --MariusM 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, Marius, you are wrong. I don't know who this anonymous user is, but Wikipedia allows edits from users who are not registered. Obviously you have never heard of 68.39.174.238. In this community, we judge people not on where they are from (so stop with the criticism of Russians) and not on whether or not they have an account (so anon users are welcome, too). I personally DO NOT like anonymous users, and I tend to discourage them every bit of the way, but that is based on the fact that they usually have lousy edits. Remember that here, we judge people on the QUALITY of their work, and I have to agree with the anonymous user above that EvilAlex leaves a lot to be desired in that department. Not only is he biased (as his edits and personal websites show[23], he is also rude[24], and he lies[25][26].) Most of his edits also gets reverted, not just by me but by others, which shows that he is mainly a disruptive factor in Wikipedia. Useful, constructive edits which add value to an article tend to stay in the long run. That is not his case. - Mauco 17:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

EvilAlex proposed some good links. Economist is a respected magazine, even Mauco accepted that. I believe links should be kept.--MariusM 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with The Economist, it is a respected magazine and I have collaborated with their lead writer on Eastern European issues personally. However, the Economist has written many, many articles about Transnistria (even one in this week's edition) and we don't include them either. Why? Relevance and link selection criteria. If we have to include every article which is written about Transnistria, then we will will have more than 300 links. If we boil it down to "respectable" source, we still get about 200. This means that we are forced to apply stricter criteria and under those rules, even the articles which are written by my friend won't make it onto the list. Sorry. - Mauco 17:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

>and he lies
No I'm not, the issue with Transnistrian sites section we have settled a long time ago. Did you see me deleting this sites recently (in a period of 4 month)– the answer is no! I said the TRUE. Six month ego the was a disagreement, we resolved that issue.
The only articles that you agree to keep are highly pro government. I don’t see links critical of the government policy. And if we will be apply stricter criteria by only your rule, then these great sites will never get in. EvilAlex 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us give others a chance to decide on that. In the meantime, to follow the example of FrancisTyer who succesfully solved the last edit war with EvilAlex six months ago, I am doing the same as he did back then: Removing all links (both those which EvilAlex added, and my own, too) until this issue can be settled with a broader discussion ... well, actually, I just took at look at the page, and I see that 90%+ of my links have already been removed by EvilAlex without warning and without any prior discussion. Anyway, the last few ones can temporarily go, too, until there is consensus. - Mauco 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The main issue is with Economist links that you constantly removing. I you want to remove any other links just tell the reason why?.EvilAlex

I have stated why, repeatedly, in the logs when I removed them, which EvilAlex ignores. He knows why, but is eager for an edit war which he himself says its fun so things don't get too boring around here. Likewise, it is intellectually dishonest of EvilAlex to ask for these reasons when he himself keeps deleting chunks of my links wholesale[27], 6 at a time, and not telling us why or even posting a warning or a request for discussion (as I have done) before he disrupts the work of others. I am eager to discuss link criteria with other editors but I fail to see that it is possible to reach constructive collaboration with someone who has the logged edit-record of EvilAlex. - Mauco 23:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don’t touch my clean records with your dirty hands. Have a look at yours:
”I was at one of their conferences recently”[28] :(( When I deleted your links I gave you the full explanation why have a look at the history log[29] is you disagree just state you reason. Just that simple
EvilAlex 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans are Romanians

I invite Maucowich to give us the sources that Moldovans are not Romanians and they speak a different language.--168.167.253.97 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on not again. TSO1D 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? We'll do it untill it will be like this: Moldovans (Romanians) Nobody is/will be tired to support this statement. --168.167.253.97 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Transnistrian leadership - composed by newcommers in Transnistria

Separately of the problem of the involvement of 14th Russian Army and Russian cossacks, we should mention the fact that the "founding fathers" of Transnistria were mainly persons who were born outside Transnistria. In the list issued by the Presidency of the European Union concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of Moldova are included 17 persons from Transnistria separatist government, from which only 2 (Maracuţa and Zaharov) were born in Transnistria and 1 in Basarabia (Kosovski) [30]. 1. SMIRNOV, IGOR, “President”, born on 29 October 1941 in Chabarowsk. Russian passport No 50 NO. 0337530. 2. SMIRNOV, VLADIMIR, son of No 1 and Chairman of State Customs Committee, born on 3 April 1961 in Vupiansk Charkow. Russian passport No 50 NO.00337016. 3. SMIRNOV, OLEG, son of No 1 and Adviser to the State Customs Committee,born on 8 August 1967 in Nowaja Wachowka, Cherson. Russian passport No 60 NO. 1907537. 4. LEONTYEV, SERGEY, “Vice-president”, born on 9 February 1944 in Odessa Leontovka. Russian passport No 50 NO. 0065438. 5. MARACUTSA, GRIGORY, “Chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 15 October 1942 in Teia, Grigoriopol. Old Soviet passport No 8BM724835. 6. KAMINSKY, ANATOLY, “Vice-chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 15 March 1950 in Cita. Old Soviet passport No A25056238. 7. SHEVCHUK, EVGENY, “Vice-chairman of the Supreme Soviet”, born on 21 June 1946 in Novosibirsk. Old Soviet passport No A25004230. 8. LITSKAI, VALERY, “Minister of Foreign Affairs”, born on 13 February 1949 in Tver. Russian passport. 9. KHAJEEV, STANISLAV, “Minister of Defence”, born on 28 December 1941 in Celabinsk. 10. ANTIUFEEV (SEVTOV), VADIM, “Minister of State Security”, born in 1951 in Novosibirsk. Russian passport. 11. KOROLYOV, ALEXANDER, “Minister of Internal Affairs”, born in 1951 in Briansk. Russian passport. 12. BALALA, VIKTOR, “Minister of Justice”, born in 1961 in Vinitsa. 13. AKULOV, BORIS, “Representative of Transnistria in Ukraine”. 14. ZAKHAROV, VIKTOR, “Prosecutor's office”, born in 1948 in Camenca. 15. LIPOVTSEV, ALEXEY, “Deputy Chairman of the Custom's Committee”. 16. GUDYMO, OLEG, “Deputy Minister of Security”, born on 11 September 1944 in Alma-Ata. Russian passport No 51 NO. 0592094. 17. KOSOVSKI, EDUARD, “Chairman of the Transnistrian Republican Bank”, born on 7 October 1958 in Floresti. Transnistrian separatism is a movement of new-comers, who were colonized in Transnistria during Soviet time. I don't know how much this situation was changed after 2005 election--MariusM 16:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. EvilAlex 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. * 1. First of all, you can not claim ignorance because as I have already pointed out to you elsewhere earlier in another article, this list has many errors. * 2. Second, not all on the list are PMR leaders. Some hold no government position. * 3. Third, it is generally agreed upon that PMR had three founding fathers. Two of them, former vice president Alex Karaman and former Speaker Grigore Maracuta, are locals and are ethnic Moldovans. Only the third, Igor Smirnov, is an immigrant. * 4. Fourth, it is no crime for an immigrant to become elected to a leadership position. The same happens in other countries, too. In California, the mayor of Los Angeles and the governor of the state are both foreigners who came, settled, took local citizenship and got elected. What matters is not where you come from, but if the voters are willing to elect you. - Mauco 16:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We had a talk only about Shevchuk, you tell (based on Tiraspol Times) that he is a local transnistrian from Rîbniţa and Brussels birocracy made a mistake (mistake also about date of bith 1968 i.o. 1946). I don't know exactly the truth in this case, maybe only his father came from Novosibirsk, anyhow, this is not the main issue. There are other 16 on the list. Is Brussels birocracy so wrong? Regarding immigrant californians who participate at political life, they didn't try to separate California from USA, they didn't come witrh theories like "from centuries, California was not part of USA" (Tiraspol Times and pridnestrovie.net use history to justify separatism) and when they received USA citizenship they sweared allegiance to USA and kept the oath. Why don't you recognize the merits of Antyufeev, the main founding father of PMR?--MariusM 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re 4. It is not a crime in a free society when people seek leader for themselves, but Transnistria is not a free, liberal society! Nation is ruled by corrupt regime there. Rules have been imposed on Transnistrians not chosen by Transnistrian!
EvilAlex 17:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, the Rybnitsa information is sourced from ICG (as I also told you, but you omit that). He is an ethnic Ukrainian. The list is faulty in other ways, too. Try to get the latest if you can. As for the historical record, it stands on its own and no one can change that. I don't know what you refer to about those other websites, but I can vouch for the information which I and other eidtors have added to Wikipedia, and it is fairly well established that Transnistria was never part of Moldova prior to 1940. Do not discuss this here, however, but on History of Transnistria. Now-banned user Greier tried to rewrite history based on some of the same Romanian-language sources which you have given to me and Jamason, but after extensive factchecking, he was found to be incorrect. Regarding Antyufeev, he can not be called a founding father of PMR, not even in a minor sense. He arrived well after PMR was already founded. Check your facts. - Mauco 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What we should add in the article is the fact that Transnistrian separatism was lead mainly by newcomers, imigrants who were born outside Transnistria (15 out of 17 in the list above, or, if it was a mistake in Shevchuk case, 14 out of 17). I don't remember to give to you or to Jamason any source about the moment Transnistria became part of Moldova - I gave only sources dealing with recent history of the region, with the aparition of Smirnov's regime and actual situation of human rights, and for one of this source (which is in English) I draw also your attention (as I want to help you to understand Transnistria's issues). Is a pity you didn't read the source I gave and only make unfounded assumptions about it.--MariusM 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Marius, you may add it if it is fact and can be sourced, but you can not rely on the EU list which is faulty. Sorry. You must go back to the historical record, and the historical record says something else. What you are trying to do is to rewrite history and those of us who are more familiar with the data will be glad to correct you and to help you set the record straight. Please remember to post your proposed changes here for discussion before you add them. - Mauco 23:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I did read your source. I have several issues with it since much of the information is written for a political purpose and many important details are omitted. - Mauco 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

An adition of the case of Shevchuk do you claim others mistakes in EU list? Is not important in my point of view if immigrants are 88.2% (15/17) or 82.3% (14/17) of Transnistrian leadership. Is not worthy to make a detailed search to see if it was a mistake in Shevchuk case. We can put in the article that "more than 80% of separatist leaders were immigrants, who arrived in Transnistria as result of the Soviet policy of industrialization". A question I have is how this situation changed after 2005 election.--MariusM 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are 3 versions of the EU list, and they are all hopelessly faulty. If you could read Russian, you could access first hand sources instead. Where in the article do you want to put this sentence? As you rightly point out, leadership is fluid and changes with the various elections (also firings, hirings, deaths, etc). Unless we have scared Jamason away with our non-academic approach to the subject, he can help us too, but you must show good faith if you want to keep collaborating on a professional level and this has been lacking in some of your recent edits. Otherwise, you are on your own as far as research is concerned and I will merely help in order to set the record straight. - Mauco 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I do really like this idea, we definitely should state the facts:
"more than 80% of separatist leaders holding top government positions were born outside of Transnistria and arrived in to the country as result of the Soviet policy of industrialization"
>If you could read Russian, you could access first hand sources instead.
Can I have a link (I would be interested in reading that)
>There are 3 versions of the EU list, and they are all hopelessly faulty
I don’t think that they are “faulty” UE is reliable and credible source.
EvilAlex 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)